seing that he wrote of the sacrament at king Charles request it is not like that he would write against the receiued doctrine of the church in those daies And if he had it is without all doubt that some learned man either in his tyme or fithens would haue written against him or at the least not haue commended him so much as they haue done Berengarius of himselfe had a godly iudgement in this matter but by the tiranity of Nicholas the 2. he was constrained to make a diuelish recantation as I haue declared in my first booke the 17. chapter And as for Iohn Wicklif he was a singuler instrument of God in his tyme to set forth the truth of christes gospell but Antichrist that sitteth in gods temple boasting himselfe as god hath by gods sufferance preuayled against many holy men and sucked the bloud of martirs these late yeres And as touching Martin Luther it semeth you be sore pressed that be faine to pray aide of him whom you haue hitherto euer detested The foxe is sore hunted that is faine to take his borow and the wolfe that is fayne to take the lions den for a shift or to run for succour vnto a beast which he most hateth And no man condemneth your doctrine of Transubstantiation and of the propiciatory sacrifice of the masse more seuerely and earnestly then doth Martin Luther But it appeareth by your conclusion that you haue waded so farre in rhetorike that you haue forgotten your logike For this is your argumeÌ„t Bertrame taught this doctrine and preuailed not Berengarius attempted the same and failed in his purpose Wickliffe enterprised the same whose teaching god prospered not therefore god hath not prospered fauoured it to be receiued at any tyme openly as his true teaching I will make the like reason The Prophete Osee taught in Samaria to the ten tribes the true doctrine of god to bring them from their abhominable superstitions and idolatry Ioell Amâ—s and Mitheas attempted the same whose doctrine preuailed not god prospered not their teaching among those people but they were condemned with their doctrine therefore god hath not prospered and fauoured it to be receiued at any tyme openly as his true teaching If you will aunswer as you must nedes do that the cause why that among those people the true teaching preuailed not was by reason of the aboundant superstition idolatry that blinded their eies you haue fully answered your own argument and haue plainly declared the cause why the true doctrine in this matter hath not preuailed these 500. yeares the church of Rome which all that time hath borne the chiefe swinge being ouerflowen and drowned in all kind of superstition and idolatry therfore might not abide to heare of the truth And the true doctrine of the sacrament which I haue set out plainly in my booke was neuer condemned by no councell nor your false papisticall doctrine allowed vntill the deuill caused Antichrist his sonne and heire Pope Nicholas the second with his monkes and friers to condemne the truth and confirme these your heresies And where of Gamaliels wordes you make an argument of prosperous successe in this matter the scripture testifieth how Antichrist shall prosper and preuaile against saintes no short while persecute the truth And yet the counsail of Gamaliel was very discrete and wife For he perceiued that God went about the reformation of religion growen in those dayes to idolatry hypocrisie and superstition through traditions of Phariseis and therfore he moued the rest of the Councell to beware that they did not rashly and vnaduisedly condemne that doctrine religion which was approued by God least in so doing they should not onely resist the Apostles but God himselfe which counsail if you had marked followed you would not haue done so vnsoberly in many things as you haue done And as for the prosperitie of them that haue professed Christ his true doctrine they prospered with the Papistes as S. Iohn Baptist prospered with Herode and our sauiour Christ with Pilate Annas and Caiphas Now which of these prospered best say you Was as the doctrine of Christ and S. Iohn any whit the worse because the cruell tirantes and Iewes put them to death for the same Winchester But all this set apart and putting aside all testimonies of the olde church and resortyng onely to the letter of the scripture there to search out an vnderstanding and in doyng therof to forget what hath bene taught hitherto How shall this author establish vpon scripture that he would haue beleued What other text is there in scripture that enâ—ountreth with these wordes of scripture This is my body wherby to alter the signification of them There is no scripture sayth Christ did not geue his body but the figure of his body nor the geuing of Christes body in his supper verily and really so vnderstaÌ„ded doth not necessarily impugne and contrary any other speach or doyng of Christ expressed in scripture For the great power and omnipotencie of God exclodeth that repugnance which mans reason would déeme of Christes departyng from this world and placing his humanitie in the glory of his Father Caunterbury THe Scripture is playne and you confesse also that it was bread that Christ spake of when he sayd This is my body And what nede we any other scripture to encounter with these words seyng that all men know that bread is not Christes body the one hauing sense and reason the other none at all Wherfore in that speach must nedes be sought an other sence meanyng then the wordes of themselues do geue which is as all olde writers do teach and the circumstances of the text declare that the bread is a figure and sacrament of Christes body And yet as he geueth the bread to be eaten with our mouthes so geueth he his very body to be eaten with our faith And therfore I say that Christ geueth himselfe truely to be eaten chawed and digested but all is spiritually with fayth not with mouth And yet you would beare me in hand that I say that thing which I say not that is to say that Christ did not geue his body but the figure of his body And because you be not able to confute that I say you would make me to say that you can confute As for the great power and omnipotency of God it is no place here to dispute what God can do but what he doth I know that he can do what he will both in heauen and in earth no man is able to resist his wil. But the question here is of his will not of his power And yet if you caÌ„ ioyne together these two that one nature singuler shal be here and not here both at one time and that it shal be gone hence when it is here you haue some stroÌ„g syment and be a cunning Geometrician but yet you shall neuer be good Logician that woulde
so is the very body of Christ inwardly by faith eaten in dede of al them that come therto in such sort as they ought to do which eating nourisheth them vnto euerlasting lyfe And this eating hath a warrant signed by Christ himselfe in the vj. of Iohn where Christ saith He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath lyfe euerlasting But they that to the outward eatyng of the breade ioyne not therto an inward eating of Christ by faith they haue no warrant by Scripture at all but the bread and wyne to them be vayne mide and bare tokens And where you say that Scripture expresseth no matter of signification speciall effect in the sacramentes of bread and wine if your eyes were not blynded with popish errours frowardnes and selfeloue ye might see in the 22. of Luke where Christ himselfe expresseth a matter of signification saying Hoc facite in mei commemorationem Do this in remembrance of me And S. Paule likewise 1. Cor. 11. hath the very same thing which is a plain and direct aunswer to that same your last question wherupoÌ„ you triumph at your pleasure as though the victory were all yours For ye say when this question is demaunded of me what to signifie Here must be a sort of good wordes framed without scripture But here S. Paule aunswereth your question in expresse wordes that it is the lordes death that shall be signified represented and preached in these holy mysteries vntill his commyng againe And this remembraunce representation and preaching of Christes death cannot be without special effect except you wil say that Christ worketh not effectually with his worde and sacramentes And S. Paule expresseth the effect when he saith The bread which we breake is the communion of Christes body But by this place and such like in your booke ye disclose your selfe to all men of iudgement either how wilful in your opinion or how flender in knowledge of the scriptures you be Winchester And therfore like as the teaching is new to say it is an only figure or only signifieth so the matter of significatioÌ„ must be newly deuised and new wyne haue new bottels and be throughly new after xv C. l. yeres in the very yere of Iubiley as they were wont to call it to be newly erected and builded in English mens hartes Caunterbury IT semeth that you be very desirous to abuse the peoples eares with this terme New and with the yeare of Iubiley as though the true doctrine of the sacrament by me taught should be but a new doctrine and yours old as the Iewes slaundered the doctrine of Christ by the name of newnesse or els that in this yere of Iubiley you would put the people in remembraÌ„ce of the full remission of sinne which they were wont to haue at Rome this yere that they might long to returne to Rome for pardons againe as the children of Israell longed to returne to Egipt for the flesh that they were went to haue there But all men of learning iudgement know well inough that this your doctrine is no elder then the bishop of Romes vsurped supremacy which though it be of good age by nomber of yeres yet is it new to Christ and his worde If there were such darkenes in the world now as hath ben in that world which you note for olde the people might drinke new wyne of the whore of Babilons cup vntil they were as dronke with hypocrisie and superstition as they might well stand vpon their legs and no man once say blacke is their eye But now thankes be to God the light of his worde so shineth in the world that your dronkennes in this yeare of Iubiley is espied so that you cannot erect and build your popish kingdome any longer in Englishmens hattes without your owne scorne shame and confusioÌ„ The old popish bottels must nedes brast when the new wyne of Gods holy word is poured into them Winchester Which new teaching whether it procedeth from the spirite of truth or no shall more plainly appeare by such matter as this author vttereth wherewith to impugne the true fayth taught hetherto For amoÌ„ng many other profes wherby truth after much trauail in contention at the last preuayleth and hath victory there is none more notable then when the very aduersaries of truth who pretend neuerthelesse to be truthes frendes do by some euident vntruth bewrap them selues According wherunto when the two women contended before King Salomon for the child yet aliue Salomon decerned the true naturall mother from the other by their speeches and sayinges Which in the very mother were euer conformable vnto nature and in the other at the last euideÌ„tly against nature The very true mother spake alwayes like her selfe and neuer disagreed from the truth of nature but rather then the thilde should be killed as Salomon the eatned when he called for a Sword required it to be geuen whole aliue to the other woman The other woman that was not the true mother cared more for victory then for the child and therfore spake that was in nature an euidence that she lyen callinge her selfe mother and saying let it be deuided which no natural mother could say of her own child Wherupon procéedeth Salomons most wise iudgement which hath this lesson in it euer where contention is on that part to be the truth where all sayinges and doinges appeare vniformely consonant to the truth pretended and on what side a notable â—yâ— appeareth the rest may be iudged to be after the same sort For truth néedeth no ayde of lyes exast or sleight wherwith to be supported or maintayned So as in the intreating of the truth of this high and ineffable mistery of the sacrament on what past thou reader séest crafte sleight shift obliquitie or in any one poynt an open manifest lye there thou mayst consider what soeuer pretence be made of truth yet the victory of truth not to be there intended which loueth simplicity playnnesse direct speach without admixtion of shift or colour Caunterbury IF either diuisioÌ„ or confusion may try the true mother the wicked church the Rome not in speech only but in all other practises hath long gone about to oppresse confound and deuide the true and liuely fayth of Christ shewing her selfe not to be the true mother but a most cruell stepmother deuiding confounding and counterfayting al thinges at her pleasure not coÌ„trary to nature only but chiefly against the playn wordes of scripture For here in this one matter of controuersy between you Smith and me you deuide against nature the accidentes of bread and wine from their substances and the substance of Christ from his accidences and contray to the scripture you deuide our eternall life attributing vnto the sacrifice of Christ vpon the crosse only the beginning therof and the continuance therof you ascribe vnto the sacrifice of popish priestes And in the sacramentes you separate Christes
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
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
contempt were meeter in an Ethnikes mouth to iest out all then to passe the lippes of such an author to play with the sillables after this sort For although he may read in some blind glose that in the instant of the last sillable gods worke is to be accompted wrought being a good lesson to admonish the minister to pronounce all yet it is so but a priuate opinion and reuerently vttered not to put the vertue in the last sillable nor to scorne the catholique fayth after which manner taking example of this author if an Ethnicke should iest of Fiat Lux at fi was nothing and then at at was yet nothing at lu was nothing but a litle little pearing put an x to it and it was sodenly Lux and then the light What christen man would handle eyther place thus and therfore reader let this entry of the matter serue for an argument with what spirite this matter is handled but to answere that this author noteth with an exclamation Oh good Lord how would they haue bragged if Christ had sayd This is no bread Here I would question with this author whether Christ sayd so or no and reason thus Christes body is no materiall bread Christ sayd This is my body Ergo he sayd this is no bread And the first part of this reason this author affirmeth in the 59. leafe And the second part is Christes wordes and therfore to auoyd this conclusion the onely way is to say that Christes speach was but a figure which the catholique doctrine sayth is false and therfore by the catholique doctrine Christ saying this is my body sayth in effect this is no bread wherat this author sayth They would bragge if Christ had sayd so In speach is to be considered that euery yea containeth a nay in it naturally so as who so euer sayth This is bread sayth it is no wine Who soeuer sayth this is wine sayth it is no beere If a Lapidary sayth This is a Diamōd he sayth it is no glas he sayth it is no christall he sayth it is no white Saphir So Christ saying this is my body sayth it is no bread Which plainesse of speach caused Zuinglius to say playnly if there be presēt the substaūce of the body of Christ there is trāsubstātiatiō that is to say not the substaūce of bread therfore who wil playnly deny transubstantion must deny the true presence of the substaunce of Christes body as this author doth wherein I haue first conuinced him and therfore vse that victory for his ouerthrow in transubstantiation I haue shewed before how Christes wordes were not figuratiue when he sayd This is my body and yet I will touch here such testimonie as this author bringeth out of one Hylary for the purpose of trāsubstātiation in the xxv leafe of this booke in these wordes There is a figure sayth Hylary for bread and wine be outwardly sene and there is also a truth of that figure for the body and bloud of Christ be of a truth inwardly beleued These be Hylaries words as this author alledgeth them who was he sayth within 350. yeares of Christ. Now I call to thy iudgement good reader could any man deuise more pithy wordes for the proofe of the reall presence of Christes body and bloud and the condemnation of this author that would haue an onely figure Here in Hilarius wordes is a figure compared to truth and sight outwardly to beleue inwardly Now our belief is grounded vpon gods word which is this This is my body in which wordes Hylary testifieth that is inwardly beleued is a truth and the figure is in that is sene outwardly I take Hylary here as this author alledgeth him whereby I aske the Reader is not this author ouerthrowē that Christs speach is not figuratiue but true and proper beyng inwardly true that we beleue Ye will say vnto me What is this to transubstantiation to the reprofe wherof it was brought in bicause he sayth bread and wine is seene First I say that it ouerthroweth this author for truth of the presence of Christes body and euery ouerthrow therin ouerthroweth this author in Transubstantiation not by authority of the church of Rome but by consequence in truth as Zuinglius sayth who shall serue me to auoyd papistry If one aske me what say ye then to Hilary that bread and wine is seene I say they be in déede séene for they appeare so and therfore be called so as Isaac sayd of Iacob it was his voyce and yet by his sence of féelyng denyed him Esau which was not Esau but was Iacob as the voyce frō within did declare him If ye will aske me how can there accordyng to Hylaries wordes be in the outward visible creatures any figure vnlesse the same be in déede as they appeare bread and wine I will aunswere Euen as well as this outward obiect of the sensible hearynes of Iacob resemblyng Esau was a figure of Christes humanitie and of the very humanitie in déede Thus may Hylary be aunswered to auoyde his authoritie from contrarying transubstantiation But this author shall neuer auoyde that him selfe hath brought out of Hylary which ouerthroweth him in his figuratiue speach consequently in his deniall of transubstantiation also as shall appeare in the further handlyng of this matter Where this author in the 18. leaf compareth these S. Paules wordes The bread that we breake is it not the communion of the body of Christ to the expoundyng of Christes wordes This is my body I deny that for Christes wordes declared the substaunce of the Sacrament when he sayd This is my body and S. Paul declareth the worthy vse of it accordyng to Christes institution and by the wordes The bread that we breake doth signifie the whole vse of the Supper wherein is breakyng blessing thankesgeuyng dispensing receiuyng and eatyng So as onely breakyng is not the communion and yet by that part in a figure of speach S. Paul meaneth all beyng the same as appeareth by the Scripture a terme in speach to goe breake bread although it be not alwayes so taken whereby to signifie to go celebrate our Lordes Supper and therfore bread in that place may signifie the commō bread as it is adhibite to be consecrat which by the secret power of God turned into the body of Christ and so distributed and receaued is the communiō of the body of Christ as the cup is likewise of the bloud of Christ after the benediction which benediction was not spoken of in the bread but yet must be vnderstanded As for callyng of Christes bread his body is to make it his body who as S. Paule sayth calleth that is not as it were and so maketh it to be The argumentes this author vseth in the 19. and 20. leafe of the order of Christes speaches as the Euangelistes rehearse them be captious deuises of this author in case he knoweth what S. Augustine writeth or els ignoraunce if he hath not read S. Augustine De
moreouer that Christ him selfe commeth downe vpon the child apparelleth him with his own selfe And as at the Lordes holy Table the Priest distributeth wine bread to feede the body so we must thinke that inwardly by fayth we see Christ feedyng both body and soule to eternall lyfe What comfort can be deuised any more in this world for a Christē man And on the other side what discomfort is in your papisticall doctrine what doubtes what perplexities what absurdities what iniquities what auayleth it vs that there is no bread nor wyne or that Christ is really vnder the formes and figures of bread and wyne and not in vs or if he be in vs yet he is but in the lippes or the stomacke and tarieth not with vs. Or what benefite is it to a wicked man to eate Christ and to receaue death by him that is lyfe From this your obscure perplex vncertaine vncomfortable deuilish and Papisticall doctrine Christ defend all his and graunt that we may come often and worthely to Christes holy Table to comfort our feeble and weake fayth by remembraunce of his death who onely is the satisfaction and propitiation of our sinnes and our meate drinke and foode of euerlastyng lyfe Amen Here endeth the Aunswere of the most Reuerend Father in God Thomas Archbyshop of Canterbury c. vnto the crafty and Sophisticall cauillation of Doct. Steuen Gardiner deuised by him to obscure the true sincere and godly doctrine of the most holy Sacrament of the body and bloud of our Sauiour CHRIST THE Aunswere of Thomas Archebishop of Caunterbury c. agaynst the false calumniations of doctour Richard Smith who hath taken vpon him to confute the defence of the true catholik doctrine of the body and bloud of our Sauiour Christ. I Haue now obtayned gentle reader that thing which I haue much desired which was that if all men would not imbrace the truth lately set forth by me concerning the Sacrament of the body and bloud of our Sauiour Christ at the least some man would vouchsafe to take penne in hand and write against my booke bicause that therby the truth might both better be serched out and also more certaynly knowen to the world And herein I hartely thanke the late Bishop of Winchester and doctor Smith who partely haue satisfied my long desire sauing that I would haue wished aduersaries more substantially learned in holy scriptures more exercised in the olde auncient ecclesiasticall authors and hauing a more godly zeale to the triall out of the truth than are these two both being crafty sophisters the one by art and the other by nature both also being drowned in the dregges of papistry brought vp and confirmed in the same the one by Duns and Dorbell and such like Sophisters the other by the Popish Canon law wherof by his degree taken in the uniuersity he is a professor And as concerning the late bishop of Winchester I will declare his craftye Sophistications in myne aunswere vnto his booke But doctour Smith as it appeareth by the title of his preface hath craftely deuised an easy way to obtayne his purpose that the people being barred from the serching of the truth might be stil kept in blindnes and errour as wel in this as in al other matters wherin they haue bene in times past deceaued He seeth full well that the more diligently matters be serched out and discussed the more clearly the craft and falsehode of the subtill Papistes will appeare And therfore in the preface to the reader he exhorteth all men to leaue disputing and resoning of the fame by learning and to giue firme credite vnto the church as the title of the sayd preface declareth manifestly As who should say the truth of any matter that is in question might be tryed out without debating and reasoning by the word of God wherby as by the true touchstone all mens doctrines are to be tryed and examined But the truth is not ashamed to come to the light and to be tryed to the vttermost For as pure golde the more it is tryed the more pure it apeareth so is all manner of truth Where as on the other side all maskers counterfayters and false deceiuors abhorre the light and refuse the triall If all men without right or reason would geue credite vnto this Papist and his Romish church agaynst the most certayne word of God and the olde holye and Catholicke Churche of Christ the matter should be soone at an end and out of all controuersie But for as muche as the pure word of God and the first church of Christ from the beginning taught the true catholike fayth and Smith with his church of Rome do now teach the cleane contrary the chaffe can not be tryed out from the pure corne that is to say the vntruth discerned from the very truth without threshing windowing and fanning serching debating and reasoning As for me I ground my beleefe vpon gods word wherin can be no errour hauing also the consent of the primatiue church requiring no man to beleue me further then I hane gods word for me But these Papistes speake at their pleasure what they lift and would be beleeued without godes word bicause they beare men in hand that they be the church The church of Christ is not founded vpon it selfe but vppon Christ and his word but the Papistes build their church vpon them selues deuising new articles of the fayth from tyme to tyme without any scripture and founding the same vpon the Pope and his cleargy monkes and fryers and by that meanes they be both the makers and Iudges of their fayth themselues Wherfore this Papist like a politike man doth right wisely prouide for himselfe and his church in the first entry of his booke that all men should leaue searching for the truth and sticke hard and fast to the church meaning himselfe and the church of Rome For from the true catholike church the Romish church which he accomteth catholike hath varied and dissented many yeares passed as the blindest that this day do liue may well see and perceaue if they will not purposely winke and shut vp their eyes This I haue written to answere the title of his preface NOw in the beginning of the very preface it selfe when this great doctor should recite the wordes of Ephesine counsell he translateth them so vnlearnedly that if a young boy that had gone to the grammer schole but thre yeres had done no better he should scant haue escaped some scholemasters handes with sixierkes And beside that he doth it so craftily to serue his purpose that he cannot be excused of wilfull deprauation of the wordes calling celebration an offering and referring the participle made to Christ which should be referred to the word partakers and leauing out those wordes that should declare that the sayd counsell spake of no propiciatory sacrifice in the Masse but of a sacrifice of laud and thankes which christen people geue vnto God
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
in the second parte But what be you eased now by this We say as the scripture teacheth that Christ is corporally ascended in to heauen and neuerthelesse he is so in them that worthely eate the bread drinke the wine geuen and distributed at his holy Supper that he feedeth and nourisheth them with his flesh and bloud vnto eternal life But we say not as you doe cleerely without ground of Scripture that he is corporally vnder the formes of bread and wine where his presence should be without any profite or commoditie either to vs or to the bread and wine And here in this difference it seemeth that you haue either cleerely forgotten or negligently ouershotte yourselfe vttering that thing vnwares which is contrary is your wholl booke For the first parte which is of the being of Christ in the Sacramentall bread and wine is of the substance of the Sacrament to be receaued say you where it is true Christ to be present God and man the second part say you which is of the being of Christ in them that worthely eat and drink the bread and wine is of Christs spiritual presence Of your which words I se nothing to be gathered but that as concerning his substancial presence Christ is receaued into the Sacramental bread and wine and as for them that worthely receaue the Sacrament he is in them none otherwise then after a Spirituall presence For els why should ye say that the second parte is of Christes spirituall presence if it be as well of his corporall as of his spirituall presence Wherefore by your own words this difference should be vnderstanded of two different beings of Christ that in the Sacrament he is by his substance and in the worthy receauers spiritually and not by his substance for els the differences repugne not as you obiect against me Wherfore either you write one thing mean another or els as you write of other God so blindeth the aduersaries of the truth that in one place or other they confesse the truth vnwares Now follow my wordes in the second comparison They say that when any man eateth the bread and drinketh the cup Christ goeth into his mouth or stomacke with the bread and wine and no further But we say that Christ is in the wholl man both in body and soule of him that worthely eateth the bread drinketh the cup not in his mouth or stomack only Winchester In this comparison the Author termeth the true Catholick teaching at his pleasure to bring it in contempte Which doing in rude speach would be called otherwise then I will tearme it Truth it is as S. Augustine saith we receaue in the Sacrament the body of Christ with our mouth and such speach other vse as a booke set forth in the Archbishop of Canterbury his name called a Catechisme willeth children to be taught that they receaue with their bodely mouth the body and bloud of Christ which I alleadge because it shall appeare it is a teaching set forth among vs of late as hath béene also and is by the booke of common prayer being the most true catholicke doctrine of the substance of the sacrament in that it is there so catholickly spoken of which booke this Author doth after specially allow how so euer all the summe of his teaching doth improue it in that pointe So much is he contrary to him self in this worke and here in this place not caring what he saith reporteth such a teaching in the first parte of this difference as I haue not heard of before There wes neuer man of learning that I haue red termed the matter so that Christ goeth into the stomack of the man that receaued and no further For that is written contra Stercoranistas is nothing to this teaching nor the speach of any glose if there be any such were herein to be regarded The Catholicke doctrine is that by the holy communion in the Sacrament we be ioyned to Christ really because we receaue in the holy supper the most precious substaunce of his glorious body which is a flesh geuing life And that is not digested with out flesh but worketh in vs and attēpereth by heauēly nuriture our body and soule beyng partakers of his passion to be conformable to hys will and by such spirituall foode to be many more spirituall In the receauing of which foode in the most blessed Sacrament our body and soule in them that duely communicate worke together in due order without other discussion of the mistery then God hath appointed that is to say the soule to beleue as it is taught and the body to doe as God hath ordered knowing that glorious flesh by our eating can not be consumed or suffer but to be most profitable vnto such as doe accustome worthely to receaue the same But to say that the church teacheth how we receaue Christ at our mouth and he goeth into our stomacke and no further is a reporte which by the iust iudgement of God is suffered to come out of the mouth of them that fight against the truth in this most high mistery Now where this Author in the second parte by an aduersatiue with a But to make the comparison felleth what he and his say he telleth in effecte that which euery catholicke man must néedes and doth confesse For such as receaue Christs most precious body and bloud in the Sacrament worthely they haue Christ dwelling in them who comforteth both body and soule which the church hath euer taught most plainly So as this comparison of difference in his two parties is made of one open vntruth and a truth disguised as though it were now first opened by this Author and his which manner of handling declareth what sleight and shift is vsed in the matter Caunterbury IN the first part of this comparison I go not about to tearm the true catholicke faith for the first part in all the comparisons is the Papisticall faith which I haue tearmed none otherwise then I learned of their own tearming and therfore if my tearming please you not as in deede it ought to please no man yet lay the blame in them that were the authors and inuentoures of that tearming and not in me that against them do vse their owne tearmes tearming the matter as they doe them selfe because they should not finde faulte with me as you doe that I tearme their teaching at my pleasure And as for receauing of the body of Christ with our mouthes truth it is that S. Augustine Ambros Chrysostome and other vse such speaches that we receaue the body of Christ with our mouthes see hym with our eyes feele hym with our handes breake hym teare hym with our teeth eate him and dygest him which speach I haue also vsed in my catechisme but yet these speeches must be vnderstand figuratiuely as I haue declared in my fourth booke the eyght chapiter and shall more fully declare hereafter for we doe not these thinges to
bloud signifying to theÌ„ that worthely do eat that bread drink that cuppe that they be inwardly and inuisibly fed with Christes flesh and bloud as they outwardly and visibly receaue the sacraments of them To be short here in this processe you vse plenty of words at your pleasure to make the reader beleue that I should suppose confusion monstrousnes absurditie and vnseemelinesse to be in Gods holy sacraments where as I do no more but tel what monstrous absurdities and errors the Papists do teach in the sacraments But if the reader take good heede to your talk he shall finde that you lacking good matter to aunswere this comparison do fall vnto railing and enforce your pen to inuent such stuffe as might bring me into hatred vndeserued which kind of rhetorick is called Canma facunda and is vsed onely of them that hunt for their own praise by the dispraise of their aduersary which is yet an other trick of the deuils sophistry And because you would bring me into more extreme hatred you couple me with Sabellius and Arrius whose doctrines as you say were facile and easy as here you confesse mine for to be But if all such expositions as make the Scriptures plain should by and by be slaunderously compared to the doctrines of Arrius and Sabellius then should all the expositions of the doctors be brought in danger because that by their paines they haue made hard questions facile and easy And yet whether the doctrine which I set forth be easy to vnderstand or not I cannot define but it seemeth so hard that you cannot vnderstand it except you will put all the fault in your own wilfulnes that you can and wil not vnderstaÌ„d it Now followeth the sixt comparison Furthermore the Papistes say that a dog or a cat eateth the body of Christ if they by chaunce doe eate the Sacramentall bread We say That no earthly creature can eat the body of Christ nor drink his bloud but onely man Winchester I haue red that some intreate these chances of dogges and cattes but I neuer heard any of that opinion to say or write so as a doctrine that a dogge or a catte eateth the body of Christ and set it forth for a teaching as this author most impudently supposeth and I maruell much that such a worde and such a reporte can come out of a christian maÌ„nes mouth and therefore this is by the author a maruelous surmise Whereupon to take occasion to bring the aduersatiue But for the Authors parte being such a saying on that side as all christendome hath euer taught that no creature can eate the body and drinke the bloud of Christ but onely man But this abhominable surmysed no truth in the former parte of his comparison may be taken for a proofe whether such beastly asseuerations procéede from the spirite of truth or now And whether truth be there intended where such blasphemy is surmised But let vs see the rest Caunterbury YEt stil in these comparisons you grauÌ„t that part of the difference to be true which I affirme but you say that I reporte vntruely of the Papistes impudently bearing them in hand to say such abhominable beastly asseuerations as you neuer heard Whereby appeareth your impudent arrogancy in deniall of that thing which either you know the Papists do say or you are in doubt whether they say or saying hauing not read what it is that they say For why doe they reiect the Master of the sentences in this point that he said a mouse or bruite beast receaueth not the body of Christ although they seeme to receau it Wherin if you say as the Master did that the mouse receiueth not the body of Christ looke for no fauor at the papists hands but to be reiected as the Master was unles they forbeare you vpon fauour and because that in other matters you haue bene so good a captayne for them they will pardon you this one faulte Aâ—d so is this first parte of the difference no vntrue surmise of me but a determination of the Papistes condemning who so euer would say the contrary And this is a common proposition among the schoole diuines that the body of Christ remaineth so long as the forme of the bread is remayning where so euer it be whereof your S. Thomas wryteth thus Quidam vero dixerunt quod quaÌ„ primum Sacramentum sumitur à mure vel cane desinit ibi esse corpus Christi Sed hoc deregat veritati huius Sacramenti Substantia enim panis sumpta à peccatore I am diu manet dion per calorem naturalem est in digestione igitur tam diu manet corpus Christi sub speciebus Sacramentalibus And Perin in his booke printed and set abroad in this matter for all men to read saith That although the mouse or any other beast doe eate the Sacrament yet neuerthelesse the same is the very and reall body of Christ. And he asketh what inconuenience it is against the verity of Christs reall body in the Sacrament though the impassible body lye in the mouth or maw of the beast Is it not therfore the body of Christ Yes vndoubtedly saith he So that now these abhominable opinions and beastly asseuerations as you truely terme them meaning thereby to bite me as appeareth be fitte termes and meete for the Papists whose asseuerations they be Now followeth the seuenth comparyson They say that euery man good and euill eateth the body of Christ. We say that both doe eate the Sacramentall bread and drink the wine but none do eate the very body of Christ and drinke his bloud but only they that be liuely members of his body Winchester In this comparison the former part speaking of such men as be by baptisme receiued into Christes church is very true confirmed by S. Paule and euer since affirmed in the church in the proofe whereof here in this booke I wil not trauell but make it a demurre as it were in law whereupon to fly the truth of the hole matter if that doctrin called by this author the doctrine of the Papistes and is in déede the Catholick doctrine be not in this point true let all be so iudged for me If it be true as it is most true let that be a marke whereby to iudge the rest of this authors vntrue asseuerations For vndoubtedly S. Augustine sayth We may not of mens matters estéeme the Sacraments they be made by him whose they be but worthely vsed they bring reward vnworthely handled they bring iudgement He that dispenseth the Sacrament worthely and he that vseth it vnworthely lie not one but that thyng is one whether it be handled worthely or vnworthely so as if is neither better ne worse but life or death of them that vse it Thus saith S. Augustine and therefore be the receauers worthy or vnworthy good or euil the substance of Christs Sacrament is all one as beyng Gods worke
declaration of his will wherby we might be the more assured of the effect of his death which he suffered willingly and determinately for the redemption of the world with a most perfect oblatiō and satisfaction for the sinnes of the world exhibited and offered by him to God the father for the reconciliation of mannes nature to Gods fauor and grace And this I write because this author speaketh so precisely how Christ offred himselfe neuer but once Wherby if he mean by once offering the hole action of our redemption which was consummate and perfected vpon the crosse All must confesse the substaunce of that worke of redemption by the oblation of Christ on the crosse to haue béene absolutely finished and so once offered for all But there is no Scripture whereupon we might conclude that Christ did in this mortall life but in one particular moment of time offer himselfe to his Father For S. Paul describeth it to the Philippians vnder the word of humiliation to haue continued the wholl time of Christes conuersation here euen to the death the death of the crosse And that this obedience to God in humilitie is called offering appeareth by S. Paule when he exhorted vs to offer our bodies which meaneth a continuall obedience in the obseruation of Gods will and he calleth oblationem gentium to bringe them to the faith And Abrahams willing obedience ready at Gods commaundement to offer Isaac is called the offering of Isaac and is in very deede a true offering And euery man offereth himself to God when he yealdeth to Gods calling and presenteth himselfe ready to doe Gods will and commaundement who then may be said to offer his seruice that is to say to place his seruice in sight and before him before whom it should be done And because our Sauiour Christ by the decrée of the wholl Trinity tooke mannes nature vpon him to suffer death for our redemption which death in his last Supper he declared plainly he would suffer We reade in S. Ciprian how Christ offered himselfe in his supper fulfilling the figure of Melchisedech who by the offring of bread wine signified that high mistery of Christs Supper in which Christ vnder the forme of bread and wine gaue his very body bloud to be eaten and dronken and in the geuing therof declared the determination of his glorious passion and the fruit and effect therof Which doing was a swéete and pleasant oblation to God the Father conteyning a most perfect obedience to Gods will and pleasure And in the mistery of this Supper was written made and sealed a most perfect testimony for an effectuall memory of Christes offering of him selfe to his Father of his death and passion with the fruite therof And therfore Christ ordayned this Supper to be obserued and continued for a memory of his comming So as we that saw not with our bodely eyes Christes death and passion may in the celebration of the Supper be most surely ascertayned of the truth out of Christes own mouth who still speaketh in the person of the minister of the church This is my body that is betrayed for you This is my bloud that is shead for you in remission of sinne and therewith maketh his very body and his precious bloud truely present to be taken of vs eaten and dronken Whereby we be assured that Christ is the same to vs that he was to them and vseth vs as familiarly as he did them offereth himselfe to his Father for vs as well as for them declareth his will in the fruite of his death to pertayne as well to vs as to them Of which death we be assured by his own mouth that he suffred the same to the effect he spake of and the continuall feding in this high mistery of the same very body that suffred and féeding of it without consumption being continually exhibited vnto vs a liuing body and a liuely bloud not onely our soule is specially and spiritually cōforted our body therby reduced to more cōformable obedience to the soule but also we by the participation of this most precious body bloud be ascertained of the resurrection and regeneration of our bodies and flesh to be by Gods power made incorruptible and immortall to liue and haue fruition in God with our soules for euer Wherefore hauing this mistery of Christes Supper so many truthes in it the Church hath celebrate thē all and knowledged them all of one certainty in truth not as figures but really and in déede that is to say as our bodies shal be in the generall resurrection regenerate in déede so we beléeue we feede here of Christes body in deede And as it is true that Christes body in déede is betrayed for vs so it is true that he geueth vs to eate his very body in déede And as it is true that Christ was in earth did celebrate this Supper so it is true that he commaunded it to be celebrated by vs till he come And as it is true that Christ was very God omnipotent and very man so it is true that he could doe that he affirmed by his word him selfe to doe And as he is most sincéere truth so may we be truly assured that he would and did as he said And as it is true that he is most iust so it is true that he assisteth the doing of his commaundement in the celebration of the holy Supper And therfore as he is author of this most holy Sacrament of his precious body and bloud so is he the maker of it and is the inuisible priest who as Emissene saith by his secret power with his word changeth the visible creatures into the substance of his body bloud Wherin man the visible priest and minister by order of the church is onely a dispencer of the mistery doing and saying as the holy ghost hath taught the church to doe and say Finally as we be taught by faith all these to be true so when wanton reason faith being aslepe goeth about by curiositie to empaire any one of these truthes the chain is broaken the linkes sparckle abroad and all is brought in danger to be scattered and scambled at Truthes haue béene abused but yet they be true as they were before for no man can make that is true false and abuse is mannes fault not the thinges Scripture in spéeche geueth to man as Gods minister the name of that action which God specially worketh in that mistery So it pleaseth God to honor the ministery of man in his Church by whom it also pleaseth him to worke effectually And Christ said they that beleue in me shall doe the workes that I doe and greater When all this honor is geuen to man as spiritually to regenerate when the minister saith I baptise thée and to remitte sinne to such as fall after to be also a minister in consecration of Christes most precious body with the ministration of other Sacramentes benediction
