Winchester.

FOrasmuch as amonge other myne allegations for defence of 1 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 2 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 3 requisite to direct any speach by speciall name to the person of him that is entituled au­thor, I would as much as may be do my due to the matter and him also. 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, y ^t 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 1 may looke for in the rest of the same, except the beginning vary from all that followeth. The craft of winchester in the beginnyng. 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 y ^e true 2 catholike faith which was taught by Christ and his Apostles (as you say [Page 3] I do) but I impugne the false Papisticall faith, inuented, deuised, and i­magined by Antichrist and his ministers.

3 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 name) all men may iudge that your doing herein, is not for reuerence to be vsed vnto me, but that by suppressing of my name, you may the more vnreuerently and vnseemely vse your scoffing, taunting, rayling, and defaming of the author in gene­rall, and yet shall euery man vnderstand, that your speach is directed to me in especiall, as wel as if you had appointed me with your finger. And your reuerent vsing of your selfe, before the kings highnes commissioners of late, doth plainly declare, what reuerent respect you haue to them that be in dignitie and authoritie in the common wealth.

Winchester.

THis author denieth the reall presence of Christes most precious body and bloud in the Sacrament.

This author denieth Transubstantiation.

This author denieth euill men to eate and drinke the body and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament.

These thre denials only impugne and tend to destroy that faith which this author fer­meth the Popish to erre in, calling now all popish that beleue either of these thre articles by him denied, the truth wherof shall hereafter be opened.

1 Now because faith affirmeth some certaintie: Because the au­thor pretendeth a defence of the catholick faith, it were reason to know what it is. if we aske this author what is his saith which he calleth true and catholike, it is onely this, as we may learne by his booke, that in our Lordes supper be consecrate bread and wyne, and deliuered as tokens only to sig­nifie Christes body and bloud, he calleth them holy tokens, but yet noteth that the bread and wyne be neuer the holyer, he sayth neuerthelesse they be not bare tokens, and yet cō ­cludeth, 2 Christ not to be spiritually present in them, but only as a thyng is present in that which signifieth it (which is the nature of a bare token) saying in an other place, The effect of that this author calleth his faith. Untrue report. there is nothing to be worshipped, for there is nothyng present, but in figure & in a signe: which who so euer saith, calleth the thyng in deede absent. And yet the author sayth: Christ is in 3 the man that worthely receiueth, spiritually present, who eateth of Christes flesh and his 4 bloud reigning in heauen, whether the good beleuing man ascendeth by his faith. And as our body is nourished with the bread and wyne receyued in the supper: so the true bele­uyng man is fed with the body and bloud of Christ. And this is the summe of the doctrine of that faith, which this author calleth the true catholike fayth.

Caunterbury.

1 I Desire the Reader to iudge my faith not by this short, enuious, and vn­true collection and reporte, but by mine owne booke, as it is at length set out in the first part, from the 8. vnto the 16. chapter.

And as concerning holynes of bread and wine (wherunto I may adde the water into baptisme) how can a dombe or an insensible and liuelesse creature receiue into it selfe any foode, Bread, wine, & water, be not ho­ly, but holy to­kens. and feede thereupon? No more is it possible that a spiritlesse creature should receiue any spirituall sanctifica­tion or holynes. And yet do I not vtterly depriue the outward sacramēts of the name of holy thinges, because of the holy vse wherunto they serue, & not because of any holynesse y ^t lyeth hid in the insensible creature. Which although they haue no holynes in them, yet they be signes and tokens of the meruailous workes and holy effects, which god worketh in vs by his omnipotent power.

[Page 4] They be not bare tokens.And they be no vayne or bare tokens, as you would perswade (for a bare token is that which betokeneth only and geneth nothing, as a pain­ted fire, which geueth neither light nor heate) but in the due ministration of the Sacramentes God is present, working with his worde and Sa­cramentes.

And although (to speake properly) in the bread and wine be nothing in 3 dede to be worshipped, yet in them that duely receiue the sacramentes is Christ himself inhabiting, and is of all creatures to be worshipped.

Christ is presēt in his sacra­mentes.And therfore you gather of my sayings vniustly, that Christ is in deede 4 absent, for I say (according to Gods worde and the doctrine of the olde writers) that Christ is present in his sacramentes, as they teach also that he is present in his worde, when he worketh mightely by the same, in the hartes of the hearers. By which maner of speach it is not ment that Christ is corporally present in the voyce or sound of the speaker (which sound pe­risheth as soone as the wordes be spoken) but this speach meaneth that he worketh with his word, vsing the voyce of the speaker, as his instrument to worke by, as he vseth also his sacramentes wherby he worketh, & ther­fore is said to be present in them.

Winchester.

A catholike fayth.Now a catholike faith, is an vniuersall faith taught and preached through all, and so 1 receiued and beleued, agreable and consonant to the scriptures, testified by such as by all ages haue in their writinges geuen knowledge therof; Thus authors fayth hath no point of a catho­like fayth. which be the tokens and markes of a true catholike faith, whereof no one can be found in the faith this author calleth ca­tholike.

Untrue report. Scripture in letter fauoureth not thus autors fayth.First there is no scripture that in letter maynteineth y ^e doctrine of this authors booke. for Christ sayth not that the bread doth o [...]ly signifie his body absent, nor S Paul saith 2 not so in any place, ne any other Canonicall Scripture declareth Christes wordes so. As 3 for the sence and vnderstanding of Christes wordes, there hath not bene in any age any one approued and knowen learned man, that hath so declared and expounded Christes wordes in his supper, that the bread did onely signifie Christes body, and the wyne his bloud as thinges absent.

Caunterbury.

THe first part of your description of a catholike faith, is crafty and full 1 of subtletie, My doctrine is catholike by your owne de­scription. for what you meane by (all) you do not expresse. The secōd part is very true, and agreeth fully with my doctrine in euery thing, as wel in the matter of transubstantiation, of the presence of Christ in the sa­crament, and of the eating and drinking of him, as in the sacrifice propiti­atory. For as I haue taught in these 4. matters of controuersie, so learned I the same of the holy scripture, so is it testified by all olde writers & lear­ned men of all ages, so was it vniuersally taught and preached, receiued & beleued, vntill the sea of Rome, the chiefe aduersary vnto Christ, corrupted all together, and by hypocrisie and simulation, in the stede of Christ, erec­ted Autichrist, who being the sonne of perdition, hath extolled and aduan­ced himselfe, and sitteth in the temple of God, as he were God himselfe, lo­sing and bynding at his pleasure, in heauen, hell, and earth: condemning, absoluing, canonising & damning, as to his iudgement he thinketh good.

But as concerning your doctrine of Transubstantiation, of the reall, corporall and naturall presence of Christes body in the bread, and bloud in the wyne: that ill men do eate his flesh and drinke his bloud: that Christ is [Page 5] 2 many tymes offred, there is no scripture that in letter mainteyneth any of them (as you require in a catholike faith) but the scripture in y ^e letter doth mainteine this my doctrine plainly, that the bread remaineth, Panis quem frangimus, 1. Cor. 10. nonne communicatio corporis Christi est? Is not y ^e bread which we breake, the communion of Christes body? And that euill men do not eate Christe his fleshe, nor drinke his bloud, for the scripture saith expresse­ly: He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud, Ioh. 6. dwelleth in me and I in him, which is not true of ill men. And for the corporall absence of Christ, what can be more plainly said in the letter, then he sayd of himself, that he forsoke the world? Ioh. 16. besides other scriptures which I haue alleaged in my 3. booke, the 4. chapter. And the scripture speaketh plainly in the Epistle to the Hebrues, Heb. 7.9. & 10. that Christ was neuer more offred then once.

3 But here you take such a large scope that you flee from the foure proper matters that be in controuersie, Christ is spiri­tually present. vnto a new scope deuised by you, that I should absolutely deny the presence of Christ, and say: That the bread doth only signifie Christes body absent, which thing I neuer said nor thought. And as Christ sayth not so, nor Paule sayth not so, euen so like wise I say not so, and my booke in diuers places saith cleane contrary, that Christ is with vs spiritually present, is eaten & dronken of vs, and dwelleth within vs, although corporally he be departed out of this world, and is ascended vp into heauen.

Winchester.

1 And to the entent euery notable disagréement from the truth may the more euidently appeare. An issue. I will here in this place (as I will hereafter likewyse when the case occurreth) ioyne as it were an issue with this author, that is to say, to make a stay with him in this point triable (as they say) by euidence and soone tried. For in this point the scriptures bee already by the author brought forth, the letter wherof proueth not his fayth. And albeit he trauaileth & bringeth forth the saying of many approued writers, yet is there no one of them that writeth in expresse wordes the doctrine of that faith, which this author cal­leth the faith catholike. And to make the issue playne, and to ioyne it directly, thus I say.

2 No author known and approued, No writer ap­proued, testifieth this authors faith. that is to say, Ignatius, Polycarpe, Iustine, Irene, Tertullian, Cyprian, Chrysostome, Hilary, Gregory Nazianzene, Basill, Emissen, Am­brose, Cyrill, Hierome, Augustine, Damascene, Theophilast, none of these hath this do­ctrine in playne termes, The summe of the issue. that the bread onely signifieth Christes body absent, nor this sen­tence, that the bread and wyne be neuer the holyer after consecration, nor that Christes body is none otherwyse present in the Sacrament, but in a signification: nor this sentēce, that the Sacrament is not to be worshipped, because there is nothyng present but in a signe. And herein what the truth is, may soone appeare, as it shall by their workes neuer appeare to haue ben taught and preached, receiued and beleued vniuersally, and therfore can be called no catholike faith (that is to say) allowed in the whole, through and in out­ward teaching, Outward tea­ching. preached and beleued.

Caunterbury.

1 IN your issues you make me to say what you list, and take your issue where you list, and then if xii. false varlets passe with you, what won­der is it? Your doctrine is not catholike by your owne description. But I will ioyne with you this issue, that neither scripture nor aūcient author writeth in expresse wordes the doctrine of your faith. And to make the issue plaine, & to ioyne directly with you therin, thus I say: That no auncient and catholike authour hath your doctrine in playne termes. And because I will not take my issue in bye matters (as you do) I will make if in the foure principall pointes, wherin we vary, & wher­upon [Page 6] my booke resteth.

My issue.This therfore shalbe mine issue: That as no scripture, so no auncient 2 author known and approued, hath in plaine termes your Transubstanti­ation: nor that the body and bloud of Christ be really, corporally, natural­ly, and carnally wider the formes of bread and wine: nor that euil men do eate the very body and drinke the very bloud of Christ: nor that Christ is offered euery day by the priest a sacrifice propiciatorie for sinne. Wherfore by your owne description and rule of a catholike faith, your doctrine and teaching in these 4. articles cannot be good and catholike except you can finde it in plaine termes, in the scripture and old catholike doctors, which when you do, I will hold vp my hand at the barre, and say, giltie: And if you cannot, then it is reason that you do the lyke, per legem Talionis.

Winchester.

If this author setting apart the worde (Catholike) would of his owne wil go about to 1 proue. howsoeuer scripture hath bene vnderstanded hitherto, yet it should be vnderstan­ded in dede as he now teacheth, he hath herein diuers disaduantages and hindrances wor­thy consideration, which I will particularly note.

I notable mat­ter, a man to be condemned by his owne for­mer writinges, Bertram confes­sed to be of this opinion. First, the preiudice and sentence, geuen as it were by his own mouth against himself, 2 now in the booke called the Catechisme in his name set forth.

Secondly, that about vij. C. yere ago, one Bertram (if the booke set forth in hys name 3 be his) enterprised secretly the lyke, as appereth by the said booke, & yet preuayled not.

Thirdly, Berengarius beyng in dede but an Archdeacō, about v. C. yeres past, after he 4 had openly attempted to set forth such like doctrine, recanted, & so fayled in his purpose.

Fourthly, Wickliffe not much aboue an C. yeares past, enterprised the same, whose 5 teaching, God prospered not.

Fiftly, how Luther in his workes, handled them that would haue in our tyme raised 6 vp the same doctrine in Germany, it is manifest by his & their writings, wherby appea­reth the enterprise that hath had so many ouerthrowes, so many rebuts, so oftē reproofes, to be desperate, This authors doctrine often reiected as false. and such as God hath not prospered and sauoured to be receyued at any tyme openly, as his true teaching.

Herein whether I say true or no, let the stories try me, and it is matter worthy to bée 7 noted, Actes. v. because Gamaliels obseruation written in the Actes of the Apostles in allowed to marke, how they prosper and go forward in their doctrine, that be authors of any news teaching.

Caunterbury.

I Haue not proued in my booke my iiij. assertions by mine owne wit, but 1 by the collation of holy scripture, and the sayings of the old holy catho­like authors. And as for your v. notes, you might haue noted thē against your selfe, who by them haue much more disaduauntage and hinderance, then I haue.

My Cate­chisme.As concerning the Catechisme by me set forth, I haue answered in my 2 fourth booke the 8. chapter, that ignorant men for lack of iudgement and exercise in olde authors, mistake my said Catechisme.

Bertrame.And as for Bertrame, he did nothing els but at the request of king 3 Charles, set out the true doctrine of the holy catholike church from Christ vnto his tyme, concerning the sacrament. And I neuer heard nor red any mā that condemned Bertrame before this tyme, and therfore I can take no hinderance, but a great aduantage at his handes. For all men that hi­therto haue written of Bertrame, haue much commended him. And seing that he wrote of the sacrament at king Charles request, it is not like that [Page 7] he would write against the receiued doctrine of y ^e 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.

4 Berengarius of himselfe had a godly iudgement in this matter, Berengarius. 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.

5 And as for Iohn Wicklif he was a singuler instrument of God in his tyme to set forth the truth of christes gospell, Wickliffe. 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.

6 And as touching Martin Luther, 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, The Papistes haue bene the cause why the catholike doc­trine hath bene hundered, and hath not had good successe these late ye [...]es. that you haue waded so farre in rhetorike, that you haue forgotten your logike. For this is your argumēt: 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, Am [...]s, and Mitheas attempted y ^e 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.

7 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 [Page 8] 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, 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. there to search out an vnderstanding, and in do­yng therof, to forget what hath bene taught hitherto: How shall this author establish v­pon 1 scripture that he would haue beleued? What other text is there in scripture that en­ [...]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 2 his body, nor the geuing of Christes body in his supper, verily and really so vnderstāded, doth not necessarily impugne and contrary any other speach or doyng of Christ, expressed 3 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.

This is my body, is no pro­per speach.THe Scripture is playne, and you confesse also, that it was bread that 1 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 2 be eaten with our mouthes, so geueth he his very body to be eaten with our faith. And therfore I say, y ^t 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.

Gods omnipo­tencie. Psal. 115. Rom. 9.As for the great power and omnipotency of God, it is no place here to 3 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 cā ioyne to­gether these two, that one nature singuler shalbe here and not here, both at one time, and that it shalbe gone hence when it is here, you haue some strōg syment, and be a cunning Geometrician: but yet you shall neuer be good Logician, that woulde set together two contradictories. For that the scholemen say, God cannot do.

Winchester.

1 If this author without force of necessitie would induce it, by the like speaches, as whē Christ sayd: An aunswer to the like spea­ches in appa­rance. I am the dore, I am the vine, he is Helias, and such other, and because it is a figuratiue speach in them, it may be so here, which maketh no kynd of proofe, that it is so here: But yet if by way of reasoning I would yeld to him therein, and call it a figura­tiue 2 speach as he doth, The fayth of this author is but to [...]eleue a story. what other poynt of faith is there then in the matter, but to be­leue the story, that Christ did institute such a supper, wherin he gaue bread and wine for a token of his body and bloud, which is now after this vnderstanding no secret mysterie at all, The Lordes supper hath n [...] miracle in it by this authors vnderstanding. No promise made to a token in the supper, or in y ^• 6. of Iohn. or any ordinaunce aboue reason. For commonly men vse to ordeyne in sensible thinges remembraunces of themselues when they dye or depart the countrey. So as in the ordinaunce of this supper, after this vnderstanding Christ shewed not his omnipo­tencie, but onely beneuolence, that he loued vs, and would be remēbred of vs. For Christ did not say: Whosoeuer eateth this token, eateth my body, or eateth my flesh, or shall haue any profite of it in speciall, but do this in remembraunce of me.

Caunterbury.

1 I Make no such vayne inductions as you imagine me to do, but such as he established by scripture, and the consent of all the olde writers. And yet both you and Smith vse such fonde inductions for your proofe of Trā ­substantiation, when you say, God can do this thing, and he cā make that thing, wherof you would conclude, that he doth clearely take away y ^e sub­stance of bread and wine, and putteth his flesh and bloud in their places: And that Christ maketh his body to be corporally in many places at one tyme, of which doctrine you haue not one iote in all the whole scripture.

2 And as concerning your argument made vpon the history of the insti­tution of Christes supper, Iniury to bap­tisme. like fonde reasoning might vngodly men make of the sacrament of Baptisme, and so scoffe out both these high mysteries of Christ. For when Christ said these wordes after his resurrection, Goe into the whole world, and preach vnto all people, baptising them in the name of the Father, Math. v [...]. Mark. vit. the Sonne, and the holy Ghost: Here might wicked blas­phemers say: What point of faith is in these wordes, but to beleue the sto­ry, that Christ did institute such a sacrament, wherin he commaunded to geue water for a token: which is now after this vnderstanding, no secrete mysterie at all, or any ordinaunce aboue reason: so as in the ordinaunce of this sacrament after this vnderstanding, Christ shewed not his omnipo­tency: For he sayd not then, Whosoeuer receiueth this token of water, shall receuie remission of sinne, or the holy ghost, or shall haue any profite of it in especial, but, Do this.

Winchester.

1 And albeit this author would not haue them bare tokens, Tokens be but tokens howsoe­uer they be gar­nished with gay wordes with­out scripture. For apparell pag. 30. numero. 9. yet and they be only tokēs, they haue no warrāt signed by scripture, for any apparell at all. For the vi of Iohn spea­keth not of any promise made, to the eating of a token of Christes flesh, but to the eating of Christes very flesh, wherof the bread (as this author would haue it) is but a figure in Christes wordes, when he sayd (This is my body.) And if it be but a figure in Christes wordes, it is but a figure in S. Paules wordes whē he said: The bread which we breake, is it not the communication of Christes body? that is to say, a figure of the communicati­on of Christes body (if this authors doctrine be true) and not the communication in dede. Untrue report. 2 Wherfore if the very body of Christ be not in the supper deliuered in déede, the eatyng there hath no speciall promise, Euery speciall sacrament hath promise annexed and hath a se­cret hiddē truth. but onely commaundement to do it in remembrance. Af­ter which doctrine why should it be noted absolutely for a Sacrament and special myste­rie, that hath nothing hidden in it, but a playne open ordinaunce of a token for a remem­braunce: to the eating of which token, is annered no promise expressely, ne any holynes [Page 10] to be accompted to be in the bread or wyne (as this author teacheth) but to be called holy, because they be deputed to an holy vse. If I aske the vse, he declareth to signifie. If I should aske what to signifie? There must be a sort of good wordes framed without scrip­ture. For scripture expresseth no matter of signification of speciall effect. 3

Caunterbury.

Bread is not a vayn and bare token.IF I graunted for your pleasure that the bare bread (hauyng no further 1 respect) were but onely a bare figure of Christes body, or a bare token (because that terme liketh you better, as it may be thought for this consi­deration, that men should thinke that I take the bread in the holy mysterie to be but as it were a token of I recommend me vnto you) but if I graunt I say, that the bare bread, is but a bare token of Christes body, what haue you gayned therby? Is therfore the whole vse of the bread in the whole acti­on and ministration of the lordes holy supper, but a naked or nude & bare token? Is not one lofe being broken and distributed among faithful people in the lordes supper, taken and eaten of them, a token that y ^e body of Christ was broken and crucified for them? and is to them spiritually and effectu­ally geuen, and of them spiritually and fruitfully taken and eaten, to their spirituall and heauenly comfort, sustentation & nourishment of their soules, as the bread is of their bodies? And what would you require more? Cā there be any greater comfort to a christian man then this? Is here nothing els but bare tokens?

But yet importune aduersaries, and such as be wilful and obstinate, wil neuer be satisfied, but quarell further, saying: What of all this? Here be a great many of gay wordes framed together, but to what purpose? For all be but signes and tokens as concerning the bread. But how can he be taken for a good christian man that thinketh that Christ did ordaine his sacra­mentall signes and tokens in vayne, without effectuall grace and operati­on? For so might we as well say, that the water in baptisme is a bare to­ken, and hath no warrant signed by scripture for any apparell at all: for the scripture speaketh not of any promise made to the receiuing of a token or fi­gure onely. And so may be concluded after your maner of reasoning, that in baptisme is no spirituall operation in dede, because that washing in water in it selfe, is but a token.

But to expresse the true effect of the sacramentes: As the washing out­wardly in water is not a vayne token, but teacheth such a washing as god worketh inwardly, in them that duely receiue the same: So likewise is not the bread a vayne token, but sheweth and preacheth to the godly receyuer, what God worketh in him by his almighty power secretely and inuisibly. And therfore as the bread is outwardly eaten in deede in the lordes supper, 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.

I warrant. Ioh. 6.And this eating hath a warrant signed by Christ himselfe in the vj. of 2 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 3 [Page 11] 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, Luc. 22. 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, 1. Cor. 11. which is a plain and direct aunswer to that same your last question, wherupō you triumph at your pleasure, as though y ^e 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, 1. Cor. 11. 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: 1. Cor. 10 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: A new teaching of onely figure. How can [...] fayth be called catholike that begunneth to be published nowe. so the matter of significatiō 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, Marke. 1. you would put the people in remembrāce 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 confusiō. The old popish bottels must nedes brast, when y ^e 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 [Page 12] plainly appeare by such matter as this author vttereth wherewith to impugne the true fayth taught hetherto. Tokens how to discern truth from falshood. For amōng 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, [...]. Reg. 3. by their speeches and sayinges. Which in the very mother were euer conformable vnto nature, and in the other, at the last euidētly against nature. The very true mother spake alwayes like her selfe, and neuer disagreed from 1 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, A lesson of Salomons iudge­ment. 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, Truth nedeth no ayd of lies. where all sayinges and doinges appeare vniformely consonant to the truth pretended, and on what side a notable [...]y [...] 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, Truth loueth simplicity and playnnes. yet the victory of truth not to be 2 there intended, which loueth simplicity, playnnesse, direct speach, without admixtion of shift or colour.

Caunterbury.

The Church of Rome is not the true mother of the catholick fayth.IF either diuisiō 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 1 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 cō ­trary to nature only, but chiefly against the playn wordes of scripture.

Absurda & falsa.For here in this one matter of controuersy between you, Smith, and me, you deuide against nature the accidentes of bread and wine, from their substances, and the substance of Christ from his accidences, and contray to the scripture you deuide our eternall life, attributing vnto the sacrifice of Christ vpon the crosse, only the beginning therof and the continuance ther­of you ascribe vnto the sacrifice of popish priestes. And in the sacramentes you separate Christes body from his spirite, affirming that in Baptisme we receaue but his spirite, and in the communion but his flesh. And that Christes spirit renueth our life, but increaseth it not, and that his flesh incre­ceth our life, but geueth it not. And agaynst all nature, reasō and truth, you confound the substance of bread and wine, with the substance of Christes body and bloud, in such wise as you make but one nature and person of them all. And against scripture and all comformity of nature, you confound and iumble so together the natural members of Christes body in the sacra­ment, that you leaue no distinction, proportion nor fashion of mannes bo­dy at all.

And can your church be taken for the true naturall mother, of the true doctrine of Christ, that thus vnnaturally speaketh, deuydeth and confoun­deth Christes body? The speaking of the true mo­ther.

If Salomon were aliue, he would surely geue iudgement that Christ [Page 13] should be taken from that woman, that speaketh so vnnaturally, and so vnlike his mother, and be geuen to the true church of the faithful, that ne­uer digressed from the truth of Gods word, nor from the true speeche of Christes natural body, but speake according to the same that Christes bo­dy, although it be inseparable annexed vnto his Godhead, yet it hath all the naturall conditions and properties of a very mans body, occupying one place, and being of a certayne height and measure, hauing all mem­bers distinct and set in good order and proportion. And yet the same body ioyned vnto his diuinitye, is not only the beginning, but also the contynu­ance and consummation of our eternall and celestiall life. By him we be regenerated, by him we be fedde and nourished from time to time, as hee hath taught vs most certainly to beleue by his holy word and sacraments which remayne in their former substaunce and nature, as Christ doth in his, without mixtion or confusion. This is the true and naturall speaking in this matter like a true naturall mother, and like a true and right belee­uing christian man.

Marye of that doctrine which you teach, I cannot deny but the church of Rome is the mother therof, Rome to the mother of the papistical fayth. which in scripture is called Babilō, because of commixtion or confusion. Which in all her doinges and teachinges so doth mixte and confound error with truth, superstition with religiō, god­lines with hipocrisie, scripture with traditions, that she sheweth her selfe alway vniforme and consonant, to confound all the doctrine of Christ, yea Christ him selfe, shewing her selfe to be Christes stepmother, and the true naturall mother of Antichrist.

2 And for the conclusion of your matter here, I doubt not but the indiffe­rent reader shal easely perceiue what spirit moued you to write your boke. For seeing that your booke is so full of crafts, sleightes, shiftes, obliquities, & manifest vntruthes, it may be easely iudged, that what soeuer pretence be made of truth, yet nothing is lesse intended, then that truth should ether haue victory, or appeare and be seene at all.

Winchester.

1 And that thou reader mightest by these markes iudge of that is here intreated by the author agaynst the melt blessed sacrament, The name of the Author great where­with to put men to silence. I shall note certayne euident and manyfest vntruthes, which this author is not afraid to vtter, (a matter wonderfull considering his dignity, if he that is named be the author in déede) which should be a great stay of contra­diction, if any thing were to be regarded agaynst the truth.

2 First, I will note vnto the reader, how this author termeth the faith of the reall and substanciall presence of Christes body and bloud in the sacrament, An impudent vntruth. to be the faith of y ^e pa­pistes: which saying, what foundacion it hath, thou mayest consider of that foloweth.

Luther that professed openly to abhorre at that might be noted papish, defended stout­ly 3 the presence of Christes body in the Sacrament, and to be present really and substanci­ally, euen with the same wordes and termes.

Bucer that is here in England, in a solemne worke that he wryteth vpon the Gos­pels, professeth the same faith of the reall and substanciall presence of Christes body in the Sacrament, which be affirmeth to haue béen beleued of all the church of Christ from the beginning hetherto.

Iustus Ionas hath translated a Catechisme out of dutch into latin, The sayth of the Sacra­ment in the Catechisme un­proueth this Authors doc­trine now. taught in the citie of Noremberge in Germany, where Hosiander is chiefe preacher, in which Catechisme they be accounted for no true Christian men, that deny the presence of Christes body in the Sacrament. The wordes really and substancially, be not expressed as they be in Bu­cer, but the word ( truly) is there, and as Buter saith, that is substancially. Which Cate­chisme [Page 14] was translated into englishe in this authors name about two yeares past.

Phillip Melancton no papist nor priest, writeth a very wise epistle in this matter to Decolampadius, and signifiyng soberly his beléefe of the presence of Christes very body in the Sacrament: and to proue the same to haue béen the fayth of the old church from y ^e beginning, alleadgeth the sayinges of Irene, Ciprian, Chrisostome, Hillary, Cirill, Am­brose and Theophilacte, which authors he estemeth both worthy credite, and to affirme the presence of Christes body in the Sacrament plainly without ambiguity. He answe­reth to certain places of S. Augustine and saith, all Decolampadius enterprise to depend vpon coniectures, and argumentes applausible to idle wittes, with much more wise matter as that epistle doth purport, which is set out in a booke of a good volume among the o­ther Epistles of Decolampadius, so as no man may suspecte any thing counterfayte in the matter.

One Hippinus, or Oepinus of Hamborough, greatly estéemed among the Lutheri­ans, hath written a booke to the Kinges Maiesty that now is, published abroad in printe, wherein much inueyng against the church of Rome, doth in the matter of the sacrament write as followeth: Encharistia is called by it selfe a sacrifice, because it is a remēbrance of the true sacrifice offered vpon the crosse, and that in it is dispensed the true body & true bloud of Christ, which is plainly the same in essence, that is to say substāce, and the same bloud in essence signifiyng, though the maner of presence be spirituall, yet the substaunce of that is present, is the same with that in heauen.

Erasmus noted a man that durst and did speake of all abuses in the church liberallye, taken for no papist, & among vs to much estéemed, as his peraphrasis of the Gospell is ordered to be had in euery church of this Realme, declareth in diuers of his workes most manifestly his fayth of the presence of Christes body in y ^e Sacrament, & by his Epistles, recommendeth to the worlde the worke of Algerus in that matter of the Sacrament, Erasmus com­mendeth to the world the work of Algerus vp­on the Sacrament. whom he noteth well exercised in the scriptures, and the olde doctors, Ciprian, Hilary, Ambrose, Hierome, Augustine, Basill, Chrysostom. And for Erasmus own iudgement, he sayth we haue an inuiolable fountation of Christes own words (this is my body) re­hearsed agayn by S. Paule: The body of Christe hidden vnder the signes. he sayth further, the body of Christe is hidden vnder those signes, and sheweth also vpon what occasions men haue erred in reading the old fathers, and wisheth that they which haue folowed Berengarius in error, Erasmus would all to re­pent, that follow Berengarius 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, Peter Mar­tyr doth with lyes impugne the faith of the Sacrament. 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 4 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, An issue. 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, This Author would with the enuious words of papish op­presse the truth. 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 1 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 y ^e 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 [Page 15] 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. Foure manifest vntruthes. The first is, that the faith of the reall presence is the fayth of the papistes. An other is, that these word [...]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 intēdeth not to make the bread his body, but to sig­nifie y ^t 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 2 of Christes body and bloud in the Sacrament is the faith of the papistes, The first vn­truth, that the faith of the reall presence to the faith of the pa­pists. 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 y ^e 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 3 for succor vnto M. Luther, Bucer, Ionas, Melancthon, & Aepinus, Luther. Bucer. Ionas. Melancthon. Epinus. 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, thē by the same reasō you may conclude that y ^e papists beleeue not y ^t Christ was borne, crucified, dyed, rose again, & ascended into heauē, which things Luther, Bucer, & the other, cōstantly doth taught, & beleeued: and yet the faith of y ^e real presēce, may be called rather y ^e fayth of the papists then of y ^e 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 [Page 16] 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 and manifest vntruth, and that I vntruely charge you with the en­uious name of a papisticall faith.

But in your issue you terme the wordes at your pleasure, and reporte mee 4 otherwise then I doe say: for I doe not say that the doctrine of the reall pre­sence is the papistes faith onely, but that it was the papists faith, for it was their deuise. And herein will I ioyne with you an issue: Mine issue. that the papisticall church is the mother of transubstantiation, and of all the foure principall errors which I impugne in my booke.

Winchester.

It shalbe now to purpose to consider the scriptures touching the matter of the Sacra­ment, which the author pretending to bring forth faithfully as the maiesty therof requi­reth: in the rehearsall of the wordes of Christ out of the gospel of S. Iohn: he beginneth 1 a litle to low and passeth ouer that pertaineth to the matter, and therfore should haue be­gun a litle higher at this clause: and the bread which I shall geue you is my flesh, which I will geue for the life of the worlde. The Iewes therfore striued between themselues, saying: How can this man geue his flesh to be eaten? Iesus therfore sayd vnto thē. Ue­rely, verely, I say vnto you, except ye eat the flesh of the sonne of man, & drink his bloud ye haue no life in you, who so eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud, hath eternall life, & I will rayse him vp at the last day. For my flesh is very meat, and my bloud very drink. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my bloud, dwelleth in me and I in him. As the ly­uing 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 bread, shall liue for euer.

Here is also a faulte in the translation of the text, which should be thus in one place. For my flesh is verely meate and my bloud is verely drinke. In which speach, the verbe that coupeleth the words (flesh) and (meate) together, knitteth them together in their proper signification, so as the flesh of Christ is verely meate, and not figuratiuely meate, as the author would perswade. And in these wordes of Christ may appeare plainly, how Christ taught the mistery of the food of his humanity which he promised to geue for food, euen the same flesh that he sayd he would geue for the life of the world, and so expresseth the first sentence of this scripture here by me wholy brought forth, that is to say, and the bread which I shall geue you is my flesh which I shall geue for the life of the world, and so is it plain that Christ spake of flesh in the same sence that S. Iohn speaketh in, saying: The word was made flesh, signifying by flesh the whol humanity. And so did Cyril agrée to Nestorius, when he vpon these textes, reasoned how this eating is to be vnderstanded of Christes humanitye, to which nature in Christes person, is properly attribute to be [Page 17] eaten as meat spiritually to nourish man, dispenced and geuen in the Sacrament. And betwéene Nestorius and Cyrill was this diuersitie in vnderstanding the misterye, Cyrill and [...]storius. that Nestorius estéeming of ech nature in Christ a seuerall person, as it was obiected to him, and so dissoluinge the ineffable Unitie, did so repute the body of Christ to be eaten as the body of a man seperate. Cyrill maintayned the body of Christ to be eaten as a body in­seperable vnited to the Godhead, and for the ineffable mistery of that Union, the same to be a flesh that geueth life. And then as Christ sayth. If we eate not the fleshe of the 6 Sonne of man, we haue not life in vs, because Christ hath ordered the Sacrament of his most precious body and bloud, to nourish such as be by his holy Spirite regenerate. And as in Baptisme we receaue the Spirite of Christe, In baptisme we receaue Christs spirite to geue life, in the Lords Supper we re­ceaue his flesh & bloud to conti­nue life. for the renuinge of our lyfe, so 5 doe wer in this Sacrament of Christes most precious body and bloud, receaue Christes very flesh, and drinke his very bloud, to continue and preserue, increase and augment, the life receaued.

And therefore in the same forme of wordes Christ spake to Nichodemus of baptisme, that he speaketh here of the eating of his body, and drinking of his bloud, and in both Sa­cramentes geueth, dispenseth, and exhibiteth in déede, those celestiall giftes in sensible e­lementes, as Chrisostome sayth. And because the true faithfull beléeuing men doe only by fayth know the sonne of man to be in vnity of person the sonne of God, so as for the vnitie of the two natures in Christ, in one person, the flesh of the Sonne of man, is the proper flesh of the sonne of God.

Saint Augustine sayd well when he noted these wordes of Christ: Uerely, verely, vnlesse ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man, &c. to be a figuratiue speach, because after y ^e bare letter it séemeth vnprofitable, considering that flesh profiteth nothing in it self, este­med in the own nature alone, but as the same flesh in Christ is vnited to the diuine na­ture, so is it as Christ sayd (after Cyrilles exposition) spirite and life, not chaunged into the diuine nature of the spirite, but for the ineffable vnion in the person of Christ therun­to: It is viuificatrix, (as Cyrill sayde) and as the holy Ephc [...]ine Councell decreed: A flesh geuing life, according to Christes wordes: Who eateth my flesh; and drinketh my bloud, hath eternall life, and I will rayse him vp at the later day. And then to declare vnto vs, how in géeuinge this life to vs, Christe vseth the instrument of his very hu­mayne body: it followeth. For my flesh is verely meate, and my bloud is verely drinke. So like as Christ sanctifieth by his godly spirite, so doth he sanctifie vs by his godly flesh, and therefore repeteth agayn, to inculcate the celestiall thing of this mistery, and saieth: He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my bloud, dwelleth to me and I in him, which is the naturall, and corporall vnion, betwéene vs and Christ. Whereupon followeth, that as Christ is naturally in his Father, and his Father in him, so he that eateth verely the fleshe of Christ, he is by nature in Christ, and Christ is naturally in him, and the wor­thy receauer hath life increase, augmented, and confirmed by the participation of the flesh of Christ.

And because of the ineffable vnion of the two natures, Christ sayd: This is the food that came downe from heauen, because God (whose proper flesh it is) came downe from heauen, and hath an other vertue then Manna had, because this geueth life to them that worthely receaue it: which Manna (being but a figure thereof) did not, but being in this foode Christes very flesh, inseparably vnited to the Godhead, the same is of such efficacye, as he that worthely eateth of it, shall liue for euer. And thus I haue declared the sence of Christes wordes brought forth out of the Gospel of S. John. Whereby appeareth how euidently they set forth the doctrine of the mistery of the eating of Christes flesh, & drin­king 7 his bloud in the sacrament, which must néedes be vnderstanded of a corporal eating, as Christ did after order in the institution of the sayd Sacrament, according to his pro­mise and doctrine here declared.

Canterbury.

HEre before you enter into my seconde vntrueth (as you call it) you finde faulte by the way, that in the rehearsall of the wordes of Christ, out of the Gospell of S. Iohn, I begine a little to lowe. But if the reader [Page 18] consider the matter for the which I alleadge S. Iohn, he shal wel perceiue that I began at y ^e right place where I ought to begin. For I doe not bring forth S. Iohn for the matter of the reall presence of Christ in the Sacra­ment, whereof is no mention made in that chapter, & as it would not haue serued me for that purpose, no more doth it serue you, althoughe ye cyted the whole Gospell. But I bring saynt Iohn for the matter of eating Christes flesh and drinking his bloud, wherin I passed ouer nothing that pertaineth to the matter, but rehearse the whole fully and faithfully. And because the Reader may the better vnderstand the matter, and iudge between vs both, I shall rehearse the wordes of my former booke, which be these.

Chap. 1.THe Supper of the Lord, otherwise called the holy com­munion or sacrament of the body and bloud of our Sauiour Christ, hath been of many men, and by sundry wayes very much abused, The abuse of the Lordes sup­per. but specially within these four or fiue hundered yeares. Of some it hath beene vsed as a Sacrifice propiciatory for sinne: and otherwise superstitiouslye, far from the intent that Christ did first ordaine the same at the beginning, do­ing therein great wrong and iniury to his death and passion. And of other some it hath been very lightly estemed, or rather contemned and despiced as a thing of smal or of none effect. And thus betweene both the parties hath been much variance and contention in diuers partes of Christendome. Therefore to the intent that this holy Sacrament or Lords Supper may hereafter neither of the one party be contemned or lightly esteemed, nor of the other party be abused to any other purpose then Christ himselfe did first appoint & ordain the same, and that so the contention on both parties may be quieted and ended the most sure and playn way is to cleaue vnto holye scripture. Wherein whatsoeuer is found, must be taken for a most sure ground, and an infallible truth, and what­soeuer cannot be grounded vpon the same, touching our faith, is mans deuise changeable and vncertain. And therfore here are set forth the very words that Christ him selfe and his Apostle S. Paule spake, both of the eating and drinking of Christs body & bloud, & also of the eating & drinking of the sacramēt of the same. First, Chap. 2. The eating of the body of Christ. Iohn. 6. as concerning the eating of the body, and drinkinge of the bloud of our Sauiour Christ, hee speaketh him selfe in the sixte Chapiter of Saynt Iohn in this wise.

Verely, verely, I say vnto you, except ye eate the fleshe of the sonne of man and drink his bloud, you haue no life in you. who so eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud, hath eternall life, and I wil rayse him vp at the last day. For my flesh is very meate, and my bloud is very drinke. Hee that eateth my fleshe, 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 bread, shall liue for euer.

Here haue I rehearsed the wordes of Christ faithfully and fully, so much 1 as pertayneth to the eating of Christes flesh, and drinking of his bloud. And I haue begun neither to high nor to low, but taking only so much as serued for the matter.

[Page 19] 2 But here haue I committed a fault (say you) in the translation for (verely meate) translating (very meat.) The second vn­trueth for vere­ly meat, transla­tyng very meat. And this is another of the euydent and ma­nifest vntruthes by me vttered, as you esteeme it. Wherein a man may see, how hard it is to escape y ^e reproches of Momus. For what an horrible crime (trow you) is committed here, to call very meat, that which is verely meat? As who should say, that very meat is not verely meate, or y ^t which is verely meate, were not very meate. The olde Au­thors say very meate, [...]. verus cibus, 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. in a hundreth places.

And what skilleth it for the diuersitye of the wordes, where no diuersity is in the sence? And whether we say, very meat, or verely meate, it is a figuratiue speache in this place, and the sence is all one. And if you will looke vpon the new testament lately set forth in Greeke by Robert Steuens, you shall see that he had three Greeke copyes, which in the said sixt chap. of Iohn haue [...] and not [...]. So that I may be bold to say, that you finde faulte here where none is.

And here in this place, you shew forth your olde condition (which you vse much in this booke) in following the nature of a cuttil. The nature of a cuttil Plim. lib. 9. ca. 29. The property of the cuttill saith Pliny, is to cast out a black incke or color when soeuer she spieth her selfe in danger to be taken, that the water being troubled and darckned therewith, she may hide her selfe and to escape vntaken. After like maner do you throughout this wholl booke, for when you see no other way to flye and escape, then you cast out your blacke colors, & maske your selfe so in cloudes, and darcknes, that men should not discerne where you become, which is a manyfest argument of vntrue meaning: for he that meaneth plainly, spea­keth plainly: Eccle. 37. Et qui sophisticè loquitur, odibilis est, saith the wise man. For he that speaketh obscurely and darckly it is a token that he goeth about to cast mistes before mennes eyes that they should not see, rather then to open their eyes that they may cleerely see the truth.

3 And therfore to answere you plainly, the fattie fleshe that was geuen in Christes last Supper, Christ is verely and truely geuē in the Sacra­ment, but yet spiritually. was geuen also vpon the crosse, and is geuen daylye in the ministration of the Sacrament. But although it be one thinge, yet it was diuerslye geuen. For vpon the crosse, Christ was carnally geuen to suffer and to dye. At his last Supper he was spiritually geuen in a promise of his death: and in the Sacrament he is daily geuen in remembraunce of his death. And yet it is all but one Christ that was promysed to die, that di­ed in deede, and whose death is remembred, that is to say, the very same Christ, the eternall word that was made flesh. And the same flesh was also geuen to be spiritually eaten, and was eaten in deede before his supper, yea and before his incarnation also. Of which eating, and not of Sacramen­tall eating, he spake in the sixt of Iohn. My flesh is very meat, and my bloud is very drincke: Iohn. 6, He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

And Cyrill (I graunt) agreed to Nestorius in the substance of the thing 4 that was eaten (which is Christes very flesh,) but in the manner of eating, they varyed. For Nestorius imagined a carnall eating (as the papistes do) with mouth, and tearing with teeth. But Cyrill in the same place, sayeth: Cyrill Lanathe­matismo. 11. that Christ is eaten onely by a pure faith, and not that he is eaten corporally with our mouthes; as other meates be. Nor that he is eaten in the Sacra­ment onely.

[Page 20] Nestorius.And it seemeth you vnderstand not the matter of Nestorius, who did not esteeme Christ to be made of two seuerall natures and seuerall persons, (as you report of him,) but his errour was, that Christ had in hym naturallye, but one nature and one person, affirming that he was a pure man, and not God by nature, but that the Godhed by grace inhabited, as hee doth in o­ther men.

Iniury to bap­tisme.And where you say that in baptisme we receiue the Spirit of Christ, and 5 in the Sacrament of his body and bloud, wee receeue his very fleshe, and bloud. This your saying is no small derogation to baptisme, wherein wee receaue not only the Spirit of Christ, but also Christ him selfe, whole body and soule, manhoode and Godhead, vnto euerlasting life, as well as in the holy communion. For S. Paule sayth. ‘Quicunque in Christo baptizati estis, Christū induistis: Galat. 3,’ as many as be baptized in Christ, put Christ vpon them: Neuerthelesse, this is done in diuers respectes, for in baptisme it is done in respect of regeneration: and in the holy communion, in respecte of nourish­ment and augmentation.

In the sixt cha­piter of Iohn, Christ spake not of corporall ea­ting.But your vnderstanding of the sixt chapiter of Iohn is such as neuer was vttered of any man before your time, and as declareth you to be vtter­ly ignoraunte of Gods misteries. For who euer sayd or taught before this time, that the Sacrament was the cause why Christ sayd: If we eate not the flesh of the sonne of man, we haue not life in vs. Iohn. 6: The spirituall eating of 6 his flesh, and drincking of his bloud by faith, by digesting his death in our mindes, as our onely price, raunsome, and redemption from eternall dam­nation, is the cause wherefore Christ sayd: That if we eate not his flesh, and drincke not his bloud, we haue not life in vs: and if we eate his fleshe, and drincke his bloud, we haue euerlasting life. And if Christ had neuer orday­ned the Sacrament, yet should we haue eaten his flesh, and droncken his bloud, and haue had thereby euerlasting life, as al the faithfull did before the the Sacrament was ordeyned, and doe dayly when they receaue not the Sacrament. And so did the holy men that wandered in the wildernesse, and in all their life tune very seldome receaued the Sacrament, and many holy Martyres, either exyled, or kept in prison, did dayly feede of the foode of Christes body, and drancke dayly the bloud that sprange out of his side, or els they could not haue had euerlasting life, as Christ him selfe sayd in the gospell of S. Iohn, and yet they were not suffered with other Christen peo­ple to haue the vse of the Sacrament. And therefore your argument in this place, is but a, fallax a non causa, vt causa, which is another tricke of the de­uils sophistry.

And that in the sixt of Iohn, Christ spake neither of corporall, nor sacra­mentall 7 eating of his flesh, the time manifestly sheweth. For Christ spake of the same present time that was then, saying: The bread which I will geue is my flesh: Iohn. 6. And: He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my bloud, dwelleth in me, and Im him, and hath euerlasting life. At which time the sacramen­tall bread was not yet Christs flesh. For the Sacrament was not then yet ordayned, and yet at that time all that beléeued in Christ, did eate his flesh, and drinke hys bloude, or els they could not haue dwelled in Christe, nor Christ in them.

Iohn. 8.Moreouer, you say your selfe that in the sixt of S. Iohns gospell, when Christ sayd, Iohn. 1. the bread is my flesh. By the word (flesh) he ment his wholl hu­manity, [Page 21] (as is ment in this sentence: The word was made flesh,) which he ment not in the word (body) when he said of bread, this is my body. Where by he ment not his wholl humanitye, but his flesh onely, & neither his bloud nor his soule. And in the vi. of Iohn, Christ made not bread his flesh, when he said, the bread is my flesh: but he expounded in those wordes, what bread it was that he ment of, when he promised them bread that should geue them eternall life. He declared in those wordes, that himselfe was the bread that should geue life, because they should not haue their fantasies of any bread made of corne. And so the eating of that heauenly bread could not be vnder­standed of the Sacrament, nor of corporall eating with the mouth: but of spirituall eating by faith, as all y ^e olde authors do most cleerely expound and declare. And seeing that there is no corporall eating, but chawing with the teeth or swallowing (as all men doe know) if we eate Christ corporally, thē you must confesse that we either swallow vp Christes flesh, or chaw & teare it with our teeth (as pope Nicholas constrained Berengarius to confesse,) which S. Augustine saith, is a wicked & hainous thing. But in few words to answere to this second euident & manifest vntruth (as you obiect against me) I would wish you as truely to vnderstand these words of the sixt chap. of Iohn, as I haue truely translated them.

Winchester.

Now where the author to exclude the mistery of corporall manducatiō, bringeth forth 1 of S. Augustine such wordes as intreat of the effect and operation of the worthy recea­uing of the Sacrament. The handling is not so sincéere as this matter requireth. For as 3 hereafter shalbe intreated, that is not worthely and well done, may (because the princi­pall intent fayleth) be called not done, and so S. Augustine saith: Let him not thinke to eate the body of Christ, that dwelleth not in Christ, not because the body of Christ is not 2 receaued, which by S. Augustines minde, euill men doe to their condemnation, but be­cause the effecte of life fayleth. And so the Author by steight, to exclude the corporall mā ­ducation of Christes most precious body, vttereth such wordes, as might sound Christ to haue taught the dwelling in Christ to be an eating: which dwelling may be without this corporall manducation in him that cannot attayn the vse of it, and dwelling in Christ is 4 an effect of the worthy manducation, and not the manducation it selfe which Christ doth order to be practised in the most precious Sacrament institute in his supper. Here thou 5 Reader mayst sée how this doctrine of Christ (as I haue declared it) openeth the corporal manducation of his most holy flesh, and drincking of his most precious bloud, which he gaue in his supper vnder the formes of bread and wine.

Caunterbury.

1 THis is the third euident, The 3. vntruth of the handling the wordes of S. Augustine. and manifest vntruth whereof you note me. And because you say that in citing of S. Augustin in this place, I han­dle not the matter so sincerely as it requireth, let here be an issue between you and me, which of vs both doth hādle this matter more sincerely, Mine issue. and I will bring such manifest euidence for me, that you shall not be able to open your mouth against it. For I alledge S. Augustine iustly as he speaketh, adding nothing of my selfe. The wordes in my booke be these.

Of these wordes of Christ it is plain and manifest, August. in 10 an. Tractat. 26. that the eating of Christs body, and drincking of his bloud, is not like to the eating and drinking of other meates and drinkes. For although without meat and drinke man cannot liue yet it followeth not that he that eateth and drinketh shall liue for euer. But as touching this meate and drinke of the body and bloud of Christ it is true, both [Page 22] he that eateth and drinketh them, hath euerlasting life. And also he that eateth and drinketh them not, Eodem tract. Aug. de Ciuit. lib. 21. cap. 25. hath not euerlasting life. For to eate that meate, and drinke that drink, is to dwell in Christ, and to haue Christ dwelling in him, and therfore no man can say or think that he eateth the body of Christ or drinketh his bloud except he dwelleth in Christ, and haue Christ dwelling in him. Thus haue you heard of the eating and drinking of the very fleshe and bloud of our Sauiour Christ.

Thus alleadge I S. Augustin truely, without adding any thing of mine own head, or taking any thing away. And what sleight I vsed, is easy to 2 iudge: for I cite directly the places that euery man may see whether I say true or noe. And if it be not true, quarrell not with me but with S. Augu­stine, whose wordes I onely rehearse. And that which S. Augustine say­eth, spake before him S. Ciprian, and Christ himselfe also plainlye inough, vpon whose wordes I thought I might be as bold to build a true doctrine for the setting forth of Gods glory, as you may be to peruert both the words of Ciprian, and of Christ him selfe, to stablish a false doctrine to the high dis­honor of God, and the corruption of his most true word. For you adde this 3 word (worthely) wherby you gather such an vnworthy meaning of S. Au­gustines wordes as you list your self. worthely. And the same you doe to y ^e very words of Christ him selfe, who speaketh absolutely and plainly without adding of any such word as you put thereto. What sophistry this is, you know well inough. Now if this be permitted vnto you to adde what you list, and to ex­pound how you list, then you may say what you list without controlment of any man, which it seemeth you looke for.

And not of like sort, but of like euilnes doe you handle (in reprehending of my seconde vntruth as you call it) an other place of S. Augustine in his booke de doctrina Christiana, August. de doc­trina Christiana lib. 3. cap. 13. where he sayth, that the eating and drinkinge of Christes flesh and bloud is a figuratiue speach: which place you expound so farre from S. Augustines meaning, How Christes flesh is eaten. that who soeuer looketh vpon his wordes, may by and by discern that you do not, or wil not vnderstand him. But it is most like (the words of him being so plain and easy) that purpose­ly you will not vnderstand him, nor nothing els that is against your will, rather then you will goe from any part of your will and receaued opinion. For it is plain and cleare that S. Augustine in that place speaketh not one worde of the separation of the two natures in Christ, and although Christs flesh be neuer so surely and inseparably vnited vnto his Godhead (without which vnion it could profite nothing) yet being so ioyned, it is a very mans flesh, the eating wherof (after the proper speech of eating) is horrible and a­bominable. Wherfore the eating of Christes flesh must needes be otherwise vnderstanded, then after the proper and common eatinge of other meates with the mouth, which eating after such sort could auayle nothing. And therefore S. Augustine in that place declareth the eating of Christes fleshe to be onely a figuratiue speach. And he openeth the figure so, as the eatinge must be ment with the minde, not with the mouth: that is to say, by chaw­ing and digesting in our mindes, to our great consolation and profite, that Christ dyed for vs. Thus doth S. Augustine open the figure and meaning of Christ when he spake of the eating of his flesh, and drinking of his bloud. And his flesh being thus eaten, it must also be ioyned vnto his diuinitie, or els it could not geue euerlasting life, as Cyrill and the councell Ephesin tru­ly [Page 26] decreed. But S. Augustine declared the figuratiue speech of Christ to be in the eating, not in the vnion. And where as to shift of the playn words of Christ, spoken in the sixt of Iohn, Iohn 6. he that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my bloud, dwelleth in me and I in him: you say that dwelling in Christ is not 4 the manducation. You say herein directly against S. Cyprian, Cyprian. in ser­mone de caena Domini. who saith: quod mansio nostra in ipso, sit manducatio, that our dwelling in him, is the eating. And also against S. Augustine, August. in Ioan. tra. 26. whose wordes be these: Hoc est er­go manducare escam illam, & illum bibere potum, in Christo manere, & illum manentem in se habere: This is to eat that meat, and drinke that drinke, to dwell in Christ, & to haue Christ dwelling in him. And although the eating and drinking of Christ, be here defined by the effect (for the very eating is the beleeuing) yet where so euer the eating is, the effect must be also, if the definition of S. Augustine be truely geuen. And therfore although good & bad eate carnally with their teeth bread, being the Sacrament of Christes body, yet no man eateth his very flesh, which is spiritually eaten, but he that dwelleth in Christ, and Christ in him.

And where in the end you referre the Reader to the declaration of Chri­stes 5 wordes, it is an euill sequele, you declare Christes wordes thus: Ergo, they be so ment. For by like reason might Nestorius haue preuayled against Cyrill, Arrius agaynst Alexander, and the Pope against Christ. For they al proue their errors by the doctrine of Christ after their own declarations, as you doe here in your corporall manducation. But of the manducation of Christs flesh, I haue spoken more fully in my fourth booke, the second, third and fourth chapters.

Now before I answere to the fourth vntruth which I am appeached of, I will reherse what I haue said in the matter, and what fault you haue found: my booke hath thus:

Now as touching the Sacramentes of the same, Cap. 3. our Sauiour Christ did in­stitute them in bread & wine at his last Supper which he had with his Apostles the night before his death, at which time as Mathew sayth: The eating of the Sacrament of his body. Mat. 26. ‘When they were ea­ting, Iesus tooke bread, and when he had geuen thankes, he brake it and gaue it to his dis­ciples, and sayd: Take, eate, this is my body: And he tooke the cup, and when hee had geuen thankes he gaue it to them; saying: Drinke ye all of this, for this is my bloud of the new te­stament, that is shed for many for the remission of sinnes. But I say vnto you, I will not drinke hence forth of this fruite of the vine, vntill that day, whē I shall drinke it new with you in my fathers kingdome.’

Winchester.

Now let vs consider the tertes of the Euangelistes, and S. Paul, which be brought in by the Author as followeth.

Math. 26.When they were eating, Iesus tooke bread, and when he had geuen thankes he brake it, gaue it to his disciples, and sayd: Take, eate, this is my body. And he tooke the cuppe, and when he had geuen thanks, he gaue it to them, saying: Drinke ye all of this, for this is my bloud of the new testament, that is shed for many for the remission of sinnes: But I say vnto you, I will not drinke henceforth of this fruite of the vine, vntill that day when I shall drinke it new with you in my fathers kingdome.

As they did eate, Iesus tooke bread, and when he had blessed, he brake it, and gaue it to them, Mark. 14. and said: Take, eate, this is my body. And taking the cup, when he had geuen thankes, he gaue it to them, and they all dranke of it, and he said vnto them: This is my bloud of the new testament, which is shed for many. Uerely, I say vnto you, I wil drink no more of the fruite of the vine, vntill that day, that I drinke it new in the kingedome of God.

When the houre was come, he sate downe and the twelue Apostles with him, and he sayd vnto them: I haue greatly desired to eate this Pascha with you, before I suffer: for I say vnto you, Luke. 22. henceforth I wil not eate of it any more, vntill it be fulfilled in the king­dome of God. And he tooke the cup, and gaue thankes, and sayd: Take this, and deuide it among you, for I say vnto you, I wil not drinke of the fruit of the vine, vntil the king­dome of God come. And he tooke bread, and when he had geuen thankes, he brake it, and gaue it vnto them, saying: This is my body, whith is geuen for you, this doe in remem­brance of me. Likewise also when he had supped, he tooke the cup, saying: This cuppe is the new testament in my bloud, which is shed for you.

1. Cor. 10.Is not the cup of blessing, which we blesse, a communion of the bloud of Christ? Is not the bread which we break, a communion of the body of Christ? We being many, are one bread, and one body, for we are all partakers of one bread, and of one cup.

1. Cor. 11.That which I deliuered vnto you, I receaued of the Lord. For the Lord Iesus, the same night in the which he was betrayed, tooke bread, and when he had geuen thanks, he brake it, and sayd: Take, eate, this is my body, which is broaken for you, doe this in re­membrance of me. Likewise also he tooke the cup when supper was done, saying: This cup is the new testament in my bloud: Doe this as often as ye drink it, in remembrance of me, for as often as you shall eate this bread, and drinke of this cup ye shew forth the Lordes death till he come: wherefore who soeuer shall eat of this bread, or drinke of this cup vnworthely, shall be gilty of the body and bloud of the Lord. But let a man examine himselfe, and so eate of the bread, and drink of the cup. For he that eateth and drinketh vnworthely, eateth and drinketh his own damnation, because he maketh no difference of the Lordes body: For this cause, many are weake and sicke among you, and many doe sléepe.

After these tertes brought in, the author doth in the 4. chap. begin to trauers Christes intent, The 4. vntruth that by these words hoc est corpus meum, Christ ment not to make the bread his body. that he intended not by these wordes (this is my body) to make the bread his body 1 but to signifie that such as receaue that worthely, be members of Christes body. The ca­tholick church acknowledging Christ to be very God and very man, hath from the beginning of these textes of scripture confessed truely Christes intent, and effectuall miracu­lous 2 worke to make the bread his body, and the wine his bloud, to be verely meate, and verely drinke, vsing therin his humanitie, wherewith to féede vs, as he vsed the same, 3 wherewith to redéeme vs, and as he doth sanctifie vs by his holy spirite, so to sanctifie vs by his holy diuine flesh and bloud, and as life is renued in vs by the gift of Christes holy spirite, so life to be increased in vs by the gift of his holy flesh. So as he that beléeueth in Christ, and receaueth the Sacrament of beliefe, which is Baptisme, receaueth really Christes spirite: And likewise he that hauing Christes spirite, receaueth also the Sacra­ment of Christes body and bloud: Doth really receaue in the same, and also effectually, Christes very body and bloud. And therfore Christ in the institution of this Sacrament sayd, deliuering that he consecrated: This is my body. &c. And likewise of the cuppe: This is my bloud. &c. And although to mannes reason it séemeth straunge, that Christ standing, or sitting at the table, should deliuer them his body to be eaten: Yet when we [Page 27] remember Christ to be very God, we must graunt him omnipotent, and by reason ther­of, 4 represse in our thoughtes all imaginations how it might be, and consider Christes 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 5 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 6 descended from heauen, and declaring that eating to signifie beleeuing, whereat was no 7 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 y ^t 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 8 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 y ^t shalbe 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.

9 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 01 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 Saint Paul. nor the Euangelistes, adde any words wherby to take away the signi­fication of bread and wine. 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 [Page 28] 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 11 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.

The fourth vn­truth y ^e Christ intended not by these wordes, this is my body to make y ^e bread his body.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. The variaunce between you, & Smith. So do Smith and you agree both in this point, that Christ made bread his body, but y ^t 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, Against Smith that Christ called the materiall bread his body, & the wine which was the fruite of the vine, Christ called bread his body, 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 foūd this matter so fully prooued, that he neither is, nor neuer shalbe able to an­swere thereto. For I haue alleadged the scripture, I haue alleadged the consent of the old writers, holy fathers, and martirs, to prooue that Christ called bread his body, and wine his bloud. For the Euangelistes speaking of the Lords supper, Mat. 26. Mark. 14. Luke. 22. say, y ^t he took bread, blessed it, brake it, & gaue it to his disciples, saying: This is my body: and of the wine he sayd: Take this, de­uide it among you, & drinke it: this is my bloud. I haue alleadged Irene, Ireneus. saying that Christ confessed bread to be his body, and the cup to be his bloud I haue cyted Tertulliā who sayth in many places, Tertullianus. that Christ called bread his body. I haue brought in for the same purpose Cyprian, Cyprianus. who sayth that Christ called such bread as is made of many cornes ioyned together, his body: and such wine he named his bloud, as is pressed out of many grapes. I haue written the wordes of Epiphanius, Epiphanius. which be these, that Christ speakinge of a loafe which is round in fashion, and can neither see, heare, nor feele, said of it: This is my body. And S. Hierom writing ad Hedibiam, Heironymus. sayth that Christ called the bread which he brake, his body. And S. Augustine sayth, Augustinus. that Ie­sus called meate, his body, and drinke his bloud. And Cyrill sayth more plain­ly, Cyrillus. that Christ called the peeces of bread his body. And last of all I brought forth Theodorete, Theodorus. whose saying is this, that when Christe gaue the holy mysteries, he called bread his body, and the cuppe mixt with wine and water, [Page 29] he called his bloud. All these Authors I alleadged, to prooue that Christ called bread his body, and wine his bloud.

Which because they speak the thinge so plainly as nothing can be more, and Smith seeth that he can deuise nothinge to answere these Authors, like a wily fox, he stealeth away by them softly, as he had a flea in his eare saying nothing to all these authors, but that they proue not my purpose. If this be a sufficient answere let the Reader be iudge, for in such sort I could make a short answere to Smithes whol booke in this one sentence that nothing that he sayth proueth his purpose. And as for proofes of his saying, Smith hath vtterly none but onely this fond reason: That if Christ had called bread his body, then should bread haue been crucified for vs, be­cause Christ added these words: this is my body, which shalbe geuē to death for you. If such wise reason shall take place, a man may not take a loafe in his hand made of wheate that came out of Danske, and say this is wheate that grew in Danske, but it must follow, that the loafe grew in Danske. And if the wife shall say: this is butter of my own cow, Smith shall proue by this speach that her mayd milked butter. But to this fantasticall or ra­ther frantike reason, I haue spoaken more in mine aunswere to Smithes preface.

How be it, you haue taken a wiser way then this, graunting that Christ called bread his body, and wine his bloud: but adding thereto, that Christs calling was making. Yet here may they that be wise, learn by y ^e way how euil fauoredly you and Smith agree among your selues.

And forasmuch as Smith hath not made answere vnto the Authors by me alleadged in this parte, I may iustly require that for lacke of answere in time and place where he ought to haue answered, he may be condemned as one that standeth mute. And being condemned in this his chiefe demur, he hath after nothing to answere at al. For this foundation being ouerthrown all the rest falleth down withall.

Wherefore now will I returne to aunswere you in this matter, which is the last of the euident, and manyfest vntruthes, wherof you appeach me.

I perceaue here how vntoward you be to learn the truth, being brought vp all your life in Papisticall errors. If you could forget your law, which hath been your chief profession and study from your youth, and specially the Canon law which purposely corrupteth the truth of Gods word you should be much more apte to vnderstand and receaue the secretes of holy scripture. But before those scales fall from your sawlish eyes, you neither can, nor will perceaue the true doctrine of this holy sacrament of Christes body & bloud. But yet I shall doe as much as lyeth in me, to teach and instruct you, as oc­casion shall serue, so that the fault shall be either in your euill bringing vp al­together in popery, or in your dulnes, or frowardnes, if you attaine not true vnderstanding of this matter.

1 Where you speake of the miraculous workinge of Christ, Gods miracu­lous workes in the Sacrament to make bread his body, you must first learne that the bread is not made really Christes body, nor the wine his bloud, but sacramētally: And the miraculous working is not in the bread, but in them that duely eate the bread, and drink y ^t drink. For the marueylous worke of God is in the feeding, and it is Christen peo­ple that be fed, and not the bread.

And so the true confession and beleefe of the vniuersall Church, from the [Page 30] beginning, is not such as you many times affirme, Imuty to bap­tisme. but neuer can proue: for the Catholicke church acknowledgeth no such diuision betweene Christes 3 holy flesh and his spirite, that life is renued in vs by his holy spirite, and in­creased by his holy flesh, but the true fayth confesseth that both be done by his holy spirite and flesh iointly together, as well the renouation, as the in­creace of our life. Wherfore you diminish here the effect of baptisme, wher­in is not geuen only Christes spirite, but wholl Christ. And herein I will ioyne an issue with you. Mine issue. And you shall finde, that although you thinke I lacke law where with to follow my plea, yet I doubt not but I shall haue helpe of Gods word inough, to make al men perceiue that you be but a sim­ple diuine, so that for lacke of your proofes, I doubt not but the sentence shall be geuen vpon my side by all learned and indifferent iudges that vn­derstand the matter which is in controuersy betweene vs.

And where you say that we must represse our thoughtes and imagina­tions, 4 and by reason of Christes omnipotency, Gods omnipo­tency. iudge his intent by his wil, it is a most certayne truth that Gods absolute and determinate wil is the chiefe gouernour of all thinges, and the rule wherby all things must be or­dered, and therto obey. But where (I pray you) haue you any such will of Christ, that he is really, carnally, corporally, & naturally, vnder the formes of bread and wine: There is no such will of Christ set forth in the scripture as you pretend by a false vnderstanding of these wordes, this is my body. Why take you then so boldly vpon you, to say that this is Christs will and intent, when you haue no warrant in scripture to beare you?

It is not a sufficient proofe in Scripture, to say, God doth it, because he can doe it. Mat. 16. 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, Gen. 1. 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 y ^e 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 christē 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 y ^e 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 transubstantiatiō, 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 y ^e 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. [Page 31] 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.

5 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.

6 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, Eating 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. vntruthes vt­tered by you in this one place. For when Christ had taught of the eating of him, being the bread descended frō 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. The first. 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: Iohn 6. 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.

7 An other vntruth also followeth incontinently, that when Christ sayd: The bread which I will geue you, The second [...] is my flesh, which I will geue for the life of the world. Iohn 6. 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 eatē 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 8 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 [Page 32] 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 y ^e 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.

The third.But when Christ sayd, the bread which I will geue is my flesh, which I will geue for the life of the worlde, That Christ fulfilled not his promise to geue vs life at his supper. 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 woūded for our iniquities, and that by his wounds we should be healed if we had life, and were healed before he was wounded? Iohn. 6 Esay. 53. Rom. 32 Heb. 9. Gal. 6. 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 redem [...]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 gloriari, nisi in cruce, God forbid that I should reioyce, but in the crosse onely. Why did he not rather say? Absit mihi gloriari, nisi in caena Domini. God forbid that I should reioice, but in y ^e Lords supper: wherat as you say, y ^e promise of life was fulfilled. This is godly doctrine for such men to make, as being ignorant in Gods word, wander in fantasies of their own deuises, Rom. 1. and putantes se esse sapientes, stulti fa­cti sunt. But the true faithfull beleeuing man professeth, that Christ by his death, ouercame him that was the Author of death, and hath reconcyled vs to hys Father, Hebr. 2. Eph. 1. Iohn. 3. making vs his children, and heires of his kingdome: that as many as beleue in him, should not perish, but haue life euerlasting. Thus saith the true christian man, putting his hope of life and eternall sal­uation, neither in Christes supper, (although the same be to him a great confirmation of his faith) nor in any thing els, but with S. Paul faith: Mi­hi absit gloriari, nisi in cruce Domini nostri Iesus Christi: Gal. 3. God saue me that I reioyce in nothing, but in the crosse of our Lord Iesu Christ.

And when this true beleeuing man commeth to the Lordes Supper, & (according to Christes commaundement) receaueth the bread broaken, in remembrance that Christes body was broaken for him vpon the crosse, and drinketh the wine in remembrance of the effusion of Christes bloud for his sinnes, and vnfaynedly beleeueth the same, to him the words of our Sauy­our Christ be effectuous and operatory. Mat. 16. Marck. 14. Luke. 22. Take, eate, this is my body, which is geuen for thee: And drinke of this, for this is my bloud which is shed for thee, to the remission of thy sinnes. And as S. Paul saith, the bread vnto him is the communion of Christes body, 1. Cor. 10. and the wine the communiō of his bloud. For the effect of his godly eating (as you truely herein gather of S. Paules wordes) is the communication of Christes body and bloud, but to the faithfull receauer, and not to the dumme creatures of bread and wine, vnder whose formes the catholick faith teacheth not the body and bloud of Christ inuisibly to be hidden. And as to the godly eater, (who duely estee­meth Christes body, and hath it in such price and estimation as he ought to haue) the effect is the communication of Christes body: so to the wicked ea­ter, the effect is damnation, and euerlasting woe.

[Page 33]And now I am glad that here your selfe haue found out a warrante for the apparrell of bread and wine, A warrant for apparrell. that they shall not goe altogether naked, & be nude and bare tokens, but haue promyses of effectuall significatiō, which now you haue spyed out both in the wordes of Christ, and S. Paule.

10 Now for the ambiguity of Christes speeches, it is not alwayes true, Christes ambi­guous speechess were not al­wayes opened by the Euange­listes. that such speaches of Christ as might haue ambiguity, the Euangelistes either plainly or by circumstāces open them. For Christ speaking so many things in parables, similies, allegories, metaphores, and other tropes and figures, although sometime Christ himselfe, and sometime the Euangelistes open y ^e meaning, yet for the most parte the meaning is left to the iudgement of the hearers, without any declaration. As when Christ sayd: Luke. 12. gird your loines, and take light candles in your handes. And when he sayde: No man that setteth his hand to the plough, Luke 9. Iohn. 12. and looketh behind him, is meet for the king­dome of God. And when he sayd: Except the grayne of wheate falling vp­on the ground, dye, it remayneth sole. And as S. Mathew sayeth: 1 Math. 13. Christ spake not to the people without parables, that the Scriptures might be fulfilled, which prophecyed of Christ, Psal. 77. that he should open his mouth in pa­rables.

And although some of his parables, This is my bo­dy, is no proper speech. Christ opened to the people, some to his Apostles onely, yet some he opened to neither of both, as can appeare, but lefte them to be considered by the discretion of the hearers. And when Christ called Herod a Foxe, Iudas a Deuill, himself a Dore, a way, a Uine, a well: Neither he nor the Euangelistes expounded these wordes, nor gaue warning to the hearers that he spake in figures: For euery man that had a­ny manner of sence or reason, might wel perceaue, that these sentences could not be true in playn forme of wordes as they were spoaken. For who is so ignorant, but he knoweth that a mā is not a Foxe a Deuil, A Dore, a Way, a Uine, a Well.

And so likewise when Christ brake the bread, and commaunded his dis­ciples to eate it, and sayd: This is my body: and of the wine he said: Deuide it among you, drinke it, this is my bloud. No man that was there present was so fond, but he knew well that the bread was not Christes body, nor the wine his bloud. And therfore they might well know that Christ called the bread his body, and the wine his bloud for some figure, similitude, and property of the bread and wine vnto his flesh and bloud: For as bread and wine be foodes to nourish our bodies, so is the flesh and bloud of our Sa­uyour Christ, (being annexed vnto his Deity,) the euerlasting food of our soules.

And although the Euangelistes in that place doe not fully expresse the words in this sence, yet adioyning the sixt chapter of Iohn (speaking of the spirituall manduratiō of Christ) to the circumstances of the text in the three Euangelistes, (reciting Christs last Supper) the wholl matter is fully ga­thered as olde authors of the Church haue declared. For doe not the circū ­stances of the texte, both before and after the eating and drinking, declare that there is very bread and wine? Is not that which is broken and eaten, bread? And that which is deuided, dronken? And the fruit of the vine, is it not very wine? And doth not the nature of Sacramentes require that the sensible elements should remain in their proper nature, to signifie an high­er mistery, and secret working of God inwardly, as the sensible elementes [Page 34] be ministred outwardly? And is not the visible and corporall feeding vpō bread and wine, a conuenient and apte figure and similitude to put vs in remembraunce, and to admonish vs how we be fedde inuisibly and spiritu­ally, by the flesh and bloud of Christ, God, and man? And is not the Sacrament taken away, when the element is taken away? Or can the accidents of the element be the Sacrament of substanciall feeding? Or did euer any olde author say, that the accidentes were the Sacramentall signes with­out the substances? 11

But for the conclusion of your matter, here I would wish that you would once truely vnderstand me. For I doe not say that Christes body & bloud be geuen to vs in signification, and not in deed. But I doe as plain­ly speake as I can, that Christes body and bloud, be geuen to vs in deede, yet not corporally, and carnally, but spiritually, and effectually, as you con­fesse your selfe within twelue lines after.

Winchester.

The Author vttereth a great many wordes, from the eyght to the seuententh chapiter 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 w ^t 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 w ^t 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 [Page 35] 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, Cap. 6. 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 cō ­sidered.

First, that as all men of them selues be sinners, and through sinne be in gods wrath, Cap. 9. The spirituall hunger & thirst­ines of the soul. banished farre away from him, condemned to hell and euerlasting dā ­nation, 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: Eph. 2. Rom. 3: 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, Psal. 41. Psal. 62. 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, Rom. 4. Rom. 7. 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, Rom. 8. 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, Math. 5. 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 shalbe 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, Luke. 1. 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 [Page 36] 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. Iohn. 4. And why knew they it not? Forsooth because their mindes were grosse as yet, and had not receaued the fulnes of the Spirite. And therfore our Sauyour Christ minding to draw them from this grossenes, tolde them of an other kinde of meate then they fantasied (as it were) rebuking them, for that they perceiued not that there was any other kinde of eating and drinking, be­sides that eating and drinking which is with the mouth and throate.

Iohn. 4.Likewise when he said to the woman of Samaria: Who soeuer shall drink of that water that I shal geue him, shal neuer be thirsty again. They that heard him speak those words, might well perceiue that he went about to make them well acquainted with an other kinde of drinking, then is the drinking with the mouth and throate. For there is no such kinde of drinke, that with once drink­ing can quench the thirst of a mans body for euer. Wherefore, in saying he shall neuer be thirsty agayn: he did draw their mindes from drinking with the mouth, vnto another kinde of drinking wherof they knew not, and vnto ano­ther kinde of thirsting, wherewith as yet they were not acquainted. And also when our Sauyour Christ said, he that commeth to me shall not hunger, Iohn 6. and he that beleeueth on me shall neuer be thirsty: he gaue them a plain watche­worde, that there was another kinde of meate and drinke, then that wherwith he fed them at the other syde of the water, and an other kynde of hungryng and thirstyng, then was the hungryng and thyrstyng, of the bodye. By these wordes therfore he droue the people to vnderstand an other kynde of eatyng and drynking, of hungring and thirsting, then that whiche belongeth onely for the preseruation of temporall life.

Now then as the thing that comforteth the body, is called meate and drink, of a lyke sorte the scripture calleth the same thinge that comforteth the soule, meate and drinke.

Cap. 10.Wherfore as here before in the first note is declared the hunger & drought of the soule, Mat. 11. The spirituall foode of y ^e soule. so is it nowe secondly to be noted, what is the meate, drinke and foode of the soule.

The meate, drinke, foode and refreshing of the soule, is our Sauiour Christ, Iohn. 7. as he sayd himselfe: Come vnto me all you that trauaile and be laden, and I will refresh you. And, If any man be dry (sayth he) let him come to me and drinke. He that beleueth in me, Iohn. 6. floudes of water of life shall flowe out of hys bellye. And, I am the bread of life (saith Christe,) he that commeth to me, shall not be hungry: and he that beleeueth in me, shall neuer be dry. For as meate and drinke do comfort the hungry body, so doth the death of Christes body and the shedding of his bloud comforte the soule, when she is after her sorte, hungry. What thinge is it that comforteth and nourisheth the body. Forsooth meate and drinke. By what names then shall we call the body and bloud of our sauiour Christ (which do comfort and nourish the hungry soule) but by the names of meate and drynke? And this symilitude caused our Saui­our [Page 37] to say: my flesh is very meate, and my bloud is very drinke. For there is no kinde of meate that is comfortable to the soule, but only the death of Christes blessed body. Nor no kinde of drinke that can quench her thirst, but only the bloudsheading of our Sauyour Christ, which was shed for her offences. For as there is a carnall generation, and a carnall feeding and nourishment, so is there also a spirituall generation, and a spirituall feeding.

And as euery man by carnall generation of father and mother, is carnally begotten and borne vnto this mortall life: so is euery good christian spiritually borne by Christ vnto eternall life.

And as euery man is carnally fedde and nourished in his body by meat and drinke, euen so is euery good christian man spiritually fed and nourished in his soule, by the flesh and bloud of our Sauyour Christ.

And this Christ hymselfe teacheth vs in thys syxt of Iohn, Iohn 6. saying: Verely verely I say vnto you, excepte ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man, and drynke hys bloud, you haue no life in you. Who so eateth my flesh and drynketh my bloude, hath eternall life, and I will rayse him vp at the last daye: For my flesh is very meate, and my bloud is very drynke. He that eateth my fleshe, and drynketh my bloude dwel­leth in me, and I in hym, As the liuing father hath sent me, and I liue by the fa­ther, euen so he that eateth me, shall lyue by me.

And this S. Paul confessed him selfe: saying: That I haue life, I haue it by faith in the Sonne of God. And now it is not I that liue, Gal. 2. but Christ liueth in me.

The thyrd thyng to be noted is this, that although our Sauiour Christ re­sembleth hys fleshe and bloud to meate and drynke, Cap. 11. yet he farre passeth and ex­celleth all corporall meates and drynkes: For although eorporall meates and drynkes do nourish and continue our life here in this world, Christ farre ex­celleth all corpo­rall foode. yet they begin not our life. For the beginning of our lyfe, we haue of our fathers and mothers and the meate after we be begotten, doth feede and nourish vs, and so preserueth vs for a tyme. But our sauiour Christ is both the first beginner of our spirituall lyfe, (who first begetteth vs vnto God his father) and also afterward he is our lyuely foode and nourishment.

Moreouer meate and drynke doe feede and nourishe onely our bodyes, but CHRISTE is the true and perfect nourishment both of body and soule. And be­sides that, bodely foode preserueth the lyfe but for a tyme, but Christ is such a spirituall and perfect foode, that he preserueth both body and soule for euer: as he sayde vnto Martha: I am a resurrection and lyfe. He that beleueth in me, al­though he dye yet shall he lyue. And hee that lyueth and beleeueth in me, Iohn. 11. shal not dye for euer.

Fourthly it is to be noted, that the true knowledge of these things, is the true knowledge of Christ, Cap. 12. and to teache these thinges, is to teache Christ. and the beleuing and feelyng of these thinges, The sacramēts were ordayned to confirme our faith. is the beleuyng and feelyng of Christ in our hartes. And the more clearely we see, vnderstand and beleue these thinges, the more clearely we see and vnderstand Christ, and haue more fully our fayth and comfort in hym.

And although our carnal generation and our carnal nourishment, be known to all men by dayly experyence, and by our common senses, yet this our spiri­tuall generation and our spirituall nutrition, be so obscure and hyd vnto vs, that we cannot attayne to the true and perfect knowledge and feelyng of them, but onely by fayth, which must be grounded vpon Goddes most holy worde and sacramentes.

[Page 38]And for this consideration our Sauiour Christ hath not only set forth these thyngs most playnly in his holy word, that we may heare them with our eares, but he hath also ordayned one visible sacrament of spirituall regeneration in water, and an other visible sacrament of spirituall nourishment, in bread and wine, to the intent, that as much as is possible for man, we may see Christ with our eyes, smell hym at our nose, taste hym with our mouthes, grope hym with our handes, and perceiue hym with all our senses. For as the word of God prea­ched, putteth Christ into our eares, so likewise these elementes of water, bread and wyne, ioyned to Gods word, do after a sacramentall maner, put Christ in­to our eyes, mouthes, handes, and all our senses.

And for this cause Christ ordeyned baptisme in water, that as surely as we se, feele and touch water with our bodyes, and be washed with water, so assured­ly ought we to beleue, when we be baptised, that Christ is veryly present with vs, and that by him we be newly borne agayne spiritually, and wafhed from our sinnes, and grafted in the stocke of Christes owne body, and be apparailed, clothed, and harnessed with hym, in such wise, that as the deuill hath no power agaynst Chryst, so hath he none agaynst vs, so long as we remayne, grafted in that stocke, and be clothed with that apparell, and harnessed with that armour. So that the washing in water of baptisme, is as it were shewing of Christ before our eyes, and a sensible touching, feelyng and gropyng of hym, to the confir­mation of the inwarde fayth, which we haue in hym.

And in like maner Christ ordeined the sacrament of hys bodye and bloud in bread and wine, to preach vnto vs, that as our bodyes be fed, nourished and preserued with meate and drynke (so as touching our spirituall life towardes God) we be fed, nourished and preserued by the body and bloud of our Sauiour Christ, and also that he is such a preseruation vnto vs, that neither the deuils of hell, nor eternall death, nor sinne, can be able to preuayle agaynst vs, so long as by true and constant faith, we be fed and nourished with that meate and drynk. And for this cause Christ ordeined this sacrament in bread and wine (whiche we eate and drynke, Hugo de S. vict. de Sacramentis tractat. 6. cap. 3. and be chiefe nutrimentes of our body (to thintent, that as surely as we see the bread and wine, with our eyes, smell them with our noses, touch them with our handes, and taste them with our mouthes, so assuredlye ought we to beleue, that Christ is a spirituall lyfe and sustinaunce of our soules, like as the sayd bread and wine is the foode and sustinance of our bodyes. And no lesse ought we to doubt, that our soules be fed and liue by Christ, then that our bodies be fed and liue by meate and drinke. Thus our sauiour Christ, know­ing vs to be in this world (as it were) but babes and weakelinges in fayth, hath ordeyned sensible signes and tokens, whereby to allure and drawe vs to more strength and more constant fayth in hym. So that the eatyng and drynkyng of thys sacramentall bread and wine, is as it were shewing of Christe before our eies, a smellyng of hym with our noses, felyng and gropyng of hym with our handes, and an eatyng, chawing, digestyng and feedyng vpon hym to our spi­rituall strength and perfection.

Cap. 13.Fiftely it is to be noted, that although there be many kindes of meates and drinkes, which feede the body, yet our Sauiour Christ (as many auncyent au­thors write) ordayned this sacrament of our spiritual feding in bread and wine, Wherfore this sacrament was ordayned in bred and wine. rather then in other meates and drynkes, because that bread and wine doe most liuely represent vnto vs the spirituall vnion and knot of all faythful people, as well vnto Christ, as also amonges them selues. For like as bread is made of [Page 39] a great number of grains of corne, ground, baken, Hugo de S. vict. de Sacramentis tractat. 6. cap. 3. and so ioyned together that therof is made one lose: And an infinite number of grapes be pressed togither in one vessell, and thereof is made wine: likewise the whole multitude of true christen people spiritually ioyned, first to Christ, and then among them selues togither in one fayth, one baptisme, one holy spirite, one knot and bond of loue.

Sixtly it is to be noted, that as the bread and wine whiche we doe eate, Cap. 14. be turned into our fleshe and bloud, and be made our very fleshe and very bloud, and so be ioyned and myxed with our fleshe and bloud, The vnity of Christes misti­call body. that they be made one whole body togither: euen so be all faythfull christians, spiritually turned into the body of Christ, and so be ioyned vnto Christe, and also togither amonge them selues, that they doe make but one misticall body of Christe, as S. Paule sayth: We be one bread and one body, as many as be partakers of one bread and one cup. And as one lofe is giuen among many men, 1. Cor. 10. so that euery one is partaker of the same lofe: and likewise one cup of wine is distributed vnto many persons, wherof euery one is partaker, Dionysios. eccle. Hie. cap. 31 euen so our Sauiour Christ (whose flesh and bloud be represented by the misticall bread and wine in the Lords Supper) doth geue him selfe vnto al his true members, spiritually to feede them, nourish them, and to geue them continuall life by him. And as the branches of a tree, or member of a body, if they be dead; or cut of, they neither liue, nor receaue a­ny nourishment, or sustinance of the body, or tree: so likewise vngodly and wic­ked people, which be cut of from Christes misticall body, or be dead members of the same, doe not spiritually feede vpon Christes body and bloud, nor haue any life, strength, or sustentation thereby.

Seuenthly, it is to be noted, Cap. 14. This sacramēt moueth all men to loue and frēd­ship. that where as nothing in this life is more accep­table before God, or more pleasant vnto man, thē christen people to liue toge­ther quietly in loue and peace, vnity and concord this Sacrament doth most aptly and effectuously moue vs thereunto. For when we be made all partakers of this one table, what ought we to thinke, but that we be all members of one spirituall body, wherof Christ is the head, that we be ioyned together in one Christ, as a great number of graynes of corne be ioyned together in one loafe. Surely, they haue very hard and stony hartes, which with these thinges be not moued: and more cruell and vnreasonable be they then bruit beastes, that can­not be perswaded to be good to their christen brethren and neighboures, for whom Christ suffered death, when in this Sacrament they be put in remēbrāce that the Sonne of God bestowed his life for his enemies. For we see by daily ex­perience, that eating and drinking together maketh frendes, and continueth frendshippe: much more then ought the table of Christ to moue vs so to doe. Wilde beastes and birdes be made gentile by geuing them meate and drinke, why then should not christen men waxe meeke and gentle with this heauenly meate of Christ? Hereunto we be stirred, and moued, as well by the bread, and wine in this holy Supper, as by the wordes of holy Scripture, recited in the same. Wherefore, whose hart soeuer this holy Sacrament, Communion, and Supper of Christ, wil not kindle with loue vnto his neighboures, and cause him to put out of his hart, all enuy, hatred, and malice, and to graue in the same all amity, frendshippe, and concord, he deceaueth him selfe, if he thinke that he hath the spirite of Christ dwelling within him.

But all these foresayd godly admonitions, exhortations, and comforts, doe the Papistes (as much as lyeth in them) take away from all christen people, by their transubstantiation.

[Page 40] The doctrine of Transubstāti­a [...]ion doth clean subuert our faith in Christ.For if we receaue no bread nor wine in the holy Communion, then all these lessons and comfortes be gone, which we should learne, and receaue, by eating of the bread, and drinking of the wine: and that fantasticall imagination, geueth an occasion vtterly to subuert our wholl faith in Christ. For seeing that this Sa­crament was ordeyned in bread and wine (which be foodes for the body) to sig­nifie and declare vnto vs our spirituall foode by Christ, then if our corporal fee­ding vpon the bread and wine, be but fantasticall (so that there is no bread, nor wine there in deede to feede vpon, although they appeare there to be) then it doth vs to vnderstand, that our spirituall feeding in Christ, is also fantastical, and that in deede we feede not of him: which sophistry is so deuilish and wicked, and so much iniurious to Christ, that it could not come from any other person, but only from the Deuill himselfe, and from his specyall minister Antichrist.

The eight thing that is to be noted, is, that this spiritual meat of Christs body and bloud, Cap. 16. is not receaued in the mouth, and digested in the stomack (as corpo­rall meates and drinkes commonly be) but it is receaued with a pure hart, and a sincere fayth. The spirituall eating in with the hart, not w ^t the teeth. And the true eating and drinking of the said body and bloud of Christ, is with a constant, and liuely faith to beleeue, that Christ gaue his body, and shed his bloud vpon the crosse for vs, and that he doth so ioyne, and incor­porate him selfe to vs, that he is our head, and we his members, and flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bones, hauing him dwelling in vs, & we in him. And here­in standeth the wholl effecte and strength of this Sacrament. And this faith God worketh inwardly in our hartes by his holy Spirit, & confirmeth the same outwardly to our eares, by hearing of his worde: and to our other sences, by ea­ting and drinking of the Sacramentall bread and wine in his holy Supper.

What thing then can be more comfortable to vs, then to eate this meate, & drinke this drinke? whereby Christ certifieth vs, that we be spiritually, & truely, fed and nourished by him, and that we dwell in him, and he in vs. Can this be shewed vnto vs more plainly, then when he sayth him selfe: He that eateth me, shall liue by me? Iohn. 6.

Wherefore, who so euer doth not contemne the euerlasting life, how can he but highly esteeme this Sacrament? how can he but imbrace it, as a sure pledge of his saluation? And when he seeth godly people deuoutly receaue the same, how can he but be desirous oftentimes to receaue it with them? Surely no man that well vnderstandeth, and diligently wayeth these thinges, can be without a great desire to come to this holy Supper.

All men desire to haue Gods fauour, and when they know the contrary, that they be in his indignation, and cast out of his fauour, what thing can comfort them? how be their minds vexed? what trouble is in their consciences? all Gods creatures seeme to be against them, and doe make them afrayd, as thinges being ministers of Gods wrath and indignation towardes them, and rest or comforte can they finde none, neither within them, nor without them. And in this case they doe hate as well God, as the Deuill. God, as an vnmercifull and extreeme Iudge, and the Deuill as a most malicious and cruell tormentor.

And in this sorrowfull heauines, holy Scripture teacheth them, that our hea­uenly Father can by no meanes be pleased with thē again, but by the Sacrifice, and death of his only begotten Sonne, whereby God hath made a perpetuall a­mity, and peace with vs, doth pardon the sinnes of them that beleue in him, ma­keth them his children, and geueth them to his first begotten Sonne Christ, to be incorporate into him, to be saued by him, and to be made heires of heauen [Page 41] with him. And in the receauing of the holy Supper of our Lord, we be put in remembrance of this his death, and of the wholl mistery of our redemption. In the which Supper, is made mention of his testament, and of the aforesaid com­munion of vs with Christ, and of the remission of our sinnes, by his Sacrifice vp­on the Crosse.

Wherfore in this Sacrament, (if it be rightly receaued with a true faith) we be assured that our sinnes be forgiuen, and the league of peace and the Testa­ment of God is confirmed betwene him and vs, so that who so euer by a true fayth doth eate Christs flesh and drink his bloud, hath euerlasting life by him. Which thing whē we feele in our hartes, at the receauing of the Lords supper, what thing can be more ioyfull, more pleasaunt, or more comfortable vnto vs.

All this to be true, is most certayne by the wordes of Christ him selfe, whē he did first institute his holy Supper, the night before hys death, as it appeareth as well by the wordes of the Euangelistes, as of S. Paule. Do this (sayth Christ) as often as you drinke it, Luke. 21. in remembraunce of me. And S. Paule sayth: As of­ten as you eate this bread and drinke this cup, 1. Cor. 11. Mat. 26. Luke. 22. Mark. 14. you shall shew the Lordes death vntill he come. And agayne Christ sayd: This cup is a newe testament in myne own bloud, which shall be shed for the remission of sinnes.

This doctrine here recyted, may suffice for all that be humble and Godlye, and seeke nothing that is superfluous, but that is necessary and profitable. And therfore vnto such persons may be made here an ende of this booke. But vnto them that be contentious Papistes and Idolaters, nothing is inough. And yet because they shall not glory in their subtill inuentions and deceiuable doctrine (as though no man were able to aunswere them) I shall desire the readers of patience, to suffer me a litle while, to spende some time in vayne, to confute their most vaine vanities. And yet the time shal not be al together spent in vain, for thereby shall more clearely appeare the light from the darcknes, the truth from false sophisticall subtilties, and the certaine worde of God, from mens dreames and phantasticall inuentions.

1 ALthough I neede make no further aunswere, but the rehearsall of my wordes, yet thus much will I aunswere, that where you say, that I speake some wordes by the way not tollerable, if there had bene any suche they should not haue fayled to be expressed and named to their reproche, as other haue bene. Wherfore the reader may take a day with you before he be­leue you. when you reproue me for vsing some intollerable wordes, and in conclusion name not one of them.

And as for your catholick confessiō, that Christ doth in deed fede such as be 2 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. Iniury to both Sacrament [...]s. For you conclude your booke with blasphemous wordes agaynst both the sacrament of bap­tisme and the Lordes supper, nigardly pinching gods giftes, and dimini­shing [Page 42] 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.

D. Smith.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.

Cap. 17.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, principall er­rors of the Pa­pistes. 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, The first is of the presence of Christ. 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, Innocent. 3. 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, De summa trin. & fide catholica firmiter, paragrapho. vna. 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 [Page 43] 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, The second is of the presence of Christ in the Sacrament. 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, De cōsecra, dist. 1. Ego Be [...]eng. Lege Roffen. contra Oerol. in proaemio. lib. 3. corroborat. 5. 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, Christ is not corporally in earth. 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. Iohn 6. And in another place he saith: You shal euer haue poore men among you, but me shall not you euer haue. Math. 26. Mark. 24. And againe hee saith: Many hereafter shall come and say, looke here is Christ, or looke there he is, but beleeue them not. And S. Peter saith in the Actes, that heauen must receaue Christ, Actes. 3. vntill the time that all thinges shall be restored. And S. Paule writing to the Colossians, Coloss. 3. agreeth hereto saying: Seeke for thinges that be a­aboue, where Christ is, sitting at the right hand of the Father. And Saint Paul speaking of the very Sacrament, 1. Cor. 11. saith: As often as you shall eate this bread, and drinke this cuppe, shew forth the Lordes death vntill he come. Till he come, saith Saint. Paule, signifying, that he is not there corporally present. For what speech were this? or who vseth of him that is already present, to say: vntill he come? For, vntill he come, signifieth that he is not yet present. This is the ca­tholicke faith, which we learne from our youth, in our common Creede, and which Christ taught, the Apostles followed, and the Martirs confirmed with their bloud.

And although Christ in his humain nature, substantially, really, corporally, naturally, and sensibly, be present with his Father in heauē, yet Sacramentally, and Spiritually, he is here present. For in water, bread, and wine, he is present, as in signes and Sacramentes: but he is in deede Spiritually in those faithfull, christian people, which according to Christes ordinaunce be baptized, or re­ceaue the holy communion, or vnfainedlye beleeue in him. Thus haue you heard the second principall article, wherein the Papistes vary from the truth of Gods word, and from the Catholick faith. Now the third thing, wherein they vary, is this.

[Page 44]The Papistes say, that euill and vngodly men, receaue in this Sacrament, t [...] very body and bloud of Christ, and eate and drinke the self same thing, that the good and godly men doe. The third is, that euill men eate and drinke the very body and bloud of Christ. But the truth of Gods word is contrary, that all those that be godly members of Christ, as they corporally eate the bread, and drinke the wine, so spiritually they eate and drinke Christes very flesh and bloud. And as for the wicked members of the Deuill, they eate the Sacramental bread, and drinke the Sacramētall wine, but they doe not spiritually eate Christs flesh, nor drinke his bloud, but they eate and drinke their own damnation.

The fourth thing, The fourth, is of the dayly sacri­fice of Christ. wherein the Popish priestes dissent frō the manifest word of God, is this. They say that they offer Christ euery day for remission of sinne, and distribute by their Masses, the merits of Christs passion. But the Prophets, Apostles, and Euangelists, doe say that Christ himselfe in his own person made a sacrifice for our sinnes vpon the Crosse, by whose woundes all our diseases were healed, and our sinnes pardoned, and so did neuer no priest, man nor cre­ature, but he, nor he dyd the same neuer more then once. And the benefit here­of is in no mannes power to gyue vnto any other, but euery man must receaue it at Christes handes himselfe, Ibacuk. 2. by his own fayth and beliefe, as the Prophet sai­eth.

