seing that he wrote of the sacrament at king Charles request it is not like that he would write against the receiued doctrine of the church in those daies And if he had it is without all doubt that some learned man either in his tyme or fithens would haue written against him or at the least not haue commended him so much as they haue done Berengarius of himselfe had a godly iudgement in this matter but by the tiranity of Nicholas the 2. he was constrained to make a diuelish recantation as I haue declared in my first booke the 17. chapter And as for Iohn Wicklif he was a singuler instrument of God in his tyme to set forth the truth of christes gospell but Antichrist that sitteth in gods temple boasting himselfe as god hath by gods sufferance preuayled against many holy men and sucked the bloud of martirs these late yeres And as touching Martin Luther it semeth you be sore pressed that be faine to pray aide of him whom you haue hitherto euer detested The foxe is sore hunted that is faine to take his borow and the wolfe that is fayne to take the lions den for a shift or to run for succour vnto a beast which he most hateth And no man condemneth your doctrine of Transubstantiation and of the propiciatory sacrifice of the masse more seuerely and earnestly then doth Martin Luther But it appeareth by your conclusion that you haue waded so farre in rhetorike that you haue forgotten your logike For this is your argumeÌ„t Bertrame taught this doctrine and preuailed not Berengarius attempted the same and failed in his purpose Wickliffe enterprised the same whose teaching god prospered not therefore god hath not prospered fauoured it to be receiued at any tyme openly as his true teaching I will make the like reason The Prophete Osee taught in Samaria to the ten tribes the true doctrine of god to bring them from their abhominable superstitions and idolatry Ioell Amâ—s and Mitheas attempted the same whose doctrine preuailed not god prospered not their teaching among those people but they were condemned with their doctrine therefore god hath not prospered and fauoured it to be receiued at any tyme openly as his true teaching If you will aunswer as you must nedes do that the cause why that among those people the true teaching preuailed not was by reason of the aboundant superstition idolatry that blinded their eies you haue fully answered your own argument and haue plainly declared the cause why the true doctrine in this matter hath not preuailed these 500. yeares the church of Rome which all that time hath borne the chiefe swinge being ouerflowen and drowned in all kind of superstition and idolatry therfore might not abide to heare of the truth And the true doctrine of the sacrament which I haue set out plainly in my booke was neuer condemned by no councell nor your false papisticall doctrine allowed vntill the deuill caused Antichrist his sonne and heire Pope Nicholas the second with his monkes and friers to condemne the truth and confirme these your heresies And where of Gamaliels wordes you make an argument of prosperous successe in this matter the scripture testifieth how Antichrist shall prosper and preuaile against saintes no short while persecute the truth And yet the counsail of Gamaliel was very discrete and wife For he perceiued that God went about the reformation of religion growen in those dayes to idolatry hypocrisie and superstition through traditions of Phariseis and therfore he moued the rest of the Councell to beware that they did not rashly and vnaduisedly condemne that doctrine religion which was approued by God least in so doing they should not onely resist the Apostles but God himselfe which counsail if you had marked followed you would not haue done so vnsoberly in many things as you haue done And as for the prosperitie of them that haue professed Christ his true doctrine they prospered with the Papistes as S. Iohn Baptist prospered with Herode and our sauiour Christ with Pilate Annas and Caiphas Now which of these prospered best say you Was as the doctrine of Christ and S. Iohn any whit the worse because the cruell tirantes and Iewes put them to death for the same Winchester But all this set apart and putting aside all testimonies of the olde church and resortyng onely to the letter of the scripture there to search out an vnderstanding and in doyng therof to forget what hath bene taught hitherto How shall this author establish vpon scripture that he would haue beleued What other text is there in scripture that enâ—ountreth with these wordes of scripture This is my body wherby to alter the signification of them There is no scripture sayth Christ did not geue his body but the figure of his body nor the geuing of Christes body in his supper verily and really so vnderstaÌ„ded doth not necessarily impugne and contrary any other speach or doyng of Christ expressed in scripture For the great power and omnipotencie of God exclodeth that repugnance which mans reason would déeme of Christes departyng from this world and placing his humanitie in the glory of his Father Caunterbury THe Scripture is playne and you confesse also that it was bread that Christ spake of when he sayd This is my body And what nede we any other scripture to encounter with these words seyng that all men know that bread is not Christes body the one hauing sense and reason the other none at all Wherfore in that speach must nedes be sought an other sence meanyng then the wordes of themselues do geue which is as all olde writers do teach and the circumstances of the text declare that the bread is a figure and sacrament of Christes body And yet as he geueth the bread to be eaten with our mouthes so geueth he his very body to be eaten with our faith And therfore I say that Christ geueth himselfe truely to be eaten chawed and digested but all is spiritually with fayth not with mouth And yet you would beare me in hand that I say that thing which I say not that is to say that Christ did not geue his body but the figure of his body And because you be not able to confute that I say you would make me to say that you can confute As for the great power and omnipotency of God it is no place here to dispute what God can do but what he doth I know that he can do what he will both in heauen and in earth no man is able to resist his wil. But the question here is of his will not of his power And yet if you caÌ„ ioyne together these two that one nature singuler shal be here and not here both at one time and that it shal be gone hence when it is here you haue some stroÌ„g syment and be a cunning Geometrician but yet you shall neuer be good Logician that woulde
body from his spirite affirming that in Baptisme we receaue but his spirite and in the communion but his flesh And that Christes spirit renueth our life but increaseth it not and that his flesh increceth our life but geueth it not And agaynst all nature reasō and truth you confound the substance of bread and wine with the substance of Christes body and bloud in such wise as you make but one nature and person of them all And against scripture and all comformity of nature you confound and iumble so together the natural members of Christes body in the sacrament that you leaue no distinction proportion nor fashion of mannes body at all And can your church be taken for the true naturall mother of the true doctrine of Christ that thus vnnaturally speaketh deuydeth and confoundeth Christes body If Salomon were aliue he would surely geue iudgement that Christ should be taken from that woman that speaketh so vnnaturally and so vnlike his mother and be geuen to the true church of the faithful that neuer digressed from the truth of Gods word nor from the true speeche of Christes natural body but speake according to the same that Christes body although it be inseparable annexed vnto his Godhead yet it hath all the naturall conditions and properties of a very mans body occupying one place and being of a certayne height and measure hauing all members distinct and set in good order and proportion And yet the same body ioyned vnto his diuinitye is not only the beginning but also the contynuance and consummation of our eternall and celestiall life By him we be regenerated by him we be fedde and nourished from time to time as hee hath taught vs most certainly to beleue by his holy word and sacraments which remayne in their former substaunce and nature as Christ doth in his without mixtion or confusion This is the true and naturall speaking in this matter like a true naturall mother and like a true and right beleeuing christian man Marye of that doctrine which you teach I cannot deny but the church of Rome is the mother therof which in scripture is called Babilō because of commixtion or confusion Which in all her doinges and teachinges so doth mixte and confound error with truth superstition with religiō godlines with hipocrisie scripture with traditions that she sheweth her selfe alway vniforme and consonant to confound all the doctrine of Christ yea Christ him selfe shewing her selfe to be Christes stepmother and the true naturall mother of Antichrist And for the conclusion of your matter here I doubt not but the indifferent reader shal easely perceiue what spirit moued you to write your boke For seeing that your booke is so full of crafts sleightes shiftes obliquities manifest vntruthes it may be easely iudged that what soeuer pretence be made of truth yet nothing is lesse intended then that truth should ether haue victory or appeare and be seene at all Winchester And that thou reader mightest by these markes iudge of that is here intreated by the author agaynst the melt blessed sacrament I shall note certayne euident and manyfest vntruthes which this author is not afraid to vtter a matter wonderfull considering his dignity if he that is named be the author in déede which should be a great stay of contradiction if any thing were to be regarded agaynst the truth First I will note vnto the reader how this author termeth the faith of the reall and substanciall presence of Christes body and bloud in the sacrament to be the faith of the papistes which saying what foundacion it hath thou mayest consider of that foloweth Luther that professed openly to abhorre at that might be noted papish defended stoutly the presence of Christes body in the Sacrament and to be present really and substancially euen with the same wordes and termes Bucer that is here in England in a solemne worke that he wryteth vpon the Gospels professeth the same faith of the reall and substanciall presence of Christes body in the Sacrament which be affirmeth to haue béen beleued of all the church of Christ from the beginning hetherto Iustus Ionas hath translated a Catechisme out of dutch into latin taught in the citie of Noremberge in Germany where Hosiander is chiefe preacher in which Catechisme they be accounted for no true Christian men that deny the presence of Christes body in the Sacrament The wordes really and substancially be not expressed as they be in Bucer but the word truly is there and as Buter saith that is substancially Which Catechisme was translated into englishe in this authors name about two yeares past Phillip Melancton no papist nor priest writeth a very wise epistle in this matter to Decolampadius and signifiyng soberly his beléefe of the presence of Christes very body in the Sacrament and to proue the same to haue béen the fayth of the old church from the beginning alleadgeth the sayinges of Irene Ciprian Chrisostome Hillary Cirill Ambrose and Theophilacte which authors he estemeth both worthy credite and to affirme the presence of Christes body in the Sacrament plainly without ambiguity He answereth to certain places of S. Augustine and saith all Decolampadius enterprise to depend vpon coniectures and argumentes applausible to idle wittes with much more wise matter as that epistle doth purport which is set out in a booke of a good volume among the other Epistles of Decolampadius so as no man may suspecte any thing counterfayte in the matter One Hippinus or Oepinus of Hamborough greatly estéemed among the Lutherians hath written a booke to the Kinges Maiesty that now is published abroad in printe wherein much inueyng against the church of Rome doth in the matter of the sacrament write as followeth Encharistia is called by it selfe a sacrifice because it is a remēbrance of the true sacrifice offered vpon the crosse and that in it is dispensed the true body true bloud of Christ which is plainly the same in essence that is to say substāce and the same bloud in essence signifiyng though the maner of presence be spirituall yet the substaunce of that is present is the same with that in heauen Erasmus noted a man that durst and did speake of all abuses in the church liberallye taken for no papist among vs to much estéemed as his peraphrasis of the Gospell is ordered to be had in euery church of this Realme declareth in diuers of his workes most manifestly his fayth of the presence of Christes body in the Sacrament by his Epistles recommendeth to the worlde the worke of Algerus in that matter of the Sacrament whom he noteth well exercised in the scriptures and the olde doctors Ciprian Hilary Ambrose Hierome Augustine Basill Chrysostom And for Erasmus own iudgement he sayth we haue an inuiolable fountation of Christes own words this is my body rehearsed agayn by S. Paule he sayth further the body of Christe is hidden vnder those signes and sheweth also vpon what
much as you say that it liketh me to reporte this most vntruely reade what the glose saith vpō the chapter Tribus gradibus de Consecrat dist a there you shall finde these words Certum est quod species quam citó dentibus teruntur tam citó in Coelum rapitur corpus Christi And if this glose be false and erroneous why was it published and set out by the authority of the Papistes Why hath it been writtē and printed in so many countreis and so many yeares without reprofe of any fault found therein by any man But here may wise men learn to beware of your doctrine For you reproue those Papistes which haue written of this matter 4. or 5. hundreth yeares past and doe inuent a new deuise of your own And therefore wise men when they see you teach one doctrine and the Papistes that were before your time teach another they will beleeue none of you all And where you say that in the beleefe of this mistery is great benefitte and consolation What benefitte I beseech you is it to vs if Christ be really and corporally in the formes of bread and wine a moneth or two or a yeare or two And if we receaue him really and corporally with the bread and wine into our mouthes or stomackes and no further and there he tarieth not in that sorte but departeth away from vs by and by agayn what great benefit or comforte I pray you is such a corporall presence vnto vs And yet this is the teaching of all the Papistes although you seeme to vary from them in this last point of Christes sodayne departure But when the matter shall be throughly answered I weene you will agree with the rest of the Papistes that as concerning his carnall presence Christ departeth from vs at the least wheu the formes of bread and wine be altered in the stomack And then I pray you declare what comfort and benefitte we haue by this carnall presence which by and by is absent and taryeth not with vs Such comfort haue weake and sick consciences at the Papistes handes to tell them that Christ was with them and now he is gone from them Neuerthelesse in the beleef of this mistery if it be vnderstāded according to Gods word is great benefit and consolation but to beleeue your addition vnto Gods word is neither benefit nor wisedome And I pray you shew in what place the Scripture saith that vnder the formes of bread and wine is the body of Christ really corporally and naturally or els acknowledge them to be your own additiō beside Gods word and your stout assertion herein to be but presumptuous boldnesse and wicked temeritie affirming so arrogantly that thing for the which you haue no authority of Gods word And where you seeme to be offended with the discussion of this matter what hurte I pray you can gold catch in the fire or truth with discussing Lyes onely feare discussing The Deuill hateth the light because he hath been a lyar from the beginning and is loth that his lies should come to light and triall And all Hipocrites and Papistes be of a like sorte afraide that their doctrine should come to discussing whereby it may euidently appeare that they be indued with the spirite of error and lying If the Papists had not feared that their doctrines should haue bene espied and their opions haue come to discussing the scriptures of God had bene in the vulgare and English tounge many yeares ago But God be praysed at the length your doctrine is come to discussing so that you can not so craftely walke in a cloude but the light of Gods word will alwaies shew where you be Our Sauiour Christ in the fifth of Iohn willeth vs to search the scriptures and to trie out the trueth by them And shall not we then with humble reuerence search the trueth in Christes Sacramentes And if we can not tel how Christ is present why do you then say that he is substantially present corporally present naturally and carnally present And how sure be you that Christ is in substaunce present because he is truely present Are you assured that this your doctrine agreeth with Gods word Doth not Gods word teach a true presence of Christ in spirit where he is not present in his corporall substance As when he saith Where two or three be gathered together in my name there am I in the midst of them And also when he sayth I shall be with you till the end of the world Was it not a true presence that Christ in these places promised And yet can you not of this true presence gather such a corporall presence of the substance of Christs manhod as you vnlearnedly contrary to the scriptures◠go about to proue in the Sacramēt For when Christ said This is my body it was bread which is called his body in a figuratiue speach as all olde authors teach and as I haue proued in my third booke the 8 and 11 chap. And the manner how Christ caried himfelfe in his own handes sainct Augustine declareth it to be figuratiuely And because you can finde no repugnaunce betweene the two partes of this comparison to make them more plaine I shall fill them vp with more wordes as I did the other comparisons before This therefore shall be the comparison They say that Christ is really and corporally in the sacramentall bread beyng reserued so long as the forme of bread remayneth although it be an whole years and more but after the receiuing thereof he flyeth vp from the receauer into heauen as sone as the bread is chawed in the mouth or digested in the stomacke But we say that after what manner Christ is receaued of vs in the same wise he remaineth in vs so long as we remaine the members of Christ. And where in the end you admonish the reader that what so euer you affirme or precisely deny you meane within the compasse of your knowledge and of publicke doctrine and of doctrine by consent receaued what do you here else but deuise certayne sleightes and prepare for your selfe priuy holes to start out at when so euer you should be taken with a manifestly So that you should not be cōpelled to abide by any word that you say For by these crafty sleightes and shifts of the compasse of your knowledge and of publick doctrine and of doctrine by common consent receaued you meane to say euer what you list And though neuer so manyfest a lye or vntruth be layd to your charge yet shall no manne neuer be able to proue it so manifestly against you but you shall haue one of these thre shiftes to flee out at for your defence Now foloweth in my booke the fift comparison They say that in the Sacrament the corporall members of Christ be not distant in place one frō an other but that where so euer the head is there be the feete and where so euer
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
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
