backe the people that were ready to depart to Prayers Brethren sayd hee lest any man should doubt of this mans earnest conuersion and repentaunce you shall heare him speake before you and therfore I pray you Maister Cranmer that you will now performe that you promised not long agoe namely that you would openly expresse the true and vndoubted profession of your fayth that you may take away all suspition from men and that all men may vnderstand that you are a Catholicke in déede I will do it sayd the Archbyshop and with a good will who by and by rising vp and putting of his cap began to speake thus vnto the people I desire you well beloued brethren in the Lord that you will pray to God for me to forgeue me my sinnes which aboue all men both in number and greatnes I haue committed but among all the rest there is one offence whiche of all at this tyme doth vexe and trouble me wherof in processe of my talke you shall heare more in his proper place and then puttyng his hand into his bosome he drew forth his Prayer whiche he recited to the people in this sense ¶ The Prayer of Doct. Cranmer Archb. of Cant. at his death GOod Christen people my dearely beloued brethren and sisters in Christ I beséech you most hartely to pray for me to almightie God that he will forgeue me all my sinnes and offēces which be many without number and great aboue measure But yet one thyng gréeueth my conscience more then all the rest wherof God willyng I entend to speake more hereafter But how great and how many soeuer my sinnes be I beséech you to pray God of his mercy to pardon and forgeue them all And here knéelyng downe he sayd O Father of heauen O Sonne of God redeemer of the world O holy Ghost three persons and one God haue mercy vpon me most wretched caitiffe and miserable sinner I haue offended both against heauen and earth more then my toung can expresse Whether then may I goe or whether should I flye To heauen I may be ashamed to lift vp myne eyes and in earth I finde no place of refuge or succour To thee therfore O Lord do Irunne to thee do I humble my selfe saying O Lord my God my sinnes be great but yet haue mercy vpon me for thy great mercy The great mistery that God became mā was not wrought for litle or few offēces Thou diddest nor geue thy sonne O heauenly Father vnto death for small sinnes onely but for all the greatest sinnes of the world so that the sinner returne to thee with his whole hart as I do here at this present Wherfore haue mercy on me O God whose property is alwayes to haue mercy haue mercy vpon me O Lord for thy great mercy I craue nothyng O Lord for myne owne merites but for thy names sake that it may be halowed thereby and for thy deare sonne Iesus Christ sake And now therfore our Father of heauen halowed by thy name c. And then he rising sayd Euery man good people desireth at that tyme of their death to geue some good exhortation that other may remember the same before their death and be the better thereby so I beseech God graunt me grace that I may speake some thyng at this my departyng whereby God may bee glorified and you edified First it is an heauie case to see that so many folke be so much doted vpon the loue of this false world and so carefull for it that of the loue of God or the world to come they seeme to care very litle or nothyng Therefore this shal be my first exhortation that you set not your myndes ouer much vpon this glosing world but vpon God and vpon the world to come and to learne to know what this lesson meaneth whiche S. Iohn teacheth That the loue of this world is hatred agaynst God The second exhortation is that next vnder God you obey your Kyng and Queene willingly and gladly without murmuryng or grudgyng not for feare of them onely but much more for the feare of God knowyng that they be Gods Ministers appointed by God to rule and gouerne you and therefore who soeuer resisteth them resisteth the ordinaunce of GOD. The third exhortation is that you loue altogether lyke brethren and sisters For alas pitie it is to see what cōtention and hatred one Christen man beareth to an other not takyng ech other as brother and sister but rather as straungers and mortall enemyes But I pray you learne and beare well away this one lesson to doe good vnto all men asmuch as in you lyeth to hurt no man no more then you would hurt your owne naturall louyng brother or sister For this you may be sure of that who soeuer hateth any person and goeth about maliciously to hinder or hurt him surely and without all doubt God is not with that mā although he thinke him selfe neuer so much in Gods fauour The fourth exhortation shal be to them that haue great substaunce and riches of this world that they will well consider and wey three sayinges of the Scripture One is of our Sauiour Christ him selfe who sayth It is hard for a rich man to enter into the kingdome of heauen A sore saying and yet spoken of him that knoweth the truth The second is of S. Iohn whose saying is this He that hath the substaunce of this world and seeth his brother in necessitie and shutteth vp his mercy from him how can he say that he loueth God The thyrd is of S. Iames who speaketh to the couetous rich mā after this maner Weepe you and howle for the miserie that shall come vppon you your riches doe rotte your clothes be moth eaten your gold and siluer doth canker and rust and their rust shall beare witnesse agaynst you and consume you like fire you gather a horde or treasure of Gods indignation agaynst the last day Let them that be rich ponder well these three sentences for if euer they had occasion to shew their charitie they haue it now at this present the poore people beyng so many and victuals so deare The description of Doct. Cranmer how he was plucked downe from the stage by Friers and Papistes for the true Confession of his Fayth First I beleue in God the Father almightie maker of heauen and earth c. And I beleue euery Article of the Catholicke fayth euery word and sentence taught by our Sauiour Iesus Christ his Apostles and Prophetes in the new and old Testament And now I come to the great thyng that so much troubleth my conscience more thē any thyng that euer I did or sayd in my whole life and that is the settyng abroad of a writyng contrary to the truth which now here I renounce and refuse as thynges written with my hand contrary to the truth which I thought in my hart written for feare of
in the sacrament I graunt that he is really present after such sort as you expound really in this place that is to say indede and yet but spiritually For you say your selfe that he is but after a spirituall maner there and so is he spiritually honored as S Augustine sayth But as concerning heat of disputation marke well the wordes of S. Augustine good reader cited in my booke and thou shalt see clerely that all this multiplication of wordes is rather a iugling then a direct answer For saynt Augustine writeth not in heate of disputation but temperatly and grauely to a learned Bishop his deare frend who demanded a question of him And if Saynt Augustine had aunswered in heate of disputation or for any other respect otherwise then the truth he had not done the part of a friend nor of a learned and godly Bishop And who so euer iudgeth so of Saynt Augustine hath small estimation of him and sheweth him selfe to haue litle knowledge of Saynt Augustine But in this your answer to saynt Augustine you vtter where you learned a good part of your diuinitie that is of Albertus Pighius who is the father of this shift and with this fleight eludeth Saynt Augustin when he could no otherwise answer As you do now shake of the same Saynt Augustine resembling as it were in that poynt the liuely countenauÌ„ce of your father Pighius Next in my booke foloweth Theodoret And to this purpose it is both pleasaunt comfortable and profitable to read Theodoretus in his Dialogs where he disputeth and sheweth at length how the names of things be chaunged in scripture and yet thinges remayne still And for example he proueth that the flesh of Christ is in the scripture sometime called a vayle or coueryng sometime a cloth sometyme a vestment and sometyme a stole the bloud of the grape is called Christes bloud and the names of bread and wine and of his flesh and bloud Christ doth so chaunge that sometyme he calleth his body corne or bread and sometime contrary he calleth bread his body And likewise his bloud sometime he calleth wine and sometime contrary he calleth wine his bloud For the more playne vnderstanding wherof it shall not be amisse to recite his owne sayings in his foresayd dialogs touching this matter of the holy sacrament of Christes flesh and bloud The speakers in these dialogs be Orthodoxus the right beleuer and Eranistes his companyon but not vnderstanding the right fayth Orthodoxus saith to his companion Doost thou not know that god caleth bread his flesh Eran. I know that Orth. And in an other place he calleth his body corne Eran. I know that also for I haue heard him say The houre is come that the sonne of man shal be glorified c. Except the grayne of come that falleth in the ground dye it remayneth sole but if it dye then it bringeth forth much fruite Orth. When he gaue the mysteries of sacraments he called bread his body and that which was mixt in the cup he called bloud Eran. So he called them Orth. But that also which was his naturall body may well be called his body and his very bloud also may be called his bloud Eran. It is playne Orth. But our sauiour without doubt chaunged the names and gaue to the body the name of the signe or token and to the token he gaue the name of the body And so wheÌ„ he called himself a vyne he called bloud that which was the token of bloud Eran. Surely thou hast spokeÌ„ the truth But I would know the cause wherfore the names were changed Orth. The cause is manifest to them that be expert in true religion For he would that they which be partakers of the godly sacraments should not set their mindes vpon the nature of the things which they see but by the changing of the names should beleue the things which be wrought in them by grace For he that called that which is his naturall body corne and bred and also called himselfe a vyne he did honor the visible tokeÌ„s and signes with the names of his body and bloud not changing the nature but adding grace to nature Eran. Sacraments be spoken of sacramentally and also by them be manifestly declared things which all men know not Ortho. Seyng then that it is certayne that the Patriarch called the lords body a vestiment and apparell and that now we be entred to speak of godly sacraments tell me truely of what thing thinkest thou this holy meat to be a tokeÌ„ and figure of Christes diuinity or of his body and bloud Eran. It is cleare that it is the figure of those thinges whereof it beareth the name Orth. Meanest thou of his body and bloud Eran. Euen so I meane Orth. Thou hast spoken as one that loueth the truth for the Lord when he tooke the token or signe he sayd not This is my diuinity but This is my body this is my bloud And in an other place The bread which I wil giue is my flesh whiche I will geue for the life of the world Eran. These things be true for they be Gods words All these writeth Theodoretus in hi first Dialogue ' And in the second he writeth the same in effect yet in some thing more playnly agaynst such heretiques as affirmed that after Christes resurrection ascention his humanity was changed from the very nature of man turned into his diuinity Agaynst whom thus he writeth Orth. Corruption healeth sicknes and death be accedents for they goe come Era. It is meet they be so called Orth. Mens bodies after their resurrection be delyuered from corruption death mortalitie and yet they lose not theyr proper nature Eran. Truth it is ' Orth. The body of Christ therfore did rise quite cleane from all corruption death and is impassible immortall glorified with the glory of God is honored of the powers of heauen and it is a body hath the same bignes that it had before Era. Thy saying seeme true according to reason but after he was ascended vp into heauen I thinke thou wilt not say that his body was not tourned into the nature of his godhead Orth. I would not so say for the persuation of mans reason nor I am not so arrogant and presumptious to affirme any thing which scripture passeth ouer in silence But I haue heard S. Paule cry that God hath ordayned a day when he will iudge all the world in iustice by that man which he appoynted before performing his promise to all men and raysing him from death I haue learned also of the holy angels that he will come aâ—ter that fashion as his disciples saw him goe to heauen But they saw a nature of a certayn bignesse not a nature which had no bignes I heard furthermore the lord say You shall see the sonne of man come in the cloudes of heauen And
figure onely of Christes body but it is chāged into the very body of Christe For Christ sayth The bread which I will geue you is my flesh Neuertheles the flesh of Christ is not seene for our weakenes but bread and wine are familiar vnto vs. And surely if we should visibly see flesh and bloud we could not abide it And therfore our lord bearing with our weakenes doth retayn and kepe the forme and apparaunce of bread and wine but he doth turne the very bread and wine into the very flesh and bloud of Christ. These be the wordes which the papistes do cite out of Theophilus vpon the gospell of S. Mark But by this one place it appeareth euidently eyther how negligent the Papistes be in searching out and examining the sayinges of the authors which they alleadge for theyr purpose on els how false and deceitfull they be which willingly and wittingly haue made in this one place and as it were with one breth two loud and shamefull lyes The first is that because they would geue the more authoritie to the wordes by them alleadged they like false poticaries that fell quid pro quo falsefy the authors name fathering such sayings vpon Theophilus Alexandrinus an old and auncient author which were in deed none of his wordes but were the wordes of Theophilactus who was many yeares after Theophilus Alexandrinus But such hath euer bene the Papisticall subtelties to set forth theyr owne inuentions dreames and lyes vnder the name of antiquitie and auncient authors The second lye or falsehod is that they falsely the authors wordes and meaning subuerting the truth of his doctrine For where Theophilactus according to the catholike doctrine of auncient authors sayth that almighty God condescending to our infirmitie reserueth the kind of bread and wine and yet turneth them into the vertue of Christes flesh and bloud They say that he reserueth the formes and apparaunces of bread and wine and turneth them into the veritie of his flesh and bloud so turning and altering kindes into formes and apparaunces and vertue into veritie that of the vertue of the flesh and bloud they make the veritie of his flesh and bloud And thus they haue falsefied as well the name as the wordes of Theophilactus turning veritie into playne and flatte falsitie But to sette forth playnly the meaning of Theophilactus in this matter As hot and burning yron is yron still and yet hath the force of fyer and as the flesh of Christ still remayning flesh geueth life as the flesh of him that is good so the sacramentall bread and wine remayne still in theyr proper kindes and yet to them that worthely eate and drink them they be tourned not into the corporall presence but into the vertue of Christes flesh and bloud And although Theophilactus spake of the eating of the very body of Christ and the drinking of his very bloud and not onely of the figures of them and of the conuersion of bread and wine into the body and bloud of Christ yet he meaneth not of a grosse carnall corporall and sensible conuersion of the bread and wine nor of a like eating and drinking of his flesh and bloud for so not onely our stomackes would yern and our hartes abhorre to eate his flesh to drincke his bloud but also such eating and drinking could nothing profite or auayle vs but he spake of the celestiall and spirituall eating of Christ and of a sacramentall conuersion of the bread calling the bread not onely a figure but also the body of Christ geuing vs by these wordes to vnderstand that in the sacrament we do not onely eat corporally the bread which is a sacrament and figure of Christes body but spiritually we eate also his very body and drink his very bloud And this doctrine of Theophilactus is both true godly and comfortable Winchester Now followeth as it is intitled Theophilact being the wordes in deed not of Theophilact as he writeth vpon Marke and therfore they were not alleaged as his wordes but as the wordes of Theophilus Alexandrinus wherin this author trauerseth a falshod on thallegers parte to wrong name the author In which allegacion I say if therbe a fault as I know none it is no lye but a probable errour for a man to beleue an other better learned then him selfe and as I found it alleaged I reported it agayne so as hauing mine author learned whome I folowed I am discharged of malice being the author such whome I followed as might possibly haue had such a worke of Theophilus contayning those wordes as they be alleaged the negatiue wherof how this author should proue I can not tell because of the common saying Bernardus non vidit omnia and therfore there may be a theophilus Alexandrinus hauing these words alleadged in theyr forme for any demonstratiou this author can make to the contrary Whither therbe or no any such to be shewed it is not materiall being so many testimonies besides As for Theophilacts wordes I graunt they be not for he wrote his mynde more playnly in an other place of his workes as I shall hereafter shew and by the way make an issue with this author that no catholike writer among the greekes hath more playnly set forth the truth of the presence of Christes body in the sacrament then Theophilact hath as shall apeare by and by after I haue noted to the reader this how of Germany about a two yeare before he impugned the truth of Christes presence in the sacrament he translated out of Greeke into Latine the workes of the sayd Theophilact and gaue the Latine church therby some weapon wherwith to destroy his wicked folly afterwarde not vnlike the chance in this author translating into inglish two yeares bye past the Cathechisme of Germany And as Oecolampadius hath since his folly or madnes agaynst the sacrament confessed as appeareth that he did translate Theophilacte so as we neede not doubt of it So this author hath now in this worke confessed the translation of the catechisme which one in communication woulde needes haue made me beleue had beene his mannes doinge and not his Heare now reader how playnly Theophilact speaketh vpon the Gospell of Saynt Iohn expounding the vi Chapter Take hede that the bread which is eaten of vs in the misteries is not onely a certayne figuration of the flesh of our Lord but the flesh it selfe of our Lord for he sayd not The bread which I shall geue is the figure of my flesh but it is my flesh For that bread by the mysticall benedictiō is transformed by the misticall wordes and presence of the holy ghost into the flesh of our lord And it should trouble no man that the bread is to be beleued flesh for whilest our lord walked in flesh and recaued nourishment of bread that bread he did eat was changed into his body and was made like to his holy flesh and as it is costomably in mans feeding
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
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
mysterie of Christes incarnation the humanitie is extinguished by the presence of his Godhead and so there remayneth no more but the substaunce of his diuinitie as the Eutichians sayd And thus the similitude of Chrisostome Gelasius and Theodorete ioyned to the saying of the Papistes frameth a good Argument for the heretickes But those Authours framed their Argumēt cleane cōtrary on this wise that the bread and wyne be not transubstantiate or extinguished but continue still in their owne substaunces figures fashion and all naturall proprieties and therfore doth the humanitie of Christ likewise endure and remayne in proper substaunce with his naturall proprieties without extinction or transubstantiation For those Authours take no bread and wyne for the visible proprieties onely of bread and wyne but for very true bread and wyne with all their naturall qualities and conditions And the heretickes shall soone finde out your cauillation where to auoyde the matter you say that the mysterie of the Sacrament requireth not the truth of the substaunce For why should the Authours bryng them forth to proue the truth of the substaunce in Christ if there were no true substaunce in them Thus all your shiftes and Sophistications be but wynde or colours cast ouer the truth to bleare mens eyes which colours rubbed of the truth appeareth cleare and playne And your first marke is not clearely put out but turned to a marke spectacle for your selfe wherin you may clearely see your owne errour and how foule you haue bene deceaued in this matter and open your eyes if God will geue you grace to put away your inducate hart to see the cleare truth Winchester An other certaine token is the wondryng and great marueling that the old authors make how the substaunce of this Sacrament is wrought by Gods omnipotencie Baptisme is marueiled at for the wonderfull effect that is in man by it how man is regenerate not how the water or the holy Ghost is there But the wonder in this Sacrament is specially directed to the worke of God in the visible creatures how they be so chaunged into the body bloud of Christ which is a worke wrought of God before we receiue the Sacrament Which worke Cyprian sayth is ineffable that is to say not speakeable which is not so if it be but a figure for then it may be easely spoken as this authour speaketh it with ease I thinke he speaketh it so often of a presence by signification if it may so be called euery man may speake and tell how but of the very presence in déede and therfore the reall presence of Christes body in the Sacrament no creature can tell how it may be that Christ ascended into heauen with his humaine body and therewith continually reignyng there should make present in the Sacrament the same body in déede which Christ in déede worketh being neuerthelesse then at the same houre present in heauen as S. Chrisostome doth with a maruaile say If the maruaile were onely of Gods worke in man in the effect of the Sacrament as it is in Baptisme it were an other matter but I sayd before the wonder is in the worke of God in the substaunce of the Sacrament before it be receiued which declareth the old authours that so wonder to vnderstand the reall presence of Christes very body and not an onely signification which hath no wonder at all And therfore seyng S. Cyprian wondreth at it and calleth the worke ineffable S. Chrisostome wondreth at it S. Ambrose wondreth at it Emissene wondreth at it Cyrill wondreth at it What should we now doubt whether their sayth were of a signification onely as this authour would haue it which is no wonder at all or of the reall presence which is in déede a wonderfull worke Wherfore where this manifest token and certaine marke appeareth in the old fathers there can no construction of sillables or wordes disswade or peruert the truth thus testified Caunterbury AS touchyng this your second marke in the ministration of the Sacramentes aswell of the Lordes holy Supper as of Baptisme God worketh wonderfully by his omnipotent power in the true receauers not in the outward visible signes For it is the person Baptised that is so regenerate that he is made a new creature without any reall alteration of the water And none otherwise it is the Lordes Supper for the bread wine remaine in their former substaunce neither be fed nor nourished yet in the man that worthely receiueth them is such a wonderfull nourishmēt wrought by the mighty power of God that he hath thereby euerlasting life And this is the ineffable worke of God wherof Cyprian speaketh So that aswell in the Lords Supper as in Baptisme the marueilous workyng of God passing the comprehension of all mans wit is in the spirituall receiuers not in the bread wine water nor in the carnall vngodly receauers For what should it auayle the liuely members of Christ that God worketh in his dead and insensible creatures But in his members he is present not figuratiuely but effectually and effectually and ineffably worketh in them nourishyng and feedyng them so wonderfully that it passeth all wittes and toungues to expresse And neuerthelesse corporally he is ascended into heauen and there shall tarry vntill the world shall haue an end And therfore sayth Chrisostome that Christ is both gone vp into heauen and yet is here receaued of vs but diuersly For he is gone vp to heauen carnally is here receaued of vs spiritually And this wonder is not in the woorkyng of God in the substaunce of the Sacrament before it be receaued as you fayne it to be nor in thē that vnworthely receaue it carnally but in them that receaue Christ spiritually beyng nourished by him spiritually as they be spiritually by him regenerated that they may be fed of the same thyng wherof they be regenerated and so be throughly Os ex ossibus eius caro ex carne eius Bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh And consideryng deepely this matter Cyprian wondreth as much at Gods worke in Baptisme as in the Lordes Supper Chrisostome wondreth as much Emissene wondreth as much Cyrill wondreth as much all Catholicke writers wonder as much as well how God doth spiritually regenerate vs to a new lyfe as how he doth spiritually feede and nourish vs to euerlastyng lyfe And although these thyngs be outwardly signified vnto vs by the Sacramentall bread wine and water yet they be effectually wrought in vs by the omnipotent power of God Therefore you had neede to seeke out some other marke or token for your purpose for this serueth nothyng at all For by his wonderfull workyng Christ is no more declared to be present in the bread and wine then in the water of Baptisme Winchester A thyrd token there is by declaration of figures as for example S. Hierome when he declareth vpon the Epistle Ad Titum so aduisedly at lēgth how Panes propositionis
onely into imaginations contrary to the truth of Gods word but also contrary to your selfe But let passe away these Papisticall inuentions and let vs humbly professe ourselues with all our Sacrifices not worthy to approche vnto God nor to haue any accesse vnto him but by that onely propitiatorie sacrifice which Christ onely made vpon the Crosse. And yet let vs with all deuotion with whole hart and mynde and with all obedience to Gods will come vnto the heauenly Supper of Christ thankyng him onely for propitiation of our sinnes In which holy Communion the act of the Minister and other be all of one sort none propitiatorie but all of laudes and thankes geuyng And such sacrifices be pleasaunt and acceptable to God as S. Paule sayth done of them that be good but they winne not his fauour and put away his indignation from them that be euill For such reconciliation can no creature make but Christ alone And where you say that to call the dayly offeryng a sacrifice satisfactorie must haue an vnderstādyng that signifieth not the action of the priest here you may see what a businesse and hard worke it is to patch the Papistes ragges together and what absurdities you fall into thereby Euen now you sayd that the acte of the Priestes must needes bee a Sacrifice propitiatorie and now to haue an vnderstandyng for the same you bee driuen to so shamefull a shift that you say either cleane contrary that it is not the action of the Priest but the presence of Christ or els that the action of the Priest is none otherwise satisfactorie then all other Christen mens workes be For otherwise say you the dayly Sacrifice in respect of the action of the Priest can not be called satisfactorie Wherefore at length knowledgyng your Popish doctrine to sound euill fauoredly you confesse agayne the true Catholicke teachyng that this speach is to be frequented and vsed that the onely immolation of Christ in him selfe vpon the aultar of the Crosse is the very satisfactorie Sacrifice for reconciliation of mankynde to the fauour of God And where you say that you haue not read the dayly sacrifice of Christs most precious body to be called a sacrifice satisfactory if you haue not read of satisfactory Masses it appeareth that you haue read but very little of the Schoole Authours And yet not many yeares agoe you might haue heard them preached in euery pardon But because you haue not read therof read Doctour Smithes booke of the sacrifice of the Masse and both your eares and eyes shal be full of it Whose furious blasphemies you haue with one sentēce here most truely reiected wherfore yet remaineth in you some good sparkes of the spirit that you so much detest such abhominatiō And yet such blasphemies you go about to salue and playster as much as you may by subtle and crafty interpretations For by such exposition as you make of the satisfactory singyng of the Priest in doyng his duetie in that he was required to do by this exposition he singeth aswell satisfactory in saying of Mattens as in saying of Masse for in both he doth his duetie that he required vnto and so might it be defended that the Player vpon the Orgaines playeth satisfactory when he doth his duety in playing as he is required And all the singyng men in the Church that haue wages thereto sing satisfactory aswell as the Priestes when they sing accordyng to that they be hyered vnto And then as one singyng man or player on the Orgaines receauyng a stipende of many men to play or sing at a certaine tyme if he do his duety satisfieth them all at once so might a priest sing satisfactory for many persons at one tyme which the teachers of satisfactory Masses vtterly condemne But if you had read Duns you would haue written more Clerkely in these matters then you now do Now let vs heare what you say further Winchester Where the Authour cityng S. Paul Englisheth him thus that Christes Priesthode can not passe from him to an other These wordes thus framed be not the simple and sincere expression of the truth of the text Whiche sayth that Christ hath a perpetuall Priesthode and the Gréeke hath a word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Gréek Schooles expresse and expounde by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifiyng the Priesthode of Christ endeth not in him to go to an other by succession as in the tribe of Leui wher was amōg mortal men succession in the office of Priesthode but Christ liueth euer and therfore is a perpetuall euerlastyng Priest by whose authoritie Priesthode is now in this visible Church as S. Paule ordered to Timothe and Tite and other places also confirme which Priestes visible Ministers to our inuisible Priest offer the dayly Sacrifice in Christes Churche that is to say with the very presence by Gods omnipotencie wrought of the most precious body and bloud of our Sauiour Christ shewyng forth Christes death and celebratyng the memory of his Supper and death accordyng to Christes institution so with dayly oblation and sacrifice of the selfe same Sacrifice to kindle in vs a thankeful remēbraunce of all Christes benefites vnto vs. Caunterbury VVHere you find your selfe greued with my citing of S. Paul that Christes priesthood cannot passe from him to another which is not say you the truth of the text which meaneth that the Priesthood of Christ endeth not in him to go to an other by succession your manner of speach herein is so darke that it geueth no light at all For it semeth to signify that Christes priesthood endeth but not to goe to other by succession but by some other meanes which thing if you meane then you make the endles priesthood of Christ to haue an end And if you mean it not but that Christs priesthood is endles and goeth to no other by succession nor other wise then I pray you what haue I offended in saying that Christs priesthood cannot passe from him to an other And as for the greeke wordes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify any manner of succession whether it be by inheritance adoption election purchase or any other meanes And he that is instituted and inducted into a benefice after an other is called his successor And Erasmus calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quod in alium transire non potest And so doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify quod successione caret That is to say a thing that hath no succession nor passeth to none other And because Christ is a perpetuall and euerlasting priest that by one oblation made a full sacrifice of sinne for euer therfore his priesthood neither nedeth nor can passe to any other wherefore the ministers of Christes church be not now appoynted priests to make a new sacrifice for sinne as tho Christ had not done that at once sufficiently for euer but to preach abroad Christes sacrifice and to be ministers of his wordes
vp in the study of Schoole Authours without regard had to the authoritie of Scriptures were coÌ„monly reiected by him so that he was greatly for that his seuere examination of the Religious sort much hated and had in great indignation and yet it came to passe in the end that diuers of them being thus compelled to study the Scriptures became afterwardes very well learned and well affected in so much that when they procéeded Doctours of Diuinitie could not ouermuch extoll and commende Maister Doct. Cranmers goodnes towardes them who had for a tyme put them backe to aspire vnto better knowledge and perfection Amongest whom Doct. Barret a white Frier who afterwardes dwelt at Norwich was after that sort handled giuyng him no lesse commeÌ„dation for his happy reiecting of him for a better amendement Thus much I repeate that our Apish and Popish sorte of ignoraunt Priestes may well vnderstand that this his exercise kynde of life and vocation was not altogether Hostelerlike I omit here how Cardinall Wolsey after the foundation of his Colledge in Oxford hearyng the fame of his learnyng vsed all meanes possible to place him in the same which he refused with great daunger of indignation conteÌ„tyng him selfe with his former Felowship in Cambridge Untill vpon occasion of the plague being in Cambridge he resorted to WalthaÌ„ Abbey and soiourned with one M. Cressey there whose wife was Doct. Cranmers niece and two of her children his pupilles in Cambridge Duryng this tyme the great and weightie cause of kyng Henry the viij his diuorce with the Lady Katherine Dowager of Spayne was in questioÌ„ Wherein two Cardinals Campeius Wolsey were appointed in Commission from the Pope to heare and determine the controuersie betwene the Kyng and the Quéene who by many dilatories dallying delaying the whole sommer vntill the moneth of August taking occasioÌ„ to finish their CoÌ„mission so moued the patience of the kyng that in all hast he remoued from London to WalthaÌ„ for a night or twaine whiles the Dukes of Northfolke and Suffolke dispatched Cardinall Campeius home agayne to Rome By meanes wherof it chaunced that the kynges herbengers lodged Doct. Stephens Secretary and Doct. Foxe Almosiner who were the chief furtherers preferrers defenders of the foresayd cause in the kyngs behalfe in the house of the sayd M. Cressey where Doct. Cranmer was also resiaunt as before When Supper tyme came and all thrée Doctours mette together being of old acquaintaunce they entertayned eche other familiarly and the sayd Doct. Stephens and Doct. Foxe takyng occasion of their happy méetyng together began to conferre with Doct. Cranmer concernyng the kynges cause requestyng him to declare his opinion therein Whereunto Doct. Cranmer aunswered that he could say litle in the matter for that he had not studied nor looked for it Notwithstandyng he sayd to them that in his opinioÌ„ they made more adde in prosecutyng the lawes Ecclesiasticall then néeded It were better as I suppose quoth Doct. Cranmer that the question whether a man may mary his brothers wife or no were decided and discussed by the Diuines and by the authoritie of the word of God whereby the conscience of the Prince might be better satisfied and quieted then thus from yeare to yeare by frustratory delayes to prolong the tyme leauing the very truth of the matter vnbuâ—ted out by the word of God There is but one truth in it which the Scripture will soone declare make open manifest beyng by learned men well handled that may be aswell done in England in the Uniuersities here as at Rome or els where in any foreine nation the authoritie wherof will compell any Iudge soone to come to a diffinitiue sentence therfore as I take it you might this way haue made an end of this matter long sithens When Doct. Cranmer had thus ended his tale the other two wel liked of his deuise and wished that they had so procéeded afore tyme and thereupon conceiued some matter of that deuise to instruct the kyng withall who then was mynded to send to Rome agayne for a new Commission Now the next day when the kyng remoued to Grenewich like as he tooke him selfe not well handled by the Cardinals in thus differryng his cause so his mynde beyng vnquieted desirous of an end of his long tedious sute he called to him this his ij principall doers of his sayd cause namely the said Doct. Stephens and D. Foxe saying vnto theÌ„ What now my Maisters quoth the kyng shall we do in this infinite cause of mine I sée by it there must be a new CoÌ„mission procured from Rome and when we shall haue an end God knoweth and not I. When the kyng had sayd somewhat his mynde herein the Almosiner Doct. Foxe sayd vnto the kyng agayne we trust that there shal be better wayes deuised for your Maiestie then to make trauaile so farre to Rome any more in your highnes cause which by chaunce was put into our heades this other night beyng at Waltham and so discouered to the kyng their méetyng and conference with Doct. Cranmer at M. Cresseys house Wherupon Doct. Cranmer was sent for in post beyng as then remoued from Waltham towardes his frendes in Lincolne shyre and so brought to the Court to the kyng Whom the noble Prince benignely acceptyng demauÌ„ded his name and sayd vnto him Were you not at Waltham such a tyme in the company of my Secretary and my Almosiner Doct. Cranmer affirmyng the same the kyng sayd agayne had you not conference with them concernyng our matter of diuorce now in question after this sort repeatyng the maner and order therof That is right true if it please your highnes quoth Doct. Cranmer Well sayd the kyng I well perceiue that you haue the right scope of this matter You must vnderstand quoth the kyng that I haue bene long troubled in coÌ„science and now I perceiue that by this meanes I might haue bene long agoe releaued one way or other from the same if we had this way procéeded And therfore Maister Doctour I pray you and neuertheles because you are a subiect I charge and commauÌ„de you all your other busines affaires set apart to take some paynes to sée this my cause to be furthered accordyng to your deuise asmuch as it may lye in you with many other wordes in commendation of the Quéenes Maiestie Doct. Cranmer much disablyng him selfe to medle in so weightie a matter besought the kynges highnes to commit the triall and examinyng of this matter by the word of God vnto the best learned meÌ„ of both his Uniuersities Cambridge and Oxford You say well sayd the kyng and I am content there with But yet neuertheles I will haue you specially to write your mynde therein And so callyng the Earle of Wiltshyre to hym sayd I pray you my Lord let D. Cranmer haue intertaynement in your house at Durham place for a
politicke consideration to goe forward yet he so handled him selfe aswell in the Parlament house as afterwardes by writing so obediently with such huÌ„ble behauiour in wordes towards his Prince protesting the cause not to be his but almightie Gods who was the author of all truth that the kyng did not onely well like his defence willyng him to depart out of the ParlameÌ„t house into the Counsaile chaÌ„ber whilest the Acte should passe be graunted for safegard of his conscience which he with humble proâ—estatioÌ„ refused hopyng that his Maiestie in processe of time would reuoke them agayne but also after the Parlament was finished the kyng perceiuyng the zealous affectioÌ„ that the Archb. bare towardes the defence of his cause which many wayes by Scriptures and manifold authorities and reasons he had substauntially confirmed and defended sent the Lord Cromwell then Uicegerent with the two Dukes of Northfolke and Suffolke all the Lordes of the Parlament to dyne with him at Lambeth Where it was declared by the Uicegerent and the two Dukes that it was the kynges pleasure that they all should in his highnes behalfe cherish comfort and animate him as one that for his trauaile in that Parlament had shewed him selfe both greatly learned and also discret and wise and therfore they willed him not to be discouraged for any thing that was passed contrary to his allegations He most humbly thanked the kynges Maiestie of his great goodnesse towardes him and them all for their paynes saying I hope in God that hereafter my allegatioÌ„s authorities shall take place to the glory of God and the commoditie of the Realme in the meane tyme I will satisfie my selfe with the honorable consent of your honours and the whole Parlament Here is to be noted that this mans stoute and godly defence of the truth herein so bound the Princes coÌ„science that he would not permit the truth in that man to be cleane ouerthrowen with authoritie and power and therfore this way God workyng in the Princes mynde a playne token was declared hereby that all thyngs were not so sincerely handled in the confirmation of the sayd vi Articles as it ought to haue bene for els the Prince might haue had iust cause to haue borne his great indignation towardes the Archbyshop Let vs pray that both the like stoutnes may be perceiued in all Ecclesiasticall and learned men where the truth ought to be defended and also the like relentyng and flexibilitie may take place in Princes and Noble men when they shall haue occasion offered them to maintaine the same so that they vtterly ouerwhelme not the truth by selfe will power and authoritie Now in the end this Archbyshops constancie was such towardes Gods cause that he confirmed all his doynges by bitter death in the fire with out respect of any worldly treasure or pleasure And as touchyng his stoutnesse in his Princes cause the contrary resistaunce of the Duke of Northumberland agaynst him proued right well his good minde that way which chaunced by reason that he would not consent to the dissoluyng of Chauntreys vntill the kyng came of age to the intent that they might then better serue to furnish his royall estate then to haue so great treasure consumed in his noneage Which his stoutnes ioyned with such simplicitie surely was thought to diuers of the Counsaile a thyng incredible specially in such sort to contend with him who was so accounted in this Realme as few or none would or durst gaynstand hym So deare was to him the cause of God and of his Prince that for the one he would not kéepe his conscience clogged nor for the other lurke or hide his head Otherwise as it is sayd his very enemies might easely intreate him in any cause reasonable and such thyngs as he graunted he did without any suspition of rebraidyng or méede therfore So that he was altogethers voyde of the vice of the stubbâ—rnes and rather culpable of ouer much facilitie and gentlenes Surely if ouermuch patience may be a vice this maÌ„ may séeme peraduenture to offend rather on this part then on the contrary Albeit for all his doynges I can not say for the most part such was his mortification that way that few we shall finde in whoÌ„ the saying of our Sauiour Christ so much preuailed as with him who would not onely haue a man to forgiue his enemies but also to pray for them that lesson neuer went out of his memory For it was knowen that he had many cruell enemies not for his owne desertes but onely for his Religion sake and yet what soeuer he was that either sought his hinderaunce either in goodes estimation or life and vpon coÌ„ference would séeme neuer so slenderly any thyng to relent or excuse him selfe he would both forget the offence committed and also euermore afterwardes frendly entertayne him and shew such pleasure to him as by any meanes possible he might performe or declare In somuch that it came into a common Prouerbe Do vnto my Lord of Canterbury displeasure or a shrewed turne and then you may be sure to haue him your frend whiles he liueth Of which his gentle disposition in absteinyng from reuengement amongest many examples therof I will repeate here one It chauÌ„ced an ignorauÌ„t Priest Parson in the North parts the Towne is not now in remeÌ„braunce but he was a kinsman of one Chersey a Grocer dwellyng within LondoÌ„ beyng one of those Priests that vse more to study at the Alchouse theÌ„ in his chaÌ„ber or in his study to sit on a time with his honest neighbours at the Alchouse within his own Parish where was coÌ„municatioÌ„ ministred in coÌ„mendation of my Lord CraÌ„mer Archb. of Cant. This sayd Parson enuying his name onely for ReligioÌ„ sake sayd to his neighbours what make you of him quoth he he was but an Hostler and hath no more learnyng theÌ„ the goslyngs that goeth yonder on the gréene with such like sclaunderous vncomely wordes These honest neighbours of his not well bearyng those his vnséemely words Articled against him sent their coÌ„playnt vnto the Lord Cromwell theÌ„ Uicegerent in causes Ecclesiasticall who sent for the Priest and committed him to the Fléete mindyng to haue had him recant those his sclaunderous wordes at Paules Crosse. Howbeit the Lord Cromwell hauing great affaires of the Prince then in hand forgat his prisoner in the Fléete So that this Chersey the Grosser vnderstandyng that his kinsman was in duraunce in the Fléete onely for speakyng wordes agaynst my Lord of Canterbury consulted with the Priest and betwene them deuised to make sute rather vnto the Archbyshop for his deliueraunce then to the Lord Cromwell before whom he was accused vnderstandyng right well that there was great diuersitie of natures betwene those two estates the one geÌ„tle and full of clemency and the other seuere and somewhat intractable namely agaynst a Papist So that Chersey tooke vpon him first to
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
with whose burnyng and bloud his handes had bene before any thyng polluted But especially he had to reioyce that dying in such a cause hee was to be numbred amongest Christes Martyrs much more worthy the name of S. Thomas of Caunterbury then he whom the Pope falsely before did Canonise The end of Cranmers lyfe Archb. of Cant. The burnyng of the Archbyshop of Canterbury Doct. Cranmer in the Townedich at Oxford thrustyng his hand first into the fire flame wherewith he had subscribed A craftie and Sophisticall cauillation deuised by M. Steuen Gardiner Doctor of Law late Bishop of Winchester against the true and godly doctrine of the most holy sacrament of the body and bloud of our sauiour Christ called by him An explication assertion therof with an aunswer vnto the same made by the most reuerend father in God Thomas Archbishop of Caunterbury Primate of all England and Metropolitane The title of the booke of Steuen Gardiner late Bishop of Winchester ¶ An Explication and assertion of the true catholike fayth touching the most blessed Sacrament of the aulter with confutation of a booke written against the same ¶ The aunswer of Thomas Archbishop of Caunterbury c. HERE before the beginning of your booke you haue prefixed a goodly title but it agreeth with the argument and matter therof as water agreeth with the fire For your booke is so farre from an explication and assertion of the true catholike fayth in the matter of the sacrament that it is but a crafty cauillation and subtile sophisticatiō to obscure the truth therof and to hyde the same that it should not appeare And in your whole booke the reader if he marke it wel shal easily perceiue how little learning is shewed therin and how few authors you haue alleadged other then such as I brought forth in my booke and made aunswer vnto but there is shewed what may be done by fine wit and new deuises to deceiue the reader and by false interpretations to auoyde the plain wordes of scripture and of the old authors Wherfore in as much as I purpose God willing in this defēce of my former book not only to aunswer you but by the way also to touch D. Smith two things I would wish in you both The one is truth with simplicitie the other is that either of you both had so much learning as you think you haue or els that you thought of your selfe no more then you haue in dede but to aūswer both your bokes in few words that one sheweth nothing els but what rayling without reason or learning the other what frowardnes armed with wit and eloquence be able to do against the truth And Smith because he would be vehement and shew his heat in the maner of speach where the matter is cold hath framed in a maner all his sentēces through out his whole booke by interrogations But if the reader of both your bookes do no more but diligently read ouer my booke once agayn he shal fynde the same not so slenderly made but that I haue foreseene all that could be sayd to the contrary and that I haue fully aunswered before hand all that you both haue sayd or is able to say Winchester FOrasmuch as amonge other myne allegations for defence of my selfe in this matter moued against me by occasion of my Sermon made before the kinges most excellent maiestie touching partly the catholike fayth of the most precious sacrament of the aulter which I see now impugned by a booke set forth vnder the name of my lord of Canterburies grace I haue thought expedient for the better opening of the matter and considering I am by name touched in the sayd booke the rather to vtter partly that I haue to say by confutation of that booke wherin I thinke neuerthelesse not requisite to direct any speach by speciall name to the person of him that is entituled author because it may possible he that his name is abused wherwith to set forth the matter beyng himselfe of such dignitie and authoritie in the common wealth as for that respect should be inuiolable For which consideration I shal in my speach of such reproofe as the vntruth of the matter necessarily requireth omitting the speciall title of the author of the booke speake onely of the author in generall beyng a thing to me greatly to be meruayled at that such matter should now be published out of my lord of Canterburies pen but because he is a man I will not wonder and because he is such a man I will reuerently vse him and forbearing further to name him talke only of the author by that general name Caunterbury THe first entrie of your booke sheweth to them that be wise what they may looke for in the rest of the same except the beginning vary from all that followeth Now the beginning is framed with such sleight subtletie that it may deceiue the reader notably in two thinges The one that he should thinke you were called into iudgement before the kinges maiesties commissioners at Lamhith for your catholike faith in the Sacrament The other that you made your booke for your defence therein which be both vtterly vntrue For your booke was made or euer ye were called before the said commissioners and after you were called then you altered only two lines in the beginning of your booke and made that beginning which it hath now This am I able to proue as well otherwise as by a booke which I haue of your owne hand writing wherin appeareth plainly the alteration of the beginning And as concerning the cause wherfore ye were called before the Commissioners whereas by your owne importune sute and procurement and as it were enforcing the matter you were called to iustice for your manifest contempt and continuall disobedience from tyme to tyme or rather rebellion against the kinges maiestie and were iustly depriued of your estate for the same you would turne it now to a matter of the sacrament that the world should thinke your trouble rose for your fayth in the sacrament which was no matter nor occasion therof nor no such matter was obiected against you wherfore you nede to make any such defence And where you would make that matter the occasion of your worthy depriuation and punishment which was no cause therof and cloke your wilfull obstinacie and disobedience which was the onely cause therof all mē of iudgement may well perceiue that you could meane no goodnes therby neither to the kinges maiestie nor to his realme But as touching the matter now in controuersie I impugn not the true catholike faith which was taught by Christ and his Apostles as you say I do but I impugne the false Papisticall faith inuented deuised and imagined by Antichrist and his ministers And as for further forbearing of my name and talking of the Author in generall after that you haue named me once and your whole booke is directed against my booke openly set out in my
seing that he wrote of the sacrament at king Charles request it is not like that he would write against the receiued doctrine of the church in those daies And if he had it is without all doubt that some learned man either in his tyme or fithens would haue written against him or at the least not haue commended him so much as they haue done Berengarius of himselfe had a godly iudgement in this matter but by the tiranity of Nicholas the 2. he was constrained to make a diuelish recantation as I haue declared in my first booke the 17. chapter And as for Iohn Wicklif he was a singuler instrument of God in his tyme to set forth the truth of christes gospell but Antichrist that sitteth in gods temple boasting himselfe as god hath by gods sufferance preuayled against many holy men and sucked the bloud of martirs these late yeres And as touching Martin Luther it semeth you be sore pressed that be faine to pray aide of him whom you haue hitherto euer detested The foxe is sore hunted that is faine to take his borow and the wolfe that is fayne to take the lions den for a shift or to run for succour vnto a beast which he most hateth And no man condemneth your doctrine of Transubstantiation and of the propiciatory sacrifice of the masse more seuerely and earnestly then doth Martin Luther But it appeareth by your conclusion that you haue waded so farre in rhetorike that you haue forgotten your logike For this is your argumeÌ„t Bertrame taught this doctrine and preuailed not Berengarius attempted the same and failed in his purpose Wickliffe enterprised the same whose teaching god prospered not therefore god hath not prospered fauoured it to be receiued at any tyme openly as his true teaching I will make the like reason The Prophete Osee taught in Samaria to the ten tribes the true doctrine of god to bring them from their abhominable superstitions and idolatry Ioell Amâ—s and Mitheas attempted the same whose doctrine preuailed not god prospered not their teaching among those people but they were condemned with their doctrine therefore god hath not prospered and fauoured it to be receiued at any tyme openly as his true teaching If you will aunswer as you must nedes do that the cause why that among those people the true teaching preuailed not was by reason of the aboundant superstition idolatry that blinded their eies you haue fully answered your own argument and haue plainly declared the cause why the true doctrine in this matter hath not preuailed these 500. yeares the church of Rome which all that time hath borne the chiefe swinge being ouerflowen and drowned in all kind of superstition and idolatry therfore might not abide to heare of the truth And the true doctrine of the sacrament which I haue set out plainly in my booke was neuer condemned by no councell nor your false papisticall doctrine allowed vntill the deuill caused Antichrist his sonne and heire Pope Nicholas the second with his monkes and friers to condemne the truth and confirme these your heresies And where of Gamaliels wordes you make an argument of prosperous successe in this matter the scripture testifieth how Antichrist shall prosper and preuaile against saintes no short while persecute the truth And yet the counsail of Gamaliel was very discrete and wife For he perceiued that God went about the reformation of religion growen in those dayes to idolatry hypocrisie and superstition through traditions of Phariseis and therfore he moued the rest of the Councell to beware that they did not rashly and vnaduisedly condemne that doctrine religion which was approued by God least in so doing they should not onely resist the Apostles but God himselfe which counsail if you had marked followed you would not haue done so vnsoberly in many things as you haue done And as for the prosperitie of them that haue professed Christ his true doctrine they prospered with the Papistes as S. Iohn Baptist prospered with Herode and our sauiour Christ with Pilate Annas and Caiphas Now which of these prospered best say you Was as the doctrine of Christ and S. Iohn any whit the worse because the cruell tirantes and Iewes put them to death for the same Winchester But all this set apart and putting aside all testimonies of the olde church and resortyng onely to the letter of the scripture there to search out an vnderstanding and in doyng therof to forget what hath bene taught hitherto How shall this author establish vpon scripture that he would haue beleued What other text is there in scripture that enâ—ountreth with these wordes of scripture This is my body wherby to alter the signification of them There is no scripture sayth Christ did not geue his body but the figure of his body nor the geuing of Christes body in his supper verily and really so vnderstaÌ„ded doth not necessarily impugne and contrary any other speach or doyng of Christ expressed in scripture For the great power and omnipotencie of God exclodeth that repugnance which mans reason would déeme of Christes departyng from this world and placing his humanitie in the glory of his Father Caunterbury THe Scripture is playne and you confesse also that it was bread that Christ spake of when he sayd This is my body And what nede we any other scripture to encounter with these words seyng that all men know that bread is not Christes body the one hauing sense and reason the other none at all Wherfore in that speach must nedes be sought an other sence meanyng then the wordes of themselues do geue which is as all olde writers do teach and the circumstances of the text declare that the bread is a figure and sacrament of Christes body And yet as he geueth the bread to be eaten with our mouthes so geueth he his very body to be eaten with our faith And therfore I say that Christ geueth himselfe truely to be eaten chawed and digested but all is spiritually with fayth not with mouth And yet you would beare me in hand that I say that thing which I say not that is to say that Christ did not geue his body but the figure of his body And because you be not able to confute that I say you would make me to say that you can confute As for the great power and omnipotency of God it is no place here to dispute what God can do but what he doth I know that he can do what he will both in heauen and in earth no man is able to resist his wil. But the question here is of his will not of his power And yet if you caÌ„ ioyne together these two that one nature singuler shal be here and not here both at one time and that it shal be gone hence when it is here you haue some stroÌ„g syment and be a cunning Geometrician but yet you shall neuer be good Logician that woulde
so is the very body of Christ inwardly by faith eaten in dede of al them that come therto in such sort as they ought to do which eating nourisheth them vnto euerlasting lyfe And this eating hath a warrant signed by Christ himselfe in the vj. of Iohn where Christ saith He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath lyfe euerlasting But they that to the outward eatyng of the breade ioyne not therto an inward eating of Christ by faith they haue no warrant by Scripture at all but the bread and wyne to them be vayne mide and bare tokens And where you say that Scripture expresseth no matter of signification speciall effect in the sacramentes of bread and wine if your eyes were not blynded with popish errours frowardnes and selfeloue ye might see in the 22. of Luke where Christ himselfe expresseth a matter of signification saying Hoc facite in mei commemorationem Do this in remembrance of me And S. Paule likewise 1. Cor. 11. hath the very same thing which is a plain and direct aunswer to that same your last question wherupoÌ„ you triumph at your pleasure as though the victory were all yours For ye say when this question is demaunded of me what to signifie Here must be a sort of good wordes framed without scripture But here S. Paule aunswereth your question in expresse wordes that it is the lordes death that shall be signified represented and preached in these holy mysteries vntill his commyng againe And this remembraunce representation and preaching of Christes death cannot be without special effect except you wil say that Christ worketh not effectually with his worde and sacramentes And S. Paule expresseth the effect when he saith The bread which we breake is the communion of Christes body But by this place and such like in your booke ye disclose your selfe to all men of iudgement either how wilful in your opinion or how flender in knowledge of the scriptures you be Winchester And therfore like as the teaching is new to say it is an only figure or only signifieth so the matter of significatioÌ„ must be newly deuised and new wyne haue new bottels and be throughly new after xv C. l. yeres in the very yere of Iubiley as they were wont to call it to be newly erected and builded in English mens hartes Caunterbury IT semeth that you be very desirous to abuse the peoples eares with this terme New and with the yeare of Iubiley as though the true doctrine of the sacrament by me taught should be but a new doctrine and yours old as the Iewes slaundered the doctrine of Christ by the name of newnesse or els that in this yere of Iubiley you would put the people in remembraÌ„ce of the full remission of sinne which they were wont to haue at Rome this yere that they might long to returne to Rome for pardons againe as the children of Israell longed to returne to Egipt for the flesh that they were went to haue there But all men of learning iudgement know well inough that this your doctrine is no elder then the bishop of Romes vsurped supremacy which though it be of good age by nomber of yeres yet is it new to Christ and his worde If there were such darkenes in the world now as hath ben in that world which you note for olde the people might drinke new wyne of the whore of Babilons cup vntil they were as dronke with hypocrisie and superstition as they might well stand vpon their legs and no man once say blacke is their eye But now thankes be to God the light of his worde so shineth in the world that your dronkennes in this yeare of Iubiley is espied so that you cannot erect and build your popish kingdome any longer in Englishmens hattes without your owne scorne shame and confusioÌ„ The old popish bottels must nedes brast when the new wyne of Gods holy word is poured into them Winchester Which new teaching whether it procedeth from the spirite of truth or no shall more plainly appeare by such matter as this author vttereth wherewith to impugne the true fayth taught hetherto For amoÌ„ng many other profes wherby truth after much trauail in contention at the last preuayleth and hath victory there is none more notable then when the very aduersaries of truth who pretend neuerthelesse to be truthes frendes do by some euident vntruth bewrap them selues According wherunto when the two women contended before King Salomon for the child yet aliue Salomon decerned the true naturall mother from the other by their speeches and sayinges Which in the very mother were euer conformable vnto nature and in the other at the last euideÌ„tly against nature The very true mother spake alwayes like her selfe and neuer disagreed from the truth of nature but rather then the thilde should be killed as Salomon the eatned when he called for a Sword required it to be geuen whole aliue to the other woman The other woman that was not the true mother cared more for victory then for the child and therfore spake that was in nature an euidence that she lyen callinge her selfe mother and saying let it be deuided which no natural mother could say of her own child Wherupon procéedeth Salomons most wise iudgement which hath this lesson in it euer where contention is on that part to be the truth where all sayinges and doinges appeare vniformely consonant to the truth pretended and on what side a notable â—yâ— appeareth the rest may be iudged to be after the same sort For truth néedeth no ayde of lyes exast or sleight wherwith to be supported or maintayned So as in the intreating of the truth of this high and ineffable mistery of the sacrament on what past thou reader séest crafte sleight shift obliquitie or in any one poynt an open manifest lye there thou mayst consider what soeuer pretence be made of truth yet the victory of truth not to be there intended which loueth simplicity playnnesse direct speach without admixtion of shift or colour Caunterbury IF either diuisioÌ„ or confusion may try the true mother the wicked church the Rome not in speech only but in all other practises hath long gone about to oppresse confound and deuide the true and liuely fayth of Christ shewing her selfe not to be the true mother but a most cruell stepmother deuiding confounding and counterfayting al thinges at her pleasure not coÌ„trary to nature only but chiefly against the playn wordes of scripture For here in this one matter of controuersy between you Smith and me you deuide against nature the accidentes of bread and wine from their substances and the substance of Christ from his accidences and contray to the scripture you deuide our eternall life attributing vnto the sacrifice of Christ vpon the crosse only the beginning therof and the continuance therof you ascribe vnto the sacrifice of popish priestes And in the sacramentes you separate Christes
