AN AVNSVVERE BY THE REVEREND FATHER in God Thomas Archbyshop of Canterbury, Primate of all England and Metropolitane, Vnto a craftie and Sophisticall cauillation, deuised by Stephen Gardiner Doctour of Law, late Byshop of Winchester agaynst the true and godly doctrine of the most holy Sacrament, of the body and bloud of our Sauiour IESV CHRIST..

Wherein is also, as occasion serueth, aunswered such pla­ces of the booke of Doct. Richard Smith, as may seeme any thyng worthy the aunsweryng.

Here is also the true Copy of the booke written, and in open Court deli­uered, by D. Stephen Gardiner, not one word added or diminished, but faythfully in all pointes agreeyng with the Originall.

Reuised, and corrected by the sayd Archbyshop at Oxford before his Martyrdome: Wherein hee hath beautified Gardiners doynges, with asmuch diligence as might be, by applying Notes in the Margent, and markes to the Doctours saying: which before wanted in the first Impression.

Hereunto is prefixed the discourse of the sayd Archbyshops lyfe, and Martyrdome, briefly collected out of his Hystory of the Actes and Monumentes, and in the end is added certaine Notes, wherein Gardiner varied, both from him selfe, and other Papistes, gathered by the sayd Archbyshop.

Read with Iudgement, and conferre with diligence, laying aside all affection on either partie, and thou shalt easely perceaue (good Reader) how slender and weake the allegations and perswasions of the Papistes are, wherewith they goe about to defende their erroneous and false doctrine, and to impugne the truth. Anno. M. D. LI.

AT LONDON Printed by Iohn Daye, dwellyng ouer Al­dersgate beneath S. Martines. Anno. 1580.

Cum gratia & Priuilegio, Regiae Maiestatis.

A PREFACE TO THE READER.

I Thinke it good gentle Rea­der, here in the begynnyng to admo­nish thee of certaine wordes & kyndes of speaches, which I do vse sometyme in this myne aunswere to the late Byshop of Winchesters book, least in mi­stakyng, thou doe as it were stumble at them.

First this word (Sacrament) I doe sometymes vse (as it is many tymes taken among writers and holy Doc­tours) for the Sacramentall bread,Sacrament. water, or wine, as when they say, that Sacramentum est sacrae rei signum, a Sa­crament is the signe of an holy thyng. But where I vse to speake some­tymes (as the old Authors do) that Christ is in the Sacramentes, I mean the same as they did vnderstand the matter, that is to say, not of Christes carnall presence in the outward Sacrament, but sometymes of his Sa­cramentall presence. And sometyme by this word (Sacrament) I meane the whole ministration and receiuyng of the Sacramētes, either of Bap­tisme, or of the Lordes Supper, and so the old writers many tymes doe say, that Christ and the holy Ghost be present in the Sacramentes, not meanyng by that maner of speach, that Christ and the holy Ghost be pre­sent in the water, bread, or wine (which be onely the outward visible Sa­cramentes (but that in the due ministration of the Sacramentes accor­dyng to Christes ordinaunce and institution, Christ and his holy spirite be truely and in deede present by their mightie and sanctifiyng power, ver­tue and grace, in all them that worthely receiue the same.

Moreouer, when I say and repeat many tymes in my book, yt the body of Christ is present in them that worthely receaue the Sacrament,Christes pre­sence in the god­ly receiuer. least any man should mystake my woordes, and thinke that I meane, that al­though Christ be not corporally in the outward visible signes, yet hee is corporally in the persons that duely receiue them, this is to aduertise the Reader, that I meane no such thyng, but my meanyng is, that the force, the grace, the vertue and benefite of Christes body that was Crucified for vs, and of his bloud that was shed for vs, be really, and effectually pre­sent with all them that duely receaue the Sacramentes, but all this I vnderstand of his spirituall presence, of the which he sayth, I will be with you vntill the worldes ende. And wheresoeuer two or three be gathered together in my name, there am I in the myddest of them.Math. 6. Math. 18. And hee that eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloud, dwelleth in me, and I in him. Nor no more truely is he corporally or really present in the due ministra­tion of the Lordes Supper,Iohn. 6. than hee is in the due ministration of Bap­tisme: That is to say, in both spiritually by grace. And wheresoeuer in the Scripture it is sayd that Christ, God or the holy Ghost is in any man, the same is vnderstand spiritually by grace.

The thyrd thyng to admonish the Reader of is this, that when I name [Page] Doctour Stephen Gardiner Byshop of Winchester,The naming of the late Bishop of Winchester. I meane not that he is so now, but forasmuch as he was Byshop of Winchester at the tyme when he wrote his booke agaynst me, therfore I aunswere his booke as written by the Byshop of Winchester, whiche els needed greatly none aunswere for any great learnyng or substaunce of matter that is in it.

The reall pre­sence of Chryst should proue no Transubstan­tiation of the bread and wine.The last admonition to the Reader is this, where the sayd late Byshop thinketh that he hath sufficiently proued Transubstantiation, (that is to say, that the substaunce of bread and wine can not be in the Sacrament, if the body and bloud of Christ were there) bycause two bodyes can not be togethers in one place, although the truth be, that in the Sacrament of Christes bodye, there is corporallye but the substaunce of bread onelye, and in the Sacrament of the bloud, the substaunce of wine onelye, yet how farre hee is deceiued, and doth vary from the doctrine of other Pa­pistes, and also from the principles of Philosophy (whiche he taketh for the foundation of his doctrine in this point) the Reader hereby may ease­ly perceiue. For if we speake of Gods power, the Papistes affirme, that by Gods power, two bodyes may be together in one place, and then why may not Christes bloud be with the wyne in the cup, and his fleshe in the same place where the substaunce of the bread is? And if we consider the cause wherfore two bodyes can not be together in one place by the rules of nature, it shall euidently appeare, that the body of Christ may rather be in one place with the substaunce of the bread, thē with the accidents ther­of, and so likewise his bloud with the wine. For the naturall cause wherfore two bodyes can not be together in one place (as the Philo­sophers say) is their accidentes, their bignes, and thicknes, and not their substaunces. And then by the very order of nature it re­pugneth more yt ye body of Christ should be present wt the acci­dentes of bread, and his bloud with the accidentes of wyne, then with the substaunces either of bread or wyne. This shall suffice for the admo­nition to the Reader, ioynyng thereto the Preface in my first booke, whiche is this:

A PREFACE TO THE READER.

OVr Sauiour Christ Iesus, according to the will of his eternall Father,The great mercy & benefits of God towards vs. when the time thereto was fully complished, taking our nature vpon him came into this world from the high throne of hys Father, to declare vnto miserable sinners, good newes, to heale them that were sicke, to make the blinde to see, the deafe to heare, and the dumbe to speake, to set prisoners at liberty, to shew that the time of grace and mercy was come, to giue light to them that were in darknes and in the shadow of death, and to preach and geue pardon and full re­mission of sinne to all his elected. And to performe the same he made a sacri­fice and oblation of his owne body vpon the crosse, which was a full redemp­tion, satisfaction and propitiation for the sinnes of the whole world. And to commend this his sacrifice vnto all his faythfull people, and to confirme their fayth and hope of eternall saluation in the same, he hath ordayned a perpetu­all memory of his sayd sacrifice, dayly to be vsed in the Church to his perpetu­all laud and prayse, and to our synguler comfort and consolation, That is to say the celebration of his holy supper, wherein he doth not cease to geue himselfe, with all his benefites to all those that duely receiue the same supper, accor­ding to his blessed ordinaunce.The erronious doctrine of the papists obscu­ring the same. But the Romish Antichrist, to deface this great benefite of Christ, hatht that his sacrifice vpon the crosse is not sufficient here­unto, without any other sacrifice deuised by him, and made by the priest, or els without Indulgences, Beades, Pardons, Pilgrimages, and such other Pelfray, to to supply Christes imperfection. And that Christen people cannot applye to themselues the benefytes of Christes passion, but that the same is in the distri­bution of the Byshop of Rome, or els that by Christ we haue no full remission but be deliuered onely from sinne, and yet remaineth temporall payne in Pur­gatory due for the same, to be remitted after this life by the Romish Antichrist and his ministers, who take vpon them to do for vs that thing, which Christ ei­ther would not, or could not do. O haynous blasphemy & most detestable iniu­ry against Christ. O wicked abhomination in the temple of God. O pride intol­lerable of Antechrist, and most manifest token of the sonne of perdition, extol­ling himselfe aboue God, and with Lucifer exalting his seat and power aboue the throne of God. For he that taketh vpon him to supply that thing which he pretendeth to be vnperfect in Christ, must nedes make himself aboue Christ, & so very Antichrist. For what is this els, but to be agaynst Christ, and to bring him in contempt, as one that either for lack of charity would not, or for lack of power he could not, with all his bloudshedding and death, cleerely deliuer his faythfull, and geue them full remission of their sinnes, but that the full perfecti­on thereof must be had at the handes of Antichrist of Rome and his ministers? What man of knowledge and zeale to Gods honour can with dry eyes see this iniury to Christ, and look vpon the estate of religion brought in by the Papists,The state of re­ligion brought in by ye papists. perceiuing the true sence of Gods wordes subuerted by false gloses of mans deuising, the true christen religion turned into certayne hypocriticall and super­stitious sectes, the people praying with their mouthes, and hearing with theyr eares, they wist not what, and so ignoraunt in Gods word, that they could not [Page] discerne hypocrisy and superstition from true and sincere religion? This was of late yeares the face of religion within this realme of England, and yet remay­neth in diuers realmes. But thankes be to almighty God and to the Kinges Ma­iesty, with his father a Prince of most famous memory, the superstitious sectes of Monks and fryers (that were in this realme) be cleane taken away, the scrip­ture is restored vnto the proper and true vnderstanding, the people may daylye read and heare Gods heauenly word, and pray in their owne language which they vnderstand, so that their hartes and mouthes may goe together, and be none of those people whome Christ complayned saying:Math. 15. These people honour me with their lips, but their hartes be farre from me. Thankes be to God, many corrupt weedes be plucked vp, which were wont to rot the flock of Christ, and to let the growing of the Lords haruest.

The chiefe rootes of all errours.But what auayleth it to take away beades, pardons, pilgremages, and such o­ther like Popery, so long as two chiefe rootes remayne vnpulled vp? whereof so long as they remayne, will spring agayne all former impediments of the Lords haruest, and corruption of his flocke. The rest is but braunches and leaues, the cutting away wherof, is but like topping & loppyng of a tree, or cutting downe of weedes, leauing the body standing, and the rootes in the ground, but the ve­ry body of the tree, or rather the rootes of the weedes, is the Popish doctrine of Transubstātiation, of the reall presence of Christes flesh and bloud in the sacra­ment of the aulter, (as they call it) and of the sacrifice and oblation of Chryste made by the priest, for the saluation of the quicke and the dead. Which rootes if they be suffered to grow in the Lordes vineyard, they will ouerspread all the ground agayne, with the old errors and superstitions.What moued the author to write. These iniuries to Chryst be so intollerable, that no christen hart can willingly beare them. Wherfore se­ing that many haue set to their hands, & whetted their tooles, to plucke vp the weedes, and to cut down the tree of error, I not knowing otherwise how to ex­cuse my selfe at the last day, haue in this booke set to my hand and axe with the rest, to cut downe this tree, and to pluck vp the weedes and plants by the roots which our heauenly father neuer planted, but were grafted and sowen in his vineyard by his aduersary the deuil, & Antichrist his minister. The lord graūt, that this my trauaile and labour in his vineyard be not in vayn, but that it may prosper and bring forth good fruites to his honor and glory. For when I see his vineyard ouergrowen with thornes, brambles aud weedes, I know that euerla­sting woe appertayneth vnto me, if I hold my peace, and put not to my handes and tounge, to labour in purging his vineyard. God I take to witnes (who seeth the hartes of all men thorowly vnto the bottome) that I take this labour for none other consideration, but for the glory of hys name, and the discharge of my duty, and the zeale that I beare toward the flocke of Christ. I know in what office God hath placed me, and to what purpose, that is to say, to set forth hys word truely vnto his people, to the vttermost of my power, without respect of person, or regard of thing in the world, but of him alone. I know what account I shall make to him here of at the last day, when euery man shall aunswere for his vocation, and receiue for the same good or ill, according as he hath done. I know how Antichrist hath obscured the glory of god, & the true knowledge of his word, ouercasting the same with mistes and cloudes of errour and igno­raunce, through false gloses and interpretations. It pittieth me to see the sim­ple and hungry flock of Christ led into corrupt pastures, to be caried blindfield they know not whether, & to be fed with poisō in the stead of holesome meats. [Page] And moued by the duty, office and place,A warnyng ge­uen by the Au­thour. whereunto it hath pleased God to call me, I geue warning in his name vnto all that professe Christ, that they flee far from Babilon, if they will saue their soules, and to beware of that great har­lot, that is to say,Ierem. 51. the pestiferous sea of Rome, Apoc. 14. 17. 18. that she make you not drunke with her pleasaunt wine. Trust not her sweet promises, nor banket not with her for in stead of wine she wilgeue you sower dregs, and for meat she wil feed you with ranke poyson: But come to our redeemer and Sauiour Christ,Math. 11. who refre­sheth all that truely come vnto him, be their anguish and heauinesse neuer so great. Geue credite vnto him,1. Pet. 2. Esay. 53. in whose mouth was neuer found guile, nor vn­truth. By him you shall be clearely deliuered from all your diseases, of him you shall haue full remission A poena & a culpa. He it is that feedeth continually all that belong vnto him, with his owne flesh that hanged vpon the Crosse, and geueth them drinke of the bloud, flowing out of his owne side, and maketh to spring within them,Iohn. 4. water that floweth vnto euerlasting life. Listen not to the false incantatiōs, sweet whis­peringes, and crafty iugling of the subtle Papistes, wher­with they haue this many yeares deluded and bewit­ched the world, but harken to Christ, geue eare vnto his wordes, which leade you the right way vnto euerlasting life, there with him to liue euer as heires of his kyngdome. AMEN.