AN AVNSVVERE BY THE REVEREND FATHER in God Thomas Archbyshop of Canterbury Primate of all England and Metropolitane Vnto a craftie and Sophisticall cauillation deuised by Stephen Gardiner Doctour of Law late Byshop of Winchester agaynst the true and godly doctrine of the most holy Sacrament of the body and bloud of our Sauiour IESV CHRIST Wherein is also as occasion serueth aunswered such places of the booke of Doct. Richard Smith as may seeme any thyng worthy the aunsweryng Here is also the true Copy of the booke written and in open Court deliuered by D. Stephen Gardiner not one word added or diminished but faythfully in all pointes agreeyng with the Originall Reuised and corrected by the sayd Archbyshop at Oxford before his Martyrdome Wherein hee hath beautified Gardiners doynges with asmuch diligence as might be by applying Notes in the Margent and markes to the Doctours saying which before wanted in the first Impression Hereunto is prefixed the discourse of the sayd Archbyshops lyfe and Martyrdome briefly collected out of his Hystory of the Actes and Monumentes and in the end is added certaine Notes wherein Gardiner varied both from him selfe and other Papistes gathered by the sayd Archbyshop Read with Iudgement and conferre with diligence laying aside all affection on either partie and thou shalt easely perceaue good Reader how slender and weake the allegations and perswasions of the Papistes are wherewith they goe about to defende their erroneous and false doctrine and to impugne the truth Anno. M. D. LI. AT LONDON Printed by Iohn Daye dwellyng ouer Aldersgate beneath S. Martines Anno. 1580. Cum gratia Priuilegio Regiae Maiestatis A PREFACE TO THE READER I Thinke it good gentle Reader here in the begynnyng to admonish thee of certaine wordes kyndes of speaches which I do vse sometyme in this myne aunswere to the late Byshop of Winchesters book least in mistakyng thou doe as it were stumble at them First this word Sacrament I doe sometymes vse as it is many tymes taken among writers and holy Doctours for the Sacramentall bread water or wine as when they say that Sacramentum est sacrae rei signum a Sacrament is the signe of an holy thyng But where I vse to speake sometymes as the old Authors do that Christ is in the Sacramentes I mean the same as they did vnderstand the matter that is to say not of Christes carnall presence in the outward Sacrament but sometymes of his Sacramentall presence And sometyme by this word Sacrament I meane the whole ministration and receiuyng of the Sacramētes either of Baptisme or of the Lordes Supper and so the old writers many tymes doe say that Christ and the holy Ghost be present in the Sacramentes not meanyng by that maner of speach that Christ and the holy Ghost be present in the water bread or wine which be onely the outward visible Sacramentes but that in the due ministration of the Sacramentes accordyng to Christes ordinaunce and institution Christ and his holy spirite be truely and in deede present by their mightie and sanctifiyng power vertue and grace in all them that worthely receiue the same Moreouer when I say and repeat many tymes in my book that the body of Christ is present in them that worthely receaue the Sacrament least any man should mystake my woordes and thinke that I meane that although Christ be not corporally in the outward visible signes yet hee is corporally in the persons that duely receiue them this is to aduertise the Reader that I meane no such thyng but my meanyng is that the force the grace the vertue and benefite of Christes body that was Crucified for vs and of his bloud that was shed for vs be really and effectually present with all them that duely receaue the Sacramentes but all this I vnderstand of his spirituall presence of the which he sayth I will be with you vntill the worldes ende And wheresoeuer two or three be gathered together in my name there am I in the myddest of them And hee that eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him Nor no more truely is he corporally or really present in the due ministration of the Lordes Supper than hee is in the due ministration of Baptisme That is to say in both spiritually by grace And wheresoeuer in the Scripture it is sayd that Christ God or the holy Ghost is in any man the same is vnderstand spiritually by grace The thyrd thyng to admonish the Reader of is this that when I name Doctour Stephen Gardiner Byshop of Winchester I meane not that he is so now but forasmuch as he was Byshop of Winchester at the tyme when he wrote his booke agaynst me therfore I aunswere his booke as written by the Byshop of Winchester whiche els needed greatly none aunswere for any great learnyng or substaunce of matter that is in it The last admonition to the Reader is this where the sayd late Byshop thinketh that he hath sufficiently proued Transubstantiation that is to say that the substaunce of bread and wine can not be in the Sacrament if the body and bloud of Christ were there bycause two bodyes can not be togethers in one place although the truth be that in the Sacrament of Christes bodye there is corporallye but the substaunce of bread onelye and in the Sacrament of the bloud the substaunce of wine onelye yet how farre hee is deceiued and doth vary from the doctrine of other Papistes and also from the principles of Philosophy whiche he taketh for the foundation of his doctrine in this point the Reader hereby may easely perceiue For if we speake of Gods power the Papistes affirme that by Gods power two bodyes may be together in one place and then why may not Christes bloud be with the wyne in the cup and his fleshe in the same place where the substaunce of the bread is And if we consider the cause wherfore two bodyes can not be together in one place by the rules of nature it shall euidently appeare that the body of Christ may rather be in one place with the substaunce of the bread thē with the accidents therof and so likewise his bloud with the wine For the naturall cause wherfore two bodyes can not be together in one place as the Philosophers say is their accidentes their bignes and thicknes and not their substaunces And then by the very order of nature it repugneth more that the body of Christ should be present with the accidentes of bread and his bloud with the accidentes of wyne then with the substaunces either of bread or wyne This shall suffice for the admonition to the Reader ioynyng thereto the Preface in my first booke whiche is this A PREFACE TO THE READER OVr Sauiour Christ Iesus according to the will of his eternall Father when the time thereto was fully complished taking our nature vpon him came into this world from the high throne of hys Father
vnlikely thyng it was and contrary to all maner of reason that a Prince hauyng two Uniuersities within his realme of well learned men and desirous to be resolued of as doubtfull a questioÌ„ as in these many yeares was not moued the like within ChristeÌ„dome should be driuen to that necessitie for the defence of his cause to send out of his Realme an Hostler beyng a man of no better knowledge then is a goslyng in an Ambassade to aunswere all learned men both in the Court of Rome and in the Emperours Court in so difficult a question as toucheth the kynges Matrimony and the diuorce therof I say if you were men of any reasonable consideration you might thinke it both vnséemely and vncomely for a Prince so to But looke where malice raigneth in men there reason can take no place and therfore I sée by it that you all are at a point with me that no reason or authoritie can perswade you to fauour my name who neuer ment euill to you but your both commoditie and profite Howbeit God amend you all forgeue you and send you better myndes With these wordes the Priest séemed to wéepe and desired his Grace to pardon his fault and frayltie so that by his meanes he might returne to his Cure agayne and he would sure recant those his foolishe wordes before his Parishioners so soone as he came home and would become a new man Well sayd the Archbyshop so had you néede And geuyng him a godly admonition to refuse the hauntyng of the Alâ—house and to bestow his tyme better in the continuall readyng of the Scriptures hee dismissed him from the Fléete How litle this Prelate we speake of was infected with filthy desire of lucre and how he was no niggard all kynde of people that knew him aswell learned beyond the Seas and on this side to whom yearely he gaue in exhibition no small summes of money as other both Gentlemen meane men and poore men who had in their necessitie that which he could conueniently spare lende or make can well testifie And albeit such was his liberalitie to all sortes of men that no man did lacke whom he could do for either in giuyng or lendyng yet neuertheles such was agayne his circumspection that when he was apprehended committed by Quéene Mary to the Tower he ought no maÌ„ liuyng a peny that could or would demaunde any duetie of him but satisfied euery man to the vttermost where els no small summes of money were â—wyng to him of diuers persons which by breakyng their billes and obligations hee fréely forgaue and suppressed before his attainter In somuch that when he perceiued the fatall end of kyng Edward should worke to him no good successe touchyng his body and goodes he incontinently called his Officers his Steward and other commaundyng them in any wise to pay where any peny was owyng which was out of hand dispatched In which Archbyshop this moreouer is to be noted with a memorandum touchyng the reliefe of the poore impotent sicke and such as then came from the warres at Bullein and other partes beyond the seas lame wounded and destitute for whom he prouided besides his mansion house at Beckisborne in Kent the Personage barne well furnished with certaine lodgynges for the sicke and maymed Souloiours To whom were also appointed the Almosiner a Phisicion and Surgion to attend vpon them and to dresse and cure such as were not able to resort to their countreys hauyng dayly from the Byshops kitchin hoate broth and meate for otherwise the common Almes of the houshold was bestowed vpon the poore neighbours of the shyre And when any of the impotent did recouer and were able to trauaile they had conueÌ„ient money deliuered to beare their charges accordyng to the number of myles from that place distant And this good example of mercy and liberall benignitie I thought here good not in silence to bee suppressed wherby other may be moued accordyng to their vocation to walke in the steps of no lesse liberalitie then in him in this behalâ—e appeared Amongest all other his vertues his constancy in Christes cause and settyng forth the Gospell purely and sincerely was such that he would neither for dread or méede affection or fauour to swarâ—e at any tyme or in any poynt from the truth as appeared by his sundry trials wherein neither fauonr of his Prince nor feare of the indignatioÌ„ of the same nor any other worldly respect could alienate or chaunge his purpose grounded vppon that infallible doctrine of the Gospell Notwithstandyng his constant defence of Gods truth was euer ioyned with such méekenesse toward the kyng that he neuer tooke occasion of offence agaynst him At the setting forth of the vi Articles mention was made before in the story of kyng Henries tyme how aduenturously this Archbyshop Thomas Cranmer did oppose him selfe standyng as it were post alone agaynst the whole Parlament disputyng and replyng thrée dayes together agaynst the sayd Articles in somuch that the kyng when neither he could mislike his reasons and yet would néedes haue these Articles to passe required him to absent him selfe for the tyme out of the chamber while the Acte should passe as is already declared before And this was done duryng yet the state and tyme of the Lord Cromwels authoritie And now that it may appeare likewise that after the decay of the Lord Cromwell yet his constancie in Christes cause did not decay you shall heare what followed after For after the apprehension of the Lord Cromwell when the aduersaries of the Gospell thought all thynges sure now on their side it was so appointed amongest them that x. or xij Byshops and other learned men ioyned together in Commission came to the said Archb. of Canterbury for the establishyng of certaine Articles of our Religion whiche the Papistes then thought to winne to their purpose agaynst the sayd Archbyshop For hauyng now the Lord Cromwell fast and sure they thought all had bene safe and sure for euer As in déede to all mens reasonable consideration that tyme appeared so daungerous that there was no maner hope that Religion reformed should any one wéeke loÌ„ger stand such accompt was then made of the kings vntowardnes thereunto in somuch that of all those Commissioners there was not one left to stay on the Archbyshops part but he alone agaynst them all stoode in defeÌ„ce of the truth those that he most trusted to namely Byshop Heath and Byshop Skippe left him in the playne field who then so turned agaynst him that they tooke vpon them to perswade him to their purpose and hauyng him downe from the rest of the Commissioners into his garden at Lambeth there by all maner of effeâ—â—uall perswasions entreated him to leaue of his ouermuch constancie and to encline vnto the kinges intent who was fully set to haue it otherwise then he then had penned or ment to haue set abroad When those two his familiars with one or
two others his frendes had vsed all their eloquence policie he litle regardyng their inconstancie and remisnes in Gods cause or quarell sayd vnto them right notably You make much adoe to haue me come to your purpose alledging that it is the kyngs pleasure to haue the Articles in that sort you haue deuised them to procéede now that you doe perceiue his highnesse by sinister information to be bent that way you thinke it a conuenient thyng to apply vnto his highnesse mynde You be my frendes both especially the one of you I did put to his Maiestie as of trust Beware I say what you doe There is but one truth in our Articles to be concluded vpon which if you doe hide from his highnes by consentyng vnto a contrary doctrine and then after in processe of tyme when the truth caÌ„ not be hidden from him his highnes shall perceiue how that you haue dealt colourably with him I know his Graces nature so well quoth the Archbyshop that he will neuer after trust and credite you or put any good confidence in you And as you are both my frendes so therfore I will you to beware therof in tyme and discharge your consciences in mainteinaunce of the truth But all this would not serue for they still swarued and in the end by dischargyng of his conscience and declaryng the truth vnto the kyng God so wrought with the kyng that his highnesse ioyned with him agaynst the rest so that the booke of Articles passing on his side he wanne the gole from them all contrary to all their expectations when many wagers would haue bene layd in LoÌ„don that he should haue bene layd vp with Cromwell at that tyme in the Tower for his stiffe staÌ„dyng to his tackle After that day there could neither CouÌ„seâ—ler Byshop or Papist winne him out of the kynges fauour Notwithstandyng not long after that certaine of the Counsaile whose names néede not to be repeated by the entisement and prouocation of his auncient enemy the Bishop of Winchester and other of the same sect attempted the kyng agaynst him declaryng playnly that the Realme was so infected with heresies and heretickes that it was dauÌ„gerous for his highnes farther to permit it vnreformed lest peraduenture by long sufferyng such contention should arise ensue in the Realme among his subiectes that therby might spryng horrible commotions and vprores like as in some partes of Germany it did not long ago the enormitie wherof they could not impute to any so much as to the Archbyshop of Canterbury who by his owne preachyng and his Chapleines had filled the whole Realme full of diuers pernitious heresies The kyng would néedes know his accusers They aunswered that for asmuch as he was a Counseller no man durst take vpon him to accuse him but if it please his highnes to coÌ„mit him to the Tower for a tyme there would be accusations proufes inough agaynst him for otherwise iust testimonie and witnes agaynst him would not appeare and therefore your highnes sayd they must néedes geue vs the Counsaile libertie and leaue to commit him to duraunce The kyng perceiuyng their importune sute agaynst the Archbyshop but yet meanyng not to haue him wronged and vtterly geuen ouer vnto their handes graunted to them that they should the next day coÌ„mit him to the Tower for his triall When night came the kyng sent Syr Antony Deny about midnight to Lambeth to the Archbyshop willyng him forth with to resort vnto him at the Court The message done the Archbyshop speedely addressed him selfe to the Court and commyng into the Gallery where the kyng walked and taryed for him his highnes sayd Ah my Lord of Canterbury I can tell you newes For diuers waightie considerations it is determined by me and the Counsaile that you to morrow at ix of the clocke shall be committed to the Tower for that you and your Chaplaines as information is geuen vs haue taught and Preached and thereby sowen within the Realme such a number of execrable heresies that it is feared the whole Realme beyng infected with them no small contentions and commotions wil rise thereby amoÌ„gest my subiectes as of late dayes the like was in diuers parts of Germany and therfore the Counsaile haue requested me for the triall of this matter to suffer them to commit you to the Tower or els no man dare come forth as witnes in these matters you beyng a Counsellour When the kyng had sayd his mynde the Archbyshop knéeled downe and sayd I am content if it please your Grace with all may hart to goe thether at your highnes commaundement and I most humbly thanke your Maiestie that I may come to my triall for there be that haue many wayes sclaundered me and now this way I hope to try my selfe not worthy of such a report The kyng perceiuyng the mans vprightnesse ioyned with such simplicitie sayd Oh Lord what maner a man be you what simplicity is in you I had thought that you would rather haue sued to vs to haue taken the paynes to haue heard you and your accusers together for your triall without any such indurance Doe not you know what state you be in with the whole world and how many great enemyes you haue Doe you not consider what an easie thyng it is to procure thrée or foure false knaues to witnesse agaynst you Thinke you to haue better lucke that way then your maister Christ had I sée it you will runne headlong to your vndoyng if I would suffer you Your enemyes shall not so preuaile agaynst you for I haue otherwise deuised with my selfe to kéepe you out of their handes Yet notwithstandyng to morrow when the Counsaile shall sit and send for you resort vnto them and if in chargyng you with this matter they do commit you to the Tower require of them because you are one of them a Counseller that you may haue your accusers brought before them and that you may aunswere their accusations before them without any further induraunce and vse for you selfe as good perswasions that way as you may deuise and if no intreatie or reasonable request will serue then deliuer vnto them this my ryng whiche then the kyng deliuered vnto the Archbyshop and say vnto them if there be no remedie my Lordes but that I must néedes goe to the Tower then I reuoke my cause from you and appeale to the kynges owne person by this his token vnto you all for sayd the kyng then vnto the Archbyshop so soone as they shall sée this my ryng they know it so well that they shall vnderstand that I haue resumed the whole cause into myne owne handes and determination and that I haue discharged them therof The Archbishop perceiuyng the kyngs benignitie somuch to him wardes had much aâ—o to forbeare teares Well sayd the king goe your wayes my Lord and doe as I haue bydden you My Lord humblyng him selfe with thankes