occasions men haue erred in reading the old fathers and wisheth that they which haue folowed Berengarius in error would also folow him in repentance I will not reader encombre thée with mo wordes of Erasmus Peter Martyr of Oxford taken for no Papist in a treatise he made of late of the Sacrament which is now translated into Englishe sheweth how as touching the real presence of Christes body it is not only the sentence of the papistes but of other also whom the sayd Peter neuerthelesse doth with as many shiftes and lyes as he may impugne for that point as well as he doth the Papistes for transubstantiation but yet he doth not as this author doth impute that fayth of the reall presence of Christs body and bloud to the only Papistes Wherupon Reader here I ioyne with the author an issue that the faith of the reall and substantiall presence of Christes body and bloud in the sacrament is not the deuise of Papistes or their faith only as this author doth considerately slaunder it to be and desire therfore that according to Salamons iudgement this may serue for a note and marke to geue sentence for the true mother of the child For what should this mean so without shame openly and vntruely to call this fayth papishe but only with the enuious word of Papist to ouermatche the truth Caunterbury THis explication of the true catholicke fayth noteth to the Reader certayn euident manifest vntruthes vttered by me as he sayth which I also pray thee good reader to note for this intent that thou mayst take the rest of my sayinges for true which he noteth not for false doubtles they should not haue escaped noting as wel as the other if they had bin vntrue as he sayth the other be And if I can proue these thinges also true whichhe noteth for manyfest and euident vntruthes then mee thinketh it is reason that all my sayinges should be allowed for true if those be proued true which only be reiected as vntrue But this vntruth is to be noted in him generally that he either ignorantly mistaketh or willingly misreporteth almost all that I say But now note good Reader the euident and manyfest vntruthes which I vtter as he sayth The first is that the faith of the reall presence is the fayth of the papistes An other is that these wordâ—s my flesh is verely meate I doe translate thus My flesh is very meate An other is that I handle not sincerely the words of S. Augustine speaking of the eating of Christes body The fourth is that by these wordes this is my body Christ inteÌ„deth not to make the bread his body but to signifie that such as receiue that worthely be members of Christes body These be the haynous and manifest errors which I haue vttered As touching the first that the faith of the real and substancial presence of Christes body and bloud in the Sacrament is the faith of the papistes this is no vntruth but a most certain truth For you confesse your selfe and defend in this booke that it is your faith and so do likewise all the papistes And here I will make an issue with you that the papistes beleeue the reall corporall and naturall presence of Christes body and bloud in the Sacrament Aunswere me directly without colour whether it be so or not If they beleeue not so then they beleeue as I doe for I beleeue not so and then let them openly confesse that my belief is true And if they beleeue so then say I true when I say that it is the papistes faith And then is my saying no manifest vntruth but a meere truth so the verdict in the issue passeth vpon my side by your own confession And here the Reader may note well that once again you be faine to flye for succor vnto M. Luther Bucer Ionas Melancthon Aepinus whose names were wonte to be so hatefull vnto you that you coulde neuer with patience abide the hearing of them yet their sayinges helpe you nothing at all For although these men in this many other thinges haue in times past and yet peraduenture some doe the vayle of olde darcknes not cleerly in euery point remoued from their eyes agree with the papistes in part of this matter yet they agree not in the wholl and therfore it is true neuerthelesse that this fayth which you teache is the Papistes faith For if you would conclude that this is not the Papistes faith because Luther Bucer other beleue in many things as the papists do theÌ„ by the same reasoÌ„ you may conclude that the papists beleeue not that Christ was borne crucified dyed rose again ascended into heaueÌ„ which things Luther Bucer the other coÌ„stantly doth taught beleeued and yet the faith of the real preseÌ„ce may be called rather the fayth of the papists then of the other not only because the papists do so beleue but specially for that the papists were the first authors and inuentors of that faith and haue been the chief spreaders abroad of it and were the cause that other were blinded with the same error But here may the Reader note one thing by the way that it is a foule cloute that you would refuse to wipe your nose withal when you take such men to proue your matter whom you haue hetherto accounted moste vile and filthy heretickes And yet now you be glad to flye to them for succour whom you take for Gods enemyes and to whom you haue euer had a singular hatred You pretende that you stay your selfe vpon auncyent wryters And why runne you now to such men for ayde as be not onely new but also as you thinke be euill and corrupt in iudgement And to such as thinke you by your writinges and doinges as ranke a Papiste as is any at Rome And yet not one of these new men whom you alleadge doe throughlye agree with your doctrine either in transubstantiation or in carnall eating and drinking of Christes flesh and bloud or in the sacrifice of Christ in the masse nor yet throughlye in the reall presence For they affirme not suche a grosse presence of Christes body as expelleth the substance of bread and is made by conuersion therof into the substance of Christes body and is eaten with the mouth And yet if they did the auncyent authors that were next vnto Christs time whom I haue alleadged may not geue place vnto these new men in this matter although they were men of excellent learning and iudgement how so euer it liketh you to accept them But I may conclude that your faith in the Sacrament is popish vntill such time as you can proue that your doctrine of transubstantiation and of the real presence was vniuersally receaued and beleeued before the bishops of Rome defined and determined the same And when you haue prooued that then will I graunt that in your first note you haue conuinced me of an euident
intent by his will preached vnto vs by Scriptures and beleued vniuersally in his church But if it may now be thought séemely for vs to be so bold in so high a mistery to begin to discusse Christes intent What should moue vs to thinke that Christ would vse so many wordes without effectuall and reall signification as be rehearsed touching the mistery of this Sacrament First in the sixt of Iohn when Christ had taught of the eating of him being the bread descended from heauen and declaring that eating to signifie beleeuing whereat was no murmuring that then he should enter to speak of geuing of his flesh to be eaten and his bloud to be dronken and to say that he would geue a bread that is his flesh which he would geue for the life of the world In which wordes Christ maketh mention of two giftes and therfore as he is truth must needes intend to fulfill them both And therefore as we beleeue the gift of his flesh to the Iewes to be crucified so we must beléeue the gift of his flesh to be eaten and of that gifte liuery and seisme as we say to be made of him that is in his promises faithfull as Christ is to be made in both And therefore when he sayd in his Supper Take eate this is my body he must néedes intend plainly as his words of promise required And these wordes in his Supper purporte to geue as really then his body to be eaten of vs as he gaue his body in deede to be crucified for vs aptly neuerthelesse and conueniently for ech effect and therefore in maner of geuing diuersly but in the substance of the same geuen to be as his wordes beare witnes the same and therefore sayd this is my body that shal be betraied for you expressing also the vse when he said take eate which words in deliuering of material bread had béen superfluous for what should men doe with bread when they take it but eate it specially when it is broaken But as Cyrill sayth Christ opened there vnto them the practise of that doctrine hée spake of in the sixt of S. Iohn and because he sayd he would geue his flesh for food which he would geue for the life of the world he for fulfilling of his promise sayd Take eate this is my body which wordes haue béen taught and beléeued to be of effect and operatory and Christ vnder the forme of bread to haue béen his very body According whereunto S. Paule noteth the receauer to be gilty when he doth not estéeme it our Lordes body wherewith it pleaseth Christ to féede such as be in him regenerate to the intent that as man was redéemed by Christ suffering in the nature of his humanitie so to purchase for man the kingdome of heauen lost by Adams fall Euen likewise in the nature of the same humanitye geuing it to be eaten he ordayned it to nourish man and make him strong to walke and continue his iorney to enioy that kingdome And therefore to set forth liuely vnto vs the communication of the substance of Christes most precious body in the Sacrament and the same to be in déede deliuered Christ vsed playn wordes testified by the Euangelistes Saint Paule also rehearsed the same wordes in the same plain termes in the eleuenth to the Corinthians and in the tenth geuing as it were an exposition of the effect vseth the same proper wordes declaring the effect to be the communication of Christes body and bloud And one thing is notable touching the Scripture that in such notable spéeches vttered by Christ as might haue an ambiguity the Euangelists by some circumstance declared it or sometime opened it by playn interpretation as whē Christ sayd he would dissolue the temple and within thrée dayes build it agayne The Euangelist by and by addeth for interpretation This he sayd of the temple of his body And when Christ sayd he is Helias and I am the true vine The circumstaunce of the texte openeth the ambiguity But to shew that Christ should not mean of his very body when he so spake Neither S. Paule after ne the Euangelistes in the place adde any wordes or circumstaunces whereby to take away the proper signification of the wordes body and bloud so as the same might seeme not in déede geuen as the catholicke faith teacheth but in signification as the author would haue it For as for the wordes of Christ the Spirite geueth life the flesh profiteth nothing be to declare the two natures in Christ ech in their property a part considered but not as they be in Christs person vnited the mistery of which vniō such as beléeued not Christ to be God could not consider and yet to insinuate that vnto them Christ made mention of his descention from heauen and after of his ascension thether agayn whereby they might vnderstand him very God whose flesh taken in the virgins wombe and so geuen spiritually to be eaten of vs is as I haue before opened viuifike and geueth life And this shall suffice here to shew how Christes intent was to geue verely as he did in déede his precious body and bloud to be eaten and dronken according as he taught thē to be verely meate and drinke and yet gaue and geueth them so vnder forme of visible creatures to vs as we may conueniētly and without horror of our nature receaue them Christ therein condescending to our infirmity As for such other wrangling as is made in vnderstanding of the words of Christ shall after he spoaken of by further occasion Caunterbury NOw we be come to the very pith of the matter and the chiefe pointe wherupon the wholl controuersie hangeth whether in these words this is my body Christ called bread his body wherin you and Smith agree like a man and a woman that dwelled in Lincolnshere as I haue heard reported that what pleased the one misliked the other sauing that they both agreed in wilfulness So do Smith and you agree both in this point that Christ made bread his body but that it was bread which he called his body when he sayd This is my body this you graunt but Smith denieth it And because all Smithes buildinges cleerely fall downe if this his chiefe foundation be ouerthrowen therfore must I first proue against Smith that Christ called the materiall bread his body the wine which was the fruite of the vine his bloud For why did you not prooue this my Lord sayth Smith would you that men should take you for a prophet or for one that could not erre in his sayinges First I alleadge against Smithes negation your affirmation which as it is more true in this point then his negation so for your estimation it is able to counteruail his saying if there were nothing els yet if Smith had well pondered what I haue written in the second chap. of my second booke and in the 7. and 8. chapters of my third book he should haue
proofe in Scripture to say God doth it because he can doe it For hee can doe many thinges which hee neither doth nor will doe He could haue sent moe then twelue Legions of Angels to deliuer Christ from the wicked Iewes and yet he would not doe it He could haue created the world and all thinges therin in one moment of time and yet his pleasure was to doe it in sixe dayes In all matters of our christen faith written in holy Scripture for our instruction and doctrin how farre so euer they seeme discrepant from reason we must represse our imaginations and consider Gods pleasure and will and yeald therto beleeuing him to be omnipotent And that by his omnipotent power such thinges are verelye so as holy scripture teacheth Like as we beleeue that Christ was borne of the blessed virgin Mary without company of man that our Sauyour Christ the third day rose agayn from death that he in his humanity ascended into heauen that our bodyes at the day of iudgement shall rise agayne and many other such like thinges which we all that be true christeÌ„ men do beleeue firmely because we finde these thinges written iu Scripture And therfore we knowing Gods omnipotency doe beleue that he hath brought some of the said things to passe already and those things that are yet to come he will by the same omnipotency without doubt likewise bring to passe Now if you can proue that your transubstantiatioÌ„ your fleshly presence of Christes body and bloud your carnall eating and drinking of the same your propitiatory sacrifice of the masse are taught vs as plainly in the scripture as the sayd articles of our faith be then I will beleeue that it is so in deede Otherwise neither I nor any man that is in his right wittes will beleeue your said articles because God is omnipotent and can make it so For you might so vnder pretence of Gods omnipotency make as many articles of our faith as you list if such arguments might take place that God by his omnipotent power can conuert the substance of bread and wine in to the substance of his flesh and bloud ergo he doth so in deede And although Christ be not corporally in the bread and wine yet Christ vsed not so many wordes in the mistery of his holy supper without effectual signification For he is effectually present and effectually worketh not in the bread and wine but in the godly receauers of them to whom he geeueth his own flesh spiritually to feede vpon and his own bloud to quench their great inward thirst And here I would wishe you to marke very wel one true sentence which you haue vttered by the way which is That Christ declared that eating of him signifieth beleeuing and start not from it an other time And marke the same I pray thee gentle Reader For this one sentence assoyleth almost all the argumentes that be brought by this Lawyer in his wholl booke against the truth And yet to the sayd true saying you haue ioyned an other vntruth haue yoaked them both together in one sentence For when Christ had taught of the eating of him being the bread descended froÌ„ heauen there was no murmuring thereat say you Which your saying I can not but wonder at to see you so farre deceaued in a matter so plaine and manifest And if I had spoaken such an euident and manifeste vntruth I doubt not but it should haue beene spoaken of to Rome gates For the text sayth there plainly Murmur abant Iudaei de illo qoud dixisset Ego sum panis vinus qui de coelo descendi The Iewes murmured at him because he sayd I am the bread of life that came from heauen But when you wrote this it seemeth you looked a litle to low and should haue looked higher And here by this one place the Reader may gather of your own wordes your intent and meaning in this your booke if that be true which you sayd before that euer where contention is on what parte the Reader seeth in any one point an open manifest lye there he may consider whatsoeuer excuse be made of truth yet the victory of truth not to be there intended An other vntruth also followeth incontinently that when Christ sayd The bread which I will geue you is my flesh which I will geue for the life of the world In these wordes say you Christ maketh mention of two gifts But what be those two giftes I pray you And by what wordes is the diuersitie of those two giftes expressed If the geuing as Smith sayth be geuing to death then those two giftes declare that Christ dyed for vs twise And if one of Christes giftes haue liuery and seisyn why hath not the other likewise And when was then that liuery and seisyn geuen And if eating of Christ be beleeuing as you sayd euen now then liuerey and seisyn is geuen when we first beleeue whether it be in baptisme or at any other time But what you mean by these wordes that Christ gaue in his supper his body as really to be eateÌ„ of vs as he did to be crucified for vs I vnderstand not except you would haue Christ so really eaten of his Apostles at his supper with their teeth as he was after crucified whipped and thrust to the hart with a speare But was he not then so really and corporally crucified that his body was rent and torne in peeces And was not he so crucified then that he neuer was crucified after Was he not so slayn then that he neuer dyed any more And if he were so eaten at his supper then did his Apostles teare his flesh at the supper as the Iewes did the day following And then how could he now be eaten agayn Or how could he be crucified the day following if the night before he were after that sort eaten all vp But aptly say you and conueniently Mary Sir I thanke you but what is the aptly and conueniently but spiritually and by faith as you said before not grosly with the teeth as he was crucified And so the manner was diuers I graunt and the substance all one But when Christ sayd the bread which I will geue is my flesh which I will geue for the life of the worlde if he had fulfilled this promise at his supper as you say he did then what needed he after to dye that we might liue if he fulfilled his promise of life at his supper Why said the Prophets that he should be wouÌ„ded for our iniquities and that by his wounds we should be healed if we had life and were healed before he was wounded Why doth the catholick faith teach vs to beleue that we be redeemed by his blud sheading if he gaue vs life which is our redemâ—ion the night before hee shed his bloud And why sayth S. Paule that there is no remission without bloud sheading Yea why did he say Absit mihi
of the fyrst booke declaryng spirituall hunger and thirst and the releuing of the same by spyrituall feeding in Christe and of Christe as we constantly beleue in him to the confirmation of whiche beliefe the author would haue the Sacramentes of Baptisme and of the body and bloud of Christ to be adminicles as it were that we by them be preached vnto as in water breade and wyne and by them all our sinnes as it were spoken vnto or properly touched which matter in the grosse although there be some wordes by the way not tollerable yet if those wordes set apart the same were in the summe graunted to be good teachyng and holsome exhortation it contayneth so no more but good matter not well applyed For the Catholicke churche that professeth the truth of the presence of Christes body in the Sacramēt would therewith vse that declaratiō of hunger of Christ and that spirituall refreshing in Christ with theffect of Christes passion and death and the same to be the onely meane of mans regeneratio and feeding also with the differēces of that feeding from bodilye feeding for continuing thys earthly lyfe But thys toucheth not the principal poynt that should be intreated Whether Christ so ordered to feede such as be regenerate in him to geue to them in the Sacramēt the same his body that he gaue to be crucified for vs. The good man is fed by fayth and by merites of Christes passion being the mean of the gift of that fayth and other giftes also and by the suffering of the body of Christ and shedding of his most precious bloud on the altar of the Crosse which worke and passion of Christ is preached vnto vs by wordes aud Sacramentes and the same doctrine receaued of vs by fayth and theffect of it also And thus farre goeth the doctrine of this author But the Catholicke teaching by the scriptures goeth further cōfessing Christ to feed such as be regenerate in him not onely by his body and bloud but also with his body and bloud deliuered in this Sacrament by hym in deede to vs which the faythfull by his institution and commaūdement receaue with their faith and with their mouth also and with those special deinties be fed specially at Christs table And so God doth not onely preach in his Sacraments but also worketh in them and with them and in sensible thinges geueth celestiall giftes after the doctrine of eche Sacramēt as in baptisme the spirite of Christ and in the Sacrament of the altar the very body and bloud of Christ accordinge to the playne sence of his wordes whiche he spake This is my body c. And this is the Catholicke fayth agaynst which how the Author will fortifye that he woulde haue called Catholick and confute that he improueth I intend hereafter more particularly to touche in discussion of that is sayd Caunterbury I Mystrust not the indifferency of the reader so much but he can well perceiue how simple slender a rehearsall you haue made here of my eight annotations and how little matter you haue here to say agaynst them and how little your sayinges require any aunswere And because this may the more euidently appeare to the reader I shall rehearse my wordes heare agayne Although in this treatie of the Sacrament of the body bloud of our sauiour Christ I haue already sufficiētly declared the institution meaning of the same according to the very wordes of the Gospell and of saint Paule yet it shall not be in vayne somwhat more at large to declare the same according to the minde as well of holy scripture as of olde auncient authours and that so sincerely plainly without doubts ambiguities or vain questions that the very simple and vnlearned people may easily vnderstand the same and be edified thereby And this by Gods grace is myne only intent and desire that the flocke of Christ dispersed in this Realme among whome I am appointed a speciall pastour may no longer lacke the commodite and fruite whiche springeth of this heauenly knowledge For the more clerely it is vnderstood the more swetnes fruite comfort and edification it bringeth to the godly receauers therof And to the clere vnderstandyng of this Sacrament diuers thinges must be cōsidered First that as all men of them selues be sinners and through sinne be in gods wrath banished farre away from him condemned to hell and euerlasting dānation and none is clerely innocent but Christ alone so euery soule inspired by god is desirous to be deliuered from sinne and hell and to obteine at Gods handes mercy fauour righteousnes and euerlasting saluation And this earnest and great desire is called in scripture The hūger and thirst of the soule with which kinde of hunger Dauid was taken when he sayde As an hart longeth for springes of water so doth my soule long for thee O God My soule thyrsteth after God who is the well of lyfe My soule thyrsteth for thee my flesh wisheth for thee And this hunger the seely poore sinfull soule is driuen vnto by meanes of the law which sheweth vnto her the horriblenes of sinne the terror of Gods indignation and the horror of death and euerlasting damnation And when she seeth nothing but damnation for her offences by iustice and accusation of the law and this damnation is euer before her eies then in this great distresse the soule being pressed with heuinesse and sorrow seeketh for some comfort and desireth some remedy for her miserable and sorowfull estate And this felyng of her damnable condition and greedy desire of refreshing is the spirituall hunger of the soule And who so euer hath this godly hunger is blessed of God and shall haue meate and drinke inough as Christ himselfe sayd Blessed be they that hunger thyrst for righteousnes for they shal be filled ful And on the other side they that see not their owne sinfull and dānable estate but thinke themselues holy inough and in good case and condition inough as they haue no spirituall hunger so shall they not be fed of God with any spirituall foode For as almighty God feedeth them that be hungry so doth he send away empty all that be not hungry But this hunger and thyrst is not easily perceiued of the carnall man For when he heareth the holy ghost speake of meate and drinke his mynde is by and by in the kytchen and buttery and he thinketh vpō his dishes and pottes his mouth and his belly But the Scripture in sundry places vseth speciall wordes whereby to draw our grosse mindes from the phantasying of our teeth and belly and from this carnall and fleshly imaginatiō For the Apostles and Disciples of Christ when they were yet carnall knew not what was ment by this kinde of hunger and meate and therfore when they desired him to eate to withdraw their minds from carnall meat he sayd vnto them I haue other meate to eate which you know not And why
for your catholick confessiō that Christ doth in deed fede such as be regenerated in him not only by his body and bloud but also with his body and bloud at his holy table this I confesse also but that he feedeth Iewes Turkes and Infidels if they receaue the sacrament or that he corporally feedeth our mouthes with his flesh and bloud this neither I confesse nor any scripture or auncyeut writer euer taught but they teach that he is eaten spiritually in our hartes and by fayth not with mouth and teeth except our hartes be in our mouthes and our fayth in our teeth Thus you haue labored sore in this matter and sponne a fayre threde and brought this your first booke to a goodly conclusion For you conclude your booke with blasphemous wordes agaynst both the sacrament of baptisme and the Lordes supper nigardly pinching gods giftes and diminishing hys lyberall promises made vnto vs in them For where Christ hat◠promised in both the sacramentes to be assistant with vs wholl both in body and spirite in the one to be our spirituall regeneration and apparell and in the other to be our spirituall meate and drinke you clyp hys liberall benefites in such sorte that in the one you make him to geue but onely his spirite and in the other but onely hys body And yet you call your booke an Explication and assertion of the true catholicke fayth Here you make an ende of your first booke leauing vnanswered the rest of my booke And yet forasmuch as Smith busieth him selfe in this place with the aunswere therof he may not passe vnanswered againe where the matter requireth The wordes of my booke be these But these thinges cannot manifestly appeare to the reader except the principall poyntes be first set our wherein the Papistes vary from the truth of gods word which be chiefly fower First the Papistes say that in the supper of the Lord after the wordes of consecration as they call it there is none other substaunce remaining but the substaunce of Christes flesh and bloud so that there remaineth neither bread to be eaten nor wine to be dronken And although there be the colour of bread and wine the sauour the smell the bignesse the fashion and all other as they call them accidentes or qualities and quantitees of bread and wine yet say they there is no very bread nor wine but they be turned into the flesh bloud of Christ. And this conuersion they call transubstantiation that is to say turning of one substance into an other substance And although all the accidentes both of the bread and wine remaine still yet say they the same accidentes be in no maner of thing but hang alone in the ayre without any thing to stay them vpon For in the body and bloud of Christ say they these accidentes cannot be nor yet in the ayre for the body and bloud of Christ and the ayre be neither of that bignesse fashion smell nor colour that the bread and wine be Nor in the bread and wine say they these accidentes can not be for the substance of bread and wine as they affirm be clean gone And so there remaineth whitenes but nothing is white there remaineth colours but nothing is colored therwith there remaineth roundnes but nothing is round and there is bignes and yet nothing is bigge there is sweetenes without any sweet thing softnes without any soft thing breaking without any thing broaken diuision without any thing deuided and so other qualities and quantities without any thing to receiue them And this doctrine they teach as a necessary article of our faith But it is not the doctrine of Christ but the subtile inuention of Antichrist first decreed by Innocent the third and after more at large set forth by schoole authors whose study was euer to defend and set abroad to the world all such matters as the bishoppe of Rome had once decreed And the Deuill by his minister Antichrist had so daseled the eyes of a great multitude of christian people in these latter dayes that they sought not for their faith at the cleere light of Gods word but at the Romish Antichrist beleeuing what so euer he prescribed vnto them yea though it were against all reason al sences Gods most holy word also For els he could not haue been very Antichrist in deede except he had been so repugnant vnto Christ whose doctrine is clean contrary to this doctrin of Antichrist For Christ teacheth that we receaue very bread and wine in the most blessed Supper of the Lord as Sacraments to admonish vs that as we be fedde with bread and wine bodely so we be fedde with the body and bloud of our sauiour Christ spirituallye As in our baptisme we receiue very water to signify vnto vs that as water is an elemēt to wash the body outwardly so be our soules washed by the holy ghost inwardly The second principall thinge wherein the Papistes vary from the truth of gods worde is this They say that the very naturall fleshe and bloud of Christ which suffred for vs vpon the crosse sitteth at the right hād of father in heauen is also really substancially corporally naturally in or vnder the accidents of the sacramental bread wine which they call the fourmes of bread and wine And yet here they vary not a litle among thē selues for some say that the very naturall body of Christ is there but not naturally nor sensibly And other say that it is there naturally and sensibly and of the same bignes and fashion that it is in heauen and as the same was borne of the blessed virgine Mary and that is there broken and torne in peces with our teeth And this appeareth partly by the schole authors partely by the confession of Berengarius which Nicholas the second constrained him to make which was this That of the Sacramentes of the Lordes table the said Berengarius should promise to hold that faith which the sayd Pope Nicholas his counsel held which was that not only the sacramēts of bread wine but also the very flesh and bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ are sensibly handled of the priest in the altar broken and torne with the teeth of the faithful people But the true catholick faith grounded vpon Gods most infallible word teacheth vs that our sauiour Christ as concerning his mans nature and bodily presence is gone vp vnto heauen and sitteth at the right hand of his father and there shall he tary vntill the worldes ende at what time he shall come againe to iudge both the quick and the dead as he saith him self in many Scriptures I forsake the world saith he and goe to my Father And in another place he saith You shal euer haue poore men among you but me shall not you euer haue And againe hee saith Many hereafter shall come and say looke here is Christ or looke there
which doth not teach that Christ is in the bread and wine which was the doctrine of Luther but the true faith is that Christes most precious body and bloud is by the might of his word and determination of his will which he declareth by his word in his holy Supper present vnder forme of bread and wine The substance of which natures of bread and wine is conuerted into his most precious body bloud as it is truely beleeued taught in the Catholick church of which teaching this Author cannot be ignorant So as the Author of this booke reporteth an vntruth wittingly against his conscience to say they teach calling them papists that Christ is in the bread and wine but they agrée in forme of teaching with that the Church of England teacheth at this day in the distribution of the holy Communion in that it is there said the body and bloud of Christ to be vnder the forme of bread and wine And thus much serueth for declaration of the wrong vntrue report of the faith of the Catholick Church made of this Author in the setting forth of this difference on that parte which it pleaseth him to name Papistes And now to speake of the other parte of the difference on the Authors side when he would tell what he and his say he conueyeth a sence craftely in wordes to serue for a difference such as no Catholick man would deny For euery Catholick teacher graunteth that no man can receaue worthely Christes body and bloud in the Sacrament vnles he hath by faith and charity Christ dwelling in him For otherwise such one as hath not Christ in him receaueth Christs body in the Sacrament vnworthely to his condemnation Christ cannot be receued worthely but into his own temple which be ye S. Paul saith and yet he that hath not Christes Spirite in him is not his As for calling it bread and wine a Catholick man forbeareth not that name signifiyng what those creatures were before the consecration in substance Wherefore appeareth how the Author of this booke in the lieu and place of a difference which he pretendeth he would shew bringeth in that vnder a But which euery Catholick man must néedes confesse that Christ is in them who worthely eate and drinke the Sacrament of his body and bloud or the bread and wine as this Author speaketh But as this Author would haue speaken plainly and compared truely the difference of the two teachinges he should in the second parte haue said from what contrary to that the Catholick Church teacheth which he doth not and therfore as he sheweth vntruth in the first report so he sheweth a sleight and shifte in the declaration of the second parte to say that repugneth not to the first matter and that no Catholicke man will deny considering the said two teachinges be not of one matter nor shoote not as one might say to one marke For the first parte is of the substance of the Sacrament to be receaued where it is truth Christ to be present God and man The second parte is of Christes Spirituall presence in the man that receaueth which in déede must be in him before he receaue the Sacrament or he cannot receaue the Sacrament worthely as before is sayd which two partes may stand well together without any repugnancy so both the differences thus taught make but one Catholick doctrine Let vs sée what the Author saith further Caunterbury NOw the craftes wiles and vntruthes of the first booke being partly detected after I haue also answered to this booke I shall leaue to the indifferent Reader to iudge whether it be of the same sort or no. But before I make further answere I shall rehearse the wordes of mine owne thirde boke which you attēpt next out of order to impugne My words be these Now this matter of Transubstantiatiō being as I trust sufficiently resolued which is the first part before rehearsed wherein the Papisticall doctrine varieth from the Catholick truth order requireth next to intreate of the second part which is of the manner of the presence of the body and bloud of our Sauiour Christ in the Sacramēt thereof wherin is no lesse cōtentiō thē in the first part For a plain explication whereof it is not vnknowen to all true faithfull christian people that our Sauiour Christ being perfecte God and in all thinges equall and coeternall with his Father for our sakes became also a perfect man taking flesh and bloud of his blessed mother and virgin Mary sauing sinne being in all thinges like vnto vs adioyning vnto his diuinity a most perfect soul of man And his body being made of very flesh and bones not onely hauing all members of a perfect mannes body in due order and proportion but also being subiect to hunger thirst labour sweate werines cold heate and all other like infirmities and passions of a manne and vnto death also and that the most vile and painfull vpon the crosse and after his death he rose againe with the self same visible and palpable body and appeared therewith and shewed the same vnto his Apostles and specially to Thomas making him to put his handes into his side and to feele his woundes And with the selfe same body he forsooke this world and ascended into heauen the Apostles seeing and beholding his body when it ascended and now sitteth at the right hand of his Father there shall remaine vntill the last day when he shall come to iudge the quick dead This is the true Catholick faith which the Scripture teacheth and the vniuersall Church of Christ hath euer beleeued from the beginning vntill within these 4. or 5. hundreth yeares last passed that the Bishop of Rome with the assistance of his Papistes hath set vp a new faith and beleefe of their own deuising that the same body really corporally naturally and sensibly is in this worlde still and that in an hundred thousand places at one time being inclosed in euery pixe and bread consecrated And although we doe affirme according to Gods word that Christ is in all persons that truly beleeue in him in such sort that with his flesh and bloud he doth spiritually nourish and feede them and geueth them euerlasting life doth assure them thereof as well by the promise of his word as by the Sacramental bread and wine in his holy supper which he did institute for the same purpose yet we doe not a little vary from the hainous errors of the Papists For they teach that Christ is in the bread and wine but we say according to the truth that he is in them that worthely eate and drink the bread wine Here it pleaseth you to passe ouer all the rest of my sayinges and to aunswere onely to the difference betweene the Papists and the true Catholicke faith Where in the first ye finde fault that I haue vntruely reported the Papisticall faith which you
call the faith of the Church which teacheth not say you that Christ is in the bread and wine but vnder the formes of bread and wine But to aunswere you I say that the Papists do teach that Christ is in the visible signes and whether they list to call them bread and wine or the formes of bread and wine all is one to me for the truth is that he is neither corporally in the bread and wine nor in or vnder the formes figures of them but is corporally in heauen and spiritually in his liuelye members which be his tēples where he inhabiteth And what vntrue reporte is this when I speake of bread and wine to the Papistes to speak of them in the fame sence that the Papistes meane taking bread and wine for the formes and accidences of bread and wine And your selfe also doe teach to vnderstand by the bread and wine not their substances but accidentes And what haue I offended then in speaking to you after your own māner of speach which your self doth approue and allow by and by after saying these wordes As for calling it bread and wine a Catholick man forbeareth not that name If a Catholick man forbeareth not that name and Catholick men be true men then true men forbeare not that name And why then charge you me with an vntruth for vsing that name which you vse your selfe and affirme Catholicke men to vse But that you be geuen altogether to finde faultes rather in other then to amend your own and to reprehend that in me which you allow in your selfe and other and purposely will not vnderstand my meaning because ye would seeke occasion to carpe and controll For els what man is so simple that readeth my booke but he may know well that I meane not to charge you for affirming of Christ to be in the very bread and wine For I know that you say ther is nether bread nor wine although you say vntruely therein but yet for as much as the accidents of bread and wine you call bread and wine and say that in them is Christ therfore I reporte of you that you say Christ is in the bread and wine meaning as you take bread and wine the accidentes thereof Yet D. Smith was a more indifferent Reader of my booke then you in this place who vnderstoode my wordes as I meante and as the Papistes vse and therefore would not purposely calūniate and reprehend that was well spoaken But there is no man so dull as he that will not vnderstand For men know that your witte is of as good capacitie as D. Smithes is if your will agreed to the same But as for any vntrue reporte made by me herein willingly against my conscience as you vntruely report of me by that time I haue ioyned with you throughout your booke you shall right well perceiue I trust that I haue sayd nothing wittingly but that my conscience shall be able to defend at the great day in the sight of the euerliuing God and that I am able before any learned and indifferent iudges to iustifie by holy Scriptures and the auncient Doctors of Christes church as I will appeale the consciences of all godly men that be any thing indifferent ready to yealde to the truth when they reade and consider my booke And as concerning the forme of doctrine vsed in this church of Englād in the holy Communiō that the body and bloud of Christ be vnder the formes of bread and wine whē you shall shew the place where this forme of words is expressed then shall you purge your selfe of that which in the meane time I take to be a plain vntruth Now for the second parte of the difference you graunt that our doctrine is true that Christ is in them that worthely eate and drunke the bread and wine and if it differ not from youres then let it passe as a thing agreed vpon by both partes And yet if I would captiously gather of your wordes I could as well prooue by this second parte that very bread and wine be eatē and drunken after consecration as you could prooue by the first that Christ is in the very bread and wine And if a Catholick man call the bread wine as you say in the second parte of the difference what ment you then in the first parte of this difference to charge me with so hainous a crime with a note to the Reader as though I had sinned against the holy Ghost because I said that the Papistes doe teach that Christ is in the bread and wine doe not you affirme here yourselfe the same that I reporte that the Papistes which you call the Catholickes doe not forbeare to call the Sacrament wherein they put the reall and corporall presence bread and wine Let the Reader now iudge whether you be caught in your own snare or no. But such is the successe of them that study to wrangle in wordes without any respecte of opening the truth But letting that matter passe yet we vary from you in this difference For we say not as you doe that the body of Christ is corporally naturally and carnally either in the bread and wine or formes of bread and wine or in them that eate and drinke thereof But we say that he is corporally in heauen onely and spiritually in them that worthely eate and drink the bread and wine But you make an article of the faith which the olde Church neuer beleeued nor heard of And where you note in this second parte of the difference a sleight and crafte as you note an vntruth in the first euen as much crafte is in the one as vntruth in the other being neither sleight nor vntruth in either of both But this sleight say you I vse putting that for a difference wherein is no difference at all but euery Catholick man must needes confesse Yet once againe there is no man so deafe as he that will not heare nor so blinde as he that will not see nor so dul as he that wil not vnderstand But if you had indifferent eares indifferent eyes and indifferent iudgement you might well gather of my wordes a plain and manifest difference although it be not in such tearmes as contenteth your mind But because you shall see that I meane no sleight nor crafte but goe plainly to worke I shall set out the difference truely as I ment and in such your own tearmes as I trust shall content you if it be possible Let this therfore be the difference They say that Christ is corporally vnder or in the formes of bread and wine We say that Christ is not there neither corporally nor spiritually but in them that worthely eate and drinke the bread and wine he is spiritually and corporally in heauen Here I trust I haue satisfied as well the vntrue report wittingly made as you say in the first parte of the difference against my conscience as the crafte and sleight vsed
say Christ is receaued in the mouth and entreth in with the bread and wine and for an aduersatiue therto I say that we which follow the Scriptures and aūcient writers say that he is receaued in the harte and entreth in by faith euery indifferent Reader vnderstandeth this aduersatiue vpon our side that we say Christ is not receaued in the mouth but in the hart specially seeing that in my fourth booke the second and third chapters I make purposely a processe therof to proue that Christ is not eaten with mouthes and teeth And yet to eschew all such occasions of sleight as you impute vnto me in this comparison to make the comparison more full and plain let this be the comparison They say that Christ is receiued with the mouth and entreth in with the bread and wine we say that he is not receaued with the mouth but with harte and entreth in by faith And now I trust there is no sleight in this comparison nor both the partes may not be vnderstand on both sides as you say they might before And as for S. Augustine serueth nothing for your purpose to proue that Christes body is eaten with the mouth For he speaketh not one word in the place by you alleadged neither of our mouthes nor of Christes body But it seemeth you haue so feruent desire to be doing in this matter that you be like to certain men which haue such a fond delight in shooting that so they be doyng they passe not how farre they shoote from the marke For in this place of S. Augustine against the Donatists he shooteth not at this butte whether Christes very naturall body be receaued with our mouthes but whether the Sacramentes in generall be receaued both of good and euill And there he declareth that it is all one water whether Symon Peter or Symon Magus be christned in it All one Table of the Lord and one cup whether Peter suppe thereat or Iudas All one oyle whether Dauid or Saule were annointed therewith Wherfore he concludeth thus Memento ergo Sacramentis Dei nihil obesse mores malorum hominum quo illa vel omnino non sint vel minus sancta sint sed ipsis malis hominibus vt haec habeant ad testimonium damnationis non ad adiutorium sanitatis Remēber therfore saith S. Augustine that the manners of euill men hinder not the Sacramentes of God that either they vtterly be not or be lesse holy but they hinder the euill men them selues so that they haue the Sacramentes to witnesse of their damnatiō not to helpe of their saluation And all the processe spoaken there by S. Augustine is spoaken chiefly of Baptisme against the Donatistes which sayd that the Baptisme was naught if either the minister or the receauer were naught Against whom S. Augustine concludeth that the Sacramentes of themselues be holy and be all one whether the minister or receauer be good or bad But this place of S. Augustine prooueth as wel your purpose that Christes body is receaued by the mouth as it prooueth that Poules steeple is higher then the crosse in Cheape For he speaketh not one worde of any of them al. And therefore in this place where you pretēd to shoote at the butte you shoote quite at rouers and cleane from the marke And yet if Iudas receaued Christ with the bread as you say and the deuil entred with the bread as S. Iohn saith then was the deuil and Christ in Iudas both at once And thē how they agreed I meruaile For S. Paul saith that Christ and Beliall cannot agree O what a wit had he neede to haue that will wittingly maintayn an open error directly against God his word and all holy auncient writers Now followeth the fourth comparison in my booke They say that Christ is really in the Sacramentall bread being reserued a wholl yeare or so long as the forme of bread remayneth But after the receauing thereof he flyeth vp say they from the Receauer vnto heauen as soone as the bread is chawed in the mouth or chaunged in the stomacke But we say that Christ remayneth in the man that worthely receaueth it so long as the man remayneth a member of Christ. Winchester This comparison is like the other before whereof the first parte is garnished and embossed with vntruth and the second parte is that the Church hath euer taught most truely and that all must beleeue and therefore that peece hath no vntruth in the matter but in the manner onely bring spoaken as though it differed from the continuall open teaching of the Church which is not so Wherefore in the manner of it in vtterance signifieth an vntruth which in the matter it selfe is neuerthelesse most true For vndoubtedly Christ remayneth in the man that worthely receaueth the Sacrament so long as the man remayneth a member of Christ. In this first parte there is a fault in the matter of the spéech for explication whereof I will examine it particularly This Author saith they say that Christ is really in the Sacramental bread being reserued an wholl yeare c. The Church geuing faith to Christes word when he said This is my body c. teacheth the body of Christ to be present in the Sacrament vnder the forme of bread vnto which wordes when doe put the word really it serueth onely to expresse that truth in open wordes which was before to be vnderstanded in sence For in Christ who was the body of all the shadowes and figures of the law and who did exhibite and gaue in his Sacramentes of the new law the thinges promysed in his Sacramentes of the olde law We must vnderstand his wordes in the institution of his Sacramentes without figure in the substance of the celestiall thing of them and therefore when be ordered his most precious body and bloud to be eaten and druken of vs vnder the formes of bread and wine we professe and beléeue that truely he gaue vs his most precious body in the Sacrament for a celestiall foode to comforte and strengthen vs in this miserable life And for certainty of the truth of his worke therein we professe he geueth vs his body really that is to say in déed his body the thing it selfe which is the heauenly parte of the Sacrament called Eucharistia hauing the visible forme of bread and wine and contayning inuisibly the very body and bloud of our Sauyour Christ which was not wonte to be reserued otherwise but to be ready for such as in daunger of death call for it and the same so long as it may be vsed is still the same Sacrament which onely tyme altereth not Whereof Cirill wrote to this sence many hundred yeares past and Hesychius also and what ought to be done when by negligence of the mynister it were reserued ouerlong Mary where it liketh the Author of these differences to say the church teacheth Christ to flée vp from the
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
is a truth And therefore if I make a lye herein as Smyth saith I doe yet I lie not alone but haue you to beare me company And yet once again more may the reader here note how the Papists vary among them selues And it is vntrue that you say that good men beleeue vpon the credit of Christ that there is truely in the Sacrament the very true body of Christ. For Christ called bread his body and wine his bloud which as the old authors say must needs be vnderstanded figuratiuely but he neuer sayd that his true body is truely in the Sacrament as you here report of him And the manner of his presence you call so high a mistery that the carnall man can not reach it And in deed as you fayne the matter it is so high a mistery that neuer man could reach it but your selfe alone For you make the manner of Christes being in the Sacrament so spirituall that you say his flesh bloud and bones be there really and carnally and yet you confesse in your booke that you neuer red any old author that so said And this manner of handling of so pure a mistery is neither godly foolishnes nor worldly but rather a meere fransy and madnesse And although the scripture speak of Christes body to be eaten of vs yet that is vnderstanded of spiritual and not of corporall eating and of spirituall not of corporall presence The scripture sayth that Christ hath forspoken the world and is ascended into heauen Upon which words S. Augustine Uigilius and other auncient authors do proue that as concerning the nature of his manhode Christ is gone hence and is not here as I declared in my 3. booke the 3.4.5 and 6. chapters And where you thinke that this manner of speech was neuer red that Christ is present in the Sacrament without forme or quantity I am sure that it was neuer red in any approued author that Christ hath his proper forme and quantitie in the sacrament And Duns saith that his quantitie is in heauen and not in the Sacrament And when I say that Christ is in the Sacrament Sacramentally and without forme and quantitie who would thinke any man so captious so ignorant or so full of sophistry to draw my wordes to the forme of Christs diuinitie which I speake most plainly of the forme and quantity of his body and humanitie as I haue before declared And although some other might be so farre ouerseen yet specially you ought not so to take my words Forasmuch as you sayd not past 16. lynes before that my wordes seeme to implye that I ment of Christes humayne body And because it may appeare how truely and faithfully you reporte my words you adde this word all which is more then I speake and marteth all the wholl matter And you gather therof such absurdities as I neuer spake but as you sophistically doe gather to make a great matter◠of nothing And where of this word there you would conclude repugnaunce in my doctrine that where in other places I haue written that Christ is spiritually present in them that receaue the sacrament and not in the sacramentes of bread and wine and now it should seeme that I teach contrary that Christ is spiritually present in the very bread and wine if you pleased to vnderstād my wordes rightly there is no repugnaunce in my words at al. For by this word there I meane not in the Sacraments of bread and wine but in the ministration of the Sacrament as the olde authors for the most part when they speake of the presence of Christ in the Sacrament they meane in the ministration of the Sacrament Which my saying varyeth from no doctrine that I haue taught in any part of my booke Now followeth the tenth comparyson They say that the fathers and Prophets of the old Testament did not eat the body or drink the bloud of Christ. We say that they did eat his body and drink his bloud although he was not yet borne nor incarnated Winchester This comparison of difference is clerkly conueyed as it were of a riddle wherin nay and yea when they be opened agrée and consent The fathers did eat Christes body and drinke his bloud in the truth of promise which was effectuall to them of redemption to be wrought not in trueth of presence as we do for confirmation of redemption already wrought They had a certayn promyse and we a certayne present payment they did eat Christ spiritually beleeuing in him that was to come but they did not eat Christes body present in the Sacrament sacramentally and spiritually as we do Their Sacramentes were figures of the thinges but ours conteyn the very things And therefore albeit in a sense to the learned mē it may be verefied that the fathers did eat the body of Christ and drink his bloud yet there is no such forme of words in scripture and it is more agreeable to the simplicitie of scripture to say the fathers before Christes natiuitie did not eat the body and bloud of Christ which body and bloud Christ himselfe truely tooke of the body of the virgin Mary For although S. Paule in the tenth to the Corrinthians be so vnderstanded of some as the fathers should eat the same spirituall meat and drink the same spirituall drink that we do to which vnderstanding all doe not agrée yet following that vnderstanding we may not so presse the words as there should be no difference at al and this one difference S. Augustine noteth how their sacraments conteined the promise of that which in our sacrament is geuen Thus he sayth And this is euident of it selfe how to vs in the holy supper Christ saith This is my body that shal be betraied for you take eat which was neuer said to the fathers although their faith in substaunce agréed with ours hauing al one Christ and mediator which they looked for to come and we acknowledge to be already come come and to come as S. August saith differeth But Christ is one by whom all was created and mans fall repayred from whom is all féeding corporal spiritual in whom all is restored in heauē in earth In this faith of Christ the fathers were fed with heauenly spirituall food which was the same with ours in respect of the restitution by Christ and redemption by them hoped which is atchieued by the mistery of the body and bloud of Christ by reason wherof I deny not but it may be said in a good sense how they did eat the body and bloud of Christ before he was incarnat but as I sayd before Scripture speaketh not so and it is no holsome fashion of spéech at this time which furthereth in sound to the eares of the rude the pestilent heresie wherin Ione of Kent obstinately dyed that is to say that Christ tooke nothing of the Uirgine but brought his body with him from aboue beyng a thing worthy to be noted how
declaration of his will wherby we might be the more assured of the effect of his death which he suffered willingly and determinately for the redemption of the world with a most perfect oblatiō and satisfaction for the sinnes of the world exhibited and offered by him to God the father for the reconciliation of mannes nature to Gods fauor and grace And this I write because this author speaketh so precisely how Christ offred himselfe neuer but once Wherby if he mean by once offering the hole action of our redemption which was consummate and perfected vpon the crosse All must confesse the substaunce of that worke of redemption by the oblation of Christ on the crosse to haue béene absolutely finished and so once offered for all But there is no Scripture whereupon we might conclude that Christ did in this mortall life but in one particular moment of time offer himselfe to his Father For S. Paul describeth it to the Philippians vnder the word of humiliation to haue continued the wholl time of Christes conuersation here euen to the death the death of the crosse And that this obedience to God in humilitie is called offering appeareth by S. Paule when he exhorted vs to offer our bodies which meaneth a continuall obedience in the obseruation of Gods will and he calleth oblationem gentium to bringe them to the faith And Abrahams willing obedience ready at Gods commaundement to offer Isaac is called the offering of Isaac and is in very deede a true offering And euery man offereth himself to God when he yealdeth to Gods calling and presenteth himselfe ready to doe Gods will and commaundement who then may be said to offer his seruice that is to say to place his seruice in sight and before him before whom it should be done And because our Sauiour Christ by the decrée of the wholl Trinity tooke mannes nature vpon him to suffer death for our redemption which death in his last Supper he declared plainly he would suffer We reade in S. Ciprian how Christ offered himselfe in his supper fulfilling the figure of Melchisedech who by the offring of bread wine signified that high mistery of Christs Supper in which Christ vnder the forme of bread and wine gaue his very body bloud to be eaten and dronken and in the geuing therof declared the determination of his glorious passion and the fruit and effect therof Which doing was a swéete and pleasant oblation to God the Father conteyning a most perfect obedience to Gods will and pleasure And in the mistery of this Supper was written made and sealed a most perfect testimony for an effectuall memory of Christes offering of him selfe to his Father of his death and passion with the fruite therof And therfore Christ ordayned this Supper to be obserued and continued for a memory of his comming So as we that saw not with our bodely eyes Christes death and passion may in the celebration of the Supper be most surely ascertayned of the truth out of Christes own mouth who still speaketh in the person of the minister of the church This is my body that is betrayed for you This is my bloud that is shead for you in remission of sinne and therewith maketh his very body and his precious bloud truely present to be taken of vs eaten and dronken Whereby we be assured that Christ is the same to vs that he was to them and vseth vs as familiarly as he did them offereth himselfe to his Father for vs as well as for them declareth his will in the fruite of his death to pertayne as well to vs as to them Of which death we be assured by his own mouth that he suffred the same to the effect he spake of and the continuall feding in this high mistery of the same very body that suffred and féeding of it without consumption being continually exhibited vnto vs a liuing body and a liuely bloud not onely our soule is specially and spiritually cōforted our body therby reduced to more cōformable obedience to the soule but also we by the participation of this most precious body bloud be ascertained of the resurrection and regeneration of our bodies and flesh to be by Gods power made incorruptible and immortall to liue and haue fruition in God with our soules for euer Wherefore hauing this mistery of Christes Supper so many truthes in it the Church hath celebrate thē all and knowledged them all of one certainty in truth not as figures but really and in déede that is to say as our bodies shal be in the generall resurrection regenerate in déede so we beléeue we feede here of Christes body in deede And as it is true that Christes body in déede is betrayed for vs so it is true that he geueth vs to eate his very body in déede And as it is true that Christ was in earth did celebrate this Supper so it is true that he commaunded it to be celebrated by vs till he come And as it is true that Christ was very God omnipotent and very man so it is true that he could doe that he affirmed by his word him selfe to doe And as he is most sincéere truth so may we be truly assured that he would and did as he said And as it is true that he is most iust so it is true that he assisteth the doing of his commaundement in the celebration of the holy Supper And therfore as he is author of this most holy Sacrament of his precious body and bloud so is he the maker of it and is the inuisible priest who as Emissene saith by his secret power with his word changeth the visible creatures into the substance of his body bloud Wherin man the visible priest and minister by order of the church is onely a dispencer of the mistery doing and saying as the holy ghost hath taught the church to doe and say Finally as we be taught by faith all these to be true so when wanton reason faith being aslepe goeth about by curiositie to empaire any one of these truthes the chain is broaken the linkes sparckle abroad and all is brought in danger to be scattered and scambled at Truthes haue béene abused but yet they be true as they were before for no man can make that is true false and abuse is mannes fault not the thinges Scripture in spéeche geueth to man as Gods minister the name of that action which God specially worketh in that mistery So it pleaseth God to honor the ministery of man in his Church by whom it also pleaseth him to worke effectually And Christ said they that beleue in me shall doe the workes that I doe and greater When all this honor is geuen to man as spiritually to regenerate when the minister saith I baptise thée and to remitte sinne to such as fall after to be also a minister in consecration of Christes most precious body with the ministration of other Sacramentes benediction
sacrifice whereof Malachy spake and that Christ doth now in the celebration of this supper as he did when he gaue the same to his Apostles and that he offreth himself now as he did then and that the same offering is not now renewed agayne This is your chain of errors wherein is not one linke of pure golde but all be copper fayned and coūterfaite For neither is Christes body verely and corporally present in the celebration of his holy supper but spiritually Nor his body is not the very sacrifice but the thing wherof the sacrifice was made and the very sacrifice was the crucifying of his body and the effusion of his bloud vnto death Wherfore of his body was not made a sacrifice propitiatory for all the sinnes of the world at his supper but the next day after vpon the cros Therfore sayth the Prophet that we were made whole by his wounds Liuore eius sanati sumus Nor that sacrifice of Christ in the celebration of the supper is not the only sacrifice of the church but all the workes that christen people doe to the glory of God be sacrifices of the church smelling sweetly before God And they be also the pure and clean sacrifice wherof the Prophet Malachy did speake For the Prophet Malachy spake of no such sacrifices as onely priestes make but of such sacrifice as all christen people make both day and night at all times and in all places Nor Christ doth not now as he did at his last Supper which he had with his Apostles◠for then as you say he declared his will that he would dye for vs. And if he do now as he did thē thē doth he now declare that he will dye for vs againe But as for offering him self now as he did then this speech may haue a true sence being like to that which sometime was vsed at the admission of vnlearned fryers and monkes vnto their degrees in the Uniuersities where the Doctor that presented them deposed that they were meete for the sayd degrees as well in learning as in vertue And yet that depositiō in one sence was true when in deede they were meete neither in the one nor in the other So likewise in that sence Christ offereth himself now as well as he did in his supper for in deede he offered himself a sacrifice propiciatory for remission of sinne in neither of both but onely vpon the cros making there a sacrifice full and perfect for our redemption and yet by that sufficient offering made only at that time he is a daily intercessor for vs to his father for euer Finally it is not true that the offering in the celebration of the supper is not renued againe For the same offering that is made in one Supper is daily renued and made againe in euery supper and is called the daily Sacrifice of the church Thus haue I broaken your chaine and scattered your linkes which may be called the very chaine of Belzebub able to draw into hell as many as come within the compasse therof And how would you require that men should geue you credite who within so few lines knitte together so many manifest lyes It is another vntruth also which you say after that Christ declared in the Supper him self an offering and sacrifice for sinne for he declared in his Supper not that he was then a sacrifice but that a sacrifice should be made of his body which was done the next day after by the voluntary effusion of his bloud of any other sacrificing of Christ for sinne the Scripture speaketh not For although the Scripture sayeth that our Sauiour Christ is a continual intercessor for vs vnto his father yet no Scripture calleth that intercession a sacrifice for sinne but onely the effusion of his bloud which it seemeth you make him to doe still when you say that he suffereth and so by your imagination he should now still be crucified if he now suffer as you say he doth But it seemeth you passe not greatly what you say so that you may multiply many gallant wordes to the admiration of the hearers But for as much as you say that Christ offereth him selfe in the celebration of the Supper and also that the church offereth him here I would haue you declare how the Church offereth Christ and how he offereth him selfe and wherein those offeringes stand in wordes deedes or thoughtes that we may know what you meane by your daily offering of Christ. Of offering our selues vnto God in all our actes and deedes with laudes and thankes geuing the scripture maketh mention in many places But that Christ himself in the holy communion or that the priests make any other oblation then all christen people doe because these be papisticall inuentions without Scripture I require nothing but reason of you that you should so plainly set out these deuised offeringes that men might plainly vnderstand what they be and wherein they rest Now in this comparyson truth it is as you say that you haue spent many words but vtterly in vayne not to declare but to darcken the matter But if you would haue followed the plaine words of Scripture you needed not to haue taryed so long and yet should you haue made the matter more cleere a great deale Now followeth my last comparison They say that Christ is corporally in many places at one time affirming that his body is corporally and really present in as many places as there be hostes consecrated We say that as the sonne corporally is euer in heauen no where els and yet by his operation and vertue the sonne is heare in earth by whose influence and vertue all thinges in the world be corporally regenerated increased and grow to their perfect state So likewise our sauiour Christ bodely and corporally is in heauen sitting at the right hand of his Father although spiritually he hath promysed to be present with vs vpon earth vnto the worldes end And when soeuer two or three be gathered together in his name he is there in the middest among them by whose supernall grace all godly men be first by him spiritually regenerated and after increase and grow to their spirituall perfection in God spiritually by faith eating his flesh and drinking his bloud although the same corporally be in heauen farre distant from our sight Winchester The true teaching is that Christes very body is present vnder the form of bread in as many hostes as be consecrate in how many places so euer the hostes bee consecrate and is their really and substantially which wordes really and substantially be implied when we say truely present The word corporally may haue an ambiguite and doublenes in respect and relation one is to the truth of the body present and so it may be sayd Christ is corporally present in Sacrament if the word corporally be referred to the maner of the presence then we should say Christes body were present after a corporall