Here Smith findeth him selfe much greeued at two false reports, wher­with he saith that I vntruely charge the Papists. One when I write that some say, that the very naturall body of Christ is in the Sacrament natu­rally, D. Smith. Some say that Christ in natu­rally in the sa­ment. and sensibly, which thing Smith vtterly denieth any of them to say, and that I falsely lay this vnto their charge. And moreouer it is very false, (saith he) that you lay vnto our charges, that we say, that Christes body is in the Sacrament as it was borne of the virgin, and that it is broken, and torne in peeces with our teeth. This also Smith saith is a false report of me.

But whether I haue made any vntrue report or no, let the bookes be iud­ges. As touching the first, the Bishop writeth thus in his booke of the De­uils sophistry, the 14. leafe. Good men were neuer offended with breaking of the hoost, which they daily saw, being also perswaded Christes body to be present in the Sacrament naturally, and really. And in the 18. leafe he saith these words, Christ, God and man, is naturally present in the Sacra­ment. And in ten, or twelue places of this his last booke, he saith, y ^t Christ is present in the Sacramēt, naturally, corporally, sensibly, and carnally, as shall appeare euidently in the reading therof. So that I make no false reporte herein, who report no otherwise, then the [...]apistes haue written, and pub­lished openly in their bookes.

And it is not to be passed ouer, but worthy to be noted, how manifest fals­hoode is vsed in the printing of this Bishoppes booke, A manifest fals­hoode in the printing of the Byshoppes booke. in the 136. leafe. For where the Bishoppe wrote (as I haue two coppies to shew, one of his own hand, and another exhibited by him in open court, before the Kinges Com­missioners) that Christes body in the Sacrament, is truely present, & ther­fore really present, corporally also, and naturally. The printed booke now set abroad, hath changed this word (naturally) and in the stede therof hath put these wordes (but yet supernaturally) corrupting, and manifestly fal­sefying the Bishops booke.

Who was the Author of this vntrue acte, I cannot certainly define, but [Page 45] if coniectures may haue place, I think the Bishop himselfe would not com­maund to altar the booke in the printing, and then set it forth with this ti­tle, that it was the same booke that was exhibited by his own hand for his defence, to the kinges maiesties commissioners at Lamhith.

And I thinke the Printer, being a French man, would not haue enter­prised so false a deed of his own head, for y ^t which he should haue no thanks at all, but be accused of the Author as a falsifier of his booke.

Now for as much as it is not like, that either the Bishop, or the Printer, would play any such pranks, it must then be some other, that was of coun­sell in the printing of the booke, which being printed in Fraunce, (whether you be now fled from your own natiue countrey) what person is more like to haue done such a noble acte, then you? who being so full of craft and vn­truth in your own countrey, shew your selfe to be no changeling, where so­euer you become. And the rather it seemeth to me to be you, then any other person, because that the booke is altred in this word (naturally) vpō which word standeth the reproofe of your saying. For he saith, that Christ is in the Sacrament naturally, and you deny that any man so saith, but that Christ is there supernaturally. Who is more like therefore to change in his booke (naturally) into supernaturall, then you whom the matter toucheth, and no mā els? but whether my coniectures be good in this matter, I will not determine, but referre it to the iudgement of the indifferent Reader.

Now as concerning the second vntrue report, which I should make of the Papistes, Some say that Christ is rent and torne with teeth in the sa­crament. I haue alleadged the wordes of Berengarius recantation, appointed by Pope Nicholas the 2. and written De consecrat dist. 2. which be these, that not only the Sacraments of bread and wine, but also the very flesh and bloud of our Lord Iesu Christ, are sensibly handeled of the Priest in the Altar, broaken, and torne with the teeth of the faithfull people.

Thus the Reader may see, that I misreport not the Papists, nor charge them with any other words then they doe write, that is to say, that the bo­dy of Christ is naturally, and sensibly, in the Sacrament, and broken, and torne in peeces with our teeth.

But (saith Smith) the meaning of Berengarius in his recantatiō was otherwise, that the formes of bread and wine are broaken, and torne with our teeth, but Christ is receaued wholly, without breaking of his body, or tearing with our teeth. Well, what so euer the meaninge of Berengarius was, his wordes be as I report, so that I make no false report of the Pa­pistes, nor vntruely charge them with that they say not. But how should men know what the Papists meane, when they say one thing, and meane another? For Berengarius said, that not only the Sacramentes be broken and torne with our teeth (and you say he ment contrary, that only the Sa­cramentes be broken and torne with our teeth.) Berengarius said, that also the very flesh and bloud of Christ be broken and torne, (and you say, he ment clean contrary, that the flesh and bloud of Christ be not broaken, and torne.) Well, then would I faine learne, how it may be knowen what the Papists meane, if they mean yea, when they say nay, and mean nay, when they say yea.

And as for S. Iohn Chrisostom, and other old authors, by whom you would excuse this manner of speech, they helpe you herein nothing at all. For not one of them speake after this sorte, that Berengarius doth. For al­though [Page 46] though they say sometimes that we see Christ, touch him, and breake him, (vnderstanding that speech not of Christ him selfe, but of the Sacraments which represent him) yet they vse no such forme of speech, as was prescri­bed to Berengarius, that we see, feele, and break, not only the sacraments, but also Christ him selfe.

And likewise of Loth, Abraham, Iacob, Iosue, Mary Magdalen, and the Apostles (whom you bring forth in this matter) there is no such speeche in y ^e scripture, as Berengarius vseth. So that all these things be brought out in vame, hauing no colour to serue for your purpose, sauing that same thing you must say to make out your booke.

And as for al the rest that you say in this proces, concerning the presence of Christ visible, and inuisible, nedeth no answere at all, because you prooue nothing of all that you say in that matter: which may easely therfore be de­nied by as good authoritie, as you affirme y ^e same. And yet all the olde wri­ters that speake of the diuersity of Christes substantiall presence, and ab­sence, declare this diuersitie to be in the diuersity of his two natures, (that in the nature of his humanitie he is gone hence, and present in the nature of his diuinitie) and not that in diuers respectes and qualities of one nature, he is both present and absent, which I haue proued in my third booke, the fifth chapter.

And for as much as you haue not brought one author for the proofe of your saying, but your own bare wordes, nor haue aunswered to the autho­rities alleadged by me in the forsaid place of my third booke, reason would that my proofes should stand, and haue place, vntill such time as you haue proued your sayings, or brought some euidēt matter to improue mine. And this (I trust,) shall suffice to any indifferent Reader, for the defence of my first booke.

Winchester.

Wherein I will kéepe this order. First, to consider the third booke, that speaketh a­gainst the faith of the reall presence of Christes most precious body and bloud, in the Sa­crament: then against the fourth and so returne to the second, speaking of Transubstan­tiation, wherof to talke, the reall presence not being discussed, were cleerely superfluous. And finally, I will somewhat say of the fifte booke also.

Caunterbury.

Why the order of my booke was changed by the Bishop.BUt now to returne to the conclusion of the Bishops booke. As it began with a marueilous sleight and suttlety, so doth he conclude the same, w ^t a like notable suttlety, changing the order of my bookes, not answering thē in such order as I wrote them, nor as the nature of the thinges requireth. For seeing that by all mennes confessions, there is bread and wine before the consecration, the first thing to be discussed in this matter, is, whether the same bread and wine remain still after the cōsecratiō, as Sacraments of Christs most precious body and bloud. And next, by order of nature, and reason, is to be discussed, whether the body and bloud of Christ, represented by those Sacramentes, be present also with the said Sacramentes. And what manner of presence Christ hath, both in the Sacraments, and in thē that receiue the Sacramentes.

But for what intent the Bishoppe changed this order, it is easie to per­ceiue. For he saw the matter of Transubstantiation, so flat & plain against [Page 47] him, that it was hard for him to deuise an answere in that matter, y ^t should haue any apparance of truth, but all y ^e world should euidētly see him cleere­ly ouerthrowen, at the first onset. Wherefore he thought, that although the matter of the reall presence hath no truth in it at all, yet for as much as it seemed to him, to haue some more apparaunce of truth, then the matter of Transubstantiatiō hath, he thought best to beginne with that first, trust­ing so to iuggle in the matter, and to dasell the eyes of them that be simple, and ignorant, and specially of such as were alredy perswaded in the mat­ter, that they should not well see, nor perceiue his lieger de main. And whē he had won credite with them in that matter, by making them to wonder at his crafty iuggeling, then thought he, it should be a fitte and meete time, for him to bring in the matter of Transubstantiation. For when men be a­mased, they doe wonder, rather then iudge: And when they be muffeled, and blindfolded, they cannot finde the right way, though they seek it neuer so fast, nor yet follow it, if it chaunce them to finde it, but geue vp cleerely their own iudgement, and follow whom so euer they take to be their guid [...] And so shall they lightly follow me in this matter of Transubstantiation, (thought the bishop) if I can first perswade them, and get their good willes in the reall presence. This sleight and suttlety, thou maist iudge certainly, good Reader, to be the cause, and none other, wherefore the order of my booke is chaun­ged without ground, or reason.

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 [Page 49] 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, Chap. 1. which is the first part before rehearsed, wherein the Papisticall doctrine varieth from the Catholick truth, The presence of Christ in the sa­crament. 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, Christ corporally is ascended into heauen. Act. 3. 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, Cap. 2. 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. The difference betwene the true and papi­sticall doctrine concerning the presēce of Chri­stes body.

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, The first cōpari­son. 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 [Page 50] members which be his tēples where he inhabiteth. And what vntrue re­porte is this, Misreport of bread and wine for the formes & figures of them. 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.

Smyth.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 2 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 y ^e truth, when they reade and consider my booke.

Tee booke of common prayer.And as concerning the forme of doctrine vsed in this church of Englād, 3 in the holy Communiō, that the body and bloud of Christ be vnder y ^e 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.

The secōd part.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 4 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 5 [Page 51] is in the very bread and wine. And if a Catholick man call y ^e 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 y ^e 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. 6 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, The difference. 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 in the second parte. But what be you eased now by this? We say as the scripture teacheth, that Christ is corporally ascended in to heauen, and neuerthelesse he is so in them that worthely eate the bread, & drinke the wine, geuen, and distributed at his holy Supper, that he feedeth and nourisheth them with his flesh and bloud vnto eternal life. But we say not (as you doe, cleerely without ground of Scripture) that he is corporal­ly vnder the formes of bread and wine, where his presence should be, with­out any profite or commoditie, either to vs, or to the bread and wine.

And here in this difference, Repugnaunce. it seemeth that you haue either cleerely for­gotten, or negligently ouershotte yourselfe, vttering that thing vnwares, which is contrary is your wholl booke. For the first parte (which is of the being of Christ in the Sacramentall bread and wine) is of the substance of [Page 52] the Sacrament to be receaued, (say you) where it is true, Christ to be pre­sent God and man: the second part (say you) which is of the being of Christ in them that worthely eat and drink the bread and wine, is of Christs spi­ritual presence. Of your which words I se nothing to be gathered, but that as concerning his substancial presence, Christ is receaued into the Sacra­mental bread and wine, and as for them that worthely receaue the Sacra­ment, he is in them none otherwise then after a Spirituall presence: For els why should ye say that the second parte is of Christes spirituall presence, if it be as well of his corporall, as of his spirituall presence? Wherefore by your own words, this difference should be vnderstanded of two different beings of Christ, that in the Sacrament he is by his substance, and in the worthy receauers spiritually, and not by his substance, for els y ^e differences repugne not, as you obiect against me. Wherfore either you write one thing, & mean another, or els (as you write of other) God so blindeth the aduersaries of the truth, that in one place or other, they confesse the truth vnwares. Now fol­low my wordes in the second comparison.

The 1. compa­rison.They say, that when any man eateth the bread, and drinketh the cup, Christ goeth into his mouth or stomacke, with the bread and wine, and no further. But we say, that Christ is in the wholl man, both in body and soule of him, that wor­thely eateth the bread, & drinketh the cup, & not in his mouth or stomack only

Winchester.

In this comparison, the Author termeth the true Catholick teaching at his pleasure, 1 to bring it in contempte. Which doing, in rude speach would be called otherwise then I 2 will tearme it. Truth it is (as S. Augustine saith) we receaue in the Sacrament the body of Christ with our mouth, and such speach other vse, as a booke set forth in the Archbishop of Canterbury his name, called a Catechisme, willeth children to be taught that they re­ceaue with their bodely mouth the body and bloud of Christ, which I alleadge, because it shall appeare it is a teaching set forth among vs of late, as hath béene also, and is by the booke of common prayer, being the most true catholicke doctrine of the substance of the sa­crament, in that it is there so catholickly spoken of, which booke this Author doth after specially allow, how so euer all the summe of his teaching doth improue it in that pointe. So much is he contrary to him self in this worke, and here in this place, not caring what 3 he saith, reporteth such a teaching in the first parte of this difference, as I haue not heard of before. There wes neuer man of learning that I haue red, termed the matter so, that Christ goeth into the stomack of the man that receaued, and no further. For that is writ­ten contra Stercoranistas, I sect reproued y ^t were called Stercoranists. is nothing to this teaching, nor the speach of any glose (if there be any such, were herein to be regarded. The Catholicke doctrine is, that by the holy communion in the Sacrament, we be ioyned to Christ really, because we receaue in the holy supper, the most precious substaunce of his glorious body, which is a flesh geuing life: And that is not digested with out flesh but worketh in vs and attēpereth, by heauēly nuriture, our body and soule beyng partakers of his passion, to be conformable to hys will, and by such spirituall foode to be many more spirituall. In the receauing of which foode, in the most blessed Sacrament, our body and soule, in them that duely communi­cate, worke together in due order, without other discussion of the mistery, then God hath appointed (that is to say) the soule to beleue as it is taught, and the body to doe as God hath ordered, knowing that glorious flesh by our eating can not be consumed or suffer, but to be most profitable vnto such as doe accustome worthely to receaue the same. But 4 to say that the church teacheth how we receaue Christ at our mouth, and he goeth into our stomacke and no further, is a reporte which by the iust iudgement of God, is suffered to come out of the mouth of them that fight against the truth in this most high mistery.

Now where this Author in the second parte, by an aduersatiue with a ( But) to make the comparison, felleth what he and his say, he telleth in effecte that, which euery catho­licke 5 [Page 53] man must néedes, and doth confesse. For such as receaue Christs most precious bo­dy and bloud in the Sacrament worthely, they haue Christ dwelling in them, who com­forteth, both body and soule, which the church hath euer taught most plainly. So as this 6 comparison of difference in his two parties, is made of one open vntruth, and a truth dis­guised, as though it were now first opened by this Author and his, which manner of hand­ling, declareth what sleight, and shift, is vsed in the matter.

Caunterbury.

1 IN the first part of this comparison I go not about to tearm the true ca­tholicke faith, for the first part in all the comparisons is the Papisticall faith, which I haue tearmed none otherwise, then I learned of their own tearming, and therfore if my tearming please you not (as in deede it ought to please no man) yet lay the blame in them that were the authors and in­uentoures of that tearming, and not in me, that against them do vse their owne tearmes, tearming the matter as they doe them selfe, because they should not finde faulte with me (as you doe) that I tearme their teaching at my pleasure.

2 And as for receauing of the body of Christ with our mouthes, truth it is that S. Augustine, Ambros, Chrysostome, and other vse such speaches, that we receaue the body of Christ with our mouthes, see hym with our eyes, feele hym with our handes, breake hym & teare hym with our teeth, eate him and dygest him (which speach I haue also vsed in my catechisme) but yet these speeches must be vnderstand figuratiuely (as I haue declared in my fourth booke the eyght chapiter, and shall more fully declare hereaf­ter) for we doe not these thinges to the very body of Christ, but to the bread wherby hys body is represented.

And yet the booke of common prayer, The booke of common pray­er. neyther vseth any such speach nor ge­ueth any such doctrine, nor I in no poynt improue that godly booke, nor va­rye from it. But yet glad I am to heare that the sayd booke lyketh you so well, as noe man can mislike it, that hath anye godlinesse in hym ioyned with knowledge.

3 But nowe to come to the very matter of this article: That the Pa­piste say that Christ go [...] in no [...]rther thē the mouth or stomacke. it is maruell that you neuer redde, that Christ goeth into the mouth or stomacke of that man that receaueth, and no further, being a lawyer, and seing that it is writ­ten in the glose of the law, De-consecrat, dist. 2. Tribus gradibus, in these wordes. It is certayne that assone as the formes be torne with the teeth, so sone the body of Christ is gone vp into heauen. And in the chapiter, Non iste, is an o­ther glose to the same purpose. And if you had redde Thomas de Aquino and Bonauenture (great clearkes and holy Sainctes of the Popes own making) and other schoole authors, Thomas Bona­uentura. then should you haue knowne what the Papistee do say in this matter. For some say that the body of Christ re­mayneth so long as the forme and fashion of bread remayneth; Read Smith Fol. 64 although it be in a dog, mouse, or in the iakes. And some say, it is not in the mouse nor sakes, but remayneth onely in the person that eateth it, vntill it be di­gested in the stomacke, and the fourme of bread be gone. Some say, it re­mayneth no longer then the Sacrament is in the eating, and may be felt, seene, and tasted in the mouth.

And this (besides Hugo) sayth Pope Innocentius hym selfe, Hugo. Innocentius. 3 li. ca. 25. who was the best learned and the chiefe doer in this matter, of all the other Popes. Red you neuer none of these authors? and yet take vpō you the full know­ledge [Page 54] of this matter? Will you take vpon you to defend the Papistes, and knowe not what they say? Or do you know it, and now be ashamed of it, and for shame will deny it?

And seing that you teache, that we receaue the body of Christ with our mouthes, I pray you, tell whether it go any further then the mouth or no? and how farre it goeth? that I may know your iudgement herein: and so shall you be charged no further, then with your own saying, and the rea­der shall perceiue what excellent knowledge you haue in this matter.

And where you say, that to teach that we receaue Christ at our mouth, & 4 he goeth into our stomack, and no further, commeth out of the mouth of thē that fight against the truth in this most high mistery. Here (like vnto Cai­phas) you prophecy the truth vnwares. For this doctrine commeth out of y ^e mouth of none, but of the Papistes, which fight against the holy catholicke truth of the aūcient Fathers, saying that Christ tarrieth no longer, then the proper formes of bread and wine remaine, which can not remain after per­fect digestion in the stomacke.

And I say not that the Church teacheth so (as you fayne me to say) but that the Papistes say so. Wherfore I should wish you to reporte my words as I say, and not as you imagine me to say, least you heare agayne (as you haue heard heretofore) of your wonderfull learning, and practise in the De­uils Sophistrye.

The secōd part.Now as concerning the second parte of this comparison, here you graūt that my saying therein is true, and that euery Catholick man must needes, 5 and doth confesse the same. By which your saying, you must also condemne almost all the schoole authors, and Lawiers, that haue written of this mat­ter, with Innocent the third also, as men not Catholick, because they teach that Christ goeth no further, nor taryeth no longer, Innocent. 3. then the formes of bread and wine goe, and remayn in their proper kinde.

And yet now your doctrine (as farre as I can gather of your obscure wordes) is this: That Christ is receaued at the mouth, with the formes of bread and wine, and goeth with them into y ^e stomack. And although they goe no further in their proper kinds, yet there Christ leaueth them, and go­eth him selfe further into euery parte of the mannes body, and into his soule also: which your saying seemeth to me to be very strange. For I haue many times heard, that a soule hath gone into a body, but I neuer heard that a body went into a soule. But I weene of all the Papistes, you shalbe alone in this matter, and finde neuer a fellow to say as you doe.

And of these thinges which I haue here spoaken, I may conclude, that 6 this comparison of difference is not made of an open vntruth; and a truth disguised, except you wil confesse the Papisticall doctrine to be an open vn­truth. Now the wordes of my third comparison be these.

They say that Christ is receaued in the mouth, and entreth in with the bread and wine. We say that he is receaued in the hart, and entreth in by faith.

Winchester.

Here is a pretty sleight in this comparison, where both partes of the comparison may be vnderstanded on both sides, and therfore here is by the Author in this comparison no 1 issue ioyned. For the worthy receauing of Christes body and bloud in the Sacrament, is both with mouth and harte: both in facte and faith. After which sorte, Saynte Peter in the laste Supper, receaued Christes body, where as in the same, Iudas receaued 4 it with mouth, and in facte onely, wherof S. Augustine speaketh in this wise. Non dicuns 3 [Page 55] ista, nisi qui de mensa Domini vitam sumu sumunt, August contra lit. Peti. lib. 2. cap. 47. sicut Tetrus, non iudicium, sicut Indas, & tamē ip­sa vtri (que) fuit vina, sed non vtri (que) valuit ad vnum, quia ipsi non erant vnum. Which wordes be thus much to say: ‘That they say not so (as was before intreated) but such as receaue life of our Lordes table (as Peter did) not iudgement, (as Iudas) and yet the table was all one to them both, but it was not to all one effect in them both, bycause they were not one.’ Here S. Augustine noteth the difference in the receauer, not in the Sacrament re­ceaued, which being receaued with the mouth only, and Christ entring, in mysterie onely doth not sanctifie vs, but is the stone of stumbling, and our iudgement and condemnati­on, but if he be receaued with mouth and body, with hart and fayth, to such he bringeth lyfe and nourishment. Wherfore in this comparison, the author hath made no difference, 1 but with diuers tearmes, the Catholicke teaching is deuided into two membres with a ( But) fashioned neuertheles in another phrase of spéech then the church hath vsed, which is so common in this Author, that I will not hereafter note it any more for a faulte. But let vs goe further.

Caunterbury.

1 THere is nothing in this comparyson worthy to be answered, for if you can finde no difference therein, whether Christ be receaued in the mouth. yet euery indifferent Reader can. For when I reporte the Papistes teaching, that they 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, y ^t we say Christ is not receaued in the mouth, but in the hart, specially seeing y ^t 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, The difference. and entreth in with the bread and wine: we say that he is not receaued with the mouth, but with 2 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 3 Christes body is eaten with the mouth. August contra lit. Peti. lib. 2. cap. 47. 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: August. contra lit. Peti. lib. 2. cap. 47. ‘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 [Page 56] 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 y ^e butte, you shoote quite at rouers, and cleane from the marke.

Iohn. 13.And yet if Iudas receaued Christ with the bread (as you say) and the de­uil 4 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, 1. Cor. 10. 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.

The fourth comparyson.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 1 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, Pugnat cum ali­js Papistis. which in the matter it selfe is neuerthelesse most true. For vndoubt­edly, 2 Christ remayneth in the man that worthely receaueth the Sacrament, so long as y ^e 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 3 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, Christ is the body of all the figures. 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 4 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. Really that is in deede. 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 [Page 57] may be vsed, is still the same Sacrament, which onely, tyme altereth not. Whereof Ci­rill 5 wrote to this sence many hundred yeares past, and Hesychius also, and what ought to be done when by negligence of the mynister, Cyrillus ad Ca­losyrium episco­pum. it were reserued ouerlong. Mary where 6 it liketh the Author of these differences, to say the church teacheth, Christ to flée vp from the receauer vnto heauen, Hesychius in Leuit. li 3. ca. 3. so sone as the bread is chawed in the mouth, or chaunged in the stomacke, this maner of speach implieth as though Christ leaft the seat of his maie­stie in heauen, to be present in the Sacrament, which is most vntrue. Christ beyng present in the sacrament is at the same tyme present in hea­uen. The Church ac­knowledgeth, beleeueth, and teacheth truly, that Christ sitteth on the right hand of his Father in glory, frō whence he shall come to iudge the worlde, and also teacheth Christs very body and bloud, and Christ him selfe God and man, to be present in the Sacrament, not by shifting of place, but by the determination of his will, declared in Scriptures, and beléeued of the Catholick church, which articles be to reason impossible, but possible to God omnipotent. So as being taught of his will, we should humbly submitte all our sē ­ses and reason, to the faith of his will, and worke declared in his Scriptures.

7 In the beléefe of which misteries is great benefit and consolation, and in the vnreuerēt search, and curious discussion of thē, presumptuous boldnes & wicked temerity. I know 8 by faith Christ to be present, but the particularity how he is present, more then I am as­sured, 9 he is truely present, and therfore in substance present, I cannot tell, but present he is, and truely is, and verely is, and so in déede, that is to say, really is, and vnfaynedly is, 10 and therfore in substance is, and as we tearme it, substancially is present. For all these aduerbes, really, substancially, Truely, Really, Substantially with the rest, be contayned in the one word ( is) spoakē out of his mouth, that speaketh as he meaneth, truely, and certainly as Christ did, saying: 11 This is my body that shall be betrayed for you: who then carryed him selfe in his hands after a certain manner (as S. Augustine sayth) which neuer man besides him could doe, who in that his last Supper, gaue him selfe to be eaten without consuming. The wayes and meanes wherof no man can tell, but humble spirites, as they be taught must constāt­ly beléeue it, Augustin Psal. 33. without thinking or talking, of flying, of stying, of Christ again vnto heauē, where Christ is in the glory of his Father continually, and is neuerthelesse (because he will so be) present in the Sacrament, wholl God and man, & dwelleth corporally in him that receaueth him worthely.

12 Wherfore (Reader) when thou shalt agayn well consider this comparison, thou shalt finde true, how the first parte is disguysed with vntrue report of the common teaching of the Church, how so euer some glose, or some priuat teacher might speak of it. And the se­cond 13 part, What is found in a blind glose, may not be takē for the teaching of the church & yet I neuer red of flyng. such as hath béen euer so taught. One thing I think good to admonish the rea­der, that what soeuer I affirme, or precisely deny, I meane within the compasse of my knowledge, which I speak not because I am in any suspicion, or doubt of that I affirme, or deny, but to auoyd the temerity of denying, as ( neuer) or affirming, as ( euer) which be extremityes. And I mean also of publicke doctrine by consent receaued, so taught, and beléeued, and not that ony one man might blindly write, as vttering his fancy, as this au­tor doth for his pleasure. It is in man dā gerous to af­firme or deny extreamyties al­though they be be true for it maketh him sus­pect of presum­tion. There followeth in the Author thus.

Caunterbury.

1 BEcause this comparison (as you say) is like the other, therfore it is fully answered before in the other comparisons. And here yet agayn, it is to be noted, that in all these 4. comparisons you approue and allow for truth, 2 the second parte of the comparison which we say. How long christ taryeth with the receyuour of the sacrament. And where you say that Christ vndoubtedly remayneth in the man that worthely receaueth the sa­crament, so long as that man remaineth a member of Christ. How agre­eth this with the common saying of all the Papistes, that Christ is contey­ned vnder the formes of bread and wine, and remayneth there no longer then the formes of bread and wine remain? Wherefore in this point all the wholl route of the Papistes will condemne for vntruth, that which you so constantly affirme to be vndoubtedly true.

[Page 58]And when the Papistes teache that the body of Christ is really in the sa­cramēt 3 vnder the forme of bread, they speak not this, geueng faith to Christ his words (as you say they doe) for Christ neuer spake any such words, and as for this saying of Christ, this is my body, it is a figuratiue speach, called Metonymia, Metonymia. when one thing is called by the name of another, which it sig­nifieth, and it hath no such sence as you pretend, for these is a great diuersi­ty betweene these two sayinges. This is my body, and, the body of Christ is really in the sacrament vnder the forme of bread. But the Papists haue set Christes wordes vpon the tenters, and stretched them out so farre, that they make his wordes to signifie as pleaseth them, not as he meant.

The Fathers in the old law receiued the same things in their sacramēts that we do in ours.And this is a marueilous doctrine of you, to say that Christ was the bo­dy 4 of all the shadowes, and figures of the law, and did exhibite, and geue in his Sacramentes of the new law, the thinges promised in the Sacra­mentes of the olde law. For he is the body of all the figures, as well of the new law, as of the olde, and did exhibite, and geue his promises in the Sa­cramentes of the olde law, as he doth now in the Sacraments of the new law. And we must vnderstand and the wordes spoaken in the institution of the Sacramentes in both the lawes: Figuratiuely, as concerning the Sacra­mentes, and without figure, as concerning the thinges by them promised, signified, and exhibited. As in circumcision was geeuen the same thing to them, that is geuen to vs in baptisme, and the same by Manna, that we haue at the Lords table. Only this difference was betweene them and vs, that our redemption by Christes death and passion was then onely promised, and now it is perfourmed and past. And as their Sacramentes were fi­gures of his death to come, so be our figures of the same now past and gon. And yet it was all but one Christ to them and vs. Who gaue life, comfort, and strength, to them by his death to come, and geueth the same to vs by his death passed.

And he was in their Sacramentes spiritually, and effectually present, and for so much truely and really present (that is to say in deede) before he was born, no lesse thē he is now in our Sacramēts present after his death and assention into heauen. But as for carnall presence, he was to them not yet come. And to vs he is come, and gone agayne vnto his Father, from whom he came.

Reseruation. Cyrill Hesichius.And as for the reseruation of the Sacrament, neither Cyrill, nor He­sychius, 5 speake any worde what ought to be done with the Sacrament, when by negligence of the Minister it were reserued ouer long. But He­sychius sheweth plainly that nothing ought to be reserued, but to be burned what so euer remayned.

And as for the flying of Christ vp into heauen, so soone as the bread is chawed in the mouth, or changed in the stomack, I say not that the church teacheth so, but that Papistes say so, whith for as much as you say, that it liketh me to reporte this most vntruely, reade what the glose saith vpō the chapter, De consecrat. d. 2. Tribus gradibus 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?

[Page 59]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.

7 And where you say, that in the beleefe of this mistery is great benefitte, The benefite & comfort in this sacrament. 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.

8 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, Iohn. 5. 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?

9 And if we can not tel how Christ is present, The maner of presence. 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 [Page 60] 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: Math. 18. 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. Math. 6. 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 11 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 12 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.

The comparisōThey 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 13 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.

The 5. 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 the armes be, there be the legges: so that in euery part of the bread and wine, is altogether, whole head, whole feet, whole flesh, whole bloud, whole hart, whole lunges, whole breast, whole backe, and altogyther whole confused and mixt without distinction or diuersity. O what a foolish and an abhominable inuention is this, to make of the most pure and perfect bodye of Christ, such a confuse and monstrous body? And yet can the Papistes ima­gine nothing so foolish, but all Christian people must receiue the same, as an o­racle of God, and as a most certayne article of their fayth, without whisperyng to the contrary.

Winchester.

[Page 61]This is a maruaylous Rhetorique, and such as the author hath ouerséene himselfe 1 in the vtterance of it, and confesseth himself pretely abused, to the latter end of his yeares to haue beleued that, he now calleth so foolish. But to the purpose. In the book of common 2 prayer (now at this time) set foorth in this Realme: It is ordered to teach the people, that in ech part of the bread consecrate, brokē, is the whole body of our Sauiour Christ, which is agreable to the Catholicke doctrine: Upon occasion hereof, it liketh this author to mul­tiply language by enumeration of partes, and because reason without fayth, directeth the bodily eye, to so little a visible quantity in the host, this Author beareth in hand the 3 Catholicke Church to say and teach, all that fond reason deuiseth, where as the Church in y ^• doctrine of this mistery, denieth all that reasō without fayth diuiseth, and therefore, when we acknowledge by fayth, Christs body present, although we say, it is present tru­ly, 4 Really, Substantially, yet we say, our senses be not priuy to that presence, [...]e the ma­ner of it, but by instruction of fayth, and therefore we say, Christes body to be not locally present, not by manner of quantity, but inuisible, and in no sensible manner, but maruai­lously in a Sacrament and mistery truely, and in such a spirituall maner, as we can not 5 define and determyne, and yet by fayth we knowe his bodye present, the partes of which 7 be in them selfe distinct, one from an other, in their owne substaunce, but not by circum­scription of seuerall places, to be comprehended of our capacitie, which partes, we can by no demonstration, place, nor by imagination displace, diminish, alter, or confound, as this author for his pleasure reporteth, who writeth monstrously in so high a mistery, and 6 impudently beareth in hand the Catholicke Church to teach that he listeth to beare in hand, may by wanton reason be deduced of the teaching, Pugnat cum a­lijs Papistis. where as al true Christian men beleue symply Christes wordes, and trouble not their heades with such consequences, as séeme to striue with reason. This is in the Author no whisperyng, but playnely rayling, wherein if he had remembred himselfe well, he would not haue spoken of all Christian men in the receypt of that he entendeth to disproue. And if he would say he spake it by an Irony or skorne, yet it implyeth that all had receyued that he thus mocketh, which after the sort he writeth, was neuer deuised by Papist, or other to be so taught, otherwyse then 7 as this Author might read it, as an ydle argument, to shew absurditie in reason. For in Gods workes, as the sacramentes hée, we must think all semelynesse in déed without de­formity, euen as we beleue al Gods iudgements iust and true, although reason conclude in them euident iniquitie. Mans reason when it séemeth most gallant, What is receued of all christen mē hath therein a manifest token in truth. is full of spottes and folly. Gods workes be all séemelynesse, without confusion, monsier, or any such ab­surditée, as this Author supposeth. Although I can not in the Sacrament with the eye of my reason, locally distinct Christs head from his foote, his legs from his arme. And where in the booke of common prayer, it is truely said, in ech part of the bread consecrate broken to be Christes whole body, if one of curiositee would question with me, and I of folly would aunswere him, It is a folly to answere a cori­ous demaunder. first where is Christes head? I should say, here (poynting with my finger) he would thinke it first a little head. Then he would aske, where is his foote, and I should say there, and poynt in the same place againe, for there is none other left. If he re­plyed that I poynted before the same for the head, might not the third a catholicke man, that stood by, (trow you) wisely call vs both madde, to go about to discusse that wée must grant we se not, & whē by faith we know only the being preset of Christs most precious body, then by blynd reason, to discusse the manner of being in the situation of such partes, as we do not see? Now if there came among vs a fourth man as a mediatour, and would do as king Alexander dyd, Quintus Curtius ma­keth mention of this faith of A­lexander. when he could not open the knot of Gordius, he did cut it with his sworde, if this man should say, I will reléeue this matter. You beleue Christes body is presēt in déed really, and substātially. Leaue out really and subtātially, and say his bo­dy is present in signification, and then it may be easily conceaued by reason, that Christs body being neuer so great, Fath of God & his work can not by mans de­uise haue any qualification. may be as well signified by a little péece of bread, as by a great péece of bread: euen as a man may write a great mans name, as wel in smal letters short as in great letters at length. And to commend further his deuise vnto vs, would percase tell how many absurdities as he thinketh and inconueniences might be auoyded by it. This fourth man I speak of, making himselfe a mediatour, but in déede vnmete therfore 8 because he hath no participation with sayth: yet if our religion and fayth were mans in­uention, as that of Numa Pompilius was, he should not vtter this his conceit all ydelly. [Page 62] For he speaketh of a ioly easy way without any mistery or maruaile at all. But our faith is of hearing, as hath bene preached continually from the beginning, grounded vpon the most sure trueth of the word of God, and therefore can not be attempered as man would deuise it, to exclude trauayle in carnall reason. For then the Sabellians were to be hark­ned 9 vnto, Sabellians. who by their heresy toke away all the hard and difficile questions in the miste­ry of the Trinitie.

Arrians.The Arrians also releued much mans reason in consideration of Christs death, deny­ing him to be of the same substance with his father, which [...]as a pestilent heresy. Now in the Sacramēt to say Christs body is present onely by signification, as it releueth in some mens iudgementes the absurdities in reason, which ought not to be releued, so it condem­neth 8 all the true publike faith, testified in the Church from the beginning hetherto, and sheweth the learned holy men, to haue wondred in their writynges at that which hath no wonder at all, to ordeyn one thing to be the signification of an other, which is practised daily among men. But from the beginning the mistery of the Sacrament hath béen with wonder marueyled at, how Christ made bread his body, and wyne his bloud, and vnder the figure of those visible creatures, gaue inuisibly his precious body any bloud presently there. And as he gaue (sayth S. Barnarde) his life for vs, so he gaue his flesh to vs in that mistery to redéeme vs, Bernard super Cant. ser. 31. in this to féede vs. Which doings of Christ we must vnderstand to haue béene perfited, not in an imagination in a figure and signification, but really in very déede, truely, and vnfaynedly, not because we beléeue it so, but because he wrought it so, whose works we must beleue to be most perfitly true, according to the truth of the letter where no absurditie in scripture driueth vs from it, howsoeuer it seme repugnant to our reason, be we neuer so wise, and wittie, which mans reason now a dayes enflamed with fury of language is the only aduersary against the most blessed Sacrament, as it may ap­peare by these comparysons of differences throughly considered.

Caunterbury.

DId not you beleue (I pray you) many yeares together, that the bishop 1 of Rome was Christs vicar, and the head of his church?

If you did not, you wittingly and willingly defended a false errour in the open Parliament. But sithens that tyme, you haue called that beléefe (as it is in deede) very folish. And if you confessed your ignorance in that matter, be no more abashed to confesse it in this, if you haue respect more vnto Gods trueth, then to your owne estimation. It is lawfull and commendable for a man, to learn from time to tyme, and to go from his ignorance, that he may receaue and embrace the trueth. It is good at al times to cōuert from error to truth. And as for me, I am not (I graunt) of that nature, that the Papists for the most part be, who study to deuise all shame­full shiftes, rather then they will forsake any errour, wherewith they were infected in youth. I am glad to acknowledge my former ignorance (as S. Paul, S. Ciprian. S. Augustine, and many other holy men did, who now be with Christ) to bring other to the knowledge of the trueth, of whose ig­noraunce I haue much ruth and pitie. I am content to geue place to Gods word, that the victory may be Christs. What a member had the church of God lost, if Paule would haue been as froward as some Papistes be, that will sticke to their errour tooth and nayle, though the Scripture and aun­cient writers be neuer so plain and f [...]at against them? Although S. Paule erred, 1. Tim. 1. yet because his errour was not wilfull, but of ignoraunce, so that he gaue place to the trueth, when it was opened vnto him, he became of a most cruell persecutor, a most seruent setter forth of the trueth, and Apostle of Christ.

And would God I were as sure, that you be chaunged in déede in those matters of religion, wherein with the alteration of this realme you pretēd [Page 63] a change, as I am glad euen from the bottom of my hart, that it hath plea­sed almighty God in this latter end of my yeares, to giue me knowledge of my former errour, and a will to embrace the truth, setting a part all maner of worldly respectes, which be speciall hinderances, that hold backe many from the free profession of Christ and his word.

2 And as for the booke of common prayer, The booke of common praier. although it say, that in ech part of the bread broken is receaued the whole body of Christ, yet it sayth not so of the partes vnbroken, nor yet of the partes, or whole reserued, as the Pa­pistes teach: But as in baptisme we receaue the holy ghost, and put Christ vpon vs, as well if wee be Christened in one dysh full of water taken out of the fonte, as if we were chistned in the whole fonte, or riuer, so we be as truely fed, refreshed and comforted by Christ, receauing a peece of bread at the Lords holy table, as if we dyd eat an whole loafe. For as in euery part of the water in baptisme is wholl Christ and the holy spirit, sacramentally, so be they in euery part of the bread broken, but not corporally and naturally as the Papists teach.

3 And I beare not the catholick church in hand (as you report of me) that it sayth and teacheth, that whole Christ is in euery part of the bread conse­crated, The Papists say, that whole Christ is in e­uery part of the cōsecrated bread but I say that the Papistes so teach. And because you deny it, read the chiefe pillers of the Papistes, Duns, and Thomas de Aquino, which the Papists call S. Thomas, who say, that Christ is whole vnder euery part of the formes of bread and wine, not only when the host is broken, but whē it is wholl also. And there is no distance (sayth he) of partes, one from an o­ther, as of one eie from another or of the eye from the eare, or the head from the feet. These be Thomas wrds. Thomas. 3. part. sum. q. 76. art. 3. Christus totus est sub qualibit parte specicrū pa­nis & vini, non solū cū frangitur hostia, sed etiā cū integra manet. Nec est distātia partiū ab innicē, vt oculi ab oculo, aut oculi ab aure, eut capitis à pedibus, sicut est in alijs corpori­bus orgameis. Talis enim distantia est in ipso corpore Christi vero, sed non prout est in hoc Sacra [...]ēto. And not only the Papists do thus write and teach but the Pope himself, Innocentius the third. Innocentius. 3. lib. 4. cap. 8. And so beare I in hād, or report of the Pa­pisies nothing, but that which they say indeed.

And yet you say, the church sayth not so which I affirme also and then it must needs follow, that the doctrine of the Papistes, is not the doctrine of the church. Which Papists not by reason with out faith, but agaynst as­well reason as fayth, would direct our mindes to seeke in euery little crum of bread, whole Christ, and to find him in so many places there, as be small crums in the bread.

4 And where you trauesse the matter of the iudgement of our senses here­in, it is quite and cleane from the matter, and but a crafty shift, to conuey the matter to an other thing that is not in question, lyke vnto crafty male-factours, whych perceauing them selues to be sore pursued with a hound, make a new trayn to draw the hound to an other fresh suit. For I speake not of the iudgement of our senses in this matter, whether they perceaue any distinction of partes and members or no, but whether in deed there be any such distinction in the Sacrament or no, which the Papistes do deny. And therefore I say not vntruely of them, that in the sacrament they say: There is no distance of partes one from another.

5 And if the parts in theyr substance be distinct one from an other (as you say) and be not so distinct in the Sacramēt (as Thomas sayth) thē must it [Page 64] follow, that the partes in their owne substaunce be not in the sacrament. And if this distinction of partes, be in the true body of Christ, and not in the sacrament (as Thomas saith) then followeth it again, that the true bo­dy of Christ is not in the sacrament.

A subtil sleight.And forasmuch as I speake not one word of the comprehension of our senses, to what purpose do you bring this in, if it be not to draw vs to a new matter, to auoyd y ^t which is in controuersy? You do herein as if Ia­mes should by of Iohn a percell of land, and by his atturney take state and possession therein. And after Iohn should trauers the matter, and say, that there was neuer no state deliuered, and thereupon ioyne their issue. And when Iames should bryng forth his witnesses for the state and possession, thē should Iohn runne to a new matter, and say that Iames saw the pos­session deliuered: what were this allegation of Iohn to the purpose of the thing that was in issue, whether the possession were deliuered in deede or no? Were this any other thing, then to auoid the issue craftely, by bringing in of a new matter? And yet this shift is a common practise of you in this booke, and this is another point of the deuils Sophistry, wherin it is pit­ty that euer such a wit as you haue, should be occupied.

Wanton reason.Again you say, that impudently I beare the Catholick church in hand, 6 to teach that I list to beare in hand, may by wanton reason be deduced of their teaching, wheras al true christen men beleeue simply Christs words, and trouble not their heads with such consequences. This is in the author no whispering, but plain railing (say you.) This is your barking eloquēce, wherewith your booke is well furnished, for as dogs barke at the moone without any cause, so doe you in this place. For I doe no more but truely reporte what the Papistes them selues doe write, and no otherwise, not bearing the Catholick church in hand that it so teacheth, but charging the Papistes that they so teach, nor bearing the Papistes in hand what I list or what by wantō reason may be deduced of their teaching, but reporting onely what their own words and sayinges be.

True christian men.And if they be no true christen men that trouble their heades with such matters (as you affirme they be not) then was Innocent the third, y ^e chiefe author of your doctrin, both of transubstantiation, and of the reall presēce, no true christian man (as I beleeue well inough.) Then was your Saint Thomas no true christian man. Then Gabriell, Duns, Durand, and the great rablement of the schoole authors (which taught your doctrin of trā ­substantiation and of the reall presence) were not true christen men. And in few words to comprehend the whol, then were almost none that taught that doctrine, true christen men, but your selfe alone. For almost all with one consent, doe teach that wholl Christ is really in euery part of the host.

But your termes here of rayling, mocking, and scorning, I would haue taken patiently at your hand, if your tongue and pen had not ouershot thē selues in braging so far, that the truth by you should be defaced. But now I shalbe so bold as to send those termes thether, from whence they came. And for the matter it selfe, I am ready to ioyn an issue with you, notwith­standing all your stout and boasting words.

But in Gods workes (say you) as the Sacramentes be, we must think 7 all seemelines in deede without deformity. But what seemelines is this in a mannes body, that the head is where the feete be, and the armes where [Page 65] the legges be? which the Papistes doe teach, and your selfe seeme to con­fesse, when you say: that the partes of Christes body be distinct in themsel­ues, one from another in their own substance, but not by circumscription of seuerall places. And yet you seeme again to deny the same in your wise dia­logue, or quadriloge, betweene the curious questioner; the folish ans̄werer, your wise catholick man standing by, and the mediator.

In which dialoge you bring in your wise catholick man to condemne of madnes all such as say, A Dialog. that Christes head is there where his feete be, and so you condemne of madnes not onely al the scholasticall doctors, which say that Christ is wholl in euery part of the cōsecrated bread, but also your own former saying, where you deny the distinction of the partes of Christs body in seuerall places. Wherefore the mediator seemeth wiser then you all, who losing this knot of Gordius, saith: that Christes body (how big soeuer it be) may be as well signified by a little peece of bread as by a greate: and so as concerning the reason of a sacramēt, al is one, whether it be an whol bread, or a peece of it, as it skilleth not whether a man be christened in the wholl fonte, or in a parte of the water taken out therof. For the respect and consi­deration of the Sacrament is all one in the lesse and more.

8 But this fourth man (say you) hath no participation with faith, condemning all the true publick faith testified in the church from the beginning he­therto, which hath euer with wonder marueiled at the mistery of the Sa­crament, which is no wonder at all, if bread be but a signification of Christ his body, this is a wonderfull saying of you, as of one that vnderstoode no­thing vtterly, what a Sacrament meaneth, and what is to be wondred at in the Sacrament. What is to be wondered at in the Sacramēt. For the wonder is not, how God worketh in the out­ward visible Sacrament, but his marueilous worke is in the worthy re­ceauers of the Sacramentes. The wonderfull worke of God is not in the water, which o [...]ely washeth the body, but God by his omnipotent power, worketh wonderfully in the receauers thereof, scouring, washing, and ma­king them clean inwardly, and as it were new mē, and celestiall creatures. This haue all [...]olde authors wondered at, this wonder passeth the capaci­ties of all mens wits how damnation is turned into saluation, and of the Sonne of the deuill condemned into hell, is made the Sonne of God, and inheritour of heauen. This wonderfull worke of God all men may maruel and wonder at, but no creature is able sufficiently to comprehend it. And as this is wondred at in the Sacrament of Baptisme, how he that was sub­iect vnto death, receiueth life by Christ, and his holy Spirite. So is this wondred at in the Sacrament of Christes holy Table, how the same life is continued and endureth for euer, by continuall feeding vpon Christes flesh and his bloud. And these wonderfull workes of God towardes vs, we be taught by Gods holy worde, and his Sacramentes of breade, wine, and water, and yet be not these wōderfull workes of God in the Sacraments, but in vs.

And although many authors vse this manner of speech, that Christ ma­keth bread his body, and wine his bloud, and wonder thereat: yet those au­thors mean not of the bread and wine in them selues, but of the bread and wine eaten and dronken of faithfull people. For when Christ called bread his body, and wine his bloud, he wake not those words to the bread & wine [Page 66] but to the eaters and drinkers of them, saying: Eat, this is my body. Drink this is my bloud, signifying to thē that worthely do eat that bread & drink that cuppe, that they be inwardly and inuisibly fed with Christes flesh and bloud, as they outwardly and visibly receaue the sacraments of them.

To be short, here in this processe you vse plenty of words at your pleasure to make the reader beleue, that I should suppose confusion, monstrousnes, absurditie and vnseemelinesse to be in Gods holy sacraments, where as I do no more but tel what monstrous absurdities and errors the Papists do 9 teach in the sacraments. But if the reader take good heede to your talk, he shall finde, that you lacking good matter to aunswere this comparison, do fall vnto railing, and enforce your pen to inuent such stuffe as might bring me into hatred vndeserued, which kind of rhetorick is called Canma facun­da, and is vsed onely of them that hunt for their own praise by the dispraise of their aduersary, which is yet an other trick of the deuils sophistry.

Sabellius. Arrius.And because you would bring me into more extreme hatred, you cou­ple me with Sabellius and Arrius, whose doctrines (as you say) were fa­cile and easy, as here you confesse mine for to be. But if all such expositions as make the Scriptures plain, should by and by be slaunderously compa­red to the doctrines of Arrius and Sabellius, then should all the exposi­tions of y ^e doctors be brought in danger, because that by their paines they haue made hard questions facile and easy. And yet whether the doctrine which I set forth be easy to vnderstand or not, I cannot define, but it see­meth so hard, that you cannot vnderstand it, except you will put all the fault in your own wilfulnes, that you can, and wil not vnderstād it. Now followeth the sixt comparison.

Furthermore the Papistes say, that a dog or a cat eateth the body of Christ, if they by chaunce doe eate the Sacramentall bread. We say: That no earthly creature can eat the body of Christ, nor drink his bloud, but onely man.

Winchester.

The contrary hereof is noted for a doctrine.I haue red that some intreate these chances of dogges and cattes, but I neuer heard any of that opinion, to say or write so (as a doctrine) that a dogge or a catte eateth the bo­dy of Christ, and set it forth for a teaching, as this author most impudently supposeth, and I maruell much that such a worde, and such a reporte, can come out of a christian mānes mouth, and therefore this is by the author a maruelous surmise, Whereupon to take oc­casion to bring the aduersatiue ( But) for the Authors parte, being such a saying on that side, as all christendome hath euer taught, that no creature can eate the body, and drinke the bloud of Christ, but onely man. Pugnat cum alijs Papistis. But this abhominable surmysed no truth in the for­mer parte of his comparison, may be taken for a proofe, whether such beastly asseuerati­ons procéede from the spirite of truth or now, And whether truth be there intended, where such blasphemy is surmised. But let vs see the rest.

Caunterbury.

YEt stil in these comparisons you graūt, that part of the difference to be true, which I affirme, but you say that I reporte vntruely of the Pa­pistes, impudently bearing them in hand, to say such abhominable & beast­ly asseuerations as you neuer heard. Whereby appeareth your impudent arrogancy in deniall of that thing, which either you know the Papists do say, or you are in doubt whether they say, or saying hauing not read what it is that they say. Whether a bird or [...]east eat the body of Christ. For why doe they reiect the Master of the sentences in this point, that he said, a mouse or bruite beast receaueth not the body of [Page 67] Christ, although they seeme to receau it? Wherin if you say (as the Master did) that y ^e mouse receiueth not the body of Christ, Lib. 4. distinct. 13. In erroribus fol 134. b. Vide Marcum Constantium. fol. 72. obiect. 94. looke for no fauor at y ^e pa­pists hands, but to be reiected as the Master was, unles they forbeare you vpon fauour, and because that in other matters you haue bene so good a captayne for them, they will pardon you this one faulte. A [...]d so is this first 7 parte of the difference no vntrue surmise of me, but a determination of the Papistes, condemning who so euer would say the contrary. And this is a common proposition among the schoole diuines, that the body of Christ re­maineth so long as the forme of the bread is remayning, where so euer it be, whereof your S. Thomas wryteth thus: Thomas. 3. part. sum. q. 80. art. 3. ‘Quidam vero dixerunt, quod quā primum Sacramentum sumitur à mure vel cane, desinit ibi esse corpus Christi. Sed hoc de­regat veritati huius Sacramenti. Substantia enim panis sumpta à peccatore, I am diu manet, dion per calorem naturalem est in digestione, igitur tam diu manet corpus Christi sub spe­ciebus Sacramentalibus.’ And Perin in his booke printed, Peryn. and set abroad in this matter for all men to read, saith: That although the mouse, or any other beast doe eate the Sacrament, yet neuerthelesse the same is the very, and reall body of Christ. And he asketh what inconuenience it is against the verity of Christs reall body in the Sacrament, though the impassible body lye in the mouth or maw of the beast? Is it not therfore the body of Christ? Yes vndoubtedly saith he. So that now these abhominable opinions, and beastly asseuerations (as you truely terme them, meaning thereby to bite me as appeareth) be fitte termes and meete for the Papists, whose asseue­rations they be. Now followeth the seuenth comparyson.

They say, that euery man, good and euill, eateth the body of Christ. We say that both doe eate the Sacramentall bread, and drink the wine, but none do eate the very body of Christ, and drinke his bloud, but only they that be liuely mem­bers of his body.

Winchester.

In this comparison the former part, speaking of such men as be by baptisme receiued 2 into Christes church, is very true, confirmed by S. Paule, and euer since affirmed in the church, in the proofe whereof here in this booke I wil not trauell, but make it a demurre as 1 it were in law, A demurre vpō this Issue. whereupon to fly the truth of the hole matter, if that doctrin, called by this author the doctrine of the Papistes, and is in déede the Catholick doctrine, be not in this point true, let all be so iudged for me. If it be true, as it is most true, let that be a marke whereby to iudge the rest of this authors vntrue asseuerations. For vndoubtedly S. Au­gustine 3 sayth: August. contra litteras Pe til. lib. 20. We may not of mens matters estéeme the Sacraments, they be made by him whose they be, but worthely vsed they bring reward, vnworthely handled they bring iudgement. He that dispenseth the Sacrament worthely, and he that vseth it vnworthely, lie not one, but that thyng is one, whether it be handled worthely or vnworthely, so as if is neither better ne worse, but life or death of them that vse it. Thus saith S. Augustine, and therefore be the receauers worthy or vnworthy, Marcus constā ­tius dicit quod Ethnici idē for­tasse sumunt quod bruti i. sa­cramētumtantū good or euil, the substance of Christs Sacrament is all one, as beyng Gods worke, who worketh vniformely, and yet is not in all that receaue of like effect, not of any alteration or diminution in it, but for the diuersi­tie of him that receaueth. So as the report made here of the doctrine of the Catholicke Church vnder the name of Papists, is a very true report, and for want of grace reproued by the Author as though it were no true doctrine. And the second part of the comparison 4 on the authors side, contained vnder ( We say) by them that in hypocrisy pretend to bée fruethes frendes, conteineth an vntrueth to the simple reader, and yet hath a matter of wrangling to the learned reader, because of the word ( very) which referred to the effect of eating the body of Christ, The word ( very) may make wrang­ling. whereby to receaue lyfe, may be so spoaken, that none receaue the body of Christ with the very effect of lyfe, but such as eate the sacrament spiritually, [Page 68] that is to say with true fayth worthely. And yet euill men as Iudas, receaue the same ve­ry 5 body, touching the truth of the presence thereof, that S. Peter did. For in the substāce of the Sacrament, which is Gods worke is no varietie, who ordeineth all (as afore) vni­formely, but in man is the varietie, amongst whom he that receaueth worthely Christes body, receaueth life, and be that receaueth vnworthely, receaueth condemnation. There followeth further.

Caunterbury.

A demurre. whether euill men eat the bo­dy of Christ.I Thanke you for this demurre, for I my selfe could haue chosen no better 1 for my purpose. And I am content that the trial of the whole matter be iudged hereby, as you desire: You say, that all that be baptised, good and e­uill, eate the body of Christ: and I say, only the good, and not the euill.

Now must neyther I nor you be iudges in our own causes, therefore let Christ be iudge betwene vs both, whose iudgemēt it is not reason that you refuse. Christ sayth: Who so euer eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud, Iohn. 6. dwelleth in me and I in him. As the lyuing 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 down from heauen. Not as your fathers did eat Manna and are dead. He that eateth this bread shall liue for euer. Now I aske you this question, whether euil men shal liue for euer? Whether they liue by Christ? Whether they dwell in Christ? and haue Christ dwelling in them? If you say nay (as you must needes if you will say the truth) then haue I proued my negatiue (wherein stood the demurre) that ill men eat not Christs body nor drinke his bloud, for if they did, then by Christs own words, they should liue for euer, and dwell in Christ, and haue Christ dwelling in them. And what proofes will you require more vpon my part in this demurre? For if Christ be with me, who can be able to stand agaynst me.

But you alleadge for you S. Paule, who speaketh for you nothing at al. 2 For the messenger will not speake against him that sent him. I know that S. Paule in the 11. to the Corinthians, 1. Cor. 11. speaketh expressly of the vnworthy eating of the bread, but in no place of the vnworthy eating of the body of Christ. And if he doe, shew the place, or tis the demurre passeth against you and the wholl matter tried with me, by your own pact and couenant. And yet for further proofe of this demure, I refer me to the 1.2.3.4. and 5. chap­ters of my 4. booke.

August. contra lit. Petil. li. 2. cap 37.And where you bring S. Augustine to be witnesse, his witnesse in that place helpeth nothing your cause. For he speaketh there generally of the v­sing 3 of the Sacramentes well or ill, as the dyuersity of men be, rehearsing by name the sacrament of circumcision, of the paschal lamb, and of baptis­me. Wherefore if you wil proue any real and corporall presence of Christ by that place, you may aswell proue that he was corporally present iii, circum­cisiō, in eating of the paschal lamb, and in baptism, as in the Lords supper.

And here ye vse such a subtilty to deceaue the symple reader, that he hath good cause to suspect your proceedinges, and to take good heed of you in all your writings, who do nothing els, but go about to deceaue him. For you conclude the matter of the substance of the Sacrament, that the reader might thinke that place to speak only of the sacrament of Christs body aud bloud, and to speak of the substaunce thereof, where S. Augustine neither, hath that word, Substaunce, nor speaketh not one word specially of that sacrament, but all his processe goeth chiefely of Baptisme which is alone [Page 69] (sayth S. Augustine against the Donatists, which reproued Baptisme for the vice of the minister) whether the minister be good or ill, and whether he minister it to good or to ill. For the Sacraments is all one, although the effect be diuers to good and to euill.

And as for them whom ye say that in hypocrisy pretend to be truthes 4 frends, Truthes fained frends. all that be learned and haue any iudgemēt, know that it is the Pa­pists, which no few yeres passed, by hypocrisy and fained religion, haue vt­tered and solde theyr lyes and fables in sted of Gods eternall truth, and in the place of Christ haue set vp idols and Antichrist.

And for the conclusion of this comparison, in this word ( Very) you make such a wrangling, Very. (where none occasion is geuen) as neuer was had before this tyme of any learned man. For who heard euer before this tyme, that an adiectiue was referred to a verb, and not to his proper substantiue, of any man that had any learning at all?

5 And as for the matter of Iudas is answered before. For he receaued not the bread that was the Lord, (as S. Augustine sayth) but the bread of the Lord. August. in Ioh. tra. 59. Nor no man can receaue the body of Christ vnworthely, although he may receaue vnworthely the Sacrament thereof.

And hitherto D. Smyth hath found no fault at all in my comparisons, Smyth. whereby the reader may see, how nature passeth arte, seing here much more captiousnesse in a subtill sophisticall wit, then in hym that hath but learned the Sophisticall art. Now followeth the eyght comparyson. The 8. compa­rison.

They say, that good men eat the body of Christ and drink his bloud, only at that time when they receaue the Sacramēt. We say that they eat, drink and feed of Christ continually, so long as they be members of his body.

Winchester.

What forehead, I pray you, is so hardened, that can vtter this amōg them, that know 1 any thing of the learning of Christs Church? In which it is a most common distinction, y ^t there is thrée manner of eatinges of Christes body and bloud: 3. Manner of eatinges. one spirituall only: which is here affirmed in the second part of ( We say,) wherin the author and his say as the church sayth. Another eating is both sacramentally and spiritually, which is when men worthe­ly communicate in the supper. The thyrd is sacramentally only, which is by men vnwor­thy, who eat and drink in the holy supper to their condemnatiō only. And the learned mē in Christes church say, that the ignoraunce and want of obseruation of these thrée maner of eatinges, causeth the errour in the vnderstanding of the scriptures and such fathers 2 sayinges, Cause of error. as haue written of the sacrament. And when the Church speaketh of these thrée maner of eatinges, what an impudency is it, to say, that the church teacheth good men on­ly to eat the body of Christ and drink his bloud, when they receaue the Sacrament, being the truth otherwise, & yet a diuersity ther is of eatyng spiritually only, & eating spiritually and sacramētally, because in y ^t supper they receue his very flesh & bloud in deed, w ^t the ef­fects of al graces & gifts to such as receue it spiritually & worthely: wher as out of the sup­per, when we eat only spiritually by fayth, God that worketh without his sacramentes, as semeth to him, doth releaue those that beleue and trust in him, and suffereth them not to be destitute of that is necessary for them, whereof we may not presume contemning the sacrament, but ordenaryly seke God, where he hath ordred himself to be sought, and there to assure our selfe of his couenaunts and promyses, which be most certaynly annexed to his sacramentes, Gods promises annexed to his Sacraments. We must in tea­ching exalt the Sacraments after their digni­ty. whereunto we ought to geue most certayne trust and confidence, wher­fore to teach the spirituall manducation to be equall with the spirituall manducation and sacramentall also: that is to diminish the effect of the institutiō of the Sacrament, which no Christen man ought to doe.

Caunterbury.

WHo is so ignoraunt that hath red any thing at all, but he knoweth that 1 distinction of thre eatinges? But no man that is of learning and iud­gement, vnderstandeth the 3. diuerse eatings in such sort as you doe but af­ter this manner. 3. Manner of eatinges. That some eat only the sacrament of Christs body, but not the very body it selfe, some eat his body and not the Sacrament, and some eat the Sacrament and body both togither. The Sacramēt (that is to say, the bread) is corporally eaten and chawed with the teth in the mouth. The very body is eaten and chawed with faith in the spirite. Ungodly men whē they receaue the Sacramēt, they chaw in their mouthes (like vnto Iudas) the Sacramētal bread, but they eat not the celestial bread, which is Christ. Faithful Christian people (such as be Christs true disciples) continually frō tyme to tyme record in theyr myndes the beneficiall death of our Sauiour Christ, chawing it by fayth in the cud of their spirit, and digesting it in their harts, feding and comforting themselues with that heauēly meat, although they dayly receaue not the Sacrament thereof, and so they eat Christs bo­dy spiritually, although not the sacrament thereof. True sacramē ­tall eating. But when such men for their more comfort and confirmation of eternall lyfe, geuen vnto them by Christes death, come vnto the Lords holy Table, then as before ehey fed spi­ritually vpon Christ, so now they feed corporally also vpon the sacramental bread. By which sacramētal feeding in Christes promises, their former spi­rituall feding is increased, and they grow and wax continually more strōg in Christ, vntill at the last they shall come to the full measure and perfection in Christ. This is the teaching of the true Catholick Church, as it is taught by Gods word. And therefore S. Paule speaking of them that vnworthe­ly eat, sayth, that they eat the bread, but not that they eat the body of Christ, 1. Cor. 11. but their own damnation.

Whether Christ be really eaten without the sa­crament.And where you set out with your accustomed rethorical colours a great 2 impudencie in me, that would report of the Papistes that good men eat the body of Christ and drink his bloud only when they receaue the Sacramēt, seyng that I know that the Papistes make a distinction of 3. maner of ea­tinges of Christes body, whereof one is without the sacrament: I am not ignoraunt in deed, that the Papists graunt a spiritual eating of Christs bo­dy without the sacrament, but I mean of such an eating of his body, as his presēce is in the Sacrament, and as you say he is there eatē, that is to say, corporally. Therefore to expresse my mind more plainely to you, that list not vnderstand, let this be the comparison.

They say that after such a sort as Christ is in the sacramēt, and there ea­ten, so good men eat his body and bloud only, when they receaue the sacra­ment, The comparisō. so doe they eat, drink, and feed vpon him continually, so long as they be members of his body.

Now the Papists say, that Christ is corporally present in the sacrament and is so eaten only when men receaue the sacrament. But we say, that the presence of Christ in his holy supper, is a spirituall presence: and as he is spi­ritually present, so is he spiritually eaten of all faythfull christian men, not only when they receaue the sacrament, but continually so long as they be members spirituall of Christes misticall body.

ReallyAnd yet this is really also (as you haue expounded the word) that is to [Page 71] say, in deed and effectually. And as the holy ghost doth not only come to vs in Baptisme, and Christ doth there eloth vs, but they doe the same to vs con­tinually so long as we dwell in Christ, so likewise doth Christ feed vs so lōg as we dwell in him and he in vs, and not only when we receaue the sacra­ment. So that as touching Christ himself, y ^e presence is all one, the clothing all one, & the feeding al one, although the one for the more comfort and con­solation, haue the sacramēt added to it, and the other be without the sacra­ment. The rest that is here spoken, is contentious wrangling to no purpose.

But now commeth in Smith with his 5. egs, Smyth. saying that I haue made hete 5. lyes in these comparisons. The first lie is (saith he) that the Papists doe say, that good men do eat and drink Christs body and bloud only when they receaue the sacrament, which thing Smyth saith the Papists do not say, but that they then onely do eat Christs body, and drinke his bloud cor­porally, which sufficeth for my purpose. For I mean no other thing, but that the Papistes teach such a corporall eating of Christes body as indureth not, but vanisheth away, and ceaseth at the furthest within few houres after the Sacramēt is receaued. But for as much as Smith agreeth here with you, the answere made before to you, wil serue for him also. And yet Smith here shall serue me in good stede against you, who haue imputed vnto me so many impudent lyes made against the Papistes in the comparisons before rehearsed: and Smith saith that this is the first lye, which is in the 8. com­parison. And so shal Smith (being mine aduersary and your frend) be such a witnes for me, as you cannot except against, to prooue that those thinges which before you said were impudent lies, be no lies at all. For this is y ^e first lye saith Smith, and then my sayinges before must be all true, and not im­pudent lies. Now to the ninth comparison.

They say that the body of Christ that is in the Sacramēt, hath his own proper forme and quantitie. We say that Christ is there Sacramentally and spiritually, without forme or quantitye.

Winchester.

In this comparison is both sleight and crafte, in the first parte of it, which is that they say, there is mention of the body of Christ, which is proper of the humanity of Christ. Christes body is vnderstanded of his humanity In the second parte, which is of ( we say) there is no mention of Christes body but of Christ, who in his diuine nature is vnderstanded present without a body. Now the Sacrament is institute of Christes body and bloud, and because the diuine nature in Christ continu­eth 2 the vnity with the body of Christ, we must néedes confesse where the body of Christ is there is wholl Christ God and man. And when we speake of Christes body, we must vn­derstand a true body, which hath both forme and quantitie, and therefore such as confesse the true Catholick faith, they affirme of Christes body all truth of a naturall body, which although it hath all those truthes of forme and quantity, yet they say Christes body is not present after the manner of quantitie, nor in a visible forme as it was conuersant in this 3 present life: but that there is truely in the Sacramēt, the very true body of Christ, which 4 good men beléeue vpon the credit of Christ that sayd so, and knowledge therwith the ma­ner of that presente to be an high mistery, and the maner so spirituall, as the carnall man cannot by discourse of reason reach it, but in his discourse shalt (as this author doth) think it a vanitie and foolishnes: which foolishnes neuerthelesse, ouercommeth the wisedome of the world. And thus haue I opened what they say on the Catholick part.

Now for the other parte whereof this author is, and with his faith ( we say) the words séeme to imploy, that Christes humain body is not in the Sacrament, in that it is sayd: Christ to be there Sacramentally and spiritually, without forme or quantitie, which say­ing hath no Scripture for it. I meruailous saying of this [...] ther without Scripture. For the Scripture speaketh of Christes body which was be­traied [Page 72] for vs, to be geuen vs to be eaten. Where also Christes diuinity is present, as ac­companyng his humanity, Christ in thin­stitution of the Sacrament, spake of his hu­manity, saying. This is my body. which humanitie is specially spoken of, the presence of which humanitie, when it is denyed, then is there no text to proue the presence of Christes diui­nity 1 specially, that is to say, other wise then it is by his omnipotency presēt euery where, And to conclude this peece of comparyson, this maner of speach was neuer I thinke red that Christ is present in the Sacrament without forme or quantity. And S. Paule spea­keth of a forme in the Godhead. ( Qui quam in forma Dei esset.) Who when he was in the forme of God. So as if Christ be present in the sacrament without all forme, Phil. 4. then is he there, neither as God nor man, which is a straunger teaching then yet hath bene heare or red of, but into such absurdities in déed do they fall, who intreat irreuerently and vntruly this high mistery. This is here worthy a spesyall note, how by the maner of the spéech in the latter part of this difference, the teaching semeth to be, that Christ is spiritually pre­sent in the Sacrament, because of the word ( there) which thou reader mayest compare how it agréeth with the rest of this authors doctrine. There. Note this con­trariety in the Author. Let vs go to the next.

Caunterbury.

SUch is the nature of many, that they can finde many knots in a playne rush, and doubtes where no doubtes ought to bee found. So fynd you sleight and craft, where I ment all thinges symply and playnly. And to a­uoyd such sleight and craft as you gather of my words, I shall expresse thē plainly thus.

The cōparison.The Papistes say, that the body of Christ that is in the Sacramēt, hath his own proper forme and quantity. We say, that the body of Christ hath not his proper forme and quantity, neither in the sacrament, nor in them y ^t receaue the Sacrament, but is in the sacrament sacramentally, and in the worthy receauers spiritually without the proper forme & quantity of his body. This was my meaning at the first, and no mā that had loked of this place indifferently, would haue taken the second part of this comparison to be vnderstanded of Christs diuine nature: for the bread and wyne be sa­craments of his body and bloud, Theodoret. dia­log. 1. and not of his diuinitie (as Theodoretus sayth) and therfore his diuine nature is not sacramentally in the sacramēt, 2 but his humayne nature onely. And what maner of spech had this ben, to say of Christes diuine nature, that it is in the sacrament without quantity, which hath in it no manner of quantitie where so euer it be? And where I set foorth these comparysons to shew wherein we vary from the Papists, what variance had ben in this comparison, if I had vnderstanded the first part of Christs humanitie, and the second of his diuinitie?

The reader by this one place among many other, may easyly discerne, how captious you be to reprehend what so euer I say, and to peruert euery thing into a wrong sense: So that in respect of you, Smith is a very indif­ferent taker of my wordes, D. Smith. although in deed he farre passeth the bondes of honesty.

Whether in the Sacrament. Christes body hath his proper forme and quan­tity.But to come directly to the matter, if it be true that you say, that in the sacrament Christes body hath all the formes and quantities of a naturall body, why say you then that his body is not there present after the manner of quantitie? Declare what difference is betweene forme and quantitie, & the manner of quantitie? And if Christes body in the Sacrament haue the same quantitie, that is to say, the same length, breadth, and thicknes, and the same forme, that is to say, the same due order, and proportion of the mē ­bers and partes of his body, that he had when he was crucified, and hath now in heauen (as he hath by your saying here in this place) then I pray [Page 73] you declare further, how the length, bredth, and thicknes of a man, should be conteined in quantitie, within the compasse of a peece of bread, no lōger nor broader then one or two inches, nor much thicker then one leafe of pa­per. How an inch may be as long as an elle, and an elle as short as an inch. How length and roundnes shall agree in one proportion: and a thicke and thin thing be both of one thicknes: which you must warrant to be brought to passe, if the forme and quantitie of Christes body be conteined vnder the forme and quantity of such bread and wine as we now vse.

But as Smyth in the last comparison did me good seruice against you, D. Smith. so shall you in this comparison do me good seruice against him. For among the fiue lyes, wherewith he chargeth me in these comparisons, he accomp­teth this for one, that I report of the Papists, that Christes body in the sa­crament hath his proper forme and quantity, which you say 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, Iohn 16. Mark. 16 Luke. 24. [...]Act. 1. 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 1 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.

2 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 3 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.

[Page 74]And because it may appeare how truely and faithfully you reporte my words, you adde this word ( all) which is more then I speake, All. 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 7 doctrine, There. 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; y ^t 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.

A riddle may cō taine truth of nay, and pea. be­ing in appearāce two contraries.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 1 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 2 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 3 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. Augustinus. I speciall diffe­rence in S. Au­gustine. Thus he sayth: And this is euident of it selfe, how to vs in the holy supper (Christ saith) This is my body that shalbe betraied for you, take 4 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 5 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 6 time, which furthereth in sound to the eares of the rude, the pestilent heresie wherin Ione of Kent obstinately dyed, [...]ne of Kentes [...]. that is to say, that Christ tooke nothing of the Uirgine, but [Page 75] brought his body with him from aboue, beyng a thing worthy to be noted, how the olde heresy, denying the true taking of the flesh of Christ in the virgins wombe, at the same tyme to reuiue. When the true deliuerance of Christs flesh in the holy supper to be of vs eaten, is also denied. For as it is a meere trueth without figure, and yet an high mistery, Gods worke in the incarnation of Christ, wherein our flesh was of Christ truely taken of the virgins substance: So is it a meere trueth, without figure in the substance of the ce­lestiall thing, & yet an high mistery and Gods worke, in the geuing of the same true flesh, truely to be in the supper eaten. When I exclude figure in the sacrament, I mene not of the visible part which is called a figure of the celestial inuisible part, which is truely there without figure, Nouelty of speech. so as by that figure is not impayred the truth of that presence, which I ad to auoyd cauilation. And make an end of this comparison, this I say, that this article de­clareth wantonnes to make a difference in words, where none is in the sence rightly ta­ken, with a noueltie of spéech not necessary to be vttered now.

Caunterbury.

NOte well here reader, how the cuttill commeth in with his darke cou­lours.

Where I speake of the substaunce of the thing that is eaten, you turne it to the manner and circumstaunces thereof, to blynde the simple reader, and that you may make therof a riddle of yea and nay, as you be wont to make blacke white, and white blacke: or one thing yea and nay, black and white at your pleasure.

1 But to put away your darke coulours, and to make the matter playne, The fathers did eat Christs flesh and drink his bloud. this I say, that the fathers and prophets did eat Christes body and drinke his bloud in promise of redemptiō to be wrought, and we eat and drink the same flesh and bloud in confirmation of our faith in the redemption all rea­dy wrought.

But as the fathers did eat and drinke, so did also the Apostles at Christ his supper, in promise of redemtion to be wrought, not in confirmation of redēption already wrought. So that if wrought and to be wrought, make the diuersitie of presence and not presence, then the Apostles did not eat and drinke the flesh and bloud of Christ really present, because the redemption was not then already wrought, but promised the next day to be wrought.

2 And although before the crucifiyng of his flesh and effusion of his bloud our redemption was not actually wrought by Christ, yet was he spiritual­ly and sacramentally present, and spiritually and sacramentally eaten and drunken, not onely of the Apostles at his last supper before hee suffered his passion, but also of the holy Patriarkes and fathers before his incarnation, aswell as he is now of vs after his ascention.

And although in the manner of signifiyng there be great difference be­tween their sacraments and ours, yet (as S. Augustine saith) both we and they receaue one thing in the diuersitie of Sacraments. The diuersitie of the sacramēts of the new and olde testament. August. in. Ioan. Tract. 26. And our Sacra­ments contain presently the very things signified, no more then theirs did. For in their sacraments they were by Christ presently regenerated and fed, as we be in ours, although their sacraments were figures of the death of Christ to com, and ours be figurs of his death now past. And as it is al one Christ that was to be borne and to dye for vs, and afterward was borne in deede and dyed in deede (whose byrth and death be now passed) so was the same Christ, and the same flesh and bloud eaten and drunken of the faithfull fathers before he was borne or dead, and of his Apostles after he was born [Page 76] and before he was dead, and of faithfull christen people is now dayly eaten and drunken after that both his natiuity and death be passed. And al is but one Christ, one flesh & one bloud, as concerning the sustance, yet that which to the fathers was to come, is to vs passed. And neuerthelesse the eating & drinking is all one, for neither the fathers did, nor we do eat carnally and corporally with our mouthes, but both the fathers did and we do eat spiri­tually by true and liuely faith. The Fathers did eate Christs body and drinke his bloud before he was borne. The body of Christ was and is all one to the fathers and to vs, but corporally and locally he was yet borne vnto them, & from vs he is gone: and ascended vp into heauē. So that to neither he was nor is carnally, substantially and corporally present, but to them he was & to vs he is spiritually present and sacramentally also, and of both sacramē ­tally, spiritually and effectually eaten and drunken, to eternall saluation & euerlasting lyfe.

And this is plainly enough declared in the Scripture, to them that haue 3 willing mindes to vnderstand the truth. For it is written in the old Testa­ment Eccle. 24. in the person of Christ thus: They that eat me, shall yet hun­ger, and they that drinke me shall yet be thirsty.

1. Cor. 10.And S. Paule writeth to the Corinthians, saying: Our fathers did all eat the same spirituall meat, and did all drink the same spirituall drinke, and they drank of that spirituall rock that followed them, which rock was Christ. August. de vtil. paeniten. These words S. Augustine expounding sayth: What is to eat the same meat: but that they did eate the same which wee doe. Who so euer in Manna vnderstood Christ, did eat the same spirituall meat that we do, y ^t is to say, that meat which was receaued with fayth and not with bodyes. Therefore to them that vnderstood and beleued, it was the same meat and the same drinke. So that to such as vnderstoode not, the meate was onely Manna, and the drinke, onely water, but to such as vnderstood, it was the same that is now. For thē was Christ to come, who is now come. To come and is come, be diuers wordes, but it is the same Christ. These be S. Au­gustines sayings.

And because you say, that it is more agreable to the scripture, to say, that the fathers before Christs natiuity did not eat the body and drink the bloud 4 of Christ: I pray you shew me one scripture that so saith. And shew me also one approued author that disalowed S. Augustines mind by me here al­leaged, because you say, that all doe not agree to his vnderstanding. And in the 77. August. in psal. 77. Psalme S. Augustine saith also: The stone was Christ. Therefore the same was the meat & drinke of the fathers in the mistery, wich is ours, but in significatiō the same, not in outward forme. For it is one Christ him selfe, that to them was figured in the stone, and to vs manyfestly appeared in flesh. August. in Ioā. Tract. 26. And saint Augustine sayth playnely, that both Manna and our Sacrament signifieth Christ, and that although the Sacraments were dyuers, yet in the thing by them ment and vnderstand, they were both like. And so after the mynd of S. Augustine it is cleare, that the same thinges were geuen to the faithfull receiuers in the Sacraments of the old Testa­ment, that be geuen in the new: the same to them was circumcisiō, that to vs is baptisme: and to them by Manna was geuen the same thing, that now is geuen to vs in the sacramentall bread.

And if I would graunt for your pleasure, that in theyr sacramēts Christ was promised, and that in ours, he is really geuen, doth it not then followe 5 [Page 77] aswell that Christ is geuen in the sacrament of Baptisme, as that he is ge­uen in the Sacrament of his flesh and bloud? And S. Augustin contra Fau­stum, August. contra Faustum lib. 19. cap. 16. & 20. cap 21. esteemeth them madde, that think diuersity betweene the things sig­nified in the old and new testament, because the signes be diuers. And ex­pressing the matter playnely, sayth, that the flesh and bloud of our sacryfice before Christs comming, was promised [...] y sacryfices of similitudes, in his passion was geuen indeed, & after his as [...]ntion is solemnly put in our me­mory by the Sacrament.

And the thing which you say S. Augustine noteth to be geuen in the sa­craments of the new testament, August. in psal. 73. and to be promised in the sacramentes of the olde, S. Augustine expresseth the thing which he ment, that is to say, saluation and eternall lyfe by Christ. And yet in thys mortall lyfe we haue not eternall lyfe in possession, but in promise, as the prophets had. But S. Augustine sayth, that we haue the promise, because we haue Christ all rea­dy come, which by y ^e Prophets was promised before that he should come, & therefore S. Iohn the Baptist was called more then a Prophet, because he said: Iohn. 1. Here is the lamb of God already preset, which the Prophets taught vs to looke for, vntill he came.

The effect therfore of S. Augustins words plainly to be expressed, was this, that the prophets in the old testament Promised a sauiour to come, & redeem the world, (which the sacraments of that tyme testified vntill hys comming): but now he is already come, and hath by his death performed that was promised, which our sacramentes testifie vnto vs, as S. Augu­stine declareth more playnely in his booke De fide ad Petrum, the xix. chapter. So that S. Augustine speaketh of the geuing of Christ to death, August. de fide ad Pet. cap. 19. (which the sacraments of the old testament, testified to come, and ours testify to be done) and not of the geuing of him in the sacraments.

And forasmuch as S. Augustine spake generally of all the sacraments, therefore if you will by his words proue, that Christ is corporally in the sa­crament of the holy communion, you may aswell proue, that he is corporal­ly in baptisme. For saint Augustine speaketh no more of the one then of the other. But where saint Augustin speaketh generally of al the sacraments, you restrayne the matter particularly to the sacrament of the Lords supper onely, that the ignoraunt reader should thinke, that saynt Augustine spake of the corporall presence of Christ in the sacramentes, and that onely in the sacraments of bread and wine, where as saynt Augustine himself speaketh onely of our saluation by Christ, and of the sacraments in generall.

And neuerthelesse as the fathers had the same Christ and mediator that we haue (as you here confesse) so did they spiritually eat his f [...]esh and drinke his bloud (as we doe) and spiritually feed of him, and by faith he was pre­sent with thē (as he is with vs) although carnally and corporally he was yet to come vnto thē, and from vs is gon vp to his father into heauen.

This besides saynt Augustine is plainely set out by Bertrame aboue 6. hundreth yeares passed, Bertram. whose iudgement in this matter of the sacrament, although you allow not (because it vtterly cōdemneth your doctrine there­in) yet forasmuch as hytherto his teaching was neuer reproued by none, but by you alone, and that he is commēded of other, as an excellent learned man in holy scripture, and a notable famous man, aswell in liuing as lear­ning, and y ^t among his excellent works this one is specially praised, which [Page 78] he wrot of the matter of the Sacramēt of the body and bloud of our Lord, therfore I shall reherse his teaching in this point, how the holy fathers and Prophets before the comming of Christ did eat Christes flesh and drink his bloud: So that although Bertrams saying be not estemed with you, yet the indifferent reader may see what was written in this matter, before your doctrine was inuented. And although his authority be not receiued of you, yet his words may serue against Smyth, Smyth. who herein more learnedly, and with more iudgement then you, approueth this author. This is Bertrams doctrine S. Paule saith, that all the old fathers did eat the same spirituall meat, and drinke the same spiritual drink. But peraduenture thou wilt ask, Which the same? Euen the very same that christen people do daily eat and drinke in the church. For we may not vnderstand diuers things, when it is one and the self same Christ, which in times past did feed with his flesh, and made to drink of his bloud, the people that were baptised in the cloude and sea, in the wildernes, and which doth now in the church feed christen peo­ple with the bread of his body, and giueth thē to drink the floud of his bloud. When he had not yet taken mans nature vpon him, whē he had not yet ta­sted death for the saluation of the world, not redemed vs with his bloud, neuertheles euen then our forefathers by spiritual meat and inuisible drink did eat his body in the wildernes and drink his bloud, as the Apostle bea­reth witnesse, saying: The same spiritual meat, the same spiritual drink. For he that now in the church by his omnipotent power doth spiritually con­uert bread & wine into the flesh of his body, and into the floud of his owne bloud, he did thē inuisibly so worke, that Manna which came from heauen was his body, and the water his bloud. Now by the thinges here by me al­ledged, it euidently appereth, that this is no nouelty of speech to say, that the holy fathers and Prophets did eat Christes flesh and drink his bloud. For both the scripture and old authors vse so to speake, how much soeuer y ^e spech mislike them, that like no fashion but their own.

Ione of Kent.And what doth this further y ^e pestilent heresy of Ione of Kent? Is this 6 a good argument? The fathers did eat Christes flesh and drinke his bloud spiritually before he was borne, ergo after he was not corporally borne of his mother? Or because he was corporally borne, is he not therefore dayly eaten spiritually of his faithfull people? Because he dwelt in the world cor­porally from his incarnation vnto his ascention, did he not therfore spiritu­ally dwell in his holy members before that tyme, and hath so done euer si­thens, and will do to the worldes end? Or if he be eaten in a figure, can you induce thereof that he was not borne without a figure? Do not such kynde of argumentes fauour the errour of Ione of Kent? Yea do they not mani­festly approue her pestiferous heresy, if they were to be alowed? What man that meaneth the trueth, would bring in such manner of resoning to deface the truth? And yet it is not to be denied, but that Christ is truely eaten, as he was truly born, but the one corporally and without figure, and the other spiritually, and with a figure. Now followeth my 11, comparison. The 11. compa­rison.

They say, that the body of Christ is euery day many tymes made, as often as there be Masses sayd, and that then and there he is made of bread and wine. We say, that Christes body was neuer but once made, and then not of the nature & substance of bread and wine, but of the substance of his blessed mother.

Winchester.

The body of Christ, is by Gods omnipotency, who so worketh in his word, made pre­sent vnto vs at such tyme, as the church praye, it may please him so to doe, which prayer is ordred to be made in the booke of common prayer now set foorth. The booke of common prayer in this Realme. Wherin we require of 2 God, the creatures of bread and wine to be sanctified, and to be to vs the body and bloud of Christ, which they can not be, vnlesse God worketh it, and make them so to be: In which 1 mistery it was neuer taught, as this author willingly misreporteth, Christes body in the sacrament is not made of y ^e matter of bread. that Christes most 3 precious body is made of the matter of bread, but in that order, exhibited and made preset vnto vs, by conuersion of the substaunce of bread into his precious body, not a new body made of a new matter of bread and wine, but a new presence of the body, that is neuer old made present there, where the substāce of bread and wine was before. So as this compa­rison of difference is meere wrangling and so euident, as it needeth no further aunswere, but a note: Lo how they be not ashamed to trifle in so great a matter, and without cause by wrong termes, to bring the truth in sclander (if it were possible.) May not this be ac­compted, 4 as a part of Gods punishmēt, for men of knowledge to write to the people such matter seriously, as were not tolerable to be by a scoffer deuised in a play, to supply when his fellow had forgotten his part.

Caunterbury.

Christ is present when so euer the church praieth vnto him, and is gathe­red togither in his name. And the bread and wine be made vnto vs y ^e 1 body and bloud of Christ, The booke of common prayer (as it is in the book of common praier) but not by chaunging the substaunce of bread and wine into the substance of Christes naturall body and bloud, but that, in the godly vsing of thē, they be vnto the receauers Christes body and bloud. As of some the Scripture saith, y ^t their riches is their redemption, and to some it is their damnatiō: Prouerb. 23. Rom. 1. 1. Cor. 1. 2. Cor. 2. Iac. 8. Esay. 1. Math. 22. 1. Pet. 2. Iohn. 11. And as Gods word to some is life, to some it is death and a snare (as the prophet saith.) And Christ himself to some is a stone to stumble at, to some is a raysing frō death, not by conuersion of substances, but by good or euill vse: that thing which to the godly is saluation; to the vngodly is damnation. So is the water in baptism, and the bread and wine in the Lords supper, to the wor­thy receauers, Christ himselfe and eternall life, and to the vnworthy recea­uers euerlasting death and damnation, not by conuersion of one substance into an other, but by godly or vngodly vse thereof. And therfore in the book of the holy communion we do not pray absolutely, that the bread and wine may be made the body and bloud of Christ, but that vnto vs in that holy mistery they may be so, that is to say, Domin. 3. post Trin. Secret Muneram libidinem quibus oblata sanctifica, vt tui, nobis vnigeniti corpus & sāguis fiant ad medelā. that we may so worthely receaue the same, that we may be partakers of Christes body and bloud, and that ther­with in spirit and in truth we may be spiritually nourished. And a like prai­er of old time were all the people wont to make at the communion, of all such offerings, as at that time all the people vsed to offer, praying that their offerings might be vnto them the body and bloud of Christ.

And where you say, it was neuer taught as I say, Whether the body of Christ be made of bread. that Christs body is 2 made of the matter of bread, you knowingly and willingly misreport me. For I say not, of the matter of bread, but of bread, which when you deny that the Papists so say, it semeth you be now ashamed of the doctrin; which the Papistes haue taught thys 4. or 5. hundred yeres. For is it not playnely written of all the Papists, both lawyers and scholl authors, that the body of Christ in the sacramēt is made of bread, and his bloud of wine? And they say not that his body is made present of bread & wine, but is made of bread and wine. Be not their books in print ready to be shewed? Do they not say, [Page 80] that the substance of the bread neither remaineth still nor is turned into no­thing, but into the body of Christ? And do not your selfe also say here in this place, that the substance of bread is conuerted into Christes precious body? And what is that els, but the body of Christ to be made of bread, and to be made of a new matter? For if the bread doe not vanish away into nothing, but be turned into Christes body, then is Christs body made of it, and then 3 it must needes follow that Christes body is made of new, and of an orher substance then it was made of in his mothers wombe. For there it was made of her flesh and bloud, and here it is made of bread and wine. And the Papistes say not (as you now would shift of the matter) that Christes body is made present of bread, but they say plainly without addition, that it is made of bread. Can you deny that this is the plain doctrine of the Papists Ex pane fit Corpus Christi, of bread is made the body of Christ, and that the sub­stance of bread is turned into the substance therof [...] And what reason, sen­tence, or english, could be in this saying, Christes body is made present of bread? Marye to be present in bread might be some sentence, but y ^e speeche will you in no wise admitte.

And this your saying here (if the reader mark it wel) turneth ouer quite and cleane all the wholl Papisticall doctrine in this matter of the Sacra­ment, Pugnat cum a­lijs Papistis. as well touching transubstantiation, as also the carnall presence. For their doctrine with one whol consent and agreement is this. That the sub­stance of bread remaineth not, but is turned into the substance of Christes 4 body, and so the body of Christ is made of it. But this is false (say you) and not tollerable to be by a scoffer deuised in a place, to supply when his fellow had forgotten his part. And so the wholl doctrine of the papists, which they haue taught these 4. or 5. hundreth yeares, doe you condemne with con­digne reproches, as a teaching intollerable, not to be deuised by a scoffer in a play. Why doe you then take vpon you to defend the Papistical doctrine, if it be so intollerable? Why doe you not forsake those scoffers and players, which haue iugled with the world so long, and embrace the most certayne truth, that Christs body is not made of bread? And seeing that you embrace it here in this one place, why stand you not constantly therin but goe from it againe in all the rest of your booke, defending the Papisticall doctrine cleane contrary to yours in this pointe, in that they teach that Christes bo­dy is made of bread.

And you varry so much from your selfe herein, that although you deny the Papistes sayinges in wordes, that Christes body is made of bread, yet in effect you graunt and maintayn the same, which you say is intollerable, and not to be deuised by a scoffer in a play. For you say, that Christ calleth bread his body, and that his calling is making. And then if he make bread his body, it must needes follow that he maketh his body of the bread: more­ouer you say, Making by conuersion. that Christes body is made present by conuersion, or turning of the substance of bread, into the substance of his precious bodye, where of must follow, that his body is made of bread. For when so euer one substāce is turned into another, thē the second is made of the first. As, because earth was turned into the body of Adam, Gen. 2. we say that Adam was made of earth and that Eue was made of Adams ribbe: And the wine in Galily made of water, Iohn. 2. because the water was turned into wine, and the ribbe of Adames side into the body of Eue. If the water had beene put out of the pottes, and [Page 81] wine put in for the water, we might haue saide that the wine had been made present there, where the water was before: But then we might not haue said that the wine had been made of the water, because y ^e water was emptied out, and not turned into wine. But when Christ turned the water into the wine, then by reason of that turning, we say that y ^e wine was made of the water. So likewise if the bread be turned into the substance of Christ his body, we must not only say that the body of Christ is present, where the bread was before, but also that it is made of the bread, because that the sub­stance of the bread is conuerted and turned into the substaunce of his bodye. Which thing the papists saw must needes follow, and therfore they plain­ly confessed, that the body of Christ was made of bread, which doctrine (as you truely say in this place) is intollerable, and not to be deuised by a scoffer in a play, when his fellow had forgotten his parte. And yet you so far for­get your selfe in this booke, that throughout the same (what so euer you say here) you defend the same intollerable doctrin, not to be deuised by a scoffer.

And where Smith accounteth here my fourth lye, that I say, D. Smith. that the Papistes say, that Christes body is made of bread and wine. Here Smith and you agree both together in one lye. For it is truth and no lye, that the Papistes so say and teach, as Smith in other parts of his booke saith, that Christes body is made of bread, and that priestes doe make Christes body. My 12. comparison is this.

They say that the masse is a Sacrifice satisfactory for sinne, by the deuotion of the Priest that offreth, and not by the thing that is offered. But we say that their saying is a most haynous, yea and detestable error against the glory of Christ: for the satisfaction for our sinnes, is not the deuotion nor offering of the Priest, but the only host and satisfactiō for all the sinnes of the world, is the death of Christ, and the oblation of his body vpon the Crosse, that is to say: The oblation that Christ him selfe offred once vpon the crosse, and neuer but once, not neuer any but he. And therfore that oblation which the Priestes make dayly in their papi­sticall masses, cannot be a satisfaction for other mennes sinnes by the Priests de­uotion: but it is a mere illusion, and suttle crafte of the Deuil, wherby Antichrist hath many yeares blinded and deceiued the world.

Winchester.

1 This comparison is out of the matter of the presence of Christes most precious body in the Sacrament, which presence this author (in the first part of his comparison) semeth by 2 implication to graunt, when he findeth fault that the priestes deuotion should be a sacri­fice satisfactory, and not the thing that is offered, which maner of doctrine I neuer read, & 3 I thinke my selfe it ought to be improued, if any such there be to make the deuotion of the Priest a satisfaction. For vndoubtedly Christ is our satisfaction wholly, and fully, Christ is our satisfaction. who hath payd our wholl debt to God the Father, for the appeasing of his iust wrath againste vs, and hath cancelled the bill obligatory (as S Paul saith) that was against vs. For fur­ther opening whereof, if it be asked how he satisfied: How Christ sa­tisfied. we answere, as we be taught by the Scriptures: By the accomplishment of the will of his Father, in his innocent willing, & obedient suffering the miseries of this world without sinne, and the violent persecution of the world, euen to the death of the Crosse, and sheading of his most precious bloud. Wherein was perfited the willing Sacrifice that he made of him selfe to God the Father for vs, of whom it was written in the beginning of the booke, that he should lie the body and perfectt accomplishment of all Sacrifices, as of whom all other sacrifices before, were shadowes and figures.

And here is to be considered, Christes wi [...]. how the obedient will in Christes Sacrifice is specially to [Page 82] be noted, who suffered because he would. Which S. Paul setteth forth in declaration of Christes humility. And although that willing obedience was ended and perfected on the crosse, to the which it continued from the beginning, by reason wherof the oblatiō is in S. Paules spéech attributed thereunto: Yet as in the Sacrifice of Abraham when he offered Isaac, the earnest will of offering was accounted for the offering in déede, whereupon it is said in Scripture that Abraham offered Isaac, and the declaration of the will of Abraham 4 is called the offering. So the declaration of Christes will in his last Supper, was an offe­ring of him to God the Father, assuring there his Apostles of his will and determination and by them all the world, that his body should be betrayed for them and vs, and his preci­ous bloud shed for remission of sinne. which his word he confirmed then, with the gifte of his precious body to be eaten, and his precious bloud to be dronken. In which mistery, he declared his body and bloud to be the wery Sacrifice of the world, by him offered to God y ^e father, by the same will that he said hid body should be betrayed for vs. And thereby ascer­tained vs that to be in him willing, that the Iewēs on the crosse séemed to execute by vio­lence and force against his will. And therfore as Christ offred himself on the crosse, in the 5 execution of the worke of his will: so he offered himself in his Supper, in 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.