set together two contradictories For that the scholemen say God cannot do Winchester If this author without force of necessitie would induce it by the like speaches as whē Christ sayd I am the dore I am the vine he is Helias and such other and because it is a figuratiue speach in them it may be so here which maketh no kynd of proofe that it is so here But yet if by way of reasoning I would yeld to him therein and call it a figuratiue speach as he doth what other poynt of faith is there then in the matter but to beleue the story that Christ did institute such a supper wherin he gaue bread and wine for a token of his body and bloud which is now after this vnderstanding no secret mysterie at all or any ordinaunce aboue reason For commonly men vse to ordeyne in sensible thinges remembraunces of themselues when they dye or depart the countrey So as in the ordinaunce of this supper after this vnderstanding Christ shewed not his omnipotencie but onely beneuolence that he loued vs and would be remēbred of vs. For Christ did not say Whosoeuer eateth this token eateth my body or eateth my flesh or shall haue any profite of it in speciall but do this in remembraunce of me Caunterbury I Make no such vayne inductions as you imagine me to do but such as he established by scripture and the consent of all the olde writers And yet both you and Smith vse such fonde inductions for your proofe of Trāsubstantiation when you say God can do this thing and he cā make that thing wherof you would conclude that he doth clearely take away the substance of bread and wine and putteth his flesh and bloud in their places And that Christ maketh his body to be corporally in many places at one tyme of which doctrine you haue not one iote in all the whole scripture And as concerning your argument made vpon the history of the institution of Christes supper like fonde reasoning might vngodly men make of the sacrament of Baptisme and so scoffe out both these high mysteries of Christ. For when Christ said these wordes after his resurrection Goe into the whole world and preach vnto all people baptising them in the name of the Father the Sonne and the holy Ghost Here might wicked blasphemers say What point of faith is in these wordes but to beleue the story that Christ did institute such a sacrament wherin he commaunded to geue water for a token which is now after this vnderstanding no secrete mysterie at all or any ordinaunce aboue reason so as in the ordinaunce of this sacrament after this vnderstanding Christ shewed not his omnipotency For he sayd not then Whosoeuer receiueth this token of water shall receuie remission of sinne or the holy ghost or shall haue any profite of it in especial but Do this Winchester And albeit this author would not haue them bare tokens yet and they be only tokēs they haue no warrāt signed by scripture for any apparell at all For the vi of Iohn speaketh not of any promise made to the eating of a token of Christes flesh but to the eating of Christes very flesh wherof the bread as this author would haue it is but a figure in Christes wordes when he sayd This is my body And if it be but a figure in Christes wordes it is but a figure in S. Paules wordes whē he said The bread which we breake is it not the communication of Christes body that is to say a figure of the communication of Christes body if this authors doctrine be true and not the communication in dede Wherfore if the very body of Christ be not in the supper deliuered in déede the eatyng there hath no speciall promise but onely commaundement to do it in remembrance After which doctrine why should it be noted absolutely for a Sacrament and special mysterie that hath nothing hidden in it but a playne open ordinaunce of a token for a remembraunce to the eating of which token is annered no promise expressely ne any holynes to be accompted to be in the bread or wyne as this author teacheth but to be called holy because they be deputed to an holy vse If I aske the vse he declareth to signifie If I should aske what to signifie There must be a sort of good wordes framed without scripture For scripture expresseth no matter of signification of speciall effect Caunterbury IF I graunted for your pleasure that the bare bread hauyng no further respect were but onely a bare figure of Christes body or a bare token because that terme liketh you better as it may be thought for this consideration that men should thinke that I take the bread in the holy mysterie to be but as it were a token of I recommend me vnto you but if I graunt I say that the bare bread is but a bare token of Christes body what haue you gayned therby Is therfore the whole vse of the bread in the whole action and ministration of the lordes holy supper but a naked or nude bare token Is not one lofe being broken and distributed among faithful people in the lordes supper taken and eaten of them a token that the body of Christ was broken and crucified for them and is to them spiritually and effectually geuen and of them spiritually and fruitfully taken and eaten to their spirituall and heauenly comfort sustentation nourishment of their soules as the bread is of their bodies And what would you require more Cā there be any greater comfort to a christian man then this Is here nothing els but bare tokens But yet importune aduersaries and such as be wilful and obstinate wil neuer be satisfied but quarell further saying What of all this Here be a great many of gay wordes framed together but to what purpose For all be but signes and tokens as concerning the bread But how can he be taken for a good christian man that thinketh that Christ did ordaine his sacramentall signes and tokens in vayne without effectuall grace and operation For so might we as well say that the water in baptisme is a bare token and hath no warrant signed by scripture for any apparell at all for the scripture speaketh not of any promise made to the receiuing of a token or figure onely And so may be concluded after your maner of reasoning that in baptisme is no spirituall operation in dede because that washing in water in it selfe is but a token But to expresse the true effect of the sacramentes As the washing outwardly in water is not a vayne token but teacheth such a washing as god worketh inwardly in them that duely receiue the same So likewise is not the bread a vayne token but sheweth and preacheth to the godly receyuer what God worketh in him by his almighty power secretely and inuisibly And therfore as the bread is outwardly eaten in deede in the lordes supper
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
the very body of Christ but to the bread wherby hys body is represented And yet the booke of common prayer neyther vseth any such speach nor geueth any such doctrine nor I in no poynt improue that godly booke nor varye from it But yet glad I am to heare that the sayd booke lyketh you so well as noe man can mislike it that hath anye godlinesse in hym ioyned with knowledge But nowe to come to the very matter of this article it is maruell that you neuer redde that Christ goeth into the mouth or stomacke of that man that receaueth and no further being a lawyer and seing that it is written in the glose of the law De-consecrat dist 2. Tribus gradibus in these wordes It is certayne that assone as the formes be torne with the teeth so sone the body of Christ is gone vp into heauen And in the chapiter Non iste is an other glose to the same purpose And if you had redde Thomas de Aquino and Bonauenture great clearkes and holy Sainctes of the Popes own making and other schoole authors then should you haue knowne what the Papistee do say in this matter For some say that the body of Christ remayneth so long as the forme and fashion of bread remayneth although it be in a dog mouse or in the iakes And some say it is not in the mouse nor sakes but remayneth onely in the person that eateth it vntill it be digested in the stomacke and the fourme of bread be gone Some say it remayneth no longer then the Sacrament is in the eating and may be felt seene and tasted in the mouth And this besides Hugo sayth Pope Innocentius hym selfe who was the best learned and the chiefe doer in this matter of all the other Popes Red you neuer none of these authors and yet take vpō you the full knowledge of this matter Will you take vpon you to defend the Papistes and knowe not what they say Or do you know it and now be ashamed of it and for shame will deny it And seing that you teache that we receaue the body of Christ with our mouthes I pray you tell whether it go any further then the mouth or no and how farre it goeth that I may know your iudgement herein and so shall you be charged no further then with your own saying and the reader shall perceiue what excellent knowledge you haue in this matter And where you say that to teach that we receaue Christ at our mouth he goeth into our stomack and no further commeth out of the mouth of thē that fight against the truth in this most high mistery Here like vnto Caiphas you prophecy the truth vnwares For this doctrine commeth out of the mouth of none but of the Papistes which fight against the holy catholicke truth of the aūcient Fathers saying that Christ tarrieth no longer then the proper formes of bread and wine remaine which can not remain after perfect digestion in the stomacke And I say not that the Church teacheth so as you fayne me to say but that the Papistes say so Wherfore I should wish you to reporte my words as I say and not as you imagine me to say least you heare agayne as you haue heard heretofore of your wonderfull learning and practise in the Deuils Sophistrye Now as concerning the second parte of this comparison here you graūt that my saying therein is true and that euery Catholick man must needes and doth confesse the same By which your saying you must also condemne almost all the schoole authors and Lawiers that haue written of this matter with Innocent the third also as men not Catholick because they teach that Christ goeth no further nor taryeth no longer then the formes of bread and wine goe and remayn in their proper kinde And yet now your doctrine as farre as I can gather of your obscure wordes is this That Christ is receaued at the mouth with the formes of bread and wine and goeth with them into the stomack And although they goe no further in their proper kinds yet there Christ leaueth them and goeth him selfe further into euery parte of the mannes body and into his soule also which your saying seemeth to me to be very strange For I haue many times heard that a soule hath gone into a body but I neuer heard that a body went into a soule But I weene of all the Papistes you shal be alone in this matter and finde neuer a fellow to say as you doe And of these thinges which I haue here spoaken I may conclude that this comparison of difference is not made of an open vntruth and a truth disguised except you wil confesse the Papisticall doctrine to be an open vntruth Now the wordes of my third comparison be these They say that Christ is receaued in the mouth and entreth in with the bread and wine We say that he is receaued in the hart and entreth in by faith Winchester Here is a pretty sleight in this comparison where both partes of the comparison may be vnderstanded on both sides and therfore here is by the Author in this comparison no issue ioyned For the worthy receauing of Christes body and bloud in the Sacrament is both with mouth and harte both in facte and faith After which sorte Saynte Peter in the laste Supper receaued Christes body where as in the same Iudas receaued it with mouth and in facte onely wherof S. Augustine speaketh in this wise Non dicuns ista nisi qui de mensa Domini vitam sumu sumunt sicut Tetrus non iudicium sicut Indas tamē ipsa vtrique fuit vina sed non vtrique valuit ad vnum quia ipsi non erant vnum Which wordes be thus much to say That they say not so as was before intreated but such as receaue life of our Lordes table as Peter did not iudgement as Iudas and yet the table was all one to them both but it was not to all one effect in them both bycause they were not one Here S. Augustine noteth the difference in the receauer not in the Sacrament receaued which being receaued with the mouth only and Christ entring in mysterie onely doth not sanctifie vs but is the stone of stumbling and our iudgement and condemnation but if he be receaued with mouth and body with hart and fayth to such he bringeth lyfe and nourishment Wherfore in this comparison the author hath made no difference but with diuers tearmes the Catholicke teaching is deuided into two membres with a But fashioned neuertheles in another phrase of spéech then the church hath vsed which is so common in this Author that I will not hereafter note it any more for a faulte But let vs goe further Caunterbury THere is nothing in this comparyson worthy to be answered for if you can finde no difference therein yet euery indifferent Reader can For when I reporte the Papistes teaching that they
most certayne truth that Christs body is not made of bread And seeing that you embrace it here in this one place why stand you not constantly therin but goe from it againe in all the rest of your booke defending the Papisticall doctrine cleane contrary to yours in this pointe in that they teach that Christes body is made of bread And you varry so much from your selfe herein that although you deny the Papistes sayinges in wordes that Christes body is made of bread yet in effect you graunt and maintayn the same which you say is intollerable and not to be deuised by a scoffer in a play For you say that Christ calleth bread his body and that his calling is making And then if he make bread his body it must needes follow that he maketh his body of the bread moreouer you say that Christes body is made present by conuersion or turning of the substance of bread into the substance of his precious bodye where of must follow that his body is made of bread For when so euer one substāce is turned into another thē the second is made of the first As because earth was turned into the body of Adam we say that Adam was made of earth and that Eue was made of Adams ribbe And the wine in Galily made of water because the water was turned into wine and the ribbe of Adames side into the body of Eue. If the water had beene put out of the pottes and wine put in for the water we might haue saide that the wine had been made present there where the water was before But then we might not haue said that the wine had been made of the water because the water was emptied out and not turned into wine But when Christ turned the water into the wine then by reason of that turning we say that the wine was made of the water So likewise if the bread be turned into the substance of Christ his body we must not only say that the body of Christ is present where the bread was before but also that it is made of the bread because that the substance of the bread is conuerted and turned into the substaunce of his bodye Which thing the papists saw must needes follow and therfore they plainly confessed that the body of Christ was made of bread which doctrine as you truely say in this place is intollerable and not to be deuised by a scoffer in a play when his fellow had forgotten his parte And yet you so far forget your selfe in this booke that throughout the same what so euer you say here you defend the same intollerable doctrin not to be deuised by a scoffer And where Smith accounteth here my fourth lye that I say that the Papistes say that Christes body is made of bread and wine Here Smith and you agree both together in one lye For it is truth and no lye that the Papistes so say and teach as Smith in other parts of his booke saith that Christes body is made of bread and that priestes doe make Christes body My 12. comparison is this They say that the masse is a Sacrifice satisfactory for sinne by the deuotion of the Priest that offreth and not by the thing that is offered But we say that their saying is a most haynous yea and detestable error against the glory of Christ for the satisfaction for our sinnes is not the deuotion nor offering of the Priest but the only host and satisfactiō for all the sinnes of the world is the death of Christ and the oblation of his body vpon the Crosse that is to say The oblation that Christ him selfe offred once vpon the crosse and neuer but once not neuer any but he And therfore that oblation which the Priestes make dayly in their papisticall masses cannot be a satisfaction for other mennes sinnes by the Priests deuotion but it is a mere illusion and suttle crafte of the Deuil wherby Antichrist hath many yeares blinded and deceiued the world Winchester This comparison is out of the matter of the presence of Christes most precious body in the Sacrament which presence this author in the first part of his comparison semeth by implication to graunt when he findeth fault that the priestes deuotion should be a sacrifice satisfactory and not the thing that is offered which maner of doctrine I neuer read I thinke my selfe it ought to be improued if any such there be to make the deuotion of the Priest a satisfaction For vndoubtedly Christ is our satisfaction wholly and fully who hath payd our wholl debt to God the Father for the appeasing of his iust wrath againste vs and hath cancelled the bill obligatory as S Paul saith that was against vs. For further opening whereof if it be asked how he satisfied we answere as we be taught by the Scriptures By the accomplishment of the will of his Father in his innocent willing obedient suffering the miseries of this world without sinne and the violent persecution of the world euen to the death of the Crosse and sheading of his most precious bloud Wherein was perfited the willing Sacrifice that he made of him selfe to God the Father for vs of whom it was written in the beginning of the booke that he should lie the body and perfectt accomplishment of all Sacrifices as of whom all other sacrifices before were shadowes and figures And here is to be considered how the obedient will in Christes Sacrifice is specially to be noted who suffered because he would Which S. Paul setteth forth in declaration of Christes humility And although that willing obedience was ended and perfected on the crosse to the which it continued from the beginning by reason wherof the oblatiō is in S. Paules spéech attributed thereunto Yet as in the Sacrifice of Abraham when he offered Isaac the earnest will of offering was accounted for the offering in déede whereupon it is said in Scripture that Abraham offered Isaac and the declaration of the will of Abraham is called the offering So the declaration of Christes will in his last Supper was an offering of him to God the Father assuring there his Apostles of his will and determination and by them all the world that his body should be betrayed for them and vs and his precious bloud shed for remission of sinne which his word he confirmed then with the gifte of his precious body to be eaten and his precious bloud to be dronken In which mistery he declared his body and bloud to be the wery Sacrifice of the world by him offered to God the father by the same will that he said hid body should be betrayed for vs. And thereby ascertained vs that to be in him willing that the Iewēs on the crosse séemed to execute by violence and force against his will And therfore as Christ offred himself on the crosse in the execution of the worke of his will so he offered himself in his Supper in
nourisheth the right beleuers Then compare those sayings with this place of this ignoraunt lawier and thou shalt euidently perceiue that either he wil not or can not or at the least he doth not vnderstand what is ment in the booke of common prayer and in my booke also by the receauing and feding vpon Christ spiritually But it is no maruaile that Nicodemus and the Capernaites vnderstand not Christ before they be borne a new and forsaking their papisticall leauen haue learned an other lesson of the spirite of God then flesh bloud can teach them Much talke the Papistes make about this belefe that we must beleue and haue a stedfast fayth that Christes body is corporally there where the visible formes of bread wine be of which belefe is no mention made in the whole scripture which teacheth vs to beleue professe that Christ as concerning his bodily presence hath forsaken the world is ascended into heauen shall not come agayne vntill the restitution of all thinges that be spoken of by Prophets But wheras in the feeding vpon Christes body and drinking of his bloud there is no mouth and teeth can serue but onely the inward and spirituall mouth of fayth there the Papistes kepe silence like monkes and speake very little And the cause why is flesh and bloud which so blindeth all the Nichodemes Caparnaites that they can not vnderstand what is spirituall natiuity spirituall circumcition spirituall honger and thirst and spirituall eating and drinking of the flesh and bloud of our Sauiour Christ but they hang all together so in the letter that they cannot enter into the kingdome of the spirit which knowledge if that you had you should soone perceiue vpon what principle my Ergo were made And where you peruert the order of the bookes setting the carte before the horse that is to say the iii and iiii booke before the second saying that the naturall order of the matter so requireth here the reader may note an euident marke of all subtle Papistes which is vnder the pretence coulour of order to breake that order whereby the falsehead of their doctrine should best be detected and the truth brought to light For when they perceaue a window open wherby the light may shine in and the truth appeare then they busily go about to shut that window and to draw the reader from that place to some misticall and obscure matter where more darkenes is and les light can be sene And when besides the darkenes of the matter they haue by their subtle sophistry cast such a mist ouer the readers eyes that he is become blind thē dare they make him iudge be the matter neuer so vntrue And no meruail for he is now becōe so blindfeld subiect vnto them that he must say what so euer they bid him be it neuer so much repugnāt to the euidēt truth In such sort it is in the matter of that sacramēt For the papistes perceauing that their error should easily be espied if the matter of transubstantiation were first determined that plaine wordes of the scripture the consent of aūcient writers the articles of our fayth the nature of a sacrament reason all sences making so euidently agaynst it therefore none of the subtle Papistes will be glad to talke of transubstantiation but they will alwayes beare men in hand that other matters must fyrst be examined as the late Bishop doth here in this place Now in the second place of Chrisostome where you say that in this sacrament Christes humanity and godhead is really present in baptisme his godhead with the effectuall vertue of his bloud in which we be washed not requiring by scripture any reall presence thereof for the dispensation of that mistery n this matter I haue ioyned an issue with you before in the aunswere vnto Drigen which shall suffice for answere here also And where S. Iohn Chrisostom speaketh of the great miracle of christ that he sitteth aboue with his father and is the same houre here with vs in our handes truth it is that Christ sitteth aboue with his father in his naturall body triumphant in glory and yet is the same hour in our hāds sacramentally and present in our hartes by grace and spirituall nourishment But that we shoud not think that he is corporally here with vs S. Augustine giueth a rule in his epistle ad Dardanum saying Cauendum est ne it a diuinitatem astruamus hominis vt veritatem corporis auferamus We must foresee that we do not so affirme the deuinitie of him that is man that we should therby take away the truth of his body And forasmuch as it is agaynst the nature and truth of a naturall body to be in two places at one tyme therefore you seme to speake agaynst the truth of Christes naturall body when you teach that his body is in heauen naturally and also naturally in the sacrament For who so euer affirmeth that Christes body is in sondry places as his godhead is seemeth to defy Christes body by S. Augustines rule But like as it is not to be thought that Quicquid est in deo est putandum vbique vt dens that whatsoeuer is in god is euery where as God is so must we not thinke that his body may be at one tyme euery where where his godhead is But Christ is sayth S. Augustine Vbique per id quod est deus in coelo autem per id quod est homo Euery where in that he is God but in heauen in that he is man Wherfore his presence here of his body must be a sacramentall presence and the presence of his diuinitie of his grace of his truth of his maiestie and power is reall and effectuall in many places according to his worde Now as concerning your issue I refuse it not but say that the great miracle whereat the Iewes wondred and which our sauiour Christ ment and the old fathers speake of is of the eating of Christes flesh and drincking of his bloud and how by flesh and bloud we haue euerlasting life Now if you can bring good testimony for you that the sacrament eateth Christes flesh and drincketh his bloud and that it shall lyue for euer which neuer had lyfe and that Gods operation worke is more in domme creatures then in man then I must needes and will confesse the issue to passe with you And when I heare your testimonies I shall make answer but before I here them I should do nothing else but spend wordes in vayne and beate the wind to no purpose Now heare what I haue answered to Theophilus Alexandrinus Yet furthermore they bring for them Theophilus Alexandrinus who as they alleadge sayth thus Christ geuing thankes dyd breake which also we doe adding thereto prayer And he gaue vnto them saying Take this is my body this that I do now geue and that which ye now do take For the bread is not a