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
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
may be also here in the blessed Sacrament of the aultar I am not so ignorant but I know that Christ appeared to S. Paule and sayd to him Saule Saule why doest thou persecute me But S. Augustin sayth that Christ at his Ascention spake the last wordes that euer he speake vpon earth And yet we finde that Christ speaketh sayth he but in heauen and from heauen and not vpon earth For he spake to Paule from aboue saying Saule Saule why doest thou persecute me The head was in heauen and yet he sayd why doest thou persecute me bycause he persecuted his members vpon earth And if this please not Maister Smith let him blame S. Augustin and not me for I fayne not this my selfe but onely alledge S. Augustin And as the father spake from heauen whan he sayd This is my beloued sonne in whom I am pleased and also S. Stephen saw Christ sittyng in heauen at his fathers right hand euen so ment S. Augustin that S. Paule and all other that haue sene and heard Christ speake since his Ascention haue sene and heard him from heauen NOw when this Papist goyng forward with his woorkes seeth his building so feeble weake that it is not able to stand he returneth to his chief foūdation the Church and Councels generall willyng all men to stay thereupon to leaue disputyng reasonyng And chiefly he shoareth vp his house with the Councell Lateranence whereat sayth he were xiij hundred Fathers xv But he telleth not that viij hundred of them were Monkes Friers and Chanons the Byshop of Romes owne deare deare-lynges chief champions called together in his name not in Christes From which broode of vypers Serpentes what thyng can be thought to come but that dyd proceede frō the spirite of their most holy father that first begat them that is to say from the spirite of Antichrist And yet I know this to bee true that Christ is present with his holy Churche whiche is his holy elected people and shall be with them to the worldes end leadyng gouernyng them with his holy spirite teachyng them all truth necessary for their saluation And when so euer any such be gathered together in his name there is he among them he shall not suffer the gates of hell to preuaile agaynst them For although he may suffer them by their owne frailenes for a tyme to erre fall and to dye yet finally neither sathan hell sinne nor eternall death shall preuaile agaynst them But it is not so of the Church and sea of Rome whiche accompteth it selfe to be the holy Catholicke Churche and the Byshop therof to be most holy of all other For many yeares ago Sathan hath so preuailed agaynst that stinkyng whore of Babylon that her abhominations be knowen to the whole world the name of God is by her blasphemed and of the cup of her dronkennes and poyson haue all nations tasted AFter this cōmeth Smith to Berēgarius Almericus Carolostadius Oecolampadius Zuinglius affirmyng that the Church euer sithens Christes tymes a thousand fiue hūdreth yeares and moe hath beleued that Christ is bodily in the Sacrament and neuer taught otherwise vntill Berengarius came about a thousand yeares after Christ whom the other folowed But in my booke I haue proued by Gods word the old auncient Authors that Christ is not in the sacrament corporally but is bodily corporally ascended into heauen there shall remaine vnto the worldes end And so the true Church of Christ euer beleued from the beginnyng with out repugnaunce vntill Sathan was let louse and Antichrist came with his Papistes which fayned a new and false doctrine contrary to Gods word and the true Catholicke doctrine And this true fayth God preserueth in his holy church still and will doe vnto the worldes end maugre the wicked Antichrist and all the gates of hell And almighty God from time to time hath strēgthened many holy Martirs for this fayth to suffer death by Antichrist and the great harlot Babilon who hath embrewed her handes and is made drunken with the bloud of Martyrs Whose bloud God will reuēge at length although in the meane time he suffer the patiēce and fayth of his holy Saynts to be tried ALl the rest of his Preface contayneth nothing els but the authority of the Church which Smith sayth cannot wholy erre and he so setteth forth and extolleth the same that he preferreth it aboue Gods word affirming not onely that it is the piller of truth and no lesse to bee beleued then holy scripture but also that we should not beleue holy scripture but for it So that he maketh the word of men equall or aboue the word of God And truth it is in deed that the church doth neuer wholy erre for euer in most darcknes God shineth vnto his elect and in the midst of all iniquity he gouerneth them so with his holy word and spirite that the gates of hell preuayle not agaynst them And these be knowne to him although the world many times know them not but hath them in derision and hatred as it had Christ and his Apostles Neuerthelesse at the last day they shal be knowen to all the whole world when the wicked shal wonder at their felicity and say These be they whom we sometime had in verision and mocked We fooles thought their liues very madnes and their end to be without honour But now loe how they be accounted among the children of God and theyr portion is among the sayntes Therfore we haue erred frō the way of truth the light of righteousnesse hath not shined vnto vs we haue wearyed our selues in the way of wickednes and destruction But this holy church is so vnknowne to the world that no mā can discerne it but God alone who onely searcheth the hartes of all men knoweth his true children from other that be but bastardes This church is the piller of trueth because it resteth vpon Gods word which is the true and sure foundation wil not suffer it to erre fall But as for the opē knowne church the outward face therof it is not the piller of truth otherwise thē that it is as it were a register or treasory to keepe the bookes of Gods holy will testament to rest onely thereupon as S. Augustine and Tertullian meane in the place by M. Smith alleadged And as the register keepeth all mens wils and yet hath none authority to adde change or take away any thing nor yet to expound the wils further then the very words of the will extend vnto so that he hath no power ouer the will but by the will euen so hath the church no further power ouer the holy scripture which conteyneth the will and testamēt of god but onely to keepe it and to see it obserued and kept For if the Church proceede further to make any new Articles of the fayth besides the Scripture
name all men may iudge that your doing herein is not for reuerence to be vsed vnto me but that by suppressing of my name you may the more vnreuerently and vnseemely vse your scoffing taunting rayling and defaming of the author in generall and yet shall euery man vnderstand that your speach is directed to me in especiall as wel as if you had appointed me with your finger And your reuerent vsing of your selfe before the kings highnes commissioners of late doth plainly declare what reuerent respect you haue to them that be in dignitie and authoritie in the common wealth Winchester THis author denieth the reall presence of Christes most precious body and bloud in the Sacrament This author denieth Transubstantiation This author denieth euill men to eate and drinke the body and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament These thre denials only impugne and tend to destroy that faith which this author fermeth the Popish to erre in calling now all popish that beleue either of these thre articles by him denied the truth wherof shall hereafter be opened Now because faith affirmeth some certaintie if we aske this author what is his saith which he calleth true and catholike it is onely this as we may learne by his booke that in our Lordes supper be consecrate bread and wyne and deliuered as tokens only to signifie Christes body and bloud he calleth them holy tokens but yet noteth that the bread and wyne be neuer the holyer he sayth neuerthelesse they be not bare tokens and yet coÌ„cludeth Christ not to be spiritually present in them but only as a thyng is present in that which signifieth it which is the nature of a bare token saying in an other place there is nothing to be worshipped for there is nothyng present but in figure in a signe which who so euer saith calleth the thyng in deede absent And yet the author sayth Christ is in the man that worthely receiueth spiritually present who eateth of Christes flesh and his bloud reigning in heauen whether the good beleuing man ascendeth by his faith And as our body is nourished with the bread and wyne receyued in the supper so the true beleuyng man is fed with the body and bloud of Christ. And this is the summe of the doctrine of that faith which this author calleth the true catholike fayth Caunterbury I Desire the Reader to iudge my faith not by this short enuious and vntrue collection and reporte but by mine owne booke as it is at length set out in the first part from the 8. vnto the 16. chapter And as concerning holynes of bread and wine wherunto I may adde the water into baptisme how can a dombe or an insensible and liuelesse creature receiue into it selfe any foode and feede thereupon No more is it possible that a spiritlesse creature should receiue any spirituall sanctification or holynes And yet do I not vtterly depriue the outward sacrameÌ„ts of the name of holy thinges because of the holy vse wherunto they serue not because of any holynesse that lyeth hid in the insensible creature Which although they haue no holynes in them yet they be signes and tokens of the meruailous workes and holy effects which god worketh in vs by his omnipotent power And they be no vayne or bare tokens as you would perswade for a bare token is that which betokeneth only and geneth nothing as a painted fire which geueth neither light nor heate but in the due ministration of the Sacramentes God is present working with his worde and Sacramentes And although to speake properly in the bread and wine be nothing in dede to be worshipped yet in them that duely receiue the sacramentes is Christ himself inhabiting and is of all creatures to be worshipped And therfore you gather of my sayings vniustly that Christ is in deede absent for I say according to Gods worde and the doctrine of the olde writers that Christ is present in his sacramentes as they teach also that he is present in his worde when he worketh mightely by the same in the hartes of the hearers By which maner of speach it is not ment that Christ is corporally present in the voyce or sound of the speaker which sound perisheth as soone as the wordes be spoken but this speach meaneth that he worketh with his word vsing the voyce of the speaker as his instrument to worke by as he vseth also his sacramentes wherby he worketh therfore is said to be present in them Winchester Now a catholike faith is an vniuersall faith taught and preached through all and so receiued and beleued agreable and consonant to the scriptures testified by such as by all ages haue in their writinges geuen knowledge therof which be the tokens and markes of a true catholike faith whereof no one can be found in the faith this author calleth catholike First there is no scripture that in letter maynteineth the doctrine of this authors booke for Christ sayth not that the bread doth oâ—â—ly signifie his body absent nor S Paul saith not so in any place ne any other Canonicall Scripture declareth Christes wordes so As for the sence and vnderstanding of Christes wordes there hath not bene in any age any one approued and knowen learned man that hath so declared and expounded Christes wordes in his supper that the bread did onely signifie Christes body and the wyne his bloud as thinges absent Caunterbury THe first part of your description of a catholike faith is crafty and full of subtletie for what you meane by all you do not expresse The secoÌ„d part is very true and agreeth fully with my doctrine in euery thing as wel in the matter of transubstantiation of the presence of Christ in the sacrament and of the eating and drinking of him as in the sacrifice propitiatory For as I haue taught in these 4. matters of controuersie so learned I the same of the holy scripture so is it testified by all olde writers learned men of all ages so was it vniuersally taught and preached receiued beleued vntill the sea of Rome the chiefe aduersary vnto Christ corrupted all together and by hypocrisie and simulation in the stede of Christ erected Autichrist who being the sonne of perdition hath extolled and aduanced himselfe and sitteth in the temple of God as he were God himselfe losing and bynding at his pleasure in heauen hell and earth condemning absoluing canonising damning as to his iudgement he thinketh good But as concerning your doctrine of Transubstantiation of the reall corporall and naturall presence of Christes body in the bread and bloud in the wyne that ill men do eate his flesh and drinke his bloud that Christ is many tymes offred there is no scripture that in letter mainteyneth any of them as you require in a catholike faith but the scripture in the letter doth mainteine this my doctrine plainly that the bread remaineth Panis quem frangimus nonne communicatio
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
proofe in Scripture to say God doth it because he can doe it For hee can doe many thinges which hee neither doth nor will doe He could haue sent moe then twelue Legions of Angels to deliuer Christ from the wicked Iewes and yet he would not doe it He could haue created the world and all thinges therin in one moment of time and yet his pleasure was to doe it in sixe dayes In all matters of our christen faith written in holy Scripture for our instruction and doctrin how farre so euer they seeme discrepant from reason we must represse our imaginations and consider Gods pleasure and will and yeald therto beleeuing him to be omnipotent And that by his omnipotent power such thinges are verelye so as holy scripture teacheth Like as we beleeue that Christ was borne of the blessed virgin Mary without company of man that our Sauyour Christ the third day rose agayn from death that he in his humanity ascended into heauen that our bodyes at the day of iudgement shall rise agayne and many other such like thinges which we all that be true christeÌ„ men do beleeue firmely because we finde these thinges written iu Scripture And therfore we knowing Gods omnipotency doe beleue that he hath brought some of the said things to passe already and those things that are yet to come he will by the same omnipotency without doubt likewise bring to passe Now if you can proue that your transubstantiatioÌ„ your fleshly presence of Christes body and bloud your carnall eating and drinking of the same your propitiatory sacrifice of the masse are taught vs as plainly in the scripture as the sayd articles of our faith be then I will beleeue that it is so in deede Otherwise neither I nor any man that is in his right wittes will beleeue your said articles because God is omnipotent and can make it so For you might so vnder pretence of Gods omnipotency make as many articles of our faith as you list if such arguments might take place that God by his omnipotent power can conuert the substance of bread and wine in to the substance of his flesh and bloud ergo he doth so in deede And although Christ be not corporally in the bread and wine yet Christ vsed not so many wordes in the mistery of his holy supper without effectual signification For he is effectually present and effectually worketh not in the bread and wine but in the godly receauers of them to whom he geeueth his own flesh spiritually to feede vpon and his own bloud to quench their great inward thirst And here I would wishe you to marke very wel one true sentence which you haue vttered by the way which is That Christ declared that eating of him signifieth beleeuing and start not from it an other time And marke the same I pray thee gentle Reader For this one sentence assoyleth almost all the argumentes that be brought by this Lawyer in his wholl booke against the truth And yet to the sayd true saying you haue ioyned an other vntruth haue yoaked them both together in one sentence For when Christ had taught of the eating of him being the bread descended froÌ„ heauen there was no murmuring thereat say you Which your saying I can not but wonder at to see you so farre deceaued in a matter so plaine and manifest And if I had spoaken such an euident and manifeste vntruth I doubt not but it should haue beene spoaken of to Rome gates For the text sayth there plainly Murmur abant Iudaei de illo qoud dixisset Ego sum panis vinus qui de coelo descendi The Iewes murmured at him because he sayd I am the bread of life that came from heauen But when you wrote this it seemeth you looked a litle to low and should haue looked higher And here by this one place the Reader may gather of your own wordes your intent and meaning in this your booke if that be true which you sayd before that euer where contention is on what parte the Reader seeth in any one point an open manifest lye there he may consider whatsoeuer excuse be made of truth yet the victory of truth not to be there intended An other vntruth also followeth incontinently that when Christ sayd The bread which I will geue you is my flesh which I will geue for the life of the world In these wordes say you Christ maketh mention of two gifts But what be those two giftes I pray you And by what wordes is the diuersitie of those two giftes expressed If the geuing as Smith sayth be geuing to death then those two giftes declare that Christ dyed for vs twise And if one of Christes giftes haue liuery and seisyn why hath not the other likewise And when was then that liuery and seisyn geuen And if eating of Christ be beleeuing as you sayd euen now then liuerey and seisyn is geuen when we first beleeue whether it be in baptisme or at any other time But what you mean by these wordes that Christ gaue in his supper his body as really to be eateÌ„ of vs as he did to be crucified for vs I vnderstand not except you would haue Christ so really eaten of his Apostles at his supper with their teeth as he was after crucified whipped and thrust to the hart with a speare But was he not then so really and corporally crucified that his body was rent and torne in peeces And was not he so crucified then that he neuer was crucified after Was he not so slayn then that he neuer dyed any more And if he were so eaten at his supper then did his Apostles teare his flesh at the supper as the Iewes did the day following And then how could he now be eaten agayn Or how could he be crucified the day following if the night before he were after that sort eaten all vp But aptly say you and conueniently Mary Sir I thanke you but what is the aptly and conueniently but spiritually and by faith as you said before not grosly with the teeth as he was crucified And so the manner was diuers I graunt and the substance all one But when Christ sayd the bread which I will geue is my flesh which I will geue for the life of the worlde if he had fulfilled this promise at his supper as you say he did then what needed he after to dye that we might liue if he fulfilled his promise of life at his supper Why said the Prophets that he should be wouÌ„ded for our iniquities and that by his wounds we should be healed if we had life and were healed before he was wounded Why doth the catholick faith teach vs to beleue that we be redeemed by his blud sheading if he gaue vs life which is our redemâ—ion the night before hee shed his bloud And why sayth S. Paule that there is no remission without bloud sheading Yea why did he say Absit mihi
of the fyrst booke declaryng spirituall hunger and thirst and the releuing of the same by spyrituall feeding in Christe and of Christe as we constantly beleue in him to the confirmation of whiche beliefe the author would haue the Sacramentes of Baptisme and of the body and bloud of Christ to be adminicles as it were that we by them be preached vnto as in water breade and wyne and by them all our sinnes as it were spoken vnto or properly touched which matter in the grosse although there be some wordes by the way not tollerable yet if those wordes set apart the same were in the summe graunted to be good teachyng and holsome exhortation it contayneth so no more but good matter not well applyed For the Catholicke churche that professeth the truth of the presence of Christes body in the Sacramēt would therewith vse that declaratiō of hunger of Christ and that spirituall refreshing in Christ with theffect of Christes passion and death and the same to be the onely meane of mans regeneratio and feeding also with the differēces of that feeding from bodilye feeding for continuing thys earthly lyfe But thys toucheth not the principal poynt that should be intreated Whether Christ so ordered to feede such as be regenerate in him to geue to them in the Sacramēt the same his body that he gaue to be crucified for vs. The good man is fed by fayth and by merites of Christes passion being the mean of the gift of that fayth and other giftes also and by the suffering of the body of Christ and shedding of his most precious bloud on the altar of the Crosse which worke and passion of Christ is preached vnto vs by wordes aud Sacramentes and the same doctrine receaued of vs by fayth and theffect of it also And thus farre goeth the doctrine of this author But the Catholicke teaching by the scriptures goeth further cōfessing Christ to feed such as be regenerate in him not onely by his body and bloud but also with his body and bloud deliuered in this Sacrament by hym in deede to vs which the faythfull by his institution and commaūdement receaue with their faith and with their mouth also and with those special deinties be fed specially at Christs table And so God doth not onely preach in his Sacraments but also worketh in them and with them and in sensible thinges geueth celestiall giftes after the doctrine of eche Sacramēt as in baptisme the spirite of Christ and in the Sacrament of the altar the very body and bloud of Christ accordinge to the playne sence of his wordes whiche he spake This is my body c. And this is the Catholicke fayth agaynst which how the Author will fortifye that he woulde haue called Catholick and confute that he improueth I intend hereafter more particularly to touche in discussion of that is sayd Caunterbury I Mystrust not the indifferency of the reader so much but he can well perceiue how simple slender a rehearsall you haue made here of my eight annotations and how little matter you haue here to say agaynst them and how little your sayinges require any aunswere And because this may the more euidently appeare to the reader I shall rehearse my wordes heare agayne Although in this treatie of the Sacrament of the body bloud of our sauiour Christ I haue already sufficiētly declared the institution meaning of the same according to the very wordes of the Gospell and of saint Paule yet it shall not be in vayne somwhat more at large to declare the same according to the minde as well of holy scripture as of olde auncient authours and that so sincerely plainly without doubts ambiguities or vain questions that the very simple and vnlearned people may easily vnderstand the same and be edified thereby And this by Gods grace is myne only intent and desire that the flocke of Christ dispersed in this Realme among whome I am appointed a speciall pastour may no longer lacke the commodite and fruite whiche springeth of this heauenly knowledge For the more clerely it is vnderstood the more swetnes fruite comfort and edification it bringeth to the godly receauers therof And to the clere vnderstandyng of this Sacrament diuers thinges must be cōsidered First that as all men of them selues be sinners and through sinne be in gods wrath banished farre away from him condemned to hell and euerlasting dānation and none is clerely innocent but Christ alone so euery soule inspired by god is desirous to be deliuered from sinne and hell and to obteine at Gods handes mercy fauour righteousnes and euerlasting saluation And this earnest and great desire is called in scripture The hūger and thirst of the soule with which kinde of hunger Dauid was taken when he sayde As an hart longeth for springes of water so doth my soule long for thee O God My soule thyrsteth after God who is the well of lyfe My soule thyrsteth for thee my flesh wisheth for thee And this hunger the seely poore sinfull soule is driuen vnto by meanes of the law which sheweth vnto her the horriblenes of sinne the terror of Gods indignation and the horror of death and euerlasting damnation And when she seeth nothing but damnation for her offences by iustice and accusation of the law and this damnation is euer before her eies then in this great distresse the soule being pressed with heuinesse and sorrow seeketh for some comfort and desireth some remedy for her miserable and sorowfull estate And this felyng of her damnable condition and greedy desire of refreshing is the spirituall hunger of the soule And who so euer hath this godly hunger is blessed of God and shall haue meate and drinke inough as Christ himselfe sayd Blessed be they that hunger thyrst for righteousnes for they shal be filled ful And on the other side they that see not their owne sinfull and dānable estate but thinke themselues holy inough and in good case and condition inough as they haue no spirituall hunger so shall they not be fed of God with any spirituall foode For as almighty God feedeth them that be hungry so doth he send away empty all that be not hungry But this hunger and thyrst is not easily perceiued of the carnall man For when he heareth the holy ghost speake of meate and drinke his mynde is by and by in the kytchen and buttery and he thinketh vpō his dishes and pottes his mouth and his belly But the Scripture in sundry places vseth speciall wordes whereby to draw our grosse mindes from the phantasying of our teeth and belly and from this carnall and fleshly imaginatiō For the Apostles and Disciples of Christ when they were yet carnall knew not what was ment by this kinde of hunger and meate and therfore when they desired him to eate to withdraw their minds from carnall meat he sayd vnto them I haue other meate to eate which you know not And why
the faithfull people Thus the Reader may see that I misreport not the Papists nor charge them with any other words then they doe write that is to say that the body of Christ is naturally and sensibly in the Sacrament and broken and torne in peeces with our teeth But saith Smith the meaning of Berengarius in his recantatiō was otherwise that the formes of bread and wine are broaken and torne with our teeth but Christ is receaued wholly without breaking of his body or tearing with our teeth Well what so euer the meaninge of Berengarius was his wordes be as I report so that I make no false report of the Papistes nor vntruely charge them with that they say not But how should men know what the Papists meane when they say one thing and meane another For Berengarius said that not only the Sacramentes be broken and torne with our teeth and you say he ment contrary that only the Sacramentes be broken and torne with our teeth Berengarius said that also the very flesh and bloud of Christ be broken and torne and you say he ment clean contrary that the flesh and bloud of Christ be not broaken and torne Well then would I faine learne how it may be knowen what the Papists meane if they mean yea when they say nay and mean nay when they say yea And as for S. Iohn Chrisostom and other old authors by whom you would excuse this manner of speech they helpe you herein nothing at all For not one of them speake after this sorte that Berengarius doth For although though they say sometimes that we see Christ touch him and breake him vnderstanding that speech not of Christ him selfe but of the Sacraments which represent him yet they vse no such forme of speech as was prescribed to Berengarius that we see feele and break not only the sacraments but also Christ him selfe And likewise of Loth Abraham Iacob Iosue Mary Magdalen and the Apostles whom you bring forth in this matter there is no such speeche in the scripture as Berengarius vseth So that all these things be brought out in vame hauing no colour to serue for your purpose sauing that same thing you must say to make out your booke And as for al the rest that you say in this proces concerning the presence of Christ visible and inuisible nedeth no answere at all because you prooue nothing of all that you say in that matter which may easely therfore be denied by as good authoritie as you affirme the same And yet all the olde writers that speake of the diuersity of Christes substantiall presence and absence declare this diuersitie to be in the diuersity of his two natures that in the nature of his humanitie he is gone hence and present in the nature of his diuinitie and not that in diuers respectes and qualities of one nature he is both present and absent which I haue proued in my third booke the fifth chapter And for as much as you haue not brought one author for the proofe of your saying but your own bare wordes nor haue aunswered to the authorities alleadged by me in the forsaid place of my third booke reason would that my proofes should stand and haue place vntill such time as you haue proued your sayings or brought some euidēt matter to improue mine And this I trust shall suffice to any indifferent Reader for the defence of my first booke Winchester Wherein I will kéepe this order First to consider the third booke that speaketh against the faith of the reall presence of Christes most precious body and bloud in the Sacrament then against the fourth and so returne to the second speaking of Transubstantiation wherof to talke the reall presence not being discussed were cleerely superfluous And finally I will somewhat say of the fifte booke also Caunterbury BUt now to returne to the conclusion of the Bishops booke As it began with a marueilous sleight and suttlety so doth he conclude the same with a like notable suttlety changing the order of my bookes not answering thē in such order as I wrote them nor as the nature of the thinges requireth For seeing that by all mennes confessions there is bread and wine before the consecration the first thing to be discussed in this matter is whether the same bread and wine remain still after the cōsecratiō as Sacraments of Christs most precious body and bloud And next by order of nature and reason is to be discussed whether the body and bloud of Christ represented by those Sacramentes be present also with the said Sacramentes And what manner of presence Christ hath both in the Sacraments and in thē that receiue the Sacramentes But for what intent the Bishoppe changed this order it is easie to perceiue For he saw the matter of Transubstantiation so flat plain against him that it was hard for him to deuise an answere in that matter that should haue any apparance of truth but all the world should euidētly see him cleerely ouerthrowen at the first onset Wherefore he thought that although the matter of the reall presence hath no truth in it at all yet for as much as it seemed to him to haue some more apparaunce of truth then the matter of Transubstantiatiō hath he thought best to beginne with that first trusting so to iuggle in the matter and to dasell the eyes of them that be simple and ignorant and specially of such as were alredy perswaded in the matter that they should not well see nor perceiue his lieger de main And whē he had won credite with them in that matter by making them to wonder at his crafty iuggeling then thought he it should be a fitte and meete time for him to bring in the matter of Transubstantiation For when men be amased they doe wonder rather then iudge And when they be muffeled and blindfolded they cannot finde the right way though they seek it neuer so fast nor yet follow it if it chaunce them to finde it but geue vp cleerely their own iudgement and follow whom so euer they take to be their guid◠And so shall they lightly follow me in this matter of Transubstantiation thought the bishop if I can first perswade them and get their good willes in the reall presence This sleight and suttlety thou maist iudge certainly good Reader to be the cause and none other wherefore the order of my booke is chaunged without ground or reason The ende of the first booke THE CONFVTATION OF THE THIRD BOOKE IN the beginning of the third booke the author hath thought good to note certain differences which I wil also particularly consider It followeth in him thus They teach that Christ is in the bread and wine But we say according to the truth that he is in them that worthely eate and drinke the bread and wine Note here Reader euen in the entry of the comparison of these differences how vntruly the true faith of the Church is reported
which doth not teach that Christ is in the bread and wine which was the doctrine of Luther but the true faith is that Christes most precious body and bloud is by the might of his word and determination of his will which he declareth by his word in his holy Supper present vnder forme of bread and wine The substance of which natures of bread and wine is conuerted into his most precious body bloud as it is truely beleeued taught in the Catholick church of which teaching this Author cannot be ignorant So as the Author of this booke reporteth an vntruth wittingly against his conscience to say they teach calling them papists that Christ is in the bread and wine but they agrée in forme of teaching with that the Church of England teacheth at this day in the distribution of the holy Communion in that it is there said the body and bloud of Christ to be vnder the forme of bread and wine And thus much serueth for declaration of the wrong vntrue report of the faith of the Catholick Church made of this Author in the setting forth of this difference on that parte which it pleaseth him to name Papistes And now to speake of the other parte of the difference on the Authors side when he would tell what he and his say he conueyeth a sence craftely in wordes to serue for a difference such as no Catholick man would deny For euery Catholick teacher graunteth that no man can receaue worthely Christes body and bloud in the Sacrament vnles he hath by faith and charity Christ dwelling in him For otherwise such one as hath not Christ in him receaueth Christs body in the Sacrament vnworthely to his condemnation Christ cannot be receued worthely but into his own temple which be ye S. Paul saith and yet he that hath not Christes Spirite in him is not his As for calling it bread and wine a Catholick man forbeareth not that name signifiyng what those creatures were before the consecration in substance Wherefore appeareth how the Author of this booke in the lieu and place of a difference which he pretendeth he would shew bringeth in that vnder a But which euery Catholick man must néedes confesse that Christ is in them who worthely eate and drinke the Sacrament of his body and bloud or the bread and wine as this Author speaketh But as this Author would haue speaken plainly and compared truely the difference of the two teachinges he should in the second parte haue said from what contrary to that the Catholick Church teacheth which he doth not and therfore as he sheweth vntruth in the first report so he sheweth a sleight and shifte in the declaration of the second parte to say that repugneth not to the first matter and that no Catholicke man will deny considering the said two teachinges be not of one matter nor shoote not as one might say to one marke For the first parte is of the substance of the Sacrament to be receaued where it is truth Christ to be present God and man The second parte is of Christes Spirituall presence in the man that receaueth which in déede must be in him before he receaue the Sacrament or he cannot receaue the Sacrament worthely as before is sayd which two partes may stand well together without any repugnancy so both the differences thus taught make but one Catholick doctrine Let vs sée what the Author saith further Caunterbury NOw the craftes wiles and vntruthes of the first booke being partly detected after I haue also answered to this booke I shall leaue to the indifferent Reader to iudge whether it be of the same sort or no. But before I make further answere I shall rehearse the wordes of mine owne thirde boke which you attēpt next out of order to impugne My words be these Now this matter of Transubstantiatiō being as I trust sufficiently resolued which is the first part before rehearsed wherein the Papisticall doctrine varieth from the Catholick truth order requireth next to intreate of the second part which is of the manner of the presence of the body and bloud of our Sauiour Christ in the Sacramēt thereof wherin is no lesse cōtentiō thē in the first part For a plain explication whereof it is not vnknowen to all true faithfull christian people that our Sauiour Christ being perfecte God and in all thinges equall and coeternall with his Father for our sakes became also a perfect man taking flesh and bloud of his blessed mother and virgin Mary sauing sinne being in all thinges like vnto vs adioyning vnto his diuinity a most perfect soul of man And his body being made of very flesh and bones not onely hauing all members of a perfect mannes body in due order and proportion but also being subiect to hunger thirst labour sweate werines cold heate and all other like infirmities and passions of a manne and vnto death also and that the most vile and painfull vpon the crosse and after his death he rose againe with the self same visible and palpable body and appeared therewith and shewed the same vnto his Apostles and specially to Thomas making him to put his handes into his side and to feele his woundes And with the selfe same body he forsooke this world and ascended into heauen the Apostles seeing and beholding his body when it ascended and now sitteth at the right hand of his Father there shall remaine vntill the last day when he shall come to iudge the quick dead This is the true Catholick faith which the Scripture teacheth and the vniuersall Church of Christ hath euer beleeued from the beginning vntill within these 4. or 5. hundreth yeares last passed that the Bishop of Rome with the assistance of his Papistes hath set vp a new faith and beleefe of their own deuising that the same body really corporally naturally and sensibly is in this worlde still and that in an hundred thousand places at one time being inclosed in euery pixe and bread consecrated And although we doe affirme according to Gods word that Christ is in all persons that truly beleeue in him in such sort that with his flesh and bloud he doth spiritually nourish and feede them and geueth them euerlasting life doth assure them thereof as well by the promise of his word as by the Sacramental bread and wine in his holy supper which he did institute for the same purpose yet we doe not a little vary from the hainous errors of the Papists For they teach that Christ is in the bread and wine but we say according to the truth that he is in them that worthely eate and drink the bread wine Here it pleaseth you to passe ouer all the rest of my sayinges and to aunswere onely to the difference betweene the Papists and the true Catholicke faith Where in the first ye finde fault that I haue vntruely reported the Papisticall faith which you
call the faith of the Church which teacheth not say you that Christ is in the bread and wine but vnder the formes of bread and wine But to aunswere you I say that the Papists do teach that Christ is in the visible signes and whether they list to call them bread and wine or the formes of bread and wine all is one to me for the truth is that he is neither corporally in the bread and wine nor in or vnder the formes figures of them but is corporally in heauen and spiritually in his liuelye members which be his tēples where he inhabiteth And what vntrue reporte is this when I speake of bread and wine to the Papistes to speak of them in the fame sence that the Papistes meane taking bread and wine for the formes and accidences of bread and wine And your selfe also doe teach to vnderstand by the bread and wine not their substances but accidentes And what haue I offended then in speaking to you after your own māner of speach which your self doth approue and allow by and by after saying these wordes As for calling it bread and wine a Catholick man forbeareth not that name If a Catholick man forbeareth not that name and Catholick men be true men then true men forbeare not that name And why then charge you me with an vntruth for vsing that name which you vse your selfe and affirme Catholicke men to vse But that you be geuen altogether to finde faultes rather in other then to amend your own and to reprehend that in me which you allow in your selfe and other and purposely will not vnderstand my meaning because ye would seeke occasion to carpe and controll For els what man is so simple that readeth my booke but he may know well that I meane not to charge you for affirming of Christ to be in the very bread and wine For I know that you say ther is nether bread nor wine although you say vntruely therein but yet for as much as the accidents of bread and wine you call bread and wine and say that in them is Christ therfore I reporte of you that you say Christ is in the bread and wine meaning as you take bread and wine the accidentes thereof Yet D. Smith was a more indifferent Reader of my booke then you in this place who vnderstoode my wordes as I meante and as the Papistes vse and therefore would not purposely calūniate and reprehend that was well spoaken But there is no man so dull as he that will not vnderstand For men know that your witte is of as good capacitie as D. Smithes is if your will agreed to the same But as for any vntrue reporte made by me herein willingly against my conscience as you vntruely report of me by that time I haue ioyned with you throughout your booke you shall right well perceiue I trust that I haue sayd nothing wittingly but that my conscience shall be able to defend at the great day in the sight of the euerliuing God and that I am able before any learned and indifferent iudges to iustifie by holy Scriptures and the auncient Doctors of Christes church as I will appeale the consciences of all godly men that be any thing indifferent ready to yealde to the truth when they reade and consider my booke And as concerning the forme of doctrine vsed in this church of Englād in the holy Communiō that the body and bloud of Christ be vnder the formes of bread and wine whē you shall shew the place where this forme of words is expressed then shall you purge your selfe of that which in the meane time I take to be a plain vntruth Now for the second parte of the difference you graunt that our doctrine is true that Christ is in them that worthely eate and drunke the bread and wine and if it differ not from youres then let it passe as a thing agreed vpon by both partes And yet if I would captiously gather of your wordes I could as well prooue by this second parte that very bread and wine be eatē and drunken after consecration as you could prooue by the first that Christ is in the very bread and wine And if a Catholick man call the bread wine as you say in the second parte of the difference what ment you then in the first parte of this difference to charge me with so hainous a crime with a note to the Reader as though I had sinned against the holy Ghost because I said that the Papistes doe teach that Christ is in the bread and wine doe not you affirme here yourselfe the same that I reporte that the Papistes which you call the Catholickes doe not forbeare to call the Sacrament wherein they put the reall and corporall presence bread and wine Let the Reader now iudge whether you be caught in your own snare or no. But such is the successe of them that study to wrangle in wordes without any respecte of opening the truth But letting that matter passe yet we vary from you in this difference For we say not as you doe that the body of Christ is corporally naturally and carnally either in the bread and wine or formes of bread and wine or in them that eate and drinke thereof But we say that he is corporally in heauen onely and spiritually in them that worthely eate and drink the bread and wine But you make an article of the faith which the olde Church neuer beleeued nor heard of And where you note in this second parte of the difference a sleight and crafte as you note an vntruth in the first euen as much crafte is in the one as vntruth in the other being neither sleight nor vntruth in either of both But this sleight say you I vse putting that for a difference wherein is no difference at all but euery Catholick man must needes confesse Yet once againe there is no man so deafe as he that will not heare nor so blinde as he that will not see nor so dul as he that wil not vnderstand But if you had indifferent eares indifferent eyes and indifferent iudgement you might well gather of my wordes a plain and manifest difference although it be not in such tearmes as contenteth your mind But because you shall see that I meane no sleight nor crafte but goe plainly to worke I shall set out the difference truely as I ment and in such your own tearmes as I trust shall content you if it be possible Let this therfore be the difference They say that Christ is corporally vnder or in the formes of bread and wine We say that Christ is not there neither corporally nor spiritually but in them that worthely eate and drinke the bread and wine he is spiritually and corporally in heauen Here I trust I haue satisfied as well the vntrue report wittingly made as you say in the first parte of the difference against my conscience as the crafte and sleight vsed