the iudgement of the liuing childe may discerne the very true mother from the other that is to say who plainly entend the true childe to continue aliue and who could be content to haue it be destroyed by deuision God of his infinite mercy haue pitie on vs and graunt the true faith of this holy mistery vniformely to be conceiued in our vnderstandinges and in one forme of wordes to be vttered and preached which in the booke of common prayer is well tearmed not distant from the Catholick faith in my iudgement Caunterbury YOu haue so perused these differences that you haue made more difference then euer was before for where before there were no more but two partes the true catholick doctrine and the papisticall doctrine now come you in with your new fantasticall inuentions agreeing with neither part but to make a song of three partes you haue deuised a new voluntary descant so farre out of tune that it agreeth neither with the tenor nor mean but maketh such a shamefull iarre that godly eares abhorre to heare it For you haue taught such a doctrine as neuer was written before this time aud vttered therein so many vntruthes and so many strange sayinges that euery indifferent Reader may easely discern that the true christen faith in this matter is not to be sought at your handes And yet in your own writinges appeareth some thing to confirme the truth quite against your own enterprise which maketh me haue some hope that after my answere heard we shall in the principall matter no more striue for the child seeing that your selfe haue confessed that Christ is but after a spirituall maner present with vs. And there is good hope that God shall prosper this child to liue many yeares seeing that now I trust you will help to foster and nourish it vp as well as I. And yet if diuisyon may shew a stepmother then be not you the true mother of the child which in the Sacrament make so many diuisions For you deuide the substances of bread and wine from their proper accidences the substances also of Christes flesh and bloud from their own accidences and Christes very flesh Sacramentally from his very bloud although you ioyne them again per concomitantiam and you deuide the sacrament so that the priest receaueth both the Sacrament of Christs body and of his bloud and the lay people as you call them receiue no more but the sacrament of his body as though the sacrament of his bloud and of our redemption pertayned onely to the priestes And the cause of our eternall life aud saluation you deuide in such sort betweene Christ and the priest that you attribute the beginning therof to the sacrifice of Christ vpon the crosse and the continuance therof you attribute to the sacrifice of the priest in the masse as you doe write plainly in your last booke Oh wicked Stepmothers that so deuide Christ his Sacramentes and his people After the differences followeth the 3.4.5 and 6. chapters of my book which you binde as it were all together in one fardel and cast them quite away by the figure which you call reiection not answering one word to any Scripture or olde wryter which I haue there alleadged for the defence of the truth But because the Reader may see the matter plainly before his eyes I shall heare rehearse my words againe and ioyne thereto your answere My wordes be these Now to returne to the principall matter lest it might be thought a new deuise of vs that Christ as concerning his body and his humaine nature is in heauen and not in earth therefore by Gods grace it shal be euidently proued that this is no new deuised matter but that it was euer the olde fayth of the catholicke Church vntill the Papistes inuented a new fayth that Christ really corporally naturally and sensibly is here still with vs in earth shutte vp in a boxe or within the compasse of bread and wine This needeth no better nor stronger proofe then that which the olde authors bryng for the same that is to say the generall profession of all Christen people in the common creede wherein as concerning Christes humanitye they be taught to beleeue after this sort That he was conceiued by the holy Ghost borne of the virgin Mary That he suffered vnder Pontius Pilate Was crucified dead aud buried that he decended into hel and rose againe the third day That he ascended into heauen and sitteth at the right hand of his almighty Father And from thence shal come to iudge the quick and dead This hath beene euer the catholick faith of Christen people that Christ as concerning his body and his manhode is in heauen and shall there continue vntill he come down at the last iudgement And for as much as the Creede maketh so expresse mention of the Article of his ascention and departing hence from vs if it had been an other article of our faith that his body taryeth also here with vs in earth surely in this place of the Creede was so vrgent an occasion geuen to make some mention thereof that doubtlesse it would not haue been passed ouer in our Creede with silence For if Christ as concerning his humanity be both here and gone hence and both those two be articles of our faith when mention was made of the one in the Creede it was necessary to make mention of the other least by professing the one we should be disswaded from beleeuing the other being so contrary the one to the other To this article of our Creed accordeth holy Scripture and all the old auncyent doctors of Christes church for Christ him self sayd I leaue the world and goe to my father And also he sayd you shall euer haue poore folkes with you but you shall not euer haue me with you And he gaue warning of this error before hand saying that the time would come when many deceauers should be in the world and say Here is Christ and there is Christ but beleue them not said Christ. And S. Mark wryteth in the last chapter of his gospell that the Lord Iesus was taken vp into heauen and sitteth at the right hand of his father And S. Paul exhorteth all men to seeke for thinges that be aboue in heauen where Christ saith he sitteth at the right hand of God his father Also he saith that we haue such a bishoppe that sitteth in heauen at the right hand of the throne of Gods maiesty And that he hauing offered one sacrifice for sinnes sitteth continually at the right hand of God vntill his enemies be put vnder his feete as a footstoole And hereunto consent all the olde doctors of the church First Origen vpon Mathew reasoneth this matter how Christ may be called a stranger that is departed into another countrey seeing that he is with vs alway vnto the worldes end aud is among all them that be gathered together in his name and
reader the sayinges of these authors and see whether they say that one nature in Christ may be both in heauen and in earth both here with vs and absent from vs at one tyme and whether they resolue this matter of Christs being in heauen and in earth as Smith doth to be vnderstand of his māhoode in diuersitie of these respectes visible and inuisible And when thou hast well considered the authors sayinges then geue credite to Smith as thou shalt see cause But this allegation of these authors hath made the matter so hote that the Bishop of Winchester durste not once touch it and Smith as soone as he had touched it felt it so scawlding hote that he durst not abyde it but shranke away by and by for feare of burning his fingers Now here what followeth further in my booke But now seeing that it is so euident a matter both by the expresse words of Scripture and also by all the old authors of the same that our Sauiour Christ as concerning his bodely presence is ascended into heauen and is not here in earth And seeing that this hath been the true confession of the Catholicke faith euer since Christes ascention it is now to be considered what mooued the Papistes to make a new and contrary faith and what Scriptures haue they for their purpose What moued them I know not but their own iniquitie or the nature and condition of the sea of Rome which is of al other most contrary to Christ and therfore most worthy to be called the sea of Antichrist And as for Scripture they alleadge none but onely one and that not truely vnderstanded but to serue their purpose wrested out of tune wherby they make it to iarre and sound contrary to all other Scriptures pertaining to the matter Christ toke bread say they blessed brake it gaue it to his disciples saying This is my body These words they euer still repeate and beate vpon that Christ sayd this is my body And this saying they make their shooteanker to proue therby as well the reall and naturall presence of Christs body in the Sacrament as their imagined Transubstantiation For these words of Christ say they be most plain and most true Then for as much as he said This is my body it must needes be true that that thing which the Priest holdeth is his hands is Christs body And if it be Christes body then can it not be bread Whereof they gather by their reasoning that there is Christes body really present and noe bread Now forasmuch as all their proofe hangeth onely vpon these wordes this is my body the true sence and meaning of these wordes must be examined But say they what neede they any examination what wordes can be more plain then to say This is my body Truth it is in deed that the wordes be as plain as may be spoaken but that the sence is not so plain it is manifest to euery man that wayeth substantially the circumstances of the place For when Christ gaue bread to his disciples and said This is my body there is no man of any discretiō that vnderstandeth the english tongue but he may well know by the order of the speache that Christ spake those wordes of the bread callyng it his body as all the old authors also do affirme although some of the Papistes deny the same Wherfore this sentence can not meane as the wordes seeme and purport but there must needes be some figure or mistery in this speech more then appeareth in the playne wordes For by this manner of speeche plainly vnderstand without any figure as the wordes lye can be gathered none other sence but that bread is Christes body and that Christes body is bread which all Christian eares do abhorre to heare Wherefore in these wordes must needes be sought out another sence meaning then the words of themselues do beare And although the true sense and vnderstanding of these wordes be sufficiently declared before when I spake of Transubstantiation yet to make the matter so playne that no scrouple or doubt shall remayne here is occasion giuen more fully to intreate therof In whiche processe shal be shewed that these sentences of Christ This is my body This is my bloud be figuratiue speches And although it be manifest inough by the playn wordes of the gospel and proued before in the processe of Transubstantiation that Christ spake of bread when he sayd This is my body likewise that it was very wyne which he called his bloud yet least the Papistes should say that we sucke this out of our own fyngers the same shall be proued by testimony of the old authors to be the true and old fayth of the catholicke Church Where as the schole authors and Papistes shall not be able to shew so much as one word of any auncient author to the contrary First Ireneus writing against the Valentinians in his fourth booke sayeth that Christ confessed bread which is a creature to be his body and the cuppe to be his bloud And in the same booke he writeth thus also The bread wherin the thanks be geuen is the body of the Lord. And yet again in the same booke he saith that Christ taking bread of the same sort that our bread is of confessed that it was his body And that that thing which was tempered in the chalice was his bloud And in the fift booke he writeth further that of the chalice which is his body a man is nourished and doth grow by the bread which is his body These wordes of Ireneus be most plain that Christ taking very materiall bread a creature of God and of such sort as other bread is which we doe vse called that his body when he said this is my body and the wine also which doth feede and nourish vs he called his bloud Tertullian likewise in his booke written against the Iewes saith that Christ called bread his body And in his booke against Martian he oftentimes repeateth the selfe same wordes And S. Cipryan in the first booke of his epistles saith the same thing that Christ called such bread as is made of many cornes ioyned together his body and such wine he called his bloud as is pressed out of many grapes and made into mine And in his second booke he saith these wordes Water is not the bloud of Christ but wine And againe in the same epistle he saith that it was wine which Christ called hys bloud and that if wine be not in the chalice then we drinke not of the fruit of the vine And in the same Epistle he saith that meale alone or water clone is not the body of Christ except they be both ioyned together to make therof bread Epiphanius also saith that Christ speaking of a lofe which is round in fashion and cannot see heare nor feele said of it This is my body And S. Hierome wryting ad Hedibiam saith
these wordes Let vs marke that the bread which the Lord brake and gaue to his disciples was the body of our Sauiour Christ as he sayd vnto them Take and eate this is my body And S. Augustine also sayth that although we may set forth Christ by mouth by writing and by the sacrament of his body and bloud yet we call neither our toung nor words nor inke letters nor paper the body and bloud of christ but that we call the body and bloud of Christ which is taken of the fruite of the earth and consecrated by misticall prayer And also he sayth Iesus called meat his body and drynke his bloud Moreouer Cyrill vpon S. Iohn saith that Christ gaue to his disciples peces of bread saying Take eate this is my body Likewise Theoderetus saith When Christ gaue the holy misteries he called bread his body and the cuppe myxt with wine and water he called his bloud By all these foresayd authours and places whith many mo it is playnly proued that when our sauiour Christ gaue bread vnto his Disciples saying Take and eate this is my body And likewise when he gaue them the cuppe saying Diuide this among you and drinke you all of this for this is my bloud he called then the very materiall bread his body and the very wine his bloud That bread I say that is one of the creatures here in earth among vs and that groweth out of the earth and is made of many graynes of corne beaten into flower and mixed with water and so baken aud made into bread of such sort as other our bread is that hath neither sence nor reason and finally that feedeth and nourisheth our bodies such bread Christ called his body when he sayd This is my body And such wine as is made of grapes pressed togither and thereof is made drinke whiche nourishe the body such wine he called his bloud This is the true doctrine confirmed as well by the holy scripture as by all auncient authours of Christes Church both Greekes and Latines that is to say that whē our Sauiour Christ gaue bread and wine to his disciples spake these words This is my body This is my bloud it is very bread wine which he called his body and bloud Now let the Papistes shew some authority for their opinion either of scripture or of some aunciant author And let them not constrayne all men to follow their fond deuises only because they say It is so without any other groūd or authoritie but their owne bare wordes For in such wise credite is to be geuen to Gods word only and not to the word of any man As many of them as I haue red the byshop of Winchester onely excepted do say that Christ called not bread his body nor wine his bloud when he sayd This is my body This is my bloud And yet in expoūding these wordes they vary among them selues which is a token that they be vncertaine of their own doctrine For some of them say that by this pronoune demonstratiue this Christe vnderstoode not the bread and wine but his body and bloud And other some say that by the pronoune this he ment neither the bread nor wine not his body nor bloud but that he ment a particuler thyng vncertain which they call Indiuiduum vagum or Indiuiduum in genere I trowe some Mathematicall quiditee they can not tell what But let all these Papistes togyther shew any one authoritie eyther of scripture or of auncient author either Greke or Latine that sayth as they say that Christ called not bread and wine his body and bloud but Indiuiduum vagum and for my part I shall gyue them place and confesse that they say true And if they can shew nothing for them of antiquitie but onely theyr own bare wordes then it is reason that they geue place to the trueth confirmed by so many authorities bothe of scripture and of auncient writers which is that Christ called very materiall bread his body and very wine made of grapes his bloude Winchester After this the author occupieth a great number of leaues that is to say from the lvii leafe vnto the lxxiiii to proue Christs words This is my body to be a figuratiue spech Sleight and shift is vsed in the matter without any offectuall consecution to him that is learned First the author sayth Christ called bread his body Confessed bread his body To this is aunswered Christes calling is a making as S. Paule sayth Vocat ea quae non sunt tanque ea quae sint He calleth that be not as they were And so his calling as Chrisostome and the greke commentaries say is a making which also the Catechisme teacheth trnslated by Iustus Ionas in Germany and after by this author in english Tertullian saith Christ made bread his body it is all one spech in Christ being god declaring his ordinaunces whither he vse the word call or make for in his mouth to call is to make Cypryan saith according hereunto how 's bread is by Gods omnipotency made fleshe whereupon also this spech bread is flesh is as much to say as made flesh not that bread beyng bread is flesh but that was bread is flesh by Gods omnipotency and so this author entreating this matter as he doth hath partly opened the fayth of transubstantiaon For in dede bread beyng bread is not Christes body but that was bread is nowe Christes body because bread is made Christes body and because Christ called bread his body which was in Christ to make bread his body When Christ made water wine the spech is very proper to say water is made wine For after like manner of spech we say Christ iustifieth a wicked man Christ saueth sinners the phisitiō hath made the sicke man whole suche dyet will make an whole man sicke Al these speches be proper and playn so as the construction be not made captious and Sophisticall to ioin that was to that now is forgetting the meane worke When Christ said This is my body there is necessitie that the demonstration this should be referred to the outwarde visible matter but may be referred to the inuisible substaunce As in the spech of God the father vpō Christ in Baptisme This is my son And here whē this auctor taketh his recreation to speak of the fainyng of the papists I shal ioyn this Issue in this place that he vnderstandeth not what he saith and if his knowledge be no better then is vttered herein the penne to be in this point clerly cōdēned of ignoraunce Caunterbury HEre is an other sleight such as the like hath not lightly bene sene For where I wrote that when Christ sayd This is my body it was bread that he called his body you turne the matter to make a descant vpon these 2. wordes calling and making that the nundes of the readers should be so occupied with the discussion of these 2. wordes that in
the meane tyme they should forget what thing it was that was called and made Like vnto men that dare larkes which hold vp an hoby that the larks eyes beyng euer vppon the hoby should not see the nette that is layd on theyr heades And yet finally you graunt that which Smyth denyeth that it was bread which Christ called hys body when he sayd This is my body And so that which was not hys body in deede he called hys body who calleth thynges that be not as they were the thinges in deede And if hys calling be making then hys callyng bread hys body is making bread hys body and so is not onely Christes body made presēt but also the bread is made his body because it is called hys body and so must bread be the thing wherof Christes body is made which before you denyed in the xi comparison callyng that saying so foolish that it were not tolerable to be deuised by a scoffer in a play to supply when hys felow had forgotten hys part And thus should you conclude your self if Christs callyng were making which in deede is not true for then should Christ haue made hym selfe a vine when he called hymselfe a vine and haue made S. Iohn the blessed virgine Maries sonne when he called hym her sonne and should haue made his Apostles vine braunches when he called them so and should haue made Peter a deuil when he called him deuill After when you come to make aunswere vnto the authors cited by me in this place fyrst you skip ouer Irene the eldest author of them all because I think he is to hard meate for you well to digest and therefore you will not once taste of hym In Tertullian and Cyprian you agree again that when Christ sayd This is my body It was bread that he called hys body And so when he sayd this he ment the bread making demonstration vpon it as before you haue sayd more at large in your book which you named the Detection of the deuils sophestrie And herein you say more truely then the other Papistes do which deny that the demonstration was made vppon the bread although you say not true in the other part that Christes callyng was makyng And if hys calling be chaunging of the bread and making it the body of Christ yet then it is not true to speake of the bread and to say that it is the body of Christ. For when one thing is chaunged into an other the first stil remaining it may be sayd both that it is made the other thing and that it is the other thing as when cloth is made a gowne we may say this cloth is made a gowne and also this cloth is a gowne but when the former matter or state remaineth not it may be said that it is made the other thing but not that it is the other thing As when Christ had tourned water into wine And likewise although we say a wicked man is made iust a sick man is made whole or an whole man sicke yet it is no true speach to say a wicked man is iust a sicke mā is whole or an whole man is sicke because the former state remayneth not And therefore although it might in speech be allowed that the bread is made Christes body when the bread is gone yet can it not be proper and approued speach to say it is his body except the bread remayne still For of that thing which is not it can not be said that it is Christes body For if it be his body it must needes be by the rule of the Logike à tertio adiacente ad secundum adiacens And I meruaile how you haue ouer shot your selfe in this place when you teach how and after what maner bread is made Christes body not that bread say you being bread is his body but that which was bread is now made his body whereof it followeth necessarily that his body is made of bread For as the wine in the Cane of Galile was made of water when the substaunce of water was tourned into the substaunce of wine so if in the Sacrament the substaunce of bread be tourned into the substaunce of Christes body then is his body in the sacrament made of bread which is in the xi comparison you affirmed to be so foolish a saying as were not tollerable to be deuised by a scoffer in a play to supply when his fellow had forgotten his part Therefore I haue not here partly opened the faith of Transubstantiaon as you say of me but you haue here manifestly opened the wisedome of the Papisticall doctrine which is more foolish then were to be deuised by a scoffer in a play But what neede I much to contend with you in this place seing that you graunt the thing for the whiche I cyted all these authors that is to say that Christ called bread his body when he said This is my body And in your detection of the Deuils sophestrie as you call it you say that Christ spake plainly This is my body making demonstration of the bread when he said This is my body But it seemeth you be sory that you haue graunted so much and that you spake those wordes vnaduisedly before you knew what the Papistes had written in this matter and now when you perceaue how farre you varie from them you would fain call your wordes backe agayn and prepare away for the same saying thus When Christ said This is my body there is no necessitie that the demonstratiō this should be referred to the outward visible matter but may be referred to the inuisible substaunce In these your wordes it semeth you begin to doubt in that thing which before you certainly affirme without all doubt And when you haue confessed the whole matter that I do here proue which is onely this that Christ called bread his body wine his bloud when he sayd This is my body This is my bloud yet you conclude your aunswere with an issue of mine ignoraunce that it is so great that I vnderstand not what I say if my knowledge be no better then is vttered here in my pen. And yet my wordes be so playne that the least chyld as they say in the town may vnderstand them For all my study is to speak plain that the truth may be known and not with darke speches as you do to hide the truth But when I had made a plaine issue against all the Papists in general it had bene your part to haue ioyned in the sayd issue and not to deuise new issues But because neither you nor Smith dare ioyne with me in mine issue I shall repete mine issue againe and take it for confessed of you both bicause neither of you dare say the contrary ioyne an issue with mee therin My issue is this Let all the Papists together shew any one authority either of scripture or of auncient author either Greeke or
Latine that sayth as they say that Christ called not bread and wine his body and bloud but Indiuiduum vagum and for my part I shall giue them place and confesse that they say true And if they can shew nothing for them of antiquitie but onely their owne bare wordes then it is reason that they geue place to the truth confirmed by so many authorities both of scripture and of auncient writers which is that Christ called very materiall bread his body and very wine made of grapes his bloud Now it shall not be much amisse to examine here the wise deuise of M. Smith what he can say to this matter that the opinion of diuers Doctours may be knowen as well of Doctour Smith as of Doctour Gardyner It is very false sayth Smith to me that you do say that as these wordes This is my body do lye there cā be gathered of them none other sence but that bread is Christes body and that Christes body is bread For there can no such thing be gathered of those wordes but onely that Christ gaue his disciples his very body to eat into which he had turned the bread when he spake those wordes First Smith vseth here a great and manifest falsehead in reciting of my sentence leauing out those wordes which should declare the truth of my saying For I say that by this maner of speache playnly vnderstand without any figure there can be gathered none other sence but that bread is Christes body In which my sentence he leaueth out these wordes by this maner of spech playnly vnderstand without any figure which wordes be so materiall that in them resteth the pith and triall of the whole sentence When Christ tooke the v. loaues and ij fishes and looking vp into heauen blessed them and brake them and gaue them vnto his disciples that they should distribute them vnto the people if he had then said Eate this is meate which shall satisfie your hunger by this maner of speach playnly vnderstand without any figure could any other sence haue been gathered but that the bread and fishes which he gaue them was meate And if at the same tyme he had blessed wine and commaunding them to drinke therof had sayd This is drinke which shall quench your thirst what could haue been gathered of those wordes playnly vnderstand without any figure but that he called wine drinke So lykewise when he blessed bread and wine and gaue them to his disciples saying Eate thys is my body Drinke this is my bloud what can be gathered of this maner of speach playnly vnderstād without any figure but that he called the bread his body wine his bloud For Christ spake not one word there of any changyng or turning of the substaūce of the bread no more then he did when he gaue the loaues fishes And therfore the maner of speach is all one and the changing of the substaūces can no more be proued by the phrase and fashion of speach to be in the one then in the other whatsoeuer you Papistes dreame of your owne heades without Scripture that the substaunce of the bread is turned into the substaunce of Christes body But Smith bringeth here newes vsing such strange and noueltie of speache as other Papistes vse not which he doth either of ignoraunce of his Grammar or els that he dissenteth farre from other Papistes in iudgement For he sayth that Christ had turned the bread when he spake these wordes This is my body And if Smith remember his Accidence the preterpluperfect tence signifieth the tyme that is more than perfectly past so that if Christ had turned the bread when he spake those wordes then was the turning done before and already past when he spake those wordes which the other Papistes say was done after or in the pronunciation of the wordes And therfore they vse to speake after this sort that when he had spoken the wordes the bread was turned and not that he had turned the bread when he spake the wordes An other noueltie of speach Smith vseth in the same place saying that Christ called his body bread bycause he turned bread into it it semeth and appeareth still to be it it hath the qualitie and quantitie of bread and bycause it is the foode of the soule as corporall meate is of the body These be Smithes wordes which if he vnderstād of the outward forme of bread it is a noueltie to say that it is the foode of the soule and if he meane of the very body of Christ it is a more strange noueltie to say that it hath the quantitie and qualitie of bread For there was neuer man I trow that vsed that maner of speach to say that the body of Christ hath the quātitie and qualitie of bread although the Papistes vse this spech that the body of Christ is conteined vnder the forme that is to say vnder the quātities and qualities of bread Now when Smith should come to make a direct answere vnto the authorities of the old writers which I haue brought forth to proue that Christ called bread his body when he sayd This is my body Smith answereth no more but this the Doctors which you my Lord alledge here for you proue not your purpose Forsoth a substantiall answer and well proued that the Doctours by me alledged proue not my purpose for Smith sayth so I looked here that Smith should haue brought forth a great number of authors to approue his saying and to reproue mine specially seing that I offered fayre play to him and to all the Papists ioyned with him in one trowpe For after that I had alledged for the proofe of my purpose a great many places of old authors both Greekes and Latines I prouoked the Papistes to say what they could to the contrary Let all the Papistes together sayd I shew any one authoritie for them either of Scripture or auncient Author eyther Greeke or Latin and for my part I shall giue them place And if they can shew nothing for them of antiquitie then is it reason that they giue place to the truth confirmed by so many authorities both of Scripture and of auncient writers which is that Christ called very materiall bread his body and very wine made of grapes his bloud Now I referre to thy iudgement indifferent reader whether I offered the Papistes reason or no and whether they ought not if they had any thing to shew to haue brought it forth here And for as much as they haue brought nothing being thus prouoked with all their counsayle whether thou oughtest not to iudge that they haue nothing in deede to shew which if they had without doubt we should haue hard of it in this place But we heare nothing at all but these their bare wordes not one of all these Doctors sayth as ye do my Lord Which I put in thy discretion indifferent Reader to vew the Doctours wordes by me alleaged and so to iudge But they say not
of Christ of the eating of his flesh to be onely a figure this author had nothing aduanced his purpose As for spiritual vnderstanding meaneth not any destruction of the letter wher the same may stand with the rules of our faith All Christes words be life and spirit contayning in the letter many tymes that is aboue our capacity as specially in this place of the eating of his flesh to discusse the particularities of how yet we must beleue to be true that Christ sayth although we can not tell how For when we go about to discusse of Gods mistery how then we fall from fayth and waxe carnall men and would haue Gods wayes like ours Caunterbury HEre may euery man that readeth the words of Origen plainly see that you seek in this waighty matter nothing by shifts and cauillatioÌ„s For you haue nothing aunswered directly to Origen although he directly writeth agaynst your doctrine For you say that the eating of Chrstes flesh is taken in the proper signification without a fygure Origen sayth there is a figure And Origen sayth further that it is onely a figuratiue spech although not adding this word onely yet adding other words of the same effect For he sayth that we may not vnderstand the words as the letter soundeth And sayth further that if we vnderstand the words of Christ in this place as the letter soundeth the letter killeth Now who knoweth not that to say these words not as the letter soundeth and that letter killeth be as much to say as onely spiritually and only otherwise then the letter soundeth Wherfore you must spit vpon your hands aud take better hold or els you can not be able to plucke Origen so shortly from me And I maruayle that you be not ashamed thus to trifle with the auncient authors in so serious a matter and such places where the reader onely looking vpon the authors wordes may see your dealing The next is Chrysostome whom I cite thus And Saynct Iohn Chrisostome affirmeth the same saying that if any man vnderstand the words of Christ carnally he shall surely profit nothing therby For what meane these words the flesh auayleth nothing He ment not of flesh God forbid but he ment of them that fleshly and carnally vnderstood those things that Christ spake But what is carnall vnderstanding To vnderstand the words simply as they be spoken and nothing els For we ought not so to vnderstaÌ„d the things which we see but all misteries must be considered with inward eyes and that is spiritually to vnderstand them In these words S. Iohn ChrisostoÌ„ sheweth plainly that the words of Christ concerning the eating of his flesh and drinking of his bloud are not to be vnderstand simply as they be spoken but spiritually and figuratiuely Winchester Sainct Chrisostom declareth himself how misteries must be considered with inward eyes which is a spirituall vnderstanding wherby the truth of the mistery is not as it were by a figuratiue spech empayred but with an humility of vnderstanding in a certayn fayth of the truth maruayled at And here the author of this book vseth a sleight to ioyne figuratiuely to spiritually as though they were alwayes all one which is not so Caunterbury AS you haue handled Origen before euen so do you haÌ„dle ChrisostoÌ„ Wherfore I only refer the reader to looke vpon the words of Chrysostome recited in my book who sayth that to vnderstand the words of eating of Christes flesh symply as they be spoken is a carnall vnderstanding And then can it be no proper speech as you say it is bicause it can not be vnderstand as the wordes be spoken but must haue an other vâ—derstanding spiritually Then followeth next Sainct Augustine of whom I write thus And yet most planely of all other S. Augustine dooth declare this matter in his booke De doctrina christiana in which book he instructeth christian people how they should vnderstand those places of Scripture which seem hard and obscure Seldome sayth he is any difficulty in proper words but either the circumstance of the place or the conferring of diuers translations or els the originall toung wherin it was written will make the sence playn But in words that be altered from their proper signification there is great diligence and hede to be taken And specially we must beware that we take not litterally any thing that is spoken figuratiuely Nor contrary wise we must not take for a figure any thing that is spoken properly Therfore must be declared sayth S. Augustine the maner how to discerne a proper spech from a figuratiue Wherin sayth he must be obserned this rule that if the thing which is spoken be to the furtherance of charity then it is a proper spech and no figure So that if it be a commaundement that forbiddeth any euill or wicked act or commaundeth any good or beneficiall thing then it is no figure But if it commaund any ill or wicked thing or forbiddeth any thing that is good and beneficiall then it is a figuratiue spech Now this saying of Christ Except ye eat the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud you shall haue no life in you seemeth to commaund an haynons and wicked thing therfore it is a figure commaunding vs to be partakers of Christes passion keeping in our mindes to our great comfort and profite that his flesh was crucified and wouÌ„ded for vs. This is briefly the sentence of S. Augustine in his booke De doctrina Christiana And the like he writeth in his book De catechisandis rudibus and in his book Contra aeduersarium legis prophet arum and in diuers other places which forte diowsnes I passe ouer For if I should reherse all the authorityes of S. Augustine and other which make mention of this matter it would weary the reader to much Wherfore to all them that by any reasonable meanes will be satisfied these things before rehearsed are sufficient to proue that the eating of Christs flesh and drinking of his bloud is not to be vnderstanded simply and playnly as the words do properly signify that we do eat and drinke him with our mouthes but it is a figuratiue spech spiritually to be vnderstanded that we must deeply print and fruitfully beleue in our harts that his flesh was crucified and his bloud shed for our redemption And this our beliefe in him is to eat his flesh and drink his bloud although they be not present here with vs but be asceÌ„ded into heauen As our forefathers before Christs tyme did likewise eat his flesh and drinke his bloud which was so farre from them that he was not yet then borne Winchester Sainct Augustine according to his rules of a figuratiue and proper spéech taketh this spéech Except ye eat c. for a figuratiue spéech because it semeth to commaund in the letter carnally vnderstanded an hainous and wicked thing to eat the flesh of a man as mans carnal imagination conceiueth
it as appered by the Capharnaites who murmured at it And therfore because onely faythful men can by fayth vnderstand this mistery of the eatyng of Christes flesh in the Sacrament in which we eat not the carnall flesh of a common man as the letter soundeth but the very spiritual flesh of Christ God mā as fayth teacheth It is in that respect well noted for a figuratiue spéech for that it hath such a sence in the letter as is hidden from the vnfaythfull So as the same letter being to faythfull men spirite and life who in humility of fayth vnderstandeth the same is to the faythfull a figure as contayning such a mistery as by the outward barke of the letter they vnderstand not vpon which consideration it semeth probable that the other fathers also signifiyng a great secrecie in this mistery of the Sacrament wherein is a worke of God ineffable such as the Ethnike eares could not abide they termed it a figure not therby to deminish the truth of the mistery as the proper and special name of a figure doth but by the name of a figure reuerently to couer so great a secrecy apt only to be vnderstanded of men beleuing and therefore the sayd fathers in some part of theyr works in playn words expresse and declare the truth of the mistery the plain doctrine therof according to the Catholick fayth and in the other part passe it ouer with the name of a figure which consideration in S. Augustines writings may be euidently gathered for in some place no man more playnly openeth the substance of the Sacrament then he doth speaking expressely of the very body and bloud of Christ contayned in it yet therwith in other places noteth in those words a figure not thereby to contrary his other playne sayings and doctrine but meaning by the word figure to signify a secret déep mistery hidden from carnall vnderstanding For auoyding and expelling of which carnallity he geueth this doctrine here of this text Except ye eat c. which as I sayd before in the bare litterall sence implyeth to carnal iudgement other carnall circumstāces to attayne the same flesh to be eaten which in that carnall sence can not be but by wickednes But what is this to the obeying of Christes commaundement in the institution of his supper when he himself deliuereth his body and bloud in these misteryes biddeth Eat and drink there can be no offence to do as Christ biddeth and therefore S. Augustins rule pertaineth not to Christs supper wherin when Christ willeth vs to vse our mouth we ought to dare do as he biddeth for that is spirituall vnderstandyng to do as is commaunded without carnall thought or murmuring in our sensuall deuise how it can be so And S. Augustin in the fame place speaking De communicando passionibus Christi declareth playnely he meaneth of the Sacrament Caunterbury IF thou takest not very good heed reader thou shalt not perceiue where the cuttill becometh He wrappeth himself so about in darcknesse and he commeth not neere the net by a myle for feare he should be taken But I will draw my net nearer to him that he shall not escape I say that the words which Christ spake of the eating of his flesh and drinking of his bloud were spoken by a figure and he would auoyd the matter by saying that those words haue a spirituall mistery in them which is most true and nothing contrary to my saying but confirmeth the same For the words of eating and drinking be figuratiue speches because they haue a secret and hid spirituall mistery in them and cannot be taken otherwise then in that spiritual mistery which is a figure And moreouer you plainly here confesse that to eat Christes flesh and to drinke his bloud be figuratiue speches But you trauesse the cause wherfore they be figuratiue speches which is not materiall in this place where my processe is onely to proue that they be figuratiue speches Aud forasmuch as you graūt here all that I take vpon me to proue which is that they be figuratiue speches what needeth all this superfluous multiplication of words when we agree in the matter which is here in question And as for the cause of the figure you declare it far otherwise then S. Augustine dooth as the words of S. Augustine do playnely shew to euery indifferent reader For the cause say you is this that in the Sacrament we eat not the carnal flesh of a commō man as the letter soundeth but the very spiritual flesh of Christ God and man and in that respect it is well noted for a figuratiue spech In which one sentence be three notable errors or vntruthes The first is that you say the letter soundeth than we eat the carnall flesh of a common man which your saying the playne words of the gospell do maniestly reproue For Christ seperating himself in that spech from all other men spake onely of himself saying My flesh is very meat and my blood is very drink He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him The second is that you call the flesh of Christ a spirituall flesh as before you sayd that he is spiritually eaten And so by your doctrine his flesh is spirituall and is spiritually eaten and all is spirituall which hath need of a fauorable interpretation if it should be counted a sound and Catholick teaching And if all be spirituall done spiritually what meaneth it then that in other places you make so often mention that he is present and eaten carnally corporally and naturally The third is that you say the spech of Christ is noted figuratiue in respect of the eating of the flesh of a common man which is vtterly vntrue For the authors note not the figuratiue spech in that respect but as christ spake of his owne flesh ioyned vnto his diuinity wherby it geueth lyfe euen so do the authors note a figuratiue spech in respect of Christes owne flesh and say therof that the letter can not be true without a figure For although Christ be both God and man yet his flesh is a very mans flesh and his bloud is truely mans blond as is the flesh bloud of his blessed mother and therfore can not be eaten and drunken properly but by a figure For he is not meat and drink of the body to be eatē corporally with mouth and teeth and to be dygested in the stomack but he is the meat of the soule to be receaued spiritually in our harts minds and to be chawed and digested by fayth And it is vntrue that you here say that the proper and speciall name of a figure diminisheth the truth of the mistery For then Christ in vayne did ordayne the figures if they diminish the misteries And the Authors terme it here a figure not therby to couer the mistery but to open the mistery which was in deed in Christs words by fyguratiue speches vnderstand
And with the figuratiue spech were the Ethnik and carnall eares offended not with the mistery which they vnderstood not And not to the Ethnik and carnall but to the faythfull and spirituall eares the wordes of Christ be figuratiue and to them the truth of the figures be playnely opened and declared by the Fathers wherin the Fathers be worthy much commendation because they trauayled to open playnly vnto vs the obscure and figuratiue speches of Christ. And yet in their sayd declarations they taught vs that these words of Christ concerning the eating of his flesh and drinking of his bloud are not to be vnderstanded plainly as the words properly signify but by a figuratiue speech Nor S. Augustine neuer wrote in all his long works as you do that Christ is in the sacrament corporally carnally or naturally or that he is so eaten nor I dare boldly say he neuer thought it For if he had he would not haue written so playnly as he doth in the places by me alleadged that we must beware that we take not litterally any thing that is spoken figuratiuely And specially he would not haue expressed by name the wordes of eating Christes flesh and drinking his bloud and haue sayd that they be figuratiue speches But S. Augustine dooth not onely tell how we may not take those words but also he declareth how we ought to take and vnderstand the eating of Christes flesh and drinking of his bloud which as he sayth is this To keep in our mindes to our great comfort profite that Christ was crucified and shed his bloud for vs and so to be partakers of his passion This sayth S. Augustine is to eat his flesh and to drinke his bloud And S. Augustine sayth not as you do that Christes words be figuratiue to the vnfaythfull for they be figuratiue rather to the faythfull then to the vnfaythfull For the vnfaythfull take them for no figure or mistery at all but rather carnally as the Caparnaites did And there is in deede no mistery nor figure in eatyng with the mouth as you say Christes flesh is eaten but in eating with the soule spirite is the figure mistery For the eating and drinking with the mouth is all one to the faythful and vnfaythfull to the carnall and spirituall both vnderstand in like what is eating and drinking with the mouth And therfore in no place do the doctors declare that there is a figure or mistery in eating drinkyng of Christes body with our mouthes or that there is any truth in that mistery but they say cleane contrary that he is not eaten and drunken with our mouthes And if in any place any old author write that there is a figure or mistery in eating and drinking of Christ with our mouthes shew the place if you will haue any credite S. Augustine specially whom you do here alleadge for your purpose sayth directly agaynst you Nolite par are fauces sed cor Prepare not your mouth or iawes but your hart And in an other place he sayth Quid paras ventrem dentem Crede manducasti Why doost thou prepare thy belly and teeth Beleue and thou hast eaten But to auoyde the saying of Saynt Augustine by me alleadged you say that Saynt Augustines rule perteyneth not to Christes supper which your sayeng is so strange that you be the first that euer excluded the words of Christ from his Supper And Saynt Augustine ment as well at the supper as at all other tymes that the eating of Christes flesh is not to be vnderstanded carnally with our teeth as the letter signifieth but spiritually with our mindes as he in the same place declareth And how can it be that Saynt Augustins rule perteineth not to Christs supper when by the rule he expoundeth Christes wordes in the sixt of Ihon which you say Christ spake of his supper Dyd Christ speak of his supper and Saynt Augustines wordes expounding the same perteyn not to the supper You make Saynt Augustine an expositor lyke your selfe that commonly vse to expounde both doctours and scripturs cleane from the purpose eyther for that by lacke of exercise in the Scriptures and Doctours you vnderstand them not or els that for very frowardnes you will not vnderstand any thing that misliketh you And where you say that we must do as Christ commaunded vs without carnall thought or sensuall deuise Is not this a carnall thought and sensuall deuise which you teach that we eat Christ corporally without teeth And contrary to that which you sayd before that Christs body in the sacrament is a spirituall body and eaten onely spiritually Now how the teeth can eat a thing spiritually I pray you tell me Now thou seest good reader what auayle all those gloses of carnall flesh and spirituall flesh of the flesh of Christ and the flesh of a common man of a figure to the vnfaythfull and not to the faythfull that the fathers tearmed it a figure bycause els the Ethnike eares could not abyd it and because they would reuerently couer the mistery And when none of these shiftes will serue he runneth to his shotte anker that Saynt Agustins rule perteineth nothing to Christes supper Thus mayst thou se with what sinceritie he handleth the ould writers And yet he myght right well haue spared all his long talke in this matter seing that he agreeth fully with me in the state of the whole cause that to eat Christes flesh and to drincke his bloud be figuratiue speaches For he that declareth the cause why they be figuratiue speaches agreeth in the matter that they be figuratiue speaches And so haue I my full purpose in this article Now heare what foloweth in my booke The same authors dyd say also that when Christ called the bread his body and the wine his bloud it was no proper speach that he than vsed but as all Sacraments be figures of other thinges and ye haue the very names of the thinges which they do signifie so Christ instituting the sacrament of his most precious body and bloud did vse figuratiue speaches calling the bread by the name of his body and the wine he called his bloud bicause it represented his bloud Tertullian herein writing agaynst Martion sayth these words Christ did not reproue bread wherby he did represent his very body And in the same booke he sayth that Iesus taking bread and distributing it amongs his disciples made it his body saying This is my body That is to say sayth Tertullian a figure of my body And therfore sayth Tertullian That Christ called bread his body and wine his bloud bicause that in the old Testament bread and wine were figures of his body and bloud Winchester Tertullian speaking of the representation of Christes very body in which place he termeth the same body speaketh catholiquely in such phrase as S. Hierom speaketh and then Tertullian sayth afterward as this author therin truely bringeth hym forth that Christ made the bread
so no certayntie of any true body to be in Christ This reason had been more fitte to be made by a man that had lost both his witte and reason For in this place Tertullian must needes be so vnderstand that by the body of Christ is vnderstand the figure of his body because Tertullian so expoundeth it him selfe And must it be always so bicause it is here so Must euer Christes body be taken for a figure bicause it is here taken for a figure as Tertullian sayth Haue you so forgotten your Logike that you will make a good argument à particulari ad vniuersale By your owne manner of argumentation bicause you make a naughty argumēt here in this place shall I conclude that you neuer make none good Surely this place of Tertullian as you haue handled it is neither secret nor manifest poynt eyther of learning witte or reason but a meere sophistication if it be no worse What other papistes haue aunswered to this place of Tertullian I am not ignoraunt nor I am sure you be not so ignoraunt but you know that neuer none aunswered as you do But your answer varieth as much from all other papists as yours theyrs also do varie from the truth Here the reader may note by the way how many fowle shiftes you make to auoyd the saying of Tertullian First you say that bread was a figure in the prophets mouth but not in Christes wordes Second that the thing which the prophet spake of was not that which Christ spake of Third that other haue aunswered this place of Tertullian before Forth that you call this matter but a wrangling argument Fift that if Tertulian call bread a figure yet he termeth it not onely figure These be your shiftes Now let the reader looke vpon Tertullians playn wordes whyche I haue rehearsed in my booke and then let him iudge whether you meane to declare Tertullians mynd truely or no. And it is not requiset for my purpose to proue that bread is onely a figure for I take vpon me there to proue no more but that the bread is a figure representing Christes body and the wine his bloud And if breade be a figure and not onely a figure than must you make bread both the figure and the truth of the figure Now heare what other authors I do here alleadge And saynt Ciprian the holy marter sayth of this matter that Christs bloud is shewed in the wine and the people in the water that is mixt with the wine so that the mixture of the water to the wine signifieth the spirituall commixtion and ioyning of vs vnto Christ. By which similitude Ciprian ment not that the bloud of Christ is wine or the people water but as the water doeth signifie and represent the people so doeth the wine signify and represent Christs bloud and the vniting of the water and wine together signifieth the vniting of Christian people vnto Christ himselfe And the same saynt Ciprian in an other place writing here of sayth that Christ in his last supper gaue to his apostles with his owne handes bread and wine which he called his flesh and bloud but in the crosse he gaue his very body to be wounded with the handes of the souldiours that the apostles might declare to the world how and in what manner bread and wine may be the flesh and bloud of Christ. And the manner he straight wayes declareth thus that those things which do signifye and those thinges which be signified by them may be both called by one name Here it is certain by saynt Ciprians mind wherfore and in what wise bread is called Christes flesh and wine his bloud that is to say because that euery thing that representeth and signifieth an other thing may be called by the name of thing which it signifieth And therfore Saynt Iohn Chrisostom sayth that Christ ordayned the table of his holy supper for this purpose that in that sacramēt he should dayly shew vnto vs bread and wine for a similitude of his body and bloud Saynt Hierom likewise sayth vpon the gospell of Mathew that Christ took bread which comforteth mans hart that he mght represent thereby his very body and bloud Also Saynt Ambrose if the booke be his that is intituled De his qui misterijs initianter sayth that before the consecration an other kind is named but after the consecration the body of Christ is signified Christ sayd his bloud beefore the consecration it is called an other thing but after the consecration is signified the bloud of Christ. And in his booke De sacramentis if that be also his he writeth thus Thou doost receiue the sacrament for a similitud of the flesh and bloud of Christ but thou doost obtayne the grace and vertue of his true nature And receiuing the bread in that foode thou art partaker of his godly substaunce And in the same booke he sayth As thou hast in baptisme reciued the similitude of death so likewise dost thou in the sacramēt drink the similitude of Christes precious bloud And agayne he sayeth in the sayd booke The priest sayth Make vnto vs this oblation to be acceptable which is the figure of the body and bloud of our Lord Iesu Christ. And vpon the epistle of Saynt Paule to the Corinthians he sayth that in eating and drinking the bread and wine we doe signifie the flesh and bloud which were offered for vs. And the olde tastament he sayeth was instituted in bloud because that bloud was a witnes of gods benefite in signification and figure wherof we take the mistical cup of his bloud to the tuitiō of our body soule Of these places of saynt Chrisostom saynt Hierom and saynt Ambrose it is cleare that in the sacramentall bread and wine is not rially and corporally the very naturall substance of the flesh and bloud of Christ but that the bread and wine be similitudes misteries and representations significations sacramentes figures and signes of his body and bloud and therfore be called and haue the name of his very body flesh and bloud Winchester Ciprian shal be touched after when we speake of him agayn Chrisostom shall open himselfe hereafter playnly Saynt Hierom speaketh here very pithely vsing the word represent which signifieth a true reall exhibision for saynt Hierom speaketh of the representation of the truth of Christes body which truth excludeth an onely figure For howsoeuer the visible matter of the sacrament be a figure the inuisible part is a truth which saynt Hierom sayth is here represented that is to say made present which onely signification doth not Saynt Ambrose shall after declare himselfe and it is not denied but the authors in speaking of the sacrament vsed these wordes signe figure similitude token but those speaches exclude not the veritie and truth of the body and bloud of Christ for no approued author hath this exclution to say an onely signe an only token an
eares be vij yeares The scripture sayth not signifieth vij yeares And vij kine be seuen yeares and many other like And so sayd saynt Paule that the stone was Christ and not that it signified Christ but euen as it had ben hee indede which neuerthelesse was not Christ by substaunce but by signification Euen so sayth saynt Augustine bicause the bloud signifieth and representeth the soule therfore in a sacrament or signification it is called the soule And contra Adamantium he writeth much like saying In such wise is bloud the soule as the stone was Christ and yet the Apostle sayth not that the stone signified Christ but sayth it was Christ. And this sentence Bloud is the soule may be vnderstand to be spoken in a signe or figure for Christ did not stick to say this is my body when he gaue the signe of his body Here S Augustine rehearsing diuers sentences which were spoken figuratiuely that is to say when one thing was called by the name of an other and yet was not the other in substance but in signification As the bloud is the soule vij kyne be vij yeares vij eares be vij yeares the stone was Christ. Among such maner of speaches he reherseth those wordes which Christ spake at his last supper this is my body Which declareth playnly Saynt Augustines mind that Christ spake those wordes figuratiuely not meaning that the bread was his body by substance but by signification And therfore S. Augustine sayth contra Maximinum that in the sacramentes we must not consider what they be but what they signifie for they be signes of thinges being one thing and signifiyng another Which he doeth shew specially of this sacrament saying the heauenly bread which is Christes flesh by some maner of speach is called Christes body when in very deede it is the sacrament of his body And that offering of the flesh which is done by the priestes handes is called Christes passion death and crucifiyng not in very dede but in a misticall signification Winchester As for saynt Agustine ad Bonifacium the author shall perceiue his fault at Martyne Bucers hand who in his epistle dedicatory of his enarations of the gospels reherseth his mind of Saynt Augustine in this wise Est scribit diuus Augustinus secundum quendam modum sacramentum corporis Christi Corpus Christi sacramentum sanguinis Christi sanguis Christi At secundum quem modum Vt significet tantum corpus sanguinem Domini absenta Absit Honorari enim percipi in simbolis visibilibus corpus sanguinem Domini idem passim scribit These wordes of Bucer may be thus englished Saynt Augustine writeth the sacrament of the body of Christ is after a certayn maner the body of christ the sacramēt of the bloud of christ the bloud of christ but after what maner that it should signifie onely the body and bloud absent Absit In no wise for the same Saynt Augustine writeth in many places the body and bloud of Christ to be honored and to be receiued in those visible tokens Thus sayth Bucer who vnderstandeth not saynt Augustine to say the sacrament of Christes body to be Christes body after a certayn maner of speach as this author doth nor S. Augustine hath no such wordes but onely secundum quendam modum after a certayne maner wherunto to put of speach is an addition more then truth required of necessitie In these wordes of Bucer may apeare his whole indgement concerning S. Augustine who affirmeth the very true presence of the thing signified in the sacrament which truth established in the matter the calling it a signe or a token a figure a similitude or a shewing maketh no matter when we vnderstand the thing really present that is signified Which and it were not in dede in the Sacrament why should it after Bucers true vnderstanding of S. Augustine be honored there Arguing vpon mens speaches may be without end the authors vpon diuers repsectes speake of one thing diuersly Therfore we should resort to the pith and knot of the matter and see what they say in expounding the speciall place without contention and not what they vtter in the heat of their disputation ne to search their dark and ambiguous places wherwith to confound that they speake openly and playnly Canterbury WHat nede you to bring Martine Bucer to make me answer if you could answer your selfe but bicause you be ashamed of the matter you would thrust Martine Bucer in your place to receaue rebuke for you But in this place he easeth you nothing at all for he sayth no more but that the body and bloud of Christ be exhibited vnto the worthy receiuers of the sacrament which is true but yet spiritually not corporally And I neuer sayd that Christ is vtterly absent but I euer affirmed that he is truly and spiritually present and truly and spiritually exhibited vnto the godly receiuours but corporally is he neither in the receiuors nor in or vnder the fourmes of bread or wine as you do teach clearly with out the consent of master Bucer who writeth no such thing And where I alleadge of Saynt Augustine that the sacrament of Christes body is called Christes body after a certayn maner of speach and you deny that saynt Augustine ment of a certayne maner of speach but sayth onely after a certayne maner Read the place of saynt Augustin who will and he shall find that he speaketh of the maner of speach and that of such a maner of speach as calleth one thing by the name of an other where it is not the very thing in dede For of the maner of speach is all the processe there as apeareth by these his wordes a day or two before good Friday we vse in common speach to say to morowe or this day two dayes Christ suffered c. Likewise vppon Easter day we say this day Christ rose And why do no men reproue vs as lyars whan we speake in this sort And we call those dayes so by a similitude c. And so it is called that day which is not that day in dede And sacramentes commonly haue the name of the thinges wherof they be sacramentes Therfore as after a certayne manner the sacrament of Christes body is Christes body so likewise the sacramēt of fayth is fayth And likewise sayth Saynt Paule that in baptisme we be buried he sayth not that we signifie buriall but he sayth playnly that we be buried So that the sacrament of so great a thing is called by the name of the thing All these be S. Augustines wordes shewing how in the common vse of speach one thing may haue the name of another Wherfore when Doctor Gardiner sayth that S. Augustine spake not of that maner of speach thou mayst beleue him hereafter as thou shalt see cause but if thou trust his wordes to much thou shalt soone be deceiued As for the reall presence of Christ