IOHN. VI. It is the spirite that giueth lyfe, the fleshe profiteth nothyng.

I. Parkhursti.

Accipe praeclarum Lector studiose libellum,
Quem tibi Cranmerus scripserat ante rogos.
Hic docta sanctam tractat ratione synaxin,
Insistens, Patres quas docuere, vijs.
Hic Gardnere tuas Phaleratas detegit artes,
Detrabit & laruam sine tyranne tuam.
A t (que) tuo ipsius iugulum transuerberat ense,
Vt iaceas veluti sensibus abs (que) fera.
Deni (que) rixosis hic obstruit ora Papistis,
Rixandi posset si tamen esse modus.
Soluitur in cineres corpus, mens scandit ad astra,
Fama superstes erit tempus in omne memor.

¶The life, state, and story of the Reuerend pastour and Prelate Thomas Cranmer Archbishop of Caunter­bury Martyr, burned at Oxford for the confession of Christes true doctrine. An. 1556. March. 21.

FOr asmuch as the life and estate of the most Reuerend Father in God and worthy Prelate of godly memory Thomas Crāmer late Archb. of Cant.Thomas Cran­mer Archb. of Canterbury. together with the originall cause & occasion of his preferment to the dignitie Archiepiscopall, wher­unto he was aduaunced immediatly vpon the death of Byshop Warham Archbyshop of the same, beyond all expectation with­out support of money or frendes,Doct. Cranmer made Archb. of Cant. by kyng Henry. by the onely well liking of the most renowmed kyng of famous memory Henry the eight, who with a fatherly care mainteyned his countenaunce, and defended his innocent life, vn­dermined sundry tymes by the manifold attēptes of the horrible Arche enemy of Christ and his Gospell Stephen Gardiner and other his complices,Doct. Cranmer alwayes defen­ded by kyng Henry. with diuers other circum­staunces of his most commendable conuersation, charitable consideration of the poore, constant care in reformation of corrupt Religion, his vndaunted courage in continuall defence of the same, and the perseueraunce therein to the losse of his lyfe, be already des­cribed at large in the booke of Actes and Monumentes of Martyrs.Looke for the story at large in the booke of the Actes and Mo­numentes in the last Edition, pag. 1752. It may séeme néede­lesse to make a thorough discourse therof agayne at this present. Neuerthelesse partly to stoppe the mouthes of slaunderous Sycophants, & partly for the ease of such as would happely be desirous vpon the view of the title of this booke, to be acquainted with the life of the Authour beyng otherwise not able to haue recourse to the story at large, as also bicause his vertuous life and glorious death was such, as can neuer be commended suffi­ciently I haue thought it not altogether amisse to renew the remembraunce therof by certaine brief Notes, referring them that bee desirous to know the whole to the story thereof at large.

It is first therfore to be noted and considered, that the same Thomas Cranmer com­ming of auncient parentage,Thomas Cran­mer a Gentle­man borne. from the Conquest to be deducted, and continuyng sithens in the name & familie of a Gentleman, was borne in a Uillage called Arselacton in No­tynghā shyre. Of whose sayd name and familie there remaineth at these dayes one Ma­nour and mansion house in Lincolne shyre called Cranmer Hall &c. some tymes of heri­tage of the sayd stocke and familie. Who beyng from his infancie kept at Schoole, and brought vp not without much good ciuilitie, came in processe of tyme vnto the Uniuersi­tie of Cambridge,Thom. Crāmer first commyng to Cambridge [...] and there prospering in right good knowledge amōgest the better sort of Studētes, was chosen fellow of Iesus Colledge in Cambridge.Thomas Cran­mer fellow of Iesus colledge. And so beyng Maister of Arte, and fellow of the same Colledge, it chaūced him to mary a Gentlemans daugh­ter: by meanes wherof he lost and gaue ouer his fellowship there, and became the Rea­der in Buckingham Colledge: and for that he would with more diligence apply that his office of Reading, placed his sayd wife in an Inne called the Dolphin in Cambridge, the wife of the house beyng of affinitie vnto her. By meanes of whose abode in that Inne, & his often repayre vnto her, arose a certaine slaūderous report, after he was preferred to be Archbyshop of Caunterbury, bruted abroad by the malicious disdaine of certaine Sy­cophanticall Papistes that he was but an Hosteler, and altogether deuoyde of learning, which how falsly was forged vpō him, may easely appeare hereby: That the Maisters & Fellowes of Iesus Colledge notyng the vertuous disposition of the man,Thom. Crāmer after ye decease of his wife, chosen agayne fellow into Ie­sus Colledge. & the great tra­uaile he tooke, notwithstādyng his mariage, whiles he cōtinued Reader in Buckinghā Colledge, immediatly vpon the death of his wife (who not long, after their enter ma­riage was in Childbed surprised by death) refin [...]ed him into their Fellowship agayne: where he so behaued him selfe that in few yeares, after he became the Reader of the Di­uinitie Lecture in the same Colledge, and in such speciall estimatiō & reputatiō with the whole Uniuersitie, that beyng Doctour of Diuinitie he was commōly appointed one of the heades (which are two or thrée of the chiefest learned men) to examine such as yeare­ly professe in Commencemēt, either Bachelers, or Doctours of Diuinitie, by whose ap­probation the whole Uniuersitie licēceth them to procéede vnto their degrée: and agayne [Page] by whose disalowaunce the Uniuersitie also reiecteth them for a tyme to procéede vntill they be better furnished with more knowledge.

Doct. Cranmer publike exami­ner in Cam­bridge, of them that were to proceede.Now, Doct. Cranmer euer much [...]auouring the knowledge of the Scripture, would neuer admit any to procéede in Diuinitie, vnlesse they were substātially séene in the sto­ry of the Bible: by meanes wherof certaine Friers and other Religious persons, who were principally brought vp in the study of Schoole Authours without regard had to the authoritie of Scriptures, were cōmonly reiected by him, so that he was greatly for that his seuere examination of the Religious sort, much hated and had in great indignation:Friers in ha­tred with Doct. Cranmer. and yet it came to passe in the end that diuers of them being thus compelled to study the Scriptures, became afterwardes very well learned and well affected, in so much, that when they procéeded Doctours of Diuinitie, could not ouermuch extoll and commende Maister Doct. Cranmers goodnes towardes them, who had for a tyme put them backe, to aspire vnto better knowledge and perfection. Amongest whom Doct. Barret. a white Frier who afterwardes dwelt at Norwich was after that sort handled,Doct. Barret giuyng him no lesse commēdation for his happy reiecting of him for a better amendement. Thus much I repeate that our Apish and Popish sorte of ignoraunt Priestes may well vnderstand that this his exercise, kynde of life, and vocation was not altogether Hostelerlike.

Doct. Cranmer sollicited to be fellow of the Cardinalles Colledge in Oxford, refused it.I omit here how Cardinall Wolsey after the foundation of his Colledge in Oxford, hearyng the fame of his learnyng vsed all meanes possible to place him in ye same: which he refused with great daunger of indignation, contētyng him selfe with his former Fe­lowship in Cambridge. Untill vpon occasion of the plague being in Cambridge he resor­ted to Walthā Abbey and soiourned with one M. Cressey there, whose wife was Doct. Cranmers niece, and two of her children his pupilles in Cambridge Duryng this tyme the great and weightie cause of kyng Henry the viij. his diuorce,Question of the kynges diuorce with Katherine Dowager. with the Lady Kathe­rine Dowager of Spayne was in questiō. Wherein two Cardinals Campeius & Wol­sey were appointed in Commission from the Pope to heare and determine the contro­uersie betwene the Kyng and the Quéene, who by many dilatories dallying & delaying the whole sommer vntill the moneth & of August, taking occasiō to finish their Cōmission, so moued the patience of the kyng, that in all hast he remoued from London to Walthā for a night or twaine, whiles the Dukes of Northfolke and Suffolke dispatched Cardi­nall Campeius home agayne to Rome.Doct. Stephens and Doct. Foxe chief furtherers of the kynges diuorce. By meanes wherof it chaunced that the kynges herbengers lodged Doct. Stephens Secretary and Doct. Foxe Almosiner (who were the chief furtherers, preferrers & defenders of the foresayd cause in the kyngs behalfe) in the house of the sayd M. Cressey, where Doct. Cranmer was also resiaunt as before. When Supper tyme came, and all thrée Doctours mette together, being of old acquaintaunce, they entertayned eche other familiarly:Doct. Stephens, D. Foxe, Doct. Cranmer cōfer­ryng together of the kynges cause. and the sayd Doct. Stephens and Doct. Foxe ta­kyng occasion of their happy méetyng together, began to conferre with Doct. Cranmer concernyng the kynges cause, requestyng him to declare his opinion therein.

Whereunto Doct. Cranmer aunswered that he could say litle in the matter, for that he had not studied nor looked for it. Notwithstandyng he sayd to them, that in his opi­niō they made more adde in prosecutyng the lawes Ecclesiasticall,Doct. Cranmers aunswere in the question of the kynges diuorce. then néeded. It were better as I suppose (quoth Doct. Cranmer) that the question, whether a man may mary his brothers wife or no, were decided and discussed by the Diuines, and by the authori­tie of the word of God, whereby the conscience of the Prince might be better satisfied and quieted, then thus from yeare to yeare by frustratory delayes to prolong the tyme, leauing the very truth of the matter vnbu [...]ted out by the word of God. There is but one truth in it, which the Scripture will soone declare, make open, & manifest beyng by lear­ned men well handled, & that may be aswell done in England in the Uniuersities here, as at Rome or els where in any foreine nation, the authoritie wherof will compell any Iudge soone to come to a diffinitiue sentence: & therfore as I take it, you might this way haue made an end of this matter long sithens.Doct. Cranmers deuise well ly­ked of. When Doct. Cranmer had thus ended his tale, the other two wel liked of his deuise, and wished that they had so procéeded afore tyme, and thereupon conceiued some matter of that deuise to instruct the kyng withall, who then was mynded to send to Rome agayne for a new Commission.

Now the next day when the kyng remoued to Grenewich, like as he tooke him selfe [Page] not well handled by the Cardinals in thus differryng his cause, so his mynde beyng vn­quieted & desirous of an end of his long & tedious sute,The king trou­bled about the cause of his di­uorce. he called to him this his ij. princi­pall doers of his sayd cause, namely the said Doct. Stephens and D. Foxe, saying vnto thē: What now my Maisters (quoth the kyng) shall we do in this infinite cause of mine? I sée by it there must be a new Cōmission procured from Rome, and when we shall haue an end God knoweth and not I. When the kyng had sayd somewhat his mynde herein, the Almosiner Doct. Foxe sayd vnto the kyng agayne: we trust that there shalbe better wayes deuised for your Maiestie, then to make trauaile so farre to Rome any more in your highnes cause, which by chaunce was put into our heades this other night beyng at Waltham, and so discouered to the kyng their méetyng and conference with Doct. Cranmer at M. Cresseys house.

Wherupon Doct. Cranmer was sent for in post beyng as then remoued from Wal­tham towardes his frendes in Lincolne shyre and so brought to the Court to the kyng.Doct. Cranmer sent for to the kyng in post. Whom the noble Prince benignely acceptyng demaūded his name, and sayd vnto him: Were you not at Waltham such a tyme, in the company of my Secretary and my Al­mosiner?Talke betwene the kyng and Doct. Cranmer. Doct. Cranmer affirmyng the same, the kyng sayd agayne: had you not confe­rence with them concernyng our matter of diuorce now in question after this sort, re­peatyng the maner and order therof? That is right true, if it please your highnes, quoth Doct. Cranmer. Well sayd the kyng, I well perceiue that you haue the right scope of this matter. You must vnderstand quoth the kyng, that I haue bene long troubled in cō ­science,The king trou­bled in cōsciēce. and now I perceiue that by this meanes I might haue bene long agoe releaued one way or other, from the same, if we had this way procéeded. And therfore Maister Doctour I pray you, and neuertheles because you are a subiect I charge and commaūde you (all your other busines & affaires set apart) to take some paynes to sée this my cause to be furthered accordyng to your deuise, asmuch as it may lye in you, with many other wordes in commendation of the Quéenes Maiestie.