say Christ is receaued in the mouth and entreth in with the bread and wine and for an aduersatiue therto I say that we which follow the Scriptures and aūcient writers say that he is receaued in the harte and entreth in by faith euery indifferent Reader vnderstandeth this aduersatiue vpon our side that we say Christ is not receaued in the mouth but in the hart specially seeing that in my fourth booke the second and third chapters I make purposely a processe therof to proue that Christ is not eaten with mouthes and teeth And yet to eschew all such occasions of sleight as you impute vnto me in this comparison to make the comparison more full and plain let this be the comparison They say that Christ is receiued with the mouth and entreth in with the bread and wine we say that he is not receaued with the mouth but with harte and entreth in by faith And now I trust there is no sleight in this comparison nor both the partes may not be vnderstand on both sides as you say they might before And as for S. Augustine serueth nothing for your purpose to proue that Christes body is eaten with the mouth For he speaketh not one word in the place by you alleadged neither of our mouthes nor of Christes body But it seemeth you haue so feruent desire to be doing in this matter that you be like to certain men which haue such a fond delight in shooting that so they be doyng they passe not how farre they shoote from the marke For in this place of S. Augustine against the Donatists he shooteth not at this butte whether Christes very naturall body be receaued with our mouthes but whether the Sacramentes in generall be receaued both of good and euill And there he declareth that it is all one water whether Symon Peter or Symon Magus be christned in it All one Table of the Lord and one cup whether Peter suppe thereat or Iudas All one oyle whether Dauid or Saule were annointed therewith Wherfore he concludeth thus Memento ergo Sacramentis Dei nihil obesse mores malorum hominum quo illa vel omnino non sint vel minus sancta sint sed ipsis malis hominibus vt haec habeant ad testimonium damnationis non ad adiutorium sanitatis Remēber therfore saith S. Augustine that the manners of euill men hinder not the Sacramentes of God that either they vtterly be not or be lesse holy but they hinder the euill men them selues so that they haue the Sacramentes to witnesse of their damnatiō not to helpe of their saluation And all the processe spoaken there by S. Augustine is spoaken chiefly of Baptisme against the Donatistes which sayd that the Baptisme was naught if either the minister or the receauer were naught Against whom S. Augustine concludeth that the Sacramentes of themselues be holy and be all one whether the minister or receauer be good or bad But this place of S. Augustine prooueth as wel your purpose that Christes body is receaued by the mouth as it prooueth that Poules steeple is higher then the crosse in Cheape For he speaketh not one worde of any of them al. And therefore in this place where you pretēd to shoote at the butte you shoote quite at rouers and cleane from the marke And yet if Iudas receaued Christ with the bread as you say and the deuil entred with the bread as S. Iohn saith then was the deuil and Christ in Iudas both at once And thē how they agreed I meruaile For S. Paul saith that Christ and Beliall cannot agree O what a wit had he neede to haue that will wittingly maintayn an open error directly against God his word and all holy auncient writers Now followeth the fourth comparison in my booke They say that Christ is really in the Sacramentall bread being reserued a wholl yeare or so long as the forme of bread remayneth But after the receauing thereof he flyeth vp say they from the Receauer vnto heauen as soone as the bread is chawed in the mouth or chaunged in the stomacke But we say that Christ remayneth in the man that worthely receaueth it so long as the man remayneth a member of Christ. Winchester This comparison is like the other before whereof the first parte is garnished and embossed with vntruth and the second parte is that the Church hath euer taught most truely and that all must beleeue and therefore that peece hath no vntruth in the matter but in the manner onely bring spoaken as though it differed from the continuall open teaching of the Church which is not so Wherefore in the manner of it in vtterance signifieth an vntruth which in the matter it selfe is neuerthelesse most true For vndoubtedly Christ remayneth in the man that worthely receaueth the Sacrament so long as the man remayneth a member of Christ. In this first parte there is a fault in the matter of the spéech for explication whereof I will examine it particularly This Author saith they say that Christ is really in the Sacramental bread being reserued an wholl yeare c. The Church geuing faith to Christes word when he said This is my body c. teacheth the body of Christ to be present in the Sacrament vnder the forme of bread vnto which wordes when doe put the word really it serueth onely to expresse that truth in open wordes which was before to be vnderstanded in sence For in Christ who was the body of all the shadowes and figures of the law and who did exhibite and gaue in his Sacramentes of the new law the thinges promysed in his Sacramentes of the olde law We must vnderstand his wordes in the institution of his Sacramentes without figure in the substance of the celestiall thing of them and therefore when be ordered his most precious body and bloud to be eaten and druken of vs vnder the formes of bread and wine we professe and beléeue that truely he gaue vs his most precious body in the Sacrament for a celestiall foode to comforte and strengthen vs in this miserable life And for certainty of the truth of his worke therein we professe he geueth vs his body really that is to say in déed his body the thing it selfe which is the heauenly parte of the Sacrament called Eucharistia hauing the visible forme of bread and wine and contayning inuisibly the very body and bloud of our Sauyour Christ which was not wonte to be reserued otherwise but to be ready for such as in daunger of death call for it and the same so long as it may be vsed is still the same Sacrament which onely tyme altereth not Whereof Cirill wrote to this sence many hundred yeares past and Hesychius also and what ought to be done when by negligence of the mynister it were reserued ouerlong Mary where it liketh the Author of these differences to say the church teacheth Christ to flée vp from the
condemnatiō only And the learned mē in Christes church say that the ignoraunce and want of obseruation of these thrée maner of eatinges causeth the errour in the vnderstanding of the scriptures and such fathers sayinges as haue written of the sacrament And when the Church speaketh of these thrée maner of eatinges what an impudency is it to say that the church teacheth good men only to eat the body of Christ and drink his bloud when they receaue the Sacrament being the truth otherwise yet a diuersity ther is of eatyng spiritually only eating spiritually and sacramētally because in that supper they receue his very flesh bloud in deed with the effects of al graces gifts to such as receue it spiritually worthely wher as out of the supper when we eat only spiritually by fayth God that worketh without his sacramentes as semeth to him doth releaue those that beleue and trust in him and suffereth them not to be destitute of that is necessary for them whereof we may not presume contemning the sacrament but ordenaryly seke God where he hath ordred himself to be sought and there to assure our selfe of his couenaunts and promyses which be most certaynly annexed to his sacramentes whereunto we ought to geue most certayne trust and confidence wherfore to teach the spirituall manducation to be equall with the spirituall manducation and sacramentall also that is to diminish the effect of the institutiō of the Sacrament which no Christen man ought to doe Caunterbury WHo is so ignoraunt that hath red any thing at all but he knoweth that distinction of thre eatinges But no man that is of learning and iudgement vnderstandeth the 3. diuerse eatings in such sort as you doe but after this manner That some eat only the sacrament of Christs body but not the very body it selfe some eat his body and not the Sacrament and some eat the Sacrament and body both togither The Sacramēt that is to say the bread is corporally eaten and chawed with the teth in the mouth The very body is eaten and chawed with faith in the spirite Ungodly men whē they receaue the Sacramēt they chaw in their mouthes like vnto Iudas the Sacramētal bread but they eat not the celestial bread which is Christ. Faithful Christian people such as be Christs true disciples continually frō tyme to tyme record in theyr myndes the beneficiall death of our Sauiour Christ chawing it by fayth in the cud of their spirit and digesting it in their harts feding and comforting themselues with that heauēly meat although they dayly receaue not the Sacrament thereof and so they eat Christs body spiritually although not the sacrament thereof But when such men for their more comfort and confirmation of eternall lyfe geuen vnto them by Christes death come vnto the Lords holy Table then as before ehey fed spiritually vpon Christ so now they feed corporally also vpon the sacramental bread By which sacramētal feeding in Christes promises their former spirituall feding is increased and they grow and wax continually more strōg in Christ vntill at the last they shall come to the full measure and perfection in Christ. This is the teaching of the true Catholick Church as it is taught by Gods word And therefore S. Paule speaking of them that vnworthely eat sayth that they eat the bread but not that they eat the body of Christ but their own damnation And where you set out with your accustomed rethorical colours a great impudencie in me that would report of the Papistes that good men eat the body of Christ and drink his bloud only when they receaue the Sacramēt seyng that I know that the Papistes make a distinction of 3. maner of eatinges of Christes body whereof one is without the sacrament I am not ignoraunt in deed that the Papists graunt a spiritual eating of Christs body without the sacrament but I mean of such an eating of his body as his presēce is in the Sacrament and as you say he is there eatē that is to say corporally Therefore to expresse my mind more plainely to you that list not vnderstand let this be the comparison They say that after such a sort as Christ is in the sacramēt and there eaten so good men eat his body and bloud only when they receaue the sacrament so doe they eat drink and feed vpon him continually so long as they be members of his body Now the Papists say that Christ is corporally present in the sacrament and is so eaten only when men receaue the sacrament But we say that the presence of Christ in his holy supper is a spirituall presence and as he is spiritually present so is he spiritually eaten of all faythfull christian men not only when they receaue the sacrament but continually so long as they be members spirituall of Christes misticall body And yet this is really also as you haue expounded the word that is to say in deed and effectually And as the holy ghost doth not only come to vs in Baptisme and Christ doth there eloth vs but they doe the same to vs continually so long as we dwell in Christ so likewise doth Christ feed vs so lōg as we dwell in him and he in vs and not only when we receaue the sacrament So that as touching Christ himself the presence is all one the clothing all one the feeding al one although the one for the more comfort and consolation haue the sacramēt added to it and the other be without the sacrament The rest that is here spoken is contentious wrangling to no purpose But now commeth in Smith with his 5. egs saying that I haue made hete 5. lyes in these comparisons The first lie is saith he that the Papists doe say that good men do eat and drink Christs body and bloud only when they receaue the sacrament which thing Smyth saith the Papists do not say but that they then onely do eat Christs body and drinke his bloud corporally which sufficeth for my purpose For I mean no other thing but that the Papistes teach such a corporall eating of Christes body as indureth not but vanisheth away and ceaseth at the furthest within few houres after the Sacramēt is receaued But for as much as Smith agreeth here with you the answere made before to you wil serue for him also And yet Smith here shall serue me in good stede against you who haue imputed vnto me so many impudent lyes made against the Papistes in the comparisons before rehearsed and Smith saith that this is the first lye which is in the 8. comparison And so shal Smith being mine aduersary and your frend be such a witnes for me as you cannot except against to prooue that those thinges which before you said were impudent lies be no lies at all For this is the first lye saith Smith and then my sayinges before must be all true and not impudent lies Now to the ninth
comparison They say that the body of Christ that is in the Sacramēt hath his own proper forme and quantitie We say that Christ is there Sacramentally and spiritually without forme or quantitye Winchester In this comparison is both sleight and crafte in the first parte of it which is that they say there is mention of the body of Christ which is proper of the humanity of Christ. In the second parte which is of we say there is no mention of Christes body but of Christ who in his diuine nature is vnderstanded present without a body Now the Sacrament is institute of Christes body and bloud and because the diuine nature in Christ continueth the vnity with the body of Christ we must néedes confesse where the body of Christ is there is wholl Christ God and man And when we speake of Christes body we must vnderstand a true body which hath both forme and quantitie and therefore such as confesse the true Catholick faith they affirme of Christes body all truth of a naturall body which although it hath all those truthes of forme and quantity yet they say Christes body is not present after the manner of quantitie nor in a visible forme as it was conuersant in this present life but that there is truely in the Sacramēt the very true body of Christ which good men beléeue vpon the credit of Christ that sayd so and knowledge therwith the maner of that presente to be an high mistery and the maner so spirituall as the carnall man cannot by discourse of reason reach it but in his discourse shalt as this author doth think it a vanitie and foolishnes which foolishnes neuerthelesse ouercommeth the wisedome of the world And thus haue I opened what they say on the Catholick part Now for the other parte whereof this author is and with his faith we say the words séeme to imploy that Christes humain body is not in the Sacrament in that it is sayd Christ to be there Sacramentally and spiritually without forme or quantitie which saying hath no Scripture for it For the Scripture speaketh of Christes body which was betraied for vs to be geuen vs to be eaten Where also Christes diuinity is present as accompanyng his humanity which humanitie is specially spoken of the presence of which humanitie when it is denyed then is there no text to proue the presence of Christes diuinity specially that is to say other wise then it is by his omnipotency presēt euery where And to conclude this peece of comparyson this maner of speach was neuer I thinke red that Christ is present in the Sacrament without forme or quantity And S. Paule speaketh of a forme in the Godhead Qui quam in forma Dei esset Who when he was in the forme of God So as if Christ be present in the sacrament without all forme then is he there neither as God nor man which is a straunger teaching then yet hath bene heare or red of but into such absurdities in déed do they fall who intreat irreuerently and vntruly this high mistery This is here worthy a spesyall note how by the maner of the spéech in the latter part of this difference the teaching semeth to be that Christ is spiritually present in the Sacrament because of the word there which thou reader mayest compare how it agréeth with the rest of this authors doctrine Let vs go to the next Caunterbury SUch is the nature of many that they can finde many knots in a playne rush and doubtes where no doubtes ought to bee found So fynd you sleight and craft where I ment all thinges symply and playnly And to auoyd such sleight and craft as you gather of my words I shall expresse thē plainly thus The Papistes say that the body of Christ that is in the Sacramēt hath his own proper forme and quantity We say that the body of Christ hath not his proper forme and quantity neither in the sacrament nor in them that receaue the Sacrament but is in the sacrament sacramentally and in the worthy receauers spiritually without the proper forme quantity of his body This was my meaning at the first and no mā that had loked of this place indifferently would haue taken the second part of this comparison to be vnderstanded of Christs diuine nature for the bread and wyne be sacraments of his body and bloud and not of his diuinitie as Theodoretus sayth and therfore his diuine nature is not sacramentally in the sacramēt but his humayne nature onely And what maner of spech had this ben to say of Christes diuine nature that it is in the sacrament without quantity which hath in it no manner of quantitie where so euer it be And where I set foorth these comparysons to shew wherein we vary from the Papists what variance had ben in this comparison if I had vnderstanded the first part of Christs humanitie and the second of his diuinitie The reader by this one place among many other may easyly discerne how captious you be to reprehend what so euer I say and to peruert euery thing into a wrong sense So that in respect of you Smith is a very indifferent taker of my wordes although in deed he farre passeth the bondes of honesty But to come directly to the matter if it be true that you say that in the sacrament Christes body hath all the formes and quantities of a naturall body why say you then that his body is not there present after the manner of quantitie Declare what difference is betweene forme and quantitie the manner of quantitie And if Christes body in the Sacrament haue the same quantitie that is to say the same length breadth and thicknes and the same forme that is to say the same due order and proportion of the mēbers and partes of his body that he had when he was crucified and hath now in heauen as he hath by your saying here in this place then I pray you declare further how the length bredth and thicknes of a man should be conteined in quantitie within the compasse of a peece of bread no lōger nor broader then one or two inches nor much thicker then one leafe of paper How an inch may be as long as an elle and an elle as short as an inch How length and roundnes shall agree in one proportion and a thicke and thin thing be both of one thicknes which you must warrant to be brought to passe if the forme and quantitie of Christes body be conteined vnder the forme and quantity of such bread and wine as we now vse But as Smyth in the last comparison did me good seruice against you so shall you in this comparison do me good seruice against him For among the fiue lyes wherewith he chargeth me in these comparisons he accompteth this for one that I report of the Papists that Christes body in the sacrament hath his proper forme and quantity which you say
the olde heresy denying the true taking of the flesh of Christ in the virgins wombe at the same tyme to reuiue When the true deliuerance of Christs flesh in the holy supper to be of vs eaten is also denied For as it is a meere trueth without figure and yet an high mistery Gods worke in the incarnation of Christ wherein our flesh was of Christ truely taken of the virgins substance So is it a meere trueth without figure in the substance of the celestiall thing yet an high mistery and Gods worke in the geuing of the same true flesh truely to be in the supper eaten When I exclude figure in the sacrament I mene not of the visible part which is called a figure of the celestial inuisible part which is truely there without figure so as by that figure is not impayred the truth of that presence which I ad to auoyd cauilation And make an end of this comparison this I say that this article declareth wantonnes to make a difference in words where none is in the sence rightly taken with a noueltie of spéech not necessary to be vttered now Caunterbury NOte well here reader how the cuttill commeth in with his darke coulours Where I speake of the substaunce of the thing that is eaten you turne it to the manner and circumstaunces thereof to blynde the simple reader and that you may make therof a riddle of yea and nay as you be wont to make blacke white and white blacke or one thing yea and nay black and white at your pleasure But to put away your darke coulours and to make the matter playne this I say that the fathers and prophets did eat Christes body and drinke his bloud in promise of redemptiō to be wrought and we eat and drink the same flesh and bloud in confirmation of our faith in the redemption all ready wrought But as the fathers did eat and drinke so did also the Apostles at Christ his supper in promise of redemtion to be wrought not in confirmation of redēption already wrought So that if wrought and to be wrought make the diuersitie of presence and not presence then the Apostles did not eat and drinke the flesh and bloud of Christ really present because the redemption was not then already wrought but promised the next day to be wrought And although before the crucifiyng of his flesh and effusion of his bloud our redemption was not actually wrought by Christ yet was he spiritually and sacramentally present and spiritually and sacramentally eaten and drunken not onely of the Apostles at his last supper before hee suffered his passion but also of the holy Patriarkes and fathers before his incarnation aswell as he is now of vs after his ascention And although in the manner of signifiyng there be great difference between their sacraments and ours yet as S. Augustine saith both we and they receaue one thing in the diuersitie of Sacraments And our Sacraments contain presently the very things signified no more then theirs did For in their sacraments they were by Christ presently regenerated and fed as we be in ours although their sacraments were figures of the death of Christ to com and ours be figurs of his death now past And as it is al one Christ that was to be borne and to dye for vs and afterward was borne in deede and dyed in deede whose byrth and death be now passed so was the same Christ and the same flesh and bloud eaten and drunken of the faithfull fathers before he was borne or dead and of his Apostles after he was born and before he was dead and of faithfull christen people is now dayly eaten and drunken after that both his natiuity and death be passed And al is but one Christ one flesh one bloud as concerning the sustance yet that which to the fathers was to come is to vs passed And neuerthelesse the eating drinking is all one for neither the fathers did nor we do eat carnally and corporally with our mouthes but both the fathers did and we do eat spiritually by true and liuely faith The body of Christ was and is all one to the fathers and to vs but corporally and locally he was yet borne vnto them from vs he is gone and ascended vp into heauē So that to neither he was nor is carnally substantially and corporally present but to them he was to vs he is spiritually present and sacramentally also and of both sacramētally spiritually and effectually eaten and drunken to eternall saluation euerlasting lyfe And this is plainly enough declared in the Scripture to them that haue willing mindes to vnderstand the truth For it is written in the old Testament Eccle. 24. in the person of Christ thus They that eat me shall yet hunger and they that drinke me shall yet be thirsty And S. Paule writeth to the Corinthians saying Our fathers did all eat the same spirituall meat and did all drink the same spirituall drinke and they drank of that spirituall rock that followed them which rock was Christ. These words S. Augustine expounding sayth What is to eat the same meat but that they did eate the same which wee doe Who so euer in Manna vnderstood Christ did eat the same spirituall meat that we do that is to say that meat which was receaued with fayth and not with bodyes Therefore to them that vnderstood and beleued it was the same meat and the same drinke So that to such as vnderstoode not the meate was onely Manna and the drinke onely water but to such as vnderstood it was the same that is now For thē was Christ to come who is now come To come and is come be diuers wordes but it is the same Christ. These be S. Augustines sayings And because you say that it is more agreable to the scripture to say that the fathers before Christs natiuity did not eat the body and drink the bloud of Christ I pray you shew me one scripture that so saith And shew me also one approued author that disalowed S. Augustines mind by me here alleaged because you say that all doe not agree to his vnderstanding And in the 77. Psalme S. Augustine saith also The stone was Christ. Therefore the same was the meat drinke of the fathers in the mistery wich is ours but in significatiō the same not in outward forme For it is one Christ him selfe that to them was figured in the stone and to vs manyfestly appeared in flesh And saint Augustine sayth playnely that both Manna and our Sacrament signifieth Christ and that although the Sacraments were dyuers yet in the thing by them ment and vnderstand they were both like And so after the mynd of S. Augustine it is cleare that the same thinges were geuen to the faithfull receiuers in the Sacraments of the old Testament that be geuen in the new the same to them was circumcisiō that to vs is baptisme and to
manner which we say not but in a spirituall maner and therefore not locally nor by maner of quantitie but in such maner as God onely knoweth yet dooth vs to vnderstand by fayth the truth of the very presence exceding our capacitie to comprehend the maner how This is the very true teaching to affirme the truth of the presence of Christes very body in the Sacrament euen of the same body that suffred in playne simple euident termes and wordes such as can not by cauilation be mistaken and construed so néere as possibly mans infirmitie permitteth and suffreth Now let vs consider in what sort the author and hys company which he calleth we say do vnderstand the Sacrament who go about to expresse the same by a similitude of the creature of the sonne which sonne this author sayth is euer corporally in heauen and no where els and yet by operation and vertue is here in earth so Christ is corporally in heauen c. In this matter of similitudes it is to be taken for a truth vndoubted that there is no creature by similitude ne any language of man able to expresse God and hys mysteryes For and thinges that be sene or herd might throughly expresse Gods inuisible misteryes the nature wherof is that they can not throughly be expressed they were no misteries and yet it is true that of thinges visible wherein God worketh wonderfully there may be great resemblances some shadowes and as it were inductions to make a man astonied in consideration of thinges inuisible when he séeth thinges visible so wonderfully wrought and to haue so maruaylous effectes And diuers good catholicke deuoute men haue by diuers naturall things gone about to open vnto vs the mistery of the trinitie partely by the sonne as the author doth in the Sacrament partely by fyre partely by the soule of man by the Musitians science the arte the touch with the players fingers and the sound of the cord wherein wil hath all trauailed the matter yet remayneth darke ne can not be throughly set forth by any similitude But to the purpose of this similitude of the sonne whiche sonne this author sayth is onely corporally in heauen and no where els and in the earth the operatiō and vertue of the sonne So as by this authors supposall the substance of the sonne should not be in earth but onely by operation and vertue wherein if this author erreth he doth the reader to vnderstande that if he erre in consideration of naturall thinges it is no maruayle though he erre in heauenly thinges For because I will not of my selfe begin the contention with this author of the naturall worke of the Sonne I will bryng forth the saying of Martin Bucer now resident at Cambridge who vehemently and for so much truly affirmeth the trew reall presence of Christes body in the Sacrament For he sayth Christ sayd not This is my spirite this is my vertue but This is my body Wherefore he sayth we must beleue Christes body to be there the same that did hang vpon the crosse our Lord hym selfe whiche in some parte to declare he vseth the similitude of the sonne for hys purpose to proue Christes body present really and substancially in the sacramēt where this author vseth the same similitude to proue the body of Christ really absent I will wryte in here as Bucer speaketh it in Latin expounding the xrvi chapiter of Saynte Mathew and then I will put the same in english Bucers wordes bée these Vt Sol vere vno in loco coeli visibilis circumscriptus est radys tamen suis praesens verè substantialiter exhibetur vbilibet orbis Ita Dominus etiam si circumscribatur vno loco coeli arcani diuini id est gloriae patris verbo tamen suo sacris symbolis verè totus ipse deus homo praesens exhibetur in sacra coena eoque substantialiter quam praesentiam non minus certo agnoscit mens credens verbis his Domini simbolis quam oculi vident habent Solem praesentem demonstratum exhibitum sua corporali luce Res ista arcana est noui Testamenti res sidei non sunt igitur huc admittende cogitationes de presentatione corporis quae constar ratione huius vitae etiamnum patibilis fluxae Verbo Domini simpliciter inhaerendum est debet fides sensuum de fectui praebere supplimentum Which is thus much in English As the sonne is truely placed determinately in one place of the visible heauē and yet is truely and substantially present by meanes of hys beames els where in the world abroad So our Lord although he be comprehended in one place of the secrete and diuine heauen that is to say the glory of hys father yet neuerthelesse by hys word and holy tokens he is exhibite present truly whole God and man and therfore in substance in his holy supper which presence mans mind geuing credite to his words and tokens with no lesse certaintie acknowlegeth then our eyes see and haue the sonne presente exhibited and shewed with his corporally lyght This is a deep secrete matter and of the new testament and a matter of fayth and therfore herein thoughtes be not to be receiued of such a presentation of the body as consisteth in the manner of thys life transitorie and subiect to suffer We must simply cleaue to the word of Christ and fayth must releue the default of our sences Thus hath Bucer expressed his minde whereunto because the similitude of the sonne doth not aunswere in all partes he noteth wisely in th ende howe this is a matter of faith and therefore vpon the foundation of faith we must speake of it thereby to supply where our sences fayle For the presence of Christ and whole Christe God and man is true although we can not thinke of the maner how The chiefe cause why I bring in Bucer is this to shew how in hys iudgement we haue not onely in earth the operation and vertue of the sonne but also the substance of the sonne by incane of the sonne beames which be of the same substaunce with the sonne and can not be deuided in substance from it and therfore we haue in earth the substantiall presence of the sonne not onely the operation and vertue And howsoeuer the sonne aboue in the distaunce appereth vnto vs of an other sort yet the beames that touch the earth be of the same substaunce with it as clerkes say or at the lest as Bucer sayth whom I neuer harde accompted Papiste and yet for the reall and substantiall presence of Christes very body in the Sacrament wryteth pithely and playnly and here encountreth this auctor with his similitude of the sonne directly whereby may appeare howe muche soeuer Bucer is estemed otherwise he is not with this auctor regarded in the truth of the sacrament which is one of the high misteries in our religiō And this may
his owne glose to exclude the truth of the eating of Christes flesh in his supper And yet for a shifte if a man would ioyne issue with him putteth to his speach the wordes grossely and carnally which wordes in such a rude vnderstanding be termes méeter to expresse how dogges deuoure paunches then to be inculked in speaking of this high mystery Wherein I will make the issue with this author that no catholike teaching is so framed with such termes as though we should eate Christs most precious body grossely carnally ioyning those wordes so together For els carnally alone may haue a good signification as Hillary vseth it but contrariwise speaking in the Catholique teaching of the maner of Christes presence they call it a spirituall maner of presence and yet there is present by gods power the very true naturall body and bloud of Christ whole God man without leauing his place in heauen and in the holy supper men vse their mouthes and téeth following Christes commaundement in the receiuing of that holy Sacrament being in fayth sufficiently instruct that they can not ne do not teare consume or violate that most precious body and bloud but vnworthely receiuing it are cause of their owne iudgement and condemnation Caunterbury EAting and drinking with the mouth being so playne a matter that yong babes learne it and know it before they cā speake yet the Cut till here with his blacke colours and darke speaches goeth about so to couer and hyde the matter that neither yong nor olde learned nor vnlearned should vnderstand what he meaneth But for all his masking who is so ignoraunt but he knoweth that eating in the propper and vsuall signification is to bite and chaw in sunder with the teeth And who knoweth not also that Christ is not so eaten Who can then be ignorant that here you speake a manifest vntruth when you say that Christes body to be eaten is of it selfe a propper speach and not figuratiue Which is by and by confessed by your selfe when you say that we do not eate that heauēnly meat as we do other carnall meates which is by chawing and deuiding with the mouth and teeth And yet we receaue with the mouth that is ordeined to be receiued with the mouth that is to say the Sacramentall bread and wine esteming them neuerthelesse vnto vs when we duly receiue them according vnto Christes wordes and ordinaunce But where you say that of the substaunce of Christes body no good man iudgeth carnally ne discusseth the vnfaythful question how you charge your selfe very sore in so saying and seeme to make demonstration vpon your selfe of whom may be sayd Ex ore tuo te iudico For you both iudge carnally in affirming a carnall presence and a carnall eating and also you discusse this question how when you say that Christes body is in the sacrament really substauncially corporally carnally sensible and naturally as he was born of the virgin Mary and suffered on the cros And as concerning these wordes of Christ The wordes which I doe speake be Spirite and lyfe I haue not wrested them with myne owne glose as you misreport but I haue cited for me the interpretation of the catholik doctors and holy fathers of the church as I refer to the iudgement of the reader But you teach such a carnall grosse eating and drinking of Christes flesh bloud as is more meet to expresse how dogges deuoure paunches then to sette forth the high mistery of Christes holy supper For you say that Christes body is present really substauncially corporally and carnally and so is eaten and that we eate Christes body as eating is taken in common speach but in common speach it is taken for chawing and gnawing as doges do paunches wherfore of your saying it followeth that we do so eate Christes body as dogges eate paunches which all christian eares abhore for to heare But why should I ioyne with you here an issue in that mater which I neuer spake For I neuer read nor hard no man that sayd sauing you alone that we do eate Christ grossely or carnally or as eating is taken in common speach without any figure but all that euer I haue hard or read say quite cleane contrary But you who affirme that we eate Christ carnally and as eating is taken in common speach which is carnally grossely to chaw with the teeth must nedes consequently graunt that we eat him grossely and carnally as dogges eate paunches And this is a strange thing to heare that where before you sayd that Christ is present but after a spirituall maner now you say that he is eaten carnally And where you say that in the holy Supper men vse their mouth and teeth truth it is that they so do but to chawe the Sacramēt not the body of Christ. And if they doo not teare that most precious body and bloud why say you then that they eate the body of Christ as eatyng is taken in cōmon speech And wherefore doth that false Papisticall fayth of Pope Nicolas which you wrongfully call Catholike teach that Christs body is torne with the teeth of the faythfull De consecr dist 2. Ego Now folowe the particular authorities which I haue alleaged for the interpretation of Christes wordes which if you had well considered you would not haue sayd as you doe that I wrasted Christes wordes with mine owne glose For I beginne with Origene saying And Origene declaring the sayd eating of Christes flesh and drinking of his bloud not to be vnderstand as the wordes doe sound but figuratiuely writeth thus vpon these wordes of Christ Except you eate my flesh and drinke my bloud you shall not haue lyfe in you Consider sayth Origen that these thinges written in Godes bookes are figures and therefore examine and vnderstand them as spirituall and not as carnall men For if you vnderstand them as carnall men they hurt you and feede you not For euen in the Gospels is there foūd letter that killeth And not onely in the old Testament but also in the new is there found letter that slayeth hym that dooth not spiritually vnderstand that which is spoken For if thou follow the letter or wordes of this that Christ sayd Except you eat my flesh and drink my bloud this letter killeth Who can more playnely expresse in any wordes that the eating drinking of Christes flesh and bloud are not to be taken in common signification as the wordes pretend and sound then Origene dooth in this place Winchester Now I will touch shortly what may be sayd to the particular authorities brought in by this author Origen is noted among other writers of the church to draw the text to all egories who doth not therby meane to destroy the truth of the letter and therefore whē he speaketh of a figure sayth not there is onely a figure which exclusiue only being away as it is not found by any author Catholick taught that the spéech
his body which bread was in the mouth of the prophet a figure of his body Wherfore it followeth by Tertullians confession whē Christ made the bread his body that Christ ended the figure and made it the trueth making now his body that was before the figure of his body For if Christ did no more but make it a figure still then did he not make it his body as Tertullian himselfe saith he did And Tertullian therfore being red thus as apeareth to me most probable that that is to say in Tertullian should be onely referred to the explicacion of the first this as when Tertullian had alleged Christes wordes saying this is my body and putteth to of his owne that is to say the figure of my body these wordes that is to say should serue to declare the demonstration this in this wise that is to say this which the Prophet called the figure of the body is now my body And so Tertulian sayd before the Chryst had made bread his body which bread was a figure of his body with the Prophet and now endeth in the very trueth being made his body by conuersion as Cyprian sheweth of the nature of bread into his body Tertullian reasoned against the Marcionistes and because a figure in the prophet signifieth a certayn vnfayned truth of that is signified seing Christes body was figured by bread in the prophet Hieremy it appereth Christ had a true body And that the bread was of Christ aproued for a figure he made now his very body And this may be sayd euidently to Tertullian who reasoning agaynst heretikes vseth the commoditie of arguing and giueth no doctrine of the sacrament to further this authors purpose And what aduantage should the heretiques haue of Tertulian if he should meane that these words This is my body had onely this sence this is the figure of my body hauing himselfe sayd before that Christ made bread his body If so playne speach to make bread his body conteyneth no more certayntie in vnderstanding but the figure of a body Why should not they say that a body in Christ should euer be spoken of a body in a figure and so no certayntie of any trew body in Christ by Tertullianes wordes This place of Tertullian is no secret poynt of learning and hath bene of Decolampadius and other alleadged and by ether Catholique men aunswered vnto it wherof this author may not think now as vpon a wrangling argument to satisfie a coniecture deuised therby to confirme a new teaching Finally Tertullian termeth it not an onely figure which this author must proue or els he doth nothing Caunterbury ON what a wrangling and wrasting is here made What crookes be cast what leaping about is here to auoyde a foyle And yet I refer to any indifferent man that shall reade the place of Tertullain to iudge whether you haue truely expounded him or in the wrastling with him be quite ouerthrowen and haue a flat fall vpon your backe For Tertullian sayth not that the bread was a figure of Christs body only in the prophet as you expound Tertullian but sayth that bred and wine were figures in the old testament and so taken in the prophets and now be figures agayne in the new testament so vsed of Christ himself in his last supper And where Tertullian sayth that Christ made bread his body he expoundeth him self how Christ made bread his body adding by and by these wordes That is to say a figure of his body But if thou caust forbear good reader when thou readest the fond handling of Tertullian by this ignorant and subtill lawyer I pray thee laugh not for it is no matter to be laughed at but to be sorowed that the most auncient authors of Christes church should thus be eluded in so weighty causes O Lord what shall these men answer to thee at the last day whan no cauilations shall haue place These be Tertullians words Iesus taking bread and distributing it amōg his disciples made it his body saying This is my body that is to say a figure of my body Heare Tertullian expoundeth not the saying of the Prophet but the saying of Christ this is my body And where Tertullian hath but once the word This you say the first this And so you make a wise speach to say the first where is but one And Tertullian speaketh of this in Christes wordes when he sayd This is my body and you referre them to the Prophets wordes which be not there but the spoken of long after And if you had not forgotten your gramer and all kind of speach or els hurled away altogether purposely to serue your owne wilfull deuise you would haue referred the demonstration of his antecedent before and not to a thing that in order commeth long after And bread in the prophet was but a figuratiue speach but in Christes wordes was not onely a figuratiue speach but also a figuratiue thing that is to say very materiall bread which by a figuratiue speach Christ ordeyned to be a figure and a sacrament of his body For as the Prophet by this word bread figured Christes body so did Christ himsef institute very materiall bread to be a figure of his body in the sacrament But you referre this to the bread in the Prophet which Christ spake as Tertullian sayth of the bread in the gospell And Christes wordes must needes be vnderstanded of the bread which he gaue to his Apostles in the time of the gospell after he had ended the supper of the law And if Christ made the bread in the prophet his very body which was no materiall bread but this word bread then did Christ make this word bread his body and conuerted this word bread in to the substaunce of his body This is the conclusion of your subtell sophistication of Tertullians wordes Now as concerning Saynt Ciprian whome you here alledge he spake of a sacramentall and not of a corporall and carnall conuersion as shall be playnly declared when I come to the place of Ciprian and partely I haue declared alredy in myne other booke And Tertullian proued not in that place the veritie of Christes body by the figure of the Prophet but by the figure which Christ ordeyned of his body in his last supper For he went not about to proue that Christ should haue a body but that he had then a true body because he ordeined a figure therof which could haue had no figure as Tertullian sayth if it had ben but a phantasticall body and no true body in deed Wherfore this which you say in aunswering to the playn wordes of Tertullian may be sayd of them that care not what they say but it can not be sayd euidently that is spoken so sophistically But if so playne speech of Tertullian say you that Christ made bread his body conteyne no more certayntie in vnderstanding but the figure of a body why should not the body of Christ euer be taken for a figure and