Christes once offering.And this I write because this author speaketh so precisely, how Christ offred himselfe 6 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, 7 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, Phil. 1. vnder the word of hu­miliation, to haue continued the wholl time of Christes conuersation here, euen to y ^e death the death of the crosse. And that this obedience to God, in humilitie is called offering, ap­peareth 8 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. Rom. 12. 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 9 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 10 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 [Page 83] 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, y ^e Church hath celebrate thē all, and knowledged them all, of one certainty in truth, not as figures, Truthes linked together. but really and in déede, that is to say, as our bodies shalbe 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 y ^t 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, Emissenus, Christ is the inuisible priest. 1. Cor. 4. 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, Errors. One offering of Christ, not ma­ny. 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, and prayer. If man should then waxe proud, 1. Iohn. 2. and glory as of him selfe, and extoll his own deuotiō in these ministeries, such men should bewray their own naughty hipocrisie, & yet therby empayr not the very dignity of y ^e mini­stery, ne the very true fruit and effect therof. And therfore when the Church by the mini­ster, and with the minister prayeth that the creatures of bread and wine, set on the aultar (as the booke of common prayer in this Realme hath ordred) may be vnto vs the body and bloud of our sauiour Christ, we require then the celebration of the same Supper, which Christ made to his Apostles, for to be the continuall memory of his death, with all fruite and effect, such as the same had in the first institution.

Wherfore when the minister pronounceth Christes wordes, as spoaken of his mouth, it is to be beléeued, that Christ doth now, as he did then. And it is to be noted, y ^t although in the Sacrament of Baptisme, the minister saith (I baptise thée,) yet in the celebration of his Supper, the wordes be spoaken in Christes person, as saying him selfe, this is my bo­dy that is broaken for you, which is to vs not onely a memory, but an effectuall memory 11 with the very presence of Christes body and bloud, our very Sacrifice. Who doing now, as he did then, offreth him selfe to his Father as he did then, not to renue that offering, as though it were imperfecte, but continually to refresh vs, that daily fall and decay. And as S. Iohn saith, Christ is our aduocate and intreateth for vs, or pleadeth for vs, not to sup­ply any want on Gods behalfe, but to relieue our wantes in edification, wherein the mi­nistery of the Church trauaileth to bring man to perfection in Christ, which Christ him­selfe [Page 84] doth assist, and absolutely performe in his Church, his misticall body. Now whē we haue Christes body thus present in the celebration of the holy Supper, and by Christes mouth present vnto vs, saying, this is my body which is betraied for you. Then haue we Christes body recommended vnto vs as our Sacrifice, and a Sacrifice propitiatory for all the sinnes of the world, being the onely Sacrifice of Christes Church, the pure and cleane Sacrifice wherof the Prophet Malachie spake, Mala. 1. and wherof the Fathers in Christs church haue since the beginning continually written, the very true presence whereof, most con­stantly beléeued, hath encreased from time to time such ceremonies as haue béene vsed in the celebration of that Supper, in which by Christes own mouth we be ascertained of his most glorious death and passion, and the selfe same body that suffred, deliuered vnto vs in mistery to be eaten of vs, and therefore so to be worshipped and acknowledged of vs, as our very onely Sacrifice, in whom, by whom, and for whom, our other priuate giftes and Sacrifices be acceptable, and no otherwise.

Errors.And therfore as Christ declareth in the Supper himselfe an offering, and Sacrifice for our sinne: offering himselfe to his Father as our Mediator, and so therewith recommen­deth to his Father the Church his body, for which he suffreth: so the Church at the same 3 Supper in their offering of laudes and thankes, The whole church by the minister the priest offereth Christ present as a sacrifice propitiatory, wherin is she­wed our Lords death. with such other giftes as they haue re­ceaued from God, ioyne them selues with their head Christ, presenting, and offering him, as one by whom, for whom, and in whom, all that by Gods grace man can doe well, is a­uailable, and acceptable, and without whom, nothing by vs done, can be pleasaunt in the sight of God. Wherupon this perswasion hath béen truely conceiued, which is also in the booke of common prayer, in the celebration of the holy supper retained, that it is very pro­fitable at that time, when the memory of Christes death is solemnized, to remember with prayer all estates of the Church, and to recommend them to God, which S. Paule to Ti­mothy, séemeth to require. At which time as Christ signifieth vnto vs the certainty of his death, and geueth vs to be eaten, as it were in pledge, the same his precious body that suf­fered: So we for declaration of our confidence in the death and Sacrifice, doe kindely re­member with thankes his speciall giftes: and charitably remember the rest of the mēbers of Christes church with praier, and as we are able, should with our bodely goodes remem­ber at that time specyally to reléeue such as haue néede by pouerty.

And againe, as Christ putteth vs in remembraunce of his great benefite, so we should throughly remember him for our parte, with the true confession of this mistery, wherin is recapitulate a memoriall of all giftes and misteries that God in Christ hath wrought for vs. In the consideration and estimation wherof, as there hath been a fault in the securitie of such, as so their names were remembred in this holy time of memory, they cared not how much they forgat themselues: So there may be a fault in such, as neglecting it, care 4 not whether they be remembred there at all, & therfore would haue it nothing but a plain eating and drinking. How much the remembrance in prayer may auaile, no man can pre­scribe, but that it auaileth euery christen man must confesse. Man may nothing arrogate to his deuotion. Iacob. 5. But S. Iames said truely ( Multum valet oratio iusti assidua.) It is to be abhorred to haue hipocrites that counterfaite deuotion, but true deuotion is to be wished of God and prayed for, which is Gods gifte, not to obscure his glory, but to set it forth, not that we should then trust in mennes merites and prayers, but laude and glorifie God in them ( Qui talem potestatem dedit hominibus) one to be iudged able to reléeue another with his prayer, referring all to procéede from God, by the mediation of our Sauiour and redée­mer Iesus Christ.

I haue taryed long in this matter, to declare that for the effect of all celestiall or world­ly giftes to be obteyned of God in the celebration of Christes holy Supper, when we call it the communion, is now prayed for to be present, and is present, and with Gods fauoure shalbée obtayned, if we deuoutly, reuerently, charitably, and quietly, vse and frequents the same, without other innouations then the order of the booke prescribeth. Now to the last difference.

Caunterbury.

HOw is this comparison out of the matter of the presence of Christes most precious body in the Sacrament, when the Papistes say that the 1 [Page 85] masse is not a sacrifice propiciatory, but because the presence of Christes most precious body beyng presently there? And yet if this comparison be out of the matter (as you say it is) why doe you then wrastle and wrangle with it so much? And doe I seeme to graunt the peesence of Christs body in the first part of my comparison, when I do nothing there but rehearce what y ^e Papists do say? But because all this proceeds (which you bring in here out of tune and time) belōgeth to the last booke, I wil passe it ouer vnto the propper place, onely by the way touching shortly some notable wordes.

2 Although you neuer red that the oblation of the priest, is satisfactory by deuotion of the priest, Whether the Masse be satis­factory by the deuotiō of the priest. yet neuerthelesse the papistes doe so teach, and you may finde it in their S. Thomas, Thom. part. 3. q [...] 79. art 5. both in his Summe, and vpon the 4. of the sentences, whose wordes haue been red in the Uninersities almost these 300. yeares, and neuer vntill this day reproued by any of the papists in this point. He saith: ‘Quod Sacrificium Sacerdotis habet vim satisfactiuam, sed in satisfactione magis attenditur affectus offerentis, quam quantitas oblationis. Ide satisfactoria est illis pro quibus offertur, vel etiam offerentibus, secundum quantitatem suae deuotionis, & non pro tota paena.’

3 But here the Reader may see in you, that the aduersaries of the truth sometime be inforced to say the truth, although sometime they doe it vn­wares: as Caiphas prophesied the truth, and as you doe here confes, that Christ is our satisfaction wholly and fully. Ioh. 11.

And yet the Reader may note your inconstancy. For afterward in the last booke you geue Christ such a nippe, that of that whole satisfactiō, you pinch halfe away from him, and ascribe it to the sacrifice of the Priest, as I shall more fully declare in my answere to y ^e last book. For you say there that the sacrifice of Christ geueth vs life, and that the sacrifice of the priest continueth our life.

And here good Reader, thou art to be warned that this wryter in this place, goeth about craftely to draw thee from the very worke of our full redemptiō, wrought by our Sauiour Christ vpon the crosse, vnto a Sa­crifice (as they say) made by him, the night before at his last supper. And forasmuch as euery priest (as the papists say) maketh the same sacrifice in his masse, therfore consequently it followeth by this writer, that we must seeke our redemptiō at the priests sacrifice. And so Christes blessed passion (which he most obediently and willingly suffered for our saluation vpon the crosse,) was not the onely and sufficient sacrifice for remission of our sinnes.

The onely will (I graunt) both in good thinges and euill, is accepted, or reiected before God, and sometime hath the name of the facte, as the will of Abraham to offer his sonne, is called the oblation of his sonne: The declarati­on of Christes will to die, was not a sacrifice propiciatory for sinne. and Christ called him an adulterer, in his hart that desireth another mannes wife, although there be no fact committed in deede.

4 And yet Abrahams will alone was not called the oblation of his snōe, Heb. 11. but his will declared by many factes and circumstāces: Math. 5. Gen. 22. For he carryed his sonne three dayes iorney to the place where God had appointed him to slea and offer his sonne Isaac, whom he most intirely loued. He cutte wood to make the fire for that purpose, he layd the wood vpon his sonnes backe, and made him to cary y ^e same wood wherwith he should be brent. [Page 86] And Abraham himselfe (commanding hys seruauntes to tary at the foot of the hill) caryed the fire and sword wherwith he entended (as God had commaunded) to kill his own sonne whom he so deerely loued. And by the way as they went, his sonne sayd vnto his father: Father, see, here is fire and wood, but where is the sacrifice that must be killed? How these wordes of the sonne pearced the fathers hart, euery louinge father may iudge by the affection which he beareth to his own children. For what man would not haue been abashed and stayed at these wordes? thinking thus within him selfe: Alas sweete sonne, thou doest aske me where the sacrifice is, thy self art the same sacrifice that must be slayn, & thou (poore innocent) caryest thine own death vpon thy backe, and the wood where­with thy self must be brent. Thou art he whom I must slea, which art most innocent, and neuer offended. Such thoughtes you may bee sure, pearced thorow Abrahams hart, no les then the very death of his sonne should haue done. 2. Reg. 12. As Dauid lamentably bewayled his sonne lying in y ^e panges of death, but after he was dead, he tooke his death quietly & cō ­fortably enough. But nothing could altar Abrahams hart, or moue him to disobey God, but forth on he goeth with his sonne to the place which God had appointed, and there he made an altar, and layd the wood vpon it, and bound his sonne, & layd him vpon the heape of y ^e woode in the al­tar, and tooke the sword in his hand, and lifted vp his arme to strike, and kill his sonne, and would haue done so in deede if the angell of God had not letted him, commaunding him in the stede of his sonne to take a ram, that was fast by the hornes in the bryars. This obedience of Abraham vnto Gods commaundement in offering of his sonne, declared by so ma­ny actes and circumstances, is called in the Scripture the offering of his sonne, and not the will onely.

Nor the scripture calleth not the declaration of Christes will in his last supper to suffer death, by the name of a sacrifice satisfactory for sinne, nor saith not that he was there offered in deede. For the will of a thing is not in deede the thing. And if the declaration of his wil to dy, had been an ob­lation and sacrifice propitiatory for sinne: Then had Christ been offered not only in his supper, but as often as he declared his wil to dye. As whē he said long before his Supper many times, that he should be betrayed, Math. 20. Marc. 10. Luc. 18. Iohn. 2. Iohn. 6. Iohn. 10. scourged, spitte vpon, and crucified, and that the third day he should rise againe. And when he had them destroy the temple of his body, & he would builde it vp agayn within three dayes. And when he said that he would geue his flesh for the life of the world, and his life for his sheepe.

And if these were sacrifices propitiatory or satisfactory, for remission of sinne, what needed he then after to dye, if he had made the propitiatory sa­crifice for sinne already? For either the other was not vailable thereto, or els his death was in vaine, as S. Paule reasoneth of the priestes of the old law, and of Christ. And it is not red in any scripture, that Christs will declared at his supper, Heb. 2. was effectuous and sufficient for our redem­tion, but that his most willing death and passion, was the oblation suffi­cient to endure for euer and euer, world without end.

But what sleights & shifts this writer doth vse to winde the Reader into his error, it is wōder to see, by deuising to make two sacrifices of one will, the one by declaratiō, the other by execution, a deuise such as was [Page 87] neuer imagined before of no man, & meete to come out of a pha [...]tast [...]all 6 head. But I say precisely, y ^t Christ offered himself neuer but once, Rom. 6. Heb. 7. 9. 10. 1. Pet. 3. because y ^e scripture so precisely & so many times saith so, & hauing y ^e same for my warrāt, it maketh me y ^e bolder to stād against you, y ^t deny y ^e thing which is so often times repeated in scripture. And where you say, that there is 7 no scripture wherupō we might cōclude, y ^t Christ did in this mortal life, but in one particular momēt of time offer him self to y ^e father: to what pur­pose you bring forth this momēt of time I cānot tell, for I made no mēt [...]on therof, but of y ^e day of his death, & the scripture saith plainly, Heb. 9. y ^t as it is ordai­ned for euerye man to dye but once, so Christe was offered but once. Ibidem. And saith further, that sinne is not forgeuē but by effusiō of bloud, & therefore if Christ had ben offered many times, he should haue dyed many times. Phil. 2. And of any other offering of Christes body for sin, the scripture speaketh not. For although S. Paul to the Phillippiās, speaketh of the humiliatiō of Christ by his incarnatiō, & so to worldly miseries & afflictiōs, euē vnto death vpō the crosse, yet he calleth not euery humiliatiō of Christ, a sacrifice & oblatiō 8 for remissiō of sin, but onely his oblatiō vpō good Fryday, which as it was our perfect redēptiō, so was it our perfect recōciliatiō, propitiatiō, & satisfactiō for sinne. And to what purpose you make here a long processe of our sa­crifices of obedience vnto Gods cōmaūdemēts: I cānot deuise. For I de­clare in my last booke, that all our whole obedience vnto Gods will a com­maūdemēts, is a sacrifice acceptable to God, but not a sacrifice propitia­tory: for y ^e sacrifice Christ onely made, and by that his sacrifice, all our Sa­crifices be acceptable to God, & without y ^t, none is acceptable to him. And by those sacrifices al christē people offer thēselues to God, but they offer not Christ again for sin, for y ^t did neuer creature but Christ him self alone: nor he neuer but vpō good Fryday. For although he did institute the night before a remēbrance of his death, vnder the Sacramēts of bread & wine, yet he made not at y ^t time the sacrifice of our redēptiō, & satisfaction for our sinnes, but the next day following. And the declaration of Christ at his last supper, that he would suffer death, was not the cause wherfore Ciprian sayd that Christ offered himselfe in his supper. For I reade not in any place of Cipri­an, Cyprianus lib. 2. epi. 3. to my remēbrance, any such wordes that Christ offered himselfe in his supper, but he saith, y ^t Christ offered the fame thing whiche Melchisedech offered. And if Ciprian say in any place, that Christ offered himself in his supper, yet he sayd not, that Christ did so for this cause, that in his supper he declared his death. And therfore here you make a deceitful fallax in sophi­stry, pretending to shew that thing to be a cause, which is not the true cause in deede. For the cause why Ciprian, and other olde authors, say y ^t Christ made an oblation, and offering of him selfe in his last supper, was not that he declared there, that he would suffer death, for y ^t he had declared many times before, but the cause was that there he ordained a perpetuall memory of his death, which he would all faithfull christē people to obserue frō time to time, remembring his death, with thankes for his benefites, vntill his comming again. And therfore the memoriall of the true sacrifice made v­pon the crosse (as S. Augustine saith) is called by the name of a sacrifice, August. ad Bo­nifacium epist. 23. as a thing that signifyeth an other thing, is called by the name of the thing which it signifyeth, although in very deede it be not the same.

And the long discourse that you make of Christes true presence, and [Page 88] of the true eating of him, and of his true assisting vs in our doing of his commaundement, all these be true. For Christes flesh & bloud be in the sa­crament 10 truely present, but spiritually and sacramentally, not carnally, and corporally. And as he is truely present, so is he truely eaten and dron­ken, and assisteth vs. And he is the same to vs, that he was to them that saw him with their bodely eyes. But where you say, that he is as famili­are with vs, as he was with thē, here I may say the French terme which they vse for reuerence sake, Saue vostre grace. And he offered not him selfe then for them vpon the crosse, and now offereth himself for vs daily in the Masse, but vpon the crosse he offered him selfe both for vs and for them. For that his one sacrifice of his body than onely offered, is now vnto vs by fayth as auailable, as it was then for them. For with one sacrifice (as S. Paul saith) he hath made perfect for euer them that be sanctifyed.

Heb. 10.And where you speake of the participation of Christes flesh and bloud, if you meane of the sacramentall participatiō onely, that therby we be as­certayned of the regeneration of our bodies, that they shall liue, and haue the fruition of God with our soules for euer, you be in an horrible errour, And if you meane a spirituall participation of Christes body and bloud, then all this your processe is in vaine, and serueth nothing for your pur­pose, to proue that Christes flesh and bloud be corporally in the sacrament, vnder the formes of bread and wine, and participated of them that be e­uill (as you teach) which be no whit therby the more certain of their sal­uation, but of their damnation, as S. Paul saith.

1. Cor. 11.And although the holy supper of the Lord be not a vain or phantasti­call supper, wherein thinges should be promised, which be not performed, to them that worthely come thereunto, but Christes flesh and bloud be there truely eaten and dronken in deede, yet that misticall supper can not be without misteries and figures. And although wee feede in deede of Christes body, and drinke in deed his bloud, yet not corporally, quantita­tiuely, and palpably, as we shalbe regenerated at the resurrection, and as he was betrayed, walked here in earth, and was very man. And therfore although the thinges by you rehearsed, be all truely done, yet all be not done after one sort and fashion, but some corporally and visibly, some spi­ritually and inuisibly. And therfore to al your comparisons or similitudes here by you rehearsed, if there be geuen to euery one his true vnderstan­ding, they may be so graunted all to be true. But if you will linke all these together in one sort and fashiō, and make a chaine thereof, you shall farre passe the bondes of wanton reason, making a chaine of golde and copper together, confounding and mixing together, corporall and spiritual, hea­uenly and earthly thinges, and bring all to very madnes and impiety, or plaine and manifest heresy.

A chaine of errours.And because one single error pleaseth you not, shortly after you linke 11 a number of errors almost together in one sentēce, as it were to make an whole chaine of errors, saying not onely, that Christes body is verely pre­sent in the celebratiō of y ^e holy supper (meaning of corporal presence) but y ^t it is also our very sacrifice, and sacrifice propitiatory, for all the sinnes of the world, and that it is the onely sacrifice of the church: and that it is the pure aud cleane sacrifice, whereof Malachy spake, Malac. 14. and that Christ doth now in the celebration of this supper, as he did when he gaue the same to [Page 89] 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 coū ­terfaite: 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. Esay. 53.

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. Heb. 7. 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 [Page 90] 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, The 13. com­paryson. 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 1 as many hostes as be consecrate, in how many places so euer the hostes bee consecrate, and is their really and substantially Really, substā ­tially, truely, corporally., 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 Maner of pre­sence., then we should say, Christes body were present after a corporall manner, which we say not, but in a spirituall maner, and therefore not lo­cally nor by maner of quantitie, but in such maner as God onely knoweth, & yet dooth vs to vnderstand by fayth, The true sim­ple docerme of the presence of Christs body in the sacraments. the truth of the very presence, exceding our capacitie to com­prehend the maner (how). This is the very true teaching to affirme the truth of the presence of Christes very body in the Sacrament, euen of the same body that suffred in playne simple euident termes and wordes, such as can not by cauilation be mistaken and construed, so néere as possibly mans infirmitie permitteth and suffreth. Now let vs [Page 91] consider in what sort the author and hys company which he calleth (we say) do vnder­stand the Sacrament, who go about to expresse the same by a similitude of the creature 2 of the sonne, Gods m [...]steries cannot be thro­rowly [...] by similitudes. which sonne (this author sayth) is euer corporally in heauen, and no where els, and yet by operation and vertue, is here in earth: so Christ is corporally in heauen. &c. In this matter of similitudes, it is to be taken for a truth vndoubted, that there is no creature by similitude, ne any language of man able to expresse God and hys myste­ryes. For and thinges that be sene or herd, might throughly expresse Gods inuisible mi­steryes, the nature wherof is that they can not throughly be expressed, they were no mi­steries, and yet it is true, that of thinges visible, wherein God worketh wonderfully, there may be great resemblances, some shadowes, and as it were inductions, to make a man astonied, in consideration of thinges inuisible, when he séeth thinges visible so wonderfully wrought, and to haue so maruaylous effectes. And diuers good catholicke deuoute men haue by diuers naturall things gone about to open vnto vs the mistery of the trinitie, partely by the sonne, as the author doth in the Sacrament, partely by fyre, partely by the soule of man, by the Musitians science, the arte, the touch with the play­ers fingers, and the sound of the cord, wherein wil hath all trauailed the matter, yet re­mayneth darke, ne can not be throughly set forth by any similitude. But to the purpose of this similitude of the sonne, whiche sonne this author sayth is onely corporally in heauen, and no where els, and in the earth the operatiō and vertue of the sonne: So as by this authors supposall, the substance of the sonne should not be in earth, but onely by operation and vertue: wherein if this author erreth, he doth the reader to vnderstande, that if he erre in consideration of naturall thinges, it is no maruayle though he erre in heauenly thinges. For because I will not of my selfe begin the contention with this au­thor: of the naturall worke of the Sonne, I will bryng forth the saying of Martin Bu­cer Bucerus. now resident at Cambridge, who vehemently and for so much truly, affirmeth the trew reall presence of Christes body in the Sacrament: For he sayth, Christ sayd not, This is my spirite, this is my vertue, but, This is my body: Wherefore he sayth we must beleue Christes body to be there, the same that did hang vpon the crosse, our Lord hym selfe, whiche in some parte to declare, he vseth the similitude of the sonne for hys purpose, to proue Christes body present really and substancially in the sacramēt, where this author vseth the same similitude to proue the body of Christ really absent. I will wryte in here as Bucer speaketh it in Latin, expounding the xrvi. chapiter of Saynte Mathew, and then I will put the same in english. Bucers wordes bée these.

Vt Sol vere vno in loco coeli visibilis circumscriptus est, Bucerus in Mat. cap. 26. radys tamen suis, praesens verè & substantialiter exhibetur vbilibet orbis: Ita Dominus etiam si circumscribatur vno loco coeli, arcani & diuini, id est gloriae patris, verbo tamen suo, & sacris symbolis, verè & totus ipse deus & homo praesens exhibetur in sacra coena, eo (que) substantialiter, quam praesentiam non mi­nus certo agnoscit mens credens verbis his Domini & simbolis, quam oculi vident & habent Solem praesentem demonstratum & exhibitum sua corporali luce. Res ista arcana est & noui Testamenti, res sidei, non sunt igitur huc admittende cogitationes de presentatione corporis, quae constar ratione huius vitae etiamnum patibilis & fluxae. Verbo Domini simpliciter inhae­rendum est, & debet fides sensuum de fectui praebere supplimentum. Which is thus much in English. As the sonne is truely placed determinately in one place of the visible heauē, and yet is truely and substantially present by meanes of hys beames els where in the world abroad: So our Lord although he be comprehended in one place of the secrete and diuine heauen, that is to say, the glory of hys father, yet neuerthelesse by hys word and holy tokens, he is exhibite present truly, whole God and man, and therfore in sub­stance in his holy supper, which presence mans mind geuing credite to his words and tokens with no lesse certaintie acknowlegeth, then our eyes see, and haue the sonne presente exhibited and shewed with his corporally lyght. This is a deep secrete matter and of the new testament, and a matter of fayth, and therfore herein thoughtes be not to be receiued of such a presentation of the body, as consisteth in the manner of thys life transitorie and subiect to suffer. We must simply cleaue to the word of Christ, and fayth must releue the default of our sences.

Thus hath Bucer expressed his minde, whereunto because the similitude of the sonne doth not aunswere in all partes, he noteth wisely in thende, howe this is a mat­ter [Page 92] of faith, and therefore vpon the foundation of faith, we must speake of it, thereby to supply where our sences fayle. For the presence of Christ, and whole Christe God and man is true, although we can not thinke of the maner (how.) The chiefe cause why I bring in Bucer is this, to shew how in hys iudgement we haue not onely in earth the operation and vertue of the sonne, but also the substance of the sonne, by incane of the sonne beames, which be of the same substaunce with the sonne, and can not be deuided in substance from it, and therfore we haue in earth the substantiall presence of the sonne not onely the operation and vertue. And howsoeuer the sonne aboue in the distaunce ap­pereth vnto vs of an other sort, yet the beames that touch the earth, be of the same sub­staunce with it as clerkes say, or at the lest as Bucer sayth, whom I neuer harde ac­compted Papiste, and yet for the reall and substantiall presence of Christes very body in the Sacrament, wryteth pithely and playnly, and here encountreth this auctor with his similitude of the sonne directly, whereby may appeare howe muche soeuer Bucer is estemed otherwise, he is not with this auctor regarded in the truth of the sacrament, 3, which is one of the high misteries in our religiō. And this may suffice for that point of the similitude where this auctor woulde haue Christe none otherwise present in the Sacrament, then he promised to be in thassemble of such as be gathered together in hys name, it is a playne abolition of the mistery of the sacrament, in the wordes whereof Christes humayne body is exhibite and made present with hys very fleshe to féede vs, and to that singuler and speciall effect the other presence of Christ in thassemble made in in hys name, is not spoken of, and it hath no apparaunce of learning in scriptures, to conclude vnder one consideration a specialitie, & a generalitie. And therfore it was well answered of hym that sayd: August serm. de tempore 159. If I could tell reason, there were no fayth: If I could shew the like, it wer not singuler. Which doth be notable in this sacrament where cōdēyning all reason, good men both constantly beleue that Christe sitteth on the right hand of hys father very God and man, and also without chaunge of place, doth neuerthelesse make himselfe by hys power present, both God and man vnder the forme of bread and wine, at the prayer of the Churche and by the ministery of the same, to geue life to suche as with fayth do according to his institution in hys holy supper worthely receyue hym, and to the condemnation of such as do unworthely presume to receaue hym there. For the worthy receyuing of whom we must come indued with Christ, and clothed with hym 4 semely in that garment, to receiue his most precious body and bloud, Christe whole God and man, wherby he then dwelleth in vs more aboundantly, confirming in vs the effectes of hys Passion & establishing our hope of resurrection, then to enioy the regene­ration of our body with a full redemption of body and soule, to lyue with God in glo­ry for euer.

Caunterbury.

IN this comparison I am glad that at the last we be come so neare to­gether, A concord in the spirituall pre­sence. 1 for you be almost right hartely welcome home, and I pray you let vs shake handes together. For we be agreed (as me seemeth) y ^t Christs body is present, and the same body that suffered: and we be agreed also of the manner of his presence. For you say that the body of Christ is not pre­sent, but after a spirituall maner, and so say I also. And if there be any dif­ference betweene vs two, it is but a little and in this point only: That I say, that Christ is but spiritually in the ministration of the Sacrament, and you say, that he is but after a spiritual maner in the Sacrament. And yet you say, that he is corporally in the Sacrament, as who should say, that there were a difference betweene spiritually, and a spirituall maner: And that it were not all one, to say that Christ is there onely after a spiri­tuall maner, and not onely spiritually.

But if the substance of the Sonne be here corporally present with vs vpon earth, The presence of the Sonne. then I graunt that Christes body is so likewise. So that he 2 of vs two that erreth in the one, let him be taken for a vaine man, and to [Page 93] erre also in the other. Therfore I am content that the reader iudge indif­ferently betweene you and me, in the corporal presence of the sonne, and he that is found to erre, and to be a foose therin, let him be iudged to erre also in the corporall presence of Christes body.

But now maister Bucer help this man at need: M. Bucer [...] For he that hath euer hitherto cryed out against you, now being at a pinch driuen to his shiftes crieth for helpe vpō you. And although he was neuer your frend, yet extēd your charity to helpe him in his necessity. But maister Bucer saith not so much as you do: and yet if you both said that the beames of the sonne, be of the same substāce with the sonne, who would beleue either of you both? Is the light of the candle the substance of the candle? or the light of the fire the substance of the fire? Or is the beames of the sonne any thing but the cleere light of the sonne? Now as you said euen now of me, if you erre so farre from the true iudgement of natuarll thinges, that all men may per­ceiue your error, what maruaile is it if you erre in heauenly thinges?

3 And why should you be offended with this my saying, that Christ is spiritually present in the assembly of such as be gathered together in his name: And how can you conclude hereof, that this is a plaine abolitiō of the mistery of the Sacrament, because that in the celebration of the Sa­crament, I say that Christ is spiritually present? Haue not you confessed your self, that Christ is in the Sacrament but after a spirituall manner? And after y ^t maner he is also among them y ^t be assembled together in his name. And if they y ^t say so, doe abolish the mistery of y ^e Sacramēt, then do you abolish it your selfe, by saying that Christ is but after a spirituall ma­ner in the sacrament, after which maner you say also that he is in them that be gathered together in his name, as well as I doe, that say hee is spiritually in both. But he that is disposed to pick quarrels, and to calumi ate all thinges: what can be spoken so plainly, or ment so sinceerely, but he will wrast it into a wrong sence. I say that Chist is speritually and by grace in his supper, as he is when two or three be gathered togi­ther in his name, meaning that with both he is spiritually, and with nei­ther corporally, and yet I say not that there is no difference. For this dif­ference there is, that with the one he is sacramētally, and with the other not sacramentally, except they be gathered together in his name to re­ceaue the Sacrament. Neuerthelesse the selfe same Christ is present in both, nourisheth and feedeth both, if the Sacrament be rightly receiued But that is onely Spiritually, (as I say) and onely after a Spirituall maner, as you say.

And you say further, that before we receiue the Sacrament, we must 4 come indued with Christ, and seemely cloathed with him. But whosoe­uer is indued and cloathed with Christ, hath Christ present with him af­ter a spirituall maner, and hath receaued Christ whole both God & man or els he could not haue euerlasting life. And therfore is Christ present as well in Baptisme, as in the Lordes Supper. For in Baptisme be we in­dued with Christ, and seemely cloathed with him, Gal. 3. as well as in his holy Supper we eate and drink him.

Winchester.

Thus I haue perused these differences, which well considered, me thinke sufficient [Page 94] to take away, and appease all such differences as might be moued against the Sacra­ment, the faith wherof hath euer preuayled against such as haue impugned it. And I 1 haue not read of any that hath written against it, but somewhat hath against his enter­prise in his wrytinges appeared, wherby to confirme it, or so euident vntruthes affir­med, as wherby those that be as indifferent to the truth, as Salomon, was in the iudge­ment of the liuing childe, may discerne the very true mother from the other, that is to say, who plainly entend the true childe to continue aliue, and who could be content to haue it be destroyed by deuision. God of his infinite mercy haue pitie on vs, and graunt 2 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 1 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, Thre partes made of two. 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, The true mo­ther of the childe. which in the Sacrament make so many diuisions. 2 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 [Page 95] 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 shalbe 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, Cap. 3. Christ corpo­rally is in heauen & not in earth. 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, The proofe thereof by our profession in our commune 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, Cap. 4. The profe her­of by the scrip­ture. Ioh. 16. Mat. 16. Mat. 24. 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, Mar. vl. 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. Colos. 3. Also he saith, that we haue such a bishoppe, Heb. 8. 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, Heb. 10. 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, Cap. 5. how Christ may be called [Page 96] a stranger that is departed into another countrey, seeing that he is with vs al­way vnto the worldes end, The proofe thereof by aun­cient authors. aud is among all them that be gathered together in his name, and also in the middest of them that know him not, and thus he rea­soneth. If he be here among vs still, how can he be gone hence as a straunger departed into another countrey? wherunto he answereth, Origen. in Nath. ho. 33. that Christ is both God and man, hauing in him two natures. And as a man he is not with vs vn­to the worldes end, nor is present with all his faihtfull that be gathered toge­ther in his name. But his diuine power and spirite is euer with vs. Paule (saith he) was absent from the Corinthes in his body, when he was present with thē in his spirite: So is Christ (sayth he) gone hence, and absent in his humanitie, which in his diuine nature is euery where. And in this saying (sayth Origen) we diuide not his humanitie `(for S. Iohn writeth, that no spirite that deuideth Iesus can be of God) but we reserue to both his natures, their own properties.

In these wordes Origen, hath playnly declared his mynd, that Christes bo­dy is not both present here with vs, and also gone hence and estranged from vs. For that were to make two natures of one body, and to deuide the body of Iesus, forasmuch as one nature can not at one tyme be both with vs, and absēt from vs. And therefore sayth Origen: that the presence must be vnderstanded of his diuinitie, and the absence of his humanitie.

And according hereunto S. Austine writeth thus in a pistle Ad dardanum, August. ad Dar. dan. epist. 57. Doubt not but Iesus Christ as concerning the nature of his manhood is now there, from whence he shall come. And remember well and beleeue the pro­fession of a christian man, that he rose frō death ascended into heauen, sitteth at the right hand of his father, and from that place and none other, shall he come to iudge the quicke and the dead. And he shall come (as the Aungels sayd) as he was seene go into heauen, that is to say, in the same forme and sub­stance, vnto the which he gaue immortallytie, but chaunged not nature. After this forme (sayth he, meaning his mans nature, we may not thynke that he is euery wher. For we must beware, that we doe not so stablish his diuinity, that we take away the veritie of his body. These be S. Augustines playne wordes. And by and by after he addeth these wordes. The Lord Iesus as God, is euery where, and as man is in heauen. And finally he concludeth this matter in these few wordes. Doubt not but our Lord Iesus Christ is euery where as God, and as a dweller he is in man that is the temple of God, and he is in a certain place in heauen, because of the measure of a very body.

And agayne S. Augustin) writeth vpon the Gospel of S. Iohn. In Iohan. Tract. 30. Our sauiour Iesus Christ (sayth S. Augustine) is aboue, but yet his truth is here. His body wherein he arose is in one place, but his truth is spred euery where.

And in an other place of the same booke S. Augustine expounding these wordes of Christ. (You shall euer haue poore men with you, Tracta. 50. but me you shall not euer haue) saith: that Christ spake these words of the presence of his body. For (saith he) as concerning his diuine maiesty, as concerning his prouidence as concerning his infallible and inuisible grace, these words be fulfilled which he spake: I am with you vnto the worldes ende. But as concerning the fleshe which he tooke in his carnation, as concerning that which was borne of the virgine: as concerning that which was apprehended by the Iewes, and crucifi­ed vpon a tree, and taken downe frō the crosse, lapped in linnen clothes and buried, and rose againe, and appered after his resurrection, as concerning that flesh, he sayd: You shall not euer haue me with you. Wherefore senig that as [Page 97] concerning his flesh, he was conuersant with his disciples forty dayes, and they accompanying, seeing, and not following him, he went vp into heauen, both he is not here (for he sitteth at the right hand of his father) and yet he is here, for he departed not hence as concerning the presence of his diuine Maiesty. As concerning the presence of his Maiesty, we haue Christ euer with vs, but as concerning the presence of his flesh he said truely to his disciples, ye shall not euer haue me with you. For as concerning the presence of his flesh, the church had Christ but a few dayes, yet now it holdeth him fast by faith, though it see him not with eyes. All these be S. Augustines wordes.

Also in an other booke, intitled to S. Augustine, is written thus: De essentia di­uinitatis. We must be­leeue and confesse, that the Sonne of God (as concerning his diuinitie) is inuisible, with­out a body, immortall, and in circumscriptible: but as concerning his humanitie, we ought to beleeue and confesse that he is visible, hath a body, and it contayned in a certayn place, and hath truely all the members of a man.

Of these wordes of S. Augustine, it is most cleere that the profession of the catholick faith is, that Christ (as concerning his bodely substance and nature of man) is in heauen, and not present here with vs in earth. For the nature and property of a very body, is to be in one place, and to occupy one place, and not to be euery where, or in many places at one time. And though the body of Christ (after his resurrectiō and ascention) was made immortall, yet this nature was not taken away, for then (as S. Augustine saith) it were no very body. And further S. August. sheweth both the maner & fourme how Christ is here present with vs in earth, & how he is absent, saying that he is present by his di­uine nature and maiesty, by his prouidence, & by grace: But by his humain na­ture and very body, he is absent from this world, and present in heauen.

Cyrillus likewise vpon the gospell of S. Iohn, Cyrillus in Iohan. li. 6 cap. 14. agreeth fully with S. Augustin saying: Although Christ tooke away from hence the presence of his body, yet in Maiestie of hys Godhead he is euer here, as he promised to his disciples at his departing: saying: I am with you euer vnto the worldes end.

And in an other place of the same booke, Libro. 6. cap. 11. saynct Cyrill sayth thus: Christian people must beleeue, that although Christ be absent from vs, as concerning hys body, yet by his power he gouerneth vs, and all thinges, and is present with all them that loue hym. Therfore he sayd: Truely, truely I say vnto you, where so euer there be two or three gathered together in my name, there am I in the middes of them. For lyke as when he was conuersant here in earth as a man, yet then he filled heauen, and did not leaue the company of angelles: euē so beyng now in heauen with hys flesh, yet he filleth the earth, and is in them that loue hym. And it is to be marked, that although Christ should go away onely as concerning hys flesh, (for he is euer present in the power of hys diui­nitie:) yet for a little time he sayd he would be with hys disciples. These be the wordes of Saynct Cyrill.

Sainct Ambrose also sayth, Ambrosius in Lucam. li. 12. ca. 24. that we must not seeke Christ vpon earth, nor in earth, but in heauen, where he sitteth at the right hand of hys father.

And likewise saynct Gregory writeth thus. Gregorius in Ho. Paschatis. Christ (sayth he) is not here by the pre­sence of hys flesh, and yet he is absent no where by the presence of hys Maiesty.

What subtilty thinkest thou (good reader) can the Papistes now imagin, to defend their pernitious errour, that Christ his humayn nature is bodyly here in earth, in the consecrated bread and wine: seeing that all the olde Churche of Christ beleued the contrary, and all the old authors wrote the contrary?

[Page 98]For they all affirmed and beleued, that Christ being but one person, hath neuerthelesse in him two natures or substances, that is to sav, the nature of his Godhead, and the nature of his manhood. They saye furthermore, that Christ is both gone hence from vs vnto heauen, and is also here with vs in earth, but not in his humaine nature, (as the Papistes would haue vs to beleue) but the olde authors say, that he is in heauen, as concerning his manhode, and neuer­theles both here and there, and euery where, as concerning his Godhead. For although his diuinitie be such, that it is infinite, without measure, compasse, or place, so that as concerning that nature, he is circumscribed with no place, but is euery where, and filleth all the worlde: yet as concerning his humaine nature, he hath measure, compasse, and place, so that when he was here vpon earth, he was not at the same tyme in heauen: and now that he is ascended in­to heauen, as concerning that nature, he hath now forsaken the earth, and is onely in heauen. For one nature that is circūscribed, cōpassed, & measured, can not be in diuers places at one time. That is the fayth of the old Catholick church, Chap. 6. One body can not be in diuers places at one tyme. as appeareth, as well by the authors before rehearsed, as by these that hereafter followeth.

Ad Dardanum.Sainct Augustine speaking, that a body must needes be in some place, saith: that yf it be not within the compasse of a place, it is no where. And yf it be no where, than it is not. And Sainct Cirill considering the proper nature of a very body sayd: Cyrillus de Trin. li. 2. that yf the nature of the Godhead were a body, it must needes be in a place, and haue quantitie, greatnesse, and circumscription.

If than the nature of the Godhead must needes be circumscribed, if it were a body, much more must the nature of Christes manhood be circumscribed, and contayned within the compasse of a certaine place.

Didimus also in his booke De spiritu sancto, Didymus de spi­ritu sancto. li. 1. c. 1. (which Sainct Hierom did tran­slate) proueth, that the holy Ghost is very God, because he is in many places at one tyme, which no creature can be. For (sayth he) all creatures visible, and in­uisible, be circumscribed and inuironed either within one place (as corporall and visi­ble thinges be) or within the proprietie of their owne substance, (as aungels and in­uisible creatures be) so that no Angell (sayth he) can be at one tyme in two places. And forasmuch as the holy ghost is in many men at one tyme, therefore (sayth he) the holy ghost must needes be God.

The same affirmeth Sainct Basil, Basilius de spi­ritu sancto ca. 22 That the Angell which was with Corne­lius, was not at the same tyme with Phillip, nor the Angell which spake to Za­chary in the altare, was not the same tyme in his proper place in heauē. But the holy Ghost was at one tyme in Abacuck, and in Daniell in Babilon, and with Ieremy in prison, and with Ezechiell in Chober, whereby he proueth, that the holy ghost is God.

Wherefore the Papistes (which say, that the body of Christ is in an infinite number of places at one tyme) doo make his body to be God, and so confound the two natures of Christ, attributing to his humain nature, that thing, which belōgeth onely to his diuinitie: which is a most heinous, & detestable heresie.

Agaynst whome wryteth Fulgētius in this wise, speaking of the distinction, and diuersitie of the two natures in Christ.

Fulgentius ad Trasimundum Regem. li. 2.One and the selfe same Christ (sayth he) of mankinde was made a man, com­passed in a place, who of his father is God, without measure or place. One and the selfe same person, as concerning his mans substaunce, was not in heauen, whan he was in earth, and for sooke the earth when he ascended into heauen: but as concerning his godly substaunce, (which is aboue all measure) he neyther [Page 99] left heauen when he came from heauen, nor he left not the earth, when he as­cended into heauen: which may be knowen by the most certain word of Christ himself, who to shew the placing of his humanitie, said to his disciples: I ascend vp to my father, and your father, to my God, and your God. Also when he had sayd of Lazarus that he was dead, he added, saying: I am glad for your sakes, that you may beleeue, for I was not there. But to shew the vnmeasurable com­passe of his diuinitie, he sayd to his disciples: behold I am with you alwayes vn­to the worldes end. Now how did he goe vp into heauen, but because he is a very man, conteined within a place? Or how is he present with faithful people but because he is very God, being without measure?

Of these words of Fulgentius it is declared most certainly, that Christ is not here with vs in earth but by his Godhead, and that his humanitie is in heauen onely, and absent from vs.

Yet the same is more plainly shewed (if more plainly can be spoken) by Vi­gilius a bishoppe and an holy martyr. Vigilius contra Eutycchē lib. 1. He writeth thus against the heretick E­utyches, which denyed the humanitie of Christ, holding opinion that he was only God, and not man. Whose error Vigilius confuting, proueth that Christ had in him two natures ioyned together in one person, the nature of his God­head, and the nature of his manhoode. Thus he wryteth.

Christ sayd to his disciples: if you loued me you would be glad, Iohn. 14. for I go vnto my father. And again he sayd: It is expedient for you that I go, for if I goe not, Iohn. 16. the comforter shall not come vnto you. And yet surely the eternall word of God, the vertue of God, the wisdome of God, was euer with his Father, and in his Father, yea euen at the same time when he was with vs, aud in vs. For whē he did mercifully dwell in this world, he left not his habitation in heauen, for he is euery where wholl with his Father, equall in diuinitie, whom no place can containe, for the Sonne filleth all thinges, and there is no place that lack­eth the presence of his diuinitie. From whence then, and whether did he say he would goe? Or how did he say, that he went to his Father, from whom doubt­les he neuer departed? But that to goe to his Father, and from vs, was to take from this world that nature which he receaued of vs. Thou seest therfore that it was the propertie of that nature to be taken away and goe from vs, which in the end of the world shall be rendered again to vs, as the angels witnessed, say­ing: This Iesus which is taken from you, Actu. 1. shall come agayn like as you saw him going vp into heauen. For looke vpon the miracle, looke vpon the mistery of both the natnres: the Sonne of God (as cōcerning his humanitie) went frō vs, as concerning his diuinity, he said vnto vs: Behold, I am with you all the dayes vnto the worldes end.

Thus farre haue I rehearsed the wordes of Vigilius, Math. vl. and by and by he con­cludeth thus. He is with vs, and not with vs. For those whom he left, and went from them, as concerning his humanitie, those he left not, nor forsooke them not, as touching his diuinitie. For as touching the forme of a seruaunt (which he tooke away from vs into heauen) he is absent from vs, but by the forme of God (which goeth not from vs) he is present with vs in earth, and neuertheles, both present and absent, he is all one Christ.

Hetherto you haue heard Vigilius speake, that Christ (as concerning his bodely presence and the nature of his manhode) is gone from vs, taken from vs, is gone vp into heauē, is not with vs, hath left vs, hath forsaken vs. But as con­cerning the other nature of his Deitie, he is still with vs, so that he is both with [Page 100] vs, and not with vs, with vs in the nature of his Deitye, and not with vs in the nature of his humanity. And yet more cleerely doth the same Vigilius declare the same thing in another place, Contra Euticē lib. 4. saying.

If the word and the flesh were both of one nature, seeyng that the word is e­uery where, why is not the flesh then euery where? For when it was in earth, then verely it was not in heauen: and now when it is in heauen, it is not surely in earth. And it is so sure that it is not in earth, that as concerning it, we loke for him to come from heauen, whom as concerning his eternall word: we beleue to be with vs in earth. There­fore by your doctrine (saith Vigilius vnto Eutiches, who defended that the di­uinity and humanity in Christ was but one nature) either the word is contey­ned in a place with his flesh: or els the flesh is euery where with the word. For one nature cannot receiue in it selfe two diuers and contrary thinges. But these two thinges be diuers and farre vnlike, that is to say, to be conteyned in a place, aud to be euery where. Therfore in as much as the word is euery where, and the flesh is not euery where, it appeareth plainly, that one Christ himselfe hath in him two natures. And that by his diuine nature he is euery where, and by his humain nature he is contayned in a place, that he is created, and hath no be­ginning, that he is subiect to death, and cannot dy. Wherof one he hath by the nature of his word (wherby he is God) and the other he hath hy the nature of his flesh, wherby the same God is man also. Therfore one sonne of God, the selfe same was made the sonne of man, and he hath a beginning by the nature of his flesh, and no beginning by the nature of his Godhead. He is created by the nature of his flesh, and not created by the nature of his Godhead. He is com­prehended in a place by the nature of his flesh, and not comprehended in a place by the na­ture of his Godhead. He is inferior to angels in the nature of his flesh, and is e­quall to his Father in the nature of his Godhead. He dyed by the nature of his flesh, and dyed not by the nature of his Godhead. This is the faith and catho­lick confession, which the Apostles taught, the Martirs did corroborate, and faithfull people keepe vnto this day.

Al these be the sayinges of Vigilius, who according to al the other authors before rehearsed, and to the faith and catholick confession of the Apostles, Martyrs, & all faithfull people vnto his time) saith, that as concerning Christs humanitie, when he was here on earth, he was not in heauen, and now when he is in heauen, he is not in earth. for one nature cannot be both conteined in a place in heauen, and be also here in earth at one time. And for as much as Christ is here with vs in earth, and also is conteined in a place in heauen, he proueth therby, that Christ hath two natures in him, the nature of a man, wherby he is gone from vs, and ascended into heauen, and the nature of his Godhead, wherby he is here with vs in earth. So that it is not one nature that is here with vs, and that is gone from vs, that is ascended into heauen and there conteined, and that is permanent here with vs in earth. Wherfore the papists (which now of late yeares haue made a new faith, that Christes naturall body is really and naturally present both with vs both here in earth, & sitteth at the right hand of his Father in heauen) doe erre in two very horrible heresies.

The one, that they confound his two natures, his Godhead and his Man­hode attributing vnto his humanitie, that thing which appertaineth onely to his diuinity, that is to say, to be in heauē, earth, and in many places at one time. The other is, that they deuide and seperate his humain nature or his body, ma­king of one body of Christ, two bodies and two natures, one which is in hea­uen, [Page 101] visible and palpaple, hauing all members and proportions of a most per­fect naturall man: and an other which they say is in earth here with vs, in euery bread and wine that is consecrated, hauing no distinction, forme, nor propor­tion of members, which contrarieties and diuersities (as this holy Martyr Vi­gilius saith) cannot be together in one nature.

Winchester.

These differences end in the xlviii. leafe in the second columne. I entend now to touch the further matter of the booke with the manner of handlyng of it, and where an euident vntruth is, there to ioyne an issue, and where sleight and craft is, there to note it in the whole.

The matter of the book, from thēce vnto the lvi. leafe, touching the being of Christ in heauen and not in earth, is out of purpose superfluous. The article of our Créed that Christ ascended to heauen, and sitteth on the right hand of his father, hath béene and is most constantly beleeued of true Christian men, which the true fayth of Christes reall presence in the Sacrament doth not touch or empayre. Nor Christ being whole God & man in the Sacrament, is therby eyther out of heauen, or to be said conuersant in earth, because the conuersation is not earthly, but spirituall and godly, Christ ascentiō the end of his conuersation in earth. sleight. being the ascention of Christ, the end of his cōuersation in earth, and therefore al that reasoning of the author, is clearely voyde, to trauayle to proue that is not denyed, onely for a sleyght to make it seeme as though it were denyed.

Caunterbury.

HEre is such a sleight vsed by you, as is worthy to be noted of all men. A sleight to a­uoyd aunswe­ring. For I goe not onely about to proue in this place, onely that Christ as concerning his humain nature is in heauē (which I know you deny not) but I proue also that he is so in heauen, that he is not in earth, which you vtterly deny, and it is the chiefe point in contention betwene vs. But by this crafte of appeaching me of sleight, that I goe about to proue that thing which you deny not (which is vntrue) you haue vsed such a sleight, that you passe ouer 8. leaues of my booke together, wherin I proue, that Christ (as concerning his corporall presence) is not here in earth, and you answere not one word to any of my argumentes. And I pray thee note, good Reader, what a strange manner of sleight this is, to passe ouer eight leaues together cleerely vnanswered, and that in the chief point that is in variance betweene vs, vnder pretence that I vse sleight, where in deede I vse none, but proue plainly that Christ is not bodely in heauen and in eareh, both at one time. If he had but touched mine argumēts glauncing by them, it had been somewhat: but vtterly to fly away, and not once to touch them, I think thou wilt iudge no smal sleight and craft therin. And me think in good reason, the matter ought to be iudged against him, for default of answere: who being preseut answereth nothing at all to the matter wherof he is accused, seeing that the Law sayth: Qui tacet, consen­tire videtur.

Yet Smith is to be commended in respect of you, Smith. who attempteth at the least to see what shiftes he could make to auoyd my profes, and busy­eth himself rather thē he would stand mute, to say somthing to them. And yet in deede it had been as good for him to haue said nothing at all, as to say that which is nothing to the purpose.

First to the Scriptures by me alleadged particularly, Origen. Augustin. he vtterly an­swereth nothing. To Origen, and S. Augustine by name, and to all the [Page 102] other Authors by me alleadged, he maketh this brief answere in generall, y ^t whatsoeuer those authors say, they meane no more, but y ^t Christ is not here in earth visibly, naturally, & by circumscriptiō, and yet neuerthelesse he is in the sacrament aboue nature, inuisibly, and without circumscripti­on. This suttle distinction hath Smith deuised (or rather followeth other Papistes therin) to answere the Authors which I haue alleadged. And yet of Smithes own distinction it followeth, that Christ is not in the sa­crament carnally and corporally. Smithes vaine distinction. For if Christ be in the Sacrament but supernaturally, inuisibly, & without circumscription, then he is not there carnally, and corporally, as S. Augustine reasoneth ad Dardanum. But yet Smith onely saith that the Authors so meant, and proueth not one word of his saying, supposing that the old holy writers be like to the Papistes, which write one thing, and when they list not, or cannot defend it, they say they meane another.

For those Authors make no such distinction as Smith speaketh of, af­firming diuers and contrary things to be in one nature of Christ in diuers respectes, but their distinction is of the two natures in Christ, that is to say, the nature of his Godhead, and the nature of his manhode. And they affirme plainly that the diuersity wherof they spake, cannot be in one na­ture (as you say it is) but must needes argue & proue diuersity of natures. And therfore by that diuersity and instinctiō in Christ, they proue against the heretickes, that Christ hath two natures in him, which were vtterly no proofe at all, if one nature in diuers respectes might haue that diuersi­ty. For the heretickes should haue had a ready answere at hand, that such diuersitie proueth not that Christ had two natures, for one nature may haue such diuersity (if it be true that Smith saith.) And so Smith, with other papists which saith as he doth putteth a sword in y ^e hereticks hands, to fight against the catholick faith. This (good Reader) thou shalt easely perceiue if thou doe no more but read the authors which I haue in this place alleadged.

And yet for thy more ready instruction, I shall make a brief rehearsal of the chief effect of them, as concerning this matter. How both these sayinges may be true, that Christ is with vs, and also gone from vs. To aunswere this question how it can be sayd that Christ is a stranger, and gone hence into heauen, and yet is also here with vs in earth, Smith and other Papistes resolue this matter by diuers respectes in one nature of Christ, but the old catholick wryters which I alleadged, resolue the matter by two natures in Christ, The sume of thold authors wryting in this matter. affirming most certainly that such two diuers thinges can not haue place both in one nature. And therfore say they that Christ is gone hence, and is absent in his humanitie, who in his Deity is still here with vs. They say also that as concerning his mannes nature, the Catholicke profession in our Creede, teacheth vs to beleeue that he hath made it im­mortall, but not changed the nature of a very mannes body, for his body is in heauen, and in one certain place of heauen, because that so requireth the measure and compasse of a very mannes body.

It is also (say they) visible, and hath all the members of a perfecte mannes body. And further they say, that if Christes body were not con­teyned within the compasse of a place, it were no body, in so much that if the Godhead were a body, it must needes be in a place, and haue quanti­tie, bignes, and circumscription. For all creatures (say they) visible, and [Page 103] inuisible, be circumscribed, and conteyned within a certain compas, ether locally within one place (as corporall and visible thinges be) or els with­in the property of their own substance (as angels and inuisible creatures be.) And this is one strong argument, whereby they proue that the holy Ghost is God, because he is in many places at one time, which no crea­ture can be as they teach. And yet they say moreouer, that Christ did not ascend into heauen, but by hys humanitie, nor is not heare in earth but by hys diuinitie, which hath no compasse nor measure. And finally they say that to go to hys father from vs, was to take from vs that nature which he receaued of vs: and therfore when hys body was in earth, then surely it was not in heauen, and now when it is in heauē, surely it is not in earth For one nature can not haue in it selfe two sundry and contrary thinges.

All things here rehearsed be written by the old auncient authors which I haue alleadged, and they conclude the whole matter in this wise that this is the fayth and Catholique confession, which the Apostles taught, the Martyres did corroborate, and faythfull people keepe vnto this day. Wherby it appeareth euidently, that the doctrine of Smyth and the Pa­pistes, at that day was not yet sprong, nor had taken no roote.

Wherfore diligently ponder and way (I besech thee gentle 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, Cap. 7. An aunswere to the Papists, alleaging for them these wordes, This is my body. 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, The argumet of the Papists. 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 [Page 104] 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.

The aunswere.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.

The interpre­tation of these wordes, This is my bo­dye.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.

Chap. 8. Christ called bread his body, and wine his bloud.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 shalbe 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.

Ireneus contra Valent. lib. 4. ca 32. cap. 34. cap. 57.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. Lib. 5. 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.

Turtulli. aduersus Iudae­os.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 [Page 105] 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, Cyprian. ad Magnum. lib. [...]. epist. 6. 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, Epiphan. in Ancoprato. 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, Hiero 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, Augu de trin. lib. 3. cap. 4. 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, De verbis apo­stol [...] Cy [...]ill. in Ioanne lib. 4. [...]. 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 [Page 106] 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. Rom. 4. Vocat ea quae non 1 sunt, tan (que) ea quae sint, He calleth that be not as they were. And so his calling (as Chri­sostome and the greke commentaries say, Chrisost. in e­pist. a. Ro. cap. 4. is a making, which also the Catechisme tea­cheth, trnslated by Iustus Ionas in Germany, and after by this author in english. Ter­tullian saith, Tertulian ad­uersus Mar­nonem lib. 4. Ciprianus de cena Domini. 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 2 to make.

Cypryan saith according hereunto hows 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 3 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 4 substaunce. As in the spech of God the father vpō Christ in Baptisme: This is my son.

An issue.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 5 knowledge be no better then is vttered herein the penne, to be in this point clerly cōdē ­ned of ignoraunce.

Caunterbury.

[Page 107]HEre is an other sleight, Another sleight. such as the like hath not lightly bene sene. For 1 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. Rom. 4. Whether Chri­stes calling be making. 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: Ioh. 15. Ioh. 19. Ioh. 15. Mat. 16. 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, Irenaeus. be­cause (I think) he is to hard meate for you well to digest, and therefore you will not once taste of hym.

2 In Tertullian and Cyprian you agree again, Tertullian. Cyprian. 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, Whether bread be called Chri­stes body. 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 2 of Christ, yet then it is not true to speake of the bread, Conuersion 2. maner of waiess. 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: Iohn 2. 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 [Page 108] 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: Christes body made of bread. Iohn. 1. 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, Whether 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 4 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, 5 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, Smyth. and take it for confessed of you both, bi­cause [Page 109] neither of you dare say the contrary, & ioyne an issue with mee ther­in. My issue is this, Mine Issue. 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, Smyth. 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, Math. 14. Marc. 6. Luc. 9. Iohn. 6. 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, Smith. as other Papistes vse not, which he doth either of ignoraunce of his Grammar, or els that he dissenteth farre from other Papistes in [Page 110] 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, [Page 111] indifferent Reader, to vew the Doctours wordes by me alleaged and so to iudge.

But they say not 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. Cap. 9. Bread to my body. Wyne to my bloud, be fi­guratiue spea­ches. 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, Cha. 10. To eate Chri­stes flesh and drinke his bloud be figuratiue speaches. 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 [Page 112] 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, 1. Cor. 20. 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 [Page 113] in speaking of this high mystery. Wherein I will make the issue with this author, that 5 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 6 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.

1 EAting and drinking with the mouth being so playne a matter, The eating of Christes body is not with teeth. 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.

2 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, Luk. 19. 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.

3 And as concerning these wordes of Christ: Iohn. 6. 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.

4 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 [Page 114] christian eares abhore for to heare.

But why should I ioyne with you here an issue, in that mater which 5 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 y ^e 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, Nycolas the second. (which you wrongfully call Catholike,) teach that Christs bo­dy is torne with the teeth of the faythfull? De consecr. dist. 2. Ego. 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:

Origen. in Le­uit. Ho 7.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. Iohn. 6. 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. Origenes. 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 of Christ of y ^e 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 [Page 115] Gods wayes like ours.

Caunterbury.

HEre may euery man that readeth the words of Origen plainly see, y ^t you seek in this waighty matter nothing by shifts and cauillatiōs. 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 y ^t 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, Chrisostome in Iohānem Hom. 46. 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 vnderstād 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 Chrisostō 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, Chrisostome. 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 w ^t 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 hādle Chrisostō. 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 v [...]derstanding spiritually. Then followeth next Sainct Augustine, of whom I write thus.

And yet most planely of all other, Augustine S. Augustine dooth declare this matter [Page 116] in his booke De doctrina christiana, de doctrina Christ. li. 3. 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 woū ­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: De catech. rudi. ca. 26. Contra aduer­sar. legis & Pro­phe. li. 2. ca. 9. and in his book Contra aeduersarium legis & prophet arum, and in diuers other places, which forte diowsnes I passe ouer. 4

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 ascēded 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.

Augustinus.Sainct Augustine according to his rules of a figuratiue and proper spéech, taketh this 1 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 2 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 6 to the faythfull a figure, as contayning such a mistery as by the outward barke of the [Page 117] 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 4 worke of God ineffable, such, as the Ethnike eares could not abide, they termed it a fi­gure, 3 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 5 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 2 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 circumstā ­ces 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. 7 Augustins rule pertaineth not to Christs supper, wherin when Christ willeth vs to vse 8 our mouth, we ought to dare do as he biddeth for that is spirituall vnderstandyng, Contrary. 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 y ^e words of eating and drinking be figuratiue speches, because they haue 1 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, y ^t they be figuratiue speches) what needeth all this superfluous multiplication of words, when we a­gree in the matter, which is here in question?

2 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 [Page 118] 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, Iohn. 6. 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, y ^t 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 3 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 4 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 5 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) y ^t we must beware, that we take not litterally, any thing that is spoken fi­guratiuely. And specially he would not haue expressed by name y ^e 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 [Page 119] 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.

6 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. August de ver­bis domini serm 33. And in an other place he sayth, Quid paras ventrem & dentem? Crede & manducasti, In Io. tract. 25. Why doost thou prepare thy belly and teeth? Beleue, and thou hast eaten.

7 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 8 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 [Page 120] 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.

Cha. 11. This is my bo­dy: this is my bloud, be figura­tiue speaches. The bread repre­senteth Christes body and the wine his bloud. Tertulianus contra Martionem Lib. 1.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.

Tertulianus. The author had left out (the same)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 his body, which bread was in the mouth of the prophet 1 a figure of his body. Wherfore it followeth by Tertullians confession whē Christ made the bread his body, that Christ ended the figure, and made it the trueth, making now his body that was before the figure of his body. For if Christ did no more but make it a 2 figure still, then did he not make it his body, as Tertullian himselfe saith he did. And Tertullian therfore being red thus, as apeareth to me most probable, that (that is to say in Tertullian) should be onely referred to the explicacion of the first (this:) as when Tertullian had alleged Christes wordes saying (this is my body) and putteth to of his owne (that is to say the figure of my body,) these wordes (that is to say) should serue to declare the demonstration (this,) in this wise (that is to say, this) which the Pro­phet called y ^e figure of the body, is now my body. And so Tertulian sayd before y ^e Chryst had made bread his body, which bread was a figure of his body with the Prophet, and now endeth in the very trueth, being made his body by conuersion as (Cyprian 3 sheweth) of the nature of bread into his body. Tertullian reasoned against the Marci­onistes: and because a figure in the prophet signifieth a certayn vnfayned truth of that is signified, seing Christes body was figured by bread in the prophet Hieremy, it appe­reth 4 Christ had a true body. And that the bread was of Christ aproued for a figure he made now his very body. And this may be sayd euidently to Tertullian, who reaso­ning agaynst heretikes vseth the commoditie of arguing, and giueth no doctrine of 5 the sacrament to further this authors purpose. And what aduantage should the heretiques haue of Tertulian if he should meane, that these words, This is my body, had 6 onely this sence, this is the figure of my body, hauing himselfe sayd before, that Christ made bread his body. If so playne speach, to make bread his body, conteyneth no more [Page 121] certayntie in vnderstanding but the figure of a body? Why should not they say, that a body in Christ should euer be spoken of a body in a figure, and so no certayntie of any trew body in Christ by Tertullianes wordes? This place of Tertullian is no secret poynt of learning, and hath bene of Decolampadius and other alleadged and by ether 7 Catholique men aunswered vnto it, wherof this author may not think now as vpon a wrangling argument, to satisfie a coniecture deuised, therby to confirme a new teaching. 8 Finally Tertullian termeth it not an onely figure, which this author must proue, or els he doth nothing.

Caunterbury.

ON what a wrangling and wrasting is here made? What crookes be cast? Tertullian saith not, an only fi­gure. what leaping about is here, to auoyde a foyle? And yet I refer to any indifferent man that shall reade the place of Tertullain, to iudge whether you haue truely expounded him, or in the wrastling with him be 1 quite ouerthrowen, and haue a flat fall vpon your backe. For Tertullian sayth not, that the bread was a figure of Christs body only in the prophet. (as you expound Tertullian) but sayth, that bred and wine were figures in the old testament, and so taken in the prophets, and now be figures a­gayne in y ^e new testament, & so vsed of Christ himself in his last supper.

2 And where Tertullian sayth, that Christ made bread his body, he ex­poundeth him self how Christ made bread his body, adding by and by these wordes, That is to say, a figure of his body. But if thou caust for­bear good reader (when thou readest the fond handling of Tertullian by this ignorant and subtill lawyer) I pray thee laugh not, for it is no mat­ter to be laughed at, but to be sorowed, that the most auncient authors of Christes church should thus be eluded in so weighty causes. O Lord, what shall these men answer to thee at the last day, whan no cauilations shall haue place? These be Tertullians words. Iesus taking bread, and di­stributing it amōg his disciples, made it his body, saying: This is my body, that is to say a figure of my body.

Heare Tertullian expoundeth not the saying of the Prophet, but the saying of Christ, this is my body. And where Tertullian hath but once the word (This) you say (the first this). And so you make a wise speach to say (the first,) where is but one. And Tertullian speaketh of (this) in Christes wordes, when he sayd, This is my body, and you referre them to the Prophets wordes, which be not there, but the spoken of long after. And if you had not forgotten your gramer, and all kind of speach, or els hurled away altogether purposely to serue your owne wilfull deuise, you would haue referred the demonstration of his antecedent before, and not to a thing that in order commeth long after. And bread in the prophet was but a figuratiue speach, but in Christes wordes was not onely a fi­guratiue speach, but also a figuratiue thing, that is to say, very materiall bread, which by a figuratiue speach Christ ordeyned to be a figure and a sacrament of his body. For as the Prophet by this word (bread) figured Christes body so did Christ himsef institute very materiall bread, to be a figure of his body in the sacrament. But you referre (this) to the bread in the Prophet, which Christ spake (as Tertullian sayth) of the bread in the gospell. And Christes wordes must needes be vnderstanded of the bread which he gaue to his Apostles, in the time of the gospell after he had en­ded the supper of the law. And if Christ made the bread in the prophet his [Page 122] very body, which was no materiall bread, but this word, (bread) then did Christ make this word bread his body, and conuerted this word bread in to the substaunce of his body. This is the conclusion of your subtell so­phistication of Tertullians wordes.

Now as concerning Saynt Ciprian (whome you here alledge) he 3 spake of a sacramentall and not of a corporall and carnall conuersion, as shall be playnly declared, when I come to y ^e place of Ciprian, and partely I haue declared alredy in myne other booke.

And Tertullian proued not in that place the veritie of Christes body 4 by the figure of the Prophet: but by the figure which Christ ordeyned of his body in his last supper. For he went not about to proue that Christ should haue a body, but that he had then a true body, because he ordeined a figure therof, which could haue had no figure (as Tertullian sayth) if it had ben but a phantasticall body, and no true body in deed.

Wherfore this which you say in aunswering to the playn wordes of 5 Tertullian, may be sayd of them that care not what they say, but it can not be sayd euidently, that is spoken so sophistically.

But if so playne speech of Tertullian (say you) that Christ made bread 6 his body, conteyne no more certayntie in vnderstanding but the figure of a body, why should not the body of Christ euer be taken for a figure? and 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 7 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, 8 for I take vpon me there to proue no more, but that the bread is a [Page 123] 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, Ciprianus. lib. 2. Epistola. 3. 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, De vnction [...] Chrismati. 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, Chris in. Psa. 22 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, Iero. in Mat. 26. ‘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, Ambros de his qui misterijs in­itiantur. cap. vlt. ‘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. De sacramentis lib. 6. cap. 3. ‘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. Lib. 4. cap. 4. The priest sayth: Make vnto vs this oblation to be acceptable, Lib. 4. cap. 5. which is the figure of the bo­dy and bloud of our Lord Iesu Christ.’

And vpon the epistle of Saynt Paule to the Corinthians, 1. Cor. 15. 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 [Page 124] 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, Signes and fi­gures haue the names of the thinges which they signify. 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.

Cyprianus. Chrysostom. Hieronym.Ciprian shalbe 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 1 a true reall exhibision: for saynt Hierom speaketh of y ^e representation of the truth 2 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. 3

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, Ambrosius. but those speaches exclude not the veritie and truth of the body and bloud of Christ, for no ap­proued author hath this exclution, No author sayth, an onely figure. to say an onely signe, an only token, an only simili­tude, 4 or an only signification, which is the issue with this author.

Canterbury.

HEre you shift of S. Ciprian and Chrisostom with fayre promise to make answer to them hearafter, who aproue playnly my saying, Hjeronimus. that the bread representeth Christes body, and the, wine his bloud, and so you aunswer here only to S. Hierom. In aunswering to whom you wer loth (I se well) to leaue behind any thing that might haue any co­lour to make for you, that expound this word (represent) in S. Hierom, 1 to signifie reall exhibition. Here appeareth that you can when you list. change y ^e signification of wordes, that can make vocare to signifie facere, and facere to signifie sacrificare, Represent. as you do in your last booke. And why should you not than in other wordes (when it wil serue for like purposes) haue the like libertie to change the signification of words when you list And if this word (represent) in saynt Hieroms wordes, signifie reall exhi­bition, then did Melchisedech really exhibit Christes flesh & bloud, who (as the same saynt Hierom sayth) did represent his flesh and bloud by offering bread and wine.

And yet in the lordes supper ryghtly vsed is Christes body exhibited 2 in dede spiritually, and so really, Really. if you take really, to signifie only a spiri­tuall and not a corporall and carnall exhibition. But this reall and spiri­tuall exhibition is to the receiuers of the sacrament, and not to the bread and wine.

And mine issue in this place is no more, but to proue that these sayings 3 of Christ, This is my body, This is my bloud, be figuratiue speaches, sig­nifying that the bread representeth Christes body, and the wine his bloud which for as much as you confesse, ther neded no great contention in this poynt, but that you would seme in wordes to vary, where we agre in the substance of the matter, and so take occasion to make a longe booke, where a short would haue serued.

And as for the exelucion (onely) many of the authors (as I proued be­fore) 4 [Page 129] haue the same exclusiue, or other wordes equiualent therto. And as for the sacramentall signes, they be onely figures. And of the presence of Christes body, your selfe hath this exclusiue, that Christ is but after a spi­rituall maner present, and I say he is but spiritually present.

Now followeth Saynt Augustine.

And yet S. Augustine sheweth this matter more clearly and fully then any of the rest, Augustimus ad Bonefacium. Episto. 23. specially in an epistle, which he wrot ad Bonifacium, where he sayth, that a day or two before good Friday, we vse in common speach to say thus: To morow or this day .ij. dayes, Christ suffered his passiō. Where in very dede he neuer suffered his passion but once, and that was many yeares passed. Like­wise vpon Easter day we say, This day Christ rose from death. Where in very dede it is many hundreth yeares sithens he rose from death. Why then do not men reproue vs as lyars, when we speake in this sort. But bicause we call these dayes so, by a similitude of those dayes, wherin these thinges were done in dede? And so it is called that day, which is not that day in dede, but by the course of the yeare it is a like day. And such thinges be sayd to be done that day, for the solemne celebration of the sacramēt, which thinges indede were not done that day, but long before. Was Christ offered any more but once? And he offered him selfe, and yet in a sacrament or representation, not onely euery solemne feast of Easter, but euery day he is offered to the people, so that he doth not lye, that sayth, He is euery day offered. For if sacramentes had no some similitude or likenes of those thinges, whereof they be Sacramentes, they could in no wise be sacramentes. And for their similitude and likenes, commonly they haue the name of the thinges, wherof they be sacramentes. Therfore as after a certayne maner of speach, the sacramēt of Christes body, is Christs body: the sacrament of Christes bloud, is Christes bloud: so likewise the sacrament of fayth, is fayth. And to beleue is nothing els, but to haue fayth, And therfore when we answer for yong children in their baptisme, that they beleue, which haue not yet the minde to beleue, we answer that they haue fayth, bicause they haue the sacrament of fayth. And we say also that they tourne vnto God, because of the sacrament of conuersion vnto God, for that answer pertayneth to the celebration of the sacramēt. And likewise speaketh the Apostle of bap­tisme, saying: that by Baptisme we be buryed with him into death: he sayth not that we signifie buriall, but he sayth playnly, that we be buried. So that the sacramēt of so great a thing, is not called but by the name of the thing it selfe.

Hitherto I haue rehersed the answer of S. Augustine vnto Boniface a lear­ned bishop, who asked of him, how the parentes and frendes could answer for a yong babe in baptisme, and say in his person that he beleueth & conuerteth vnto God, when the child can neither do, nor think any such thinges.

Wherunto the answer of S. Augustine is this: that for as much as baptisme is the sacrament of the profession of our fayth, and of our conuersion vnto God, it becometh vs so to answer for yong children comming therunto, as to the sacramēt apertayneth, although the children indeed haue no knowledge of such thinges.

And yet in our sayd answers we ought not to be reprehended as vayn men or lyers, forasmuch as in common speach we vse dayly to call sacramētes and figures by the names of the thinges that be signified by them, although they be not the same thing indede. As euery Goodfriday (as often as it returneth from yeare to yeare) we call it the day of Christes passion: and euery Easter [Page 126] day, we call the day of his resurrection: and euery day in the yeare, we say that Christ is offered: and the sacrament of his body, we call it his body: and the sa­crament of his bloud, we call it his bloud: and our baptisme S. Paul calleth our buriall with Christ. And yet in very dede Christ neuer suffered but once, neuer arose but once, neuer was offered but once, nor in very dede in baptis­me we be not buried, nor the sacrament of Christes body is not his body, nor the sacrament of his bloud is not his bloud. But so they be called, bicause they be figures, sacramentes, and representations of the thinges them selfe which they signifie, and whereof they beare the names. Thus doth saynt Augustine most playnly open this matter in his epistle to Bonifacius.

‘Of this maner of speach (wherin a signe is called by the name of the thing, which it signifieth) speaketh S. Augustine also right largely in his questions super Leuiticum, Super Leuiticū quest. 15. Leuit. 57. & contra Adamantium, declaring how bloud in scripture is cal­led the soule. A thing which signifieth (sayth he) is wont to be called by the name of the thing which it signifieth, as it is writen in the scripture. The vij. eares, be vij. yeares. Gen. 41. 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, 1. Cor. 10. 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, Contra adaman­tium cap. 12. 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. Leuit. 17. 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. Math. 16. 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.

Contra Maximi­num. li. 3. cap. 22And 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, In lib. sententia­rum Prosperi de consecrat. dist. 2 Hoc est. 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. Bucerus. 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 [Page 127] 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, y ^e body of christ, y ^e sacramēt of y ^e bloud of christ, y ^e bloud of christ, but after what maner? y ^t it should signifie onely the body and bloud absent? Absit, In no wise: for the same Saynt 2 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 3 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 4 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, Authors for doctrine should be red where they expound y ^e matter without contention. and see what they say in expounding the speciall place, without con­tention, 5 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.

1 WHat nede you to bring Martine Bucer to make me answer, M. Bucer. 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.

2 And I neuer sayd, that Christ is vtterly absent, but I euer affirmed, The trew pre­sense of Christ. 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.

3 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 [Page 124] 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 y ^t maner of speach, thou mayst beleue him hereafter as thou shalt see cause, but if thou trust his wordes to much, thou shalt soone be deceiued.

As for the reall presence of Christ in the sacrament, I graunt that he 4 is really present, Really. 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 5 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, 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 countenaūce 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, Theodoretus in dialogis. 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. In the first dialogue. Doost thou not know, that god caleth bread his flesh?

I know that.

And in an other place he calleth his body corne.

I know that also, for I haue heard him say: The houre is come, that the sonne of man shalbe glorified. &c. Iohn. 12. Except the grayne of come, that falleth in the ground dye, it remayneth sole, but if it dye, then it bringeth forth much fruite.

[Page 129]

When he gaue the mysteries of sacraments, Math. 16. Mark. 14. Luc. 22. he called bread his body, and that which was mixt in the cup he called bloud.

So he called them.

But that also which was his naturall body, may well be called his body and his very bloud also, may be called his bloud.

It is playne.

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 whē he called himself a vyne, he called bloud that, which was the token of bloud. Ioh. 15.

Surely thou hast spokē the truth. But I would know the cause wherfore the names were changed.

The cause is manifest to them that be expert in true religion. For he would that they which be partakers of the godly sacraments, Ioh 12. Math. 16. Ioh. 15. 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 tokēs and signes, with the names of his body and bloud, not changing the nature, but adding grace to nature.

Sacraments be spoken of sacramentally, and also by them be mani­festly declared things, which all men know not.

Seyng then that it is certayne, that the Patriarch called the lords body a vestiment and apparell, Gen. 46. 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 tokē and figure of Christes diuinity, or of his body and bloud?

It is cleare that it is the figure of those thinges, whereof it beareth the name.

Meanest thou of his body and bloud?

Euen so I meane

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. Ioh. 6. The bread which I wil giue is my flesh, whi­che I will geue for the life of the world.

These things be true, for they be Gods words.

All these writeth Theodoretus in hi first Dialogue.' Dial. 20

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.

Corruption, healeth sicknes, and death, be accedents, for they goe & come.

It is meet they be so called.

Mens bodies after their resurrection be delyuered from corruption, death, & mortalitie, and yet they lose not theyr proper nature.

Truth it is.'

The body of Christ therfore did rise quite cleane from all corruption & death, Christes body glorified hath his forme bignes and quantitie. 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.

Thy saying seeme true & according to reason, but after he was ascen­ded [Page 130] vp into heauen, I thinke thou wilt not say, that his body was not tourned into the nature of his godhead.

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, Act. 17. 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, Act. 1. that he will come a [...]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. Math. 24. And I know that euery thing that men see, hath a certayne bignes. For that nature that hath no bignes, can not be seene. More­ouer to sit in the throne of glory, and to sette the Lambes vpon his right hand, and the goates vpon his left hand, signifieth a thing that hath quantitie and bygnes.

Hitherto haue I rehersed Theodoretus wordes, and shortly after Eranistes sayth.

We must tourne euery stone (as the prouerb sayth) to seeke out the truth, but specially when godly matters be propounded.

Tell me than the sacramentall signes which be offered to God by his priestes, wherof be they signes, sayst thou?

Of the Lordes body and bloud.

Of a very body? or not of a very body?

Of a very body.

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.

Truth it is.

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.

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.

I shall answer.

What callest thou that which is offered, before the inuocation of the priest?

We must not speake playnly, for it is like that some be present, which haue not professed Christ.

Answer couertly.

It is a nourishment made of sedes that be like.

Than how call we the other signe?

It is also a common name that signifieth a kind of drinke.

But how doest thou call them after the sanctification.

The body of Christ, and the bloud of Christ.

And doest thou beleue that thou art made partaker of Christes body and bloud?

I beleue so.

Therfore as the tokens of Gods body and bloud, be other thinges before [Page 131] 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.

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 cō ­pare 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.

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.

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, [Page 132] 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.

2 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.

3 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.

4 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.

5 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, [Page 133] which Christ spake at his supper: This is my body. This is my bloud.

Winchester.

The author bringeth in Theodoret a greek, Theodoretus. 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 y ^t 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, P. Marter 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, adeo (que) & 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 1 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 2 [...], 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 [Page 134] 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, Adoration of the sacrament. 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 shallbe 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 3 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 1 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 2 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: Apo. 13. Psal. 83. 2. Pet. 3. and one day before him, is as it were a thousand yeare, and a thousand yeare as one day.

Augustus de doct. Christ. li. 3. cap. 9.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, [Page 135] 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 y ^e celestial things, which by y ^e 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 y ^e same principally to be referred to y ^e celestial thīgs represented by y ^e signs: and therfore sayeth S. Augustin ( potius) rathar. And this worship is as wel in y ^e 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, Chap. 12. Figuratiue speches be not strange. 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, 2. Re. 4. 2. Re. 7. 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 [Page 136] arke (which was a figure of God) was so remoued from place to place, he spake of him selfe that thing, which was to be vnderstand of the arke.

Christ himselfe vsed figuratiue speches. Mat. 13.And Christ him selfe often tymes spake in similitudes, parables, and figures, as whan he sayd Mat. 11. & 17. The field is the world, the enemy is the diuell, the seed is the word of God Iohn. 16. Iohn is Helias Iohn. 6. I am a vyne, and you be the branches Iohn. 15. I am bread of lyfe Math. 3. My father is an husband man, and he hath his fan in his hand, and will make cleane his flower, and gather the wheate into his barne, but the chaffe he will cast into euerlasting fyre Iohn. 4. I haue a meat to eat, which you know not Iohn. 6. Woorke not meat that perisheth, but that indureth vnto euerlasting life Iohn. 10. I am a good shepherd Math. 15. The sonne of man will set the shepe at his right hād, and the goates at his left hād Iohn. 10. I am a dore: one of you is the deuyll Iohn. 6. Who­soeuer doeth my fathers will, he is my brother, sister and mother. Math. 12 And when he sayd to his mother, and to Iohn, Iohn. 4. This is thy sonne, this is thy mother.

Qui biberet ex aqua quam ego dabo. &c. Ibidē. Ego cibū habeo manducare quē vos nescitis.These with an infinite number of lyke sentences, Christ spake in Parables, Metaphores, tropes, and figures. But chiefly when he spake of the sacramētes, he vsed figuratiue speaches.

Act. 1.As whan in Baptisme he sayd, that we must be baptised with the holy ghost meaning of spirituall baptisme. And like speach vsed S. Iohn the Baptiste: saying of Christ, that he should baptise with the holy ghost and fier. And Christ sayd, Math. 3. that we must be borne agayn or else we can not see the kingdom of God. And sayd also: Ioh. 4. Iohn. 4. Whosoeuer shall drincke of that water which I shall geue him, he shall neuer be drye agayn. But the water which I shall geue him, shall be made with in him a well, which shall spring into euerlasting life.

Rom. 6. Gala. 3.And S. Paule sayth, that in baptisme we cloth vs with Christ, and be buried with him. This baptisme and washing by the fyre and the holy ghost, this new birth, this water that springeth in a man, and floweth into euerlasting life and this clothing and buriall can not be vnderstand of any materiall baptisme, materiall washing, materiall birth, clothing, and buriall: but by translation of thinges visible, into thinges inuisible, they must be vnderstand spiritually and figuratiuely.

After the same sort the mistery of our redemption, and the passion of our sauiour Christ vpon the crosse, as well in the new, as in the ould testament, is expressed and declared by many figures and figuratiue speaches.

The Pascall Lambe.As the pure Paschall lambe without spot, signified Christ. The effusion of the lambes bloud, signified the effusion of Christes bloud. And the saluation of the Children of Israell from temporall death by the lambes bloud, signified our saluation from eternall death by Christes bloud.

And as almightie God passing through Egypt killed all the Egiptians heires in euery house and left not one aliue, and neuerthelesse he passed by the chil­dren of Israels houses, where he sawe the Lambes bloud vpon the dores, and hurted none of them, but saued them all by the meanes of the Lambes bloud: so likewise at the last iudgement of the whole world, none shall be passed ouer and saued, but that shall be found marked with the bloud of the most pure and immaculat lambe Iesus Christ. And for as much as the shedding of that lambes bloud was a token and figure of the shedding of Christes bloud than to come: The Lords supper. and for as much also as all the sacramentes and figures of the olde testament, ceased and had an end in Christ: least by our great vnkindnes we should peraduenture be forgetfull of the great benefite of Christ, therfore at his last supper (when he toke his leaue of his Apostles to depart out of the [Page 137] world) he did make a new will and testament, wherin he bequethed vnto vs cleane remission of all our sinnes, and the euerlasting inheritaunce of heauen. And the same he confirmed the next day with his owne bloud and death.

And least we should forget the same, he ordayned not a yearly memory (as the Pascall lambe was eaten but once euery year) but a dayly remembrance he ordeined therof in bread and wine, sanctified and dedicated to that purpose saying: This is my body, This cuppe is my bloud, which is shed for the re­mission of sinnes: Do this in remembrance of me. Math. 26. Admonishing vs by these wordes, spoken at the making of his last will and testament, and at his depar­ting out of the world (bicause they should be the better remembred) that whensoeuer we do eat the bread in his holy supper; and drinke of that cuppe, we should remember how much Christ hath done for vs, and how he dyed for our sakes. Therfore sayth S. Paule: As often as ye shall eat this bread, 1 Cor. 11 and drinke the cuppe, you shall shewe forth the Lordes death vntill he come.

And forasmuch as this holy bread broken, and the wine deuided, do re­present vnto vs the death of Christ now passed as the killing of the Pascall Lambe did represent the same yet to come: therfore our sauiour Christ vsed the same manner of speach of bread and wine, as God before vsed the Paschall Lambe.

For as in the old testament God sayd: this is the Lordes passeby, or passo­uer: Exod. 12. Math. 26. euen so sayth Christ in the new Testament, This is my body, This is my bloud. But in the old mistery and sacrament, the Lambe was not the Lordes very Passeouer or passing by, but it was a figure which represented his passing by: So likewise in the new Testament the bread and wine be not Christes very body and bloud, but they be figures, which by Christes institution be vnto the godly receauers therof, Sacramentes, tokens, significations, and represen­tations of his very flesh and bloud: instructing their fayth, that as the bread and wine fede them corporally, and continue this temporall lyfe, so the very flesh and bloud of Christ feedeth them spiritually, and giueth euer­lasting lyfe.

And why should any man think it strange to admit a figure in these speches, What figura­tiue speaches were vsed at Christes last supper. Math 26. Mar. 14. Luc. 22. This is my body, This is my bloud, seing that the communication the same night, by the Papistes owne confessions, was so full of figuratiue speaches. For the Apostles spake figuratiuely when they asked Christ, where he would eat his passeouer or passeby. And Christ him selfe vsed the same figure, when he sayd: I haue much desired to eate this passeouer with you.

Also, to eat Christes body and to drink his bloud, I am sure they will not say that it is taken properly, to eate and drink, as we doe eate other meates and drinkes.

And when Christ sayd: This cup is a new testament in my bloud: here in one sentence be two figures: one in this word, cup, which is not taken for the cup it selfe, but for the thing conteined in the cup: an other is in this word, testament: for neither the cup, nor the wine contayned in the cup, is Christes testament, but is a token, signe, and figure, wherby is represented vnto vs his testament, confirmed by his bloud.

And if the Papistes will say (as they say in deed) that by this cup is neither mēt the cup, nor the wine cōtayned in the cup, but that thereby is mēt Christs bloud contayned in the cup, yet must they nedes graunt, that there is a figure. For Christes bloud is not in proper speach the new testament, but it is the [Page 138] thing that confirmed the new Testament. And yet by this strange interpreta­tion, the Papistes make a very strange speach, more strange then any figuratiue speach is. For this they make the sentence: this bloud is a new Testament in my bloud. Which saying is so fond and so far from all reason, that the foolish­nes therof is euident to euery man.

Winchester.

As for the vse of figuratiue speaches to be accustomed in scripture is not denyed. But Philip Melancthon in an epistle to Decolampadius of the sacrament, Melancthon. geueth one good note of obseruation in difference betwene the speaches in gods ordinances and commaū ­dementes, and otherwise. For if in the vnderstanding of Gods ordinaunces and com­maundementes, 1 The speech in scripture wher God comman­deth or ordereth is spiritually to be considered. figures may be often receiued: truth shal by allegories be shortly sub­uerted and all our religion reduced to significations. There is no speach so playne and simple but it hath some peece of a figuratiue speach, but such as expresseth the common playne vnderstanding, Figuratiue spech by custom made proper. and then the common vse of the figure causeth it to be taken as a common proper speach. As these speaches, drink vp this cup, or eate this dish, is in deed a figuratiue speach, but by custome make so common that it is reputed the playne speach, bicause if hath but one onely vnderstanding commonly receyued. And when Christ sayd: This cup is the new testament: the proper speach therof in letter, hath an absurditie in reason, and fayth also. But whan Christ sayd, this is my body, although 2 the truth of the lytterall sence hath an absurditie in carnall reason, yet hath it no absur­ditie in humilitie of fayth, nor repugneth not to any other truth of scripture. And seing it is a singuler miracle of Christ wherby to exercise vs in the fayth, vnderstanded as the playne wordes signifie in their proper sence, there can no reasoning be made of other figuratiue speaches to make this to be their fellow and like vnto them. No man denieth the vse of figuratiue speaches in Christes supper, but such as be equall with playne proper speach, or be expounded by other Euangelestes in playne speach.

Canterburie.

I See well you would take a dong forke to fight with, rather then you would lack a weapon. For how highly you haue estemed Melancthō in tymes past, it is not vnknowne. But whatsoeuer Melancthon sayeth or how soeuer you vnderstand Melancthon, where is so conuenient a place to vse figuratiue speeches, as when figures and Sacraments be in­stituted? And S. Augustine giueth a playne rule, how we may know when Gods commādemēts be giuen in figuratiue speches, & yet shal nei­ther the truth be subuerted, nor our religion reduced to significations. And how can it be but that in the vnderstanding of Gods ordinances & commaundements, figures must needes be often receaued (contrary to 1 Melancthons saying) if it be true that you say, that there is no spech so playne and simple, but it hath some peece of a figuratiue speech. But now be all speches figuratiue, when it pleaseth you. What need I then to tra­uaile any more to proue that Christ in his supper vsed figuratiue speches, seyng that all that he spake was spoken in figures by your saying?

And these wordes (This is my body) spoken of the bread, and (This is 2 my bloud) spoken of the cuppe, expresse no playne comon vnderstanding, wherby the common vse of these figures should be equall with plain pro­per speches, or cause them to be taken as common proper speches: for you say your felf, that these speches in letter haue an absurdity in reason. And as they haue absurdity in reason, so haue they absurdity in fayth. For nei­ther is there any reason, fayth, myracle, nor truth, to say that materiall bread is Christes body. For then it must be true that his body is material [Page 139] bread, a conuersa ad conuertentem, for of the materiall bread, spake Christ, those words by your confession. And why haue not these words of Christ (This is my body) an absurdity both in fayth and reason, aswell as these words, (This cup is the new Testament) seyng that these wordes were spoken by Christ, as well as the other, and the credite of him is all one whatsoeuer he sayth?

But if you will needes vnderstand these wordes of Christ (This is my body) as the playn wordes signify in their proper sence (as in the end you seeme to do, repugning therein to your owne former saying) you shall see how farre you go, not onely from reason, but also from the true profession of the christian fayth.

Christ spake of bread (say you) This is my body: appoynting by this word (this) the bread: whereof followeth (as I sayd before) If bread be his body, that his body is bread: And if his body be bread, it is a creature without sence and reason, hauing neither life nor soule: which is horrible of any christian man to be heard or spoken. Heare now what followeth further in my booke.

Now forasmuch as it is playnly declared & manifestly proued, that Christ called bread his body, and wine his bloud, and that these sentences be figura­tiue speches, and that Christ, as concerning his humanity & bodily presence, is ascended into heauen with his whole flesh and bloud, Cap. 15. Answere to the authorities and arguments of y ^e Papists. and is not here vpon earth, and that the substance of bread and wine do remayne still, and be recea­ued in the sacrament, and that although they remayne, yet they haue changed their names, so that the bread is called Christs body, and the wine his bloud, and that the cause why their names be changed is this, y ^t we should list vp our harts & minds frō the things which we se vnto the things which we beleue & be aboue in heauē: wherof y ^e bread & wine haue the names, although they be not the vey same things in deed: these things well considered and wayed, all the authorities and arguments, which the Papists fayn to serue for their purpose, be clean wiped away.

For whether the authors (which they alleadge) say that we do eat Christes flesh and drink his bloud, Cap. 14. One brief an­swere to all. or that the bread and wine is conuerted into the substance of his flesh and bloud, or that we be turned into his flesh, or that in the Lordes supper we do receiue his very flesh and bloud, or that in the bread and wine is receiued that which did hang vpon the crosse, or that Christ hath left his flesh with vs, or that Christ is in vs and we in him, or that he is whole here and whole in heauen, or that the same thing is in the Chalice, which flowed out of his side, or that the same thing is receiued with out mouth, which is beleued with our faith, or that the bread and wine after the Consecration be the body and bloud of Christ, or that we be nourished with the body and bloud of Christ or that Christ is both gone hence and is still here, or that Christ at his last supper, bare himselfe in his owne hands.

These and all other like sentences may be vnderstanded of Christes humanity, litterally & carnally, as the words in cōmō spech do properly signifye (for so dooth no man eat Christs flesh, nor drinke his bloud, nor so is not the bread and wine after the consecration his flesh and bloud, nor so is not his flesh and bloud whole here in earth, eatē with our mouthes nor so did not Christ take, him selfe in his own hands:) But these and all other like sentences which de­clare [Page 140] Christ to be here in earth, & to be eaten and drunken of Christian peo­ple) are to be vnderstanded either of his diuine nature (wherby he is euery where) or els they must be vnderstanded figuratiuely, or spiritually. For figura­tiuely he is in the bread and wine, and spiritually he is in them that worthely eat and drinke the bread & wine, but really, carnally, and corporally he is onely in heauen, from whence he shall come to iudge the quick and dead.

This briefe aunswere will suffice for all that the papists can bryng for their purpose, if it be aptly applyed. And for, the more euidence hereof, I shall ap­ply the same to somme such places, as the Papistes, think do make most for thē that by the aunswere to those places, the rest may be the more easely answe­red vnto.

Winchester.

In the lxxiiii, leaf this author goeth about to geue a generall solution to all that may be sayd of Christes beyng in earth, in heauen, or in the sacrament: and geueth iustructi­ons how these wordes of Christs diuine nature, figuratiuely, spiritually, really, carnal­ly, corporally, may be placed: and thus he sayth: Christ in his diuine nature may be sayed 1 to be in the earth, figuratiuely in the sacrament, spiritually in y ^e man that receiueth, but really, carnally, corporally, only in heauen. Let vs consider the placing of these termes. When we say, Christ is in his diuine nature euery where, is he not really also euery where, Really. according to the true essēce of his godhed: in deed euery where? that is to say, not in fantasy, nor imagination, but verily, truely, and therefore really as we beleue so in déed euery where? And when Christ is spiritually in good men by grace, is not Christ in them really by grace? but in fantasy and imagination? And therfore what soeuer this author sayth, the word really may not haue such restraint to be referred onely to heauen, vnles the author would deny that substance of the godhead, which as it comprehendeth all being incomprensible, & is euery where without limitation of place, so as it is, truely it is, in déed is, and therfore really is, and therfore of Christ must be sayd, wheresoeuer he is in his diuine nature by power or grace, he is there really, whether we speak of hea­uen or earth.

Carnally. Corporally.As for the termes carnally and corporally, as this author semeth to vse them in other places of this book, to expresse the maner of presence of the humaine nature in Christ, I maruaile by what scripture he shall proue that Christs body is so carnally and corporal­ly in heauen. We be assured by fayth, groūded vpon the scriptures, of the truth of the be­yng of Christs flesh and body there, and the same to be a true flesh and a true body, but yet in such sence as this author vseth the termes carnall and corporall against the sacra­ment, to imply a grossenes, he can not so attribute those termes to Christes body in hea­uen S, Augustine after the grosse sense of carnally, sayth: Christ reigneth not carnally in heauen. And Gregory Nazianzen sayth: August. de ciui­ta [...]. dei. Gregor. Nazianzen. de baptis­mo. Although Christ shall come in the last day to iudge, so as he shalbe sene: yet there is in him no grossenes, he sayth, and referreth the maner of his being to his knowlege onely. And our resurrection, S. Augustine sayeth, al­though it shall be of our true flesh, yet it shall not be carnally. And when this author had defamed as it were the termes carnally and corporally, as tearmes of grossenes, to whō he vsed alwayes to put as an aduersatiue, the terme spiritually, as though carnally, and spiritually might not agrée in one. Now for all that he would place them both in heauē 2 where is no carnallyty but all the maner of being, spirituall, where is no grossenes at all the secrecie of the manner of which life is hidden from vs, and such as eye hath not séen, or eare heard, or ascended into the hart and thought of man.