Doct. Cranmer much disablyng him selfe to medle in so weightie a matter,Doct. Cranmer excusing and di­sabling himselfe to the kyng. besought the kynges highnes to commit the triall and examinyng of this matter by the word of God, vnto the best learned mē of both his Uniuersities Cambridge and Oxford. You say well, sayd the kyng, and I am content there with. But yet neuertheles, I will haue you specially to write your mynde therein. And so callyng the Earle of Wiltshyre to hym,Doct. Cranmer assigned by the kyng to searche the Scriptures in the cause of his diuorce. sayd: I pray you my Lord, let D. Cranmer haue intertaynement in your house at Dur­ham place for a tyme, to the entent he may be there quiet to accomplish my request, & let him lacke neither bookes ne any thing requisite for his study. And thus after the kynges departure, Doct. Cranmer went with my Lord of Wiltshyre vnto his house, where he incontinent wrote his mynde concernyng the kynges question, addyng to the same be­sides, the authorities of Scriptures, of generall Councels, and of auncient writers:The kyng first geuen to vnder­stand that the Pope hath no authoritie to di­spence with the word of God. also his opinion, which was this: that the Byshop of Rome had no such authoritie, as wher­by he might dispence with the word of God and the Scriptures. When Doct. Cranmer had made this booke, and committed it to the kyng, the kyng sayd to him: will you abide by this, that you haue here written before the Bishop of Rome? That will I do, by Gods grace, quoth Doct. Cranmer, if your Maiestie do send me thether. Mary quoth the kyng, I will send you euen to him in a sure Ambassage.

And thus by meanes of Doct. Cranmers handlyng of this matter with the kyng,The kynges matter remoued from the popes Canon law, to the triall of the Scriptures. not onely certaine learned men were sent abroad to the most part of the Uniuersities in Christendome to dispute the question, but also the same beyng by Commission disputed by the Diuines in both the Uniuersities of Cambridge and Oxford, it was there conclu­ded that no such Matrimony was by the word of God lawfull. Wherupon a solēne Am­bassage was prepared and sent to the Byshop of Rome then beyng at Bonony,The kynges Mariage foūde by Gods word vnlawfull. wherein went the Earle of Wiltshyre, Doct. Cranmer, Doct. Stokesly, Doct. Carne, Doct. Be­nnet, and diuers other learned men and Gentlemen. And when the tyme came that they should come before the Bishop of Rome to declare the cause of their Ambassage,Doct. Cranmer with other s [...]nt to Rome Am­bassadour to the Pope. the By­shop sittyng on high in his cloth of estate, and in his rich apparell, with his sandales on his féete, offeryng, as it were, his foote to be kissed of ye Ambassadours, the Earle of Wilt­shyre with the rest of the Ambassadours disdainyng thereat, stoode still, & made no coūte­naunce [Page] thereunto, and so kept them selues from that Idolatry. In fine the Pontificall Byshop seyng their constancie without any farther ceremonie gaue eare to the Am­bassadours.

Arguing to the popes face, that contrary to the word of God he had no power to dispense.Who entryng there before the Byshop, offered on the kynges behalfe to be defen­ded, that no man Iure diuine could or ought to mary his brothers wife: and that the By­shop of Rome by no meanes ought to dispence to the contrary. Diuers promises were made, and sundry dayes appointed, wherein the question should haue bene disputed, and when our part was ready to aunswere, no mā there appeared to dispute in that behalfe. So in the end the Byshop makyng to our Ambassadours good countenaunce,Doct. Cranmer made the popes Penitentiary. and grati­ffyng Doctour Cranmer with the Office of the Penitentiarishyp, dismissed them vn­disputed withall.

Doct. Cranmer Ambassadour to the Empe­rour.Wherupon the Earle of Wiltshyre and other Commissioners, sauyng Doct. Cran­mer, returned home agayne into England. And forthwith Doct. Cranmer went to the Emperour beyng in his iourney towardes Vienna in expedition agaynst the Turke, there to aunswere such learned men of the Emperours Coūsaile, as would or could say any thyng to the contrary part. Where, amongest the rest at the same tyme,Conference be­twene Byshop Cranmer and Cornelius A­grippa. was Cor­nelius Agrippa an high Officer in the Emperours Court, who hauyng priuate confe­rence with Doct. Cranmer in the question, was so fully resolued and satisfied in the mat­ter, that afterwardes there was neuer disputation openly offered to Doct. Cranmer in that behalfe. For through the perswasion of Agrippa, all other learned men there were much discouraged.

This matter thus prosperyng on D. Cranmers behalfe, aswell touchyng the kynges questiō, as concernyng the inualiditie of the Byshop of Romes authoritie, Byshop War­rham then Archbyshop of Caunterbury departed this transitorie lyfe,Doct. Cranmer made Archby­shop of Cant. wherby that dig­nitie then beyng in the kynges gift and disposition, was immediatly giuen to Doct. Crā ­mer as worthy for his trauaile, of such a promotiō. Thus much touchyng the prefermēt of Doct. Cranmer vnto his dignitie, and by what meanes he atchiued vnto the same: not by flattery, nor by bribes, nor by none other vnlawfull meanes: whiche thyng I haue more at large discoursed, to stoppe the raylyng mouthes of such, who beyng them selues obscure and vnlearned, shame not so to detract a learned mā most ignominiously with the surname of an Hostler, whom for his godly zeale vnto sincere Religion, they ought with much humilitie to haue had in regard and reputation.

Now as concernyng his behauiour and trade of lyfe towardes God and the world, beyng entered into his sayd dignitie: True it is, that he was so throughly furnished withall properties, qualities, and conditions belongyng to a true Byshop, as that it shal­be very hard in these straunge dayes to finde many,1. Tim. 3. Titus. 1. that so nearely resemble that liue­ly exemplar described by S. Paule the Apostle in his seueral Epistles to Titus and Ti­mothée. So farre he swarued from the common course of common Byshops in his tyme. But bicause the same is very well decipbred in the story at large, it shall not be so néede­full to discourse all the partes therof in this place. Yet may not this be forgotten. That notwithstandyng the great charge now cōmitted vnto him: The worthy Prelate gaue him selfe euermore to continuall study,The order of Doct. Cranmers study. not breakyng the order that he vsed commonly in the Uniuersitie. To wit by v. of the clocke in the mornyng in his study, and so vntill ix. continuyng in prayer and study. From thence vntill dyner tyme to heare suters (if the Princes affaires did not call him away) committyng his temporall affaires aswell of houshold as other foreine busines to his officers. For the most part hee would occupy him selfe in reformatiō of corrupt Religion, and settyng forth true and sincere doctrine, wherein he would associate him selfe alwayes with learned men, for the siftyng & boul­tyng out one matter or other for the commoditie and profite of the Church of England. After dynner if any suters were, he would diligently heare them and dispatch them: in such sort as euery man commended his lenitie and gentlenes. That done to his ordina­ry study agayne vntill fiue of the clocke, whiche houre hee bestowed in hearyng com­mon prayer. After Supper he would consume an houre at the least in some godly con­ference, and then agayne vntill it. of the clocke at one kynde of study or other. So that no houre of the day was spent in vayne, but was bestowed as tended to Gods glory, the [Page] seruice of his Prince, or the commoditie of the Church.

As touching his affabilitie & easines to be entreated it was such,The gentle na­ture of Doctour Cranmer. as that in all honest causes wherin his letter, counsell, or speach might gratifie either nobleman Gentlemā, meane man or poore man, no mā could be more tractable or sooner wonne to yeld. Onely in causes appertainyng to God and his Prince, no man more stoute, more constant,Doct. Cranmer stoute and con­stant in Gods cause. or more hard to be wonne: as in that part his earnest defence in the Parlamēt house aboue thrée dayes together in disputyng agaynst the vi. Articles of Gardiners deuise, cā testifie. And though the kyng would néedes haue them vpon some politicke consideration to goe forward, yet he so handled him selfe aswell in the Parlament house as afterwardes by writing, so obediently & with such hūble behauiour in wordes towards his Prince,Doct. Cranmer a stoute enemy agaynst the s [...] Articles. pro­testing the cause not to be his but almightie Gods, who was the author of all truth, that the kyng did not onely well like his defence, willyng him to depart out of the Parlamēt house into the Counsaile chāber, whilest the Acte should passe & be graunted, for safegard of his conscience, which he with humble pro [...]estatiō refused, hopyng that his Maiestie in processe of time would reuoke them agayne: but also after the Parlament was finished, the kyng perceiuyng the zealous affectiō that the Archb. bare towardes the defence of his cause, which many wayes by Scriptures and manifold authorities and reasons he had substauntially confirmed and defended, sent the Lord Cromwell then Uicegerent,Of this com­myng of the I. Cromwell, and the two Dukes to the Archby­shop. with the two Dukes of Northfolke and Suffolke & all the Lordes of the Parlament, to dyne with him at Lambeth: Where it was declared by the Uicegerent, and the two Dukes, that it was the kynges pleasure, that they all should in his highnes behalfe, cherish, com­fort and animate him, as one that for his trauaile in that Parlament, had shewed him selfe both greatly learned, and also discret and wise, and therfore they willed him not to be discouraged for any thing that was passed contrary to his allegations. He most hum­bly thanked the kynges Maiestie of his great goodnesse towardes him, and them all for their paynes, saying: I hope in God, that hereafter my allegatiōs & authorities shall take place to the glory of God and the commoditie of the Realme, in the meane tyme I will satisfie my selfe with the honorable consent of your honours and the whole Parlament.

Here is to be noted, that this mans stoute and godly defence of the truth herein, so bound the Princes cōscience, that he would not permit the truth in that man to be cleane ouerthrowen with authoritie and power, and therfore this way God workyng in the Princes mynde, a playne token was declared hereby that all thyngs were not so sincere­ly handled in the confirmation of the sayd vi. Articles, as it ought to haue bene, for els the Prince might haue had iust cause to haue borne his great indignation towardes the Archbyshop.Exāple for Ec­clesiasticall Pa­stours. Let vs pray that both the like stoutnes may be perceiued in all Ecclesiasti­call and learned men where the truth ought to be defended, and also the like relentyng and flexibilitie may take place in Princes and Noble men, when they shall haue occasion offered them to maintaine the same, so that they vtterly ouerwhelme not the truth by selfe will, power, and authoritie. Now in the end this Archbyshops constancie was such towardes Gods cause, that he confirmed all his doynges by bitter death in the fire, with out respect of any worldly treasure or pleasure. And as touchyng his stoutnesse in his Princes cause, the contrary resistaunce of the Duke of Northumberland agaynst him proued right well his good minde that way:Archb. Crāmer in displeasure a­bout the implo­yng of Chaun­trey landes. which chaunced by reason that he would not consent to the dissoluyng of Chauntreys vntill the kyng came of age, to the intent that they might then better serue to furnish his royall estate, then to haue so great treasure consumed in his noneage. Which his stoutnes ioyned with such simplicitie, surely was thought to diuers of the Counsaile, a thyng incredible, specially in such sort to contend with him who was so accounted in this Realme, as few or none would or durst gayn­stand hym.

So deare was to him the cause of God, and of his Prince, that for the one he would not kéepe his conscience clogged, nor for the other lurke or hide his head. Otherwise (as it is sayd) his very enemies might easely intreate him in any cause reasonable: and such thyngs as he graunted, he did without any suspition of rebraidyng or méede therfore: So that he was altogethers voyde of the vice of the stubb [...]rnes, and rather culpable of ouer much facilitie and gentlenes. Surely if ouermuch patience may be a vice, this mā may [Page] séeme peraduenture to offend rather on this part then on the contrary. Albeit for all his doynges I can not say: for the most part,The singular patience of this Archbyshop. such was his mortification that way, that few we shall finde in whō the saying of our Sauiour Christ so much preuailed as with him, who would not onely haue a man to forgiue his enemies, but also to pray for them: that lesson neuer went out of his memory. For it was knowen that he had many cruell ene­mies, not for his owne desertes, but onely for his Religion sake: and yet what soeuer he was that either sought his hinderaunce, either in goodes, estimation, or life, and vpon cō ­ference would séeme neuer so slenderly any thyng to relent or excuse him selfe, he would both forget the offence committed, and also euermore afterwardes frendly entertayne him, and shew such pleasure to him, as by any meanes possible he might performe or de­clare: In somuch that it came into a common Prouerbe: Do vnto my Lord of Canter­bury displeasure or a shrewed turne, and then you may be sure to haue him your frend whiles he liueth. Of which his gentle disposition in absteinyng from reuengement, a­mongest many examples therof I will repeate here one.