eares be vij yeares The scripture sayth not signifieth vij yeares And vij kine be seuen yeares and many other like And so sayd saynt Paule that the stone was Christ and not that it signified Christ but euen as it had ben hee indede which neuerthelesse was not Christ by substaunce but by signification Euen so sayth saynt Augustine bicause the bloud signifieth and representeth the soule therfore in a sacrament or signification it is called the soule And contra Adamantium he writeth much like saying In such wise is bloud the soule as the stone was Christ and yet the Apostle sayth not that the stone signified Christ but sayth it was Christ. And this sentence Bloud is the soule may be vnderstand to be spoken in a signe or figure for Christ did not stick to say this is my body when he gaue the signe of his body Here S Augustine rehearsing diuers sentences which were spoken figuratiuely that is to say when one thing was called by the name of an other and yet was not the other in substance but in signification As the bloud is the soule vij kyne be vij yeares vij eares be vij yeares the stone was Christ. Among such maner of speaches he reherseth those wordes which Christ spake at his last supper this is my body Which declareth playnly Saynt Augustines mind that Christ spake those wordes figuratiuely not meaning that the bread was his body by substance but by signification And therfore S. Augustine sayth contra Maximinum that in the sacramentes we must not consider what they be but what they signifie for they be signes of thinges being one thing and signifiyng another Which he doeth shew specially of this sacrament saying the heauenly bread which is Christes flesh by some maner of speach is called Christes body when in very deede it is the sacrament of his body And that offering of the flesh which is done by the priestes handes is called Christes passion death and crucifiyng not in very dede but in a misticall signification Winchester As for saynt Agustine ad Bonifacium the author shall perceiue his fault at Martyne Bucers hand who in his epistle dedicatory of his enarations of the gospels reherseth his mind of Saynt Augustine in this wise Est scribit diuus Augustinus secundum quendam modum sacramentum corporis Christi Corpus Christi sacramentum sanguinis Christi sanguis Christi At secundum quem modum Vt significet tantum corpus sanguinem Domini absenta Absit Honorari enim percipi in simbolis visibilibus corpus sanguinem Domini idem passim scribit These wordes of Bucer may be thus englished Saynt Augustine writeth the sacrament of the body of Christ is after a certayn maner the body of christ the sacramēt of the bloud of christ the bloud of christ but after what maner that it should signifie onely the body and bloud absent Absit In no wise for the same Saynt Augustine writeth in many places the body and bloud of Christ to be honored and to be receiued in those visible tokens Thus sayth Bucer who vnderstandeth not saynt Augustine to say the sacrament of Christes body to be Christes body after a certayn maner of speach as this author doth nor S. Augustine hath no such wordes but onely secundum quendam modum after a certayne maner wherunto to put of speach is an addition more then truth required of necessitie In these wordes of Bucer may apeare his whole indgement concerning S. Augustine who affirmeth the very true presence of the thing signified in the sacrament which truth established in the matter the calling it a signe or a token a figure a similitude or a shewing maketh no matter when we vnderstand the thing really present that is signified Which and it were not in dede in the Sacrament why should it after Bucers true vnderstanding of S. Augustine be honored there Arguing vpon mens speaches may be without end the authors vpon diuers repsectes speake of one thing diuersly Therfore we should resort to the pith and knot of the matter and see what they say in expounding the speciall place without contention and not what they vtter in the heat of their disputation ne to search their dark and ambiguous places wherwith to confound that they speake openly and playnly Canterbury WHat nede you to bring Martine Bucer to make me answer if you could answer your selfe but bicause you be ashamed of the matter you would thrust Martine Bucer in your place to receaue rebuke for you But in this place he easeth you nothing at all for he sayth no more but that the body and bloud of Christ be exhibited vnto the worthy receiuers of the sacrament which is true but yet spiritually not corporally And I neuer sayd that Christ is vtterly absent but I euer affirmed that he is truly and spiritually present and truly and spiritually exhibited vnto the godly receiuours but corporally is he neither in the receiuors nor in or vnder the fourmes of bread or wine as you do teach clearly with out the consent of master Bucer who writeth no such thing And where I alleadge of Saynt Augustine that the sacrament of Christes body is called Christes body after a certayn maner of speach and you deny that saynt Augustine ment of a certayne maner of speach but sayth onely after a certayne maner Read the place of saynt Augustin who will and he shall find that he speaketh of the maner of speach and that of such a maner of speach as calleth one thing by the name of an other where it is not the very thing in dede For of the maner of speach is all the processe there as apeareth by these his wordes a day or two before good Friday we vse in common speach to say to morowe or this day two dayes Christ suffered c. Likewise vppon Easter day we say this day Christ rose And why do no men reproue vs as lyars whan we speake in this sort And we call those dayes so by a similitude c. And so it is called that day which is not that day in dede And sacramentes commonly haue the name of the thinges wherof they be sacramentes Therfore as after a certayne manner the sacrament of Christes body is Christes body so likewise the sacramēt of fayth is fayth And likewise sayth Saynt Paule that in baptisme we be buried he sayth not that we signifie buriall but he sayth playnly that we be buried So that the sacrament of so great a thing is called by the name of the thing All these be S. Augustines wordes shewing how in the common vse of speach one thing may haue the name of another Wherfore when Doctor Gardiner sayth that S. Augustine spake not of that maner of speach thou mayst beleue him hereafter as thou shalt see cause but if thou trust his wordes to much thou shalt soone be deceiued As for the reall presence of Christ
in the sacrament I graunt that he is really present after such sort as you expound really in this place that is to say indede and yet but spiritually For you say your selfe that he is but after a spirituall maner there and so is he spiritually honored as S Augustine sayth But as concerning heat of disputation marke well the wordes of S. Augustine good reader cited in my booke and thou shalt see clerely that all this multiplication of wordes is rather a iugling then a direct answer For saynt Augustine writeth not in heate of disputation but temperatly and grauely to a learned Bishop his deare frend who demanded a question of him And if Saynt Augustine had aunswered in heate of disputation or for any other respect otherwise then the truth he had not done the part of a friend nor of a learned and godly Bishop And who so euer iudgeth so of Saynt Augustine hath small estimation of him and sheweth him selfe to haue litle knowledge of Saynt Augustine But in this your answer to saynt Augustine you vtter where you learned a good part of your diuinitie that is of Albertus Pighius who is the father of this shift and with this fleight eludeth Saynt Augustin when he could no otherwise answer As you do now shake of the same Saynt Augustine resembling as it were in that poynt the liuely countenauÌ„ce of your father Pighius Next in my booke foloweth Theodoret And to this purpose it is both pleasaunt comfortable and profitable to read Theodoretus in his Dialogs where he disputeth and sheweth at length how the names of things be chaunged in scripture and yet thinges remayne still And for example he proueth that the flesh of Christ is in the scripture sometime called a vayle or coueryng sometime a cloth sometyme a vestment and sometyme a stole the bloud of the grape is called Christes bloud and the names of bread and wine and of his flesh and bloud Christ doth so chaunge that sometyme he calleth his body corne or bread and sometime contrary he calleth bread his body And likewise his bloud sometime he calleth wine and sometime contrary he calleth wine his bloud For the more playne vnderstanding wherof it shall not be amisse to recite his owne sayings in his foresayd dialogs touching this matter of the holy sacrament of Christes flesh and bloud The speakers in these dialogs be Orthodoxus the right beleuer and Eranistes his companyon but not vnderstanding the right fayth Orthodoxus saith to his companion Doost thou not know that god caleth bread his flesh Eran. I know that Orth. And in an other place he calleth his body corne Eran. I know that also for I haue heard him say The houre is come that the sonne of man shal be glorified c. Except the grayne of come that falleth in the ground dye it remayneth sole but if it dye then it bringeth forth much fruite Orth. When he gaue the mysteries of sacraments he called bread his body and that which was mixt in the cup he called bloud Eran. So he called them Orth. But that also which was his naturall body may well be called his body and his very bloud also may be called his bloud Eran. It is playne Orth. But our sauiour without doubt chaunged the names and gaue to the body the name of the signe or token and to the token he gaue the name of the body And so wheÌ„ he called himself a vyne he called bloud that which was the token of bloud Eran. Surely thou hast spokeÌ„ the truth But I would know the cause wherfore the names were changed Orth. The cause is manifest to them that be expert in true religion For he would that they which be partakers of the godly sacraments should not set their mindes vpon the nature of the things which they see but by the changing of the names should beleue the things which be wrought in them by grace For he that called that which is his naturall body corne and bred and also called himselfe a vyne he did honor the visible tokeÌ„s and signes with the names of his body and bloud not changing the nature but adding grace to nature Eran. Sacraments be spoken of sacramentally and also by them be manifestly declared things which all men know not Ortho. Seyng then that it is certayne that the Patriarch called the lords body a vestiment and apparell and that now we be entred to speak of godly sacraments tell me truely of what thing thinkest thou this holy meat to be a tokeÌ„ and figure of Christes diuinity or of his body and bloud Eran. It is cleare that it is the figure of those thinges whereof it beareth the name Orth. Meanest thou of his body and bloud Eran. Euen so I meane Orth. Thou hast spoken as one that loueth the truth for the Lord when he tooke the token or signe he sayd not This is my diuinity but This is my body this is my bloud And in an other place The bread which I wil giue is my flesh whiche I will geue for the life of the world Eran. These things be true for they be Gods words All these writeth Theodoretus in hi first Dialogue ' And in the second he writeth the same in effect yet in some thing more playnly agaynst such heretiques as affirmed that after Christes resurrection ascention his humanity was changed from the very nature of man turned into his diuinity Agaynst whom thus he writeth Orth. Corruption healeth sicknes and death be accedents for they goe come Era. It is meet they be so called Orth. Mens bodies after their resurrection be delyuered from corruption death mortalitie and yet they lose not theyr proper nature Eran. Truth it is ' Orth. The body of Christ therfore did rise quite cleane from all corruption death and is impassible immortall glorified with the glory of God is honored of the powers of heauen and it is a body hath the same bignes that it had before Era. Thy saying seeme true according to reason but after he was ascended vp into heauen I thinke thou wilt not say that his body was not tourned into the nature of his godhead Orth. I would not so say for the persuation of mans reason nor I am not so arrogant and presumptious to affirme any thing which scripture passeth ouer in silence But I haue heard S. Paule cry that God hath ordayned a day when he will iudge all the world in iustice by that man which he appoynted before performing his promise to all men and raysing him from death I haue learned also of the holy angels that he will come aâ—ter that fashion as his disciples saw him goe to heauen But they saw a nature of a certayn bignesse not a nature which had no bignes I heard furthermore the lord say You shall see the sonne of man come in the cloudes of heauen And
I know that euery thing that men see hath a certayne bignes For that nature that hath no bignes can not be seene Moreouer to sit in the throne of glory and to sette the Lambes vpon his right hand and the goates vpon his left hand signifieth a thing that hath quantitie and bygnes Hitherto haue I rehersed Theodoretus wordes and shortly after Eranistes sayth Eran. We must tourne euery stone as the prouerb sayth to seeke out the truth but specially when godly matters be propounded Orth. Tell me than the sacramentall signes which be offered to God by his priestes wherof be they signes sayst thou Eran. Of the Lordes body and bloud Orth. Of a very body or not of a very body Eran. Of a very body Orth. Very well for an image must be made after a true paterne for Paynters follow nature and paynt the images of such thinges as we see with our eyes Eran. Truth it is Orth. If therfore the godly sacramentes represent a true body than is the Lordes body yet still a body not conuerted into the nature of his Godhead but replenished with Goddes glory Eran. It cometh in good tyme that thou makest mention of Gods sacramentes for by the same I shall proue that Christes body is tourned into an other nature Answer therfore vnto my questions Orth. I shall answer Eran. What callest thou that which is offered before the inuocation of the priest Orth. We must not speake playnly for it is like that some be present which haue not professed Christ. Eran. Answer couertly Orth. It is a nourishment made of sedes that be like Eran. Than how call we the other signe Orth. It is also a common name that signifieth a kind of drinke Eran. But how doest thou call them after the sanctification Orth. The body of Christ and the bloud of Christ. Eran. And doest thou beleue that thou art made partaker of Christes body and bloud Orth. I beleue so Eran. Therfore as the tokens of Gods body and bloud be other thinges before the priestes inuocation but after the inuocation they be chaunged and be other things so also the body of Christ after his assumption is chaunged into his deuine substaunce Ortho. Thou art taken with thine owne nette For the sacramentall signes go not from their owne nature after the sanctification but continue in their former substance forme and figure and may be seene and touched as well as before yet in our mindes we do consider what they be made and do repute and esteme them and haue them in reuerence according to the same thinges that they be taken for Therfore cōpare their images to the paterne and thou shalt see them like For figure must be like to the thing it selfe For Christes body hath his former fashion figure and bignesse and to speake at one word the same substance of his body but after his resurrection it was made immortall and of such power that no corruption nor death could come vnto it and it was exalted vnto that dignity that it was sette at the right hand of the father and honoured of all creatures as the body of him that is the Lord of nature Eran. But the sacramentall token chaungeth his former name for it is no more called as it was before but is called Christes body Therfore must his body after his ascention be called God and not a body Orth. Thou semest to me ignorant for it is not called his body onely but also the bread of lyfe as the Lord called it So the body of Christ we call a godly body a body that giueth life Gods body the Lordes body our masters body name ning that it is not a common body as other mennes bodies be but that it is the body of our Lord Iesu Christ both God and man This haue I rehersed of the great clerke and holy byshop Theodoretus whom some of the Papists perceiuing to make so playnly agaynst them haue defamed saying that he was infected with the errour of Nestorius Here the Papistes shewe their old accustomed nature and condition which is euen in a manifest matter rather to lie without shame than to giue place vnto the truth and confesse their owne errour And although his aduersaries falsely bruted such a fame agaynst him whan he was yet a liue neuerthelesse he was purged therof by the whole Councell of Calcedon about a leuen hundred yeares agoe And furthermore in his booke which he wrote agaynst heresies he specially condemneth Nestorius by name And also all his iij. bookes of his dialogues before rehersed he wrot chiefly agaynst Nestorius and was neuer here in noted of error this thousand yeare but hath euer bene reputed and taken for an holy Byshop a great learned man and a graue author vntill now at this present tyme whan the Papistes haue nothing to answer vnto him they begin in excusing of them selues to defame him Thus much haue I spoken for Theodoretus which I pray thee be not weary to read good reader but often and with delectation deliberation and good aduertisement to read For it conteineth playnly and breefly the true instruction of a Christian man concerning the matter which in this booke we treate vpon First that our sauiour Christ in his last supper whan he gaue bread and wine to his apostles saying This is my body This is my bloud it was bread which he called his body and wine mixed in the cup which he called his bloud so that he changed the names of the bread and wine which were the misteries sacramentes fignes figures and tokens of Christes flesh and bloud and called them by the names of the thinges which they did represent and signifie that is to say the bread he called by the name of his very flesh and the wine by the name of his bloud Second that although the names of bread and wine were changed after sanctification yet neuertheles the thinges them selues remayned the selfe same that they were before the sanctification that is to say the same bread and wine in nature substance form and fashion The thyrd seing that the substance of the bread and wine be not changed why be then their names changed and the bread called Christes flesh and the wine his bloud Theodoretus sheweth that the cause therof was this that we should not haue so much respect to the bread and wyne which we see with our eyes and tast with our mouthes as we should haue to Christ him selfe in whome we beleue with our hartes and fele and tast him by our faith and with whose flesh and bloud by his grace we beleue that we be spiritually fedde and norished These thinges we ought to remember the reuolue in our myndes and to lift vp our hartes from the bread and wine vnto Christ that sitteth aboue And bicause we should so do therfore after the consecration they be no more called bread and wine but the body and bloud of Christ. The forth It is in these sacramentes of bread and wine
represented vnto vs his testament confirmed by his bloud And if the Papistes will say as they say in deed that by this cup is neither mēt the cup nor the wine cōtayned in the cup but that thereby is mēt Christs bloud contayned in the cup yet must they nedes graunt that there is a figure For Christes bloud is not in proper speach the new testament but it is the thing that confirmed the new Testament And yet by this strange interpretation the Papistes make a very strange speach more strange then any figuratiue speach is For this they make the sentence this bloud is a new Testament in my bloud Which saying is so fond and so far from all reason that the foolishnes therof is euident to euery man Winchester As for the vse of figuratiue speaches to be accustomed in scripture is not denyed But Philip Melancthon in an epistle to Decolampadius of the sacrament geueth one good note of obseruation in difference betwene the speaches in gods ordinances and commaūdementes and otherwise For if in the vnderstanding of Gods ordinaunces and commaundementes figures may be often receiued truth shal by allegories be shortly subuerted and all our religion reduced to significations There is no speach so playne and simple but it hath some peece of a figuratiue speach but such as expresseth the common playne vnderstanding and then the common vse of the figure causeth it to be taken as a common proper speach As these speaches drink vp this cup or eate this dish is in deed a figuratiue speach but by custome make so common that it is reputed the playne speach bicause if hath but one onely vnderstanding commonly receyued And when Christ sayd This cup is the new testament the proper speach therof in letter hath an absurditie in reason and fayth also But whan Christ sayd this is my body although the truth of the lytterall sence hath an absurditie in carnall reason yet hath it no absurditie in humilitie of fayth nor repugneth not to any other truth of scripture And seing it is a singuler miracle of Christ wherby to exercise vs in the fayth vnderstanded as the playne wordes signifie in their proper sence there can no reasoning be made of other figuratiue speaches to make this to be their fellow and like vnto them No man denieth the vse of figuratiue speaches in Christes supper but such as be equall with playne proper speach or be expounded by other Euangelestes in playne speach Canterburie I See well you would take a dong forke to fight with rather then you would lack a weapon For how highly you haue estemed Melancthō in tymes past it is not vnknowne But whatsoeuer Melancthon sayeth or how soeuer you vnderstand Melancthon where is so conuenient a place to vse figuratiue speeches as when figures and Sacraments be instituted And S. Augustine giueth a playne rule how we may know when Gods commādemēts be giuen in figuratiue speches yet shal neither the truth be subuerted nor our religion reduced to significations And how can it be but that in the vnderstanding of Gods ordinances commaundements figures must needes be often receaued contrary to Melancthons saying if it be true that you say that there is no spech so playne and simple but it hath some peece of a figuratiue speech But now be all speches figuratiue when it pleaseth you What need I then to trauaile any more to proue that Christ in his supper vsed figuratiue speches seyng that all that he spake was spoken in figures by your saying And these wordes This is my body spoken of the bread and This is my bloud spoken of the cuppe expresse no playne comon vnderstanding wherby the common vse of these figures should be equall with plain proper speches or cause them to be taken as common proper speches for you say your felf that these speches in letter haue an absurdity in reason And as they haue absurdity in reason so haue they absurdity in fayth For neither is there any reason fayth myracle nor truth to say that materiall bread is Christes body For then it must be true that his body is material bread a conuersa ad conuertentem for of the materiall bread spake Christ those words by your confession And why haue not these words of Christ This is my body an absurdity both in fayth and reason aswell as these words This cup is the new Testament seyng that these wordes were spoken by Christ as well as the other and the credite of him is all one whatsoeuer he sayth But if you will needes vnderstand these wordes of Christ This is my body as the playn wordes signify in their proper sence as in the end you seeme to do repugning therein to your owne former saying you shall see how farre you go not onely from reason but also from the true profession of the christian fayth Christ spake of bread say you This is my body appoynting by this word this the bread whereof followeth as I sayd before If bread be his body that his body is bread And if his body be bread it is a creature without sence and reason hauing neither life nor soule which is horrible of any christian man to be heard or spoken Heare now what followeth further in my booke Now forasmuch as it is playnly declared manifestly proued that Christ called bread his body and wine his bloud and that these sentences be figuratiue speches and that Christ as concerning his humanity bodily presence is ascended into heauen with his whole flesh and bloud and is not here vpon earth and that the substance of bread and wine do remayne still and be receaued in the sacrament and that although they remayne yet they haue changed their names so that the bread is called Christs body and the wine his bloud and that the cause why their names be changed is this that we should list vp our harts minds frō the things which we se vnto the things which we beleue be aboue in heauē wherof the bread wine haue the names although they be not the vey same things in deed these things well considered and wayed all the authorities and arguments which the Papists fayn to serue for their purpose be clean wiped away For whether the authors which they alleadge say that we do eat Christes flesh and drink his bloud or that the bread and wine is conuerted into the substance of his flesh and bloud or that we be turned into his flesh or that in the Lordes supper we do receiue his very flesh and bloud or that in the bread and wine is receiued that which did hang vpon the crosse or that Christ hath left his flesh with vs or that Christ is in vs and we in him or that he is whole here and whole in heauen or that the same thing is in the Chalice which flowed out of his side or that the same thing is receiued with out mouth which is
beleued with our faith or that the bread and wine after the Consecration be the body and bloud of Christ or that we be nourished with the body and bloud of Christ or that Christ is both gone hence and is still here or that Christ at his last supper bare himselfe in his owne hands These and all other like sentences may be vnderstanded of Christes humanity litterally carnally as the words in cōmō spech do properly signifye for so dooth no man eat Christs flesh nor drinke his bloud nor so is not the bread and wine after the consecration his flesh and bloud nor so is not his flesh and bloud whole here in earth eatē with our mouthes nor so did not Christ take him selfe in his own hands But these and all other like sentences which declare Christ to be here in earth to be eaten and drunken of Christian people are to be vnderstanded either of his diuine nature wherby he is euery where or els they must be vnderstanded figuratiuely or spiritually For figuratiuely he is in the bread and wine and spiritually he is in them that worthely eat and drinke the bread wine but really carnally and corporally he is onely in heauen from whence he shall come to iudge the quick and dead This briefe aunswere will suffice for all that the papists can bryng for their purpose if it be aptly applyed And for the more euidence hereof I shall apply the same to somme such places as the Papistes think do make most for thē that by the aunswere to those places the rest may be the more easely answered vnto Winchester In the lxxiiii leaf this author goeth about to geue a generall solution to all that may be sayd of Christes beyng in earth in heauen or in the sacrament and geueth iustructions how these wordes of Christs diuine nature figuratiuely spiritually really carnally corporally may be placed and thus he sayth Christ in his diuine nature may be sayed to be in the earth figuratiuely in the sacrament spiritually in the man that receiueth but really carnally corporally only in heauen Let vs consider the placing of these termes When we say Christ is in his diuine nature euery where is he not really also euery where according to the true essēce of his godhed in deed euery where that is to say not in fantasy nor imagination but verily truely and therefore really as we beleue so in déed euery where And when Christ is spiritually in good men by grace is not Christ in them really by grace but in fantasy and imagination And therfore what soeuer this author sayth the word really may not haue such restraint to be referred onely to heauen vnles the author would deny that substance of the godhead which as it comprehendeth all being incomprensible is euery where without limitation of place so as it is truely it is in déed is and therfore really is and therfore of Christ must be sayd wheresoeuer he is in his diuine nature by power or grace he is there really whether we speak of heauen or earth As for the termes carnally and corporally as this author semeth to vse them in other places of this book to expresse the maner of presence of the humaine nature in Christ I maruaile by what scripture he shall proue that Christs body is so carnally and corporally in heauen We be assured by fayth groūded vpon the scriptures of the truth of the beyng of Christs flesh and body there and the same to be a true flesh and a true body but yet in such sence as this author vseth the termes carnall and corporall against the sacrament to imply a grossenes he can not so attribute those termes to Christes body in heauen S Augustine after the grosse sense of carnally sayth Christ reigneth not carnally in heauen And Gregory Nazianzen sayth Although Christ shall come in the last day to iudge so as he shal be sene yet there is in him no grossenes he sayth and referreth the maner of his being to his knowlege onely And our resurrection S. Augustine sayeth although it shall be of our true flesh yet it shall not be carnally And when this author had defamed as it were the termes carnally and corporally as tearmes of grossenes to whō he vsed alwayes to put as an aduersatiue the terme spiritually as though carnally and spiritually might not agrée in one Now for all that he would place them both in heauē where is no carnallyty but all the maner of being spirituall where is no grossenes at all the secrecie of the manner of which life is hidden from vs and such as eye hath not séen or eare heard or ascended into the hart and thought of man I know these termes carnally and corporally may haue a good vnderstanding out of the mouth of him that had not defamed them with grossenes or made them aduersaries to spirituall and a man may say Christ is corporally in heauen because the truth of his body is there and carnally in heauen because his flesh is truly there but in this vnderstanding both the wordes carnally and corporally may be coupled with the word Spiritually which is agaynst this authors teaching who appointeth the word spiritually to be spoken of Christes presence in the man that receiued the sacrament worthely which spech I do not disalow but as Christ is spiritually in the man that dooth receiue the Sacrament worthely so is he in him spiritually before be receiue or els he can not receiue worthely as I haue before said And by this appeareth how this author to frame his generall solution hath vsed neither of the tearmes really carnally and corporally or spiritually in a conuenient order but hath in his distribution misused them notably For Christ in his diuine nature is really euery where and in his humaine nature is carnally and corporally as these words signify substāce of the flesh and body continually in heauen to the day of iudgement neuertheles after that signification present in the sacrament also And in those termes in that signification the fathers haue spoken of the effect of the eating of Christ in the sacrament as in the perticuler solutions to the authors here after shall appear Mary as touching the vse of the word figuratiuely to say that Christ is figuratiuely in the bread and wine is a saying which this author hath not proued at all but is a doctrine before this diuerse times reproued and now by this author in England renewed Caunterbury ALthough my chief study be to speak so playnly that all men may vnderstand euery thing what I say yet nothing is plaine to him that wil finde knots in a rish For when I say that all sentences which declare Christ to be here in earth and to be eaten and drunken of christian people are to be vnderstanded either of his diuine nature wherby he is euerye where or els they must be vnderstand figuratiuely or spiritually for figuratiuely he
significations and sacraments of that holines which almighty God by his omnipotent power worketh in vs. And for their holy significations they haue the name of holines which almighty god by his omnipotent power worketh in vs. And for their holy significations they haue the name of holynes as the water in baptisme is called aqua sanctificans Vnda regenerans Halowing or regenerating water because it is the sacrament of regeneration and sanctification Now as concerning Chrisostomes saying that Christ is in our hands Chrisostome saith as I haue rehearsed in my book not onely that he is in our hands but also that we se him with our eyes touch him him feele him and grope him fixe our teeth in his flesh tast it breake it eat it and digest it make red our tongues and dye them with his bloud c. which thinges cannot be vnderstand of the body and bloud of Christ but by a figuratiue speech as I haue more at large declared in my iiii book the viii Chapter And therfore S. Augustine De verbis Domini sermone xxxiij saith cleane cōtrary to Chrisostome that we touch not Christ with our hands Non tangi mus Dominum saith he This speech therfore of Chrisostome declareth not the inward worke of God in the substaunce of the visible sacrament but signifieth what God worketh inwardly in true beleuers And whereas you say that my notes be Descant voluntary without the Tenour part I haue named both the booke and chapter where S. Dyonyse telleth how the priest when he commeth to the receauing of the sacraments he deuideth the bread in peeces and distributeth the same to all that be present which one sentence contayneth sufficiently all my three notes So that if you be disposed to call my notes Descant there you may finde the playne song or tenor part of them And it is no maruel that you cannot iudge well of my Descant when you see not or will not see the Plain song wherupon the descant was made Now followeth Tertullian of whom I write thus Furthermore they do alledge Tertullian that he constantly affirmeth that in the sacrament of the alter we do eat the body and drinke the bloud of our sauiour Christ. To whom we graūt that our flesh eateth and drinketh the bread wine which be called the body bloud of Christ because as Tertullian saith they do represent his body and bloud although they be not really the same in very deed And we graunt also that our soules by fayth do eat his very body drink his bloud but that is spiritually sucking out of the same euerlasting life But we deny that vnto this spirituall feeding is requiring any reall and corporall presence And therfore this Tertullian speaketh nothing against the truth of our catholick doctrine but he speaketh many things most playnly for vs and agaynst the Papists and specially in three poynts First in that he sayth that Christ called bread his body The second that Christ called it so because it representeth his body The third in that he sayth that by these wordes of Christ This is my body is ment This is a figure of my body Winchester Of Tertullian I haue spoken before and so hath this author also forgottē here one notable thing in Tertullian where Tertullian sayth that Christ made the bread his body not only called it so as appeare by Tertullians words reported by this author before This note that I make now of Tertullian maketh agaynst this authors purpose but yet it maketh with the truth which this author should not impugne The second note gathered of Tertullian by this author is not true for Christ called it his body and made it his body as Tertullian sayth Aud the third note of this author is in controuersy of reading and must be so vnderstanded as may agrée with the rest of Tertullians sayings which after my reading doth euidētly proue and at the least doth not improue the catholick doctrine of Christes church vniuersally receiued although it improueth yet which this author calleth here our catholique doctrine most imprudently and vntruely reporting the same Canterbury I Desire no more but that the reader will looke vpon the place of Tertullian before mentioned and see what you speak there what is mine answere therto and so confer them togither and iudge And that the reader will note also that here couertly you haue granted my first note that Christ called bread his body but so slyely that the reader should not by your will perceaue it And where you deny my second note vpon Tertullian that Christ called it his body because it represented his body the words of Tertulliā be these that Christ reproueth not bread wherin he representeth his owne body As for my third note yet once agayne reader I beseech thee turne back and looke vpon the place how this lawyer hath expounded Tertulliā if thou canst with patience abide to here of so foolish a glose And where he sayth that this author Tertullian must be so vnderstād as may agrée with the rest of his sayings would to God you would so do not onely in Tertullian but also in all other authors for then our controuersy should be soone at a poynt And it is a most shameles impudency of you to affirme that the catholick church vniuersally teacheth that Christ is really sensibly corporally naturally carnally and substantially present in the visible formes of bread and wine seing that you cannot proue any one of these your sayings either by scripture or by the consent of the catholick church but onely by the Papisticall church which now many yeres hath borne the whole swinge Now followeth Origen to whom I aunswere thus Moreouer they alleage for them Origen because they would seme to haue many auncient authors fauorers of their erronius doctrine which Origen is most clearely agaynst them For although he do say as they alleage that those things which before were signifyed by obscure figures be now truely indeede and in their very nature and kind accōplished fulfilled And for the declaratiō therof he bringeth forth three exāples One of the stone that floweth water an other of the sea and cloud and the third of Manna which in the olde testament did signify Christ to come who is now come indeed and is manifested and exhibited vnto vs as it were face to face and sensibly in his word in the sacrament of regeneration and the sacraments of bread and wine Yet Origen ment not that Christ is corporally either in his word or in the water of baptisme or in the bread and wine nor that we carnally and corporally be regenerated and borne agayne or eat Christes flesh and bloud For our regeneration in Christ is spirituall and our eating and drinking is a spirituall feeding which kind of regeneration and feeding requireth no reall and corporall presence of Christ but onely his presence in spirit grace and effectuall operation And that Origen thus ment
although it was the selfe same Christ in nature But we say that he did eat drinke sleepe labour and sweat talke and speake naturally not bicause onely of his nature but bicause the maner and fashion of doing was such as we vse to do Likewise when Iesus passed through the people and they saw him not he was not then sensibly and visibly among them their eyes being letted in such sort that they could not see and perceaue him And so in all the rest of your aduerbes the speach admitteth not to say that Christ is there substancially corporally carnally and sensibly where he is not after a substanciall corporall carnall and sensuall forme and maner This the husband man at his plough and his wife at her rock is able to iudge and to condemne you in this poynt and so can the boyes in the gramer schole that you speake neither according to the english tonge grammer nor reason when you say that these wordes and aduerbes sensibly corporally and naturally do not signifie a corporall sensible and naturall maner I haue bene here somewhat long and tedious but the reader must pardon me for this subtill and euill deuise of your owne brayne without ground or authoritie contayneth such absurdities and may cast such mistes before mens eies to blind them that they should not see that I am constrayned to speake thus much in this matter and yet more shall do if this suffice not But this one thing I wonder much at that you being so much vsed and accustomed to lye do not yet know what lye meaneth But at length in this mater when you see none other shift you be faine to flye to the church for your shotte anker And yet it is but the Romish church For the olde first Church of Christ is cleerely agaynst you And Origen sayth not as you do that to vnderstand the sayd wordes of Christ spiritually is to vnderstand them as the spirite of God hath taught the church but to vnderstand them spiritually is to vnderstand them otherwise then the wordes sound for he that vnderstādeth them after the letter sayth Origen vnderstandeth them carnally and that vnderstanding hurteth and destroyeth For in playne vnderstanding of eating and drinking without trope or figure Christes flesh cannot be eaten nor his bloud dronken Next followeth in order S. Cyprian of whom I write thus And likewise ment Ciprian in those places which the aduersaries of the truth allege of him concerning the true eating of Christes very flesh and drinking of his bloud For Ciprian spake of no grose and carnall eating with the mouth but of an inward spirituall and pure eating with hart and mind which is to beleue in our hartes that his flesh was rent and torne for vs vpon the crosse and his bloud shed for our redemption and that the same flesh and bloud now sitteth at the right hand of the father making continuall intercession for vs and to imprint and digest this in our mindes putting our whole affiance and trust in him as touching our saluation and offering our selues clearly vnto him to loue and serue him all the dayes of our life This is truely sincerely and spiritually to eat his flesh and to drincke his bloud And this sacrifice of Christ vpon the crosse was that oblatiō which Cipriā sayth was figured and signified before it was done by the wine which Noe dranke and by the bread and wine which Melchisedech gaue to Abraham and by many other figures which S. Cyprian there reherseth And now when Christ is come and hath accomplished that sacrifice the same is figured signified and represēted vnto vs by that bread and wine which faythfull people receaue dayly in the holy communion Wherin like as with their mouthes carnally they eate the breade and drincke the wine so by their fayth spiritually they eate Christes very flesh and drincke his very bloud And hereby it apeareth that S. Ciprian clearly affirmeth the most true doctrine and is wholy vpon our side And agaynst the papistes he teacheth most playnly that the Communion ought to be receaued of all men vnder both kindes and that Christ called bread his body and wine his bloud and that there is not transubstantiation but that bread remayneth there as a figure to represent Christes body and wine to represent his bloud and that those which be not the liuely members of Christ do eat the bread and drincke the wine and be not nourished by them but the very flesh and bloud of Christ they neither eate nor drincke Thus haue you declared the mynd of S. Cyprian Winchester As touching Ciprian this author maketh an exposition of his owne deuise which he would haue taken for an answer vnto him Where as Ciprian of all other like as he is auncient within 250. yeares of Christ so did he write very openly in the matter and therfore Melancthon in his epistle to Decolampadius did chuse him for one whose words in the affirmation of Christes true presence in the sacrament had no ambiguitie And like iudgement doth Hippinus in his book before alleaged geue of Cyprianus faith in the sacrament which two I allege to counteruayle the iudgement of this author who speaketh of his owne head as it liketh him playing with the words grosse and carnall and vsing the word represent as though it expressed a figure only Hippinus in the sayd booke alleadgeth Cyprian to say Lib 3. ad Quirinum that the body of our Lord is our sacrifice in flesh meaning as Hipinus sayth Eucharistiam wherin S Augustin as Hippinus saith further in the praier for his mother speaking of the bread and wine of Eucharistia sayth that in it is dispensed the holy host and sacrifice whereby was cancelled the byl obligatory that was agaynst vs. And further Hippinus sayth that the olde men called the bread and wine of our Lordes supper a sacrifice an host and oblation for that specially because they beleued taught the true body of Christ and his true bloud to be destribute in the bread and wine of Eucharistia and as S. Augustin sayth ad Ianuarium to enter in be receiued with the mouth of them that eat These be Hippinus very words who because he is I thinke in this authors opinion taken for no Papist I rather speake in his words then in myne owne whom in an other part of this worke this author doth as it were for charity by name sclaunder to be a Papist Wherfore the sayd Hippinus wordes shal be as I thinke more weighty to oppresse this authors talke then mine be and therfore howsoeuer this author handleth before the wordes of S. Cyprian De vnctione chrismatis and the word shewing out of his epistles yet the same Cyprians fayth appeareth so certayne otherwise as those places shall need no further aunswere of me here hauing brought forth the iudgement of Hippinus Melancton how they vnderstand S. Cyprians fayth which thou reader oughtest to regard