I know these termes carnally and corporally may haue a good vnderstanding out of the mouth of him that had not defamed them with grossenes, or made them aduersaries to spirituall: Now Christ may be sayd to be corporally & carnally in hea­uen. and a man may say Christ is corporally in heauen, because the truth of his body is there, and carnally in heauen, because his flesh is truly there, but in this vnderstanding both the wordes carnally and corporally, may be coupled with the word Spi­ritually, which is agaynst this authors teaching, who appointeth the word spiritually to be spoken of Christes presence in the man that receiued the sacrament worthely which spech I do not disalow, but as Christ is spiritually in the man that dooth receiue the Sa­crament [Page 141] worthely: so is he in him spiritually before be receiue, or els he can not receiue worthely, as I haue before said. And by this appeareth how this author, to frame his ge­nerall solution, hath vsed neither of the tearmes, really, carnally and corporally or spiri­tually, in a conuenient order, but hath in his distribution misused them notably. For Christ in his diuine nature is really euery where, Christ is pre­sent in the sacrament as he is in heauen. and in his humaine nature is carnal­ly and corporally, as these words signify substāce of the flesh and body, continually in hea­uen to the day of iudgement, & neuertheles after that signification present in the sacra­ment also. And in those termes in that signification the fathers haue spoken of the effect of the eating of Christ in the sacrament, as in the perticuler solutions to the authors here 3 after shall appear. Mary as touching the vse of the word figuratiuely, to say that Christ is figuratiuely in the bread and wine, is a saying which this author hath not proued at all, but is a doctrine before this diuerse times reproued, and now by this author in Eng­land renewed.

Caunterbury.

ALthough my chief study be to speak so playnly that all men may vnderstand euery thing what I say, yet nothing is plaine to him y ^t wil 1 finde knots in a rish. For when I say, that all sentences which declare Christ to be here in earth, and to be eaten and drunken of christian people are to be vnderstanded either of his diuine nature (wherby he is euerye where) or els they must be vnderstand figuratiuely or spiritually: for figuratiuely he is in the bread and wine, and spiritually he is in them that worthely eat and drinke the bread and wine, but really, carnally and cor­porally he is onely in heauen. You haue termed these my wordes as it li­keth you, but farre otherwise then I eyther wrote or ment, or then any in­different reader would haue imagined.

For what indifferent reader would haue gathered of my words, that Christ in his diuine nature is not really in heauen? For I make a disiunc­tiue, wherein I declare a playn distinction betweene his diuine nature and his humaine nature. And of his diuine nature I say in the first mēber of my diuision, which is in the beginning of my aforesayd words, that by that nature he is euery where. And all the rest that followeth is spo­ken of his humayne nature wherby he is carnally and corporally onely in heauen.

And as for this word (really) in such a sense as you expound it, Really. (that is to say, not in phantasy nor imagination, but verily and truely) so I grant that Christ is really, not onely in them that duely receaue the sacrament of the Lordes supper, but also in them that duely receaue the sacrament of Baptisme, and in all other true christian people at other times when they receiue no sacramēt. For al they be the members of Christs body, and Temples in whom he truely inhabiteth, although corporally and really, (as the Papistes take that word really) he be onely in heauen and not in the sacrament. And although in them that duely receaue the sacrament, he is truely and in deed, and not by phansy and imagination, and so really (as you vnderstand really) yet is he not in them corporally, but spiritual [...] (as I say) and onely after a spirituall manner as you say.

And as for these wordes (carnally and corporally) I defame them not, Carnally and corporally. for I meane by carnally and corporally none otherwise, than after the form and fashion of a mans body, as we shal be after our resurrectiō, that is to say, visible, palpable, and circumscribed, hauing a very quantitie with due proportion and distinction of members, in place and order one from an other. And if you will deny Christ so to be in heauen, I haue so [Page 142] playne and manifest scriptures agaynst you, that I will take you for no christian man, except that you reuoke that error. For sure I am, that Christes naturall body hath such a grossenes, Grossely. or stature and quantitie, if you will so call it, bicause the word grosenes, grosely taken, as you vn­derstand it, soundeth not well in an incoruptible and immortall body.

Marry as for any other grosenes, as of eating, drinking, and grose auoyding of the same, with such other like corruptible grosenes, it is for grose heades to imagine or think eyther of Christ, or of any body glorified.

Augustinus.And although S. Augustine may say, that Christ reigneth not car­nally in heauen, yet he sayth playnly, that his body is of such sort, that it is circumscribed and conteined in one place.

Nazianzenus.And Gregory Nazianzene ment, that Christ should not com at the last iudgement in a corruptible and mortall flesh, as he had before his resurrec­tion, and as we haue in this mortall lyfe, (for such grosenes is not to be attributed to bodyes glorified) but yet shal he come with with such a body, 1 as he hath since his resurrection, absolute and perfect in all partes and members of a mans bodye, hauing handes, feete, head, mouth, syde and woundes, and all other partes of a man visible and sensible, like as we shall all appeare before him at the same last day, with this same flesh in substance that we now haue, and with these same eyes shall we see God our Sauiour. Marry to what fynes and purenes our bodyes shall be then changed, no man knoweth in the perigrination of this world, sauing that S. Paule sayth, Phil. 3. that he shall change this vile body, that he may make it like vnto his glorious body. But that we shall haue diuersi­ty of all members, and a due proportion of mens natural bodyes, the scripture manifestly declareth, what soeuer you can by a synister glose gather of Nazianzene to the contrary, that glorified bodies haue no flesh nor grossenes.

But see you not how much this saying of S. Augustin (that our resurrec­tion shall not be carnally) maketh agaynst your self? For if we shal not rise carnally, then is not Christ risen carnally nor is not in heauen carnally. And if he be not in heauen, how can he be in the Sacrament carnally, and eaten and drunken carnally w ^t our mouthes, as you say he is? And therfore as for the termes (carnally, and corporally) it is you that defame thē by your grosse taking of thē, and not I, that speak of none other grossenes, but of distinction of the naturall and substantiall partes, with out the which no mans body can be perfect.

And wheras here in this processe you attribute vnto Christ none other presence in heauen, whether christ be in heauē but after a spiritual manner. An issue. but spirituall, without all manner of grossenes or carnallity, 2 so that all manner of beyng is spirituall, and none otherwise then he is in the sacramēt, here I ioyn an issue with you for a ioynt, and for the price of a faggot. I wondred all this while, that you were so ready to graunt, that Christ is but after a spirituall manner in the sacrament: and now I wonder no more at that, seyng that you say, he is but after a spiri­tuall maner in heauen. And by this meanes we may say, that he hath but a spirituall manhod, as you say that he hath in the sacrament but a spirituall body. And yet some carnall thing and grossenes he hath in him, for he hath flesh and bones, which spirites lack, except that to all this impietye [Page 143] you will adde, that his flesh and bones also be spirituall thinges & not car­nall. And it is not without some strange prognosticatiō, that you be now waxed altogither so spirituall.

Now as concerning the word (figuratiuely) Figuratiuely. what need this any profe 3 that christ is in the sacraments figuratiuely? which is no more to say but sacramentally. And you graunt your selfe fol. 28. that Christ vnder the figure of visible creatures gaue inuisibly his pretious body. And fol. 80. you say, that Christ sayd, This is my body, vsing the outward signes of y ^t visible creatures. And this doctrine was neuer reproued of any catholick man, but hath at al times and of al men bene allowed without contradition, sauing now of you allone. Now followeth my answere to the authors particularly. And first to Saynt Clement.

My wordes be these.

They alleadge S. Clement, Cap. 15. The answere to Clement. Episto. 2. whose wordes be these as they report. The sacra­ments of Gods secrets are committed to three degrees: to a Priest, a Deacon, and a minister: which with feare and trembling ought to kep the leauings of the broken peces of the Lordes body, that no corruption be foūd in the holy place, least by negligence great iniury be done to the portion of the Lordes body. And by and by followeth: So many hostes must be offered in the altar, as will suffice for the people. And if any remayne, they must not be kept vntill the morning, but be spent and cō ­sumed of the clearkes, with feare and trembling. And they that consume the residue of the Lords body, may not by and by take other common meates, least they should mixte that holy portion, with the meat which is digested by the belly, and auoyded by the fundement. Therefore if the Lordes portion be eaten in the morning, the ministers that consume it, must fast vnto sixe of the clocke: and if they doe take it at three or foure of the clocke, the minister must fast vntill the euening.

Thus much writeth Clement of this matter: if the Epistle which they al­leadge, were Clements (as in deed it is not, but they haue fayned many things in other mens names, thereby to stablish their fayned purposes) neuertheles whose soeuer the Epistle was, if it be thoroughly considered, it maketh much more agaynst the Papistes, then for theyr purpose. For by the same Epistle ap­peareth euidently three speciall thynges agaynst the erroures of the Papists.

The first is, that the bread in the sacramēt is called the Lords body: and the peces of the broken bread, be called the peces and fragments of the Lords body, which can not be vnderstand, but figuratiuely.

The second is, that the bread ought not to be reserued and hanged vp, as the Papistes euery where do vse.

The third is, that the priests ought not to receiue the sacramēt alone (as the Papists commonly doe, making a sayle therof vnto the people) but they ought to communicate with the people.

And here is diligently to be noted, that we ought not vnreuerently and vn­aduisedly to approche vnto this meat of the Lordes table, as we doe to other common meates and drinkes, but with great feare and dread, least we should come to that holy table vnworthely, wherin is not onely represented, but also spiritually geuen vnto vs very Christ himself.

And therfore we ought to come to that bord of the Lord with all reuerēce fayth, loue, and charity, feare and dread, according to the same.

Winchester.

[Page 144]Let vs now consider what particular answeres this author deuiseth to make to the fathers of the church: & first what he sayth to S. Clements Epistle, his handling where of is worthy to be noted.

First, he sayth the Epistle is not Clemēts but fained (as he saith) Clement. many other things be for their purpose (he sayth,) which solution is short & may be sone learned of noughty men, and noughtily applied further as they list. But this I may say, if this epistle were fayned of the Papistes, then do they shew themself fooles, that could fayne no better but 1 so as this author might of theyr fayned Epistle gather thrée notes agaynst them. This authors notes be these: First that the bread in the sacrament is called the Lordes body, and that the broken bread be called the peces and fragments of the Lordes body. Marke, 2 well reader this note that speaketh so much of bread, where the wordes of the Epistle, in the part here alleadged name no bread at all. If this author hath red so much mentiō of bread in an other part of the Epistle, why bringeth he not that forth to fortifye his note? I haue red after the same Epistle (pams sanctuary) but they would not helpe this authors note, and yet for the other matter ioyned with them, they would slaunder an other way. And therfore seing this author hath left them out, I will goe no further then is here alleadged.

The calling of bread by enunciation for a name is not material, because it signifieth that was, but in that is here alleadged is no mention of bread to proue the note: and to 3 faythfull men the wordes of the Epistle, reuerently expresse the remayne of the miste­ries, in which when manye hostes bee offered in the altar, according to the multi­tude that should communicate, those many hostes, after consecration, be not many bo­dies of Christ, but of many breades one body of Christ. And yet as we teach in Englād now, in the booke of common prayer, in euery part of that is broken, is the whole body of our Sauiour Christ. Mans words can not suffice to expresse Gods misteries, nor can vtter them so, as froward reason shall not finde matter to wrangle. And yet to stay rea­son, may suffice, that as in one loafe of bread brokē, euery péece broken, is a péece of that bread: and euery pece of the bread broken, is in it self a whole pece of bread, and so whol bread, for euery pece hath an whole substance of bread in it: So we truely speake of the host consecrated to auoyd the fantasy of multiplication of Christes body, which in all y ^e 4 hostes, and all the partes of the hostes is but one not broken, nor distribute by pieces, & yet in a spech to tell, and signifie that is broken, called in name the leauing peces of the body, portion of the body, residue of the body, in which neuertheles ech one pece is Christes whole body.

So as this speach hauing a figure, hath it of necessity, to auoyd the absurdity, wher­by to signify a multitude of bodyes, which is not so, and the sound of the speach christen eares do abhorre. But this I aske, where is the matter of this authors note, that bread is called Christes body? where there is no word of bread in the wordes alleadged, and if there were, as there is not, it were worthy no note at all. For that name is not abhor­red, and the catholicke fayth teacheth that the fraction is in the outward signe, and not in the body of Christ, inuisibly present, and signified so to be present by that visible signe. The second note of this author is, touching reseruing, which Clement might seme to deny, because he ordered the remayne, to be receiued of the clerkes, thinking so best: not 5 declaring expressely that nothing might be reserued to the vse of them that be absent. The contrary wherof, appereth by Iustine the Martire, Iustin. apol. 2., who testifieth a reseruation to be sent to them that were sicke, who and they dwell farre from the church, as they do in some places, it may by chaunce in the way, or trouble in the sick man, tary till the morning or it be receiued. And Cyrill writeth expresly, Cyrillus ad Ca­losyrium. Linnehood wrot a commet of the constitutions prouinceall of England. that in case it so doth, the mistical be­nediction 6 (by which termes he calleth the sacrament) remayneth still in force. Whē this author findeth fault at hangyng vp of the sacrament, he blameth onely his owne coun­try and the Iles hereabout, which fault Linnehood, after he had trauayled other coun­treys found here, beyng the manner of custody in reseruation otherwise vsed then in o­ther parties. But one thing this author should haue noted of Clements wordes, when he speketh of fearing and trembling, which and the bread were neuer the holier, as this 7 author teacheth, and but onely a signification, why should any mā fear or tremble more [Page 145] 8 in theyr presence, then he doth when he heareth of Christes supper, the gospell red, or himself or an other saying his Crede, which in words signify as much as the bread doth if it be but a signification? And Peter Martyr sayth, Peter Martyr. A marueilous spech of Peter Martyr vnles he be a sacramē ­tary and thē he speaketh like himselfe. that wordes signify more clerely then these signes do, and sayth further in his disputation with Chedsay, that we receiue the body of Christ no lesse by wordes, then by the Sacramentall signes, which teaching if it were true, why should this Sacrament be trembled at? But because this author noteth the Epistle of Clement to be fayned, I will not make with him any foundation of it, but note to the reader the third note, gathered by this author of Clementes wordes, which is, that Priestes ought not to receiue alone, which the words of the epistle proue 9 not. It sheweth in déed what was done, and how the feast is indéed prepared for the people, as well as the Priest.

And I neuer red any thing of order in law or ceremony forbidding the people to cō ­municate with the Priest, but all the old prayers and ceremonies sounded as the people did communicate with the Priest. And when the people is prepared for, and then come not, but fearyng and trēbling forbeare to come, that then the Priest might not receiue his part alone, the words of this epistle shew not. And Clemēt in that he speaketh so of leauings, semeth to thinke of that case of disappointment of the people that should come prouiding in that case the clearkes to receiue the residue, whereby should appeare, if ther we no store of clerkes, but onely one clearke, as some poore churches haue no mo, then a man might rather make a note of clements mind, that in that case one Priest 10 myght receiue all allone, and so vpon a chaunce kepe the feast allone. But what soeuer we may gather, that note of this author remayneth vnproued, that the priest ought not to receiue alone.

And here I dare therefore ioyne an issue with this author, An issue. that none of his thrée fai­ned 11 notes is grounded of any wordes of this, that he noteth a fayned Epistle, taking only wordes that he alleageth here. This author vpon occasion of this epistle, which he calleth 12 fayned, speaketh more reuerently of the Sacrament then he doth in other places, which me think worthy to be noted of me. Here he sayth that very Christ himselfe is not onely represented, but also spiritually geuen vnto vs in this table: for so I vnderstand the word (wherein.) And then if very Christ himselfe be represented and geuen in the table, the author meaneth not the materiall table, but by the word (table) the meat vpon the table: as the word, Mensa, a table doth signify in the xvi. of the artes, & the x. of the Corinth. Act. 6. 1. Cor. 10. Now if very Christ himself be geuen in the meat, then is he presēt in the meat to be geuen. So as by this teaching very Christ himself is not onely figura­tiuely in the table, that is to say, the meat of the table, which this author now calleth re­presenting, but is also spiritually geuen in the table as these wordes sound to me. But whether this author wil say very Christ himself is geuen spiritually in the meat, or by the meat, or with the meat, what scripture hath he to proue that he sayth, if the wordes of Christ be onely a figuratiue spech, and the bread onely signify Christes body? For if 13 the wordes of the institution be but in figure, man cannot adde of his diuise any other substance or effect then y ^e words of christ purport, & so this supper, after this authors teaching in other places of his book, where he would haue it but a signification, shall be a bare memory of Christs death, and signify onely such communication of Christ, as we haue otherwise by fayth in that benefite of his passion, without any speciall communication of the substaunce of his flesh in this Sacrament, beyng the same onely a figure, if it were true that this author would persuade in the conclusion of this booke, although by the way he saith otherwise, for fear percase and trembling, that he conceiueth euen of an Epistle, which he himself saith is fayned.

Canterbury.

IT is no maruayle though this Epistle fayned by the Papistes many 1 yeres passed, doe vary from the Papistes in these latter dayes. For the Papisticall church at the beginning was not so corrupt as it was after, but from time to tyme encreased in errours and corruption more & more, [Page 146] and still dooth, acording to S. Paules saying: 1 Tim. 3. Euill men and deceiuers waxe euer worse, both leading other into errour, and erring them selues. For at the first beginning they had no priuate Masses, no pardons in purgatory, no reseruation of the bread, they knew no masses of Scala coeli, no Lady psalters, no transubstantiation: but of latter dayes all these, and an infinite number of errors besides, wer inuented and deuised without any aucthority of Gods word. As your selfe haue newly inuented a great sort of new deuises contrary to the Papists before your tyme, as that Christ is in the sacrament carnally and naturally: that the demonstration was made vpon the bread when Christ sayd, This is my body: that the word (satisfactorie) signifyeth no more, but the Priest to do his duety, with many other things, which here for shortnes of tyme, I will omit at this pre­sent, purposing to speake of them more hereafter. And the epistles of Cle­ment were fayned before the Papistes had run so far in errors as they be now. For yet at that tyme was not inuented (as I sayd) the error of transubstantiation, nor the reseruation of the sacrament, nor the priestes did not communicate alone without the people. But that the sayd epistle of Clement was fayned, Clements epi­stles fayned. be many most certayne arguments. For there be v. epistles of Clemēt so knit together, and referring one to an other, that if one be fayned, all must needes be fayned.

Now neither Eusebius in Ecclesiastica historia, nor S. Hierom, nor Genna­dius, nor any other old writer maketh any me [...]tion of those epistles, which authors in rehersing what workes Clement wrotte, (not leauing out so much as one epistle of his) would surely haue made some mention of the v. Epistles which the papistes long before our tyme fayned in his name, if there had ben any such in their time.

Moreouer those Epistles make mention, that Clement at Iames re­quest wrot vnto him the maner of Peters death, but how could that be, seyng that Iames was dead vii. yeres before Peter? For Iames died y ^e vii. yere. And Peter the xiiii. yere of Nero the Emperour.

Thirdly, it is contayned in the same epistles, that Peter made Clemēt his successor, which could not be true, forasmuch as next to Peter succee­ded Linus, as all the histories tel.

Fourthly the author of those Epistles sayth, that he made the booke called Itenerarium Clementis, which was but fayned in Clements name, as it is declared dist. 15. Sancta. And then it followeth likewise of the other Epistles.

Fiftely, the author of those Epistles taketh vpon him to instruct S. Iames in the sacraments, and in all manner fashion how he should vse himself in his vocation, as he should say, y ^t Iames (who learned of Christ himself) knew not how to vse himselfe in the necessary poynts of Christes religion, except Clement must teach him.

Sixtly, there be few things in those epistles, that either be obserued at this day, or were at any tyme obserued sithens Christes religion fyrst be­ganne.

Seuenthly, a great number of scriptures in those Epistles be so far wra­sted from the true sence thereof, that they haue an euill opinion of Clemēt that thinke that he would do such iniury to Gods word.

Eightly, those epistles spake of Palles, and Archdeacons, and other in­ferior [Page 147] orders, which is not like that those things began so soone, but (as the histories) were inuented many yeres after Peters tyme.

And finally, in one of those epistles is contayned a most pernicious he­resy, that al things ought to be common, and wives also, which could not be the doctrine of Clement, being the most pestilent errour of the Nicho­laites, whom the holy ghost doth hate, as he testifieth in the Apocalips. Apoc. 2..

Now all these things considered, who hauing either wit or good opinion of the Apostles and their disciples, can thinke that they should write a­ny such epistles?

But the Epistle of S. Clement (say you) speaketh not of bread, Clement spake of bread. what 2 was it then I pray you that he ment, when he spake of the brokē peces in the Lords supper? Yf it were not bread, it must be some other thing which Christ did eat at that supper. Paraduēture you will say (as some stick not to say now a dayes) that Christ had some other meat at that supper then bred as if he fared daintely (which we neuer read) you might imagine he had capon, partrich, or fesaunt, or if he fared hardly, at the least you would say he had cheese to eat with his bread, because you will defend that he did not eat dry bread alone. Such vayne phantasies men may haue, that will speak without Gods word, which maketh mention in that holy sup­per of nothing, but of bread and wine. But let it be that Christ had as ma­ny dishes as you can deuise, yet I trust you will not say, that he called all those his body, but onely the bread. And so S. Clement speaking of the broken peeces of the Lords body, of the residue and fragments of the Lords body, of the portion and leauing of the Lords body, must needes speak all this of bread. And thus is if manifest false that you say, that the epistle of Clement speaketh nothing of bread.

And then forasmuch as he calleth the leauings of y ^e same, the brokē pee­ces of the Lords body, and the fragments and portion therof, he calleth y ^e fragments and portion of the Lordes body, he sheweth that the bread re­mayneth, and that the calling therof the lords body is a figuratiue speech. The body of Christ hath no fragments nor broken peces, and therfore the calling here is so materiall, Calling of bread is mate­riall. that it proueth fully the matter, that to call bread Christs body, is a figuratiue speech. And although to auoid the matter 3 you deuise subtill cauillatious, saying that calling is not materiall, be­cause it signifieth that was: Yet they that haue vnderstanding, may soon discerne what a vayne shift this is, imagined onely to blynd the ignorant readers eyes. But if that which is bread before y ^e consecration, be after no bread, and if it be agaynst the Christen fayth to think that it is still bread, what occasion of errour should this be, to call it still bread after consecra­tion? Ys not this a great occasion of errour to call it bread still, if it be not bread still?

And yet in this place of Clement the calling can in no wise signify that was before consecration, but must needes signify that is after consecra­tion. For this place speaketh of fragments, broken peeces, and leauings, which can haue no true vnderstanding before consecration, at what time there be yet no broken peeces, fragments, nor leauings, but be all done af­ter consecration.

But you wrangle so much in this matter to auoyd absurdities, that you snarle your self into so many and haynous absurdities, as you shall ne­uer [Page 148] be able to winde your selfe out. For you say that Christes body (which in all the hostes, and in all the partes of the hostes is but one, not broken, 4 nor distributed) is called the leauing peeces of the body, portiō of the body, residue of the body, & yet euery peece is Christs whole body, which things to be spoken of Christes body, christian eares abhore for to heare. And if you will say, that your booke is false, that you meant al these leauing pee­ces, portion, and residue, to be vnderstand of the hostes, and not of Christs body, then you confesse the hostes which be broken, to be called by name the leauings or peeces of Christs body, the portion of his body, the residue of his body, by a figuratiue spech, which is as much as I speake in my first note. And so appeareth how vaynely you haue traueled for the confu­tation of my first note.

Of reseruationNow as touching the second note: Clement declareth expressely, that 5 nothing might be reserued. For where he sayth, that if any thing remain, it must not be kept vntill the morning, but be spent and consumed of the clearkes: how could he declare more playnly, that nothing might be reser­ued, then by those wordes?

And as for Iustine he speaketh not one word of sicke persons, as you report of hym.

And concerning Cirill ad Calosyrium, would to God that worke of Cy­rill might come abroad, (for I doubt not but it would clerely discusse this matter) but I feare that some Papistes will suppresse it, that it shall ne­uer come to light. And where you say, that Linehood found fault with 6 his owne countrey of England, and blamed this realme, because they hā ­ged vp the sacrament, contrary to the vse of other countreyes: You haue well excused me, that I am not the first finder of this fault, but many yeares ago that fault was found, & that it was not the vse of other coun­treys to hang it vp. And yet the vse of other countreys was fonde inough euen as they had charge & commandement from Innocentius the third and Honorius the third.

Receiuing with feare and trem­bling.And as for the receiuing of the Sacrament with feare and trembling 7 ought not they that be baptised in theyr old age, or in yeres of discression, come to the water of Baptisme with feare and trembling, as well as to the Lords supper? Think you that Symon Magus was not in as great damnation for the vnworthy receyuing of Baptisme, as Iudas was for the vnworthy receyuing of the Lordes supper? And yet you will not say, that Christ is really and corporally in the water, but that the washing in the water is an outward signification and figure, declaring what God worketh inwardly in them that truely be baptised. And likewise speaketh this Epistle of the holy communion. For euery good christian man ought to come to Christes sacraments, with great feare, humility, fayth, loue, and charitie.

Aug. 50. homili­arum hom. 26.And S. Augustine sayth, that the Gospell is to be receaued or heard 8 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 [Page 149] 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, The causes of feare & tremb­ling. that you vnderstand not the ground and cause, wherupon should arise the great feare and trembling in their hartes, that come to receaue y ^e 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 y ^e body of Christ, there corporally present and receaued, but y ^e 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: Math. 8. Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come vnder the couering of my house. And y ^e same thing made Peter afrayd to be neare vnto Christ, and to say: Luc. 5. 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, The people re­ceyued with y ^e priestes. that here is nothing here aunswered directly, but meere cauilations sought, and shift to auoyde. For if all the old prayers and ceremonies 9 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 10 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 [Page 150] 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: The Paschall Lamb. 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 y ^t 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, y ^t 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 y ^e communion? What if the people disapoynt y ^e 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, [...], aduer­sus Iouinianum, lib. 1. 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 y ^e 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.

[Page 151] 11 Now when you come to your issue, you make your case to straight for me to ioyne an issue with you, Min [...] issue. 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.

12 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.

13 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, Bare significa­cions. yet doth almighty God effectually work in them y ^t 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 y ^e 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, Ignatius in epi­sto. ad Ephesia­nos. Irenaeus. lib 5. contra Valen­tin. 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. Ignatius. Irenaeus. With the word papist the author 1 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 2 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, Philip. Melanct y ^t he will alleage none but such as speake playnly, he alleageth Ireneus for one, as apeareth by his sayd Epistle to Decolampadius. And 3 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 [Page 152] 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 4 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, Theodoret. Dialogo. 3. 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, 5 and is here a prety shift or slaight, Sleight. 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 1 serued for your purpose, you would not haue fayled here to alleage it. But bicause you haue nothing y ^t maketh for you in dede, therfore you alleage nothing in especiall (least in the answer it should euidently apeare to be nothing) and so slide you from the matter, as though all men should be­leue you, bicause you say it is so.

Irene.And as for the place of Irene alleaged by Melancthon in an Epistle, 2 Decolampadius without any such troubling of him selfe as you ima­gine, maketh a playne and easy answer therto, although Melancthon wrot not his sayd Epistle to Decolampadius (as you negligētly looking vpon their workes be deceaued) but to Frideritus Miconius. And the wordes of Irene aleadged by Melancthon meane in effect no more, but to proue that our bodyes shall rise agayne, and be ioyned vnto our soules, and reigne with them in the eternall life to come. For he wrote agaynst Ualentine, Martion, and other hereticks, which deneied the resurrection of our bodies, from whō it semeth you do not much dissent, when you say y ^t our bodyes shall rise spiritually, if you meane that they shall rise without the forme and fashion of mens bodies without distinction and proportiō of members. For those shalbe maruaylous bodies, that shal haue no shape nor fashion of bodies, as you say Christs body is in the sacramēt, to whose body oures shall be like after the Resurrection.

Why bread is called Christes body and wine his bloud.But to returne to answere Irene clearely and at large, his meaning [Page 153] was this that as the water in baptisme is called Aqua regenerans, y ^e water that doth regenerate, and yet it doth not regenerate indeed, but is the Sacrament of regeneration wrought by the Holy Ghost, and called so to make it to be esteemed aboue other common waters: so Christ confessed y ^e creatures of bread and wine ioyned vnto his wordes in his holy supper, & there truely ministred, to be his body & bloud: meaning thereby, that they ought not to be taken as common bread, or as bakers bread, and wine drunken in the tauern (as Smyth vntruely gesteth of me throughout his booke) but that they ought to be taken for bread & wine, Smyth. wherin we geue thanks to God, and therfore be called Eucharistia corporis & sanguinis Domini, the thanking of Christs body and bloud (as Irene termeth them:) or Miste­ria corporis & sanguinis Domini, the misteries of Christes flesh and bloud, as Dionysius calleth them: or Sacramenta corporis & sanguinis Domini, the sacra­ments of Christs flesh and bloud, as diuers other authours vse to call them. And when Christ called bread and wine his body and bloud, why do the the old Authours chaunge in many places that speech of Christ, and call them Eucharistia, misteria, & sacramenta corporis & sanguinis Domini? the thankes geuing, the misteries, and the sacraments of his flesh and bloud? but because they would clearely expound the meaning of Christes speech, that whē he called the bread and wine his flesh and bloud, he ment to ordayne them to be the sacraments of his flesh and bloud? According to such a spech as S. Augustine expresseth, how the Sacramentes of Christes flesh and bloud be called his flesh and bloud, and yet in deede they be not his flesh & bloud, but the sacramēts therof, signifying vnto the godly receiuers, that as they corporally feed of the bread and wine (which comfort theyr harts and cō ­tinue this corruptible life for a seasō) so spiritually they feed of Christs ve­ry flesh, & drinke his very bloud. And we be in such sort vnited vnto him that his flesh is made our flesh, his holy spirite vnityng him and vs so together, Ephe. 5. Ephe. 1. and 4. Coloss. 1. that we be flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bones, and make all one misticall body, wherof he is the head and wee the members. And as fe­ding, nourishing, and life commeth from the head, and runneth into all partes of the body, so doth eternal nourishment and life come from Christ vnto vs completely and fully, as well into our bodyes as soules. And therfore if Christ our head be risen agayne, then shall we that be the members of his body surely rise also, forasmuch as the members can not be sepera­ted from the head: 1. Cor. 15. but seyng that as he is our head and eternall foode, we must needs by him liue with him for euer. This is the argument of Irene agaynst those heriticks which denyed the resurrection of our bodies. And these things the sacraments of bread and wine declare vnto vs: but nei­ther the carnall presence, nor the carnall eating of Christes flesh maketh y ^e things so to be, nor Irene ment no such thing. For then should all manner of persons that receaue the sacramentes, haue euerlasting life, and none but they.

3 Thus haue I answered to Irene playnly and shortly, and Oecolam­padius neded not to trouble himselfe greatly with aunswering this mat­ter. For by the corporal eating and drinking of Christs flesh and bloud, I­rene could neuer haue proued the resurrection of our bodies to eternal life.

And Peter Martir maketh the matter so playn, Peter Martyr. that he concludeth I­reneus wordes to make directly agaynst the doctrine of the Papistes.

[Page 154]The answere also is easely made to the place which you alleadge out of Ignatius, where he calleth Eucharistia y ^e flesh of our sauior Iesus Christ. 4 For he meaneth no more, but that it is the sacramēt of his flesh, or y ^e miste­ry of his flesh (or as Irene sayd) Eucharistia of his flesh, as euen now I de­clared in mine answere to Irene. And your long processe here may haue a short aunswere gathered of your owne wordes. This word Eucharistia (say you) can not be well Englished, but the body of Christ is good and playne English, & then if Eucharistia be such a thing as cannot be well Englished, it can not be called the body of Christ, but by a figuratiue speech. And how can you thē conclude of Ignatius words, that this is my body, is no figu­ratiue speech? It semeth rather y ^t the cleane contrary may be concluded. For if these. ii. speeches be like & of one sence ( Eucharistia is Christs body, and this is my body) & the first be a declaration of the second, is this a good argument? The fyrst is a figure, Ergo the second is none? Is it not rather to be gathered vpon the other side thus? The first is a declaratiō of the secōd and yet the first is a fygure, Ergo the second is also a figure? And that ra­ther then the first: because the declaration should be a more playne speech then that which is declared by it.

And as for your coulor of Rhetorick which you cal Reiectiō, it is so fa­miliar 5 with your self, that you vse it commonly in your booke, when I al­leage any author or speake any thing that you can not answere vnto.

And yet one thing is necessary to admonish the reader, that Ignatius in this epistle entreateth not of y ^e manner of the presēce of Christ in the sa­cramēt, but of the maner of his very body, as he was borne of his mother, crucified, and rose agayn, appeared vnto his Apostles, and ascended into heauē. Which things diuers hereticks sayd were not done verily in deed, but apparantly to mens sightes, and that in deed he had no such carnall & corporall body, as he appered to haue. And agaynst such errors speaketh y ^e epistle, and not of the reall and corporall presence of Christ in the sacramēt although Eucharistia or the sacrament be ordeyned for a remembrance of that very body, and so hath the name of it, as the sacraments haue the names of y ^e things which they signify. But by this so manifest writhing of the mind of Ignatius from y ^e true sence and purpose that was ment, to an other sence and purpose that was not ment, may appeare the truth of the Papistes, who wrast and misconstrue all old auncient writers and holy doctors to their wicked and vngodly purposes. Next in my book fol­loweth mine aunswere to Dionisius.

The aunswere to Dionysius de eccles. Hierarch. cap. 3.Dionysius also, Whom they alleage to prayse and extoll this sacrament (as in deed it is most worthy, being a sacrament of most high dignity and perfection, representing vnto vs our most perfect spirituall coniunction vnto Chryst, and our continuall nourishing, feeding, comfort, and spiritual life in him,) yet he neuer sayd that the flesh and bloud of Christ was in the bread and wine, re­ally, corporally, sensibly and naturally, (as the Papists would beare vs in hand) but he calleth euer the bread and wine signes, pledges, and tokens, declaring vnto the faythfull receiuers of the same, that they receaue Christ spiritually, & that they spiritually eat his flesh & drinke his bloud. And although the bread and wine be figures, signes & tokens of Christes flesh and bloud (as S. Dionyse calleth them, both before the Consecration and after) yet the Greek annotati­ons [Page 155] vpon the same Dionyse do say, that the very things themselues be aboue in heauen.

And as the same Dionyse maketh nothing for the Papistes opinions in thys poynt of Christes real and corporal presence: so in diuers other things he ma­keth quite and clean agaynst them, and that specially in three poynts, in Tran­substantiation, in reseruation of the Sacrament, and in the receiuing of the same by the Priest alone.

Winchester.

1 As touching Dionysius, a wise reader may without any note of mine, se how this au­thor is troubled in hym: and calleth for ayd the help of him that made the greek commē ­taries 2 vpon Dionysius: Dionysius. and pleadeth therwith the forme of the wordes really, corporally, 3 sensibly, and naturally, wherof two, that is to say, really and sensibly, the old authors in sillables vsed not, forsomuch as I haue red, but corporally and naturally they vsed speaking of this sacrament. This Dionyse spake of this mistery after the dignitie of it 4 not contending with any other for the truth of it, as we do now, but extolling it, as a marueilous high mistery, which if the bread be neuer the holyer, and were onely a signification, (as this author teacheth) were no high mistery at all. As for the things of the Sacrament to be in heauen, the church teacheth so, and yet the same thinges be indéede present in the sacrament also: which is a mistery so deepe and darke from mans natu­rall capacitie, as is onely to be be beleued supernaturally, without asking of the questi­on (how) wherof S. Chrisostom maketh an exclamation in this wise.

O great beneuolence of God towards vs: Chrisostomus de Sacerdo. li. 3. he that sitteth aboue with the father at y ^e same houre, is holden here with the hands of all men, and geueth himselfe to them that 5 will claspe and embrace him. Thus sayth Chrisostom, confessing to be aboue and here y ^e same things at once, and not onely in mens brests, but hands also to declare the inward 6 worke of God, in the substaunce of the visible Sacrament whereby Christ is present in the mids of our sences, and so may be called sensibly present, although mans sences can not comprehend and feel, or tast of him in their proper nature. But as for this Dionyse he doth without argumēt declare his fayth in y ^e adoratiō he maketh of this Sacramēt, which is openly testified in his workes, so as we need not to doubt what his fayth was. As for this authors notes, they be descant voluntary, without y ^e tenor part, being be like ashamed to alleadge the text it self, least his thrée notes might seeme fayned without ground, as before in S. Clements epistle, and therfore I will not trouble the reader w ^t them.

Canterbury.

1 I Aske no more of the reader, but to read my book, and thē to iudge how much I am troubled with this author. And why may not I cite y ^e grek commentaryes for testimony of the truth? Is this to be termed a callyng for ayd? Why is not then the allegation of all authors a calling for ayde. Is not your doing rather a caling for ayd, when you be fayne to flye for succor to Martin Luther, Bucer, Melancthon, Epinius, Ionas, Peter Marter, and such other, whom al the world knoweth you neuer fauored, but euer abhorred their names? May not this be termed a calling for ayd when you be driuen to such a straight and need, that you be glad to cry to such men for helpe, whom euer you haue hindered and defamed asmuch as lay in you to do?

2 And as for pleading of those wordes, (really, corporally, sensibly and naturally) they be your owne termes, and the termes wherein resteth the whole contention betweene you and me: and should you be offended be­cause I speak of those termes? It appeareth now that you be loth to here [Page 156] of those wordes, and would very gladly haue them put in silence, and so should the variance betweene you and me clearely ended. For if you will confesse, that the body of Christ is not in the sacrament really, corporally, sensibly, and naturally, then you and I shal shake hands, and be both ear­nest frends to the truth.

Really and sen­sybly be not foūd in any old au­thor.And yet one thing you do here confesse (which is worthy to be noted & had in memory) that you read not in any old author, that y ^e body of Christ 3 is really and sensibly in the sacrament. And hereunto I adde, that none of them say, that he is the bread and wine, corporally nor naturally. No ne­uer no papist said, that Christes body is in [...]he sacrament naturally nor carnally, but you alone, (who be the first au [...], or of this gros error, which Smith himself condēneth and denieth, Smyth. that euer Christiā man so taught) although some say that it is there really, some substantially, and some sen­sibly.

Now as concerning the high mistery which S. Denys speaketh of, he declareth the same to be in the meruelous and secret working of God in 4 his reasonable creatures (beyng made after his image and being his liuely temples, and Christes misticall body) and not in the vnreasonable and vnsensible and vnliuely creatures of bread and wine, wherin you say the deep and darke mistery standeth. But notwithstanding any holines or godlines wrought in the receauers of them, yet they be not the more holy or godly in themselfes, Holines in the sacraments. but be only tokens, significations, and sacraments of that holines, which almighty God by his omnipotent power worketh in vs. And for their holy significations they haue y ^e 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.

Christ in our hands.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 5 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 cō trary to Chrisostome, Augustinus de verbis domini sermone. 3.3. that we touch not Christ with our hands, Non tangi mus Dominum saith he. This speech therfore of Chrisostome declareth not y ^e 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 y ^e Tenour part, I haue named both the booke and chapter, where S. Dyo­nyse 6 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 y ^t 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.

[Page 157]Now followeth Tertullian of whom I write thus.

Furthermore they do alledge Tertullian that he constantly affirmeth, The aunswere to Tertullianus De resurrectio­ne ca [...]nis, 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, Tertullianus. where Tertullian sayth, that Christ made the bread his 1 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, 2 but yet it maketh with the truth, which (this author) should not impugne. The second 3 note gathered of Tertullian by this author is not true: for Christ called it his body, and 4 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 5 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.

1 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 2 should not by your will perceaue it. And where you deny my second note vpon Tertullian, y ^t 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 3 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.

4 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 5 you, to affirme that the catholick church vniuersally teacheth that Christ [Page 158] 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 y ^e 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.

The answere to Origen Nu­mer. homil. 7.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 3 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: In Leuit. homil. 7. 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.

Origines.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. 1 Christ in his word is manifest and exhibited vnto vs, and by fayth that is of hearyng 2 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 y ^e sacramēt of bred & wine by Origens rule Christ should be manifested and exhibited vnto vs after the scriptures, Origen hath ( facte ad faciem) but I take this author as he alleadgeth Ori­gen. 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 3 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, Errors. as Christ commaunded when he sayd: Take eat &c. di­uersely from the other two wayes, in which by Christes spirite we be made participant 4 of the benefite of his passion wrought in his manhode. When I say (by his manhood) I mean corporally as Cyrill spea­keth. 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 [Page 159] 5 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, shalbe made perfect. And therfore this author may not compare baptisme with the sacrament throughly: in which Baptisme, Christes manhode is not really 6 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 7 onely manifested, but also exhibited sensibly in th [...] sacrament, Sensibly. then is he in the sacra­ment indede, that is to say, Really: Really. and then is he there substancially, Substancially because the sub­staunce of the body is there: and is there corporally also, Corporally. bycause the very body is there: and naturally, 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 8 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 y ^e 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 7 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.

1 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.

2 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 [Page 160] 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 he is maried and ioyned in his proper kynd, and in his wordes and sacramentes, as it were sensibly geuen.

But how so euer I report Origene, you captiously and very vntruely do report me. For wheras I say, that in Gods word, and in y ^e sacramēts of baptisme, and of the Lordes supper, Christ is manifested and exhibited 3 vnto vs, as it were face to face, and sensibly, you leauing out these wordes (as it were) As it were make a quarell to this word (sensibly) or rather you make that word (sensibly) y ^e foundation of all your weake building, as though there were no difference betwene sensibly, and as it were sensibly: and as it were all one thing a man to lye sleaping, and as he were sleaping: or deade, and as he were dead. Do not I write thus in my first booke, that the washing in the water of baptisme, is as it were a shewing of Christ before our eyes, and a sensible touching, feeling, and groping of him? And do these wordes import, that we see him & grope him indede? And further I say, that the eating and drinking of y ^e sacramentall bread and wine, is as it were a shewing of Christ before our eyes, a smelling of him with our noses, and a feeling & groping of him with our handes. And doe we therfore see him indede with our corporall eyes, smell him with our noses, and put our handes in his side and fele his woundes? If it were so indede, I would not adde these wordes, as it were. For what speach were this of a thing that is in dede, to say, as it were? For these wordes as it were, signifie that it is not so indede. So now likewise in this place of Origene, where it is sayd, that Christ in his wordes and sa­cramentes is manifested and exhibited vnto vs, as it were face to face, and sensibly, it is not ment that Christ is so exhibited in dede face to face, and sensibly, but the sence is cleane contrary, that he is not there geuen sensibly nor face to face. Thus it apeareth how vprightly you handell this matter, and how truely you reporte my wordes. But the further you pro­ceade in your aunswer, the more you shew crafty iuggeling, legier de 4 mayne, passe a gods name, to blynd mens eyes, strange speaches, new inuentions not without much impietie as the wordes sound, but what the meaning is, no man can tell but y ^e maker him selfe. But as the words be placed, it seemeth you meane, that in y ^e Lordes supper we be not made by Christes spirite participant of the benefyt of his passion: nor by baptis­me or Gods word, we be not made participant of his godhead by his hu­manite: and furthermore by this distinction (which you fayne without any ground of Origene) we receaue not man and God in baptisme: nor in the Lordes supper we be not by meanes of his godhead made partici­pant of the effect of his passion. In baptisme also by your distinction we receaue not a pledge of the regeneration of our flesh, but in the Lordes supper: nor Christ is not truely present in baptisme. Which your sayd differences do not onely derogate and diminish the effect and dignitie of [Page 161] Christes sacraments, but be also blasphemous agaynst the ineffable vni­te of Christes person, separating his diuinitie from his humanitie. Here may all men of iudgement see by experience, how diuinity is handled, when it cometh to the discussion of ignoraunt lawyers. And in all these 5 your sayinges (if you meane as the wordes be) Three issues for my part. I make an yssue with you for the price of a fagot. And where you say that our flesh in the generall resurrection shalbe spirituall, here I offer a like yssue: An issue. except you vnder­stand a spirituall body to be a sensible and palpable body, that hath all perfect members distinct: which thing in sundrie places of your booke, you seeme vtterly to deny.

6 And where you make this difference betwene baptisme, and this sa­crament, The third issue. that in baptisme Christ is not really present, expounding Real­ly present to signifie no more, but to be indede present, yet after a spirituall manner, if you deny that presence to be in baptisme, yet the third fagot I will aduenture with you, for your strange and vngodly doctrine within xx. lines togither: who may in equalitie of errour contend with y ^e Ualen­tines, Arrians, or Anabaptistes.

7 But when you come here to your lies (declaring the wordes, Aduerbes in lye. sensibly really, substancially, corporally, and naturally) you speake so fondly, vn­learnedly, and ignorantly, as they that know you not, might thinke that you vnderstood neither grammer, english, nor reason. For who is so ig­noraunt but he knoweth that aduerbes that ende in (ly) be aduerbes of quallity, and being added to the verbe, they expresse the manner, forme and fashion how a thing is, and not y ^e substance of it. As speaking wisely, learnedly, and playnly, is to speake after such a forme and manner as wise men learned, and playn men do speake. And to do wisely and godly is to do in such sort and fashion, as wise, and godly men do. And some­tyme the aduerbe (ly) signifieth the maner of a thing that is indede, and sometyme the maner of a thing that is not. As when a man speaketh wisely, that is wise indede. And yet somtyme we say, fooles speake wise­ly, which although they be not wise, yet they vtter some speaches in such sorte, as though they were wise. The King we say vseth him selfe prince­ly in all his doinges (who is a prince in dede) but we say also of an arro­gant wilfull and proude man, that he vseth him selfe princely and Impe­riousely, although he be neither Prince nor Emperoure: and yet we vse so to speake of him, bicause of the maner, forme and fashion of vsing him selfe. And if you aunswer foolishly and vnlearnedly, be you therfore a foole and vnlearned? Nay, but then your aūswers be made in such wise, maner, sort, and fashion, as you were neither learned nor wise. Or if you send to Rome or receaue priuate letters from thence, be you therfore a Papist? God is iudge therof, but yet do you Popishly, that is to say, vse such maner and fashion as the Papistes do. But where the forme and maner lacketh, there the aduerbes of qualitie in (ly,) haue no place, al­though the thing be there indede. As when a wise man speaketh not in such a sorte, in such a fashion, and wise, as a wise man should speake: not withstanding that he is wise in dede, yet we say not that he speaketh wisely, 2. Re. 1 [...]. but foolishly. And the godly King Dauid, did vngodly when he took Bersabe, and slew Urye her husband, bicause that maner of doing was not godly. So do all English men vnderstand by these wordes sen­sibly [Page 162] substancially, corporally, naturally, carnally, spiritually, and such like, the maner and forme of being, and not the thing it selfe without the sayde formes and maners. For when Christ was borne, and rose from death, and wrought miracles, we say not that he did these thinges natu­rally, bicause the meane & maner was not after a naturall sort, although it was the selfe same Christ in nature: But we say that he did eat, drinke, sleepe, labour, and sweat, talke, and speake naturally, not bicause onely of his nature, but bicause the maner and fashion of doing was such as we vse to do. Lu [...]. 4. Likewise when Iesus passed through the people, and they saw him not, he was not then sensibly and visibly among them, their eyes be­ing letted in such sort, that they could not see and perceaue him. And so in all the rest of your aduerbes, the speach admitteth not to say that Christ is there substancially, corporally, carnally, and sensibly, where he is not after a substanciall, corporall, carnall, and sensuall forme and maner. This the husband man at his plough, and his wife at her rock is able to iudge, and to condemne you in this poynt, and so can the boyes in the gramer schole, that you speake neither according to the english tonge, grammer, nor rea­son, when you say that these wordes and aduerbes (sensibly, corporally and naturally) do not signifie a corporall, sensible, and naturall maner. I haue bene here somewhat long and tedious, but the reader must pardon me: for this subtill and euill deuise of your owne brayne without ground or authoritie, contayneth such absurdities, and may cast such mistes be­fore mens eies to blind them that they should not see, that I am constray­ned to speake thus much in this matter, and yet more shall do, if this suffice not. But this one thing I wonder much at, that you being so much vsed and accustomed to lye, do not yet know what lye meaneth.

But at length in this mater (when you see none other shift) you be faine 8 to flye to the church for your shotte anker. And yet it is but the Romish church. For the olde & first Church of Christ is cleerely agaynst you. And Origen sayth not as you do, that to vnderstand the sayd wordes of Christ 9 spiritually, is to vnderstand them as the spirite of God hath taught the church: but to vnderstand them spiritually, is to vnderstand them other­wise then the wordes sound: for he that vnderstādeth them after the letter (sayth Origen) vnderstandeth them carnally, and that vnderstanding hurteth and destroyeth. For in playne vnderstanding of eating and drin­king without trope or figure, Christes flesh cannot be eaten nor his bloud dronken. Next followeth in order S. Cyprian, of whom I write thus.

The aunswere to Cyprian li. 2. epist. 3.And likewise ment Ciprian, in those places which the aduersaries of the truth allege of him, concerning the true eating of Christes very flesh and drinking of his bloud. For Ciprian spake of no grose and carnall eating with the mouth, but of an inward spirituall and pure eating with hart and mind: which is to beleue in our hartes that his flesh was rent and torne for vs vpon the crosse, and his bloud shed for our redemption: and that the same flesh and bloud now sitteth at the right hand of the father, making continuall intercession for vs: and to imprint and digest this in our mindes, putting our whole affiance and trust in him, as touching our saluation: and offering our selues clearly vnto him, to loue and serue him all the dayes of our life. This is truely, sincerely, and spiritually to eat his flesh, and to drincke his bloud.

[Page 163]And this sacrifice of Christ vpon the crosse, was that oblatiō which Cipriā sayth was figured and signified before it was done, Gen [...]. [...] Gen [...]. 14. by the wine which Noe dranke, and by the bread and wine which Melchisedech gaue to Abraham, and by many other figures which S. Cyprian there reherseth. And now when Christ is come, and hath accomplished that sacrifice, the same is figured, signified, and represēted vnto vs, by that bread and wine, which faythfull people receaue dayly in the holy communion. Wherin like as with their mouthes carnally they eate the breade and drincke the wine, so by their fayth spiritually they eate Christes very flesh and drincke his very bloud. And hereby it apea­reth that S. Ciprian clearly affirmeth the most true doctrine, and is wholy vp­on our side.

And agaynst the papistes he teacheth most playnly, that the Communion ought to be receaued of all men vnder both kindes: and that Christ called bread his body, and wine his bloud: and that there is not transubstantiation (but that bread remayneth there as a figure to represent Christes body, and wine to represent his bloud) and that those which be not the liuely members of Christ, do eat the bread and drincke the wine, and be not nourished by them, but the very flesh and bloud of Christ they neither eate nor drincke.

Thus haue you declared the mynd of S. Cyprian.

Winchester.

1 As touching Ciprian, Cyprianus. this author maketh an exposition of his owne deuise, which he would haue taken for an answer vnto him. Where as Ciprian of all other, like as 2 he is auncient within 250. yeares of Christ, so did he write very openly in the matter and therfore Melancthon in his epistle to Decolampadius did chuse him for one, Melancthon. whose words in the affirmation of Christes true presence in the sacrament had no ambiguitie And like iudgement doth Hippinus in his book before alleaged geue of Cyprianus faith in the sacrament, Hippinus. which two I allege to counteruayle the iudgement of this author, who speaketh of his owne head as it liketh him, playing with the words, grosse, and carnall, and vsing the word represent, as though it expressed a figure only. Hippinus in the sayd booke alleadgeth Cyprian to say, Lib, 3. ad Quirinum that the body of our Lord 3 is our sacrifice in flesh, Ciprian. li. 3 ad quirinum. meaning, as Hipinus sayth, ( Eucharistiam,) wherin S Augustin (as Hippinus saith further) in the praier for his mother, speaking of the bread and wine of Eucharistia, sayth that in it is dispensed the holy host and sacrifice, whereby was can­celled the byl obligatory that was agaynst vs. And further Hippinus sayth, that the olde men called the bread and wine of our Lordes supper, a sacrifice, an host, and oblation for that specially, because they beleued & taught the true body of Christ and his true bloud to be destribute in the bread and wine of Eucharistia, and as S. Augustin sayth ad Ian­uarium, Augustinus. to enter in & be receiued with the mouth of them that eat. These be Hippinus very words, who because he is I thinke in this authors opinion taken for no Papist, I rather speake in his words then in myne owne, whom in an other part of this worke, this author doth as it were for charity by name sclaunder to be a Papist. Wherfore the sayd Hippinus wordes shalbe as I thinke more weighty to oppresse this authors talke then mine be, and therfore howsoeuer this author handleth before the wordes of S. Cy­prian ( De vnctione chrismatis) and the word (shewing,) out of his epistles, yet the same Cyprians fayth appeareth so certayne otherwise, as those places shall need no further aunswere of me here, hauing brought forth the iudgement of Hippinus & Melancton how they vnderstand S. Cyprians fayth, which thou reader oughtest to regard 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.

[Page 164]WHether I make an exposition of Cyprian by myne own deuise, I 1 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 2 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, Melancthon. Epinus. 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 w ^t 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 y ^e 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, Cyprian ad qui­rinum. cap. 94. 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, The answere to Hylarius. S. de trinitare. 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 y ^e 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 [Page 165] 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 shalbe 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 1 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, An issue. 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. Hylarius. 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 2 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 [Page 166] ille qui ex Maria natu [...] fuit Christus est, nos (que) 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 shalbe 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, 3 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 4 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, An issue. 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: 5 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 6 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 7 one in Christ, among which he accompteth fayth for one: then he commeth to the vnity 8 in Baptisme, Unity in fayth. Unity 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, Unity in flesh. which he calleth y ^e 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, Hylarius. 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 y ^e (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 [Page 167] 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, Carnally. geuen to vs in this Sacrament: and so is (naturally) to be vnderstanded, Naturally. 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. 9 Hierome, who called him ( Tubam latini eloquij) against the Arrians. Neuer man foūd 10 fault at this notable place of Hylary. Now let vs consider how the author of this booke forgetteth himselfe, to call Christ in vs naturally by his Godhead, which were then to make vs al Gods by nature, which is ouer great an absurdity, and Christ in his diuine nature dwelleth only in his father naturally, & in vs by grace. But as we receaue him 11 in the sacrament of his flesh and bloud if we receiue hym worthily, so dwelleth he in vs naturally, for the naturall communication of our nature and hys. And therfore where this author reporteth Hylary to make no difference betwéene our vnyon to Christ in 12 Baptisme, and in the supper, let him trust in him no more that told hym so: or if this author will take vpon him as of his owne knowledge, then I must say, and if he were another would say an aunswere in french, that I will not expresse. And hereupon will I ioynin the Issue, An issue. y ^t in Hylary the matter is so playn otherwise then this author rehear­seth, as it hath no coulor of defence to the contrary. And what Hylary speaketh of Bap­tisme and our vnity therin, I haue before touched, and this vnity in flesh is after trea­ted apart.

What shall I say to this so manifest vntruth? but that it confirmeth that I haue in other obserued, how there was neuer one of them that I haue red writing against the Sacrament, but hath in his writings sayd somewhat so euidently in the matter, or out of the matter discrepant from truth, as might be a certayn marke to iudge the quality of his spirite.

Canterbury.

1 HEre you confesse that you cited Hilary vntruely, but you impute the fault to your copy. What copy you had I know not, but aswell the citation of Melancthon, as all the printed bookes that euer I saw, haue otherwise then you haue written, and therfore it seemeth that you neuer red any printed booke of Hylarius. Marry it might be that you had from Smyth a false copy written, Smyth. who informed me, that you had of him all the authorityes that be in your booke. And hauing al the authorities that he had with great trauell gathered, by and by you made your booke, and stale from him all his thanck and glory, like vnto Esops choughe, which plumed himselfe with other birds fethers. But whersoeuer you had your copy all the books setforth by publike fayth haue otherwise, then you haue cited. And although the false allegatiō of Hylary toucheth you somewhat yet chiefly it toucheth Smyth, who hath erred much worse in his tran­slation then you haue done, albeit nether of you both handle the matter sincerely and faithfully, nor agree the one with the other.

2 But I trow it be your chaunce to light vpon false bookes. For wher­as in this sentence ( Quisquis ergo naturaliter patrem in Christo negabit, negit pri­us naturaliter vel se in Christo, vel Christum sibi inesse) one false print for ( naturaliter) hath ( non naturaliter) it seemeth that you chaunced vpō that false print. Non naturaliter [Page 168] For if you haue found Hilary truely corrected (as you say you haue) your fault is the more, that out of a true copy would pick out an vntrue transla­tion. And if you haue so done, then by putting in a little prety (not) where none ought to be, with that little prity trip you haue cleane ouerthrowne your selfe. For if it be an errour to deny that Christ is not naturally in vs, (as it his rehersed for an errour) then must it be an errour to affirme that Christ is naturally in vs. For it is all one thing, that he is not, and to af­firme that he is naturally in vs. And so by your owne translation you o­uerthrow your selfe quite and cleane, in that you say in many places of your book, that Christ is naturally in vs, and ground your saying vpon Hylarie. Whereas now by your owne translation, Hylary reiecteth that clearely as an haynous error.

Truely.And as concerning this word (truely) it fetteth not liuely forth a real and substanciall presence (as you say it doth) for Christ is truely in all his faithfull 3 people, and there truely eate his flesh and drinke his bloud, and yet not by a reall and corporall, but by a spirituall and effectuall presence.

Perfecta.And as concerning the word ( perfecta or peafectae) in the print, which I 4 haue of your book, is neyther of both, but be left quite out. Neuerthelesse that fault I impute to no vntruth in you, but rather to the negligence ei­ther of your pen or of the printer.

But for the perfectnes of the vnity between Christ and vs, you declare 5 here to be the perfect vnity to be that, which is but the one halfe of it. For the perfect vnity of vs with Christ, is not onely to haue Christ corporally and naturally dwelling in vs, but likewise we to dwell corporally and naturally in him. And Hylary declareth the second part to pertain to our vnity with Christ, aswell as the first, which of sleight & pollicy you leaue out purposely, because it declareth the meaning of the first part, which is not that Christ is in them that receaue the sacrament, and when they re­ceaue the sacrament only, but that he naturally tarrieth and dwelleth in all them that partayn to him, whether they receaue the sacrament or no. And as he dwelleth naturally in them so do they in him.

Mine issue.And although you haue excused your peruersity by your false copy, yet here I will ioyne an issue with you, that you did neither aleage Hylaries 6 wordes before truely, nor yet now do truely declare them. As for the fyrst part you haue confessed your selfe, that you were deceiued by a false copy. And therfore in this part, I plead that you be gilty by your own cōfessiō. And as concerniug the second part, Hylary speaketh not of the vnitye of Christ with the sacrament, nor of the vnity of Christ with vs onely when we receaue the sacrament, nor of the vnity of vs with Christ onely, but also with his father, by which vnity we dwell in Christ, and Christ in vs, & also we dwell in the Father and the father in vs. Iohn. 14. Iohn. 5. Iohn. 6. For as Christ beyng in his father, & his father in him, hath lyfe of his father so he beyng in vs, & we in him, geueth vnto vs the nature of his eternity, which he receiued of his father, that is to say, immortality and life euerlasting, which is the nature of his Godhead. And so haue we the Father and y ^e Sonne dwel­ling in vs naturally, Naturally. and we in them, forasmuch as he geueth to vs the nature of his eternitie, which he had of his father, and honoureth vs with y ^t honoureth vs with that houour which he had of his father. But Christ giueth not this nature of eternity to the Sacrament, except you will say [Page 169] that the sacrament shall haue euerlasting lyfe, as you must needes say, if Christ dwell naturally in it, after Hylaries maner of reasoning. For by the saying of Hylary, where Christ dwelleth, there dwelleth his father, & giueth eternall lyfe by his sonne.

And so be you a goodly sauiour, that can bring to euerlasting life both bread, and drinke, which neuer had life. But as this nature of eternity is not geuen to the sacrament: so is it not geuen to them that vnworthely re­ceiue the sacrament, which eat and drink their owne damnation. Nor it is not geuen to the liuely members of Christ, onely when they receaue the sacrament, but so long as they spiritually feede vpon Christ, eating his flesh and drinking his bloud, either in this life, or in the life to come. For so long haue they Christ naturally dwelling in them, & they in him. And as the Father naturally dwelleth in Christ, so by Christ doth he natural­ly dwell in vs.

And this is Hylaries mind, to tell how Christ and his father dwel na­turally in his faythfull members, and what vnity we haue with them (y ^t is to say, an vnity of nature, and not of wil onely) and not to tel how christ dwelleth in the sacrament, or in them that vnworthely receaue it, that he dwelleth in them at that time onely, when they receiue the sacrament. 7 And yet he sayth, that this vnity of faythfull people vnto God, is by fayth taught by the sacrament of Baptisme, & of the Lords table, but wrought by Christ by the sacrament and mistery of his incarnation and redemp­tion, whereby he humbled himself vnto the lowlines of our feeble nature that he might exalt vs to the dignity of his godly nature, and ioyne vs vnto his father in the nature of his eternity.

Thus is playnly declared Hylaries mind, who ment nothing lesse thē (as you say) to entreat how many diuers wayes we be one in Christ, but onely to entreat and proue that we be naturally in Christ, and Christ in vs. And this one thing he proueth by our fayth, and by the Sacrament of Baptisme, and of the Lords supper, and still he sayth aswell that we be naturally and corporally in him, as that he is naturally in vs.

And where you speak of the vnity in baptisme, and say that Hylarius 8 handleth that matter aboue some capacities howsoeuer Hilary handleth the matter, you handle it in such sort, as I thinke passeth all mens capaci­ties, vnles your selfe make a large commentary therto. For what these your wordes meane (because there is but one Baptisme, and all that be bap­tised be so regenerate in one dispensation, and do the same thing, and be one in one, they that be one by the same thing, be as he sayeth, in nature one) and what that one thing is which they do that be baptised, I think no man can tell, except you read the riddle your self.

And now to your issue. If you can shew of the words of Hylary in this place, that Christ is naturally in the Sacraments of bread and wine, or in wicked persons, or in godly persōs onely when they receiue y ^e sacramēt then will I confesse the issue to passe vpon your syde, that you haue de­clared this Author truely, & that he maketh most clearely for you against me. And if you can not shew this by Hylaries words, then must you hold vp your hand and say, Giltie.

And yet furthermore when Hylary sayth y ^t we be naturally in Christ, he [Page 170] meaneth not that our bodyes be contayned within the compasse of his bo­dy, but that we receaue his naturall eternitie. And so likewise when he sayth that Christ dwelleth naturally and carnally in vs, he meaneth not that his body is contained corporally within the compase of our mouthes or bodyes, (which you must proue by his playne wordes, if you will iusti­fie your yssue, that he speaketh most clearly for you) but he meaneth that Christ communicateth and geueth vnto vs the nature of his eternitie or euerlasting lyfe. And he dwelleth in vs by his incarnation, as S. Iohn sayth: Iohn. 1. ‘ Verbum caro factum est, & habit auit in nobis, the word was made flesh and dwelled in vs.’ And as he may be sayde to dwell in vs by receauing of our mortall nature, so may we be sayd to dwell in him by receauing the na­ture of his immortalitie. And neuer man found faulte (as you truely say) 9 at this notable place of Hillary: nor agayne neuer learned man hitherto expounded him as you do.

And when I sayd that Christ is in vs naturally by his godhead, I for­gatte 10 not what I sayd (as you say of me) for I playnly expounded what I ment by naturally, that is to say, not by naturall substaunce to make vs godes, but by naturall condition geuing vnto vs immortality and euerlasting life, which he had of his father, and so making vs pertakers of his godly nature, and vniting vs to his father. And if we atayne to the vnitie of his father, why not vnto the vnitie of the godhead not by na­turall substaunce, but by naturall proprietie? As Cirill sayth that we be made the children of God and heauenly men by participatiō of the deuine nature, as S. Peter also teacheth. 2. Pet. 1. And so be we one in the father, in the sonne, and in the holy ghost.

And where you say, that we receaue Christ in the sacrament of his flesh and bloud, if we receaue him worthily: here you haue giuen good 11 euidence agaynst your selfe, that we receaue him not, and that he dwel­leth not in vs naturally, except we receaue him worthely. And therfore where you say, that there is none that writeth agaynst the truth in the sacrament, but he hath in his writinges somewhat discrepant from truth that might be a certayn marke to iudge his spirite, this is so true, that your selfe differ not onely from the truth in a nomber of places, but also from your owne sayinges.

And where you bidde me trust him no more that told me, that Hilary 12 maketh no difference betwene our vnion in Christ in baptisme, and in his holy supper, it was very Hilary himselfe. of whom I lerned it, who sayth, that in both the sacramentes, Mine Issue. the vnion is naturall, and not in will onely. And if you will say the contrary, I must tell you the french aunswer that you would tell me. And herein I will not refuse your issue.

Now come we to Ciril, of whome I write as followeth.

The aunswere to Cyrillus. lib. 10. cap. 13.And this answer to Hilarius will serue also vnto Ciril, whom they alleadge to speake after the same sort that Hilarius doth, that Christ is naturally in vs. The wordes which the recite, be these. We deny not (sayth Cyril, agaynst the heretike) but we be spiritually ioyned to Christ by fayth and sincere charitie: but that we should haue no maner of coniunction in our flesh with Christ, that we vtterly deny, and think it vtterly discrepant from Godes holy scrip­tures. For who doubteth, but Christ is so the vine tree, and we so the branches, [Page 171] as we get thence our life. Heare what S. Paule sayth. ‘We be all one body with Christ, for though we be many, we be in one in him. All we participate in one foode. Thinketh this heretike that we know not the strength and vertue of the misticall benediction? which when it is made in 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? 1. Cor. 6. 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: Iohn. 6. 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. Iohn. 15. 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, Colo. 2. 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, In Ihon lib. 4. cap. 17. 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, Anathematis­mo 11. and receaued onely with a sincere fayth. In Iho. li. 4. c. 17. 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, [Page 172] 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.

Cirill.The author sayth, such answer as he made to Hilary will serue for Cyrill: and indeede 1 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 2 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.

Lege Cuillum in Io. li. 9. c. 47. Corporaliter filius per benedictionem misticam nobis vt homo vnitur, spiritualiter autem 3 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 4 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 y ^e effect of y ^e vnity corporal, & corporal dwelling, by which word (corporal) 5 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 6 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 deceaued by him. I will write here the very wordes of Cirill in Greeke, as they be of Decolam­padius brought forth and published in his name, wherby the reader that vnderstandeth the Greeke (as many do at this tyme) may iudge of Decolāpadius consciēce in handling this matter. The wordes of Ciril be alleaged of Decoclāpadius to be these in Greeke. [...].

These wordes be by Decolampadius translated in this wise. Nonne igitur [Page 173] [...]um qui videtur filium & Christum, alium a deo verbo, qui ex deo esse affirmant, cui aposto­latus functio tributa sit? Non enim sacramentum nostrum hominis manducationem asserit mentes credentium ad crassas cogitationes irreligiose introtrudens, & humanis cogitationibus subijcere enitens, ea qua sola, & pura, & inexquisita fide capiuntur. This is Decolampa­dius translation of the Greeke, as the same is by Decolampadius alleadged. Which compared with the Greeke and the congruite and phrase of the Greeke tongue conside­red, doth playnly open a corruption in the Greeke text. First in the word [...] which should be a participle in the singular number [...], as [...], and [...], all which participles depend of the third person reproued of Cirill, and nomina­tiue case to the verbe [...] which hath the nown [...], his accusatiue case: for con­gruity will not suffer [...] to be the nominatiue case, as Decolampadius maketh it: bicause [...] and [...] should then depend on it, which be the masculine gender, and [...] the neuter: and besides that the sence hath so no good reason, to attribute assertion to the mistery by the way of declaration, the mistery of nature secret hath neede of declaration, and maketh none but hideth rather: and the mistery cannot declare properly that should lead or subdue men to vayne imagination. But Cirill intending to reproue the conclution of him that attributeth to that is seene in Christ (the nature meaning, the person of his humanity) the office of the apostle, and so therby semeth to make in Christ two seuerall persons, esteming that is seene an other sonne from the second person, sheweth how that man so [...]. concluding doth af­firme an absurdity. That is to say, [...]. declareth that mistery of our (humanam commix­tionem) for so hath the publique translation and not [...] which should signi­fie eating of a man, as Decolampadius would haue it, and cannot with this construc­tion to make [...] the accusatiue case haue any sence, and then that man so conclu­ding, may be sayd therwith [...]. lea [...]ing the mynd of them that beleeue, into slender and darke imaginations or thoughtes, and so [...]. going about to bring vnder mans reasonings such things as be taken or vnderstanded by an onely simple bare, and no curious fa [...]th. And this is vttered by Cirill by interogation: [...], which continueth vnto the last word of all that is here written in Greeke, ending in the word [...]. But Deco­lampadius to frame these wordes to his purpose, corrupteth the participle [...], and maketh it, [...], wherby he might cut of the interrogatiue, and then is he yet fayne to ad euidently that is not in the Greeke, a copulatiue causal (enim) and then when [...] is by the cutting of the interrogation and the addition of (enim) made the nominatiue case, then can not [...] and [...] depend of it, bicause of the gender and [...], bicause of the article determineth the principall mistery in Christes person, and after publique translation it should seeme the Greeke word was not [...], but [...] which in the publique translatiō is expressed with these two wordes humanam comm [...]xtionem. This one place, and there were no mo [...] like, may shew with what conscience Decolampadius handeled the matter of the sacrament: who was learned in the Greeke tongue, much exercised in translations, and had once written a grammer of the Greeke, and yet in this place abuseth himselfe and the reader in peruerting Cirill agaynst all congruites of the speach, agaynst the proper significati­ons of the wordes, agaynst the conuenient connection of the matter, with deprauation of the phrase, and corruption of certayne wordes, all agaynst the common and publique translation, and when he hath done all this, concludeth in the end that he hath transla­ted the greeke faythfully, when there is by him vsed no good fayth at all, but credite and estimation of learning by him abused, to deceaue well meaning simplicity, and ser­ueth for some defence to such as be bold to vse and follow his authority in this matter. As the author of the booke semeth to haue followed him herin, for els the publique au­tentique translations which be abroad, as I sayd of the printes of Basill and Colon haue no such matter, and therfore the fault of the author is to leaue publique truth and search matter whispered in corners. But thus much must be graunted, though in the principall matter, that in the mistery of the sacrament we must exclude all grosen [...]s 7 and yet for the truth of Gods secret worke in the sacrament, graunt also that in such as receaue the Sacrament worthely, Christ dwelleth in them corporally, as Cirill sayth [Page 174] and naturally, and carnally as Hilary sayth. And with this true vnderstanding, after the simplicity of a Christian fayth, which was in these fathers, Hilary and Cirill, the contention of these three enuious wordes, in grose capacities grossely taken, naturall, carnall and corporall, which carnality hath engendred, might soone be much asswaged, and this author also considering with him selfe, how much he hath bene ouerseen in the vnderstanding of them, and the speciality in this place of him selfe, and Decolampadi­us, might take occasion to repent and call home himselfe, who wonderfully wandreth in this matter of the sacrament, and hauing lost his right way, breaketh vp hedges, and leapeth ouer diches, with a wonderous trauayle to goe whether he would not, be­ing not yet (as appeareth) determined where he would rest, by the variety of his owne doctrine, as may appeare in sundry places, if they be compared togither.

Caunterbury.

I Sayd very truely, when I sayd that such answere as I made to Hila­ry 1 will serue for Cirill, for so will it do indeede, although you wrangle and striue therin neuer so much: For Cirill and Hilary entreate both of one matter, that we be vnited togither and with Christ not onely in will, but also in nature, and be made one, not onely in consent of godly religi­on, but also that Christ taking our corporall nature vpon him, hath made vs partakers of his godly nature, knitting vs togither with him vnto his father and to his holy spirit. Now let the indifferent reader iudge whe­ther you or I be in errour, and whether of vs both hath most neede to ex­cuse himselfe of ignorance. Would god you were as ready, humbly to yeld in those manifest errours, which be proued agaynst you, as you be stout to take vpon you a knowledge in those thinges, wherein ye be most ig­noraunt. But [...] is a perilous witch.

Corporally.Now whereas I haue truly expounded this word (corporally) in Ci­rill, 2 when he sayth that Christ dwelleth corporally in vs, and haue decla­red how that word (corporally) as Cyrill vnderstandeth it, maketh no­thing for your purpose, that Christes flesh should be corporally conteyned (as you vnderstand the matter) vnder the forme of bread (for he neyther sayth that Christ dwelleth corporally in the bread, nor that he dwelleth in them corporally, that be not liuely members of his body, nor that he dwelleth in his liuely members at such time onely, as they receaue the Sacrament, nor that he dwelleth in vs corporally, and not we in him: But he sayth as well that we dwell in him, as that he dwelleth in vs) and whē I haue also declared that Cyrills meaning was this, that as the vine and branches be both of one nature, so the sonne of God taking vnto him our humayne nature, and making vs partakers of his diuine nature, geuing vnto vs immortality and euerlasting life, doth so dwell naturally and corporally in vs, and maketh vs to dwell naturally and corporally in him. And wheare as I haue proued this by Cyrills owne wordes, as well in that place in his tenth booke vpon S. Iohns gospell the .xiii. chapiter, as in his fourth booke the .xvii. chapiter, you an­swere no more to all this, but say that I seeke in Cirill where it is not to be found, and seeke not where it is to be found. A substanciall answere be you sure, and a learned. For you do here like a keper which I knew once, required to follow a sute with his hound after one that had stolen a deare, And when his hound was in his right sute and had his game fresh before him: and came nere to the house and place where the deere, [Page 175] was in deed, after he had a little inkling that it was a speciall frend of his that killed the deare, and then being loth to find the sute, he plucked backe his hound, being in the right way, and appoynted him to hunt in an other place where the game was not: and so deceaued all them that followed him, as you would here doe to as many as will follow you. For you pro­mise to bring the reader to a place, where he shall finde the meaning of this word (corporally) and when he commeth to the place where you ap­poynt, the word is spoken of there, but the meaning therof is not declared, neither by you nor by Cirill, in that place: And so the reader by your fayre promise is brought from the place, where the game is truely in deed, and brought to an other place, where he is vtterly disapoynted of that he sought for.

3 For where you send the reader to this place of Cirill: The sonne is vnited as man corporally vnto vs, by the misticall benediction spiritually as god, here in deed in this sentēce Cirill nameth this word (corporally) but he telleth not the meaning therof, which you promised the reader that he should fynde here.

Neuerthelesse Cirill meaneth no more by these wordes, but that Christ is vnited vnto vs two manner of wayes, by his body and by his spirite. And he is also a band and knot to bynd and ioyne vs to his father, being knit in nature vnto both, to vs as a naturall man, and to his fa­ther as naturall God, & himselfe knitting vs & God his father together.

And although Cirill say, Cirill. in Ioh. li. 9 c. vlt. ita ego naturaliter p [...]ēsum quia ex ipso natus, vos autem ex me, & ego in vobis eti­am naturaliter. ea ratione qua homo factus sum. that Christ is vnited vnto vs corporally by the mistical benedictiō yet in y ^t place y ^e material benedictiō may well be vnderstād of his incarnatiō, which as Cirill and Hilary both call an hye mistery so was it to vs a meruailous benedictiō, that he that was immortall God would become for vs a mortall man: which mistery S. Paule sayth was without controuersye great, and was hid from the world, and at the last opened, that Gentils should be made partakers of the promises in Christ, which by his flesh came downe vnto vs. 1. Tim. 3. Ephe. 3.

But to geue you all the aduantage that may be, I will graunt for your pleasure, that by the misticall benediction Cirill vnderstoode the sacra­ment of Christes flesh and bloud (as you say) and that Christ is therby v­nited corporally, vnto vs. Yet sayth not Cirill that this vnity is onely when we receaue y ^e sacramēt, nor extēdeth to all that receaue y ^e sacramēt, but vnto thē y ^t being renued to a new life, be made partakers of the diuine nature, which nature Cirill himselfe vpō y ^e vi. chapiter of Iohn, declareth to be life. But he speaketh not one word of y ^e corporall presence of Christ in the fourmes of bread and wine, nor no more doth Hilary. And therfore I may well approue that I sayd, that the answer made vnto Hilary, will very well also serue for Cirill. And yet neyther of them both hath one word, that serueth for your purpose, that Christes flesh and bloud should be in the sacrament vnder the formes of bread and wine.

4 And where you say that Christ vniteth himselfe to vs as man, when he geueth his body in the sacramēt to such as worthely receaue it, if you will speake as Cirill and other old authors vse to do, Christ did vnite himselfe to vs as man at his incarnation. And here agayne you geue euidence a­gaynst your owne issue, affirming our vnity vnto Christ no further than we receaue the sacrament worthely. And then they that receaue it vnwor­thely, [Page 176] be not vnited corporally vnto Christ, nor eate his flesh, nor drincke his bloud, which is the playne mynd both of Hilary & also of Cirill, and di­rectly with y ^e state of my fourth booke, & agaynst your āswer to the same.

And here you pretending to declare agayne what is ment by this word 5 (corporall) do tell the negatiue, that there is no grosenes ment therby, but the affirmatiue, what is ment therby, you declare not as you promi­sed. But if you meane playnly, speake playnly, whether Christes body being in the sacrament vnder the fourmes of bread and wine, haue head, feete, armes, legges, backe and bely, eyes, eares and mouth, distinct and in due order and proportion? Which if he lacke, the simplest man or wo­man knoweth, that it can not be a perfect corporall mans body, but ra­ther an imaginatiue or phantasticall body, as Martion and Ualētyne taught it to be. Expresse here fully and playnly, what manner of body you call this corporall body of Christ.

And where you say that I alleadge Cirill to deny in wordes the eating 6 of a man, and to affirme the receauing in this sacrament to be onely by fayth, and yet it shall appeare by further discussing (say you) that Cirill sayth not so. If you had not rubbed shame out of your forehed, you would not haue sayd, that he sayth not so, and be taken with so manifest an vn­truth. For although you like a Gramarian, ruffle in your cases, Genders, numbers, and persons, (and in matters of no learning trouble the reader to shew your selfe learned) corrupting the Greeke, Latin and English, to draw them to your purpose, yet shall you neuer proue that Cirill speaketh of any other eating of Christ, but by fayth.

And to make the matter playne (which it semeth you yet vnderstand not) I shall shortly reherse, as well the argument of Nestorius, as the answer of Cirill. Nestorius the hereticke sayd, Nestorius. that Christ was but a pure man, and not God, and that he had but a common body such as other men haue, wherunto the Godhead was onely assistant, as it is to other men. And to proue the same, he alleadged Christes owne wordes, when he sayd, He that eateth my flesh &c. and he that eateth me, and as y ^e liuing father sent me. Ihon. 6. And forasmuch as Christ sayd, that he had flesh, and was eaten and sent, and God cannot be eaten nor sent (sayd Nestorius) ther­fore concluded he, that Christ was not God, but man, whose flesh might be eaten and sent: whose grosse argumentation Cirill confuting sayth, that by his rude reasoning of eating, he draweth mens mindes wickedly to phansy of the eating of mans flesh (meaning of the eating therof with tooth and mouth) and so to imagine carnally and grosely such thinges, of Christ, as be vnderstand to be donne with an onely and pure fayth. And as Nestorius made his argument of the eating of mans flesh, euen so did Cirill make his answer of the eating of the same, and not of the commix­tion therof. For vnto what purpose should commixtion serue in that place and wherunto should Christes body be commixted? Or why should Cirill charge Nestorius with cōmixtion in Christ, seeing that he was charged with the cleane contrary (as you say) that he seperated the natures in Christ, and did not confound and commixt them? And furthermore, if Nestorius had made his argument of the eating, and Cirill had made his answere of the commixtion, they had fowghten Andabatarum more (as the prouerbe sayth) like two blind men, that when the one striketh in one [Page 177] place, the other holdeth vp his buckler to defend in an other place. Ther­fore may all men iudge, that haue any iudgement at all, how vniustly you iudge and condemne that godly and excellent learned man. Deco­lampadius for this word [...], which you say would be [...], which word in Greeke I thinke was neuer read, nor hath in that place neyther sense nor reason. And what an heady and intollerable ar­rogancy is this of you, of your owne vayne coniecturing to alter the Greeke text without any Greeke copy to ground your selfe vpon altering [...] into [...], and [...] into [...] contrary to the translations of Decolampadius and Musculus, not whispred in cor­ners, (as you with your rayling wordes would defame the matter) but published abroad to the world. And at the ende you conclude altogither with interrogation, contrary to the two translations which your selfe do alleadge, being printed the one at Basill, and the other at Colen. And you vsing such a licence to alter and change all thinges at your pleasure, are offended with Decolāpadius for changing of any case, gender, num­ber, verbe or participle, yea for one tittell or pricke of interrogation, which liberty hath euer bene suffered in all interpretours, so they went not from the true sense. But you can spye a little mote in another mans eye, that can not see a great blocke in your owne.

Neuerthelesse if I should diuine without the booke (as you do) I would rather thinke that [...] should be [...] (for such smal errours in one letter, be easely committed in the printing) and than con­cluding with an Interrogation (as you would haue it) the sence of the Greeke should be this in English. ‘Doth not Nestorius affirme, that he who was seene and sent, is an other sonne and Christ beside the word which is God of God? doth not he say, that our sacrament is the eating of a man, vnreuerently leading faythfull myndes vnto vayne and grose imaginations? and going about to compasse with mans phantasy those thinges, which be receaued onely with a pure and simple fayth? Where Cirill in these wordes reproueth Nestorius, in that he sayd, that our sacra­ment is the eating of a man.’ Doth not he himselfe affirme the contrary, that our sacrament is not the eating of a man, as I sayd in my booke? For els why should he reprehend Nestorius for saying the contrary? And doth not Cirill say also, that this sacrament is receaued onely with a pure and simple fayth? And yet you fynde faulte with me, bicause I say, that Cirill affirmeth the receauing in this sacrament to be onely by fayth, which, your saying being so manifest cōtrary to Cirills wordes, I referre me to the iudgement of all indifferent readers, what trust is to be geuen to you in this matter. And as for Decolampadius if the Printer in the steed of [...] made [...] and for [...] printed [...] (which may soone chāce in printing) thā may [...] be y ^e nominatiue case, notwithstā ­ding all your vehemēt inueying & vayne babling agaynst Decolāpadius.

7 Yet after your scurrilty and rayling agaynst Decolampadius, you temper your selfe somewhat, saying that in such as receaue the sacra­ment worthely, Christ dwelleth corporally, as Cirill sayth, and naturally and carnally as Hilary sayth. This is the third euidence which you geue agaynst your selfe, signifying that Christ is not corporally in them that re­ceaue not the sacrament worthely.

And here you begin to smacke of some true vnderstanding, when you [Page 178] say that Christ dwelleth in them that worthely receaue the sacrament, so that you would adde therto, that he dwelleth not onely in them when they receaue the sacrament, but whensoeuer by a liuely fayth, they spiri­tually eate his flesh and drincke his bloud.

And where you say, that by the variety of my doctrine it appeareth that I am not yet determined whether to go, you keepe still your olde conditi­ons and shew your selfe to be alwayes one man, in this poynt to charge other men with your owne faultes. For where as my doctrine is throwly vniforme and constant, yours is so variable and vncertayne, that you a­gree with no man, nor with your selfe neyther, as I entend by gods grace particulerly to set out in the ende of my booke.

And in these ii. authors Hilary and Cirill, you vary three tymes from your answer vnto my iiii. booke. For here you say no more, but that Christ is corporally in them that receaue the sacrament worthely: and in the an­swere to my iiii. booke 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.

Basilius. Nisse­nus and Nazi­anzenus.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.

Basilius. Grego. Nissenus. Grego. Nazianzenus. Messaliani here­tici.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 1 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.

Antropomor­phitae. Nestoriani.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 2 would haue taken for a true supposall that Basill, Gregory Nazianzene and Nissene, should take the sacrament to be figuratiue onely, 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 3 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 4 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 y ^e thing it selfe. And where this author speaketh of y ^e spiritual eating, & corporal eating, 5 he remayneth in his ignorāce, what y ^e word corporal meaneth, which I haue opened in discussing of his answere to Cirill. Fayth is required in him that shall eate spiritually, [Page 179] 6 and the corporall eating institute in Christes supper, Of corporal in [...] ducation. lege Rosseum. et O Ecolampadius. lib. 3. cap 13. Augu. In Io [...]n. tract. xxvi. 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.

1 WHere you say that in the old church y ^e truth of this mistery was neuer impugned opēly, you say herin very truly, for y ^e 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 y ^e 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, 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. Messaliani. De is habetur in histo trip. lib. 7. [...] 11. et in Theo­doreto li. 4. cap. 11. 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 y ^e Massaliās charge and yet the corporall receiuing without y ^e 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.

2 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.

3 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. Smyth. 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 4 champion. And as for your other iii. examples, it is not true of y ^e 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.

5 And where you say that I am ignorant what this word (corporal) meaneth surely then I haue a very grosse wit, Corporali that am ignorant in that thing, [Page 180] 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, 6 the bread and wine outwardly must be reuerently receaued w ^t 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.

The aunswere to Emissenus.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.

Emissen.This author sayth, that Emissen is shortly aunswered vnto, and so is he if a man care 1 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 y ^e Sacrament. Which Emissen hath this sentence, That the inuisible 2 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 a [...]ayne repea­ting the same sanctificatiō, This is my bloud. Wherfore as at the beck of him, commaū ­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 y ^e Sacramēt 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 y ^e sa­cramēt. For the words (substance) and (truth) be of one strength, & shew a difference frō 3 a figure, wherein the truth is not in dede presēt, 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 4 this author teacheth. Onely. And where this authour coupleth together the two Sacramen­tes, 5 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 [Page 181] 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 shalbe 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 sacramēt 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 y ^e perfect redemp­tion of our bodies in the generall resurection, which shall be the end and consumatiō of all our felicitie. This sacrament of perfect vnitie is the mistery of our perfect estate, when body and soule shalbe 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, Spirituall. 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, Spirituall ma­ner. graunted and taught of all true tea­chers, which we should receaue also spiritually, 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 1 in this place, and partely in the second parte of my booke, that he that readeth ouer those two places, shall see most clearly y ^t you haue spēt 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.

4 And here is one great token of sleight and vntruth to be noted in you that you write diligently euery word, A sleight. 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 [Page 182] 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 6 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 y ^e 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.

Truth.And this word (truth) you haue put vnto y ^e wordes of Emissen of your 3 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.

Onely.I will passe ouer here to aggrauate y ^t matter, how vntruely you adde 4 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.

[Page 183] 5 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.

6 For what christian man would say (as you do) that Christ is not inded (which you call really) in baptisme? Errours. 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 shalbe all spirituall? I know that S. Paule sayth, that in the resurrection our bodies shalbe spirituall, 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 shalbe 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 shalbe 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, The aunswere to Ambrosius de sacramentie lib. 4. cap. 4. which is alwayes in their mouthes. Before the consecration sayth he (as they alleage) it is bread, but af­ter the wordes of the consectation, it is the body of Christ.

For answere herevnto, it must be first knowen what consecation is.

Consecration is the seperation of any thing from a prophane and worldly Consecration. [Page 184] vse, vnto a spirituall and godly vse.

In i [...]. Roffeam. 2. cap. 25.And therfore when vsuall and common water is taken from other vses, and 9 put to the vse of baptisme, in the name of the father & of the sonne, and of the holy ghost, then it may rightly be called Consecrated water, that is to say, wa­ter put to an holy vse.

Euen so when common bread and wine be taken and seuered from other bread and wine, to the vse of the holy communion, that portion of bread and wine, although it be of the same substaunce that the other is, from the which it is seuered, yet it is now called consecrated or holy bread and holy wine.

Not that the bread and wine haue or can haue any holines in thē, but that they be vsed to an holy work, and represent holye and godlye thinges. And therfore S. Dionise calleth the bread, De ecc. Hierar. cap. 3. holy bread and the cup an holy cup, as soone as they bebe set vpon the aultare to the vse of the holy communion.

But specially they may be called holy and consecrated, when they be seperated to that holy vse by Christes owne wordes, which he spake for that purpose saying of the breade: Math. 26. Marc. 14. Luc. 22. This is my bodye, And of the wine: This is my bloud.

So that cōmōly the authors, before those wordes be spokē, do take the bread and wine but as other cōmon bread and wine, but after those wordes be pro­nounced ouer thē, then they take thē for consecrated & holy bread & wine.

Not that the bread and wine can be partakers of any holines or godlinesse, or can be the body and bloud of Christ, but that they represent the very body and bloud of Christ, and the holy foode and nourishment, which we haue by him. And so they be called by the names of the body and bloud of Christ, as the signe, token and figure is called by the name of the very thing, which it sheweth and signifieth,

And therfore as S. Ambrose in the wordes before cited by the aduersaries saith, that before the consecration, it is bread, and after the consecration it is Christes body, so in other places he doth more playnly set forth his meaning saying these wordes: De his qui mi­sterij [...] in iciantur cap. Vlt. ‘Before the benediction of the heauenly wordes, it is cal­led an other kind of thing, but after the consecratiō, is signisied the body of christ Likewise before the consecartion it is called an other thing, but after the consecration, it is named the bloud of Christ. And agayne he sayth: When I treated of the sacraments, I tolde you, that that thing which is offered, before the words of Christ, De sacramentis lib. 5. cap. 4 is called breade, but when the wordes of Christ bee pronounced, then it is not called breade, but it is called by the name of Christes body.’

"By which wordes of S. Ambrose, it appereth playnely, that the bread is cal­led 10 by the name of Christes body, after the consecratiō, & although it be still bread, yet after consecration it is dignified by the name of the thing, which it representeth: as at length is declared before in the proces of Transubstantiation, and specially in the words of Theodoretus.

And as the bread is a corporall meat, and corporally eaten, so sayth S. Am­brose, is the body of Christ a spirituall meat, De sacramentis lib. 6. cap. 1. and spiritually eaten, and that re­quireth no corporall presence.

Winchester.

Ambrostus.As touching S. Ambrose, this author taketh a great enterprise to wrastle with him whose playne and euident words must nedes be a rule to try his other words by, if any might be writhed. What can be more playnly spoken thē S. Ambrose speaketh, whē he sayth these wordes? It is bread consecration, but after it is Christes body. By the word consecration, Consecration. is siguified (as it is here placed) Gods omnipotent work. Wher­fore [Page 185] in this place it cōprehendeth asmuch as Emissen said in these wordes, he conuer­teth by the secret power of his word. God is the worker, and so consecratiō signifieth the 3 whole action of his omnipotency in working the substance of this high mistery, & there­fore the diffinition of the wordconsecration as it is generally taken, can not be a rule to the vnderstanding of it in this high mistery, where it is vsed to expres a singular work as the circumstāce of S. Ambrose writing doth declare. For as Philip Melancthon wri­teth 4 to Decolampadius, Melancthon. S. Ambrose would neuer haue trauailed to accumulate so ma­ny miracles as he doth, speaking of this matter to declare Gods omnipotency, and he had not thought the nature of bread to be chaunged in this mistery. These be Melanc­thons very wordes. Now to aunswere the question, as it were at the word change, this 5 author shall come with a sacramentall change which is a deuise in termes to blind the rude reader. Sacramentall chaunge. S. Ambrose doth expresse playnly what the change is, whē he writeth the wordes before rehersed.

It is bread before the consecration, but after it is the body of Christ. Can a chaunge 6 be more playnely declared? The nere way for this author had bene to haue ioyned Ambrose with Clement, and called him fayned by the Papistes, rather then after the effect of consecration so opened by S. Ambrose himselfe, to trauail to proue what it may sig­nify, if it were in an other matter. And then to admonish the reader, how the bread & 7 wine haue no holines, which forme of speach not vnderstanded of the people, engēdreth some scruple that nedeth not, being no sound forme of doctrine, for S. Paul speaketh & teacheth thus, 1. Tim. 4. De peccat [...]ne. & [...]e. li. 2. cap. 26. that the creatures be sanctified by the word of God & prayer, and S. Au­gustine writeth of sanctified bread to be geuen to them that be catechised before they be 8 baptised. And this author himselfe expoundeth S. Cyprian in the. 35. leafe of this booke, how the diuinity is poured into the bread Sacramentally, which is a straunge phrase not expressing there Cyprians minde, and far discrepant from the doctrine here.

And in an other place this author saith, Fol. 86. pa. 2. that as hote and burning yron is yron still, & yet hath the force of fyre: so the bread & wine be turned into the vertue of Christs flesh and bloud. By which similitude bread may conceyue vertue, as yron conceyueth fyre, & then as we cal yron burning and fyry, so we may call bread vertuous and holy vnles the author would agayn resemble bread to a whetstone that may make sharp and haue no sharpenee in it at all. Which matter I declare thus, to shew that as this author dis­senteth from truth in other, so be dissenteth from that he vttereth for truth himselfe, and walketh in a maze, impugning the very truth in this sacrament, and would haue that taken for a Catholick doctrine that is not one, and the same doctrine through this whole booke so farre of is it from the whol of Christiā teaching. But now let vs consider what speches of S. Ambrose this author bringeth forth, wherewith to alter the truth of the very playne proper speech of S. Ambrose saying: It is bread before the consecration, & after it is Christes body.

S. Ambrose as this author saith in an other place sayth thus: Before the Benediction of the heauenly words, it is called an other kind of thing, but after the consecration is signifyed the body and bloud of Christ. And an other speach thus. Before the consecrati­on it is called an other thing, but after the consecration it is named the bloud of Christ and yet a third speech where the word (call) is vsed before and after both, as thou reader maist sée in this authors booke in the 83. leafe. Now good reader, was there euer man so ouersene as this author is, who seeth not S. Ambrose in these thre latter speaches to speake as playnely as in the first. For in the last speach S, Ambrose saith, it is called bread before the consecration and called the body of Christ after the consecration. And I would demaund of this author, doth not this word (call) signify the truth that is bread in deed before the cōsecration? which if it be so, why shal not y ^e 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, Luc. [...]. & not absent. Was not Christ the true sonne of God, because the angell said, he shalbe called the sonne of God? But in these places of S. Ambrose, to expresse plainely [Page 186] what he ment by (calling) he putteth that word (call) to the bread, before the consecratiō, 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, signif [...]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 y ^e authority of Cyril. Now let vs see what this author sayth to Chrysostome. 11

Caunterbury.

IT is not I that wrastle with S. Ambrose, but you, who take great 1 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 2 wordes of S. Ambrose, Whether breade be Christes bo­dy. 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 spokē 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 3 therof, according to the mind of the old authors, as I will iustify.

And for the writing of Melancthon to Decolampadius, you remayne 4 still in your old error, A sacramentall change. taking Myconius for Decolampadius. And yet the change of bread and wine in this sacrament (which Melancthon spea­keth 5 of) is a sacramental change (as the nature of a sacramēt requireth) signifying how wonderfully almighty God by his omnipotēcy 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 [Page 187] 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 y ^e name of the very thing that is signified and represented therby.