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
like speaches which were not vnderstande of the very things but only of the images of them So doth S. Ihon Chrisostom say that we see Christ with our eyes touch hym feele him and grope him with our handes fixe our teeth in his flesh taste it breake it eate it and digest it make redde our tongues and dye them with his bloud and swallow it and drincke it And in a Catechisme by me translated and set forth I vsed like maner of speach saying that with our bodily mouthes we receaue the body and bloud of Christ. Which my saying diuers ignorant persons not vsed to reade olde auncient authors nor acquanted with theyr phraâ—â— and manner of speach dyd carpe and reprehend for lacke of good vnderstanding For this speach and other before rehersed of Chrisostom and all other like be not vnderstaÌ„d of the very flesh and bloud of our sauiour Christ which in very deede we neither feele nor see but that which we doe to the bread and wine by a figuratiue speach is spoken to be done to the flesh and bloud bicause they be the very signes figures and tokens instituted of Christ to represent vnto vs his very flesh and bloud And yet as with our corporall eyes corporall handes and mouthes we do corporally see feele tast and eate the bread and drincke the wine being the signe and sacrameÌ„ts of Christes body euen so with our spirituall eyes handes and mouthes we do spiritually see feele taste and eate his very flesh and drincke his very bloud As Eusebus Emissenus sayth Whan thou comest to the reuerend aulter to be filled with spiritual meates with thy fayth looke vpoÌ„ the body bloud of him that is thy God honor him touch him with thy mynd take him with the hand of thy hart and drincke him with the draught of thine inward man And these spirituall thinges require no corporall presence of Christ himselfe who sitteth continually in heauen at the right hand of his Father And as this is most true so is it full and sufficient to answere all thinges that the Papistes can bring in this matter that hath any apparaÌ„ce for their partie Winchester And yet these playne places of authority dissembled of purpose or by ignoraunce passed ouer this author as though all thinges were by him clerely discussed to his entent would by many conceptes furnish and further his matters and therfore playeth with our Ladyes smiling rocking her Child and many good mowes so vnsemely for his person as it maketh me almost forget him and my selfe also But with such matter he filleth his leaues and forgetting him selfe maketh mention of the Catechisme by him translate the originall wherof confuteth these two partes of this booke in few wordes being Printed in Germany wherin besides the matter written is set forth in picture the manner of the minestring of this sacrament where is the aulter with candle light set forth the priest apparaled after the old sort and the man to receaue kneling bare-head and holding vp his handes whiles the priest ministreth the host to his mouth a matter as cleare contrary to the matter of this Booke as is light and darkenesse which now this Author would colour with speaches of authors in a boke written to instruct rude children which is as sclender an excuse as euer was heard and none at all when the originall is loked one Emissene to stire vp mens deuotion comming to receaue this sacrament requireth the roote and foundation therof in the mynd of man as it ought to be and therfore exhorteth men to take the sacrament with the hand of the hart and drincke with the draught of the inward man which men needes do that will worthely repayre to this feast And as Emissen speaketh these deuout wordes of the inward office of the receiuer so doth he in declaration of the mistery shew how the inuisible priest with his secret power by his word doth conuert the visible creatures into the substance of his body and bloud wherof I haue before intreated The author vpon these wordes deuoutly spoken by Emissen sayth there is required no corporall precense of Christes precious body in the sacrament continuing in his ignorance what the woord Corporall meaneth But to speake of Emissene if by his fayth the very body and bloud of Christ were not present vpon the aultar why doth he call it a reuerend aultar Why to be fed there with spirituall meat and why should fayth be required to looke vpon the body bloud of Christ that is not there on the aultar but as this Author teacheth onely in heauen And why should he that cometh to be fedde honor these misteries there And why should Emissene allude to the hand of the hart and draught of the inward man if the hand of the body and draught of the outward man had none office there All this were vaine eloquence and a mere abuse and illusion if the sacramental tokens were only a figure And if there were no presence but in figure why should not Emissen rather haue followed the playne speach of the angell to the women that sought Christ Iesum queritis non est hic Ye seeke Iesus he is not here and say as this author doeth this is onely a figure do no worship here goe vp to heauen and downe with the aulter for feare of illusion which Emissen did not but called it a reuerend alter and inuiteth him that should receiue to honour that foode with such good wordes as before so far discrepant from this authors teaching as may be yet froÌ„ him he taketh occasioÌ„ to speake agaynst adoratioÌ„ Caunterbury HErefor lacke of good matter to answere you fall agayne to your accustomed maner tryfling away the matter with mocking and mowing But if you thought your doctrine good and myne erronious and had a zeale to the truth and to quiet mens conciences you should haue made a substanciall and learned answere vnto my wordes For daliyng and playing scoulding and mowing make no quietnes in mens consciences And all men that know your conditions know right well that if you had good matter to answere you would not haue hid it and passed ouer the matter with such trifles as you vse in this place And S. Ihon Chrisostom you scip ouer eyther as you saw him not or as you cared not how sclenderly you left the matter And as coÌ„cerning the Catechisme I haue sufficiently answered in my former booke But in this place may apeare to them that haue any iudgement what pithy arguments you make and what dexteritie you haue in gathering of authors myndes that would gather my mynd and make an argument here of a picture neyther put in my booke nor by me deuised but inuented by some fond paynter or caruer which paynt and graue whatsoeuer theyr idle heades can fansy You should rather haue gathered your argument vpon the other side that I mislike the matter bycause I left out of my booke the
present vnder the kindes of bread and wine which as before is expressed and proued is vtterly nothing And so they geue vnto the ignorant occasion to worship bread and wine and they them selues worship nothing there at all Winchester As touching the adoration of Christes flesh in the sacrament which adoration is a true confession of the whole man soule and body if there be oportunity of the truth of God in his worke is in my iudgement well set forth in the booke of Common prayer where the priest is ordered to knele and make a prayer in his owne and the name of all that shall communicate confessing therin that is prepared there at which tyme neuerthelesse that is not adored that the bodely eye séeth but that which fayth knoweth to be there inuisibly present which and there be nothing as this author now teacheth it were not well I will not aunswere this authors eloquence but his matter where it might hurt Caunterbury WHere as I haue shewed what idolatry was cōmitted by meanes of the Papisticall doctrine concerning adoration of the sacrament bicause that answere to my reasons you can not and confesse the truth you will not therfore you runne to your vsuall shift passing it ouer with a toy and scoffe saying that you will not answere myne eloquence but the matter and yet indede you answere neither of both but vnder pretence of myne eloquēce you shift of the matter also And yet other eloquence I vsed not but the accustomed speach of the homely people as such a matter requireth And where you say that it were not well to worship Christ in the Sacrament if nothing be there as you say I teach if you meane that Christ can not be worshipped but where he is corporally present as you must nedes meane if your reason should be to purpose then it followeth of your saying that we may not worship Christ in Baptisme in the fieldes in priuate houses nor in no place els where Christ is not corporally and naturally present But the true teaching of the holy catholike churche is that although Christ as concerning his corporall presence be continually resident in heauen yet he is to be worshiped not onely there but here in earth also of all faythfull people at all tymes in all places and in all theyr workes Heare now what followeth further in my Booke But the Papistes for theyr owne commodity to keepe the people still in idolatry do often alleadge a certayne place of S. Augustine vpon the Psalmes where he sayth that no man doth eate the flesh of Christ except he first worship it and that we do not offend in worshipping therof but we should offend if we should not worship it That is true which S. Augustine sayth in this place For who is he that professeth Christ and spiritually fedde and nourished with his flesh and bloud but he will honor and worship him sitting at the right hand of his father and render vnto him from the botome of his hart all laud prayse and thankes for his mercifull redemption And as this is most true which S. Augustine sayth so is that most false which the Papistes would perswade vpon S. Augustines wordes that the Sacramentall bread and wine or any visible thing is to be worshipped in the Sacrament For S. Augustines mynd was so farre from any such thought that he forbiddeth vtterly to worship Christes owne flesh and bloud alone but in consideration and as they be annexed and ioyned to his diuinity How much lesse then could he thinke or allow that we should worship the Sacramentall bread and wine or any outward or visible Sacrament which be shadowes figures and representations of Christes flesh and bloud And S. Augustine was afrayd least in worshiping Christes very body we should offend therfore he biddeth vs when we worship Christ that we should not tarry and fixe our myndes vpon his flesh which of it self auayleth nothing but that we should lift vp our myndes from the flesh to the spirite which geueth lyfe and yet the Papistes be not afrayd by crafty meanes to induce vs to worship those thinges which be signes and sacraments of Christes body But what will not the shamelesse Papistes alleadge for theyr purpose when they be not ashamed to mayntayne the adoration of the Sacrament by these wordes of S. Augustine Wherin he speaketh not one word of the adoration of the sacrament but onely of Christ him selfe And although he say that Christ gaue his flesh to be eaten of vs yet he ment not that his flesh is here corporally present and corporally eaten but onely spiritually As his word declare playnly which follow in the same place where S. Augustine as it were in the person of Christ speaketh these wordes It is the spirite that giueth lyfe but the flesh profiteth nothing The wordes which I haue spoken vnto you be spirite and life That which I haue spoken vnderstand you spiritually You shall not eate this body which you see and drincke that bloud which they shall shed that shall crucify me I haue commended vnto you a sacramēt vnderstand it spiritually and it shall geue you lyfe And although it must be visibly ministred yet it must be inuisibly vnderstand These wordes of S. Augustine with the other before recited do expresse his mynd playnly that Christ is not otherwise to be eaten than spiritually which spirituall eating requireth no corporal presence and that he entended not to teach here any adoration eyther of the visible sacramentes or of any thing that is corporally in them For in dede there is nothing really and corporally in the bread to be worshipped although the Papistes say that Christ is in euery consecrated bread Winchester As in the wrong report of S Augustine who speaking of the adoration of Christes flesh geuen to be eaten doth so fashion his speach as it can not with any violence be drawen to such an vnderstanding as though S. Augustine should meane of the adoring of Christes flesh in heauen as this author would haue it S. Augustine speaketh of the giuing of Christes flesh to vs to eate and declareth after that he meaneth in the visible Sacrament which must be inuisibly vnderstanded spiritually not as the Capernaites did vnderstand Christes wordes carnally to eate that body cut in peces and therfore there may be no such imaginations to eat Christes body after the manner he walked here nor drincke his bloud as it was shedde vpon the Crosse but it is a mystery and sacrament that is godly of godes worke supernaturall aboue mans vnderstanding and therfore spiritually vnderstanded shall geue life which life carnall vnderstanding must nedes exclude And by these my wordes I thincke I declare truely S. Augustines meaning of the truth of this sacrament wherin Christ giueth truly his flesh to be eaten the flesh he spake of before taken of the virgine For the spirituall vnderstanding that S. Augustine speaketh of is not to exclude the truth of
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
by some persons they know right well that were then present But after when it pleased almighty God more clearly to shine vnto vs by the light of this word our eyes by his goodnes were opened darkenes discussed and that which was done in ignoraunce and darkenes was by knowledge and light in publique Counsell rehersed and taken away as well concerning the doctrine as the hardnes of the law For if the doctrine had bene true and godly there is no christen harted man but he would haue desired the establishment and continuaunce therof But the doctrine being false and such as came onely from Rome they be not worthy to be likened to those truthes which came from God and were vttered by Balaam and Cayphas but to be numbred among those lyes which came from his vicar who when he speaketh lyes ex proprijs loquitur he speaketh properly of himselfe And the Byshop of Rome was not cleane gone out of England as sone as the lawes were made agaynst his authority but remayned still by his corrupt doctrine as I feare me he doeth yet in some mennes hertes who were the chief procurers and setters forthward of the foresayd law But yet is all togither to be imputed to the Byshop of Rome forasmuch as from thens came all the foresayd errours ignorance and corruption into these parties Now where you take vpon you here to purge your selfe of Papistry by me and Zuinglius if you haue no better compurgators then vs two you be like to fayle in your purgation For neyther of vs I dare say durst swere for you in this matter though Zuinglius were aliue Or if your purgatioÌ„ stand to this poynt that Christ called not bread made of wheat his body although in a formall and proper speach bread is not in deede his body you may be as rancke a Papist as euer was for any purgation you can make by this way For Christ called bread made of wheate his body as the wordes of the Euangelistes playnly declare and all old writers teach and in your booke of the deuils sophistrie you haue confessed saying that Christ made demonstration of bread when he sayd This is my body And therfore bring some better purgation then this or els had you bene better not to haue offered any purgation in a matter that no man charged you withall than by offering a purgation aud fayling therin to bring your selfe into more suspition And where as in fortification of your matter of Transubstantiation you make your argument thus That forasmuch as the body of Christ is really in the sacrament there is of necessity TransubstantiatioÌ„ also This your argument hath two great faultes in it The first is that your antecedent is false and then you can not conclude therof a true consequent The second fault is that although the autecedent were graunted vnto you that the body of Christ is really in the sacrament yet the consequent can not be inferred therof that there is of necessity Transubstantiation For Christ can make his body to be present in the Sacrament as well with the substance of the bread as without it and rather with the substance of bread then with the accidents forasmuch as neyther Christes body there occupieth any place as you say yourselfe nor no more doth the substance of bread by it selfe but by meanes of the accidentes as you say also Now forasmuch as you say that you will passe ouer the vnreuerent handling of Christes wordes which you heard me once more seriously reherse in solemne open audience I knowledge that not many yeares passed I was yet in darkenes concerning this matter being brought vp in scholasticall and Romish doctrine wherunto I gaue to much credite And therfore I graunt that you haue heard me stand and defend the vntruth which I then tooke for the truth and so did I heare you at the same tyme. But prayse be to the euerliuing God who hath wiped away those Saulish scales from myne eyes and I pray vnto his diuine maiesty with all my hart that he will likewise do once the same to you Thy will be fulfillid O Lord. But forasmuch as you passe ouer my handling of Christes wordes as you vse commonly to passe in post when you haue no direct answer to make I shall here repete my wordes agayne to the intent that the indifferent reader may presently see how I haue handled them and then iudge whether you ought so slenderly to pas them ouer as you do My wordes be these ¶ The second booke THus haue you heard declared fower thinges wherin chiefly the Papisticall doctrine varieth from the trew word of God and from the olde catholique Christian fayth in this matter of the Lordes supper Now least any man should thinke that I fayne any thing of myne owne head without any other grounde or authority you shall heare by Gods grace as well the errors of the Papistes confâ—ted as the catholique truth defended both by gods most certayne word and also by the most old approued authors and Martirs of Christes Church And first that bread and wine remayne after the wordes of consecration and be eaten and drunken in the Lordes supper is most manifest by the playn wordes of Christ himselfe when he ministred the same supper vnto his desciples For as the Euangilistes write Christ tooke bread and brake it and gaue it to his disciples and sayd Take eate this is my body Here the Papistes triumph of these wordes when Christ sayd This is my body which they call the wordes of Consecration For say they assone as these wordes be fully ended there is no bread left nor none other substance but onely Christes body When Christ sayd this the bread say they remayned And when he sayd is yet the bread remayned Also whan he added my the bread remayned still And when he sayd bo yet the bread was there still But when he had finished the whole sentence This is my body then say they the bread was gone and there remayned no substance but Christes body as though the bread could not remayne when it is made a Sacrament But this negatiue that there is no bread they make of theyr owne braynes by their vnwritten verities which they most highly esteme Oh good Lord how would they haue bragged if Christ had sayd This is no bread but Christ spake not that negatiue This is no bread but sayd affirmingly This is my body not denying the bread but affirming that his body was eaten meaning spiritually as the bread was eaten corporally And that this was the meaning of Christ appeareth playnly by S. Paule in the tenth chap. to the Corinth the first epistle where he speaking of the same matter sayth Is not the bread which we breake the communion of the body of Christ Who vnderstood the mynd of Christ better then S. Paule to whom Christ shewed his most secret counsailes And S. Paule is not afrayd for our better