A story betwen the Archb. of Caunterbury & a popish Priest his enemy.It chaūced an ignoraūt Priest & Parson in the North parts, the Towne is not now in remēbraunce, but he was a kinsman of one Chersey a Grocer dwellyng within Lon­dō (beyng one of those Priests that vse more to study at the Alchouse thē in his chāber or in his study) to sit on a time with his honest neighbours at the Alchouse within his own Parish, where was cōmunicatiō ministred in cōmendation of my Lord Crāmer Archb. of Cant. This sayd Parson enuying his name onely for Religiō sake, sayd to his neigh­bours: what make you of him (quoth he) he was but an Hostler, and hath no more lear­nyng thē the goslyngs that goeth yonder on the gréene, with such like sclaunderous & vn­comely wordes. These honest neighbours of his not well bearyng those his vnséemely words,The rayling of a popish Priest agaynst Doct. Cranmer. Articled against him, & sent their cōplaynt vnto the Lord Cromwell, thē Uicege­rent in causes Ecclesiasticall, who sent for the Priest and committed him to the Fléete, mindyng to haue had him recant those his sclaunderous wordes at Paules Crosse. Howbeit the Lord Cromwell hauing great affaires of the Prince then in hand, forgat his pri­soner in the Fléete: So that this Chersey the Grosser vnderstandyng that his kinsman was in duraunce in the Fléete, onely for speakyng wordes agaynst my Lord of Canter­bury consulted with the Priest, and betwene them deuised to make sute rather vnto the Archbyshop for his deliueraunce, then to the Lord Cromwell, before whom he was ac­cused: vnderstandyng right well that there was great diuersitie of natures betwene those two estates, the one gētle and full of clemency, and the other seuere and somewhat intractable, namely agaynst a Papist: So that Chersey tooke vpon him first to try my Lord of Cāterburies benignitie, namely for that his cousins accusatiō touched onely the offence agaynst him and none other. Whereupon the sayd Chersey came to one of the Archbyshops Gentlemē whose father bought yearely all his spices and frute of the sayd Chersey, and so thereby of familiar acquaintaunce with the Gentleman) who openyng to him the trouble wherein his kinsman was, requested that he would be a meanes to my Lord his Maister to heare his sute in the behalfe of his kinsman.

The matter was moued. The Archbyshop like as he was of nature gentle, and of much clemencie, so would he neuer shew him selfe straunge vnto suters, but inconti­nently sent for the said Chersey. When he came before him, Chersey declared, that there was a kinsman of his in the Fléete, a Priest of the North countrey, & as I may tell your grace the truth (quoth Chersey) a man of small ciuilitie and of lesse learnyng.Chersey [...]yng for his kynse [...], to the Archb. And yet he hath a personage there, which now (by reason that my Lord Cromwell hath layd him in prison beyng in his cure) is vnserued, and hee hath continued in duraunce aboue two monethes, and is called to no aunswere, and knoweth not when hee shall come to any end, so that this his imprisonment consumeth his substaunce, will vtterly vndoe him, vnlesse your Grace be his good Lord. I know not the mā (sayd the Archbyshop) nor what he hath done why he should be thus in trouble.

Sayd Chersey agayne, he onely hath offended agaynst your Grace, and agaynst no man els, as may well be perceiued by the Articles obiected agaynst him: the Copy wher­of the sayd Chersey then exhibited vnto the sayd Archbyshop of Caunterbury. Who well perusing the sayd Articles, sayd: This is the common talke of all the ignoraunt Papi­sticall [Page] Priestes in England agaynst me. Surely, sayd he, I was neuer made priuy vn­to this accusation, nor of his induraunce I neuer heard before this tyme. Notwithstan­dyng if there be nothing els to charge him withal, against the Prince or any of the Coū ­saile, I will at your request take order with him, and send him home againe to his Cure to do his duetie: and so therupō sent his ryng to the Warden of the Fleete,The Priest sent for, to the Archbyshop. willyng him to send the prisoner vnto him with his kéeper at after noone.

When the kéeper had brought the prisoner at the houre appointed, and Chersey had well instructed his Cosin in any wise to submit him selfe vnto the Archbishop, confessing his fault, whereby that way he should most easely haue an end and winne his fauour: thus the Parson beyng brought into the garden at Lambeth, and there sittyng vnder the vyne, the Archbyshop demaunded of the Parson what was the cause of his induraunce, and who committed him to the Fléete: The Parson aunswered and sayd: that the Lord Cromwell sent him thether, for that certaine malicious Parishioners of his Parish, had wrongfully accused him of wordes whiche he neuer spake nor ment [...] Chersey hearyng his foolish Cosin so farre out of the way from his former instruction, sayd: Thou dasterdly [...]olt and varlet, is this thy promise that thou madest to me? Is there not a great number of thy honest neighbours hādes agaynst thée to proue thée a lyer? Surely my Lord (quoth Chersey) it is pitie to doe him good. I am sory that I haue troubled your Grace thus farre with him.

Well, sayd the Archbyshop vnto the Parson, if you haue not offended me,The Archby­shops wordes vnto the Par­son. I cā do you no good, for I am intreated to helpe one out of trouble that hath offended agaynst me. If my Lord Cromwell hath committed you to prison wrongfully, that lyeth in him selfe to amend and not in me. If your offence onely touche me, I will be bold to doe somewhat for your frendes sake here. If you haue not offended agaynst me, thē haue I nothyng to do with you, but that you may go & remaine from whence you came. Lord what a [...] his kinsman Chersey made with him, callyng him all kynde of opprobrious names. In the end my Lord of Cāterbury séemyng to rise and go his wayes, the fond Priest fell downe on his knées, and sayd: I beséech your Grace to forgiue me this offence:The Priest cō ­fesseth his fault to the Archb. assuryng your Grace that I spake those wordes beyng dronke and not well aduised. Ah, sayd my Lord, this is somewhat, and yet it is no good excuse, for dronkennesse euermore vttereth that whiche lyeth hid in the hart of man when hee is sober, alledgyng a te [...]t or twayne out of the Scriptures concernyng the vyce of dronkennesse, whiche commeth not now to remembraunce.

Now therfore (sayd the Archbyshop) that you acknowledge somewhat your fault, I am content to common with you, hopyng that you are at this present of an indifferēt so­brietie. Tell me then, quoth he, did you euer sée me, or were you euer acquainted with me before this day? The Priest aunswered and sayd, that neuer in his life, he saw his Grace. Why then (sayd the Archbyshop) what occasion had you to call me an Hostler:The ra [...]he t [...]nge [...] of men sclaunderously speakyng [...]uill by mē whō they neuer knew, nor saw before. and that I had not so much learning as the goslinges which then went on the gréene be­fore your face? If I haue no learnyng, you may now try it, and be out of doubt there­of: therfore I pray you appose me, either in Grammer or in other liberall sciences, for I haue at one tyme or other tasted partly of them. Or elles if you are a Diuine, say some what that way.

The Priest beyng amased at my Lordes familiar talke, made aunswere and sayd:The Priestest aunswere. I beséeth your Grace to pardon me. I am altogethers vnlearned, and vnderstand not the Latin toung but very simply. My onely study hath bene to say my seruice and Masse fayre and deliberate, which I can do aswell as any Priest in the countrey where I dwel, I thanke God. Well, sayd the other, if you will not appose me, I will be so bold to ap­pose you, & yet as easly as I can deuise, & that onely in the story of the Bible now in En­glish, in which I suppose that you are dayly exercised.The Masse Priest igno­raunt in the Scripture. Tell me therfore who was kyng Dauids father, sayd my Lord? The Priest stoode still pausing a white and sayd: In good sayth my Lord, I haue forgotten his name. Then sayd the other agayne to him: if you can not tell that, I pray you tell me then who was Salomons Father? The fond foolish Priest without all consideration what was demaunded of him before, made aunswere: Good my Lord beare with me, I am not further séene in the Bible, then is dayly read in [Page] our seruice in the Church.

The Archbyshop then aunsweryng sayd: this my question may be found well aun­swered in your seruice. But I now well perceiue, howsoeuer you haue iudged hereto­fore of my learnyng,The gi [...]e of popish Priests when they fa­uour not the Religion of a man: they sclaū ­der his person. sure I am that you haue none at all. But this is the common pra­ctise of all you, which are ignoraunt and superstitious Priestes [...] to sclaunder, backbite, and hate all such as are learned and well affected towardes Gods word and sincere Reli­gion. Common reason might haue taught you, what an vnlikely thyng it was, and con­trary to all maner of reason, that a Prince hauyng two Uniuersities within his realme of well learned men, and desirous to be resolued of as doubtfull a questiō as in these ma­ny yeares, was not moued the like within Christēdome, should be driuen to that necessi­tie for the defence of his cause, to send out of his Realme an Hostler, beyng a man of no better knowledge then is a goslyng, in an Ambassade to aunswere all learned men, both in the Court of Rome, and in the Emperours Court, in so difficult a question as tou­cheth the kynges Matrimony, and the diuorce therof. I say, if you were men of any rea­sonable consideration, you might thinke it both vnséemely and vncomely for a Prince so to.Euill will ne­uer sayd well. But looke where malice raigneth in men, there reason can take no place: and ther­fore I sée by it, that you all are at a point with me, that no reason or authoritie can per­swade you to fauour my name, who neuer ment euill to you, but your both commoditie and profite. Howbeit God amend you all, forgeue you, and send you better myndes.

With these wordes the Priest séemed to wéepe, and desired his Grace to pardon his fault and frayltie, so that by his meanes he might returne to his Cure agayne, and he would sure recant those his foolishe wordes before his Parishioners so soone as he came home, and would become a new man. Well, sayd the Archbyshop, so had you néede. And geuyng him a godly admonition to refuse the hauntyng of the Al [...]house,The Archby­shop forg [...]eth and dismisseth the Priest. and to bestow his tyme better in the continuall readyng of the Scriptures, hee dismissed him from the Fléete.

How litle this Prelate we speake of, was infected with filthy desire of lucre, and how he was no niggard,The liberall doynges of this Archbyshop. all kynde of people that knew him, aswell learned beyond the Seas and on this side, to whom yearely he gaue in exhibition no small summes of money, as other, both Gentlemen, meane men, and poore men, who had in their necessitie that which he could conueniently spare, lende, or make, can well testifie. And albeit such was his liberalitie to all sortes of men, that no man did lacke whom he could do for, either in giuyng or lendyng: yet neuertheles such was agayne his circumspection, that when he was apprehended & committed by Quéene Mary to the Tower, he ought no mā liuyng a peny that could or would demaunde any duetie of him, but satisfied euery man to the vttermost: where els no small summes of money were [...]wyng to him of diuers persons, which by breakyng their billes and obligations hee fréely forgaue and suppressed before his attainter:The Archby­shop clearyng all his debtes before his at­tainder. In somuch that when he perceiued the fatall end of kyng Edward should worke to him no good successe touchyng his body and goodes, he incontinently called his Officers, his Steward and other, commaundyng them in any wise to pay, where any peny was owyng, which was out of hand dispatched.

In which Archbyshop this moreouer is to be noted, with a memorandum, touchyng the reliefe of the poore, impotent, sicke, and such as then came from the warres at Bul­lein, and other partes beyond the seas, lame, wounded, and destitute, for whom he proui­ded, besides his mansion house at Beckisborne in Kent, the Personage barne well fur­nished with certaine lodgynges for the sicke and maymed Souloiours. To whom were also appointed the Almosiner, a Phisicion, and Surgion, to attend vpon them, and to dresse and cure such as were not able to resort to their countreys, hauyng dayly from the Byshops kitchin hoate broth and meate, for otherwise the common Almes of the hou­shold was bestowed vpon the poore neighbours of the shyre. And when any of the impo­tent did recouer, and were able to trauaile, they had conuēient money deliuered to beare their charges, accordyng to the number of myles from that place distant. And this good example of mercy and liberall benignitie, I thought here good not in silence to bee sup­pressed, wherby other may be moued, accordyng to their vocation, to walke in the steps of no lesse liberalitie, then in him in this behal [...]e appeared.

[Page]Amongest all other his vertues his constancy, in Christes cause and settyng forth the Gospell purely and sincerely was such that he would neither for dread or méede, affection or fauour to swar [...]e at any tyme or in any poynt from the truth, as appeared by his sun­dry trials: wherein neither fauonr of his Prince, nor feare of the indignatiō of the same,The Archb. Cranmer euer constant in de­fence of Christs truth and Gos­pell. nor any other worldly respect could alienate or chaunge his purpose grounded vppon that infallible doctrine of the Gospell. Notwithstandyng, his constant defence of Gods truth was euer ioyned with such méekenesse toward the kyng, that he neuer tooke occa­sion of offence agaynst him.

At the setting forth of the vi. Articles, mention was made before in the story of kyng Henries tyme, how aduenturously this Archbyshop Thomas Cranmer did oppose him selfe, standyng, as it were, post alone agaynst the whole Parlament, disputyng and re­plyng thrée dayes together agaynst the sayd Articles: in somuch that the kyng, when neither he could mislike his reasons, and yet would néedes haue these Articles to passe, required him to absent him selfe for the tyme out of the chamber, while the Acte should passe, as is already declared before. And this was done duryng yet the state and tyme of the Lord Cromwels authoritie. And now that it may appeare likewise that after the decay of the Lord Cromwell, yet his constancie in Christes cause did not decay, you shall heare what followed after.