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
deceaued by him I will write here the very wordes of Cirill in Greeke as they be of Decolampadius brought forth and published in his name wherby the reader that vnderstandeth the Greeke as many do at this tyme may iudge of DecolaÌ„padius conscieÌ„ce in handling this matter The wordes of Ciril be alleaged of DecoclaÌ„padius to be these in Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These wordes be by Decolampadius translated in this wise Nonne igitur â—um qui videtur filium Christum alium a deo verbo qui ex deo esse affirmant cui apostolatus functio tributa sit Non enim sacramentum nostrum hominis manducationem asserit mentes credentium ad crassas cogitationes irreligiose introtrudens humanis cogitationibus subijcere enitens ea qua sola pura inexquisita fide capiuntur This is Decolampadius translation of the Greeke as the same is by Decolampadius alleadged Which compared with the Greeke and the congruite and phrase of the Greeke tongue considered doth playnly open a corruption in the Greeke text First in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which should be a participle in the singular number 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all which participles depend of the third person reproued of Cirill and nominatiue case to the verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which hath the nown 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his accusatiue case for congruity will not suffer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be the nominatiue case as Decolampadius maketh it bicause 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should then depend on it which be the masculine gender and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the neuter and besides that the sence hath so no good reason to attribute assertion to the mistery by the way of declaration the mistery of nature secret hath neede of declaration and maketh none but hideth rather and the mistery cannot declare properly that should lead or subdue men to vayne imagination But Cirill intending to reproue the conclution of him that attributeth to that is seene in Christ the nature meaning the person of his humanity the office of the apostle and so therby semeth to make in Christ two seuerall persons esteming that is seene an other sonne from the second person sheweth how that man so concluding doth affirme an absurdity That is to say declareth that mistery of our humanam commixtionem for so hath the publique translation and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which should signifie eating of a man as Decolampadius would haue it and cannot with this construction to make 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the accusatiue case haue any sence and then that man so concluding may be sayd therwith leaâ—ing the mynd of them that beleeue into slender and darke imaginations or thoughtes and so going about to bring vnder mans reasonings such things as be taken or vnderstanded by an onely simple bare and no curious faâ—th And this is vttered by Cirill by interogation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which continueth vnto the last word of all that is here written in Greeke ending in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But Decolampadius to frame these wordes to his purpose corrupteth the participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and maketh it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherby he might cut of the interrogatiue and then is he yet fayne to ad euidently that is not in the Greeke a copulatiue causal enim and then when 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is by the cutting of the interrogation and the addition of enim made the nominatiue case then can not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 depend of it bicause of the gender and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bicause of the article determineth the principall mistery in Christes person and after publique translation it should seeme the Greeke word was not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in the publique translatioÌ„ is expressed with these two wordes humanam commâ—xtionem This one place and there were no moâ— like may shew with what conscience Decolampadius handeled the matter of the sacrament who was learned in the Greeke tongue much exercised in translations and had once written a grammer of the Greeke and yet in this place abuseth himselfe and the reader in peruerting Cirill agaynst all congruites of the speach agaynst the proper significations of the wordes agaynst the conuenient connection of the matter with deprauation of the phrase and corruption of certayne wordes all agaynst the common and publique translation and when he hath done all this concludeth in the end that he hath translated the greeke faythfully when there is by him vsed no good fayth at all but credite and estimation of learning by him abused to deceaue well meaning simplicity and serueth for some defence to such as be bold to vse and follow his authority in this matter As the author of the booke semeth to haue followed him herin for els the publique autentique translations which be abroad as I sayd of the printes of Basill and Colon haue no such matter and therfore the fault of the author is to leaue publique truth and search matter whispered in corners But thus much must be graunted though in the principall matter that in the mistery of the sacrament we must exclude all grosenâ—s and yet for the truth of Gods secret worke in the sacrament graunt also that in such as receaue the Sacrament worthely Christ dwelleth in them corporally as Cirill sayth and naturally and carnally as Hilary sayth And with this true vnderstanding after the simplicity of a Christian fayth which was in these fathers Hilary and Cirill the contention of these three enuious wordes in grose capacities grossely taken naturall carnall and corporall which carnality hath engendred might soone be much asswaged and this author also considering with him selfe how much he hath bene ouerseen in the vnderstanding of them and the speciality in this place of him selfe and Decolampadius might take occasion to repent and call home himselfe who wonderfully wandreth in this matter of the sacrament and hauing lost his right way breaketh vp hedges and leapeth ouer diches with a wonderous trauayle to goe whether he would not being not yet as appeareth determined where he would rest by the variety of his owne doctrine as may appeare in sundry places if they be compared togither Caunterbury I Sayd very truely when I sayd that such answere as I made to Hilary will serue for Cirill for so will it do indeede although you wrangle and striue therin neuer so much For Cirill and Hilary entreate both of one matter that we be vnited togither and with Christ not onely in will but also in nature and be made one not onely in consent of godly religion but also that Christ taking our corporall nature vpon him hath made vs partakers of his godly nature knitting vs togither with him vnto his father and to his holy spirit Now let the
you say that he is corporally in all them that receaue the sacrament whether it be worthely or vnworthely Now foloweth thus in my booke And here may be well enough passed ouer Basilius Gregorius Nissenus and Gregorius Nazianzenus partely bicause they speake little of this matter partly bicause they may be easely āswered vnto by that which is before declared oftē repeted which is that a figure hath the name of the thing wherof it is the figure therfore of the figure may be spoken the same thing that may be spokē of the thing it selfe And as cōcerning the eating of Christs flesh drincking of his bloud they spake of the spirituall eating drincking therof by fayth not of corporal eating and drincking with the mouth and teeth Winchester As for Basill Gregory Nissen and Gregory Nazianzen this author sayth they speake little of this matter and indeede they spake not so much as other doe but that they speake is not discrepant nor contrarieth not that other afore them had written For in the olde church the truth of this mistery was neuer impugned openly and directly that we reade of before Berengarius v. C. yeares past and secretly by one Bertrame before that but onely by the Messalians who sayd the corporall eating did neither good nor hurt The Antropomorphites also who sayd the vertue of the misticall benediction endured not to the next day of whome Cirill speaketh and the Nestorians by consecution of their learning that deuided Christes flesh from the deity And where this author would haue taken for a true supposall that Basill Gregory Nazianzene and Nissene should take the sacrament to be figuratiue onely that is to be denyed And likewise it is not true that this author teacheth that of the figure may be spoken the same thing that may be spoken of the thing it selfe And that I will declare thus Of the thing it selfe that is Christes very body being present indeede it may be sayd Adore it worship it there which may not besayd of the figure It may be sayd of the very thing being present there that it is a highe miracle to be there it is aboue nature to be there it is an high secret mistery to be there But none of these speaches can be conueniently sayd of the onely figure that it is such a miracle so aboue nature so high a mistery to be a figure And therfore it is no true doctrine to teach that we may say the same of the figure that may be sayd of the thing it selfe And where this author speaketh of the spiritual eating corporal eating he remayneth in his ignorāce what the word corporal meaneth which I haue opened in discussing of his answere to Cirill Fayth is required in him that shall eate spiritually and the corporall eating institute in Christes supper requireth the reuerent vse of mans mouth to receiue our Lords meat drinke his owne very flesh and bloud by his omnipotency prepared in that supper which not spiritually that is to say not innocently as S. Angustine in one place expoūdeth spiritually receiued bringeth iudgement and condempnation according to S Paules wordes Caunterbury WHere you say that in the old church the truth of this mistery was neuer impugned opēly you say herin very truly for the truth which I haue set forth was openly receiued and taught of al that were catholick without coutradiction vntil the papists diuised a contrary doctrine And I say further that the vntruth which you teach was not at that time improued of no man neither openly nor priuily For how could your doctrine be impugned in the olde church which was then neither taught nor knowen And as concerning Bertrame he did not write secretly for he was required by king Charles to write in this matter and wrot therin as the doctrine of the Church was at that tyme or els some man would haue reprehended him which neuer none did before you but make mention of his workes vnto his great prayse and commendation And the Massalians were not reproued for saying that corporall eating doth neither good nor hurt neither Epiphanius nor of S. Augustine nor Theodoret nor of any other auntient author that I haue red Mary that the sacraments do neither good nor hurt namely Baptisme is layd vnto the Massaliās charge and yet the corporall receiuing without the spirituall auaileth nothing but rather hurteth very much as appeared in Iudas and Simon Magus And as for the three heresies of the Massalians Anthropomorphites and Nestorians I allow none of them although you report thē otherwise thē either Epiphanius or S. Augustine doth And wherē you say that I would haue taken for a supposall that Basil Nazianzene and Nissene should take the sacrament to be figuratiue only still you charge me vntruly with that I nether say nor think For I knowledge as al good christen mē do that almighty God worketh effectually with his sacraments And where you report me to say an other vntruth that of a figure may be spoken the same thing that may be spoken of the thing it self that I say true therin witnesseth plainly S. Augustin and Cyprian And yet I speake not vniuersally nor these examples that you bring make anything agaynst my sayings For the first example may be sayd of the figure if D. Smith say true And because you .ii. write both agaynst my book and a gree so euil one with an other as it is hard fo vntrue sayers to agree in one tale therfore in this poynt I commit you togither to see which of you is most valiant champion And as for your other iii. examples it is not true of the thing it selfe that Christes body is present in the sacrament by miracle or aboue nature although by miracle and aboue nature he is in the ministration of his holy supper amōg them that godly be fed therat And thus be your friuolous cauillations aunswered And where you say that I am ignorant what this word corporal meaneth surely then I haue a very grosse wit that am ignorant in that thing which euery plough man knoweth But you make so fine a cōstruction of this word corporall that neither you can tell what you meane your self nor no man can vnderstand you as I haue opened before in the discussing of Cyrils mind And as for the reuerent vse of mans mouth in the Lordes holy supper the bread and wine outwardly must be reuerently receaued with the mouth because of the things therby represented which by fayth be receaued inwardly in our hartes mindes not eatē with our mouthes as you vntruely allege S. Paule to say whose wordes be of the eating of the sacramentall bread and not of the body of Christ. Now followeth next mine aunswer to Eusebius Emissenus who is as it were your chefe trust and shot ancre Likewise Eusebius Emissenus is shortly aunswered vnto for he speaketh not of
where Emissene declareth the meaning of his wordes there you leaue all the rest out of your booke which can not be without a great vntruth and fraud to deceaue the simple reader For when you haue recited these wordes of Emissene that the inuisible priest by the secret power with his word tourneth the visible creatures into the substaunce of his body and bloud and so further as serueth to your affection when you come euen to the very place where Emissen declareth these words there you leaue and cut of your writing But because the reader may know what you haue cut of and thereby know Emissens meaning I shall here rehearse Emisenes words which you haue left out If thou wilt know sayth Emissene how it ought not to seeme to thee a thing new and impossible that earthly and incorruptible things be tourned into the substance of Christ looke vpō thy self which art made new in baptisme When thou wast far from life and banished as a stranger from mercy and from the way of saluation and inwardly wast dead yet sodenly thou beganst an other new life in Christ and wast made new by holesome misteries and wast tourned into the bodye of the church not by seing but by beleuing of the child of damnatiō by a secret purenes thou wast made the sonne of God Thou visibly didst remayne in the same measure that thou haddest before but inuisibly thou wast made greater without any encrease of thy body Thou wast the self same person and yet by encrease of fayth thou wast made an other man Outwardly nothing was added but all the change was inwardly And so was mā made the sonne of Christ and Christ formed in the mind of man Therefore as thou putting away thy former vilenes diddest receiue a new dignity not feling any chaunge in thy body and as the curing of thy disease the putting away of thine infection the wiping away of thy filthines be not seene with thine eyes but beleued in thy minde so likewise when thou doost goe vp to the reuerend aulter to feed vpon the spirituall meat in thy fayth looke vpon the body and blud of him that is thy God honour hym touch him with thy minde take him in the hand of thy hart and chiefly drink him with the draught of thy inward man These be Emissens own wordes Upon which words I gather his meaning in his former words by you alleadged For where you bring in these wordes that Christ by his secret power with his word turneth the visible creatures into the substance of his body and bloud straightwaies in these wordes by me now rehearsed he sheweth what maner of turning that is after what maner the earthly and corruptible things be turned into the substance of Christ euē so saith he as it is in baptisme wherin is no Transubstantiation So that I gather his meaning of his own playne words and you gather his meaning of your own imagination deuisyng such phantasticall things as neither Emissen sayth nor yet be catholike And this word truth you haue put vnto the wordes of Emissen of your own head which is no true dealing For so you may proue what you lift if you may adde to the authors what words you please And yet if Emissē had vsed both the wordes substaunce and trueth what should that helpe you For Christ is in substaunce and truth present in baptisme aswell as he is in the Lords supper and yet is he not there carnally corporally and naturally I will passe ouer here to aggrauate that matter how vntruely you adde to my wordes this word onely in an hundred places where I say not so what true and sinsere dealing this is let all men iudge Now as concerning my coupling togither of the ii sacraments of baptisme and of the body and bloud of Christ Emissene himself coupleth thē both together in this place sayth that the one is like the other without putting any difference euen as I truely recited him So that there appereth neither malice nor ignorāce in me but in you adding at your pleasure such things as Emissen saith not to deceaue the simple reader and adding such your own inuentions as be neither true nor catholick appereth much shift and craft ioyned with vntruth and infidelity For what christian man would say as you do that Christ is not inded which you call really in baptisme Or that we be not regenerated both body and soule as well in baptisme as in the sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ Or that in baptisme we be not vnited to Christes diuinity by his manhood Or that baptisme represēteth not to vs the high state of our glorification and the perfect redemption of our bodies in the generall resurrection In which thinges you make difference betweene baptisme and the sacrament as you call it of the aultare Or what man that were learned in gods word would affirme that in the general resurrection our bodies and soules shal be all spirituall I know that S. Paule sayth that in the resurrection our bodies shal be spirituall meaning in the respect of such vilenes filthines sinne and corruption as we be subiect vnto in this miserable world Yet he sayth not that our bodies shal be all spirituall For not withstanding such spiritualnes as S. Paule speaketh of we shall haue all such substantiall partes and members as pertaine to a very naturall mans body So that in this part our bodyes shall be carnall corporall reall and naturall bodies lacking nothing that belongeth to perfect mens bodies And in the respect is the body of Christ also carnall and not spirituall And yet we bring none other carnall imaginations of Christes body nor meane none other but that Christes body is carnall in this respect that it hath the same flesh and naturall substaunce which was borne of the virgine Mary and wherin he suffered and rose agayne and now sitteth at the right hand of his father in glory and that the same his naturall body now glorified hath all the naturall partes of a mans body in order proportion place distinct as our bodies shal be in these respects carnall after our resurrection Which maner of carnalnes and diuersitie of partes and members if you take away now from Christ in heauen from vs after our resurrectiō you make Christ now to haue no true mās body but a phantasticall body as Martion Ualentine did as concerning our bodies you run into the error of Origen which phansied imagined that at the resurrection all things should be so spiritual that women should be turned into men and bodies into soules And yet it is to be noted by the way that in your aunswere here to Emissene you make spiriturally and a spirituall manner all one Now followeth myne aunswere to S. Ambrose in this wise And now I will come to the saying of S. Ambrose which is alwayes in their mouthes Before the consecration sayth he as
creatures of bread and wine be much bound vnto you and can no lesse do then take you for their sauior For if you can make them holy and godly then shall you glorifie them and so bryng them to eternall blisse And then may you aswell saue the true laboring bullocks and innocēt shepe and lambes and so vnderstand the prophet Homines iumenta saluabis domine But to admonish the reader say you how the bread and wine haue no holynes this fortune of spech not vnderstand of the people engendreth some scruple that nedeth not By which your saying I cannot tel what the people may vnderstand but that you haue a great scruple that you haue lost your holy bread And yet S. Paule speaketh not of your holy bread as you imagine being vtterly ignoraunt as appeareth in the scripture but he speaketh generally of all manner of meates which christian people receaue with thankes giuing vnto God whether it be bread wine or water fish flesh white meat herbes or what manner of meat and drinck so euer it be And the sanctified bread which S. Augustine writeth to be geuen to them that be catechised was not holy in it selfe but was called holy for the vse and signification And I expresse S. Cyprians minde truely and not a whit discrepant from my doctrine here when I say that the diuinitye may be sayd to bee powred or put sacramentally into the bread as the spirite of God is sayd to be in the water of baptisme when it is truely ministred or in his word when it is syncerely preached with the holy spirite working mightely in the hartes of the hearers And yet the water in it selfe is but a visible element nor the preachers word of it self is but a sound in the ayre which as soone as it is hard vanisheth away and hath in it selfe no holines at all although for the vse ministery therof it may be called holy And so likewise may be sayd of the sacramentes which as S. Augustine sayth be as it were Gods visible word And whereas you reherse out of my wordes in an other place that as hoat and burning yron is yron still yet hath the force of fyre so the bread and wine be tourned into the vertue of Christes flesh and bloud you neyther report my words truly nor vnderstād thē truely For I declare in my booke vertue to be in them that godly receaue bread and wine and not in the bread and wine And I take vertue there to signifie might and strength or force as I name it which in the greeke is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after which sence we say that there is vertue in herbs in words and in stones and not to signify vertue in holynes which in greek is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wher of a person is called vertuous whose fayth and conuersation is godly But you sophistically and fraudulently do of purpose abuse the word vertue to an other significatiō then I mēt to approue by my words your own vayne error that bread should be vertuous holy making in your argument a fallax or craft called equiuocation For where my meaning is that the death of Christ and the effusion of his bloud haue effect and strength in them that truely receaue the sacrament of his flesh and bloud you turne the matter quite as though I should say that the bread were godly and vertuous which is very frantick and vngodly opiniō and nothing pertaining to mine application of the similitude of yron But this is the mother of many errors both in interpretation of scriptures and also in vnderstandyng of old auncient writers when the mind and intent of him that maketh a similitude is not considered But the similitude is applied vnto other matters then the meaning was Which fault may be iustly noted in you here when you reason by the similitude of hoat burning yron that bread may conceiue such vertue as it may be called vertuous and holy For my onely purpose was by that similitude to teach that yron remayning in his proper nature substance by conceauing of fire may work an other thing thē is the nature of yrō And so likewise bread remaynyng in is proper nature and substaunce in the ministration of the sacrament hath an other vse then to feed the body For it is a memoriall of Christes death that by exercise of our fayth our soules may receaue the more heauenly food But this is a strange maner of spech which neither scripture nor approued author euer vsed before you to cal the sacrametal bread vertuous as you doe But into such absurdities men do cōmonly fall when they will of purpose impugne the euident truth But was there euer any man so ouersene say you as this author is Who seeth not S. Ambrose in these three latter speeches to speak as plainly as in the first Was there euer any man so destitute of reason say I but that he vnderstandeth this that when bread is balled bread it is called by the proper name as it is in deed and when bread is called the body of Christ it taketh the name of a thing which it is not in deed but is so called by a figuratiue spech And calling say you in the words of Christ signifieth making which if it signifieth when bread is called bread then were calling of bread a making of bread And thus is aunswered your demaund why this word call in the one signifieth the trueth and in the other not because that the one is a playne speche and the other a figuratiue For els by our reasoning out of reason when the cup which Christ vsed in his last supper was called a cup and when it was called Christes bloud all was one calling and was of like trueth without figure so that the cup was Christes bloud in deed And likewise the stone that flowed out water was called a stone and when it was called Christ the arke also when it was called the arke when it was called god all these must be one spech and of like trueth if it be true which you here say But as the arke was an arke the stone a stone bread very bread and the cup a cup playnely without figuratiue spech so whē they be called God Christ the body and bloud of Christ this can not be alike calling but must needes be vnderstād by a figuratiue spech For as Christ in the scripture is called a lambe for his innocency meeknes a Lyon for his might and power a doore and way wherby we enter into his fathers house wheat corne for the property of dying before they ryse vp bring increase so is he called bread and bread is called his body wine his bloud for the propertie of feedyng nourishing So that these al like speches where as one substaūce is called by the name of an other substaunce diuers and distinct in
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
in direct course to speake of the matter of transubstantiacion In this fourth Book the author intreateth eating and drinking of Christes body and bloud And in the first part therof trauayleth to confirme his purpose and in the second part aunswereth as he can so his aduersaries and so taketh accasion to speake of Adoration His chiefe purpose is to proue that euill men receiue not the body and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament which after this authors doctrine is a very superfluous matter For if the sacrament be onely a figure and the body and bloud of Christ be there onely fyguratiuely whereto should this author dispute of euill mens eating when good menne can not eate Christ in the sacrament bycause he is not there For by the effect of this authors doctrine the Sacrament is but a visible preaching by the tokens and signes of bread and wine that in beleeuing and remembring Christes benefites with reuoluing them in our mynde we should in fayth feed vpō Christ spiritually beleuing that as the bread wine feedeth nourisheth our bodies so Christ feedeth nourisheth our soules which be good wordes but such as the wordes in Christes supper do not learneds yet may be well gathered not to limitte the mistery of the supper but to be spoken taught touching the beleuing remēbring Christes benefites with the reuoluing of thē in our minde therby to learne vs how to feed vpō Christ cōtinually without the vse of the visible Sacramēt beyng called of S. Augustine the inuisible sacramēt wher in by fayth we be nourished with the word of God the vertus of Christes body bloud which the true teaching of the church calleth spirituall manducation only without which no man is to be accompted a true membre of the mysticall body of Christ. And therfore who so feedeth vpon Christ thus spiritually must needes be a good man for onely good men be true members of Christes misticall body which spirituall eating is so good a frute as it declareth the tree necessaryly to be good and therfore it must be and is certayne conclusion that onely good men do eat and drincke the body and bloud of Christ spiritually that is to say effectually to life So as this author shall haue of me no aduersary therin And if this author had proued that to be the true doctrine that Christes very body and bloud is not present in the visible Sacrament then might he haue left this fourth booke vnwritten For after his doctrine as I sayd before good men do not eate Christes body in the Sacrament vnder the visible signes for bycause it is not there and then much lesse should euyll men reach it In the Catholike teaching all the doctrine of eating of Christ is concluded in two maner of eatings one in the visible Sacrament Sacramentall an other spirituall without the sacrament And because in the eating of the visible Sacrament S. Paule speaketh of vnworthy the same true teaching to open the matter more clerely according to Scripture noteth vnto vs three maner of eatinges one spirituall onely which onely good men do feeding in fayth without the visible Sacrament An other is both spirituall and Sacramentall which also good men only do receiuing the visible Sacrament with a true sincere charitable fayth The third maner of eating is Sacramētall only which after S. Paule euell men do vnworthely and therfore haue iudgement and condemnation and be gilty of our Lords body not esteming our Lordes body there And here ariseth the knot of contention with this author who sayth euell men eate but the Sacramentall bread wher vnto I reply no more do good men neyther if this authors doctrine of the Sacrament be true seing he will haue it but a figure If this author will say the effect is other in good men then in euill men I will not striue therin But to discusse this matter euidētly we must rightly open the truth and then must consider the visible Sacraments as they be of Gods ordinaunce who directeth vs where to seeke for his giftes and how whose working all be it it be not restrayned by his Sacramentes and therfore God may and doth inuisibly sanctifie and salue as it pleaseth hym yet he teacheth vs of his ordinary working in the visible Sacramentes ordereth vs to seeke his giftes of helth and lyfe there wherupon S. Augustine noteth how Baptisme among the Christian men of Aphrike was very well called health and the Sacrament of Christes body called lyfe as in which God geueth helth and lyfe if we worthely vse them The ordinaunce of these Sacramentes is Goddes worke the very author of thē who as he is in him selfe vniforme as S. Iames sayth without alteration so as Dauid sayth his workes be true which is asmuch as uniforme for truth and uniforme aunswereth together As God is all Goodnes so all his workes be good So as considering the substaunce of Gods workes ordinaunces as they be in themselfe they be alwayes vniforme certayne and true in theyr substance as God ordered them Among men for whom they be worught and ordered there is varietie good men euill men worthy vnworthy but as S. Paule sayth there is but one Lord one fayth one Baptisme And the parable of the sower which Christ declared himselfe sheweth a diuersity of the groundes where the seed did fall but the seed was all one that did fall in the good ground and that did fall in the naughty ground but it fructified onely in the good ground which seed Christ calleth his word And in the sixt of S. Iohn sayth his word is spirit and life so as by the teaching of Christ spirite and lyfe may fall vpon naughty men although for theyr malice it tarieth not nor fructifieth not in them And S. Augustine according hereunto noteth how Christes wordes be spirit and lyfe although thou doest carnally vnderstād them and hast no frute of them yet so they be spirite and lyfe but not to thee wherby appeareth the substaunce of Gods ordinaunce to be one though we in the vsing of it vary The promises of God can not be disapoynted by mans infidelitie as S. Paule sayth which place Luther alleageth to shew the vnitie in the substaunce of Baptisme whither it be ministred to good or euill But S. Paule to the Corinthians declareth it notably in these wordes We be the good sauour of Christ in them that be salued and them that perish Here S. Paule noteth the sauour good and one to diuers men but after the diuersitie in men of diuers effectes in them that is to say the sauour of life and the sauour of death which saying of S. Paule the Greeke scooles gathered by Oecumenius open and declare with similitudes in nature very aptly The doue they say and the bèetell shall feed both vpon one oyntment and the beetell dye of it and the doue strengthned by it The diuersitie in the effect
such perplexity as alteration hath engendred and so do as good seruice in the truth as was ment therby to hinder and empayre it And this shall suffice for an answere to this fourth booke Caunterbury HEre apeareth your sincerity in proceeding in this matter For you leaue out those wordes of S. Ambrose which maketh his meaning playne that the prophet spake of the mistery of Christes incarnation Si negant quia in Christo etiam incarnationis adoranda misteria sunt c. If they deny sayth he that the misteries of the incarnatiō in Christ be to be honored c. And a little after Qua ratione ad incarnationis dominicae sacramentum spectare videatur quod ait Propheta Adorate scabellum pedum eius consideremus Let vs consider by what meanes this saying of the prophet worship his foote stoole may be seene to pertayne to the sacrament of Christes incarnation And after the wordes by you rehearsed foloweth by and by Cum igitur incarnationis adorandum sit Sacramentum c. Seing then that the Sacrament of the incarnation is to be honored In these wordes sheweth S. Ambrose playnly that the worshipping of Christes flesh is vnderstand of the mistery of his incarnation So that S. Ambrose ment not onely that men should worship Christ when they receaue the Sacrament but that all creatures at all tymes should worship him And therfore he expresseth there by name how the Angels did worship him and also Mary Magdalene and the Apostles after his resurrection when they receaued not the Sacrament And so did also the shepherds and the wise men worship him yet being in his infancy and the prophet after the mynd of S. Augustine and S. Ambrose commaunded to honor him before his incarnation we likewise honor him sitting now in heauen after his ascentiō For so farre is fayth able to reach without eyther tentering or stretching Thus haue I aunswered to all that you haue brought agaynst my fourth booke not obscurely as you like a cuttell haue done hiding your selfe in your darke colours but playnly to the capacity of all men asmuch as I can And this haue I done with some payne of writing but little or no study for the matter being a very easy thing for defence of the truth to answere by gods word and auncient authors to an ignorant lawyer being well exercised in neyther of both but making such diuinity a she can dreame in his sleape or deuise of his owne brayne or hath sucked out of the Papistical lawes and decrees and for lacke of arguments furnishing vp his booke with prety toyes with glorious bosting and scornfull taunting And with picking out of my booke such sentences as he perswadeth him selfe that he can make some colour of apparaunt answere to deceaue the reader And such places as he seeth his rhetorike will not serue he passeth them away slightly bicause he is afrayd to file his hands therwith Wherfore I may now right well and iustly conclude here myne answere to his confutation with the wordes of my fourth booke which be these But our sauiour Christ himselfe hath geuen vs warning before hand that such false Christians and false teachers should come and hath bydde vs to beware of them saying If any man tell you that Christ is here or Christ is there beleue him not For there shall rise false Christes and false prophets and shall shew many signes and wonders so that if it were possible the very elect should be brought into erroure Take heede I haue told you before hand Thus our Sauiour Christ like a most louing pastor and sauiour of our soules hath giuen vs warning before hand of the perilles and dangers that were to come and to be wise and ware that we should not geue credite vnto such teachers as would perswade vs to worship a peece of bread to kneele to it to knocke to it to creepe to it to follow it in procession to lift vp our hādes to it to offer to it to light candels to it to shut it vp in a chest or boxe to do all other honor vnto it more then we do vnto God hauing alway this pretence or scuse for our idolatry Behold here is Christ. But our Sauiour Christ calleth them false Prophets and sayth Take heed I tell you before Beleue them not If they say to you behold Christ is a broad or in the wildernes goe not out And if they say that he is kept in close places beleue them not And if you will aske me the question who be these false prophets and seducers of the people the aunswere is soone made The Romish Antichristes and their adherents the authors of all erroure ignorance blindnes superstition hipocrisie and idolatry For Innocentius the thyrd one of the most wicked men that euer was in the sea of Rome dyd ordayne and decree that the host should be diligently kept vnder locke and key And Honorius the third not onely confirmed the same but commaunded also that the priestes would diligently teach the people from tyme to tyme that when they lifted vp the bread called the host the people should then reuerently bowe downe and that likewise they should do when the priest carieth the host vnto sicke folkes These be the statutes and ordinaunces of Rome vnder pretence of holines to leade the people vnto all errour and idolatry not bringing them by bread vnto Christ but from Christ vnto bread But all that loue and beleue Christ himselfe let them not thinke that Christ is corporally in the bread but let them lift vp theyr hartes vnto heauen and worshipping him sitting there at the right hand of his father Let them worship him in them selues whose temples they be in whome he dwelleth and liueth spiritually but in no wise let them worship him as being corporally in the bread For he is not in it neither spiritually as he is in man nor corporally as he is in heauen but onely Sacramentally as a thing may be sayd to be in the figure wherby it is signified Thus is sufficiently reproued the third principall errour of the Papistes concerning the Lordes supper which is That wicked members of the deuil doe eate Christes very body and drincke his bloud ¶ Thus endeth the fourth booke ¶ The Confutation of the second booke HAuing declared how much agaynst all truth this author would beare in hand that the reall presence the corporall presence and substanciall presence of Christes most precious body and bloud in the sacrament is not the true catholique doctrine but a deuise of the Papistes which is a terme wherwith this author both vncharitably charge the kinges true subiectes among whome he knoweth a great many to be of that fayth he calleth now Papish But setting wordes a part and to come to the matter as I haue shewed this author to erre partly by wilfulnes partly by ignorance in the vnderstanding of the olde authors concerning the true reall