6 And as for the foresayd books intituled to S. Ambrose, if I ioyned Ambrose with Clement, & should say that y ^e 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.

7 But here I cannot passeouer, that you be offended, because I say, that bread & wine be called holy, Holy bread. 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. Psal. 39.

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 y ^e 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, August. de pec­catorum meritis & remiss. 26. li. 2 cap. 26. to be geuen to them that be catechised, was not holy in it selfe, but was called holy for y ^e vse and signification.

8 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, Cyprianus. 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 [Page 188] as it were Gods visible word.

Holy bread.And whereas you reherse out of my wordes in an other place, that as 9 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. 10

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: Bread is bread, is a playne speache. 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. Bread is Chri­stes body, is a figuratiue speache. 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 [Page 189] 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, Num. 20. and when it was called Christ, 1. Cor. 10. & the arke also when it was called the arke, & when it was called god, 1. Reg 4. 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. Ihon. 1. Apoc. per totum Gen. 49. Apoc. 5. Iho. 10. 14. Ihon. 12. 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 y ^e 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 y ^t 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 y ^e 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.

11 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, Corporall. The aunswer to Chrisostom [...]. 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, [Page 190] 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, In sermone de Eucharastia in E [...]c. unije. 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 cō ­secrate, De proditione Ind [...]. 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 Genes. 1. (once spoken by God, tooke alwayes effect toward generation, euen so the saying of Christ. This is my body being but once spoken, Mat. 26 Marc. 14. Luc. 22. 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 10 & increased euersince that tyme: Genes. 1. Math. 6.1 Marc. 14. Luc. 22. 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.

Ad populam Antiochenum ho. [...] 1. & in Ihoānem ho. 45.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, [Page 191] 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, Chrisostom. 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 of his worke, entreating transubstan­tiation, he would the same wordes of Chrisostome by this forme of spech in the nega­tiue should not deny precisely. And when Chrisostome sayth, Do not think that you by man receiue the body of God, but that we should not consider man in the receiuing of it. Here this author doth alleage these wordes, and reasoneth of them as though they were termes of mere deniall. But I would aske of this author this question, If Chry­sostomes fayth had bene that we receaue not the body of God in the Sacrament verily, why should he vse wordes idlely to entreate, of whom we receiued the body of God, which after this authors doctrine we receaue not at all but in figure? and no body at all which is of Christes humanity being Christ, as this author teacheth spiritually, that is, by his diuine nature in him onely that worthely receaueth, and in the very Sacra­ment as he concludeth in this booke onely fyguratiuely. Turne back reader to the 36. leafe in the authors booke and read it with this, and so consyder vpon what principle here is made an (Ergo.) I will aunswere that place when I speake of Transubstanti­ation, which shall be after answered to the third and fourth booke, as the naturall order of the matter requireth.

The second place of Chrisostome that this author bringeth forth, he graunteth it soundeth much agaynst him, & fauoreth his aduersaryes, but with conferring and con­sidering, he trusteth to alter it from the true vnderstanding. And not to expound, but confound the matter, be ioyneth in spech the sacrament of baptisme with this sacramēt (which shift this author vsed vntruely in Hylary) and would now beare in hand that the presence of Christ were none otherwise in this sacrament then in baptisme which is not so, for in this sacrament Christes humanity and godhead is really present, and in baptisme his godhead with the effectuall vertue of his bloud, in which we be washed, not requiring by scripture any reall presence therof for dispensatiō of that mistery, as I haue before touched discussing the aunswere to Emissen, where as Chrisostome spea­king of this sacrament, whereof I haue before spoken, and Melancthon alleadging it to Decolampadius saith thus: The great miracle and great beneuolence of Christ is, that he sitteth aboue with his father, Chrisost. de Sa­cer. lib. 3. and is the same houre in our handes here to be embrased of vs. And therfore where this author would note the wonder of Gods worke in the Sacrament to be wonerfull for the worke and effect in man, this is one peece of trueth, but in the Sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ, the old Fathers wonder at the worke in the Sacrament how bread is chaunged into the body of Christ, how Christ sitting in heauen God & man, is also man and God in the Sacramēt, and being worthely receiued, dwelleth in such carnally and naturally, as Hylary sayth, and corporally as Cyrill sayth. How this can be, no man can tell, no faythfull man should aske, and yet it is the true catholick fayth to be truely so wrought. For as Cinistene sayth: 6 he that is the author of it, he is the witnes of it. And therfore I will make it an issue with this author, An issue. that the olde fathers speaking of the wonderfull operation of God in this Sacrament, referre it not onely to the vertue and effect of this Sacrament, nor to the vertue specially, but chiefly to the operation of God in the substaunce of this Sa­crament, In Ioan, tractae. 26. and the Sacrament selfe, for such a difference S. Augustine maketh, saying: [Page 192] Aliud est Sacramentum, aliud virtus sacramenti, The Sacrament is one, the vertue of the Sacramēt is an other. Finally in aunswering to Chrisostome, this author doth nothing but spend wordes in vayne, to the more playne declaration of his owne igno­raunce, or worse.

Caunterbury.

AS concerning Chrisostome, you haue spent so many taunting and scornefull wordes in waste, without cause, that I need to wast no wordes here at all to make you aunswere: but referre the reader to my booke the 25. leafe and 36. leafe, and to the 32.33. and 34. leafe, where the reader shall finde all that is here spoken fully aunswered vnto.

Christ is verely and truly pre­sent and recey­ued. But alwayes you be like your selfe, proceding in amplification of an argument agaynst me, which you haue forged yourselfe, and 1 charge me therewith vntruely. For I vse not this spech, that we receaue not the body of God at all, that we receaue it but in a figure. For it is my constant fayth and beleefe, that we receaue Christ in the sacrament veri­ly and truely, and this is plainely taught and set forth my book. But that (verily, as I with Chrisostome and all the olde authors take it) is not of such a sort as you would haue it. For your vnderstanding of (Uerily) is so Capernaicall, Uerile. so grosse, and so dul, in the perceauing of this mistery, that you thinke a man can not receaue the body of Christ verily, vnles he take him corporally in his corporall mouth, flesh, bloud, and bones, as he was borne of the virgine Mary. But it is certaine, that Chrisostome ment not, that we receaue Christes body verily after such a sort, when he sayth, Doe not thinke that you receiue by a man the body of God. And yet be­cause I deny onely this grosse vnderstāding, you misreport my doctrine, that I should say we receaue not Christ at all, but in a figure, and no bo­dy at all: wherin you vntruly and sclaundrously report me, as my whole book and doctrine can witnesse agaynst you. For my doctrine is, that the very body of Christ which was borne of the virgine Mary, and suffered for our sinnes, geuing vs lyfe by his death, the same Iesus as concerning his corporal presence, is taken from vs, and sitteth at the right hand of his father, and yet is he by fayth spiritually present with vs, and is our spiri­rituall foode and nourishment, and sitteth in the middes of all them that-be gathered togither in his name. And this feding is a spirituall feedyng and an heauenly feeding, farre passing all corporall and carnall feeding, and therfore there is a true presence and a true feding indeed, and not in a figure onely, or not at all, as you most vntruely report my saying to be. This is the true vnderstanding of y ^e true presence, receiuing & feding vp­on the body and bloud of our Sauior Christ, and not as you depraue the meaning and true sence therof, that the receiuing of Christ truly and verily, is y ^e receiuing corporally with the mouth corporall, or y ^t the spirituall receauing is to receaue Christ onely by his diuine nature, which thing I neuer sayd nor mēt. Turn I pray thee gētle reader to the 36 leaf of my booke, and note these wordes there, which I alledge out of Chrisostome. Doe not thinke (sayth he) that you receaue by a man the body of God. Then turne ouer the leafe, and in the xx, line note again my saying that in the holy communion, Christ himselfe is spiritually eaten and drunken, and nourisheth the right beleuers. Then compare those sayings with this place of this ignoraunt lawier, and thou shalt euidently perceiue, that ei­ther [Page 193] he wil not, or can not, or at the least he doth not vnderstand what is ment in the booke of common prayer, and in my booke also, by the recea­uing and feding vpon Christ spiritually.

But it is no maruaile, that Nicodemus and the Capernaites vnder­stand not Christ, before they be borne a new, and forsaking their papisti­call leauen, haue learned an other lesson of the spirite of God, then flesh & bloud can teach them. Much talke the Papistes make about this belefe, that we must beleue and haue a stedfast fayth, that Christes body is cor­porally there, where y ^e visible formes of bread & wine be: of which belefe is no mention made in the whole scripture, which teacheth vs to beleue & professe, that Christ (as concerning his bodily presence) hath forsaken the world, & is ascended into heauen, & shall not come agayne vntill the resti­tution of all thinges that be spoken of by Prophets. But wheras in the feeding vpon Christes body and drinking of his bloud, there is no mouth and teeth can serue, but onely the inward and spirituall mouth of fayth, there the Papistes kepe silence like monkes, and speake very little. And the cause why, is flesh and bloud which so blindeth all the Nichodemes & Caparnaites, that they can not vnderstand what is spirituall natiuity, spirituall circumcition, spirituall honger and thirst, and spirituall eating and drinking of the flesh and bloud of our Sauiour Christ: but they hang all together so in the letter, that they cannot enter into the kingdome of the spirit, which knowledge, if that you had, you should soone per­ceiue vpon what principle my Ergo were made. And where you per­uert the order of the bookes, The order of the booke. setting the carte before the horse, that is to say the iii and iiii booke before the second, saying that the naturall order of y ^e matter so requireth, here the reader may note an euident marke of all subtle Papistes, which is vnder the pretence & coulour of order, to breake that order whereby the falsehead of their doctrine should best be detected and the truth brought to light. For when they perceaue a window open, wherby the light may shine in, and the truth appeare, then they busily go about to shut that window, and to draw the reader from that place to some misticall and obscure matter where more darkenes is, and les light can be sene. And when besides the darkenes of the matter, they haue by their subtle sophistry cast such a mist ouer the readers eyes, that he is be­come blind: thē dare they make him iudge, be the matter neuer so vntrue. And no meruail, for he is now becōe so blindfeld, & subiect vnto them, y ^t he must say what so euer they bid him, be it neuer so much repugnāt to y ^e eui­dēt truth. In such sort it is in y ^e matter of y ^t sacramēt. For the papistes per­ceauing that their error should easily be espied, if the matter of transub­stantiation were first determined, that plaine wordes of the scripture, the consent of aūcient writers, the articles of our fayth, the nature of a sacra­ment, reason & all sences making so euidently agaynst it, therefore none of the subtle Papistes will be glad to talke of transubstantiation, but they will alwayes beare men in hand, that other matters must fyrst be examined, as the late Bishop doth here in this place.

Now in the second place of Chrisostome, where you say, that in this sa­crament Christes humanity and godhead is really present, & in baptisme his godhead with the effectuall vertue of his bloud in which we be wash­ed, not requiring by scripture any reall presence thereof for the dispensati­on [Page 194] of that mistery, n this matter I haue ioyned an issue with you before in the aunswere vnto Drigen, which shall suffice for answere here also.

Chrisostomus.And where S. Iohn Chrisostom speaketh of the great miracle of christ that he sitteth aboue with his father, and is the same houre here with vs 5 in our handes, truth it is, that Christ sitteth aboue with his father in his naturall body triumphant in glory, and yet is the same hour in our hāds sacramentally and present in our hartes by grace and spirituall nourish­ment. But that we shoud not think, that he is corporally here with vs, S. Augustine giueth a rule in his epistle ad Dardanum, August. ad. dard. saying: Cauendum est ne it a diuinitatem astruamus hominis, vt veritatem corporis auferamus, We must foresee that we do not so affirme the deuinitie of him that is man, that we should therby take away the truth of his body. And forasmuch as it is a­gaynst the nature and truth of a naturall body, to be in two places at one tyme, therefore you seme to speake agaynst the truth of Christes naturall body, when you teach that his body is in heauen naturally, and also na­turally in the sacrament. For who so euer affirmeth that Christes body is in sondry places as his godhead is, seemeth to defy Christes body by S. Augustines rule. August ad. dard. But like as it is not to be thought, that Quicquid est in deo, est putandum vbi (que) vt dens, that whatsoeuer is in god, is euery where as God is, so must we not thinke that his body may be at one tyme eue­ry where, where his godhead is. But Christ is (sayth S. Augustine) Vbi (que) per id quod est deus, in coelo autem per id quod est homo: Euery where in that he is God, but in heauen, in that he is man. Wherfore his presence here of his body must be a sacramentall presence, and the presence of his di­uinitie, of his grace, of his truth, of his maiestie and power, is reall and effectuall in many places, according to his worde.

Wherin is the miracle. Now as concerning your issue, I refuse it not, but say, that the great miracle whereat the Iewes wondred, and which our sauiour Christ ment, and the old fathers speake of, is of the eating of Christes flesh and drincking of his bloud, and how by flesh and bloud we haue euerlasting life. Now if you can bring good testimony for you, that the sacrament eateth Christes flesh and drincketh his bloud, and that it shall lyue for euer (which neuer had lyfe) and that Gods operation & worke is more in domme creatures then in man, then I must needes and will confesse the issue to passe with you. And when I heare your testimonies, I shall make answer, but before I here them, I should do nothing else but spend wordes in vayne, and beate the wind to no purpose. Now heare what I haue answered to Theophilus Alexandrinus.

Yet furthermore they bring for them Theophilus Alexandrinus, who (as they alleadge) sayth thus. The answer to Theophilus in Mar. 14. Iho. 6. ‘Christ geuing thankes, dyd breake (which also we doe) adding thereto prayer. And he gaue vnto them, saying: Take, this is my body, this that I do now geue, and that which ye now do take. For the bread is not a 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.’

[Page 195]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 [Page 196] Theophilact as he writeth vpon Marke, Theophilact. 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 1 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. In issue. 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 2 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, Theophilact translated by Oecomlampa­dius. he translated out of Greeke into Latine, y ^e 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 3 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. 4

Theophilactes wordes.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 5 flesh, and as it is costomably in mans feeding 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 thē 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 6 these wordes (the vertue of Christes flesh and bloud) must be vnderstanded to agree 7 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 [Page 197] 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 th [...]s accordingly 9(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; o [...]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 8 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, an [...] 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 10 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 shalbe 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 think [...] 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, Carnally: Na­turally corporally, 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, Manner, onely Spiritually. 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 com­pas [...]e of our busy reason.

Caunterbury.

1 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 vpō 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 cōceale 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: Thomas in ca­thena aurea. Theoph. which letters be indiferent aswel to Theophilus, as to Theo­philactes, so that you might haue christened the child whether you would [Page 198] 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 Alex­and [...]inus. And if Thomas was not the author which you followed in this matter, peraduenture it might be doctor Fisher somtyme byshop of Rochester, Fisher Rosseū. 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 2 no catholike writer among the Grekes hath more playnly spokē for you, then Theophilacte hath, and yet when that shalbe 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, The Catechis­me. 3 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 y ^e proper place therof in y ^e iiij. part of my booke.

And as cōcerning the wordes of Theophilact vpon the gospel of Iohn, 4 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 5 [Page 199] 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 [...]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.

6 And where you come to the translation of this word ( species) to signifie apparence, Species for 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 ed [...]re) signifieth to eate.

7 And your other translation is no lesse wonderfull, where you turne the vertue of Christes body into the veritie. Meritie for ver­tue. 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, yo [...] 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 y ^e 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 substaūce. 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 ignoraūt 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 A [...]cropomorphites. But the like is not in y ^e body of Christ, which hath distinctiō of integrall partes, and the vertue also and qualities distinct from the substance.

8 And yet if the example were like, he should be an euill translator, or ra­ther a corrupter, y ^t for ( a dextris virtutis Dei) would trāslate ( a dextris Dei) or cōtrary wise. A dextris dei. A dextris vertutis dei. And therfore all trāslators in those places folow y ^e wordes as they be, & be not so arrogāt to alter one title in thē, therby to make thē one in wordes, although y ^e thing in substaunce be one. For wordes had [Page 200] 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 speciē 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 9 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 y ^e 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 y ^e 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 [Page 201] 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.

10 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 y ^t 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 y ^e 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, The aunswere to Hieronimus. [...]uper epistol. ad Titum. 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 [Page 202] precious body and bloud, notwithstanding that corporally he is assended into heauen.

Winchester.

Hiero nim.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 whē he noteth (Panes propositionis) to be the figure and the shadow of Christes body in the Sacrament. For as Tertulian sayth, Tertulianus ad­uersus Martionē lib. 4. 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 w ^t no other wordes haue expressed his mynde so certaynly & playnly, as with these to confesse y ^e truth of Christes body in the Sacramēt. 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 Sacramētes 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 1 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.

2 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 y ^e 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.

3 And where you say that Christ maketh not him selfe of the matier of bread, Whether the body of Christ be made of the mattier 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 y ^e 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 [Page 204] should haue the more authorite, was not this put into the masse bookes, and reade euery yeare? Dognum datur christianis, quod in ca [...]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? Ihon, 2. Exo. 7. Gen. 2. Whan water was tourned into wine, was not y ^e wine made of the water? And when the rodde was tourned into a serpent, and water into bloud, the earth into a man, and his ribbe into a woman, Were not the woman, man, bloud and serpent, made of the matter of the ribbe, the earth, the water and the rodde? And is not euery thing made of that which is tourned into it? As bread is made of Corne, wine of grapes, beare of water, hoppes and mault, and so of all thinges like? And when you haue confessed your selues so many yeares passed, that Christ is made of bread in the sacrament, what moueth you now to say, that Christ maketh not him selfe of y ^e matter of bread? except y ^t eyther you will say, y ^t the priest doth it and not Christ (which were an intollerable blaspheme) or that the truth is of such a nature that euen the very aduer­saries therof (sometime vnwares acknowledge it, or els that force of ar­gumentes constrayneth you to confesse the truth agaynst your will, whē you see none other shift to escape? But if you take vpon you to defend the receaued doctrine of the Papistes, you must affirme that doctrine which they affirme, and say that bread in the Sacrament is the matter wher­of Christes body is made, wherof must than nedes follow ex consequenti, that he hath from tyme to tyme a new body, made of new bread, besides the body which was incarnated, and neuer but once made, nor of none other substaunce but of his mother. So that it is but a vayne cauilation (onely to elude simple people, or to shift of the matter) to say (as you do) that Christ is not made of the breade, but is made to be present there. For than should he haue sayd, There is my body, and not, This is my body And to be present, requireth no new making: but to be present by conuer­sion, requireth a new making. As the wine that was bought at the ma­riage in the Cane of Galilee (if there were any such) was present with­out conuertion, and so without new making: but the wine that was made of water, was present by conuertion, which could not be without new making. And so must Christes body be newly made, if it be present by corporall conuertion of the substaunce of bread, into the substaunce of it. And now I referre to euery indifferent reader, to iudge betwene vs both, which of vs is most snarled. Now let vs examine the other authors following in my booke.

Augustinus Se­dulius. Leo. Fulgentius. Cassiodorus. Gregorius,And the same is to be aunswered vnto all that the aduersaries bring of S. Augustine, Sedulius, Leo, Fulgentius. Cassiodorus, Gregorius, and other, concerning the eating of Christ in the Sacrament.

Which thing can not be vnderstanded playnly as the wordes sound, but figuratiuely and spiritually, as before is sufficiently proued, and hereafter shal be more fully declared in the fourth parte of this booke.

Winchester.

Bicause this author who hitherto hath answered none substancially, would neuerthe­lesse [Page 205] be seene to aunswer all, he windeth vp sixe of them in one fardell, S. Augustine, 1 Sedulius, Leo, Fulgentius, Cassiodorus, and Gregorius, Augustinus, Sedulius. Leo. Fulgentius. Cassiodorus, Gregorius. and dispatcheth them all with an (ut supra:) and among them I think he would haue knitte vp all the rest of the learned men of all ages, amonges whome I know none that write, as this Author doth of the Sacrament, or impugneth the Catholique fayth as this author doth by the enuious name of Papistes. Sence Christes time there is no memory more 2 than of sixe, that haue affirmed that doctrine which this author would haue called now the Catholike doctrine, and yet not writtē by them of one sorte, neither receiued in beleefe in publique profession.

But secretly, when it hapned, begunne by conspiration, and in the ende euer hi­therto extincte and quenched. First was Bertrame, then Berengarius, then Wicleffe, and in our time, Decolampadius, Zwinglius, and Ioachimus Uadianus. I will not recken Peter Martir, Peter Martyr. bicause such as know him, sayth he is not learned: nor this au­thor, bycause he doth but as it were, translate Peter Martir, sauing he roueth at solu­tions, as liketh his phantasie, as I haue before declared. Whyche mater being thus, it is a strange title of this Booke, to call it the trewe Catholique doctrine.

Caunterbury.

1 ALl that you haue these many yeres gathered togither for your pur­pose, or that can be gathered, may be well trussed vp in a very small fardell, and very easely borne and caried away. For any weight that is therin. For your doinges bee like to him, that would fayne seme to haue some thing, and hauing nothing els, filleth a great male full of strawe, that men should thynke he caried some thing, where indeed a litle bouget had ben sufficient for so much in value.

And as for your owne doctrine, it is so straunge, that neither it agre­eth with the scripture, nor with the old catholike churche, nor yet with the later church or congregation of the Papistes: but you stand poste a­lone, after the fall of the Papisticall doctrine, as sometime an old poste standeth when the building is ouerthrowen.

2 And where you say, that since Christes tyme there is no mo but syxe, that haue affirmed the doctrine that I haue taught, all that haue been learned, and haue redde the olde authors of y ^e catholike church, may eui­dently see the contrary, That sithens Christes tyme the doctrine of my booke was euer the catholike and publike receaued fayth of the church, vntill Nicholas the secondes tyme, who cōpelled Berengarius to make such a deuilish recantation, Nicholas the second. Berengarius. that the papistes thē selues be now ashamed of it. And since that tyme, haue many thousandes been cruelly persecuted onely for the profession of the true fayth. For no maune myght speake one worde agaynst the byshope of Romes determination herein, but he was taken for an heretike, and so condemned, as Wiclieffe, Husse, and an in­finite numbre mo.

And as for Bertram, Bertram. he was neuer before this tyme detected of any errour that euer I redde, but onely now by you. For all other that haue written of him, haue spoken much to his commendation and prayse. But I know what the matter is, he hath written against your mynde, which is a fault and errour great inough.

As for Doctour Peter Martyr, he is of age to aunswer for him selfe, but concerning him, that told you that he was not learned, I would wish you to leaue this olde rooted fault in you, to be light of credite. For I suppose, that if his lernyng that tolde you that lye, and yours also, wer [Page 206] set both togither, you should be farre behind Master Peter Martyr. Marye in wordes, I think that you alone would ouerlay two Peter Martyrs, Peter Martyr. he is so sobre a man, and delighteth not in wasting of wordes in vayne. And none do say that he is not lerned, but such as know hym not, or be not lerned themselues, or els be so malicious or enuious, y ^t they wittingly speake agaynst theyr owne consciēce. And no doubt, that man bringeth hym selfe out of the estimation of a learned man, which, hath heard him reason and reade, and sayth that he is not learned. And who­soeuer misreporteth hym, and hath neuer heard him, may not be called so well Momus as Sicophanta, whose property is to mysreporte thē, whome thy neither see nor knowe. Now resteth onely Damascene, of whome I write thus.

The aunswer to Damascenus de fide orth. lib. 4. cap 14.But here Iohn Damascen may in no wise be passed ouer, whome for is anctoritie, the aduersaries of Christes trew naturall body, do recken as a stout champion, sufficient to defende all the whole matter alone. But neither is the authorite of Damascene so greate, that they may oppresse vs therby, nor, his wordes so playne for them, as they boast and vntruly pretende. For he is but a yong new author in the respecte of those which we haue brought in for our partie. And in diuers poyntes he varieth from the most auncient authors (if he meane as they expound him) as when he sayeth, that the bread and wine be not figures, which all the olde authors call figures: and that the bread and 6 wyne consume not, nor be auoyded downward, which Origen and S. Augus­tine affirme: or that they be not called the examples of Christes body after the consecration, which shall manefestly appeare false by the Lyturgy ascri­bed vnto S. Basyll.

And moreouer the sayd Damascene was one of the Byshop of Romes chief proctours agaynst the Emperours, and as it were his right hand, to set abroad all idolatrye by his owne hand writing. And therfore if he lost his hande (as they say he didde) he lost it by Goddes most righteous iudgemente, whatso­euer they fayne and fable of the myraculous restitution of the same. And yet whatsoeuer the sayd Damescen writeth in other matters, surely in this place which the aduersaries do alleadge, he writeth spiritually and godly, although the Papists eyther of ignoraunce mistake him, or els willingly wrast him, and writh him to theyr purpose, cleane contrary to his meaning.

The sum of Damascene his doctrine in this matter is this. That as Christ being both God and man hath in him two natures, so hath he two natiuities, one eternall, and the other temporall. And so likewise we (being as it were double men, or hauing euery one of vs two men in vs, the new man and the old man, the spirituall man and the carnall man) haue a double natiuitie: One of our first carnall father Adam (by whome as by auncient inheritaūce, com­eth vnto vs maledictiō and euerlasting damnation) and the other of our hea­uenly Adam, that is to say, of Christ, by whome we be made heires of celesti­all benediction, and euerlasting glory and imortalitie.

And bicause this Adam is spirituall, therfore our generation by him must be spirituall, and our feeding must be likewise spirituall. And our spirituall ge­neration by him is playnly set forth in baptisme, and our spirituall meat and food is set forth in the holy communion and supper of the Lord. And because our sightes be so feeble that we cannot see the spirituall water wherwith we be washed in baptisme, nor the spirituall meat wherwith we be fed at the [Page 207] Lordes table. Therfore to help our infermities, and to make vs the better to see the same with a pure fayth, our sauiour Christ hath set forth the same, as it were before our eyes, by sensible signes and tokens, which we be dayly vsed and accustomed vnto.

And bycause the common custome of men, is to wash in water, therfore our spirituall regeneration in Christ, or spirituall washing in his bloud, is de­clared vnto vs in baptisme by water. Likewise our spirituall norishmēt & fee­ding in Christ, is set before our eyes by bread & wine, bicause they be meates and drinkes which chiefly & vsually we be fedde withal [...] that as they feede the body, so doth Christ with his flesh & bloud spiritually feed the soule.

And therfore the bread and wine be called examples of Christes flesh and bloud, and also they be called his very flesh and bloud, to signifie vnto vs, that as they feed vs carnally, so doe they admonish vs, that Christ with his flesh and bloud doth feed vs spiritually, and most truely vnto euerlasting lyfe.

And as almighty God by his most mighty word and his holy spirite and in­finite power, brought forth all creatures in the beginning, and euer sithens hath preserued them: euen so by the same word and power he worketh in vs, from tyme to tyme, this meruailous spirituall generation and wonderfull spirituall nourishment and feeding, which is wrought onely by God, and is comprehended and receaued of vs by fayth.

And as bread and drincke by naturall nourishment, be chaunged into a mannes body, and yet the body is not chaunged, but is the same that it was be­fore: so although the bread and wine be sacramētally changed into Christes body, yet his body is the same, and in the same place that it was before, that is to say, in heauen, without any alteration of the same.

And the bread and wine be not so changed into the flesh and bloud of Christ, that they be made one nature, but they remayne still distinct in nature so that the bread in it selfe is not his flesh, and the wine his bloud, but vnto them that worthely eare and drincke the bread and wine, to them the bread and wine be his flesh and bloud, that is to say, by things naturall, and which they be accustomed vnto, they be exaulted vnto things aboue nature. For the sacramentall bread and wine be not bare and naked figures, but so pi­thy and effectuous, that who soeuer worthely eateth them, eateth spiritual­ly Christes flesh and bloud, and hath by them euerlasting life.

Wherfore, whosoeuer commeth to the Lordes table, must come with all humilitie, feare, reuerence, and puritie of lyfe, as to receaue not onely bread and wine, but also our sauiour Christ, both God and man, withall his bene­fites, to the reliefe and sustentation both of theyr bodyes and soules.

This is briefly the summe and true meaning of Damascene, concerning this matter.

Wherfore they that gather of him; eyther the naturall presence of Chri­stes body in the Sacraments of bread and wine, or the adoration of the out­ward and visible sacrament: or that after the consecration there remayneth no bread, nor wine, nor other substaunce, but onely the substaunce of the bo­dy and bloud of Christ eyther they vnderstand not Damascene, or els of wil­full frowardnes they will not vnderstād him: which rather seemeth to be true, by such colections as they haue vniustly gathered and noted out of him.

For although he say, that Christ is the spirituall meat, yet as in baptisme the holy ghost is not in the water, but in him that is vnfaynedly baptised: so [Page 208] Damascene ment not, that Christ is in the bread, but in him that worthely eateth the bread.

And though he say that the bread is Christes body and the wine his bloud, yet he ment not that the bread considered in it selfe, or the wine in it selfe, be­ing not receaued, is his flesh and bloud: but to such as by vnfayned fayth worthely receaue the bread and wine, to such the bread and wine, are called by Damascene the body and bloud of Christ, bicause that such persons, through the working of the holy ghost, be so knitte and vnited spiritually to Christes flesh and bloud, and to his diuinite also, that they be fedde with them vnto euerlasting life.

Furthermore, Damascene sayth not that the sacrament should bee worshi­ped and adored, as the Papists terme it (which is playne idolatrye) but that we must worship Christ God and man. And yet we may not worship him in bread and wine, but sittyng in heauen with his father, and being spiritually within our selues.

Nor he sayth not; that there remayneth no bread nor wine, nor none other substaunce, but only the substaunce of the body and bloud of Christ: but he sayth playnly, that as a burning coale is not wodde only, but fier and wodde ioyned together, so the bread of the Communion is not bread only, but bread ioyned to the diuinite. But those that say, that there is none other substaunce but the substaunce of the body and bloud of Christ, do not onely deny that there is bread and wine, but by force they must deny also, that there is either Christes diuinitie or his soule. For if the flesh and bloud, the soule and diuini­nitie of Christ be foure substances, and in the sacrament be but two of them, that is to say, his flesh and bloud, than where is his soule and diuinitie? And thus these men diuide Iesus, seperating his diuinitie from his humanitie. Of whome S. Iohn sayth: 1. Iohn. 4. Whosoeuer deuideth Iesus, is not of God, but he is Antichrist.

And moreouer these men do so separate Christes body from his members in the sacramēt, In libro de dua­bus in Christo voluntatibus. that they leaue him no mans body at all. For as Damascene sayth that the distinctiō of members pertayne so much to the nature of mans body, that where there is no such distinctiō, there is no perfect mans body.

But by these papists doctrine, there is no such distinction of members in the sacrament: for either there is no head, feete, handes, armes, legges mouth, eyes, and nose at all, or els all his head, all feete, all handes, all armes, all legges, all mouth, all eyes, and all nose. And so they make of Christes body, no mans body at all.

Thus being confuted the Papists erroures, aswell concerning Transubstan­ciation, as the real, corporal, and naturall presence of Christ in the sacrament (which were two principall poyntes purposed in the beginning of this worke) Now it is tyme some thing to speake of the third errour of the papistes, which is concerning the eating of Christes very body, and drinking of his bloud.

Winchester.

Damascene.Last of all, the author bussieth himselfe with Damascene, and goeth about to aun­swer hym by making of a summe, which summe is so wrong accompted, that euery man that readeth Damascene, may be auditour to controule it. And this will I say, Damascene, writeth so euidently in the matter, that Peter Martyr, for a shift is fayne to finde fault in his iudgement and age, and yet he is .viii. C. yeares olde at the least and I say at the least, because he is relieued of summe halfe as old agayne. And what [Page 209] so euer his iudgement were, he writeth as Melancton sayth, his testimony of the fayth of the Sacrament, as it was in his time. I would write in here Damasceus wordes, to compare them with the summe collected by this author, wherby to disproue his par­ticulars playnly, but the wordes of Damascene be to be redde, translated already abrode.

As for the foure substances, which this author by accompte numbreth of Christ, myght haue bene left vnreckened by tale, because amonge them that be faythfull, and vnderstand truely wher soeuer the substaunce of Christes very body is, there is also vnderstanded by concomitaunce to be present the substaunce of his soule as very man, and also of the Godhead as very God. Concomitance. And in the mater of the sacrament therfore, con­tending with hym that woulde haue the substaunce of bread there, it may be sayd there is in the Sacrament the onely substaunce of Christes bodye, because the worde onely thus placed, excludeth other straunge substaunces, and not the substances which without contention be knowen and confessed vnite with Christes body. And so a man may be sayd to be alone in his house, when he hath no straungers, although he hath a number of his owne men. And Erasmus noteth how the euangilest writeth Christ to haue prayed alone, and yet certayne of his disciples were there. And if in a contenti­on raysed, whether the father and sonne were both killed in such a field or no, I de­fended the father to haue bene onely killed there, and therupon a wager layd, should I lose, if by profe it appeared, that not onely the father, but also three or fower of the fa­thers seruauntes were slayne, but the sonne escaped? And as in this speache the worde (onely) serued to exclude that was in contention, and not to reduce the number to one, no more is it in the speach that this author would reproue, and therfore neded not to haue occupyed him selfe in the matter, wherin I heard him once say in a good audiēce, hym selfe was satisfied. In which mynde I would he had continued, and hauing so sclender stuffe as this is, and the truth so euident agaynst him, not to haue resuscitate this so often reproued vntruth, wherin neuer hitherto any one could preuayle.

Caunterbury.

1 AS for Damascene needeth no further aunswer, then I haue made in my former booke. But I pray the reader, that he will diligently examine y ^e place, and so to be an indifferent auditour betwixt vs two.

2 Now when you be called to accompt for the number of substaunces in the Sacramēt, I perceaue by your wrangling, that you be somewhat moued with this audite, for bycause you be called to accompt. And I can not blame you, though it somewhat greeue you, for it toucheth the very quicke. And although I my selfe can right well vnderstand your num­bers, that when you name but one, you meane fower, yet you should haue considered before hand, to whome your booke was written. You wrote to playne simple people in the english tongue, which vnderstande no further but one to be one, and fower to be fower. And therfore when you say there is but one, and meane fower, you attemper not your speach to the capacities of them to whome you write.

Now haue I aunswered to all your friuilous cauilations agaynst my thyrd booke, and fortified it so strongly, that you haue spent all your shotte and powder in vayne. And I trust I haue eyther broken your peeces, or pegged them, that you shall be able to shoote no more. Or if you shoote, the shotte shall be so faynte, that it shall not be able to perce through a paper leafe. And the life. I trust to doe, to all the munition and ordinaunce layde agaynst my fourth booke.

Caunterbury.

[Page 212]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, The worde sa­crament. 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, 1. Cor. 6. and ther­fore they neyther eate his flesh nor drincke his bloud, which who soeuer eateth, Ihon. 6. 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) [Page 213] is to haue life. August in Iohn. tract. 26. & de verbis Apost. sermon. 2. 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 y ^e mouth, is to chaw & teare in peces with y ^e teeth, after which maner Christes body is of no man eaten: although Nicholas the second, Nicolaus secun­dus. 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.

2 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? Luke. 22. 1. Cor. 11. 1. Cor. 10. 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 learne vs?

3 And yet these sayd wordes limit not the mistery of the supper: for as much as that mistery of eating Christes flesh and drinking his bloud ex­tendeth further then the supper, and continueth so long as we be liuely membres of Christes body. For none feede nor be nourished by him, but that be liuely members of his body, and so long and no longer feede they of him, then they be his true membres, and receaue life from him. For feeding of him, is to receaue life.

4 But this is not that inuisible sacrament which you say S. Augustin speaketh of in sermone Domini in monte, Augusti. in ser­mo. domini in monte. lib. 2. the iij booke. For he calleth there the dayly bread, which we continually pray for, eyther corporall bread and meate which is our dayly sustenaunce for the body, or els the visible sacrament of bread and wine, or the inuisible sacrament of gods word and cōmaundementes, of the which sacramentes gods word is dayly heard, and the other is dayly seene. And if by the inuisible sacrament of goddes word S. Augustine ment our norishment by Christes flesh and bloud, than be we nourished with them as well by gods word, as by the sacra­ment of the lordes supper.

But yet who so euer tolde you that S. Augustine wrote this in the iij. booke de sermone Domini in monte, trust him not much hereafter, for he dyd vtterly deceaue you. For S. Augustine wrote no more but .ij. bookes de sermone Domine in monte, and if you can make iij. of ij. (as you do here) and one of iiij. as you dyd before in the substances of Christ, you be a meruailouse auditour, and then had all men neede to beware of your accomptes, least you deceaue them. And you cannot lay the fault [Page 214] here in the Printer, for I haue seen it written so both by your own hand, and by the hand of your secretary.

Now when you haue wrangled in this matter as much as you can, at length you confesse the truth, that who so feedeth vpon Christ spiritu­ally, must needes be a good man, (for only good men be membres of Christes misticall body) which spirituall eating is so good a frute, as it declareth the tree necessarelye to be good. And therfore it must be and is a certaine conclusion, that onely good menne doe eate and drinke the bodye and bloude of Christ spiritually, that is to say, effectually to lyfe. This you write in conclusion, and this is y ^e very doctrine that I teache, and in the same tearmes: marry, I adde therto, y ^t the eating of Christes body is a spirituall eating, and the drinking of his bloud is a spirituall drinkyng, and therfore no euill man can eate his flesh, nor drinke his bloud, as this my forth booke teacheth, and is necessary to be writen. For although neither good nor euell men eate Christes body in the sacra­ment, vnder the visible signes, in the which he is not but sacramentally: yet the good feede of him spiritually, being inhabiting spiritually with­in them, although corporally he be absent and in heauen: but the euell men neither feede vpon him corporally, nor spiritually (from whom he is both the sayd wayes absent) although corporally, they eate and drinke with theyr mouthes, the sacramentes of his body and bloud.

Three manner of eatings.Now where you note here three manner of eatinges, and yet but two 6 manner of eatinges of Christ, this your noting is very true, if it be truly vnderstand. For there be in dede three maner of eatinges, one spirituall onely an other spiritual and sacramentall both together, & the third sacramentall only: and yet Christ him selfe is eaten but in the first two man­ner of waies, as you truely teache. And for to set out this distinctiō some­what more playnly, that playne menne may vnderstand it, it may thus be tearmed, That there is a spirituall eating only, when Christ by a true fayth is eaten without the sacrament: Also there is an other eating both spirituall and sacramental, when the visible sacrament is eaten with the mouth, and Christ him selfe is eaten with a true fayth: The third eating is sacramentall only, when the sacrament is eaten and not Christ him­selfe. So that in the fyrst is Christ eaten without the sacrament: in the se­conde he is eaten with the sacrament: and in the thirde the sacrament is eaten without him: and therfore it is called sacramentall eating onely, bycause onely the sacramente is eaten, and not Christ himselfe. After the two first maner of wayes, godly men do eate (who feede and liue by Christ) the thirde manner of wayes the wicked do eate, and therfore (as S. Augustine sayth) they neither eate Christes flesh nor drinke his bloud although euery day they eat the sacrament therof, August in Ioh. tract. 26. to the condemnation of theyr presumption. And for this cause also S. Paule sayth not, He that eateth Christes body, and drinketh his bloud vnworthely, shall haue condemnation, and be gilty of the Lordes body: but he sayth, he that ea­teth this bread, 1. Cor. 11. and drinketh the cup of the Lord vnworthely, shalbe gil­tie of the Lordes body, and eateth and drinketh his owne damnation, bycause he estemeth not the Lordes body.

And here you committe two fowle faultes. One is, that you declare S. Paule to speake of the body and bloud of Christ, when he spake of [Page 215] the bread and wine. The other fault is, that you adde to S. Paules wordes this word (there) and so buylde your worke vpon a foundation made by your owne selfe.

And where you say, that if my doctrine be true, neyther good men nor euill eate but the sacramentall bread, it can be none other but very fro­wardnes and mere wilfulnes, that you will not vnderstand that thinge which I haue spoken so playnly, & repeted so many tymes. For I say, that good men eat the Lordes body spiritually to theyr eternall nourish­ment, where as euyl men eat but the bread carnally to their eternall pu­nishment. And as you note of S. Augustine, that baptisme is very well called health, August. de pec­catorum meri­tis & remiss. li. 1. cap. 24. and the sacrament of Christes body called lyfe, as in which God gyueth health and lyfe, if we worthely vse them: so is the sacramen­tall bread very well called Christes body, and y ^e wine his bloud, as in the ministration wherof, Christ geueth vs his flesh and bloude, if we wor­thely receaue them.

7 And where you teach how the workes of God in them selues be al­way true and vniforme in all men without diuersitie in good and euill, The workes of God vniforme. in worthy and vnworthy, you bring in this misticall matter here clearly without purpose or reason, farre passyng the capacitie of simple readers, onely to blinde their eyes withall. By which kynde of teaching it is all one worke of God to saue and to damne, to kill and to gyue lyfe, to hate and to loue, to elect and to reiect, and to be short, by this kinde of doctrine God and all his workes be one, without diuersite eyther of one worke from an other, or of his workes from his substaunce. And by this meanes it is all one worke of God in baptisme and in the Lordes supper. 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.

8 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: Spirit and lyfe to fall vpon euill men. which doctrine I will not name what it is, for all faythfull men know the name right well and detest the same. 2 Cor. 6. 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. Iohn. 6. For the wordes which you recyte by and by of S. Augustin, shew how vayne your argument is, Aug. in Iohn, tract. 27. 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 [Page 216] meam carnem, & bibit meum sanguinem, in memanet et ego in eo. Et quiman­ducat meam carnem & bibit meum sanguinem, habet vitam aeternam, Iohn. 6. 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, Iohn. 6. 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.

The promises of God vnder condition.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, 10 to reproue that thing which I neuer denied, One substance to good and bad. 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.

The issue.What neede you to make herein any issue, when we agree in y ^e 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, 2. Cor. 2. 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, Math. 5. 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, Decumenius. and strengthneth y ^e 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 w ^t 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. Chap. 1.

Whether euell men do eate and drinke Christ.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 [Page 217] 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: Iohn. 6. ‘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, The godly on­ly eat Christ. 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, Iohn. 6. 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 bread shall liue for euer.’

This taught our sauiour Christ as well his disciples as the Iewes at Caper­naum, that the eating of his flesh and drincking of his bloud was not like to the eating of Manna. For both good and bad did eate Manna, but none do eate his flesh and drincke his bloud, but they haue euerlasting lyfe. For as his father dwelleth in him, and he in his father, and so hath life by his father: so he that eateth Christes flesh and drinketh his bloud, dwelleth in Christ and, Christ in him, and by Christ he hath eternall life.

What neede we any other witnes? when Christ himselfe doth testifie the mater so playnly, that who so euer eateth his flesh and drinketh his bloud, hath euerlasting life? and that to eate his flesh and to drincke his bloud, is to beleue in him? And who so euer beleueth in him, hath euerlasting lyfe, wher­of it followeth necessarily, that vngodly persons (being limmes of the deuill) do not eate Christes flesh nor drinke his bloud, except the Papistes would say, that such haue euerlasting life.

But as the diuell is the food of the wicked, which he nourisheth in all ini­quitie, and bringeth vp into euerlasting damnatiō: so is Christ the very foode of all them that be the liuely members of his body, and them he nourisheth, fedeth, bringeth vp and cherisheth vnto euerlasting life.

And euery good and faythfull Christian man seleth in himselfe, Chap. 2. how he fedeth of Christ, eating his flesh and drincking of his bloud. For he putteth the whole hope and trust of his redemption and saluation in that onely sacri­fice, What is the ea­ting of Christes flesh and drinking of his bloud. which Christ made vpon the Crosse, hauing his body there broken, and his bloud there shedde for the remission of his sinnes. And this great benefite of Christ, the faythfull man earnestly considereth in his mynd, chaweth and digesteth it with the stomake of his hart, spiritually receauing Christ wholy into him, and giuing agayne him selfe wholy vnto Christ.

And this is the eating of Christes flesh and drinking of his bloud, the fee­ling wherof is to euery man, the feling how he eateth and drincketh Christ, [Page 218] which none euill man nor member of the deuill can do.

Chap. 3.For as Christ is a spirituall meate, so is he spiritually eaten and digested with the spirituall part of vs, and giueth vs spirituall and eternall lyfe, and is not eaten, Christ is not eaten with teeth but with fayth. Cyprian de coe­na domini. swallowed & digested with our teeth, tongues, throtes & bellies.

Therfore sayth S. Ciprian, he that drincketh of the holy cup, remembring this benefite of God, is more thirsty then he was before. And lifting vp his hart vnto the liuing God, is taken with such a singular hunger and apetite, that he abhorreth all gally and bitter drinkes of sinne, and all sauor of carnall pleasure is to him as it were sharp and sowre viniger. And the sinner being conuerted, receauing the holy misteries of the Lordes supper, geueth thankes vnto God, and boweth downe his head, knowing that his sinnes be forgeuen, and that he is made clean and perfect, and his soule (which God hath sanctified) he ren­dreth to God agayne as a faythfull pledge, and then he glorieth with Paule, and reioyseth saying: Now it is not I that liue, but it is Christ that liueth with­in me. These thinges be practised and vsed among faythful people and to pure myndes, the eating of his flesh is no horror but honor, and the spirit deliteth in the drinking of the holy and sanctifiing bloud. And doing this, we whet not our teeth to bite, but with pure fayth we breake the holy bread. These be the wordes of Ciprian.

August. de ver­bis domini ser. 33.And according vnto the same, S. Augustine sayth: Prepare not thy iawes, but thy hart. And in an other place he sayth, why doest thou prepare thy belly and thy teeth? Beleue, and thou hast eaten. But of this matter is sufficiently spoken be­fore, In Ioan. tractat. 25. where it is proued, that to eate Christes flesh and drincke his bloud, be figuratiue speaches.

Chap. 4. The good only eate Christ.And now to returne to our purpose, that onely the liuely members of Christ do eate his flesh and drincke his bloud, I shall bring forth many o­ther places of auncient authors before not mentioned.

Origines in Math. cap. 15.Fyrst Origen writeth playnly after this maner. ‘The word was made flesh and very meat, which who so eateth, shall surly liue for euer, which no euill man can eate. For if it could be, that he that continueth euill might eat the word made flesh, seing that he is the word and bread of life, it should not haue bene written: Who so euer eateth this bread, shall liue for euer. These wordes be so playne, that I need say nothing for the more clere declaration of them.’ Wherfore you shall heare how Ciprian agreeth with him.

Ciprianus in sermo. de coena do­mini.Cyprian in his sermon, ascribed vnto him, of the Lordes supper, sayth: The author of this tradition sayd, ‘that except we eat his flesh & drincke his bloud, we should haue no life in vs, instructing vs with a spirituall lesson, & opening to vs a way to vnderstand so priuy a thing, that we should know, that the eating is our dwelling in him, and our drincking is as it were an incorporation in him, being subiect vnto him in obedience, ioyned vnto him in our willes, and vnited in our affections. The eating therfore of this flesh, is a certayne hunger and desire to dwell in him.’

Thus writeth Cyprian of the eating and drinking of Christ'. And a litle af­ter he sayth, that none do eate of this lambe, but such as be true Israelites, that is to say, pure christian men without colour or dissimulation.

Athanasius de peccato in spiri­um sanctum.And Athanasius speaking of the eating of Christes flesh and drincking of his bloud, sayth that for this cause he made mention of his ascentiō into hea­uen, to plucke them from corporall phantasy, that they might lerne hereafter that his flesh was called the celestiall meate that came from aboue, and a spiri­tuall [Page 219] food, which he would geue. For those thinges that I speake to you (sayth he) be spirit and life. Which is as much to say, as that thing which you se, shalbe slayne and giuen for the nourishment of the world, that it may be distributed to euery body spiritually, and be to all men a conseruation vnto the resurrectiō of eternall life.

In these wordes Athanasius declareth the cause why Christ made menti­on of his ascension into heauen, when he spake of the eating and drincking of his flesh and bloud. The cause after Athanasius mynd was this, that his hearers should not thinke of any carnal eating of his body with their mouthes (for as concerning the presence of his body) he should be taken from them, and ascend into heauen, but that they should vnderstād him to be a spirituall meate, & spiritually to be eaten, and by that refreshing to giue eternall life, which he doth to none, but to such as be his liuely members.

And of this eating speaketh also Basilius, Basilius epistol. 141. that we eate Christes flesh and drincke his bloud, being made by his incarnation and sensible lyfe, partakers of his word and wisedome. ‘ For his flesh and bloud he calleth all his misticall conuer­sation here in his flesh and his doctrine, consisting of his whole life, pertayning both to his humanitie and diuinitie, wherby the soule is nourished and brought to the contemplation of thinges eternall.’

Thus teacheth Basilius how we eate Christes flesh and drincke his bloud" which pertayneth only to the true and faythfull members of Christ.

S. Hierom also sayth: All that love pleasure more then God, eate not the flesh of Iesu, nor drincke his bloud. Hieronimus in E [...]aiam. cap. 66. Of the which himselfe sayth: He that eateth my flesh and drincketh my bloud, hath euerlasting lyfe."

And in an other place S. Hierom sayth, ‘that heritikes do not eate and drincke the body and bloud of the Lord. In Hieremian.’

And more ouer he sayth, ‘ that heretiks eat not the flesh of Iesu, In Oseam cap. 8. whose flesh is the meat of faythfull men.’

Thus agreeth S. Hierom with the other before rehersed, that ‘heretikes and such as follow worldly pleasures eate not Christes flesh nor drincke his bloud, bicause that Christ sayd, He that eateth my flesh, and drincketh my bloud, hath euerlasting life.’

And S. Ambrose sayth, that Iesus is the bread which is the meat of sainctes and that he that taketh this bread, dyeth not a sinners death. For this bread is the remission of sinnes. Ambrosius de benedictione patriarcharū cap. 9. De his qui miste rus initiantur. De sacramentis li. cap. 5. And in other booke to him intituled, he writeth thus. ‘This bread of life which came downe from heauen, doth minister euerlasting life, and who soeuer eateth this bread, shall not dye for euer, and is the body of Christ. And yet in an other booke set forth in his name, he sayth on this wise: He that did eate Manne dyed, but he that eateth this body, shall haue remission of his sinnes, and shall not dye for euer. Lib. 5. cap. 3.’ And agayne he sayth: As often as thou drinckest thou hast re­mission of thy sinnes.

These sentences of S. Ambrose be so playne in this matter, that there ne­deth no more, but onely the rehersall of them.

But S. Augustine in many places playnly discussing this matter, sayth: He that agreeth not with Christ, doth neither eate his body, nor drinke his bloud, Augustinus in sentētiis expro­spero decerptis cap. 339. although to the condemnation of his presumption, he receaue euery day the sacramēt of so hygh a matter.

And moreouer S. Augustine most playnly resolueth this matter in his [Page 220] booke De ciuitate Dei, De ciuitate Dei lib. 21. Cap. 25. disputing agaynst two kindes of heretikes: Wherof the one sayd, ‘that as many as were Christned, and receaued the sacramēt of Chri­stes body and bloud, should be saued, how so euer they liued or beleeued, by­cause that Christ sayd: This is the bread that came from heauen, that who so euer shall eate therof, shall not dye. I am the bread of lyfe, which came from heauen, who so euer shall eate of this bread, shall liue for euer.’

Therfore (sayd these heretikes) all such men must nedes be deliuered from eternall death, and at length be brought to eternall life. The other sayd, that heretikes and scismatikes myght eate the sacrament of Christes body, but not his very bo­dy, bycause they be no members of his body.

And therfore they promised not euerlasting life to all that receaued Chri­stes baptisme and the sacrament of his body, but to all such as professed a true fayth, although they liued neuer so vngodly. For such (sayd they) do eate the body of Christ, not onely in a sacrament, but also in deede, bycause they be members of Christes body.

But S. Augustine answering to both these heresies, sayth: ‘That neither he­retikes, nor such as professe a true fayth in theyr mouthes, and in theyr liuing shew the contrary, haue eyther a true fayth (which worketh by charitie, and doth none euil) or are to be counted among the members of Christ. For they can not be both members of Christ and members of the deuill. Therfore (sayth he) it may not be sayd, that any of them eate the body of Christ. For when Christ sayth, he that eateth my flesh and drincketh my bloud, dwelleth in me, and I in him: He sheweth what it is (not sacramentally, but indeed) to eate his body and drincke his bloud: which is, when a man dwelleth so in Christ, that Christ dwelleth in him. For Christ spake those wordes as if he should say, He that dwel­leth not in me, and in whom I dwell not let him not say or thincke, that he eateth my body, or drincketh my bloud.’

These be the playne wordes of S. Augustine, that such as liue vngodly, although they may seme to eate Christes body (bicause they eate the sacra­ment of his body) yet in deed they neyther be members of his body, nor do eate his body.

Also vpon the gospell of S. Iohn he sayth, ‘that he that doth not eate his flesh and drincke his bloud, hath not in him euerlasting lyfe. And he that eateth his flesh and drincketh his bloud, In Ihon. tractat. 26. hath euerlasting lyfe. But it is not so in those meates, which we take to sustayne our bodyes. For although with­out them we cannot liue, yet it is not necessary, that who so euer receaueth them, shall liue, for they may dye by age, sicknes or other chaunces.’

But in this meat and drincke of the body and bloud of our Lord, it is other­wise. For both they that eate and drincke them not, haue not euerlasting lyfe: And contrariwyse who so euer eate and drincke them, haue euerlasting life.

Note and ponder well these wordes of S. Augustine, that the bread and wine and other meates & drinckes (which nourish the body) a man may eate, and neuerthelesse dye: but the very body and bloud of Christ no man eateth, but that hath euerlasting life. So that wicked men can not eate nor drincke them, for then they must nedes haue by them euerlasting life.

And in the same place S. Augustine sayth further. The sacramēt of the vnitie of Christes body & bloud is takē in the Lordes table, of some men to lyfe: & of some mē to death, but the thing it selfe (wherof it is a sacramēt) is takē of all men to lyfe, & of no man to death. And more ouer he sayth: ‘This is to eate that meate [Page 221] and drincke that drincke, to dwell in Christ, and to haue Christ dwelling in him. And for that cause he that dwelleth not in Christ, & in whome Christ dwelleth not, without doubt he eateth not spiritually his flesh nor drincketh his bloud, although carnally and visibly with his teeth, he byte the Sacrament of his body and bloud.’

Thus writeth S. Augustine in the xxvj. homely of S. Iohn. And in the next homely following, he sayth thus. In Iohn. tractat. 27. ‘This day our sermon is of the body of the Lord, which he sayd he would geue to eat for eternall life. And he declared the maner of his gift and distribution, how he would geue his flesh to eate, saying: He that eateth my flesh and drincketh my bloud, dwelleth in me and I in him. This therfore is a token or knowledge, that a man hath eaten and drunken, that is to say, if he dwell in Christ, and haue Christ dwelling in him. If he cleaue so to Christ, that he is not seuered from him. This therfore Christ taught and admonished by these misticall or figuratiue wordes, that we should be in his bo­dy vnder him our head among his members, eating his flesh, nor forsaking his vnitie.’

And in his booke De doctrina Christiana. S. Augustine sayth, De doctrina christiana. lib. 3. Cap. 14. (as before is at length declared) ‘that to eate Christes flesh, and to drincke his bloud, is a figuratiue speach signifying the participation of his passion, and the delectable remem­braunce to our benefite and profite, that his flesh was crucified and wounded for vs.’

And in an other sermon also De verbis Apostoli he expoundeth what is the eating of Christes body and the drincking of his bloud, De verbis Apo­stoli. sermo. 2. saying, ‘ The eating is to be refreshed, and the drincking what is but to liue? Eate life, drincke life: And that shall be, when that which is taken visibly in the sacrament, is in very deed eaten spiritually and dronken spiritually.’

By all these sentences of S. Augustine it is euident and manifest, that all men, good and euill, may with theyr mouthes visibly and sensibly eate the sa­crament of Christes body and bloud, but the very body & bloud them selues be not eaten but spiritually, & that of the spiritual members of Christ, which dwell in Christ, & haue Christ dwelling in them, by whome they be refresh­ed and haue euerlasting lyfe.

And therfore sayth S. Augustine, In Ioh Tract. 59 that when the other Apostles did eate bread that was the Lord, yet Iudas did eate but the bread of the Lord, and not the bread that was the Lord. So that the other Apostles with the sacramentall bread did eate also Christ him selfe, whome Iudas did not eate. And a great num­ber of places moe hath S. Augustine for this purpose, which for eschewing of tediousnes, I let pas for this tyme, and will speake some thing of S. Cirill. ¶ Cyrill vpon S. Iohn in his Gospell sayth, ‘that those which eate Manna, dyed, Cirillus in Ioh. li. 4. cap. 10. bycause they receaued therby no strength to liue euer: (for it gaue no lyfe, but onely put away bodily hunger) but they that receaue the bread of life, shall be made immortall, and shall eschewe all the euils that pertayne to death, liuing with Christ for euer. And in an other place he sayth [...] Cap. 12. For as much as the flesh of Christ doth naturally geue life, therfore it maketh them to liue that be partakers of it. For it putteth death away from them, & vtterly driueth destructiō out of them.’

And he concludeth the matter shortly in an other place in fewe wordes, Cap. 14. saying, ‘ that when we eate the flesh of our sauiour, than haue we life in vs. For if thinges that were corrupt, were restored by onely touching of his clothes, how can it be, that we shall not liue that eate his flesh? And further he sayth, that as [Page 222] two waxes that be molten together, do run euery part into other: Cap. 17. so he that re­ceaueth Christes flesh and bloud, must nedes be ioyned so with him, that Christ must be in him, and he in Christ.’

Here S. Cyrill declareth the dignitie of Christes flesh, being inseparably annexed vnto his diuinitie, saying, that it is of such force and power, that it geueth euerlasting life. And what soeuer occasion of death it findeth, or let of eternall life, it putteth out and driueth cleane away all the same, from them that eate that meate and receaue that medicine. Other medicins or playsters sometyme heale, and sometyme heale not, but this medicine is of that effect and strength, that it eateth away all rotten and dead flesh and perfectly hea­leth all woundes and sores that it is layd vnto.

This is the dignitie and excellēcy of Christes flesh and bloud, ioyned to his diuinite, of the which dignite, Christes aduersaries the Papistes, depriue and robbe him, when they affirme, that such men do eate his flesh and receaue this playster, as remayne still sicke and sore, and be not holpen therby.

Thus hast thou heard (gentle reader) the groundes and profes which moued me to write the mater of this iiii. booke, that good men onely eate Christes flesh and drincke his bloud. Now shalt thou here y ^e late byshopes confutation of the same.

Winchester.

And as for the Scriptures and doctours which this author alleadgeth to proue that only good men receaue the body and bloud of Christ, I graunt it without contention 1 speaking of spirituall manducation and with liuely fayth without the Sacrament. But in the visible sacrament euell men receaue the same that good men do, for the substance of the sacrament is by godes ordinauce all one. And if this author would vse for a profe 2 that in the sacrament Christes very body is not present, bicause euill men receaue it, that shalbe no argument, for the good seed when it was sowen did fall in y ^e euill ground and although Christ dwelleth not in the euill man, yet he may be receaued of the euill 3 man to his condemnation, bycause he receaueth him not to glorifie him as God, as S. Paule sayth (Non dijudicans corpus domini) not esteming our Lordes body. And to all 4 that euer this author bringeth to proue, that euell men eate not the body of Christ, may be sayd shortly, that spiritually they eat it not, besides the sacrament, and in the sacra­ment they eate it not effectually to life, but condemnation. And that is and may be cal­led a not eating. As they be sayd not to heare y ^e word of God, that here it not profitably. And bycause the body of Christ of it selfe is ordeyned to be eaten for life, those that vn­worthely eate to condemnation, although they eate in dede, may be sayd not to eate, be­cause they eate vnworthely, as a thing not well done, may be in speach called not done, in respect of the good effect wherfore it was chiefly ordered to be done. And by this rule, thou reader mayst discusse all that this author bringeth forth for this purpose, eyther out of Scriptures or doctors. For euill men eate not the body of Christ to haue any fruite by it, as euil men be sayd not to heare gods word to haue any frute by it, and yet as they heare the worde of spirite & life and neuerthelesse perish, so euill men eate in the visible sacrament the body of Christ and yet perish. And as I sayd, this aunswereth the Scrip­ture 5 with y ^e particuler sayinges of Ciprian, Athanase, Basyl, Hierome, and Ambrose.

As for S. Augustine which this author alleageth De ciuitate dei, the same S. Au­gustine 6 doth playnly say there in this place alledged, how the good and euill receaue the same sacrament, and addeth, but not with like profite, which wordes this author sup­presseth, and therfore dealeth not sincerely. As for S. Augustine shall be hereafter more playnly declared. Finally, he that receaueth worthely the body & bloud of Christ, hath euerlasting life, dwelleth in Christ and Christ in him, he that receaueth vnworthely, which can be onely in the sacrament, receaueth not lyfe, but condemnation.

Caunterbury.

IF you graunt without contention that which I do proue, then you 1 must graunt absolutely and franckly without any addition, that onely good 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.

2 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.

3 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 shalbe 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.

4 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 may be sayd not done y ^t is not well don. 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, Li [...]. 8. 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 [Page 224] 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 y ^e liberty that you do vse, to adde of their owne heades to the wordes of scripture? Deu. 12. contrary vnto Godes word directly, who cō ­maundeth 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.

August de ciuit. Dei. lib. 22. cap.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 [Page 225] 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 neuer be able for your part to bring any scripture that serueth for your purpose, except you may be suffered to adde therto such wordes as you please. Than come you to my questions wherin I write thus.

And now for corroboration of Cyrils saying, Chap. 5. I would thus reason with the Papistes, and demaund of them: Whan an vnrepentant sinner receaueth the sacrament, whether he haue Christes body within him or no?

If they say no, than haue I my purpose, that euell men although they re­ceaue the sacrament of Christes body, yet receaue they not his very body. If they say yea, Than I would aske them further, Whether they haue Christes spirite within them or no?

If they say nay, than do they separate Christes body from his spirite, and his humanitie from his diuinitie, and be condemned by the Scripture as very Antichristes, that diuide Christ.

And if they say yea, that a wicked man hath Christes spirit in him, then the scripture also condemneth them, Rom. 8. saying: ‘that as he which hath not the spirite of Christ, is none of his, so he that hath Christ in him, lyueth bycause he is iustified: And if his spirite that raysed Iesus from death, dwell in you, he that raysed Ie­sus from death, shall geue life to your mortall bodies, for his spirites sake, which dwel­leth in you.’

Thus on euery side the scripture condemneth the aduersaries of gods word.

And this wickednes of the Papistes is to be wondred at, that they affirme Christes flesh, bloud, soule, holy spirite, and his deitie to be in a man, that is subiect to sinne and a lim of the deuill, They be wonderful iuglers and con­iurers, that with certayne wordes can make God and the diuell to dwell toge­ther in one man, and make him both the temple of God, and the temple of the Deuill. It appeareth that they be so blind that they cānot see the light from darknes: Beliall from Christ, nor the table of the Lord from the table of diuels. Thus is cōfuted this third intolerable error & heresie of the Papists, That they which be the limmes of the dyuell, do eate the very body of Christ, and drinke his bloud, manifestly and directly contrary to the wordes of Christ him selfe, who sayth: Who soeuer eateth my flesh and drincketh my bloud, hath euer­lasting lyfe.

Winchester.

But to encounter directly with this author, where he opposeth by interogation, and would be answered, whether an vnrepentant sinner that receaueth the sacrament, 1 hath Christes body within him or no. Marke reader this question, which declareth that this author talketh of the sacrament, not as him selfe teacheth, but as the true teaching is although he meane otherwise, for els how could an vnrepentant sinner receaue Chri­stes body, but onely in the sacrament vnworthely? and how could he receaue it vnwor­thely, 2 and it were not there? but to answer to this question, I answer no: for it foloweth not he receaued him, (ergo) he hath him in him, for the vessel being not meet, he depar­ted from him, because he was a sinner, in whom he dwelleth not. And where this au­thor now become a questionist, maketh two questions, of Christes body, and his spirite, as though Christes body myght be deuided from his spirite, he supposeth other to be as ignoraunt as him selfe. For the learned man will aunswere, that an euell man by force of Gods ordinance, in the substance of the sacrament receaued in deed Christes very body there present, whole Christ God and man, but he taried not, nor dwelled not, nor [Page 226] fructified not in him, nor Christes spirite entered not into that mannes soule bycause of the malice and vnworthines of him that receaued. For Christ will not dwell with Be­liall nor abide with sinners. And what hath this author won now by his forked questi­on? wherin he seemeth to glory as though he had imbrased an absurditie that he hunted for, wherin he sheweth onely his ignoraunce, who putteth no difference betwene the entring of Christ into an euell man by Gods ordinance in the sacrament, and the dwel­ling of Christes spirite in an euell man, which by scripture can not be, ne is by any ca­tholike man affirmed. For S. Paule sayth: In him that receaueth vnworthely remay­neth 3 iudgement and condemnation. And yet S. Paules wordes playnly import that those dyd eate the very body of Christ which dyd eate vnworthely, and therfore were gilty of the body and bloud of Christ. Now reader consider what is before written, and thou shalt easely see, what a fond conclusion this author gathereth in the xcvii. leafe, 4 as though the teaching were that the same man should be both the temple of God, and the temple of the deuell, with other termes, wherewith it liketh this author to refresh himselfe, and fayneth an aduersary, such as he would haue, but hath none, for no ca­tholike man teacheth so, nor it is not all one to receaue Christ, & to haue Christ dwel­ling in him. And a figure therof was in Christes conuersation vppon earth, who tarieth 5 not with all that receaued him in outward apparaunce: and there is noted a difference that some beleued in Christ, and yet Christ committed not him selfe to them. And the 6 gospell prayseth them that heare the word of God and keep it, signifiing many to haue the word of god, and not to keep it, as they that receaue Christ by his ordinaunce in the sacrament, and yet bycause they receaue him not, according to y ^e entent of his ordinance worthely, they are so much the worse therby through theyr owne malice. And therfore to conclude this place with the author, who soeuer eateth Christes flesh and drincketh his bloud, hath euerlasting lyfe, with S. Paules exposition, if he doth it worthely: or 7 els by the same S. Paule, he hath condemnation.

Caunterbury.

HEre the reader shall euidently see your accustomed maner, that whē 1 you be destitute of answer, and haue none other shyft, then fall you to scoffing and scolding out the matter, as Sophisters sometymes do at theyr problemes. But as ignorant as I am, you shall not so escape me. First you byd the reader marke, that I talke of the sacrament, not as I teach my selfe: But I would haue the reader here marke, that you report my wordes as you list your selfe, not as I speake them. For you report my question as I should say, that an vnrepentant sinner should receaue Christes body, where as I speake of the receauing of the sacrament of the body, and not of the very body it selfe.

Moreouer I make my question of the being of Christes body in an vn­penitent 2 sinner, and you turne being into abiding, because being biteth you so sore. Fyrst you confes that an vnrepentaunt sinner, receauing the sacrament, Whether a sin­ner haue Christ within him. hath not Christes body within him, and then may I say that he eateth not Christes body, except he eate it without him. And although 4 it followeth not, he receaued Christ, eego he hath him in him: yet it fol­loweth necessarily, he receaueth him, ergo he hath him within him, for the tyme of the receipt: As a bottomleffe vessell, although it keepe no li­cour, yet for the tyme of the receauing, it hath the licour in it. And how can Christ departe from an vnpenitent sinner (as you say he doeth) if he haue him not at all? And because of myne ignoraunce, I would fayne leran of you (that take vpon you to be a man of knowledge) how an euill man receauing Christes very body, and whole Christ God and man (as you say an euell man doth) and Christes body being such as it cannot be [Page 227] deuided from his spirite (as you say also) how this euell man receauing Christes spirite, should be an euell man, for the tyme that he hath Christes spirit within him? Or how can he receaue Christes body and spirite (ac­cording to your saying) and haue them not in him for the tyme he recea­ueth them? Or how can Christ enter into an euell man (as you confesse) and be not in him, into whome he entreth at that present tyme? These be matters of your knowledge (as you pretend) which if you can teach me, I must confesse myne ignoraunce. And if you cannot, for so much as you haue spoken them, you must confesse the ignoraunce to be vpon your owne part.

3 And S. Paule sayth not (as you vntruely recite him) that in him that receaueth vnworthely, 1. Cor. 12. remayneth iudgement and condemnation, but that he eateth and drincketh condemnation. And where you say, that S. Paules wordes playnly import, that those did eate the very body of Christ, which did eate vnworthely, euer still you take for a supposition the thing which you should proue. For S. Paule speaketh playnly of the eating of the bread and drincking of the cup, and not one word of eating of the body and drincking of the bloud of Christ. And let any indifferent reader looke vpon my questions, and he shall see, that there is not one word answered here directly vnto them, except mocking and scorning be taken for aunswere.

4 And where you deny, that of your doctrine it should follow, that one man should be both the temple of God and the temple of the deuell, you can not deny, but that your owne teaching is, that Christ entreth into euell men, when they receaue the sacrament. And if they be his temple into whome he entreth, then must euell men be his temple, for the tyme they receaue the sacrament, although he tary not long with them. And for the same tyme they be euell men (as you say) and so must nedes be the temple of the deuell. And so it followeth of your doctrine and teaching, that at one tyme a man shall be the temple of God and the temple of the 5 deuell. And in your figure of Christ vpon earth, although he taryed not long with euery man that receaued him, yet for a tyme he taried with 6 them. And the word of God tarieth for the tyme with many, which after forget it, and kepe it not. And then so must it be by these examples in euell men receauing the sacrament, that for a tyme Christ must tary in them, although that tyme be very short. And yet for that tyme by your doctrine those euell men must be both the temples of God and of Beliall.

7 And where you pretend to conclude this matter by the authoritie of S. Paule, 2. Cor. 6. 1. Cor. 11. it is no small contumely and iniury to S. Paule, to asscribe your fayned and vntrue glose vnto him, that taught nothing but y ^e truth, as he learned the same of Christ. For he maketh mentiō of the eating and drincking of the bread and cuppe, but not one word of y ^e eating and drinc­king of Christes body and bloud. Now followeth in my booke my an­swer to the Papistes in this wise.

But least they should seme to haue nothing to say for them selues, they al­leadge S. Paule in the eleuenth to the Corinth. where he sayth: Chap. 6. The aunswere to the Papists. 2. Cor. 11. He that eateth and drincketh vnworthely, eateth and drincketh his owne damnation, not discerning the Lordes body.

[Page 228]But S. Paule in that place speaketh of the eating of the bread and drinking of the wine, and not of the corporall eating of Christes flesh and bloud, as it is manifest to euery man that will reade the text. For these be the wordes of S. Paule: Let a man examin him selfe, and so eat of the bread and drincke of the cup, for he that eateth and drincketh vnworthely, eateth and drincketh his owne damnation, not discerning the Lordes body.

In these wordes S. Paules mynd is, that for asmuch as the bread and wine in the Lordes supper, do represent vnto vs the very body and bloud of our sa­uiour Christ, by his owne institution and ordinance, therfore although he sit in heauen at his fathers right hand, yet should we come to this misticall bread and wine with fayth, reuerence, purite and feare, as we would do, if we should come to see and receaue Christ him selfe sensibly present. For vnto the faythfull Christ is at his own holy table presēt, with his mighty spirite & grace and is of them more fruitfully receaued, then if corporally they should re­ceaue him bodely present. and therfore they that shall worthely com to this Gods boord, must after due triall of them selues, consider first who ordeined this table, also what meat and drincke they shall haue that come therto, and how they ought to behaue them selues therat. He that prepared the table, is Christ him selfe: The meat and drincke wherwith he fedeth them that come therto as they ought to do, is his own body, flesh and bloud. They that com therto, must occupy theyr myndes in considering how his body was broken for them, and his bloud shed for theyr redemption, and so ought they to ap­proch to this heauenly table with all humblenes of hart, and godlynes of mynd, as to the table wherin Christ hym selfe is giuen. And they that come otherwise to this holy table, they come vnworthely, and do not eat & drincke Christes flesh and bloud, but eat and drincke theyr own damnation; bicause they do not duely consider Christes very flesh and bloud, which be offred there spiritually to be eaten and drinken, but dispising Christes most holy supper, do come therto as it were to other common meates & drinckes, with­out regarde of the Lordes body, which is the spirituall meat of that table.

Winchester.

In the .97. leafe and the second columne, the Author beginneth to trauerse y ^e wordes 1 of S. Paule to the Corinthians, and would distinct vnworthy eating in the substance of the Sacrament receyued, which can not be: For our vnworthines can not alter the substance of Gods sacrament, that is euermore all one, howsoeuer we swarue from worthynes to vnworthynes. And this I would aske of this Author why should it be a 2 fault in the vnworthy not to esteme the Lordes body, when he is taught (yf this au­thors doctrine be true) that it is not there at all? If the bread after this authors tea­ching 3 be but a figure of Christes body, it is then but as Manna was, the eating wherof vnworthily and vnfaythfully, [...] was no gift of Christes body. Erasmus noteth these wordes of S. Paule to be gylty of our Lordes body, to proue the presence of Christes body there, who compareth such an offender to the Iewes, that did shed Christes bloud maliciously, as those do prophane it vnprofitably, in which sense the Grke commenta­ries do also expound it. And where this author bringeth in the wordes of S. Paule as it were to poynt out the matter, Let a man examine him selfe, and so eate of the bread 4 and drincke of the cup, To eate. for he that eateth vnworthely, &c. these wordes of examining and so eatyng, declare the thing to be ordered to be eaten, and all the care to be vsed on our side, to eate worthely, or els S. Paule had not sayd (and so eat.) And when S. Paule sayth, Eate iudgement, and this Author well remember him selfe, he must call Iudgement, the effect of that is eaten, and not the thing eaten, for iudgment is neyther spirituall meat nor corporall, but the effect of the eating of Christ in euyll men, who [Page 229] is saluation to good, and iudgement to euell. And therfore as good men, eating Christ haue saluation, so euill men eating Christ haue condemnation, and so for the diuersite of the eaters of Christes body, followeth as they be worthy and vnworthy, the effect of condemnation or lyfe. Christes sacrament and his worke also in the substance of that sacrament bring alwayes one. And what so euer this author talketh otherwise in this matter, is mere trifles.

Caunterbury.

AS touching myne aunswere here to the wordes of S. Paule, you would fayne haue them hid with darkenesse of speach, that no man should see what I meane. Iohn. 3. For as Christ sayd, Qui male agit, odit lucem, and therfore that which I haue spoken in playne speach, you darken so with your obscure termes, that my meaning can not be vnderstand. For I speake in such playne termes, as all men vnderstand, that when S. Paule sayd (he that eateth and drinketh vnworthely, 1. Cor. 2. eateth & drinketh his owne damnation) in that place he spake of the eating of the bread and 1 drincking of the cup, and not of the corporall eating and drincking of Christes flesh and bloud. These my playne wordes you do wrape vp in these darke termes, that I would distinct the vnworthy eating in the substaunce of the Sacrament receaued. Which your wordes vary so farre from myne, that no man can vnderstand by them my meaning, ex­cept you put a large comment therto. For I distinct the vnworthy eating none otherwise, then that I say, that when S. Paule speaketh of vnwor­thy eating, he maketh mencion of the vnworthy eating of the bread, and not of the body of Christ.

2 And where you aske me this question, Vnworthy ea­ting. why it should be a fault in the vnworthy, not to esteme the Lordes body, when it is not there at all?

There is in my booke a full and playne answere vnto your question al­redy made, as there is also to your whole booke. So that in making of my booke, I did foresee all things that you could obiect agaynst it: In so much that here is not one thing in all your book, but I can shew you a sufficient answer therto, in one place or other of my former booke. And in this your question here moued. I referre the reader to the wordes of my booke in the same place.

And where you say, that if the bread be but a figure, it is lyke Manna: Manna. as concerning the materiall bread, truely it is like Manna, but as con­cerning Christ him selfe, he sayd of him selfe, Not as your fathers did eate Manna and are dead, He that eateth this bread shall liue for euer. And as concerning Erasmus, and the greke commentaries, neyther of 4 them sayth vppon the place of S. Paule, Ihon. 6. as you alleage them to say. And what soeuer it pleaseth you to gather of these wordes (examining and so eating) yet S. Paules wordes be very playne, that he spake not of the eating of the very body of Christ, but of the eating of the materiall bread in the sacrament, which is all one, whether the good or euyll eate of it. And all the care is on our syde, to take heede that we eate not that bread vnworthely. For as the eating of the bread vnworthely, not of Christ him selfe (who can not be eaten vnworthely) hath the effect of iudgemēt and damnacion, so eating of the same bread worthely, hath the effect of Chri­stes death and saluation. And as he that eateth the bread worthely may be well sayd to eate Christ and life: So he that eateth it vnworthely may [Page 230] be sayd to eate the diuell and death, as Iudas did, into whom with the bread entred Satan. For vnto such it may be called mensa daemoni orum, non mensa Domini, not Gods bourd, but the diuels. And so in the eaters of the bread worthely or vnworthely, followeth the effect of euerlasting lyfe or euerlasting death. But in the eating of Christ himselfe is no diuersite, but whosoeuer eateth him, Iohn 6. hath euerlasting lyfe. For asmuch as the eating of him, can be to none dampnation but saluation, because he is lyfe it selfe. And what so euer you bable to the contrary, Iohn 14. is but meare fables, deuised without goddes word or any sufficient ground. Now foloweth myne aunswer vnto such authors as y ^e Papistes wrast to theyr purpose.

Cha. 7.But here may not be passed ouer the answer vnto certayne places of aunci­ent authors, which at the first shew, seeme to make for the Papistes purpose, The aunswere to the Papists authors. that euill men do eate and drincke the very flesh and bloud of Christ. But if those places be truely and throughely wayed, it shall appeare, that not one of them maketh for theyr errour, that euill men do eat Christes very body.

Augustinus contra Cresconium li. 1. cap. 25.The first place is of S. Augustine Contra Cresconium Grammaticum, where he sayth, ‘that although Christ him selfe say: He that eateth not my flesh and drin­keth not my bloud shall not haue life in him, yet doth not his Apostels teach, that the same is pernicious to them which vse it not well: for he sayth: Whosoeuer ea­teth the bread and drincketh the cup of the Lord vnworthely, shalbe gilty of the body and bloud of the Lord.’

"In which wordes S. Augustine semeth to conclude, that aswel the euill as the good doe eate the body and bloud of Christ, although the euill haue no benefite but hurt therby.

But consider the place of S. Augustine diligently, and then it shall euident­ly appeare, that he ment not of the eating of Christes body, but of the Sacra­ment therof. For the intēt of S. Augustine there, is to proue that good thinges auayle not to such persons as do euill vse them, and that many thinges which of them selues be good, and be good to some, yet to other some they be not good. As that light is good for whole eyes, and hurteth sore eyes: that meate which is good for some, is euill for other some: One medecine healeth some, and maketh other sicke. One harnes doth arme one, and combreth another: one coate is meete for one, and to straight for an other. And after other ex­amples, at the last S. Augustine sheweth the same to be true in the Sacramētes both of Baptisme and the Lordes body, which he sayth do profite onely them, that receaue the same worthely.

And the wordes of S. Paule which S. Augustine citeth, do speake of the Sacramentall bread and cup, and not of the body and bloud. And yet S. Au­gustine called the bread and the cup, the flesh and bloud, not that they be so in deed, but that they signifie, as he sayth in an other place cōtra Maximinum.

Contra Maxi­minum li. 3. cap. 22.In Sacramentes (sayth he) is to be considered, not what they be, but what they shew. For they be signes of other thinges, being one thing and signifi­ing another.

Therfore as in baptisme, those that come faynedly, and those that come vnfaynedly, both be washed with the sacramētal water, but both be not wash­ed with the holy ghost, and clothed with Christ: so in the Lordes supper both eate and drincke the sacramentall bread and wine, but both eate not Christ him selfe, and be fed with his flesh and bloud, but those onely which worthe­ly receaue the Sacrament.

[Page 231]And this aunswere wil serue to another place of S. Augustine agaynst the Donatistes, De bap. contra Donatis. lib. 5. Cap. 8. where he sayth, that Iudas receyued the body and bloud of the Lord. For as S. Augustine in that place speaketh of the Sacrament of Baptisme, so doth he speake of the Sacramēt of the body and bloud, which neuerthelesse he cal­leth the body and bloud, bycause they signifie and represent vnto vs the very body, flesh and bloud.

Winchester.

And yet he goeth about bycause he will make all thing clere, to answer such authors as the papistes (he sayth) bring for theyr purpose. Augustinus. And first he beginneth with S. Au­gustine who writeth as playnly agaynst this authors mynd, as I would haue deuised it. If I had no conscience of truth more then I see some haue, and myght with a secret 1 wish haue altered S. Augustine as I had lift. [...] And therfore here I make a playne Issue with this author, that in the searching of S. Augustine he hath trusted his man or his frende ouer negligently in so great a matter, or he hath willingly gone about to deceaue the reader. For in the place of S. Augustine agaynst the Donatistes alleadged here by this author, which he would with y ^e rest assoyle, S. Augustine hath these format wordes 2 in Latin Corpus dominum & sanguis domini nihilominus erat etiam illis quibus dicebat A­postolus; August. de Bap. lib. 5. Cap. 8. Qui manducat indigne, indicium sibi manducat & bibit. Which wordes be thus­much in English: It was neuerthelesse the body of our Lord and the bloud of our Lord also vnto them to whome the Apostles sayd. He that eateth vnworthely, eateth and drin­keth iudgement to him selfe. These be S. Augustines wordes, who writeth notably and euidently, that is was neuertheles the body and bloud of Christ to them that receaued vnworthely, The body of Christ to them y ^t receaue vn­worthely. declaring that theyr vnworthines doth not alter the substance of that sacra­ment, 3 and doth vs to vnderstand therwith the substaunce of the Sacrament to be the bo­dy and bloud of Christ, and neuerthelesse so though the receauers be vnworthy, wherin 4 this author is so ouerseene as I thinke there was neuer learned man before y ^e durst in a commōwealth where learned men be, publish such an vntruth as this is to be answe­red 5 in a tongue that all men knew. Yet Peter Martyr wrot in Latin and reioyseth not I think to haue his lyes in English. I will bring in here an other place of S. Augustin to this purpose: August. de ver domi. Sermo. 11. ‘ Illud etiam, quod ait, Qui manducat carnem meam & bibit sanguinem me­um 6 in me manet & ego in illo quo modo intellecturisumus? Nunquid etiamillos sic poterimus accipere, de quibus dixit Apostolus, quod indicium sibi manducent & bibant quum ipsant car­nem manducent, & ipsum sanguinem bibant? Nūquid & Iudas Magistri venditor & tradi­tor impius, quamuis primum ipsum manibus eius confectum sacramentum carnis & sanguinis eius cum ceteres discipulis, sicut apertius Lucas Euangelista declarat, manducaret & biberat mansit in Christo, aut Christus, in eo: Multi deni (que) qui vel corde ficto carnem illam manducant & sanguinem bibunt, vel quum manducauerint & biberint, apostate fiunt, nunquid manent in Christo, aut Christus in eis? Sed profecto est quidem modus manducandi illam carnem & bi­bendi illum sanguinem, quomodo qui manducauerit & biberit, in Christo manet & Christus in eo. Non ergo quocun (que), modo quis (que) manducauerit carnem Christi, & biberit sanguinem Christi, manet in Christo, & in illo Christus, sed certo quodam modo, quem modum vtique ip­se videbat quando ista dicebat. The English of these wordes is this. That same that he al­so sayth. Who eateth my flesh and drincketh my bloud, dwelleth in me and I in him, how shall we vnderstand it. May we vnderstand also them of whom the Apostle speake that they did eat to themselues, and drincke iudgement, when they did eate the same flesh and drincke the same bloud, the flesh it selfe, the bloud it selfe? Dyd not Iudas the wicked seller and betrayer of his master when he dyd eate and drincke (as Lucas the E­uangilest declareth) the firste Sacrament of the flesh and bloud of Christ made with his owne handes, dwell in Christ, and Christ in him? Fynally many that with a fayned hart eate that flesh and drincke the bloud, or when they haue eaten and dronken become aposratates, do not they dwell in Christ, or Christ in them? But vndoubtedly there is a certayne manner of eating that flesh & drincking that bloud after which manner whoso­euer eateth and drincketh, dwelleth in Christ and Christ in him. Therfore, not in whatsoeuer maner any man eateth the flesh of Christ and drincketh the bloud of Christ, [Page 232] he dwelleth in Christ and Christ in him, but after a certayn maner, which maner he saw when he sayd these wordes.’ This is the sense of S. Augustines saying in Latine wherby appeareth the fayth of S. Augustin to be, in the sacrament to be eaten and drō ­ken the very body and bloud of Christ, which for the substaunce of the sacrament euill men receaue as good men do, that is to say, as S. Augustine doth poynt it out by his wordes, the same flesh and the same bloud of Christ, with such an expression of speach, as he would exclude all difference that deuise of figure might imagine, and therfore sayth Ipsam carnem, ipsum sanguinem, which signifie the selfe same in dede, not by name onely as the author of the booke would haue S. Augustine vnderstanded: and when that appeareth as it is most manifest, that Iudas receaued the same being wicked that good men do, how the same is before the recept by godes omnipotencie present in the visible sacrament, and so not receaued by the onely instrument of fayth, which in euill men is not liuely, but by the instrument of the mouth, 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, Bucerus. who vnderstandeth S. Augustine 7 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 ita (que) auctoritate S. patrum dicet Christum in sacra Coena absentem esse: Bucerus. 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 8 this author, Theodoretus in epi. 1. Cor. 11. 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 9 sentence: Polluimus panem, id est corpus Christi, quando indigne accedimus ad altare, & sor­didi, mundum sanguinem bibimus, Hieronimus. 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, An issue. 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 y ^e place alleadged by you out of S. Augustine, let the 2 reader diligently expend myne whole aunswer to S. Augustine, Augustin de Bapti. con. Do­na. li. 5. cap. 8. 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 y ^e matter by Iudas more playnly in an other place saying: that he did eate y ^e bread of the Lord, August. In Iohn tract. 19. 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. 3 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 4 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 tell the truth) should no longer be kept from the same truth, therfore haue I published the truth which I know, in the English tongue, to the entent that I may edefy all by that tongue, which all do perfectly know and vnderstand. Which my doing it semeth you take in very euell part, and be not a litle greued therat, bycause you would rather haue the light [Page 234] of truth hid still vnder the bushell, then openlye to be set abroad that all men may see it. And I thinke that it so little greueth M. Peter Martyre, that his booke is in english, that he would wish it to be trāslated likewise 5 into all other languages.

August. de ver­bis Domini ser. 11.Now where you gather of the wordes of S. Augustine, De verbis Do­mini, 6 that both the euill and good eat one body of Christ, the selfesame in substance, The selfe same flesh y ^t was crucified & is sensi­ble, is eaten of Christē people. excluding all difference that deuise of fygure might imagine, to this I aunswere, that although you expresse the bodye of Christ, with what tearmes you can deuise, calling it (as you do in deed) the flesh y ^t was borne of the virgine Mary, the same flesh, the flesh it selfe, yet I con­fesse that it is eaten in the sacrament. And to expresse it yet more playnely then paraduenture you would haue me, I say, that the same visible & pal­pable flesh that was for vs crucified and appeared after his resurrection, and was seene, felt, and groped, and ascended into heauen, and there sit­teth at his fathers right hand, and at the last day shall come to iudge the quick & the dead, that selfe same body, hauing all the partes of a mans bo­dy, in good order and proportion, and being visible and tangible, I say is eaten of christen people at his holy supper, what will you now require more of me, concerning the truth of the body? I suppose you be sory that I graunt you so much, and yet what doth this helpe you? For the diuer­sitie is not in the body, but in the eating therof, no man eating it carnally, but the good eating it both sacramentally and spiritually, and the euill onely sacramentally, that is to say, figuratiuely. And therfore hath S. Augustine these wordes ( Certo quodam modo, after a certayne manner) bi­cause that the euill eate the sacrament, which after a certayne manner, is called the very body of Christ: which maner S. Augustine himselfe de­clareth most truely and playnly in a pistle ad Bonifacium, August. ad Bo­nifacium episto. 23. saying: If sacra­mentes had not some similitude or likenes of those thinges wherof they be sacraments, they could in no wise be sacramentes. And for theyr simi­litude and likenes, they haue commonly the name of the thinges wherof they be sacraments. Therfore after a certayne manner the sacrament of Christes body is. Christes body the sacrament of Christes bloud is Chri­stes bloud. This epistle is set out in my booke the 64. leafe, which I pray the reader to looke vpon for a more full answer vnto this place. And af­ter that maner Iudas and such like did eat y ^e morsell of the lordes bread, but not the bread that is the Lord, but a sacrament therof which is called the Lord, as S. Augustine sayth. So that with the bread entred not Christ with his spirit into Iudas, (as you say he doth into the wicked,) but Sathan entred into him, as the gospell testifieth. And if Christ en­tred than into Iudas with the bread (as you write) then the deuill and Christ entred into Iudas both at once. Ioh. 13.

Maister Bucer.As concerning M. Bucer, what meane you to vse his authoritie, 7 whose authoritie you neuer estemed heretofore? And yet Bucer varieth much from your errour: for he denieth vtterly, that Christ is really and substancially present in the bread, either by conuersion or inclusion, but in the ministration he affirmeth Christ to be present: and so do I also, but not to be eaten and drunken of them that be wicked and members of the deuill, whome Christ neyther fedeth, nor hath any communiō with them. And to conclude in few wordes the doctrine of M. Bucer in the place by [Page 235] you alleadged, he di [...]enteth in nothing from Ecolampadius and Zuinglius. Wherfore it semeth to me somwhat strange, that you should alleadge him for the confirmation of your vntrue doctrine, being so clere­ly repugnant vnto his doctrine.

The wordes of Theodoretus (if they were his) be so far from your re­port, Theodoretus. 8 that you be ashamed to reherse his wordes as they be writtē, which when you shall do, you shall be answered. But in his dialogs he decla­reth in playne termes not onely the figuratiue speach of Christ in this matter, but also wherfore Christ vsed those figuratiue speaches, as the reader may find in my booke the 67, 68. 69. and 70. leaues. By which maner of speach it may be sayd, that Christ deliuered to Iudas his body and bloud, when he deliuered it him in a figure therof.

And as concerning S. Hierome, Hieronimus. he calleth the misteries or misticall 9 bread and wine Christes flesh and bloud (as Christ called them him selfe) and the eating of them he calleth the eating of Christes flesh and bloud, bicause they be sacraments and figures, which represent vnto vs his ve­ry flesh and bloud. And all that do eate the sayd sacraments, be sayd to eate the body of Christ, bicause they eate the thing which is a representa­cion therof. But S. Hierom ment not, that euell men do indede eate the very body of Christ, for then he would not haue written vpon Esaie, Hie­remie, and Osee the contrary, saying, that heretikes and euill men nei­ther eate his flesh nor drincke his bloud, which whosoeuer eateth and drincketh, hath euerlasting lyfe. ‘ Non comedunt carnem Iesu (sayth he vpon Esai) ne (que), bibunt sanguinem eius, de quo ipse loquitur: Qui comedit carnem meam & bibit meum sanguinem, habet vitam aternam. Hieroni. in Esai­am cap. 66. And yet he that cometh defiled vnto the visible sacraments, defileth not onely the sacraments, but the contumely therof pertayneth also vnto Christ him selfe who is the author of the sacraments.’ And as the same S. Hierom sayth: ‘ Dum sacramenta violantur, ipse cuius sunt sacramenta violatur, Hieron. in Ma­lachiam cap. 1. When the sacramentes (sayth he) be violated, then is he violated also to whom the sacraments aper­tayne.’ Now heare what followeth in the order of my booke.

And (as before is at length declared) a figure hath the name of the thing that is signified therby. Chap. 8. As a mans image is called a man, a Lyons image, a Lion: a byrdes image a byrd: and an image of a tree and herbe, is called a tree or herbe. Figures be cal­led by y ^e names of the thinges which they sig­nify. So were we wont to say: Our lady of Walsingham: Our Lady of Ipswich: Our Lady of Grace: Our Lady of pity: S. Peter of Millan: S. Ihon of Amyas, and such like, not meaning the things them selues, but calling their images by the name of the things by them represented. And likewise we were wont to say, Great S. Christopher of Yorke or Lyncoln: Our Lady smileth, or rocketh her child: Let vs goe in pylgrimage to S. Peter at Rome, and S. Iames in Compostella. And a thousand like speaches, which were not vnderstande of the very things, but only of the images of them.

So doth S. Ihon Chrisostom say, that we see Christ with our eyes, touch hym, feele him, and grope him with our handes, fixe our teeth in his flesh, taste it, breake it, eate it, and digest it, make redde our tongues and dye them with his bloud, and swallow it, and drincke it.

And in a Catechisme by me translated and set forth, I vsed like maner of speach, saying, that with our bodily mouthes we receaue the body and bloud of Christ. Which my saying diuers ignorant persons (not vsed to reade olde [Page 236] auncient authors, nor acquanted with theyr phra [...] and manner of speach) dyd carpe and reprehend, for lacke of good vnderstanding.

For this speach, and other before rehersed of Chrisostom, and all other like, be not vnderstād of the very flesh and bloud of our sauiour Christ (which in very deede we neither feele nor see) but that which we doe to the bread and wine by a figuratiue speach, is spoken to be done to the flesh and bloud, bicause they be the very signes, figures, and tokens instituted of Christ, to re­present vnto vs his very flesh and bloud.

And yet as with our corporall eyes, corporall handes, and mouthes we do corporally see, feele, tast and eate the bread, and drincke the wine (being the signe and sacramēts of Christes body) euen so with our spirituall eyes, handes, and mouthes, we do spiritually see, feele, taste and eate his very flesh, and drincke his very bloud.

Eusebius Emis­senus in sermo. de Eucharistia.As Eusebus Emissenus sayth: Whan thou comest to the reuerend aulter to be filled with spiritual meates, with thy fayth looke vpō the body & bloud of him that is thy God, honor him, touch him with thy mynd, take him with the hand of thy hart, and drincke him with the draught of thine inward man. And these spirituall thinges require no corporall presence of Christ himselfe, who sitteth continually in heauen at the right hand of his Father.

And as this is most true, so is it full and sufficient to answere all thinges that the Papistes can bring in this matter, that hath any apparāce for their partie.

Winchester.

And yet these playne places of authority dissembled of purpose, or by ignoraunce pas­sed ouer, this author, as though all thinges were by him clerely discussed to his entent, would by many conceptes furnish and further his matters, and therfore playeth with 1 our Ladyes smiling rocking her Child, and many good mowes, so vnsemely for his person, as it maketh me almost forget him and my selfe also. But with such matter he filleth his leaues, and forgetting him selfe, maketh mention of the Catechisme by him 2 translate, the originall wherof confuteth these two partes of this booke in few wordes, being Printed in Germany, wherin besides the matter written, is set forth in picture the manner of the minestring of this sacrament, where is the aulter with candle light set forth, the priest apparaled after the old sort, and the man to receaue kneling, bare­head, and holding vp his handes, whiles the priest ministreth the host to his mouth, a matter as cleare contrary to the matter of this Booke, as is light and darkenesse, which now this Author would colour with speaches of authors in a boke written to instruct rude children, which is as sclender an excuse as euer was heard, and none at all, when the originall is loked one.