vnderstanding of Christes wordes somewhat to alter the same least we might stand stiffely in the letters and sillables and erre in mistaking the sense and meaning For where as our Sauiour Christ brake the bread and sayd This is my body S. Paule sayth that the bread which we breake is the communion of Christes body Christ sayd His body and S. Paule sayd the communion of his body meaning neuerthelesse both one thing that they which eate the bread worthely do eate spiritually Christes very body And so Christ calleth the bread his body as the old authors report bycause it representeth his body and signifieth vnto them which eat that bread according to Christes ordinance that they do spiritually eate his body and be spiritually fed and nourished by him and yet the bread remayneth still there as a Sacrament to signifie the same But of these wordes of Consecration shall be spoken hereafter more at large Therfore to returne to the purpose that the bread remayneth and is eaten in this Sacrament appeareth by the wordes of Christ which he spake before the consecration For that Christ tooke bread and brake it and gaue it to his disciples and sayd Take eate All this was done and spoken before the wordes of Consecration Wherfore they must nedes be vnderstood of the very bread that Christ tooke bread brake bread gaue bread to his disciples commaunding them to take bread aud eate bread But the same is more playne and euident of the wine that it remayneth and is drunken at the Lordes supper as well by the wordes that goe before as by the wordes that follow after the consecration For before the wordes of consecration Christ tooke the cup of wyne and gaue it vnto his disciples and sayd Drincke ye all of this And after the wordes of consecration followeth They dranke all of it Now I aske all the Papistes what thing it was that Christ commaunded his disciples to drincke when he sayd Drincke ye all of this The bloud of Christ was not yet there by theyr owne confession for these wordes were spoken before the consecration Therfore it could be nothing els but wine that he commaunded them to drincke Then aske the Papistes once agayne whether the disciples dranke wine or not If they say yea then let them recant theyr errour that there was no wine remayning after the consecration If they say nay then they condemne the Apostles of disobedience to Christes commaundement which dranke not wine as he commaunded them Or rather they reproue Christ as a Iuggler which commaūded his Apostles to drincke wine and when they came to the drincking therof he himselfe had conuayed it away Moreouer before Christ deliuered the cup of wine to his disciples he sayd vnto them Deuide this among you Here I would aske the Papistes an other question what thing it was that Christ commaunded his disciples to deuide among them I am sure they will not say it was the Cup except they be disposed to make men laugh at them Nor I thinke they will not say it was the bloud of Christ as well because the wordes were spoken before the consecration as bicause the bloud of Christ is not deuided but spiritually giuen whole in the sacrament Then could it be vnderstand of nothing els but of wine which they should deuide among them and drincke all togither Also when the Communion was ended Christ sayd vnto his Apostles Verily I say vnto you that I will drincke no more henceforth of this frute of the vine vntill that day that I shall drincke it new with you in my fathers kingdome By these wordes it is cleare that it was very wine that the Apostles dranke at that godly supper For the bloud of Christ is not the frute of the vine nor the accidents of wine nor none other thing is the frute of the vine but the very wine onely How could Christ haue expressed more playnly that bread and wine remayne then by taking the bread in his handes and breaking it him selfe and geuing it vnto his disciples commaunding them to eate it And by taking the cup of wine in his handes and deliuering it vnto them commaunding them to deuide it among them and to drincke it and calling it the frute of the vine These wordes of Christ be so playne that if an angell of heauen would tell vs the contrary he ought not to be beleued And then much lesse may we beleue the subtill lying Papistes If Christ would haue had vs to beleue as a necessary article of our fayth that there remayneth neyther bread nor wine would he haue spoken after this sort vsing all such termes and circumstaūces as should make vs beleue that styll there remayneth bread and wine What maner of teacher make they of Christ that say he ment one thing when his wordes be cleane contrary What christen hart can paciently suffer this contumely of Christ But what crafty teachers be these Papistes who deuise phantasies of theyr owne heades directly contrary to Christes teaching and then set the same abroad to christen people to be most assuredly beleued as Gods owne most holy word S. Paule did not so but followed herein the manner of Christes speaking in calling of bread bread and wine wine and neuer altering Christes wordes herin The bread which we breake sayth he is it not the Communion of Christes body Now I aske agayne of the Papistes whether he spake this of the bread consecrated or not consecrated They can not say that he spake it of the bread vnconsecrated for that is not the communion of Christes body by their owne doctrine And if S. Paule spake it of bread consecrated then they must nedes confesse that after consecration such bread remayneth as is broken bread which can be none other then very true materiall bread And strayght wayes after S. Paule sayth in the same place that we be partakers of one bread and one cup. And in the next chapiter speaking more fully of the same matter foure tymes he nameth the bread and the cup neuer making mention of any Transubstantiation or remayning of accidentes without any substance which thinges he would haue made some mention of if it had bene a necessary article of our fayth to beleue that there remayneth no bread nor wine Thus it is euident and playne by the wordes of scripture that after consecration remayneth bread and wine and that the Papisticall doctrine of Transubstantiation is directly contrary to gods word Winchester But to the purpose the simplicity of fayth in a christen mans brest doth not so precisely marke and stay at the sillables of Christes wordes as this author pretendeth and knowing by fayth the truth of Christes wordes that as he sayd he wrought doth not measure gods secret working after the prolation of our sillables whose worke is in one instant how so euer speach in vs require a successiue vtterance and the manner of handling this author vseth to bring the misticall wordes in
Emperours very men although they be euer called by the names of there royall and imperiall dignites Or are they therfore gods bicause the Prophet calleth them so And who euer called you a man sithens you were a bishop and yet that dignity tooke not from you the nature of a man And the Pope is a man although he be called Iulius or Pater sanctissimus or Hipocrita impiissimus So is bread still bread although it represent the body of Christ and be called in that respect as a figure the very body of Christ. And where you say that the naming of bread by Christ and S. Paule and all other must be understood before the sanctification and not after Saynt Paules owne wordes reproue this your saying most manifestly For he calleth it bread when it is the communion of Christes body and when it is eaten saying The bread which we breake is it not the communion of Christes body And as often as you eate this bread drincke this cup and who soeuer eateth the bread and drincketh the cup of the lord vnworthely and let a man try himselfe and so eate of that bread and drincke of the cup and he that eateth and drincketh vnworthely c. Now these sayinges cannot be vnderstanded before the sanctificatiō except you will graunt that the bread was Christes body and that it was eaten before it was sanctified Wherfore let euery reader that knoweth any thing iudge whether you seeke any truth in this matter or whether you study to serch out vayne cauilations and yet the same being cleane contrary to the manifest wordes of holy scripture and to all approued writers Wherfore gentle reader way S. Paules wordes whether he call it bread after the sanctification or onely before and as thou findest Saynt Paule make with this mans saying that trifeleth away the truth so thou mayst beleeue him in all other thinges Hitherto is discussed how the doctrine of Transubstantiation is agaynst gods word now followeth in my booke how the same is agaynst nature Wherof I write thus Let vs now consider also how the same is agaynst naturall reason and natural operation which although they preuayle not agaynst Gods word yet when they be ioyned with Gods word they be of great moment to confirme any truth Naturall reason abhorreth vacuum that is to say that there should be any empty place wherin no substance should be But if there remayne no bread nor wine the place where they were before and where their accidents be is filled with no substance but remayneth vacuum cleane contrary to the order of nature We see also that the wine though it be consecrated yet will it tourne to vineger and the bread will mowle which then be nothing els but sower wine and mowled bread which could not wax sower nor mowly if there were no bread nor wine there at all And if the sacramentes were now brent as in the olde church they burned all that remayned vneaten let the Papistes tell what is brent They must nedes say that it is eyther bread or the body of Christ. But bread say they is none there then must they nedes burne the body of Christ and be called Christ burners as heretofore they haue burned many of his members except they will say that accidents burne alone without any substaunce contrary to all the course of nature The sacramentall bread and wine also will nourish which nourishment naturally cometh to the substaunce of the meates and drinkes and not of the accidentes The wine also will poyson as diuers bishops of Rome haue had experiences both in poysoning of other and being poysoned them selues which poysoning they can not ascribe to the most holsome bloud of our Sauiour Christ but onely to the poysoned wine And most of all it is agaynst the nature of accidents to be in nothing For that definition of accidents is to be in some substance so that if they be they must nedes be in some thing And if they be in nothing than they be not And a thousād thinges moe of like foolishnes do the Papistes affirme by their transubstantiation contrary to all nature and reason As that two bodies be in one place and one body in many places at one tyme and that substances be gendred of accidents onely and accidents conuerted into substances and a body to be in a place and occupy no roume and generation to be without corruption and corruption without generation and that substances be made of nothing and turned into nothing with many such like thinges agaynst all order and principles of nature and reason Winchester In the third chapiter written in the xxi leafe it troubleth this author that the doctrine of Transubstantiation is in his iudgement agaynst naturall reason and naturall operation in the entry of which matter he graunteth wisely that they should not preuayle agaynst gods worde and yet he sayth when they be ioyned with gods word they be of great moment to confirme any truth wherin if he meaneth to confirme Gods worde by reason or gods misteries by naturall operation myne vnderstanding cannot reach that doctrine and is more strange to me then this author maketh Transubstantiation to be to him As for the reason of vacuum declareth a vacuum that nature abhorreth not And if we speake after the rules of nature quantity filleth the place rather than substaunce And shortly to answere this Author it is not sayd in the doctrine of Transubstantiation that there remayneth nothing for in the visible forme of bread remayneth the proper obiect of euery sence truely that is seene with the bodely eye is truely seene that is felt is truely felt that is sauored is truely sauored and those thinges corrupt putrifie norish and consume after the truth of the former nature God so ordering it that creat all vsing singularly that creature of bread not to vnite it vnto him as he did mans nature to be in bread impanate breaded as he was in flesh incarnate And as for reason in place of seruice as being inferiour to sayth will agree with the fayth of Transubstantiation well inough For if our fayth of the true presence of Christes very body be true as it is most true grounded vpon these wordes of Christ This is my body then reason yelding to that truth will not striue with Transubstantiation but playnly affirme that by his iudgement if it be the body of Christ it is not bread For in the rule of common reason the graunt of one substance is the deniall of an other and therfore reason hath these conclusions throughly whatsoeuer is bread is no wine whatsoeuer is wine is no milke and so forth And therfore being once beleued this to be the body of Christ reason sayth by and by it is not bread by the rule aforesayd wherby appeareth how reason doth not striue with Transubstantiation being once conquered with sayth of the true presence of Christes body which is most euident and
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
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
catholike Church But now what illusions and dreames you fantasy of Emissenes wordes it is a wonder to heare First that the substance of bread and wine is an inward nature and that in baptisme the whole man is not regenerated but the soule onely and that the soule of man is the substance of man and made the sonne of God And now when it serueth for your purpose the body of Christ is a corporall substance which in all your booke before was but a spirituall body and the substance of bread and wine be visible creatures which were wont with you to be inward and inuisible natures and now is the inward nature of the bread the substance of the bread where as in other places the outward fourmes be the substance so litle substance is in your doctrine that from tyme to tyme you thus alter your sayings This is no tripping but so shamefull a fall and in so foule and stincking a place that you shall neuer be able to spunge the filthines out of your clothes and to make your selfe sweete agayne And you appoynt at your pleasure both terminum a quo terminum ad quem and the changes and the thinges that be changed altogither otherwise then Emissene doth For in Emissene the changes be regeneration and nourishing or augmentation the thing that is changed is the man both in regeneration and in nutrition or augmentation and in regeneration terminus a quo is the sonne of perdition and terminus ad quem is the sonne of God And in nutrition terminus a quo is the hunger and thirst of the man and terminus ad quem is the feeding and satisfying of his hunger and thirst But you appoynt the changes to be Transubstātiatiō and regeneration and the thinges that be changed in Transubstantiation you say is the substance of bread and wine and the same to be terminum a quo and the flesh and bloud of Christ say you is terminus ad quem And in regeneration you assigne terminum a quo to be the soule of man onely and terminum ad quem to be regenerated the sonne of God And so being viii thinges in these ii mutations in each of them the change the thing that is changed the thing from whence it is changed and the thing wherunto it is changed you haue mist the butte clearly in all sauing ii that is to say regeneration and the thing wherunto regeneration is made and in all other vi you missed the quishion quite And yet if the change were in the substance of bread and wine proportionably to the change of the soule being the substance of man as you say if you should make the proportions agree then as the soule being the mans substance remayneth without Transubstantiation so must the bread and wine remayne without transubstantiation And if the substance of the bread and wine be not the visible signe in the lordes supper because substance as you say is a thing inuisible then is not the substance of water the visible signe in baptisme bring no more visible the substance of the one then the substance of the other Now of Hilary I write thus Hilarius also in few wordes sayth the same There is a figure sayth he for bread and wine be outwardly seene And there is also a truth of that figure for the body and bloud of Christ be of a truth inwardly beleued And this Hilarius was within lesse then 350. yeares after Christ. Winchester But I will examine moe particularieties I haue before answered to Hilary so whome neuerthelesse I would aptly haue sayd somewhat now to note how he distincteth outwardly and inwardly by beleefe and corporall sight For outwardly as Emissene sayth we see no change and therfore we see after Consecration as before which we may therfore call bread but we beleue that inwardly is which as Emissene sayth is the substance of the body of Christ wherunto the change is made of the inward nature of bread as by the comparison of Emissene doth appeare Caunterbury YOur distinction made here of outwardly and inwardly is a playne confusion of Hilarius mynd and contrary to that which you wrote before in Emissene For there you sayd that the visible creatures be changed meaning by the visible creatures the substances of bread and wine and now when Hilary sayth that bread and wine be seene you say that their substances be not seene but the outward formes onely which you say be called bread and wine But here appeareth into how narrow a straight you be driuen that be fayne for a shift to say that the accidents of bread without the substance be called bread Epiphanius is next in my booke And Epiphanius shortly after the same tyme sayth that the bread is meat but the vertue that is in it is it that giueth life But if there were no bread at all how could it be meate Winchester These wordes of Epiphanius do playnly ouerturne this authors doctrine of a figuratiue speach for a figure can not geue life onely God giueth life and the speach of this Epiphanius of the sacrament doth necessarily imply the very true presence of Christes body author of life And then as often as the author is ouerthrowen in the truth of the presence so often is he by Zuinglius rule ouerthrowen in Transubstantiation As for the name of bread is granted bicause it was so and Transubstantiation doth not take away but it is meate bicause of the visible matter remayning These sayings be sought out by this author onely to wrangle not taken out where the mistery is declared and preached to be taught as a doctrine therof but onely signified by the way and spoken of vpon occasion the sence wherof faythfull men know otherwise then appeareth at the first readings to the carnall man but by such like speaches the Arrians impugned the diuinity of Christ. Caunterbury Epiphanius speaking of the bread in the Lordes supper and the water in baptisme sayth that they haue no power nor strength of thē selues but by Christ. So that the bread feedeth and the water washeth the body but neither the bread nor water giue life nor purge to saluation but onely the might and power of Christ that is in them And yet not in them reserued but in the action and ministration as it is manifest of his wordes And therfore as in baptisme is neyther the reall and corporall presence of Christes body nor transubstantiation of the water no more is in the Lordes supper eyther Christes flesh and bloud really and corporally present or the bread and wine transubstantiated And therfore Epiphanius calleth not bread by that name bicause it was so but bicause it is so in deede and nourished the body As Hilary sayd there is a figure for bread and wine be openly seene he sayth not there was a figure for bread and wine were openly seene And the figure giueth not life nor washeth not inwardly but Christ that is in the figure tanquam