yea conteineth a nay in it naturally Therfore Christ saying it is his body sayth it is no bread If this forme of Argument were infallible then I may turne the same to you agayne and ouerthrow you with your own weapon thus S. Paule sayd it is bread Ergo it is not Christes body if the affirmation of the one be a negation of the other And by such Sophistication you may turne vp all the truth quite and cleane and say that Christ was neither God nor man bycause he sayd he was a vine bread And euery yea say you conteineth a nay in it naturally And where you boast that you haue conuinced me in the matter of the reall presence of Christes body I trust the indifferent Reader wil say that you triumph before the victorie saying that you haue wonne the field when in deede you haue lost it and when Golyathes head is smitten of with his owne sword But the old English Prouerbe is here true that it is good beating of a proude man for whē he is all to beaten backe bone yet will he boast of his victorie and bragge what a valiant man he is And it is an other vayne bragge also that you make whē you say that you haue shewed before that Christes wordes were not figuratiue when he sayd This is my body For you haue neither proued that you say nor haue aunswered to my proofes to the contrary as I referre to the iudgement of all indifferent Readers but you haue confessed that Christ called bread his body made demōstration vpon the bread when he sayd This is my body How can then this speach be true but by a figure that bread is Christes body seyng that in proper speach as you say euery yea conteineth a nay and the affirmation of one thyng is the deniall of an other And where you alledge as it were against me the wordes of Hylarie that there is both a figure and a truth of that figure for answere hereunto the truth is that your matter here is gathered of an vntruth that I would haue onely a figure where as I say playnly as Hylarie sayth that in the true ministration of the Sacrament is both a figure and a truth the figure outwardly and the truth inwardly For bread and wyne be sensible signes and Sacraments to teach vs outwardly what feedeth vs inwardly Outwardly we see and feele bread and wyne with our outward senses but inwardly by faith we see and feede vpon Christes true body and bloud But this is a spirituall feedyng by faith which requireth no corporall presence And here I aske you two questions One is this whither Hylarie say that the body of Christ is vnder the formes of bread and wyne and that corporally If he say not so as the Reader shall soone iudge looking vpon his wordes then stand I vpright without any fall or foyle for Hylarie sayth not as you do The other question is whither Hylarie doe not say that there is a figure let the Reader iudge also and see whither you be not quite ouerthrowen with your owne crooke in saying that Christes speach is not figuratiue And yet the third question I may adde also why S. Hylarie should say that bread and wine be figures if there be no bread nor wine there at all but be taken cleane away by transubstantiation And where as for aunswere hereto you take the example of Iacob who for his hearynes resembled Esau and was as you say a a figure of Christes very humanitie you doe like an vnskilfull Mariner that to auoyde a litle tempest runneth himselfe vpon a rocke For where you make Iacob who resēbled Esau and was not he in deede to be a figure of Christes humanitie you make by this example that as Iacob by his hearynesse resembled Esau and was not he in deede so Christ by outward apparence resembled a man and yet he was no man in deede And where you denye that these wordes of S. Paule is not the bread which we breake the communion of the body of Christ declare the meaning of Christes wordes this is my body because Christes wordes say you declare the substaunce and S. Paules wordes declare the vse I deny that Christes body is the substaunce of the visible Sacrament For the substaūce of the Sacramēt is bread and wine and the thing thereby signified is Christes body and bloud And this is notable which you say that these words the bread which we breake do signifie the whole vse of the Supper not onely breakyng but also blessing thankesgeuing dispensing receauyng and eatyng that bread in this place signifieth common bread taken to be consecrated In which saying it is a world to see the phantasies of mens deuises how vncertain they be in matters perteining to God How agreeth this your saying with your doctrine of transubstantiation For if S. Paule when he sayd the bread which we breake is it not the communion of Christes body ment by bread common bread and by breaking ment also the blessing thankesgeuing receauing and eating then is common bread broken blessed receaued eaten And then where becōmeth your transubstantiation yf cōmon bread be eaten in the Sacramēt And whē is the bread turned into the body of Christ if it remaine cōmō bread vntill it be eatē Yet now you seeme to begin some thing to sauour of the truth that the bread remaineth still in his proper nature enduring the whole vse of the Supper And as touching this place of S. Paule that God calleth things that be not as they were if it perteine vnto Sacrament where Christ called bread his body what could you haue alledged more against yourself For if in this place Christ call that which is not as it were then Christ called bread as it were his body and yet it is not his body in deede But in this your aunswere to the arguments brought in by me out of the very wordes of the Euangelistes is such a shamelesse arrogancie and boldnesse shewed as abhorreth all Christian eares for to heare which is that three Euāgelistes telling the maner of Christs holy Supper not one of them all doe tell the tale in right order but subuert the order of Christes doinges and sayinges and that in such a necessary matter of our Religiō that the diffinition of the whole truth standeth in the order The Euangelistes say you rehearse what Christ sayd and did simply and truely But is this a simple and true rehearsall of Christes wordes and deedes to tell them out of order otherwise then Christ did sayd them And S. Paule also if it be as you say speaking of the same matter cōmitteth the like errour And yet neuer no auncient authour expounding the Euangelistes or S. Paule could spye out this fault and in their Commentaries giue vs warning therof And I am not so ignoraunt but I haue many tymes read S. Augustine De doctrina Christiana where he sayth that
sometimes in Scripture a thing is told after that was done before But S. Augustine saith not that it is so in this matter nor I am not so presumptuous to say that all the three Euangelistes with S. Paule also disordered the truth of the story in a matter wherein the truth can not be knowen but by the order S. Augustine De consensu Euangelistarum saith That that which Luke rehearseth of the chalice before the giuing of the bread was spoken by Christ after the distribution of the bread as the other two Euangelistes report the same And if these woordes Hoc est corpus meum had bene put out of the right place in all the three Euangelistes and also in S. Paule would not S. Augustine haue giuen warning therof aswell as of the other And would all other authors expounding that place haue passed ouer the matter in silence and haue spoken not one word therof specially being a matter of such waight that the Catholicke faith and our saluatiō as you say hangeth therof Do not all the profes that you haue hang of these wordes Hoc est corpus meum This is my body And shall you say now that they be put out of their place And then you must needes confesse that you haue nothing to defend your selfe but onely one sentence and that put out of order and from his right place as you say your selfe where in deede the Euangelistes and Apostles being true rehearsers of the story in this matter did put those wordes in the right place But you hauing none other shift to defend your errour do remoue the wordes both out of the right place and the right sense And can any man that loueth the truth giue his eares to heare you that turne vp side downe both the order and sense of Christes wordes contrary to the true narration of the Euangelistes contrary to the interpretation of all the old authors and the approued faith of Christes Church euen from the beginning onely to mainteine your wilful assertions and Papisticall opinions So long as the Scripture was in the interpretation of learned Diuines it had the right sence but when it came to the handling of ignoraūt Lawyers and Sophisticall Papistes such godly men as were well exercised in holy Scripture and old Catholicke writers might declare and defend the truth at their perils but the Papisticall Sophisters and Lawyers would euer define and determine all matters as pleased them But all truthes agree to the truth and falsehode agreeth not with it selfe so it is a playne declaration of vntruth that the Papistes varie so among themselues For some say that Christ consecrated by his owne secret power without signe or wordes some say that his benediction was his cōsecration some say that he did consecrate with these wordes Hoc est corpus meum and yet those vary among themselues for some say that he spake these wordes twise once immediatly after benediction at what tyme they say he consecrated and agayne after when he commaunded them to eate it appointyng than to his Apostles the forme of consecration And lately came new Papistes with their v. egges and say that the consecration is made onely with these v. wordes Hoc est enim corpus meum And last of all come you and Smith with yet your newer deuises saying that Christ spake those wordes before he gaue the bread immediatly after the breakyng manifestly contrary to the order of the text as all the Euangelistes report and contrary to all old authours of the Catholicke Church which all with one consent say that Christ gaue bread to his Apostles and contrary to the booke of Common prayer by you allowed which rehearseth the wordes of the Euangelistes thus that Christ tooke bread and when he had blessed and geuen thankes he brake it and gaue it to his disciples where all the relation is made to the bread Is this your faythfull handling of Gods word for your pleasure to turne the wordes as you list Is it not a thing much to be lamented that such as should be the true setters fourth of Christes Gospell do trifle with Christes wordes after this sort to alter the order of the gospell after their owne phantasie Can there be any trifling with Christes wordes if this be not And shall any christen man geue credite to such corrupters of holy scripture Haue you put vpon you harlots faces that you be past all shame thus to abuse gods worde to your owne vanity And be you not ashamed likewise so manifestly to bely me that I phansy that the apostles should be so hasty to drincke or Christ had told them what he gaue where as by my wordes appeareth cleane contrary that they drancke not before all Christes wordes were spoken And where you say that Christ gaue that he had consecrated and that he made of bread here you graunt that Christes body which he gaue to his disciples at his last supper was made of bread And then it must folow that eyther Christ had two bodyes the one made of the flesh of the virgine Mary the other of bread or els that the selfe same body was made of two diuers matters and at diuers and sundry tymes Now what doctrine this is let them iudge that be learned And it is worthy a note how vnconstant they be that will take vppon them to defend an vntruth and how good memories they had nede to haue if they should not be taken with a lye For here you say that Christes body in the Sacrament is made of bread and in the xi comparison you sayd that this saying is so fond as were not tollerable to be by a scoffer deuised in a play to supply when his fellow had forgotten his part And where you say that S. Paule speaketh not of materiall bread but of Christes body when he sayth that we be partakers of one bread the wordes of the text be playne against you For he speaketh of the bread that is broken whereof euerye man taketh parte whiche is not Christes body excepte you wyll say that we eate Christes bodye deuided in peaces as the grose Capernaites imagined And S. Augustine with other olde authors do write that Paule spake of such bread as is made of a great multitude of graynes of corne gathered togither and vnited into one materiall lofe as the multitude of the spirituall members of Christ be ioyned to gither into one misticall body of Christ. And as concerning Theodorete and Chrisostome they say as playnly as can be spoken that the bread remayneth after consecration although we call it by a more excellent name of dignity that is to say by the name of Christes body But what estimation of wisedome or learning so euer you haue of yourselfe surely there appeareth neyther in you in this place whereuppon the alteration of the name of bread you would gather the alteration of the substaunce or Transubstantiation Be not kinges and
no whit darkened by any thing this Author hath brought As for naturall operation is not in all mens iudgements as this Author taketh it who semeth to repute it for an inconuenience to say that the accidents of wine do sower and ware viniger But vlpian a man of notable learning is not afrayd to write in the law In venditionibus de contrahenda emptione in the Pandeas that of wine and viniger there is prope eadem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in manner one substance wherin he sheweth him selfe farre agaynst this Authors skill which I put for an example to shew that naturall operations haue had in naturall mens iudgements diuers considerations one sometime repugnant to an other and yet the Authors of both opinions called Philosophers all Among which some thought for example they spake wisely that estemed all thing to alter as swiftly as the water runneth in the streme and thought therfore no man could vtter a word being the same man in the end of the word that he was when he began to speake and vsed a similitude Like as a man standing in one place can not touch the same one water twise in a running streame no more can a man be touched the same man twise but he altereth as swiftely as both the streame These were laughed to skorne yet they thought themselues wise in naturall speculation Aristotle that is much estemed and worthely fansied a first matter in all thinges to be one in which consideration he semeth to be as extreame in a stay as the other fond Philosophers were in mouing By which two extremeties I condemne not naturall speculation wherwith I thinke God pleased for man to meruayle in contemplation of his inferiour workes and to tame his rash wit in the inexplicable variety of it but to vse it so as to make it an open aduersary to religion it is me semeth without all purpose The doctrine of Transubstantiation doth not teach no earthly thing to remayne in the Sacrament but contrarywise that the visible forme of bread and wine is there as the visible figure of the Sacrament and to be the same in greatnes in thicknes in wayght in sauor in tast in propriety also to corrupt putrifie and nourish as it did before and yet the substance of those visible creatures to be conuerted into the substance as Emissene sayth of the body of Christ. And here will reason do seruice is sayth to say if there be a conuersion in deede as fayth teacheth and none of the accidents be conuerted then the substance is conuerted for in euery thing all is substance and accidents but the accidents be not chaunged and yet a change there is it must nedes be then that substance is changed Which deduction reason will make and so agree with Transubstantiatiō in conuenient due seruice And thus I haue gotten reasons good will whatsoeuer this author sayth and from the ground of fayth haue by reason deduced such a conclusion to proue transubstantiation as vnles he destroy the true fayth of the presence of Christes very body which he can not must nedes be allowed And as for naturall operation of putrifying engendring wormes burning and such experiences which being the substance of bread absent this Author thincketh can not be so when he hath thought throughly he can of his thought conclude it onely to be a meruayle and it be so as agaynst the common rules of philosophy wherin as me semeth it were a nearer way as we be admonished to leaue searching of how of the worke of God in the mistery of Christes presence being that the celestiall parte of the sacrament so not to search how in the experience of the operation of nature of the visible earthly part of the Sacrament When God sent Manna in desert the people saw many meruayles in it besides the common operation of nature and yet they neuer troubled them selues with howe 's And as one very well writeth it is consonant that as there is a great miracle in the worke of God to make there present the substance of the body of Christ to likewise to knowledge the miracle in the absence of the substance of bread and both the heauenly and earthly part of the sacramēt to be miraculous and so many miracles to be ioyned together in one agreeth with the excelency of the Sacrament As for the obiections this Author maketh in this matter be such as he findeth in those scholasticall writers that discusse as they may or labour thereaboute wherwith to satisfie idle imaginations and to make learned men prompt and ready to say sumwhat to these trifles whose arguments this author taketh for his principall foundation For playne resolution and auoyding wherof if I would now for my parte bring forth their solutions and answers there were a part of schole Theologie so brought into English to no great prayse of eyther of out learninges but our vayne labour to set abrode other mens trauayles to trouble rude wittes with matter not necessary and by such vnreuerent disputing and alteration to hinder the truth Finally all that this Author reherseth of absurdity repugneth in his estimation onely is the conclusion of philosophie which should nothing moue the humble simplicite of sayth in a christen man who meruayleth at Gods workes and reputeth them true although he can not comprehend the wayes and meanes of them Caunterbury HEre in the beginning of this chapiter it is a strange thing to me that you should thinke strangenes in my saying that naturall reason and operation ioyned to Gods word should be of great moment to confirme any truth not that they adde any authority to Gods word but that they helpe our infirmity as the sacraments do to Gods promises which promises in themselues be most certayne and true For did not the eating and drincking of Christ his laboring and sweating his agony and pangs of death confirme the true fayth of his incarnation And did not his eating with the Apostles confirme and stablish their fayth of his resurrection Dyd not the sight of Christ and feeling of his woundes induce Thomas to beleue that Christ was risen When neyther the report of the deuout woman nor yet of the Apostles which did see him could cause him to beleue Christes resurrection And when they tooke our Sauiour Christ for a spirite did not he cause them by their sight and feeling of his flesh and bones to beleue that he was very man and no spirite as they phantasied Which sensible profes were so farre from derogation of fayth that they were a sure establishment therof Wherfore if your vnderstanding can not reach this doctrine it is indede very slender in godly thynges And as for my reason of vacuum you haue not yet answered thereto for nature suffereth not any place to be without some substance which by meanes of his quantity filleth the place And quantity without substance to fill any place is so fare from the rulers of nature that by order of
bread and no bread called bread and no bread this is playne iugling where it hapneth Wherin this rude man for want of true vnderstanding of the wordes and perfect consideration of the matter speaketh thus fondly who if he should therupon require the scholler to shew him some difference of the very substance betwene bread cheese and ale what could the lerned scholler answere here but euen frankly declare his ignoraunce and say I know none which is as much to say as I know there is a difference but I wot not what it is Wherunto I trow the rude man would say to the scholler Then art thou with all thy lerning as very a foole as I to speake of a difference and can not tell what it is Now if the scholler should vtter euen the extremity of his learning in proper termes and say I know bread is no cheese and chese is no ale and of their accidentall partes I can indede shew differences but of the very substance none The rude man if his nature were not ouer dull would laugh roundly to heare a scholler vtter for a poynt of learning that bread is no cheese and cheese is no ale which who so knoweth not is a very foole and merely to knit vp the matter would kepe the accidents of his bread chese and all for him selfe and geue the substance to the scholler if he can deuide it as a reward for his cunning to his better nurture And this I write after this grosse sort to shew that this matter of substance is not commonly vnderstanded as sences exercised in learning perceaue it and how mans outward sences can not as this author would haue it be iudges of the inward nature of substance which reason perswadeth to be vsing the seruice of the sences for induction of the knowledge in which iudgement vpon their report hapneth many tymes much deceite Titus Liuius speaketh of a greate number of diuers dishes of meate made in a solemne supper wherat the gestes woundred to see such a variety at that tyme of the yeare and when they demaunded of it answere was made the substance was but one all hogges flesh so as the alteration in the accidentes deceaued their iudgements That stone which among many thought to haue some skill hath been taken for a precious diamond hath after by cunning lapidaries been iudged to be but a white saphire and contrariwise So easily may our iudgement vpon the report of our sences fall in errour not that the sences be properly deceaued but rather the man that is grossely sensuall and iudgeth fondly by them For the very substance is not the proper obiect of any of the fiue wittes but of their report considered in reason denied and sometyme gessed at wherof ensueth greate errour and quid pro quo among the poticaries and learned also in thinges strange whereof they haue but accidentall markes Wherefore vpon consideration of the premises it may easily appeare how the question of this author why the sences be not beleued in knowledge of substance as in knowledge of accidents may be resonably answered And then if the iudgement of reason in the estimation of Gods naturall workes and denying this or that substance when by accidents it should seeme otherwise reason doth stay sensuallity and when men of experience knowledge and credite haue determined such a certayne stone to be a very true diamond other ignorant will be ashamed to say the contrary And if a man fearing himselfe deceaued to haue bought one kinde of drugges for an other and yet mistrusting wisely his owne iudgement hauing caused it to be vewed by men of knowledge good fayth and honesty if they affirme it to be the very thing this man will then condemne his owne imagination and vpon credite call it so and take it so to be wherfore if in these thinges I say reason doth in a man stay sensuality and if knowledge with honesty ruleth the iudgement of rude vnderstanding and finally if credite among men be so much regarded how much more conuenient is it that fayth in Godds word wherin can be no deceite as there is in men should alter and change mans iudgement in reason and bring it into the obedience of fayth Of that is bread after the iudgement of our reason after the report of our sences Christ determineth vnto vs the substance of that to be his body saying This is my body why shall not now a true christen man answere euer according to his fayth to say and professe the same to be the substance of Christes body vpon credite of Christes wordes as well as the carnall man will vpon report of his sences conclude in reason there to be the substance of bread wherby is not taken away the credite of our sences as this author supposeth which haue their obiects still true as they had before For the collour greatnes sauour and tast all remayne truely with the experiences of them as before Upon whose report reason neuertheles now reduced to the obsequie of fayth forbeareth reuerently to conclude agaynst the truth of fayth but according to fayth confesseth the substance to be the very substance of Christes body and the accidents to remayne in their very true nature bicause fayth teacheth not the contrary and that it agreeth with the rule of fayth so to be and therfore remayneth a very true greatnes thicknes and wayght which may be called in common speach substance signifying the outward nature And in that sense Theodoret reasoning with an heretique semeth to call it bicause hauing spoken of substance remayning he declareth what he meaneth by it adding it may be seene and felt as before which is not the nature of substance properly but by like common speach that remayneth may be called matter as Origen called it wherein also remayne the true sauour and tast with true propriety to corrupt or putrifie and also nourish God so ordering the vse of the creature of bread and likewise wine in this mistery as the inward nature of them which indeede is the substance but onely comprehended in reason and vnderstanding is conuerted into the most precious substance of Christes body and bloud which is indeede a substance there present by gods omnipotency onely to be comprehended by fayth so farre as may be vnderstanded of mannes weakenes and imbecilitie And where this author putteth a danger if sences be not trusted there is a gappe open to the Ualentinians and Marcionistes and therfore bringeth in the feeling of S. Thomas hereunto I say that the truth of that feeling dependeth vpon a true beliefe according to the scriptures that Christ was very man for els the body glorified of Christ as S. Gregory noteth was not of the owne glorified nature then eyther visible or palpable but therin Christ condescended to mannes infirmity and as he was truth it selfe left that a true testimony to such as humbly were disposed by grace to receaue it not to conuince heretiques who can
remayne still in the nature and also how besides the outward receauing of bread and wine Christ is inwardly by fayth receaued in our heartes all this I say he doth so playnly set out that more playnnesse can not be reasonably desired in this matter For he sayth that the conuersion of the visible creatures of bread and wine into the body and bloud of Christ is like vnto our conuersion in baptisme where outwardly nothing is chaunged but remayneth the same that was before but all the alteration is inwardly and spiritually If thou wilt know sayth he how it ought not to seme to thee a new thing and impossible that earthly and corruptible thinges be turned into the substance of Christ looke vpon thy selfe which art made new in baptisme when thou wast farre from life and banished as a stranger from mercy and from the way of saluation and inwardly wast deade yet sodenly thou beganst an other life in Christ wast made new by holsome misteries wast turned into the body of the church not by seeing but by beleuing and of the child of damnation by a secret purenes thou wast made the chosen sonne of God Thou visibly diddest remayne in the same measure that thou haddest before but inuisibly thou wast made greater without any increase of thy body Thou wast the selfe same person and yet by the increase of fayth thou wast made an other man Outwardly nothing was added but all the change was inwardly And so was man made the sonne of Christ and Christ fourmed in the mind of man Therfore as thou putting away thy former vilenes diddest receaue a new dignite not feeling any change in thy body and as the curing of thy disease the putting away of thine infection the wiping away of thy filthines be not sene with thine eyes but are beleued in thy mind so likewise when thou doest go vp to the reuerend altar to feede vpon spirituall meate in thy fayth looke vpon the body and bloud of him that is thy God honor him touch him with thy mind take him in the hand of thy hart and chiefly drincke him with the draught of thy inward man Hitherto haue I rehersed the sayinges of Eusebius which be so playne that no man can wish more playnly to be declared that this mutation of the bread and wine into the body and bloud of Christ is a sacramentall mutation and that outwardly nothing is changed But as outwardly we eate the bread and drincke the wine with our mouthes so inwardly by fayth we spiritually eate the very flesh and drincke the very bloud of Christ. Winchester As touching Emissene by whose wordes is expressely testified the truth of the reall presence of Christ in the Sacrament and also the sence of the doctrine of Transubstantiation this author maketh himselfe bold ouer him and so bold that he dare corrupt him which Emissene writeth not that man is turned into the body of the church And here I make an issue with this author that Emissene hath not that word of turning in that place and man to be turned into the body of the church is no conuenient speach to signifie a change in him that is regenerat by baptisme He in dede that is thrust out of the chauncell for his misdemeanour in seruise tyme may be sayd turned into the body of the church But Emissene speaketh not so here but bicause the same Emissene declaring the mistery of the Sacramēt sayth the visible creatures be turned into the substance of the body of Christ this author thought it would sound gayly well to the confusion of that true doctrine of turning to speake in Baptisme of the turning of a man into the body of the church And it may be commonly obserued in this author when he alleadgeth any authority of others he bringeth forth the same in such forme of wordes as he would haue them and not as they be for the most part or very often and once of purpose were ouer often in so high a matter as this is And yet in this Emissens authority after all the payne taken to reforge him Emissens doctrine playnly confoundeth this Authors teaching This author maketh a note that there is in man baptised nothing changed outwardly and therfore in the Sacrament neyther and it must be graunted For the doctrine of transubstantiation teacheth not in the Sacrament any outward change For the substance of the bread and wine is an inward nature and so is substance of one defined And to speake of the thing changed then as in man the change is in the soule which is the substance of man So for the thing changed in the visible creatures should be also changed and is changed the substance of the bread and wine to answere therein to the other And we must consider how this comparison of the two changes is made as it were by proportion wherein ech change hath his speciall end and terme whereunto and therfore according to the terme and end hath his worke of change speciall and seuerall both by gods worke Thus I meane The visible creatures hath there ende and terme wherunto the change is made the very body and bloud of Christ which body being a true body we must say is a corporall substance The soule of man hath his ende and terme a spirituall alteration incorporall to be regenerate the sonne of God And then the doctrine of this Emissene is playne this that each changers is of like truth and then it followeth that if the change of mans soule in Baptisme be true and not in a figure the change likewise in the sacrament is also true and not in a figure And if mans soule by the change in Baptisme be in deede that is to say really made the sonne of God then is the substance of the bread which is as it were the soule of the bread I am bolde here in speach to vse the word soule to expresse proportion of the comparison but euen so is the inward nature of the bread which is substance turned and changed in to the body of Christ being the terme and ende of that change And here I say so not to declare the manner but the truth of the ende that is to say as really and in deede the change is in the substance of bread as in the soule of man both these changes be meruaylous and both be in the truth of there change wherunto they be changed of like truth and realty to be done indeede they resemble one an other in the secrecie of the mistery and the ignorance of our senses for in neither is any outward change at all and therfore there was neuer man tripped himselfe more handsomly to take a fall then this author doeth in this place not onely in corrupting euidently and notably the words of Emissene without purpose wherby neuerthelesse he shewed his good will but also by setting forth such matter as ouerturneth all his teaching at once For now the author must
say the change in mans soule by Baptisme to be there made the sonne of God is but in figure and signification not true and reall in deede or els graunt the true catholique doctrine of the turne of the visible creatures into the body and bloud of Christ to be likewise not in figure and signification but truly really and indeede And for the thing changed as the soule of man mans inward nature is chaunged so the inward nature of the bread is changed And then is that euasion taken away which this author vseth in an other place of Sacramentall change which should be in the outward part of the visible creatures to the vse of signification This author noteth the age of Emissene and I note with all how playnly he writeth for confirmation of the Catholique teaching who indeede bicause of his auncient and playne writing for declaration of the matter in forme of teaching without contention is one whose authority the church hath much in allegation vsed to the conuiction of such as haue impugned the Sacrament eyther in the truth of the presence of Christes very body or Transubstantiation for the speaking of the inward change doth poynt as it were the change of the substance of bread with resembling therunto the soule of man changed in Baptisme This one author not being of any reproued and of so many approued and by this in the allegation after this manner corrupt might suffice for to conclude all brabling agaynst the Sacrament Caunterbury WHere I haue corrupted Emissene let the reader be iudge But when Emissene speaketh godly of the alteration change and turning of a man from the congregation of the wicked vnto the congregation of Christ which he calleth the body of the church and from the childe of death vnto the child of God this must be made a matter of scoffing to turne light fellowes out of the chancell into the body of the church Such trifling now a dayes becometh gayly well godly Bishoppes what if in the steede of turning I had sayd skipt ouer as the word transilisti signifieth which although peraduenture the bookes be false and should be transisti I haue translated turning should I haue so escaped a mocke trow you You would then haue sayd he that so doth goeth not out at the chancell dore into the body of the church but skippeth ouer the stalles But that Emissene ment of turning is cleare aswell by the wordes that go before as those which go after which I referre to the iudgement of the indifferent reader But forasmuch as you would perswade men that this author maketh so much for your purpose I shall set forth his minde playnly that it may appeare how much you be deceaued Emissenes mynd is this that although our sauiour Christ hath taken his body hence from our bodely sight Yet we see him by fayth and by grace he is here present with vs so that by him we be made new creatures regenerated by him and fedde and nourished by him which generation and nutrition in vs is spirituall without any mutation appearing outwardly but wrought within vs inuisibly by the omnipotent power of God And this alteration in vs is so wonderfull that we be made new creatures in Christ grafted into his body and of the same receaue our nourishment and encreasing And yet visibly with our bodely eyes we see not these thinges but they be manifest vnto our fayth by gods worde and sacraments And Emissene declareth none other reall presence of Christ in the sacrament of his body and bloud then in the Sacrament of baptisme but spiritually by fayth to be present in both And where Emissene speaketh of the conuersion of earthly creatures into the substance of Christ he speaketh that aswell of baptisme as of the lordes supper as his owne wordes playnly declare If thou wilt know sayth he how it ought not to seme to thee a new thing and impossible that earthly and corruptible thinges be turned into the substance of Christ looke vppon thy selfe which art made new in baptisme And yet he ment not that the water of baptisme in it selfe is really turned into the substance of Christ nor likewise bread and wine in the Lordes supper but that in the action water wine and bread as sacraments be sacramentally conuerted vnto him that duely receaueth them into the very substance of Christ. So that the sacramentall conuersion is in the Sacraments and the reall conuertion is in him that receaueth the sacraments which reall conuertion is inward inuisible and spirituall For the outward corporall substances aswell of the name as of the water remayne the same that they were before And therfore sayth Emissene Thou visibly diddest remayne in the same measure that thou haddest before but inuisibly thou wast made greater without any increase of thy body thou wast the selfe same person and yet by the encrease of fayth thou wast made an other man Outwardly nothing was added but all the change was inwardly In these wordes hath Emissene playnly declared that the conuersion in the sacraments wherof he spake when he sayd that earthly and corruptible thinges be turned into the substance of Christ is to be vnderstand in the receauours by their fayth and that in the sayd conuersion the outward substance remayneth the selfe same that was before And that Emissene ment this as well in the sacrament of the lordes supper as in the sacrament of baptisme his own wordes playnly declare So that the substance of Christ as well in baptisme as the Lordes supper is seene not with our eyes but with our fayth and touched not with our bodies but with our mindes and receaued not with our hands but with our hartes eaten and drunken not with our outward mouthes but with our inward man And where Emissene sayth that Christ hath taken his body from our sight into heauen and yet in the sacrament of his holy supper he is present with his grace through fayth he doth vs to vnderstand that he is not present in the formes of bread and wine out of the ministration except you will say that fayth and grace be in the bread when it is kept and hanged vp but when the bread and wine be eaten and drunken according to Christes institution then to them that so eate and drincke the bread and wine is the body and bloud of Christ according to Christes wordes Edite hoc est corpus meum Bibite hic est calix senguinis mei And therfore in the booke of the holy communion we do not pray that the creatures of bread and wine may be the body and bloud of Christ but that they may be to vs the body and bloud of Christ that is to say that we may so eate them and drincke them that we may be partakers of his body crucified and of his bloud shed for our redemption Thus haue I declared the truth of Emissenes mynd which is agreable to Gods word and the olde
Now the sacrifice of the church coÌ„sisteth of two thinges of the sacrament and of the thing thereby signified that is to say the body of Christ. Therfore there is both the sacrament and the thing of the sacrament which is Christes body What can be deuised to be spoken more playnly agaynst the error of the Papistes which say that no bread nor wine remayneth in the sacrament For as the person of Christ consisteth of two natures that is to say of his manhod and of his godhead and therfore both those natures remayne in Christ euen so sayth S. Augustine the sacrament consisteth of two natures of the elements of bread and wine and of the body and bloud of Christ and therfore both these natures must nedes remayne in the sacrament For the more playne vnderstanding hereof it is to be noted that there were certayne heretikes as Simon Menander Martion Valentinus Basilides Cerdon Manes Eutiches Manichaeus Apolinaris and Diuers other of like sortes which sayd that Christ was very God but not a very man although in eating drinking sleeping and all other operations of man to mens iudgementes he appeared like vnto a man Other there were as Artemon Theodorus Sabellius Paulus Samasathenus Marcellus Photinus Nestorius and many other of the same sectes which sayd that he was a very naturall man but not very God although in geuing the blind their sight the dumbe their speach the deafe their hearing in healing sodenly with his word all diseases in raysing to life them that were dead and in all other workes of God he shewed himselfe as he had bene God Yet other there were which seeing the scripture so plaine in those two matters confessed that he was both God and man but not both at one tyme. For before his incarnation sayd they he was God onely and not man and after his incarnation he ceased from his Godhead and became a man onely and not God vntill his resurrection or ascension and then say they he left his manhod and was onely God agayne as he was before his incarnation So that when he was manne he was not God and when he was God he was not man But agaynst these vayne heresies the Catholike fayth by the expresse word of God holdeth and beleueth that Christ after his incarnation left not his diuine nature ' but remayned still God as he was before being togither at one tyme as he is still both perfect God and perfect man And for a playne declaration hereof the old auncient authors giue two examples one is of man which is made of two partes of a soule and of a body and ech of these two partes remayne in man at one tyme. So that when the soule by the almighty power of god is put in to the body neither the body nor soule perisheth therby but therof is made a perfect man hauing a perfect soule and a perfect body remayning in him both at one tyme. The other example which the olde authors bring in for this purpose is of the holy Snpper of our Lord which consisteth say they of two partes of the sacrament or visible element of bread and wine and of the body and bloud of Christ. And as in them that duely receaue the sacrament the very natures of bread and wine ceasse not to be there but remayne there still and be eaten and drunken corporally as the body and bloud of Christ be eaten and drunken spiritually so likewise doth the diuine nature of Christ remayne still with his humanity Let now the Papistes auaunt them selues of their Transubstantiation that there remayneth no bread nor wine in the ministration of the Sacrament if they will defend the wicked heresies before rehersed that Christ is not God and man both togither But to proue that this was the mynd of the old authors beside the saying of S. Augustine here recited I shall also reherse diuers other Winchester In the 26. leafe this author bringeth forth two sayinges of S. Augustine which when this author wrote it is like he neither thought of the third or first booke of this worke For these two sayinges declare most euidently the reall presence of Christs body and bloud in the Sacrament affirming the same to be the sacrifice of the church wherby appeareth it is no figure onely In the first saying of S. Augustine is written thus how fayth sheweth me that bread is the body of Christ now whatsoeuer fayth sheweth is a truth and then it followeth that of a truth it is the body of Christ which speach bread is the body of Christ is as much to say as it is made the body of Christ and made not as of a matter but as Emissene wrote by conuersion of the visible creature into the substance of the body of Christ and as S. Augustine in the same sentence writeth it is bread before the consecration and after the flesh of Christ. As for the second saying of S. Augustine how could it with more playne wordes be written then to say that there is both the Sacrament and the thing of the Sacrament which is Christes body calling the same the sacrifice of the church Now if Christes body be there it is truely there and in dede there which is really there as for there in a figure were as much to say as not there in truth and indede but onely signified to be absent which is the nature of a figure in his proper and speciall speach But S. Augustine sayth euen as the author bringeth him forth and yet he gaue his priuy nippe by the way thus It is sayd of S. Augustine there be two thinges in the sacrifice which be conteyned in it wherof it consisteth so as the body of Christ is conteined in this sacrifice by S. Augustines mynd According whereunto S. Augustine is alleadged to say in the same booke from whence this author tooke this saying also these wordes following vnder the kindes of bread and wine which we see we honor thinges inuisible that is to say the flesh and bloud of Christ nor we do not likewise esteme these two kindes as we did before the consecration for we must faythfully confesse before the consecration to be bread and wine that nature formed and after consecration the flesh and bloud of Christ which the benediction hath consecrate Thus sayth S. Augustine as he is alleadged out of the booke which in deede I haue not but he hath the like sence in other places and for honoring of the inuisible heauenly thinges there which declare the side and reall presence S. Augustine hath the like in his booke De Catâ—chisandis rudibus and in the 98. psalme where he speaketh of adoration This may be notable to the reader how this author concludeth himselfe in the fayth of the reall presence of Christes body by his owne collection of S. Augustine mynd which is as he confesseth in his owne wordes noting S. Augustine that as the person of Christ consisteth of two natures