I know that euery thing that men see hath a certayne bignes For that nature that hath no bignes can not be seene Moreouer to sit in the throne of glory and to sette the Lambes vpon his right hand and the goates vpon his left hand signifieth a thing that hath quantitie and bygnes Hitherto haue I rehersed Theodoretus wordes and shortly after Eranistes sayth Eran. We must tourne euery stone as the prouerb sayth to seeke out the truth but specially when godly matters be propounded Orth. Tell me than the sacramentall signes which be offered to God by his priestes wherof be they signes sayst thou Eran. Of the Lordes body and bloud Orth. Of a very body or not of a very body Eran. Of a very body Orth. Very well for an image must be made after a true paterne for Paynters follow nature and paynt the images of such thinges as we see with our eyes Eran. Truth it is Orth. If therfore the godly sacramentes represent a true body than is the Lordes body yet still a body not conuerted into the nature of his Godhead but replenished with Goddes glory Eran. It cometh in good tyme that thou makest mention of Gods sacramentes for by the same I shall proue that Christes body is tourned into an other nature Answer therfore vnto my questions Orth. I shall answer Eran. What callest thou that which is offered before the inuocation of the priest Orth. We must not speake playnly for it is like that some be present which haue not professed Christ. Eran. Answer couertly Orth. It is a nourishment made of sedes that be like Eran. Than how call we the other signe Orth. It is also a common name that signifieth a kind of drinke Eran. But how doest thou call them after the sanctification Orth. The body of Christ and the bloud of Christ. Eran. And doest thou beleue that thou art made partaker of Christes body and bloud Orth. I beleue so Eran. Therfore as the tokens of Gods body and bloud be other thinges before the priestes inuocation but after the inuocation they be chaunged and be other things so also the body of Christ after his assumption is chaunged into his deuine substaunce Ortho. Thou art taken with thine owne nette For the sacramentall signes go not from their owne nature after the sanctification but continue in their former substance forme and figure and may be seene and touched as well as before yet in our mindes we do consider what they be made and do repute and esteme them and haue them in reuerence according to the same thinges that they be taken for Therfore cōpare their images to the paterne and thou shalt see them like For figure must be like to the thing it selfe For Christes body hath his former fashion figure and bignesse and to speake at one word the same substance of his body but after his resurrection it was made immortall and of such power that no corruption nor death could come vnto it and it was exalted vnto that dignity that it was sette at the right hand of the father and honoured of all creatures as the body of him that is the Lord of nature Eran. But the sacramentall token chaungeth his former name for it is no more called as it was before but is called Christes body Therfore must his body after his ascention be called God and not a body Orth. Thou semest to me ignorant for it is not called his body onely but also the bread of lyfe as the Lord called it So the body of Christ we call a godly body a body that giueth life Gods body the Lordes body our masters body name ning that it is not a common body as other mennes bodies be but that it is the body of our Lord Iesu Christ both God and man This haue I rehersed of the great clerke and holy byshop Theodoretus whom some of the Papists perceiuing to make so playnly agaynst them haue defamed saying that he was infected with the errour of Nestorius Here the Papistes shewe their old accustomed nature and condition which is euen in a manifest matter rather to lie without shame than to giue place vnto the truth and confesse their owne errour And although his aduersaries falsely bruted such a fame agaynst him whan he was yet a liue neuerthelesse he was purged therof by the whole Councell of Calcedon about a leuen hundred yeares agoe And furthermore in his booke which he wrote agaynst heresies he specially condemneth Nestorius by name And also all his iij. bookes of his dialogues before rehersed he wrot chiefly agaynst Nestorius and was neuer here in noted of error this thousand yeare but hath euer bene reputed and taken for an holy Byshop a great learned man and a graue author vntill now at this present tyme whan the Papistes haue nothing to answer vnto him they begin in excusing of them selues to defame him Thus much haue I spoken for Theodoretus which I pray thee be not weary to read good reader but often and with delectation deliberation and good aduertisement to read For it conteineth playnly and breefly the true instruction of a Christian man concerning the matter which in this booke we treate vpon First that our sauiour Christ in his last supper whan he gaue bread and wine to his apostles saying This is my body This is my bloud it was bread which he called his body and wine mixed in the cup which he called his bloud so that he changed the names of the bread and wine which were the misteries sacramentes fignes figures and tokens of Christes flesh and bloud and called them by the names of the thinges which they did represent and signifie that is to say the bread he called by the name of his very flesh and the wine by the name of his bloud Second that although the names of bread and wine were changed after sanctification yet neuertheles the thinges them selues remayned the selfe same that they were before the sanctification that is to say the same bread and wine in nature substance form and fashion The thyrd seing that the substance of the bread and wine be not changed why be then their names changed and the bread called Christes flesh and the wine his bloud Theodoretus sheweth that the cause therof was this that we should not haue so much respect to the bread and wyne which we see with our eyes and tast with our mouthes as we should haue to Christ him selfe in whome we beleue with our hartes and fele and tast him by our faith and with whose flesh and bloud by his grace we beleue that we be spiritually fedde and norished These thinges we ought to remember the reuolue in our myndes and to lift vp our hartes from the bread and wine vnto Christ that sitteth aboue And bicause we should so do therfore after the consecration they be no more called bread and wine but the body and bloud of Christ. The forth It is in these sacramentes of bread and wine
as it is in the very body of Christ. For as the body of Christ before his resurrection and after is al one in nature substance bignes forme and fashion and yet it is not called as an other common body but with addition for the dignitie of his exaltation it is called a heauenly a godly an immortall and the lordes body so likewise the bread and wine before the consecration and after is all one in nature substance bignes form and fashion and yet it is not called as other common bread but for the dignitie wherunto it is taken it is called with addition Heauenly bread The bread of life and the bread of thankes giueng The fift that no man ought to be so arrogant and presumptuous to affirme for a certayne truth in religion any thing which is not spoken of in holy scripture And this is spoken to the great and vtter condemnation of the Papistes which make and vnmake newe articles of our fayth from tyme to tyme at their pleasure without any scripture at all yea quite and clean contrary to scripture And yet wyll they haue all men bound to beleue what soeuer they inuent vpon perill of damnation and euerlasting fyre And yet wil they constrayne with fyre and fagot all men to consent contrary to the manifest wordes of God to these their errours in this matter of the holy sacrament of Christes body and bloud First that there remayneth no bread nor wine after the consecration but that Christes flesh and bloud is made of them Second that Christes body is really corporally substantially sensibly and naturally in the bread and wine Thirdly that wicked persons do eat and drincke Christes very body and bloud Fourthly that priestes offer Christ euery day and make of him a new sacrifice propiciatory for sinne Thus for shortnes of tyme I doe make an end of Theodoretus with other old auncient writers which do most clearly affirme that to eat Christes body and to drink his bloud be figuratiue speaches And so be these sentenses likewise which Christ spake at his supper This is my body This is my bloud Winchester The author bringeth in Theodoret a greek whom to discusse particularly wer lōg tedious one notable place there is in him which toucheth the poynt of the mater which place Peter Marter alleageth in greek and then translateth it into Latin not exactly as other haue done to the truth but as he hath done I will write in here And then will I wryte the same translated into english by one that hath translated Peter Marters booke and then will I adde the translation of this author and finally the very truth of the Latine as I will abide by and ioyn an issue with this author in it wherby thou reader shalt perceaue with what sinceritie thinges be handled Peter Marter hath of Theodoret this in Latin which the same Theodoret in a disputation with an Heritique maketh the catholique man to say Captus es ijs quae tetenderas retibus Neque enim post sancti ficationem mistica simbola illa propria sua natura egrediuntur manent enim in priori sua substantia figura specie adeoque videntur palpantur quemadmodum antea Intelliguntur autem quae facta sunt creduntur adorantur tanquam ea existentia quae creduntur He that translateth Peter Marter in english doth expresse these wordes thus Lo thou art new caught in the same nette which thou haddest sette to catche me in For those same misticall signes do not depart away out of their owne proper nature after the hallowing of them For they remayne still in their former substance and their former shape and their former kind and are euen as well seene and felte as they were afore But the thinges that are done are vnderstanded and are beleued and are worshiped euen as though they were in very deede the thinges that are beleued This is the common translation into English of Peter Marters booke translated which this author doth translate after his fashion thus Thou art taken with thine owne nette for the sacramentall signes go not from their owne nature after the sanctification but continue in their former substance forme and figure and be seen and touched as well as before Yet in our mindes we do consider what they be made and do repute and esteme them and haue them in reuerence according to the same thinges that they be taken for Thus is the translation of this author Myne English of this latine is thus Thou art taken with the same nettes thou diddest lay forth For the misticall tokens after the sanctification go not away out of their proper nature For they abide in their former substance shape and forme and so far forth that they may be seene and felt as they might before But they be vnderstanded that they be made and are beleued and are worshiped as being the same thinges which he beleued This is my translation who in the first sentence meane not to vary from the other translations touching the remayne of substance shape forme or figure I will vse all these names But in the second parte where Theodoret speaketh of our beleefe what the tokens be made and where he sayth those tokens be worshiped as being the same thinges which he beleued thou mayst see reader how this author flieth the wordes beleue and worship which the common translation in english doth playnly and truly expresse how soeuer the translator swarued by colour of the word tanquam which there after the greeke signifieth the truth and not the similitude onely like as saynt Paule Vocat ea quae non sunt tanquam sint which is to make to be indeed not as though they were And the greeke is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And it were an absurditie to beleue thinges otherwise then they be as though they were and very Idolatrie to worship wittingly that is not as though it were in dede And therfore in these two words that they beleued that they be made and be worshiped is declared by Theodoret his fayth of the very true reall presence of Christs glorious flesh wherunto the Deitie is vnited Which fleshe S. Augustine consonantly to this Theodoret sayd must be worshiped before it be receiued The word worshiping put here in english is to expresse the word Adorantur put by Peter in latine signifieng adoring being the verbe in Greke of such signification as is vsed to expresse godly worship with bowing of the knée Now reader what should I say by this author that conueieth these two wordes of beleuing and worshiping and in stede of them cometh in with reuerence taking reputing and esteming wherof thou mayst esteme how this place of Theodoret pinched this author who could not but see that adoring of the sacramēt signifieth the presence of the body of Christ to be adored which els were an absurditie and therfore the author toke payne to
ease it with other wordes of calling beleuing reputing and esteming and for adoration reuerence Consider what prayse this author geueth Theodoret which prayse condemneth this author sore For Theodoret in his doctrine would haue vs beleue the mistery and adore the sacrament where this author after in his doctrine professeth there is nothing to be worshiped at all If one should now say to me Yea syr but this Theodoret semeth to condemne transubstantiation bicause he speaketh so of the bread Therunto shall be answered when I speake of transubstantiation which shall be after the iij. and iiij booke discussed For before the truth of the presence of the substance of Christes body may appeare what should we talke of transubstantiation I will trauayle no more in Theodoret but leaue it to thy iudgment reader what credite this author ought to haue that handleth the mater after this sorte Canterbury THis blader is so puffed vp with wind that it is maruayll it brasteth not Bnt be patient a while good reader and suffer vntill the blast of wind be past and thou shalt see a great calme the bladder broken and nothing in it but all vanitie Ther is no difference betwene your translation and mine sauing that myne is more playne and geueth lesse occasion of errour and youres as all your doinges be is darke and obscure and conteineth in it no little prouocation to Idolatrie For the wordes of Theodoret after your interpretation contayne both a playne vntruth and also manifest idolatry for the signes and tokens which he speaketh of be the very fourmes and substances of bread and wine For the nominatiue case to the verb of adoring in Theodoret is not the body and bloud of Christ but the misticall tokens by your owne translation which misticall tokens if you will haue to be the very body and bloud of Christ what can be spoken more vntrue or more folish And if you will haue them to be worshiped with godly worship what can be greater Idolatry Wherfore I to eschew such occasious of errour haue translated the wordes of Theodoretus faythfully and truly as his mynd was and yet haue auoyded all occasions of euill for tanquam or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth not the truth as you say but is an aduerbe of similitude as it is likewise in this place of S. Paul Vocat ea quae non sunt tanquam sint For S. Paul sayth asthough they were Which indede were not as he sayd the next word before non sunt they be not And neuerthelesse vnto God all thinges be present and those thinges which in their nature be not yet present vnto God were euer present in whome be not these successions of tyme before and after for Christ the Lambe in his present was slayne before the world began and a thousand yeare to his eyes be but as it were yesterday and one day before him is as it were a thousand yeare and a thousand yeare as one day And if you had read and considered a saying of Saynt Augustine De doctrina Christiana lib. 3. cap. 9. you myght haue vnderstand this place of The odoret better than you do He serueth vnder a signe sayth Augustine who worketh or worshipeth any signe not knowing what it signifieth But he that worketh or worshipeth a profitable signe ordayned of God the strength and signification wherof he vnderstandeth he worshipeth not that which is seene and is transitory but rather that thing wherto all such signes ought to be referred And anon after he sayth further At this tyme when our Lord Iesus Christ is risen we haue a most manifest argument of our fredome and be not burdeined with the heauy yoke of signes which we vnderstand not but the Lord and the teaching of his Apostles hath geuē to vs a few signes for many and those most ease to be done most exellent in vnderstanding and in performing most pure as the sacrament of baptisme and the celebration of the body and bloud of our Lord which euery man when he receiueth knoweth wherunto they be referred being taught that he worship not them with a carnall bondage but rather with a spirituall fredom And as it is a vile bondage to follow the letter and to take the signes for the thinges signified by them so to interpret the signes to no profit is an errour that shewdly spreadeth abroad These wordes of Saynt Augustine being conferred with the wordes of Theodoret may declare playnly what Theodoretes meaning was For where he sayth that we may not worship with a carnall bondage the visible signes meaning of water in baptisme and of bread and wine in the holy communion when we receaue the same but rather ought to worship the thinges wherunto they be referred he ment that although those signes or sacraments of water bread and wine ought highly to be estemed and not to be taken as other common water bakers bread or wine in the tauern but as signes dedicated consecrated and referred to an holy vse and by those erthly thinges to represent thinges celestiall yet the very true honor and worship ought to be geuē to the celestial things which by the visible signes be vnderstād not to the visible signes themselues And neuertheles both S. Augustine and Theodoret count it a certayn kind of worshiping the signes the reuerent esteming of them aboue other common prophane things yet the same principally to be referred to the celestial thīgs represented by the signs and therfore sayeth S. Augustin potius rathar And this worship is as wel in the sacramēt of baptisme as in the sacrament of Christs body and bloud And therfore although whosoeuer is baptised vnto Christ or eateth his flesh drinketh his bloud in his holy supper do first honor him yet is he corporally and carnally neither in the supper nor in baptisme but spiritually and effectually Now where you leaue the iudgment of Theodoret to the reader euen so do I also not doubting but the indifferent reader shall soone espy how litle cause you haue so to boast and blow out your vayne glorious wordes as you do But heare now what followeth next in my booke And meruayle not good reader that Christ at that tyme spake in figures whan he did institute that sacrament seing that it is the nature of all sacramentes to be figures And although the scripture be full of Schemes tropes and figures yet specially it vseth them whan it speaketh of sacraments When the Ark which represented Godes maiestie was come into the army of the Isralites the Philistians sayd that God was come into the army And God him selfe sayd by his prophet Nathan that from the tyme that he had brought the Children of Israell out of Egipt he dwelled not in howses but that he was caried about in tentes and tabernacles And yet was not God him selfe so caried about or went in tentes or tabernacles but bicause the arke which was a figure of God was so remoued
christian man ought to come to Christes sacraments with great feare humility fayth loue and charitie And S. Augustine sayth that the Gospell is to be receaued or heard with no lesse feare and reuerence than the body of Christ. Whose wordes be these Interrogo vos fratres sorores dicite mihi Quid vobis plus esse videtur verbum dei an corpus Christi Si vere vultis respondere hoc vtique dicere debetis quod non sit minus verbum dei quam corpus Christi Et ideo quanta solicitudine obseruamus quando nobis corpus Christi ministratur vt nihil ex ipso de nostris manibus in terram cadat tanta solicitudine obseruemus ne verbum Dei quod nobis erogatur dum aliquid aut cogitamus aut loquimur de corde nostro pereat quia non minus reus erit qui verbum Dei negligenter audierit quam ille qui corpus Christi in terram cadere sua negligentia permiserit I ask this question of you brethren and sisterne sayth S. Augustine aunswer me Whether you think greater the word of God or the body of Christ If you will answer the truth verely you ought to say thus That the word of God is no lesse then the body of Christ. And therfore with what carefullnes we take heed when the body of Christ is ministred vnto vs that no part therof fall out of our handes on the earth with as great carefulnes let vs take heede that the word of God which is ministred vnto vs when we think or speake of vayne matters perish not out of our hartes For he that heareth the word of God negligently shall be giltie of no lesse fault then he that suffereth the body of Christ to fall vpon the ground thorough his negligence This is the mynd of S. Augustine And as much we haue in Scripture for the reuerent hearing and reading of God his holy word or the neglecting therof as we haue for the sacramentes But it semeth by your penne and vtteraunce of this matter that you vnderstand not the ground and cause wherupon should arise the great feare and trembling in their hartes that come to receaue the sacramentes for you shew another consideration therof than the scripture doth For you seeme to driue all the cause of feare to the dignitie of the body of Christ there corporally present and receaued but the scripture declareth the feare to ryse of the indignitie and vnworthines of the receauers He that eateth and drinketh vnworthely threatneth Gods word eateth and drinketh his owne damnation And Centurio considering his own vnworthines was abashed to receaue Christ into his house saying Lord I am not worthy that thou shouldest come vnder the couering of my house And the same thing made Peter afrayd to be neare vnto Christ and to say Go from me O Lord for I am a sinner And all Christian men ought not to feare tremble onely whan they receaue the sacramentes but when soeuer they heare Gods word and threatninges pronounced agaynst sinners Now as concerning the third note thou shalt see playnly good reader that here is nothing here aunswered directly but meere cauilations sought and shift to auoyde For if all the old prayers and ceremonies sound as the people did communicate with the priest as you say they do and so they do in dede and that as well in the communion of drinking as eating than eyther the people did cōmunicate with them indeede and receaued the Sacrament vnder both the kindes or else the prayers had ben false the ceremonies frustrate and in vayne And is it like that the priests in that time would haue vsed vnto God such vntrue prayers as should declare that the people did communicate with thē if indeed none did communicate with them as it should haue bene by your imagined chances and cases But it apeareth by the wordes of the Epistle that the whole multitude of the people that was present did communicate at those dayes so that the priest could not communicate alone except he would communicate whan no man was in the church But by the aunswer of this sophister here in this place thou mayst see an experience good reader whether he be as redy to see those thinges that make agaynst him as he is paynfull and studious to draw as it were by force all thinges to his purpose to make them at the least to seme to make for him although they be neuer so much agaynst him As appeareth by all these his suppositions that all the people which were prepared for should in those dayes withdraw them selues from the communion and not one of them come vnto it that the clarkes should receaue all that was prouided for the people that one clerke should receaue that which many clerkes ought to haue receaued And so in conclusiō by onely his fayned suppositions he would perswade that the priest should receaue all alone By such prety cases of the people disapoynting the priestes and of lacke of store of clerkes you might dayly finde cauilations with all godly ordenaunces For where as God ordayned the pascall lambe to be eaten vp cleane in euery house and where there were not inough in one house to eat vp the Lambe they should call of their neighbours so many as should suffice to eate vp the hole Lambe so that nothing should remayne Here you might bring in your vpon a chance that they that lacked company to eate vp a hole Lambe dwelt alone far from other houses and could not come together or could not gette any such Lambe as was appoynted for the feast or if their neighbours lacked company also And what if they had no spitte to rost the lambe And where as it was commaunded that they should be shooed what if perchance they had no shooes And if perchaunce a mans wife were not at home and all his seruaunts falled sike of the sweat or plague and no man durst come to his house then must he turne the spitte him selfe and eate the Lambe all alone Such chances you purposely deuise to establishe your priuat Masse that the priest may eate all alone But by such a lyke reason as you make here a man might proue that the priest should preach or say mattens to him selfe alone in case as you say that the people which should come would disapoynt him For what if the people disapoynt the priest say you and come not to the communion What if the people disapoynt the priest say I and come not to mattens nor sermon shall he therfore say mattens and preach whan no man is present but him selfe alone But your imagined case hath such an absurditie in it as is not tollerable to be thought to haue beene in Christian people in that tyme when Clements Epistles were written that when all the people should receaue the communion with the priest yet not one would come but all would disapoynt him And yet in that case I
doubt not but the priest would haue absteined from ministration vnto more opportunitie and more accesse of Christian people as he would haue done likewise in saying of mattens and preaching Wherfore in your case I might well answer you as S. Hierom answered the argument made in the name of the heretike Iouinian which myght be brought agaynst the commendation of virginitie What if all men would liue virgines and no man marry How should then the world be mayntayned What if heauen fall sayd S. Hierom What if no man will come to the church is your argument for all that came in those dayes receaued the communion What if heauen fall say I For I haue not so euill opinion of the holy church in those dayes to think that any such thing could chaunce among them that no one would come when all ought to haue come Now when you come to your issue you make your case to straight for me to ioyne an issue with you bynding me to the bare and onely wordes of Clement and refusing vtterly his mynd But take the wordes and the mynd together and I dare aduenture an Issue to passe by any indiferent readers that I haue proued all my three notes And where you say that vpon occasion of this epistle I speake more reuerently of the sacrament then I do in other places if you were not giuen all together to calumniate and depraue my words you should perceaue in all my booke thorough euen from the beginning to the end therof a constant and perpetuall reuerence giuen vnto the sacramentes of Christ such as of dutie all Christian men ought to giue Neuerthelesse you interpret this word Wherin farre from my meaning For I meane not that Christ is spiritually eyther in the table or in the bread and wine that be sette vpon the table but I meane that he is present in the ministration and receauing of that holy supper according to his owne institution and ordinaunce Like as in baptisme Christ and the holy ghost be not in the water or fonte but be giuen in the ministration or to them thāt be duly baptised in the water And although the sacramental tokens be onely significations and figures yet doth almighty God effectually work in them that duely receaue his sacramentes those deuine and celestiall operations which he hath promised and by the sacramentes be signified For else they were vayne and vnfrutfull Sacramentes as well to the godly as to the vngodly And therfore I neuer sayd of the whole supper that it is but a significatiō or a bare memory of Christes death but I teach that it is a spirituall refreshing wherein our soules be fedde and nourished with Christes very flesh and bloud to eternall life And therfore bring you forth some place in my booke where I say that the Lordes suppper is but a bare signification without any effect or operation of God in the same or else eate your wordes agayne and knowledge that you vntruly report me But heare what followeth further in my book Here I passe ouer Ignatius and Ireneus which make nothing for the papists opinions but stand in the commendation of the holy Communion and in exhortation of all men to the often and godly receauing therof And yet neither they nor no man else can extoll and commend the same sufficiently according to the dignitie therof if it be godly vsed as it ought to be Winchester This author sayth he passeth ouer Ignatius and Ireneus and why Bicause they make nothing he sayth for the Papistes purpose With the word papist the author playth at his pleasure But it shal be euident that Irene doth playnly confound this authors purpose in the deniall of the true presence of Christes very flesh in the sacramēt who although he vse not the wordes reall and substanciall yet he doth effectually comprehend in his speach of the sacrameut the vertue aud strength of those wordes And for the truth of the sacrament is Ireneus specially alleaged in so much as Melanghton when he writeth to Decolampadius that he will alleage none but such as speake playnly he alleageth Ireneus for one as apeareth by his sayd Epistle to Decolampadius And Decolampadius himselfe is not troubled so much with answering any other to shape any manner of euasion as to answer Ireneus in whome he notably stumbleth And Peter Martyr in his work graunteth Irene to be specially alledged to whome when he goeth about to answer a man may euidently see how he masketh him selfe And this author bringeth in Clementes epistle of which no great count is made although it be not contemned and passeth ouer Ireneus that speaketh euidently in the matter and was as old as Clement or not much yonger And bicause Ignatius was of that age and is alleadged by Theodorete to haue written in his epistle ad Smirnenses whereof may apeare his fayth of the mistery of the sacrament it shall serue to good purpose to write in the wordes of the same Ignatius here vpon the credite of the sayd Theodoret whome this author so much commendeth the wordes of Ignatius be these Eucharistias oblationes non admittunt quod non confiteantur Eucharistiam esse carnem seruatoris nostri Iesu Christi quae pro peccatis nostris passa est quam pater sua benignitate suscitauit Which wordes be thus much in english they do not admitte Eucharistias and oblations bycause they do not confesse Eucharistiam to be the flesh of our sauiour Iesu Christ which flesh suffered for our sinnes which flesh the father by his benignitie hath stirred vp These be Ignatius wordes which I haue not throughly englished bicause the word Eucharistia can not be well englished being a word of mistery and signifieng as Ireneus openeth both the partes of the sacrament heauenly and earthly visible and inuisible But in that Ignatius openeth his fayth thus he taketh Eucharistia to be the flesh of our sauiour Christ that suffered for vs he declareth the sence of Christes wordes This is my body not to be figuratiue onely but to expresse the truth of the very flesh there giuen and therfore Ignatius sayth Eucharistia is the flesh of our sauior Christ the same that suffered and the same that rose agayne Which wordes of Ignatius so pithely open the matter as they declare therwith the fayth also of Theodoret that doth alleage him so as if the author would make so absolute a worke as to peruse all the fathers sayinges he should not thus leape ouer Ignatius nor Irene neither as I haue before declared But this is a color of rethorik called Reiection of that is hard to answer and is here a prety shift or slaight wherby thou reader mayst consider how this matter is handled Caunterbury IT shall not nede to make any further answer to you here as cōcerning Ireneus but onely to note one thing that if any place of Ireneus had serued for your purpose you would
significations and sacraments of that holines which almighty God by his omnipotent power worketh in vs. And for their holy significations they haue the name of holines which almighty god by his omnipotent power worketh in vs. And for their holy significations they haue the name of holynes as the water in baptisme is called aqua sanctificans Vnda regenerans Halowing or regenerating water because it is the sacrament of regeneration and sanctification Now as concerning Chrisostomes saying that Christ is in our hands Chrisostome saith as I haue rehearsed in my book not onely that he is in our hands but also that we se him with our eyes touch him him feele him and grope him fixe our teeth in his flesh tast it breake it eat it and digest it make red our tongues and dye them with his bloud c. which thinges cannot be vnderstand of the body and bloud of Christ but by a figuratiue speech as I haue more at large declared in my iiii book the viii Chapter And therfore S. Augustine De verbis Domini sermone xxxiij saith cleane cōtrary to Chrisostome that we touch not Christ with our hands Non tangi mus Dominum saith he This speech therfore of Chrisostome declareth not the inward worke of God in the substaunce of the visible sacrament but signifieth what God worketh inwardly in true beleuers And whereas you say that my notes be Descant voluntary without the Tenour part I haue named both the booke and chapter where S. Dyonyse telleth how the priest when he commeth to the receauing of the sacraments he deuideth the bread in peeces and distributeth the same to all that be present which one sentence contayneth sufficiently all my three notes So that if you be disposed to call my notes Descant there you may finde the playne song or tenor part of them And it is no maruel that you cannot iudge well of my Descant when you see not or will not see the Plain song wherupon the descant was made Now followeth Tertullian of whom I write thus Furthermore they do alledge Tertullian that he constantly affirmeth that in the sacrament of the alter we do eat the body and drinke the bloud of our sauiour Christ. To whom we graūt that our flesh eateth and drinketh the bread wine which be called the body bloud of Christ because as Tertullian saith they do represent his body and bloud although they be not really the same in very deed And we graunt also that our soules by fayth do eat his very body drink his bloud but that is spiritually sucking out of the same euerlasting life But we deny that vnto this spirituall feeding is requiring any reall and corporall presence And therfore this Tertullian speaketh nothing against the truth of our catholick doctrine but he speaketh many things most playnly for vs and agaynst the Papists and specially in three poynts First in that he sayth that Christ called bread his body The second that Christ called it so because it representeth his body The third in that he sayth that by these wordes of Christ This is my body is ment This is a figure of my body Winchester Of Tertullian I haue spoken before and so hath this author also forgottē here one notable thing in Tertullian where Tertullian sayth that Christ made the bread his body not only called it so as appeare by Tertullians words reported by this author before This note that I make now of Tertullian maketh agaynst this authors purpose but yet it maketh with the truth which this author should not impugne The second note gathered of Tertullian by this author is not true for Christ called it his body and made it his body as Tertullian sayth Aud the third note of this author is in controuersy of reading and must be so vnderstanded as may agrée with the rest of Tertullians sayings which after my reading doth euidētly proue and at the least doth not improue the catholick doctrine of Christes church vniuersally receiued although it improueth yet which this author calleth here our catholique doctrine most imprudently and vntruely reporting the same Canterbury I Desire no more but that the reader will looke vpon the place of Tertullian before mentioned and see what you speak there what is mine answere therto and so confer them togither and iudge And that the reader will note also that here couertly you haue granted my first note that Christ called bread his body but so slyely that the reader should not by your will perceaue it And where you deny my second note vpon Tertullian that Christ called it his body because it represented his body the words of Tertulliā be these that Christ reproueth not bread wherin he representeth his owne body As for my third note yet once agayne reader I beseech thee turne back and looke vpon the place how this lawyer hath expounded Tertulliā if thou canst with patience abide to here of so foolish a glose And where he sayth that this author Tertullian must be so vnderstād as may agrée with the rest of his sayings would to God you would so do not onely in Tertullian but also in all other authors for then our controuersy should be soone at a poynt And it is a most shameles impudency of you to affirme that the catholick church vniuersally teacheth that Christ is really sensibly corporally naturally carnally and substantially present in the visible formes of bread and wine seing that you cannot proue any one of these your sayings either by scripture or by the consent of the catholick church but onely by the Papisticall church which now many yeres hath borne the whole swinge Now followeth Origen to whom I aunswere thus Moreouer they alleage for them Origen because they would seme to haue many auncient authors fauorers of their erronius doctrine which Origen is most clearely agaynst them For although he do say as they alleage that those things which before were signifyed by obscure figures be now truely indeede and in their very nature and kind accōplished fulfilled And for the declaratiō therof he bringeth forth three exāples One of the stone that floweth water an other of the sea and cloud and the third of Manna which in the olde testament did signify Christ to come who is now come indeed and is manifested and exhibited vnto vs as it were face to face and sensibly in his word in the sacrament of regeneration and the sacraments of bread and wine Yet Origen ment not that Christ is corporally either in his word or in the water of baptisme or in the bread and wine nor that we carnally and corporally be regenerated and borne agayne or eat Christes flesh and bloud For our regeneration in Christ is spirituall and our eating and drinking is a spirituall feeding which kind of regeneration and feeding requireth no reall and corporall presence of Christ but onely his presence in spirit grace and effectuall operation And that Origen thus ment
that Christes flesh is a spirituall meat and hys bloud a spirituall drink and that the eating and drinking of his flesh and bloud may not be vnderstand litterally but spiritually it is manifested by Origens own words in his seuenth Homily vpon the booke called Leuiticus where he sheweth that those words must be vnderstand figuratiuely and whosoeuer vnderstandeth them otherwise they be deceiued and take harme by their owne grosse vnderstanding Winchester Origens wordes be very playne and meaning also which speake of manifestation and exhibition which be two things to be verified thrée wayes in our religion that is to say in the word and regeneration and the sacramēt of bread and wine as this author termeth it which Origen sayth not so but thus the flesh of the word of God not meaning in euery of these after one sort but after the truth of the Scripture in ech of them Christ in his word is manifest and exhibited vnto vs and by fayth that is of hearyng dwelleth in vs spiritually for so we haue his spirit Of Baptisme S. Paule sayth as many as be baptysed be clad in christ Now in the sacramēt of bred wine by Origens rule Christ should be manifested and exhibited vnto vs after the scriptures so as the sacrament of bread and wine should not onely signify Christ that is to say preach him but also exhibite him sensibly as Origens wordes be reported here to be So as Christes wordes This is my body should be wordes not of fygure or shewing but of exhibiting Christes body vnto vs and sensibly as this author alleageth him which should signifye to be receiued with our mouth as Christ commaunded when he sayd Take eat c. diuersely from the other two wayes in which by Christes spirite we be made participant of the benefite of his passion wrought in his manhode But in this sacrament we be made participant of his Godhead by his humanity exhibit vnto vs for food and so in this mistery we receaue him man and God and in the other by meane of his godhead be participant of the effect of his passion suffered in his manhod In this sacrament Christes manhode is represented and truly present whereunto the godhead is most certaynly vnited wherby we receaue a pledge of the regeneration of our flesh to be in the general resurrection spirituall with our soule as we haue bene in baptisme made spirituall by regeneration of the soule which in the full redemption of our bodies shal be made perfect And therfore this author may not compare baptisme with the sacrament throughly in which Baptisme Christes manhode is not really present although the vertue and effect of his most precious bloud be there but the truth of the mistery of this sacrament is to haue Christes body his flesh and bloud exhibited wherunto eating and drinking is by Christ in his supper apropriate In which supper Christ sayd This is my body which Bucer noteth and that Christ sayd not This is my spirite This is my vertue Wherfore after Origenes teaching if Christ be not onely manifested but also exhibited sensibly in th◠sacrament then is he in the sacrament indede that is to say Really and then is he there substancially because the substaunce of the body is there and is there corporally also bycause the very body is there and naturally bicause the naturall body is there not vnderstanding corporally and naturally in the maner of presence nor sensibly neither For then were the maner of presence within mans capacitie and that is false and therfore the catholique teaching is that the maner of Christes presence in the sacrament is spirituall and supernaturall not corporall not carnall not naturall not sensible not perceptible but onely spirituall the how and maner wherof God knoweth and we assured by his word know onely the truth to be so that it is there indede and therfore really to be also receaued with our handes and mouthes and so sensibly there the body that suffered and therfore his naturall body there the body of very flesh and therfore his carnall body the body truely and therfore his corporall body there But as for the maner of presence that is onely spirituall as I sayd before and here in the inculcation of these wordes I am tedious to a lerned reader but yet this author enforceth me therunto who with these wordes carnally corporally grosely sensibly naturally applying them to the maner of presence doth maliciously and craftely cary away the reader from the simplicitie of his fayth and by such absurdities as these words grosely vnderstanded import astonieth the simple reader in consideration of the matter and vseth these wordes as dust afore their eyes which to wipe away I am enforced to repeate the vnderstanding of these words oftener then elswere necessary These thinges well considered no man doth more playnly confound this author then this saying of Origene as he alleageth it whatsoeuer other sentences he would pycke out of Origene when he vseth libertie of allegories to make him seme to say otherwise And as I haue declared a fore to vnderstand Christes wordes spiritually is to vnderstand them as the spirite of God hath taught the church and to esteme godes misteries most true in the substaunce of the thing so to be although the maner excedeth our capacities which is a spirituall vnderstanding of the same And here also this author putteth in for figuratiuely spiritually to deceaue the reader Caunterbury YOu obserue my wordes here concerning Origene so captiously as though I had gone about scrupulously to translate his sayinges word by word which I did not but bicause they were very long I went about onely to rehearse the effect of his mind brefely and playnly which I haue done faythfully and truely although you captiously carpe and reprehend the same And where as craftely to alter the sayinges of Origene you goe about to put a diuersitie of the exhibition of Christ in these iii. thinges in his worde in baptisme and in his holy supper as though in his worde and in baptisme he were exhibited spiritually in his holy supper sensibly to be eaten with our mouthes this distinction you haue dreamed in your slepe or imagined of purpose For Christ after one sort is exhibited in all these iii. in his worde in baptisme and in the Lordes supper that is to say spiritually and for so much in one sorte as before you haue confessed your selfe And Origene putteth no such diuersitie as you here imagine but declareth one maner of giuing of Christ vnto vs in his worde in baptisme and in the Lordes supper that is to say in all these iii. secundum speciem That as vnto the Iewes Christ was geuen in figures so to vs he is geuen in specie that is to say in rei veritate in his very nature meaning nothing els but that vnto the Iewes he was promised in figures and to vs after his incarnation
more then the assertion of this Author specially when thou hast red how he hath handled Hilray Cyrill Theophilact and Damascene as I shall hereafter touch Caunterbury WHether I make an exposition of Cyprian by myne own deuise I leaue to the iudgement of the indifferent reader And if I so doe why do not you proue the same substancially agaynst me For your own bare words without any proofe I trust the indifferent reader will not allow hauing such experience of you as he hath And if Cyprian of all other had writ most plainly agaynst me as you say without profe who thinketh that you would haue omitted here Cyprians wordes and haue fled to Melancthon and Epinus for succor And why do you alleage their authority for you which in no wise you admit when they be brought agaynst you But it semeth that you be faint harted in this mater and beginne to shrinke and like one that refuseth the combat and findeth the shift to put an other in his place euen so it semeth you would draw backe your selfe from the daunger and set me to fight with other men that in the meane tyme you might be an idle looker on And if you as graund capitayne take them but as meane souldiours to fyght in your quarell you shall haue little ayd at their hands for their writings declare opēly that they be agaynst you more then me although in this place you bring them for your part and report them to say more and otherwise then they say indeed And as for Cyprian and S. Augustine here by you alleaged they serue nothing for your purpose nor speake nothing against me by Epinus own iudgement For Epinus sayth that Eucharistia is called a sacrifice because it is a remembrance of the true sacrifice which was offred vpon the cros and that in it is dispensed the very body and bloud yea the very death of Christ as he alleadgeth of S. Augustine in that place the holy sacrifice wherby he blotted out and canceled the obligation of death which was against vs nayling it vpon the crosse and in his owne person wanne the victory and tryumphed agaynst the princes powers of darknesse This passion death and victory of Christ is dispēsed and distributed in the Lords holy supper and dayly among Christs holy people And yet all this requireth no corporal presence of Christ in the sacrament nor the words of Cypriā ad Quirinum neither For if they did then was Christes flesh corporally present in the sacrifice of the old testament 1500. yeares before he was borne for of those sacrifices speaketh that text alleaged by Cyprian ad Quirinum whereof Epinus and you gather these wordes that the body of our Lord is our sacrifice in flesh And how so euer you wrast Melancthon or Epinus they condemne clearely your doctrine that Christes body is corporally contayned vnder the formes or accidents of bread and wine Next in my book of Hilarius But Hylarius thinke they is playnest for them in this matter whose words they translate thus If the word were made very flesh and we verely receaue the word beyng flesh in our lords meat how shal not Christ be thought to dwel naturally in vs Who beyng borne man hath taken vnto him the nature of our flesh that can not be seuered hath put together the nature of his flesh to the nature of his eternity vnder the sacrament of the communion of his flesh vnto vs. For so we be all one because the father is in Christ and Christ in vs. Wherfore whosoeuer will deny the father to be naturally in Christ he must deny fyrst eyther himselfe to be naturally in Christ or Christ to be naturally in him For the beyng of the father in Christ and the being of Christ in vs maketh vs to be one in them And therfore if Christ haue taken verily the flesh of our body and the man that was verily born of the virgin Mary is Christ and also we receaue vnder thè true mistery the flesh of his body by meanes wherof we shal be one for the father is in Christ and Christ in vs how shall that be called the vnity of will when the naturall property brought to passe by the Sacrament is the sacrament of vnity Thus doth the Papists the aduersaries of Gods word of his truth alleage the authority of Hilarius eyther peruersely and purposely as it semeth vntruely reciting hym and wrasting his words to their purpose or els not truely vnderstanding him For although he sayth that Christ is naturally in vs yet he sayth also that we be naturally in him And neuerthelesse in so saying he ment not of the natural and corporall presence of the substaunce of Christes body and of ours for as our bodyes be not after that sort within his body so is not his body after that sort within our bodies but he ment that Christ in his incarnation receyued of vs a mortal nature and vnited the same vnto his diuinity and so be we naturally in him And the sacraments of Baptisme of his holy supper if we rightly vse the same do most assuredly certify vs that we be partakers of his godly nature hauing geuen vnto vs by him immortality and life euerlasting and so is Christ naturally in vs. And so be we one with Christ and Christ with vs not onely in will and mind but also in very naturall properties And so concludeth Hylarius agaynst Arrius that Christ is one with his father not in purpose and will onely but also in very nature And as the vnion betwene Christ and vs in baptisme is spirituall and requireth no real and corporall presence so likewise our vnion with Christ in his holy supper is spirituall and therfore requireth no reall and coporall presence And therfore Hilarius speaking therof both the sacraments maketh no difference betwene our vnion with Christ in baptisme and our vnion with him in his holy supper And sayth further that as Christ is in vs so be we in him which the Papistes cannot vnderstand corporally and really except they will say that all our bodyes be corporally within Christes body Thus is Hylarius answered vnto both playnly and shortly Winchester This answere to Hylary in the lxxviii leafe requyreth a playne precise issue worthy to be tried apparant at hand The allegation of Hylary toucheth specially me who do say and mayntayne that I cited Hylary truely as the copy did serue and translate him truely in English after the same words in latin This is one issue which I qualyfy with the copy because I haue Hilary now better correct which better correctiō setteth forth more liuely the truth then the other did and therfore that I did translate was not so much to the aduantage of that I aledged Hylary for as is that in the book that I haue now better correct Hilaries words in the booke newly corrected be these Si enim verè verbum caro factum est nos
verè Verbum carnem cibo dominico sumimus quomodo non naturaliter manere in nobis existimandus est qui naturam carnis nostrae iam inseparabilem sibi homo natus assumpserit naturam carnis suae adnaturam aeternitatis sub sacramēto nobis communicandae carnis admiscuit Itae enim omnes vnum sumus quia in Christo pater est Christus in nobis est Quisquis ergo naturaliter patrem in Christo negabit neget prius non naturaliter vel se in Christo vel Christum sibi inesse quia in Christo pater Christus in nobis vnum in ijs esse nos faciunt Si vere igitur carnem corporis nostri Christus sumpsit verè homo ille qui ex Maria natu◠fuit Christus est nosque vere sub misterio carnem corporis sui sumimus per hoc vnum erimus quia pater in co est ille in nobis quomodo voluntatis vnitas asseritur cum naturalis per Sacramentum proprietas perfecté sacramentum si◠vnitatis My translation is this If the word was made verely flesh and we verely receaue the word beyng flesh in our Lordes meat how shall not Christ be thought to dwell naturally in vs who being borne man hath taken vnto him the nature of our flesh that can not be seuered and hath put together the nature of his flesh to the nature of his eternity vnder the Sacrament of the communion of his flesh vnto vs for so we be all one because the father is in Christ and Christ in vs. Wherfore whosoeuer will deny the father to be naturally in Christ must denye first either himselfe to be naturally in Christ or Christ not to be naturally in him for the being of the father in Christ and the being of Christ in vs maketh vs to be one in them And therfore if Christ hath taken verely the flesh of our body and the man that was born of the virgine Mary is verely Christ and allowe verely receiue vnder a mistery the flesh of his body by meanes wherof we shal be one for the father is in Christ and Christ in vs how shall that be called the vnitye of will when the natural propriety brought to passe by the Sacrament is the Sacramēt of perfect vnity This translation differeth from myne other wherat this author findeth fault but wherin the word Vero was in the other coppy an adiectiue and I ioyned it wyth Misterio therfore sayd the true mistery which word mistery needed no such adiectiue true for euery mistery is true of it selfe But to say as Hilary truely correct sayth that we receyue vnder the mistery truely the flesh of Christes body that word truely so placed setteth forth liuely the reall presence and substantiall presence of that is receiued and repeteth agayne the same that was before sayd to the more vehemency of it So as this correction is better then my first copy and according to this correction is Hilarius alleaged by Melancthon to Decolampadius for the same purpose I alleage him An other alteration in the translation thou séest reader in the word Perfectae which in my copy was Perfecta and so was ioyned to Proprietas which now in the genetiue case ioyned to Vnitatis geueth an excellent sence to the dignity of the Sacrament how the naturall proprietie by the Sacrrament is a Sacrament of perfect vnity so as the perfect vnity of vs with Christ is to haue his flesh in vs and to haue Christ bodely and naturally dwelling in vs by his manhood as he dwelleth in vs spiritually by his Godhead and now I speak in such phrase as Hylarie and Cyrill speake and vse the words whatsoeuer thys author sayth as I will iustifye by their playne wordes And so I ioyne now with this author an Issue that I haue not peruersely vsed the allegation of Hylary but alleadged him as one that speaketh most clearly of this matter which Hilarie in his 8. booke de Trinitate entreateth how many diuers wayes we be one in Christ among which he accompteth fayth for one then he commeth to the vnity in Baptisme where he handleth the matter aboue some capacities and because there is but one Baptisme and all that be baptised be so regenerate in one dispensation and do the same thing and be one in one they that be one by the same thing be as he sayth in nature one From that vnity in Baptisme he commeth to declare our vnitye with Christ in flesh which he calleth the Sacrament of perfect vnity declaring how it is whē Christ who tooke truely our flesh mortal in the vyrgins womb deliuereth vs the same flesh glorified truely to be communicate with our flesh wherby as we be naturally in Christ so Christ is naturally in vs and when this is brought to passe then the vnitie betwéen Christ and vs is perfected For as Christ is naturally in the father of the same essence by the diuine nature So we be naturally in Christ by our natural flesh which he toke in the virgins wombe and he naturally in vs by the same flesh in him glorified and geuen to vs and receiued of vs in the Sacrament For Hilarie sayth in playne words how Christes very flesh and Christes very bloud receyued and drunken Accepta hausta bring this to pas And it is notable how Hilarie compareth together the truely in Christes taking of our flesh in the virgins wombe with the truely of our taking of his flesh In cibo dominica in our Lordes meat by which words he expresseth the Sacrament and after reproueth those that said we were onely vnited by obedience and will of religion to Christ and by him so to the Father as though by the Sacrament of flesh and bloud no proprietie of naturall communion were geuen vnto vs whereas both by the honour geuen vnto vs we be the sonnes of God and by the sonne dwelling carnally in vs and we beyng corporally and inseparably vnite in hym the mistery of true and naturall vnity is to be preached These be Hilaries wordes for this latter part where thou hearest reader the son of God to dwell carnally in vs not after mans grosse imagination for we may not so thinke of Godly misteries but carnally is referred to the truth of Christes flesh geuen to vs in this Sacrament and so is naturally to be vnderstanded that we receaue Christes naturall flesh for the truth of it as Christ receyued our naurall flesh of the virgine although we receaue Christes flesh glorified incorruptible very spiritual and in a spiritual maner deliuered vnto vs. Here is mention made of the word corporall but I shall speake of that in the discussiō of Cyrill This Hylary was before S. Augustine and was known both of him and S. Hierome who called him Tubam latini eloquij against the Arrians Neuer man foūd fault at this notable place of Hylary Now let vs consider how
vs doth it not make Christ by communication of his flesh to dwell corporally in vs Why be the members of faythfull mennes bodyes called the members of Christ Know you not sayth S. Paule that your members be the members of Christ And shall I make the members of Christ partes of the whores body God forbid And our sauiour also sayth He that eateth my flesh and drincketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him Although in these wordes Cyrill doth say that Christ doth dwel corporally in vs when we receaue the misticall benediction yet he neyther sayth that Christ dwelleth corporally in the bread nor that he dwelleth in vs corporally only at such tymes as we receaue the sacrament nor that he dwelleth in vs and not we in him but he sayth as well that we dwell in him as that he dwelleth in vs. Which dwelling is neyther corporall nor locall but an heauenly spirituall and supernaturall dwelling wherby so long as we dwell in him and he in vs we haue by him euerlasting life And therfore Cyril sayth in the same place that Christ is the vine and we the branches bicause that by him we haue lyfe For as the branches receaue lyfe and nourishment of the body of the vine so receaue we by him the naturall property of his body which is life and immortality and by that meanes we being his members do liue and are spiritually nourished And this ment Cirill by this word Corporally when he sayth that Christ dwelleth corporally in vs. And the same ment also S. Hilarius by this worde Naturally when he sayd that Christ dwelleth naturally in vs. And as S. Paule when he sayd that in Christ dwelleth the full diuinity Corporally by this word Corporally he ment not that the diuinity is a body and so by that body dwelleth bodily in Christ. But by this word Corporally he ment that the diuinity is not in Christ accidentally lightly and slenderly but substancially and perfectly with all his might and power so that Christ was not onely a mortall man to suffer for vs but also he was immortall God able to redeeme vs. So S. Ciril when he sayd that Christ is in vs Corporally he ment that we haue him in vs not lightly and to small effect and purpose but that we haue him in vs substancially pithely and effectually in such wise that we haue by him redemption and euerlasting life And this I sucke not out of mine owne singers but haue it of Cirils owne expresse wordes where he sayth A litle benediction draweth the whole man to God and filleth him with his grace and after this manner Christ dwelleth in vs and we in Christ. But as for corporall eating and drinking with our mouthes and digesting with our bodyes Cirill neuer ment that Christ doth so dwell in vs as he playnly declareth Our sacrament sayth he doth not affirme the eating of a man drawing wickedly christen people to haue grosse imaginations and carnall fantasies of such thinges as be fine and pure and receaued onely with a sincere fayth But as two waxes that be molten and put togither they close so in one that euery part of the one is ioyned to euery part of the other euen so sayth Cirill he that receaueth the flesh and bloud of the Lord must needes be so ioyned with Christ that Christ must be in him and he in Christ. By these wordes of Cirill appeareth his mynd playnly that we may not grossely and rudely think of the eating of Christ with our mouthes but with our fayth by which eating although he be absent hence bodely and be in the eternall life and glory with his father yet we be made partakers of his nature to be immortall and haue eternall lyfe and glory with him And thus is declared the mind as well of Cirill as of Hilarius Winchester The author sayth such answer as he made to Hilary will serue for Cyrill and indeede to say truth it is made after the fame sort and hath euen such an error as the other had sauing it may be excused by ignorance For where the author trauayleth here to expound the word corporally which is a sore word in Cirill agaynst this author and therfore taketh labour to temper it with the word Corporaliter in S. Paule applied to the dwelling of the diuinity in Christ and yet not content therwith maketh further search and would gladly haue somewhat to confirme his phansy out of Cirill him selfe and seeketh in Cirill where it is not to be found and seeketh not where it is to be found For Cirill telleth him selfe playnly what he meaneth by the word corporally which place and this author had found be might haue spared a great many of wordes vttered by diuination but then the truth of that place hindreth and quayleth in manner all the booke I will at my perill bring forth Cirils owne wordes truely vpon the seuententh chapiter of S. Iohn Corporaliter filius per benedictionem misticam nobis vt homo vnitur spiritualiter autem vt deus Which be in English thus much to say The sonne is vnite as man corporally to vs by the misticall benediction spiritually as god These be Cirils wordes who nameth the sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ the misticall benediction land sheweth in this sentence how him selfe vnderstandeth the wordes corporally and spiritually That is to say when Christ vniteth him selfe to vs as man which he doth geuing his body in this Sacramēt to such as worthely receaue it then he dwelleth in them corporally which Christ was before in them spiritualy or els they could not worthely receaue him to the effect of the vnity corporal corporal dwelling by which word corporal is vnderstanded no grossenes at all which the nature of a mistery excludeth and yet kepeth truth still being the vnderstanding onely attayned by fayth But where the author of the booke alleadgeth Cirill in wordes to deny the eating of a man and to affirme the receauing in this sacrament to be onely by fayth It shall appeare I doubt not vpon further discussion that Cirill sayth not so and the translations of Cirill into Latine after the print of Basill in a booke called Antidotum and of whole Cirils workes printed at Colen haue not in that place such sentence So as following the testimony of those bookes set forth by publique fayth in two sundry places I should call the allegation of Cirill made by this author in this poynt vntrne as it is indeede in the matter vntrue And yet bicause the originall errour proceedeth from Decolampadius it shall serue to good purpose to direct the originall fault to him as he well deserueth to be as he is noted gilty of it whose reputation deceaued many in the matter of the sacrament and being well noted how the same Decolampadius corrupteth Cirill it may percase somewhat worke with this author to consider how he hath in this place bene
you say that he is corporally in all them that receaue the sacrament whether it be worthely or vnworthely Now foloweth thus in my booke And here may be well enough passed ouer Basilius Gregorius Nissenus and Gregorius Nazianzenus partely bicause they speake little of this matter partly bicause they may be easely āswered vnto by that which is before declared oftē repeted which is that a figure hath the name of the thing wherof it is the figure therfore of the figure may be spoken the same thing that may be spokē of the thing it selfe And as cōcerning the eating of Christs flesh drincking of his bloud they spake of the spirituall eating drincking therof by fayth not of corporal eating and drincking with the mouth and teeth Winchester As for Basill Gregory Nissen and Gregory Nazianzen this author sayth they speake little of this matter and indeede they spake not so much as other doe but that they speake is not discrepant nor contrarieth not that other afore them had written For in the olde church the truth of this mistery was neuer impugned openly and directly that we reade of before Berengarius v. C. yeares past and secretly by one Bertrame before that but onely by the Messalians who sayd the corporall eating did neither good nor hurt The Antropomorphites also who sayd the vertue of the misticall benediction endured not to the next day of whome Cirill speaketh and the Nestorians by consecution of their learning that deuided Christes flesh from the deity And where this author would haue taken for a true supposall that Basill Gregory Nazianzene and Nissene should take the sacrament to be figuratiue onely that is to be denyed And likewise it is not true that this author teacheth that of the figure may be spoken the same thing that may be spoken of the thing it selfe And that I will declare thus Of the thing it selfe that is Christes very body being present indeede it may be sayd Adore it worship it there which may not besayd of the figure It may be sayd of the very thing being present there that it is a highe miracle to be there it is aboue nature to be there it is an high secret mistery to be there But none of these speaches can be conueniently sayd of the onely figure that it is such a miracle so aboue nature so high a mistery to be a figure And therfore it is no true doctrine to teach that we may say the same of the figure that may be sayd of the thing it selfe And where this author speaketh of the spiritual eating corporal eating he remayneth in his ignorāce what the word corporal meaneth which I haue opened in discussing of his answere to Cirill Fayth is required in him that shall eate spiritually and the corporall eating institute in Christes supper requireth the reuerent vse of mans mouth to receiue our Lords meat drinke his owne very flesh and bloud by his omnipotency prepared in that supper which not spiritually that is to say not innocently as S. Angustine in one place expoūdeth spiritually receiued bringeth iudgement and condempnation according to S Paules wordes Caunterbury WHere you say that in the old church the truth of this mistery was neuer impugned opēly you say herin very truly for the truth which I haue set forth was openly receiued and taught of al that were catholick without coutradiction vntil the papists diuised a contrary doctrine And I say further that the vntruth which you teach was not at that time improued of no man neither openly nor priuily For how could your doctrine be impugned in the olde church which was then neither taught nor knowen And as concerning Bertrame he did not write secretly for he was required by king Charles to write in this matter and wrot therin as the doctrine of the Church was at that tyme or els some man would haue reprehended him which neuer none did before you but make mention of his workes vnto his great prayse and commendation And the Massalians were not reproued for saying that corporall eating doth neither good nor hurt neither Epiphanius nor of S. Augustine nor Theodoret nor of any other auntient author that I haue red Mary that the sacraments do neither good nor hurt namely Baptisme is layd vnto the Massaliās charge and yet the corporall receiuing without the spirituall auaileth nothing but rather hurteth very much as appeared in Iudas and Simon Magus And as for the three heresies of the Massalians Anthropomorphites and Nestorians I allow none of them although you report thē otherwise thē either Epiphanius or S. Augustine doth And wherē you say that I would haue taken for a supposall that Basil Nazianzene and Nissene should take the sacrament to be figuratiue only still you charge me vntruly with that I nether say nor think For I knowledge as al good christen mē do that almighty God worketh effectually with his sacraments And where you report me to say an other vntruth that of a figure may be spoken the same thing that may be spoken of the thing it self that I say true therin witnesseth plainly S. Augustin and Cyprian And yet I speake not vniuersally nor these examples that you bring make anything agaynst my sayings For the first example may be sayd of the figure if D. Smith say true And because you .ii. write both agaynst my book and a gree so euil one with an other as it is hard fo vntrue sayers to agree in one tale therfore in this poynt I commit you togither to see which of you is most valiant champion And as for your other iii. examples it is not true of the thing it selfe that Christes body is present in the sacrament by miracle or aboue nature although by miracle and aboue nature he is in the ministration of his holy supper amōg them that godly be fed therat And thus be your friuolous cauillations aunswered And where you say that I am ignorant what this word corporal meaneth surely then I haue a very grosse wit that am ignorant in that thing which euery plough man knoweth But you make so fine a cōstruction of this word corporall that neither you can tell what you meane your self nor no man can vnderstand you as I haue opened before in the discussing of Cyrils mind And as for the reuerent vse of mans mouth in the Lordes holy supper the bread and wine outwardly must be reuerently receaued with the mouth because of the things therby represented which by fayth be receaued inwardly in our hartes mindes not eatē with our mouthes as you vntruely allege S. Paule to say whose wordes be of the eating of the sacramentall bread and not of the body of Christ. Now followeth next mine aunswer to Eusebius Emissenus who is as it were your chefe trust and shot ancre Likewise Eusebius Emissenus is shortly aunswered vnto for he speaketh not of