For after the apprehension of the Lord Cromwell, when the aduersaries of the Gos­pell thought all thynges sure now on their side, it was so appointed amongest them, that x. or xij. Byshops and other learned men ioyned together in Commission, came to the said Archb. of Canterbury for the establishyng of certaine Articles of our Religion, whiche the Papistes then thought to winne to their purpose agaynst the sayd Archbyshop. For hauyng now the Lord Cromwell fast and sure, they thought all had bene safe and sure for euer: As in déede to all mens reasonable consideration, that tyme appeared so daun­gerous, that there was no maner hope that Religion reformed should any one wéeke lō ­ger stand, such accompt was then made of the kings vntowardnes thereunto:The Archb. a­lone standeth in defence of the truth. in somuch that of all those Commissioners, there was not one left to stay on the Archbyshops part, but he alone agaynst them all stoode in defēce of the truth: & those that he most trusted to, namely Byshop Heath, and Byshop Skippe left him in the playne field:Bishop Heath, and Byshop Skippe forsake the Archb. in the playne field. The Archb. in­censed by B. Heath and B. Skippe to geue ouer the defence of the Gospell. who then so tur­ned agaynst him, that they tooke vpon them to perswade him to their purpose: and ha­uyng him downe from the rest of the Commissioners into his garden at Lambeth, there by all maner of effe [...]uall perswasions entreated him to leaue of his ouermuch constan­cie, and to encline vnto the kinges intent, who was fully set to haue it otherwise then he then had penned or ment to haue set abroad. When those two his familiars, with one or two others his frendes, had vsed all their eloquence & policie, he litle regardyng their inconstancie and remisnes in Gods cause or quarell, sayd vnto them right notably:

You make much adoe to haue me come to your purpose,The aunswere of the Archb. to Doct. Heath, & Skippe. alledging that it is the kyngs pleasure to haue the Articles in that sort you haue deuised them to procéede, & now that you doe perceiue his highnesse by sinister information to be bent that way, you thinke it a conuenient thyng to apply vnto his highnesse mynde. You be my frendes both, espe­cially the one of you I did put to his Maiestie as of trust. Beware I say, what you doe. There is but one truth in our Articles to be concluded vpon, which if you doe hide from his highnes by consentyng vnto a contrary doctrine, and then after in processe of tyme when the truth cā not be hidden from him, his highnes shall perceiue how that you haue dealt colourably with him, I know his Graces nature so well (quoth the Archbyshop) that he will neuer after trust and credite you, or put any good confidence in you. And as you are both my frendes, so therfore I will you to beware therof in tyme, and discharge your consciences in mainteinaunce of the truth. But all this would not serue, for they still swarued: and in the end by dischargyng of his conscience, and declaryng the truth vnto the kyng, God so wrought with the kyng, that his highnesse ioyned with him a­gaynst the rest, so that the booke of Articles passing on his side, he wanne the gole from them all, contrary to all their expectations, when many wagers would haue bene layd in Lōdon, that he should haue bene layd vp with Cromwell at that tyme in the Tower, for his stiffe stādyng to his tackle. After that day there could neither Coūse [...]ler, Byshop, [Page] or Papist winne him out of the kynges fauour.

The Papistes busie to bryng the Archb. out of credit with the kyng.Notwithstandyng not long after that, certaine of the Counsaile, whose names néede not to be repeated, by the entisement and prouocation of his auncient enemy the Bishop of Winchester and other of the same sect, attempted the kyng agaynst him, declaryng playnly, that the Realme was so infected with heresies and heretickes, that it was daū ­gerous for his highnes farther to permit it vnreformed,The Archby­shop agayne ac­cused to the kyng. lest peraduenture by long suffe­ryng, such contention should arise & ensue in the Realme among his subiectes, that ther­by might spryng horrible commotions and vprores, like as in some partes of Germany it did not long ago: the enormitie wherof they could not impute to any so much, as to the Archbyshop of Canterbury, who by his owne preachyng and his Chapleines, had fil­led the whole Realme full of diuers pernitious heresies. The kyng would néedes know his accusers. They aunswered, that for asmuch as he was a Counseller, no man durst take vpon him to accuse him: but if it please his highnes to cōmit him to the Tower for a tyme, there would be accusations & proufes inough agaynst him, for otherwise iust te­stimonie and witnes agaynst him would not appeare, and therefore your highnes (sayd they) must néedes geue vs the Counsaile libertie and leaue to commit him to duraunce.

The kyng perceiuyng their importune sute agaynst the Archbyshop (but yet mea­nyng not to haue him wronged and vtterly geuen ouer vnto their handes) graunted to them, that they should the next day cōmit him to the Tower for his triall.The kyng sent Syr Antony Deny at mid­night for the Archb. When night came, the kyng sent Syr Antony Deny about midnight to Lambeth to the Archbyshop, willyng him forth with to resort vnto him at the Court. The message done, the Archby­shop speedely addressed him selfe to the Court, and commyng into the Gallery where the kyng walked and taryed for him, his highnes sayd: Ah my Lord of Canterbury, I can tell you newes.The kynges wordes and ad­uise for the sup­portation of the Archbyshop. For diuers waightie considerations it is determined by me and the Counsaile, that you to morrow at ix. of the clocke shall be committed to the Tower, for that you and your Chaplaines (as information is geuen vs) haue taught and Preached, and thereby sowen within the Realme, such a number of execrable heresies, that it is feared, the whole Realme beyng infected with them, no small contentions and commo­tions wil rise thereby amōgest my subiectes, as of late dayes the like was in diuers parts of Germany: and therfore the Counsaile haue requested me for the triall of this matter, to suffer them to commit you to the Tower, or els no man dare come forth as witnes in these matters, you beyng a Counsellour.

The Archby­shops aūswere to the kyng.When the kyng had sayd his mynde, the Archbyshop knéeled downe, and sayd: I am content if it please your Grace, with all may hart, to goe thether at your highnes com­maundement, and I most humbly thanke your Maiestie, that I may come to my triall, for there be that haue many wayes sclaundered me, and now this way I hope to try my selfe not worthy of such a report.

The kyng perceiuyng the mans vprightnesse, ioyned with such simplicitie, sayd: Oh Lord, what maner a man be you? what simplicity is in you? I had thought that you would rather haue sued to vs to haue taken the paynes to haue heard you and your ac­cusers together for your triall without any such indurance. Doe not you know what state you be in with the whole world, and how many great enemyes you haue? Doe you not consider what an easie thyng it is to procure thrée or foure false knaues to wit­nesse agaynst you? Thinke you to haue better lucke that way, then your maister Christ had? I sée it, you will runne headlong to your vndoyng, if I would suffer you.The kyngs fa­uourable care & consideration towarde the Archb. of Cant. Your enemyes shall not so preuaile agaynst you, for I haue otherwise deuised with my selfe to kéepe you out of their handes. Yet notwithstandyng, to morrow when the Counsaile shall sit and send for you, resort vnto them, and if in chargyng you with this matter, they do commit you to the Tower: require of them, because you are one of them, a Counsel­ler, that you may haue your accusers brought before them, and that you may aunswere their accusations before them, without any further induraunce, and vse for you selfe as good perswasions that way as you may deuise,The kyng sen­deth his [...]gnet in the behalfe of the Archb. of Canterbury. and if no intreatie or reasonable request will serue, then deliuer vnto them this my ryng (whiche then the kyng deliuered vnto the Archbyshop) and say vnto them, if there be no remedie my Lordes, but that I must néedes goe to the Tower, then I reuoke my cause from you and appeale to the kynges [Page] owne person by this his token vnto you all, for (sayd the kyng then vnto the Archbyshop) so soone as they shall sée this my ryng, they know it so well, that they shall vnderstand, that I haue resumed the whole cause into myne owne handes and determination, and that I haue discharged them therof.

The Archbishop perceiuyng the kyngs benignitie somuch to him wardes, had much a [...]o to forbeare teares. Well, sayd the king, goe your wayes my Lord, and doe as I haue bydden you. My Lord humblyng him selfe with thankes, tooke his leaue of the kynges highnesse for that night.

On the morow about ix. of the clocke before noone:The Archby­shop beyng one of the Counsell, made to stād at the Counsell chamber doore waityng. Doct. Buttes the kings Phi­sition, a frend of the Archb. the Counsaile sent a Gentleman busher for the Archbishop, who when he came to the Counsaile chamber doore, could not be let in, but of purpose (as it séemed) was compelled there to waite among the pages, lackeys, and seruyngmen all alone. Doct. Buttes the kynges Phisition resortyng that way, and espying how my Lord of Canterbury was handled, went to the kynges high­nes and sayd: My Lord of Canterbury if it please your Grace, is well promoted: for now he is become a lackey or a seruyngman, for yonder he standeth this halfe houre without the Counsaile chamber doore amongest them. It is not so, quoth the kyng, I trow, nor the Counsaile hath not so litle discretion as to vse the Metropolitane of the Realme in that sorte, specially beyng one of their owne number: but let them alone (sayd the kyng) and we shall here more soone.

Anone the Archbishop was called into the Counsaile Chamber: to whom was alled­ged, as before is rehearsed.The Archby­shop called be­fore the Coun­sell. The Archbyshop aunswered in like sort as the kyng had ad­uised him: and in the ende when he perceiued that no maner of perswasion or intreatie could serue, he deliuered to them the kyngs ryng, reuokyng his cause into the kynges handes. The whole Counsaile beyng thereat somewhat amased:The Coūsel beyng set agaynst the Archb. hee sheweth the kyngs Kyng & appealeth from them. the Earle of Bedford with a loude voyce confirmyng his wordes with a solemne oth, sayd: When you first be­gan this matter my Lordes, I told you what would come of it. Do you thinke that the kyng will suffer this mans finger to ake? much more (I warrant you) will he defend his life agaynst brablyng varlets. You do but comber your selues to heare tales and fables agaynst him. And so incontinently vpon the recept of the kynges token, they all rose and caryed to the kyng his ryng, surrenderyng that matter as the order and vse was, into his owne handes.

When they were all come to the kynges presence, his highnesse with a seuere coun­tenaunce,The kynges wordes to the Counsell in de­fence of the Archbyshop. sayd vnto thē: Ah my Lordes, I thought I had had wiser men of my Coun­saile then now I finde you. What discretion was this in you, thus to make the Primate of the Realme & one of you in office, to waite at the Counsaile Chamber doore amongest seruyngmen? You might haue considered that he was a Counseller as well as you, and you had no such Cōmission of me so to handle him. I was cōtent that you should try him as a Counseller, & not as a meane subiect. But now I well perceiue that things be done agaynst him malitiously, & if some of you might haue had your myndes, you would haue tried him to the vttermost. But I doe you all to witte, & protest, that if a Prince may be beholdyng vnto his subiect (and so solemly laying his hād vpon his brest) sayd: by the fayth I owe to God, I take this man here my Lord of Caunterbury, to bee of all other a most faythfull subiect vnto vs, and one to whom we are much beholdyng, giuyng him great commendations otherwise. And with that one or two of the chiefest of the Coun­saile, makyng their excuse, declared, that in requestyng his induraunce, it was rather ment for his triall and his purgation agaynst the common fame and sclaunder of the world, then for any malice conceiued agaynst him. Well, well my Lordes,The Lordes of the Counsell glad to be frēds againe with the Archbysh [...]p. quoth the king, take him and well vse him, as he is worthy to be, and make no more ado. And with that euery man caught him by the hand, and made fayre wether of altogethers, whiche might easely be done with that man.

And it was much to bee marueiled that they would goe so farre with him, thus to séeke his vndoyng, this well vnderstandyng before,The kyng a great supporter of Cranmer. that the kyng most entirely loued him, and alwayes would stand in his defence who soeuer spake agaynst him: as many o­ther tymes the kynges patience was by sinister informations, agaynst him tryed: In so much that the Lord Cromwell was euermore wont to say vnto him: My Lord of Can­terbury, [Page] you are most happy of all men:The Lord Crō wels wordes to the Archby­shop. for you may do and speake what you lifte, and say what all men can agaynst you, the kyng will neuer beleue one word, to your detri­ment or hinderaunce.

After the death of kyng Henry, immediatly succéeded his sonne kyng Edward, vn­der whose gouernement and protection the state of this Archbyshop, beyng his Godfa­ther, was nothyng appaired, but rather more aduaunced.

Duryng all this meane tyme of kyng Henry aforesayd, vntill the entryng of kyng Edward, it séemeth that Cranmer was scarsely yet throughly perswaded in the right knowledge of the Sacrament, or at least, was not yet fully rypened in the same: where­in shortly after he beyng more groundly confirmed by conference with Byshop Ridley, in processe of tyme did so profite in more ryper knowledge, that at last he tooke vpon him the defence of that whole doctrine, that is, to refute and throw downe first the corporall presence: secondly the phantasticall transubstantiation: thirdly the Idolatrous adora­tion: fourthly the false errour of the Papistes, that wicked men do eate the naturall bo­dy of Christ:The true and go [...]ly doctrine of the Sacra­ment in fiue bookes set forth by the Archb. of Canterbury. and lastly the blasphemous sacrifice of the Masse. Whereupon in conclu­sion he wrote fiue bookes, for the publicke instructiō of the Church of England, which in­struction yet to this day standeth and is receaued in this Church of England.

Agaynst these fiue bookes of the Archbyshop, Stephen Gardiner, the Archenemy to Christ and his Gospell, beyng then in the Tower, slubbereth vp a certaine aunswere such as it was, which he in open Court exhibited vp at Lambeth, beyng there examined by the Archbyshop aforesayd, and other the kynges Commissioners in kyng Edwardes dayes, whiche booke was intitled: An Explication and assertion of the true Catholicke fayth, touchyng the blessed Sacrament of the aultar, with a confutation of a booke writ­ten agaynst the same.

An explication of Stephē Gar­diner agaynst Cranmer Arch­byshop of Cāt.Agaynst this Explication, or rather a ca [...]illyng Sophistication of Stephens Gardi­ner Doctour of Law, the sayd Archbyshop of Canterbury learnedly and copiously reply­ing agayne, maketh aunswere, as by the discourse therof renewed in Print, is euident to be sene to all such as with indifferent eye will Read and peruse the same.