so the Sacrament consisteth of to natures of the elements of bread and wine and of the body and bloud of Christ and therfore both these natures do remayne in the Sacrament These be this authors owne wordes who trauayling to confound Transubstantiation confoundeth euidently himselfe by his owne wordes touching the reall present For he sayth the nature of the body and bloud of Christ must remayne in the sacrament and as truely as the natures of the manhod and Godhead were in Christ for therupon he argueth And now let this author choose whether he will say any of the natures the manhode or the godhead were but figuratiuely in Christ which and he do then may be the better say for the agrement of his doctrine The nature of the body and bloud of Christ is but figuratiuely in the Sacrament And if he say as he must nedes say that the two natures be in Christes person really naturally substantially then must he graunt by his owne collection the truth of the being of the nature of the body and bloud of Christ to be likewise in the Sacrament and therby call backe all that he hath written agaynst the real presence of Christes body in the sacrament and abandon his deuise of a presence by significatiō which is in truth a playne absēce as himselfe also speaketh openly which open speach can not stand and is improued by this open speach of his owne Likewise where he sayth the nature of the body and bloud of Christ remayne in the Sacrament the word remayne being of such signification as it betokeneth not onely to be there but to tary there and so there is declared the sacrifice of the church which mistery of sacrifice is perfited before the perception and so it must be euident how the body of Christ is there that is to say on the alter before we receaue it to which aulter S. Augustine sayth we come to receaue it There was neuer man ouerturned his own assertions more euidently then this author doth herein this place the like wherof I haue obserued in other that haue written agaynst this Sacrament who haue by he way sayd somewhat for it or they haue brought their treatise to an end It will be sayd here how soeuer this author doth ouerthrow him selfe in the reall presence of Christes very body yet he hath pulled downe Transubstantiation and done as crafty wrastlers do falling themselues on theire backe to throw there fellowe ouer them But it is not like for as long as the true fayth of the reall presence standeth so longe Transubstantiation standeth not by authority of determination but by a necessary consequence of the truth as I sayd before and as Zuinglius defendeth playnly and as for these places of S. Augustine may be answered vnto for they speake of the visible nature and element which remayne truely in the propriety of their nature for so much as remayneth so as there is true reall and bodily matter of the accidents of bread and wine not in fantasy or imagination wherby there should be illution in the sences but so in deede as the experience doth shew and the change of substance of the creatures into a better substance should not impayre the truth of that remayneth but that remayneth doth in deede remayne with the same naturall effects by miracle that it had when the substance was there which is one maruaile in this mistery as there were diuerse more in Manna the figure of it And then a miracle in gods working doth not empayre the truth of the worke And therfore I noted before how S. Thomas did touch Christ after his resurrection truely and yet it was by miracle as S. Gregory writeth And further we may say touching the comparison that when a resemblaunce is made of the Sacrament to Christes person or contrariwise of Christes person to declare the Sacrament we may not presse all partes of the resemblance with a through equality in consideration of each part by it selfe but onely haue respect to the ende wherfore the resemblance is made In the person of Christ be ioyned two whole perfite natures inseperably vnite which fayth the Nestorians impugned and yet vnite without confusion of them which confussion the Eutichians in consequence of their error affirmed and so arguments be brought of the sacrament wherewith to conuince both as I shall shew answering to Gelasius But in this place S. Augustine vseth the truth most certayne of the two natures in Christes person wherby to declare his beleefe in the Sacrament which beleefe as Hilary before is by this author alleadged to say is of that is inwardly For that is outwardly of the visible creature we see he sayth with our bodely eye and therfore therin is no poynt of fayth that should neede such a declaration as S. Augustine maketh And yet making the comparison he reherseth both the truthes on both sides saying As the person of Christ cōsisteth of God man so the sacrifice of the church cōsisteth of two thinges the visible kind of the element the inuisible flesh bloud finishing the conclusiō of the similitude that therfore There is in the Sacrifice of the church both the Sacramēt and the thing of the Sacramēt Christes body that which is inuisible therfore required declaratiō that is by S. Augustine opened in the cōparison that is to say the body of Christ to be there truely and therwith that needed no declaration that is to say the visible kind of the element is spoken of also as being true but not as a thing which was intended to be proued for it neded not any proofe as the other part did And therfore it is not necessary to presse both partes of the resemblance so as bicause in the nature of Christs humanity there was no substance conuerted in Christ which had bene contrary to the order of that mistery which was to ioyne the whole nature of man to the godhead in the person of Christ that therfore in this mistery of the Sacrament in which by the rules of our fayth Christes body is not Impanate the conuersion of the substance of the visible elements should not therfore be If truth answereth to truth for proportion of the truth in the mistery that is sufficient For els the natures be not so vnite in one hipostasy in the mistery of the Sacrament as there be in Christes person and the flesh of man in Christ by vnion of the diuinity is a diuine spirituall flesh and is called and is a liuely flesh and yet the author of this booke is not afrayd to teach the bread in the Sacrament to haue no participation of holines wherein I agree not with him but reason agaynst him with his owne doctrine and much I could say more but this shall suffice The wordes of S. Augustine for the reall presence of Christes body be such as no man can wrest or wreth to an other sence and with their force haue made this author to ouerthrow
Chrisostome would by his wordes put vs in remembrance not denying therby the visible ministry no more then he doth in his other wordes deny the visible forme of bread and yet would not that we should looke only vpon that but whether fayth directeth vs that is to say vpon the very body of Christ there inuisibly present which fayth knoweth and knoweth it to be there the very body and there therfore to be no bread which bread this true confession of Christes body present by fayth excludeth But touching the priest S. Chrisostomes wordes do by no meane teach vs that there is no visible priest but to thinke that the body of Christ is deliuered of Christes handes which excludeth not in like sort the minister visible as fayth doth the substance inuisible of bread in the Sacrament The one saying in Chrisostome is a godly exhortation according to the truth the other is a doctrine of fayth in the truth we be not taught that the priest is Christ but we be taught that the substance of the bread is made Christes body And then the question in the wordes of Chrisostome Seest thou bread is as much to say as remembrest the fayth as being one of the faythfull that know which terme S. Augustine vsed And then Chrisostome to confirme our fayth in so high a mistery declareth how we should thinke Christ to deliuer his body him selfe as a thing farre exceding mans power to do it And with other heauenly wordes setteth forth the greatnes of that mistery which be wordes of godly and good meditation conuenient for so high a matter to adorne it accordingly which bicause they be holsome and meete allegories wherwith to draw and lift vp our myndes to celestiall thoughtes we may not therby esteeme the substance of that mistery to be but in allegory Here in steed of a solution the author filleth three whole leaues with profe of that is not necessary how a deniall by cōparison is not vtterly a deniall which is in deed true And as one was answered at Cambridge when he pressed the responsall What say ye to myne argument which was not in deede of his making The responsall left his Latin and told the opponent before all his country friendes in playne English It is a good argument syr quoth he but nothing to the purpose And so is the intreating of this matter of deniall by comparison good but nothing to the purpose here and it is an obseruation that requireth good iudgement or els may therby be induced many absurdities Chrisostom as I sayd before speaking to the Christen man seemeth to aske whither he vseth his fayth or no. For if he seeth bread he seeth not with fayth which seeth the body of Christ there present and so no bread If the christen man thinke of passage through him of the celestiall foode he hath therin no spirituall thought such as fayth engendreth and therfore sayth Chrisostome absit here in these wordes of Chrisostom is no deniall with comparison and therfore this author myght haue spared his treatise in these thrée leaues For in those wordes when Chrisostome sayth Thinke not thou receauest the body of Christ by a man There this author neglecteth his owne rule as in his third booke he maketh a solemne argument that by those S. Chrisostoms wordes we receaue not the body of Christ at all seing Chrisostome sayth we may not thinke we receaue it by man So little substantially is this matter handled as a man might say here were many accidentall wordes without a substance or miracle how strange soeuer the same seeme to this author otherwise Caunterbury I Complayned not of your crafty handling of Chrisostome without a iust cause for when you had alleadged the wordes that seemed to make for your purpose you left out the wordes that make clearly agaynst you or which wordes at the least would open all the whole matter And yet the wordes which you leaue out follow immediately the wordes by you alleadged And where to discusse this whole matter you say in the beginning that Chrisostome doth not deny the visible minister no more then he doth the visible forme of bread here at the first chop you vse an other pollicie not much commendable altering pretely the wordes of Chrisostom making of bread the forme of bread For Chrisostome speaketh of bread and wine and not of the formes and accidents of them And if the bread be no more but the visible accidents of bread then is the minister also no more but the visible accidents of a minister and so is the priest nothing els but the puppy of a priest And then the communicants receaue no bread of the priest but a puppy of bread of a puppy of a priest For Chrisostome speaketh in like forme of wordes of the bread as he doth of the priest with these wordes thinke not Thinke not that thou seest bread thinke not that thou receauest of a priest And therfore if this forme of speach exclude the substance of bread it excludeth likewise the substance of the priest And if the priest remayne still not withstanding that speach then may the bread remayne also with the same speach And if your argument be good there is Christes body ergo there is no bread then may I conclude in the same forme of reasoning there is bread ergo there is not Christes body And so this author maketh nothing for you but ouerthroweth your foundation cleane both of transubstantiation and of the reall presence But to make the mind of Chrysostome somewhat more playne he teacheth them that come to that holy mistery with what things their minds should be chiefly occupyed not about earthly and visible thinges but about thinges celestiall and inuisible and not to consider so much what we see with our eies as what we beleue in our hartes not so much what wee receiue bodily as what we receiue spiritually And he teacheth not onelye what we should thinke we receiue but also of whome we should thinke to receiue it saying When you come to the misteries do not thinke that you receiue by a man the body of God but that you receiue fyre by the Aungell Seraphin The thing that we receiue sayth he is not the body of God and the person of whome we receiue is not a man like as before immediately he sayd that the thing which we see is not bread Now if it be not bread in deed that is seen then it is not the body of Christ indeed that is receiued nor he is not a priest indeed of whom we receiue it And on the other syde if it be the very body of Christ that is receiued and a very man of whom it is receiued then it is very bread in deed that is seene And where becommeth then your Transubstantiation But to declare brieflye and playnelye the very trueth according to the minde of Chrisostome as we see with our eyes and eat with our mouthes very bread and see also and
asked of commen bread when we breake it whether we breake the substance or onely the accidents First I must learnedly say If the substance be broken it is by meane of the accident in quantitie and then if it liked me to take my pleasure without learning in philosophye as this author doth in diuinity agaynst the catholique fayth to say in diuision we breake not the substance of bread at all the heresie in philosophy were not of such absurditye as this author mayntayneth in diuinity For I haue some probable matter to say for me where as he hath none For my strange answer I would say that albeit a naturall thing as bread consisting of matter and essenciall forme with quantity and therby other accidents cleauing and annexed may be well sayd to be in the whole broken as we see by experience it is Yet speaking of the substance of it alone if one should aske whether that be broken and it should be answered yea then should the substance appeare broken and whole all at one tyme seeing in euery broken peece of bread is a whole substance of bread and where the pâ—ece of bread broken is so little a crumme as can no more in deed be deuided we say neuertheles the same to be in substance very bread and for want of conuenient quantity bread indiuisible and thus I write to shew that such an aunswere to say the accidents be broken hath no such clere absurdity as this author would haue it séeme But leauing of the matter of Philosophy to the scholes I will graunt that accidentes to be without substaunce is agaynst the common course of naturall thinges and therefore therein is a speciall miracle of God But when the accidentes be by miracle without substaÌ„ce as they be in the visible part of the sacrament then the same accidents to be broken eaten and drunken with all additions this author for his pleasure maketh them is no miracle or maruaile and as for absurdity no point at all for by quantitye which remayneth is all diuision we ought to confes and good christen men do profes the mistery of the sacrament to be supernaturall and aboue the order of nature and therefore it is a trauaile in vayne to frame the consideration of it to agrée with the termes of philosophy But where this author sayth that nothing can be aunswered to be broken but the accidents yes verely for in time of contention as this is to him that would aske what is broken I would in other termes aunswere thus that thou seest is broken And then if he would aske further what that is I would tell him the visible matter of the sacrament vnder which is present inuisibly the substaunce of the most precious bodye of Christ. If he will aske yet further is that body of Christ broken I wil say no. For I am learned in fayth that that glorious body now impassible cannot be deuided or broken and therefore it is whole in euery part of that is broken as the substaunce of bread is in common bread in euery part that is broken According whereunto it is in the booke of common prayer sette forth howe in ech part of that is broken of the consecrate bread is the whole body of our sauior Christ. If this questioner be further curious and say Is not that that is broken bread I would aunswere as a beleuing man by fayth truely no. For in fayth I must call it because it is truely so the bodye of Christ inuisibly there and the breaking to be not in it but in the visible figure Yea ye will call it so sayth this questioner but yet it is bread Nay quod I my fayth is a most certayne truth beleueth things as they verely be for Christs word is of strength not onely to shew and declare as other mens wordes do but therewith effectuall to make it so to be as it is by him called And this I write because howsoeuer clarks soberly entreat the matter such as minde well I meane to consider accidentes and substance which termes the rude vnderstand not it is not necessary therefore in those termes to make aunswere to such as be contentiously curious who labour with questions to dissolue the trueth of the mistery in declaration whereof if we as men stumble and terme it otherwise then we should that is no inconuenience in the mistery but an imperfection in vs that be not able to expresse it not hauing such giftes of God as other haue nor studying to attayne learning as other haue done And whatsoeuer in scholes with a deuoute minde to aunswere all captious questions hath for the exercitation of mens sences bene moued soberly and by way of argument obiected that is now picked out by this author and brought to the common peoples eares in which it might sound euill they not being able to make aunswere therunto wereby they might be snarled and intangled with vayne fansies against that trueth which before without curiosity of questions they truely and constantly beleued Finally the doctrine of the sacrament is simple and playne to haue the visible formes of bread wine for signification the thing whereof is the very body and bloud of Christ which being the trueth of the whole it is no absurdity to confes truely the partes as they be if occasion require howsoeuer it soundeth to the Ethnike or carnall mans eares for whose satisfaction there is no cause why the trueth should be altered into a lye wherewith to make melody to theyr vnderstandinges For howsoeuer carnal reason be offended with spirituall truth it forceth not but agaynst the whole consent of the auncient doctors no doctrine can be iustified with whose testimonye how the fayth of the church in the sacrament now agréeth it is manifest howsoeuer it liketh this author to reporte the contrary Caunterbury HEre may the reader perceiue how much you sweat and labor so that it pittieth me to see what trauaile you take babling many things no thing to the purpose to aunswere my first absurditye And yet at the end you be enforced to affirme all that I charge you withall that is to say that accidentes be broken eaten drunken chawed and swallowed without any substaunce at all And more I need not to say here then before I haue aunswered to your clarkely dialogue betweene the scholler and the rude man sauing this that you make all men so wise that they iudge accidents in their common vnderstanding to be called substaunces and that no man is able to know the difference of one substaunce from an other And here you fall into the same folly that Basill speaketh For if he that goeth about to seperate accidentes from their substaunce fayle of his purpose end in nothing indeed then you separating the accidentes of bread from their substaunce and the substaunce of Christes body from the accidentes by your owne saying alleadged of Basill you must fayle of your purpose in the end bring both