any reall and corporall conuersion of bread and wine vnto Christs body and bloud nor of any corporal and real eating and drinking of the same but he speaketh of a sacramentall conuersion of bread and wine and of a spirituall eating and drinking of the body and bloud After which sort Christ is aswell present in baptisme as the same Eusebius playnly there declareth as he is in the Lordes table Which is not carnally and corporally but by fayth and spiritually But of this author is spoken before more at large in the matter of transubstatiation Winchester This author sayth that Emissen is shortly aunswered vnto and so is he if a man care not what he sayth as Hylary was aunswered and Cyrill But els there can no short or long aunswere confound the true playne testimony of Emissen for the common true faith of the church in the Sacrament Which Emissen hath this sentence That the inuisible Priest by the secret power with his word turneth the visible creatures into the substaunce of his bodye and bloud saying thus This is my bodye And aâ—ayne repeating the same sanctificatioÌ„ This is my bloud Wherfore as at the beck of him commauÌ„ding the heightes of heauens the depenes of the floudes and largenes of landes were founded of nothing by like power in spirituall Sacraments where vertue commaundeth the effect of the trueth serueth These bee Emissenes wordes declaring his fayth playnely of the Sacrament in such termes as can not be wrested or writhed who speaketh of a turning conuersion of the visible creatures into the substaunce of Christes body bloud he sayth not into the SacrameÌ„t of Christs body bloud nor figure of Christes body bloud whereby he should meane a only sacramental conuersion as this author would haue it but he sayth into the substance of Christs body bloud to be in the sacrameÌ„t For the words substance and truth be of one strength shew a difference froÌ„ a figure wherein the truth is not in dede preseÌ„t but signified to be absent And because it is a worke supernaturall and a great miracle this Emissen represseth mans carnall reason and socoureth the weke fayth with remembraunce of like power of God in the creation of this world which were brought forth out of tyme by Emissene if Christes bodye were not in substaunce present as Emissenes wordes bee but in figure onely as this author teacheth And where this authour coupleth together the two Sacramentes of Baptisme and of the body and bloud of Christ as though there were no difference in the presence of Christ in eyther he putteth himselfe in daunger to be reproued of malice or ignoraunce For although these misteries be both great and mans regeneration in baptisme is also a mistery and the secret worke of God and hath a great meruayle in that effect yet it differeth from the mistery of the sacrament touching the maner of Christes presence and the working of the effect also For in baptisme our vnion with Christ is wrought without the reall presence of Christes humanitie onely in the vertue and effect of Christes bloud the whole Trinitie there working as author in whose name the sacrament is expressely ministred where our soule is regenerate and made spirituall but not our body indede but in hope onely that for the spirit of Christ dwelling in vs our mortall bodyes shal be resuscitate and as we haue in baptisme bene buried with christ so we be assured to be partakers of his resurection And so in this sacrament we be vnite to Christes manhod by this deuinite But in the sacrament of Christes body and bloud we be in nature vnited to Christ as man and by his glorified flesh made partakers also of his diuinitie which mistical vnion representeth vnto vs the high estate of our glorification wherin body and soule shall in the generall resurection by a maruailous regeneration of the body be made both spirituall the speciall pledge wherof we receaue in this sacrament and therfore it is the sacrament as Hilary sayth of perfect vnitie And albeit the soule of man be more precious then the body and the nature of the godhead in Christ more excellent then the nature of man in him glorified and in baptisme mans soule is regenerate in the vertue and effect of Christes passion and bloud Christes godhead present there without the reall presence of his humanitie although for these respectes the excelency of baptisme is great yet bicause the mistery of the sacrameÌ„t of the alter where Christ is present both man and God in the effectuall vnitie that is wrought betwene our bodies our soules and Christes in the vse of this sacrament signifieth the perfect redemption of our bodies in the generall resurection which shall be the end and consumatioÌ„ of all our felicitie This sacrament of perfect vnitie is the mistery of our perfect estate when body and soule shal be all spirituall and hath so a degre of excelencie for the dignitie that is estemed in euery end and perfection wherfore the word spirituall is a necessary word in this sacrament to call it a spirituall foode as it is indede for it is to worke in our bodyes a spirituall effect not onely in our soules and Christes body and flesh is a spirituall body and flesh and yet a true body and very flesh And it is present in this sacrament after a spirituall maner graunted and taught of all true teachers which we should receaue also spiritually which is by hauing Christ before spiritually in vs to receaue it so worthely Wherfore like as in the inuisible substance of the sacrament there is nothing carnall but all spirituall taking the word carnall as it signifieth grossely in mans carnall iudgement So where the receiuers of that foode bring carnall lustes or desires carnall fansies or imaginations with them they receaue the same preciens foode vnworthely to their iudgement and condemnation For they iudge not truely after the simplicitie of a true Christian fayth of the very presence of Christes body And this sufficeth to wipe out that this Author hath spoken of Emissen agaynst the truth Caunterbury I Haue so playnly aunswered vnto Emissene in my former booke partly in this place and partely in the second parte of my booke that he that readeth ouer those two places shall see most clearly that you haue speÌ„t a greate many of wordes here in vayne and nede no further answer at all And I had then such a care what I sayd that I sayd nothing but according to Emissenus owne mind and which I proued by his owne wordes But if you finde but one word that in speach soundeth to your purpose you sticke to that word tooth and nayle caring nothing what the authors meaning is And here is one great token of sleight and vntruth to be noted in you that you write diligently euery word so long as they seme to make with you And when you come to the very place
where Emissene declareth the meaning of his wordes there you leaue all the rest out of your booke which can not be without a great vntruth and fraud to deceaue the simple reader For when you haue recited these wordes of Emissene that the inuisible priest by the secret power with his word tourneth the visible creatures into the substaunce of his body and bloud and so further as serueth to your affection when you come euen to the very place where Emissen declareth these words there you leaue and cut of your writing But because the reader may know what you haue cut of and thereby know Emissens meaning I shall here rehearse Emisenes words which you haue left out If thou wilt know sayth Emissene how it ought not to seeme to thee a thing new and impossible that earthly and incorruptible things be tourned into the substance of Christ looke vpō thy self which art made new in baptisme When thou wast far from life and banished as a stranger from mercy and from the way of saluation and inwardly wast dead yet sodenly thou beganst an other new life in Christ and wast made new by holesome misteries and wast tourned into the bodye of the church not by seing but by beleuing of the child of damnatiō by a secret purenes thou wast made the sonne of God Thou visibly didst remayne in the same measure that thou haddest before but inuisibly thou wast made greater without any encrease of thy body Thou wast the self same person and yet by encrease of fayth thou wast made an other man Outwardly nothing was added but all the change was inwardly And so was mā made the sonne of Christ and Christ formed in the mind of man Therefore as thou putting away thy former vilenes diddest receiue a new dignity not feling any chaunge in thy body and as the curing of thy disease the putting away of thine infection the wiping away of thy filthines be not seene with thine eyes but beleued in thy minde so likewise when thou doost goe vp to the reuerend aulter to feed vpon the spirituall meat in thy fayth looke vpon the body and blud of him that is thy God honour hym touch him with thy minde take him in the hand of thy hart and chiefly drink him with the draught of thy inward man These be Emissens own wordes Upon which words I gather his meaning in his former words by you alleadged For where you bring in these wordes that Christ by his secret power with his word turneth the visible creatures into the substance of his body and bloud straightwaies in these wordes by me now rehearsed he sheweth what maner of turning that is after what maner the earthly and corruptible things be turned into the substance of Christ euē so saith he as it is in baptisme wherin is no Transubstantiation So that I gather his meaning of his own playne words and you gather his meaning of your own imagination deuisyng such phantasticall things as neither Emissen sayth nor yet be catholike And this word truth you haue put vnto the wordes of Emissen of your own head which is no true dealing For so you may proue what you lift if you may adde to the authors what words you please And yet if Emissē had vsed both the wordes substaunce and trueth what should that helpe you For Christ is in substaunce and truth present in baptisme aswell as he is in the Lords supper and yet is he not there carnally corporally and naturally I will passe ouer here to aggrauate that matter how vntruely you adde to my wordes this word onely in an hundred places where I say not so what true and sinsere dealing this is let all men iudge Now as concerning my coupling togither of the ii sacraments of baptisme and of the body and bloud of Christ Emissene himself coupleth thē both together in this place sayth that the one is like the other without putting any difference euen as I truely recited him So that there appereth neither malice nor ignorāce in me but in you adding at your pleasure such things as Emissen saith not to deceaue the simple reader and adding such your own inuentions as be neither true nor catholick appereth much shift and craft ioyned with vntruth and infidelity For what christian man would say as you do that Christ is not inded which you call really in baptisme Or that we be not regenerated both body and soule as well in baptisme as in the sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ Or that in baptisme we be not vnited to Christes diuinity by his manhood Or that baptisme represēteth not to vs the high state of our glorification and the perfect redemption of our bodies in the generall resurrection In which thinges you make difference betweene baptisme and the sacrament as you call it of the aultare Or what man that were learned in gods word would affirme that in the general resurrection our bodies and soules shal be all spirituall I know that S. Paule sayth that in the resurrection our bodies shal be spirituall meaning in the respect of such vilenes filthines sinne and corruption as we be subiect vnto in this miserable world Yet he sayth not that our bodies shal be all spirituall For not withstanding such spiritualnes as S. Paule speaketh of we shall haue all such substantiall partes and members as pertaine to a very naturall mans body So that in this part our bodyes shall be carnall corporall reall and naturall bodies lacking nothing that belongeth to perfect mens bodies And in the respect is the body of Christ also carnall and not spirituall And yet we bring none other carnall imaginations of Christes body nor meane none other but that Christes body is carnall in this respect that it hath the same flesh and naturall substaunce which was borne of the virgine Mary and wherin he suffered and rose agayne and now sitteth at the right hand of his father in glory and that the same his naturall body now glorified hath all the naturall partes of a mans body in order proportion place distinct as our bodies shal be in these respects carnall after our resurrection Which maner of carnalnes and diuersitie of partes and members if you take away now from Christ in heauen from vs after our resurrectiō you make Christ now to haue no true mās body but a phantasticall body as Martion Ualentine did as concerning our bodies you run into the error of Origen which phansied imagined that at the resurrection all things should be so spiritual that women should be turned into men and bodies into soules And yet it is to be noted by the way that in your aunswere here to Emissene you make spiriturally and a spirituall manner all one Now followeth myne aunswere to S. Ambrose in this wise And now I will come to the saying of S. Ambrose which is alwayes in their mouthes Before the consecration sayth he as
let vs consider what speches of S. Ambrose this author bringeth forth wherewith to alter the truth of the very playne proper speech of S. Ambrose saying It is bread before the consecration after it is Christes body S. Ambrose as this author saith in an other place sayth thus Before the Benediction of the heauenly words it is called an other kind of thing but after the consecration is signifyed the body and bloud of Christ. And an other speach thus Before the consecration it is called an other thing but after the consecration it is named the bloud of Christ and yet a third speech where the word call is vsed before and after both as thou reader maist sée in this authors booke in the 83. leafe Now good reader was there euer man so ouersene as this author is who seeth not S. Ambrose in these thre latter speaches to speake as playnely as in the first For in the last speach S Ambrose saith it is called bread before the consecration and called the body of Christ after the consecration And I would demaund of this author doth not this word call signify the truth that is bread in deed before the coÌ„secration which if it be so why shal not the same word cal signify also the very truth added to the wordes of the body of Christ after the consecration And likewise when he sayth speaking of the body of Christ the word signified or named which is as much as call The body of Christ is signifyed there for Christ sayd this is my body c. vsyng the outward signes of the visible creatures to signify the body bloud present not absent Was not Christ the true sonne of God because the angell said he shal be called the sonne of God But in these places of S. Ambrose to expresse plainely what he ment by calling he putteth that word call to the bread before the consecratioÌ„ aswell as to the body of Christ after the consecration thereby to declare how in his vnderstanding the word call signifieth as much truth in the thing where unto it is added after consecration as before and therfore as it is by S. Ambrose called bread before consecration signifâ—ing it was so indéed so it is called signifyed or named which thrée thus placed be all one in effect the body of Christ after the consecration and is so in deed agreable to the playne spech of S. Ambrose where he sayth It is bread before consecration and it is the body of Christ after consecration As touching the spirituality of the meat of Christes body I haue spoken before but where this author addeth it requireth no corporall presence he speaketh in his dreame beyng oppressed with slepe of ignorance and can not tell what corporall meaneth as I haue opened before by the authority of Cyril Now let vs see what this author sayth to Chrysostome Caunterbury IT is not I that wrastle with S. Ambrose but you who take great payne to wrast his wordes cleane contrary to his intent and meaning But where you aske this question What can be more playne then these wordes of S. Ambrose It is bread before consecration and after it is Christes body These words of S. Ambrose be not fully so playne as you pretend but cleane contrary For what can be spokeÌ„ eyther more vnplayn or vntrue then to say of bread after consecration that it is the bodye of Christ vnles the same be vnderstand in a figuratiue spech For although Christes bodye as you say be there after consecration yet the bread is not his body nor his body is not made of itby your confession And therfore the saying of S. Ambrose that it is Christes body can not be true in playne spech And therfore S. Ambrose in the same place where he calleth it the body and bloud of Christ he sayth it is a figure of his body and bloud For these be his words Quod ex figura corporis sanguinis domini nostri Iesu Christs And as for the word consecration I haue declared the signification therof according to the mind of the old authors as I will iustify And for the writing of Melancthon to Decolampadius you remayne still in your old error taking Myconius for Decolampadius And yet the change of bread and wine in this sacrament which Melancthon speaketh of is a sacramental change as the nature of a sacrameÌ„t requireth signifying how wonderfully almighty God by his omnipoteÌ„cy worketh in vs his liuely members and not in the dead creatures of bread and wine And the chaunge is in the vse and not in the elements kept and reserued wherein is not the perfection of a sacrament Therefore as water in the fonte or vessell hath not the reason and nature of a sacrament but when it is put to the vse of christening and then it is changed into the proper nature and kinde of a sacrament to signifye the wonderfull chaunge which almighty God by his omnipotency worketh really in them that be baptised therewith such is the chaunge of the breade and wine in the Lordes supper And therefore the bread is called Christes bodye after consecration as S. Ambrose sayth and yet it is not so really but sacramentally For it is neither Christes misticall body for that is the congregation of the faythfull dispersed abroad in the world nor hys naturall bodye for that is in heauen but it is the sacrament both of his true naturall body and also of his misticall body and for that consideration hath the name of his body as a sacrament or signe may beare the name of the very thing that is signified and represented therby And as for the foresayd books intituled to S. Ambrose if I ioyned Ambrose with Clement should say that the sayd bookes intiuled in the name of S. Ambrose de sacramentis de misterijs iniciandis were none of his I should say but as I thinke and as they do thinke that be men of most excellent learning and iudgement as I declared in my second book which speaketh of transubstantiation And so dooth iudge not onely Erasmus but also Melancthon whom you alleadge for authority when he maketh for your purpose suspecteth the same And yet I playnly denye not these bookes to be his for your pleasure to geue you asmuch aduauntage as you can aske and yet it auaileth you nothing at all But here I cannot passeouer that you be offended because I say that bread wine be called holy when they be put to an holy vse not that they haue any holines in them or be partakers of any holinesse or godlines I would fayne learn of Smith and you when the bread and wine be holy For before they be holowed or consecrated they be not holy by your teaching but be common bakers bread and wine of the tauerne And after the consecration there is neyther bread nor wine as you teach at what tyme then should the bread and wine be holy But the
creatures of bread and wine be much bound vnto you and can no lesse do then take you for their sauior For if you can make them holy and godly then shall you glorifie them and so bryng them to eternall blisse And then may you aswell saue the true laboring bullocks and innocēt shepe and lambes and so vnderstand the prophet Homines iumenta saluabis domine But to admonish the reader say you how the bread and wine haue no holynes this fortune of spech not vnderstand of the people engendreth some scruple that nedeth not By which your saying I cannot tel what the people may vnderstand but that you haue a great scruple that you haue lost your holy bread And yet S. Paule speaketh not of your holy bread as you imagine being vtterly ignoraunt as appeareth in the scripture but he speaketh generally of all manner of meates which christian people receaue with thankes giuing vnto God whether it be bread wine or water fish flesh white meat herbes or what manner of meat and drinck so euer it be And the sanctified bread which S. Augustine writeth to be geuen to them that be catechised was not holy in it selfe but was called holy for the vse and signification And I expresse S. Cyprians minde truely and not a whit discrepant from my doctrine here when I say that the diuinitye may be sayd to bee powred or put sacramentally into the bread as the spirite of God is sayd to be in the water of baptisme when it is truely ministred or in his word when it is syncerely preached with the holy spirite working mightely in the hartes of the hearers And yet the water in it selfe is but a visible element nor the preachers word of it self is but a sound in the ayre which as soone as it is hard vanisheth away and hath in it selfe no holines at all although for the vse ministery therof it may be called holy And so likewise may be sayd of the sacramentes which as S. Augustine sayth be as it were Gods visible word And whereas you reherse out of my wordes in an other place that as hoat and burning yron is yron still yet hath the force of fyre so the bread and wine be tourned into the vertue of Christes flesh and bloud you neyther report my words truly nor vnderstād thē truely For I declare in my booke vertue to be in them that godly receaue bread and wine and not in the bread and wine And I take vertue there to signifie might and strength or force as I name it which in the greeke is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after which sence we say that there is vertue in herbs in words and in stones and not to signify vertue in holynes which in greek is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wher of a person is called vertuous whose fayth and conuersation is godly But you sophistically and fraudulently do of purpose abuse the word vertue to an other significatiō then I mēt to approue by my words your own vayne error that bread should be vertuous holy making in your argument a fallax or craft called equiuocation For where my meaning is that the death of Christ and the effusion of his bloud haue effect and strength in them that truely receaue the sacrament of his flesh and bloud you turne the matter quite as though I should say that the bread were godly and vertuous which is very frantick and vngodly opiniō and nothing pertaining to mine application of the similitude of yron But this is the mother of many errors both in interpretation of scriptures and also in vnderstandyng of old auncient writers when the mind and intent of him that maketh a similitude is not considered But the similitude is applied vnto other matters then the meaning was Which fault may be iustly noted in you here when you reason by the similitude of hoat burning yron that bread may conceiue such vertue as it may be called vertuous and holy For my onely purpose was by that similitude to teach that yron remayning in his proper nature substance by conceauing of fire may work an other thing thē is the nature of yrō And so likewise bread remaynyng in is proper nature and substaunce in the ministration of the sacrament hath an other vse then to feed the body For it is a memoriall of Christes death that by exercise of our fayth our soules may receaue the more heauenly food But this is a strange maner of spech which neither scripture nor approued author euer vsed before you to cal the sacrametal bread vertuous as you doe But into such absurdities men do cōmonly fall when they will of purpose impugne the euident truth But was there euer any man so ouersene say you as this author is Who seeth not S. Ambrose in these three latter speeches to speak as plainly as in the first Was there euer any man so destitute of reason say I but that he vnderstandeth this that when bread is balled bread it is called by the proper name as it is in deed and when bread is called the body of Christ it taketh the name of a thing which it is not in deed but is so called by a figuratiue spech And calling say you in the words of Christ signifieth making which if it signifieth when bread is called bread then were calling of bread a making of bread And thus is aunswered your demaund why this word call in the one signifieth the trueth and in the other not because that the one is a playne speche and the other a figuratiue For els by our reasoning out of reason when the cup which Christ vsed in his last supper was called a cup and when it was called Christes bloud all was one calling and was of like trueth without figure so that the cup was Christes bloud in deed And likewise the stone that flowed out water was called a stone and when it was called Christ the arke also when it was called the arke when it was called god all these must be one spech and of like trueth if it be true which you here say But as the arke was an arke the stone a stone bread very bread and the cup a cup playnely without figuratiue spech so whē they be called God Christ the body and bloud of Christ this can not be alike calling but must needes be vnderstād by a figuratiue spech For as Christ in the scripture is called a lambe for his innocency meeknes a Lyon for his might and power a doore and way wherby we enter into his fathers house wheat corne for the property of dying before they ryse vp bring increase so is he called bread and bread is called his body wine his bloud for the propertie of feedyng nourishing So that these al like speches where as one substaūce is called by the name of an other substaunce diuers and distinct in
nature must needs be vnderstād fyguratiuely by some similitude or propriety of one substance vnto an other and can in no wise be vnderstand properly and playnly without a figure And therfore when Christ is called the sonne of God or bread is called bread it is a most playne and proper spech but when Christ is called bread or bread is called Christ these can in no wise be formall and proper speches the substāces and natures of them being so diuers but must nedes haue an vnderstanding in figure signification or similitude as the very nature of all sacramentes require as al the old writers do playnly teach And therefore the bread after consecration is not called Christ his body bycause it is so in deed for then it were no figuratiue speach as all the old authors say it is And as for this word corporall you openly confessed your owne ignorance in the open audience of all the people at Lambheth when I asked you what corporall body Christ hath in the sacrameut whether he had distinction of members or no your answere was in effect that you could not tell And yet was that a wiser saying then you spake before in Cyril where you sayd that Christ hath onely a spirituall body and a spirituall presence and now you say he hath a corporall presēce And so you confoūd corporal spiritual as if you knew not what either of them ment or wist not or cared not what you sayd But now I will returne to my booke rehearse myne aunswere vnto S. Iohn Chrysostome which is this Now let vs examine S. Iohn Chrisostome who in sound of words maketh most for the aduersaries of the truth but they that be familiar and acquanted with Chrisostomes manner of speaking how in all his writynges he is full of allusions schemes tropes and figures shall soone perceyue that he helpeth nothing their purposes as it shall well appeare by the discussing of those places which the Papistes do alleadge of him which be spicially two One is in Sermone de Eucharistia in Encaenijs And the other is De proditione Iudae And as touching the first no man can speake more playnly agaynst them then S. Iohn Chrisostome speaketh in that sermon Wherfore it is to be wondred why they should alleage hym for their partie vnlesse they be so blind in their opinion that they can se nothing nor discerne what maketh for them nor what against thē For there he hath these wordes When you come to these misteries speaking of the Lordes boord and holy communion do not thinke that you receiue by a man the body of God meaning of Christ. These be S. Iohn Chrisostome his owne wordes in that place Than if we receiue not the body of Christ at the hands of a man Ergo the body of Christ is not really corporally and naturally in the Sacrament and so geuen to vs by the Priest And then it followeth that all the Papistes be lyers because they fayne and teach the contrary But in this place of Chrisostome is touched before more at lēgth in answering to the Papistes Transubstantiation Wherfore now shall be answered the other place which they alleadge of Chrisostome in these wordes Here he is present in the sacramēt and doth cōsecrate which garnished the table at the maundy or last supper For it is not man which maketh of the bread and wine being set forth to be consecrated the body and bloud of Christ but it is Christ himselfe which for vs is crucified that maketh himselfe to be there present The wordes are vttered and pronounced by the mouth of the priest but the consecration is by the vertue might grace of God himselfe And as this saying of God Increase be multiplied fill the earth once spoken by God tooke alwayes effect toward generation euen so the saying of Christ. This is my body being but once spoken doth throughout all churches to this present shall to his last comming geue force and strength to this sacrifice Thus farre they reherse of Chrisostomes words Which wordes although they sound much for the purpose yet if they be throughly cōsidered and conferred with other places of the same author it shal well appeare that he ment nothing lesse thē that Christes body should be corporally and naturally present in the bread and wine but that in such sort he is in heauen onely and in our mindes by fayth we ascend vp into heauen to eate him there although sacramētally as in a signe and figure he be in the bread wine and so is he also in the water of Baptisme and in them that rightly receaue the bread wine he is in a much more perfection then corporally which should auayle them nothing but in them he is spiritually with his diuine power geuing them eternall lyfe And as in the first creatiō of the world all liuing creatures had their first life by gods onely word for God onely spake his word and all things were created by and by accordingly and after their creation he spake these wordes Increase and multiply and by the vertue of those wordes all thinges haue gendred increased euersince that tyme euen so after that Christ sayd Eat this is my body drinke this is my bloud Do this hereafter in remembraunce of me by vertue of these wordes and not by vertue of any man the bread and wine be so cōsecrated that whosoeuer with a liuely fayth doth eat that bread and drinke that wine doth spiritually eat drinke and feede vpon Christ sitting in heauen with his Father And this is the whole meaning of S. Chrisostome And therfore doth he so often say that we receaue Christ in baptisme And when he hath spoken of the receauing of him in the holy communion by and by he speaketh of the receauing of him in baptisme without declaring any diuersity of his presence in the one from his presence in the other He sayth also in many places that We ascend into heauen and do eat Christ sitting there aboue And where S. Chrisostome and other Authors do speak of the wonderfull operation of God in his sacramentes passing all mans wit senses and reason they meane not of the working of God in the water bread wine but of the maruaylous working of God in the hartes of them that receaue the sacramētes secretly inwardly and spiritually transforming them renuing feding comforting and nourishing them with his flesh and bloud through his most holy spirite the same flesh and bloud still remayning in heauen Thus is this place of Chrisostome sufficiently aunswered vnto And if any man require any more thē let hym looke what is recited of the same author before in the matter of Transubstantiation Winchester This author noteth in Chrisostome two places and bringeth them forth and in handling the first place declareth himselfe to trifle in so great a matter euidently to his owne reprofe For where in the second booke
serued to the sustentation and increase of it therfore the bread now also is changed into the flesh of our Lord. And how is it then that it appeareth not flesh but bread that we should not lothe the eating of it for if flesh did appeare we should be vnpleasantly disposed to the communion of it Now our lord condescending to our infirmitie the misticall meat appeareth such to vs as those we haue ben accustomed vnto Hitherto I haue faythfully expressed Theophilactes wordes out of latine of Oecolampadius translation without terming the substantiall poyntes of her wise theÌ„ the words purport in latine By which may appeare what was Theophilactes meaning what doctrine he geueth of the sacrament and how his owne wordes vpon saynt Marke be to be vnderstanded when he sayth Speciem quide panis vim seruat in vertutem autem carnis sanguinis transelementat incorupting of which wordes this author maketh a great matter when they were not alleaged for his but as they be his seruare speciem may be well translate forme and aparance bycause vpon S. Iohn before alleadged he sayth of the bread it appeareth And as for these wordes the vertue of Christes flesh and bloud must be vnderstanded to agree with the playne place of Theophilact vpon S. Iohn and vpon S. Marke also to signifie not onely vertue but veritie of the flesh and bloud of Christ. For if Theophilact by that spech ment the vertue of the body of Christ and not the verytie of the very body as thor sayth he did why should Theophilact both vppon S. Marke and also vpon S. Iohn aske this question why doth not the flesh appeare if him selfe by those wordes should teach there were onely present the vertue of his flesh who and he had ment so would not haue asked the question or if he had would haue answered it thâ—s accordingly there is no flesh in dede but the vertue of the flesh and that had bene a playne answer and such as he would haue made This author will aske then why doth Theophilact vse this phrase to say changed into the vertue of the body of Christ Hereunto I answer that this word vertue in phrase of speach many tymes oâ—â—ly filleth the speach and is comprehended in the signification of his genetiue following and therfore as Luke in the xxii chap. sayth à dextris vertutis Dei so in the Actes in the same sentence is spoken à dextris Dei both out of one pen and à dextris virtutis Dei is no more to say then à dextris Dei and so is virtutem carnis sanguinis no more to say but in carnem sanguinem which sentence the same Theophilact with vpon S. Iohn before alleaged in this saying The bread is changed into flesh anâ—â— Marke in this phrase into the vertue of flesh being like these speaches à dextris Dei and à dextris virtutis Dei. Which and if had liked this author to haue considered he should haue taken Theophilactes speach as Theophilact vnderstandeth himselfe and sayd the wordes alleaged in the name of Theophilus Alexandrinus were not Theophilactes wordes and then he had sayd for so much true which would do well among and the wordes be not indede Theophilactes wordes nor were not alleaged for his Now when this author sayth they were not Theophilus Alexandrinus wordes that is a large negatiue and will be hardly proued otherwise then by addition of the authors knowledge for any thing that he can finde and so there shal be no absurditie to graunt it And thus I returne to myne issue with this author that Theophilact himselfe hath no such meaning expressed in wordes as this author attributed vnto him but an euident contrary meaning sauing herein I will agree with this author that Theophilact ment not grossely sensibly carnally as these wordes sound in carnall mennes iudgementes For we may not so thinkâ— of Gods misteries the worke wherof is not carnall nor corporall for the maner of it But the maner spirituall and yet in the Sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ bicause Christ is in his very true flesh present he may be sayd so carnally present and naturally after Hilary and corporally after Cyrill vnder standing the wordes of the truth of that is present Christes very bydy and flesh and not of the maner of the presence which is onely spirituall supernaturall and aboue mannes capacitie And therfore a high mistery a great miracle a wonderfull woorke which it is holsome to beleue simply with a sincere fayth and daungerous to serch and examine with a curious imagination such as idlenes and arogancy would tempt a man vnto and by diuising of a figure or metaphore bring it within the compasâ—e of our busy reason Caunterbury THis is a pretie sleight of you to passeouer the authors name saying that you found it so alleaged in an author and tell not in what author There is surely some hid mistery in this matter that you would not haue his name knowen For if you had found any approued author who had fathered these wordes vpoÌ„ Theophilus Alexandrinus I doubt not but I should haue herd him here named it should haue serued so much for your purpose For to what purpose should you coÌ„ceale his name if you had any such author But shall I open the mistery of this matter Shall I by coniectures tell the author which you followed as you by coniecture gathered of him the name of Theophilus Thomas de Aquino in his cathena aurea citeth the wordes by you alleaged in these letters Theoph. which letters be indiferent aswel to Theophilus as to Theophilactes so that you might haue christened the child whether you would by the name of Theophilus or of Theophilactus And because Theophilus was a more auncient author and of more learning and estimation then was Theophilact therfore the name pleased you better to geue more credite to your sayinges and so of Theoph you made the whole name Theophilus And bycause one Theophilus was a byshop of Alexandry you added as it were his syr name calling him Theophilus Alexandâ—inus And if Thomas was not the author which you followed in this matter peraduenture it might be doctor Fisher somtyme byshop of Rochester who writing in the same matter that you do was or would be deceaued as you be But what author so euer you folowed you shall not honestly shake of this matter except you tell his name For els I will say that you be fayne to bring in for you fayned authors whispered in corners And yet that Theophilus wrot not that wordes alleaged vpon Marke this is no smale profe that Theophilact hath the same sentences word by word and that neyther S. Hierom Gennadius Eusebius Tritemius nor any other that euer wrot hitherto made euer any mention that Theophilus wrot vpon the gospell of S. Marke And as concerning your issue thus much I graunt without issue that no catholike
writer among the Grekes hath more playnly spokeÌ„ for you then Theophilacte hath and yet when that shal be well examined it is nothing at all as I haue playnly declared shewing your vntruth aswell in allegation of the authors wordes as in falsefying his name And as for the Catechisme of Germany by me translated into English to this I haue aunswered before and truth it is that eyther you vnderstand not the phrase of the old authors of the church or els of purpose you will not vnderstand me But hereunto you shall haue a more full aunswer when I come to the proper place therof in the iiij part of my booke And as coÌ„cerning the wordes of Theophilact vpon the gospel of Iohn he speaketh to one effect and vseth much like termes vpon the gospels of Mathew Marke and Iohn wherunto I haue sufficiently aunswered in my former booke And because the aunswer may be the more present I shall rehearse some of my wordes here agayne Although sayd I Theophilactus spake of the eating of the very body of Christ and the drinking of his very bloud and not onely of the figures of them and of the conuersion of the bread and wine into the body and bloud of Christ yet he meaneth not of a grosse carnall corporall and sensible conuersion of the bread and wine nor of a like eating and drinking of his flesh and bloud for so not onely our stomackes would yerne our hartes abhorre to eate his flesh and to drink his bloud but also such eating and drinking could nothing profite and auayle vs but he spake of the celestiall and spirituall eating of Christ and of a sacramentall conuersion of the bread calling the bread not onely a figure but also the body of Christ geuing vs by those wordes to vnderstand that in the sacrament we do not onely eate corporally the bread which is a sacrament and figure of Christes body but spiritually we eate also his very body and drincke his very bloud And this doctrine of Theophilactus is both true godly and comfortable This I wrot in my former booke which is sufficient to aunswer vnto all that you haue here spoken And as concerning the bread that Christ did eate and feede vpon it was naturally eaten as other men eate naturally changed and caused a naturall nourishment and yet the very matter of the bread remayned although in an other forme but in them that duely receaue and â—at the Lordes holy supper all is spirituall aswell the eating as the change and nourishment which is none impediment to the nature of bread but that it may still remayne And where you come to the translation of this word species to signifie apparence this is a wonderfull kinde of translation to translat specie in apparence because apparet is truly translated appeareth with like reason aurum myght be translated meate because edâ—re signifieth to eate And your other translation is no lesse wonderfull where you turne the vertue of Christes body into the veritie And yet to cloke your folly therin and to cast a mist before the readers eyes that he should not see your vntruth therin you say that by vertue in that place must be vuderstanded verite First what soeuer be vnderstande by the worde vertue your fayth in translation is broken For the sense being ambiguous yoâ— ought in translation to haue kept the word as it is leauing the sense to be expended by the indifferent reader and not by altering the word to make such a sense as please you which is so foule a fault in a translatour that if Decolampadius had so done he should haue ben called a man faulty and gilthy a corruptour a deceauour an abuser of other men a peruerter a deprauer and a man without fayth As he might be called that would translate Verbum caro factum est The second person became man Which although it be true in meaning yet it is not true in translation nor declareth the fayth of the translatour But now as your translation is vntrue so is the meaning also vntrue and vnexcusable For what man is so far destitute of all his senses that he knoweth not a difference betwene the veritie of Christes body and the vertue therof Who can pretend ignoraunce in so manifest a thing Doth not all men know that of euery thing the vertue is one and the substance an other Except in God onely who is of that simplicitie without multiplication of any thing in him or diuersitie that his vertue his power his wisdome his iustice and all that is sayd to be in him be neyther qualites nor accidentes but all one thinge with his verie substauÌ„ce And neyther the right hand of God nor the vertue of God which you bring for an example and serueth to no purpose but to blind the ignorauÌ„t reader be any thing els but the very substaunce of God although indiuersitie of respectes and considerations they haue diuersitie of names except you will deuide the most single substaunce of God into corporall partes and members following the errour of the Aâ—cropomorphites But the like is not in the body of Christ which hath distinctioÌ„ of integrall partes and the vertue also and qualities distinct from the substance And yet if the example were like he should be an euill translator or rather a corrupter that for a dextris virtutis Dei would traÌ„slate a dextris Dei or coÌ„trary wise And therfore all traÌ„slators in those places folow the wordes as they be be not so arrogaÌ„t to alter one title in theÌ„ therby to make theÌ„ one in wordes although the thing in substaunce be one For wordes had not theyr signification of the substances or of thinges onely but of the qualities maners respectes and considerations And so may one word signifie diuers thinges one thing be signified by diuers wordes And therfore he that should for on word take an other because they be both referred to one substaunce as you haue done in this place should make a goodly yere of worke of it not much vnlike to him that should burne his house and say he made it because the making burning was both in one matter and substaunce It is much pitie that you haue not bestowed your tyme in translation of good authors that can skill so well of translation to make specieÌ„ to signifie apparence and that take vertue sometyme for veritie and somtime for nothing a dextris virtutis Dei to signifie no more but a dextris Dei and virtutem carnis to signifie no more but carnem and virtutem sanguinis sanguinem And why not seing that such wordes signifie ad placitum that is to say as please you to translate them And it seameth to be a strange thing that you haue so quicke an eye to espye other mens faultes and cannot see in Theophilact his playne aunswer but to take vpon you to teach him to aunswer For when he asketh the question why doth
not the flesh appeare He should haue aunswered say you that the flesh is not there in deed but the vertue of the flesh I pray you doth not he aunswer playnly the same effect Is not his aunswer to that question this as you confesse your selfe that the fourmes of bread and wine be chaunged into the vertue of the body of Christ And what would you require more Is not this as much to say as the vertue of the flesh is there but not the substaunce corporally and carnally And yet another third errour is committed in the same sentence because one sentence should not be without three errours at the least in your translation For wheras Theophilact hath but one accusatiue case your put therto other two mo of your owne heade And as you once taught Barnes so now you would make Theophilact your scholer to say what you would haue him But that the truth may appeare what Theophilact sayd I shall reherse his owne wordes in Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which wordes translated into latine be these Condescendens nobis benignus Deus speciem quidem panis et vini seruat in potestatem autemcarnis et sanguinis transelementat And in English they be thus much to say The mercifull God condesending to our infermitie conserueth still the kind of bread and wine but turneth them into the vertue of his flesh and bloūd To this sentence you do adde of yonr owne authoritie these wordes the bread wine which wordes Theophilact hath not which is an vntrue parte of him that pretendeth to be a true interpretour And by adding those wordes you alter clearly the authors meaning For wheare the authors meaning was that we should abhore to eate Christes flesh and drincke his bloud in theyr propre forme and kind yet almighty God hath ordeyned that in his holy supper we should receaue the fourmes and kindes of bread and wine and that those kindes should be tourned vnto them that worthely receaue the same into the vertue and effecte of Christes very flesh and bloud although they remayne still in the same kynd and fourme of bread and wine And so by him the nature and kinde of bread and wine remayne And yet the same be tourned into the vertue of flesh and bloud So that the word fourmes is the accusatiue case aswell to the verbe tourneth as to the verbe conserueth but you to make Theophilact serue your purpose adde of your own head two other accusatiue cases that is to say bread and wine besides Theophilactes words wherin all men may consider how little you regarde the truth that to mayntayne your vntrue doctrine once deuised by your selues care not what vntruth you vse besides to corrupt all doctours making so many faultes in translation of one sentence And if the wordes alleaged vpon marke were not Theophilactes wordes but the wordes of Theophilus Alexandrinus as you say at the least Theophilact must borow them of Theophilus bycause the wordes be all one xvi lynes together sauing this word Ueritie which Theophilact tourneth into vertue And then it is to be thought that he would not alter that word wherin all the contention standeth without some consideration And specially when Theophilus speaketh of the veritie of Christes body as you say if Theophilact had thought the body had bene there would he haue refused the word and changed veritie into vertue bringing his owne fayth into suspition and geuing occasion of errour vnto other And where to excuse your errour in translation you say that the wordes by you alleaged in the name of Theophilus Alexandrinus be not Theophilactes wordes and I deny that they be Theophilus wordes so then be they no bodies wordes which is no detriment to my cause at all bycause I tooke him for none of my witnes but it is in a maner a clere ouerthrow of your cause which take him for your cheif principall witnesse saying that no catholike writer among the Grekes hath more playnly set forth the truth of the presence of Christes body in the Sacrament then Theophilactus hath and here vpon you make your issue And yet haue I a good cause to call thē Theophilactes wordes for as much as I finde them in his workes printed abrode sauing one word which you haue vntruly corrupted bycause that worde pleaseth you not And yet am I not bound to admit that your witnesse is named Theophilus except you haue better proofes therof then this that one sayth he hath him in a corner and so alleadgeth him It is your parte to proue your owne witnes and not my parte that stand herein only at defence And yet to euery indiferent man I haue shewed sufficient matter to reiect him Heare now my answer to S. Hierom. Besydes this our aduersaries do alleadge S. Hierom vpō the epistle Ad titū that there is as great difference betwene the Loues called Panis propositionis and the body of Christ as there is betwene a shadow of a body and the body it self and as there is betwene an image and the thing itselfe and betwene an example of thinges to come and the thinges that be prefigured by them These wordes of S. Hierom truly vnderstand serue nothing for the intent of the Papists For he ment that the Shew bread of the law was but a darke shadow of Christ to come but the sacrament of Christes body is a cleare testimony that Christ is already come and that he hath performed that which was promised and doth presently comfort and feede vs spiritually with his precious body and bloud notwithstanding that corporally he is assended into heauen Winchester This Author trauayleth to aunswer S. Hierom and to make him the easier for him to deale with he cutteth of that followeth in the same S. Hierom which should make the matter open and manifest how effectually S. Hierom speaketh of the Sacrament of Christes body and bloud There is sayth S. Hierome as greate difference betwene the loaues called Panes propositionis and the body of Christ as there is betwene the shadowe of a body and the body it selfe and as there is betwene an image and the true thing it selfe and betwene an example of thinges to come and the thinges that be prefigured by them Therfore as mekenes pacience sobrietie moderation abstinence of gayne hospitalitie also and liberalitie should be chiefly in a Bishop and among all layemen an excellency in them so there should be in him a speciall chastitie and as I should say chastitie that is priestly that he should not onely absteyne from vncleane worke but also from the caste of his eye and his mynde free from errour of thought that should make the body of Christ. These be S. Hieroms wordes in this place By the latter parte whreof appeareth playnly how S. Hierome meaneth of Christes body in the Sacrament of which the loaues that were Panes propositionis were a shadow as S. Hierome sayth that bread being the image and this the truth that the
example and this that was prefigured So as if Christes body in the Sacrament should be there but figuratiuely as this author teacheth then were the bread of Proposition figure of a figure and shadow of a shadow which is ouer great an absurditie in our religion Therfore there can not be a more playne proofe to shew that by S. Hieromes mynd Christes body is verely in the Sacrament and not figuratiuely onely then wheÌ„ he noteth Panes propositionis to be the figure and the shadow of Christes body in the Sacrament For as Tertulian sayth Figura non esset nisi veritatis esses corpus The other were not to be called a figure if that answered vnto it wer not of truth which is the sence of Tertulians wordes And therfore S. Hierome could with no other wordes haue expressed his mynde so certaynly playnly as with these to confesse the truth of Christes body in the SacrameÌ„t And therfore regarde not reader what this author sayth For S. Hierome affirmeth playnly Christes true body to be in the Sacrament the consecration wherof although S. Hierom attributeth to the minister yet we must vnderstand him that he taketh God for the author and worker notwithstanding by reason of the minestry in the church the doing is ascribed to manne as minister bycause Christ sayd Hoc facite after which speach saluation remission of sinne and the worke in other SacrameÌ„tes is attribute to the minister being neuerthelesse the same the propre and speciall workes of God And this I adde bicause some be vniustly offended to heare that man should make the body of Christ. And this author findth fault before at the word making which religiousely heard and reuerently spoken should offend no man for man is but a minyster wherin he should not glory And Christ maketh not him selfe of the matter of bread nor maketh him selfe so oft of bread a new body but sitting in heauen dooth as our inuisible Priest worke in the mistery of the visible pristhood of his church and maketh present by his omnipotencie his glorified body and bloud in this high mistery by conuertion of the visible creatures of bread and wine as Emissen sayth into the same This author of this booke as thou reader mayst perceaue applieth the figure of the breades called Panes propositionis to the body of Christ to come where as S. Hierome calleth them the figure of Christes body in the Sacrament and therfore doth fashion his argument in this sence If those breades that were but a figure required so much cleanes in them that should eat them that they might not eate of them which a day or two before had lyen with theyr wiues what cleanes is required in him that should make the body of Christ Wherby thou mayst se how this author hath reserued this notable place of S. Hierom to the later ende that thou shouldest in the ende as well as in the middest see him euidently snarled for the better remembrance Caunterbury TO these wordes of S. Hierome I haue sufficiently aunswered in my former booke And now to adde some thing therunto I say that he meaneth not that Panis Propositionis be figures of the sacrament but of Christes very body And yet the same body is not onely in the sacrament figuratiuely but it is also in the true ministration therof spiritually present spirituallye eaten as in my booke I haue playnely declared But how is it possible that Caius Vlpian or Sceuola Batholus Baldus or Curtius should haue knowledge what is ment by the spirituall presence of Christ in the sacrament and of the spirituall eating of his flesh and bloud if they be voyde of a liuely fayth feeding and comforting theyr soules with their owne workes and not with the breaking of the body and shedding of the bloud of our Sauiour Christ. The meat that the Papistes liue by is indulgences and pardons and such other remission of sinnes as cometh all from the Pope which giueth no life but infecteth and poysoneth but the meate that the true Christian man lyueth by is Christ him selfe who is eaten onely by fayth and so eaten is life and spirite giuing that life that endureth and continueth for euer God graunt that we may learne this heauenly knowledge of the spirituall presence that we may spiritually taste and feede of this heauenly foode Now where you say that there canne not be a more playne proofe to shew that Christes body is verely in the sacrament and not figuratiuely onely than when S. Hierome noteth Panis propositionis to be the figure and shadow of Christes body in the sacrament For as Tertulian sayth the other were not to be called a figure if that which aunswereth to it were not of truth Here your for is a playne fallax à non causa vt causa and a wonderous subtiltie is vsed therin For where Tertulian proueth that Christ had here in earth a very body which Martion denied bicause that bread was instituted to be a figure therof and there canne bee no figure of a thing that is not you alleadge Tertulians wordes as though he should say that Christes body is in the sacrament vnder the forme of bread whereof neyther Tertulian intreated in that place nor it is not required that the body should be corporally where the figure is but rather it should be in vayne to haue a figure when the thing it selfe is present And therfore you vntruely reporte both of S. Hierome and Tertulian For neyther of them both do say as you would gather of theyr wordes that Christes body is in the sacrament really and corporally And where you say that Christ maketh not him selfe of the matier of bread either you be very ignoraunt in the doctrine of the sacrament as it hath bene taught these fiue hundred yeares or els you dissemble the matter Hath not this bene the teaching of the schole diuines yea of Innocent him selfe that the matter of this Sacrament is bread of wheat and wine of grapes Do they not say that the substaunce of bread is tourned into the substaunce of Christes flesh and that his flesh is made of bread And who worketh this but Christ him selfe And haue you not confessed all this in your booke of the Deuils sophistry why do you then deny here that which you taught before and which hath bene the common aproued doctrine of the Papistes so many yeares And bycause it should haue the more authorite was not this put into the masse bookes and reade euery yeare Dognum datur christianis quod in caâ—nem transit panis uinum in sanguinem Now seing that you haue taught so many yeares that the matter and substaunce of bread is not consumed to nothing but is chaunged and tourned into the body of Christ so that the body of Christ is made of it what meane you now to deny that Christ is made of the matier of bread Whan water was tourned into wine was not the wine made of the
following of the diuersitie of them that eate and not of that is eaten which is alway one According hereunto S. Augustine agaynst the donatists geueth for a rule the sacramentes to be one in all although they be not one that receaue vse them And therfore to knitte vp this matter for the purpose I intend and write it for we must consider the substance of the visible sacrament of Christes body and bloud to be alwayes as of it selfe it is by Christes ordinaunce in the vnderstanding wherof this author maketh variaunce and would haue it by Christes ordinaunce but a figure which he hath not proued but and he had proued it then is it in substaunce but a figure and but a figure to good men For it must be in substaunce one to good and bad and so neyther to good nor bad this sacrament is otherwise dispensed then it is truely taught to be by preaching Wherefore if it be more then a figure as it is in deed and if by Christes ordinance it hath present vnder the forme of those visible signes of bread and wine the very body and bloud of Christ as both bene truly taught hitherto then is the substance of the Sacrament one alwayes as the oyntment was whether doues eate of it or beteles And this Issue I ioyne with this author that he shall not be able by any learning to make any diuersitie in the substance of this sacrament what soeuer diuersite follow in the effect For the diuersitie of the effect is occasioned in them that receaue as before is proued And then to answere this author I say that onely good men eate and drinck the body and bloud of Christ spiritually as I haue declared but all good and euill receiue the visible Sacrament of that substaunce God hath ordeyned it which in it hath no variance but is all one to good and euill Caunterbury IN this booke because you agre with me almost in the whole I shall not need much to trauaile in the aunswer but leauing all your prety taūtes agaynst me and glorious bosting of your selfe which neyther beseemeth our persones nor hindreth the truth nor furthereth your part but by pompouse wordes to winne a vayne glory and fame of them that be vnlearned and haue more regarde to words then iudgement of the matter I shall onely touch here and there such thinges as we vary in or that be necessary for the defence of the truth First after the sūme of my fourth booke collected as pleaseth you at the first dash you beginne with an vntrue report ioyned to a subtell deceyte or falax saying that my chief purpose is to proue that euill men receaue not the body and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament And hereupon you conclude that my fourth booke is superfluouse But of a false antecedent all that be learned do know that nothing can be rightly concluded Now mine intent and purpose in my fourth boooke is not to proue that euill men receaue not the body and bloud of Christ in the sacrament although that be true but my chief purpose is to proue that euell men eate not Christes flesh nor drincke not his bloud neither in the sacrament nor out of the sacrament as on the other side good men eat and drincke them both in the sacrament and out of the Sacrament And in the word Sacrament which is of your addition is a subtill falax called double vnderstanding For when the Sacrament is called onely a figure as you reherse wherin the body and bloud of Christ be onely figuratiuely there the word Sacrament is taken for the outwarde signes of bread and wine And after when you reherse that the Sacrament is a visible preaching by the tokens and signes of bread and wine in beleuing and remembring Christes benefites there the word Sacrament is taken for the whole ceremony and ministration of the Sacrament And so when you goe about by equiuocation of the word to deceaue other men you fall into your owne snare and be deceaued your selfe in that you think you conuey the matter so craftely that no man can espy you But to vtter the matter playnly without fallax or cauilation I teach that no man can eat Christes flesh and drincke his bloud but spiritually which forasmuch as euill men do not although they eat the sacramentall bread vntill theyr bellyes be full and drincke the wine vntill they be dronken yet eat they neither Christes flesh nor drincke his bloud neither in the sacrament nor without the sacrament because they cannot be eaten and dronken but by spirite and fayth wherof vngodly men be destitute being nothing but world and flesh This therfore is the summe of my teaching in this fourth booke that in the true ministration of the Sacrament Christ is present spiritually and so spiritually eaten of them that be godly and spirituall And as for the vngodly and carnall they may eate the bread and drincke the wine but with Christ him selfe they haue no communion or company and therfore they neyther eate his flesh nor drincke his bloud which who soeuer eateth hath as Christ sayth him selfe life by him as Christ hath life by his father And to eate Christes body or drincke his bloud sayth S. Augustine is to haue life For whether Christ be in the Sacrament corporally as you say or spiritually in them that rightly beleue in him and duely receaue the Sacrament as I say yet certayne it is that there he is not eaten corporally but spiritually For corporal eating with the mouth is to chaw teare in peces with the teeth after which maner Christes body is of no man eaten although Nicholas the second made such an article of the fayth and compelled Berengatius so to professe And therfore although Christ were corporally in the Sacrament yet seeing that he cannot be corporally eaten this booke commeth in good place and is very necessary to know that Christes body can not be eaten but spiritually by beleuing and remembring Christes benefites and reuoluing them in our mynd beleeuing that as the bread and wine feed and nourish our bodyes so Christ feedeth and nourisheth our soules And ought this to come out of a christian mannes mouth That these be good wordes but such as the wordes of christes supper do not learne vs Do not the wordes of Christes supper learne vs to eate the breade and drinke the wine in the remembraunce of his death Is not the breakyng and eating of the bread after such sort as Christ ordayned a communication of Christes body vnto vs Is not the cuppe likewise a communication of his bloud vnto vs Should not then christian people according hereunto in fayth feed vpon Christ spiritually beleuing that as the bread wine feed and nourish theyr bodyes so both Christ their soules with his owne flesh and bloud And shall any Christian man now say that these be good wordes but such as the wordes in Christes supper do not