so the Sacrament consisteth of to natures of the elements of bread and wine and of the body and bloud of Christ and therfore both these natures do remayne in the Sacrament These be this authors owne wordes who trauayling to confound Transubstantiation confoundeth euidently himselfe by his owne wordes touching the reall present For he sayth the nature of the body and bloud of Christ must remayne in the sacrament and as truely as the natures of the manhod and Godhead were in Christ for therupon he argueth And now let this author choose whether he will say any of the natures the manhode or the godhead were but figuratiuely in Christ which and he do then may be the better say for the agrement of his doctrine The nature of the body and bloud of Christ is but figuratiuely in the Sacrament And if he say as he must nedes say that the two natures be in Christes person really naturally substantially then must he graunt by his owne collection the truth of the being of the nature of the body and bloud of Christ to be likewise in the Sacrament and therby call backe all that he hath written agaynst the real presence of Christes body in the sacrament and abandon his deuise of a presence by significatiō which is in truth a playne absēce as himselfe also speaketh openly which open speach can not stand and is improued by this open speach of his owne Likewise where he sayth the nature of the body and bloud of Christ remayne in the Sacrament the word remayne being of such signification as it betokeneth not onely to be there but to tary there and so there is declared the sacrifice of the church which mistery of sacrifice is perfited before the perception and so it must be euident how the body of Christ is there that is to say on the alter before we receaue it to which aulter S. Augustine sayth we come to receaue it There was neuer man ouerturned his own assertions more euidently then this author doth herein this place the like wherof I haue obserued in other that haue written agaynst this Sacrament who haue by he way sayd somewhat for it or they haue brought their treatise to an end It will be sayd here how soeuer this author doth ouerthrow him selfe in the reall presence of Christes very body yet he hath pulled downe Transubstantiation and done as crafty wrastlers do falling themselues on theire backe to throw there fellowe ouer them But it is not like for as long as the true fayth of the reall presence standeth so longe Transubstantiation standeth not by authority of determination but by a necessary consequence of the truth as I sayd before and as Zuinglius defendeth playnly and as for these places of S. Augustine may be answered vnto for they speake of the visible nature and element which remayne truely in the propriety of their nature for so much as remayneth so as there is true reall and bodily matter of the accidents of bread and wine not in fantasy or imagination wherby there should be illution in the sences but so in deede as the experience doth shew and the change of substance of the creatures into a better substance should not impayre the truth of that remayneth but that remayneth doth in deede remayne with the same naturall effects by miracle that it had when the substance was there which is one maruaile in this mistery as there were diuerse more in Manna the figure of it And then a miracle in gods working doth not empayre the truth of the worke And therfore I noted before how S. Thomas did touch Christ after his resurrection truely and yet it was by miracle as S. Gregory writeth And further we may say touching the comparison that when a resemblaunce is made of the Sacrament to Christes person or contrariwise of Christes person to declare the Sacrament we may not presse all partes of the resemblance with a through equality in consideration of each part by it selfe but onely haue respect to the ende wherfore the resemblance is made In the person of Christ be ioyned two whole perfite natures inseperably vnite which fayth the Nestorians impugned and yet vnite without confusion of them which confussion the Eutichians in consequence of their error affirmed and so arguments be brought of the sacrament wherewith to conuince both as I shall shew answering to Gelasius But in this place S. Augustine vseth the truth most certayne of the two natures in Christes person wherby to declare his beleefe in the Sacrament which beleefe as Hilary before is by this author alleadged to say is of that is inwardly For that is outwardly of the visible creature we see he sayth with our bodely eye and therfore therin is no poynt of fayth that should neede such a declaration as S. Augustine maketh And yet making the comparison he reherseth both the truthes on both sides saying As the person of Christ cōsisteth of God man so the sacrifice of the church cōsisteth of two thinges the visible kind of the element the inuisible flesh bloud finishing the conclusiō of the similitude that therfore There is in the Sacrifice of the church both the Sacramēt and the thing of the Sacramēt Christes body that which is inuisible therfore required declaratiō that is by S. Augustine opened in the cōparison that is to say the body of Christ to be there truely and therwith that needed no declaration that is to say the visible kind of the element is spoken of also as being true but not as a thing which was intended to be proued for it neded not any proofe as the other part did And therfore it is not necessary to presse both partes of the resemblance so as bicause in the nature of Christs humanity there was no substance conuerted in Christ which had bene contrary to the order of that mistery which was to ioyne the whole nature of man to the godhead in the person of Christ that therfore in this mistery of the Sacrament in which by the rules of our fayth Christes body is not Impanate the conuersion of the substance of the visible elements should not therfore be If truth answereth to truth for proportion of the truth in the mistery that is sufficient For els the natures be not so vnite in one hipostasy in the mistery of the Sacrament as there be in Christes person and the flesh of man in Christ by vnion of the diuinity is a diuine spirituall flesh and is called and is a liuely flesh and yet the author of this booke is not afrayd to teach the bread in the Sacrament to haue no participation of holines wherein I agree not with him but reason agaynst him with his owne doctrine and much I could say more but this shall suffice The wordes of S. Augustine for the reall presence of Christes body be such as no man can wrest or wreth to an other sence and with their force haue made this author to ouerthrow
what is this to make foundation of an argument vpon a secret copy of an epistle vttered at one tyme in diuers senses I shall touch one speciall poynt Peter Martyr sayth in Latin whome the translator in English therin followeth that the bread is reputed worthy the name of the Lordes body This author Englishing the same place termeth it exalted to the name of the Lordes body which wordes of exalting come nearer to the purpose of this author to haue the bread but a figure and therwith neuer the holier of it selfe But a figure can neuer be accompted worthy the name of our Lordes body the very thing of the Sacrament onles there were the thing in deede as there is by conuersion as the church truely teacheth Is not heare reader a meruaylous diuersity in report and the same so set forth as thou that canst but reade English mayst euidently see it God ordring it so as such varieties and contradictions should so manifestly appeare where the truth is impugned Agayne this author maketh Chrisostome to speake strangely in the end of this authority that the diuine nature resteth in the body of Christ as though the nature of man were the stay to the diuine nature where as in that vnion the rest is an ineffable mistery the two natures in Christ to haue one substance called and termed an hipostasie and therfore he that hath translated Peter Martyr into English doth translate it thus The diuine constitution the nature of the body adioyned these two both togither make one sonne and one person Thou reader mayst compare the bookes that be abroad of Peter Martyr in Latine of Peter Martyr in English and this authors booke with that I write and so deeme whither I say true or no. But to the purpose of S. Chrisostomes wordes if they be his wordes he directeth his argument to shew by the mistery of the Sacrament that as in it there is no confusion of natures but each remayneth in his property so likewise in Christ the nature of his godhead doth not confound the nature of his manhode If the visible creatures were in the Sacrament by the presence of Christes body there truely present inuisible also as that body is impalpable also as that body is incorruptible also as that is then were the visible nature altred and as it were confounded which Chrisostome sayth is not so for the nature of the bread remayneth by which word of nature is conueniently signified the property of nature For proofe wherof to shew remayning of the property without alteration Chrisostome maketh onely the resemblance and before I haue shewed how nature signifieth the propriety of nature and may signifie the outward part of nature that is to say the accidents being substance in his proper signification the inward nature of the thyng of the conuersion wherof is specially vnderstand transubstantiation Caunterbury WHere you like not my translatiō of Chrisostomes wordes I trow you would haue me to learne of you to trāslate you vse such sincerity and playnnes in your translation Let the learned reader be iudge I did translate the wordes my selfe out of the copye of Florence more truely than it seemeth you would haue done But whan you see the wordes of Chrisostome so manifest and cleare agaynst your fayned Transubstantiation for he sayth that the nature of bread remayneth still you craftely for a shift fall to the carping of the translation bicause you cannot answere to the matter And yet the wordes of Chrisostome cyted by master Peter Martyr in latine out of Florence copy and my translation and the translation of master Peters booke in English do agree fully here in sense although the wordes be not all one which neyther is required nor lightly found in any two translators so that all your wrangling in the diuersity of the translations is but a fleight and common practise of you whan you cannot answer the matter to seeke faultes in the translation where none is And for the speciall poynt wherin you do note a meruaylous diuersity in report and would gather therof no truth to be where such diuersity is let the reader be iudge what a wonderfull diuersity it is The Latine is this Panis dignus habitus est dominici corporis appellatione The translator of M. Peter Martyrs booke sayth The bread is reputed worthy the name of the Lordes body My translation hath The bread is exalted to the name of the body of the Lord. When a man is made a Lord or Knight if one say of him that he is reputed worthy the name of a Lord or Knight and an other say that he is exalted to the name of a Lord or Knight what difference is betwene these two sayinges Is not this a wonderfull diuersity I pray thee iudge indifferently good reader But say you a figure can neuer be counted worthy the name of the thing onles the thing were there in deede Wrangle then with S. Ihon Chrisostome himselfe and not with me who sayth that the bread is exalted to the name of the Lords body or is reputed worthy the name of the Lordes body after the sanctificatiō and yet the nature of the bread remayneth still which can not be as you say if the body of Christ were there present And who heard euer such a doctrine as you here make that the thing must be really and corporally present where the figure is For so must euery man be corporally buried in deede when he is Baptised which is a figure of our buriall And when we receaue the Sacrament of Christes body then is accomplished the resurrectiō of our bodies for that Sacrament you affirme to be the figure therof But your doctrine herein is cleane contrary to the iudgement of Lactantius and other olde writers who teach that figures be in vayne and serue to no purpose when the thinges by them signified be present And where you thinke it strange to say that the diuine nature is or resteth in the body of Christ it is nothing els but to declare your ignorance in Gods word and auncient authors in reading of whome forasmuch as you haue not bene much exercised it is no meruayle though their speach seeme strange vnto you The greeke word of Chrisostome is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which I pray you english and then we shall see what a strange speach you will make Did you neuer heare tell at the least that the word was incarnated or Verbum caro factum est And what signifieth this word Incarnate but God to be made man and his diuine nature to be in flesh Doth not S. Iohn bid vs beware that we beleue not euery spirite for there be many false prophets and euery spirite sayth he that confesseth not Iesus Christ to haue come in flesh is not of God but is the spirite of Antichrist Is this then a strange speach to you that the diuine nature resteth in the flesh that is to say in the body of Christ which
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
wheras gods worke is in an instant and for that respect neuer shedding But this author had a fansie to vse the sound of the word powring to serue in freede of an argumēt to improue Transubstantiation meaning the hearer or reader in the conceauing of the sence of Ciprian thus termed should fansye the bread in the visible Sacrament to be like a soppe wherupon liquor were powred which is a kind of deprauation as thou reader by consideration of Ciprians wordes and meaning mayst perceaue which Ciprian hauing shewed how the bread is made flesh by the omnipotency of gods word and made by change Then bicause this mistery of the Sacrament in consideration of the two natures celestiall and earthly resembleth the principall mistery of Christes person S. Ciprian sayth in sence that as in the person of Christ the humanity was seene and the diuinity hidden so likewise in this Sacrament visible is also the diuine nature hidden This is the sence where for declaration of the worke of God presenting his diuine nature there is vsed the verbe Infundit in Latine by which word the motion of the diuine nature is spoken of in scriptures not bicause it is a liquidde substance to bee poured as the author of this booke englisheth it signifying a successiue operation but rather as a word if we should scan it as this author would signifying the continuance of the terme from whence to the terme wherunto without leauing the one by motion to the other for there is in the godly nature no locall motion and therfore we say Christ not leauing his father descended from heauen and being in earth was also in heauen which infution in some parte resembleth but mans wordes can not expresse Gods diuine operations To the purpose the first wordes of Ciprian shew the maner of the constitution of this Sacrament to be by mutation of the earthly creatures into the body and bloud of Christ. And than by the wordes following sheweth the truth of the substance of the Sacrament to the intent we might vse our repayre to it and frame our deuotion according to the dignitie of it esteeming as S. Paule sayth our Lordes body For the more euident declaration wherof S. Ciprian by example of the mistery in Christes person sheweth Christes humanity and diuinity present in the visible Sacrament of which diuinity there is speciall mention agaynst such which fansied the flesh of Christ to be geuen to be eaten as diuided from the diuine nature which was the heresy of the Nestorians and such other denying therby the persite vnity of the two natures in Christ which the holy Sinode of Ephesus did specially condemne as other fathers in their writings old specially preuēt with distinct writing agaynst that errour And therfore S. Ciprian not content to shew the presence of Christes flesh by mutation of the bread doth after make speciall mention of Christes diuinity not concerning that he had sayd before but further opening it And so vtterly condemneth the teaching of the author of this booke touching the presence of Christ to be onely figuratiuely Ciprian sayth that in the Sacrament is the truth and then there is present the true flesh of Christ and the Godhead truely which deuotion should knowledge And as for Transubstantiation according to the first wordes of S. Ciprian the bread is changed not in forme but in nature which is not in the properties of nature nor in the operation of nature neither in quantity or quality of nature and therfore in the inward nature which is properly substance This is the playne direct vnderstanding not by way of addition as this author of his imagination deuiseth who vseth the word Spirituall as a stop and opposition to the catholique teaching which is not so and clearly without learning compareth with this Sacrament the water of Baptisme of which we reade not written that it is changed as we reade of the bread and therfore the resemblance of water in Baptisme is vsed onely to blynde the rude reader and serueth for a shift of talke to winde out of that matter that can not be answered and as euill debters shake of their creditours with a bye communication so this author conueyeth himselfe away at a backe dore by water not doing first as he promised to answer so as he would auoyd Ciprian directly by land Caunterbury WHere in my former booke I found a fault in the allegation of Ciprian it was in deede no little fault to alleadge those wordes that speake of the change of bread and to leaue out the example most necessary to be rehersed which should declare how it was changed which change is not by Transubstantiation as the example sheweth but as it is in the person of Christ whose humanity was not transubstantiate although it was inseparabely annexed vnto the deity And the wordes following do not once touch the reall and corporall presence of Christes flesh in the bread so farre it is from the ouerthrowing of the true catholike fayth by me taught But Ciprian in that place quite and cleane ouerthroweth as well your reall presence as your imagined transubstantiation as hereafter by Gods grace shall be declared But first it semeth to me a strange thing that such a learned man as you take your selfe to be in the tongues can not English this verbe Infundo where as euery Gramarian can tell the signification of Fundo Effundo and Infundo But it semeth you haue so deinty a stomacke that you can brooke no meat but of your owne dressing though it be neuer so well dressed of other yea you had rather eate it rawe then to take it of an other mans dressing And so much misliketh you all thinges that other men doe that you be ready to vomite at it No English can please you to this word Infundo but Latine English as you call it and that is such English as no English man can vnderstand nor Latine man neither but onely in that sense that I haue englished it And I pray thee gentill reader consider the great weighty cause why no English can please in this place and thou shalt finde it nothing els but ignorance eyther of the speach or of God Powring sayth he maketh a successiue working So doth infusion say I and therfore in that respect as vnfitte a terme as Powring But Gods worke sayth he is in an instant So is his powring say I and all that he doth euen aswell as his infusion All mans workes be done in succession of tyme for a carpenter can not build a house in a day but God in one moment could make both heauen and earth So that God worketh without delay of tyme such thinges as in vs require leasure and tyme. And yet God hath tempered his speach so to vs in holy scripture that he speaketh of himselfe in such wordes as be vsuall to vs or els could we speake here and learne nothing of God And therfore whether we say infusion or pouring
though men had inuented and imagined that which by force and truth of the scripture all good men haue and must beleeue that is to say the true presence of the substance of the body and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament according to the wordes of Christ This is my body which exclude the substance of bread declaring the substance of the body of Christ to be acknowledged and professed in the Sacrament by the true fayth of a christen man Compare with this what this author writeth in hys ninth difference in the 47. leafe of his boke and so consider the truth of this report and how this author agreeth with himselfe Caunterbury I Suspect not the iudgement of the indifferent reader so much but that he can perceaue how vndirectly you answere to this third absurdity and be loth as it seemeth to answere any thing at all But it is no little confirmation of the catholike fayth to see you Papists vary so much among your selues and you alone to diuise so many thinges contrary to all the rest and yet you be vncertayne your selfe what you may say They say also with one accord sauing onely Smith you that in the sacrament be not the qualities and quantities of Christes body For he is not there visible and sensible with his voyce to be heard his colours to be seene his softnes to be felt his quantities to be extended and to be locall in place with his other accidents so that they take away his accidents from the sacrament Smith sayth that he is there not naturally as you say but against nature with all his qualities and accidents You dare neither adde them nor drawe them away being vncertayue whether they be there or no and being also vncertayne whether in the sacrament he haue distinction of members or no. But telling the truth is but iesting and rayling to you which for lacke of answer be glad to shift of the truth as a matter of iesting And it is not my terming without the booke and at my pleasure to speake of substances without accidents and accidents without substances For I speake none otherwise therein then as it hath pleased the Papistes before to terme the same in all their bookes of that matter but I termed this matter so vppon the papisticall bookes as they at their pleasure deuised or dreamed without all manner of bookes written before their tyme. And the force of scripture constrayneth no man to the beleefe of Transubstantiation although the body of Christ were really corporally and carnally present who by his omnipotent power can be present as well with the substances as with the accidents of bread and wine as fully is declared before And where you alleadge the disagreing of me with my selfe if you would haue taken the payne to reade some of the schole authors you should haue learned that there is no disagrement in my sayings at all For they say that the body of Christ that is in the sacrament hath his proper formes and quantities as I sayd in the 47. leafe But yet those accidents say they be in heauen and not in the sacrament as I say in this place not varying one mite from myne other saying But ignorance in you thinketh a difference where none is at all Now followeth the fourth absurdity Fourthly they say that the place where the accidents of bread and wine be hath no substance there to fill that place and so must they needes graunt vacuum which nature vtterly abhorreth Winchester This author goeth about to finde so many absurdities that he speaketh he wotteth not what and where he seeth and feeleth quantity accompteth the place voyd for want of substance as though in consideration of common naturall thinges seuerally as they be in nature it were the substance that filled the place and not rather quantity although in the naturall order of thinges there is no quantity without substance and is in this Sacrament onely by miracle There wanted a substance in consideration of this absurdity and was such a vacuum as nature playnly endureth Caunterbury A Lithe authors that write what vacuum is account a place that is not filled with a substaunce which hath quantity in it to be void and emty So that my saying is not grounded vpon ignoraunce but vpon the mind of all that write in that matter Where as your saying that quantity alone filleth place without substaunce hath no ground at all but the Papistes bare imagination And if quantity in the sacrament be without substaunce by miracle it is maruaile that no auncient writer in no place of their bookes made any mention of such a miracle But your selfe graunt inough for my purpose in this place that it is an absurdity in nature and wrought onely by miracle that quantity occupieth a place alone without substaunce Which absurdity followeth not of the true and right fayth but onely of your errour of transubstantiation Now to the fift absurdity Fiftly they are not ashamed to say that substaunce is made of accidentes when the bread mouleth or is turned into wormes or when the wine sowreth Winchester True beleuing men are not ashamed to confes the trueth of theyr fayth whatsoeuer arguments might be brought of experience in nature to the contrary For Christes workes we know to be true by a most certayne fayth what mouldeth in bread or sowreth in wine we be not so assured or wheron worms ingēder it is not so fully agréed on amōg men The learned lawyer Vlpian writeth as I haue before alleadged that wine and vineger haue in manner one substaunce so as when wine sowreth and is vineger in manner the same substaunce remayneth in whom it is thought no absurdity to say by that meanes that the accidents onely sower And if we agrée with the Phylosophers that there is Materia prima which in all thinges is one and altereth not but as a newe forme commeth taketh a new name fansying that as one waue in the water thrusteth away an other so doth one forme an other It should séeme by this conclusion all alteration to be in accidents and the corruption of accidentes to be the generation of new accidentes the same Materia prima being as it were substantia that altereth not And this I write that may be sayd as it were to make a title to this authors certainety which is not so sure as he maketh it Amonges men haue bene maruailous fansies in consideration of naturall thinges and it is to me a very great absurdity of that secret and therfore to our certaine fayth But to come nerer to the purpose it is wrong borne in hand that we affirme wormes to be engendred of accidentes but when the wormes be ingendred we graunt the wormes to be and will rather say whereof they be we cannot tell then to say that substaunce is made of accidents and that doctrine is not annexed to the faith of transubstantiation and such as intreat those chaunces and accidentes doe not induce that
body simulation and dissimulation wherin when you haue well practised your selfe in all your booke thorow at the last you make as it were a play in a dialogue betweene Chrysostome Theodoret and me But Chrysostome Theodoret and I shall agree well enough for they tell not what in no wise may be but what was commonly vsed that is to say not to call the bread by his proper name after consecration but by the name of the body of Christ. And if you had well considered what I wrote in my booke concerning figuratiue speaches and negatiues by cōparisō which you also haue allowed you should haue well perceiued your labor here spēt all in vaine For in all figures and sacramentes the signes remayning in their owne proper natures chaunge neuertheles their names and be called by the names of the more high and excellent thinges which they signify And both Chrysostome and Theodoret shew a cause thereof which is this that we should not rest in the sight of the sacramentes and figures but lift vp our mindes to the thinges that be thereby represented And yet in the sacramentes is neither simulation nor dissimulation except you will call all figuratiue speaches simulation and say that Christ simuled when he sayd he was a vine a dore a herdman the light of the world and suche like speaches But it pleaseth you for refreshing of your wit being now so sore trauailed with impugning of the truth to deuise a prety mery dialog of Quoth he and quoth he And if I were disposed to dally and trifle I could make a like dialogue of simulation or dissimulation of quoth he and quoth you euen betwene you and Christ. But as I haue declared before all thinges which be exalted to an hier dignity be called by the names of their dignity So muche the many times their former names be forgotten and yet neuertheles they be the same thinges that they were before although they be not vsually so called As the surnames of Kinges and Emperours to how many be they knowen or how many doe call them thereby but euery man calleth them by their royall and imperiall dignities And in like maner is it of fygures and sacramentes sauing that their exaltation is in a figure and the dignities royall and imperiall be reall and indeed And yet he should not offend that should call the princes by their original names so that he did it not in contempt of their estates And no more should he offend that did call a figure by the name of the thing that it is indeed so that he did it not in contempt of the thing that is signified And therefore Theodoret sayth not that the bread in the sacrament may not be called bread and that he offendeth that so calleth it for he calleth it bread himselfe but with this addition of dignity calling it the bread of life which it signifieth As the cap of maintenāce is not called barely and simply a cap but with addition of maintenaunce And in like manner we vse not in common speach to call bread wine and water in the sacraments simple and common water bread and wine but according to that they represent vnto vs we call them the water of baptisme the water of life sacramentall water sacramentall and celestiall bread and wine the bread of lyfe the drinke that quencheth our thirst for euer And the cause Theodoret sheweth why they be so called that we hearing those names should lift vp our mindes vnto the thinges that they bee called and comfort our selues therewithall And yet neither in the sacraments iu the cap of maintenaunce nor in the imperiall or royall maiesties is any simulation or dissimulation but all be playn speaches in common vsage which euery man vnderstandeth But there was neuer man that vnderstood any author further from his meaning then you do Theodoret and Chrysostome in this place For they ment not of any reall calling by chaungyng of substances but of a sacramentall chaunge of the names remaining the substaunces For Theodoret sayth in playne wordes that as Christ called bread his body so he called his body corne and called himselfe a vine Was therefore the substance of his body transubstantiated and turned into corne or he into a vine And yet this must needes follow of your saying if Christes calling were a putting away of the former substance according to the doctrine of Transubstantiation But that Theodoret ment not of any such chaunging of substances but of chaunging of names he declareth so playnely that no man can doubt of his meaning These be Theodorets owne wordes Our Sauiour without doubt chaunged the names and gaue to his body the name of the signe and to the signe the name of his body and yet sayth he they kept their former substaunce fashion and figure And the cause wherfore Christ doth vouchsafe to call the sacramental bread by the name of hys body to dignify so earthly a thing by so heauenly a name Theodoret sheweth to be this that the godly receiuers of the Sacrament when they heare the heauenly names should lift vp their mindes from earth vnto heauen and not to haue respect vnto the bread outwardly only but principally to looke vpon Christ who with his heauenly grace and omnipotent power feedeth them inwardly But there was neuer such vntrueth vsed as you vse in this author to hide the trueth and to set forth your vntrueth For you alter Theodoretes wordes and yet that suffiseth not but you geue such new and straunge significations to wordes as before was neuer inuented For where Theodoret sayth that the sacramentes remayne you turne that into the visible matter and then that visible matter as you take it must signify accidents And where Theodoret sayth in playne termes that the substaunce remayneth there must substaunce also by your saying signify accidentes which you call here outward nature cōtrary to your own doctrine which haue taught hetherto that substaunce is an inward nature inuisible and insensible And thus your saying here neither agreeth with the trueth nor with your selfe in other places And all these cantelless and false interpretations altering of the words and corrupting of the sence both of all authors and also of scripture is nothing els but shameles shiftes to deceiue simple people and to draw them from the olde Catholicke fayth of Christes Churche vnto your newe Romish errors deuised by Antichrist not aboue foure or fiue hundred yeares passed And where you say that in the sacrament in euery part both in the heauenly earthly part is an whole perfect truth Now is perfect truth in the earthly part of the sacrament if there be no bread there at all but the color and accidents of bread For if there be none other truth in the heauēly part of the sacrament then is not Christ there at all but onely his qualities and accidentes And as concerning your vniust gathering of mine owne wordes vpon S. Augustine I haue aunswered
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
accepted and pleasaunt in the sight of God And this maner of shewyng Christes death and kèepyng the memorie of it is grounded vpon the Scriptures written by the Euangelistes and S. Paule and accordyng thereunto Preached beleued vsed and frequented in the Church of Christ vniuersally and from the beginnyng This authour vtteryng many wordes at large besides Scripture and agaynst Scripture to depraue the Catholike doctrine doth in a few wordes which be in déede good wordes and true confounde and ouerthrow all his enterprise and that issue will I ioyne with him which shall suffise for the confutation of this booke The fewe good wordes of the authour which wordes I say confounde the rest consist in these two pointes One in that the authour alloweth the Iudgement of Petrus Lombardus touchyng the oblation and sacrifice of the Church An other in that the authour confesseth the Councell of Nice to be holy Councell as it hath bene in déede confessed of all good Christen men Upon these two confessions I will declare the whole enterprise of this fift booke to be ouerthrowen Caunterbury MY fift booke hath so fully so playnly set out this matter of the sacrifice that for aūswere to all that you haue here brought to the cōfutation therof the reader neede to do no more but to looke ouer my booke agayne and he shall see you fully aunswered before hand Yet wyll I here and there adde some notes that your ignoraūce and craft may the better appeare This farre you agree to the truth that the sacrifice of Christ was a ful and a perfect sacrifice which needed not to be done no more but once and yet it is remembred and shewed forth dayly And this is the true doctrine accordyng to Gods word But as concernyng the reall presence in the accidents of bread and wine is an vntrue doctrine fayned onely by the Papistes as I haue most playnly declared and this is one of your errours here vttered An other is that you cast the most precious body and bloud of Christ the sacrifice Propitiatorie for all the sinnes of the world which of it selfe was not the sacrifice but the thyng whereof the sacrifice was made and the death of him vpon the Crosse was the true sacrifice propiciatorie that purchased the remission of sinne which sacrifice continued not long nor was made neuer but once where as his flesh and bloud continued euer in substaunce from his incarnation as well before the sayd sacrifice as euer sithens And that sacrifice propitiatorie made by him onely vpon the Crosse is of that effect to reconcile vs to Gods fauour that by it be accepted all our sacrifices of landes and thankes geuyng Now before I ioyne with you in your issue I shall rehearse the wordes of my booke which when the indifferent Reader seeth he shal be the more able to iudge truely betwene vs. My booke conteineth thus The fift Booke THe greatest blasphemy and iniurie that can be agaynst Christ and yet vniuersally vsed through the Popishe kyngdome is thys that the Priestes make their Masse a sacrifice propitiatorie to remit the sinnes as well of them selues as of other both quicke and dead to whom they list to apply the same Thus vnder pretence of holynes the Papistical priests haue taken vpon them to be Christes successours and to make such an oblation and sacrifice as neuer creature made but Christ alone neither he made the same any more tymes then once and that was by his death vpon the Crosse. For as S. Paule in his Epistle to the Hebrues witnesseth Although the high priestes of the old law offered many tymes at the least euery yeare once yet Christ offered not him selfe many tymes for then he should many tymes haue dyed But now he offered him selfe but once to take away sinne by that offering of him selfe And as men must dye once so was Christ offered once to take away the sinnes of many And furthermore S. Paul sayth That the sacrifices of the old law although they were continually offered from yeare to yeare yet could they not take away sinne nor make men perfect For if they could once haue quieted mens consciēces by taking away sinne they should haue ceassed and no more haue bene offered But Christ with once offering hath made perfect for euer them that be sanctified puttyng their sinnes cleane out of Gods remembraūce And where remission of sinnes is there is no more offering for sinne And yet further he sayth concernyng the old Testament that it was disanulled and taken away bicause of the feeblenesse and vnprofitablenesse therof for it brought nothyng to perfection And the priestes of that law were many bycause they liued not long and so the priesthode went from one to an other but Christ liueth euer and hath an euerlastyng priesthode that passeth not from him to any man els Wherfore he is able perfectly to saue them that come to God by him for asmuch as he liueth euer to make intercession for vs. For it was meete for vs to haue such an high priest that is holy innocent with out spot separated from sinners and exalted vp aboue heauen who needeth not dayly to offer vp sacrifice as Aarons priestes did first for his owne sinnes and then for the people For that he did once when he offered vp him selfe Here in his Epistle to the Hebrues S. Paule hath playnly and fully described vnto vs the difference betwene the priesthode and sacrifices of the old Testament and the most high and worthy priesthode of Christ his most perfect and necessary sacrifice and the benefite that commeth to vs thereby For Christ offered not the bloud of calues sheepe and goates as the priests of the old law haue vsed to do but he offered his own bloud vpon the Crosse. And he went not into an holy place made by mans hand as Aaron did but he ascended vp into heauen where his eternall Father dwelleth and before him he maketh continuall supplication for the sinnes of the whole world presentyng his owne body which was torne for vs and his precious bloud which of his most gracious and liberall charitie he shed for vs vpon the Crosse. And that sacrifice was of such force that it was no neede to renew it euery yeare as the Byshops did of the old Testament whose sacrifices were many tymes offered and yet were of no great effect or profite bycause they were sinners them selues that offered them and offered not their owne bloud but the bloud of brute beastes but Christes sacrifice ones offered was sufficient for euermore And that all men may the better vnderstand this sacrifice of Christ which he made for the great benefite of all men it is necessary to know the distinctiō and diuersitie of sacrifices One kynde of sacrifice there is which is called a Propitiatory or mercyfull sacrifice that is to say such a sacrifice as pacifieth Gods wrath and indignatiō and obteineth mercy and forgiuenes
could deuise to deliuer some from Purgatory and some from hell if they were not there finally by God determined to abyde as they termed the matter to make rayne or faire wether to put away the plague and other sicknesses both from man and beast to halow and preserue them that went to Ierusalem to Rome to S. Iames in Compostella and other places in pilgrimage for a preseruatiue agaynst tempest and thunder agaynst perils and daungers of the Sea for a remedy agaynst moraine of cattell agaynst pensiuenesse of the hart agaynst all maner affliction and tribulations And finally they extoll their Masses far aboue Christes passion promising many thynges thereby which were neuer promised vs by Christes passion As that if a man heare Masse hee shall lacke no bodily sustenaunce that day nor nothyng necessary for him nor shal be letted in his iourney he shall not lose his sight that day nor dye no sodaine death he shall not waxe old in that time that he heareth Masse nor no wicked spirites shall haue power of him be he neuer so wicked a man so long as he looketh vpon the Sacrament All these foolish and deuilish superstitions the Papistes of their owne idle brayne haue deuised of late yeares which deuises were neuer knowen in the old Church And yet they cry out agaynst them that professe the Gospell and say that they dissent from the Church and would haue them to folow the example of their Church And so would they gladly do if the Papistes would folow the first Church of the Apostles which was most pure and incorrupt but the Papistes haue clearely varied frō the vsage and exāples of that Church and haue inuented new deuises of their own braynes and will in no wise cōsent to folow the primitiue Church and yet they would haue other to folow their Church vtterly variyng and dissentyng from the first most godly Church But thankes be to the eternall God the maner of the holy Communion which is now set forth within this Realme is agreable with the institution of Christ with Saint Paule and the old primitiue and Apostolicke Church with the right fayth of the Sacrifice of Christ vpon the Crosse for our redemption and with the true doctrine of our saluation iustification and remission of all our sinnes by that onely sacrifice Now resteth nothyng but that all faithfull subiectes will gladly receiue and embrace the same beyng sory for their former ignoraunce and euery man repentyng him selfe of his offences agaynst God and amendyng the same may yeld him selfe wholly to God to serue and obey him all the dayes of his lyfe and often to come to the holy Supper whiche our Lord and Sauiour Christ hath prepared And as he there corporally eateth the very bread and drinketh the very wine so spiritually he may feede of the very fleshe and bloud of Iesu Christ his Sauiour and redeemer remembryng his death thankyng him for his benefites and lookyng for none other sacrifice at no priestes handes for remission of his sinnes but onely trustyng to his sacrifice which beyng both the high priest and also the Lambe of God prepared from the begynnyng to take away the sinnes of the world offered vp him selfe once for euer in a sacrifice of sweete smell vnto his Father and by the same payd the raunsome for the sinnes of the whole worlde Who is before vs entred into heauen and sitteth at the right hand of his Father as a patron mediatour and intercessour for vs. And there hath prepared places for all them that be lyuely members of his body to reigne with him for euer in the glory of his father to whom with him and the holy Ghost be glory honour and prayse for euer and euer Amen Thus hauing rehearsed the whole wordes of my last booke I shall returne to your issue and make a ioynder or demurre with you therein And if you can not proue your propitiatory Sacrifice of the Priestes by Petrus Lombardus and Nicene Councell then must you confesse by your owne Issue that the Uerdite must iustly passe agaynst you and that you haue a fall in your own suite As for the sacrifice of laudes and thakesgeuyng I haue set it forth playnly in my booke but the sacrifice propitiatory deuised to be made by the priest in the Masse onely is a great abhominatiō before God how glorious soeuer it appeare befor◠men And it is set vp onely by Antichrist and therefore worthy to be abhorred of all that truely professe Christ. And first as concerning Nicene counsell because you begin with that first I will rehearse your wordes Winchester Fyrst to begin with the counsell of Nice the same hath opened the mistery of the sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ in this wise that christen men beleue the Lamb that taketh away the sinnes of the world to be situate vpon Gods woorde and to be sacrificed of the priestes not after the manner of other sacrifices This is the doctrine of the counsell of Nice and must then be called an holy doctrine and thereby a true doctrine consonant to the scriptures the foundation of all trueth If the author will deny this to haue bene the teaching of the counsell of Nice I shal alleadge therefore the allegation of the same by Decolampadius who being an aduersary to the truth was yet by Gods prouidence ordered to beare testimony to the truth in this poynt and by his meane is published to the world in greeke as followeth which neuerthelesse may otherwise appeare to be true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Iterum etiam hic in diuina mensa ne humiliter intenti simus ad propositum pannem poculum sed mente exaltata fide intilligamus situm esse in sacra illa mensa illum Dei agnum qui tollit peccata mundi sacrificatum à sacerdotibus non victimarum more mos preciosum illius corpus sanguinem verè sumentes credere haec esse resurrectionis nostrae Symbola Ideo enim non multum accipimus sed parum vt cognoscamus quoniam non in satietatem sed sanctificationem These wordes may be englished thus Agayne in this godly table we should not in base and low consideration direct our vnderstanding to the bread and cup set forth but hauing our mind exalted we should vnderstand by fayth to be situate in that table the Lamb of God which taketh away the sinnes of the world sacrificed of the priestes not after the maner of other Sacrifices and we receiuing truely the precious body and bloud of the same Lamb to beleue these to be the tokens of our resurrection And for that we receiue not much but a litle because we should know that not for saturity and filling but for sanctification This holy counsel of Niece hath bene beleued vniuersally in declaration of the mistery of the Trinity and the Sacramentes also And to them that confesse that counsell to be holy as the author here doth 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