Emissenus.Emissene to stire vp mens deuotion comming to receaue this sacrament, requireth the roote and foundation therof in the mynd of man as it ought to be, and therfore ex­horteth 3 men to take the sacrament with the hand of the hart, and drincke with the draught of the inward man, which men needes do that will worthely repayre to this feast. And as Emissen speaketh these deuout wordes of the inward office of the re­ceiuer, so doth he in declaration of the mistery shew how the inuisible priest with his se­cret power by his word doth conuert the visible creatures into the substance of his body and bloud, wherof I haue before intreated. The author vpon these wordes deuoutly spoken by Emissen sayth, there is required no corporall precense of Christes precious body in the sacrament, continuing in his ignorance what the woord (Corporall) mea­neth. But to speake of Emissene, if by his fayth the very body and bloud of Christ were 4 not present vpon the aultar, why doth he call it a reuerend aultar? Why to be fed there with spirituall meat? and why should fayth be required to looke vpon the body & bloud of Christ, that is not there on the aultar, but as this Author teacheth onely in heauen? And why should he that cometh to be fedde honor these misteries there? And why should [Page 237] Emissene allude to the hand of the hart, and draught of the inward man, if the hand of the body, and draught of the outward man had none office there? All this were vaine elo­quence, and a mere abuse and illusion, if the sacramental tokens were only a figure. And if there were no presence but in figure, why should not Emissen rather haue followed the playne speach of the angell to the women that sought Christ, Iesum queritis, non est hic, Ye seeke Iesus, he is not here, and say as this author doeth, this is onely a figure, do no worship here, goe vp to heauen: and downe with the aulter, for feare of illusion, 5 which Emissen did not, but called it a reuerend alter, and inuiteth him that should re­ceiue to honour that foode, with such good wordes as before, so far discrepant from this authors teaching as may be, & yet frō him he taketh occasiō to speake agaynst adoratiō.

Caunterbury.

1 HErefor lacke of good matter to answere, you fall agayne to your ac­customed maner, tryfling away the matter with mocking and mo­wing. But if you thought your doctrine good, and myne erronious, and had a zeale to the truth, and to quiet mens conciences, you should haue made a substanciall and learned answere vnto my wordes. For daliyng and playing, scoulding and mowing, make no quietnes in mens consci­ences. And all men that know your conditions know right well, that if you had good matter to answere, you would not haue hid it, and passed ouer the matter with such trifles as you vse in this place. And S. Ihon Chrisostom you scip ouer, eyther as you saw him not, or as you cared not how sclenderly you left the matter.

And as cōcerning the Catechisme, The Catechis­me. I haue sufficiently answered in my 2 former booke. But in this place may apeare to them that haue any iudge­ment, what pithy arguments you make, and what dexteritie you haue in gathering of authors myndes, that would gather my mynd and make an argument here of a picture, neyther put in my booke, nor by me deui­sed, but inuented by some fond paynter or caruer, which paynt and graue whatsoeuer theyr idle heades can fansy. You should rather haue gathe­red your argument vpon the other side, that I mislike the matter, bycause I left out of my booke the picture that was in the originall before. And I meruayle you be not ashamed to alleadge so vayne a matter agaynst me, which in dede is not in my booke, and if it were, yet were it nothing to the purpose. And in that Catechisme I teach not (as you do) that the body and bloud of Christ is conteined in the sacrament being reserued, but that in the ministration therof we receaue the body and bloud of Christ, wher­vnto if it may please you to adde or vnderstand this word (spiritually) thē is the doctrine of my Catechisme sound and good in all mens eares, which know the true doctrine of the sacraments.

3 As for Emissen you agree here with me, Emesserie. that he speaketh not of any re­ceauing of Christes body and bloud with our mouthes, but only with our hartes. And where you say, that you haue entreated before, how the inui­sible priest with his secret power doth conuert the visible creatures into the substaunce of his body and bloud. I haue in that same place made an­swere to those wordes of Emissene, but most playnly of all in my former booke the xxv. leafe. And Emissene sayth not, that Christ is corporally pre­sent in the sacrament, and therof you be not ignoraunt, although you doe pretend the contrary, which is somewhat worse then ignoraunce.

4 And what this word (corporall) meaneth, Corporall. I am not ignorant, Mary [Page 238] what you meane by corporall I know not, and the opening therof shall discusse the whole matter. Tell therfore playnly without dissimulation or colored wordes, what manner of body it is that Christ hath in the Sa­crament? Whether it be a very and perfect mans body, with all the mem­bers therof, distinct one from an other or no? For that vnderstand I to be a mans corporall body, that hath all such partes, without which may be a body, but no perfect mans body. So that the lacke of a finger maketh a lacke in the perfection of a mans body. Mary if you will make Christ such a body as bread and cheese is (wherin euery part is bread and cheese without forme and distinction of one part from an other) I confesse myne ignoraunce, that I know no such body to be a mans body. Now haue I shewed myne ignoraunce, declare now your wit and learning. For sure I am, that Christ hath all those partes in heauen, and if he lacke them in the Sacramēt, then lacketh he not a litle of his perfectiō. And then it can not be one body, that hath partes and hath no partes.

Reuerend aul­tar.And as concerning the wordes of Emissen, calling the aulter I reue­rend 5 aulter, those wordes proue no more the reall presence of Christ in the aulter, then the calling of the font of Baptisme A reuerend font, or the cal­ling of mariage Reuerend Matrimony, should conclude that Christ were corporally present in the water of Baptisme, or in the celebratiō of matri­mony. And yet is not Christ clearly absent in the godly administration of his holy supper, nor present onely in a figure (as euer you vntruely report me to say) but by his omnipotent power he is effectually present by spiri­tuall nourishment and feeding, as in Baptisme he is likewise present by spirituall renuing and regenerating. Therfore where you would proue the corporall presence of Christ, by the reuerence that is to be vsed at the aulter (as Emissene teacheth) with no lesse reuerence ought he that is baptised to come to the font, then he that receaueth the Cōmunion com­meth to the aulter. And yet is that no profe, that Christ is corporally in the font. And what so euer you haue here sayd of the comming to the aulter, the like may be sayd of comming to the font. For although Christ be not corporally there, Hieronimus in Malachiā ca. 1. yet (as S. Hierome sayth) if the Sacraments be viola­ted, then is he violated whose Sacramētes they be. Now followeth after in my booke, the maner of adoration in the Sacranent.

Chap 9.Now it is requisite, to speake some thing of the maner and forme of wor­shipping of Christ, by them that receaue this sacramēt, least that in the stede of Christ himselfe be worshipped the sacrament. The adoration in the sacramēt. For as his humanity, ioyned to his diuinity, and exalted to the right hand of his father, is to be worshipped of all creatures, in heauen, earth, and vnder the earth: De adoratione lege Rossen. & Occol. lib. 3. ca. 4. & 5. euen so if in the stead therof, we worship the signes and sacraments, we commit as great idolatry as euer was, or shall to the worldes ende.

The simple people be de­ceaued.And yet haue the very Antichristes (the subtilest enemyes that Christ hath) by theyr fine inuentions and crafty scolasticall diuinity, deluded many simple soules, and brought them to this horrible idolatry, to worship thinges visible, and made with theyr owne handes, perswading them, that creatures were their Creatour, theyr God and theyr maker.

For els what made the people to runne from theyr seates to the aulter, and from aulter to aulter, and from sakering (as they called it) to sakering, pee­ping, [Page 239] tooting, and gasing at that thing which the priest held vp in his handes, if they thought not to honor that thing which they saw? What moued the priestes to lift vp the sacrament so hye ouer theyr heades? or the people to cry to the priest, Hold vp, hold vp: and one man to say to an other, Stoupe downe before, or to say: This day haue I seene my maker. And, I cannot be quiet, except I see my maker once a day? What was the cause of all these, and that as well the priest as the people so deuoutly did knocke and kneele at eue­ry sight of the sacrament? but that they worshiped that visible thing, which they saw with theyr eyes, and tooke it for very God? For if they worshiped in spirit onely Christ, sitting in heauen with his father, what neded they to re­moue out of theyr seates to toote and gase? as the Apostles did after Christ, when he was gone vp into heauē? If they worshiped nothing that they sawe, why did they rise vp to see? Doubtlesse many of the simple people worshiped that thing which they saw with theyr eyes.

And although the subtill Papistes do colour and cloke the matter neuer so finely, saying that they worship not the sacraments which they see with theyr eyes, but that thing which they beleue with their fayth to be really and corpo­rally in the sacraments, yet why do they then runne from place to place, to gase at the things which they see, if they worship them not? giuing therby oc­casion to them that be ignorant, to worship that which they see. Why doe they not rather quietly sit still in their seates, and moue the people to do the like, worshiping God in hart and in spirite, than to gadde about from place to place, to see that thing, which they confesse them selues, is not to be wor­shipped.

And yet to eschew one inconuenience (that is to say, the worshipping of the sacrament) they fall into an other as euell, and worship nothing there at all. For they worship that thing (as they say) which is really and corporally, and yet inuisibly 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, Adoration. What true ado­ration is. 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, 2 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 [Page 240] 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 2 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.

August. in psal. 98.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 y ^e 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 [Page 241] 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.

1 As in the wrong report of S Augustine, Augustinus. 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 2 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 Gods worke in the sacrament, but to exclude carnall imagination from musing of the manner of the worke, which is in 3 mistery such as a carnall man can not comprehend. In which matter if S. Augustine had had such a fayth of the visible sacrament, as the author sayth him selfe hath now of late, and calleth it catholicke, S. Augustine would haue vttered it, as an expositor playn­ly, in this place, and sayd, there is but a figure of Christes body: Christes body and flesh is in heauen and not in this visible sacrament, Christes speach that was estemed so hard, was but a figuratiue speach. And where Christ sayd, This is my body, he ment onely of the figure of his body: which manner of saying S. Augustine vseth not in this place, and yet he could speake playnly, and so doth he, declaring vs first the truth of the flesh that Christ geueth to be eaten, that is to say, the same flesh that he tooke of the vir­gine. 4 And yet bicause Christ giueth it not in a visible manner, nor such a maner as the Capernaites thought on, nor such a maner as any carnall man can conceaue, being al­so the flesh in the sacrament, giuen not a common flesh but a liuely, godly and spirituall flesh. Therfore S. Augustine vseth wordes and speach wherby he denieth the gift of that body of Christ, which we did see, and of the bloud that was shed, so as by affirmation and deniall so nere together of the same to be geuen, and the same not to be giuen, the mistery should be thus farre opened, that for the truth of the thing giuen, it is the same, and touching the manner of the giuing, and the quality of the flesh giuen, it is not the same. And bicause it is the same, S. Augustine sayth before we must worship it, and yet bicause it is now an hidden godly mistery, we may not haue carnall imaginations of the same but godly, spiritually and inuisibly vnderstand it.

Caunterbury.

AS concerning the wordes of S. Augustine (which you say I do wrong report) let euery indeferēt reader iudge, who maketh a wrong [Page 242] report of S. Augustine, August. in psal. 98. you or I. For I haue reported his wordes as they be, and so haue not you. For S. Augustine sayth not, that Christes 2 body is eaten in the visible sacrament (as you report) but that Christ hath giuen vs a sacrament of the eating of his body, which must be vnderstand inuisibly, and spiritually, as you say truly in that poynt. But to the spiri­tuall eating, is not required any locall or corporall presence in the sacra­ment, nor S. Augustine sayth not so, as you in that poynt vniustly report him: And although the worke of God in his sacraments be effectuall and true, yet the working of God in the sacraments is not his working by grace in the water, bread, and wine, but in them that duely receaue the same, which worke is such as no carnall man can comprehend.

And where you say, that if S. Augustine had ment as I do, he would in this place haue declared a figure, and haue sayd, that here is but a fi­gure, 3 and we eate onely a figure, but Christ himselfe is gone vp into hea­uen and is not here it is to much arrogancy of you, to appoynt S. Augus­tin his wordes, what he should say in this place, as you would lead an hound in a line where you list, or draw a beare to the stake. And here still you cease not vntruly to report me. For I say not that in the Lordes sup­per is but a figure, or that Christ is eaten only figuratiuely, but I say that there is a figure and figuratiue eating. And doth not S. Augustine suf­ficiently declare a figure in Christes wordes, when he sayth, that they must be vnderstād spiritually: And what man can deuise to expresse more playnly, both that in Christes speach is a figure, and that his body is not corporally present, and corporally eaten, then S. Augustine doth in a thousand places? but specially in his epistle ad Bonifacium, ad Dardanum, ad Ia­nuarium, De doctrina Christiana, De catechisandis rudibus, in quest super leuit, De ci­uitate Dei, Contra Adamatium, contra aduersarium legis & prophetarum, In epistolam & Euangelium Iohannis, In sermone ad infantes, & De verbis apostoli. The flesh of Christ is a true flesh, and was borne of a woman, dyed, rose agayne, ascen­ded into heauen, and sitteth at the right hand of his father, but yet is he eaten of vs spiritually, and in the maner of the eating, there is the mistery and secret, and yet the true worke of God.

And where you vnderstand the inuisible mistery (which S. Augustin 4 speaketh of) to be in the diuersity of the body of Christ seene or not seene, you be farre deceaued. For S. Augustine speaketh of the mistery that is in the eating of the body, and not in the diuersity of the body: which in substaūce is euer one without diuersity. The meaning therfore of S. Au­gustine was this, that when Christ sayd (Except you eate the flesh of the sonne of man, Iohn. 6. you shall not haue life in you,) he ment of spirituall and not carnall eating of his body. For if he had entended to haue described the diuersity of the maner of Christes body visible and inuisible, he would not haue sayd (this body which you see) but this body in such maner as you see it, or in such like termes, you shall not eate. But to eate Christes flesh (sayth S. Augustine) is fructifully to remember that the same flesh was crucified for vs. August. de doc­tri. christiana. li. 3. cap. 4. And this is spiritually to eate his flesh and drincke his bloud.

Winchester.

And bicause S. Hierome who was of S. Augustines tyme, writeth in his commen­taries [Page 243] vpon S. Paule, ad Ephesios that may serue for the better opening hereof, I will write it in here. Hieroni. ad E­phesios. The wordes, be these. The bloud and flesh of Christ is two wayes vn­derstanded, either the spirituall and godly, of which him selfe sayd: My flesh is verely meate, and my bloud is verely drincke. And vnles ye eate my flesh & drincke my bloud, ye shall not haue euerlasting lyfe. Or the flesh which was crucified and the bloud which was shed with the spere. According to this diuision, the diuersity of flesh and bloud is taken in Christes sayntes, that there is one flesh that shall see the saluation of God, an other flesh and bloud that cannot possese the kingdome of heauen. There be S. Hie­romes wordes. In which, thou reader seest a deniall of that flesh of Christ to be geuen, to be eaten, that was crucified, but the flesh geuen to be eaten to be a godly and spiritu­all flesh, and a distinction made betwen them, as is in our flesh, of which it may be sayd, that the flesh we walke in here, shall not see God, that is to say, as it is corruptible ac­cording to the text of S. Paule, flesh and bloud shall not possesse heauen, 1. Cor. 16. and yet we must beleue and hope with Iobe truly: that the same our flesh shall see God in heauen 3 after which diuision likewise we receaue not in the sacrament Christes flesh that was crucified, being so a visible and mortall flesh, But Christes flesh glorified, incorruptible and impassible, a Godly and spirituall flesh. And so that is but one in substance, and al­wayes so that same one is neuerthelesse for the alteration in the maner of the being of 2 it deuided and so called not the same, wherin S. Hierom and S. Augustine vsed both one maner of speaking: and S. Hierom resembling the diuision that he reherseth of Christes flesh, to the diuision of our flesh in the resurrection, doth more playnly open how the same may be called not the same, bicause we beleue certaynly the resurrection of the same flesh we walke in, and yet it shall be by the garmēt of incorruptibility not the same in quality, and so be verefied the scriptures that flesh shall not possesse heauen: and, I shal see God in my flesh: and here I will note to the reader by the way S. Hierome writeth this distinction of Christes flesh as a matter agreed on, and then in catholique doctrine receaued not of his inuention, but in the catholique fayth as a principle establi­shed, which declareth the belyfe to haue bene of that very godly and spiritual flesh geuen 4 really in the sacrament, for els to eate onely in fayth, is specially to remember Christes flesh, as it was visibly crucified, wherin was accomplished the oblation for our sinne: and S. Paule willeth vs in the supper to shew forth and professe the death of Christ, for so Christ would haue his death continually expressed till his coming, and if S. Hierome with other should haue ment of the eating of Christ as he sitteth in hea­uen reigning, this destinction of Christes flesh were an idle matter and out of purpose to compare the distinction in it to be like distinction of oure flesh to enter into heauen, and not to enter into heauen, the same and not the same. And thus I say that this place of S. Hierome sheweth so euedently both his and S. Augustines fayth, that wrot at the same tyme as there cannot be desired a more euident matter.

1

Caunterbury.

TO what purpose you should bring in here this place of S. Hierome (making much agaynst you and nothing for you) I cannot conceaue. For he declareth no more in this place, but that as all men in this world haue passible bodyes, subiect to much filthynes, corruption and death, Spirituall bo­dy. and yet after our resurrection we shalbe deliuered from corruption, vile­nes, weakenes and death, and be made incorruptible, glorious, mighty and spirituall: so Christes body in earth was subiect vnto our infirmities, his flesh being crucified, and his bloud being shed with a spere, which now (as you truly say) is glorified, impassible, incorruptible and a spiri­tuall body, but yet not so spirituall, that his humanitie is turned into his diuinity, and his body into his soule (as some heretikes phantasy) nor that the diuersity of his members be taken away, and so left without armes and legges, head and feete, eyes and eares, and turned into the forme and fashion of a bowle, as the Papistes imagine. The sunne and [Page 244] the mone, the fier and the ayre be bodyes, but no mans bodyes, bycause they lacke hart and lungues, head and feete, flesh and bloud, vaynes and sinewes to knit them togither. Mat. 17. When Christ was transfigured, his face shyned like the sunne, and with his mouth he spake to Moyses & Helias. And after his resurrection we read of his flesh and bones, Luc. 14. Ioh. 20. his handes and feete, his side and woundes, visible and palpable, and with mouth, tongue and teeth, Ioh. 20. he did eate and speake, and so like a man he was in all proportions and members of man, that Mary Magdalene could not dis­cerne him from a gardiner. And take away flesh and skinne, sinewes and bones, bloud and vaynes, and then remayneth no mans body. For take away distinction and diuersitie of partes and members, how shall Peter be Peter, and Paule be Paule? How shall a man be a man, and a wo­man a woman? And how shall we see with our eyes, and heare with our eares, grope with our handes, and go with our feete? For eyther we shal do no such thinges at all, or see with euery part of our bodies, and likewise heare, speake and go, if there be no diuersity of members. This I haue spoken for this purpose, to declare that S. Hierome speaking of Christes 1 diuine and spirituall flesh, excludeth not therby any corporall member, that pertayneth to the substance of a mans naturall body, but that now being glorified, it is the same in all partes, that it was before. And that same flesh being fyrst borne mortall of the virgine Mary, and now being glorifyed and immortall as well the holy fathers did eate before he was borne, 1. Cor. 10. and his apostles and disciples whiles he liued with vs here in earth as we doe now when he is glorified. But what auayleth all this to your purpose, except you could proue, that to a spirituall eating is required a corporall presence?

And where you say, that S. Hierome and S. Augustine vse both one 2 maner of speaking that is not true. For S. Hierom speaketh of the diuer­sity of the body of Christ, and S. Augustine of the diuersity of eating therof. And yet here is to be noted by the way, that you say, we receaue 3 not in the sacramēt Christes flesh that was crucified, which your wordes seme to agree euill with Christes wordes, Luc. 22. .1 Cor. 10 who the night before he was crucified, declared to his desciples, that he gaue them the same body, that should suffer death for them. And the Apostles receaued y ^e body of Christ, yet passible and mortall, which the next day was crucified, and if we re­ceaue not in the sacrament the body that was crucified, then receaue we not the same body that the Apostles did. And here in your idle talke you draw by force S. Hieroms wordes to the sacrament, when S. Hierom speaketh not one word of the sacramēt in that place: let the reader iudge.

And here for the conclusion of the matter, you fantasy and imagine 4 such nouelties, and wrape them vp in such darke speaches, that we had neede to haue Ioseph or Daniell to expound [...] our dreames. But to make a cleare answere to your darke reason, The body of Christ is glorified and reigneth in heauen, and yet we remember with thankfull myndes, that the same was crucified and emptied of bloud for our redemption: and by fayth to chaw and digest this in our [...], is to eate his flesh and to drincke his bloud. But your brayne rolleth so in fantasies, that you wot not where to get out, and one of your sayinges impugneth an other. For first you say, that we receaue not in the sacrament the flesh that was cru­cified, [Page 245] and now you say we receaue him not as he sitteth in heauen and is glorified, and so must you nedes graunt, that we receaue him not at all.

Winchester.

But to returne to S. Augustine touching adoration, if the very flesh of Christ were not in the sacrament truely present, which is as much to say, as in substaunce present, if it were not in deede present, that is to say really present, if it were not corporally pre­sent 1 that is to say, Truely. Really. Corporally. the very body of Christ there present God and man. If these truthes consenting in one were not there, S. Augustine would neuer haue spoken of adoration there. No more he doth sayth this author there, but in heauen: let S. Augustines wordes quoth I be iudge, which be these, No man eateth that flesh but he first worshippeth it. ‘It is found out how such a footestoole of the Lordes foot should be worshipped, and not onely that we do not sinne in worshipping, but we do sinne in not worshipping it. These be S. Augustines wordes, which I sayd before, can not be drawen to an vnderstanding 2 of the worshipping of Christes flesh in heauen, where it remayneth continually glorifi­ed and is of all men christened continually worshipped.’ For as S. Paule sayth, Christ is so exalted that euery tongue should confesse, that our sauiour Christ is in the glory of his father. So as the worshipping of Christ there in the estate of his glory where he 3 reigneth, hath neither (afore) ne (after) but an (euer) continuall worshipping in glory. Wherfore S. Augustine speaking of a (before) must be vnderstanded of the worshipping 4 of Christes flesh present in the Sacrament, as in the dispensation of his humility, which Christ ceaseth not to do reigning in glory, for although he hath finished his humble pa­fible conuersation, yet he continueth his humble dispensation in the perfection of his misticall body, and as he is our inuisible priest for euer, and our aduocate with his father, and so for vs to him a mediator, to whom he is equall, so doth he vouchsafe in his sup­per which he continueth to make an effectuall remembraunce of his offering for vs, of the new Testament confirmed in his bloud, and by his power maketh him selfe present in this visible Sacrament, to be therein of vs truely eaten, and his bloud truely drunken, not onely in fayth, but with the truth and ministery of our bodely mouth, as God hath willed and commaunded vs to do: which presence of Christ in this humility of dispensa­tion to releaue vs and feed vs spiritually, we must adore as S. Augustine sayth before we eate: and we do not sinne in adoring, but we sinne in not adoring, remembring the diuine nature vnite vnto Christes flesh, and therfore of flesh not seuered from the god­head. Which admonishment of S. Augustine declareth he ment not of the worshipping of Christes flesh in heauen, where can be no danger of such a thought, where all tōgues confesse Christ to be in the glory of his father, of which Christ as he is there in glory continually to be worshipped, it were a colde saying of S. Augustine to say, 5 wee doe not sinne in worshipping Christ in heauen, but sinne in not worship­ping him, as though any coulde haue doubted whether Christe shoulde bee wor­shipped in his humanitye in heauen being inseparably vnite to the diuinity. And when I say in his humanity, I speake not properly as that mistery requireth, for as Christes person is but one of two perfite natures, so the adoration is but one as Cirill declareth it, and therfore abhorreth the addition of a sillable to speake of coadoration. And will this author attribute to S. Augustine such a grossenes to haue written and giuen for a lesson, that no man sinneth to worship Christes flesh in heauen reigning in glory? wherfore taking this to be so farre from al probabilitie, I sayd before these words of S. Augustine can not be drawen with any tenters to stretch so farre as to reach to heauen, where euery christian man knoweth and professeth the worshipping of Christ in glory, as they be taught also to worship him in his dispensation of his humility, when he maketh present him selfe in this Sacrament, whome we should not receaue into our mouth before we adore him. And by S. Augustines rule, we not onely not sinne in a­doring, but also sinne in not adoring him.

Caunterbury.

1 WHere you speake of the adoration of Christe in the Sacrament, say­ing, [Page 246] that if he were not there present, substancially, really, and corporal­ly, S. Augustine would neuer haue spoken of adoration there: in this word (there) you vse a great doublenes and fallax, [...]he [...]. for it may be referred indiferently eyther to the adoration, or to the presence. If it be referred 2 to the presence, than it is neyther trew, nor S. Augustine sayth no such thing, that Christ is really, substancially, and corporally present there. If it be referred to the worshipping, than it is trew, according to S. Au­gustines mynd, that there in the receauing of the sacrament in spirite and truth, we glorify and honor Christ, sitting in heauen at his fathers right hand. But to this adoration is required no reall, substanciall, and corpo­rall presence, Genes. 28, as before I haue declared: for so did Iacob worship Christ before he was borne, and all faythfull christen people do worship him in all places where soeuer they be, although he carnally and corporally be farre distant from them. As they dayly honor the father and pray vnto him, Math. 6. and yet say, Qui es in coelis, confessing him to be in heauen. And ther­fore to auoyd all the ambiguitie, and fallax of your speach, I say, that we being here, do worship here Christ, being not corporally here, but with his father in heauen.

And although all christen men ought of duety continually to worship Christ being in heauen, yet bicause we be negligent to doe our duties ther­in, his word and sacramēts be ordeined to prouoke vs therunto. So that although otherwise we forgat our dutyes, yet when we come to any of his sacraments, 1. Cor 11. we should be put in remembrance thereof. And therfore sayd Christ (as S. Paule writeth) As often as you shall eate this bread and drincke this cup, shew forth the lordes death, vntill he come. And do this (sayd Christ) in remembraunce of me. Luc. 22. And the worshipping of Christ in his glory, should be euer continuall without eyther before or after. Neuer­theles forasmuch as by reason of our infirmity, ingratitude, malice and wickednes, we go farre from our offices and dueties herein, the sacra­ments call vs home agayne, to do that thing, which before we did omit, that at the least we may do at some tyme, that which we should doe at all tymes.

Humiliation.And where you speake of the humiliatiō of Christ in the sacrament, you speake without the booke. For the scripture termeth not the matter in that sort, but calleth his humiliation only his incarnation and conuersa­tion with vs here in earth, being obedient euen vnto death, and for that humiliation, he is now from that tyme forward exalted for euer in glory. And you would plucke him downe from his glory, Phil. 2. to humiliation agayne. And thus is Christ intreated, when he commeth to the handling of igno­raunt lawyers, blynd sophisters, and popish diuines, but the true wor­shippers of Christ, worship him in spirite, sitting in his high glory and Maiesty, and pluck him not downe from thence, corporally to eate him with their teeth, but spiritually in hart ascend vp (as S. Chrisostō sayth) and feede vpon him where he sitteth in his high throne of glory with his father. To which spirituall feding is required no bodely presence, nor al­so mouth nor teeth, and yet they that receaue any sacrament, must adore Christ (both before and after) sitting in heauen in the glory of his father. And this is neyther (as you say it is) a cold nor grosse teaching of S. Au­gustine in this place, to worship the flesh and humanity of Christ in hea­uen: [Page 247] nor your teaching is not so farre from all doubtes, but that you seeme so afrayd your selfe to stand to it, that when you haue sayde, that Christ is to be worshipped in his humanity, as it were to excuse the matter a­gayne, you say, you speake not properly.

And this doctrine of S. Augustine was very necessary for ij. conside­rations. One is for the exposition of the Psalme, Saynt Augus­tines doctrine is necessary. Psal. 99. which he tooke in hand to declare, where in one verse is commaunded to worship the earth, be­ing gods fotestole, and this he sayth may be vnderstād in the flesh of Christ which flesh being earth, and the foode of faythfull christen people, is to be worshipped of all that feede and liue by him. For notwithstanding that his flesh is earth of earth, and a creature, and that nothing ought to be worshipped but God alone, yet is found out in Christ the explication of this great doubt and mistery, how flesh, earth, and a creature, both may and ought to be worshipped, That is to say, when earth and flesh being vnited to the godhead in one person, is one perfect Iesus Christ both God 1 and man. And this is neyther a cold nor grosse saying of S. Augustine, but an explication of the diuine and high mistery of his incarnation.

The other cause, why it is necessary both to teach and to exhort men to honor Chistes flesh in heauen, is this, that some know it not, and some doe it not. For some heretikes haue taught, that Christ was but a man, and so not to be honored. And some haue sayd, that although he be both God and man, yet his diuinity is to be honored, and not his humanity. For extirpation of which errors, it is no grosse nor cold saying, that Chri­stes flesh in heauen is to be honored. And some know right well, y ^e whole 2 Christ God and man ought to be honored with one entier and godly ho­nor, and yet forgetting them selfe in theyr factes, Heb. 10. do not according to their knowledge, but treading the sonne of God vnder their feete, Heb. 6. and despi­sing the bloud, wherby they were sanctified, crucifie agayne the sonne of God, and make him a mocking stocke to all the wicked. And many pro­fessing Christ yet hauing vayne cogitatiōs and phātasies in their heades, do worship and serue Antichrist, and thinking them selues wise, become very fooles in deed. And count you it then a cold and a grosse saying, that Christ in heauen is to be honored? wherin so many olde authors haue tra­uayled 3 and written so many bookes, and wherin all godly teachers tra­uayle from tyme to tyme? And yet bring you here nothing to proue, that S. Augustine spake of the reall presence of Christes flesh in the sacramēt, and not of Christ being in heauen, but this your cold and grosse reason.

And this will serue to answere also the place here following of S. Am­brose, 4 who spake not of the worshipping of Christ onely at the receauing of the sacrament, but at all tymes and of all resonable creatures both men and angels.

Winchester.

And for the more manifest confirmation that S. Augustine ought thus to be vnder­standed, I shall bring in S. Ambrose saying, of whome it is probable, S. Augustine to haue learned that he writeth in this matter.

Saynt Ambrose wordes in his booke De spiritu sancto li. 3. cap. 12. be these: Ambrosius de spiritu sancto li. 3. cap. 12. ‘ Non me­diocris igitur, quaestio, & ideo diligentius consideremus quid sit scabellum. Legimus enim alibi. Coelum ucihi thronus, terra autem scabellum pedum meorum. Sed nec terra adoranda nobis, quia creatura est dei. Videamus tamen ne terràm illam dicat adorandam Propheta, quam Do­minus [Page 248] Iesus in carnis assumptione suscepit. Itaque per scabellum terrae intelligitur, per terram antem caro christi, quam hodie quoque in misterys adoramus, & quam Apostoli in Domino Iesu (ut supra diximus) adorarunt: ne (que) enim diuisus Christus, sed vnus. Which wordes may be englished thus. It is therfore no meane question and therfore we should more diligently consider, what is the foote stoole. For we read in an other place, heauen is my throne, and the earth the foote stoole of my feete. But yet the earth is not to be worshipped of vs, bicause it is a creature of God. And yet let vs see though least the prophet means that earth to be worshipped, which our Lord Iesus tooke in the taking of flesh. So then by the footestoole let the earth be vnderstanded, and then by the earth the flesh of Christ, which we do now worship also in the misteries, and which the Apostles, as we haue be­fore 1 sayde, worshipped in our Lord Iesu, for Christ is not deuided, but one. Hitherto S. Ambrose, wherby may appeare how S. Ambrose and S. Augustine tooke occasion to open their fayth and doctrine touching adoration, vpon discussion of the selfe same words of the prophet Dauid.’ And S. Ambrose expressely noteth our adoration in the misteries where we worship Christes flesh inuisibly present, as the Apostles did, when Christ was visibly present with them. And thus with these so playne wordes of S. Ambrose consonant to those of S. Augustine, and the opening of S. Augustines wordes as be­fore, I trust I haue made manifest, how this Author trauayleth agaynst the streame, 2 and laboreth in vayne to writh S. Augustine to his purpose in this matter. The best is in this author that he handleth S. Augustine no worse then the rest, but all after one sort, bycause they be al of like sort agaynst his new catholique fayth, & cōfirme y ^e old true Catholique fayth or do not improue it. For of this high mistery, the authors write some more obscurely and darkely thē other, and vse diuersities of speaches and wordes, wher­with the true doctrine hath bene of a very few impugned, but euer in vayne, as I trust in God this shall be most in vayne, hauing this author vttered such vntruthes with so much blinde ignorāce, as this worke well wayed & cōsidered, that is to say, who made it when he made it, & of like how many were, or might haue bene & should haue bene of coūsayle in so great a matter, who if they were any, be al reproued in this one worke, all such cir­cūstāces cōsidered, this booke may do as much good to releaue such perplexity, as altera­tion hath engendred, and so do as good seruice in the truth; as was ment therby to hinder and empayre it. And this shall suffice for an answere to this fourth booke.

Caunterbury.

HEre apeareth your sincerity in proceeding in this matter. For you 1 leaue out those wordes of S. Ambrose, which maketh his meaning playne, that the prophet spake of the mistery of Christes incarnation. Si negant quia in Christo etiam incarnationis adoranda misteria sunt. &c. If they deny (sayth he) that the misteries of y ^e incarnatiō in Christ be to be honored &c. And a little after Qua ratione ad incarnationis dominicae sacramentum spectare vide­atur, quod ait Propheta, Adorate scabellum pedum eius, consideremus. Let vs consi­der, by what meanes this saying of the prophet (worship his foote stoole) may be seene to pertayne to the sacrament of Christes incarnation. And after the wordes by you rehearsed, foloweth by and by, Cum igitur incarna­tionis adorandum sit Sacramentum. &c. Seing then that the Sacrament of the incarnation is to be honored. In these wordes sheweth S. Ambrose playnly that the worshipping of Christes flesh is vnderstand of the miste­ry of his incarnation. So that S. Ambrose ment not onely that men should worship Christ, when they receaue the Sacrament, but that all creatures, at all tymes, should worship him. And therfore he expresseth there by name, how the Angels did worship him, and also Mary Mag­dalene and the Apostles after his resurrection, Math. 28. when they receaued not the Sacrament. Luc. 2. Math. 2. And so did also the shepherds and the wise men worship him, yet being in his infancy, and the prophet (after the mynd of S. Au­gustine [Page 249] and S. Ambrose) commaunded to honor him before his incarna­tion, & we likewise honor him sitting now in heauen after his ascentiō. For so farre is fayth able to reach, without eyther tentering or stretching.

2 Thus haue I aunswered to all that you haue brought agaynst my fourth booke, not obscurely (as you like a cuttell haue done, hiding your selfe in your darke colours) but playnly to the capacity of all men, asmuch as I can. And this haue I done with some payne of writing, but little or no study for the matter, being a very easy thing for defence of the truth to answere by gods word, and auncient authors to an ignorant lawyer, be­ing well exercised in neyther of both, but making such diuinity a she can dreame in his sleape, or deuise of his owne brayne, or hath sucked out of y ^e Papistical lawes and decrees, and for lacke of arguments, furnishing vp his booke with prety toyes, with glorious bosting, and scornfull taunting. And with picking out of my booke such sentences, as he perswadeth him selfe, that he can make some colour of apparaunt answere, to deceaue the reader. And such places as he seeth his rhetorike will not serue, he pas­seth them away slightly, bicause he is afrayd to file his hands therwith. Wherfore I may now right well and iustly conclude here myne answere to his confutation, with the wordes of my fourth booke, which be these.

But our sauiour Christ himselfe hath geuen vs warning before hand, that such false Christians and false teachers should come, and hath bydde vs to be­ware of them, saying: Math. 24. ‘ If any man tell you that Christ is here, or Christ is there, beleue him not. For there shall rise false Christes, and false prophets, and shall shew many signes and wonders, so that if it were possible, the very elect should be brought into erroure. Take heede, I haue told you before hand.’

Thus our Sauiour Christ (like a most louing pastor and sauiour of our soules) hath giuen vs warning before hand of the perilles and dangers that were to come, and to be wise and ware, that we should not geue credite vnto such teachers, as would perswade vs to worship a peece of bread, to kneele to it, to knocke to it, to creepe to it, to follow it in procession, to lift vp our 1 hādes to it, to offer to it, to light candels to it, to shut it vp in a chest or boxe, to do all other honor vnto it, more then we do vnto God: hauing alway this pre­tence or scuse for our idolatry, Behold here is Christ. Math. 24. But our Sauiour Christ calleth them false Prophets, and sayth: Take heed, I tell you before: ‘Beleue them not, If they say to you: behold Christ is a broad, or in the wildernes, goe not out. And if they say, that he is kept in close places, beleue them not.’

And if you will aske me the question, Chap. 10. They be the papistes that haue deceaued the people. who be these false prophets and sedu­cers of the people, the aunswere is soone made: The Romish Antichristes and their adherents, the authors of all erroure, ignorance, blindnes, super­stition, hipocrisie, and idolatry.

For Innocentius the thyrd (one of the most wicked men that euer was in the sea of Rome) dyd ordayne and decree, Innocentius tertius. that the host should be diligently kept vnder locke and key.

And Honorius the third, not onely confirmed the same, Honorius terti­us. but commaunded also, that the priestes would diligently teach the people from tyme to tyme, that when they lifted vp the bread, called the host, the people should then reuerently bowe downe, and that likewise they should do when the priest ca­rieth the host vnto sicke folkes. These be the statutes and ordinaunces of [Page 250] Rome, vnder pretence of holines, to leade the people vnto all errour and ido­latry: not bringing them by bread vnto Christ, but from Christ vnto bread.

Cap. 11. An exhortation to the [...]rew ho­noring of Christ in the Sacrament.But all that loue and beleue Christ himselfe, let them not thinke that Christ is corporally in the bread, but let them lift vp theyr hartes vnto heauen, and worshipping him, sitting there at the right hand of his father. Let them wor­ship him in them selues, whose temples they be, in whome he dwelleth and liueth spiritually: but in no wise let them worship him, as being corporally in the bread. For he is not in it neither spiritually (as he is in man) nor corporal­ly (as he is in heauen) but onely Sacramentally, as a thing may be sayd to be in the figure, wherby it is signified. Thus is sufficiently reproued the third principall errour of the Papistes, concerning the Lordes supper which is, That wicked members of the deuil, doe eate Christes very body, and drincke his bloud.

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. Papistes were the Authors of Transubstan­tiation. 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.

[Page 252]And as for the confession of all the clergy of this Realme in an open counsell, The counsayle in England. the authority of Rome ceasing, you speake here a manifest vn­truth wittingly agaynst your conscience. For you know very well (and if you will denie it, there be enough yet aliue can testify) that diuers of the clergy, being of most godly liuing, learning, and iudgement, neuer con­sented to the articles, which you speake of. And what meruayle was it, that those articles (notwithstanding diuers learned men repugning) passed by the most voyces of the Parliament? seing that although the au­thority of Rome was then newely ceased, yet the darkenes and blindnes of errours and ignoraunte that came from Rome, still remayned and o­uershadowed so this Realme, that a great number of the Parliament had not yet theyr eyes opened to see the truth. And yet how that matter was enforced by some persons, they know right well that were then present. But after, when it pleased almighty God, more clearly to shine vnto vs by the light of this word, our eyes by his goodnes were opened, darkenes discussed, and that which was done in ignoraunce and darkenes, was by knowledge and light in publique Counsell rehersed and taken away, as well concerning the doctrine as the hardnes of the law. For if the doc­trine had bene true and godly, there is no christen harted man, but he would haue desired the establishment and continuaunce therof. But the doctrine being false and such as came onely from Rome, they be not wor­thy to be likened to those truthes, which came from God, and were vt­tered by Balaam and Cayphas, but to be numbred among those lyes, which came from his vicar, Iohn. 6. who when he speaketh lyes, ex proprijs loquitur, he speaketh properly of himselfe.

And the Byshop of Rome was not cleane gone out of England, as sone as the lawes were made agaynst his authority, but remayned still by his corrupt doctrine, as I feare me he doeth yet in some mennes hertes, who were the chief procurers and setters forthward of the foresayd law. But yet is all togither to be imputed to the Byshop of Rome, forasmuch as from thens came all the foresayd errours, ignorance and corruption into these parties.

Now where you take vpon you here, to purge your selfe of Papistry by 5 me and Zuinglius, if you haue no better compurgators then vs two, you be like to fayle in your purgation. For neyther of vs (I dare say) durst swere for you in this matter, though Zuinglius were aliue. Or if your 6 purgatiō stand to this poynt, that Christ called not bread made of wheat his body (although in a formall and proper speach bread is not in deede his body) you may be as rancke a Papist as euer was, for any purgation you can make by this way. For Christ called bread made of wheate his body as the wordes of the Euangelistes playnly declare, and all old wri­ters teach, and in your booke of the deuils sophistrie, you haue confes­sed, saying that Christ made demonstration of bread, when he sayd, This is my body. And therfore bring some better purgation then this, or els had you bene better not to haue offered any purgation, in a matter that no man charged you withall, than by offering a purgation, aud fayling therin, to bring your selfe into more suspition.

And where as in fortification of your matter of Transubstantiation, you make your argument thus, That forasmuch as the body of Christ is 7 [Page 253] really in the sacrament, there is of necessity Transubstantiatiō also. Reall presence proueth no Transubstan­tiation. This your argument hath two great faultes in it. The first is, that your ante­cedent is false, and then you can not conclude therof a true consequent. The second fault is, that although the autecedent were graunted vnto you, that the body of Christ is really in the sacrament, yet the consequent can not be inferred therof, that there is of necessity Transubstantiation. For Christ can make his body to be present in the Sacrament, as well with the substance of the bread, as without it, and rather with the sub­stance of bread then with the accidents: forasmuch as neyther Christes body there occupieth any place, (as you say yourselfe) nor no more doth the substance of bread by it selfe, but by meanes of the accidentes, as you say also.

Now forasmuch as you say, that you will passe ouer the vnreuerent handling of Christes wordes, which you heard me once more seriously re­herse in solemne open audience, I erred once in this matter. I knowledge that not many yeares pas­sed, I was yet in darkenes concerning this matter, being brought vp in scholasticall and Romish doctrine, wherunto I gaue to much credite. And therfore I graunt, that you haue heard me stand and defend the vn­truth, which I then tooke for the truth, and so did I heare you at the same tyme. But prayse be to the euerliuing God, who hath wiped away those Saulish scales from myne eyes, and I pray vnto his diuine maiesty with all my hart, that he will likewise do once the same to you. Act . [...]. Thy will be ful­fillid O Lord.

But forasmuch as you passe ouer my handling of Christes wordes (as you vse commonly to passe in post, when you haue no direct answer to make) I shall here repete my wordes agayne, to the intent that the indif­ferent reader may presently see how I haue handled them, and then iudge whether you ought so slenderly to pas them ouer as you do.

My wordes be these

Winchester.

But to the purpose, the simplicity of fayth in a christen mans brest, doth not so pre­cisely 1 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 3 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 contempt, were meeter in 2 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 4 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 5 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, 6 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, 7 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 y ^e substaūce of y ^e body of Christ, there is trāsubstātiatiō, that is to say, not y ^e substaūce of bread, & therfore who wil playn­ly deny transubstantion, must deny the true presence of the substaunce of Christes body 8 as this author doth, wherein I haue first conuinced him, and therfore vse that victory for 9 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 01 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 [Page 257] 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 11 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 21 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 31 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 41 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 51 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 61 De doctrina Christiana, where he geueth a rule of recapitulation as he calleth it, when that is told after, that was done afore, and therfore we may not argue so firmely vpon the order of the tellyng in the speach. S. Augustine bringeth an example that by order of tellyng. Augustine lib. 3 cap. 36. Adam was in Paradise or any trée was brought forth for féedyng, with diuers other, wherewith I will not encomber the Reader. The Euangelist rehearseth what 71 Christ sayd and did simply and truely, whiche story we must so place in vnderstandyng, as we trifle not with the mysterie, at staying and stoppyng of letters and sillables. And therfore though the word (take, eate) go before the wordes (This is my body) we may not argue that they tooke it and eate it afore Christ had told them what he gaue them, & all these often rehearsalles of bread, with he tooke bread, and breake bread, and blessed bread, and if ye will adde held bread, all this induce no consequence that he therfore gaue 81 bread. For hee gaue that he had consecrate, and gaue that he made of bread. If Christ when he was tempted to make stones bread, had taken the stones and blessed them and deliuered them saying, This is bread, had he than deliuered stones, or rather that hee made of stones bread? Such maner of reasonyng vseth Peter Martyr as this author doth, whose folie I may well say he saw not to eschew it, but as appeareth rather to fol­low [Page 258] it: And yet not content to vse this fonde reasonyng, this author calleth Papistes to witnes that they might laugh at it, bicause the Euangelist telleth the story so as Christ sayd, (drinke) and then told after what it was, this author phantasieth that the Apostles 17 should be so hasty to thinke ere Christ had told them what he gaue, which and they had, I thinke hee would haue stayed the cup with his hand, or byd them tary, whiles he had told them more. I will no further trauaile with this reasoning, which is pitie to heare in such a matter of grauitie, of such consequence as it is both in body and soule. We may not trifle with Christes wordes after this sort. When S. Paule sayth, we be partakers 19 of one bread, hee speaketh not of materiall bread, but of Christes body our heauenly bread, which to all is one and can not be consumed, but able to féede all the world, and if this author gyueth credite to Theodoreths, whom he calleth an holyman, then shall he 20 neuer finde the Sacrament called bread after the sanctification, but the bread of lyfe, the like whereof should be in an Epistle of Chrisostome, as Peter Martyr alledgeth, not yet 20 printed, by whose authoritie if they haue any, as in their place this author maketh much of them, all these argumentes be all trifles, for all the namyng of bread by Christ and S. Paule and all other, must be vnderstanded before the sanctification and not after. And 21 if thou (Reader) lookest after vpon Theodoretus & that Epistle, thou shalt finde true that I say, whereby all this questionyng with the Papistes is onely a calying for this au­thors pleasure, agaynst his owne authors, and all learnyng.

Caunterbury.

WHere you say that the simplicitie of fayth in a Christen mans brest, 1 doth not so precisely marke and stay at the syllables of Christes wordes, as I pretende, here may the world see what simplicitie is in the Papistes. For I do nothyng els but rehearse what the Papistes say, that vntill these wordes be fully ended (Hoc est Corpus meum) there is bread, and after those wordes be fully ended, there is no more bread, but onely Christ himselfe. And the same simplicitie do you declare by and by to be in your selfe, when you say that Gods worke is in one instance, howsoeuer speach, 2 require in vs a successiue vtteraunce. Then if God chaunge the bread in­to Christes body in one instaunce, tell me I pray you, in which instaunce? For seyng that our promiticiation is by succession of tyme, I thinke you will not say, that the worke of God is done before the last syllable be pro­nounced, (for then Christes body should be there before the wordes of Cō ­secration were fully finished) nor I thinke you will not deny, but when­soeuer the wordes of consecration be fully pronounced, then is Christes body there. Wherfore by your owne iudgemēt you vary not in this matter 3 frō the other Papistes, but must needes say, y ^t Gods secrete worke herein is measured after the prolation of our syllables, and so it is none other per­son that teacheth to playe with syllables in this high mysterie, but the Pa­pistes onely. And your selfe doe teach in this same place, that it is a good 4 lesson to say, that in the instaunce of the last syllable Gods worke is to be accompted wrought. And I finde it not in blynd Gloses, but in the chief authors of the Papistes, that the conuersion is not wrought before the whole sentence is finished, Hoc est corpus meum.

The creatiō of the world.And it is no direct aunswere, but a meere cauillation and illusion, to 5 bryng in here the creation of the world, when God sayd (fiat lux) to be a like matter vnto transubstantiation. For Gods speach requireth no suc­cessiō of tyme, as the speach of the Priest doth. Therfore this is but a play­eng, to shew your subtill wit and craftie Rhetorike, whereby your spirite may be iudged, whether you go about clearely to set forth the truth, or by [Page 259] darke colours and vnlike examples to hide and couer it.

7 And where you question with me, going about by a subtill Sophisti­call argumēt, to proue that Christ sayd, This is no bread, This is no bread. I shall make an other argument of the same forme, which shall shew how strong your ar­gument is. S. Iohn is not the sone of y ^e virgin Mary. Christ sayd to her, This is thy sonne, Ergo he sayd: This is not Iohn. Iohn. 19. The first part I am sure you will affirme in effect. The second part is Christes wordes, and as the second part in my argument is a figuratiue speach, so is it in yours, so that in euery point the argumentes be like. And therfore as myne ar­gument is nought, so is yours also; and all that you bring in to folow ther­of. And if I lyst to dalye (as you do) in such a matter, I could conclude di­rectly agaynst you, that in the Sacrament is not Christes body; thus: Christes body is not materiall bread: S. Paule sayd it is bread: Ergo he sayd it is not Christes body. 1. Cor. 10. &. 11. The first part you affirme, the secōd part S. Paule affirmeth. And therfore to auoyde this cōclusion, the onely way is, to say that Christes speach was a figuratiue speach, when he sayd, This is my body. For els by the Catholicke doctrine S. Paule, saying that it is bread, saith in effect it is not the body of Christ. Thus may you see what auayleth your Sophistication, when I am constrained Sophisticari cum Sophista, vt ars deludatur arte.

7 And of like effect is your argument of yea and nay, Yea and nay. when you say eue­ry 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.

8 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. 2. Re. 17. 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.

9 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.

10 And where you alledge (as it were against me) the wordes of Hyla­rie, Hilary. 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 [Page 260] 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 11 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.

1. Cor. 10.And where you denye that these wordes of S. Paule (is not the bread 12 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 13 we breake) do signifie the whole vse of the Supper, not onely breakyng, Breaking sig­nifieth the whole vse of the supper. 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.

14

Rom. 4.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 [Page 261] 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.

51 But in this your aunswere to the arguments, Whether all the Euangelists told the history of the supper out of order. 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 y ^e same matter, cōmitteth y ^e 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 61 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, August. de con­sensu Euange­listarum lib. 3. 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? Luc. 22. Math. 26. Marc. 14. 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 [Page 262] all matters as pleased them.

The variance of the papists in consecration.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, Smith. 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 17 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.

Christes body made of bread.And where you say, that Christ gaue that he had consecrated, and that 18 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.

1. Cor. 10.And where you say that S. Paule speaketh not of materiall bread, but 19 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 [Page 263] 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.

20 And as concerning Theodorete and Chrisostome, Chrisostome. Theodorete. 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, Alteration of names vnto dignity. you would gather the alteration of the substaunce or Transubstantiation. Be not kinges and Emperours very men, although they be euer called by the names of there royall and imperiall dignites? Psal. 81. 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 y ^t respect (as a figure) the very body of Christ.

21 And where you say, that the naming of bread by Christ and S. Paule and all other, must be understood before the sanctification, Bread after 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: 1. Cor. 10. The bread which we breake, is it not the com­munion of Christes body? And, as often as you eate this bread & drincke this cup: 2. Cor. 11. 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 y ^e 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, Chap. 3. The papisticall doctrine is a­gaynst 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 [Page 264] 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 y ^e 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 [Page 265] 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 4 in the rule of common reason, the graunt of one substance is the deniall of an other, Conclusions of reason. 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 no whit darkened by any thing this Author 6 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, Reode Smith fol. 64. 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 7 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, 8 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 9 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 (howes). 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 [Page 266] 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 10 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 1 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, Act. 10. confirme the true fayth of his incarnation? And did not his ea­ting with the Apostles confirme and stablish their fayth of his resurrec­tion? Iohn 20. Luc. 24. Iohn. 20. Luc. 24. 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 2 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 na­ture, quantity without substance hath neither filling nor being. And al­though I do not say, that by the doctrine of Transubstantiation there remayneth nothing, (so that all that you speake to answere that matter, is to no purpose, but res vacua) yet by the doctrine of Transubstantiation ioyned vnto nature, there should remayne vtterly nothing in deede: for substance remayneth none, by your doctrine of Transubstantiation, and without substance can be no accidents by the rules of nature. Therfore comparing your doctrine and nature together, eyther you must recant your doctrine of Transubstantiatiō, or confesse that nothing remayneth, or at the least graunt that your teaching repugneth to the order of nature, which suffiseth for me in this place, where my purpose is onely to shew, how the doctrine of Transubstantiatiō is agaynst nature and reason.

Now where you so often speake of the visible forme of bread remay­ning 3 [Page 267] by this word (forme) you swetely deceaue your selfe, The worde Forme. thinking that it doth much auaunce your fayth of Transubstantiation, vnderstanding by that word the accidences, similitudes, and likenes without substance remayning, misunderstanding both holy scripture and the auncient doc­tors. S. Paule speaking of Christes incarnation sayth, Philip. 2. that he being in forme of God, did humble him selfe, taking vpon him the forme of man. By which wordes S. Paule ment not, that Christ was like vnto god, and not God indede, nor yet that he was like vnto man, and not very man in dede, but that he was and is very God and very man, hauing .ii. substances, one of his Godhead, and the other of his manhod, vnited to­gether in one person. And the aunciēt doctors writing of this sacrament, when they speake of the formes of bread and wine, do vse this vocable (forme) (as S. Paule vseth it) to signify very bread and very wine, or the substances of bread and wine, and not the similitude or likenes of bread and wine without the substances, as you fantasy, and imagine.

4 And you after this sort wrasting holy scriptures and doctors, for main­tenaunce of your error of Transubstantiation, do lead your selfe craftely into an other heinous errour (if this your proposition be true, that the graunt of one substance is a deniall of any other) which is, to deny Christ eyther to be very God or man. For by your sentence, if he in substance be God, then can he not haue the substance of man: for the graunt of one substance is a deniall of any other, as ye say.

3 And like as ye do erre in misunderstanding of the Scripture and Doctours, so do you erre in reason and iudgement of thinges: your owne eyes, nose, mouth, and fingers, bearing witnes agaynst you of your wil­full error and folly. For what man is liuing (which hath his right wittes) that can beleeue as you teach, that the proper obiect of euery sence remay­neth (that is to say, colour, taste, sauoure &c) and yet the former substance of bread and wine is gone? And here, to further your belefe of Transub­stantiation, you do exaggerat your accustomed absurdity of Impana­tion of Christes body, as if euery man that beleueth not your errour of Transubstantiation, must of necessity fall into the errour of Impanation, or as if I defended y ^e sayd Impanatiō. Impanation. But whether I defended any such fonde opinion or no, or whether I haue herein sufficiently answered the Papistes, I referre to the iudgement of all wise and learned men (that be any thing indifferent) which haue redde my booke.

And as concerning naturall reason, where you say it will agree with the doctrine of Transubstantiation well inough, if the fayth of the true presence of Christes very body be true. For aunswere hereto I say, that if your phantasticall belefe of the reall presence of Christes naturall body in the sacrament were as true as the gospell (as none opinion can be more erronious and fond) yet would both fayth and reason iudge, that there were still bread. Fayth, bicause holy scripture manifestly sayth so: Reason, bicause it is so, not onely to all our sences, but also in all the effects and op­perations of bread. And reason can not discerne, but that Christes body may be as well present with the substance of bread, as with the accidents, and that rather also, forasmuch as you confesse your selfe, that after the rules of nature, quantity filleth the place rather then substaunce. And so [Page 268] may reason iudge the body of Christ, to be the body of Christ, and yet the bread to be the bread still, and wine to be wine and no bread, nor none o­ther confusion of natures to be there agaynst reason.

And as touching naturall operation, in the handling therof, you shew 6 your ignoraunce in naturall philosophy, which teacheth that in mutation from one quality to an other, is required one substance to receaue both the qualities. For white of it selfe can not be made blacke, nor colde hotte, but one substance may be now hote now colde, now blacke now white. As cold water may be made hote although colde in it selfe can not be hote. Therfore you can not blame me, to thinke in this a great inconuenience and absurdity in nature, that swetenes of it selfe should change into sowernes, when the substance of wine is gone, and no substance remay­ning to receaue this mutation, this matter being so cleane contrary to the precepts and rules of naturall philosophy.

Ulpian.And I meruayle that you can not see how much Ulpian whome you alleadge, maketh agaynst your selfe, and with my saying, that both in wine and viniger remayneth substance, which is changed from swete to sower, so that y ^e sweete of it selfe is not made sower, but that substaunce which before was sweete, is after sower. And therfore what great skill you haue in citing of Ulpian, to proue that the accidents of wine without substance do sower and waxe viniger, let the wise reader iudge.

But Ulpian semeth to me to haue an other sense then all men can per­ceaue, but I will not discusse the minde of Ulpian, because I am no law­yer, least you should cast the prouerbe in my teeth, Ne sutor vltra crepidam.

But to what purpose you should bring in the diuersity of iudgements in naturall operations, and the extreme fondnes of philosophers, some in mouing, some in staying, I can not deuise, except it be the permission of God, that as some of the philosophers by their fond opinions in nature, made themselues laughing stocks to all men, of reason so should ye Pa­pists do. And yet so much more is the Papisticall opinion of Transub­stantiation to be laughed to scorne of all men, as it passeth the fondnes of all the philosophers, and that so farre, that the fondest of the philosophers would haue laughed at it, and haue clapped it out of their scholes with one consent, as an opinion more mete for frantike and mad men, then for men of naturall reason. And as fond opinions as some philosophers had, yet was there none that so farre erred in reason, to say that acciden­ces might stand without any substance, but all with one vniforme consent agreed, that accidences had none other being or remayning, but in their substances. And yet if the fayth of our religion taught vs the contrary, then reason must yelde to fayth. But your doctrine of Transubstantiation is as directly contrary to the playne wordes of scripture, as it is agaynst the order of naturall reason.

And where you say that the doctrine of Transubstantiation doth not 7 teach, that no earthly thing remayneth, but that the visible forme of bread and wine remayneth the same in greatnes, in thicknes, in weight, in sa­uour, in tast, in property also to corrupt, putrify, and nourish, as it did be­fore, tell playnly I pray you, what thing it is which you call the visible fourme of bread and wine, whether it be an accidence or a substance, and if it be an accidence, shew whether it be a quantity or quality, or what [Page 269] other accidence it is, that all men may vnderstand what thing it is which (as you say) is the same in greatnes, thicknes, weight, sauour, and o­ther properties.

8 And where you alleadge Emissen for the conuersion of the substaunce of bread and wine, Emissen. this conuersion (as Emissene sayth, and as I haue de­clared before) is like to our conuersion in baptisme, where outwardly is no alteration of substance (for no sacramentall alteration maketh altera­tion of the substance) but the meruaylous and secret alteration is inward­ly in our soules. And as the water in baptisme is not changed, but sacra­mentally (that is to say, made a sacrament of spirituall regeneration, which before was none) so in the lordes supper, neyther the substance nor accidences of bread and wine be changed, but sacramentally: but the al­teration is inwardly in the soules of them that spiritually be refreshed and nourished with Christes flesh and bloud. And this our fayth teacheth vs, and naturall reason doth good seruice to fayth herein agaynst your ima­gined Transubstantiation. So that you haue not gotten reasons, good wil, nor consent to your vayne doctrine of Transubstantiation, although you had proued your reall presence. Which hitherto you haue not don, but haue taken greate payne to shoote away all your boltes in vayne, missing quite and cleane both the pricke and the whole butte.

9 And yet in the end you take a good ready way for your owne aduan­tage, like vnto a man that had shot all his shaftes cleane wide from the butte, and yet would beare all men in hand that he had hitte the pricke. And when other should go about the measure how farre his shaftes were wide from the butte, he would take vp the matter himselfe, and cōmaund them to leaue measuring, and beleue his owne saying, that his arrowes stacke all fast in the marke, and that this were the nearest way to finish the contention: Euen so do you in this matter, willing all men to leaue searching of (how) in the mistery of Christes presence in the sacrament, saying that to be the nearest way. And it were a much nerer way for you in dede, if all men would leaue searching of (how) and without ground or reason beleue as well your Transubstātiation as the corporall presence of Christes body onely bicause you do say it is so. But S. Peter requi­reth euery christen man to be ready to render a reason of his fayth to eue­ry one that asketh, 1. Pet. 3. Tit. 1. and S. Paule requireth in a christen Bishop, that he should be able to exhorte by holsome doctrine, and to conuince the gayn­sayers, and not to require other men to giue fayth vnto him without asking of (how or why) only because he sayth so himselfe. The olde catho­lique Authors tell, wherfore Christ called bread his body, and how chri­sten people fed of his body. And the blessed virgine Mary asked how she should conceaue a child, neuer hauing company with man. Luc. 1. And you tell yourselfe how Christ is in heauen, how in vs, and how in the sacrament, declaring all to be but after a spirituall maner. And what maner of men be you, that we may not aske you (how) to render a reason of your Tran­substantiation, being a matter by you onely deuised, clearly without Gods word.

But at length when you haue swette well fauoredly in answering to myne arguments of naturall reason and naturall operation, Miracles. you be fayne to confesse a great part to be true, and to turne altogether into miracles, [Page 270] and that into such kind of miracles, as the old catholike writers neuer knowledged nor touched in none of their workes. For besides the chief miracle, which you say is in the conuertiō of the substance of bread into the substance of Christes body, and of the wine into his bloud, there be other miracles when the formes of wine tourue into viniger, and when bread mouldeth, or a man doth vomite it, or the mouse eateth it, or the fire bur­neth it, or wormes breed in it, and in all like chaunces, God still worketh miracles, yea euen in poysoning with the consecrated wine. And the mul­titude of such miracles (as you do iudge) pertayneth to the excellency of the Sacrament, where as among the schoole authors this is a common receaued proposition, non esse ponenda miracula sine necessitate.

And where you say that I make my principall foundation vpon the ar­guments 10 of the scholasticall writers, although myne arguments deduced out of the scholasticall authors be vnto you insoluble (and therfore you passe them ouer vnanswered) yet I make no foundation at all vpon them, but my very foundation is onely vpon Gods word, which foundation is so sure, that it will neuer fayle. And myne arguments in this place, I bring in onely to this end, to shew how farre your imagined Transub­stantiation is, not onely from Gods word, but also from the order and precepts of nature, and how many and portentuous absurdities you fall into by meanes of the same. Which it semeth you do confesse by holding your peace, without making answere therto. But now lette vs consider what is next in my booke.

Chap. 4. The papisticall doctrine is also agaynst, all our sences.The Papisticall doctrine is also agaynst all our outward senses, called our fiue wits. For our eyes say, they see there bread and wine: our noses smell bread and wine: our mouthes tast, and our handes fele bread and wine. And although the articles of our fayth be aboue all our outward senses, so that we beleue thinges which we can neyther see, feele, heare, smell nor tast, yet they be not contrary to our senses, at the least so contrary, that in such thinges, which we from tyme to tyme do see, smell, fele, heare and tast, we shall not trust our fen­ses, but beleue cleane contray. Christ neuer made no such article of our fayth. Our fayth teacheth vs to beleue thinges that we see not, but it doth not bid vs, that we shall not beleue that we see dayly with our eyes, and heare with our eares, and grope with our handes. For although our senses can not reach so farre as our fayth doth, yet so farre as the compasse of our sences doth vsually reach, our fayth is not contrary to the same, but rather our senses do confirme our fayth. Ihon. 20. Or els what auayled it to S. Thomas, for the confirmation of Chri­stes resurrection, that he did put his hand into Christes syde, and felt his woundes, if he might not trust his sences, nor geue no credite thereto?

And what a wide doore is here opened to Valentinianus, Martion, and o­ther heretikes, which sayd, that Christ was not crucified, but that Simon Ci­reneus was crucified for him, although to the sight of the people, it semed that Christ was crucified, Or to such heretikes as sayd, that Christ was no man, al­though to mens sightes he appeared in the forme of man, and semed to be hungry, drie, weary, to wepe, sleepe, eate, drincke, yea and to dye like as other men do. For if we once admitte this doctrine, that no credite is to be geuen to our senses, we open a large field, and geue a greate occasion vnto an innu­merable rablement of most heinous heresies.

[Page 271]And if there be no trust to be geuen to our senses in this matter of the sacra­ment, why then do the Papistes so stoutly affirme, that the accidents remayne after the consecration, which can not be iudged but by the sences? For the scripture speaketh no word of the accidents of bread & wine but of the bread & wine themselues. And it is agaynst the nature & diffinitiō of accidētes, to be alone without any substāce. Wherfore if we may not trust our sences in this matter of the sacramēt, than if the substance of the bread & wine be gone, why may we not then say, that the accidēts be gone also? And if we must nedes be­leue our senses, as conserning the accidēts of bread and wine, why may we not do the like of the substance, and that rather than of the accidents: forasmuch as after the consecration, the Scripture sayth in no place that there is no sub­stance of bread nor of wine, but calleth them still by such names as signifie the substances, and not the accidents?

And finally, if our senses be dayly deceaued in this matter, than is the sensible sacrament nothing els, but an elution of our senses. And so we make much for theyr purpose, that sayd that Christ was a crafty iugglar, that made thinges to appeare to mens sightes, that in dede were no such thinges, but formes one­ly, figures, and apparances of them.

But to conclude in fewe wordes this processe of our senses, let al the Papists lay their heades togither, and they shall neuer be able to shew one article of our fayth, so directly contrary to our senses that all our senses by dayly experi­ence shall affirme a thynge to be, and yet our fayth shall teache vs the contrary thereunto.

Winchester.

1 As in answering to the third chapiter, I haue shewed how reason receaued into faythes seruice, doth not striue with Transubstantiation, but agreeth well with it: so I trust to shew howe mannes sences whych this author calleth the fyue wyttes be no such direct aduersaries to Transubstantiation, as a matter wherof they can no skill. Contrarium ha­betur in libro vocato. The deuiles sophi­stry fol. 6.10.11. 12.15.21. And therfore to a question this Author asketh in the end of the second columne in the 22. leafe which is this. If we beleue our sences in the accidents, why may we not do the like of the substance? I answere thus, that the sences can no skill of substance as lerned men speake of substance, nor this author neither, if a man should iudge him by this question. For and a sensuall man one that followeth his rude senses would say, Come hither master schollar, I here much talking in this world of substance and accidence, and if he were of a mery nature, would say his litle boy had learned his accidence, but him selfe woreth not perfectly what substance meaneth, as clerkes terme it, and bringing forth a piece of bread, an other of chese, and a pot of ale, would desire the scoller to learne him the substance of them, and shew it with his finger, and shew him also what differēce 2 betwene the substance of bread, chese, and the ale, I thincke the schollar with the aduice of all at cambridge and Oxford also, could not doe it, and the more the schollar should trauayle with such a rude man so sensuall in the matter, I thinke he should be the fur­ther of, oneles the sensuall man would set a part his rude wittes and learne of the schol­lar some reasonable vnderstanding, which is that the substance is the inward nature, wherin those that be accidents do naturally stay the quantity immediately, and the rest by meane of quantity, in which the rest may be sayd to stay, which wordes were new diuinity to this man, who touching the bread would aske the scholler roundly, Callest thou not this substance, this good thicke piece that I handle? The scholler would an­swere, Syr as I shall answere you. You will say I play the sophister, for I must speake lerning to you, that you can no skill of. And be not angry though I tell you so, for and ye were learned, ye would not aske me this question, for substance as it is properly vn­derstanded to be of this or that thing, is properly neither sene by it selfe nor felt, and yet by reason comprehended truely to be in that we fele or see, neuertheles in cōmon speach [Page 272] and in the speach of such as for the purpose speake after the common capacitie, the word substance is vsed to signifie that is seene or felt, and so ye may say ye see the substance or fele the substance of bread, and yet ye do in dede see but the colour, and by it the largenes, and fele the heate or coldnes, moysture or drines, weight or lightnes, hardnes or softnes, thiknes, & thinnes. If ye wil learne what substāce is ye must leaue your outward sēces, & consider in your vnderstanding how in euery thing that is, there is a stay, which we cal a substance, being the principall part of euery thing, which fayling, we say that speciall thing not to be. As where the substance of bread is not, there y ^e special thing bread is not, bicause bread is as euery other naturall visible thing is of two partes substance and acci­dentes: now if the one parte, that is to say substance be not there, which can be but by miracle, then is no bread properly there, bicause the one and chief part is not there, and yet I say not nothing is there, for the other part remayning hath a being as Gods visible creature, and may be called the visible part of bread: and therfore the out­ward kind and forme of bread and the apparāce of bread and a true sensible part of bread, and therfore be called also by the name of bread, not that it is so properly, but after the common speach and capacity of men, and may be called the nature of bread, signifying the property and the matter of bread signifiing the grossenes. The rude man I thinke would hereat say, Here is sophistry in dede, for here is substance, and no substance, mat­ter of bread and no bread, apparance of bread and no bread, called bread and no bread, this is playne iugling where it hapneth. Wherin this rude man for want of true vnder­standing of the wordes and perfect consideration of the matter speaketh thus fondly, who if he should therupon require the scholler to shew him some difference of the very substance betwene bread, cheese, and ale, what could the lerned scholler answere here, but euen frankly declare his ignoraunce, and say I know none, which is as much to say, as I know there is a difference, but I wot not what it is. Wherunto I trow the rude man would say to the scholler. Then art thou with all thy lerning as very a foole as I, to speake of a difference and can not tell what it is. Now if the scholler should vtter euen the extremity of his learning in proper termes, and say, I know bread is no cheese, and chese is no ale, and of their accidentall partes I can indede shew differences, but of the very substance none. The rude man if his nature were not ouer dull, would laugh roundly to heare a scholler vtter for a poynt of learning that bread is no cheese, and cheese is no ale, which who so knoweth not, is a very foole, and merely to knit vp the matter would kepe the accidents of his bread chese and all for him selfe, and geue the substance to the scholler if he can deuide it, as a reward for his cunning to his better nurture. And this I write after this grosse sort, to shew that this matter of substance is not commonly vnderstanded as sences exercised in learning perceaue it, and how mans outward sences can not as this author would haue it, be iudges of the inward nature of substance, which reason perswadeth to be, vsing the seruice of the sences for induction of the knowledge, in which iudgement vpon their report hapneth many tymes much deceite. Coena Calci­densi, hospitis. Liu [...]us in 5. de bello Macedo­nico. Titus Liuius speaketh of a greate number of diuers dishes of meate made in a solemne supper, wherat the gestes woundred to see such a variety at that tyme of the yeare, and when they demaunded of it, answere was made the substance was but one, all hogges flesh, so as the alteration in the accidentes deceaued their iudgements. That stone, which among many thought to haue some skill, hath been taken for a precious 2 diamond, hath after by cunning lapidaries been iudged to be but a white saphire, and contrariwise: So easily may our iudgement vpon the report of our sences fall in errour, not that the sences be properly deceaued, but rather the man that is grossely sensuall, and iudgeth fondly by them. For the very substance is not the proper obiect of any of the fiue wittes, but of their report considered in reason denied, and sometyme gessed at, wherof ensueth greate errour and ( quid pro quo) among the poticaries and learned also in thinges strange, whereof they haue but accidentall markes. Wherefore vpon con­sideration of the premises it may easily appeare how the question of this author, why the sences be not beleued in knowledge of substance, as in knowledge of accidents, may be resonably answered. And then if the iudgement of reason in the estimation of Gods naturall workes and denying this or that substance, when by accidents it should seeme otherwise, reason doth stay sensuallity, and when men of experience, knowledge, and [Page 273] credite, haue determined such a certayne stone to be a very true diamond, other igno­rant will be ashamed to say the contrary. And if a man fearing himselfe deceaued to haue bought one kinde of drugges for an other, and yet mistrusting wisely his owne iudgement, hauing caused it to be vewed by men of knowledge, good fayth and honesty, if they affirme it to be the very thing, this man will then condemne his owne imagina­tion, and vpon credite call it so, and take it so to be: wherfore if in these thinges I say, reason doth in a man stay sensuality, and if knowledge with honesty ruleth the iudge­ment of rude vnderstanding, and finally, if credite among men be so much regarded, how much more conuenient is it, that fayth in Godds word (wherin can be no deceite 3 as there is in men) should alter and change mans iudgement in reason, and bring it in­to the obedience of fayth. Of that is bread after the iudgement of our reason, after the report of our sences, Christ determineth vnto vs the substance of that to be his body, saying: This is my body, why shall not now a true christen man answere euer according to his fayth, to say and professe the same to be the substance of Christes body vpon cre­dite of Christes wordes, as well as the carnall man will vpon report of his sences con­clude in reason there to be the substance of bread? wherby is not taken away the credite of our sences as this author supposeth, which haue their obiects still true as they had be­fore. 4 For the collour, greatnes, sauour, and tast, all remayne truely with the experi­ences of them as before. Upon whose report reason neuertheles now reduced to the ob­sequie of fayth, forbeareth reuerently to conclude agaynst the truth of fayth, but according to fayth confesseth the substance to be the very substance of Christes body, and the acci­dents to remayne in their very true nature, bicause fayth teacheth not the contrary, and that it agreeth with the rule of fayth so to be, and therfore remayneth a very true great­nes, thicknes and wayght, which may be called in common speach, substance, signify­ing the outward nature. And in that sense Theodoret reasoning with an heretique se­meth to call it, bicause hauing spoken of substance remayning, he declareth what he mea­neth by it, adding it may be seene and felt as before, which is not the nature of substance properly, but by like common speach that remayneth may be called matter, as Origen called it, wherein also remayne the true sauour and tast with true propriety to corrupt, or putrifie, and also nourish, God so ordering the vse of the creature of bread and likewise wine in this mistery, as the inward nature of them which indeede is the substance, but onely comprehended in reason and vnderstanding, is conuerted into the most precious substance of Christes body and bloud, which is indeede a substance there present, by gods omnipotency onely to be comprehended by fayth, so farre as may be vnderstanded of 5 mannes weakenes and imbecilitie. And where this author putteth a danger if sences be not trusted, there is a gappe open to the Ualentinians and Marcionistes, and therfore bringeth in the feeling of S. Thomas: hereunto I say that the truth of that feeling de­pendeth vpon a true beliefe, according to the scriptures, that Christ was very man: for els the body glorified of Christ (as S. Gregory noteth) was not of the owne glori­fied nature, Homel. 26. then eyther visible or palpable: but therin Christ condescended to mannes infirmity, and as he was truth it selfe, left that a true testimony to such as humbly were disposed by grace to receaue it, not to conuince heretiques, who can 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 6 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 [...]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 7 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 [Page 274] 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 8 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, shalbe made incorruptible, and yet after the iudgemēt 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 1 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 perswatiō of your purpose, you make (as it were) a play in a dialogue, betwene a rude man and a learned scholler, The rude man & 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, Absurdityes. 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? Luc. vit. 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 [Page 275] 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 m [...]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 y ^t 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.

4 But in speaking of substance, you declare such a substance, Substance. as neuer was, nor neuer shalbe, 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 differēce. And where almighty God hath taught by his word, 1. Cor. 15. that there be heauenly bodyes, and earthly bodyes, and that euery seede hath his owne proper body, and 3 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, 5 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, Accidents. 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 [Page 276] 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 y ^e māner.

A Lapidarie.Now as concerning your expert lapidarie, if his sences be deceaued, 2 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 3 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 4 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, y ^t there remayneth bread. For that greatnes, thicknes, thinnes, colours, and weight be not in y ^e 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. [Page 277] 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, Theodoretus. 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, Origene. but as concerning the materiall part therof, it goeth downe into the bealy, and is auoyded downward. And Gelasius sayth, Gelasius. that the nature and substance of bread and wine cease not to be. Now seeing that your doctrine (who teach that y ^e 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.

5 And as touching the belefe of S. Thomas, 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. Luc. vit.’ 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, Ioh. 20. 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, Gregorius ho­mel. 16. 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, [Page 278] 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, 6 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, Phil. 2. 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, y ^t Thomas touched truely Christes body glorified, how could y ^t 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, 7 and yet in wordes you pretend the contrary, call you not this illusiō of our sēses, Plautus in Am­phitrione. whē a thing apeareth to our sēces, which is not y ^e same thing in­deede? When Iupiter & Mercury (as the comedy telleth) apeared to Alcu­mena in y ^e similitude of Amphitrio & Sosia, was not Alcumena deceaued therby? And Poticaries y ^t sell Ieniper buries for pepper, being no pepper indeede, deceaue they not the biers by illusion of their sences? Why then [Page 279] 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, Chap. 5. The Papisti­call doctrine is contrary to the fayth of the olde authors of chri­stes church. 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, Iustinus mar­tyr, and an holy martyr, the oldest author that this day is knowne to write any treaty vpon the sacraments, and wrote not much after one hundred yeares after Christes Ascention.

He writeth in his second Apology, ‘that the bread, water, and wine, in this Sacrament, are not to be taken as other common meates and drinckes be, but they be meates ordeined purposely to geue thankes to God and therfore be called Eucharistia, and be called also the body and bloud of Christ. And that it is lawfull for none to eate or drincke of them, but that professe Christ, and liue according to the same. And yet the same meate and drincke (sayth he) is changed into our flesh and bloud and nourisheth our bodies.’

By which saying it is euident, that Iustinus thought, that the bread and wine remayned still, for els it could not haue bene turned into our flesh and bloud to nourish our bodies.

Winchester.

I will spend no mo wordes herein, Iustinus. but hauing auoyded this authors reasoning against Transubstantiation. Now let vs examine his authorities. First he beginneth with Iustine the Martyr, Whose wordes be not truly by this author here reported, which 2 be these truely translate out of y ^e Greke. When the priest hath ended his thankes geuing and prayers, and all the people hath sayd Amen, they whom we call Deacons, geue to euery one then present, a parte of the bread and of the wine and water consecrated, and cary part to those that be absent: and this is that foode, which is among vs called ( Eucha­ristia) wherof it is lawfull for no man to be partaker, except he be perswaded those thinges to be true that be taught vs, and be baptized in the water of regeneration in re­mission of sinnes, and ordreth his life after the manner which Christ hath taught. For we do not take these for common bread or drincke, but like as Iesus Christ our sauiour incarnate by the word of God, had flesh and bloud for our saluation, euen so we be taught 3 the foode, (wherwith our flesh and bloud be nourished by alteration) when it is conse­crate [Page 280] by the prayer of his word, to be the flesh and bloud of the same Iesus incarnate. 3 For the Apostles in those their workes, which be called gospels, teach that Iesus did so commaund them, and after he had taken the bread, and ended his thankes geuing, sayd: Do this in my remembrance, This is my body. And likewise taking the cup af­ter he had geuen thankes, sayd: This is my bloud, and did giue them to his Apostles onely. An issue. And here I make an issue with this author, that he wittingly corrupteth Iustine 1 in the allegation of him, who writeth not in such forme of wordes as this author allea­geth out of his second Apology, nor hath any such speach. The bread, water, and wine in this sacrament, are meates ordeined purposely to giue thankes to God, and therfore be called Eucharistia, nor hath not these wordes, They be called the body and bloud of Christ: but hath in playne wordes, that we be taught, this foode consecrate by gods word, to be the flesh and bloud of Christ, as Christ in his incarnation tooke flesh and bloud: nor hath not this forme of wordes placed to haue that vnderstanding, how the same meate and drincke is changed into our flesh and bloud. For the wordes in Iustine speaking of alteration of the foode, haue an vnderstanding of the foode, as it is before the consecration, shewing how Christ vsed those creatures in this mistery, which by alteration nourish our flesh and bloud.

For the body of Christ, which is the very celestiall substance of the host consecrate, is not changed, but without all alteration spiritually nourisheth the bodies and soules of them that worthely receaue the same to immortality, wherby appeareth this authors conclusion, (that bread and wine remayne still, which is tourned into our flesh and bloud) is not deduced vpon Iustines wordes truely vnderstanded, but is a glose inuented by this author and a peruerting of Iustines wordes, and their true meaning. Wherupon I may say, and conclude euen as this author erreth in his reasoning of mo­ther wit agaynst Transubstantiation, euen so erreth he in the first allegation of his au­thorities by playne misreporting: let it be further named or thought one as the thing deserueth.

Caunterbury.

IN this holy Martire Iustinus, I do not goe about to be a translator 1 of him, nor I bynde not my selfe precisely to follow the forme of his wordes (which no translatour is bound vnto) but I set forth onely his sence and meaning. For where Iustine hath a good long processe in this matter, I take no more but that is directly to the purpose of Transub­stantiation, which is the matter being here in question. And the long wordes of Iustine, I knit vp togither in as fewe wordes as I can, ren­dring the sense truly, and not varying farre from the wordes. And this haue I done, Myne Issue. not willingly to corrupt Iustine (as you maliciously de­praue, and therupon wil I ioyne with you in your issue) but I do it to re­cite to the reader Iustines mind shortly and playnly, where as you pro­fessing to obserue scrupulously the wordes, obserue in dede neither the wordes, nor the sentence of Iustine. But this is your fashion when you lacke good matter to answere, then (to finde something to fill vp your booke) you turne the matter into trifling and cauilation in wordes.

You say that Iustine hath not this speach (the bread, water and wine in this Sacrameut, are meates ordeined purposely to giue thankes to God) and yet by your owne translation he hath the same thing in effect, and yet in deede the wordes be neither as you nor as I say, and as they be in greeke, they cannot be expressed in English but by a paraphrasis: The wordes be these in greke, [...], and in our tongue as nere as may be englished, signify thus, The bread and wine and water of thankes giuing, or (as Ireneus sayth, In which thankes be giuen). And neither hath Iustine this word Sacrameut (as I say) [Page 281] nor this word Consecrated, as you say. May not all men therfore euident­ly see, that your chief study is to make cauilations & daylying in wordes [...] And all the rest of my sayinges, which you deny to be in Iustine, be there very playnly in sense, as I will be iudged by the indifferent reader.

And what neede I willingly to corrupt Iustine, when his wordes af­ter your allegation, serue more for my purpose agaynst your fayned tran­substantiation, 2 then as I alleadge them my selfe. For if the Deacons giue to euery one present a part of the bread, wine and water consecrated, and send parte to them that be absent (as you reporte Iustines wordes) do not then bread, wine and water remayne after consecration? seing that they be distributed to diuers men in partes? For I thincke you will not say that the body of Christ is deuided into partes, so that one man re­ceaueth 3 an hand, and an other a legge. And Iustine sayth further, that the same foode of bread, wine and water called Eucharistia, nourisheth our flesh and bloud by alteration, which they could not do, if no bread, wine nor water were there at all.

But here is not to be passed ouer one exceeding great craft and vntruth in your translation, that to cast a mist before the readers eyes, you alter the order of Iustines wordes in that place, where the pith of the matter standeth: For where Iustine sayth of the foode of bread, wine and water after the consecration, that they nourish our flesh and bloud by alteration, the nourishment which Iustine putteth after consecration, you vntruly put it before the consecration, and so wilfully and craftely alter the order of Iustinus wordes, to deceaue the reader, Myne Issue. and in this poynt will I ioyne an issue with you. Is such craft and vntruth to be vsed of Bishoppes? and then in matters of fayth and religion, wherof they pretend and ought to be true professors? But I meruayle not so much at your sleights in this place seeing that in the whole booke through out you seeke nothing lesse, then the truth. And yet all your sleightes will not serue you, for how can the foode (called Eucharistia) nourish before the consecration, seeing it is not eaten vntill after the consecration?

The next author in my booke is Irene, whome I alleadge thus.

Next him was Irenaeus, Irenaeus contra Valentinum. li. 4. cap. 34. aboue 150. yeares after Christ, who (as it is sup­posed) could not be deceaued in the necessary poyntes of our fayth, for he was a disciple of Policarpus, which was disciple to S. Ihon the Euangelist.

This Irenaeus followeth the sense of Iustinus wholy in this matter, and al­most also his wordes, saying, ‘that the bread wherein we geue thankes vnto God, although it be of the earth, yet when the name of God is called vpon it, it is not than common bread, but the bread of thankes geuing, hauing two thinges in it, one earthly, and the other heauenly. What ment he by the hea­uenly thing, but the sanctification which cōmeth by the inuocation of the name of God?’ And what by the earthly thing: but the very bread which (as he sayd before) is of the earth: and which also (he sayth) doeth nourish our bodies as other bread doth which we do vse?

Winchester.

‘Next Iustine is Irene, in the allegation of whome, this author maketh also an vn­true reporte, how hath not this for mē of wordes in the forth booke contra Valentinum, that the bread wherein we geue thankes vnto God, although it be of the earth, yet when [Page 282] the name of god is called vpon, it is not thru common bread, but the bread of thankes giuing, hauing two thinges in it, one earthly and the other heauenly. This is Irene alleadged by this author, who I say writeth not in such forme of wordes. For his wordes be these. Like as the bread which is of the earth, receauing the calling of God, is now no common bread, but Eucharistia, consisting of two thinges, earthly and hea­uenly, so our bodies receauing Eucharistian, be no more corruptible.’ ‘These be Irenes 1 wordes where Irene doth not call the bread receauing, the calling of God, the bread of thankes giuing, but Eucharistia, and in this Eucharistia, he sheweth how that, that he calleth the heauenly thinges, is the body and bloud of Christ, and therfore sayth in his fift booke, When the chalice mixt, and the bread broken, receaue the word of God, it is made Eucharistia, of the body and bloud of Christ, of which the substance of our flesh is stayed and increased. And how say they that our flesh is not able to receaue gods gift. who is eternall life which flesh is nourished with the body and bloud of Christ?’ These be also Irenes wordes, wherby appeareth, what he ment by the heauenly thing in Eu­charistia, which is the very presence of Christes body and bloud. And for the playne testimony of this fayth, this Irene hath bene commonly alleadged, and specially of Me­lancton to Decolampadius, as one most auncient and most playnly testifying the same. So as his very wordes truly alleadged, ouerthrow this author in the impugnation of Christes reall presence in the Sacrament, and therfore can nothing help this authors purpose agaynst Transubstantiation. Is not this a goodly and godly entre of this Au­thor, in the first two authorities that he bringeth in, to corrupt them both?

Caunterbury.

WHo seeth not, that as you did before in Iustine, so agayne in Irene you seeke nothing els, but meare cauilations and wrangling in wordes? Is not Eucharistia called in english, thankes giuing? If it be not, 1 tell you what it is called in English? And doth not Iren say, Panes in qup gratiae actae sunt, that is so say, bread wherein thankes be giuen, what haue I offended then in englishing Eucharistiam; thankes giuing? Do not I write to English men, which vnderstand not what this greeke word Eu­charistia, meaneth: what greate offence is it then in me to put it into Eng­lish, that English men may vnderstaud what is sayde Should I do as you do, put greeke for English and write so obscurely, that English men should not know the authors meaning?

‘And do you not see, how much the words of Ireneus by you aleadged, make agaynst your selfe? These be his wordes after your citation: When the chalice mixt, and the bread broken, receaue the word of God, it is made Eucharistia of the body and bloud of Christ, of which the substance of our flesh is stayd and encreased.’ Doth not Irene say here playnly, that the chalice mixt, and the bread broken, ‘after the word of God (which you call, the wordes of consecration) is made Eucharistia of the body and bloud of Christ, and not the body and bloud of Christ? And sayth he not further, that they stay and increase the substance of our bodies?’ But how can those thinges stay and increase our bodies, which be transubstantiated and gone before we receaue them? And haue you forgotten now in Irene, what you sayd in the next leafe before in Iustine, that the alteration and nourishment by the foode of bread and wine was vnderstande before the consecration? which you confesse now to be after the consecration? And when you thus obscure the authors wordes, peruerting and corrupting both the wordes and sences, yet shall you conclude your vntrue dealing with these wordes concerning me? Is not this a goodly and godly entres of this author in the first two authorities that he bringeth in to corrupt them both? Now followeth Origene next in my booke.

[Page 283]Shortly after Ireneus, was Origene, Origenes in Math. Cap. 15. Origene. about 200. yeares after Christs ascen­sion. Who also affirmeth, that the materiall bread remayneth, saying that the matter of the bread auayleth nothing, but goeth downe into the bealy, and is auoyded dounward, but the word of God spoken vpon the bread, is it that auayleth.

Winchester.

1 As for Origene in his owne wordes sayth, the matter of the bread remayneth, which as I haue before opened, Origene. it may be graunted, but yet he termeth it not as this author doeth, to call it materiall bread. When God formed Adam of clay, 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 2 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.

1

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 2 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, Ciprian ad Ce­cili. li. 2. epist. 3. 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. Math. [...] 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 [Page 284] 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.

Ciprian.S. Ciprians wordes do not impugne Transubstantiation, for they tend onely to 1 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 Saba [...]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 1 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 y ^t Christes bloud is not there, whē 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.

[Page 285]Eusebius Emissenus, Eusebus 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, De conscer. Di­stinction 2. quia 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, Emissene. and also the sence of the doctrine of Transubstan­tiation, 1 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, An Issue. 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 2 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 [Page 286] 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. 3 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 4 were by proportion, wherein ech change hath his speciall end and terme, (whereunto) and therfore according to the terme and end, hath his worke of change, speciall and se­uerall both by gods worke. Thus I meane, The visible creatures hath there ende and terme (wherunto) the change is made, the very body and bloud of Christ, which body being a true body, we must say is a corporall substance. The soule of man hath his ende and terme a spirituall alteration, incorporall, to be regenerate the sonne of God. And then the doctrine of this Emissene is playne this, that each changers is of like truth, and then it followeth; that if the change of mans soule in Baptisme be true and not in a fi­gure, the change likewise in the sacrament is also true and not in a figure. And if mans soule by the change in Baptisme be in deede, that is to say, really made the sonne of God, then is the substance of the bread, which is as it were the soule of the bread (I am bolde here in speach to vse the word soule, to expresse proportion of the comparison,) but euen so is the inward nature of the bread which is substance, turned and changed in to the body of Christ, being the terme and ende of that change. And here I say (so) not to declare the manner, but the truth of the ende, that is to say, as really and in deede the change is in the substance of bread as in the soule of man, both these changes be mer­uaylous, and both be in the truth of there change, wherunto they be changed of like truth and realty to be done indeede, they resemble one an other in the secrecie of the mistery, and the ignorance of our senses, for in neither is any outward change at all, and therfore there was neuer man tripped himselfe more handsomly to take a fall, then this author doeth in this place, not onely in corrupting euidently and notably the words of Emissene without purpose, wherby neuerthelesse he shewed his good will, but also by setting forth such matter, as ouerturneth all his teaching at once.

For now the author must say the change in mans soule by Baptisme, to be there made the sonne of God, is but in figure and signification, not true and reall in deede, or els graunt the true catholique doctrine of the turne of the visible creatures into the body and bloud of Christ, to be likewise not in figure and signification, but truly, really, and indeede: And for the thing changed as the soule of man, mans inward nature is chaun­ged: so the inward nature of the bread is changed.

And then is that euasion taken away, which this author vseth in an other place of Sacramentall change, which should be in the outward part of the visible creatures to the vse of signification. This author noteth the age of Emissene, and I note with all how playnly he writeth for confirmation of the Catholique teaching, who indeede bi­cause of his auncient and playne writing for declaration of the matter in forme of tea­ching without contention, is one, whose authority the church hath much in allegation vsed to the conuiction of such as haue impugned the Sacrament eyther in the truth of the presence of Christes very body, or Transubstantiation, for the speaking of the in­ward change, doth poynt as it were the change of the substance of bread, with resembling therunto the soule of man changed in Baptisme. This one author not being of any re­proued and of so many approued, and by this in the allegation, after this manner cor­rupt, might suffice for to conclude all brabling agaynst the Sacrament.

Caunterbury.

[Page 287] 1 WHere I haue corrupted Emissene, let the reader be iudge. But when Emissene speaketh godly of the alteration, change, and turning of a man, Turning. from the congregation of the wicked vnto the congregation of Christ (which he calleth the body of the church) and from the childe of death vnto the child of God, this must be made a matter of scoffing, to turne light fellowes out of the chancell into the body of the church. Such trifling now a dayes becometh gayly well godly Bishoppes, what if in the steede of (turning) I had sayd (skipt ouer) as the word transilisti sig­nifieth, which (although peraduenture the bookes be false and should be transisti) I haue translated (turning) should I haue so escaped a mocke trow you? You would then haue sayd, he that so doth, goeth not out at the chancell dore into the body of the church, but skippeth ouer the stalles. But that Emissene ment of turning, is cleare, aswell by the wordes that go before, as those which go after, which I referre to the iudgement of the indifferent reader.

But forasmuch as you would perswade men, that this author maketh so much for your purpose, I shall set forth his minde playnly, that it may appeare how much you be deceaued. Emissenes mynd is this, Emissenus minde. that al­though our sauiour Christ hath taken his body hence from our bodely sight, Yet we see him by fayth, and by grace he is here present with vs, so that by him we be made new creatures, regenerated by him, and fedde and nourished by him, which generation and nutrition in vs, is spirituall without any mutation appearing outwardly, but wrought within vs inuisibly by the omnipotent power of God. And this alteration in vs, is so wonderfull, that we be made new creatures in Christ, grafted into his body, and of the same receaue our nourishment and encreasing. And yet visibly with our bodely eyes we see not these thinges, but they be manifest vnto our fayth by gods worde and sacraments. And Emissene declareth none other reall presence of Christ in the sacrament of his body and bloud, then in the Sacrament of baptisme, but spiritually by fayth to be present in both.

2 And where Emissene speaketh of the conuersion of earthly creatures into the substance of Christ, Conuersion. he speaketh that aswell of baptisme, as of the lordes supper, as his owne wordes playnly declare. If thou wilt know (sayth he) how it ought not to seme to thee a new thing and impossible, that earthly and corruptible thinges be turned into the substance of Christ looke vppon thy selfe, which art made new in baptisme. And yet he ment not, that the water of baptisme in it selfe is really turned into the sub­stance of Christ, nor likewise bread and wine in the Lordes supper, but that in the action, water, wine and bread, as sacraments, be sacramen­tally conuerted (vnto him that duely receaueth them) into the very sub­stance of Christ. So that the sacramentall conuersion is in the Sacra­ments, and the reall conuertion is in him that receaueth the sacraments, which reall conuertion is inward, inuisible and spirituall. For the out­ward corporall substances, aswell of the name as of the water, remayne the same that they were before. And therfore sayth Emissene. Thou visi­bly diddest remayne in the same measure that thou haddest before, but in­uisibly thou wast made greater without any increase of thy body, thou wast the selfe same person, and yet by the encrease of fayth thou wast [Page 289] made an other man. Outwardly nothing was added, but all the change was inwardly. In these wordes hath Emissene playnly declared, that the conuersion in the sacraments (wherof he spake when he sayd, that earthly and corruptible thinges be turned into the substance of Christ) is to be vnderstand in the receauours by their fayth, and that in the sayd conuersion the outward substance remayneth the selfe same that was be­fore. And that Emissene ment this, as well in the sacrament of the lordes supper, as in the sacrament of baptisme, his own wordes playnly de­clare. So that the substance of Christ, as well in baptisme as the Lordes supper, is seene: not with our eyes, but with our fayth: and touched not with our bodies, but with our mindes: and receaued not with our hands, but with our hartes: eaten and drunken not with our outward mouthes, but with our inward man.