But all this is spoken quite besides the matter and serueth for nothing but to cast a myst before mens eyes as it semeth you seeke nothing els thorow your whole booke And this your doctrine hath a very euill smacke that spirite and life should fall vppon naughty men although for theyr malice it tary not For by this doctrine you ioyne togither in one man Christ and Beliall the spirite of God and the spirite of the diuell lyfe and death and all at one tyme which doctrine I will not name what it is for all faythfull men know the name right well and detest the same And what ignoraunce can be shewed more in him that accoumpteth himselfe learned then to gather of Christes wordes where her sayth his wordes be spirit and life that spirit and lyfe should be in euill men because they heare his wordes For the wordes which you recyte by and by of S. Augustin shew how vayne your argument is when he sayth The wordes be spirite and life but not to thee that doest carnally vnderstand them What estimation of learning or of truth would you haue men to conceaue of you that bring such vnlearned argumentes wherof the inuadilitie appeareth within six lynes after Which must nedes declare in you either much vntruth and vnsincere proceding or much ignoraunce or at the least all exceding forgetfulnes to say anythyng reproued agayn within six lynes after And if the promises of God as you say be not disapoynted by our infidelitie then if euyll men eate the very body of Christ and drink his bloud they must nedes dwell in Christ and haue Christ dwelling in them and by him haue euerlasting lyfe bycause of these promises of Christ Qui manducat meam carnem bibit meum sanguinem in memanet et ego in eo Et quimanducat meam carnem bibit meum sanguinem habet vitam aeternam He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath euerlasting lyfe And he that eateth my flesh and drincketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him And yet the third promise Qui manducat me ipse viues propter me He that eateth me he shall also lyue by me These be .iij. promises of God which if they can not be disapoynted by our infidilitie then if euyll men eat the very body of Christ and drinke his bloud as you say they doe in the sacrament then must it nedes follow that they shall haue euerlasting life and that they dwell in Christ and Christ in them bicause our infidilitie say you can not disappoynt Goddes promises And how agreeth this your saying with that doctrine which you were wont earnestly to teach both by mouth and penne that all the promises of God to vs be made vnder condition if our infidilitie can not disappoynt Gods promises For then the promises of God must nedes haue place whether we obserue the condition or not But here you haue fetched a great compasse circuit vtterly in vayne to reproue that thing which I neuer denied but euer affirmed which is That the substaunce of the visible sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ which I say is bread and wine in the sacrament as water is in baptisme is all one substance to good and to badde and to both a figure But that vnder the fourme of bread and wine is corporally present by Christes ordinaūce his very body and bloud eyther to good or to ill that you neyther haue nor can proue yet thereupō would you bring in your conclusion here wherin you commit that folly in reasoning which is caled Petitio principij What neede you to make herein any issue when we agree in the matter For in the substance I make no diuersitie but I say that the substance of Christes body and bloud is corporally present neyther in the good eater nor in the euill And as for the substance of bread and wine I say they be all one whether the good or euill eate and drincke them As the water of Baptisme is all one whether Symon Peter or Symon Magus be christned therin and it is one word that to the euill is a sauoure of death and to the good is a sauoure of lyfe And as it is one Sonne that shineth vppon the good and the badde that melteth butter and maketh the earth harde one flower wherof the bee sucketh hony and the spyder poyson and one oyntment as Decumenius sayth that kylleth the bettyll and strengthneth the doue Neuerthelesse as all that be washed in the water be not washed with the holy spirite so all that eate the sacramentall bread eate not the very body of Christ. And thus you see that your issue is to no purpose except you would fight with your owne shadowe Now forasmuch as after all this vayne and friuolous consuming of wordes you begin to make answere vnto my profes I shall here reherse my profes and argumentes to the intent that the reader seyng both my profes and your confutations before his eyes may the better consider and geue his iudgement therein My forth booke begynneth thus THe grosse errour of the Papistes is Of the carnall eating and drinking of Christes flesh and bloud with our mouthes For they say that whosoeuer eate and drincke the sacramentes of bread and wine do eat and drincke also with theyr mouthes Christes very flesh and bloud be they neuer so vngodly and wicked persons But Christ him selfe taught cleane contrary in the sixt of Iohn that we eate not him carnally with our mouthes but spiritually with our fayth saying Verily verily I say vnto you he that beleueth in me hath euerlasting lyfe I am the bread of life Your fathers did eat Manna in the wildernes and dyed This is the bread that cam from heauen that who so euer shall eate therof shall not dye I am the liuely bread that cam from heauen If any man eat of this bread he shall liue for euer And the bread which I will geue is my flesh which I will geue for the lyfe of the world This is the most true doctrine of our sauiour Christ that whosoeuer eateth him shall haue euerlasting lyfe And by and by it followeth in the same place of S. Iohn more clearly Verely verely I say vnto you except you eat the flesh of the sonne of man and drincke his bloud you shall not haue life in you He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath life euerlasting and I will rayse him agayne at the last day For my flesh is very meate and my bloud is very drincke He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him As the liuing father hath sent me and I liue by the father euen so he that eateth me shall liue by me This is the bread which came downe from heauen not as your fathers did eate Manna and are dead He that eateth this
men eate and drincke the body and bloud of Christ. For so say all the scriptures and authors playnly which I haue alleadged without your addition of spirituall manducation and not one of them all say as you do that in the visible Sacrament euell men receaue the same that good men do But I make no such vayne proofes as you fayne in my name that in the sacrament Christes very body is not present bycause euil men receaue it But this argument were good although I make no such Euell men eate and drincke the sacrament and yet they eate and drincke not Christes flesh and bloud Ergo his flesh and bloud be not really and corporally in the sacrament And when you say that Christ may be receaued of the euel man to his condemnation is this the glory that you geue vnto Christ that his whole presence in a man both with flesh bloud soule and spirite shall make him neuer the better and that Christ shal be in him that is a member of the deuell And if an euill man haue Christ in him for a tyme why may he not then haue him still dwelling in him For if he may be in him a quarter of an houre he may be also an whole houre and so a whole day and an whole yeare and so shall God and the diuell dwell together in one house And this is the croppe that groweth of your sowing if Christ fall in euell men as good seed falleth in euell ground And where you say that all that euer I bring to proue that euell men eate not the body of Christ may be shortly aunswered truth it is as you sayd in one place of me that all that I haue brought may be shortly aunswered if a man care not what he aunswer as it seemeth you pas not much what you aunswer so that you may lay on lode of wordes For where as I haue fully proued as well by authoritie of scripture as by the testimony of many olde writers that although euell men eate the sacramentall bread and drincke the wine which haue the names of his flesh and bloud yet they eate not Christes very flesh nor drincke his bloud Your short and whole aunswer is this that euell men may be sayd not to eate Christes flesh and drincke his bloud bycause they do it not frutefully as they ought to do And that may be called a not eating as they may be sayd not to heare godes word that heare it not profitably and a thing not well done may be in speach called not done in the respect of the good effect I graunt such speaches be sometyme vsed but very rarely and when the very truth commeth in discussion then such Paradoxes are not to be vsed As if it come in question whether a house be builded that is not well builded then the diffinition of the matter must not be that it is not builded although the carpenters and other workemen haue fayled in theyr couenaunt and bargayne and not builded the house in such sort as they ought to haue done So our sauiour Christ teacheth that all heard the word whether the seed fell in the high way or vpon the stones or among the thornes or in the good groūd Wherfore when this matter cometh in discussion among the old writers whether euell menne eate Christes body or no if the truth had bene that euill men eate it the olde writers would not so precisely haue defined the contrary that they eate not but would haue sayd they eate it but not effectually not frutefully not profitably But now the authors which I haue alleaged define playnly and absolutely that euell men eate not Christes body without any other addition But after this sort that you do vse it shall be an easy matter for euery man to say what liketh him and to defend it well inough if he may adde to the scriptures and doctours wordes at his pleasure and make the sense after his owne phantasye The scriptures and Doctoures which I alleadge do say in playne wordes as I do say that euell menne do not eate the body of Christ nor drincke his bloud but onely they that haue life therby Now come you in with your addition and glose made of your owne head putting therto this word effectually Yf I should say that Christ was neuer conceaued nor borne could not I auoyd all the scriptures that you can bring to the contrary by adding this word apparantly and defend my saying stoutly And might not the Ualentinians Marcianistes and other that sayd that Christ dyed not for vs defend their errour with addition as they did of this word putatiue to all the scriptures that were brought agaynst them And wat herisie can be reproued if the heretikes may haue the liberty that you do vse to adde of their owne heades to the wordes of scripture contrary vnto Godes word directly who cōmaundeth vs to adde nothing to his word nor to take any thing away And yet more ouer the authorities which I haue brought to approue my doctrine do clerely cast away your addition adding the cause why euell men can not eate Christes flesh nor drincke his bloud And you haue taught almost in the beginning of your booke that Christes body is but a spirituall body and after a spirituall manner eaten by fayth And now you haue confessed that who so fedeth vpon Christ spiritually must nedes be a good man How can you than defend now that euell men eat the body of Christ except you will now deny that which you graunted in the beginning and now haue forgotten it that Christes body cannot be eaten but after a spirituall maner by fayth Wherin it is meruayle that you hauing so good a memory should forgette the common prouerbe Mendacem memorem esse oportet And it had ben more conuenient for you to haue answered fully to Cyprian Athanasius Basyll Hierom and Ambrose then when you cannot answer to wipe your handes of them with this slender answer saying that you haue answered And whether you haue or no I refer to the iudgement of the reader And as concerning S. Augustine De ciuitate Dei he sayth that euell men receaue the sacrament of Christes body although it auayleth them not But yet he sayth in playne wordes that we ought not to say that any man eateth the body of Christ that is not in the body And if the reader euer saw any meare cauilation in all his lyfe tyme let him read the chapter of S. Augustine and compare it to your answer and I dare say he neuer sawe the like And as for the other places of S. Augustine by me alleadged with Origen and Cirill for the more ease you passe them ouer with silence and dare eate no such meate it is so hard for you to digest And thus haue you with post hast runne ouer all my scriptures and doctours as it were playing at the post with still passing and geuing ouer euery game And yet shal you
wherin it entreth with the visible element and yet as S. Augustine sayth dwelleth not in him that so vnworthely receiueth bycause the effect of dwelling of Christ is not in him that receaueth by such a maner of eating as wicked men vse Wherby S. Augustine teacheth the diuerse effect to ensue of the diuersitie of the eating and not of any diuersitie of that which is eaten whether the good man or euill man receaue the sacrament If I would here encombre the reader I could bring forth many mo places of S. Augustine to the confusion and reprofe of this Authors purpose and yet notwithstanding to take away that he might say of me that I way not S. Augustine I thinke good to alleadge and bring forth the iudgement of Martyn Bucer touching S. Augustine who vnderstandeth S. Augustine clere contrary to this author as may playnly appeare by that the sayd Bucer writeth in few wordes in his epistle dedicatory of the great worke he sent abroad of his enarrarations of the gospelles where his iudgement of S. Augustine in this poynt he vttereth thus Quoties scribit etiam Iudam ipsum corpus sanguinem domini sumsisse Nemo itaque auctoritate S. patrum dicet Christum in sacra Coena absentem esse The sense in English is this How often writeth he speaking of S. Augustine Iudas also to haue receaued the selfe body and bloud of our Lord No man thefore by the authoritie of the fathers can say Christ to be absent in the holy supper Thus sayth Bucer who vnderstandeth S. Augustine as I haue before alleadged him and gathereth therof a conclusion that no man can by the fathers sayinges proue Christ to be absent in the holy supper And therfore by Bucers iudgement the doctrine of this Author can be in no wise catholique as dissenting from that hath ben before taught and beleued whether Bucer will still continue in that he hath so solemnly published to the world and by me here alleadged I cannot tell and whether he do or no it maketh no matter but thus he hath taught in his latter iudgement with a great protestation that he speaketh without respect other then to the truth wherin because he semed to dissent from his frendes he sayth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which wordes haue an imitation of an elder saying and be thus much to say Socrates is my frend truth is my best beloued and the church most regarded And with this Bucer closeth his doctrine of the sacrament after he knew al that Zuinglius Decolampadius could say in the matter And here I will leaue to speake of Bucer and bring forth Theodoretus a man most extolled by this author who sayth playnly in his commentaries vpon S. Paule how Christ deliuered to Iudas his precious body and bloud and declareth further therwith in that sacrament to be the truth So as this author can haue no foundatiō vpon eyther to maintayne his figuratiue speach or the matter of this fourth booke which his wordes playnly impugn S. Hierom in his commentaries vpon the prophet Malachie hath first this sentence Polluimus panem id est corpus Christi quando indigne accedimus ad altare sordidi mundum sanguinem bibimus We defile the bread that is to say the body of Christ when we com vnworthy to the aulter and being filthy drincke the cleane bloud Thus sayth S. Hierome who sayth men filthy drincke the cleane bloud and in an other place after the same S. Hierom sayth Polluit Christi misteria indigne accipiens Corpus eius sanguinem He that vnworthely receaueth the body and bloud of Christ defileth the misteries Can any wordes be more manifest and euident to declare S. Hieroms mind how in the visible sacrament men receaue vnworthely which be euell men the body and bloud of Christ Caunterbury IN this poynt I will ioyne a playne issue with you that I neyther willingly goe about to deceaue the reader in the serching of S. Augustine as you vse to do in euery place nor I haue not trusted my man or frende herein as it semeth you haue done ouermuch but I haue diligently expended and wayed the matter my selfe For although in such waightie matters of scripture and aunciēt authors you must nedes trust your men without whom I know you can doe very litle being brought vp from your tender age in other kindes of study yet I hauing exercised my selfe in the study of scripture and diuinitye from my youth wherof I geue most harty laudes and thankes to God haue learned now to goe alone and do examine iudge and write all such waighty matters my selfe although I thanke God I am neyther so arrogant nor so wilfull that I will refuse the good aduise counsailie and admonition of any man be he man or master frende or foe But as concerning the place alleadged by you out of S. Augustine let the reader diligently expend myne whole aunswer to S. Augustine and he shall I trust be fully satisfied For S. Augustine in his booke De baptismo contra Donatistas as I haue declared in my booke speaketh of the morsell of bread and sacrament which Iudas also dyd eate as S. Augustine sayth And in this speach he considered as he writeth Contra Maximinū not what it is but what it signifieth and therfore he expresseth the matter by Iudas more playnly in an other place saying that he did eate the bread of the Lord not the bread being the Lord as the other Apostles dyd signifying therby that the euell eate the bread but not the Lord himselfe As S. Paule sayth that they eate and drincke Panem calicem Domini the bread and the cup of the Lord and not that they eate the Lord himselfe And S. Augustine sayth not as you faine of him that the substaunce of this sacrament is the body and bloud of Christ but the substaunce of this sacrament is bread and wine as water is in the sacramēt of Baptisme and the same be all one not altered by the vnworthines of the receauors And although S. Augustine in the wordes by you recited call the sacrament of Christes body and bloud his body and bloud yet is the sacrament no more but the sacrament therof and yet is it called the body and bloud of Christ as sacraments haue the names of the thinges wherof they be sacraments as the same S. Augustine teacheth most playnly ad Bonifacium And I haue not so far ouershot my selfe or bene ouersene that I would haue atempted to publish this matter if I had not before hand excussed the whole truth therin from the botome But bicause I my selfe am certayne of the truth which hath bene hid these many yeares and persecuted by the Papistes with fyer and fagot and should be so yet still if you might haue your owne will and bicause also I am desirous that all my contrey men of England vnto whome I haue no smale cure and charge to
present vnder the kindes of bread and wine which as before is expressed and proued is vtterly nothing And so they geue vnto the ignorant occasion to worship bread and wine and they them selues worship nothing there at all Winchester As touching the adoration of Christes flesh in the sacrament which adoration is a true confession of the whole man soule and body if there be oportunity of the truth of God in his worke is in my iudgement well set forth in the booke of Common prayer where the priest is ordered to knele and make a prayer in his owne and the name of all that shall communicate confessing therin that is prepared there at which tyme neuerthelesse that is not adored that the bodely eye séeth but that which fayth knoweth to be there inuisibly present which and there be nothing as this author now teacheth it were not well I will not aunswere this authors eloquence but his matter where it might hurt Caunterbury WHere as I haue shewed what idolatry was cōmitted by meanes of the Papisticall doctrine concerning adoration of the sacrament bicause that answere to my reasons you can not and confesse the truth you will not therfore you runne to your vsuall shift passing it ouer with a toy and scoffe saying that you will not answere myne eloquence but the matter and yet indede you answere neither of both but vnder pretence of myne eloquēce you shift of the matter also And yet other eloquence I vsed not but the accustomed speach of the homely people as such a matter requireth And where you say that it were not well to worship Christ in the Sacrament if nothing be there as you say I teach if you meane that Christ can not be worshipped but where he is corporally present as you must nedes meane if your reason should be to purpose then it followeth of your saying that we may not worship Christ in Baptisme in the fieldes in priuate houses nor in no place els where Christ is not corporally and naturally present But the true teaching of the holy catholike churche is that although Christ as concerning his corporall presence be continually resident in heauen yet he is to be worshiped not onely there but here in earth also of all faythfull people at all tymes in all places and in all theyr workes Heare now what followeth further in my Booke But the Papistes for theyr owne commodity to keepe the people still in idolatry do often alleadge a certayne place of S. Augustine vpon the Psalmes where he sayth that no man doth eate the flesh of Christ except he first worship it and that we do not offend in worshipping therof but we should offend if we should not worship it That is true which S. Augustine sayth in this place For who is he that professeth Christ and spiritually fedde and nourished with his flesh and bloud but he will honor and worship him sitting at the right hand of his father and render vnto him from the botome of his hart all laud prayse and thankes for his mercifull redemption And as this is most true which S. Augustine sayth so is that most false which the Papistes would perswade vpon S. Augustines wordes that the Sacramentall bread and wine or any visible thing is to be worshipped in the Sacrament For S. Augustines mynd was so farre from any such thought that he forbiddeth vtterly to worship Christes owne flesh and bloud alone but in consideration and as they be annexed and ioyned to his diuinity How much lesse then could he thinke or allow that we should worship the Sacramentall bread and wine or any outward or visible Sacrament which be shadowes figures and representations of Christes flesh and bloud And S. Augustine was afrayd least in worshiping Christes very body we should offend therfore he biddeth vs when we worship Christ that we should not tarry and fixe our myndes vpon his flesh which of it self auayleth nothing but that we should lift vp our myndes from the flesh to the spirite which geueth lyfe and yet the Papistes be not afrayd by crafty meanes to induce vs to worship those thinges which be signes and sacraments of Christes body But what will not the shamelesse Papistes alleadge for theyr purpose when they be not ashamed to mayntayne the adoration of the Sacrament by these wordes of S. Augustine Wherin he speaketh not one word of the adoration of the sacrament but onely of Christ him selfe And although he say that Christ gaue his flesh to be eaten of vs yet he ment not that his flesh is here corporally present and corporally eaten but onely spiritually As his word declare playnly which follow in the same place where S. Augustine as it were in the person of Christ speaketh these wordes It is the spirite that giueth lyfe but the flesh profiteth nothing The wordes which I haue spoken vnto you be spirite and life That which I haue spoken vnderstand you spiritually You shall not eate this body which you see and drincke that bloud which they shall shed that shall crucify me I haue commended vnto you a sacramēt vnderstand it spiritually and it shall geue you lyfe And although it must be visibly ministred yet it must be inuisibly vnderstand These wordes of S. Augustine with the other before recited do expresse his mynd playnly that Christ is not otherwise to be eaten than spiritually which spirituall eating requireth no corporal presence and that he entended not to teach here any adoration eyther of the visible sacramentes or of any thing that is corporally in them For in dede there is nothing really and corporally in the bread to be worshipped although the Papistes say that Christ is in euery consecrated bread Winchester As in the wrong report of S Augustine who speaking of the adoration of Christes flesh geuen to be eaten doth so fashion his speach as it can not with any violence be drawen to such an vnderstanding as though S. Augustine should meane of the adoring of Christes flesh in heauen as this author would haue it S. Augustine speaketh of the giuing of Christes flesh to vs to eate and declareth after that he meaneth in the visible Sacrament which must be inuisibly vnderstanded spiritually not as the Capernaites did vnderstand Christes wordes carnally to eate that body cut in peces and therfore there may be no such imaginations to eat Christes body after the manner he walked here nor drincke his bloud as it was shedde vpon the Crosse but it is a mystery and sacrament that is godly of godes worke supernaturall aboue mans vnderstanding and therfore spiritually vnderstanded shall geue life which life carnall vnderstanding must nedes exclude And by these my wordes I thincke I declare truely S. Augustines meaning of the truth of this sacrament wherin Christ giueth truly his flesh to be eaten the flesh he spake of before taken of the virgine For the spirituall vnderstanding that S. Augustine speaketh of is not to exclude the truth of
presence of Christes body and bloud in the Sacrament so I trust to shew this author ouerseene in the article of transubstantiation For enter wherunto first I say this that albeit the word Transubstantiation was first spoken of by publique authority in that assemble of learned men of Christendome in a generall counsaile where the Bishop of Rome was present yet the true matter signified by that word was older and beleued before vpon the true vnderstanding of Christes wordes and was in that counsayle confessed not for the authority of the Bishop of Rome but for the authority of truth being the article such as toucheth not the authority of the Bishop of Rome but the true doctrine of Christes mistery and therfore in this realme the authority of Rome cessing was also confessed for a truth by all the clergy of this realme in an open counsayle specially discussed and though the hardenes of the law that by parliament was established of that and other articles hath bene repelled yet that doctriue was neuer hitherto by any publique counsayle or any thing set forth by authority empayred that I haue hard wherfore me thinketh this author should not improue it by the name of the Bishop of Rome seing we read how truth was vttered by Balsaam and Caiphas also and S. Paule teacheth the Philippenses that whither it be by contention or enuy so Christ be preached the person should not empayre the opening of truth if it be truth which Luther in deed would not alow for truth impugning the article of Transubstantiation not meaning therby as this author doth to empayre the truth of the very presence of Christes most precious body in the Sacrament of the aniter as is afore sayd in the discussion of which truth of Transubstantiation I for my part should be speciall defended by two meanes wherwith to auoyd the enuious name of Papist One is that Zuinglius himselfe who was no Papist as is well knowen nor good christen man as some sayd neither sayth playnly writing to Luther in the matter of the Sacrament it must nedes be true that if the body of Christ be really in the Sacrament there is of necessity Transubstantiation also Wherfore seing by Luthers trauayle who fauored not the Byshops of Rome neither and also by euidence of the truth most certayne and manifest it appeareth that according to the true catholqiue sayth Christ is really present in the sacrament it is now by Zuinglius iudgement a necessary consequence of that truth to say there is TransubstantiatioÌ„ also which shal be one meane of purgation that I defend not Transubstantiation as depending of the Bishop of Romes determination which was not his absolutely but of a necessity of the truth howsoeuer it liketh Duns or Gabriell to write in it whose sayinges this author vseth for his pleasure An other defence is that this author himselfe sayth that it is ouer great an absurdity to say that bread insensible with many other termes that he addeth should be the body of Christ and therfore I thinke that the is that is to say the inward nature and essence of that Christ deliuered in his supper to be eaten and dronken was of his body and bloud and not of the bread and wine and therfore can well agree with this author that the bread of wheate is not the body of Christ nor the body of Christ made of it as of a matter which considerations will enforce him that beleueth the truth of the presence of the substaunce of Christes body as the true catholique â—ayth teacheth to assent to Transubstantiation not as determined by the church of Rome but as a consequent of truth beleued in the mistery of the Sacrament which Transubstantiation how this author would impugne I will without quarell of enuious wordes consider and with true opening of his handeling the matter doubt not to make the reader to see that he fighteth agaynst the truth I will passe ouer the vnreuerent handling of Christes wordes This is my body which wordes I heard this Author if he be the same that is named once reherse more seriously in a solemne and open audience to the conuiction and condemnation as followed of one that erroniously mayntayned agaynst the sacrament the same that this author calleth now the catholique fayth Caunterbury IN this booke which answereth to my second booke rather with taunting wordes then with matter I will answere the chief poyntes of your intent and not contend with you in scolding but will geue you place therin First I charge none with the name of papistes but that be well worthy therof For I charge not the hearers but the teachers not the learners but the inuenters of the vntrue doctrine of Transubstantiation not the kinges faythfull subiects but the Popes darlinges whose fayth and belefe hangeth of his onely mouth And I call it their doctrine not onely bycause they teach it but bycause they made it and were the first fynders of it And as in the third booke concerning the reall presence of Christes body and bloud in the Sacrament you haue not shewed myne ignorance or wilfulnes but your owne so do you now much more in the matter of Transubstantiation Which word say you albeit the same was fyrst spoken of in the generall counsell where the Byshop of Rome was present yet the true matter signified by that word was older Here at the first brunt you confesse that the name of Transubstantiation was giuen at the counsell So that either the matter was not before as it was not in deed or at the least it was before a namelesse child as you do graunt vntill the holy father Innocent the thyrd which begat it assembled a company of his frendes as godfathers to name the child And by what authority the counsayle defined the matter of Transubstantiation it may easely appeare For authority of scripture haue they none nor none they do alleadge And what the authority of the Pope was there all men may see being present in the same no lesse then .800 Abbottes and Priours who were all the Popes owne chyldren of him created and begotten And as for the confession of all the clergy of this Realme in an open counsell the authority of Rome ceasing you speake here a manifest vntruth wittingly agaynst your conscience For you know very well and if you will denie it there be enough yet aliue can testify that diuers of the clergy being of most godly liuing learning and iudgement neuer consented to the articles which you speake of And what meruayle was it that those articles notwithstanding diuers learned men repugning passed by the most voyces of the Parliament seing that although the authority of Rome was then newely ceased yet the darkenes and blindnes of errours and ignoraunte that came from Rome still remayned and ouershadowed so this Realme that a great number of the Parliament had not yet theyr eyes opened to see the truth And yet how that matter was enforced
contempt were meeter in an Ethnikes mouth to iest out all then to passe the lippes of such an author to play with the sillables after this sort For although he may read in some blind glose that in the instant of the last sillable gods worke is to be accompted wrought being a good lesson to admonish the minister to pronounce all yet it is so but a priuate opinion and reuerently vttered not to put the vertue in the last sillable nor to scorne the catholique fayth after which manner taking example of this author if an Ethnicke should iest of Fiat Lux at fi was nothing and then at at was yet nothing at lu was nothing but a litle little pearing put an x to it and it was sodenly Lux and then the light What christen man would handle eyther place thus and therfore reader let this entry of the matter serue for an argument with what spirite this matter is handled but to answere that this author noteth with an exclamation Oh good Lord how would they haue bragged if Christ had sayd This is no bread Here I would question with this author whether Christ sayd so or no and reason thus Christes body is no materiall bread Christ sayd This is my body Ergo he sayd this is no bread And the first part of this reason this author affirmeth in the 59. leafe And the second part is Christes wordes and therfore to auoyd this conclusion the onely way is to say that Christes speach was but a figure which the catholique doctrine sayth is false and therfore by the catholique doctrine Christ saying this is my body sayth in effect this is no bread wherat this author sayth They would bragge if Christ had sayd so In speach is to be considered that euery yea containeth a nay in it naturally so as who so euer sayth This is bread sayth it is no wine Who soeuer sayth this is wine sayth it is no beere If a Lapidary sayth This is a Diamōd he sayth it is no glas he sayth it is no christall he sayth it is no white Saphir So Christ saying this is my body sayth it is no bread Which plainesse of speach caused Zuinglius to say playnly if there be presēt the substaūce of the body of Christ there is trāsubstātiatiō that is to say not the substaūce of bread therfore who wil playnly deny transubstantion must deny the true presence of the substaunce of Christes body as this author doth wherein I haue first conuinced him and therfore vse that victory for his ouerthrow in transubstantiation I haue shewed before how Christes wordes were not figuratiue when he sayd This is my body and yet I will touch here such testimonie as this author bringeth out of one Hylary for the purpose of trāsubstātiation in the xxv leafe of this booke in these wordes There is a figure sayth Hylary for bread and wine be outwardly sene and there is also a truth of that figure for the body and bloud of Christ be of a truth inwardly beleued These be Hylaries words as this author alledgeth them who was he sayth within 350. yeares of Christ. Now I call to thy iudgement good reader could any man deuise more pithy wordes for the proofe of the reall presence of Christes body and bloud and the condemnation of this author that would haue an onely figure Here in Hilarius wordes is a figure compared to truth and sight outwardly to beleue inwardly Now our belief is grounded vpon gods word which is this This is my body in which wordes Hylary testifieth that is inwardly beleued is a truth and the figure is in that is sene outwardly I take Hylary here as this author alledgeth him whereby I aske the Reader is not this author ouerthrowē that Christs speach is not figuratiue but true and proper beyng inwardly true that we beleue Ye will say vnto me What is this to transubstantiation to the reprofe wherof it was brought in bicause he sayth bread and wine is seene First I say that it ouerthroweth this author for truth of the presence of Christes body and euery ouerthrow therin ouerthroweth this author in Transubstantiation not by authority of the church of Rome but by consequence in truth as Zuinglius sayth who shall serue me to auoyd papistry If one aske me what say ye then to Hilary that bread and wine is seene I say they be in déede séene for they appeare so and therfore be called so as Isaac sayd of Iacob it was his voyce and yet by his sence of féelyng denyed him Esau which was not Esau but was Iacob as the voyce frō within did declare him If ye will aske me how can there accordyng to Hylaries wordes be in the outward visible creatures any figure vnlesse the same be in déede as they appeare bread and wine I will aunswere Euen as well as this outward obiect of the sensible hearynes of Iacob resemblyng Esau was a figure of Christes humanitie and of the very humanitie in déede Thus may Hylary be aunswered to auoyde his authoritie from contrarying transubstantiation But this author shall neuer auoyde that him selfe hath brought out of Hylary which ouerthroweth him in his figuratiue speach consequently in his deniall of transubstantiation also as shall appeare in the further handlyng of this matter Where this author in the 18. leaf compareth these S. Paules wordes The bread that we breake is it not the communion of the body of Christ to the expoundyng of Christes wordes This is my body I deny that for Christes wordes declared the substaunce of the Sacrament when he sayd This is my body and S. Paul declareth the worthy vse of it accordyng to Christes institution and by the wordes The bread that we breake doth signifie the whole vse of the Supper wherein is breakyng blessing thankesgeuyng dispensing receiuyng and eatyng So as onely breakyng is not the communion and yet by that part in a figure of speach S. Paul meaneth all beyng the same as appeareth by the Scripture a terme in speach to goe breake bread although it be not alwayes so taken whereby to signifie to go celebrate our Lordes Supper and therfore bread in that place may signifie the commō bread as it is adhibite to be consecrat which by the secret power of God turned into the body of Christ and so distributed and receaued is the communiō of the body of Christ as the cup is likewise of the bloud of Christ after the benediction which benediction was not spoken of in the bread but yet must be vnderstanded As for callyng of Christes bread his body is to make it his body who as S. Paule sayth calleth that is not as it were and so maketh it to be The argumentes this author vseth in the 19. and 20. leafe of the order of Christes speaches as the Euangelistes rehearse them be captious deuises of this author in case he knoweth what S. Augustine writeth or els ignoraunce if he hath not read S. Augustine De
yea conteineth a nay in it naturally Therfore Christ saying it is his body sayth it is no bread If this forme of Argument were infallible then I may turne the same to you agayne and ouerthrow you with your own weapon thus S. Paule sayd it is bread Ergo it is not Christes body if the affirmation of the one be a negation of the other And by such Sophistication you may turne vp all the truth quite and cleane and say that Christ was neither God nor man bycause he sayd he was a vine bread And euery yea say you conteineth a nay in it naturally And where you boast that you haue conuinced me in the matter of the reall presence of Christes body I trust the indifferent Reader wil say that you triumph before the victorie saying that you haue wonne the field when in deede you haue lost it and when Golyathes head is smitten of with his owne sword But the old English Prouerbe is here true that it is good beating of a proude man for whē he is all to beaten backe bone yet will he boast of his victorie and bragge what a valiant man he is And it is an other vayne bragge also that you make whē you say that you haue shewed before that Christes wordes were not figuratiue when he sayd This is my body For you haue neither proued that you say nor haue aunswered to my proofes to the contrary as I referre to the iudgement of all indifferent Readers but you haue confessed that Christ called bread his body made demōstration vpon the bread when he sayd This is my body How can then this speach be true but by a figure that bread is Christes body seyng that in proper speach as you say euery yea conteineth a nay and the affirmation of one thyng is the deniall of an other And where you alledge as it were against me the wordes of Hylarie that there is both a figure and a truth of that figure for answere hereunto the truth is that your matter here is gathered of an vntruth that I would haue onely a figure where as I say playnly as Hylarie sayth that in the true ministration of the Sacrament is both a figure and a truth the figure outwardly and the truth inwardly For bread and wyne be sensible signes and Sacraments to teach vs outwardly what feedeth vs inwardly Outwardly we see and feele bread and wyne with our outward senses but inwardly by faith we see and feede vpon Christes true body and bloud But this is a spirituall feedyng by faith which requireth no corporall presence And here I aske you two questions One is this whither Hylarie say that the body of Christ is vnder the formes of bread and wyne and that corporally If he say not so as the Reader shall soone iudge looking vpon his wordes then stand I vpright without any fall or foyle for Hylarie sayth not as you do The other question is whither Hylarie doe not say that there is a figure let the Reader iudge also and see whither you be not quite ouerthrowen with your owne crooke in saying that Christes speach is not figuratiue And yet the third question I may adde also why S. Hylarie should say that bread and wine be figures if there be no bread nor wine there at all but be taken cleane away by transubstantiation And where as for aunswere hereto you take the example of Iacob who for his hearynes resembled Esau and was as you say a a figure of Christes very humanitie you doe like an vnskilfull Mariner that to auoyde a litle tempest runneth himselfe vpon a rocke For where you make Iacob who resēbled Esau and was not he in deede to be a figure of Christes humanitie you make by this example that as Iacob by his hearynesse resembled Esau and was not he in deede so Christ by outward apparence resembled a man and yet he was no man in deede And where you denye that these wordes of S. Paule is not the bread which we breake the communion of the body of Christ declare the meaning of Christes wordes this is my body because Christes wordes say you declare the substaunce and S. Paules wordes declare the vse I deny that Christes body is the substaunce of the visible Sacrament For the substaūce of the Sacramēt is bread and wine and the thing thereby signified is Christes body and bloud And this is notable which you say that these words the bread which we breake do signifie the whole vse of the Supper not onely breakyng but also blessing thankesgeuing dispensing receauyng and eatyng that bread in this place signifieth common bread taken to be consecrated In which saying it is a world to see the phantasies of mens deuises how vncertain they be in matters perteining to God How agreeth this your saying with your doctrine of transubstantiation For if S. Paule when he sayd the bread which we breake is it not the communion of Christes body ment by bread common bread and by breaking ment also the blessing thankesgeuing receauing and eating then is common bread broken blessed receaued eaten And then where becōmeth your transubstantiation yf cōmon bread be eaten in the Sacramēt And whē is the bread turned into the body of Christ if it remaine cōmō bread vntill it be eatē Yet now you seeme to begin some thing to sauour of the truth that the bread remaineth still in his proper nature enduring the whole vse of the Supper And as touching this place of S. Paule that God calleth things that be not as they were if it perteine vnto Sacrament where Christ called bread his body what could you haue alledged more against yourself For if in this place Christ call that which is not as it were then Christ called bread as it were his body and yet it is not his body in deede But in this your aunswere to the arguments brought in by me out of the very wordes of the Euangelistes is such a shamelesse arrogancie and boldnesse shewed as abhorreth all Christian eares for to heare which is that three Euāgelistes telling the maner of Christs holy Supper not one of them all doe tell the tale in right order but subuert the order of Christes doinges and sayinges and that in such a necessary matter of our Religiō that the diffinition of the whole truth standeth in the order The Euangelistes say you rehearse what Christ sayd and did simply and truely But is this a simple and true rehearsall of Christes wordes and deedes to tell them out of order otherwise then Christ did sayd them And S. Paule also if it be as you say speaking of the same matter cōmitteth the like errour And yet neuer no auncient authour expounding the Euangelistes or S. Paule could spye out this fault and in their Commentaries giue vs warning therof And I am not so ignoraunt but I haue many tymes read S. Augustine De doctrina Christiana where he sayth that
sometimes in Scripture a thing is told after that was done before But S. Augustine saith not that it is so in this matter nor I am not so presumptuous to say that all the three Euangelistes with S. Paule also disordered the truth of the story in a matter wherein the truth can not be knowen but by the order S. Augustine De consensu Euangelistarum saith That that which Luke rehearseth of the chalice before the giuing of the bread was spoken by Christ after the distribution of the bread as the other two Euangelistes report the same And if these woordes Hoc est corpus meum had bene put out of the right place in all the three Euangelistes and also in S. Paule would not S. Augustine haue giuen warning therof aswell as of the other And would all other authors expounding that place haue passed ouer the matter in silence and haue spoken not one word therof specially being a matter of such waight that the Catholicke faith and our saluatiō as you say hangeth therof Do not all the profes that you haue hang of these wordes Hoc est corpus meum This is my body And shall you say now that they be put out of their place And then you must needes confesse that you haue nothing to defend your selfe but onely one sentence and that put out of order and from his right place as you say your selfe where in deede the Euangelistes and Apostles being true rehearsers of the story in this matter did put those wordes in the right place But you hauing none other shift to defend your errour do remoue the wordes both out of the right place and the right sense And can any man that loueth the truth giue his eares to heare you that turne vp side downe both the order and sense of Christes wordes contrary to the true narration of the Euangelistes contrary to the interpretation of all the old authors and the approued faith of Christes Church euen from the beginning onely to mainteine your wilful assertions and Papisticall opinions So long as the Scripture was in the interpretation of learned Diuines it had the right sence but when it came to the handling of ignoraūt Lawyers and Sophisticall Papistes such godly men as were well exercised in holy Scripture and old Catholicke writers might declare and defend the truth at their perils but the Papisticall Sophisters and Lawyers would euer define and determine all matters as pleased them But all truthes agree to the truth and falsehode agreeth not with it selfe so it is a playne declaration of vntruth that the Papistes varie so among themselues For some say that Christ consecrated by his owne secret power without signe or wordes some say that his benediction was his cōsecration some say that he did consecrate with these wordes Hoc est corpus meum and yet those vary among themselues for some say that he spake these wordes twise once immediatly after benediction at what tyme they say he consecrated and agayne after when he commaunded them to eate it appointyng than to his Apostles the forme of consecration And lately came new Papistes with their v. egges and say that the consecration is made onely with these v. wordes Hoc est enim corpus meum And last of all come you and Smith with yet your newer deuises saying that Christ spake those wordes before he gaue the bread immediatly after the breakyng manifestly contrary to the order of the text as all the Euangelistes report and contrary to all old authours of the Catholicke Church which all with one consent say that Christ gaue bread to his Apostles and contrary to the booke of Common prayer by you allowed which rehearseth the wordes of the Euangelistes thus that Christ tooke bread and when he had blessed and geuen thankes he brake it and gaue it to his disciples where all the relation is made to the bread Is this your faythfull handling of Gods word for your pleasure to turne the wordes as you list Is it not a thing much to be lamented that such as should be the true setters fourth of Christes Gospell do trifle with Christes wordes after this sort to alter the order of the gospell after their owne phantasie Can there be any trifling with Christes wordes if this be not And shall any christen man geue credite to such corrupters of holy scripture Haue you put vpon you harlots faces that you be past all shame thus to abuse gods worde to your owne vanity And be you not ashamed likewise so manifestly to bely me that I phansy that the apostles should be so hasty to drincke or Christ had told them what he gaue where as by my wordes appeareth cleane contrary that they drancke not before all Christes wordes were spoken And where you say that Christ gaue that he had consecrated and that he made of bread here you graunt that Christes body which he gaue to his disciples at his last supper was made of bread And then it must folow that eyther Christ had two bodyes the one made of the flesh of the virgine Mary the other of bread or els that the selfe same body was made of two diuers matters and at diuers and sundry tymes Now what doctrine this is let them iudge that be learned And it is worthy a note how vnconstant they be that will take vppon them to defend an vntruth and how good memories they had nede to haue if they should not be taken with a lye For here you say that Christes body in the Sacrament is made of bread and in the xi comparison you sayd that this saying is so fond as were not tollerable to be by a scoffer deuised in a play to supply when his fellow had forgotten his part And where you say that S. Paule speaketh not of materiall bread but of Christes body when he sayth that we be partakers of one bread the wordes of the text be playne against you For he speaketh of the bread that is broken whereof euerye man taketh parte whiche is not Christes body excepte you wyll say that we eate Christes bodye deuided in peaces as the grose Capernaites imagined And S. Augustine with other olde authors do write that Paule spake of such bread as is made of a great multitude of graynes of corne gathered togither and vnited into one materiall lofe as the multitude of the spirituall members of Christ be ioyned to gither into one misticall body of Christ. And as concerning Theodorete and Chrisostome they say as playnly as can be spoken that the bread remayneth after consecration although we call it by a more excellent name of dignity that is to say by the name of Christes body But what estimation of wisedome or learning so euer you haue of yourselfe surely there appeareth neyther in you in this place whereuppon the alteration of the name of bread you would gather the alteration of the substaunce or Transubstantiation Be not kinges and
no whit darkened by any thing this Author hath brought As for naturall operation is not in all mens iudgements as this Author taketh it who semeth to repute it for an inconuenience to say that the accidents of wine do sower and ware viniger But vlpian a man of notable learning is not afrayd to write in the law In venditionibus de contrahenda emptione in the Pandeas that of wine and viniger there is prope eadem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in manner one substance wherin he sheweth him selfe farre agaynst this Authors skill which I put for an example to shew that naturall operations haue had in naturall mens iudgements diuers considerations one sometime repugnant to an other and yet the Authors of both opinions called Philosophers all Among which some thought for example they spake wisely that estemed all thing to alter as swiftly as the water runneth in the streme and thought therfore no man could vtter a word being the same man in the end of the word that he was when he began to speake and vsed a similitude Like as a man standing in one place can not touch the same one water twise in a running streame no more can a man be touched the same man twise but he altereth as swiftely as both the streame These were laughed to skorne yet they thought themselues wise in naturall speculation Aristotle that is much estemed and worthely fansied a first matter in all thinges to be one in which consideration he semeth to be as extreame in a stay as the other fond Philosophers were in mouing By which two extremeties I condemne not naturall speculation wherwith I thinke God pleased for man to meruayle in contemplation of his inferiour workes and to tame his rash wit in the inexplicable variety of it but to vse it so as to make it an open aduersary to religion it is me semeth without all purpose The doctrine of Transubstantiation doth not teach no earthly thing to remayne in the Sacrament but contrarywise that the visible forme of bread and wine is there as the visible figure of the Sacrament and to be the same in greatnes in thicknes in wayght in sauor in tast in propriety also to corrupt putrifie and nourish as it did before and yet the substance of those visible creatures to be conuerted into the substance as Emissene sayth of the body of Christ. And here will reason do seruice is sayth to say if there be a conuersion in deede as fayth teacheth and none of the accidents be conuerted then the substance is conuerted for in euery thing all is substance and accidents but the accidents be not chaunged and yet a change there is it must nedes be then that substance is changed Which deduction reason will make and so agree with Transubstantiatiō in conuenient due seruice And thus I haue gotten reasons good will whatsoeuer this author sayth and from the ground of fayth haue by reason deduced such a conclusion to proue transubstantiation as vnles he destroy the true fayth of the presence of Christes very body which he can not must nedes be allowed And as for naturall operation of putrifying engendring wormes burning and such experiences which being the substance of bread absent this Author thincketh can not be so when he hath thought throughly he can of his thought conclude it onely to be a meruayle and it be so as agaynst the common rules of philosophy wherin as me semeth it were a nearer way as we be admonished to leaue searching of how of the worke of God in the mistery of Christes presence being that the celestiall parte of the sacrament so not to search how in the experience of the operation of nature of the visible earthly part of the Sacrament When God sent Manna in desert the people saw many meruayles in it besides the common operation of nature and yet they neuer troubled them selues with howe 's And as one very well writeth it is consonant that as there is a great miracle in the worke of God to make there present the substance of the body of Christ to likewise to knowledge the miracle in the absence of the substance of bread and both the heauenly and earthly part of the sacramēt to be miraculous and so many miracles to be ioyned together in one agreeth with the excelency of the Sacrament As for the obiections this Author maketh in this matter be such as he findeth in those scholasticall writers that discusse as they may or labour thereaboute wherwith to satisfie idle imaginations and to make learned men prompt and ready to say sumwhat to these trifles whose arguments this author taketh for his principall foundation For playne resolution and auoyding wherof if I would now for my parte bring forth their solutions and answers there were a part of schole Theologie so brought into English to no great prayse of eyther of out learninges but our vayne labour to set abrode other mens trauayles to trouble rude wittes with matter not necessary and by such vnreuerent disputing and alteration to hinder the truth Finally all that this Author reherseth of absurdity repugneth in his estimation onely is the conclusion of philosophie which should nothing moue the humble simplicite of sayth in a christen man who meruayleth at Gods workes and reputeth them true although he can not comprehend the wayes and meanes of them Caunterbury HEre in the beginning of this chapiter it is a strange thing to me that you should thinke strangenes in my saying that naturall reason and operation ioyned to Gods word should be of great moment to confirme any truth not that they adde any authority to Gods word but that they helpe our infirmity as the sacraments do to Gods promises which promises in themselues be most certayne and true For did not the eating and drincking of Christ his laboring and sweating his agony and pangs of death confirme the true fayth of his incarnation And did not his eating with the Apostles confirme and stablish their fayth of his resurrection Dyd not the sight of Christ and feeling of his woundes induce Thomas to beleue that Christ was risen When neyther the report of the deuout woman nor yet of the Apostles which did see him could cause him to beleue Christes resurrection And when they tooke our Sauiour Christ for a spirite did not he cause them by their sight and feeling of his flesh and bones to beleue that he was very man and no spirite as they phantasied Which sensible profes were so farre from derogation of fayth that they were a sure establishment therof Wherfore if your vnderstanding can not reach this doctrine it is indede very slender in godly thynges And as for my reason of vacuum you haue not yet answered thereto for nature suffereth not any place to be without some substance which by meanes of his quantity filleth the place And quantity without substance to fill any place is so fare from the rulers of nature that by order of
deuise wayward answers to the externall actes of Christ as now a dayes they delude the miraculous entring of Christ to his disciples the dores being shutte Our fayth of the true manbode in Christ is truely beleued by true preaching thereof and by the scriptures not by the outward sences of men which altogither we must confesse could be no certayne ineuitable profe thereof And therfore Christ appearing to his disciples going into â—â—â—â—us opened the scriptures to them for the profe of his death that he suffred as very man and yet he vsed also in some part to preach to their sences with sensible exhibition of him selfe vnto them And so all Christes doinges which were most true doe beare testimony to the truth but in their degree of testimony and the feeling of S. Thomas being as S. Gregory sayth miraculous serueth for profe of an other thing that gods worke in miracle doth not empayre the truth of the thing wrought and so S. Thomas touched then Christ as truely by miracle after his resurrection in his body glorified as if he had touched his body before glorification Finally in Christes actes or his ordinances be no illusions all is truth and perfect truth and our sences in the visible fourmes of bread and wine be not illuded but haue their proper obiectes in those accidents and reason in carnall vnderstanding brought and subdued in obsequie to fayth doth in the estimation of the host consecrate yelde to fayth according wherunto we confesse truely the same to be the body of Christ. Where this Author would all the Papistes to lay all their headers togither c I know no such Papistes but this I say without farther counsayle which this author with all his counsayle shall not auoyde we beleue most certaynly the resurrection of our flesh and be perswaded by Catholique teaching that the same flesh by participation of Christes godly flesh in the Sacrament shal be made incorruptible and yet after the iudgemeÌ„t of our sences and conclusions gathered of them considering the manner of the continuall wasting of the sayd bodies appeare the vtter consumption whereof some philosophers haue at length after their reason declared their mynde whome Christen men contemne withall the experience of sences which they alleadge being vehement in that matter we reade in Scripture of the feeding of Angels when Loth receaued them Caunterbury AS in your answere to the iii. chapiter of my booke you haue doone nothing but dalied and trifled euen so do you likewise in the iiii Chapiter and yet farre more vnsemely then in the third For doth it become a christen Bishop of a matter of religion and a principal article of our fayth to make a matter of bread and chese And of the holy supper of the Lord to make a resemblance of a dinner of hogges flesh And yet for perswatioÌ„ of your purpose you make as it were a play in a dialogue betwene a rude man and a learned scholler wherin the matter is so learnedly handeled that the simple rude man sheweth himselfe to haue more knowledge then both you and your learned scholler And why you should bring in this matter I know not except it be to shew your ignoraunce to be as great in logike and philosophy as it is in diuinity For what an ignorance is this to say that a man can know no difference betwene one substance and an other and that substances be not iudged by any sences And that all naturall thinges be of these .ii. partes of substances and accidents and that their accidents be part of their substances and be called their substances their natures and matters Was there euer any such learning vttered before this tyme May not all men now euidently perceaue unto what a straight your errour hath driuen you that you haue none other defence but to flie to such absurdities as be agaynst the iudgement of the whole world Would you make men beleue that they know not the substance of the bread from drincke nor of chalke from chese Would you leade the world into this errour that Christ was neuer indede sene heard nor felt when he walked here with his apostles Did he not proue the truth of his very flesh and bones by sight saying A spirite hath not flesh and bones as you see me haue And although substances be not seene and knowne to our sences but by their accidents yet be they indede knowne and properly knowne and truely knowne by their accidentes and more properly seene then their accidents bee For the accidents be rather the meanes to know the substaunce by then the thinges that be knowne Is not wine knowne from beare by the taste and mustard from suger Is not one man knowen by his voyce from another And a shalme from a drumme And is not a man discerned from a beast and one from an other by sight But when you tourne vp all speaches all reason and all manner of knowledge it is lesse to be meruayled that you tourne vp diuinity also wherin you can lesse skill then in the rest And where you say that the sences can no skill of substances bicause they mâ—â—be deceaued therin so may they also be in the accidents For doe not the sunne and moone sometyme looke redde by meanes of the vapors betwene vs and them And doth not spectacles make althinges looke of the same colour that they be of And if you hold vp your finger directly betwene your eyes and a candell looking full at the candell your finger shall seeme two and if you looke full at your finger the candell shal seeme two And an age we maketh swete thinges seeme bitter and that is swete to one is bitter to an other And if a man hauing very hote handes and an other very colde if they handle both one thing the one shall thinke it hote and the other colde So that the sences may erre aswell in the accidents as in the substances and can not erre in the substances except they erre also in the accidents But in speaking of substance you declare such a substance as neuer was nor neuer shal be phantasiyng substance by your imagination to be a thing in it selfe separated from all accidents and so confounding the substances of all thinges and mixting heauen and earth togither you make all substances but one substance without any differeÌ„ce And where almighty God hath taught by his word that there be heauenly bodyes and earthly bodyes and that euery seede hath his owne proper body and that all flesh is not one flesh but the flesh of men of beastes of fish and of foule be diuers you teach by your wordes that all flesh is one flesh and all substances one substance and so confound you all flesh with hogges flesh making an hotche potche like vnto him that made a greate variety of dishes all of hogges flesh For take away the accidentes and I pray you what difference is betwene the bodely substance of the