is it to offer Christes body and bloud at Masse to purchase thereby euerlastyng lyfe if it be not the Masse to be a Sacrifice to pacifie Gods wrath for sinne and to obtaine his mercy Smith fol. 24. 148. and .164 Priestes doe offer for our saluation to get Heauen to auoyde Hell fol. eodem ¶ Matters wherein the Byshop varied from him selfe THe body of Christ in the Sacramēt is not made of bread but is made present of bread pag. 79. lin 6. c. and pag. 202. lin 40. c. Of bread is made the body of Christ pag. 344. lin 8. The Catholicke fayth hath frō the beginnyng confessed truely Christes intent to make bread his body pag. 26. lin 40. Christ gaue that he made of bread pag. 257. lin 50. And of many breads is made one body of Christ pag. 144. lin 23. And fayth sheweth me that bread is the body of Christ that is to say made the body of Christ pag. 295. lin 30. Christ spake playnly This is my body makyng demonstration of the bread when he sayd This is my body in the Deuils Sophistry fol. 27. I will passe ouer the phantasies of them who wrote the principall chief text This is my body from consecration of the Sacrament to the demonstration of Christes body c in the deuilish deuils Sophistry fol. 70. The demonstration This may be referred to the inuisible substaunce pag. 106. lin 42. The Is was of his body and bloud and not of the bread and wine pag. 251. lin 8. Illis verbis hoc est Corpus meum substantia corporis significatur nec de pane quic quam intelligitur quum corpus de substantia sua nō aliena predicetur fol. 24. fa. 2. Mar Ant. Constant. When Christ sayd This is my body the truth of the litterall sence hath an absurditie in carnall reason pag. 138. lin 19. What can be more euidently spoken of the presence of Christes naturall body and bloud in the most blessed Sacrament of the aultar than is in these wordes This is my body in the deuils Sophistry fol. 5. Where the body of Christ is there is whole Christ God and man And when we speake of Christes body we must vnderstand a true body which hath both forme and quātitie pag. 71. lin 47. And he is present in the Sacrament as he is in heauen pag. 141. lin 6. c. We beleue simply the substaunce of Christes body to be in the Sacrament without drawyng away of accidentes or adding pag. 353. lin 1. Christ is not present in the Sacrament after the maner of quantitie but vnder the forme and quantitie of bread and wine pag. 71. lin 50. pag. 90. lin 43. In such as receiue the Sacrament worthely Christ dwelleth in them corporally and naturally and carnally pag. 166. lin 19. and pag. 173. lin 54. and pag. 191. lin 47. The maner of Christes beyng in the Sacrament is not corporall not carnall not naturall not sensible not perceptible but onely spirituall pag. 159. lin 17. and pag. 197. lin 32. We receiue Christ in the Sacrament of his fleshe and bloud if we receiue him worthely pag. 167. lin 9. and pag. 174. lin 1. When an vnrepentaunt sinner receiueth the Sacrament hee hath not Christes body within him pag. 225. lin 43. He that eateth verely the flesh of Christ is by nature in Christ Christ is naturally in him pag. 17. lin 38. c. An euill man in the Sacrament receiueth indeede Christes very body pag. eadem lin 7. Euill men eate verely the flesh of Christ pag. 225. lin 47. Christ geueth vs to be eaten the same flesh that hee tooke of the virgin pag. 241. lin 27. We receiue not in the Sacrament Christes body that was Crucified pag. 243. lin 16. Saint Augustines rule De doctrina Christiana pertaineth not to Christes Supper pag. 117. lin 21. The sixt of Iohn speaketh not of any promise made to the eatyng of a token of Christes flesh pag. 4. lin 40. S. Augustin meaneth of the sacrament pag. 119. lin 24. The sixt of Iohn must needes be vnderstand of corporall and sacramētall eatyng pag. 17. lin 48. Reason in place of seruice as beyng inferiour to fayth will agree with the doctrine of Transubstantiation well enough pag. 265. lin 1. And as reason receiued into faithes seruice doth not striue with Transubstantiation but agreeth well with it so mans sences be no such direct aduersaries to Transubstantiation as a matter whereof they can no skill for the sences can no skill of substaunces pag. 271. lin 24. c. Thine eyes say there is but bread and wyne Thy tast sayth the same Thy feelyng and smellyng agree fully with them Hereunto is added the carnall mans vnderstandyng which bycause it taketh the begynning of the senses proceedeth in reasonyng sensually in the deuils sophistry fol. 6. The Church hath not forborne to preache the truth to the confusion of mans senses and vnderstandyng fol. 15. It is called bread bycause of the outward visible matter pag. When it is called bread it is meant Christ the spirituall bread pag. 284. lin 25. The fraction is in the outward signe not in the body of Christ pag. 144. lin 39. and pag. 348. lin 21. And in the deuils sophistry fol. 17. That which is broken is the body of Christ pag. 348. lin 18. The inward nature of the bread is the substaunce pag. 286. lin 23. Substaunce signifieth the outward nature pag. 359. lin 22. The substaunces of bread and wine be visible creatures pag. 285. lin 48. and pag. 286. lin 44. Accidents be the visible natures and visible elementes pag. 363. lin 39. Christ is our satisfaction holy and fully and hath payde our whole debt to God the Father for the appeasing of his wrath agaynst vs pag. 81. lin 39. The act of the Priest done accordyng to Gods commaundement must needes be propitiatory and ought to be trusted on to haue a propitiatory effect pag. 437. lin 13. The demonstration This may be referred to the inuisible substaunce pag. 106. lin 44. The Is was of his body and bloud and not of the bread and wyne pag. 251. lin 8. When Christ sayd This is my body the truth of the literal sense hath an absurditie in carnall reason pag. 138. lin 19. And it is a singular miracle of Christ vnderstanded as the playne wordes signifie in their propre sense ibidem lin 21. The sacrifice of our sauiour Christ was neuer reiterate pag. 368. lin 46. Priestes do sacrifice Christ pag. 381. lin 42. c. And the Catholicke doctrine teacheth the dayly sacrifice to bee the same in essence that was offered on the Crosse pag. 436. lin 11. The Nestorians graunted both the Godhead manhode alwayes to be in Christ continually pag. 309. lin 18. The Nestorians denyed Christ conceyued God or borne God but that he was afterward God as a mā that is not borne a Byshop is after made a Byshop So the Nestorians sayd that the Godhead was
we be in nature vnited to Christ as man and by his glorified flesh made partakers also of his diuinitie pag. 181. lin 8. Christes body and fleshe is a spirituall body and flesh and is present in the Sacrament after a spirituall maner and is spiritually receiued pag. eadem lin 26. 351. lin 19. In this Sacrament Christes humanitie and Godhead is really present and in Baptisme his Godhead with the effectuall vertue of his bloud in whiche we be washed not requiryng any reall presence therof pag. 191. lin 35. Spirite and lyfe may fall vpon naughtie men although for their malice it taryeth not pag. 211. lin 17. Christes woordes were not figuratiue but true and proper when he sayd this is my body pag. 9. lin 1. pag. 257. lin 1. and. 14. Marcus Antonius fol. 24. fa. 1. All the namyng of bread by Christ and S. Paule and all other must be vnderstand before sanctification and not after pag. 258. lin 15. When S. Paule sayd we be partakers of one bread he speaketh not of materiall bread pag. 258. lin 7. No mā knoweth the difference betwene the substaūce of bread cheese and ale pag. 271. lin 39. pag. 272. lin 23. pag. 339. lin 33. The accidentes of bread may be called the visible part of bread the outward kynde and forme of bread the appearaunce of bread a true sensible part of bread bread the nature of bread the matter of bread the visible matter of bread not that it is property bread but after the common speach and capacitie of men pag. 272. lin 16. and pag. 273. lin 25. pag. 283. lin 11. and pag. 289. lin 31. and. 290. lin 7. and. 292. lin 16. and pag. 396. lin 43. c. and. 305. lin 44. c. and pag .243 lin 45. pag. 359. lin 22. The accidentes of bread do corrupt putrifie and nourish pag. 273. lin 30. pag. 290. lin 7. and pag. 296. lin 48. and pag. 358. lin 28. The glorified body of Christ is of the owne nature neither visible nor palpable pag. 273. lin 40. In Baptisme the whole man is not regenerated but the soule pag. 286. lin 10. The soule onely of man is the substaunce of man Ibidem The soule onely is made the sonne of God pag. 286. lin 23. It is called meate bycause of the outward visible matter pag. 290. lin 9. As really and as truly as the soule of man is present in the body so really and so truly is the body of Christ present in the sacrament pag. 296. lin 5. and pag. 396. lin 15. The sacrifice of the Churche is perfected before the perception pag. 396. lin 32. In the Sacrament beyng a mystery ordered to feede vs is the truth of the presence of the natures earthly and celestiall The visible matter of the earthly creature in his propertie and nature for the vse of signification is necessaryly required pag. 310. lin 44.48 This saying of Gelasius The substaunce or nature of bread and wyne cease not to be there still may be verified in the last and nature he taketh for the proprietie pag. 310. lin 50. Theodorets saying that the substaunce of bread remayneth seemeth to speak of substaunce after the common capacitie and not as it is truely in learnyng vnderstanded an inward inuisible and not palpable nature pag. 321. lin 2. Christ in his Supper fulfilled this promise Panis quem ego dabo c. pag. 329. lin 25. Accidentes in common vnderstandyng bee called substaunces pag. 339. lin 31. In common bread the substaunce is not broken at all Ibidem lin 39. Accidentes be broken without substaunce pag. 339. lin 6. c. All alteration is in accidentes and the corruption of accidentes in the generation of new accidentes pag. 355. lin 4. Substaunce in Theodorete signifieth the outward visible nature that is to say accidentes pag. 359. lin 20. One thyng is but one substaunce sauyng onely in the person of Christ. pag. 359. lin 41. Baptisme is not wondred at how 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 bee chaunged into the body and bloud of Christ whiche is wrought before we receiue the Sacrament pag. 366. lin 45. Priestes do offer dayly Christes flesh and bloud pag. 384. lin 26. Christ offered him selfe in his Supper pag. eadem lin 27. Otherwise then Christ did can not be now done pag. 384. lin 28. The dayly offeryng by the Priest is dayly offered for sinne bycause we dayly fall pag. eadem lin 30. That is done in the aultar is a sacrifice and the same that is offered once and dayly to be the same Uisible Priestes Ministers to our inuisible Priest offer the dayly sacrifice in Christes Church pag. 392. lin 46. The body and bloud of Christ is properly sacrificed by the Priestes and is there offered for the effect of increase of lyfe in vs as it was offered vpon the Crosse to atcheue lyfe vnto vs. pag. 390. lin 46. c. The same body is offered dayly vpon on the aultar that was once offered vpon the Crosse but the same maner of offeryng is not dayly that was on the aultar of the Crosse for the dayly offeryng is without bloudshedyng and is termed so to signifie that bloudshedyng once done to be sufficient pag. 391. lin 7. c. The sacrifice of the Church is propitiatory pag. 391. lin 8. The sacrifice of the Church is a sacrifice geuyng lyfe Ibidem lin 8. Our sacrifice of laude and thankes geuyng can not be sayd a pure and cleane sacrifice to fulfill the Prophecie of Malachie Ibidem lin 10. Certayne godly and fruitfull Letters of D. Cranmer late Archbishop of Caunterbury ¶ A Letter to Queene Mary IT may please your Maiesty to pardon my presumption that I dare be so bold to write to your highnes but very necessity constrayneth me that your Maiesty may know my minde rather by mine owne writing then by other mens reportes So it is that vpon Saturday being the 7. day of this moneth I was cited to appeare at Rome the lxxx day after there to make aunswere to such matters as should be obiected agaynst me vpon the behalfe of the King and your most excellent Maiesty which matters the Thursday following were obiected agaynst me by Doctor Martin and Doctor Story your maiesties Proctors before the Bishop of Bloucester sitting in iudgement by commission from Rome But alas it can not but greue the hart of any naturall subiect to be accused of the King and Queene of his owne Realme and specially before an outward iudge or by authority comming from any person out of this Realme where the king and Queene as if they were subiectes within theyr owne Realme shall complayne and require iustice at a straungers handes agaynst theyr owne subiect being already condemned to death by their owne lawes as though the King and Queene could not do nor haue iustice within their owne Realme agaynst their owne
Pope I thinke it was accordyng to the other othes which he vseth to minister to Princes which is to be obedient to him to defend his person to maintaine his authoritie honour lawes landes and priuileges And if it be so then I beseech your Maiestie to looke vpon your othe made to the crowne and the Realme and to expēd and way the two othes together to see how they agree and then to do as your graces cōscience shall geue you for I am surely perswaded that willyngly your Maiestie will not offend nor do agaynst your conscience for nothyng But I feare me there be contradiction in your othes and that those which should haue enformed your grace throughly did not their dueties therein And if your Maiestie ponder the two othes diligently I thinke you shall perceaue that you were deceaued and then your highnes may vse the matter as God shall put in your hart Furthermore I am kept here from company of learned men from bookes from counsell from penne and incke sauyng at this tyme to write to your Maiestie which all were necessary for a man in my case Wherfore I beseech your Maiestie that I may haue such of these as may stand with your Maiesties pleasure And as for myne appearaunce at Rome if your Maiestie will geue me leaue I will appeare there and I trust that God shall put in my mouth to defend his truth there aswell as here but I referre it wholly to your Maiesties pleasure Your poore Oratour T. C. ¶ To the Lordes of the Counsell IN most humble wise sueth vnto your right honourable Lordshyps Thomas Cranmer late Archb. of Cant. beseechyng the same to be a meanes for me vnto the Queenes highnesse for her mercy pardō Some of you know by what meanes I was brought and trayned vnto the will of our late soueraigne Lord kyng Edward the vi what I spake agaynst the same wherein I referre me to the reportes of your honours Furthermore this is to signifie vnto your Lordshyps that vpon Monday Tuesday and Wednisday last past were open disputations here in Oxford agaynst me M. Ridley and M. Latymer in three matters concernyng the Sacrament First of the reall presence secondly of Trāsubstantiation and thyrdly concernyng the Sacrifice of the Masse How the other two were vsed I can not tel for we were separated so that none of vs knew what the other said nor how they were ordered But as concernyng my selfe I can report that I neuer knew nor heard of a more confused disputation in all my lyfe For albeit there was one appointed to dispute agaynst me yet euery man spake his mynde and brought forth what him lyked without order and such hast was made that no aunswere could be suffered to be geuen fully to any argumēt in such weighty large matters there was no remedy but the disputations must needes be ended in one day whiche can scantly well be ended in three monethes And when we had aunswered them then they would not appoint vs one day to bring forth our proofes that they might aunswere vs agayne beyng required of me thereunto whereas I my selfe haue more to say then can be well discussed in .xx dayes The meanes to resolue the truth had bene to haue suffered vs to aunswere fully to all that they could say and then they agayne to aunswere to all that we could say But why they would not aunswere vs what other cause can there be but that either they feared the matter that they were not able to aunswere vs or els as by their hast might well appeare they came not to speake the truth but to condemne vs in post hast before the truth might be throughly tryed and heard for in all hast we were all three condemned of heresie vpon Friday This much I thought good to signifie vnto your Lordshyppes that you may knowe the indifferent handlyng of matters leauyng the iudgement thereof vnto your wisedomes and I beseech your Lordshyppes to remember me a poore prisoner vnto the Queenes Maiestie and I shall pray as I doe dayly to God for the long preseruation of your good Lordshyppes in all godlynesse and felicitie ¶ A Letter wherein hee reproueth and condemneth the false and sclaunderous reportes of the Papistes which sayd that he had set vp Masse agayne at Canterbury AS the deuill Christes auncient aduersary is a lyer the father of lying Euē so hath he sturred vp his seruaunts and members to persecute Christ his true word and Religion with lying whiche he ceasseth not to do most earnestly at this present For whereas the Prince of famous memory kyng Henry the eight seyng the great abuses of the Latin Masse reformed some thyng therein in his tyme and also our late soueraigne Lord kyng Edward the vj. tooke the same whole away for the manifold errours and abuses therof and restored in the place therof Christes holy Supper accordyng to Christes owne institution and as the Apostles in the primatiue Church vsed the same the deuil goeth about by lying to ouerthrow the Lordes holy Supper and to restore his Latin satisfactory Masse a thyng of his owne inuention and deuise and to bryng the same more easely to passe some haue abused the name of me Thomas Archbyshop of Canterbury brutyng abroad that I haue set vp the Masse at Canterbury and that I offred to say Masse at the buriall of our late soueraigne Prince kyng Edward the vj. and also that I offred to say Masse before the Queenes highnes and at Paules Church and I wot not where And although I haue bene wel exercised these xx yeares to suffer and beare euill reportes and lyes and haue bene much greued thereat but haue borne all thynges quietly yet when vntrue reportes and lyes turne to the hinderaunce of Gods truth they be in no wise to be suffred Wherfore these be to signifie vnto the world that it was a false flatteryng lying dissemblyng Monke which caused Masse to be set vp there without myne aduise or counsell Reddat illi Dominus in die illo And as for offering my selfe to say Masse before the Queenes highnes or in any other place I neuer did it as her grace well knoweth But if her grace giue me leaue I shal be ready to proue agaynst all that will say the contrary that all that is sayd in the holy Communion set out by the most innocent and godly Prince kyng Edward the vj. in his high Court of Parliament is conformable to the order which our soueraigne Christ did both obserue and commaunded to be obserued and which his Apostles and primatiue Church vsed many yeares whereas the Masse in many thyngs not onely hath no foundation of Christ his Apostles nor the primatiue Church but is manifestly contrary to the same and containeth many horrible abuses in it And although many vnlearned and malitious do report that M. Peter Martyr is vnlearned yet if the Queenes highnesse will graunt thereunto I with
catholica firmiter paragrapho vna The second is of the presence of Christ in the Sacrament De coÌ„secra dist 1. Ego Beâ—eng Lege Roffen contra Oerol in proaemio lib. 3. corroborat 5. Christ is not corporally in earth Iohn 6. Math. 26. Mark 24. Actes 3. Coloss. 3. 1. Cor. 11. The third is that euill men eate and drinke the very body and bloud of Christ. The fourth is of the dayly sacrifice of Christ. Ibacuk 2. D. Smith Some say that Christ in naturally in the sament A manifest falshoode in the printing of the Byshoppes booke Some say that Christ is rent and torne with teeth in the sacrament Why the order of my booke was changed by the Bishop Untrue report The teaching hetherto euen at this day of the church of England agreeth with that this author calleth papistes Crafty conueiance of spech by this Author Worthy receauing of Christs precious body bloud 1. Cor. 6. A difference should be of contraries Chap. 1. The presence of Christ in the sacrament Christ corporally is ascended into heauen Act. 3. Cap. 2. The difference betwene the true and papisticall doctrine concerning the preseÌ„ce of Christes body The first coÌ„parison Misreport of bread and wine for the formes figures of them Smyth Tee booke of common prayer The secoÌ„d part The difference Repugnaunce The 1. comparison I sect reproued that were called Stercoranists The booke of common prayer That the Papiste say that Christ goâ— in no â—â—rther theÌ„ the mouth or stomacke Thomas Bonauentura Read Smith Fol. 64 Hugo Innocentius 3 li. ca. 25. The secoÌ„d part Innocent 3. August contra lit Peti lib. 2. cap. 47. whether Christ be receaued in the mouth The difference August contra lit Peti lib. 2. cap. 47. August contra lit Peti lib. 2. cap. 47. Iohn 13. 1. Cor. 10. The fourth comparyson Pugnat cum alijs Papistis Christ is the body of all the figures Really that is in deede Cyrillus ad Calosyrium episcopum Hesychius in Leuit. li 3. ca. 3. Christ beyng present in the sacrament is at the same tyme present in heauen Truely Really Substantially Augustin Psal. 33. What is found in a blind glose may not be takeÌ„ for the teaching of the church yet I neuer red of flyng It is in man daÌ„gerous to affirme or deny extreamyties although they be be true for it maketh him suspect of presumtion How long christ taryeth with the receyuour of the sacrament Metonymia The Fathers in the old law receiued the same things in their sacrameÌ„ts that we do in ours Reseruation Cyrill Hesichius De consecrat d. 2. Tribus gradibus The benefite comfort in this sacrament Iohn 5. The maner of presence Math. 18. Math. 6. The comparisoÌ„ The 5. comparison Pugnat cum alijs Papistis What is receued of all christen meÌ„ hath therein a manifest token in truth It is a folly to answere a corious demaunder Quintus Curtius maketh mention of this faith of Alexander Fath of God his work can not by mans deuise haue any qualification Sabellians Arrians Bernard super Cant. ser. 31. It is good at al times to coÌ„uert from error to truth 1. Tim. 1. The booke of common praier The Papists say that whole Christ is in euery part of the coÌ„secrated bread Thomas 3. part sum q. 76. art 3. Innocentius 3. lib. 4. cap. 8. A subtil sleight Wanton reason True christian men A Dialog What is to be wondered at in the SacrameÌ„t Sabellius Arrius The contrary hereof is noted for a doctrine Pugnat cum alijs Papistis Whether a bird or â—east eat the body of Christ. Lib. 4. distinct 13. In erroribus fol 134. b. Vide Marcum Constantium fol. 72. obiect 94. Thomas 3. part sum q. 80. art 3. Peryn A demurre vpoÌ„ this Issue August contra litteras Pe til lib. 20. Marcus constaÌ„tius dicit quod Ethnici ideÌ„ fortasse sumunt quod bruti i. sacrameÌ„tumtantuÌ„ The word very may make wrangling A demurre whether euill men eat the body of Christ. Iohn 6. 1. Cor. 11. August contra lit Petil. li. 2. cap 37. Truthes fained frends Very August in Ioh. tra 59. Smyth The 8. comparison 3. Manner of eatinges Cause of error Gods promises annexed to his Sacraments We must in teaching exalt the Sacraments after their dignity 3. Manner of eatinges True sacrameÌ„tall eating 1. Cor. 11. Whether Christ be really eaten without the sacrament The comparisoÌ„ Really Smyth Christes body is vnderstanded of his humanity I meruailous saying of this â—â— ther without Scripture Christ in thinstitution of the Sacrament spake of his humanity saying This is my body Phil. 4. There Note this contrariety in the Author The coÌ„parison Theodoret. dialog 1. D. Smith Whether in the Sacrament Christes body hath his proper forme and quantity D. Smith Iohn 16. Mark 16 Luke 24. â—Act 1. All. There A riddle may coÌ„taine truth of nay and pea being in appearaÌ„ce two contraries Augustinus I speciall difference in S. Augustine â—â—ne of Kentes 〈◊〉 Nouelty of speech The fathers did eat Christs flesh and drink his bloud The diuersitie of the sacrameÌ„ts of the new and olde testament August in Ioan. Tract 26. The Fathers did eate Christs body and drinke his bloud before he was borne 1. Cor. 10. August de vtil paeniten August in psal 77. August in IoaÌ„ Tract 26. August contra Faustum lib. 19. cap. 16. 20. cap 21. August in psal 73. Iohn 1. August de fide ad Pet. cap. 19. Bertram Smyth Ione of Kent The 11. comparison The booke of common prayer in this Realme Christes body in the sacrament is not made of the matter of bread The booke of common prayer Prouerb 23. Rom. 1. 1. Cor. 1. 2. Cor. 2. Iac. 8. Esay 1. Math. 22. 1. Pet. 2. Iohn 11. Domin 3. post Trin. Secret Muneram libidinem quibus oblata sanctifica vt tui nobis vnigeniti corpus saÌ„guis fiant ad medelaÌ„ Whether the body of Christ be made of bread Pugnat cum alijs Papistis Making by conuersion Gen. 2. Iohn 2. D. Smith Christ is our satisfaction How Christ satisfied Christes wiâ—â— Christes once offering Phil. 1. Rom. 12. Truthes linked together Emissenus Christ is the inuisible priest 1. Cor. 4. Errors One offering of Christ not many 1. Iohn 2. Mala. 1. Errors The whole church by the minister the priest offereth Christ present as a sacrifice propitiatory wherin is shewed our Lords death Iacob 5. Whether the Masse be satisfactory by the deuotioÌ„ of the priest Thom. part 3. qâ— 79. art 5. Ioh. 11. The declaration of Christes will to die was not a sacrifice propiciatory for sinne Heb. 11. * Math. 5. Gen. 22. 2. Reg. 12. Math. 20. Marc. 10. Luc. 18. Iohn 2. Iohn 6. Iohn 10. Heb. 2. Rom. 6. Heb. 7. 9. 10. 1. Pet. 3. Heb. 9. Ibidem Phil. 2. Cyprianus lib. 2. epi. 3. August ad Bonifacium epist. 23. Heb. 10. 1. Cor. 11. A chaine of errours Malac. 14. Esay 53. Heb.
suffice for that point of the similitude where this auctor woulde haue Christe none otherwise present in the Sacrament then he promised to be in thassemble of such as be gathered together in hys name it is a playne abolition of the mistery of the sacrament in the wordes whereof Christes humayne body is exhibite and made present with hys very fleshe to féede vs and to that singuler and speciall effect the other presence of Christ in thassemble made in in hys name is not spoken of and it hath no apparaunce of learning in scriptures to conclude vnder one consideration a specialitie a generalitie And therfore it was well answered of hym that sayd If I could tell reason there were no fayth If I could shew the like it wer not singuler Which doth be notable in this sacrament where cōdēyning all reason good men both constantly beleue that Christe sitteth on the right hand of hys father very God and man and also without chaunge of place doth neuerthelesse make himselfe by hys power present both God and man vnder the forme of bread and wine at the prayer of the Churche and by the ministery of the same to geue life to suche as with fayth do according to his institution in hys holy supper worthely receyue hym and to the condemnation of such as do unworthely presume to receaue hym there For the worthy receyuing of whom we must come indued with Christ and clothed with hym semely in that garment to receiue his most precious body and bloud Christe whole God and man wherby he then dwelleth in vs more aboundantly confirming in vs the effectes of hys Passion establishing our hope of resurrection then to enioy the regeneration of our body with a full redemption of body and soule to lyue with God in glory for euer Caunterbury IN this comparison I am glad that at the last we be come so neare together for you be almost right hartely welcome home and I pray you let vs shake handes together For we be agreed as me seemeth that Christs body is present and the same body that suffered and we be agreed also of the manner of his presence For you say that the body of Christ is not present but after a spirituall maner and so say I also And if there be any difference betweene vs two it is but a little and in this point only That I say that Christ is but spiritually in the ministration of the Sacrament and you say that he is but after a spiritual maner in the Sacrament And yet you say that he is corporally in the Sacrament as who should say that there were a difference betweene spiritually and a spirituall maner And that it were not all one to say that Christ is there onely after a spirituall maner and not onely spiritually But if the substance of the Sonne be here corporally present with vs vpon earth then I graunt that Christes body is so likewise So that he of vs two that erreth in the one let him be taken for a vaine man and to erre also in the other Therfore I am content that the reader iudge indifferently betweene you and me in the corporal presence of the sonne and he that is found to erre and to be a foose therin let him be iudged to erre also in the corporall presence of Christes body But now maister Bucer help this man at need For he that hath euer hitherto cryed out against you now being at a pinch driuen to his shiftes crieth for helpe vpō you And although he was neuer your frend yet extēd your charity to helpe him in his necessity But maister Bucer saith not so much as you do and yet if you both said that the beames of the sonne be of the same substāce with the sonne who would beleue either of you both Is the light of the candle the substance of the candle or the light of the fire the substance of the fire Or is the beames of the sonne any thing but the cleere light of the sonne Now as you said euen now of me if you erre so farre from the true iudgement of natuarll thinges that all men may perceiue your error what maruaile is it if you erre in heauenly thinges And why should you be offended with this my saying that Christ is spiritually present in the assembly of such as be gathered together in his name And how can you conclude hereof that this is a plaine abolitiō of the mistery of the Sacrament because that in the celebration of the Sacrament I say that Christ is spiritually present Haue not you confessed your self that Christ is in the Sacrament but after a spirituall manner And after that maner he is also among them that be assembled together in his name And if they that say so doe abolish the mistery of the Sacramēt then do you abolish it your selfe by saying that Christ is but after a spirituall maner in the sacrament after which maner you say also that he is in them that be gathered together in his name as well as I doe that say hee is spiritually in both But he that is disposed to pick quarrels and to calumi ate all thinges what can be spoken so plainly or ment so sinceerely but he will wrast it into a wrong sence I say that Chist is speritually and by grace in his supper as he is when two or three be gathered togither in his name meaning that with both he is spiritually and with neither corporally and yet I say not that there is no difference For this difference there is that with the one he is sacramētally and with the other not sacramentally except they be gathered together in his name to receaue the Sacrament Neuerthelesse the selfe same Christ is present in both nourisheth and feedeth both if the Sacrament be rightly receiued But that is onely Spiritually as I say and onely after a Spirituall maner as you say And you say further that before we receiue the Sacrament we must come indued with Christ and seemely cloathed with him But whosoeuer is indued and cloathed with Christ hath Christ present with him after a spirituall maner and hath receaued Christ whole both God man or els he could not haue euerlasting life And therfore is Christ present as well in Baptisme as in the Lordes Supper For in Baptisme be we indued with Christ and seemely cloathed with him as well as in his holy Supper we eate and drink him Winchester Thus I haue perused these differences which well considered me thinke sufficient to take away and appease all such differences as might be moued against the Sacrament the faith wherof hath euer preuayled against such as haue impugned it And I haue not read of any that hath written against it but somewhat hath against his enterprise in his wrytinges appeared wherby to confirme it or so euident vntruthes affirmed as wherby those that be as indifferent to the truth as Salomon was in
the iudgement of the liuing childe may discerne the very true mother from the other that is to say who plainly entend the true childe to continue aliue and who could be content to haue it be destroyed by deuision God of his infinite mercy haue pitie on vs and graunt the true faith of this holy mistery vniformely to be conceiued in our vnderstandinges and in one forme of wordes to be vttered and preached which in the booke of common prayer is well tearmed not distant from the Catholick faith in my iudgement Caunterbury YOu haue so perused these differences that you haue made more difference then euer was before for where before there were no more but two partes the true catholick doctrine and the papisticall doctrine now come you in with your new fantasticall inuentions agreeing with neither part but to make a song of three partes you haue deuised a new voluntary descant so farre out of tune that it agreeth neither with the tenor nor mean but maketh such a shamefull iarre that godly eares abhorre to heare it For you haue taught such a doctrine as neuer was written before this time aud vttered therein so many vntruthes and so many strange sayinges that euery indifferent Reader may easely discern that the true christen faith in this matter is not to be sought at your handes And yet in your own writinges appeareth some thing to confirme the truth quite against your own enterprise which maketh me haue some hope that after my answere heard we shall in the principall matter no more striue for the child seeing that your selfe haue confessed that Christ is but after a spirituall maner present with vs. And there is good hope that God shall prosper this child to liue many yeares seeing that now I trust you will help to foster and nourish it vp as well as I. And yet if diuisyon may shew a stepmother then be not you the true mother of the child which in the Sacrament make so many diuisions For you deuide the substances of bread and wine from their proper accidences the substances also of Christes flesh and bloud from their own accidences and Christes very flesh Sacramentally from his very bloud although you ioyne them again per concomitantiam and you deuide the sacrament so that the priest receaueth both the Sacrament of Christs body and of his bloud and the lay people as you call them receiue no more but the sacrament of his body as though the sacrament of his bloud and of our redemption pertayned onely to the priestes And the cause of our eternall life aud saluation you deuide in such sort betweene Christ and the priest that you attribute the beginning therof to the sacrifice of Christ vpon the crosse and the continuance therof you attribute to the sacrifice of the priest in the masse as you doe write plainly in your last booke Oh wicked Stepmothers that so deuide Christ his Sacramentes and his people After the differences followeth the 3.4.5 and 6. chapters of my book which you binde as it were all together in one fardel and cast them quite away by the figure which you call reiection not answering one word to any Scripture or olde wryter which I haue there alleadged for the defence of the truth But because the Reader may see the matter plainly before his eyes I shall heare rehearse my words againe and ioyne thereto your answere My wordes be these Now to returne to the principall matter lest it might be thought a new deuise of vs that Christ as concerning his body and his humaine nature is in heauen and not in earth therefore by Gods grace it shal be euidently proued that this is no new deuised matter but that it was euer the olde fayth of the catholicke Church vntill the Papistes inuented a new fayth that Christ really corporally naturally and sensibly is here still with vs in earth shutte vp in a boxe or within the compasse of bread and wine This needeth no better nor stronger proofe then that which the olde authors bryng for the same that is to say the generall profession of all Christen people in the common creede wherein as concerning Christes humanitye they be taught to beleeue after this sort That he was conceiued by the holy Ghost borne of the virgin Mary That he suffered vnder Pontius Pilate Was crucified dead aud buried that he decended into hel and rose againe the third day That he ascended into heauen and sitteth at the right hand of his almighty Father And from thence shal come to iudge the quick and dead This hath beene euer the catholick faith of Christen people that Christ as concerning his body and his manhode is in heauen and shall there continue vntill he come down at the last iudgement And for as much as the Creede maketh so expresse mention of the Article of his ascention and departing hence from vs if it had been an other article of our faith that his body taryeth also here with vs in earth surely in this place of the Creede was so vrgent an occasion geuen to make some mention thereof that doubtlesse it would not haue been passed ouer in our Creede with silence For if Christ as concerning his humanity be both here and gone hence and both those two be articles of our faith when mention was made of the one in the Creede it was necessary to make mention of the other least by professing the one we should be disswaded from beleeuing the other being so contrary the one to the other To this article of our Creed accordeth holy Scripture and all the old auncyent doctors of Christes church for Christ him self sayd I leaue the world and goe to my father And also he sayd you shall euer haue poore folkes with you but you shall not euer haue me with you And he gaue warning of this error before hand saying that the time would come when many deceauers should be in the world and say Here is Christ and there is Christ but beleue them not said Christ. And S. Mark wryteth in the last chapter of his gospell that the Lord Iesus was taken vp into heauen and sitteth at the right hand of his father And S. Paul exhorteth all men to seeke for thinges that be aboue in heauen where Christ saith he sitteth at the right hand of God his father Also he saith that we haue such a bishoppe that sitteth in heauen at the right hand of the throne of Gods maiesty And that he hauing offered one sacrifice for sinnes sitteth continually at the right hand of God vntill his enemies be put vnder his feete as a footstoole And hereunto consent all the olde doctors of the church First Origen vpon Mathew reasoneth this matter how Christ may be called a stranger that is departed into another countrey seeing that he is with vs alway vnto the worldes end aud is among all them that be gathered together in his name and
fayth to snare them rather thē to saue them But what skilleth that to the Papistes how many men perish which seeke nothing elles but the aduaūcement of their Pope whom they say no man can finde fault withall For though he neither care for his own soules health nor of his christen brother but draw innumerable people captiue with him into hell yet say the Papistes no man may reprehēd him nor aske the question why he so doth And where you speake of the sobernesse and deuotion of the schoole authors whom before you noted for boasters what sobernesse and deuotion was in them being all in manner monkes and fryers they that be exercised in them do know wherof you be none For the deuotion that they had was to their God that created them which was their Pope by contention sophistication and all subtle meanes they could deuise by their witte or learning to confirme and establish whatsoeuer oracle came out of theyr Gods mouth They set vp their Antichrist directly agaynst Christ and yet vnder pretence of Christ made him his vicar generall giuing him power in heauen earth and in hell And is not then the doctrine of Transubstantiation and of the reall and sensuall presence of Christ in the sacrament to be beleued trow you seing that it came out of such a gods mouth was set abroad by so many of his Aungels And is not this a simple and playne doctrine I pray you that visible formes and substances be transubstantiated and yet accidents remayn A playne doctrine be you assured which you confesse your selfe that the simple and playne people vnderstand not nor your selfe with the helpe of all the Papistes is not able to defend it where the true doctrine of the first catholick christian fayth is most playne cleare and comfortable without any difficulty scruple or doubt that is to say that our Sauiour Christ although he be sitting in heauē in equality with his father is our life strēgth◠food and sustenaunce who by his death deliuered vs from death and daily nourisheth and increaseth vs to eternall life And in tokē hereof he hath prepared bread to be eaten and wine to be drunken of vs in his holy supper to put vs in remembrance of his sayd death and of the celestiall feeding nourishing increasing and of all the benefites which wee haue thereby which benefites through fayth and the holy ghost are exhibited and geuen vnto all that worthely receiue the sayd holy supper This the husbandman at his plough the weauer at his loume and the wife at her rocke can remember and geue thankes vnto God for the same This is the very doctrine of the Gospel with the consent wholly of al the old ecclesiastial doctors howsoeuer the Papistes for their pastime put vysers vpon the sayd doctors and disguise them in other coates making a play and mocking of them Now followeth the second absurdity Secondly these Transubstantiatours do say contrary to all learning that the accidentes of bread and wine doe hang alone in the ayre without any substance wherin they may be stayed And what can be sayd more foolishly Winchester The Mayster of the sentences shewing diuers mens sayings in discussion as they can of this mistery telleth what some say that had rather say somewhat then nothing which this author rehearseth as a determination of the church that indéede maketh no doctrine of that poynt so but acknowledgeth the mistery to exéede our capacity And as for the accidentes to be stayd that is to say to remayne without their naturall substaūce is without difficulty beleued of men that haue fayth considering the almighty power of Christ whose diuine body is there present And shall that be accounted for an inconuenience in the mistery that any one man saith whose saying is not as a full determination approued If that man should encounter with this author if he were aliue so to do I think he would say it were more tolerable in him of a zeale to agrée with the true doctrine to vtter his conceit fondly then of a malice to dissent from the true doctrine this author so fondly to improue his saying But if he should appose this author in learning and aske him how he will vnderstand Fiat lux in creation of the world where the light staied that was then create But I will proceed to peruse the other differences Caunterbury THe doctrine that euen now was so simple and playne is now agayne waxed so full of ambiguities and doubtes that learned men in discussing therof as they can be fayne to say rather some thing than nothing and yet were they better to say nothing at all then to say that is not true or nothing to purpose And if the master of the sentences saying in this poynt vary from the cōmon doctrine of the other Papists why is not this his errour reiected among other wherin he is not commonly helde And why do your selfe after approue the same saying of the Master as a thing beleeued without difficultie that the accidents be stayed without their naturall substāce And then I would know of you wherin they be stayed seeing they be not stayed in the ayre as in their substance nor in the bread and wine nor in the body of Christ For eyther you must appoynt some other stay for them or els graunt as I say that they hange alone in the ayre without any substance wherin they may be stayed And eyther I vnderstand you not in this place you speake so diffusely or els that thing which the Master spake and your self haue here affirmed you cal it a tollerable conceit fondly vttered And where as to answere the matter of the staying of the accidents you aske wherin the light was stayed as the creation of the world this is a very easy opposall and soone answered vnto For first God created heauen and earth and after made light which was stayed in them as it is now although not deuided from the darkenes in such sort as it was after Now followeth the third absurdity Thirdly that the substance of Christes body is there really corporally and naturally present without any accidents of the same And so the Papistes make accidents to be without substances and substances to be without accidents Winchester How Christes body is in circumstance present no man can define but that it is truly present and therfore really present corporally also and naturally with relation to the truth of the body present and not to the maner of presence which is spirituall exceeding our capacitye and therefore therein without drawing away accidentes or adding wee beleeue simplye the trueth howesoeuer it liketh this author without the booke to terme it at his pleasure and to speake of substaunce without accidentes and accidents without substance which perplexity in wordes can not iest out the truth of the catholike beleefe And this is on the authors part nothing but iesting with a wrong surmise and supposall as