Besides these bookes aboue recited, of this Archbishop diuers other things there were also of his doing, as the booke of Reformation, with the booke of Homelies, whereof part was by him contriued, part by his procurement approued and published. Wherunto al­so may be adioyned an other writing or confutation of his agaynst 88. Articles by the Cō ­uocation deuised and propounded, but yet not ratified nor receaued, in the reigne and time of king Henry.

And thus much hetherto concernyng the deynges and trauailes of this Archbyshop of Caunterbury duryng the lines both of kyng Henry, and of kyng Edward his sonne. Which two kynges so long as they continued, this Archbyshop lacked no stay of main­tenaunce agaynst all his maligners.

After the death of king Edward, Quéene Mary comming now to the Crowne, and being established in the possession of the Realme, not long after came to London, and af­ter she had caused first the two Dukes of Northumberland and Suffolke, and their two children, the Lady Iane, and the Lord Guilford, both in age tender and innocent of that crime to be executed: She put the rest of the Nobilitie to their lines, and forgaue them the Archbishop of Canterbury onely except. Who though he desired pardon by meane of frendes, could obtaine none: in so much that the Quéene would not once [...]ouchsafe to sée hym:Man [...]taltamēte repostum Iudi­cium paridis, spraetaeque inni­ria matris. Virg. AEneid. 1. For as yet the old grudges agaynst the Archbyshop for the diuorcement of her mother, remained hid in the bottome of her hart. Besides this diuorce, she re­membred the state of Religion chaunged: all which was reputed to the Archbishop, as the chief cause therof.

While these thinges were in doing, a rumor was in all mens mouthes, that the Archbishop, to curry fauour with the Quéene, had promised to say a Dirige Masse after the old custome,This Doctour Thornton was after the By­shop of Douer, a cruell & wic­ked persecuter. for the funerall of king Edward her brother. Neither wanted there some, which reported that he had already said Masse at Caunterbury: whiche Masse in déede was sayd by Doct. Thornton. This rumor Cranmer thinkyng spéedely to stay, gaue forth a writing in his purgation: the tenour whereof being set out at large in the [Page] booke of Actes and Monumentes. I néede not here againe to recite.

This Bill being thus written, and lying openly a window in his chamber, cōmeth in by chaunce Maister Scory, Bishop then of Rochester, who after he had read and peru­sed the same, required of the Archbishop to haue a Copie of the Bill. The Archbishop when he had graunted and permitted the same to Maister Scory, by the occasion therof M. Scory lending it to some frend of his, there were diuers Copies takē out therof, & the thing published abroad among the common people: in so much that euery Scriueners shop almost, was occupied in writing and copying out the same, and so at length some of those Copies comming to the Bishops handes, & so brought to the Counsell, & they sen­ding it to the Commissioners, the matter was knowen, & so he commaūded to appeare.

Whereupon Doct. Cranmer at his day prefixed,This Byshop was Doctour Heath, Byshop after of York [...]. appeared before the sayd Commis­sioners, bringing a true Inuentorie, as he was commaūded, of all his goodes. That done, a Bishop of the Quéenes priuie Counsell, being one of the sayd Commissioners, after the Inuentorie was receaued, bringing in mention of the Bill: My Lord (said he) there is a Bill put forth in your name, wherein you séeme to be agréeued with setting vp the Masse againe: we doubt not but you are sorie that it is gone abroad.

To whom the Archbishop aunswering againe, saying: as I doe not deny my selfe to be the very Authour of that Bill or Letter, so must I confesse here vnto you, concerning the same Bill, that I am sorie that the sayd Bill went from me in such sort as it did. For when I had written it, M. Scory got the Copie of me, and is now come abroad, and as I vnderstand, the Citie is full of it. For whiche I am sorie, that it so passed my handes: for I had intended otherwise to haue made it in a more large and ample maner, & myn­ded to haue set it on Paules Church doore, and on the doores of all the Churches in Lon­don, with mine owne feele ioyned thereto.

At whiche wordes when they saw the constantnesse of the man, they dismissed him, affirming they had no more at that present to say vnto him, but that shortly hee should heare further. The said Bishop declared afterward to one of Doct. Cranmers frendes, that notwithstāding his attainder of treason, the Quéenes determination at that time was, that Cranmer should onely haue bene depriued of his Archbishopricke, and haue had a sufficient liuing assigned him, vpon his exhibiting of a true Inuentorie, with com­maundement to kéepe his house without medlyng in matters of Religion. But how that was true, I haue not to say. This is certaine, that not long after this, he was sent vnto the Tower, and soone after condemned of treason.Cranmer con­demned of trea­son. Notwithstanding, the Quéene whē she could not honestly denie him his pardon, seing all the rest were discharged, and specially seing he last of all other subscribed to king Edwardes request, & that against his owne will, released to him his action of treason, and accused him onely of heresie:Cranmer relea­sed of treason, and accused of heresie. which liked the Archbishop right well, and came to passe as he wished, because the cause was not now his owne, but Christes, not the Quéenes, but the Churches. Thus stoode the cause of Cranmer, till at length it was determined by the Quéene and the Counsel, that he should be remoned from the Tower where he was prisoner, to Oxford, there to dis­pute with the Doctours and Diuines. And priuely word was sent before to them of Ox­ford to prepare them selues, and make them ready to dispute. And although the Quéene and the Bishops had cōcluded before what should become of him, yet it pleased them that the matter should be debated with Argumentes, that vnder some honest shew of disputa­tion, the murther of the man might be couered.Cranmer had to Oxford. Neither could their hastie spéede of re­uengement abide any long delay: and therfore in all hast he was caried to Oxford.

What this disputation was, and how it was handled, what were the questions, and reasons on both sides, and also touching his condemnation by the Uniuersitie & the Pro­locutor, because sufficiently it hath bene declared in the storie at large, we mynde now therefore to procéede to his finall iudgement and order of condemnation, whiche was the xii. day of September. an. 1556. and seuen dayes before the condemnation of Bishop Ridley and Maister Latimer.

After the disputations done and finished in Oxford betwene the Doctours of both U­niuersities and the thrée worthy Bishops,Of this condē ­nation, read in the last [...], pag. 1554. Doct. Cranmer, Ridley, and Larymer, sentēce condemnatory immediatly vpō the same was ministred against them by Doct. Weston [Page] and other of the Uniuersitie: whereby they were iudged to be heretickes, and so commit­ted to the Maior and Sheriffes of Oxford, by whom hee was caried to Bocardo their cō ­mon Gaile in Oxford.

In this meane tyme, while the Archbishop was thus remainyng in duraunce (whō they had kept now in prisō almost the space of thrée yeares) the Doctours and Diuines of Oxford, busied them selues all that euer they could about Maister Cranmer, to haue him recant, assaying by all craftie practises and allurementes they might deuise, how to bring their purpose to passe. And to the intent they might winne him easely, they had him to the Deanes house of Christes Church in the sayd Uniuersitie, where he lacked no delicate fare, played at the bowles, had his pleasure for walking, and all other thinges that might bring him from Christ. Ouer and besides all this, secretly and sleightly, they suborned certaine men, whiche when they could not expugne him by argumentes and disputation, should by entreatie and fayre promises, or any other meanes allure him to recantation: perceiuyng otherwise what a great wound they should receiue, if the Arch­bishop had stoode stedfast in his sentence: and againe on the other side, how great profite they should get, if he as the principall standerd bearer, should be ouerthrowen. By rea­son wherof the wylie Papistes flocked about him, with threatning, flattering, intrea­ting and promising, and all other meanes: especially Henry Sydall, and Frier Iohn a Spaniard, De villa Garcina, to the end to driue him to the vttermost of their possibilitie, from his former sentence,The Archby­shop contented to recant. to recantation: whose force his manly constancie did a great while resist: but at last when they made no end of calling and crying vpon him, the Arch­bishop being ouercome, whether through their importunitie, or by his owne imbecilli­tie, or of what mynde I can not tell, at length gaue his hand.

Causes mo­uyng the Arch­byshop to geue with the tyme.It might be supposed that it was done for the hope of life, and better dayes to come. But as we may since perceaue by a Letter of his sent to a Lawyer, the most cause why he desired his tyme to be delayed, was that he would make an end of Marcus Antonius, which he had already begon; but howsoeuer it was he recanted, though playne agaynst his conscience.

The Queen [...]s hart set agaynst Cranmer. Mary the Quéene hauing now gotten a time to reuenge her old grief, receaued his recantation very gladly: but of her purpose to put him to death, she would nothing re­lent. But taking secret Counsell, how to dispatch Cranmer out of the way (who as yet knew nothyng of her secret hate, & looked for nothyng lesse then death) appointed Doct. Cole, & secretly gaue him in commaundement, that agaynst the 21. of March, he should prepare a funerall Sermon for Cranmers burning,The Queene conferreth with Doct. Cole a­bout Cranmers burnyng. and so instructing him orderly and diligently of her will and pleasure in that behalfe, sendeth him away.

L. William of Thame, L. Shā ­doys, Syr Tho­mas Bridges, Syr Iohn Browne, appourted to be at Cranmers exe­cution.Some after, the Lord Williams of Tame, and the Lord Shādoys Sir Thomas Brid­ges, and Sir Iohn Browne were sent for, with other worshipfull men and Iustices, cō ­maunded in the Quéenes name, to be at Oxford at the same day, with their seruauntes and retinue, lest Cranmers death should rayse there any tumult.

Cole the Doctour hauing his lesson geuen him before, and charged by her commaū ­dement, returned to Oxford ready to play his part, who as the day of execution drew neare, euē the day before came into the prison to Crāmer, to try whether he abode in the Catholicke fayth, wherin before he had left him. To whom whē Cranmer had aunswe­red, that by Gods grace, he would dayly be more cōfirmed in the Catholicke fayth: Cole departing for that tyme, the next day folowing repayred to the Archbishop agayne, ge­uing no signification as yet of his death that was prepared: And therefore in the mor­nyng, which was the 21. day of March appointed for Cranmers execution, the sayd Cole commyng to him asked, if he had any money. To whom when he aunswered that he had none, he deliuered him 1 [...]. Crownes to geue the poore to whō he would: and so exhorting him so much as he could to constancie in fayth, departed thence about his businesse, as to his Sermon appertained.

By this partly, and other like argumentes, the Archbishop began more and more to surmise what they went about. Thē, because the day was not farre past, and the Lordes and Knightes that were looked for, were not yet come, there came to him the Spanish Frier, witnesse of his recantation, bringyng a paper with Articles, whiche Cranmer [Page] should openly professe in his recantation before the people, earnestly desiring that hee would write the sayd instrument with the Articles with his owne hand,Cranmer writ­teth & subscri­beth the Arti­cles with his owne handes. & signe it with his name: which when he had done, the sayd Frier desired that hee would write an other Copie therof, which should remaine with him, and that he did also. But yet the Archbi­shop beyng not ignoraunt whereunto their secret deuises tended, and thinking that the tyme was at hand, in which he could no longer dissemble the profession of his fayth with Christes people, he put secretly in his bosome his Prayer with his exhortation, written in an other paper, which he mynded to recite to the people, before he should make the last profession of his sayth, fearyng lest if they had heard the Confession of his fayth first, they would not afterward haue suffered him to exhort the people.

Some after, about ix. of the clocke, the Lord Williams, Sir Thomas Bridges, Syr Iohn Browne, and the other Iustices with certaine other Noble men, that were sent of the Quéenes Counsell, came to Oxford with a great trayne of wayting men. Also of the other multitude on euery side (as is wont in such a matter) was made a great concourse and greater expectation.

In this so great frequence and expectation, Cranmer at length commeth from the prison Bocardo, Doct. Cranmer brought to D. Coles Serinō. vnto S. Maries Churche (because it was a foule and a raynie day) the chief Church in the Uniuersitie, in this order. The Maior went before, next him the Al­dermen in their place and degree: after them was Cranmer brought, betwene two Fri­ers, which mombling to and fro certaine Psalmes in the stréetes, aunswered one an o­ther vntil they came to the Church doore, and there they began the song of Simeon, Nunc dimittis: and entring into the Churche, the Psalme saying Friers brought him to his standyng, and there left him. There was a stage set vp ouer agaynst the Pulpit,Doct. Cranmer set vpō a stage, of a meane height from the ground, Cranmer had his standyng, waytyng vntill Cole made him ready to his Sermon.

The lamentable case and sight of that man gaue a sorowfull spectacle to all Christē eyes that beheld him. He that late was Archbishop, Metropolitane, and Primate of En­gland, and the kynges priuie Counsellour, beyng now in a bare and ragged gowne, and ill fauoredly clothed, with an old square cap, exposed to the contempt of all men, did ad­monish mē not onely of his owne calamitie, but also of their state and fortune. For who would not pitie his case, and bewayle his fortune, and might not feare his own chaunce, to sée such a Prelate, so graue a Counsellour, and of so long continued honour, after so many dignities, in his old yeares to be depriued of his estate, adiudged to dye, and in so paynfull a death to end his life, and now presently from such fresh ornamentes, to descēd to such vyle and ragged apparell?