sunne and the moone of a man and a beast of fish and flesh betwene the body of one beast and an other one herbe and an other one tree an other betwene a man and a woman Yea betwene our body and Christes and generally betwene any one corporall thing and an other For is not the distinction of all bodely substances knowen by their accidents without the which a mans body can not be knowen to be a mans body And as substances can not be substances without accidents so the nature of accidentes can not be without substāces whose being deffinitiō is to be in substāces But as you speake of substances and accidentes agaynst scripture sense reason experience and all learning so doe you also speake manifestly agaynst your selfe For you say that euery thing that is must haue a substance wherein it is stayde and that euery naturall visible thing is of two partes of substance and accidentes and yet by your Transubstantiation you leaue no substance at all to stay the accidentes of the bread and wine And moreouer this is a meruaylous teaching of you to say that the accidents of bread be one parte of breade and be called the outward kinde of bread the sensible parte of bread the nature and matter of bread and very bread Was there euer any such learning taught before this day that accidentes should be called partes of substances the nature of substances and the matter of substances and the very substāces themselues If euer any man so wrotte tell who it is or els knowledge the truth that all these matters be inuented by your owne imagination wherof the rude man may right well say Here is sophistry in deede and playne iuggling But you conuey not your iuggling so craftely but that you be taken as the Grekes terme it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 euen with the māner Now as concerning your expert lapidarie if his sences be deceaued how shall he iudge a true stone from a counterfaite Doth he not diligently looke vpon it with his sight to discerne truely of it For tell me I pray you how a man without sences shall iudge a true diamond Put out his eyes and is not a white saphire a diamond and a glas all one in his iudgemēt Mary if he be a man of cleare sight of true knowledge and experience in the iudgement of stones and be therewithall a man of good fayth and honesty as you tell the tale they that be ignorant will be ashamed to controll his iudgement But if he be blinde or be a man neither of fayth nor honesty but his experience hath ben euer exercised to deceaue all that trust him and to sell them white saphirs for diamondes then no man that wise is will take a glas or saphire at his handes of trust although he say it be a true diamond Euen so likewise the Papistes being so accustomed with these marchandises of glistering glasses and counterfayte drugges to deceaue the world what wise men will trust them with their fayned Transubstantiation being so manifestly agaynst the playne wordes of scripture agaynst all reason sence and auncient writers And although you haue taken neuer so great labor and paynes in this place to answere myne argumentes wherin you do nothing els but shew your ignorance in philosophy and logike yet all is in vayne except you could proue Transubstantiation to be a matter of our fayth which being not proued all that you haue spoken here serueth to no purpose nor concludeth nothing For you are not so ignorant in sophistry but you know well though that of a false Antecedent can no Consequent directly follow And as concerning these wordes of Christ This is my body by your owne teaching in these wordes he called bread his body which can be no formall and proper speach but spoken by a figure as the order of the text playnly declareth and all the old authors do testify And where you say that although the substance of bread and wine be gone yet the sences haue their proper obiect still remayning as they had before that is to say the colours greatnes thicknes weight sauour and tast expresse thē I pray you playnly what thing it is that is coloured great thinne or thicke heauy or light sauoury or tasted For seing you confesse that these do remayn you must confesse also that there remayneth bread For that greatnes thicknes thinnes colours and weight be not in the body of Christ nor in the ayre which can not be wayed and in some thing they must nedes be for by your owne saying euery thing hath a substance to stay it therfore they must nedes be in the substance of bread and wine And to say that the accidents of bread be the natures matters and substances therof is nothing els but to declare to the world that you make wordes to signify at your pleasure But other shift haue you none to defend your Transubstantiation but to deuise such monstrous kindes of speaches as neuer was heard of before For you say that the nature matter and substance of bread and wine remayne not but be changed into the body and bloud of Christ the olde writers say directly contrary that the nature matter and substance remayne Christ sayth Theodoret called bread and wine his body and bloud and yet changed not their natures And agayne he sayth The bread and wine after the consecration lose not their proper nature but keepe their former substance forme and figure which they had before And Origene sayth that the matter of bread auayleth nothing but as concerning the materiall part therof it goeth downe into the bealy and is auoyded downward And Gelasius sayth that the nature and substance of bread and wine cease not to be Now seeing that your doctrine who teach that the nature matter and substance of bread and wine be changed and remayne not is as cleane contrary to these olde writers with many other as black is contrary to white and light to darknes You haue no remedy to defend your errour and wilfull opinion but to imagine such portentuous and wonderfull kindes of speaches to be spoken by these authors as neuer were vttered before by no man that is to say that the outward aparance and accidences of any thing should be called the nature matter and substance therof But such monsters had you rather bring forth then you would in one iote relent in your errour once by you vttered and vndertaken by you defended And yet bring you nothing for the profe of your saying but that if the authors wordes should be vnderstand as they be spoken this should follow thereof that bread and wine should be seene and felt which as no man doubteth of but all men take it for a most certayne truth so you take it for a greate inconuenience and absurdity So farre be you forced in this matter to vary in speach and iudgement from the sentence and opinion of all men And
as 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
the matter of the clay remayned in Adam and yet the materiall clay remayned not for it was altered into an other substance which I speake not to compare equally the forming of Adam to the Sacrament but to shew it not to be all one to say the materiall bread and the matter of bread For the accidents of bread may be called the matter of bread but not the materiall bread as I haue sumwhat spoken therof before but such shiftes be vsed in this matter notwithstanding the importunance of it Caunterbury WHat should I tarry much in Origene seeing that you confesse that he sayth the matter of bread remayneth and Origene sayth that the meate which is sanctified iuxta id quod habet materiale in ventrem abit that is to say as concerning the materiall parte therof goeth into the belly So that by Origens teaching both the bread and the materiall part of bread remayne So that your example of cley releueth you nothing in this your aunswer vnto Origene But when you see that this shift will not serue then you flie to an other and say that the accidentes of bread be called the matter of bread which is so shamefull a shift as all that haue any manner of knowledge may playnly see your manifest impudency But many such shiftes you vse in this matter not withstanding the importaunce of it Now let vs come to Ciprian of whome I write in this manner After Origene came Ciprian the holy martir about the yeare of our Lord 250. who writeth agaynst them that ministred this Sacrament with water onely and without wine For as much sayth he as Christ sayd I am a true vine therfore the bloud of Christ is not water but wine nor it can not be thought that his bloud wherby we be redemed and haue life is in the cup when wine is not in the cup wherby the bloud of Christ is shewed What wordes could Ciprian haue spoken more playnly to shew that the wine doth remayne than to say thus If there be no wine there is no bloud of Christ And yet he speaketh shortly after as playnly in the same Epistle Christ sayth he taking the cup blessed it and gaue it to his disciples saying Drincke you all of this for this is the bloud of the newe testament which shall be shed for many for the remission of sinnes I say vnto you that from hence forth I will not drincke of this creature of the vine vntil I shal drincke with you newe wine in the kingdome of my father By these wordes of Christ sayth S. Ciprian we perceaue that the cuppe which the Lord offered was not onely water but also wine And that it was wine that Christ called his bloud wherby it is cleare that Christes bloud is not offered if there be no wine in the Chalice And after it followeth How shal we drincke with Christ new wine of the creature of the vine if in the sacrifice of God the father and of Christ we do not offer wine In these wordes of S. Ciprian appeareth most manifestly that in this sacrament is not onely offered very wine that is made of grapes that come of the vine but also that we drincke the same And yet the same giueth vs to vnderstand that if we drincke that wine worthely we drincke also spiritually the very bloud of Christ which was shed for our sinnes Winchester S. Ciprians wordes do not impugne Transubstantiation for they tend onely to shew that wine is the creature appoynted to the celebration of this mistery and therfore water onely is no due matter according to Christes institution And as the name wine must be vsed before the consecration to shew the truth of it then so it may also be vsed for a name of it after to shew what it was which is often vsed And in one place of Ciprian by this author here alleadged it appeareth S. Ciprian by the word wine signifieth the heauenly wine of the vineyard of the Lord of Sabaâ—th calling it new wine and alluding therin to Dauid And this doth Cyprian shew in these wordes How shall we drincke with Christ new wine of the creature of the vine if in the sacrifice to God the father and Christ we do not offer wine Is not here mention of new wine of the creature of the vine what new wine can be but the bloud of Christ the very wine consecrate by Gods omnipotency of the creature of the vine offered And therfore this one place may geue vs a lesson in Ciprian that as he vseth the word wine to signifie the heauenly drincke of the bloud of Christ made by consecration of the creature of wine so when he nameth the bread consecrate bread he meaneth the heauenly bread Christ who is the bread of life And so Ciprian can make nothing by those wordes agaynst Transubstantiation who writeth playnly of the change of the bread by Gods omnipotency into the flesh of Christ as shall after appeare where this author goeth about to answere to him Caunterbury CIprians wordes tend not onely to shew that wine is the creature appoynted to the celebration of the mistery but that it is also there present and dronken in the mistery For these be his wordes It cannot be thought that Christes bloud is in the cup when wine is not in the cup wherby the bloud of Christ is shewed And agayne he sayth It was wine that Christ called his bloud and that it is cleare that Christes bloud is not offered if there be no wine in the chalice And further he sayth How shall we drincke with Christ new wine of the creature of the vine if in the sacrifice of God the father and of Christ we do not offer wine In these wordes Ciprian sayth not that Christ is the wine which we drincke but that with Christ we drincke wine that commeth of the vine tree and that Christes bloud is not there wheÌ„ wine is not there And where is now your Transubstantiation that taketh away the wine For take away the wine and take away by Ciprians mind the blood of Christ also But least any man should stomble at Ciprians wordes where he seemeth to say that the bloud of Christ should be really in the cup he sayth nor meaneth no such thing but that it is there sacramentally or figuratiuely And his meaning needeth none other gathering but of his owne wordes that follow next after in the same sentence that by the wine the bloud of Christ is shewed And shortly after he sayth that the cup which the Lord offered was wine and that it was wine that Christ called his bloud Now come we to Emissen your principall stay in whome is your chiefe glory Of him thus I write Eusebius Emissenus a man of singuler fame in learning about CCC yeares after Christes ascention did in few wordes set out this matter so playnly both how the bread and wine be conuerted into the body and bloud of Christ and yet
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
is called the passion the death the crucifying of Christ not in truth of the thing but in a signifying mistery so is the Sacramēt of fayth which is Baptisme fayth These wordes be so playne and manifest that the expositour being a very Papist yet could not auoyd the matter but wrote thus vpon the sayd wordes Immolatio quae fit a praesbitero improprie appellatur Christi passio velmors vel crucifixio non quod sit illa sed quia illam significat And after he sayth Coeleste Sacramētū quod vere repraesētat Christi carnem dicitur corpus Christi sed improprie Vnde dicitur suo modo sed non rei veritate sed significanti misterio vt sit sensus vocatur Christi corpus id est significat The offering which the priest maketh is called improperly the passion death or crucifying of Christ not that it is that but that it signifieth it And the heauenly Sacrament which truly represēteth Christes flesh is called Christes body but improperly And therfore is sayd after a manner but not in the truth of the thing but in the signifying mistery So that the sence is this it is called the body of Christ that is to say signifieth Now the wordes of S. Augustine being so playne that none can be more and following the other wordes within tenne lines so that you can alleadge no ignorance but you must needes see them it can be none other but a wilfull blindnes that you will not see and also a wilfull concealing and hiding of the truth from other men that they should not see neyther And this one place is sufficient at full to answere what so euer you can bring of the presence of Christ in the Sacrament of bread and wine For after consecration the body bloud of Christ be in them but as in figures although in the godly receauors he is really present by his omnipotent power which is as great a miracle in our dayly nurrishing as is wrought before in our regeneration And therfore is Christ no lesse to be honored of them that feede of him in his holy supper then of them that be grafted in him by regeneration And where as I sayd vpon S. Augustines wordes that the Sacrament consisteth of two natures in that place I collected more of S. Augustines wordes in your fauour then indeed S. Augustine sayth bicause you should not say that I nipt him For S. Augustine sayth not that the sacrament consisteth of two natures and therfore both these natures must needes remayne in the Sacrament but he sayth that the Sacrifice consisteth of two thinges which he calleth also natures and therof it followeth that those two thinges must be in the sacrifice which is to be vnderstande in the ministration not in the bread and wine reserued And very true it is as S Augustine sayth that the sacrifice of the church consisteth of two thinges of the Sacrament and of the thing therby signified which is Christes body as the person of Christ consisteth of god and man But yet this resemblance is not altogither like as you say truely for so much for the person of Christ consisteth so of his godhead and manhod that they be both in him in reall presence and vnity of person But in the sacrifice it is otherwise where neither is any such vnion betwene the sacrament and the truth of the Sacrament nor any such presence of the body of Christ. For in the bread and wine Christ is but figuratiuely as I sayd before and in the godly receauours spiritually in whome also he tarieth remayneth so long as they remayne the mēbers of his body But if Christes similitudes should be so narrowly pressed as you presse here the similitude of the two natures of Christ in the sacrament collecting that bicause the body and bloud of Christ be truely present in the due administration of the Sacrament therfore they must be there naturally present as the two natures of the humanity and diuinity be in Christ many wicked errours should be established by them As if the similitude of the wicked steward were strayned as you strayne and force this similitude men might gather that it is lawfull for Christen men to begile theire lordes and masters whiles they be in office to helpe them selues when they be out of office bicause the Lord praysed the wicked steward Yet you know the similitude was not taught of our Sauiour Christ for that purpose for God is no fauourer of falsehod and vntruth So you do wrong both to the holy Doctoures and to me to gather of oure similitude any other doctrine than we meane by the sayd similitude Nor any reasonable man can say that I am forced by confessing two natures in Christes person really naturally and substantially to confesse also the nature of the body and bloud of Christ to be likewise in the Sacrament except he could proue that the holy Doctoures and I following their doctrine do teach and affirme that the natures of bread and wine are ioyned in the Sacrament with the naturall body and bloud of Christ in vnity of person as the natures of God and man be ioyned in our Sauiour Christ which we do not teach bicause we finde no such doctrine taught by Christ by his Apostles nor Euangilistes Therfore take your owne collection to your selfe and make your selfe aunswere to such absurdities and inconuenience as you do inferre by abusing and forcing of the Doctours similitude to an other ende than they did vse it And it is not necessary for our eternall saluation nor yet profitable for our comfort in this life to beleeue that the naturall body and bloud of Christ is really substancially and naturally present in the Sacrament For if it were necessary or comfortable for vs it is without doubt that our sauiour Christ his Apostles and Euangelistes would not haue omitted to teach this doctrine distinctly and playnly Yea our Sauiour would not haue sayd Spiritus est qui viuificat caro non prodest quitquam The spirite giueth life the flesh auayleth nothing But this doctrine which the holy doctors do teach is agreable to holy scripture necessary for all christen persons to beleue for their euerlasting saluation and profitable for their spirituall comfort in this present life that is to say that the Sacrament of Christes body and bloud in the natures and substances of bread and wine is distributed vnto all men both good and euill which receaue it and yet that onely faythfull persons do receaue spiritually by fayth the very body and bloud of our Sauiour Christ. So that Christes naturall body is not in the Sacrament really substancially and corporally but onely by representation and signification and in his liuely members by spirituall and effectuall operation But it appeareth that you be foule deceaued in iudgement of the doctrine set out in my booke And if you were not eyther vtterly ignorant in holy scriptures and doctors or not
similitude of the body and bloud of Christ so by and by he calleth the Sacrament the image of Christ. And here the wordes image and similitude expresse the manner of presence of the truth of the thinges represented to be vnderstanded onely by fayth as inuisibly present And S. Ambrose by this word image signifieth the exhibition of truth to man in this life And to shew the Sacrament to be such an image as contayneth the very truth of the thing wherof it is the image Gelasius declareth in framing his argument in these wordes As bread and wine go into the diuine substance the holy ghost bringing it to passe and yet remayne in the property of their nature so that principall mistery those natures remayning wherof it is declare vnto vs true and whole Christ to continue In these wordes of Gelasius where hee sayth the bread and wine goe into the diuine substaunce is playnly declared the presence of the diuine substaunce and this diuine substaunce can signifie none other substaunce but of the body and bloud of Christ of whiche heauenly nature and earthly nature of the bread and wine consisteth this Sacrament the Image of the principall mistery of Christes person And therefore as in the Image bee two diuers natures and different remayning in their property So likewise in the person of Christ whiche is the conclusion of Gelasius argument should remayne two natures And here were a great daunger if we should say that Christes body whiche is the celestiall nature in the Sacrament were there present but in a figure for it should then imply that in Christes person the principall mistery it were also but in a figure And therefore as in the mistery of Christes person ordayned to redeeme vs beyng the principall mistery there is no figure but truth in consideration of the presence of the two natures whereof Christ is So in the Sacrament being a mistery ordered to feede vs and the image of that principall mistery there is not an onely figure but truth of the presence of the natures earthly and celestiall I speake of the truth of the presence and meane such an integrity of the natures present as by the rules of our fayth is consonant and agreable to that mistery that is to say in the person of Christ perfect God and perfect man perfect God to be incarnate and perfect man to be deitate as Gregory Nazianzen termeth it In the Sacrament the visible matter of the earthly creature in his propriety of nature for the vse of signification is necessarily required and also according to the truth of Christ his wordes his very body and bloud to be inuisibly with integrity present which Gelasius calleth the diuine substance And I thinke it worthy to be noted that Gelasius speaking of the bread and wine reciteth not precisely the substance to remayne but sayth the substance or nature which nature he calleth after the propriety and the disiunctiue may be verified in the last And it is not necessary the examples to be in all partes equall as Rusticus Diaconus handleth it very learnedly ConiraAcephalos And Gelasius in opening the mistery of the Sacrament speaketh of transition of the bread and wine into the godly substance which word transition is meete to expresse Transubstantiation and therfore S. Thomas expressed Transubstantiation with the same word transire writing Dogma datur Christianis quod in carnem transit panis venū in sanguinem But in the mistery of Christes person there is no trāsition of the Deitie into the humanitie or humanitie into the Deitie but onely Assumptiō of the humanity with the adunation of those two perfect natures so different one person one Christ who is God incarnate and man Deitate as Gregory Nazianzene sayth without mutation cōuersion transition transelementation or transubstātiation which wordes be proper and speciall to expresse how Eucharistia is constitute of two different natures an heauenly and earthly nature a mystery institute after the exāple of the principall mystery wherwith to féede vs with the substaūce of the same glorious body that hath redéemed vs. And bicause in the constitution of this mystery of the Sacrament there is a transition of the earthly creature into the diuine substaunce as Gelasius and S. Thomas terme it and mutation as Cypriā and Ambrose teach it which Theophilactus expresseth by the word transelementation Emissen by the word conuersion and all their wordes reduced into their owne proper sence expressed in one word of transubstantiation it can not be conuenient where the maner of constitution of the two mysteries be so different there to require a lyke remainyng of the two natures wherof the mysteries be In the mystery of Christes person bycause there was not of any of the two different natures either mutation transition conuersion or transelementation but onely assumption of the humanitie and adunation in the virgins wombe we can not say the Godhead to haue suffered in that mystery which were an absurditie but to haue wrought the assumption and adunation of mans nature with it nor mans nature by that assumption and adunation diminished and therfore professe truly Christ to be whole God and whole man and God in that mystery to be made man and man God where as in the Sacrament bicause of trāsition mutation and conuersion of their earthly creatures wrought by the holy ghost which declareth those earthly creatures to suffer in this conuersion mutation and transition we knowledge no assumptiō of those creatures or adunation with the heauenly nature and therfore say not as we do in the principall mystery that ech nature is wholly the other and as we professe God incarnate so the body of Christ breaded and as man is Deitate so the bread is corporate which we should say if the rules of our faith could permit the constitution of ech mystery to be taught a lyke whiche the truth of Gods word doth not suffer Wherfore although Gelasius and other argue from the Sacrament to declare the mystery of Christes person yet we may not presse the Argument to destroy or confounde the propertie of ech mystery and so violate the rules of our fayth and in the authors not presse the wordes otherwise then they may agrée with the Catholique teachyng as those did in the wordes of Cyrill when he spake of nature and subsistence wherof I made mētion before to be remembred here in Gelasius that we presse not the word substaunce and nature in him but as may agree with the transition he speaketh of by which word other expresse transubstantiation And agaynst the Eutichians for to improue their confusion it suffiseth to shew two different natures to be in the Sacrament and to remaine in their proprietie and the diuine nature not to confound the earthly nature nor as it were to swalow it which was the dreame of the Eutichiās And we must forbeare to presse all partes of the example in the other Argument from the person of man beyng
one of the body and soule which the Church doth professe in Symbolo Athanasij of all receaued For Christ is one person of two perfite natures whereof the one was before the other in perfection and creation of the other the one impassible and the other passible Man is of the soule and body one two different natures but such as for their perfection required that vnitie wherof none was before other perfect of Christ we say he is consubstantiall to his Father by the substaunce of his Godhead and consubstantiall to man by the substaunce of his manhoode but we may not say man is consubstantiall by his soule to Aungels and consubstantiall in his body to beastes because then we should deduce also Christ by meane of vs to be consubstantiall beastes And thus I write to shew that we may not presse the exāple in euery part of it as the author of this booke noteth vpon Gelasius who ouerturneth his doctrine of the figure Caunterbury I Pitie you to see how ye swinke and sweate to confounde this author Gelasius And yet his woordes be so playne agaynst your Papisticall Transubstantiation that you haue clearely lost all your paynes labours and costes For these be his wordes spoken of the Sacrament Esse non desinit substantia vel natura panis vini the substaunce or nature of bread and wine ceasseth not to be But to auoyde and dalye away these wordes that be so cleare and playne must needes bee layd on loade of wordes the wit must be stretched out to the vtmost all fetches must brought in that cā be deuised all colours of Rethorike must be sought out all the ayre must be cast ouer with cloudes all the water darkned with the cuttyls ynke and if it could be at the least asmuch as may be all mens eyes also must be put out that they should not see But I would wish that you stode not so much in your owne conceite trusted not so much in your inuentions and deuise of wit in eloquence and in craftines of speach multitude of wordes looking that no mā should dare encounter you but that all men should thinke you speake well bicause you speake much that you shuld be had in great reputation among the multitude of them that be ignoraunt can not discerne perfectly those that folow the right way of truth from other that would lead them out of the way into errour blindnesse This standyng in your conceite is nothyng els but to stand in your owne light But where you say that these heresies of Nestorius Eutiches were not so grosse as I report that the one should say that Christ was a perfect man but not God and the other should say cleane cōtrary that he was very God but not mā of the grossenes of these two heresies I will not much contēd For it might be that they were of some misreported as they were in deede if credite be to be giuen to diuers auncient hystories but this I dare say that there be diuers authors that report of them as I do write and consequently you graunt the same in effect For you report of the Eutichiās that they did pernitiously say that there was but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one nature in Christ. And of the Nestorians you say that they denyed Christ to be conceiued God or borne God but onely man and than could not he be naturally God but onely man And therfore neither by ignoraunce nor of purpose do I report them otherwise than you confesse your selfe and then I haue learned of other that were before my tyme. For S. Augustine in the place which you do cite of him hath these wordes of Nestorius Dogmatizare ausus est Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum hominem tantum he presumed to teach sayth S. Augustine that our Lord Iesus Christ was but man onely And of Eutiches he sayth Humanitatis in Christo denegauit veritatem he denied the truth of Christes manhode And Gelasius writeth also thus Eutichiani dicunt vnam esse naturam id est diuinam ac Nestorius nihilominus memerat singularem The Eutichians say that there is but one nature in Christ that is to say the Godhead and also Nestorius sayth there is but one nature meanyng the manhode By which wordes of S. Augustine and Gelasius appeareth as playnly as can be spokē the playne contradiction betwene the Nestorians and the Eutichians that the one denyed the humanitie of Christ and the other his diuinitie as I haue writtē in my booke so that neither of ignoraunce nor of purpose haue I fayned any thyng but you either of malice or of your accustomed maner to calumniate and find faulte with euery thyng that misliketh you be it neuer so well seeke occasion likewise hereto carpe and reprehend where no fault is being like vnto Momus which when he could finde no fault with Uenus person yet he picked a quarell to her slipper And not in this place onely but throughout your whole booke you vse this fashiō that when you cā not aunswere to the principall matter thē you finde fault with some bye matter wherby it seemeth you intend so to occupy the Readers mynde that he should not see how craftely you cōuey your selfe frō direct aūsweryng of the chief poynt of the Argumēt which when you come vnto you passe it ouer slenderly aūsweryng either nothyng or very litle nothyng to the purpose But yet this bye matter which you bryng in of the grossenes of these two errours helpeth litle your intēt but rather helpeth to fortifie my saying agaynst your doctrine of transubstātiation that your doctrine herein maketh a playne way for the Nestorians the Eutichians to defend their errours For if the bread and the body of Christ before the consecration in the Sacrament be two natures and after the cōsecration in that mysterie is but one nature and that is the body of Christ into which the nature of bread in your fantasie is transformed and confounded and if also this mysterie be an example of the mysterie of Christes incarnation as the old authours report why may not then the Eutichians say that before the adunation in the virgins wombe the Godhead manhode were two natures yet after the adunation in that mysterie of Christes incarnation there was but one nature and that to be the nature of God into which the nature of man was after their fantasie transfused and confounded And thus haue you made by your transubstantiation a goodly paterne and example for the Eutichians to folow in maintenaunce of their errour And yet although the Eutichians sayd that the nature of God and of mā before their vniting were two yet I read not that they sayd that they were two in the virgines wombe as you report of thē which is no great matter but to declare how ignoraūt you be in the thing wherof you make so great boast or how litle you regard the truth that wittingly wil
tell an vntruth But to say my mynde frankely what I thinke of your declaration of these two heresies I thinke a great part thereof you dreamed in your sleape or imagined being in some traunce or rapt with some Sophisticall vision and part of your dreame agreeth neither with approued Authours and histories nor with it selfe For first as touchyng the Eutichians where you say that Gelasius directeth his Argumētes of the two natures in man of the two natures in the Sacramēt chiefly agaynst the Eutichians to proue the nature of man to remaine in Christ after the adunation whosoeuer readeth Gelasius shall finde otherwise that he directed his Arguments indifferently as well agaynst Nestorius as agaynst Eutiches and no more agaynst the one then agaynst the other Nor no more did the Eutichians abhorre alius and alius although some gathered so of their wordes then did the Nestorians which wordes signifie diuersitie of person as aliud and aliud signifie diuersitie of nature So as the body soule in one man be aliud and aliud by reason of diuersitie of natures yet be they not alius and alius bycause that both together make but one person By meanes of which difference betwene alius and alius we say Alius pater alius filius alius spiritus sanctus and not Aliud pater aliud filius aliud spiritus sanctus for asmuch as they be three in persons and but one in nature and substaunce And bycause Christ is two in nature that is to say of his deitie and humanitie and but one in person therefore we say Aliud aliud est diuinitas humanitas but not Alius sed vnus est Christus And although Nestorius graunted two natures in Christ yet not as you say frō his natiuitie nor by adunation but by cohabitation or inhabitatiō so that he made but one Christ although some otherwise take him and not alium alium after which sorte the Godhead is also in other godly men whom by grace he maketh partakers of his godly nature although by their naturall generatiō they be but mē without the diuine nature vnited in person but after obteined by adoption grace As by your example a man is made Bishop which by naturall generation is borne but a man And that this was Nestorius opinion that Christ from his Natiuitie was but mā onely had his godhead after by adoptiō or accession is euident of your own wordes when you say that the Nestoriās denied Christ cōceiued God or borne God that the Godhead was an accessiō to Christ afterward by merite and that he was cōceiued but onely man although shortly after you go from the same saying that both the Godhead manhode were alwayes in Christ such cōstācie is in your dreamed phātasies And where you haue written thus much as you say because it should appeare that Gelasius by his Argumentes of the Sacrament and of the two natures of man went abont to proue that the Godhead remained in Christ after his incarnation you might haue bestowed your tyme better than to haue lost somuch labour to impugne the truth For although neither Nestorius nor Eutiches denyed the Godhead of Christ to remaine yet Gelasius went not about onely to confute thē but also to set out playnly the true catholicke faith that Christ being incarnated was perfect God and perfect man and how that might be both the sayd natures and substaunces remainyng with all their naturall proprieties and conditions without transubstantiation abolition or confusion of any of the two natures And this he declareth aswell by the example of the Sacrament as of the body and soule of man Wherfore as true as it is that the body and soule of man and Godhead and manhode of Christ remaine in their proper substaunces natures and properties without transubstantiation or perishyng of any of them so must it be in the Sacrament And in the sayd heresies as you say was some appearāce of the truth euery one hauyng Scripture which in sounde of wordes seemed to approue their errours whereby they deceiued many But as for your fayned doctrine of Transubstātiation it hath no pretēce nor appearance of truth by Gods word for you haue not one Scripture that maketh mētion therof where as I hane many playne manifest Scriptures that speaketh in playne termes that bread is eaten and wine is dronken And this Author Gelasius with diuers other learned men aswel Greekes as Latins of the old Catholicke Churche affirme in no doubtfull wordes that the bread and wine be not gone but remaine still From which Scriptures and Doctours who soeuer dissenteth declareth him selfe at the least to be ignoraūt wherby yet he may excuse him selfe of a greater blot infamy And this matter being so cleare neither your fine disguising nor your painted colours nor your gay Rhetorike nor witty inuentions can so hyde and couer the truth that it shal not appeare but the more you labour to striue agaynst the streame the more faynt shall you waxe and at lēgth the truth hath such a violence that you shall be borne cleane down with the streame therof In the end you compare Nestorius and Cyrill togethers alludyng as it seemeth to this contention betwene you and me which comparison if it be throughly considered hath no small resemblance although there be no litle diuersitie also Nestorius say you was a great archebishop and so say I was Ciril also Nestorius say you as apeareth had much learnyng but cloked his heresie craftily But the Histories of his tyme who should know him best describe him in this sorte that he was a man of no great learnyng but of an excellent naturall witte and eloquence and full of craft and subtiltie by meanes wherof he was so proude and glorious that he contemned all men in respect of him selfe and disdained the old writers thinkyng him selfe more wise then they all Now let the indifferent Reader Iudge whom he thinketh in this your illusion should most resemble the qualities and conditions of Nestorius And all this that you haue brought in here of these two heresies although it be to no purpose in the principall matter yet it serueth me to this purpose that men may cōiecture whose nature and witte is most like vnto the description of Nestorius also how loth you be to come to the matter to make a direct aunswere to Gelasius wordes who sayth in playne termes that substaūce or nature of bread wine remaineth Euē as glad you be to come to this as a Beare is to come to the stake seeking to runne out at this corner or that corner if it were possible But all will not helpe for you be so fast tyed in chaynes that will you nill you at length you must come to the stake although you be neuer so loth And Gelasius byteth so sore hath catched so hard hold of you that you cā neuer escape although you attempt all
that the two natures in Christ his diuinity and his humanity be not confounded And for ignorance of confusion you confounde all togither Gelasius and Theodorete proue that the two natures in Christ be not confounded bicause they remayne both in their owne substances and properties so that the remayning declareth no confusion which should be confounded if they remayned not If a droppe of milke be put into a pot of wine by and by it looseth the first nature and substance and is confounded with the nature and substance of wine And if wine and milke be put togither in equale quantity then both be confounded bicause neyther remayneth neyther perfect wine with his substāce natural proprieties nor perfect milke with the substance proprieties of milke but a cōfusion an humble iomble or hotch potch a posset or sillabub is made of thē both togither like as in mans body the foure elemēts be cōfoūded to the cōstitutiō of the same not one of the elemēts remayning in his proper substāce forme pure naturall qualities So that if one nature remayne not the same is confounded And if there be more natures that lose their substance they be all confounded except there be an vtter consumption or adnihilation of the thing that looseth his substance and therfore the argument which all the old ecclesiasticall authors vse to saue the confusion of the two natures in Christ is to proue that they both remayne And if we may learne that by the similitude of the sacrament as Gelasius and Theodoret teach and you here confesse the same then must needes the substance of bread and wine remayne or els is there none example nor similitude of the remayning of two natures in Christ but of their confusion as by youre fayned doctrine the substance of bread is confounded with the body of Christ neyther being adnihilate nor remayning but transubstantiated confounded and conuerted into the substance of Christes body And thus with your well vnderstanding of the matter you confound all togither where as I with my ignorance not blaspheming that holy vnion and mistery of Christes incarnation doe saue all the natures whole without mixtion confusion or Transubstantiation either of the diuine humayne nature in Christ or of the soule and body in man or of the bread wine in the Sacramēt but all the substāce natures be saued remayne cleerly with their natural properties conditions that the proportiō in that poynt may be like and one to be the true Image and similitude of the other But surely more grosse ignoraunce or wilfull impiety then you haue shewed in this matter hath not lightly bene seene or red of And where you say that I by ouersight or the Printer by negligence haue left out a not if I should haue put in that not of myne owne head contrarye to the originall in Greeke and to all the translatours in Latine and the translation of Master Peter Martyr also I should haue bene as farre ouerseene as you bee whiche as it seemeth of purpose confound and corrupt you care not whether any Authors wordes or their meanyng And as for my forked dilemma you shall neuer be able to aunswer ther to but the more you trauayle therein the more you shall entangle your selfe For eyther you must graunt as vnwilling as you be that the nature and substance of bread and wine remayne after the consecration or els that the nature and substance of Christes humanity and diuinitie remayne not after his incarnation wherein erred not onely Eutiches whome you say I should haue put for Nestorius but also Martion Ebion Ualentinus Nestorius and other as in my booke I haue declared And one thing is principally to be noted in your answere to Theodoret how you can sophisticate and falsefy all mens sayinges be they neuer so playne For where betweene me and the Papistes the matter here in contention is this Whether the bread and wine remayne in their proper nature and substauce or no. I saying that they remayne and the Papistes saying that they remayne not the Issue being in this poynt whether they remayne or remayne not I bring for me Chrisostome who sayth the nature of bread remayneth I bring Gelasius who sayth that there ceaseth not the substance or nature of bread and wine I bring this Theodoret whose wordes be these The bread and wine after consecration lose not their proper nature but keepe their former substances forme and figure Now how can any man deuise to speake the truth in more playne wordes than these be For they say the very same wordes that I say And yet bicause the truth is not liked here must be deuised a crafty Lawyers glose of them that neuer sought other but to calumniate the truth and must be sayd agaynst all learning reason and speach that substance is taken for the visible and palpable qualities or accidents well yet then you confesse that those olde auncient Authors agree with me in wordes and say as I do that the bread and wine be not transubstantiated but remayne in their former substance And then the issue playnly passeth with me by the testimony of these three witnesses vntill such tyme as you can proue that these authors spake one thing and ment an other and that qualities and accidents be substances And if you vnderstoode whereunto the argument of Theodoret and Gelasius tendeth you would not say that they spake agaynst the Eutiches any more then they do agaynst the Nestorians For if the bread and wine remayne not as you say but be swallowed vp of the body and bloud of Christ then likewise in the principall mistery eyther the deity must be swallowed vp of the humanity or the humanity of the deity The contrary wherof is not onely agaynst the Eutichians but also agaynst the Nestorians Martionistes and all other that denied any of his two natures to remayne perfectly in Christ. And where as you with all the route of the Papistes both priuately and openly report me to be vnlearned and ignorant bycause you would therby impayre my credite in this weighty matter of our fayth my knowledge is not any whit the lesse bicause the Papistes say it is nothing nor yours any deale the more bicause the Papistes do say that you onely be learned whome for any thing that euer I could perceaue in you I haue found more full of wordes and talke then of learning And yet the note of ignorance I nothing passe of if therby the truth and Gods glory should not be hindered Now after the reproofe of your doctrine of Transubstantiation by all the old writers of Christes church I write in my booke after this māner Now forasmuch as it is proued sufficiently as well by the holy Scripture as by naturall operation by naturall reason by all our sences and by the most olde and best learned authors and holy martirs of Christes church that the substance of bread and wine do remayne and be receaued of
wheras gods worke is in an instant and for that respect neuer shedding But this author had a fansie to vse the sound of the word powring to serue in freede of an argumēt to improue Transubstantiation meaning the hearer or reader in the conceauing of the sence of Ciprian thus termed should fansye the bread in the visible Sacrament to be like a soppe wherupon liquor were powred which is a kind of deprauation as thou reader by consideration of Ciprians wordes and meaning mayst perceaue which Ciprian hauing shewed how the bread is made flesh by the omnipotency of gods word and made by change Then bicause this mistery of the Sacrament in consideration of the two natures celestiall and earthly resembleth the principall mistery of Christes person S. Ciprian sayth in sence that as in the person of Christ the humanity was seene and the diuinity hidden so likewise in this Sacrament visible is also the diuine nature hidden This is the sence where for declaration of the worke of God presenting his diuine nature there is vsed the verbe Infundit in Latine by which word the motion of the diuine nature is spoken of in scriptures not bicause it is a liquidde substance to bee poured as the author of this booke englisheth it signifying a successiue operation but rather as a word if we should scan it as this author would signifying the continuance of the terme from whence to the terme wherunto without leauing the one by motion to the other for there is in the godly nature no locall motion and therfore we say Christ not leauing his father descended from heauen and being in earth was also in heauen which infution in some parte resembleth but mans wordes can not expresse Gods diuine operations To the purpose the first wordes of Ciprian shew the maner of the constitution of this Sacrament to be by mutation of the earthly creatures into the body and bloud of Christ. And than by the wordes following sheweth the truth of the substance of the Sacrament to the intent we might vse our repayre to it and frame our deuotion according to the dignitie of it esteeming as S. Paule sayth our Lordes body For the more euident declaration wherof S. Ciprian by example of the mistery in Christes person sheweth Christes humanity and diuinity present in the visible Sacrament of which diuinity there is speciall mention agaynst such which fansied the flesh of Christ to be geuen to be eaten as diuided from the diuine nature which was the heresy of the Nestorians and such other denying therby the persite vnity of the two natures in Christ which the holy Sinode of Ephesus did specially condemne as other fathers in their writings old specially preuēt with distinct writing agaynst that errour And therfore S. Ciprian not content to shew the presence of Christes flesh by mutation of the bread doth after make speciall mention of Christes diuinity not concerning that he had sayd before but further opening it And so vtterly condemneth the teaching of the author of this booke touching the presence of Christ to be onely figuratiuely Ciprian sayth that in the Sacrament is the truth and then there is present the true flesh of Christ and the Godhead truely which deuotion should knowledge And as for Transubstantiation according to the first wordes of S. Ciprian the bread is changed not in forme but in nature which is not in the properties of nature nor in the operation of nature neither in quantity or quality of nature and therfore in the inward nature which is properly substance This is the playne direct vnderstanding not by way of addition as this author of his imagination deuiseth who vseth the word Spirituall as a stop and opposition to the catholique teaching which is not so and clearly without learning compareth with this Sacrament the water of Baptisme of which we reade not written that it is changed as we reade of the bread and therfore the resemblance of water in Baptisme is vsed onely to blynde the rude reader and serueth for a shift of talke to winde out of that matter that can not be answered and as euill debters shake of their creditours with a bye communication so this author conueyeth himselfe away at a backe dore by water not doing first as he promised to answer so as he would auoyd Ciprian directly by land Caunterbury WHere in my former booke I found a fault in the allegation of Ciprian it was in deede no little fault to alleadge those wordes that speake of the change of bread and to leaue out the example most necessary to be rehersed which should declare how it was changed which change is not by Transubstantiation as the example sheweth but as it is in the person of Christ whose humanity was not transubstantiate although it was inseparabely annexed vnto the deity And the wordes following do not once touch the reall and corporall presence of Christes flesh in the bread so farre it is from the ouerthrowing of the true catholike fayth by me taught But Ciprian in that place quite and cleane ouerthroweth as well your reall presence as your imagined transubstantiation as hereafter by Gods grace shall be declared But first it semeth to me a strange thing that such a learned man as you take your selfe to be in the tongues can not English this verbe Infundo where as euery Gramarian can tell the signification of Fundo Effundo and Infundo But it semeth you haue so deinty a stomacke that you can brooke no meat but of your owne dressing though it be neuer so well dressed of other yea you had rather eate it rawe then to take it of an other mans dressing And so much misliketh you all thinges that other men doe that you be ready to vomite at it No English can please you to this word Infundo but Latine English as you call it and that is such English as no English man can vnderstand nor Latine man neither but onely in that sense that I haue englished it And I pray thee gentill reader consider the great weighty cause why no English can please in this place and thou shalt finde it nothing els but ignorance eyther of the speach or of God Powring sayth he maketh a successiue working So doth infusion say I and therfore in that respect as vnfitte a terme as Powring But Gods worke sayth he is in an instant So is his powring say I and all that he doth euen aswell as his infusion All mans workes be done in succession of tyme for a carpenter can not build a house in a day but God in one moment could make both heauen and earth So that God worketh without delay of tyme such thinges as in vs require leasure and tyme. And yet God hath tempered his speach so to vs in holy scripture that he speaketh of himselfe in such wordes as be vsuall to vs or els could we speake here and learne nothing of God And therfore whether we say infusion or pouring
all is one thing and one reason For in vs they be done by little and little but God worketh the same sodenly in one moment And yet if you had well considered the matter you should not haue found the sacraments of God likesoppes wherin licour is poured but you should haue found pouring an apt word to expresse the abundance of gods working by his grace in the ministration of his holy sacraments For when there cometh a small rayne then we say it droppeth or there is a few droppes but when there cometh a great multitude of rayne togither for the great abundance of it we vse in common speach to say it poureth downe So that this word pouring is a very apt word to expresse the multitude of Gods mercies and the plentifulnes of his grace poured into them whome he loued declared and exhibited by his wordes and sacraments And howsoeuer you be disposed by iesting and scoffing to mocke out all thinges as your disposition hath bene euer giuen to reprehend thinges that were well yet the indifferent reader may iudge by this one place among many other that you seeke rather an occasion to brable without cause and with idle wordes to draw your booke out at length then to seeke or teach any truth And if I should play and scoffe in such a matter as you doe I might dally with the word of Infusion as you do with the word powring For as you reiect my word of powring bicause some fond reader might fantasy that bread in the sacrament to be like a soppe wherin licour were powred by like reason may I reiect your English Latin of infuding bicause such a reader might fantasy therby the bread to be like water wherin the diuinity is stieped or infuded As infused rubarbe is called when it is stieped certayne houres in stilled water or wine without seething and so be roses and violets likewise infused when they be stieped in warme water to make inlep therof But as poticaries phisitions surgions and Alcumists vse wordes of Greeke Arabike and other strange langwages purposely therby to hide their sciences from the knowledge of others so farre as they can so do you in many partes of your booke deuise many strange termes and strange phrases of speach to obscure and darken therby the matter of the sacrament and to make the same meete for the capacities of very few which Christ ordayned to be vnderstanded and exercised of all men At the last as you say you come to your purpose not to open the truth but to hide it as much as you may and to gather of Ciprians wordes your owne faining and not his meaning who ment nothing lesse then eyther of any Transubstantiation or of the corporall presence of Christ in the bread and wine And to set out Ciprians mynde in few wordes he speaketh of the eating and not of the keeping of the bread which when it is vsed in the Lordes holy supper it is not onely a corporall meate to norish the body but an heauenly meate to nourish the soules of the worthy receauors the diuine maiesty inuisibly being present and by a spirituall transition and change vniting vs vnto Christ feeding vs spiritually with his flesh and bloud vnto eternall life as the bread being conuerted into the nature of our bodies fedeth the same in this mortall life And that this is the mynd of S. Ciprian is euident aswell by the wordes that go before as by the wordes following the sentence by you alleadged For a little before Ciprian writeth thus There is geuen to vs the foode of immortall life differing from common meates which reteineth the forme of corporall substance and yet proueth Gods power to be present by inuisible effect And agayne after he sayth This common bread after it is changed into flesh and bloud procureth life and increase to our bodyes And therfore the weakenes of our fayth being holped by the customable effect of thinges is taught by a sensible argument that in the invisible sacraments is the effect of euerlasting life and that we be made one by a Transition or change not so much corporall as spirituall For he is made both bread flesh and bloud meate substance and life to his church which he calleth his body making it to be partaker of him Note well these wordes good reader and thou shalt well perceaue that Ciprian speaketh not of the bread kept and reserued but as it is a spirituall nourishment receaued in the Lordes supper and as it is frutefully broken and eaten in the remembrance of Christes death and to them that so eate it Ciprian calleth it the foode of immortall life And therfore when he sayth that in the inuisible sacrament is the effect of euerlasting life he vnderstandeth of them that worthely receaue the sacrament for to the bread and wine pertayneth not eternall life Neuertheles the visible sacrament teacheth vs that by a spirituall change we be vnited to Christes flesh and bloud who is the meate and sustenance of his church and that we be made partakers of the life euerlasting by the power of God who by his effectuall working is present with vs and worketh with his Sacraments And here is agayn to be noted that Ciprian in this place speaketh of no reall presence of Christes humanitie but of an effectuall presence of his diuine maiestie and yet the breade sayth he is a foode and nourishment of the body And thus Ciprian proueth nothing agaynst my sayinges neither of the reall presence of Christes flesh and bloud nor of Transubstantiation of bread and wine And where you be offended with this word spirituall it is not my deuise but vsed of S. Ciprian him selfe not past .vi. or vii lines before the wordes by you cited where he declareth the spirituall mutation or transition in the Sacraments And of the change in the sacrament of baptisme as well as in the sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ speaketh not onely this author but also Nazianzen Emissene Chrisostome Ambrose with all the famous auncient ecclesiasticall authors And this water doth well to delay your hotte wine wherof you haue drunken so much out of the cuppe of the great whore of Babilon that the true wine representing to vs our whole redemption by the true bloud of Christ you haue clearly transubstantiate and taken away Now followeth my answere vnto Chrisostome An other authority they haue of S. Ihon Chrisostome which they boast also to be inuincible Chrisostome say they writeth thus in a certayne homily De Eucharistia Doest thou see bread Doest thou see wine Do they auoyde beneth as other meates do God forbid thinke not so For as waxe if it be put into the fire it is made like the fire no substāce remayneth nothing is lefte here so also thinke thou that the misteries be consumed by the substance of the body At these wordes of Chrisostome the Papists do triumph as though they had won the field Loe
fayth to snare them rather thē to saue them But what skilleth that to the Papistes how many men perish which seeke nothing elles but the aduaūcement of their Pope whom they say no man can finde fault withall For though he neither care for his own soules health nor of his christen brother but draw innumerable people captiue with him into hell yet say the Papistes no man may reprehēd him nor aske the question why he so doth And where you speake of the sobernesse and deuotion of the schoole authors whom before you noted for boasters what sobernesse and deuotion was in them being all in manner monkes and fryers they that be exercised in them do know wherof you be none For the deuotion that they had was to their God that created them which was their Pope by contention sophistication and all subtle meanes they could deuise by their witte or learning to confirme and establish whatsoeuer oracle came out of theyr Gods mouth They set vp their Antichrist directly agaynst Christ and yet vnder pretence of Christ made him his vicar generall giuing him power in heauen earth and in hell And is not then the doctrine of Transubstantiation and of the reall and sensuall presence of Christ in the sacrament to be beleued trow you seing that it came out of such a gods mouth was set abroad by so many of his Aungels And is not this a simple and playne doctrine I pray you that visible formes and substances be transubstantiated and yet accidents remayn A playne doctrine be you assured which you confesse your selfe that the simple and playne people vnderstand not nor your selfe with the helpe of all the Papistes is not able to defend it where the true doctrine of the first catholick christian fayth is most playne cleare and comfortable without any difficulty scruple or doubt that is to say that our Sauiour Christ although he be sitting in heauē in equality with his father is our life strēgth◠food and sustenaunce who by his death deliuered vs from death and daily nourisheth and increaseth vs to eternall life And in tokē hereof he hath prepared bread to be eaten and wine to be drunken of vs in his holy supper to put vs in remembrance of his sayd death and of the celestiall feeding nourishing increasing and of all the benefites which wee haue thereby which benefites through fayth and the holy ghost are exhibited and geuen vnto all that worthely receiue the sayd holy supper This the husbandman at his plough the weauer at his loume and the wife at her rocke can remember and geue thankes vnto God for the same This is the very doctrine of the Gospel with the consent wholly of al the old ecclesiastial doctors howsoeuer the Papistes for their pastime put vysers vpon the sayd doctors and disguise them in other coates making a play and mocking of them Now followeth the second absurdity Secondly these Transubstantiatours do say contrary to all learning that the accidentes of bread and wine doe hang alone in the ayre without any substance wherin they may be stayed And what can be sayd more foolishly Winchester The Mayster of the sentences shewing diuers mens sayings in discussion as they can of this mistery telleth what some say that had rather say somewhat then nothing which this author rehearseth as a determination of the church that indéede maketh no doctrine of that poynt so but acknowledgeth the mistery to exéede our capacity And as for the accidentes to be stayd that is to say to remayne without their naturall substaūce is without difficulty beleued of men that haue fayth considering the almighty power of Christ whose diuine body is there present And shall that be accounted for an inconuenience in the mistery that any one man saith whose saying is not as a full determination approued If that man should encounter with this author if he were aliue so to do I think he would say it were more tolerable in him of a zeale to agrée with the true doctrine to vtter his conceit fondly then of a malice to dissent from the true doctrine this author so fondly to improue his saying But if he should appose this author in learning and aske him how he will vnderstand Fiat lux in creation of the world where the light staied that was then create But I will proceed to peruse the other differences Caunterbury THe doctrine that euen now was so simple and playne is now agayne waxed so full of ambiguities and doubtes that learned men in discussing therof as they can be fayne to say rather some thing than nothing and yet were they better to say nothing at all then to say that is not true or nothing to purpose And if the master of the sentences saying in this poynt vary from the cōmon doctrine of the other Papists why is not this his errour reiected among other wherin he is not commonly helde And why do your selfe after approue the same saying of the Master as a thing beleeued without difficultie that the accidents be stayed without their naturall substāce And then I would know of you wherin they be stayed seeing they be not stayed in the ayre as in their substance nor in the bread and wine nor in the body of Christ For eyther you must appoynt some other stay for them or els graunt as I say that they hange alone in the ayre without any substance wherin they may be stayed And eyther I vnderstand you not in this place you speake so diffusely or els that thing which the Master spake and your self haue here affirmed you cal it a tollerable conceit fondly vttered And where as to answere the matter of the staying of the accidents you aske wherin the light was stayed as the creation of the world this is a very easy opposall and soone answered vnto For first God created heauen and earth and after made light which was stayed in them as it is now although not deuided from the darkenes in such sort as it was after Now followeth the third absurdity Thirdly that the substance of Christes body is there really corporally and naturally present without any accidents of the same And so the Papistes make accidents to be without substances and substances to be without accidents Winchester How Christes body is in circumstance present no man can define but that it is truly present and therfore really present corporally also and naturally with relation to the truth of the body present and not to the maner of presence which is spirituall exceeding our capacitye and therefore therein without drawing away accidentes or adding wee beleeue simplye the trueth howesoeuer it liketh this author without the booke to terme it at his pleasure and to speake of substaunce without accidentes and accidents without substance which perplexity in wordes can not iest out the truth of the catholike beleefe And this is on the authors part nothing but iesting with a wrong surmise and supposall as
thereunto in the same place And where you haue set out the aunswere of the carnall and spirituall man after your owne imagination you haue so well deuised the matter that you haue made ii extremities without any meane For the true faythfull man would answere not as you haue deuised but he would say according to the old catholick fayth and teaching of the Apostles Euangelists Martyrs and confessours of Christes Churche that in the Sacrament or true ministration thereof be two parts the earthly and the heauenly The earthly is the bread and wine the other is Christ himselfe The earthly is without vs the heauenlye is within vs The earthlye is eaten with our mouthes and carnally feedeth our bodies the heauenly is eaten with our inward man and spiritually feedeth the same The earthly feedeth vs but for a tyme the heauenly feedeth vs for euer Thus would the true faythfull man answere without leaning vnto any extremity either to deny the bread or inclosing Christ really in the accideÌ„ces of bread but professing beleuing Christ really and corporally to be ascended into heauen and yet spiritually to dwell in his faythfull people and they in him vnto the worldes ende This is the true catholicke fayth of Christ taught from the first beginning and neuer corrupted but by Antichrist and his ministers And where you say that one thing is but one substaunce sauing onelye in the person of Christ your teaching is vntrue not onely in the person of Christ but also in euery man who is made of ij substaunces the body and soule And if you had beene learned in philosophy you would haue founde your saying false also in euery corporall thing which consisteth of ij substaunces of the matter and of the forme And Gelasius sheweth the same likewise in this matter of the sacrament So vntrue it is that you moste vainely boast here that your doctrine hath bene taught in all ages and bene the catholicke faith which was neuer the catholique but onely the Papisticall fayth as I haue euidentlye proued by holy scripture and the old catholick authors wherein truely and directly you haue not aunswered to one Winchester In whose particular words although there may be sometime cauillations yet I will note to the reader foure marks and tokens imprinted rather in those olde authors deeds then wordes which be certayne testimonies to the truth of their fayth of the reall presence of Christes most precious body in the Sacrament The first marke is in the processe of arguing vsed by them to the conuiction of heretiques by the truth of this Sacrament wherein I note not the particuler sentences which sometime be daungerous speches but their whole doinges As Irene who was in the beginning of the church argueth agaynst the Ualentinians that denied the resurrection of our flesh whome Irene reproueth by the féeding of our soules and bodies with the diuine glorified fleshe of Christ in the Sacrament which flesh and â—t be there but in a figure then it should haue proued the resurrection of our flesh slenderly as it were but figuratiuely And if the Catholicke fayth had not bene then certainely taught and constantly beleued without varience Christes very flesh to be indeede eaten in that mistery it would haue beene aunswered of the heretickes if had bene but a figure but that appeareth not and the other appeareth which is a testimony to the truth of matter indéed Hylary reasonyng of the naturall coniunction betwene vs and Christ by meane of this Sacrament expresseth the same to come to passe by the receiuyng truely the very flesh of our Lord in our Lordes meate and thereupon argueth agaynst the Arrians which Arrians if it had not bene so really in déede would haue aunswered but all was spiritually so as there was no such naturall and corporall Communion in déede as Hylary supposed but as this author teacheth a figure and it had bene the Catholicke doctrine so that argument of Hylary had bene of no force Saint Chrisostome Gelasius and Theodorete argue of the truth of this mystery to conuince the Appolinaristes and Eutichians which were none argument if Christes very body were not as really present in the SacrameÌ„t for the truth of presence as the Godhead is in the person of Christ beyng the effect of the argument this that as the presence of Christes body in this mistery doth not alter the propertie of the visible natures no more doth the Godhead in the person of Christ extinguish his humanitie which agaynst those heretickes serued for an argument to exclude confusion of natures in Christ and had bene a daungerous arguyng to be embraced of the Nestorians who would hereby haue furthered their heresie to proue the distinction of natures in Christ without any vnion for they would haue sayd As the earthly and heauenly natures be so distinct in the Sacrament as the one is not spoken of the other so be the natures of the humanitie and Godhead not vnited in Christ which is false and in the comparynges we may not looke that all should aunswere in equalitie but onely for the point that it is made for that is as in the Sacrament the visible element is not extinguished by the presence of Christes most precious body no more is Christes humanitie by his Godhead and yet we may not say that as in the Sacrament be but onely accidents of the visible earthly matter that therfore in the person of Christ be onely accidentes of the humanitie For that mistery requireth the whole truth of maÌ„s nature and therfore Christ tooke vpon him the whole man body and soule The mystery of the Sacrament requireth the truth of the accidentes onely beyng the substaunce of the visible creatures conuerted into the body and bloud of Christ. And this I write to preuent such cauillations as some would search for But to returne to our matter all these argumentes were vayne if there were not in the Sacrament the true presence of Christes very body as the celestiall part of the Sacrament beyng the visible formes therthly thyng Which earthly thyng remayneth in the former proprietie with the very presence of the celestiall thyng And this suffiseth concernyng the first marke Caunterbury AS for your foure markes tokens if you marke them well you shall perceaue most manifestly your ignorauÌ„ce and errour how they note and appoint as it were with their fingers your doctrine to be erronious as well of Transubstantiation as of the reall presence And to begyn with your first marke Irenee in deede proued the resurrection of our bodyes vnto eternall lyfe bycause our bodyes be nourished with the euerlastyng foode of Christes body And therfore as that foode is euerlastyng so it beyng ioyned vnto his eternall deitie giueth to our bodies euerlastyng lyfe And if the beyng of Christes body in any creature should geue the same lyfe then it might peraduenture be thought of some fooles that if it were in the bread it should giue life to the bread But