And where Emissene sayth, that Christ hath taken his body from our sight into heauen, and yet in the sacrament of his holy supper he is present with his grace through fayth, he doth vs to vnderstand, that he is not present in the formes of bread and wine out of the ministration (except you will say, that fayth and grace be in the bread, when it is kept and hanged vp) but when the bread and wine be eaten and drunken accor­ding to Christes institution, then to them that so eate and drincke, the bread and wine is the body and bloud of Christ, according to Christes wordes, The booke of common pray­er. Edite, hoc est corpus meum. Bibite, hic est calix senguinis mei. And ther­fore in the booke of the holy communion, we do not pray that the creatures of bread and wine may be the body and bloud of Christ, but that they may be to vs the body and bloud of Christ, that is to say, that we may so eate them, and drincke them, that we may be partakers of his body cru­cified, and of his bloud shed for our redemption.

Thus haue I declared the truth of Emissenes mynd, which is agreable to Gods word, Absurdities. and the olde 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 3 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 4 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 [Page 289] 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. Hilarius. ‘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, Hilarius. 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.

4 Epiphanius is next in my booke.

And Epiphanius shortly after the same tyme, sayth, that the bread is meat, [Page 290] but the vertue that is in it, Epiphanius cō ­tra haereses lib. 3. to. 2. et in Anacephaleosi. 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 y ^e Lordes supper, and the water in 1 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 2 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 signatum in signo. And where you be fayne to say, that accidents be meate without substance, all 3 the world may iudge how shamefull a shift this is, and how contrary to this principle of philosophy, Ex eisdem sunt, & nutriuntur omnia. Oh what absurdities you be driuen vnto, for the defence of your Papisticall inuen­tions? Now cometh S. Iohn Chrisostome, of whome in my booke is thus written.

Chrisosto. in Math. ca. 27. Ho. 83.About the same tyme of shortly after, about the yeare of our Lord 400. S. Iohn Chrisostom writeth thus, agaynst them that vsed onely water in the Sa­crament. ‘Christ (sayth he) minding to plucke vp that heresy by the rootes, vsed wine, as well before his resurrection, when he gaue the misteries, as after at his table without misteries. For the sayth of the fruite of the vine, which sure­ly bringeth forth no water but wine.’

These wordes of Chrisostome declare playnly, ‘that Christ in his holy table, both drancke wine and gaue wine to drincke, which had not bene true, if no wine had remayned after the consecration, as the Papistes fayne. And yet more playnly S. Chrisostome declareth this matter in an other place, saying: Ad Cesarium Monachum. The bread before it be sanctified, is called bread, but when it is sanctified by [Page 291] the meanes of the priest, it is deliuered from the name of bread, and is exal­ted to the name of the Lordes body, although the nature of bread dooth still remayne.’

The nature of bread (sayth he) doth still remayne, to the vtter and mani­fest confutation of the Papists, which say that the accidents of bread do re­mayne, but not the nature and substance.

Winchester.

Christostome speaketh in this place of wine, Chrisost [...]m. as Ciprian did before agaynst those that 1 offer no wine but water. Chrisostome sayth thus: Christ vsed wine, and I graunt he did so. For he did consecrate that creature, and as Emissene sayth, turned it in the cele­bration and dispensation of these misteries. But this saying toucheth nothing the doc­trine of Transubstantiation. The second saying of Chrisostom which I neuer redde but in Peter Martirs booke, who sayth it is not printed, toucheth this authors doctrine 2 much, if the bread by consecration be deliuered from the name of bread, and exalted to the name of our Lordes body. Now consider reader, if this manner of speach by Chri­sostome here meaneth an effectuall naming, to make the substance of the body of Christ present, as Chrisostome in his publike approued workes is vnderstanded of all to teach, then is the deliuerance from the name of bread of like effect, to take away the reason of the name of bread, which is the change in substance therof. Or if the author will say that 3 by the name of bread Chrisostome vnderstandeth the bare name, how can that stand without reprofe of S. Paule: who after this authors mynde calleth it bread after con­secration, and so do many other by this author alleadged. Here percase may be sayd what should I reason what he ment, when he sayth playnly the nature of bread still re­mayneth? To this I say that as Chrisostome in this place (of an epistle not published 4 by credite) sayth that the nature of bread remayneth: So Ciprian that was older then he, sayth the nature of bread is changed, which Chrisostome in his other workes, by pub­lique credite set abrode, semeth not to deny. Now the word (nature) signifieth both the substance, The word Na­ture hath two significations. and also propriety of the nature. The substance therfore after Ciprian by the word of God is changed, but yet the proper effect is not changed, but in the accidences remayne without illusion, by which diuers signification and acception of the word na­ture, both the sayings of S. Ciprian and S. Chrisostome (if this be his saying) may be accorded, and notwithstanding the contrariete in letter, agree neuertheles in sence be­twene themselfe, and agree with the true doctrine of Transubstantiation. Adde to this how the wordes of Chrisostome next following this sentence, alleadged by this author, and as it semeth of purpose left her out, do both confound this authors enterprise, and 5 confirme the true doctrine. Which wordes be these, (And is not called two bodies but one body of the sonne of God.) Of Chrisostome I shall speake agayne hereafter.

Caunterbury.

1 THe first place of Chrysostome by me alleadged, you say toucheth not the doctrine of Transubstantiation. But you rehearse but a piece of Chrisostomes wordes. For he sayth not onely that Christ vsed wine, but also drancke wine in the misteries, and the very wine of the grape. And how could then the wine be transubstantiate, except it were transubstan­tiate, after it was drunken.

2 Now as touching the second part of Chrisostome, where he sayth, that the bread when it is consecrated, is deliuered from the name of bread and is exalted to the name of the Lordes body, and yet the nature of bread doth still remayne, he meaneth that the bread is deliuered from the bare name of bread, to represent vnto vs the body of Christ (according to his institution) which was crucified for vs, not that he is present or crucifi­ed in the bread, but was crucified vpon the Crosse. And the bread is not do clearely deliuered from the name of bread, that it is no bread at all, (for [Page 292] he sayth the nature of bread doth still remayne) nor that it may not be cal­led by the name of bread, but it is so deliuered, that commonly it is called by the higher name of the Lordes body, Changing of names. which to vs it representeth. As you and I were deliuered from our surnames, when we were cōsecrated bishops, sithens which tyme we haue so commonly bene vsed of all men to be called bishoppes (you of Winchester and I of Caunterbury) that the most part of the people know not that your name is Gardyner, and myne Cranmer. And I pray God that we being called to the name of Lordes, haue not forgotten our owne baser estates, that once we were simple squiers. And yet should he haue done neyther of vs wrong, that should 3 haue called vs by our right names, no more then S. Paule doth any in­iury to the bread in the sacrament, calling it bread, although it haue also an higher name of dignity, to be called the body of Christ. And as the bread being a figure of Christs body hath the name therof, and yet is not so in deede, so I pray God that we haue not rather bene figures of bi­shops, bearing the name and title of Pastors and Bishoppes before men, then that we haue in deede diligently fed the little flocke of Christ with the swete and holsome pasture of his true and liuely word.

And where you alleadge Ciprian, Ciprian. to auoyd therby the saying of Chri­sostome 4 in the epistle by me cited, you take Ciprian clearely amisse, as I haue playnly opened hereafter in the xi. chapiter of this booke, wherunto for to auoyde the tediousnes of repeting, I referre the indifferent reader, vnto which myne answer there, healpeth much that which you graunt here, The word Na­ture. that the word (nature) signifieth both the substance and also the propriety. For in Ciprian it is not taken for the substance (as you would fayne haue it) but for the property. For the substance of bread still remay­ning in them that duely receaue the same, the property of carnall nourish­ment is changed into a spirituall nourishment, as more largely in myne answer to you in that place shall be declared.

And where you would somewhat releue your selfe by certayne words 5 of Chrisostome, which immediatly follow the sentence by me alleadged (which wordes be these, that the bread after consecration is not called two bodies, but one body of the sonne of God) vpon which wordes you would gather your Transubstantiation, how effectuall your argument is in this matter, may appeare by an other like. Steuen Gardiner after he was consecrated, was called the byshop of Winchester, and not two byshoppes but one bishop, ergo Steuen Gardiner was transubstantiate. And a counter layd by an Auditour for a thousand poundes, is not then called a counter, but a thousand poundes, ergo it is transubstantiated. And the man and wife after mariage, be called but one body, ergo there is Transubstantiation. This must be the fourme of your argument, if you will proue Transubstantiation by these wordes of Chrisostome.

Now come we to S. Ambrose.

Ambrosius.At the same tyme was S. Ambrose, who declareth the alteration of bread and wine into the body and bloud of Christ, not to be such, that the nature and substance of bread and wine be gone, but that thorough grace, there is a spirituall mutation by the mighty power of God, so that he that worthely ea­teth of that bread, doth spiritually eate Christ, and dwelleth in Christ, and Christ in him.

[Page 293]For (sayth S. Ambrose, De ijs `qui mi­sterijs initiantur. cap. vlt. & de sa­cramentis li. 4. cap. 4. speaking of this change of bread into the body of Christ) if the word of God be of that force that it can make thinges of nought, and those thinges to be, which neuer were before, much more it can make thinges that were before, still to be, & also to be changed into other thinges.

And he bringeth for example here of the change of vs in baptisme, wher­in a man is so changed (as is before declared in the wordes of Eusebius) that he is made a new creature, and yet his substance remayneth the same that was before.

Winchester.

Saynt Ambrose doth not (as this Author would haue it) impugne Transubstantiati­on, Ambrosius. 1 but confirmeth it most playnly, bicause he teacheth the true presence of Christes bo­dy in the sacrament, which he sayth, is by change, and thinges still remayning, and that may be verefied in the outward visible matter, that is to say, the accidents remay­ning with their proper effects, which therfore may worthely be called thinges. And here I would aske this Author, if his teaching as he pretendeth were the catholike fayth, and 2 the bread onely signified Christes body, what should nede this force of Gods word that S. Ambrose speaketh of, to bring in the creation of the world, wherby to induce mans fayth in this mistery to the belefe of it? As for the example of Baptisme to show the change in mans soule, wherof I haue spoken, declaring Emissene, serueth for an induc­tion not to leane to our outward sences, ne to mistrust the great miracle of God in ey­ther, bycause we see none outward experience of it, but els it is not necessary that the resemblance shall answere in equality, otherwise then as I sayd afore, each part answe­ring his conuenient proportion, and as for their comparison of resemblance Baptisme with the sacrament, this author in his doctrine specially reproueth, in that he can not I thinke deny, but man by regeneration of his soule in Baptisme, is the partaker of holines, but as for the bread, he specially admonisheth, that it is not partaker of holines by this consecration, but howsoeuer this author in his owne doctrine snarleth him selfe, the doctrine of S. Ambrose is playne, that before the consecration it is bread, and after the consecration the body of Christ, which is an vndoubted affirmation then to be no bread, howsoeuer the accidents of bread do remayne.

Caunterbury.

1 SAynt Ambrose teacheth not the reall and corporall presence of Christs body in the sacrament, as I haue proued sufficiently in my former booke, the 64. 81. and 82. leaues, and in myne answere vnto you in this booke. But agaynst Transubstantiation he teacheth playnly, that after consecration not onely thinges remayne, but also that the thinges chan­ged, still remayne. And what is this, but a flatte condemnation of your imagined Transubstantiation? For if the thinges changed in the sacra­ment do still remayne, and the substances of bread and wine be changed, then it followeth that theire substances remayne, and be not transubstan­tiated, so that your vntrue and crafty shift will not releeue your matter any whit, when you say, that the accidence of bread is bread, wherin all the world knoweth how much you erre from the truth. And better it had bene for you to haue kept such sayings secret vnto your selfe, which no man can speake without blushing (except he be past all shame) than to shew your shamefull shiftes open vnto the world, that all men may see them. And specially when the shewing therof onely discouereth your shame, and easeth you nothing at all. For the accidences be not changed (as you say your selfe) but the substances. And then if the thinges that be changed remayue, the substance must remayne, and not be transubstan­tiated. [Page 294] And S. Ambrose bringeth forth to good purpose the creation of 2 the world, to shew the wonderfull worke of God, aswell in the spirituall regeneration, and spirituall feeding and nourishing of the liuely mem­bers of Christes body, as in the creation and conseruation of the world. And therfore Dauid calleth the spirituall renouation of man, by the name of creation, saying: Cor mundum crea in me Deus, Psalm. 50. O God create in me a new hart. And as for any further answer here vnto Ambrose nedeth not, but bicause you referre you here to Emissene, they which be indifferent, may read what I haue answered vnto Emissene a little before, and so iudge.

Now let vs examine S. Augustine.

Augustinus in sermone ad in­fantes.And S. Augustine about the same tyme, wrote thus: That which you see in the alter, is the bread and the cup, which also your eyes do shew you. But fayth sheweth further, that bread is the body of Christ, & the cupper his bloud, Here he declareth two thinges: that in the sacrament remayneth, bread and wine which we may discerne with our eyes: and that the bread and wine be called the body and bloud of Christ.

In lib. sententia­rum Prosperi.And the same thing he declareth also as playnly in an other place, saying: The sacrifice of the Church consisteth of two thinges, of the visible kind of the element, and of the inuisible flesh and bloud of our Lord Iesu Christ, both of the sacrament, and of the thinge signified by the sacrament. Euen as the person of Christ consisteth of God and man, forasmuch as he is very God and very man. For euery thing cōteineth in it, the very nature of those thinges, wherof it consisteth. Now the sacrifice of the church cōsisteth of two thinges, of the sacrament, and of the thing thereby signified, that is to say, the body of Christ. Therfore there is both the sacrament, and the thing of the sacrament, which is Christes body.

What can be deuised to be spoken more playnly agaynst the error of the Papistes, which say that no bread nor wine remayneth in the sacrament? For as the person of Christ consisteth of two natures, that is to say, of his manhod, and of his godhead, (and therfore both those natures remayne in Christ,) euen so (sayth S. Augustine) the sacrament consisteth of two natures, of the elements of bread and wine, and of the body and bloud of Christ, and ther­fore both these natures must nedes remayne in the sacrament.

For the more playne vnderstanding hereof, it is to be noted, that there were certayne heretikes, as Simon, Menander, Martion, Valentinus, Basilides, Cerdon, Manes, Eutiches, Manichaeus, Apolinaris, and Diuers other of like sortes, which sayd, that Christ was very God, but not a very man, although in eating, drin­king, sleeping, and all other operations of man, to mens iudgementes he ap­peared like vnto a man.

Other there were, as Artemon, Theodorus, Sabellius, Paulus Samasathenus, Mar­cellus, Photinus, Nestorius, and many other of the same sectes, which sayd, that he was a very naturall man, but not very God, although in geuing the blind their sight, the dumbe their speach, the deafe their hearing, in healing soden­ly with his word all diseases, in raysing to life them that were dead, and in all other workes of God, he shewed himselfe as he had bene God.

Yet other there were, which seeing the scripture so plaine in those two mat­ters, confessed that he was both God and man, but not both at one tyme. For before his incarnation (sayd they) he was God onely, and not man, and after his incarnation, he ceased from his Godhead, and became a man onely, and [Page 295] not God, vntill his resurrection or ascension, and then (say they) he left his manhod, and was onely God agayne, as he was before his incarnation. So that when he was manne, he was not God: and when he was God, he was not man.

But agaynst these vayne heresies, the Catholike fayth, by the expresse word of God holdeth and beleueth, that Christ after his incarnation left not his diuine nature', but remayned still God, as he was before, being togither at one tyme, (as he is still) both perfect God and perfect man.

And for a playne declaration hereof, the old auncient authors giue two ex­amples: one is of man, which is made of two partes, of a soule and of a body, and ech of these two partes remayne in man at one tyme. So that when the soule, by the almighty power of god, is put in to the body, neither the body nor soule perisheth therby, but therof is made a perfect man, hauing a perfect soule and a perfect body, remayning in him both at one tyme. The other ex­ample, which the olde authors bring in for this purpose, is of the holy Snpper of our Lord, which consisteth (say they) of two partes, of the sacrament or vi­sible element of bread and wine, and of the body and bloud of Christ. And as in them that duely receaue the sacrament, the very natures of bread and wine ceasse not to be there, but remayne there still, and be eaten and drunken cor­porally, as the body and bloud of Christ be eaten and drunken spiritually: so likewise doth the diuine nature of Christ remayne still with his humanity.

Let now the Papistes auaunt them selues of their Transubstantiation, that there remayneth no bread nor wine in the ministration of the Sacrament, if they will defend the wicked heresies before rehersed, that Christ is not God and man both togither. But to proue that this was the mynd of the old au­thors, beside the saying of S. Augustine here recited, I shall also reherse di­uers other.

Winchester.

In the 26. leafe this author bringeth forth two sayinges of S. Augustine, Augustinus. which when this author wrote, it is like he neither thought of the third or first booke of this worke. For these two sayinges declare most euidently the reall presence of Christs bo­dy 1 and bloud in the Sacrament, affirming the same to be the sacrifice of y ^e church, wher­by appeareth it is no figure onely. In the first saying of S. Augustine is written thus, 2 how fayth sheweth me that bread is the body of Christ: now whatsoeuer fayth sheweth is a truth, and then it followeth that of a truth it is the body of Christ, which speach bread is the body of Christ, is as much to say, as it is made the body of Christ, and made not as of a matter, but (as Emissene wrote) by conuersion of the visible creature into the substance of the body of Christ, and as S. Augustine in the same sentence wri­teth 3 it is bread before the consecration, and after, the flesh of Christ. As for the second saying of S. Augustine, how could it with more playne wordes be written, then to say that there is both the Sacrament and the thing of the Sacrament which is Christes body, calling the same the sacrifice of the church. Now if Christes body be there, it is truely there, and in dede there, which is really there, as for there in a figure, were as much to say, as not there in truth and indede, but onely signified to be absent, which is the nature of a figure in his proper and speciall speach. But S. Augustine sayth euen as the author bringeth him forth, and yet he gaue his priuy nippe by the way thus: It is sayd of S. Augustine there be two thinges in the sacrifice, which be conteyned in it, wherof it consisteth so as the body of Christ is conteined in this sacrifice by S. Augus­tines mynd. According whereunto S. Augustine is alleadged to say in the same booke, from whence this author tooke this saying, also these wordes following, ‘vnder the kindes of bread and wine which we see, we honor thinges inuisible, that is to say, the [Page 296] flesh and bloud of Christ, nor we do not likewise esteme these two kindes as we did be­fore 3 the consecration, Out of the ma­ster of the sen­tenses and de­crees. for we must faythfully confesse before the consecration to be bread and wine that nature formed, and after consecration, the flesh and bloud of Christ, which the benediction hath consecrate.’ Thus sayth S. Augustine as he is alleadged out of the booke, The booke of S. Augustine de suis prosperi is not cōmon­ly, had. which in deede I haue not, but he hath the like sence in other places, and for honoring of the inuisible heauenly thinges there, which declare the side and re­all presence, S. Augustine hath the like in his booke De Cat [...]chisandis rudibus, and in the 98. psalme, where he speaketh of adoration. This may be notable to the reader, how this author concludeth himselfe in the fayth of the reall presence of Christes body, by his owne collection of S. Augustine mynd, which is as he confesseth in his owne wordes, noting S. Augustine, that as the person of Christ consisteth of two natures, so 4 the Sacrament consisteth of to natures, of the elements of bread and wine, and of the body and bloud of Christ, and therfore both these natures do remayne in the Sacrament. These be this authors owne wordes, who trauayling to confound Transubstantiation, confoundeth euidently himselfe by his owne wordes touching the reall present. For he sayth the nature of the body and bloud of Christ must remayne in the sacrament, and as truely as the natures of the manhod and Godhead were in Christ, for therupon he ar­gueth. And now let this author choose whether he will say any of the natures, the man­hode or the godhead were but figuratiuely in Christ, which and he do, then may be the better say for the agrement of his doctrine. The nature of the body and bloud of Christ is but figuratiuely in the Sacrament. And if he say (as he must nedes say) that the two 5 natures be in Christes person really, naturally, substantially, then must he graunt by his owne collection the truth of the being of the nature of the body and bloud of Christ to be likewise in the Sacrament, and therby call backe all that he hath written agaynst the real presence of Christes body in the sacrament, and abandon his deuise of a presence by significatiō, which is in truth a playne absēce as himselfe also speaketh openly, which open speach can not stand, and is improued by this open speach of his owne.

Likewise where he sayth the nature of the body and bloud of Christ remayne in the Sacrament, the word (remayne) being of such signification, as it betokeneth not onely to be there, but to tary there, and so there is declared the sacrifice of the church, which mistery of sacrifice is perfited before the perception, and so it must be euident how the 7 body of Christ is there, that is to say, on the alter before we receaue it, to which aulter S. Augustine sayth, we come to receaue it. There was neuer man ouerturned his own 6 assertions more euidently, then this author doth herein this place, the like wherof I haue obserued in other that haue written agaynst this Sacrament, who haue by he way sayd somewhat for it, or they haue brought their treatise to an end.

It will be sayd here, how soeuer this author doth ouerthrow him selfe in the reall presence of Christes very body, yet he hath pulled downe Transubstantiation, and done 8 as crafty wrastlers do, falling themselues on theire backe, to throw there fellowe ouer them. But it is not like, for as long as the true fayth of the reall presence standeth, so longe Transubstantiation standeth, not by authority of determination, but by a necessa­ry consequence of the truth, as I sayd before, and as Zuinglius defendeth playnly, and as for these places of S. Augustine may be answered vnto, for they speake of the visible nature and element, which remayne truely in the propriety of their nature, for so much as remayneth, so as there is true reall and bodily matter of the accidents of bread and wine, not in fantasy or imagination, wherby there should be illution in the sences, but so in deede as the experience doth shew, and the change of substance of the creatures in­to a better substance, should not impayre the truth of that remayneth, but that remay­neth, doth in deede remayne, with the same naturall effects by miracle that it had when the substance was there which is one maruaile in this mistery, as there were diuerse more in Manna the figure of it. And then a miracle in gods working doth not empayre the truth of the worke. And therfore I noted before, how S. Thomas did touch Christ after his resurrection truely, and yet it was by miracle, as S. Gregory writeth. And further we may say, touching the comparison, that when a resemblaunce is made of the 9 Sacrament to Christes person, or contrariwise of Christes person to declare the Sacra­ment we may not presse all partes of the resemblance, with a through equality in con­sideration [Page 297] of each part by it selfe, but onely haue respect to the ende wherfore the resem­blance is made. In the person of Christ be ioyned two whole perfite natures insepe­rably vnite, which fayth the Nestorians impugned, and yet vnite without confusion of them, which confussion the Eutichians in consequence of their error affirmed, and so ar­guments be brought of the sacrament, wherewith to conuince both, as I shall shew an­swering to Gelasius. But in this place S. Augustine vseth the truth most certayne of the two natures in Christes person, wherby to declare his beleefe in the Sacrament, which beleefe as Hilary before is by this author alleadged to say, is of that is inward­ly. For that is outwardly of the visible creature, we see (he sayth) with our bodely eye, and therfore therin is no poynt of fayth that should neede such a declaration, as S. Au­gustine maketh. And yet making the comparison, he reherseth both the truthes on both sides, saying: As the person of Christ cōsisteth of God & man, so y ^e sacrifice of y ^e church cō ­sisteth of two thinges, the visible kind of y ^e element, & the inuisible flesh & bloud, finishing y ^e conclusiō of y ^e similitude, y ^t therfore, There, is in y ^e Sacrifice of y ^e church, both the Sa­cramēt and y ^e thing of y ^e Sacramēt, Christes body, that which is inuisible, & therfore re­quired declaratiō, y ^t is by S. Augustine opened in y ^e cōparison, y ^t is to say, y ^e body of Christ to be there truely and therwith, that needed no declaration, that is to say, the visible kind of the element is spoken of also as being true, but not as a thing which was inten­ded to be proued, for it neded not any proofe as the other part did. And therfore it is not necessary to presse both partes of the resemblance so, as bicause in the nature of Christs humanity, there was no substance conuerted in Christ, which had bene contrary to the order of that mistery, which was to ioyne the whole nature of man to the godhead in the person of Christ, that therfore in this mistery of the Sacrament, in which by the rules of our fayth, Christes body is not Impanate, the conuersion of the substance of the visible elements should not therfore be. If truth answereth to truth for proportion of the truth in the mistery that is sufficient. For els the natures be not so vnite in one hi­postasy 10 in the mistery of the Sacrament, as there be in Christes person, and the flesh of man in Christ by vnion of the diuinity, is a diuine spirituall flesh, and is called and is a liuely flesh, and yet the author of this booke is not afrayd to teach the bread in the Sa­crament to haue no participation of holines, wherein I agree not with him, but reason agaynst him with his owne doctrine, and much I could say more, but this shall suffice. The wordes of S. Augustine for the reall presence of Christes body be such as no man 11 can wrest or wreth to an other sence, and with their force haue made this author to ouer­throw himselfe in his owne wordes. But that S. Augustine sayth, touching the nature of bread and the visible element of the Sacrament, without wresting or writhing may be agreed in couenient vnderstanding with the doctrine of Transubstantiation, and therfore is an authority familiar with those writers that affirme Transubstantiation by expresse wordes, The master of the sentences hath these wordes of S. Augustine. out of whose quiuer this author hath pulled out his bolt, and as it is out of his bow sent, turneth backe and hitteth himselfe on the forehead, and yet after his fashion, by wrong and vntrue translation he sharpened it somewhat, not without some punishment of God, euidently by the way by his owne wordes to ouerthrow him selfe.

In the second columne of the 27. leafe and the first of the 28. leafe, this author ma­keth a processe in declaration of heresies in the person of Christ, for conuiction wherof, this author sayth the olde fathers vsed arguments of two examples, in eyther of which examples were two natures togither, the one not perishing ne confounding the other. One example is in the body and soule of man. An other example of the Sacrament, in which be two natures, an inward heauenly, and an outward earthly, as in man there is a body and a soule.

I leaue out this authors owne iudgement in that place, and of thée (O reader) re­quire 12 thine, whether those fathers that did vse both these examples to the confutation of heretikes, did not beleeue, as apeareth by the processe of their reasoning in this poynt, did they not I say beleeue, that euen as really and as truely, as the soule of man is pre­sent in the body, so really and so truely is the body of Christ (which in the Sacrament is the inward inuisible thing, (as the soule is in the body) present in the Sacrament? for els and the body of Christ were not as truely and really present in the Sacrament, as [Page 892] the soule is in mans body, that argument of the Sacrament had not two thinges pre­sent, so as the argument of the body and soule had, wherby to shew how two thinges may be togither without confusion of eyther, ech remayning in his nature: for if the teaching of this author in other partes of this booke were true, than were the Sacra­ment 13 like a body lying in a traunce, whose soule for the while were in heauen, and had no two thinges, but one bare thing, that is to say bread, and bread neuer the holier with signification of an other thing so farre absent, as is heauen from earth, and ther­fore to say as I probably thinke, this part of this second booke agaynst Transubstantia­tion, was a collection of this author when he minded to mayntayne Luthers opinion a­gaynst 14 Transubstantiation onely, and to striue for bread onely, which not withstanding the new enterprise of this author to deny the reall presence, is so fierce and vehement, as it ouerthroweth his new purpose ere he cōmeth in his order in his booke to entreate of. For there can no demonstration be made more euident for the catholike fayth of the reall presence of Christes body in the Sacrament, then that the truth of it was so cer­taynly beleued, as they tooke Christes very body as verely in the sacrament, euen as the soule is present in the body of man.

Caunterbury.

WHen you wrote this, it is like that you had not considered my third booke, wherin is a playne and direct answer to all that you haue brought in this place, or els where, concerning the reall presence of Chri­stes body and bloud in the Sacrament. And how slender proofes you make in this place, to proue the reall presence, because of the Sacrifice, euery man may iudge, being neyther your argument good, nor your an­tecedent true. For S. Augustine sayth not, that the body and bloud of Christ is the sacrifice of the church, and if he had so sayd, it inferreth not 1 this conclusion, that the body of Christ should be really in the bread, and his bloud in the wine.

How bread is Christes body.And although S. Augustine sayth, that bread is Christes body, yet if you had well marked the 64.65. 66. leaues of my booke, you should 2 there haue perceaued how S. Augustine declareth at length, in what manner of speach that is to be vnderstand, that is to say figuratiuely, in which speach the thing that signifieth and the thing that is signified, haue both one name, Ciprianus de vnctione chris­matis. as S. Ciprian manifestly teacheth. For in playne speach without figure, bread is not the body of Christ by your owne con­fession, who do say, that the affirmation of one substance is the negation of an other. And if the bread were made the body of Christ (as you say it is) then must you needes cōfesse, that the body of Christ is made of bread, which before you sayd was so foolish a saying, as were not tollerable by a scoffer to be deuised in a play, to supply when his fellow had forgotten his part. And seeing that the bread is not adnihilate and consumed into nothing (as the schoole authors teach) then must it needes follow, that the body of Christ is made of the matter of bread, for that it is made of the forme of bread, I suppose you will not graunt.

And as touching the second place of S. Augustine, he sayth not that the body and bloud of Christ be really in the Sacrament, but that in the 3 Sacrifice of the church, that is to say, in the holy administration of the Lordes supper, is both a Sacrament and the thing signified by the Sa­crament, the Sacrament being the bread and wine, and the thing signi­fied and exhibited, being the body and bloud of Christ. But S. Augustine sayth not, that the thing signified is in the bread and wine (to whome it [Page 299] is not exhibited, nor is not in it, (but as in a figure) but that it is there in the true ministration of the Sacrament, present to the spirite and fayth of the true beleuing man, and exhibited truely and indeede, and yet spiri­tually not corporally.

And what neede any more euident proofes of S. Augustines mynd in this matter, how bread is called Christes body then S. Augustines owne wordes cited in the same place, De consecrat. di. 2. Hoc est. where the other is de consecratione dist. 2. Hoc est quod dicimus? These be S. Augustines wordes there cited. ‘ Sicut coelestis panis, qui Christi caro est, suo modo vocatur corpus Christi, cum re uera sit sacramentum corporis Christi, illius videlicet quod visibile, quod palpabile, mortale, in cruce positum est, vocatur (que) ipsa immolatio carnis (quae sacerdotis manibus fit) Christi passio, mors, crucifixio, non rei veritate, sed significanti misterio: sic Sacramentum fidei, (quod bap­tismus intelligitur) fides est. As the heauenly bread (which is Christes flesh) after a manner is called the body of Christ, where in very deede it is a sa­crament of Christes body, that is to say, of that body which being visible, palpable, mortall, was put vppon the crosse: And as that offering of the flesh which is done by the priestes handes, is called the passion, the death the crucifying of Christ, not in truth of the thing, but in a signifying miste­ry so is y ^e 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 repraesē tat 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.

4 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 [Page 300] 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 5 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.

Similitudes may not be pressed in at poynts, but in the pur­pose wherfore they be brought Luc. 16.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.

The fayth of the reall presēce in the formes is vnprofitable & vncomfortable.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 [Page 301] 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, Iohn. 6. 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, The profit and comfort of the true doctrine. 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 obstinately bent to peruert the true doctrine of this holy Sacrament, you would neuer haue vttered this sen­tence. 6 That there was neuer man ouerturned his owne assertions more euidently, then this Author doth. For I am well assured, that my doctrine is sound, and therfore do trust that I shall able to stand by myne asser­tions before all men that are learned, and be any thing indifferent, and not bent obstinately to mayntayne errors as you be, when you tumbling and tossing your selfe in your filthy fantasies of Transubstantiation, and of the reall and carnall presence of Christes body, shalbe ashamed of your assertiōs. But I meruayle not much of your stout bragging here, bicause it is a common thing with you, to dashe me in the teeth with your owne faultes.

7 And it is vntrue that you say, that the sacrifice is parfited before the perfection. For if the sacrifice be parfited before the perception, it is parfi­ted also before the consecration. For betwene the consecration and percep­tion was no sacrifice made by Christ (as appeareth in the Euangelistes) but the one followed immediately of the other. And although Christ be­ing in heauen be one of the partes wherof the sacrifice consisteth, & be pre­sent in the sacrifice, yet he is not naturally there present, but sacramental­ly in the sacrament, and spiritually in the receauours.

8 And by this which I haue now answered, I haue wrastled with you so in the matter of Christes presence, that I haue not fallen vpon my back my selfe to pull you ouer me, but I standing vp right my selfe, haue geuen you such a fall, that you shall neuer be able to recouer. And now that I haue brought you to the ground (although it be but a small peece of man­hoode to strike a man when he is downe) yet for the truthes sake, (vnto whome you haue euer bene so great an aduersary) I shall beate you with your Transubstantiation (as they say) both backe and bone. Now say you syr, is whitenes or other colours the nature of bread and wine? (for the colours be onely visible by your doctrine) or be they elements, or be ac­cidents the bodely matter? Lye still, ye shall be better beaten yet, for your wilfulnes. Be the accidents of bread substances, as you sayd not long be­fore? And if they be substances, what manner of substances be they: cor­porall [Page 302] or spirituall? If they be spirituall, then be they soules, deuils, or an­gels. And if they be corporall substances, eyther they haue life or no life. I trust you will say at the least, that bread hath life, bicause you sayd but euen now almost, that the substance of bread is the soule of it. Such ab­surdities they fall into, that mayntayne errours.

But at length when the similitude of the two natures in Christ, remay­ning 9 both in their proper kindes, must needes be answered vnto, then commeth in agayne the cuttill with his colours to hide him selfe, that he should not be seene, bicause he perceaueth what danger he is in to be ta­ken: And when he commeth to the very nette, he so stoutly striueth, wrangleth and wresteth, as he would breake the nette, or els by some craft, wind himselfe out of it, but the net is so strong, and he so surely masted therein, that he shall neuer be able to gette out.

Two examples of the two na­tures in Christ, one in a mā, the other in the Sacrament.For the olde catholike Authors, to declare that two natures remayne in Christ togither (that is to say, his humanity and his diuinity) without corruption or wasting of any of the sayd two natures, do geue two ex­amples therof, one is of the body and soule, which both be in a man togi­ther, and the presence of the one putteth not away the other.

The other example is of the Lordes Supper or ministration of the Sacrament, where is also togither the substaunce and nature of bread and wine with the body and bloud of Christ, and the presence of the one putteth not away the other, no more then the presence of Christes hu­manitie putteth away hys diuinitie. And as the presence of the soule driueth not away the body, nor the presence of the fleshe and bloud of Christ driueth not away the bread and wine, so doth not the presence of Christes humanity, expell his diuinitie, but his diuinitie remayneth still with his humanitie, as the soule doth with the body, and the body of Christ with the bread. And then if there remayne not the nature and substaunce of bread, it must follow also, that there remaineth not the di­uine nature of Christ, with his humanity, or els the similitude is cleare­ly dissolued.

But yet say you, we may not presse all partes of the resemblance with a through equality, but onely haue respect to the end, wherfore the resem­blance is made. And do you not see, how this your saying taketh away your owne argument of the reall presence in the sacrament? and neuer­thelesse setteth you no whitte more at liberty concerning Transubstanti­ation, but masteth you faster in the nette, and maketh it more stronger to holde you. For the olde Authors make this resemblance, onely to de­clare the remayning of two natures, not the manner and forme of remay­ning, which is farre diuers in the person of Christ, from the vnion in the Sacrament. For the two natures of Christ be ioyned togither in vnity of person, which vnity is not betwene the Sacrament and the body of Christ. But in that poynt wherein the resemblance is made, there must needes be an equality by your owne saying. And for as much as the re­semblance was made onely for the remayning of two natures, therfore as the perfite natures of Christes manhod & godhead, do both remayne, and the perfite nature of the soule and the body both also remayne so must the perfite nature of Christes body and bloud, and of bread and wine al­so remayne. But for as much as the similitude was not made for the man­ner [Page 303] of remayning, nor for the place, therfore the resemblance requireth not, that the body and bloud of Christ should be vnited to the bread and wine in person or in place, but onely that the natures should remayne euery one in his kind. And so be you cleane ouerthrowen with your tran­substantiation, except you will ioyne your selfe with those Heretikes, which denied Christes humanity & diuinity to remayne both togithers.

And it seemeth that your doctrine varieth very little from Ualentine and Martion (if it vary any thing at all) when you say that Christes 10 flesh was a spirituall flesh. Spirituall flesh. For when S. Paule speaking of Christes body, sayd (we bee members of his body, of his fleshe and of his bones) he ment not of a spirituall body (as Ireneus sayth) for a spirite hath no flesh nor bones, Iraeneus contra Valētinia. lib. 5. but of a very mans body, that is made of flesh, sinewes and bones, And so with striuing to gette out of the nette you roll your selfe faster in it.

11 And as for the wordes of S. Augustine, make nothing for the reall presence, as I haue before declared. So that therin I neyther haue foyle nor trippe, but for all your bragges, hookes and crookes, you haue such a fall, as you shall neuer be able to stand vpright agayne in this matter. And my shaftes be shot so straight agaynst you, and with such a force, that they perse through shilde & haburgen, in such sort that all the harnes you haue, is not able to withstand them, or to make one arrow to start backe, although to auoyde the stroke you shift your place, seeking some meane to flye the fight. For when I make mine argument of Transubstantia­tion, you turne the matter to the reall presence like vnto a surgeon that hath no knowledge, but when the head is wounded or sore, he layth a playster to the heele. Or (as the prouerbe sayth) Interrogatus de alijs, respon­det de caepis. when you be asked of garlicke, you answer of onions.

And this is one prety sleight of sophistry, A sleight. or of a subtill warrier, when he seeth him selfe ouermatched, and not able to resist, then by some policy quite to put of, or at the least to delay the conflict, and so do you common­ly in this booke of Transubstantiation. For when you be sore pressed ther­in, than you turne the matter to the reall presence. But I shall so straytly 12 pursue you, that you shall not so escape. For where you say, that the fathers (which vsed the examples of the Sacrament, and of the body and bloud of Christ to shew the vnity of two natures in Christ did beleue that as re­ally and as truely the soule of man is present in the body, so really and so truly is the body of Christ present in the Sacrament: the fathers neither sayd nor beleued as you here report, but they taught that both the Sa­crament and the thing therby represented (which is Christes body) re­mayne in their proper substaunce and nature, the signe being here and the thing signified being in heauen, and yet of these two consisteth the sa­crifice of the church.

But it is not required, that the thing signified should be really and cor­porally present in the signe and figure, as the soule is in the body (bicause there is no such vnion of person) nor it is not required in the soule and bo­dy that they should be euer togither, for Christes body and soule remayned both, without eyther corruption or Transubstantiation, when the soule was gone downe into hell, and the body rested in the sepulcher. And yet was he than a perfect man, although his soule was not than really pre­sent [Page 304] with the body. And it is not so great a meruayle that his body should be in heauen, and the sacrament of it here, as it is that his body should be here, and his soule in hell.

And if the Sacrament were a man, and the body of Christ the soule of 13 it, (as you dreame in your traunse) then were the Sacrament not in a traunse, but dead for the tyme, whilest it were here, and the soule in hea­uen. And like scoffing you might make of the Sacrament of Baptisme, as you doe in the Sacrament of Christes body, that it lyeth here in a traunse, when Christ being the life therof is in heauen.

And where you thinke that my second booke agaynst Transubstanti­ation 14 was a collection of me, when I minded to mayntayne Luthers opinion agaynst Trāsubstantiation onely, you haue no probatiō of your thought, but still you remayne in your dreames, traunses and vayne phantasies, which you haue vsed throughout your booke, so that what so euer is in the bread and wine, there is in you no Transubstantiation, nor alteration in this thing at all.

And what auayleth it you so often to affirme this vntruth, that the body of Christ is present in the Sacrament, as the soule of man is present in the body, except you be like to them that tell a lye so often, that with often repeating they think men beleue it, and sometyme by often telling they beleue it them selues. But the authors bring not this similitude of the body and soule of man, to proue therby the presence of Christes body in the Sacrament, but to proue the two natures of the godhead and the manhoode in the person of Christ. Lette vs now discusse the minde of Chrisostome in this matter, whome I bring thus in my booke.

Chrisostom. ad Caesarium Mo­nachum.S. Iohn Chrisostom writeth against the pestilēt errour of Apolinaris, which affirmed that the Godhead and manhod in Christ, were so mixed and con­founded togither, that they both made but one nature. Agaynst whome S. Iohn Chrisostome writeth thus.

When thou speakest of God, thou must consider a thing that in nature is single without composition, without conuersion that is inuisible, immortall, incircumscriptible, incomprehensible with such like. And when thou spea­kest of man thou meanest a nature that is weake, subiect to hunger, thirst, weeping, feare, sweating, and such like passions, which can not be in the di­uine nature. And when thou speakest of Christ, thou ioynest two natures to­gither in one persone, who is both passible and impassible: Passible as concer­ning his flesh, and impassible in his deite.

And after he concludeth saying: Wherfore Christ is both God and man: God by his impassible nature, and man bicause he suffered. He himselfe be­ing one person, one sonne, one Lord, hath the dominion and power of two natures ioyned togither, which be not of one substance, but ech of them hath his properties distinct from the other. And therfore remayneth there two na­tures, distinct, and not confounded. For as before the consecration of the bread, we call it bread, but when Gods grace hath sanctified it by the priest, it is de­liuered from the name of bread, and is exalted to the name of the body of the Lord al­though the nature of the bread remayne still in it, and it is not called two bodies, but one body of Gods sonne: so likewise here, the diuine nature resteth in the body of Christ, and these two make one sonne, and one person.

[Page 305]These wordes of S. Chrisostome declare, and that not in obscure termes, but in playne wordes, that after the consecration, the nature of bread remay­neth still, although it haue an higher name, and be called the body of Christ: to signifie vnto the godly eaters of that bread, that they spiritually eate the supernaturall bread of the body of Christ, who spiritually is there present, and dwelleth in them, and they in him, although corporally he sitteth in heauen at the right hand of his father.

Winchester.

S. Chrisostomes wordes in deede, Chrisostomus. if this author had had them eyther truely transla­ted vnto him, or had taken the paynes to haue truly translated them himselfe, which as Peter Martyr sayth, be not in print but were found in Florence a copy wherof remay­neth in the archdeacon or Archbishop of Caunterburies handes, or els if this author had reported the wordes as they be translated into English out of Peter Martyrs booke, wherin some poynt the translator in English, semeth to haue attayned by gesse the sense more perfectly than Peter Martyr vttereth it himselfe, if eyther of this had bene done, the matter should haue seemed for so much the more playne. But what is this to make foundation of an argument vpon a secret copy of an epistle vttered at one tyme in diuers senses? I shall touch one speciall poynt, Peter Martyr sayth in Latin, whome the tran­slator in English therin followeth, that the bread is reputed worthy the name of the Lordes body. This author Englishing the same place, termeth it (exalted to the name of the Lordes body) which wordes of exalting come nearer to the purpose of this author 2 to haue the bread but a figure and therwith neuer the holier of it selfe. But a figure can neuer be accompted worthy y ^e name of our Lordes body, the very thing of y ^e Sacrament, onles there were the thing in deede, as there is by conuersion, as the church truely tea­cheth. 1 Is not heare reader a meruaylous diuersity in report, and the same so set forth, as thou that canst but reade English mayst euidently see it? God ordring it so as such varieties and contradictions should so manifestly appeare, where the truth is impugned? 3 Agayne this author maketh Chrisostome to speake strangely in the end of this authori­ty, that the diuine nature resteth in the body of Christ, as though the nature of man were the stay to the diuine nature, where as in that vnion the rest is an ineffable miste­ry, the two natures in Christ to haue one substance called and termed an hipostasie, and therfore he that hath translated Peter Martyr into English doth translate it thus: The diuine constitution the nature of the body adioyned, these two both togither, make one sonne and one person.

Thou reader mayst compare the bookes that be abroad of Peter Martyr in Latine, of Peter Martyr in English and this authors booke, with that I write, and so deeme 4 whither I say true or no. But to the purpose of S. Chrisostomes wordes (if they be his wordes) he directeth his argument to shew by the mistery, of the Sacrament, that as in it there is no confusion of natures, but each remayneth in his property, so likewise in Christ the nature of his godhead doth not confound the nature of his manhode. If the visible creatures were in the Sacrament by the presence of Christes body there truely present, inuisible also as that body is, impalpable also as that body is, incorruptible al­so as that is, then were the visible nature altred, and as it were confounded, which Chrisostome sayth is not so, for the nature of the bread remayneth, by which word of na­ture, is conueniently signified the property of nature. For proofe wherof, to shew re­mayning of the property without alteration, Chrisostome maketh onely the resem­blance, and before I haue shewed how nature signifieth the propriety of nature, and may signifie the outward part of nature, that is to say, the accidents being substance in his proper signification the inward nature of the thyng, of the conuersion wherof, is spe­cially vnderstand transubstantiation.

Caunterbury.

WHere you like not my translatiō of Chrisostomes wordes, I trow you would haue me to learne of you to trāslate, you vse such sincerity and [Page 306] playnnes in your translation. Let the learned reader be iudge. I did tran­slate the wordes my selfe out of the copye of Florence, more truely than it seemeth you would haue done. But whan you see the wordes of Chri­sostome so manifest and cleare agaynst your fayned Transubstantiation (for he sayth, that the nature of bread remayneth still) you craftely for a shift, fall to the carping of the translation, bicause you cannot answere to the matter. And yet the wordes of Chrisostome cyted by master Peter Martyr in latine out of Florence copy, and my translation, and the tran­slation of master Peters booke in English, do agree fully here in sense, al­though the wordes be not all one, which neyther is required nor lightly found in any two translators, so that all your wrangling in the diuersi­ty of the translations, is but a fleight and common practise of you, whan you cannot answer the matter, to seeke faultes in the translation, where none is.

And for the speciall poynt, wherin you do note a meruaylous diuersi­ty 1 in report, and would gather therof no truth to be, where such diuer­sity is, let the reader be iudge, what a wonderfull diuersity it is. The Latine is this, Panis dignus habitus est dominici corporis appellatione. The tran­slator of M. Peter Martyrs booke sayth. The bread is reputed worthy the name of the Lordes body. My translation hath, The bread is exalted to the name of the body of the Lord. When a man is made a Lord or Knight, if one say of him, that he is reputed worthy, the name of a Lord or Knight, and an other say, that he is exalted to the name of a Lord or Knight, what difference is betwene these two sayinges? Is not this a wonderfull diuersity? I pray thee iudge indifferently good reader.

A figure requi­reth not the presence of the thing that is signified.But (say you) a figure can neuer be counted worthy the name of the 2 thing onles the thing were there in deede. Wrangle then with S. Ihon Chrisostome himselfe, and not with me, who sayth that the bread is ex­alted to y ^e name of y ^e Lords body or is reputed worthy y ^e name of y ^e Lordes body after the sanctificatiō, and yet the nature of y ^e bread remayneth still, which can not be as you say, if the body of Christ were there present.

And who heard euer such a doctrine as you here make, that the thing, must be really and corporally present, where the figure is? For so must e­uery man be corporally buried in deede, Rom. 6. when he is Baptised, which is a figure of our buriall. And when we receaue the Sacrament of Christes body, then is accomplished the resurrectiō of our bodies, for that Sacra­ment you affirme to be the figure therof. But your doctrine herein is cleane contrary to the iudgement of Lactantius, Lactantius in­stitu. lib. 2. Capi. 1. and other olde writers, who teach that figures be in vayne, and serue to no purpose, when the thinges by them signified be present.

And where you thinke it strange, to say that the diuine nature is or 3 resteth in the body of Christ, it is nothing els, but to declare your igno­rance in Gods word, and auncient authors, in reading of whome, forasmuch as you haue not bene much exercised, it is no meruayle though their speach seeme strange vnto you. The greeke word of Chrisostome is [...], which I pray you english, and then we shall see what a strange speach you will make. Ihon. 1. Did you neuer heare tell at the least, that the word was incarnated? or Verbum caro factum est? And what signifieth this word Incarnate: but God to be made man, and his diuine nature to be in flesh? [Page 307] Doth not S. Iohn bid vs beware, 1. Iohn. 4. that we beleue not euery spirite: for there be many false prophets, and euery spirite sayth he, that confesseth not Iesus Christ to haue come in flesh, is not of God, but is the spirite of Antichrist? Is this then a strange speach to you, that the diuine nature resteth in the flesh, that is to say, in the body of Christ? which if you deny, you know whose spirite yon haue. But your trust is altogither in obscure speaches, wherwith you trust so to darken the matter, that no man shall vnderstand it, least that if they vnderstand it, they must needes perceaue 4 your ignorance and error.

But when you promise to come to the purpose, (as to say the truth, all that you sayd before is clearly without purpose) but when you promise (I say) now at length to come to the purpose, your answere is nothing to the purpose of S. Chrisostoms mynd: for he made not his resemblance (as you say he did) onely to shew the remayning of the accidents (which you call the properties) but to shew the remayning of the substances, with all the naturall properties therof. That as Christ had here in earth his diuinity and humanity, remayning euery of them with his naturall pro­perties, the substance of his godhead, being a nature single without com­position, without conuersion inuisible, immortall, incircumscriptible, in­comprehensible, and such like, (for these be Chrisostomes owne wordes) and the substance of his humanity, being a feble nature, subiect to hunger, thyrst, weeping, feare, sweating, and such passions, so is it in the bread and Christes body, that the bread after sanctification or consecration (as you call it) remayneth in his substance that it had before: and likewise doth the body of Christ remayne still in heauen in his very true substance, wherof the bread is a Sacrament and figure. For els, if the substance of the bread remayned not, how could Chrisostome bring it for a resem­blance, to proue that the substance of Christes humanity remayneth with his diuinity? Mary this that you say, had bene a gay lesson for the Ma­nichees, to say that there appeareth bread by all the accidents therof, and yet is none in deede, that then by this similitude they might say likewise, that Christ appeared a man by all the accidences and properties of a man, and yet he was none in deede. And to make an ende of this author, your vayne comment will not serue you, to call the accidents of bread, the na­ture of bread, except you will alow the same in the Manichees, that the nature of Christes body, is nothing els but the accidences therof.

Now followeth Gelasius of the same matter.

Hereunto accordeth also Gelasius, writing agaynst Eutiches and Nesto­rius, Gelasius con­tra Eutichen & Nestorium. of whome the one sayd, that Christ was a perfect man, but not God: and the other affirmed cleane contrary, that he was very God but not man. But agaynst these two heinous heresies, Gelasius proueth by most manifest scrip­tures, that Christ is both God and man, and that after his Incarnation re­mayneth in him as well the nature of his Godhead, as the nature of his man­hod, so that he hath in him two natures with their naturall properties, and yet is he but one Christ.

And for the more euident declaration hereof, he bringeth two examples, the one is of man, who being but one, yet he is made of two partes, & hath in him two natures remayning both togither in him, that is to say, the body & the soule with their naturall properties.

[Page 308]The other example is of the Sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ, which (sayth he) is a godly thing, and yet the substance or nature of bread and wine, do not cease to be there still.

Note well these wordes agaynst all the Papistes of our tyme, that Gelasius (which was Bishop of Rome more then a thousand yeares passed) writeth of this Sacrament, that the bread and wine cease not to be there still, as Christ ceased not to be God after his incarnation, but remayned still perfect god, as he was before.

Winchester.

Gelasius.Now followeth to answere to Gelasius, who abhorring both the hereses of Eutiches and Nestorius, in his treatise agaynst the Eutichians forgetteth not to compare with theyr errour in extremity in the one side, the extreame errour of the Nestorians on the other side, but yet principally entendeth the confusion of the Eutichians, with whome he was specially troubled. These two heresies, were not so grosse as the author of this 1 booke reporteth them, wherin I will write what Uigilius sayth. ‘ (Inter Nestorij ergo quondam Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae non testoris, se dissipatoris, non pastoris, sed praedatoris, sacrilegum dogma & Eutichetis ne foriam & detestabilem sectam, ita serpentinae grassationis sese calliditas temperauit, vt vtrum (que) sine vtrius (que) periculo, pleri (que) vitare non possint, dum si quis Nestorij per fidiam damnat, Eutichetis puratur errori succumbere: rursum dum Eutichi­anae haeresis impietatem destruit, Nestorij arguitur dogma erigere.) These be Uigilius wordes in his first booke, which be thus much in English. Betwene the abominable teaching of Nestorius, sometyme not ruler but waster, not pastor, but pray searcher, of the church of Constantinople, and the wicked and detestable sect of Eutiches, the craft of the deuils spoyling so facioned it selfe, that men could not auoyd any of the secrets without danger of the other: So as whiles any man condemneth the falsenes of Nesto­rian, he may be thought fallen to the errour of the Eutichian, and whiles he destroyeth the wickednes of the Eutichian, and whiles be destroyeth the wickednes of the Eutichi­ans heresie, he may be challenged to releeue the teaching of the Nestorian.’ This is the sentence of Uigilius, by which appeareth how these heresies were both subtill conueyed, without so playne contradiction, as this author eyther by ignorāce or of purpose fayneth, as though the Nestorian should say, that Christ was a perfect man, but not God, and the Eutichian cleane contrary, very God, but not man. For if the heresies had bene such, Uigilius had had no cause to speake of any such ambiguity, as he noteth y ^t a man should hardly speake agaynst the one, but he might be suspected to fauor the other. And yet I graunt that the Nestorians saying might imply Christ not to be God, bicause they would two distinct different natures, to make also two distinct persons, and so as it were two Christs, the one onely man, and the other onely God, so as by their teaching God was neither incarnate, nor as Gregory Nazianzene sayth, man deitate, for so he is termed to say.

The Eutichians as S. Augustine sayth reasoning agaynst the Nestorians, became heretiques themselues, and bicause we confesse truely by fayth but one Christ the sonne of God very God: The Eutichians say, although there were in the virgins wombe be­fore 2 the adunation, two natures, yet after the adunation, in that mistery of Christes in­carnation, there is but one nature, and that to be the nature of God, into which the na­ture of man was after their fansye transfused and so confounded, wherupon by impli­cation a man might gather the nature of humanity not to remayne in Christ after the adunation in the virgins wombe. Gelasius detesting both Eutiches and Nestorius in 3 his proces vttereth a catholike meaning against them both, but he directeth speciall argu­ments of y ^e two natures in man, & y ^e two natures in y ^e Sacramēt, chiefly agaynst the Eu­tichians, to proue y ^t nature of man to cōtinue in Christ after y ^e adunatiō, being no absur­dity for two differēt natures to cōstitute one person: the same two natures remayning in theyr property, and y ^t natures to be (aliud,) & (aliud,) which signifieth differēt, and yet in that not to be (alius,) & (alius,) in person, which alius and alius in person, the Eu­tichians 4 abhorred, and catholiquely, for so much agaynst the Nestorians, who by reason [Page 309] of two natures would haue two persons, and bicause those Nestorians fansied the person 5 of Christ patible to suffer all apart, therfore they denied Christ conceyued God or borne God, for the abolition of which part of their heresy, and to set forth the vnity of Christes person, the blessed virgine was called [...], deipara, gods mother, which the Nestori­ans deluded by an exposition, graunting she might so be called, bicause her sonne they sayd was afterward God, and so she might be called gods mother, as an other woman may be called a bishops mother, if her sonne be made a bishop afterward, although he de­parted no bishop from her.

6 And hereof I write thus much, bicause it should appeare that Gelasius by his argu­ments of the Sacrament, and of the two natures in man, went not about to proue that the godhead remayned in Christ after his incarnation, as the author of this booke would haue it, for the Nestorian sayd the godhead was an accession to Christ afterward by merite, and therfore with them there was no talke of remayning, when they este­med Christes nature in his conception singuler and onely by gods power conceyued but onely man. And agayne the Eutichian so affirmed the continuance of the diuine nature 5 in Christ after the adunation, as Gelasius had no cause to proue that was graunted, that is to say, the remayne of the diuine nature, but on the other side to proue the re­mayne of the humayne nature in Christ, which by the Eutichians was by implication rather denyed. Nestorius deuided God and man, and graunted alwayes both to be in Christ continually, but as two persons, and the person of Christ being God, dwelling within the person of Christ being man, and as Christ man encreased, so Christ God dignified him and so diuided one Christ into two persons, bicause of the two natures so different, which was agaynst the rules of our fayth, and destroyed therby the mistery of our redemption. And the Eutichians affirming catholiquely to be but one person in Christ, did perniciously say there was but one nature in Christ, accompting by impli­cation the humayne nature transfused into the diuine nature and so confounded. And to shew the narrow passage, Uigilius spake of Cirillus a catholike author, bicause writing of the vnity of Christes person, he expressed his meaning by the word (nature) Nature. signifi­ing the whole of any one constitution, which more properly the word person doth ex­presse. Personne. The Eutichians would by that word after gather that he fauored their part, so taking the word at a vantage.

And bicause the same Cyrillus vsed the word subsistence to signifie substance, Subsistence. and therfore sayd in Christ there were two subsistences, meaning the diuine substance and humayne substāce, Substaunce. forasmuch as the word subsistence is vsed to expresse the person, that as to say hipostasie: There were that of that word frowardly vnderstanded, would ga­ther hee should say, that there were two persons in Christ, which was the Nestorians heresie that he impugned. Such captiousnes was there in wordes, when arrogant men 7 cared not by what meane to mayntayne their errour. These were both pernitious here­sies, and yet subtill, and each had a meruailous pretence of the defence of the glory of God, euen as is now pretended agaynst the Sacrament. And either part abused many scriptures, and had notable apparances for that they sayd, so as he that were not well 8 exercised in scriptures, and the rules of our fayth, might be easely circumuented. Ne­storius was the greate Archebishop of Constantinople, vnto whome Cirill that condem­neth his heresy writeth, that seing he sclandereth the whole Church with his heresie, he must resist him, although he be a father, bicause Christ sayth, he that loueth his fa­ther aboue me, is not worthy me. But Nestorius as appeareth although he vsed it ilfa­uordly, had much learning and cloked his heresy craftely, denying the grosse matter that they imputed to him to teach two Christes, and other specialities layd to his charge and yet condemning the doctrine of Cyrill, and professing his owne fayth in his owne termes, could not hide his heresie so, but it appeareth to bee and contayne in effect that he was charged with, and therfore an admonishing was geuen by a catholike writer. Beleue not Nestorius, though he say he teach but one Christ. If one should heare aske what is this to the purpose to talke so much of these sectes? I Answere, this knowledge shall generally serue to note the manner of them that goe about to deceaue the world with false doctrine, which is good to learne.

An other speciall seruice is to declare how the author of this booke, eyther doth not [Page 310] know the state of the matter in these heresies he speaketh of, or els misreporteth them of purpose. And the arguing of Gelasius in this matter well opened, shall geue light of the truth of the mistery of the Sacrament, who agaynst the Eutichians vseth two argu­ments of examples, one of the two different natures to remayne in one person of man, and yet the Eutichians defamed that coniunction, with remayne of two different na­tures, and called it [...], double nature, and Gelasius to enconter that terme sayth, they will with their [...] one nature reserue not one Christ and whole Christ. And if two different natures, that is to say, soule and body make but one man, why not so in Christ? For where scripture speaketh of the outward man and inward man, that is to shew (Gelasius sayth) two diuers qualities in the same man, & not to deuide the same into two men, and so intendeth to shew there ought to be no scruple to graunt two diffe­rent natures to remayne in their propriety, for feare that euery diuers nature should make a diuers person, and so in Christ diuide the vnity concluding that the integritie of Christ can not be but both the natures different remayning in their property Carnall imagination troubled the Eutichians to haue one person of two such differente natures remayning in their property, which the Nestorians releued with deuise of two persons, and the Eutichians by confusion of the humayne nature.

Then commeth Gelasius to the argument of example from the Sacrament of the bo­dy and bloud of Christ, and noteth the person of Christ to be a principall mistery, and the Sacrament an image and similitude of that mistery, which sence his wordes must needes haue, bicause he calleth Christ the principall mistery, and as in one place he sayth the image and 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 10 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 11 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 12 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. 13

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 14 speaking of the bread and wine, reciteth not precisely the substance to remayne, but 15 sayth, the substance or nature, which nature he calleth after the propriety, and the dis­iunctiue [Page 311] 16 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, cō ­uersion, 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 trā ­sition, 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 17 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 [Page 312] 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 1 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, August, contra hereses. 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, Gelasius aduer­sus Eutychen & Nestorium. 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 [Page 313] 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, Gelasius wri­teth as well a­gaynst Nesto­rius as Euti­ches. where you say that Gelasius directeth his Argumētes of the two na­tures in man, & of the two natures in y ^e Sacramēt: chiefly agaynst y ^e 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, 4 and no more agaynst the one then agaynst the other. Nor no more did the Eutichians abhorre alius and alius, 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: Aliud. So as the body & soule in one man be aliud and aliud by reason of diuersitie of natures, & yet [Page 314] 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 5 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 6 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 [Page 315] 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.

8 In the end you compare Nestorius and Cyrill togethers, alludyng (as it seemeth) to this contention betwene you and me, A comparison of Nestorius & Cyrill, 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, y ^t (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 maner of wayes, by tooth and by nayle, to shake him of.

9 First you would shake him of by this pretēce that he vseth his two Ar­gumentes of the two examples of man, and the Sacrament, agaynst the Eutichians onely. But Gelasius will not so easely leaue his hold. For he speaketh indifferently as well against the Nestorians as the Eutichians, declaring by these two examples, how two differēt natures may remaine in Christ, and that the integritie of Christ can not be, except both the diffe­rent natures remaine in their properties, which cōdemneth both the fore­sayd heresies, that affirmed but one nature to be in Christ, the Eutichians his diuinitie, and the Nestorians his humanitie. And yet if he had vsed these examples agaynst the Eutichians onely, they byte you as sore, as if they were vsed agaynst them both. For if he conclude by these two exam­ples, agaynst the Eutichians (as you say hee doth) that the integritie of Christ can not be but both natures different, (that is to say, his manhode and Godhead) must remaine in their propertie, then must it nedes be so in the examples also. And then as Christ had in him two natures, with their naturall properties, neither perishing, but both remainyng, and as man hath in him two natures (the soule and the body) both remainyng still, so [Page 316] must in the Sacrament also, the nature of bread and wine remaine with­out Transubstantiation, or corruption of any of the natures, accordyng to the sayd wordes of Gelasius, Esse non desinit substantia vel natura panis & vini, the substance or nature of the bread and wine ceasseth not to be.

And Gelasius bringeth not this Image and similitude to that purpose 10 that you would draw it, that is to say, to expresse the maner of Christs pre­sēce in the Sacramēt, but to expresse the maner of two natures in Christ, that they both so remaine, that neither is corrupted or transubstantiated, no more then the bread and wine be in the Sacrament. And by this all men may see, that Gelasius hath fastened his teeth so surely, that you can not so lightly cast him of with a shake of your chayne. And if he ment to ex­presse the maner of Christes presence in the Sacrament (as you fayne he doth) that the maner is onely by fayth (wherof he speaketh not one word) yet are you nothyng at libertie thereby, but held much more faster, thē you were before. For Gelasius speaketh of the action of the mystery, & Christes flesh and bloud be present in the action of the mystery onely by fayth, ther­fore can they not be present in the bread or wine reserued, which haue no fayth at all. And presence by fayth onely requireth no reall, materiall, and and corporall presence. Presence by fayth requireth no corporal pre­sence. For by fayth is Christ present in Baptisme, and by fayth Abraham saw him, & the holy Fathers did eate his flesh and drincke his bloud, before he was borne. And Christ humbling him selfe to take vp­on him our mortall nature, Gala. 3. Ihon. 8. 1. Cor. 10, hath exalted vs to the nature of his deitie, ma­king vs to reigne with him in his immortall glory, as it were Gods. And this (sayth Gelasius) God worketh in vs by his Sacramentes per quae di­uinae efficimur consortes naturae, & tamen esse non desinit substantia vel natura panis & vini, that is to say, by the Sacrament of Christes body and bloud we be associate vnto the diuine nature, and yet ceasseth not the substaunce or na­ture of bread and wine to be. So that the Sacrament not beyng altered in substaunce, we be altered and go into the diuine nature or substaunce (as Gelasius termeth it,) beyng made partakers of Gods eternitie.

And therfore when he speaketh of the goyng of the Sacraments into 11 the diuine substaunce, he meaneth not, that the substaunces of the Sacra­ments go into the substaunce of God (which no creature can do) but that in the action of that mystery, to them that worthely receaue the Sacra­mentes, to them they be turned into diuine substaunce, through the wor­king of the holy Ghost, who maketh the godly receauers to be the parta­kers of the diuine nature and substaunce. And that this was the intent & meanyng of Gelasius, appeareth by two notable sentences of him, wher­of one is this. Surely (sayth he) the Image and similitude of the body and bloud of Christ, is celebrate in the action of the mysterie. The other is, that by the Sacrament we be made partakers of the godly nature: he sayth not, that the Sacramentes be, but that we be made partakers of the na­ture of Christes Godhead. And if he should meane (as you haue most vn­truely altered both his wordes & sence at your pleasure) not that the god­ly receiuers, but that the substaunce of bread and wine should go into the diuine substaunce, then were not they chaunged into his humanitie, but into his deitie, and so were the bread and wine deified, or at the least made partakers of the diuine nature and immortalitie. But for asmuch as Ge­lasius sayth, that the two natures in Christ remaine, in like case as the na­tures [Page 317] of the sacraments remayne, for he maketh his argument alto­gither of the remayning of the natures, by the verbe ( permanere) and the participle ( permanens) then as you say that the integrity of Christ can not be, except both his natures different remayne in their proper­ties, so can not the integritie of the sacrament be, except the two na­tures of bread and wine remayne in their properties. For els, seeing that the remayning of the natures is in the Sacrament as it is in Christ, (as Gelasius sayth) then if in the Sacraments remayne but the accidents and apearance of bread and wine, and not the substances of them, how could Gelasius by the resemblance of the two sacraments of bread and wine, proue the two substances and natures of Christ to remayne. Might it not rather be gathered, that onely the appearance of Christes humanity remayneth in accidents, and not the substance of it selfe (as Martion sayth, & as you say it is in y ^e sacrament) or els that Christes hu­manity is absorpted vp by his diuinity, and confounded therwith, as the Eutichians say, that the bread and wine is by y ^e body and bloud of Christ? But the catholique fayth hath taught from the beginning, according to holy scripture, that as the image or sacrament be two diuers natures and different, remayning in their properties (that is to say bread and wine) so likewise in the person of Christ remayne two natures, his diuinity and his humanity.

12 And I pray you, what danger is it to say, that Christes body is in the sacramentall bread, but as in a figure? should that emply, that his body is in his person, but as in a figure? That should be euen as good an argu­ment as this: Christ was in the brasen serpent, but in a figure, ergo he is now in heauen but in a figure. For the forme of argumentation is all one in the one and the other. And if Christ be in vs by vertue and efficacie, although in the sacraments representing the same (as Gelasius sayth) he be but sacramentally, figuratiuely, and significatiuely, what perill is it to vs? And what auayleth it vs his being in y ^e sacrament, and not in vs.

And the two natures in the Sacrament (which Gelasius taketh for the image and similitude of the two natures in Christ) be bread and wine, which as they remayne, and that truely in their natures and substances, so do the two natures in Christ. And yet be the bread and wine Sacra­ments of the terrestriall nature of Christ, that is to say, of his body and bloud, but not of his celestiall and diuine nature, as you imagine. And they be called Sacraments, bicause they be figures, which if they were no figures, they were no Sacraments. But it is not required, that the thing represented by the figure, should be really and corporally present in the figure when y ^e figures ordeyned to represent a thing corporally absēt, & y ^e figure were in vayne, as Lactansius sayth, Lactantius in­stitut. lib. 2. c. 1. if the thing were present.

And at the least wise in this place Gelasius vseth the natures and sub­stances of bread and wine (which be Sacraments of Christes flesh and bloud) to be images and similitudes in this poynt, not of his flesh and bloud, but of his diuine and humayne nature, that as the bread and wine in the Sacrament remayne still in theire proper kindes, without violati­on, adnihilation, confusion, commixtion or Transubstantiation, so is it in the two natures of Christes manhode and his godhead. So that Ge­lasius vseth this similitude for the incarnation of Christ, not for the conse­cration [Page 318] of the sacrament, as you would peruert his meaning.

And bicause you would haue all your thinges strange (as it were one that had come out of a strange cuntry, where he had learned a strange fashion of speach, neuer heard of before, or rather deuised it himselfe) you call the colours of bread and wine, the matter of bread and wine, bicause 13 colours onely be visible after your teaching. And then must the naturall property of colours be, to signify our feeding spirituall by the body and bloud of Christ, that as they feede vs spiritually, so do the colours corpo­rally. And then making the argument ab opposito consequentis, ad oppositum an­tecedentis, as colours feede not our bodyes, so Christ feedeth not our soules. This is the conclusion of your goodly new deuised diuinity.

And to like effect cometh your other saying in the same sentence, (bi­cause 14 you were loth to commit but one horrible errour in one sentence) that Gelasius calleth Christes body and bloud his diuine substance.

This is a goodly hearing for the Eutichians, who say, that in Christ is no moe natures but his diuine substance, which by your interpretation must be true. For if his godhead be a diuine substance, and his body and bloud also a diuine substance, why should Eutiches be reprehended for de­nying in Christ to be any other than diuine substaunce? And so shall we bring to passe, that either Christ hath but one substaūce, or two diuine substaunces (although not of like sorte) and so not one humaine substaunce. And is it like, that Gelasius, (who so long contēded agaynst Eutiches for two distinct substaūces in Christ, humaine and diuine) would in the con­clusion of his disputation so much yeld vnto the hereticke, to graunt that Christes humaine substaunce should be a diuine substaunce?

Substaunce or nature.And it is worthy to be noted, and double noted, how you wrāgle with 15 the wordes of Gelasius, & wrast them cleane out of tune. For where Ge­lasius sayth, that there remaineth the substaunce or nature of bread and wyne (to declare thereby the remainyng of two natures in Christ) you say that Gelasius saying may be verified in the last, and not in the first, that is to say, that the nature of bread and wine remaineth. And nature (say you) is there taken for the proprieties, Nature for propertie. which you call accidentes. And so you make Gelasius a goodly teacher, that should so ambiguously speake of two thyngs, when he meaneth but of one. For when he sayth, that the sub­staunce or nature remayneth, you say, he meaneth that onely the nature remaineth. And were this tollerable in a learned man, when he meaneth the nature to remaine, & not the substaunce, to expresse it by these termes, The substaunce or nature remaineth? And if Gelasius meane that the sub­staunce of bread and wine remaineth not, but the natures, and then if by nature he vnderstode the accidentes (as you vntruely surmise of him) and make them the Image and similitude, to proue Christes two natures, thē they proue no more, but that the accidentes of Christes natures remayne, and not the substaunce, whiche saying, whether it be a fauouryng of the Eutichians, Nestorians, Ualentiniās, Martionistes, Apolinaristes, and other of that sort, let the learned be iudge.

And although it be not necessary the exāples to be in all partes equall (as you alledge of Rusticus Diaconus) yet they must needes be like in y ^t point, 16 wherfore they were takē to be examples, for els they were none examples. And therefore seyng that the bread and wine were of Gelasius brought [Page 319] for examples of Christes two natures, for this intēt, to proue that the two natures of Christ remaine in their substaunce, it must needes be so in the bread and wine or els they serued nothyng to that purpose.

And the transition that Gelasius ment of, is in the persons that re­ceaue the Sacramentes, whiche be transformed into the diuine nature, (as Gelasius sayth) by efficacie & vertue represented by the Sacraments, but the transition is not in the bread and wyne (as you and your Thomas imagine of transition) whiche remaine in the Sacrament without sub­stāciall mutatiō, conuersiō, transitiō, transelementatiō, or trāsubstantiatiō. For if in the mystery of the Sacrament were transition, mutation, con­uersion, and transelementation of the substaunce of bread and wine, how could that mystery be an example of the principall mystery of Christes in­carnation, to proue thereby that there is no transition, mutation, conuer­sion, or transelementation, of the two substaunces of Christ in his incar­nation? Doth not the remainyng of substaunce in the Sacrament, proue the remainyng of substaunce in the Incarnation? For how can the not re­mainyng of substaunce, be an example, image, and similitude to proue the remainyng of the substaunce? But here appeareth what it is to wrastle a­gaynst the truth, & to defend an euell cause, & what absurdities wit & elo­quence be driuen vnto, when they striue agaynst God and his word.

17 And where you think your selfe ouer sore pressed with this argument and similitude of bread and wine to the two natures in Christ, I must needes presse the argument and wordes so farre, as pertayneth to the re­mayning of the natures and substance, for to that end was the image and similitude brought in by Gelasius. And then by argument from the cause, wherfore the resemblance was made, if the substance and nature of the bread and wine remayne not in the Sacrament, it followeth that the two natures and substance of Christ remayne not in his person, which is no sound teaching, wherfore to make the argument agree with the ca­tholike teaching, we must needes say, that as in the person of Christ re­mayne the two natures and substance, of his godhead and manhod, so in the sacrament remayne the natures and substances of bread and wine, that the comparisons may agree with themselues and with the catholike fayth. Like as it is also in the other example of the body and soule, which two natures must needes remayne in the person of man, without tran­substantiation of any nature if they shall resemble the remayning of the two natures in Christ. And how do the two natures in the Sacrament remayne in their property (I pray you declare) if the nature of bread and wine be gon? And how doth not the diuine nature swallow vp the earth­ly nature, if the nature of bread and wine be so turned into the diuine na­ture, that it remayneth not, but is clearly extinct.

If you may purge your selfe in handling of this author by confession of your ignorance, you must obtayne it by great fauor of them that will so accept it. For els in this one author is affirmed by you many great errors, with wilfull deprauation of the authors mynd, to geue weapons to them that be enemies to the truth, and to the subuersion of the catholike fayth. And no les haue you done in Theodoretus next folowing, bicause you would handle them both indifferently, and do no more Iniury to the one than to the other. And as for Ciprian, Ambrose, Theophi­lact [Page 320] and Emissene, I haue answered to them before. It is tyme now to heare Theodoret.

Theodoretus in dialogis.Theodoretus also affirmeth the same, both in his first and in his second di­aloge. In the first he sayth thus: He that called his naturall body, wheate and bread, and also called himselfe a vine, the selfe same called bread and wine his bo­dy and bloud, and yet changed not their natures.

And in his second dialogue he sayth more playnly. For (sayth he) as the bread and wine after the consecration lose not their proper nature, but keepe their for­mer substance, forme, and figure, which they had before, euen so the body of Christ, after his ascention, was changed into the godly substance.

Now let the Papistes choose, which of these two they will graunt (for one of them they must needes graunt) eyther that the nature and substance of bread and wine remayne still in the Sacrament after the consecration, (and than must they recant their doctrine of Transubstantiation) or els that they be of the errour of Nestorius, and other, which did say, that the nature of the Godhead, or of the manhod remayned not in Christ after his incarnation or ascension. For all these olde authors agree, that it is in the one, as it is in the other.

Winchester.

Theodorete.And if that I haue here sayd be well considered, there may appeare the great igno­raunce of this author in the alleadging of Theodoret, the applying of him and the spea­king of Nestorius in the end. For as the Eutichians reasoning (as S. Augustin sayth) to confound the Nestorians, fell into an absurdity in the confusion of their two natures in Christ: so Theodoretus reasoning agaynst the Eutichians, fell in a vehement sus­pition to be a Nestorian, like as S. Augustine reasoning agaynst the Maniches for de­fence of free will, seemed to speake that the Pelagians would alow, and reasoning a­gaynst Pelagians, seemed to say that the Manichees would alow, such a daunger it is to reduce extremities to the meane, wherein S. Augustine was better purged then Theodoret was, although Theodoret was recōciled. But for example of y ^t I haue sayd, 1 this argumēt of Theodoretus agaynst y ^e Eutichiās to auoyd cōfusiō of natures in Christ sheweth how in the Sacramēt where the truth of y ^e mistery of y ^e two natures in Christ may be as it were in similitude learned, the presence of the body of Christ there in the Sacrament doth not alter the nature, that is to say, the property of the visible crea­tures. This saying was that the Nestorians would draw for there purpose to proue di­stinct persons, agaynst whome Cirill trauayled to shew that in the Sacrament the flesh of Christ that was geuen to be eaten was geuen, not as the flesh of a common man, but as the flesh of God, wherby appeared the vnity of the god­head to the manhod in Christ in one person, and yet no confusion, as Theodore­tus doth by his argument declare. But whether the Printers negligence, or this au­thors 2 ouersight hath confounded, or confused this matter in the vttering of it, I can not tell. For the author of this booke concludeth solemnly thus by induction of the pre­mises, that euen so the body of Christ was after the ascention changed into the godly substance. I wene the Printer left out a (not) and should haue sayd not changed, into the godly substance, for so the sence should be as Peter Martyr reporteth Theodorete. And yet the triumphe this author maketh agaynst them, he calleth for his pleasure Papistes, with his forked dilemma maketh me doubt, whether he wist what he sayd, or no: bicause he bringeth in Nestorius so out of purpose, saying the Papistes must ey­ther graunt the substance of bread and wine to remayne, or els to be of Nestorius he­resie, that the nature of Godhed remayned not.

This author of the booke for the name of Nestorius, should haue put Eutiches, and then sayd for conclusion. The nature of manhod remayned not in Christ. And although [Page 321] in Theodoret the substance of bread is spoken of to remayne, yet bicause he doth after 3 expound himselfe to speake of that is seene and felt, he seemeth to speake of Substance after the common capacity, and not as it is truely in learning vnderstanded, an in­ward inuisible and not palpable nature, but onely perceaued by vnderstanding, so as this outward nature that Theodorete speaketh of, may according to his wordes truly 4 remayne, notwithstanding Transubstantiation. This author declareth playnly his ignoraunce, not to perceaue whither the argument of Theodoret and Gelasius ten­deth, which is properly agaynst the Eutichians rather then the Nestorians. For and no propriety of bread remayne, it proueth not the Godhead in Christ not to remayne, but the humanity onely to be as it were swallowed vp of the diuinity, which the Euti­chians entended and specially after Christes resurrection, agaynst whome the argumēt by Theodorete is specially brought, how so euer this author confoundeth the Nestori­ans and Eutiches names and taketh one for an other, which in so high a matter is no small fault, and yet no great fault among so many other houger and greater as be in this booke committed.

Caunterbury

1 IF that which you haue sayd to Gelasius be well considered and confer­red with this in Theodorete, it seemeth by your processe in both, that you know not what confusion of natures is. Confusion of natures. And then your ignorance therin: must needes declare that you be vtterly ignorant of all their whole discours, which tendeth onely to proue 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 2 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 y ^e cōstitutiō of y ^e same, not one of y ^e 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 [Page 322] 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 y ^e substāce & natures be saued & remayne cleerly with their natural properties & conditions, that the proportiō in y ^t 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, Not.) if I should haue put in that (not) of myne owne 2 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 3 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 4 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 [Page 323] 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, Chap. 6. Transubstan­tiation came from Rome. 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 faythfull people in the blessed Sacrament, or supper of the Lord: It is a thing worthy to be considered and well wayed, what moued the Schoole authors of late yeares to defend the contrary opinion, not onely so far from all experience of our sences, and so farre from all reason, but also cleane contrary to the olde church of Christ, and to Godes most holy word. Surely nothing moued them ther­to so much, as did the vayne fayth which they had in the church and sea of Rome.

For Ioannes Scotus, Scotus super 4. sen. distinct. 11. otherwise called Duns, (the subtillest of all the schoole authors) intreating of this matter of Transubstantiation, sheweth playnly the cause therof. ‘For (sayth he) the wordes of the Scripture might be ex­pounded more easely, and more playnly without Transubstantiation, but the church did choose this sense, (which is more hard, being moued therto (as it seemeth) chiefly, bicause that of the Sacramentes men ought to hold, as the holy churh of Rome holdeth: But it holdeth, that bread is transubstantiate or turned into the body, and wine into the bloud, as it is shewed De summa Trinitate & fide Catholicae. Firmiter credimus.’

And Gabriell also (who of all other wrote most largely vpon the Canon of the Masse) sayth thus. Gabriel. super Canonè missae lect. 40. ‘It is to be noted, that although it be taught in the scrip­ture, that the body of Christ is truely conteined and receaued of christen people vnder the kindes of bread & wine, yet how the body of Christ is there, whether by conuersion of any thing into it, or without conuersion the body is there with the bread, both the substance and accidence of bread remayning there still, it is not found expressed in the Bible. Yet forasmuch as of the sacraments men must hold as the holy church of Rome holdeth, as it is written De haereticis, Ad abolendum. And that church holdeth and hath determined, that the bread is trāsubstantiated into the body of Christ, and the wine into his bloud, Therfore is this opinion receaued of all them that be catholike, that the substance of bread re­mayneth not, but really and truely is tourned, transubstantiated and changed [Page 324] into the substance of the body of Christ.’

Chap. 7.Thus you haue heard the cause, wherfore this opinion of Transubstantia­tion at this present is holden and defended among christen people, that is to say, bicause the church of Rome hath so determined, although the contra­ry, by the Papistes owne confession, appeare to be more easy, more true, and more according to the Scripture.

But bicause our english papistes (who speake more grossely herein then the Pope himselfe, affirming that the naturall body of Christ is naturally in the 5 bread and wine) can not, nor dare not ground their fayth, concerning tran­substantiation, vpon the church of Rome: which although in name it be cal­led most holy, yet in deede it is the most stinking dongehill of all wickednes that is vnder heauen, and the very sinagoge of the deuill, which whosoeuer followeth, can not but stumble, and fall into a pit ful of erroures. Bicause I say the English papistes dare not now stablish their fayth vpon that foundation of Rome, therfore they seeke Figge leaues, that is to say, vayne reasons, ga­thered of their owne braynes and authorities, wrested from the intent and minde of the authors, wherwith to couer and hide their shamefull errours. Wherfore I thought it good somwhat to trauayle herein, to take away those figge leaues, that their shamefull errours may playnly to euery man appeare.

Chap. 8. The first reasō of the Papists to proue their Transubtanti­ation. Math. 26. Mar. 14. Lue. 22. The answere.The greatest reason and of most importance, and of such strength (as they thinke) or at the least as they pretend, that all the world can not answere ther­to, is this: Our sauiour Christ, taking the bread, brake it, and gaue it to his disciples, saying: This is my body. Now (say they) as sone as Christ had spoken these wordes, the bread was straight way altered and changed, and the substāce 6 therof was conuerted into the substance of his precious body.

But what christen eares canne paciently heare this doctrine, that Christ is euery day made a new, and made of an other substance, than he was made of in his mothers wombe? For where as at his incarnation he was made of the nature and substance of his blessed mother, now (by these papistes opinion) he is made euery day of the nature and substance of bread and wine, which (as they say) be turned into the substance, of his body and bloud. O what a meruaylous Metamorphosis and abhominable heresie is this? to say, that Christ is dayly made a new, and of a new matter? wherof it followeth necessa­rely, that they make vs euery day a new Christ, and not the same that was borne of the virgine Mary, nor that was crucified vpon the crosse, and that it was not the same Christ that was eaten in the supper, which was borne and crucified, as it shall be playnly proued by these arguments folowing.

First thus: If Christes body that was crucified was not made of bread, but the body that was eaten in the supper was made of bread, (as the papistes say) than Christes body that was eaten in the supper was not the same that was crucified. For if they were all one body, than it must needes follow, that ei­ther Christes body that was eaten was not made of bread, or els that his bo­dy that was crucified was made of bread.

And in like manner it followeth: If the body of Christ in the Sacrament, be made of the substance of bread and wine, and the same body was conceaued in the Virgines wombe, than the body of Christ in the Virgines wombe was made of bread and wine.

Or els turne the argument thus: The body of Christ in the Virgines wombe was not made of bread and wine, but this body of Christ in the Sa­crament [Page 325] is made of bread and wine, than this body of Christ is not the same that was conceaued in the virgines wombe.

An other argument. Christ that was borne in the Virgines wombe, as con­cerning his body, was made of none other substance, but of the substance of his blessed mother, but Christ in the Sacrament is made of an other substance, and so it followeth, that he is an other Christ.

And so the Antichrist of Rome, the chiefe author of all idolatrie, would bring faythfull christen people from the true worshipping of Christ that was made and borne of the blessed virgine Mary, through the operation of the holy ghost, and suffered for vs vpon the crosse, to worship an other Christ made of bread and wine through the consecration of Popish priestes, which make themselues the makers of God. For (say they) the priest by the wordes of consecration maketh that thing which is eaten and dronken in the Lordes supper, and that (say they) is Christ himselfe both God and man, and so they take vpon them to make both God and man.

But let all true worshipers worship one God, one Christ, once corporally made, of one onely corporall substance, that is to say, of the blessed virgin Mary, that once dyed, and rose once agayne, once assended into heauen, and there sitteth and shall sit at the right hand of his father euermore, although spiritually he be euery day amongst vs, and who so euer come togither in his name, he is in the middest among them. And he is the spirituall pasture and food of our soules, as meat and drincke is of our bodyes, which he signifieth vnto vs by the institution of his most holy supper in the bread and wine, decla­ring that as the bread and wine corporally comfort and feed our bodyes, so doth he with his flesh and bloud spiritually comfort and feed our soules.

And now may be easely answered the Papistes argument wherof they do so much boast, The aunswere more directly. For bragge they neuer so much of their conuersion of bread and wine into the body and bloud of Christ, yet that conuersion is spirituall, and putteth not away the corporall presence of the materiall bread and wine. But for as much as the same is a most holy sacrament of our spirituall norish­ment (which we haue by the body and bloud of our sauiour Christ) there must needes remayne the sensible element, that is to say, bread and wine, with­out the which there can be no sacrament.

As in our spirituall regeneration there can be no sacrament of baptisme, if there be no water. For as baptisme is no perfect sacrament of spirituall rege­neration, without there be aswell the element of water, as the holy ghost, spiritually regenerating the person that is baptised (which is signified by the sayd water) euen so the supper of the Lord can be no perfect Sacrament of spi­rituall food, except there be as well bread and wine, as the body and bloud of our sauiour Christ, spiritually feeding vs, which by the sayd bread and wine is signified.

And how so euer the body and bloud of our Sauiour Christ be there pre­sent, they may as well be present there with the substance of bread and wine, as with the accidents of the same, as the scholeauthors, do confesse them selues, and it shall be well proued if the aduersaries will deny it. Thus you see the strongest argument of the Papistes answered vnto, and the chiefe founda­tion wherupon they buyld their errour of Transubstantiation, vtterly subuer­ted and ouerthrowen.

Winchester.

[Page 326]Wherein this author not seeing how little he hath done, concludeth yet as constantly as though he had throwen all downe afore him, entending to shew that the doctrine of Transubstantiation dependeth onely of authority, which is not so, using the sayinges of Duns and Gabriell (as he reporteth them) for his purpose, bicause they (as he sayth) 1 boast themselues what they could doe, if the determination of the counsaile were not, and thus euery idle speach may haue estimation with this author agaynst the receaued truth. And from this poynt of the matter, the author of this booke maketh a passage with a litle sport at them, he fan [...]eth or liketh to call so English Papistes by the way to enterprise to answere all such as he supposeth reasons for Transubstantiation and authorities also.

Read Smith. fol 91. &c.First he findeth himselfe mirth in divissing as he calleth them the Papistes, to say y ^t Christ is made a new, which fansie if it were so, is agaynst the reall presence as well as transubstantiation. In which wordes bicause euery wise reader may see how this au­thor playeth: I will say no more but this, Christ is not made a new, nor made of the 2 substance of bread, as of a matter, and that to be the Catholique doctrine, this author if he be right named, knoweth well enough, and yet spendeth two leaues in it.

Caunterbury.

WHen I haue proued most euidently, as well by the testimony of the scripture, as by the consent of the olde authors of Christes church both greekes and Latines, from the beginning continually from tyme to tyme, that transubstantiation is agaynst gods most holy word, agaynst the olde church of Christ, agaynst all experience of our sences, agaynst all reason, and agaynst the doctrine of all ages (vntill the Bishops of Rome deuised the contrary) therfore. I conclude that the sayd doctrine of Tran­substantiation may iustely be called the Romish or papisticall doctrine. And where I haue shewed further, that the chiefe pillers of the papisti­call doctrine, as Duns, Gabriell, Durand, with other do acknowledge, that if it had not bene for the determination of the church of Rome, they would haue thought otherwise (which is a most certayne argument, that this doctrine of Transubstantiation came from Rome, and therfore is worthely called a papisticall doctrine) all this must be answered with these wordes (as this author reporteth) and Duns and Gabriell boast 1 what they could do) wheras neither Duns nor any of the other, eyther bragge or bost, but playnly and franckely declare what they thinke. And if I report then otherwise then they say, reproue me therfore, and tell me wherin. But these be but shiftes to shake of the matter that you cannot answer vnto. Therfore vntill you haue made me a more full and direct answer, I am more confirmed in my assertion, to call transubstantiation a papisticall doctrine, then I was before.

But here you put me in remembrance of an ignorant reader, whose scholler I was in Cambridge almost forty yeares passed, who when he came to any hard chapiter, which he well vnderstoode not, he would find some preaty toy to shift it of, and to scip ouer vnto an other chapiter which he could better skill of. The same is a common practise of you through out your whole booke, that when any thing in my booke presseth you so sore that you cannot answere it, then finely with some mery iest, or vnsemely taunt you passe it ouer, and go to some other thing, that you perswade yourselfe, you can better answere, which sleight you vse here in ii. mat­ters togither, the one is where I proue the doctrine of Transubstantia­tion to come from Rome, the other is, that of your sayd doctrine of Tran­substantiation [Page 327] it followeth, that Christ euery day is made a new and of a new matter. In which ii. matters you craftely slide away from myne arguments, and answere not to one of them. Wherfore I referre to the iudgement of the indifferent reader, whither you ought not to be taken for conuinced in these ii. poyntes, vntill such tyme as you haue made a full answere to my profes and arguments.

2 For where you say that Christ is not made of the substaunce of bread as of a matter, this is but a slippery euasion. For if Christ be made of bread, eyther he is made of the matter of bread, or of the forme therof. But the fourme say you remayneth, and is not turned into Christes body. Ther­fore if Christ be made of bread you must needes graunt that he is made of the matter of bread. Now for the the answere to the second reason of the Pa­pistes my booke hath thus.

An other reason haue they of like strength. Chap. 9. The second ar­gument for trā ­substantiation. If the bread should remayne (say they) than should follow many absurdities, and chiefly, that Christ hath taken the nature of bread, as he tooke the nature of man, and so ioyned it to his substance. And than as we haue God verely incarnate for our redemption, so should we haue him Impanate.

Thou maist consider good reader, that the rest of their reasons be very weake and feeble, The aunswer. when these be the chiefe and strongest. Truth it is in deede, that Christ should haue bene impanate, if he had ioyned the bread vnto his substance in vnity of person, that is to say, if he had ioyned the bread vnto him in such sort, that he had made the bread one person with himselfe. But for as much as he is ioyned to the bread but sacramentally, there followeth no Im­panation therof, no more than the holy Ghost is Inaquate, that is to say, made water, being sacramentally ioyned to the water in baptisme. Math. 3. Mark. 1. Luc. 3. Nor he was not made a doue, when he tooke vpon him the forme of a doue, to signifie that he, whome S. Ihon did baptise, was very Christ.

But rather of the errour of the Papistes them selues (as one errour draweth an other after it) should follow the great absurdite which they speake vppon, that is to say, that Christ should be Impanate and Inuinate. For if Christ doe vse the bread in such wise, that he doth not adnihilate and make nothing of it (as the Papistes say) but maketh of it his owne body, than is the bread ioyned to his body in a greater vnity, than is his humanity to his Godhead. For his Godhead is adioyned vnto his humanity in vnity of person, and not of nature. But our Sauiour Christ by their saying adioyneth bread vnto his body in vntie both of nature and person. So that the bread and the body of Christ be but one thing, both in nature and person. And so is there a more entier vnion betwene Christ and bread, than betwene his Godhead and manhod, or betwen his soule and his body. And thus these arguments of the Papistes, returne (like riuited nayles) vpon their owne heades.

Winchester.

The solution to the second reason is almost as fondly handled, alluding from Im­panation to Inaquation, although it was neuer sayd in scripture, This water is the holy ghost, but in baptisme to be water and the holy Ghost also. And of the doue is not 1 sayd, This is the holy Ghost, but the holy Ghost descended as in the resemblance of a 2 done. The substance of bread is not adnihilate, bicause Gods worke is not adnihilation, who geueth all being: and adnihilation is a defection of the creature from God, and yet Christes body is not augmented by the substance of bread, in which body it endeth by [Page 328] conuersion (as in the better) without adnihilation, which is a changing by miracle. And when this Author knoweth this, or should haue knowen it, or hath forgotten it, he writeth like one that were ignorant, and had read nothing in the matter, as it were to make himselfe popular, to ioyne himselfe in ignorāce with the rude vnlearned people.

Caunterbury.

AS for my solution to the second reasō it is able to stand agaynst your confutation therof, and to ouerthrow it quite. For no more is Christ in the bread and wine, in the Lordes supper, then the holy Ghost is in the water of baptisme. And therfore if the holy Ghost be not inaquate, no more is Christ impanate. And when the scripture sayth, Upon whome 1 soeuer thou shalt see the Ghost coming downe: And also when S. Iohn sayd, Ihon. 1. I saw the holy Ghost come downe like a doue: did he see any thing but the doue? And yet that which he sawe, the scripture there, as well by the voyce of God, as by the wordes of S. Ihon, calleth the holy Ghost. Wherfore the scripture calleth the doue the holy Ghost. For the speach was as much to say, as this which I see come downe, is the holy Ghost. and yet was that y ^e doue, which he saw. And that the doue which he saw was the holy ghost, was as true a speach, as we, looking vpon the bread which we see, do say, This is the body of Christ. And yet as that speach meaneth not that the holy Ghost is made a doue, so this speach meaneth not that the body of Christ is impanate, No more then these wordes of Christ spoken vnto his mother Mary, Ihon. 19. and to S. Ihon, loe thy sonne. And loe thy mother, meane not that Ihon was made Christ, nor that Mary his mother, was made Ihons naturall mother.

But of your saying it followeth, that the bread is humanate or incar­nate. 2 For if these wordes of Christ, Ihon. 1. This is my body, meane as you say, that bread is made Christes flesh, then as Verbum caro factum est, The word was made flesh, concludeth, that Christ was incarnate: So Panis caro factus est. The bread is made flesh, concludeth that the bread is incarnate, seing (as you say) it is not adnihilate.

But of adnihilation you write so strangely, Adnihilation. that it seemeth you haue written what you dreamed in your slepe, rather then what you learned of any author catholike or infidele. For who euer heard that adnihilation could be wrought but by the onely power of God? For the gentill philoso­phers write according to the nature, that Sicut exnihilo nihil sit, Ita nihil in nihilum redigitur. Asnothing can be made of nought, so nothing can be tourned into nought: So that as it is the worke of God onely, to make of nought, so it can be but onely his worke also, to turne thinges into nought. And what man beeing neuer so rude or popular, hauing any discretion at all, would define adnihilation (as you do) that a defection of a creature from God, should be adnihilatiō and tourning into nothing? For so should all the angels that fell from God be adnihilate, and so should likewise all apostatase, and all other that by sinne relinquishe the army of God, and follow his aduersary the deuill, Math. 26. and all Papistes, that aban­doning Christ (as Iudas did) runne to Antechrist, to whome it were better to be adnihilate, or neuer to be borne, then eternally to remayne in gods indignation. Now followeth the last reason.