In this habite when hee had stoode a good space vpon the stage, turnyng to a piller neare adioyning thereunto, he lifted vp his handes to heauen, and prayed to God once or twise: till at the length Doct. Cole commyng into the Pulpit, and begynnyng his Ser­mon, entred first into mention of Tobias and Zachary. Whom after that he had pray­sed in the begynnyng of his Sermon, for their perseueraunce in the true worshyppyng of God, he then deuided his whole Sermon into thrée partes (accordyng to the solemne custome of the Schooles) entendyng to speake first of the mercy of God,Doct. Coles Sermon deui­ded into three partes. secondly of his Iustice to be shewed: and last of all, how the Princes secretes are not to be opened. And procéedyng a litle from the begynnyng, hee tooke occasion by and by to turne his tale to Cranmer, The summe & effect of Doct. Coles Sermon at Oxford. and with many ho [...]e wordes reproued him, that once he beyng endued with the fauour and féelyng of holesome and Catholicke doctrine, fell into the contrary opiniō of pernitious errour, which he had onely defended by writynges, and all his power: but also allured other men to the like, with great liberalitie of giftes, as it were, appointyng rewardes for errour: and after he had allured them, by all meanes did cherish them.

It were to long to repeate all thyngs, that in long order were then pronounced. The summe of this tripartite declamation was,If Cole gaue this iudgement vpon Cranmer whē hee had re­pented, what iudgement is then to be geuē of Cole whiche alwayes hath p [...]dured in er­rour, and neuer yet repented. that hee sayd Gods mercy was so tempered with his Iustice, that he did not altogether require punishment according to the merites of offenders, nor yet sometymes suffered the same altogether to goe vnpunished, yea though they had repēted. As in Dauid, who whē he was bidden chuse of thrée kyndes of punishments which he would, & he had chosen Pestilence for thrée dayes: the Lord for­gaue [Page] gaue him halfe the tyme, but didnt release all: And that the same thyng came to passe in hym also, to whom although pardon and reconciliation was due accordyng to the Canons, seyng hee repented from his errours: yet there were causes, why the Quéene and the Counsell at this tyme iudged hym to death: of whiche, lest hee should maruell to much, he should heare some.

First, that beyng a traytour, he had dissolued the lawfull Matrimonie betwene the kyng her father and mother: besides the driuyng out of the Popes authoritie, while he was Metropolitane.

If all here­tickes in Eng­land should be burned, where should Doct. Cole haue bene ere now.Secondly, that he had bene an hereticke, from whom as from an Authour and onely fountaine, all hereticall doctrine and schismaticall opinions, that so many yeares haue preuailed in England, did first rise and spryng: of which he had not bene a secret fauou­rer onely, but also a most earnest defender euen to the end of his life, sowyng them abroad by writynges and Argumentes, priuately and openly, not without great ruine and de­cay of the Catholicke Church.

Lex non aequa­litatis, sed i [...]i­quitatis.And further, it séemed méete, accordyng to the law of equalitie, that as the death of the Duke of Northumberland of late, made euen with Thomas More Chauncellour that dyed for the Churche, so there should be one that should make euen with Fisher of Rochester: and because that Ridley, Hoper, Farrar, were not able to make euen with that man, it séemed méete, that Cranmer should be ioyned to them to fill vp this part of equalitie.

Beside these, there were other iust & weightie causes, which séemed to the Quéene & the Counsell, whiche was not méete at that tyme to be opened to the common people.

After this, turnyng his tale to the hearers, he bad all men beware by this mans ex­ample, that among men nothyng is so high, that can promise it selfe safetie on the earth, and that Gods vengeaūce is equally stretched agaynst all men, & spareth none: therfore they should beware and learne to feare their Prince.No state in this earth so hye nor so sure, but it may fall. And seyng the Quéenes Maiestie would not spare so notable a man as this, much lesse in the like cause she would spare o­ther men, that no man should thinke to make thereby any defence of his errour, either in riches or any kynde of authoritie. They had now an example to teach them all, by whose calamitie euery man might consider his owne fortune: who from the top of dig­nitie, none being more honorable then he in the whole Realme, and next the kyng, was fallen into so great miserie, as they might now sée, beyng a man of so high degrée, some­tyme one of the chiefest Prelates in the Church and an Archbishop, the chief of the Coū ­sell, the second person in the Realme of long tyme, a man thought in greatest assuraūce, hauyng a kyng on his side: notwithstandyng all his authoritie and defence to be debased from high estate, to a low degrée, of a Counsellour to become a caitiffe, and to be set in so wretched a state, that the poorest wretch would not chaunge condition with him: brief­ly so heaped with miserie on all sides, that neither was left in him any hope of better for­tune, nor place for worse.

Doct. Cole en­courageth the Archb. to take his death pati­ently.The latter part of his Sermon he conuerted to the Archbishop: whom he comforted and encouraged to take his death well, by many places of Scripture, as with these and such like: hiddyng him not mistrust, but he should incontinently receiue that the théefe did, to whom Christ sayd: Hodie mecum eris in Paradiso, that is, This day thou shalt be with me in Paradise. And out of S. Paule he armed him agaynst the terrour of the fire, by this:1. Cor. 10. Dominus fidelis est, non sinet vos tentari vltra quàm ferre potestis, that is, The Lord is faythful which will not suffer you to be tempted aboue your strength, by the exam­ple of the thrée children, to whom God made the flame to séeme like a pleasaunt dew, ad­dyng also the reioysing of S. Andrew in his Crosse, the patience of S. Laurence on the fire, assuryng him, that God, if he called on him, and to such as dye in his fayth, either would abate the furie of the flame, or geue him strength to abide it.

Doct. Cole re­ioyseth in the Archbyshops conuersion, b [...]t that reioysing lasted not long.He glorified God much in his conuersion, because it appeared to be onely his worke, declaryng what trauell and conference had bene with him to conuert him, and all pre­uayled not till that it pleased God of his mercy to reclayme him, and call him home. In discoursing of which place, he much commended Cranmer, and qualified his former do­ynges, thus temperyng his iudgement and talke of him, that while the tyme (sayd he) he [Page] flowed in riches and honour, he was vnworthy of his lyfe: and now that he might not liue,Dir [...]ges and Masses promi­sed for Cran­mers soule. he was vnworthy of death. But lest he should cary with him no comfort, he would diligently labour (hee sayd) and also hee did promise in the name of all the Priestes that were present, immediately after his death, there should be Diriges, Masses, and funerals executed for him in all the Churches of Oxford for the succour of his soule.

Cranmer in all this meane tyme with what great grief of mynde he stoode hearyng this Sermon, the outward shewes of his body and countenaunce did better expresse, thē any man can declare: one while liftyng vp his handes and eyes vnto heauen, and then agayne for shame lettyng thē downe to the earth. A mā might haue sene the very image and shape of perfite sorrow liuely in him expressed. More then twentie seuerall tymes the teares gushed out aboundantly,The teares of the Archb. dropped downe marueilously from his fatherly face. They which were present doe testifie, that they neuer saw in any child more teares, thē brast out from him at that tyme, all the Sermon while: but specially when hee recited his Prayer before the people. It it is marueilous what commiseration and pitie moued all mens hartes, that beheld so heauie a countenaunce and such aboundaunce of teares in an old man of so reuerend dignitie.

Cole after he had ended his Sermon, called backe the people that were ready to de­part, to Prayers. Brethren (sayd hee) lest any man should doubt of this mans earnest conuersion and repentaunce, you shall heare him speake before you, and therfore I pray you Maister Cranmer, Cranmer requi­red to declare his fayth. that you will now performe that you promised not long agoe, namely that you would openly expresse the true and vndoubted profession of your fayth, that you may take away all suspition from men, and that all men may vnderstand that you are a Catholicke in déede.Crāmer willing to declare his fayth. I will do it (sayd the Archbyshop) and with a good will: who by and by rising vp, and putting of his cap, began to speake thus vnto the people.

I desire you well beloued brethren in the Lord, that you will pray to God for me, to forgeue me my sinnes,The wordes of the Archb. to the people. which aboue all men both in number and greatnes, I haue com­mitted: but among all the rest, there is one offence whiche of all at this tyme doth vexe and trouble me, wherof in processe of my talke you shall heare more in his proper place, and then puttyng his hand into his bosome, he drew forth his Prayer, whiche he recited to the people in this sense.

¶ The Prayer of Doct. Cranmer Archb. of Cant. at his death.

GOod Christen people,The Prayer of the Archb. my dearely beloued brethren and sisters in Christ, I beséech you most hartely to pray for me to almightie God, that he will forgeue me all my sinnes and offēces, which be many, without number, and great aboue measure. But yet one thyng gréeueth my conscience more then all the rest, wherof God willyng, I entend to speake more hereafter. But how great and how many soeuer my sinnes be, I beséech you to pray God of his mercy to pardon and forgeue them all. And here knéelyng downe, he sayd: O Father of heauen: O Sonne of God redeemer of the world: O holy Ghost three persons and one God, haue mercy vpon me most wretched caitiffe and mise­rable sinner. I haue offended both against heauen and earth more then my toung can expresse. Whether then may I goe, or whether should I flye? To heauen I may be a­shamed to lift vp myne eyes, and in earth I finde no place of refuge or succour. To thee therfore (O Lord) do Irunne: to thee do I humble my selfe, saying: O Lord my God, my sinnes be great, but yet haue mercy vpon me for thy great mercy. The great mistery that God became mā, was not wrought for litle or few offēces. Thou diddest nor geue thy sonne (O heauenly Father) vnto death for small sinnes onely, but for all the greatest sinnes of the world, so that the sinner returne to thee with his whole hart, as I do here at this present. Wherfore haue mercy on me O God, whose property is alwayes to haue mercy: haue mercy vpon me O Lord, for thy great mercy. I craue nothyng O Lord, for myne owne merites, but for thy names sake, that it may be ha­lowed thereby, and for thy deare sonne Iesus Christ sake: And now therfore, our Fa­ther of heauen, halowed by thy name. &c.

And then he rising, sayd:

Euery man (good people) desireth at that tyme of their death to geue [Page] some good exhortation, that other may remember the same before their death,The last words of exhortatiō of the Archb. to the people. and be the better thereby: so I beseech God graunt me grace, that I may speake some thyng at this my departyng, whereby God may bee glorified, and you edified.

First, it is an heauie case to see that so many folke be so much doted vp­on the loue of this false world, and so carefull for it, that of the loue of God, or the world to come, they seeme to care very litle or nothyng. Therefore this shalbe my first exhortation,Exhortation to contempt of the world. that you set not your myndes ouer much vpon this glosing world, but vpon God and vpon the world to come: and to learne to know what this lesson meaneth, whiche S. Iohn teacheth, That the loue of this world is hatred agaynst God.

Exhortation to obedience.The second exhortation is, that next vnder God you obey your Kyng and Queene willingly and gladly, without murmuryng or grudgyng: not for feare of them onely, but much more for the feare of God: know­yng that they be Gods Ministers, appointed by God to rule and gouerne you: and therefore who soeuer resisteth them, resisteth the ordinaunce of GOD.

Exhortation to brotherly loue.The third exhortation is, that you loue altogether lyke brethren and sisters. For alas, pitie it is to see what cōtention and hatred one Christen man beareth to an other, not takyng ech other as brother and sister, but rather as straungers and mortall enemyes. But I pray you learne and beare well away this one lesson, to doe good vnto all men, asmuch as in you lyeth, & to hurt no man, no more then you would hurt your owne na­turall louyng brother or sister. For this you may be sure of, that who soe­uer hateth any person and goeth about maliciously to hinder or hurt him, surely and without all doubt, God is not with that mā, although he thinke him selfe neuer so much in Gods fauour.

Exhortation to rich mē of this world, mouyng them to chari­table almes.The fourth exhortation shalbe to them that haue great substaunce and riches of this world, that they will well consider and wey three sayinges of the Scripture.

Luke. 18.One is of our Sauiour Christ him selfe, who sayth: It is hard for a rich man to enter into the kingdome of heauen. A sore saying, and yet spoken of him that knoweth the truth.

1. Iohn. 3.The second is of S. Iohn, whose saying is this: He that hath the sub­staunce of this world, and seeth his brother in necessitie, and shutteth vp his mercy from him, how can he say that he loueth God?

The thyrd is of S. Iames, who speaketh to the couetous rich mā after this maner: Weepe you and howle for the miserie that shall come vppon you: your riches doe rotte, your clothes be moth eaten, your gold and siluer doth canker and rust, and their rust shall beare witnesse agaynst you, and con­sume you like fire: you gather a horde or treasure of Gods indignation agaynst the last day. Let them that be rich, ponder well these three sentences: for if euer they had occasion to shew their charitie, they haue it now at this present, the poore people beyng so many, and victuals so deare.

And now, for as much as I am come to the last end of my life, whereupon hangeth all my life past, and all my life to come, either to liue with my Maister Christ for euer in ioye, or els to bee in payne for euer with wicked deuils in hell, and sée before myne eyes presently either heauen ready to receiue me, or els hell ready to swallow me vp: I shall therefore declare vnto you my very fayth how I beleue, without any colour or [...] [Page]

[Page]
The description of Doct. Cranmer, how he was plucked downe from the stage by Friers and Papistes, for the true Confession of his Fayth.

[Page] dissimulation: for now is no tyme to dissemble, what soeuer I haue sayd or written in tyme past.