were the figure of the body of Christ in the Sacrament that processe declareth the mynde of the author to be that in the Sacrament is present the very truth of Christes body not in a figure agayne to ioyne one shadow to an other but euen the very truth to aunswere the figure and therfore no particular wordes in S. Hierome can haue any vnderstādyng contrary to his mynde declared in this processe Caunterbury TO S. Hierome I haue aunswered sufficiently before to your confutation of my third booke almost in the end which should be in vayne to repeate her agayne therfore I will go to your last marke Winchester Fourthly an other certaine marke is where the old authors write of the adoration of this Sacrament which can not be but to the thynges godly really present And therfore Saint Augustine writyng in his booke De Catechisandis rudibus how the inuisible thynges be honoured in this Sacrament meanyng the body and bloud of Christ and in the 98. Psalme speaketh of adoration Theodoretus also speakyng specially of adoration of this Sacrament These authors by this marke that is most certaine take away all such ambiguitie as men might by suspicious diuination gather sometyme of their seuerall wordes and declare by this marke of adoration playnly their fayth to haue bene and also their doctrine vnderstanded as they ment of the reall presence of Christes very body and bloud in the Sacrament and Christ him selfe God and mā to be there present to whose diuine nature and the humanitie vnite thereunto adoration may onely be directed of vs. And so to conclude vp this matter for as much as one of these foure markes and notes maybe founde testified and apparaunt in the auncient writers with other wordes and sentences conformable to the same this should suffice to exclude all argumentes of any by sentences and ambiguous speaches and to vphold the certaintie of the true Catholicke fayth in déede which this author by a wrong name of the Catholicke fayth impugneth to the great slaunder of the truth and his owne reproch Caunterbury YOur fourth marke also of adoratiō proueth no more that Christ is present in the Lordes Supper then that he is present in Baptisme For no lesse is Christ to be honored of him that is Baptised thē of him that receaueth the holy Communiō And no lesse ought he that is Baptised to beleue that in Baptisme he doth presently in deede and in truth put Christ vpon him and apparell him with Christ then he that receaueth the holy Communion ought to beleue that he doth presently feede vpon Christ eatyng his flesh and drinkyng his bloud which thyng the Scripture doth playnly declare and the old authours in many places do teach And moreouer the forme of Baptisme doth so manifestly declare Christ to be honored that it cōmaundeth the Deuill therein to honour him by these wordes Da honorem Deo Da gloriam Iesu Christo. With many other wordes declaryng Christ to bee honored in Baptisme And although our Sauiour Christ is specially to be adored and honored when he by his holy word and Sacramentes doth assure vs of his present grace benefites yet not onely then but alway in all our actes and deedes we should lift vp our hartes to heauen and ther glorifie Christ with his celestiall father and coeternall spirit So vntrue it is that you say that adoration can not be done to Christ but if he be really present The Papistes teach vs to haue in honour and reuerence the formes and accidentes of bread and wyne if they be vomited vp after the body and bloud of Christ be gone away and say that they must be had in great reuerence bicause the body and bloud of Christ had bene there And not onely the formes of bread and wyne say they must be kept with great reuerence but also the ashes of them for they commaund them to be burned into ashes must be kept with like reuerence And shall you than forbid any man to worshyp Christ him selfe when he doth spiritually and effectually eate his very flesh and drinke his very bloud when you will haue such honour and reuerēce done to the ashes which come not of the body and bloud of Christ but onely as you teach of the accidents of bread and wyne Thus haue I confuted your confutation of my second book concernyng Transubstātiation wherin you be so far from the cōfutation of my booke as you promised that you haue done nothyng els but confounded your selfe studying to seeke out such shiftes and cauillations as before your tyme were neuer deuised yet constrayned to graunt such errours and monstrous speaches as to Christen eares be intollerable So that my former booke aswell cōcernyng the reall presence of Christes flesh and bloud as the eatyng and drinkyng of the same and also transubstantiation standeth fast and sure not once moued or shaken with all your ordinaunce shot agaynst it But is now much stronger then it was before beyng so mured and bulwarked that it neuer neede hereafter to feare any assault of the enemies And now let vs examine your confutation of the last part of my booke conteinyng the oblation and sacrifice of our Sauiuiour Christ. ¶ The end of the second booke THE CONFVTATION OF THE FIFTE BOOKE AS touchyng the fift booke the title wherof is of the oblatiō and sacrifice of our Sauiour Christ somewhat is by me spoken before which although it be sufficient to the matter yet some what more must also be now sayd wherewith to encounter the authours imaginations and surmises with the wrong construyng of the Scriptures and authours to wreast them besides the truth of the matter and their meanyng This is agréed and by the Scriptures playnly taught that the oblation and sacrifice of our Sauiour Christ was and is a perfect worke once consummate in perfection with out necessitie of reiteration as it was neuer taught to be reiterate but a mere blasphemie to presuppose it It is also in the Catholicke teachyng grounded vpon the Scripture agrèed that the same sacrifice ones consummate was ordeined by Christes institution in his most holy Supper to be in the Church often remembred and shewed forth in such sort of shewyng as to the faythfull is sene present the most precious body and bloud of our Sauiour Christ vnder the formes of bread and wyne which body and bloud the faythfull Church of Christen people graunt and confesse accordyng to Christes wordes to haue bene betrayed and shed for the sinnes of the world and so in the same Supper represented and deliuered vnto them to eate and fèede of it accordyng to Christes commaundement as of a most precious and acceptable sacrifice acknowledgyng the same precious body and bloud to be the sacrifice propitiatorie for all the sinnes of the world whereunto they onely resort and onely accompt that their very perfect oblation and sacrifice of Christen people through which all other sacrifices necessarie on our part be
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
moreouer that Christ him selfe commeth downe vpon the child apparelleth him with his own selfe And as at the Lordes holy Table the Priest distributeth wine bread to feede the body so we must thinke that inwardly by fayth we see Christ feedyng both body and soule to eternall lyfe What comfort can be deuised any more in this world for a Christē man And on the other side what discomfort is in your papisticall doctrine what doubtes what perplexities what absurdities what iniquities what auayleth it vs that there is no bread nor wyne or that Christ is really vnder the formes and figures of bread and wyne and not in vs or if he be in vs yet he is but in the lippes or the stomacke and tarieth not with vs. Or what benefite is it to a wicked man to eate Christ and to receaue death by him that is lyfe From this your obscure perplex vncertaine vncomfortable deuilish and Papisticall doctrine Christ defend all his and graunt that we may come often and worthely to Christes holy Table to comfort our feeble and weake fayth by remembraunce of his death who onely is the satisfaction and propitiation of our sinnes and our meate drinke and foode of euerlastyng lyfe Amen Here endeth the Aunswere of the most Reuerend Father in God Thomas Archbyshop of Canterbury c. vnto the crafty and Sophisticall cauillation of Doct. Steuen Gardiner deuised by him to obscure the true sincere and godly doctrine of the most holy Sacrament of the body and bloud of our Sauiour CHRIST THE Aunswere of Thomas Archebishop of Caunterbury c. agaynst the false calumniations of doctour Richard Smith who hath taken vpon him to confute the defence of the true catholik doctrine of the body and bloud of our Sauiour Christ. I Haue now obtayned gentle reader that thing which I haue much desired which was that if all men would not imbrace the truth lately set forth by me concerning the Sacrament of the body and bloud of our Sauiour Christ at the least some man would vouchsafe to take penne in hand and write against my booke bicause that therby the truth might both better be serched out and also more certaynly knowen to the world And herein I hartely thanke the late Bishop of Winchester and doctor Smith who partely haue satisfied my long desire sauing that I would haue wished aduersaries more substantially learned in holy scriptures more exercised in the olde auncient ecclesiasticall authors and hauing a more godly zeale to the triall out of the truth than are these two both being crafty sophisters the one by art and the other by nature both also being drowned in the dregges of papistry brought vp and confirmed in the same the one by Duns and Dorbell and such like Sophisters the other by the Popish Canon law wherof by his degree taken in the uniuersity he is a professor And as concerning the late bishop of Winchester I will declare his craftye Sophistications in myne aunswere vnto his booke But doctour Smith as it appeareth by the title of his preface hath craftely deuised an easy way to obtayne his purpose that the people being barred from the serching of the truth might be stil kept in blindnes and errour as wel in this as in al other matters wherin they haue bene in times past deceaued He seeth full well that the more diligently matters be serched out and discussed the more clearly the craft and falsehode of the subtill Papistes will appeare And therfore in the preface to the reader he exhorteth all men to leaue disputing and resoning of the fame by learning and to giue firme credite vnto the church as the title of the sayd preface declareth manifestly As who should say the truth of any matter that is in question might be tryed out without debating and reasoning by the word of God wherby as by the true touchstone all mens doctrines are to be tryed and examined But the truth is not ashamed to come to the light and to be tryed to the vttermost For as pure golde the more it is tryed the more pure it apeareth so is all manner of truth Where as on the other side all maskers counterfayters and false deceiuors abhorre the light and refuse the triall If all men without right or reason would geue credite vnto this Papist and his Romish church agaynst the most certayne word of God and the olde holye and Catholicke Churche of Christ the matter should be soone at an end and out of all controuersie But for as muche as the pure word of God and the first church of Christ from the beginning taught the true catholike fayth and Smith with his church of Rome do now teach the cleane contrary the chaffe can not be tryed out from the pure corne that is to say the vntruth discerned from the very truth without threshing windowing and fanning serching debating and reasoning As for me I ground my beleefe vpon gods word wherin can be no errour hauing also the consent of the primatiue church requiring no man to beleue me further then I hane gods word for me But these Papistes speake at their pleasure what they lift and would be beleeued without godes word bicause they beare men in hand that they be the church The church of Christ is not founded vpon it selfe but vppon Christ and his word but the Papistes build their church vpon them selues deuising new articles of the fayth from tyme to tyme without any scripture and founding the same vpon the Pope and his cleargy monkes and fryers and by that meanes they be both the makers and Iudges of their fayth themselues Wherfore this Papist like a politike man doth right wisely prouide for himselfe and his church in the first entry of his booke that all men should leaue searching for the truth and sticke hard and fast to the church meaning himselfe and the church of Rome For from the true catholike church the Romish church which he accomteth catholike hath varied and dissented many yeares passed as the blindest that this day do liue may well see and perceaue if they will not purposely winke and shut vp their eyes This I haue written to answere the title of his preface NOw in the beginning of the very preface it selfe when this great doctor should recite the wordes of Ephesine counsell he translateth them so vnlearnedly that if a young boy that had gone to the grammer schole but thre yeres had done no better he should scant haue escaped some scholemasters handes with sixierkes And beside that he doth it so craftily to serue his purpose that he cannot be excused of wilfull deprauation of the wordes calling celebration an offering and referring the participle made to Christ which should be referred to the word partakers and leauing out those wordes that should declare that the sayd counsell spake of no propiciatory sacrifice in the Masse but of a sacrifice of laud and thankes which christen people geue vnto God
viii chap. prouing by authority of the oldest authors in Christs church that he called bread his body and wine his bloud And agayne in the ix x. xi and xii chapters I haue so fully intreated of such figuratiue speaches that it should be but a superfluous labour here to speake of any more but I referre the reader to those places And if M. doctor require a further answere herein let him looke vpon the late bishop of Winchesters booke called the detection of the diuels sophistry where he writeth plainly that when Christ spake these wordes This is my body he made demonstration of the bread THan further in this prologue this Papist is not ashamed to say that I set the cart before the horses putting reason first and fayth after which lye is so manifest that it needeth no further proofe but onely to looke vpon my booke wherein it shall euidently appeare that in all my fiue bookes I ground my foūdation vpon gods word And least the Papistes should say that I make the expositions of the scripture my selfe as they commonly vse to do I haue fortified my foundation by the authority of all the best learned and most holy authors and martyrs that were in the beginning of the church and many yeares after vntill the Antichrist of Rome rose vp and corrupted altogither And as for naturall reason I make no mention therof in all my v. bookes but in one place onely which is in my second booke speaking of Transubstantiation And in that place I set not reason before fayth but as an handmayden haue appoynted her to do seruice vnto fayth and to wayte vpon her And in that place she hath done such seruice that D. Smith durst not once looke her in the face nor find any fault with her seruice but hath flylye and craftely stolen away by her as though he saw her not But in his owne booke he hath so impudently set the cart before the horses in Christes owne wordes putting the wordes behind that goe before the wordes before that goe behind that except a shameles Papist no man durst be so bolde to attempt any such thing of his owne head For where the Euangelist and S. Paule rehearse Christes wordes thus Take eate this is my body he in the confutation of my second booke turneth the order vpside downe and sayth This is my body take eate After this in his Preface hee rehearseth a great number of the wonderfull workes of God as that God made all the world of nought that he made Adam of the earth and Eue of his side the bush to flame with fire and burne not and many other like which be most manifestly expressed in holy scripture And vpon these he concludeth most vainly and vntruly that thing which in the scripture is neyther expressed nor vnderstanded that Christ is corporally in heauen and in earth and in euery place where the sacrament is And yet D. Smith sayth that Gods word doth teach this as playnly as the other vsing herein such a kind of sophisticall argumēt as all Logitiās do reprehend which is called petitio principij whē a mā taketh that thing for a supposition and an approued truth which is in controuersy And so doth he in this place when he sayth Doth not Gods word teach it thee as playnly as the other Here by this interrogatory he required that thing to be graunted him as a truth which he ought to proue and whereupon dependeth the whole matter that is in questiō that is to say whether it be as playnly set out in the scripture that Christes body is corporally in euery place where the sacrament is as that God created all thinges of nothing Adam of the earth and Eue of Adams side c. This is it that I deny and that he should proue But he taketh it for a supposition saying by interrogation doth not the word of God teach this as playnly as the other Which I affirme to be vtterly false as I haue shewed in my third boobe the xi and twelfe chap. where I haue most manifestly proued as well by Gods word as by aūcient authors that these wordes of Christ This is my body and This is my bloud be no playne speaches but figuratiue THen forth goeth this papist vnto the vi chap. of S. Thou saying Christ promised his disciples to geue them such bread as should be his owne very naturall flesh which he would geue to death for the life of the world Can this his promise sayth M. Smith be verified of common bread Was that giuen vpon the crosse for the life of the world Wherto I answer by his owne reason Can this his promise be verified of sacramentall bread was that geuen vpon the crosse for the life of the world I meruayle here not a little of M. Smithes eyther dulnes or maliciousnes that cannot or will not see that Christ in this chap. of S. Ihon spake not of Sacramentall bread but of heauenly bread nor of his flesh onely but also of his bloud and of his godhead calling them heauenly bread that giueth euerlasting life So that he spake of him selfe wholy saying I am the bread of life He that cōmeth to me shall not hunger and he that beleueth in me shall not thirst for euer And neyther spake he of common bread nor yet of sacramentall bread For neyther of them was giuen vpon the crosse for the life of the world And there can be nothing more manifest then that in this vi chap. of Ihon Christ spake not of the sacrament of his flesh but of his very flesh And that aswell for that the sacrament was not then instituted as also that Christ sayd not in the future tense the bread which I will giue shal be my flesh but in the present tense the bread which I will geue is my flesh which sacramentall bread was neyther then his flesh nor was then instituted for a Sacrament nor was after giuen to death for the life of the world But as Christ when he sayd vnto the woman of Samaria The water which I will geue shall spring into euerlasting life he ment neyther of materiall water nor of the accidents of water but of the holy ghost which is the heauenly fountayne that springeth vnto eternall life so likewise when he sayd The bread which I will geue is my flesh which I will geue for the life of the world he ment neyther of the materiall bread neither of the accidents of bread but of his owne flesh Which although of it selfe it auayleth nothing yet being in vnity of persō ioyned vnto his diuinity it is the same heauenly bread that he gaue to death vpon the crosse for the life of the world But here M. Smith asketh a question of the tyme saying thus When gaue Christ that bread which was his very flesh that he gaue for vs to death if he did it not at his last supper when he sayd This is my
may be also here in the blessed Sacrament of the aultar I am not so ignorant but I know that Christ appeared to S. Paule and sayd to him Saule Saule why doest thou persecute me But S. Augustin sayth that Christ at his Ascention spake the last wordes that euer he speake vpon earth And yet we finde that Christ speaketh sayth he but in heauen and from heauen and not vpon earth For he spake to Paule from aboue saying Saule Saule why doest thou persecute me The head was in heauen and yet he sayd why doest thou persecute me bycause he persecuted his members vpon earth And if this please not Maister Smith let him blame S. Augustin and not me for I fayne not this my selfe but onely alledge S. Augustin And as the father spake from heauen whan he sayd This is my beloued sonne in whom I am pleased and also S. Stephen saw Christ sittyng in heauen at his fathers right hand euen so ment S. Augustin that S. Paule and all other that haue sene and heard Christ speake since his Ascention haue sene and heard him from heauen NOw when this Papist goyng forward with his woorkes seeth his building so feeble weake that it is not able to stand he returneth to his chief foūdation the Church and Councels generall willyng all men to stay thereupon to leaue disputyng reasonyng And chiefly he shoareth vp his house with the Councell Lateranence whereat sayth he were xiij hundred Fathers xv But he telleth not that viij hundred of them were Monkes Friers and Chanons the Byshop of Romes owne deare deare-lynges chief champions called together in his name not in Christes From which broode of vypers Serpentes what thyng can be thought to come but that dyd proceede frō the spirite of their most holy father that first begat them that is to say from the spirite of Antichrist And yet I know this to bee true that Christ is present with his holy Churche whiche is his holy elected people and shall be with them to the worldes end leadyng gouernyng them with his holy spirite teachyng them all truth necessary for their saluation And when so euer any such be gathered together in his name there is he among them he shall not suffer the gates of hell to preuaile agaynst them For although he may suffer them by their owne frailenes for a tyme to erre fall and to dye yet finally neither sathan hell sinne nor eternall death shall preuaile agaynst them But it is not so of the Church and sea of Rome whiche accompteth it selfe to be the holy Catholicke Churche and the Byshop therof to be most holy of all other For many yeares ago Sathan hath so preuailed agaynst that stinkyng whore of Babylon that her abhominations be knowen to the whole world the name of God is by her blasphemed and of the cup of her dronkennes and poyson haue all nations tasted AFter this cōmeth Smith to Berēgarius Almericus Carolostadius Oecolampadius Zuinglius affirmyng that the Church euer sithens Christes tymes a thousand fiue hūdreth yeares and moe hath beleued that Christ is bodily in the Sacrament and neuer taught otherwise vntill Berengarius came about a thousand yeares after Christ whom the other folowed But in my booke I haue proued by Gods word the old auncient Authors that Christ is not in the sacrament corporally but is bodily corporally ascended into heauen there shall remaine vnto the worldes end And so the true Church of Christ euer beleued from the beginnyng with out repugnaunce vntill Sathan was let louse and Antichrist came with his Papistes which fayned a new and false doctrine contrary to Gods word and the true Catholicke doctrine And this true fayth God preserueth in his holy church still and will doe vnto the worldes end maugre the wicked Antichrist and all the gates of hell And almighty God from time to time hath strēgthened many holy Martirs for this fayth to suffer death by Antichrist and the great harlot Babilon who hath embrewed her handes and is made drunken with the bloud of Martyrs Whose bloud God will reuēge at length although in the meane time he suffer the patiēce and fayth of his holy Saynts to be tried ALl the rest of his Preface contayneth nothing els but the authority of the Church which Smith sayth cannot wholy erre and he so setteth forth and extolleth the same that he preferreth it aboue Gods word affirming not onely that it is the piller of truth and no lesse to bee beleued then holy scripture but also that we should not beleue holy scripture but for it So that he maketh the word of men equall or aboue the word of God And truth it is in deed that the church doth neuer wholy erre for euer in most darcknes God shineth vnto his elect and in the midst of all iniquity he gouerneth them so with his holy word and spirite that the gates of hell preuayle not agaynst them And these be knowne to him although the world many times know them not but hath them in derision and hatred as it had Christ and his Apostles Neuerthelesse at the last day they shal be knowen to all the whole world when the wicked shal wonder at their felicity and say These be they whom we sometime had in verision and mocked We fooles thought their liues very madnes and their end to be without honour But now loe how they be accounted among the children of God and theyr portion is among the sayntes Therfore we haue erred frō the way of truth the light of righteousnesse hath not shined vnto vs we haue wearyed our selues in the way of wickednes and destruction But this holy church is so vnknowne to the world that no mā can discerne it but God alone who onely searcheth the hartes of all men knoweth his true children from other that be but bastardes This church is the piller of trueth because it resteth vpon Gods word which is the true and sure foundation wil not suffer it to erre fall But as for the opē knowne church the outward face therof it is not the piller of truth otherwise thē that it is as it were a register or treasory to keepe the bookes of Gods holy will testament to rest onely thereupon as S. Augustine and Tertullian meane in the place by M. Smith alleadged And as the register keepeth all mens wils and yet hath none authority to adde change or take away any thing nor yet to expound the wils further then the very words of the will extend vnto so that he hath no power ouer the will but by the will euen so hath the church no further power ouer the holy scripture which conteyneth the will and testamēt of god but onely to keepe it and to see it obserued and kept For if the Church proceede further to make any new Articles of the fayth besides the Scripture
not of his fleshe as it is vnited vnto his diuinitie pag. 27. lin 53. and. pag. 329. lin 24. God in Baptisme giueth onely the spirite of Christ and in the Sacrament of the aultar the very body and bloud of Christ. pag. 34. lin 44. Unworthy receiuers of the sacrament receiue Christes body with mouth onely the worthy receiuers both with mouth and hart pag. 54. lin 47. c. We must beleue Christes workes to be most perfectly true accordyng to the truth of the letter where no absurditie in Scripture driueth vs from it how soeuer it seeme repugnaunt to reason pag. 62. lin 20. The Fathers did eate Christes body and drinke his bloud in truth of promise not in truth of presence pag. 74. lin 23. c. The Fathers did eate Christ spiritually but they did not eate his body present spiritually and sacramentally pag. eadem lin 26. Their Sacramentes were figures of the thynges but ours contayne the very thynges ibid. lin 27. Albeit in a sence to the learned men it may be verified that the Fathers did eate the body of Christ and drinke his bloud yet there is no such forme of wordes in scripture And it is more agreable to the simplicitie of scripture to say the Fathers before Christes Natiuitie did not eate the body and drinke the bloud of Christ. pag. 78. lin 28. And although S. Paule in the truth to the Corinthes be so vnderstanded of some that the Fathers should eate and drinke the spirituall meate and drinke that we doe yet to that vnderstandyng all doe not agree Ibidem lin 34. c. Their Sacramentes contayned the promise of that which in our sacramentes is geuen Ibidem lin 36. And although that willyng obedience was ended and perfected vpon the Crosse to the whiche it continued from the begynnyng yet as in the sacrifice of Abraham the earnest will and offeryng was accoumpted for the offeryng in deede so the declaration of Christes will in his last supper was an offeryng of him selfe to God the Father pag. 82. lin 2. c. In that mystery he declared his body and bloud to be the very sacrifice of the world by the same will that he sayd his body should bee betrayed for vs. Ibidem lin 12. As Christ offered him selfe vpon the Crosse in the execution of his will so hee offered him selfe in his Supper in declaration of his will pag. 82. lin 13. c. Christes body in the supper or communion is represented vnto vs as a sacrifice propitiatory for all the sinnes of the world and it is the onely sacrifice of the Churche and the pure and cleane sacrifice wherof Malachie spake pag. 84. lin 4. pag. 88. lin vltima c. As Christ declareth in the supper him selfe an offeryng and sacrifice for our sinne offeryng him selfe to his Father as our Mediatour so the Church at the same supper in their offeryng of laudes and thankes ioyne them selues with their head Christ representyng and offeryng him pag. 89. lin 10. The sunne beames bee of the same substaunce with the sunne pag. 92. lin 5. We haue in earth the substantiall presence of the sunne Ibidem lin 7. When Christ sayd This is my body this word This may be referred to the inuisible substaunce pag. 106. lin 44. To eate Christes flesh and drinke his bloud is of it selfe a propre speach pag. 112. lin 35. Carnally Ibidem lin 50. with teeth and mouth pag. 112. lin 8. and pag. 34. lin 38. To eate Christes body carnally may haue a good signification pag. 113. lin 4. Origene doth not meane to destroy the truth of the letter in these words of Christ. Except you eate the flesh of the sonne of man c. pag. 114. lin 40. S. Augustin taketh the same for a figuratiue speache bycause it seemeth to commaunde in the letter carnally vnderstanded an haynous and wicked thyng to eate the flesh of a man pag. 116. lin 40. The sayd woordes of Christ. Except you eate c. is to the vnfaythfull a figure but to the faythfull they be no figure but spirite and life Ibidem lin 48. The Fathers called it a figure by the name of a figure reuerently to couer so great a secrecie apt onely to bee vnderstand of men beleuyng pag. 117. lin 3. That is spirituall vnderstandyng to do as is commaunded Ibid. lin 13. This word Represent in S. Hierome and Tertullian signifieth a true reall exhibition pag. 120. lin 27. and pag. 128. lin 11. The word Eucharistia can not be well Englished pag. 161. In Gods word and in Baptisme we be made participant of Christes Passion by his spirite but in the Lordes Supper we be made participant of his Godhead by his humanitie exhibite to vs for foode So as in this mystery we receiue him as man and God and in the other by meane of his Godhead we be participant of the effect of his Passion suffered in his manhode In this Sacrament we receiue a pledge of the regeneration of our flesh to be in the generall resurrection spirituall with our soule In Baptisme we haue bene made spirituall by regeneration of the soule pag. 158. lin 45. c. In Baptisme Christes humanitie is not really present though the vertue and effect of his most precious bloud be there pag. 159. lin 4. The maner of Christes beyng in the sacrament is onely spirituall Ibidem lin 16. To vnderstand Christes wordes spiritually is to vnderstand them as the spirite of God hath taught the Church Ibidem lin 34. Our perfect vnitie with Christ is to haue his fleshe in vs and to haue Christ bodily naturally dwellyng in vs by his manhode pag. 166. lin 32. By Christes flesh in the sacrament we be naturally in him and he is naturally in vs. Ibidem lin 45. c. Christ dwelleth naturally in vs and we bee corporally in him Ibidem lin 35. Christes flesh is very spirituall and in a spirituall maner deliuered vnto vs. pag. 167. lin 12. and pag. 243. lin 11. and pag. 243. lin 28. and pag. 295. lin 33. Christ dwelleth in vs naturally for the naturall communication of our body and his pag. 167. lin 19. When Christ vnited him selfe vnto vs as man which he doth geuyng his body in the sacrament to such as worthely receiue it then he dwelleth in them corporally pag. 172. lin 27. In Baptisme mans soule is regenerate in the vertue and effect of Christes Passion and bloud Christes Godhead present there without the reall presence of his humanitie pag. 181. lin 16. c. In Baptisme our vnitie with Christ is wrought without the reall presence of Christes humanitie onely in the vertue effect of Christes bloud pag. 181. lin 2. and. 16. In Baptisme our soule is regenerate and made spirituall but not our body in deede but in hope onely pag. 181. lin 6. In Baptisme we be vnited to Christes manhode by his diuinitie but in the Lordes Supper
haue spoken it for my most bounden duetie to the crowne liberties lawes and customes of this Realme but most especially to discharge my conscience in vttering the truth to Gods glory castyng away all feare by the comfort whiche I haue in Christes wordes who sayth Feare not them that kill the body and can not kill the Soule but feare him that can cast both body and soule into hell He that for feare to lose this life will forsake the truth shall lose the euerlastyng life and he that for the truthes sake will spend his life shall finde euerlastyng life And Christ promiseth to stand fast with them before his Father which will stand fast with him here which comfort is so great that whosoeuer hath his eyes fixed vpon Christ can not greatly passe of this life knowing that he may be sure to haue Christ stand by him in the presence of his Father in heauen As touching the Sacramēt I sayd that forasmuch as the whole matter stādeth in the vnderstādyng of these wordes of Christ This is my body This is my bloud I say that Christ in these words made demōstration of the bread wine and speake figuratiuely calling bread his body wine his bloud bycause he ordeined them to be the Sacramētes of his body bloud And where the Papistes say in these two points cōtrary vnto me that Christ called not bread his body but a substaunce vncertaine nor spake figuratiuely herein I sayd I would be iudged by the old Churche and which doctrine could be proued the elder that I would stād vnto And forasmuch as I haue alledged in my booke many old Authors both Greekes Latins which about a M. yeares after Christ cōtinually taught as I do if they could bryng forth but one old Author that sayth in these two pointes as they say I offred vj. or vij yeares agoe do offer yet still that I will geue place to them But when I bring forth any Author that sayth in most playne termes as I do yet sayth the other part that the Authors meant not so as who should say that the Authours spake one thyng and meant cleane contrary And vpō the other part whē they cā not finde any one Authour that sayth in wordes as they say yet say they that the Authors meant as they say Now whether they or I speake more to the purpose herein I referre it to the iudgement of all indifferent hearers Yea the old Church of Rome about a thousand yeares together neither beleued nor vsed the Sacrament as the Church of Rome hath done of late yeares For in the begynnyng the Church of Rome taught a pure a sound doctrine of the Sacrament but that after the Church of Rome fell into a new doctrine of Trāsubstantiation and with the doctrine they chaunged the vse of the Sacrament cōtrary to that Christ commaunded and the old Church of Rome vsed aboue a M. yeares And yet to deface the old they say that the new is the old wherein for my part I am content to the triall to stād But their doctrine is so fonde and vncomfortable that I marueile that any man would allow it if he knew what it is what soeuer they beare the people in hād that which they write in their bookes hath neither truth nor comfort For by their doctrine of one body of Christ is made two bodies one naturall hauing distance of members with forme and proportion of a mans perfect body and this body is in heauen but the body of Christ in the Sacrament by their owne doctrine must needes be a monstruous body hauyng neither distance of members nor forme fashion or proportion of a mans naturall body and such a body is in the Sacrament teach they and goeth into the mouth with the forme of bread and entreth no farther then the forme of bread goeth nor tarieth no longer then the forme of bread is by naturall heate in digestyng so that when the forme of bread is digested that body of Christ is gone And for asmuch as euill men be as long in digestyng as good men the body of Christ by their doctrine entreth as farre and tarieth as long in wicked as in godly men And what comfort can be herein to any Christian man to receaue Christes vnshapen body and it to enter no farther than the stomacke and to depart by and by as soone as the bread is consumed It seemeth to me a more sound and comfortable doctrine that Christ hath but one body and that hath forme and fashion of a mans true body which body spiritually entreth into the whole man body and soule and though the Sacrament be consumed yet whole Christ remaineth and feedeth the receauer vnto eternall life if he continue in godlynes neuer depart vntill the receauer forsake him And as for the wicked they haue not Christ within them at all who can not be where Belial is And this is my fayth and as me seemeth a sound doctrine accordyng to Gods word and sufficient for a Christian to beleue in that matter And if it can be shewed vnto me that the Popes authoritie is not preiudiciall to the thyngs before mentioned or that my doctrine in the Sacrament is erroneous which I thinke cā not be shewed then I was neuer nor will be so peruerse to stand wilfully in myne owne opinion but I shall with all humilitie submit my selfe vnto the Pope not onely to kisse his feete but an other part also An other cause why I refused to take the Byshop of Gloucester for my Iudge was the respect of his owne person beyng more then once periured First for that he beyng diuers tymes sworne neuer to consent that the G. of Rome should haue any iurisdiction within this Realme but to take the kyng and his successours for supreme heades of this Realme as by Gods lawes they be contrary to this lawfull oth the sayd B. sate then in iudgement by authoritie from Rome wherein he was periured and not worthy to sit as a Iudge The second periurie was that he tooke his Byshopricke both of the Queenes Maiestie and of the Pope makyng to eche of them a solemne othe which othes be so contrary that in the one he must needes be periured And furthermore in swearyng to the Pope to maintayne his lawes decrees constitutions ordinaunces reseruations and prouisions he declareth him selfe an enemy to the Imperiall crowne and to the Lawes and state of this Realme whereby hee declared him selfe not woorthy to sit as a Iudge within this Realme and for these considerations I refused to take him for my Iudge This was written in an other Letter to the Queene I Learned by Doct. Martin that at the day of your Maiesties Coronation you tooke an othe of obedience to the Pope of Rome and the same tyme you tooke an other othe to this Realme to maintaine the lawes liberties customes of the same And if your Maiestie did make an othe to the
1. Cor. 10. Ioh. 6. Ioh. 16. Heb. 7.9 10. Christ is spiritually present An issue No writer approued testifieth this authors faith The summe of the issue Outward teaching Your doctrine is not catholike by your owne description My issue I notable matter a man to be condemned by his owne former writinges Bertram confessed to be of this opinion This authors doctrine often reiected as false Actes v. My Catechisme Bertrame Berengarius Wickliffe Luther The Papistes haue bene the cause why the catholike doctrine hath bene hundered and hath not had good successe these late yeâ—es These wordes This is my body agre in sence with the rest of the scripture Vntrue report This author hath no wordes of scripture for the ground of his faith This is my body is no proper speach Gods omnipotencie Psal. 115. Rom. 9. An aunswer to the like speaches in apparance The fayth of this author is but to â—eleue a story The Lordes supper hath nâ— miracle in it by this authors vnderstanding No promise made to a token in the supper or in yâ— 6. of Iohn Iniury to baptisme Math. v â— Mark. vit Tokens be but tokens howsoeuer they be garnished with gay wordes without scripture For apparell pag. 30. numero 9. Untrue report Euery speciall sacrament hath promise annexed and hath a secret hiddeÌ„ truth Bread is not a vayn and bare token I warrant Ioh. 6. Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 11. 1. Cor. 11. 1. Cor. 10 A new teaching of onely figure How can â— fayth be called catholike that begunneth to be published nowe Marke 1. Tokens how to discern truth from falshood â— Reg. 3. A lesson of Salomons iudgement Truth nedeth no ayd of lies Truth loueth simplicity and playnnes The Church of Rome is not the true mother of the catholick fayth Absurda falsa The speaking of the true mother Rome to the mother of the papistical fayth The name of the Author great wherewith to put men to silence An impudent vntruth The sayth of the Sacrament in the Catechisme unproueth this Authors doctrine now Erasmus commendeth to the world the work of Algerus vpon the Sacrament The body of Christe hidden vnder the signes Erasmus would all to repent that follow Berengarius error Peter Martyr doth with lyes impugne the faith of the Sacrament An issue This Author would with the enuious words of papish oppresse the truth Foure manifest vntruthes The first vntruth that the faith of the reall presence to the faith of the papists Luther Bucer Ionas Melancthon Epinus Mine issue Cyrill and â—â—â—storius In baptisme we receaue Christs spirite to geue life in the Lords Supper we receaue his flesh bloud to continue life Chap. 1. The abuse of the Lordes supper Chap. 2. The eating of the body of Christ. Iohn 6. The second vntrueth for verely meat translatyng very meat Origenes in Leuit. hom 7. Propterea er go caro cius verus est cibus sanguis eius verus est potus Et in Math. hom 12. Caro mea vera est esca sanguis meus verus est potus Hierom. in Eccle. cap. 3. Caro enim verus est cibus sanguis eius verus est potus August in Psal. 33. Caro mea vera est esca sanguis meus vere potus est Damas. lib. 4. ca. 14. Caro mea verus est cibus sanguis meus verus est potus Euthyimus in lo. cap. 9. Caro mea verus est cibus sanguis meas verus est potus The nature of a cuttil Plim lib. 9. ca. 29. Eccle. 37. Christ is verely and truely geueÌ„ in the Sacrament but yet spiritually Iohn 6 Cyrill Lanathematismo 11. Nestorius Iniury to baptisme Galat. 3 In the sixt chapiter of Iohn Christ spake not of corporall eating Iohn 6 Iohn 6. Iohn 8. Iohn 1. The 3. vntruth of the handling the wordes of S. Augustine Mine issue August in 10 an Tractat. 26. Eodem tract Aug. de Ciuit. lib. 21. cap. 25. worthely August de doctrina Christiana lib. 3. cap. 13. How Christes flesh is eaten Iohn 6. Cyprian in sermone de caena Domini August in Ioan. tra 26. Cap. 3. The eating of the Sacrament of his body Mat. 26. Marck 14. Luke 2â— 1. Cor. 10. 1. Cor. 11. Cap. 4. Christ called the materiall bread his body 1. Cor. 10. Marck vii 1. Cor. 11. Cap. 5. Euill men do eat the SacrameÌ„t but not the body of Christ. 1. Cor. 11. Cap. 6. These thinges suffice for a christian mans faith concerning this Sacrament Cap. 7. The SacrameÌ„t which was ordayned to make loue and concord is turned into the occasion of variance and discord Math. 26. Mark 14. Luke 22. 1. Cor. 10. 1. Cor. 11. The 4. vntruth that by these words hoc est corpus meum Christ ment not to make the bread his body Neither Saint Paul nor the Euangelistes adde any words wherby to take away the signification of bread and wine The fourth vntruth the Christ intended not by these wordes this is my body to make the bread his body The variaunce between you Smith Against Smith Christ called bread his body Mat. 26. Mark 14. Luke 22. Ireneus Tertullianus Cyprianus Epiphanius Heironymus Augustinus Cyrillus Theodorus Gods miraculous workes in the Sacrament Imuty to baptisme Mine issue Gods omnipotency Mat. 16. Gen. 1. Eating signifieth beleeuing 3 vntruthes vttered by you in this one place The first Iohn 6. The secondâ— Iohn 6. The third That Christ fulfilled not his promise to geue vs life at his supper Iohn 6 Esay 53. Rom. 32 Heb. 9. Gal. 6. Rom. 1. Hebr. 2. Eph. 1. Iohn 3. Gal. 3. Mat. 16. Marck 14. Luke 22. 1. Cor. 10. A warrant for apparrell Christes ambiguous speechess were not alwayes opened by the Euangelistes Luke 12. Luke 9. Iohn 12. 1 Math. 13. Psal. 77. This is my body is no proper speech Cap. 6. Cap. 9. The spirituall hunger thirstines of the soul. Eph. 2. Rom. 3 Psal. 41. Psal. 62. Rom. 4. Rom. 7. Rom. 8. Math. 5. Luke 1. Iohn 4. Iohn 4. Iohn 6. Cap. 10. Mat. 11. The spirituall foode of the soule Iohn 7. Iohn 6. Iohn 6. Gal. 2. Cap. 11. Christ farre excelleth all corporall foode Iohn 11. Cap. 12. The sacrameÌ„ts were ordayned to confirme our faith Hugo de S. vict de Sacramentis tractat 6. cap. 3. Cap. 13. Wherfore this sacrament was ordayned in bred and wine Hugo de S. vict de Sacramentis tractat 6. cap. 3. Cap. 14. The vnity of Christes misticall body 1. Cor. 10. Dionysios eccle Hie. cap. 31 Cap. 14. This sacrameÌ„t moueth all men to loue and freÌ„dship The doctrine of TransubstaÌ„tiaâ—ion doth clean subuert our faith in Christ. Cap. 16. The spirituall eating in with the hart not with the teeth Iohn 6. Luke 21. 1. Cor. 11. Mat. 26. Luke 22. Mark 14. Iniury to both Sacramentâ—s D. Smith Cap. 17. 4 principall errors of the Papistes The first is of the presence of Christ. Innocent 3. De summa trin fide
catholica firmiter paragrapho vna The second is of the presence of Christ in the Sacrament De coÌ„secra dist 1. Ego Beâ—eng Lege Roffen contra Oerol in proaemio lib. 3. corroborat 5. Christ is not corporally in earth Iohn 6. Math. 26. Mark 24. Actes 3. Coloss. 3. 1. Cor. 11. The third is that euill men eate and drinke the very body and bloud of Christ. The fourth is of the dayly sacrifice of Christ. Ibacuk 2. D. Smith Some say that Christ in naturally in the sament A manifest falshoode in the printing of the Byshoppes booke Some say that Christ is rent and torne with teeth in the sacrament Why the order of my booke was changed by the Bishop Untrue report The teaching hetherto euen at this day of the church of England agreeth with that this author calleth papistes Crafty conueiance of spech by this Author Worthy receauing of Christs precious body bloud 1. Cor. 6. A difference should be of contraries Chap. 1. The presence of Christ in the sacrament Christ corporally is ascended into heauen Act. 3. Cap. 2. The difference betwene the true and papisticall doctrine concerning the preseÌ„ce of Christes body The first coÌ„parison Misreport of bread and wine for the formes figures of them Smyth Tee booke of common prayer The secoÌ„d part The difference Repugnaunce The 1. comparison I sect reproued that were called Stercoranists The booke of common prayer That the Papiste say that Christ goâ— in no â—â—rther theÌ„ the mouth or stomacke Thomas Bonauentura Read Smith Fol. 64 Hugo Innocentius 3 li. ca. 25. The secoÌ„d part Innocent 3. August contra lit Peti lib. 2. cap. 47. whether Christ be receaued in the mouth The difference August contra lit Peti lib. 2. cap. 47. August contra lit Peti lib. 2. cap. 47. Iohn 13. 1. Cor. 10. The fourth comparyson Pugnat cum alijs Papistis Christ is the body of all the figures Really that is in deede Cyrillus ad Calosyrium episcopum Hesychius in Leuit. li 3. ca. 3. Christ beyng present in the sacrament is at the same tyme present in heauen Truely Really Substantially Augustin Psal. 33. What is found in a blind glose may not be takeÌ„ for the teaching of the church yet I neuer red of flyng It is in man daÌ„gerous to affirme or deny extreamyties although they be be true for it maketh him suspect of presumtion How long christ taryeth with the receyuour of the sacrament Metonymia The Fathers in the old law receiued the same things in their sacrameÌ„ts that we do in ours Reseruation Cyrill Hesichius De consecrat d. 2. Tribus gradibus The benefite comfort in this sacrament Iohn 5. The maner of presence Math. 18. Math. 6. The comparisoÌ„ The 5. comparison Pugnat cum alijs Papistis What is receued of all christen meÌ„ hath therein a manifest token in truth It is a folly to answere a corious demaunder Quintus Curtius maketh mention of this faith of Alexander Fath of God his work can not by mans deuise haue any qualification Sabellians Arrians Bernard super Cant. ser. 31. It is good at al times to coÌ„uert from error to truth 1. Tim. 1. The booke of common praier The Papists say that whole Christ is in euery part of the coÌ„secrated bread Thomas 3. part sum q. 76. art 3. Innocentius 3. lib. 4. cap. 8. A subtil sleight Wanton reason True christian men A Dialog What is to be wondered at in the SacrameÌ„t Sabellius Arrius The contrary hereof is noted for a doctrine Pugnat cum alijs Papistis Whether a bird or â—east eat the body of Christ. Lib. 4. distinct 13. In erroribus fol 134. b. Vide Marcum Constantium fol. 72. obiect 94. Thomas 3. part sum q. 80. art 3. Peryn A demurre vpoÌ„ this Issue August contra litteras Pe til lib. 20. Marcus constaÌ„tius dicit quod Ethnici ideÌ„ fortasse sumunt quod bruti i. sacrameÌ„tumtantuÌ„ The word very may make wrangling A demurre whether euill men eat the body of Christ. Iohn 6. 1. Cor. 11. August contra lit Petil. li. 2. cap 37. Truthes fained frends Very August in Ioh. tra 59. Smyth The 8. comparison 3. Manner of eatinges Cause of error Gods promises annexed to his Sacraments We must in teaching exalt the Sacraments after their dignity 3. Manner of eatinges True sacrameÌ„tall eating 1. Cor. 11. Whether Christ be really eaten without the sacrament The comparisoÌ„ Really Smyth Christes body is vnderstanded of his humanity I meruailous saying of this â—â— ther without Scripture Christ in thinstitution of the Sacrament spake of his humanity saying This is my body Phil. 4. There Note this contrariety in the Author The coÌ„parison Theodoret. dialog 1. D. Smith Whether in the Sacrament Christes body hath his proper forme and quantity D. Smith Iohn 16. Mark 16 Luke 24. â—Act 1. All. There A riddle may coÌ„taine truth of nay and pea being in appearaÌ„ce two contraries Augustinus I speciall difference in S. Augustine â—â—ne of Kentes 〈◊〉 Nouelty of speech The fathers did eat Christs flesh and drink his bloud The diuersitie of the sacrameÌ„ts of the new and olde testament August in Ioan. Tract 26. The Fathers did eate Christs body and drinke his bloud before he was borne 1. Cor. 10. August de vtil paeniten August in psal 77. August in IoaÌ„ Tract 26. August contra Faustum lib. 19. cap. 16. 20. cap 21. August in psal 73. Iohn 1. August de fide ad Pet. cap. 19. Bertram Smyth Ione of Kent The 11. comparison The booke of common prayer in this Realme Christes body in the sacrament is not made of the matter of bread The booke of common prayer Prouerb 23. Rom. 1. 1. Cor. 1. 2. Cor. 2. Iac. 8. Esay 1. Math. 22. 1. Pet. 2. Iohn 11. Domin 3. post Trin. Secret Muneram libidinem quibus oblata sanctifica vt tui nobis vnigeniti corpus saÌ„guis fiant ad medelaÌ„ Whether the body of Christ be made of bread Pugnat cum alijs Papistis Making by conuersion Gen. 2. Iohn 2. D. Smith Christ is our satisfaction How Christ satisfied Christes wiâ—â— Christes once offering Phil. 1. Rom. 12. Truthes linked together Emissenus Christ is the inuisible priest 1. Cor. 4. Errors One offering of Christ not many 1. Iohn 2. Mala. 1. Errors The whole church by the minister the priest offereth Christ present as a sacrifice propitiatory wherin is shewed our Lords death Iacob 5. Whether the Masse be satisfactory by the deuotioÌ„ of the priest Thom. part 3. qâ— 79. art 5. Ioh. 11. The declaration of Christes will to die was not a sacrifice propiciatory for sinne Heb. 11. * Math. 5. Gen. 22. 2. Reg. 12. Math. 20. Marc. 10. Luc. 18. Iohn 2. Iohn 6. Iohn 10. Heb. 2. Rom. 6. Heb. 7. 9. 10. 1. Pet. 3. Heb. 9. Ibidem Phil. 2. Cyprianus lib. 2. epi. 3. August ad Bonifacium epist. 23. Heb. 10. 1. Cor. 11. A chaine of errours Malac. 14. Esay 53. Heb.
that there is onely bread in the Sacrament sayth Smith and not Christes body what then What is that to purpose here in this place I pray you For I goe not about in this place to proue that onely bread is in the sacrament and not Christes body but in this place I proue onely that it was very bread which Christ called his body and very wine which he called his bloud when he sayd This is my body This is my bloud Which Smith with all his rablement of the Papistes deny and yet all the old Authors affirme it with Doctor Steuen Gardiner late Bishope of Winchester also who sayth that Christ made demonstration vpon the bread when he sayd This is my body And as all the old Authors be able to counteruayle the Papistes so is the late Bishope able to matche Smith in this mater so that we haue at the least a Rowland for an Oliuer But shortly to comprehend the aunswere of Smith where I haue proued my sayinges a dosen leaues together by the authoritie of Scripture and old catholike writers is this a sufficient aunswer onely to say without any proofe that al my trauayl is lost and that all that I haue alleadged is nothing to the purpose Iudge indifferently gentle Reader whether I might not by the same reason cast away all Smithes whole booke and reiect it quite cleane with one word saying All his labore is lost and to no purpose Thus Smith and Gardiner being aunswered I will returne agayne to my booke where it followeth thus Now this being fully proued it must needes folow consequently that this manner of speaking is a figuratiue speach For in playne and proper speach it is not true to say that bread is Christes body or wine his bloud For Christes body hath a soule lyfe sence and reason but bread hath neither soule lyfe sence nor reason Lykewise in playne speche it is not true that we eate Christes body and drinke his bloud For eating drinking in their proper and vsuall signification is with the tongue teeth and lyppes to swallow diuide and chawe in peeces which thinge to do to the flesh and bloud of Christ is horrible to be heard of any Christian. So that these speaches To eate Christes body and drinke his bloud to call bread his body and wine his bloud be speches not taken in the proper signification of euery worde but by translation of these wordes eating and drinking from the signification of a corporall thing to signifie a spirituall thing and by calling a thing that signifieth by the name of the thing which is signified thereby Which is no rare nor straunge thing but an vsuall manner and phrase in common speech And yet least this faulte should be imputed vnto vs that we do fayne thinges of our owne heades without auctoritie as the papistes be accustomed to do here shall be cited sufficient authoritye as well of Scriptures as of olde auncient authors to approue the same First when our Sauiour Christ in the sixt of Iohn sayd that he was the bread of lyfe which who so euer did eate should not dye but liue for euer and that the bread which he would geue vs was his flesh and therefore who so euer should eate his flesh and drinke his bloud should haue euerlasting lyfe and they that should not eate his flesh and drinke his bloud should not haue euerlasting lyfe When Christ had spoken these wordes with many moe of the eating of his flesh and drinking of his bloud both the Iewes and many also of his disciples were offended with his wordes and sayd This is an hard saying For howe can hee geue vs his flesh to be eaten Christ perceiuing their murmuring hartes because they knew none other eating of his flesh but by chawing and swallowing to declare that they should not eate his body after that sort nor that he ment of any such carnall eating he sayd thus vnto them What yf you see the sonne of man ascend vp where he was before It is the spirite that geueth life the flesh auaileth nothing the words which I spake vnto you be spirite and lyfe These wordes our Sauiour Christ spake to lift vp their mindes from earth to heauen and from carnall to spirituall eating that they should not phantasy that they should with their teeth eate him present here in earth for his flesh so eaten sayth he should nothing profite them And yet so they should not eate him for he would take his body away from them and ascend with it into heauen and there by fayth and not with teeth they should spiritually eate him sitting at the right hand of his father And therefore sayth he The wordes which I do speake be spirite and lyfe That is to say are not to be vnderstand that we shall eate Christ with our teeth grossely and carnally but that we shall spiritually and gostly with our fayth eate him being carnally absent from vs in heauen And in such wise as Abraham and other holy fathers did eate him many yeares before he was incarnated and borne as Saint Paule sayth that all they did eate the same spirituall meate that we doo and drinke the same spirituall drinke that is to say Christ. For they spiritually by their fayth were fed and nourished with Christes body and bloud and had eternall lyfe by him before he was borne as we haue now that come after his ascention Thus haue you heard the declaration of Christ himselfe and of Saint Paul that the eating and drinking of Christes fleshe and bloud is not taken in the common signification with mouth and teeth to eate and chaw a thing being present but by a liuely fayth in hart and minde to chaw and digest a thing being absent either ascended hence into heauen or els not yet borne vpō earth Winchester In the lx leaf the auctor entreateth whether it be a plaine spéech of Christ to say eate and drincke speaking of his body and bloud I answer the spéech of it selfe is propre commaunding them present to eate and drincke that is proponed for them and yet it is not requisite that the nature of man should with like cōmon effect worke in eating and drinking that heauenly meate drincke as it doth in earthly and carnall meates In this mistery man doth as Christ ordeined that is to say receyue with his mouth that is ordered to be receiued with his mouth graunting it neuerthelesse of that dignitie and estimation that Christes wordes affirms and whether he so doth or no Christes ordinaunce is as it is in the substaunce of it selfe alone whereof no good man iudgeth carnally or grosely ne discusseth the vnfaythfull question how which he can not conceiue but leaueth the déepenes thereof and doth as he is bidden This misterie receiueth no mans thoughtes Christes institution hath a propertie in it which can not be discussed by mans sensuall reason Christes wordes be spirite and life which this auctor wresteth with
his owne glose to exclude the truth of the eating of Christes flesh in his supper And yet for a shifte if a man would ioyne issue with him putteth to his speach the wordes grossely and carnally which wordes in such a rude vnderstanding be termes méeter to expresse how dogges deuoure paunches then to be inculked in speaking of this high mystery Wherein I will make the issue with this author that no catholike teaching is so framed with such termes as though we should eate Christs most precious body grossely carnally ioyning those wordes so together For els carnally alone may haue a good signification as Hillary vseth it but contrariwise speaking in the Catholique teaching of the maner of Christes presence they call it a spirituall maner of presence and yet there is present by gods power the very true naturall body and bloud of Christ whole God man without leauing his place in heauen and in the holy supper men vse their mouthes and téeth following Christes commaundement in the receiuing of that holy Sacrament being in fayth sufficiently instruct that they can not ne do not teare consume or violate that most precious body and bloud but vnworthely receiuing it are cause of their owne iudgement and condemnation Caunterbury EAting and drinking with the mouth being so playne a matter that yong babes learne it and know it before they cā speake yet the Cut till here with his blacke colours and darke speaches goeth about so to couer and hyde the matter that neither yong nor olde learned nor vnlearned should vnderstand what he meaneth But for all his masking who is so ignoraunt but he knoweth that eating in the propper and vsuall signification is to bite and chaw in sunder with the teeth And who knoweth not also that Christ is not so eaten Who can then be ignorant that here you speake a manifest vntruth when you say that Christes body to be eaten is of it selfe a propper speach and not figuratiue Which is by and by confessed by your selfe when you say that we do not eate that heauēnly meat as we do other carnall meates which is by chawing and deuiding with the mouth and teeth And yet we receaue with the mouth that is ordeined to be receiued with the mouth that is to say the Sacramentall bread and wine esteming them neuerthelesse vnto vs when we duly receiue them according vnto Christes wordes and ordinaunce But where you say that of the substaunce of Christes body no good man iudgeth carnally ne discusseth the vnfaythful question how you charge your selfe very sore in so saying and seeme to make demonstration vpon your selfe of whom may be sayd Ex ore tuo te iudico For you both iudge carnally in affirming a carnall presence and a carnall eating and also you discusse this question how when you say that Christes body is in the sacrament really substauncially corporally carnally sensible and naturally as he was born of the virgin Mary and suffered on the cros And as concerning these wordes of Christ The wordes which I doe speake be Spirite and lyfe I haue not wrested them with myne owne glose as you misreport but I haue cited for me the interpretation of the catholik doctors and holy fathers of the church as I refer to the iudgement of the reader But you teach such a carnall grosse eating and drinking of Christes flesh bloud as is more meet to expresse how dogges deuoure paunches then to sette forth the high mistery of Christes holy supper For you say that Christes body is present really substauncially corporally and carnally and so is eaten and that we eate Christes body as eating is taken in common speach but in common speach it is taken for chawing and gnawing as doges do paunches wherfore of your saying it followeth that we do so eate Christes body as dogges eate paunches which all christian eares abhore for to heare But why should I ioyne with you here an issue in that mater which I neuer spake For I neuer read nor hard no man that sayd sauing you alone that we do eate Christ grossely or carnally or as eating is taken in common speach without any figure but all that euer I haue hard or read say quite cleane contrary But you who affirme that we eate Christ carnally and as eating is taken in common speach which is carnally grossely to chaw with the teeth must nedes consequently graunt that we eat him grossely and carnally as dogges eate paunches And this is a strange thing to heare that where before you sayd that Christ is present but after a spirituall maner now you say that he is eaten carnally And where you say that in the holy Supper men vse their mouth and teeth truth it is that they so do but to chawe the Sacramēt not the body of Christ. And if they doo not teare that most precious body and bloud why say you then that they eate the body of Christ as eatyng is taken in cōmon speech And wherefore doth that false Papisticall fayth of Pope Nicolas which you wrongfully call Catholike teach that Christs body is torne with the teeth of the faythfull De consecr dist 2. Ego Now folowe the particular authorities which I haue alleaged for the interpretation of Christes wordes which if you had well considered you would not haue sayd as you doe that I wrasted Christes wordes with mine owne glose For I beginne with Origene saying And Origene declaring the sayd eating of Christes flesh and drinking of his bloud not to be vnderstand as the wordes doe sound but figuratiuely writeth thus vpon these wordes of Christ Except you eate my flesh and drinke my bloud you shall not haue lyfe in you Consider sayth Origen that these thinges written in Godes bookes are figures and therefore examine and vnderstand them as spirituall and not as carnall men For if you vnderstand them as carnall men they hurt you and feede you not For euen in the Gospels is there foūd letter that killeth And not onely in the old Testament but also in the new is there found letter that slayeth hym that dooth not spiritually vnderstand that which is spoken For if thou follow the letter or wordes of this that Christ sayd Except you eat my flesh and drink my bloud this letter killeth Who can more playnely expresse in any wordes that the eating drinking of Christes flesh and bloud are not to be taken in common signification as the wordes pretend and sound then Origene dooth in this place Winchester Now I will touch shortly what may be sayd to the particular authorities brought in by this author Origen is noted among other writers of the church to draw the text to all egories who doth not therby meane to destroy the truth of the letter and therefore whē he speaketh of a figure sayth not there is onely a figure which exclusiue only being away as it is not found by any author Catholick taught that the spéech