Chap. 10.Yet a third reason they haue, which they gather out of the sixt of Ihon, [Page 329] where Christ sayth: The third rea­son. Iohn. 6. ‘I am liuely bread, which came from heauen: If any man eate of this bread, he shall liue for euer. And the bread which I will geue is my flesh, which I will geue for the life of the world.’

Then reason they after this fashion. If the bread which Christ gaue, be his flesh, than it can not also be materiall bread, and so it must needes follow, that the materiall bread is gone, and that none other substance remayneth, but the flesh of Christ onely.

To this is soone made answer, The aunswere. that Christ in that place of Ihon, spake not of the materiall and sacramentall bread, nor of the sacramentall eating (for that was spoken two or three yeares before the sacrament was first ordayned) but he spake of spirituall bread (many times repeating, Iohn. 6. ‘I am the bread of life, which came from heauen) and of spirituall eating by fayth, after which sorte, he was at the same present tyme eaten of as many as beleued on him, although the sacrament was not at that tyme made and instituted.’ And therfore he sayd: ‘Your fathers did eate Manna in the desert, and dyed, but he that eateth this bread shall liue for euer. Iohn. 6. Therfore this place of S. Ihon can in no wise be vn­derstande of the sacramentall bread, which neither came from heauen, nei­ther giueth life to all that eate.’ Nor of such bread Christ could haue then pre­sently sayd, This is my flesh, except they will say, that Christ did than conse­crate so many yeares before the institution of his holy Supper.

Winchester.

1 A third reason this author frameth himselfe, wherby to take occasion to affirme how the vi. chapiter of S. Ihon should not appertayne to the Sacramentall manducation the contrary wherof appeareth aswell by the wordes of Christ in that vi. chapiter, say­ing, I will geue, not I doe giue, which promise was fulfilled in the supper, as also by the catholique writers and specially by Cirill, and therfore I will not further striue with this author in that matter, but see how he can assoyle the authorities wherunto he entreth with great confidence.

Caunterbury.

2 THe third reason I framed not my selfe (as you say I did) but had it ready framed out of your owne shoppe in your booke of the Diuels sophistry. And as for the vi. chapiter of Ihon, I haue sufficiently shewed my mind therin in my answere to Doctor Smithes preface, which shall suffice also for aunswere to you in this place.

And as for Cirill is clearly agaynst you, Cyrill. Ihon. 6. who declareth that when Christ sayd, I will geue my flesh for the life of the world, he fulfilled not that promise in his supper, but in the crosse. For if Christ had geuen to vs life in his supper, what should he haue needed after to dye for the same purpose? The wordes of Cirill be these vpon the wordes of Christ ‘ Panis quem ego dabo, caro mea est quam ego dabo pro mundi vita. Morior (inquit) pro omni­bus, vt permeip sum omnes viuificem, & caro mea omnium redemptio fiat, morietur euim mors morte mea. Which wordes meane thus much in English. I will dye for all, that by my death I may geue life to all, and that my flesh may be the redemption of all, for death shall dye by my death. Thus expoun­deth Cirill the wordes of Christ,’ that when he sayd: I will geue, he did not fulfill that promise in his spuper, but in the crosse, giuing vs life by his death not by eating and drinking of him in his supper, as you most igno­rantly [Page 330] say. And yet all men may iudge, how much I beare with you, when I call it but ignorance. Now followeth myne answere to the au­thors wrested by the papistes.

Cap 11. Authors wre­sted by the Pa­pistes for their transubstantia­tion.Now that I haue made a full direct and playne answer to the vayne reasons and cauilations of the Papists, order requireth to make likewise answer vnto their sophisticall allegations and wresting of authors vnto their phantasticall purposes. There be chiefely three places, which at the first shew, seeme much to make for their intent, but when they shallbe throughly wayed, they make nothing for them at all.

Cyprianns de coena nomini.The first is a place of Ciprian, in his sermon of the Lords supper, where he sayth, as is alledged in the Detection of the deuils Sophistry.

This bread which our Lord gaue to his disciples, changed in Nature but not in outward forme, is by the omnipotency of gods word, made flesh.

Here the Papists sticke tooth and nayle to these wordes, Changed in nature, Ergo say they, The aunswerr . the nature of the bread is changed. Here is one chiefe poynt of the diuels sophistry vsed, who in the allegation of Scripture vseth euer eyther to adde therto, or to take away from it, or to alter the sence therof. And so haue they in this author left out those wordes, which would open playnly all the whole matter. For next the wordes, which be here before of them reci­ted, do follow these wordes. ‘As in the person of Christ the humanity was seene, and the diuinity was hid, euen so did the diuinity ineffably put it selfe into the visible sacrament.’ Which wordes of Ciprian do manifestly shew, that the sacrament doth still remayne with the diuinity: and that sacramentally the diuinity is poured into the bread and wine, the same bread & wine still remay­ning: like as the same diuinity by vnity of person was in the humanity of Christ, the same humanity still remayning with the diuinite.

And yet the bread is changed, not in shape nor substance, but in nature, (as Ciprian truly sayth) not meaning that the naturall substance of bread is cleane gone, but that by Gods word, there is added therto an other higher propertie, nature and condition, farre passing the nature and condition of common bread, that is to say, that the bread doth shew vnto vs, (as the same Ciprian sayth) that we be partaker of the spirite of God, and most purely ioyned vnto Christ, and spiritually fead with his flesh and bloud, so that now the sayde misticall bread is both a corporall food for the body, and a spirituall foode for the soule.

And likewise is the nature of the water changed in baptisme, for as much as beside his common nature (which is to wash and make cleane the body) it de­clareth vnto vs that our soules be also washed and made cleane by the holy ghost: And thus is answered the chiefe authoritie of the doctours, which the Papists take for the principall defence of their errour. But for further declara­tion of S. Ciprians mind herein, reade the place of him before recited, fol. 320.

Winchester.

Cyprianus.First in Ciprian who speaketh playnly in the matter, this author findeth a fault, that he is not wholy alleadged wherupon this author brought in the sentence following 1 not necessary to be rehersed, for the matter of Transubstantiation, and handsome to be rehersed, for the ouerthrowe of the rest of this authors new catholique fayth, and whi­ther that now shall be added was materiall in the matter of Transubstantiation, I re­quire the Iudgement of thee (O reader).

The first wordes of Ciprian be these, This bread which our Lord gaue to his disci­ples [Page 331] changed in nature, but not in outward forme, is by the omnipotencye of gods word made flesh. These be Ciprians wordes, and then follow these, As in the persone of Christ the humanity was seene and the diuinity hidden, euen so the diuinite ineffably 2 infused it selfe into the visible Sacrament, Thus sayth Ciprian as I can English him to expresse the word (Infudit) by (Latin English) not liking the English word shed, bi­cause in our English tongue it resembleth spilling & euacuation of the whole, and much lesse I can agree to vse the word powring, although (Iufundo) in Latine, may in the 3 vse of earthly thinges signifie so, bicause powring noteth a successiue working, 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 4 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 5 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, 6 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 [Page 332] 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 1 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 2 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.

Infudir. Smyth vseth the word powring.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, Pouring. eyther of the speach or of God. Powring (sayth he) maketh a successiue working, So doth infusion say I, and therfore in 3 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 4 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 [Page 333] 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, Infusion. as you do with y ^e word powring. For as you reiect my word of powring, bicause some fond reader might fantasy y ^t 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.

3 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, Ciprians meaning. 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 [Page 334] 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.

Spirituall.And where you be offended with this word (spirituall) it is not my de­uise 6 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.

Chap. 22.An other authority they haue of S. Ihon Chrisostome, which they boast al­so to be inuincible. Chrisostomus. ‘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 (say they) doth not Chrisostomus the great clerke say most playnly, that we see neither bread nor wine? but that (as waxe in the fier) they be consumed to nothing, The answer. so that no substance remayneth? But if they had rehersed no more, but the very next sentence that followeth in Chrisostome (which craftely and maliciously they leaue out) the meaning of S. Ihon Chri­sostome would easely haue appeared, and yet will make them blush, if they be not vtterly past shame. For after the foresayd wordes of Chrisostome, im­mediately [Page 335] follow these wordes.

‘Wherfore (sayth he) when ye come to these misteries, do not thinke, that you receaue by a man, the body of God, but that with tongues, you receaue fier by the angelles Seraphin. And straight after it followeth thus.’

‘Thinke that the bloud of Saluation floweth out of the pure and godly side of Christ, and so comming to it, receaue it with pure lippes. Wherfore bre­theren, I pray you and beseech you, let vs not be from the church, nor let vs not be occupied there with vayne communication, but let vs stand fearefull and trembling, casting downe our eies, lifting vp our mindes, mourning pri­uily without speach, and reioysing in our hartes.’

These wordes of Chrisostom do follow immediately, after the other words, which the Papistes before rehersed. Therfore if the Papistes will gather of the wordes by them recited, that there is neither bread nor wine in the sacrament, I may aswell gather of the wordes that follow, that there is neither priest nor Christes body.

For as in the former sentence, Chrisostome sayth, that we may not thinke what we see bread wine: so in the second sentence he sayth, that we may not thinke that we receaue the body of Christ of the priestes handes. Wher­fore if vpon the second sentence (as the Papists them selues will say) it cannot be truly gathered, that in the holy communion there is not the body of Christ ministred by the priest: then must they confesse also, that it cannot be well and truely gathered vpon the first sentence, that there is no bread nor wine.

But there be all these thinges togither in the holy communion, Christ him­selfe spiritually eaten and drunken, and nourishing the right beleuers: the bread and wine as a sacrament declaring the same: and the priest as a minister therof. Wherfore S. Ihon Chrisostome ment not absolutely, to deny that there is bread and wine or to deny vtterly the priest and the body of Christ to be there, but he vseth a speach which is no pure Negatiue, but a Negatiue by comparison. Negatiues by comparison.

Which fashion of speach is commonly vsed, not onely in the Scripture, and among all good authors, but also in all manner of languages. For when two thinges be compared togither, in the extolling of the more excellent, or abasing of the more vile, is many tymes vsed a Negatiue by comparison, which neuerthelesse is no pure Negatiue, but onely in the respect of the more excel­lent, or the more base.

As by example. When the people reiecting the prophet Samuell, 1. Reg. [...]. desi­red to haue a king, almighty God sayd to Samuell: ‘They haue not reiected thee, but me. Not meaning by this negatiue absolutely, that they had not re­iected Samuell (in whose place they desired to haue a king) but by that one ne­gatiue by comparison he vnderstood two affirmatiues, that is to say, that they had reiected Samuell, and not him alone, but also that they had chiefely re­iected God.’

And when the Prophet Dauid sayd in the persone of Christ: I am a worme and not a man: by this negatiue he denyed not vtterly, that Christ was a man, but the more vehemently to expresse the great humiliation of Christ, he sayd that he was not abased onely to the nature of man, but was brought so low, that he might rather be called a worme, then a man.

This maner of speach was familiar and vsuall to S. Paule, as when he sayd: It is not I that do it, but it is the sinne that dwelleth in me. And in an other [Page 336] place he sayth: 1. Cor. 1. ‘Christ sent me not to baptise, but to preach the gospell. And agayne he sayth: 1. Cor. 1. My speach and preaching was not in wordes of mans per­swasion, but in manifest declaration of the spirite and power. And he sayth al­so: 1. Cor. 3. Neither he that grafteth, nor he that watereth, is any thing, but God that giueth the increase. And he sayth moreouer: It is not I that liue, but Christ liueth within me. Gala. 2. Gala. 6. And, God forbid, that I should reioyce in any thing, but in the crosse of our Lord Iesu Christ. And further, We do not wrastle agaynst flesh and bloud, Ephe. 6. but agaynst the spirites of darkenes.’

In all these sentences, and many other like, although they be negatiues, neuertheles S. Paule ment not, clearly to deny that he did that euill wherof he spake, 1. Cor. 1. or vtterly to say, that he was not sent to baptise (who in deede did bap­tise at certayne times, and was sent to do all thinges that pertayned to saluati­on) or that in his office of setting forth of Gods word he vsed no witty perswa­sions (which in deede he vsed most discretely) or that the grafter and waterer be nothing, (which be Gods creatures, made to his similitude, and without whose worke there should be no increase) or to say, that he was not aliue (who both liued, Rom. 15. and ranne from countrey to countrey, to set forth Gods glory) or clearly to affirme, that he gloried and reioysed in no other thing, than in Christes crosse (who reioyced with all men that were in ioy, and sorowed with all that were in sorrow) or to deny vtterly, 1. Cor. 11. that we wrastle agaynst flesh and bloud: (which cease not dayly to wrastle and warre agaynst our enemies, the world, the flesh, and the diuill.) In all these sentences S. Paule (as I sayd) ment not clearly to deny these thinges, which vndoubtedly were all true, but he ment that in comparison of other greater thinges, these smaller were not much to be esteemed, but that the greater thinges were the chief thinges to be con­sidered. As that sinne committed by his infirmitie, was rather to be imputed to originall sinne or corruption of nature, which lay lurking within him, than to his owne will and consent. And that although he was sent to bapise yet he was chiefly sent to preach Gods word.

And that although he vsed wise and discret perswasions therin, yet the successe therof came principally of the power of God, and of the working of the holy spirite. And that although the grafter and waterer of the gardeyn be some thinges, and do not a little in their offices, yet it is God chiefly that gi­ueth the increase. And that although he liued in this world, yet his chiefe life, concerning God, was by Christ, whome he had liuing within him. And that although he gloried in many other thinges, ye in his owne infirmities, yet his greatest ioy was in the redemption by the crosse of Christ. And that al­though our spirite dayly fighteth agaynst our flesh, yet our chief and princi­pall fight is agaynst our ghostly enemies, 2. Cor. 11. &. 12. Gal. 5. the subtill and puisant wicked spi­rites and diuels.

1. Pet. 3.The same manner of speach vsed also S. Peter in his first epistle, saying, That the apparaile of women should not be outwardly with brayded here, and set­ting on of gold, nor in putting on of gorgious apparayle, but that the inward man of the hart should be without corruption.

In which manner of speach he intended not vtterly to forbid all broyding of here, all gold and costly apparell to all women, (for euery one must be ap­parayled according to their condition, state and degree) but he ment hereby clerely to condemne all pride and excesse in apparayle, and to moue all wo­men that they should study to decke their soules inwardly with all vertues, and not to be curious, outwardly to decke and adourne their bodyes with sump­tuous [Page 337] apparayle. And our sauiour Christ himselfe was full of such maner of speaches. Gather not vnto you (sayth he) treasure vpon earth, Math. 6. willing therby," rather to set our mindes vppon heauenly treasure, which euer indureth, than vppon earthly treasure, which by many sundry occasions perisheth and is ta­ken away from vs. And yet worldly treasure must needes be had and possessed of some men, as the person, tyme, and occasion doth serue.

Likewise he sayd: ‘When you be brought before kinges and princes, thinke not what and how you shall answer. Math. 10. Not willing vs by this negatiue, that we should negligently and vnaduisedly answere we care not what, but that we should depend of our heuenly father, trusting that by his holy spirite, he will sufficiently instruct vs of answer, rather then to trust of any answer to be deui­sed by our owne witte and study.’

And in the same maner he spake, when he sayd: ‘It is not you that speake but it is the spirite of God that speaketh within you. Math. 10. For the spirite of God is he that principally putteth godly wordes into our mouthes, and yet neuerthelesse we do speake according to his mouing.’

And to be short, in all these sentences following, Math. 23. that is to say: ‘ Math. 23. Call no man your father vpon earth: Math. 10. Let no man call you lord or master: Math. 10. Feare not them that kill the body. Math. 10. I came not to send peace vpon earth. Iohn. 4. It is not in me to set you at my right hand or left hand. Iohn. 5. You shall not worship the father neyther in this mountnor in Ierusalem. Iohn. 7. I take no witnes at no man. Iohn. 8. My doctrine is not mine. I seeke not my glory.’

In all these negatiues, our sauiour Christ spake not precisely and vtterly to de­ny all the foresayd thinges, but in comparison of them to prefer other thinges, as to prefer our father and Lord in heauen, aboue any worldly father, lord or master in earth, and his feare aboue the feare of any creature, and his word and gospell aboue all worldly peace. Also to prefer spirituall and inward honoring of God in pure hart and mynd, aboue locall, corporall and outward ho­nour, and that Christ preferred his fathers glory aboue his owne.

Now for as much as I haue declared at length, the nature and kind of these negatiue speaches (which be no pure negatiues but by comparison) it is easye hereby to make answer to S. Iohn Chrisostom, who vsed this phrase of speach most of any author. For his meaning in his foresayd Homily, was not that in the celebration of the Lordes supper is neyther bread nor wine, neither priest nor the body of Christ, (which the Papistes themselues must needes confesse) but his intent was to draw our mindes vpward to heauen, that we should not consider so much the bread, wine, and priest, as we should consider his diui­nity and holy spirite giuen vnto vs to our eternall saluation.

And therfore in the same place he vseth so many tymes these wordes Thinke and thinke not, willing vs by these wordes, that we should not fixe our thoughts and myndes vpon the bread, wine, priest, nor Christes body: but to lift vp our hartes higher vnto his spirite and diuinity, without the which his body auay­leth nothing, as he sayth himselfe: ‘It is the spirite that giueth life, the flesh a­uayleth nothing. Iohn. 5.’

And as the same Chrisostome in many places moueth vs, not to consider the water in baptisme, but rather to haue respect to the holy ghost, receaued in baptisme, and represented by the water: euen so doth he in this homily of the holy communion, moue vs to lift vp our myndes from all visible and cor­porall things to thinges inuisible and spirituall.

[Page 347]In so much that although Christ was but once crucified, yet would Chri­sost. haue vs to thincke, that we see him dayly whipped and scourged before our eyes, and his body hanging vpon the Crosse, and the speare thrust into his side, Gala. 3. and the most holy bloud to flow out of his side into our mouthes. Af­ter which manner S. Paule wrote to the Galathians, that Christ was paynted and crucified before their eyes.

Chrysostomus.Therfore fayth Chrisostome in the same homily a litle before the place re­hersed: ‘What doest thou O man? diddest not thou promise to the prist which sayd: Lift vp your myndes and hartes, and thou diddest answere: We lift them vp vnto the Lord? Art not thou ashamed and afrayd being at that same houre found a liar? A wonderfull thing. The table is set forth, furnished with Gods misteries, the Lambe of God is offered for thee, the priest is carefull for thee, spirituall fier cometh out of that heauenly table, the angels Seraphin be there present, couering their faces with vi. winges. All the angelicall power with the priest be meanes aud intercestors for thee, a spirituall fyer cometh downe from heauen, bloud in the cup is druncke out of the most pure side vnto thy purification. And art not thou ashamed, afrayd and abashed, not endeuoring thy selfe to purchase Gods mercy? O man, doth not thyne owne conscience condemne thee? There be in the weeke 168. houres, and God asketh but one of them to be giuen wholy vnto him and thou consumest that in worldly busi­nes, in trifling and talking, with what boldnes then shalt thou come to these holy misteries? O corrupt conscience.’

Hitherto I haue rehersed S. Iohn Chrisostomes wordes, which do shew how our myndes should be occupyed at this holy table of our Lord, that is to say, withdrawen from the consideration of sensible thinges, vnto the con­templation of most heauenly and godly thinges. And thus is answered this place of Chrisostom, which the Papists tooke for an insoluble, and a place that no man was able to answere. But for further declaration of Chrisostoms mynd in this matter read the place of him before rehersed, fol. 327. and 343,

Winchester.

Chrisostomus.Answering to Chrisostome this author complayneth as he did in Ciprian, of mali­cious 1 leauing out of that, which when it is brought in, doth nothing empayre that went before. Chrisostome would we should consider the secret truth of this mistery, where Christ is the inuisible Priest, and ministreth in the visible church by his visible minister the visible priest, wherof Chrisostome would by his wordes put vs in remembrance, not denying therby the visible ministry no more then he doth in his other wordes deny the visible forme of bread, and yet would not that we should looke only vpon y ^t but whether 2 fayth directeth vs, that is to say, vpon the very body of Christ there inuisibly present, which fayth knoweth, and knoweth it to be there the very body, and there therfore to 3 be no bread, which bread this true confession of Christes body present by fayth excludeth. But touching the priest, S. Chrisostomes wordes do by no meane teach vs that there is no visible priest, but to thinke that the body of Christ is deliuered of Christes handes, which excludeth not in like sort the minister visible as fayth doth the substance inuisible of bread in the Sacrament. The one saying in Chrisostome is a godly exhortation ac­cording to the truth, the other is a doctrine of fayth in the truth, we be not taught that the priest is Christ, but we be taught that the substance of the bread is made Christes body. And then the question in the wordes of Chrisostome (Seest thou bread) is as much to say, as remembrest the fayth: as being one of the faythfull that know? which terme S. Augustine vsed. And then Chrisostome to confirme our fayth in so high a mistery, declareth how we should thinke Christ to deliuer his body him selfe as a thing farre ex­ceding mans power to do it. And with other heauenly wordes setteth forth the great­nes [Page 339] of that mistery, which be wordes of godly and good meditation conuenient for so high a matter to adorne it accordingly, which bicause they be holsome, and meete alle­gories, wherwith to draw and lift vp our myndes to celestiall thoughtes, we may not therby esteeme the substance of that mistery to be but in allegory. Here in steed of a so­lution the author filleth three whole leaues with profe of that is not necessary, how a de­niall by cōparison is not vtterly a deniall, which is in deed true. And as one was answe­red at Cambridge when he pressed the responsall, What say ye to myne argument, which was not in deede of his making. The responsall left his Latin, and told the op­ponent before all his country friendes in playne English: It is a good argument syr (quoth he,) but nothing to the purpose. And so is the intreating of this matter of deni­all by comparison good, but nothing to the purpose here, and it is an obseruation that requireth good iudgement, or els may therby be induced many absurdities. Chrisostom as I sayd before speaking to the Christen man, seemeth to aske whither he vseth his fayth or no. For if he seeth bread, he seeth not with fayth, which seeth the body of Christ there present, and so no bread. If the christen man thinke of passage through him of the celestiall foode, he hath therin no spirituall thought such as fayth engendreth, and ther­fore sayth Chrisostome ( absit.) here in these wordes of Chrisostom is no deniall with comparison, and therfore this author myght haue spared his treatise in these thrée leaues. For in those wordes, when Chrisostome sayth, Thinke not thou receauest the body of Christ by a man. There this author neglecteth his owne rule, as in his third booke he maketh a solemne argument that by those S. Chrisostoms wordes we receaue not the body of Christ at all, seing Chrisostome sayth, we may not thinke we receaue it by man. So little substantially is this matter handled, as a man might say here were ma­ny accidentall wordes without a substance or miracle, how strange soeuer the same seeme to this author otherwise.

Caunterbury.

1 I Complayned not of your crafty handling of Chrisostome without a iust cause, for when you had alleadged the wordes that seemed to make for your purpose, you left out the wordes that make clearly agaynst you, or which wordes at the least would open all the whole matter. And yet the wordes which you leaue out, follow immediately the wordes by you alleadged.

2 And where to discusse this whole matter, you say in the beginning, that Chrisostome doth not deny the visible minister, no more then he doth the visible forme of bread, here at the first chop, you vse an other pollicie, not much commendable, altering pretely the wordes of Chrisostom, making of bread the forme of bread. For Chrisostome speaketh of bread and wine, 3 and not of the formes and accidents of them. And if the bread be no more but the visible accidents of bread, then is the minister also no more but the visible accidents of a minister, and so is the priest nothing els, but the puppy of a priest. And then the communicants receaue no bread of the priest, but a puppy of bread of a puppy of a priest. For Chrisostome spea­keth in like forme of wordes of the bread, as he doth of the priest, with these wordes (thinke not) Thinke not that thou seest bread, thinke not that thou receauest of a priest. And therfore if this forme of speach exclude the sub­stance of bread, it excludeth likewise the substance of the priest. And if the priest remayne still, not withstanding that speach, then may the bread remayne also with the same speach. And if your argument be good, there is Christes body, ergo there is no bread, then may I conclude in the same forme of reasoning, there is bread, ergo there is not Christes body. And so this author maketh nothing for you, but ouerthroweth your foundation [Page 340] cleane, both of transubstantiation, and of the reall presence.

But to make the mind of Chrysostome somewhat more playne, he tea­cheth them that come to that holy mistery, with what things their minds should be chiefly occupyed, not about earthly and visible thinges but a­bout thinges celestiall and inuisible, and not to consider so much what we see with our eies, as what we beleue in our hartes, not so much what wee receiue bodily, as what we receiue spiritually. And he teacheth not onelye what we should thinke we receiue, but also of whome we should thinke to receiue it, saying, When you come to the misteries, do not thinke that you receiue by a man the body of God, but that you receiue fyre by the Aungell Seraphin. The thing that we receiue (sayth he) is not the body of God, and the person of whome we receiue is not a man, like as before immedi­ately he sayd, that the thing which we see is not bread. Now if it be not bread in deed that is seen, then it is not the body of Christ indeed that is re­ceiued, nor he is not a priest indeed, of whom we receiue it: And on the o­ther syde, if it be the very body of Christ that is receiued, and a very man of whom it is receiued, then it is very bread in deed that is seene. And where becommeth then your Transubstantiation?

But to declare brieflye and playnelye the very trueth according to the minde of Chrisostome, as we see with our eyes, and eat with our mouthes very bread, and see also and drinke very wine, so we lift vp our hartes vn­to heauen, and with our fayth wee see Christ crucified with our spirituall eyes, and eat his flesh, thrust thorow with a speare, and drinke his bloud springing out of his side with our spirituall mouthes of our fayth. And as Emissene sayd, when we go to the reuerend aultar to feede vpon spirituall meat, with our fayth we looke vpon him that is both God and man, wee honour him, we touch him with our minds, we take him with the hands of our hartes, and drinke him with the draught of our inward man. So that although we see, and eat sensibly very bread and drinke very wine, & spiritually eat and drinke Christes very flesh and bloud, yet may wee not rest there, but lift vp our mindes to his deity, without the which his flesh auaileth nothing, as he sayth himself. Further aūswere needeth not to any thing that you haue here spoken. For euery learned reader may see at the first shew that all that you haue spoken is nothing els but very triflyng in wordes.

Now followeth S. Ambrose.

Chap. 13. Ambros. de ijs qui misterijs initiantur.Yet there is an other place of S. Ambrose, which the Papists thinke maketh much for their purpose, but after due examination, it shall playnely appeare how much they be deceiued. They alleadge these wordes of S. Ambrose in a booke intituled De ijs qui initiantur misterijs, ‘Let vs proue that there is not that thing which nature formed: but which benediction did consecrate, and that benedictiō is of more strength then nature. For by the blessing, nature it selfe is also chaunged. Exod. 7. Moy­ses held a rodde, he cast it from him, and it was made a serpent. Agayn he took the serpent by the tayle, and it was turned agayne into the nature of a rodde. Wherefore thou seest, that by the grace of the prophet, the nature of the ser­pent and rod was twise thaunged. Exod. 7. The flouds of Egypt ran pure water, and so­denly bloud began to brust out of the vaines of the springes, so that men could not drinke of the floud: but at the prayer of the Prophet, the bloud of the floud [Page 341] went away, and the nature of water came agayne. The people of the Hebrues were compassed about, Exo. 14. on the one syde with the Egyptians, and on the other side with the sea. Moyses lifted vp his rod, the water deuided it selfe, and stood vp like a wall, and betwene the waters was left a way for them to passe on foot. And Iordan agaynst nature turned backe to the head of his spring. Doth it not appeare now, that the nature of the Sea flouds, or of the course of fresh water was chaunged? The people was dry, Moyses touched a stone, and water came out of the stone. Did not grace her worke aboue nature, to make the stone to bring forth the water, Exo. 17. which it had not of nature? Marath was a most bitter floud, so that the people being dry, could not drinke thereof. Moyses put wood into the water, Exo. 15. and the nature of the water lost his bitternes, which grace infu­sed, did sodenly moderate. In the tyme of Heliseus the prophet, 4. Reg. 6. an axe head fell from one of the Prophets seruauntes into the water, he that lost the yron, desi­red the prophet Heliseus helpe, who put the helue into the water, and the iron swam aboue. Which thing we know was done aboue nature, for yron is heui­er then the liquor of water. Thus we perceiue that grace is of more force then nature, and yet hetherto we haue rehersed but the grace of the blessing of the prophets. Now if the blessing of a man bee of such valew, that it may chaunge nature, what do we say of the consecration of God? wherein is the operation of the wordes of our sauiour Christ? For this Sacrament which thou receiuest is done by the word of Christ. Then if the word of Helias was of such power, that it could bring fyre down from heauen, shall not the word of Christ be of that power, to chaunge the kindes of the elementes? Psal. 148 [...] Of the making of the whole world, thou hast red that God spake, and the thinges were done, he commaunded and they were created: The word then of Christ, that could of no things, make things that were not, can it not chaūge those thinges that be, into that thing, which before they were not? For it is no les matter to geue to thinges new nature, then to alter natures.’

Thus far haue I rehearsed the wo [...]es of S. Ambrose, if the sayd book be his (which they that be of greatest learning and iudgemēt do not thinke) by which wordes the Papists would proue, that in the supper of the Lord after the words of Consecration (as they be commonly called) there remayneth neither bread nor wine, because that S. Ambrose sayth in this place, that the nature of the bread and wine is chaunged.

But to satisfy their mindes, let vs graunt for their pleasure, The aunswere. that the foresayd booke was S. Ambrose owne worke, yet the same booke maketh nothing for their purpose, but quite agaynst them. For he sayth not, that the substaunce of bread and wine is gone, but he sayth, that their nature is chaunged, that is to say, that in the holy communion we ought not to receiue the bread and wine, as other common meates and drinkes, but as thinges cleane chaunged into a higher estate, nature and condition, to be taken as holy meates and drinkes, whereby we receiue spirituall feeding, and supernaturall nourishment from heauen, of the very true body and bloud of our sauior Christ, through the om­nipotent power of God, and the wonderful working of the holy ghost. Which so well agreeth with the substaunce of bread and wine still remayning, that if they were gone away, and not there, this our spiritual feeding could be taught vnto vs by them.

And therefore in the most part of the examples, which S. Ambrose allead­geth for the wonderfull alteration of natures, the substances did still remayne, after the nature and properties were chaunged. As when the water of Iordane [Page 342] (contrary to his nature) stood still like a wale, or flowed agaynst the streame to­wardes the head and spring, yet the substaunce of the water remained the same that it was before. Likewise the stone, that aboue his nature and kinde flowed water, was the self same stone that it was before. And the floud of Marath, that chaunged his nature of bitternesse, chaunged for all that no part of his sub­staunce. No more did that yron, which contrary to his nature, swam vpon the water, lose thereby any part of the substaunce thereof. Therefore as in these al­terations of natures, the substances neuertheles remayned the same, that they were before the alterations, euen so dooth the substaunce of bread and wyne remayne in the Lords supper, and be naturally receiued and disgested into the body, notwithstanding the sacramentall mutation of the same, into the bodye and bloud of Christ. Which sacramentall mutation declareth the supernatu­rall, spirituall and explicable eating and drinking, feeding and disgesting of the body and bloud of Christ, in all them, that godly and according to their duety do receiue the sacramentall bread and wine.

And that S. Ambrose thus ment, that the substaunce of bread and wine re­mayne still after the consecration, it is most clere by three other examples of the same matter, following in the same chapter. One is of them that be regene­rated, in whom after their regeneration doth still remayn theyr former naturall substaunce. An other is of the incarnation of our sauiour Christ, in the which perished no substaunce, but remayned aswell the substaunce of his godhead, as the substaunce which he tooke of the blessed virgine Mary. The third example is of the water in baptisme, where the water still remaineth water, although the holy ghost come vpon the water, or rather vpon him that is baptised therein.

Lib. 4. de sacra­mentis. cap. 4.And although the same S. Ambrose in an other booke entituled de sacramē ­tis, doth say, that the bread is bread before the wordes of consecration, but whē the consecration is done, of bread is made the body of Christ: Yet in the same booke, & in the same chapter, he telleth in what m [...]ner and forme the same is done by the wordes of Christ, not by taking away the substaunce of the bread, but ad­ding to the bread the grace of Christes body, and so calling it the bodye of Christ.

And hereof he bringeth foure examples. The first of the regeneration of a man: the second is of the standing of the water of the red sea: the third is of the bitter water of Marath: and the fourth is of the yron that swam aboue the wa­ter. In euery of the which examples, the former substaunce remayned still, not withstanding alteration of the natures. And he concludeth the whole matter in these few wordes.

If there be so much strength in the wordes of the Lord Iesu, that things had their beginning, which neuer were before, how much more be they able to worke, that those thinges that were before, should remayne, and also be chaū ­ged into other thinges? Which wordes do shew manifestly, that notwithstan­ding this wonderfull sacramentall and spirituall chaunging of the bread into the body of Christ, yet the substaunce of the bread remayneth the same that it was before.

Thus is a sufficient answere made vnto iij. principall authorities, which the Papistes vse to alleadge, to stablish their errour of transubstantiation. The first of Cyprian, the second of S. Iohn Chrisostome, and the third of S. Ambrose. Other authorities and reasons some of them do bring for the same purpose, but forasmuch as they be of smale moment and waight, and easy to be aun­swered [Page 343] vnto, I will passe thē ouer at this time, and not trouble the reader with them, but leaue them to be wayed by his discretion.

Winchester.

Now let vs heare what this author will say to S. Ambrose. He reherseth him of good length, Ambrosius. but translateth him for aduaūtage. As among other, in one place where S. 1 Ambrose sayth. This Sacrament which thou receiuest, is made by the word of Chryst. This author translateth, Is done by the word of Christ, because making must be vnderstanded in the substaunce of the Sacrament chiefly before it is receiued, and doing may be referred to the effect chiefly, for which purpose it should seeme the author of this book cānot away with the word made, whereat it pleaseth him in an other place of this book to be mery, as at an absurdity in the Papistes, when in deed both S. Ambrose here, S. Cyprian, and S. Hierome also in their places vse the same word speaking of this sacra­ment, and of the wonderfull worke of God in ordayning the substaunce of it, by such a conuersion as bread is made the body of Christ. But as touching the answere of this au­thor 2 to S. Ambrose, it is diuers. For first he doth trauerse the authority of the book, which allegation hath bene by other heretofore made, and aunswered vnto in such wise, as the book remayneth S. Ambroses still, and Melancthon sayth it séemeth not to him vnlike his, and therefore alleadgeth this very place out of him agaynst Decolampadius. Thys author will not sticke in that allegation, but for aunswere sayth that S. Ambrose sayth 3 not that the substaunce of the bread and wine is gone, and that is true, he sayth not so in sillables, but he sayth so in sence, because he speaketh so plainly of a chaunge in the bread into that it was not, whereunto this author for declaration of chaunge, sayth the breade and wine be chaunged into an higher estate, nature and condition, which thrée words of estate, nature and condition, be good wordes to expresse the chaunge of the bread into the body of Christ, which body is of an other nature, an other state and condition, then the substaunce of the bread, without comparison hier.

But then this author addeth to be taken as holy meates and drinkes, wherin if he 5 mean to be taken so, but not to be so, as his teaching in other places of this booke is, the bread to be neuer the holier, but to signifie an holy thing: then is the change nothing in deed touching the nature, but onely as a coward may be changed in apparayle to play 4 Hercules or Sampsons part in a play, himselfe therby made neuer the hardier man at all, but onely appoynted to signifie an hardy man, of which mans change although his estate and condition might in speach be called changed for the tyme of the play, yet no man would terme it thus to say, his nature were changed, whether he ment by the word nature the substance of the mans nature or property: for in these two poyntes he 5 wer still the same man in Hercules coate, that he was before the play in his owne: so as if ther be nothing but a figure in the bread, then for so much this authors other teaching in this booke where he sayth, the bread is neuer the holier, is a doctrine better then this, to teach a change of the bread to an higher nature, when it is onely appoynted to signi­fie an holy thing. And therfore this authors answer garnished with these three gay wordes of estate, nature and condition, is deuised but for a shift, such as agreeth not with other places of this booke, not it selfe neyther. And where S. Ambrose meruayleth at gods worke in the substance of the sacrament, this author shifteth that also to the effect in him that receaueth, which is also meruaylous in deede, but the substance of the 6 sacrament is by S. Ambrose specially meruayled at, how bread is made y ^e body of Christ, the visible matter outwardly remayning, and onely by an inward change, which is of the inward nature, called properly substance in learning, and a substance in deede, but perceaued onely by vnderstanding, as the substance present of Christes most precious body, is a very substance in deede of the body inuisibly present, but present indeede, and onely vnderstanded by most true and certayne knowledge of fayth. And although this 7 author noteth how in the examples of mutation brought in by S. Ambrose, the substan­ces neuertheles remayned the same, that skilleth not: for the wonder of those meruayles serue for an induction to releeue the weake fayth of man in this miracle of the Sacra­ment, [Page 344] and to represse the arrogancy of reason, presuming to search such knowledge in Gods secret workes, whereof if there might be a reason geuen, it néeded no fayth. And where there is a like, there is no singularity, as this miracle in the sacrament is nota­bly singuler, and therefore none other found like vnto it. The Sacramentall mutation, which this author newly so termeth, is a mere shift to auoyd among such as be not lear­ned 8 the truth of Gods miracle in this chaunge, which is in déed such as S. Ambrose spea­keth of, that of bread is made the body of Christ, which S. Ambrose in an other place, termeth it the grace of the body of Christ, and all is one, for it is a great grace, to haue the body of Christ for our food present there. And out of Christes mouth, calling the bodye 9 of Christ, is making the body of Christ, which wordes calling, signifying, naming, vsed in S. Ambrose writinges, do not limitte Christes wordes, and restraynt them to an onely calling, an onely signifiyng, or an onely naming, but geue an vnderstanding agréeable to other of S. Ambrose wordes, that shew the bread after consecration to be the body of Christ, the calling to be vnderstanded a real calling of the thing that so is made, and like­wise a reall signifying of the thing in déed present, and a reall naming as the thing is in déed. As Christ was named Iesus, because he is the sauiour of his people in déede. And thus perusing this authors answeres, I trust I haue noted to the reader, with how smal substaunce of matter this author impugneth transubstantiation, and how slenderly hée goeth about to aunswere such authors as by their seuerall writinges confyrme the same, besydes the consent of Christendome vniuersally receiuing the same. And how in the meane way, this author hath by his owne handes pulled downe the same vntrue doc­trine of the fyguratiue speach, that himselfe so lately hath deuised, or rather because this matter in his booke goeth before, he hath in his second booke marred his frame, or euer be commeth to the third booke to set it vp.

Caunterbury.

OH what a capitall cryme is here committed, that I haue englished 1 this word (conficere) to do, whose proper signification is to accomplish or make an end of a thing, which being once brought to passe, we vse in common spech to say, I haue done: as I haue done my house, I haue done my booke, I haue done my worke, I haue done my dayes iourney, that is to say, I haue perfectly done and finished. And is not this fully as much in spech, as to say, I haue made my dayes iourney, or I haue made my house or my booke? But some fault you must finde, where none is, partly to keep in vse your old custome of calumniatiō, and partly to satisfy a new toy that you haue in your head, that making is in the substaunce of the sacrament, and doing is in the effect. But whether it be translate, making or dooing, S. Ambrose spake of the wonderfull effectuall working of God in the vse and ministration of the sacramentes, and that as well in baptisme, as in the Lordes supper, and not of his working in the substaunces of the ele­mentes reserued. As for the authority of the booke, I stand not in it, so that all your wordes therein be more then nedeth, but to length your book, and 2 yet was the book neuer allowed amongst men learned and of iudgement, to be S. Ambroses. And Melancthon whome you alleage for the allow­aunce of it, geueth it two nips, which you haue left out of purpose, to serue your affection. For he saith not (as you report) that it seemeth not to him vnlike, but that it seemeth not to him farre vnlike, and yet he confesseth that it is confusedly written, which is a slender approbation that it should be S. Ambroses.

And where you confesse, that S. Ambrose sayth not in wordes, that the 3 substances of bread and wine be gone, and yet sayth so in effect, because he speaketh of chaunge, either you know that your argument is naught, and [Page 345] yet bring it in purposely to deceiue some simple reader, or your ignoraunce is more then I would haue thought, that of this word (chaunge) woulde argue chaunge in substaunce, as though there could be no chaunge, but it must be in substaunce. But if you had well considered the examples of S. Ambrose by me alleadged (which he bringeth forth for the proofes and si­militudes of the chaunge of bread and wine in the sacrament) you should haue found that in all the sayd examples remayne the substaunces, Chaunges of things the sub­stances remay­ning. not­withstanding the chaunge. As in the water of Iordane staying to runue after the naturall course, in the dry stone that contrary to his nature flow­ed out water, in the bitter water of Marath that was turned into sweet­nesse, in the yron that contrary to nature swame aboue the water, in the spirituall generation of man aboue all naturall operation, in the sacramē ­tall mutation of the water of baptisme, and in the incarnation of our saui­our Christ, which all being brought by S. Ambrose for example of the chaunge in bread and wine, as in them the substaunces remayned, not­withstanding the chaunges, so is it in the bread and wine, whereof other were brought for examples.

4 But in your handling here of S. Ambrose, you seem to be vtterly igno­raunt, and not to know difference betweene sacramentall signes (in the vse whereof almighty God inwardly worketh) and other vayne signes which be nothing els but outward shewes to the eye. For if you vnder­stood the matter, would you resemble a knaue playing in a princes coate (in whom nothing is inwardly wrought or altered) vnto a man beyng baptised in water, who hath put vpō him outwardly water, but inward­ly is aparelled with Christ, and is by the omnipotent working of God spi­ritually regenerated, and chaunged into a new man? Or would you com­pare him that banketeth at a feast to represent an anniuersary, or try­umph, vnto that man that in remembraunce of Christes death eateth and drinketh at his holy supper, geuing thankes for his redemption, and com­forting himselfe with the benefyte thereof? If you haue this opinion and veneration of the sacramentes, it is well knowen what spirite you haue, how ignoraunt you be, and what is to be iudged of you. And if you haue no such opinion, becommeth it you then to dally with such profane exam­ples, tending to the profanation of the Sacraments, and deceiuing of the readers?

5 And as for the holines of bread, I say now as I said before, Holy bread. that neither bread, wine nor water, haue any capacity of holinesse, but holines is onely in the receauers, and by the bread, water and wine is sacramentally sig­nified. And therefore the marueilous alteration to an hyer estate, nature and condition, is chiefly and principally in the persons, and in the sacra­mentall signes it is none otherwise but sacramentally and in significatiō. And whether this be matter of trueth or a thing deuised onely for a shift, let the reader iudge.

6 And where you say in your further aunswere here to S. Ambrose, that, Uisible matter Formes. the visible matter of the bread outwardly remayneth, it seemeth you haue not well marked the wordes of S. Ambrose, who sayth that the words of Christ chaungeth species elementorum. And then if species (as you haue sayd before in many places) signify the visible matter, then the visible matter remayneth not (as you say) but is changed as S. Ambrose sayth. And so [Page 346] S. Ambrose wordes, that species elementorum mutantur, be cleane contrary to your wordes, that the visible matter remayneth. I will passe ouer here how you call accidents of bread the matter of bread, agaynst all order of speach, bicause I haue touched that matter sufficiently before.

And yet this is not to be passed ouer, but to be noted by the way, how playnly S. Ambrose speaketh agaynst the Papistes, which say, that the body and bloud of Christ remayne sub speciebus panis & vini, vnder y ^e formes of bread and wine. And S. Ambrose sayth, that species elementorum mut an­tur, the formes of bread and wine be changed.

Aud where you say, that in the examples of mutation brought in by 7 S. Ambrose, although the substance remayne still the same, yet that skil­leth not: your answer here seemeth very strange, to say that that thing skilleth not, which skilleth all togither, and maketh the whole matter. For if in the examples the substances remayne, notwithstanding the mutati­on of the natures by benediction, then do not these examples proue, that the substance of bread and wine remayne not. And if this were singuler from the examples (as you say it is) then were not the other examples of this. For if the substances remayne in them, how can they be brought for examples to proue that the substances of bread and wine remayne not? when they be brought for examples, and thinges that be like, and not that the one should be singular, and vnlike from the other. And where you alleadge this place of S. Ambrose for you, nothing can be spoken more directly agaynst you. For the natures (sayth S. Ambrose) of bread and wine, be changed. And the nature (say you) is the outward visible formes, and that that is changed remayneth not (say you also) and so followeth then, that the substances of bread and wine remayne, and not the outward visible formes, which is directly agaynst your fayned Transub­stantiation, and agaynst all that you sayd hitherto cōcerning that matter.

And wher a sacramentall mutatiō is to you a new tearme, it declareth 8 nothing els but your ignorance in the matter. And although you seeme to be ignorant in other authors, yet if you had expended diligently but one chapter of S. Ambrose, you should haue found three examples of this sa­cramentall mutation, wherin the substances remayne entier and whole: one is in the sacrament of Christes incarnation, an other is in a person that is baptised, and the third in the water of baptisme, which three ex­amples I alleadged in my booke, but you thought it better slightly to passe them ouer, then to trouble your brayne with answering to them.

Calling. Making.And where you say that calling bread the body of Christ, is making it 9 in deed the body of Christ, as Christ was called Iesus, bicause he is the sauiour of all men in deed here it appeareth, that you consider not the na­ture of a sacrament. For when sacraments be named or called by the names of the thinges which they signifie, yet they be not the same thinges indeed, but be so called (as S. Augustine sayth) bicause they haue some similitude or likenes to the thinges which they be called. But Christ was called Iesus our Sauiour, as the very true Sauiour in deed, not as a sacrament or figure of saluation, as the bread is the sacrament of Christes flesh, and wine the sacrament of his bloud, by which names they be cal­led, and yet be not the very thinges in deed. Thus haue I answered to the chiefe authors, which you alleadge for Transubstantiation, making [Page 338] your owne authors not onely to ouerthrow your building, but to digge vp your foundation cleane from the botome, and nothing is left yon, but arrogancy of mynd, and bosting of words (as men say that you still phan­sye with your selfe, and bragge that you be bishop of Winchester) euen as a captayne that glorieth in his folly, when he hath lost his castle with or­dinaunce and all that he had.

And at length you be driuen to your church, which you call the consent of christendome vniuersall, when it is no more but the Papisticall church, that defendeth your transubstantiation. Now declareth my booke the absurdities that follow the errour of Transubstantiation.

And now I will reherse diuers difficulties, absurdities and inconueniences, Chap. 14. Absurdities that follow of Transubstan­tiation. which must needes follow vpon this errour of Transubstantiation, wherof not one doth follow of the true & right fayth, which is according to Gods word.

First if the Papists be demaunded, what thing it is that is broken what is ea­ten, 1 what is dronken, and what is chawed with the teeth, lippes and mouth in this sacrament, they haue nothing to answere, but the accidentes. For (as they say) bread and wine be not the visible elements in this sacrament, but onely their accidents. And so they be forced to say, that accidentes be broken, eaten, drunken, chawen, and swallowed without any substance at all: which is not onely agaynst all reason, but also agaynst the doctrine of all auncient authors.

Winchester.

In the second volume of the 43. leafe, the author goeth about to note 6. absurdities in the doctrine of Transubstantiation, which I entend also to peruse. The first is this.

First if the Papistes be demaunded. &c.

This is accompted by this author the first absurditie and inconuenience which is by him rhetorically set forth with lippes, and mouth, and chawing, not substanciall termes 1 to the matter, but accidentall. For opening of which matter, I will repeate some part agayne of that I haue written before, when I made the scholler answer the rude man in declaration of substance, which is, that albeit that sensible thing which in speach vt­tered after the capacity of common vnderstanding is called substance, be comprehended of our sences, yet the inward nature of euery thing which is in learning properly cal­led substance, is not so distinctly knowen of vs, as we be able to shew it to the sences, or by wordes of difference to distinct in diuers kindes of thinges one substance from an o­ther. Basilius hom. 1. exhameron. And herin (as Basill sayth) if we should goe about by separation of all the acci­dents to discerne the substance by it selfe alone, we should in the experience fayle of our purpose and ende in nothing indeede. There is a naturall consideration of the abstract 3 that can not be practised in experience. And to me if it were asked of commen bread, when we breake it, whether we breake the substance or onely the accidents, First I must learnedly say, If the substance be broken, it is by meane of the accident in quanti­tie, and then if it liked me to take my pleasure without learning in philosophye, as this author doth in diuinity agaynst the catholique fayth, to say in diuision we breake not the substance of bread at all; the heresie in philosophy were not of such absurditye, as this author mayntayneth in diuinity. For I haue some probable matter to say for me, where 4 as he hath none. For my strange answer I would say, that albeit a naturall thing as bread consisting of matter and essenciall forme with quantity, and therby other acci­dents cleauing and annexed may be well sayd to be in the whole broken, as we see by ex­perience it is? Yet speaking of the substance of it alone, if one should aske whether that 5 be broken, and it should be answered, yea, then should the substance appeare broken and whole all at one tyme, seeing in euery broken peece of bread is a whole substance of bread, and where the p [...]ece of bread broken is so little a crumme, as can no more in deed [Page 348] be deuided, we say neuertheles the same to be in substance very bread, and for want of conuenient quantity bread indiuisible: and thus I write to shew that such an aunswere to say the accidents be broken, hath no such clere absurdity, as this author would haue it séeme. But leauing of the matter of Philosophy to the scholes. I will graunt that acci­dentes 6 to be without substaunce is agaynst the common course of naturall thinges, and therefore therein is a speciall miracle of God. But when the accidentes be by miracle without substāce as they be in the visible part of the sacrament, then the same accidents to be broken, eaten, and drunken with all additions this author for his pleasure maketh them, is no miracle, or maruaile: and as for absurdity no point at all, for by quantitye which remayneth is all diuision, we ought to confes and good christen men do profes the mistery of the sacrament to be supernaturall, and aboue the order of nature, and there­fore it is a trauaile in vayne to frame the consideration of it to agrée with the termes of philosophy. But where this author sayth that nothing can be aunswered to be broken 7 but the accidents: yes verely, for in time of contention, as this is, to him that would aske what is broken, I would in other termes aunswere thus, that thou seest is broken. And then if he would aske further, what that is, I would tell him, the visible matter of the sa­crament, vnder which is present inuisibly the substaunce of the most precious bodye of Christ. If he will aske yet further, is that body of Christ broken? I wil say, no. For I am learned in fayth, that that glorious body now impassible cannot be deuided, or broken, and therefore it is whole in euery part of that is broken, as the substaunce of bread is in common bread in euery part that is broken. The booke of Commō praier. According whereunto it is in the booke of 8 common prayer sette forth howe in ech part of that is broken of the consecrate bread, is the whole body of our sauior Christ. If this questioner be further curious and say, Is not that, that is broken, bread? I would aunswere as a beleuing man by fayth, truely no. For in fayth I must call it, because it is truely so, the bodye of Christ inuisibly there, and the breaking to be not in it, but in the visible figure. Yea ye will call it so sayth this questio­ner 9 but yet it is bread: Nay quod I, my fayth is a most certayne truth, & beleueth things as they verely be, for Christs word is of strength, not onely to shew and declare as other mens wordes do, but therewith effectuall to make it so to be, as it is by him called. And this I write because howsoeuer clarks soberly entreat the matter (such as minde well I meane) to consider accidentes and substance which termes the rude vnderstand not, it 10 is not necessary therefore in those termes, to make aunswere to such as be contentiously curious, who labour with questions to dissolue the trueth of the mistery, in declaration whereof if we as men stumble and terme it otherwise then we should, that is no incon­uenience in the mistery, but an imperfection in vs that be not able to expresse it not ha­uing such giftes of God as other haue, nor studying to attayne learning as other haue done. And whatsoeuer in scholes with a deuoute minde to aunswere all captious questi­ons 11 hath for the exercitation of mens sences bene moued soberly and by way of argu­ment obiected, that is now picked out by this author, and brought to the common peo­ples eares, in which it might sound euill they not being able to make aunswere therun­to, wereby they might be snarled and intangled with vayne fansies against that trueth, which before without curiosity of questions, they truely and constantly beleued. Finally the doctrine of the sacrament is simple and playne, to haue the visible formes of bread & wine for signification, the thing whereof is the very body and bloud of Christ, which be­ing the trueth of the whole, it is no absurdity to confes truely the partes as they be, if oc­casion require, howsoeuer it soundeth to the Ethnike or carnall mans eares, for whose satisfaction there is no cause why the trueth should be altered into a lye, wherewith to make melody to theyr vnderstandinges. For howsoeuer carnal reason be offended with spirituall truth, it forceth not, but agaynst the whole consent of the auncient doctors, no doctrine can be iustified, with whose testimonye, how the fayth of the church in the sa­crament now agréeth, it is manifest, howsoeuer it liketh this author to reporte the con­trary.

Caunterbury.

[Page 349]HEre may the reader perceiue how much you sweat and labor, so that it pittieth me to see what trauaile you take (babling many things, no thing to the purpose) to aunswere my first absurditye. And yet at the end, you be enforced to affirme all that I charge you withall, that is to say, that accidentes be broken, eaten, drunken, chawed and swallowed without a­ny 1 substaunce at all. And more I need not to say here, then before I haue aunswered to your clarkely dialogue betweene the scholler and the rude man, sauing this, that you make all men so wise, that they iudge accidents in their common vnderstanding to be called substaunces, and that no man is able to know the difference of one substaunce from an other.

2 And here you fall into the same folly, Substāces can not be without accidentes. that Basill speaketh. For if he that goeth about to seperate accidentes from their substaunce, fayle of his pur­pose, & end in nothing indeed, then you separating the accidentes of bread from their substaunce, and the substaunce of Christes body from the acci­dentes, by your owne saying alleadged of Basill, you must fayle of your purpose, & in the end bring both the bread and body of Christ to nothing in deed. For the abstraction of accidentes from their proper substaunces and of substances frō their proper accidentes (as you truely say in that poynt) can not be practised in experience, but is a corruptiō or adnihilatiō of both.

3 And where to excuse this absurdity, that accidentes in the sacramental bread should be broken alone without any substaunce, you bring in an o­ther absurdity, that in common bread the substaunce is not broken at all: this is no taking away of the first absurdity, but of one absurdity to make two, as once I knew a man, that when he had made a lye, and perceiued that he was suspected, by and by, he would make two or three much grea­ter lyes to excuse the first withall. But if you should say, that we break not the substaunce of bread at all, it were no more vnlearnedly said in Philoso­phy, then it is vntruely sayd in diuinity.

4 And where you say that you haue probable matter for you, and I haue none for me, it is cleane contrary. For you haue vtterly nothing for you but all the whole world agaynst you, if you say that the substaunce of common bread is not broken at all. And I haue for me the very playne wordes of Christ, of the Apostle, & of the Euangelistes. 1. Cor. 10. Mat. 26. Mar. 14. Luke. 22. The bread which wee breake (sayth S. Paule.) And Christ took bread and brake it, say the three Euangelistes. But there is no bread (say you) nor no substaunce of bread is bro­ken. And this probable matter haue you for your selfe, if men will beleue your selfe alone, better then the Apostle and the Euangelistes.

5 And what should you talke in vayn of substaunce alone, to dasle the eies of the ignoraunt, when there is no such thing, nor neuer was sithens the world began? and seing your question in that place is of common breade, where the substaunce is neuer alone without accidentes? And if the sub­staunce of bread might be alone, yet your reason agaynst the breaking of it, is so far from all reason, that it should proue aswell, that the substaunce ioined to the quantity and accidentes cannot be broken, as the substaunce alone. For in euery peece of bread is a whole substaunce, and then by your argument, it cannot be broken.

6 And where you graunt that accidentes to be without substaunce, is a­gaynst the common course of naturall thinges, but it is done by a spiritu­al miracle, this is but a cloud to darken the light. For accidents to be without [Page 350] substaunces, is not onely agaynst the cōmon course of natural things, but also against the very nature of accidentes (which haue none other be­ing, but in substaunces as they be defyned, accidentis esse, estinesse) and is also against all philosophy, reason and working of god sithens the world begā. For God neuer created nor made (with miracle nor without miracle) sub­staunces without accidentes, nor accidents without substaunces, as some vaynely phantasy de materia prima. It is agaynst also the doctrine of the old catholicke authors, for neuer none wrote that accidentes were without substaunces, vntill the Bishop of Rome with his Monkes and Fryers de­fyned the contrary.

But note well here good reader the end of wit, when it is not stayd by 7 Gods word, but shooteth at rouers or runneth at large, as it were a young colte without a bridle. That nothing is broken but the accidentes, this is denied. Then would I fayne learne of this great wise man, (that so well can disseuer substaunces from accidentes) what substaunce it is that is broken? Not the body of Christ, (sayth he, for that is whole in euery part) nor the bread is not broken (sayth he, for our fayth teacheth vs contrary) then must it be either Christes diuinity or soule, that is broken, or els is some o­ther substance there which neuer man heard of before.

Note also good reader how well this author agreeth with himselfe, which within a little compasse denieth so many thinges, and affirmeth the same agayne. For first he sayth, that to seperate substaunces from the accidentes, is to bring it to nothing, and yet he seperateth from their acci­dents as well the substaunces of bread and wine, as of the body of Christ. Before he sayd, y ^t nothing was broken, but the accidēts, now he denieth it. Before he sayth, the body of Christ is not broken, and shortly after he sayth that which is broken is no bread, but the body of Christ. And here it appe­reth how falsehood neyther agreeth with truth nor with it selfe.

The booke of common prayer.And where you alleadge, that in the booke of Common prayer it is set 8 forth, how in ech part of that is brokē of the consecrated bread is the whol body of our sauiour Christ, what coulde you haue alleadged more agaynst your selfe? For if the consecrated bread bee broken in partes, how can you aunswere truely by fayth, as a beleuing man (which aunswere you make streight wayes after) that that which is broken, is no breade? And if you would aunswere (as you be wont to doe) that the accidentes of bread bee called bread, yet that collusiō will not serue you in this place. For seing that this place speaketh of consecrated bread, aūswere me to this, whether the substaunce or accidence be consecrated? And if you say the accidentes, then for as much as consecration by your doctrine is conuertion, it must follow that the accidents of bread bee conuerted, and not the substaunce, and so should you call it Transaccidentation, and not Transubstantiation, and if you say, that the substaunce of bread is consecrated, then for asmuch as that which is consecrated is deuided into partes, and in euery part is the whole body of Christ, you must confesse, that the substaunce of bread re­maineth with the partes thereof, wherein is receiued the body of Christ.

But yet will you say peraduenture, that although this make agaynst Transubstantiation, yet it proueth the reall presence of Christes body, see­ing that it is whole in euery part of the bread. It is whole in deed in euery part of the bread deuided, as it is in the whole bread vndeuided, which is sacramentally, not really, corporally, carnally, and naturally, as you fayne [Page 351] and imagine, & would cōstrayn other to beleue. And fayth denieth not the 9 bread, but teacheth it to remayne as a sacrament. And calling of it Christs body, is not making of it to be really so, no more then the calling of the bles­sed virgin, Iohns mother, made not her to be naturally so in deed, nor him to be her sonne. For although Christs words effectually spokē, be an effec­tuall making, yet his wordes sacramentally and figuratiuely spoken, de­clare not the figure or sacrament to be indeed the thing that is signified.

10 And if the rude and simple people vnderstand not substaunce from ac­cidentes (as you here affirme) then this thing they may at the least wise vnderstand, how little they be beholden to you Papysts, that would bynd them to beleue, vnder perill of damnation, such thinges as they bee not a­ble to vnderstand, making articles of theyr fayth, to snare them rather thē to saue them. But what skilleth that to the Papistes, how many men pe­rish, Distin. 40. Si Papa. 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.

11 Schoole au­thors.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, Simple and playne doctrine. 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 y ^e old ecclesiastial doctors [Page 352] 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 1 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 2 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, 3 and aske him how he will vnderstand ( Fiat lux) in creation of the world, where the light 4 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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, Really corpo­rally, naturally. with relation to the truth of the body present, and not to the maner of presence which is spirituall, 1 exceeding our capacitye, and therefore therein without drawing away accidentes or 3 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 2 the catholike beleefe. And this is on the authors part nothing but iesting with a wrong 4 surmise and supposall, as though men had inuented and imagined that which by force and truth of the scripture all good men haue and must beleeue, that is to say, the true presence of the substance of the body and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament, according to the wordes of Christ: This is my body, which exclude the substance of bread, decla­ring the substance of the body of Christ to be acknowledged and professed in the Sacra­ment by the true fayth of a christen man. Compare with this what this author writeth in hys ninth difference in the 47. leafe of his boke, and so consider the truth of this re­port, 5 and how this author agreeth with himselfe.

Caunterbury.

I Suspect not the iudgement of the indifferent reader so much, but that he can perceaue how vndirectly you answere to this third absurdity, and be loth as it seemeth to answere any thing at all.

1 But it is no little confirmation of the catholike fayth, to see you Pa­pists vary so much among your selues, and you alone to diuise so many thinges contrary to all the rest, and yet you be vncertayne your selfe what you may say. They say also with one accord (sauing onely Smith & you) that in the sacrament be not the qualities and quantities of Christes body. (For he is not there visible and sensible with his voyce to be heard, his colours to be seene, his softnes to be felt, his quantities to be extended, and to be locall in place, with his other accidents) so that they take away his accidents from the sacrament. Smith sayth that he is there (not natu­rally, as you say, but against nature) with all his qualities and accidents. Smyth. You dare neither adde them, nor drawe them away, being vncertayue whether they be there or no, and being also vncertayne whether in the 2 sacrament he haue distinction of members or no. But telling the truth is but iesting and rayling to you, which for lacke of answer be glad to shift of the truth as a matter of iesting.

And it is not my terming without the booke and at my pleasure, to 3 speake of substances without accidents, and accidents without substan­ces, (For I speake none otherwise therein, then as it hath pleased the Papistes before to terme the same in all their bookes of that matter) but I termed this matter so vppon the papisticall bookes, as they at their pleasure deuised or dreamed without all manner of bookes written before their tyme. And the force of scripture constrayneth no man to the beleefe 5 of Transubstantiation, although the body of Christ were really, corporal­ly, and carnally present, who by his omnipotent power can be present as well with the substances, as with the accidents of bread and wine, as fully is declared before.

And where you alleadge the disagreing of me with my selfe, if you [Page 354] would haue taken the payne to reade some of y ^e schole authors, you should haue learned, that there is no disagrement in my sayings at all. For they say, that the body of Christ that is in the sacrament hath his proper formes and quantities (as I sayd in the 47. leafe) But yet those accidents (say they) be in heauen, and not in the sacrament, as I say in this place, not varying one mite from myne other saying. But ignorance in you, think­eth a difference where none is at all.

Now followeth the fourth absurdity.

Fourthly, they say, that the place where the accidents of bread and wine be, hath no substance there to fill that place, and so must they needes graunt vacuum, which nature vtterly abhorreth.

Winchester.

This author goeth about to finde so many absurdities, that he speaketh he wotteth not what, and where he seeth and feeleth quantity, accompteth the place voyd for want of substance, as though in consideration of common naturall thinges seuerally as they be in nature, it were the substance that filled the place and not rather quantity, although in the naturall order of thinges there is no quantity without substance, and is in this Sacrament onely by miracle. There wanted a substance in consideration of this absur­dity, and was such a vacuum, as nature playnly endureth.

Caunterbury.

A Lithe authors that write what vacuum is, account a place that is not filled with a substaunce which hath quantity in it, to be void and em­ty. So that my saying is not grounded vpon ignoraunce; but vpon the mind of all that write in that matter. Where as your saying, that quantity alone filleth place, without substaunce, hath no ground at all, but the Pa­pistes bare imagination. And if quantity in the sacrament be without sub­staunce by miracle, it is maruaile that no auncient writer in no place of their bookes made any mention of such a miracle. But your selfe graunt inough for my purpose in this place, that it is an absurdity in nature, and wrought onely by miracle that quantity occupieth a place alone without substaunce. Which absurdity followeth not of the true and right fayth, but onely of your errour of transubstantiation. Now to the fift absurdity.

Fiftly, they are not ashamed to say, that substaunce is made of accidentes, when the bread mouleth or is turned into wormes, or when the wine sowreth.

Winchester.

True beleuing men are not ashamed to confes the trueth of theyr fayth, whatsoeuer arguments might be brought of experience in nature to the contrary. For Christes workes we know to be true by a most certayne fayth, what mouldeth in bread, or sow­reth in wine, we be not so assured, or wheron worms ingēder, it is not so fully agréed on amōg men. The learned lawyer Vlpian writeth (as I haue before alleadged) that wine and vineger haue in manner one substaunce, so as when wine sowreth and is vineger, in manner the same substaunce remayneth, in whom it is thought no absurdity to say by that meanes that the accidents onely sower. And if we agrée with the Phylosophers that there is Materia prima, which in all thinges is one and altereth not, but as a newe forme commeth, taketh a new name, fansying that as one waue in the water thrusteth away an other, so doth one forme an other. It should séeme by this conclusion all altera­tion to be in accidents, and the corruption of accidentes to be the generation of new ac­cidentes, the same Materia prima, being as it were substantia, that altereth not. And this I write that may be sayd as it were to make a title to this authors certainety, which is [Page 355] not so sure as he maketh it. Amonges men haue bene maruailous fansies in considera­tion of naturall thinges, and it is to me a very great absurdity of that secret, and therfore to our certaine fayth. But to come nerer to the purpose, it is wrong borne in hand, that we affirme wormes to be engendred of accidentes, but when the wormes be ingendred, we graunt the wormes to be, and will rather say, whereof they be we cannot tell, then to say that substaunce is made of accidents, and that doctrine is not annexed to the faith of transubstantiation, and such as intreat those chaunces and accidentes doe not induce that conclusion, but do reasonably auoyd it. And yet by the way in moulding and sow­ring it should me séemeth be properly sayd that the accidentes mould, and the accidents sower, because we call mould bread, bread: sower wine, wine, and in wine as I sayd be­fore, 3 made vineger, the former substaunce hath bene in learning accounted in maner to remayne, so as this author ouershooteth himself, when he matcheth generatiō of worms with moulding and sowring, which differ so farre in the speculation. But euen as this authors wit is ouerturned in consideration of the true fayth, so doth it appeare peruer­ted, in consideration of naturall thinges.

Caunterbury.

I know not to what purpose you haue written all this fond matter, except it be, that you would the world should know how ignorant you be in 1 philosophy, which haue not learned so much, as to know the diuersity be­twene the vi. kindes of mornings, generation, corruption, augmentation, diminution, alteration, and mouing from place to place. Wherof the iiii. last be from accidents to accidents, and the two first from substance to substance. So that all mutation is not in accidents, and the corruption of accidents to be the generation of new accidents, as you vnlearnedly imagine, both of that, and of materia prima, which neuer was no such thing in deede, but by imagination.

But bicause you beare me in hand, that I beare the papistes wrong in hand, that they affirme wormes to be ingendred of accidents, I shall 2 reherse their owne wordes, that the readers may know your ignorance herein, or els how loud a lye you make willingly. Ex speciebus sacramentali­bus (say they) generantur vermes, siputre fiant. Of the sacramentall formes, if they be rotten, be gendred wormes. But it is no poynt of true meaning men, now to deny that euer they sayd any such things, as they haue taught in their scholes these foure or fiue hundred yeares, as their owne books do playnly testefy. And be these Papistes to be credited, which haue taught vntruely so many yeares, and now when they be pressed with all, goe cleane from it, and say they neuer sayd so, but he wrong borne in hand.

And bicause Smith denieth here the same that you doe, that wormes be ingendred of the accidents in the sacrament, let him helpe you to aun­swere this matter. And for as much as he sayth that when the host reser­ued beginneth to moule and to putrify, Smith. and should ingender wormes, then an other substance succeedeth it, of which such thinges are made, let him tell what substaunce that is which succedeth, and whereof that substance is made.

But to returne to you agayne, such philosophy as you make here, lear­ned I neuer in Aristotle, Plato, nor Pliny, nor I trow none such to bee found in any that euer wrote. But as you delight all in singularity, and haue made strange diuinity, so must you inuēt as strange philosophy. For who euer heard the Terminus a quo is chaunged, or Terminus ad quem? And whatsoeuer semeth to you (as commonly it seemeth to you that seemeth to [Page 356] no man els) yet it seemeth to no man els that euer was learned, that acci­dēts be properly changed, but that the substaunces or subiectes be chaun­ged from accidence to accidence.

And it is the simplest reason that euer was made, that the accidentes 3 moule and sower, because the substaunce remayneth, so as mouled bread is called bread, and sower wine is called wine. For so is colde water and hoat water both, called water. And yet it is the water that is now hoate now colde, and not the accidentes. For neyther can hote be colde nor colde be hoat, nor heat go into coldnes, nor coldnes into heat, but the subiect that receiueth them, is now hoat, now cold by alteration, as yron that is now colde, is soone made hoat, but coldnes can neuer be hotenes by no arte nor science, forasmuch as they be contrary qualities. And likewise purenes cā ­not moul, nor sweetnes cannot be sower, but wine that is sweet may turn into sower wine, & bread that is pure may be chaunged into mouly bread. But the more you striue in the matters of philosophy, the more appeareth your ignoraunce therein, euen as it did before in the matters of our fayth. And who can condemne your doctrine more clearely then your owne Vl­pian 4 doth, as you do here alleadge him? that in vineger remayneth in man­ner the same substaunce that was in the wine, wherof it must folow, that when the sacramentall wine is turned into vineger, there must be a sub­staunce remaining, which is in manner the same with the substaunce of the vineger. The sixt absurdity.

Sixtly, that substaunce is norished without substance, by accidents onely, if it chaunce any Catte, Mouse, Dogge, or other thing, to eate the Sacramentall bread.

These inconueniences and absurdities do follow of the fond papistical tran­substantiation, with a number of other errours, as euill or worsse then these, whereunto they be neuer able to aunswere, as many of them haue confessed themselues.

And it is wonder to see, how in many of the foresayd thinges, they vary a­mong themselues. Where as the other doctrine of the scripture and of the old catholick church, but not of the lately corrupted Romish church is plaine and easy, as well to be vnderstanded, as to aunswere to all the aforesayd questi­ons, without any absurdity or inconuenience folowing thereof, so that euerye aunswere shall agree with gods word, with the olde church, and also with all reason and true philosophy.

For as touching the first poynt, what is broken, what is eaten, what drunkē and what chawen in this sacrament, it is easy to aunswere. The bread and wine, as S. Paule sayth: The bread which we breake.

And as concerning the second and third poyntes, neither is the substaunce of bread and wine without their proper accidents, nor their accidentes hange alone in the ayre without any substance, but according to all learning, the sub­staunce of the bread and wine reserue their owne accidents and the accidents do rest in their owne substaunces.

And also as concerning the fourth poynt, there is no place left voyd after consecration (as the Papistes dreame) but bread and wine fulfill their place as they did before.

And as touching the fift poynt (whereof the wormes or mouling is ingen­dred, and wherof the vineger commeth) the aunswere is easy to make (accor­ding [Page 358] to all learning and experience) that they come according to the course of nature, of the substance of the bread and wine, to long kept, and not of the ac­cidentes alone, as the Papistes do fondly phantasy.

And likewise the substances of bread and wine, do feed and nourish the bo­dy of them that eat the same, and not onely the accidents.

In these answeres is no absurdity nor inconuenience, nothing spoken either contrary to holy scripture, or to naturall reason, Philosophy, or experience, or agaynst any old auncient author, or the primitiue or catholicke church, but onely agaynst the malignant and Papisticall church of Rome. Where as on the other side, that cursed synagog of Antichrist, hath defyned and determined in this matter, many thinges contrary to Christes words, contrary to the old ca­tholick church, and the holy martirs and doctors of the same, and contrary to all naturall reason, learning, and philosophy.

And the final end of al this Antichristes doctrine is none other, but by sub­tilty and craft, to bring christen people from the true honoring of Christ, vnto the greatest idolatry, that euer was in this world deuise: as by Gods grace shal be plainly set forth hereafter.

Winchester.

1 It hath vene heard without fables of certaine men that haue liued and bene norished with sauors onely. And in gold and certayne precious stones, that they geue a kinde of nurriture to an other substance, without diminution of their substance, experience hath shewed it so, and therefore the principle or maxime that this author gathereth hath no such absurdity in it, as he noteth, to say that substaunce is nourished without substance. But when vermin by chaunce happen to deuour any host, as I am sure they cannot vio­late Christes most precious body, so what effect foloweth of the rest, what néedeth it to be discussed? If it nourisheth, then doth that effect remaine, although the substaunce be not there. If euery nurriture must néedes bee of substaunce, then would those that discusse those chances say the substaunce to returne, but hell gates shall not make me speake a­gaynst my fayth. And if I be asked the question, whether the visible matter of the sacra­ment nourish. I will answere, yea Ergo sayth he, there is substaunce, I deny it. He shall now from the effect to the cause argue by physicke, I shall disproue the conclusion by the 2 authority of faith, who is it most méet should yeld to other? And if in nature many things be in experience contrary to the generall rules, why may not one singular condition be in this visible matter of the sacrament, that the onely substaunce being chaunged, all o­ther partes, properties and effectes may remayne? Is it an absurdity for a mayde to haue a child, because it is against the rules of nature? Is it an absurdity the world to be made of nothing, because the philosopher sayth: Of nothing commeth nothing? The principle of nature is that whatsoeuer hath a beginning, hath an end, and yet it is no absurditye to beléeue our soules to haue a beginning without end, and to be immortall. Wherefore to conclude this matter, it is a great absurdity in this author, to note that for an absur­dity in our fayth, which repugneth onely to the principles of phylosophy, or reasō, when that is onely to be accounted for an absurdity, that should repugne to the scripture and gods will, which is the standerd to try the rule of our fayth. Howsoeuer reason or Phy­losophy be offended it forceth not, so gods teaching be embraced and persuaded in fayth, which néedeth no such plaisters and salues as this author hath deuised, to make a sore where none is, and to corrupt that is whole.

Caunterbury.

1 MEn may here see, what fayned fables be sought out, to defend your errors and ignorance, which is how so manifest, that it appeareth you neuer read, or els haue forgotten, the very principles, and diffinitions [Page 358] of Philosophy. Of which this is one, that nutrition is a conuertion of substance into substance, that is to say, of the meate into the substance of the thing that is fedde. An other is thus Ex eisdem sunt & nutriuntur omnia. All thinges be nourished of thinges like themselues. And so I graunt you, that a man made of sauoures, and a man made of the vertue of gold and precious stones, may be nourished by the same, bicause he is made of the same. And yet it may be, that some certayne sauor or the vertue of some precious stone, may increase or continue some humor, wherof a man may be nourished, as we read of some men or certayne people that haue liued no small time by the sauonr of apples.

But still in your booke you crye fayth, fayth, and catholike fayth, when 2 you teach but your owne inuentions, cleane contrary to the true catholike fayth and expresse worde of God. And in all your arguments here you commit the greatest vice that can be in reasoning, called Petitio principij, ta­king that thing which is chiefly in controuersy, to be a principle to induce your conclusion: Fayth, fayth say you: where is no fayth, but your bare faining. I haue disproued your fayth by gods word, by the vniuersall con­sent of all Christendome a M. yeares togither, and you crye out still, fayth fayth, which is not the fayth of Christ, but of Antichrist. Let christen men now iudge, who should yeld to other. If you had proued your doctrine by fayth, founded vpon Gods word, I would condescend vnto you that it is no absurdity that accidents remayne when the substance is gone. But gods word is clearly agaynst you, not onely in your doctrine of tran­substantiation, but also in the doctrine of the reall presence, of the eating and drinking, and of the sacrifices of Christes flesh and bloud.

Winchester.

The best plaster and medicine that could now be deuised, were to leaue a part que­stions 1 and idle talke, and meekly to submit our capacities to the true fayth, and not to ouerwhelme our vnderstandinges with search and inquiry, wherof we shall neuer finde an ende, entring the bottomles secresy of Gods misteries. Let vs not seeke that is aboue our reach, but that God hath commaunded vs let vs do. Each man impugneth an others learning with wordes, none controleth in others liuing with better dedes. Let all en­deuour themselues to do that God commaundeth, and the good occupation therof shall exclude al such idlenes as is cause and occasion of this vayne and noysome curiosity. And now to returne to this author, whiles he seeth a mate in an other mans iye, he feeleth not a beame in his owne. Who recommendeth vnto vs specially Theodoret, whome he calleth an holy Bishop, and with him doth bring forth a pece of an Epistle of S. Chrisostome. The doctrine of which two ioyned with the doctrine of this author, in such sence as this author would haue all vnderstanded to be called catholike, touching the fayth of the sacrament, hath such an absurdity in it, as was neuer hard of in religion. 2 For this author teacheth for his part that the body of Christ is onely really in heauen and not indeed in the sacrament, according wherunto this author teacheth also the bread to be very bread still, which doctrine if it be true as this author will needes haue it, then ioyne vnto it the doctrine of the secret Epistle of Chrisostome and Theodoret, 3 whose doctrine is that after the consecration, that is consecrate, shalbe called no more bread, but the body of Christ. By these two doctrines ioyned togither it shall apeare that we must call that is consecrate, by a name that we be learned by, this author it is not, and may not by the doctrine of Theodoret call it by the name of the which this author teacheth vs in deede it is. And thus: It is in deede bread quoth this author, but call it not so quoth this Theodoret: It is not in deede the body of Christ quoth this author, but yet in any wise call it so quoth Theodoret. Here is playne simulation and dissimulation [Page 359] both togither. For by forbidding of the name of bread, according to Theodorets teaching we dissemble and hide that it is by this authors teaching, and by vsing the name of our Lordes body, according to Theodorets teaching, we fayne it to be that it is not by this authors teaching, which sayth, there is onely a figure, and by this meanes in so high a mistery we should vse vntruthes on both sides, in simulation and dissimulation, which is a meruaylous teaching.

I deny not but thinges signifying may haue the name of that they signify by a figure 4 of speach, but we read not in any doctrine giuen that the thing signifying should haue the name by figure, and be deliuered from the name of that it is in deede. And yet this is now the teaching of this author in defence of his new Catholike fayth ioyned with the teaching of Theodoret, and the secret Epistle of S. Chrisostom, as this author would haue them vnderstanded. But those men Theodoret and Chrisostome in the sence they 5 ment, as I vnderstand them, taught a true doctrine. For they take the name of the bo­dy of Christ in the sacrament to be a reall naming of the body of Christ there present in deede, and therfore a true perfect name, which as S. Chrisostomes secret Epistle sayth, the thing is worthy to haue declaring, by that worthines the thing named to be there in deed. And likewise I vnderstand the other name of bread worthely done away, bicause the substance wherupon in reason the name was grounded, is changed, accor­ding to the true doctrine of Transubstantiation, therfore that name of bread in their doctrine is truely layd away although Theodoret writeth the visible matter of bread 6 and wine to be seene and felt as they were before, and therfore sayth their substance which there signifieth the outward nature is séene and felt to remayne, which termes with conuenient vnderstanding may thus agrée with the catholicke teaching of tran­substantiation, 7 and so in the sacrament on euery part, but in the heauenly and earthlye part to be a full, whole and perfect truth, as the high mystery being the sacrament of our perfect vnity in body and soule with Christ, doth require. Wherby in my iudgement as this author hath agaynst his owne determination in this enterprise vttered that confir­meth the truth of the reall presence of Christes most precious bodye in the sacrament, which he doth in speciall entreating the wordes of S Augustine in the xxvii. leafe of hys book besides that in diuers other places he doth y ^e like: so bringing vs forth this Theodo­ret and his secret epistle of S. Chrisostome, he hath brought forth that may serue to con­uince him in transubstantiation. Howbeit as for transubstantiation Zuinglius taketh it truely for a necessary consequence of the trueth, if there bee in the sacrament the reall presence of Christes body, as there is in déed. For as a carnall man not instruct by fayth 9 aswell after consecration as before as he is of the earth, speaketh and calleth it bread and asking him what it is, will neuer aunswere otherwise, and if one asked him whether it were the body of Christ, would thinke the questioner mocked him, so the faythfull spiri­tuall man answering to that question what it is, would after consecration according to fayth, aunswere the body of Christ, and thinke himself mocked if he were asked is it not bread? vnles he had bene taught Christ to haue sayd it had bene both his body and bread. As for calling it by the name of bread which it was, he would not greatly stick, and one thing may haue many names, but one thing is but one substance, whereby to aunswere to the question what it is, sauing onely in the person of Christ, wherein we know vnited the two substances of god and man. And this matter I repeate and summarily touch a­gayne to leaue in the readers brest the principall poynt of our beliefe of this mistery to be of the reall presence, that is to say, vnfayned substantiall presence, and therefore the true presence of Christes most precious body in the Sacrament, which hath bene in al ages taught, and bene as it is the Catholick fayth of Christendome, as appeareth by the testimony of the old authors in all ages.

Caunterbury.

1 FOr the conclusion of al these questions, when you see that you can make no aunswere, but that you be driuen to so many absurdities, and that I haue answered so playnely vnto euery one, that there is left neither absur­dity nor difficulty at al, then you deuise the best way and most easy for your [Page 360] selfe, to lay apart all questions and idle talke, when all these questions and idle talke needed not, if the papistes of their idle braines had not deuised their transubstantiation, and thereupon moued this idle talke themselues, which hath bene occasion not onely of much dissention in all Christian realmes, but of the effusion also of much innocent bloud.

But when the Papistes, like vnto Lucifer, haue ascended into heauen, 2 and searched by vayne and arrogant questions the bowels and secrets of gods maiesty and his wisedome. Yea euen whether God haue made the world so well as he might haue done, theu they commaund other to keepe silence, and not to enter into the bottomles secrecy of Gods misteries, nor to seeke that is aboue their reach, but to eudeuour themselues to doe that God commanndeth, which counsaile as it is most godly and holesome, so if the Papistes themselues had obserued in the beginning, no man should haue needed to haue troubled his braynes with such fryuolous questions, and idle talke. But the Papists do like boyes in the schole, that make rods to beat other, aud when they should be beaten with the roddes which they made themselues, then they wish that al rods were in the fier. So the Pa­pistes when they see themselues ouerthrowne in their owne questions which they first deuised themselues, & to be beaten with their owne rods, then they cry peace, hold hands, and question no more.

But to aunswere the absurdityes layed vnto the Papistes charge, you recompence me agayne with [...] great huge absurdities. One is that Christ is really but in heauen onely, the other is that bread is stil bread. Here thou mayst iudge (gentle reader) what errours I defend, that am by force dri­uen to such two absurdities, that I am fayne to say as I haue written in my booke, and as the Apostles and Euangelistes sayd. But beware I would aduise thee, that thou say not as Gods word teacheth, for if thou doost, thou mayst be sure to be taken of the Papistes for an hereticke.

Bread and no bread.Fynally you come to your contradictions of bread and no bread, the bo­dy and not the body, simulation and dissimulation, wherin when you haue well practised your selfe in all your booke thorow, at the last you make as it were a play in a dialogue betweene Chrysostome, Theodoret and me. But Chrysostome, Theodoret and I shall agree well enough, Theodoretus. Chrisostomus. for they tell 3 not what in no wise may be, but what was commonly vsed, that is to say not to call the bread by his proper name after consecration, but by y ^e name of the body of Christ. And if you had well considered, what I wrote in my 4 booke concerning figuratiue speaches, and negatiues by cōparisō (which you also haue allowed) you should haue well perceiued your labor here spēt all in vaine. For in all figures and sacramentes, the signes remayning in their owne proper natures, chaunge neuertheles their names, Why the names of y ^e sacraments be chaunged. and be cal­led by the names of the more high and excellent thinges which they signi­fy. And both Chrysostome and Theodoret shew a cause thereof which is this, that we should not rest in the sight of the sacramentes and figures, but lift vp our mindes to the thinges that be thereby represented. And yet in the sacramentes is neither simulation nor dissimulation, except you will call all figuratiue speaches, simulation, and say that Christ simuled, when he sayd, he was a vine, a dore, a herdman, the light of the world, and suche like speaches. But it pleaseth you for refreshing of your wit (being now so sore trauailed with impugning of the truth) to deuise a prety mery dialog [Page 361] of Quoth he and quoth he. And if I were disposed to dally and trifle, I could make a like dialogue of simulation or dissimulation, of quoth he and quoth you, euen betwene you and Christ.

But (as I haue declared before,) all thinges which be exalted to an hier dignity, be called by the names of their dignity (So muche the many times their former names be forgotten,) and yet neuertheles they be the same thinges that they were before, although they be not vsually so called, As the surnames of Kinges and Emperours, to how many be they kno­wen? or how many doe call them thereby? but euery man calleth them by their royall and imperiall dignities. And in like maner is it of fygures and sacramentes, sauing that their exaltation is in a figure, and the dignities royall and imperiall be reall and indeed. And yet he should not offend that should call the princes by their original names, so that he did it not in con­tempt of their estates. And no more should he offend that did call a figure by the name of the thing that it is indeed, so that he did it not in contempt of the thing that is signified. And therefore Theodoret sayth not, that the bread in the sacrament may not be called bread, and that he offendeth that so calleth it, for he calleth it bread himselfe, but with this addition of digni­ty, calling it the bread of life, which it signifieth. As the cap of maintenāce is not called barely and simply a cap, but with addition of maintenaunce. And in like manner we vse not in common speach to call bread, wine and water in the sacraments, simple and common water, bread and wine: but according to that they represent vnto vs, we call them the water of bap­tisme, the water of life, sacramentall water, sacramentall and celestiall bread and wine, the bread of lyfe, the drinke that quencheth our thirst for euer. And the cause Theodoret sheweth, why they be so called, that we hearing those names should lift vp our mindes vnto the thinges that they bee called, and comfort our selues therewithall. And yet neither in the sacra­ments, iu the cap of maintenaunce, nor in the imperiall or royall maiesties is any simulation or dissimulation, but all be playn speaches in common v­sage, which euery man vnderstandeth.

5 But there was neuer man that vnderstood any author further from his meaning, then you do Theodoret and Chrysostome in this place. For they ment not of any reall calling, by chaungyng of substances, but of a sacra­mentall chaunge of the names remaining the substaunces. For Theodo­ret sayth in playne wordes, that as Christ called bread his body, so he cal­led his body corne, and called himselfe a vine. Was therefore the substance of his body transubstantiated and turned into corne, or he into a vine? And yet this must needes follow of your saying, if Christes calling were a put­ting away of the former substance, according to the doctrine of Transub­stantiation. But that Theodoret ment not of any such chaunging of sub­stances, but of chaunging of names, he declareth so playnely, that no man can doubt of his meaning. These be Theodorets owne wordes. ‘Our Sa­uiour without doubt chaunged the names and gaue to his body the name of the signe, and to the signe the name of his body, and yet (sayth he) they kept their former substaunce, fashion, and figure.’ And the cause wherfore Christ doth vouchsafe to call the sacramental bread by the name of hys bo­dy, & to dignify so earthly a thing by so heauenly a name, Theodoret shew­eth to be this, that the godly receiuers of the Sacrament, when they heare [Page 362] the heauenly names, should lift vp their mindes from earth vnto heauen, and not to haue respect vnto the bread outwardly only, but principally to looke vpon Christ, who with his heauenly grace and omnipotent power feedeth them inwardly.

But there was neuer such vntrueth vsed, as you vse in this author, to 6 hide the trueth, and to set forth your vntrueth. For you alter Theodoretes wordes, and yet that suffiseth not, but you geue such new and straunge significations to wordes, as before was neuer inuented. For where The­odoret sayth, that the sacramentes remayne, you turne that into the visi­ble matter, and then that visible matter (as you take it) must signify acci­dents. And where Theodoret sayth in playne termes, that the substaunce remayneth, there must substaunce also by your saying signify accidentes, which you call here outward nature, cōtrary to your own doctrine, which haue taught hetherto, that substaunce is an inward nature, inuisible and insensible. And thus your saying here neither agreeth with the trueth nor with your selfe in other places.

And all these cantelless and false interpretations, altering of the words, and corrupting of the sence both of all authors and also of scripture, is no­thing els but shameles shiftes to deceiue simple people, and to draw them from the olde Catholicke fayth of Christes Churche, vnto your newe Ro­mish errors, deuised by Antichrist, not aboue foure or fiue hundred yeares passed.

And where you say, that in the sacrament, in euery part both in the heauenly 7 & earthly part, is an whole & perfect truth. Now is perfect truth in the earthly part of the sacrament, if there be no bread there at all, but the color and accidents of bread? For if there be none other truth in the heauē ­ly part of the sacrament, then is not Christ there at all, but onely his quali­ties and accidentes.

And as concerning your vniust gathering of mine owne wordes vpon 8 S. Augustine, I haue aunswered thereunto in the same place.

And where you haue set out the aunswere of the carnall and spirituall 9 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 y ^e bread or inclosing Christ really in y ^e accidēces 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.

Our thing one substaunce.And where you say, that one thing is but one substaunce, sauing onelye [Page 363] 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.

1 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, 2 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 [...]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 3 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 Sacramēt for the truth of presence, as the Godhead is in the person of Christ, be­yng 4 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 y ^e 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 mās 5 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 [Page 376] 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 1 perceaue most manifestly your ignoraūce 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.

Irenaeus.And to begyn with your first marke, Irenee in deede proued the resur­rection 2 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 nei­ther reason, learnyng nor fayth beareth, that Christes body beyng onely in bread, should gyue life vnto a man. So y ^t if it were an Article of our faith, to beleue that Christ is present in the formes of bread and wine, it were an vnprofitable Article, seyng that his being in y ^e bread, should profit no man.

The meaning of Irene and o­ther.Irenee therefore meaneth not of the beyng of Christ in the bread and wyne, but of the eatyng of him. And yet he meaneth not of corporall eating (for so Christ sayth him selfe, Iohn. 6. that his flesh auayleth nothing) but spirituall eatyng by fayth. Nor he speaketh not of spirituall eatyng in receauyng of the Sacrament onely, for then our lyfe should not be eternall, nor endure no longer then we be eating of the sacrament: for our spirituall life cōtinu­eth no lōger thē our spirituall feedyng. And then could none haue lyfe, but that receaue the Sacramēt, and all should haue perished that dyed before Christes Supper and institutiō of the Sacrament, or that dye vnder age before they receiue the Sacrament.

But the true meaning of Irenee, Hilary, Cyprian, Cyrill, and other that treated of this matter was this, that as Christ was truely made man and crucified for vs, and shed his bloud vpon the Crosse for our redemption, & now reigneth for euer in heauen, so as many as haue a true fayth and be­lefe in him, chawyng their cuddes, and perfectly remembryng the same death and passion (which is the spirituall eatyng of his flesh and drinkyng of his bloud) they shall reigne in euerlastyng lyfe with him. For they spiri­tually and truely by faith eate his flesh and drinke his bloud, whether they were before the institution of the Sacrament or after. And the beyng or not beyng of Christes body and bloud really and corporally in the Sacra­ment vnder the formes of bread and wine, neither maketh nor marreth, nor is to no purpose in this matter. But for confirmation of this our fayth in Christes death and passion, & for a perpetuall memory of the same, hath Christ ordeined this holy Sacrament, not to be kept, but to be ministred among vs, to our singular comfort, that as outwardly and corporally we eate the very bread and drinke the very wine, and call them the body and bloud of Christ, so inwardly and spiritually we eate & drinke the very body [Page 365] and bloud of Christ. And yet carnally and corporally he is in heauen, and shall be vntill the last Iudgement, when he shall come to Iudge both the quicke and the dead. And in the Sacrament, (that is to say, in the due mi­nistration of the Sacrament) Christ is not onely figuratiuely, but effectu­ally vnto euerlastyng lyfe.

And this teachyng impugneth the heresies of the Ualentinians, Arri­ans, and other heretickes, and so doth not your fayned doctrine of Tran­substantiation, of the reall presence of Christes flesh and bloud in the Sa­crament, vnder the formes of bread and wine: and that vngodly and wic­ked men eate and drinke the same, which shall be cast away from the eter­nall lyfe, and perish for euer. And for further aunswere to Hilary, I referre the Reader to myne other aunswere made to him before.

3 And for S. Chrisostome, Gelasius, and Theodorete, if there be no bread and wine in the Sacrament, their Argumentes serue for the heretickes purpose, and cleane directly agaynst them selues. For their entent agaynst the heretickes, is to proue that to the full perfection of Christ is required a perfect soule, and a perfect body, and to be perfect God and perfect man. As to the full perfection of the Sacrament is required pure and perfect bread and wine, and the perfect body and bloud of Christ. So that now turnyng the Argument, if there be no perfect bread and wine (as the Pa­pistes falsely surmise) then may the heretickes cōclude agaynst the Catho­licke fayth, and conuince Chrisostome, Gelasius & Theodorete with their own weapon, that is to say, with their own similitude, that as in the Sa­cramēt lacketh the earthly part, so doth in Christ lacke his humanitie. And as to all our senses seemeth to be bread and wine, and yet is none in deede, so shall they argue by this similitude, that in Christ seemed to all our senses flesh and bloud, and yet was there none in very deede. And thus by your deuilish Trāsubstantiation of bread and wine, do you trāsubstantiate al­so the body and bloud of Christ, not conuincyng but confirmyng most hay­nous heresies. And this is the conclusion of your vngodly fayned doctrine of transubstantiation.

4 And where you would gather the same cōclusion, if Christes flesh and bloud be not really present, it seemeth that you vnderstand not the purpose and intent of these Authors. For they bring not this similitude of the Sa­crament for the reall presence, but for the reall beyng. That as the Sacra­ment consisteth in two partes, one earthly & an other heauenly, (the earth­ly part beyng the bread and wine, and the heauenly the body and bloud of Christ) and these partes be all truely and really in deede, without colour, or simulation (that is to say very true bread and wine, in deede, the very true body and bloud of Christ in deede:) euē likewise in Christ be two natures, his humanitie and earthly substaunce, and his diuinitie and heauēly sub­staunce, and both these be true natures and substaunces, without colour or dissemblyng. And thus is this similitude of the Sacrament brought in, for the truth of the natures, not for the presence of the natures. For Christ was perfect God and perfect man, whē his soule went downe to hell, and his body lay in the graue (bycause the body and soule were both still vni­ted vnto his diuinitie) and yet it was not required that his soule should be present with the body in the sepulture, no more is it now required that his body should be really present in the Sacrament, but as the soule was then [Page 366] in hell, so is his body now in heauen. And as it is not required, that where so euer Christes diuinitie is, there should be really and corporally his man­hode: so it is not required, that where the bread and wyne be, there should be corporally his flesh and bloud.

But as you frame the Argument agaynst the heretickes, it serueth so litle agaynst them, that they may with the same frame and engine, ouer­throw the whole Catholicke Church. For thus you frame the Argument: As the presence of Christes body in this mystery doth not alter the proprie­tie of the visible natures, no more doth the Godhead in the person of Christ extinguish his humanitie. Marke well now good Reader what foloweth hereof. As the presence of Christes body in this mysterie, doth not alter (say you) the proprietie of y ^e visible natures, no more doth the Godhead in the person of Christ extinguish his humanitie. But the presence of Christes body in this mystery doth so alter the visible natures (as the Papistes say) that the substaunces of bread and wyne be extinguished, and there remay­neth no substaūce but of the body of Christ, Ergo likewise in the 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 7 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.