body simulation and dissimulation wherin when you haue well practised your selfe in all your booke thorow at the last you make as it were a play in a dialogue betweene Chrysostome Theodoret and me But Chrysostome Theodoret and I shall agree well enough for they tell not what in no wise may be but what was commonly vsed that is to say not to call the bread by his proper name after consecration but by the name of the body of Christ. And if you had well considered what I wrote in my booke concerning figuratiue speaches and negatiues by cōparisō which you also haue allowed you should haue well perceiued your labor here spēt all in vaine For in all figures and sacramentes the signes remayning in their owne proper natures chaunge neuertheles their names and be called by the names of the more high and excellent thinges which they signify And both Chrysostome and Theodoret shew a cause thereof which is this that we should not rest in the sight of the sacramentes and figures but lift vp our mindes to the thinges that be thereby represented And yet in the sacramentes is neither simulation nor dissimulation except you will call all figuratiue speaches simulation and say that Christ simuled when he sayd he was a vine a dore a herdman the light of the world and suche like speaches But it pleaseth you for refreshing of your wit being now so sore trauailed with impugning of the truth to deuise a prety mery dialog of Quoth he and quoth he And if I were disposed to dally and trifle I could make a like dialogue of simulation or dissimulation of quoth he and quoth you euen betwene you and Christ. But as I haue declared before all thinges which be exalted to an hier dignity be called by the names of their dignity So muche the many times their former names be forgotten and yet neuertheles they be the same thinges that they were before although they be not vsually so called As the surnames of Kinges and Emperours to how many be they knowen or how many doe call them thereby but euery man calleth them by their royall and imperiall dignities And in like maner is it of fygures and sacramentes sauing that their exaltation is in a figure and the dignities royall and imperiall be reall and indeed And yet he should not offend that should call the princes by their original names so that he did it not in contempt of their estates And no more should he offend that did call a figure by the name of the thing that it is indeed so that he did it not in contempt of the thing that is signified And therefore Theodoret sayth not that the bread in the sacrament may not be called bread and that he offendeth that so calleth it for he calleth it bread himselfe but with this addition of dignity calling it the bread of life which it signifieth As the cap of maintenāce is not called barely and simply a cap but with addition of maintenaunce And in like manner we vse not in common speach to call bread wine and water in the sacraments simple and common water bread and wine but according to that they represent vnto vs we call them the water of baptisme the water of life sacramentall water sacramentall and celestiall bread and wine the bread of lyfe the drinke that quencheth our thirst for euer And the cause Theodoret sheweth why they be so called that we hearing those names should lift vp our mindes vnto the thinges that they bee called and comfort our selues therewithall And yet neither in the sacraments iu the cap of maintenaunce nor in the imperiall or royall maiesties is any simulation or dissimulation but all be playn speaches in common vsage which euery man vnderstandeth But there was neuer man that vnderstood any author further from his meaning then you do Theodoret and Chrysostome in this place For they ment not of any reall calling by chaungyng of substances but of a sacramentall chaunge of the names remaining the substaunces For Theodoret sayth in playne wordes that as Christ called bread his body so he called his body corne and called himselfe a vine Was therefore the substance of his body transubstantiated and turned into corne or he into a vine And yet this must needes follow of your saying if Christes calling were a putting away of the former substance according to the doctrine of Transubstantiation But that Theodoret ment not of any such chaunging of substances but of chaunging of names he declareth so playnely that no man can doubt of his meaning These be Theodorets owne wordes Our Sauiour without doubt chaunged the names and gaue to his body the name of the signe and to the signe the name of his body and yet sayth he they kept their former substaunce fashion and figure And the cause wherfore Christ doth vouchsafe to call the sacramental bread by the name of hys body to dignify so earthly a thing by so heauenly a name Theodoret sheweth to be this that the godly receiuers of the Sacrament when they heare the heauenly names should lift vp their mindes from earth vnto heauen and not to haue respect vnto the bread outwardly only but principally to looke vpon Christ who with his heauenly grace and omnipotent power feedeth them inwardly But there was neuer such vntrueth vsed as you vse in this author to hide the trueth and to set forth your vntrueth For you alter Theodoretes wordes and yet that suffiseth not but you geue such new and straunge significations to wordes as before was neuer inuented For where Theodoret sayth that the sacramentes remayne you turne that into the visible matter and then that visible matter as you take it must signify accidents And where Theodoret sayth in playne termes that the substaunce remayneth there must substaunce also by your saying signify accidentes which you call here outward nature cōtrary to your own doctrine which haue taught hetherto that substaunce is an inward nature inuisible and insensible And thus your saying here neither agreeth with the trueth nor with your selfe in other places And all these cantelless and false interpretations altering of the words and corrupting of the sence both of all authors and also of scripture is nothing els but shameles shiftes to deceiue simple people and to draw them from the olde Catholicke fayth of Christes Churche vnto your newe Romish errors deuised by Antichrist not aboue foure or fiue hundred yeares passed And where you say that in the sacrament in euery part both in the heauenly earthly part is an whole perfect truth Now is perfect truth in the earthly part of the sacrament if there be no bread there at all but the color and accidents of bread For if there be none other truth in the heauēly part of the sacrament then is not Christ there at all but onely his qualities and accidentes And as concerning your vniust gathering of mine owne wordes vpon S. Augustine I haue aunswered
thereunto in the same place And where you haue set out the aunswere of the carnall and spirituall man after your owne imagination you haue so well deuised the matter that you haue made ii extremities without any meane For the true faythfull man would answere not as you haue deuised but he would say according to the old catholick fayth and teaching of the Apostles Euangelists Martyrs and confessours of Christes Churche that in the Sacrament or true ministration thereof be two parts the earthly and the heauenly The earthly is the bread and wine the other is Christ himselfe The earthly is without vs the heauenlye is within vs The earthlye is eaten with our mouthes and carnally feedeth our bodies the heauenly is eaten with our inward man and spiritually feedeth the same The earthly feedeth vs but for a tyme the heauenly feedeth vs for euer Thus would the true faythfull man answere without leaning vnto any extremity either to deny the bread or inclosing Christ really in the accideÌ„ces of bread but professing beleuing Christ really and corporally to be ascended into heauen and yet spiritually to dwell in his faythfull people and they in him vnto the worldes ende This is the true catholicke fayth of Christ taught from the first beginning and neuer corrupted but by Antichrist and his ministers And where you say that one thing is but one substaunce sauing onelye in the person of Christ your teaching is vntrue not onely in the person of Christ but also in euery man who is made of ij substaunces the body and soule And if you had beene learned in philosophy you would haue founde your saying false also in euery corporall thing which consisteth of ij substaunces of the matter and of the forme And Gelasius sheweth the same likewise in this matter of the sacrament So vntrue it is that you moste vainely boast here that your doctrine hath bene taught in all ages and bene the catholicke faith which was neuer the catholique but onely the Papisticall fayth as I haue euidentlye proued by holy scripture and the old catholick authors wherein truely and directly you haue not aunswered to one Winchester In whose particular words although there may be sometime cauillations yet I will note to the reader foure marks and tokens imprinted rather in those olde authors deeds then wordes which be certayne testimonies to the truth of their fayth of the reall presence of Christes most precious body in the Sacrament The first marke is in the processe of arguing vsed by them to the conuiction of heretiques by the truth of this Sacrament wherein I note not the particuler sentences which sometime be daungerous speches but their whole doinges As Irene who was in the beginning of the church argueth agaynst the Ualentinians that denied the resurrection of our flesh whome Irene reproueth by the féeding of our soules and bodies with the diuine glorified fleshe of Christ in the Sacrament which flesh and â—t be there but in a figure then it should haue proued the resurrection of our flesh slenderly as it were but figuratiuely And if the Catholicke fayth had not bene then certainely taught and constantly beleued without varience Christes very flesh to be indeede eaten in that mistery it would haue beene aunswered of the heretickes if had bene but a figure but that appeareth not and the other appeareth which is a testimony to the truth of matter indéed Hylary reasonyng of the naturall coniunction betwene vs and Christ by meane of this Sacrament expresseth the same to come to passe by the receiuyng truely the very flesh of our Lord in our Lordes meate and thereupon argueth agaynst the Arrians which Arrians if it had not bene so really in déede would haue aunswered but all was spiritually so as there was no such naturall and corporall Communion in déede as Hylary supposed but as this author teacheth a figure and it had bene the Catholicke doctrine so that argument of Hylary had bene of no force Saint Chrisostome Gelasius and Theodorete argue of the truth of this mystery to conuince the Appolinaristes and Eutichians which were none argument if Christes very body were not as really present in the SacrameÌ„t for the truth of presence as the Godhead is in the person of Christ beyng the effect of the argument this that as the presence of Christes body in this mistery doth not alter the propertie of the visible natures no more doth the Godhead in the person of Christ extinguish his humanitie which agaynst those heretickes serued for an argument to exclude confusion of natures in Christ and had bene a daungerous arguyng to be embraced of the Nestorians who would hereby haue furthered their heresie to proue the distinction of natures in Christ without any vnion for they would haue sayd As the earthly and heauenly natures be so distinct in the Sacrament as the one is not spoken of the other so be the natures of the humanitie and Godhead not vnited in Christ which is false and in the comparynges we may not looke that all should aunswere in equalitie but onely for the point that it is made for that is as in the Sacrament the visible element is not extinguished by the presence of Christes most precious body no more is Christes humanitie by his Godhead and yet we may not say that as in the Sacrament be but onely accidents of the visible earthly matter that therfore in the person of Christ be onely accidentes of the humanitie For that mistery requireth the whole truth of maÌ„s nature and therfore Christ tooke vpon him the whole man body and soule The mystery of the Sacrament requireth the truth of the accidentes onely beyng the substaunce of the visible creatures conuerted into the body and bloud of Christ. And this I write to preuent such cauillations as some would search for But to returne to our matter all these argumentes were vayne if there were not in the Sacrament the true presence of Christes very body as the celestiall part of the Sacrament beyng the visible formes therthly thyng Which earthly thyng remayneth in the former proprietie with the very presence of the celestiall thyng And this suffiseth concernyng the first marke Caunterbury AS for your foure markes tokens if you marke them well you shall perceaue most manifestly your ignorauÌ„ce and errour how they note and appoint as it were with their fingers your doctrine to be erronious as well of Transubstantiation as of the reall presence And to begyn with your first marke Irenee in deede proued the resurrection of our bodyes vnto eternall lyfe bycause our bodyes be nourished with the euerlastyng foode of Christes body And therfore as that foode is euerlastyng so it beyng ioyned vnto his eternall deitie giueth to our bodies euerlastyng lyfe And if the beyng of Christes body in any creature should geue the same lyfe then it might peraduenture be thought of some fooles that if it were in the bread it should giue life to the bread But
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
moreouer that Christ him selfe commeth downe vpon the child apparelleth him with his own selfe And as at the Lordes holy Table the Priest distributeth wine bread to feede the body so we must thinke that inwardly by fayth we see Christ feedyng both body and soule to eternall lyfe What comfort can be deuised any more in this world for a Christē man And on the other side what discomfort is in your papisticall doctrine what doubtes what perplexities what absurdities what iniquities what auayleth it vs that there is no bread nor wyne or that Christ is really vnder the formes and figures of bread and wyne and not in vs or if he be in vs yet he is but in the lippes or the stomacke and tarieth not with vs. Or what benefite is it to a wicked man to eate Christ and to receaue death by him that is lyfe From this your obscure perplex vncertaine vncomfortable deuilish and Papisticall doctrine Christ defend all his and graunt that we may come often and worthely to Christes holy Table to comfort our feeble and weake fayth by remembraunce of his death who onely is the satisfaction and propitiation of our sinnes and our meate drinke and foode of euerlastyng lyfe Amen Here endeth the Aunswere of the most Reuerend Father in God Thomas Archbyshop of Canterbury c. vnto the crafty and Sophisticall cauillation of Doct. Steuen Gardiner deuised by him to obscure the true sincere and godly doctrine of the most holy Sacrament of the body and bloud of our Sauiour CHRIST THE Aunswere of Thomas Archebishop of Caunterbury c. agaynst the false calumniations of doctour Richard Smith who hath taken vpon him to confute the defence of the true catholik doctrine of the body and bloud of our Sauiour Christ. I Haue now obtayned gentle reader that thing which I haue much desired which was that if all men would not imbrace the truth lately set forth by me concerning the Sacrament of the body and bloud of our Sauiour Christ at the least some man would vouchsafe to take penne in hand and write against my booke bicause that therby the truth might both better be serched out and also more certaynly knowen to the world And herein I hartely thanke the late Bishop of Winchester and doctor Smith who partely haue satisfied my long desire sauing that I would haue wished aduersaries more substantially learned in holy scriptures more exercised in the olde auncient ecclesiasticall authors and hauing a more godly zeale to the triall out of the truth than are these two both being crafty sophisters the one by art and the other by nature both also being drowned in the dregges of papistry brought vp and confirmed in the same the one by Duns and Dorbell and such like Sophisters the other by the Popish Canon law wherof by his degree taken in the uniuersity he is a professor And as concerning the late bishop of Winchester I will declare his craftye Sophistications in myne aunswere vnto his booke But doctour Smith as it appeareth by the title of his preface hath craftely deuised an easy way to obtayne his purpose that the people being barred from the serching of the truth might be stil kept in blindnes and errour as wel in this as in al other matters wherin they haue bene in times past deceaued He seeth full well that the more diligently matters be serched out and discussed the more clearly the craft and falsehode of the subtill Papistes will appeare And therfore in the preface to the reader he exhorteth all men to leaue disputing and resoning of the fame by learning and to giue firme credite vnto the church as the title of the sayd preface declareth manifestly As who should say the truth of any matter that is in question might be tryed out without debating and reasoning by the word of God wherby as by the true touchstone all mens doctrines are to be tryed and examined But the truth is not ashamed to come to the light and to be tryed to the vttermost For as pure golde the more it is tryed the more pure it apeareth so is all manner of truth Where as on the other side all maskers counterfayters and false deceiuors abhorre the light and refuse the triall If all men without right or reason would geue credite vnto this Papist and his Romish church agaynst the most certayne word of God and the olde holye and Catholicke Churche of Christ the matter should be soone at an end and out of all controuersie But for as muche as the pure word of God and the first church of Christ from the beginning taught the true catholike fayth and Smith with his church of Rome do now teach the cleane contrary the chaffe can not be tryed out from the pure corne that is to say the vntruth discerned from the very truth without threshing windowing and fanning serching debating and reasoning As for me I ground my beleefe vpon gods word wherin can be no errour hauing also the consent of the primatiue church requiring no man to beleue me further then I hane gods word for me But these Papistes speake at their pleasure what they lift and would be beleeued without godes word bicause they beare men in hand that they be the church The church of Christ is not founded vpon it selfe but vppon Christ and his word but the Papistes build their church vpon them selues deuising new articles of the fayth from tyme to tyme without any scripture and founding the same vpon the Pope and his cleargy monkes and fryers and by that meanes they be both the makers and Iudges of their fayth themselues Wherfore this Papist like a politike man doth right wisely prouide for himselfe and his church in the first entry of his booke that all men should leaue searching for the truth and sticke hard and fast to the church meaning himselfe and the church of Rome For from the true catholike church the Romish church which he accomteth catholike hath varied and dissented many yeares passed as the blindest that this day do liue may well see and perceaue if they will not purposely winke and shut vp their eyes This I haue written to answere the title of his preface NOw in the beginning of the very preface it selfe when this great doctor should recite the wordes of Ephesine counsell he translateth them so vnlearnedly that if a young boy that had gone to the grammer schole but thre yeres had done no better he should scant haue escaped some scholemasters handes with sixierkes And beside that he doth it so craftily to serue his purpose that he cannot be excused of wilfull deprauation of the wordes calling celebration an offering and referring the participle made to Christ which should be referred to the word partakers and leauing out those wordes that should declare that the sayd counsell spake of no propiciatory sacrifice in the Masse but of a sacrifice of laud and thankes which christen people geue vnto God
haue spoken it for my most bounden duetie to the crowne liberties lawes and customes of this Realme but most especially to discharge my conscience in vttering the truth to Gods glory castyng away all feare by the comfort whiche I haue in Christes wordes who sayth Feare not them that kill the body and can not kill the Soule but feare him that can cast both body and soule into hell He that for feare to lose this life will forsake the truth shall lose the euerlastyng life and he that for the truthes sake will spend his life shall finde euerlastyng life And Christ promiseth to stand fast with them before his Father which will stand fast with him here which comfort is so great that whosoeuer hath his eyes fixed vpon Christ can not greatly passe of this life knowing that he may be sure to haue Christ stand by him in the presence of his Father in heauen As touching the Sacramēt I sayd that forasmuch as the whole matter stādeth in the vnderstādyng of these wordes of Christ This is my body This is my bloud I say that Christ in these words made demōstration of the bread wine and speake figuratiuely calling bread his body wine his bloud bycause he ordeined them to be the Sacramētes of his body bloud And where the Papistes say in these two points cōtrary vnto me that Christ called not bread his body but a substaunce vncertaine nor spake figuratiuely herein I sayd I would be iudged by the old Churche and which doctrine could be proued the elder that I would stād vnto And forasmuch as I haue alledged in my booke many old Authors both Greekes Latins which about a M. yeares after Christ cōtinually taught as I do if they could bryng forth but one old Author that sayth in these two pointes as they say I offred vj. or vij yeares agoe do offer yet still that I will geue place to them But when I bring forth any Author that sayth in most playne termes as I do yet sayth the other part that the Authors meant not so as who should say that the Authours spake one thyng and meant cleane contrary And vpō the other part whē they cā not finde any one Authour that sayth in wordes as they say yet say they that the Authors meant as they say Now whether they or I speake more to the purpose herein I referre it to the iudgement of all indifferent hearers Yea the old Church of Rome about a thousand yeares together neither beleued nor vsed the Sacrament as the Church of Rome hath done of late yeares For in the begynnyng the Church of Rome taught a pure a sound doctrine of the Sacrament but that after the Church of Rome fell into a new doctrine of Trāsubstantiation and with the doctrine they chaunged the vse of the Sacrament cōtrary to that Christ commaunded and the old Church of Rome vsed aboue a M. yeares And yet to deface the old they say that the new is the old wherein for my part I am content to the triall to stād But their doctrine is so fonde and vncomfortable that I marueile that any man would allow it if he knew what it is what soeuer they beare the people in hād that which they write in their bookes hath neither truth nor comfort For by their doctrine of one body of Christ is made two bodies one naturall hauing distance of members with forme and proportion of a mans perfect body and this body is in heauen but the body of Christ in the Sacrament by their owne doctrine must needes be a monstruous body hauyng neither distance of members nor forme fashion or proportion of a mans naturall body and such a body is in the Sacrament teach they and goeth into the mouth with the forme of bread and entreth no farther then the forme of bread goeth nor tarieth no longer then the forme of bread is by naturall heate in digestyng so that when the forme of bread is digested that body of Christ is gone And for asmuch as euill men be as long in digestyng as good men the body of Christ by their doctrine entreth as farre and tarieth as long in wicked as in godly men And what comfort can be herein to any Christian man to receaue Christes vnshapen body and it to enter no farther than the stomacke and to depart by and by as soone as the bread is consumed It seemeth to me a more sound and comfortable doctrine that Christ hath but one body and that hath forme and fashion of a mans true body which body spiritually entreth into the whole man body and soule and though the Sacrament be consumed yet whole Christ remaineth and feedeth the receauer vnto eternall life if he continue in godlynes neuer depart vntill the receauer forsake him And as for the wicked they haue not Christ within them at all who can not be where Belial is And this is my fayth and as me seemeth a sound doctrine accordyng to Gods word and sufficient for a Christian to beleue in that matter And if it can be shewed vnto me that the Popes authoritie is not preiudiciall to the thyngs before mentioned or that my doctrine in the Sacrament is erroneous which I thinke cā not be shewed then I was neuer nor will be so peruerse to stand wilfully in myne owne opinion but I shall with all humilitie submit my selfe vnto the Pope not onely to kisse his feete but an other part also An other cause why I refused to take the Byshop of Gloucester for my Iudge was the respect of his owne person beyng more then once periured First for that he beyng diuers tymes sworne neuer to consent that the G. of Rome should haue any iurisdiction within this Realme but to take the kyng and his successours for supreme heades of this Realme as by Gods lawes they be contrary to this lawfull oth the sayd B. sate then in iudgement by authoritie from Rome wherein he was periured and not worthy to sit as a Iudge The second periurie was that he tooke his Byshopricke both of the Queenes Maiestie and of the Pope makyng to eche of them a solemne othe which othes be so contrary that in the one he must needes be periured And furthermore in swearyng to the Pope to maintayne his lawes decrees constitutions ordinaunces reseruations and prouisions he declareth him selfe an enemy to the Imperiall crowne and to the Lawes and state of this Realme whereby hee declared him selfe not woorthy to sit as a Iudge within this Realme and for these considerations I refused to take him for my Iudge This was written in an other Letter to the Queene I Learned by Doct. Martin that at the day of your Maiesties Coronation you tooke an othe of obedience to the Pope of Rome and the same tyme you tooke an other othe to this Realme to maintaine the lawes liberties customes of the same And if your Maiestie did make an othe to the
And yet it is not to be denied but that Christ is truely eaten as he was truly born but the one corporally and without figure and the other spiritually and with a figure Now followeth my 11 comparison They say that the body of Christ is euery day many tymes made as often as there be Masses sayd and that then and there he is made of bread and wine We say that Christes body was neuer but once made and then not of the nature substance of bread and wine but of the substance of his blessed mother Winchester The body of Christ is by Gods omnipotency who so worketh in his word made present vnto vs at such tyme as the church praye it may please him so to doe which prayer is ordred to be made in the booke of common prayer now set foorth Wherin we require of God the creatures of bread and wine to be sanctified and to be to vs the body and bloud of Christ which they can not be vnlesse God worketh it and make them so to be In which mistery it was neuer taught as this author willingly misreporteth that Christes most precious body is made of the matter of bread but in that order exhibited and made preset vnto vs by conuersion of the substaunce of bread into his precious body not a new body made of a new matter of bread and wine but a new presence of the body that is neuer old made present there where the substāce of bread and wine was before So as this comparison of difference is meere wrangling and so euident as it needeth no further aunswere but a note Lo how they be not ashamed to trifle in so great a matter and without cause by wrong termes to bring the truth in sclander if it were possible May not this be accompted as a part of Gods punishmēt for men of knowledge to write to the people such matter seriously as were not tolerable to be by a scoffer deuised in a play to supply when his fellow had forgotten his part Caunterbury Christ is present when so euer the church praieth vnto him and is gathered togither in his name And the bread and wine be made vnto vs the body and bloud of Christ as it is in the book of common praier but not by chaunging the substaunce of bread and wine into the substance of Christes naturall body and bloud but that in the godly vsing of thē they be vnto the receauers Christes body and bloud As of some the Scripture saith that their riches is their redemption and to some it is their damnatiō And as Gods word to some is life to some it is death and a snare as the prophet saith And Christ himself to some is a stone to stumble at to some is a raysing frō death not by conuersion of substances but by good or euill vse that thing which to the godly is saluation to the vngodly is damnation So is the water in baptism and the bread and wine in the Lords supper to the worthy receauers Christ himselfe and eternall life and to the vnworthy receauers euerlasting death and damnation not by conuersion of one substance into an other but by godly or vngodly vse thereof And therfore in the book of the holy communion we do not pray absolutely that the bread and wine may be made the body and bloud of Christ but that vnto vs in that holy mistery they may be so that is to say that we may so worthely receaue the same that we may be partakers of Christes body and bloud and that therwith in spirit and in truth we may be spiritually nourished And a like praier of old time were all the people wont to make at the communion of all such offerings as at that time all the people vsed to offer praying that their offerings might be vnto them the body and bloud of Christ. And where you say it was neuer taught as I say that Christs body is made of the matter of bread you knowingly and willingly misreport me For I say not of the matter of bread but of bread which when you deny that the Papists so say it semeth you be now ashamed of the doctrin which the Papistes haue taught thys 4. or 5. hundred yeres For is it not playnely written of all the Papists both lawyers and scholl authors that the body of Christ in the sacramēt is made of bread and his bloud of wine And they say not that his body is made present of bread wine but is made of bread and wine Be not their books in print ready to be shewed Do they not say that the substance of the bread neither remaineth still nor is turned into nothing but into the body of Christ And do not your selfe also say here in this place that the substance of bread is conuerted into Christes precious body And what is that els but the body of Christ to be made of bread and to be made of a new matter For if the bread doe not vanish away into nothing but be turned into Christes body then is Christs body made of it and then it must needes follow that Christes body is made of new and of an orher substance then it was made of in his mothers wombe For there it was made of her flesh and bloud and here it is made of bread and wine And the Papistes say not as you now would shift of the matter that Christes body is made present of bread but they say plainly without addition that it is made of bread Can you deny that this is the plain doctrine of the Papists Ex pane fit Corpus Christi of bread is made the body of Christ and that the substance of bread is turned into the substance therof◠And what reason sentence or english could be in this saying Christes body is made present of bread Marye to be present in bread might be some sentence but the speeche will you in no wise admitte And this your saying here if the reader mark it wel turneth ouer quite and cleane all the wholl Papisticall doctrine in this matter of the Sacrament as well touching transubstantiation as also the carnall presence For their doctrine with one whol consent and agreement is this That the substance of bread remaineth not but is turned into the substance of Christes body and so the body of Christ is made of it But this is false say you and not tollerable to be by a scoffer deuised in a place to supply when his fellow had forgotten his part And so the wholl doctrine of the papists which they haue taught these 4. or 5. hundreth yeares doe you condemne with condigne reproches as a teaching intollerable not to be deuised by a scoffer in a play Why doe you then take vpon you to defend the Papistical doctrine if it be so intollerable Why doe you not forsake those scoffers and players which haue iugled with the world so long and embrace the
they alleage it is bread but after the wordes of the consectation it is the body of Christ. For answere herevnto it must be first knowen what consecation is Consecration is the seperation of any thing from a prophane and worldly vse vnto a spirituall and godly vse And therfore when vsuall and common water is taken from other vses and put to the vse of baptisme in the name of the father of the sonne and of the holy ghost then it may rightly be called Consecrated water that is to say water put to an holy vse Euen so when common bread and wine be taken and seuered from other bread and wine to the vse of the holy communion that portion of bread and wine although it be of the same substaunce that the other is from the which it is seuered yet it is now called consecrated or holy bread and holy wine Not that the bread and wine haue or can haue any holines in thē but that they be vsed to an holy work and represent holye and godlye thinges And therfore S. Dionise calleth the bread holy bread and the cup an holy cup as soone as they bebe set vpon the aultare to the vse of the holy communion But specially they may be called holy and consecrated when they be seperated to that holy vse by Christes owne wordes which he spake for that purpose saying of the breade This is my bodye And of the wine This is my bloud So that cōmōly the authors before those wordes be spokē do take the bread and wine but as other cōmon bread and wine but after those wordes be pronounced ouer thē then they take thē for consecrated holy bread wine Not that the bread and wine can be partakers of any holines or godlinesse or can be the body and bloud of Christ but that they represent the very body and bloud of Christ and the holy foode and nourishment which we haue by him And so they be called by the names of the body and bloud of Christ as the signe token and figure is called by the name of the very thing which it sheweth and signifieth And therfore as S. Ambrose in the wordes before cited by the aduersaries saith that before the consecration it is bread and after the consecration it is Christes body so in other places he doth more playnly set forth his meaning saying these wordes Before the benediction of the heauenly wordes it is called an other kind of thing but after the consecratiō is signisied the body of christ Likewise before the consecartion it is called an other thing but after the consecration it is named the bloud of Christ. And agayne he sayth When I treated of the sacraments I tolde you that that thing which is offered before the words of Christ is called breade but when the wordes of Christ bee pronounced then it is not called breade but it is called by the name of Christes body By which wordes of S. Ambrose it appereth playnely that the bread is called by the name of Christes body after the consecratiō although it be still bread yet after consecration it is dignified by the name of the thing which it representeth as at length is declared before in the proces of Transubstantiation and specially in the words of Theodoretus And as the bread is a corporall meat and corporally eaten so sayth S. Ambrose is the body of Christ a spirituall meat and spiritually eaten and that requireth no corporall presence Winchester As touching S. Ambrose this author taketh a great enterprise to wrastle with him whose playne and euident words must nedes be a rule to try his other words by if any might be writhed What can be more playnly spoken thē S. Ambrose speaketh whē he sayth these wordes It is bread consecration but after it is Christes body By the word consecration is siguified as it is here placed Gods omnipotent work Wherfore in this place it cōprehendeth asmuch as Emissen said in these wordes he conuerteth by the secret power of his word God is the worker and so consecratiō signifieth the whole action of his omnipotency in working the substance of this high mistery therefore the diffinition of the wordconsecration as it is generally taken can not be a rule to the vnderstanding of it in this high mistery where it is vsed to expres a singular work as the circumstāce of S. Ambrose writing doth declare For as Philip Melancthon writeth to Decolampadius S. Ambrose would neuer haue trauailed to accumulate so many miracles as he doth speaking of this matter to declare Gods omnipotency and he had not thought the nature of bread to be chaunged in this mistery These be Melancthons very wordes Now to aunswere the question as it were at the word change this author shall come with a sacramentall change which is a deuise in termes to blind the rude reader S. Ambrose doth expresse playnly what the change is whē he writeth the wordes before rehersed It is bread before the consecration but after it is the body of Christ. Can a chaunge be more playnely declared The nere way for this author had bene to haue ioyned Ambrose with Clement and called him fayned by the Papistes rather then after the effect of consecration so opened by S. Ambrose himselfe to trauail to proue what it may signify if it were in an other matter And then to admonish the reader how the bread wine haue no holines which forme of speach not vnderstanded of the people engēdreth some scruple that nedeth not being no sound forme of doctrine for S. Paul speaketh teacheth thus that the creatures be sanctified by the word of God prayer and S. Augustine writeth of sanctified bread to be geuen to them that be catechised before they be baptised And this author himselfe expoundeth S. Cyprian in the. 35. leafe of this booke how the diuinity is poured into the bread Sacramentally which is a straunge phrase not expressing there Cyprians minde and far discrepant from the doctrine here And in an other place this author saith that as hote and burning yron is yron still yet hath the force of fyre so the bread wine be turned into the vertue of Christs flesh and bloud By which similitude bread may conceyue vertue as yron conceyueth fyre then as we cal yron burning and fyry so we may call bread vertuous and holy vnles the author would agayn resemble bread to a whetstone that may make sharp and haue no sharpenee in it at all Which matter I declare thus to shew that as this author dissenteth from truth in other so be dissenteth from that he vttereth for truth himselfe and walketh in a maze impugning the very truth in this sacrament and would haue that taken for a Catholick doctrine that is not one and the same doctrine through this whole booke so farre of is it from the whol of Christiā teaching But now
let vs consider what speches of S. Ambrose this author bringeth forth wherewith to alter the truth of the very playne proper speech of S. Ambrose saying It is bread before the consecration after it is Christes body S. Ambrose as this author saith in an other place sayth thus Before the Benediction of the heauenly words it is called an other kind of thing but after the consecration is signifyed the body and bloud of Christ. And an other speach thus Before the consecration it is called an other thing but after the consecration it is named the bloud of Christ and yet a third speech where the word call is vsed before and after both as thou reader maist sée in this authors booke in the 83. leafe Now good reader was there euer man so ouersene as this author is who seeth not S. Ambrose in these thre latter speaches to speake as playnely as in the first For in the last speach S Ambrose saith it is called bread before the consecration and called the body of Christ after the consecration And I would demaund of this author doth not this word call signify the truth that is bread in deed before the coÌ„secration which if it be so why shal not the same word cal signify also the very truth added to the wordes of the body of Christ after the consecration And likewise when he sayth speaking of the body of Christ the word signified or named which is as much as call The body of Christ is signifyed there for Christ sayd this is my body c. vsyng the outward signes of the visible creatures to signify the body bloud present not absent Was not Christ the true sonne of God because the angell said he shal be called the sonne of God But in these places of S. Ambrose to expresse plainely what he ment by calling he putteth that word call to the bread before the consecratioÌ„ aswell as to the body of Christ after the consecration thereby to declare how in his vnderstanding the word call signifieth as much truth in the thing where unto it is added after consecration as before and therfore as it is by S. Ambrose called bread before consecration signifâ—ing it was so indéed so it is called signifyed or named which thrée thus placed be all one in effect the body of Christ after the consecration and is so in deed agreable to the playne spech of S. Ambrose where he sayth It is bread before consecration and it is the body of Christ after consecration As touching the spirituality of the meat of Christes body I haue spoken before but where this author addeth it requireth no corporall presence he speaketh in his dreame beyng oppressed with slepe of ignorance and can not tell what corporall meaneth as I haue opened before by the authority of Cyril Now let vs see what this author sayth to Chrysostome Caunterbury IT is not I that wrastle with S. Ambrose but you who take great payne to wrast his wordes cleane contrary to his intent and meaning But where you aske this question What can be more playne then these wordes of S. Ambrose It is bread before consecration and after it is Christes body These words of S. Ambrose be not fully so playne as you pretend but cleane contrary For what can be spokeÌ„ eyther more vnplayn or vntrue then to say of bread after consecration that it is the bodye of Christ vnles the same be vnderstand in a figuratiue spech For although Christes bodye as you say be there after consecration yet the bread is not his body nor his body is not made of itby your confession And therfore the saying of S. Ambrose that it is Christes body can not be true in playne spech And therfore S. Ambrose in the same place where he calleth it the body and bloud of Christ he sayth it is a figure of his body and bloud For these be his words Quod ex figura corporis sanguinis domini nostri Iesu Christs And as for the word consecration I haue declared the signification therof according to the mind of the old authors as I will iustify And for the writing of Melancthon to Decolampadius you remayne still in your old error taking Myconius for Decolampadius And yet the change of bread and wine in this sacrament which Melancthon speaketh of is a sacramental change as the nature of a sacrameÌ„t requireth signifying how wonderfully almighty God by his omnipoteÌ„cy worketh in vs his liuely members and not in the dead creatures of bread and wine And the chaunge is in the vse and not in the elements kept and reserued wherein is not the perfection of a sacrament Therefore as water in the fonte or vessell hath not the reason and nature of a sacrament but when it is put to the vse of christening and then it is changed into the proper nature and kinde of a sacrament to signifye the wonderfull chaunge which almighty God by his omnipotency worketh really in them that be baptised therewith such is the chaunge of the breade and wine in the Lordes supper And therefore the bread is called Christes bodye after consecration as S. Ambrose sayth and yet it is not so really but sacramentally For it is neither Christes misticall body for that is the congregation of the faythfull dispersed abroad in the world nor hys naturall bodye for that is in heauen but it is the sacrament both of his true naturall body and also of his misticall body and for that consideration hath the name of his body as a sacrament or signe may beare the name of the very thing that is signified and represented therby And as for the foresayd books intituled to S. Ambrose if I ioyned Ambrose with Clement should say that the sayd bookes intiuled in the name of S. Ambrose de sacramentis de misterijs iniciandis were none of his I should say but as I thinke and as they do thinke that be men of most excellent learning and iudgement as I declared in my second book which speaketh of transubstantiation And so dooth iudge not onely Erasmus but also Melancthon whom you alleadge for authority when he maketh for your purpose suspecteth the same And yet I playnly denye not these bookes to be his for your pleasure to geue you asmuch aduauntage as you can aske and yet it auaileth you nothing at all But here I cannot passeouer that you be offended because I say that bread wine be called holy when they be put to an holy vse not that they haue any holines in them or be partakers of any holinesse or godlines I would fayne learn of Smith and you when the bread and wine be holy For before they be holowed or consecrated they be not holy by your teaching but be common bakers bread and wine of the tauerne And after the consecration there is neyther bread nor wine as you teach at what tyme then should the bread and wine be holy But the