First, I beleue in God the Father almightie, maker of heauen and earth. &c.The Archb. de­clareth the true cōfession of his fayth without all colour or dissemblyng. And I beleue euery Article of the Catholicke fayth, euery word and sentence taught by our Sauiour Iesus Christ, his Apostles and Prophetes, in the new and old Testament.

And now I come to the great thyng that so much troubleth my conscience more thē any thyng that euer I did or sayd in my whole life, and that is the settyng abroad of a writyng contrary to the truth:The Archb. re­uoketh his for­mer recantation and repenteth the same. which now here I renounce and refuse as thynges writ­ten with my hand, contrary to the truth which I thought in my hart, & written for feare of death, and to saue my life if it might be, and that is, all such Billes and papers, which I haue written or signed with my hand since my degradation: wherein I haue written many thynges vntrue. And for as much as my hand offended, written contrary to my hart, my hand shall first bee punished therefore: for may I come to the fire, it shalbe first burned.

And as for the Pope,The Archb. refuseth the Pope as Christes ene­my, and Anti­christ. I refuse him as Christes enemy and Antichrist, with all his false doctrine.

And as for the Sacrament, I beleue as I haue taught in my booke agaynst the By­shop of Winchester, the whiche my booke teacheth so true a doctrine of the Sacrament, that it shal stand at the last day before the Iudgement of God,The Archb. standeth to his booke written agaynst Win­cester. where the Papisticall do­ctrine contrary thereto, shalbe ashamed to shew her face.

Here the standers by were all astonyed, maruailed, were amased, did looke one vpon an other, whose expectation he had so notably deceiued. Some began to admonish him of his recantation, and to accuse him of falshode.The expecta­tion of the Pa­pistes deceaued.

Briefly, it was a world to sée the Doctours beguiled of so great an hope. I thinke there was neuer crueltie more notably or better in tyme deluded and deceiued. For it is not to bee doubted but they looked for a glorious victorie and a perpetuall triumph by this mans retractation. Who as soone as they heard these thynges, began to let downe their eares,The Popistes in a great chaffe agaynst the Archbyshop. to rage, fret, and fume: and so much the more, because they could not reuenge their grief: for they could now no longer threaten or hurt him. For the most miserable man in the world can dye but once: & where as of necessitie he must néedes dye that day, though the Papistes had bene neuer so well pleased: now beyng neuer so much offen­ded with him, yet could he not be twise killed of them. And so whē they could do nothing els vnto him, yet lest they should say nothyng, they ceassed not to obiect vnto him his falsehode and dissimulation.

Unto which accusation he aunswered:Cranmers aun­swere to the Papistes. Ah my Maisters (quoth he) do not you take it so. Alwayes since I liued hetherto, I haue bene a hater of falsehode, and a louer of sim­plicitie, and neuer before this tyme haue I dissembled: and in saying this, all the teares that remained in his body, appeared in his eyes. And when hee began to speake more of the Sacrament and of the Papacie, some of them began to cry out, yalpe, and baule, and and specially Cole cried out vpon him: stop the heretickes mouth, and take him away.

And then Cranmer beyng pulled downe from the stage,Cranmer pulled downe from the stage. was led to the fire, accom­panied with those Friers, vexyng, troublyng, and threatnyng him most cruellie. What madnes (say they) hath brought thée agayne into this errour, by which thou wilt draw innumerable soules with thée into hell?Cranmer led to the fire. To whom he aunswered nothyng, but directed all his talke to the people, sauyng that to one troublyng him in the way, he spake and ex­horted him to get him home to his study, and apply his booke diligently, saying if he did diligently call vpon God, by reading more he should get knowledge. But the other Spa­nish barker, ragyng and fomyng was almost out of his wittes, alwayes hauyng this in his mouth: Non fecisti? diddest thou it not?

But when he came to the place where the holy Byshops and Martyrs of God,The Archb. brought to the place of execu­tion. Hugh Latymer & Ridley, were burnt before him for the confessiō of the truth: knéeling down, he prayed to God, and not long tarying in Prayers, puttyng of his garmentes to his shirt, hee prepared him selfe to death. His shirt was made long downe to his féete. His féete were bare. Likewise his head, when both his cappes were of, was so bare, that not one heare could bee sene vpon it. His beard was long and thicke, coueryng his face [Page] with marueilous grauitie. Such a countenaunce of grauitie moued the hartes, both of his frendes and of his enemies.

Then the Spanish Friers, Iohn and Richard, of whom mention was made before, began to exhort him and play their partes with him a fresh, but with vayne and lost la­bour, Cranmer with stedfast purpose abidyng in the profession of his doctrine, gaue his hand to certaine old men, and other that stoode by, biddyng them farewell. And when he had thought to haue done so likewise to Ely, the sayd Ely drew backe his hand and refu­sed,M. Ely refuseth to geue his hād to the Archb. saying: it was not lawfull to salute heretickes, and specially such a one as falsely returned vnto the opinions that he had foresworne. And if hee had knowen before that he would haue done so, he would neuer haue vsed his companie so familiarly, and chid those Sergeauntes and Citizens, which had not refused to geue him their handes. This Ely was a Priest lately made, and Student in Diuinitie, beyng then one of the Fel­lowes of Brasennose.

The Archb. tyed to tht [...]ke.Then was an yron chayne tyed about Cranmer, whom when they perceiued to be more stedfast then that he could be moued from his sentence, they commaunded the fire to be set vnto him. And when the wood was kindled, and the fire began to burne neare him,Cranmer put­teth his right hād which sub­scribed first into the [...]r [...]. stretchyng out his arme, he put his right hand into the flame: whiche he held so stedfast and immouable (sauyng that once with the same hand he wiped his face) that all men might sée his hand burned before his body was touched. His body did so abide the burnyng of the flame, with such constancie and stedfastnesse, that standyng alwayes in one place without mouyng of his body, hee séemed to moue no more then the stake to whiche he was bound: his eyes were lifted vp into heauen, and often tymes he repea­ted, his vnworthy right hand,The last word [...] of Cranmer at his death. so long as his voyce would suffer him: and vsing often the wordes of Stephen, Lord Iesus receiue my spirite, in the greatnesse of the flame, he gaue vp the Ghost.

This fortitude of mynde, whiche perchaunce is rare and not vsed among the Spa­niardes, when Frier Iohn saw, thinkyng it came not of fortitude but of desperation (al­though such maner examples whiche are of the like constancie haue bene common here in England) ran to the Lord Williams of Lame,The Friers lying report of Cranmer. crying that the Archbyshop was ve­xed in mynde, and dyed in great desperation. But he whiche was not ignoraunt of the Archbyshops constancie, beyng vnknowen to the Spaniardes, smiled onely, and (as it were) by silence rebuked the Friers tollie. And this was the end of this learned Arch­byshop, whom, lest by euill subscribyng he should haue perished, by well recantyng God preserued: and lest he should haue liued longer with shame and reproofe, it pleased God rather to take him away, to the glory of his name and profite of his Churche. So good was the Lord both to his Church in fortifying the same, with the testimonie & bloud of such a Martyr: and so good also to the man, with this Crosse of tribulation to purge his offences in his world, not onely of his recantatiō, but also of his standyng a­gaynst Iohn Lambert, and M. Allen, or if there were any other with whose burnyng and bloud his handes had bene before any thyng polluted. But especially he had to reioyce, that dying in such a cause, hee was to be numbred amongest Christes Martyrs, much more worthy the name of S. Thomas of Caunterbury then he whom the Pope falsely before did Canonise.

The end of Cranmers lyfe Archb. of Cant.
The burnyng of the Archbyshop of Canterbury Doct. Cranmer, in the Townedich at Oxford, thrustyng his hand first into the fire flame, wherewith he had subscribed.
[...]

A craftie and Sophisticall cauillation deuised by M. Steuen Gardiner Doctor of Law, late Bishop of Winchester, against the true and godly doctrine of the most holy sacrament of the body and bloud of our sauiour Christ (called by him An explication & assertion therof) with an aunswer vnto the same, made by the most reuerend father in God, Thomas Archbishop of Caunterbury, Primate of all Eng­land and Metropolitane. The title of the booke of Steuen Gardiner late Bishop of Winchester. ¶ An Explication and assertion of the true catholike fayth, tou­ching the most blessed Sacrament of the aulter, with confu­tation of a booke written against the same. ¶ The aunswer of Thomas Archbishop of Caunterbury, &c.

HERE before the beginning of your booke, you haue prefixed a goodly title, but it agreeth with the argument and matter therof, as water agreeth with the fire. For your booke is so farre from an explication and assertion of the true catholike fayth in the matter of the sacrament, that it is but a crafty cauillation and subtile sophisticatiō, to obscure the truth therof, and to hyde the same, that it should not appeare. And in your whole booke, the reader (if he marke it wel) shal easily perceiue, how little learning is shewed therin and how few authors you haue alleadged, other then such as I brought forth in my booke, and made aunswer vnto: but there is shewed what may be done by fine wit, and new deuises, to deceiue the reader, and by false in­terpretations to auoyde the plain wordes of scripture and of the old au­thors.

Wherfore in as much as I purpose God willing, in this defēce of my former book, not only to aunswer you, but by ye way also to touch D. Smith two things I would wish in you both: The one is truth wt simplicitie: the other is, yt either of you both had so much learning as you think you haue, or els yt you thought of your selfe no more then you haue in dede: but to aū ­swer both your bokes in few words: yt one sheweth nothing els, but what rayling without reason or learning: the other what frowardnes armed with wit and eloquence, be able to do against the truth. And Smith be­cause he would be vehement, and shew his heat in the maner of speach, where the matter is cold, hath framed in a maner all his sentēces through out his whole booke, by interrogations. But if the reader of both your bookes do no more, but diligently read ouer my booke once agayn, he shal fynde the same not so slenderly made, but that I haue foreseene all that [...] [Page 2] could be sayd to the contrary: and that I haue fully aunswered before hand all that you both haue sayd, or is able to say.

Winchester.

FOrasmuch as amonge other myne allegations for defence of 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, yt 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 ye 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.

The summe of the booke.

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 yt 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 ye 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 ye letter doth mainteine this my doctrine plainly, that the bread remaineth, Panis quem frangimus, 1. Cor. 10. nonne communicatio corporis Christi est? Is not ye 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 ye 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 ye 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, yt 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 ye 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 ye 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 ye 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 ye 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 ye 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 ye 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 ye 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 ye 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 yt 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 ye 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 ye papists beleeue not yt 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 ye real presēce, may be called rather ye fayth of the papists then of ye 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 ye 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 ye 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 ye 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 yt 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 ye 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 ye 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.’

This thing is rehearsed also of S. Marke, in these wordes.

As they did eate,Marck. 14. Iesus tooke bread, and when he had blessed, he brake it, and gaue it to them, and sayd: 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 sayd to them, This is my bloud of the new testament, which is shed for ma­ny: verely, I say vnto you, I will drinke no more of the fruit of the vine, vntill that daye that I drinke it new in the kingdome of God.

The Euangelist S. Luke, vttereth this matter on this wise.

When the houre was come, he sate down,Luke. 2 [...]. and the twelue Apostles with hym. And he said vnto them. I haue greatly desired to eate this Pascha with you before I suffer. For I say vnto you, hēceforth I will not eat of it any more [Page 24] vntil it be fulfilled in the kingdome of God. And he toke the cuppe and gaue thankes, and sayd: Take this and deuide it among you. For I say vnto you, I will not drinke of the fruit of the vine, vntill the kingdome of God come. And he toke bread and when hee had geuen thankes he brake it and gaue it vnto them, saying: This is my body, which is geeuen for you. This doe in remembrance of me. Likewise also when he had supped, he toke the cup saying: This cup is the new testament in my bloud, which is shedde for you.

Hitherto you haue herd all that the euangelistes declare, that Christ spake or did at his last supper, concerning thinstitutiō of the communion and sacra­mēt of his body and bloud. Now you shall here what S. Paul sayth concerning the same, in the tenth chapter of the first to the Corinthians, where he writeth thus.

Is not the cuppe of blessing, which we blesse, a communion of the bloud of Christ?1. Cor. 10. Is not the bread, which we breake, a communion of the body of Christ? We being many, are one bread, & one body: For we al are partakers of one bread, and one cuppe.

And in the eleuenth he speaketh on this manner.

That which I deliuered vnto you I receaued of the Lord. For the Lord Ie­sus the same night,1. Cor. 11. in the which he was betrayed, toke bread, and when he had geuen thankes, 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 cuppe. when Supper was done, saying: This cup is the new testament, in my bloud. Doe this as often as ye drinke it, in remembrance of me, for as oft as you shal eate this bread, and drinke this cup, you shew forth the Lords death til he come. Wherfore who soeuer shall eat of this bread, or drinke of this cuppe vnworthely, shalbe gilty of the body & bloud of the Lord. But let a man examine him selfe and so eat of the bread, and drinke of the cuppe. 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, & many doe sleepe.

By these wordes of Christ, rehearsed of the Euangelistes, and by the doc­trine also of Saint Paule, which he confesseth that he receaued of Christ, two thinges specially are to be noted.

Cap. 4.First, that our Sauiour Christ called the materiall bread which he brake, his body: & the wine which was the fruit of the vine, his bloud. And yet he spake not this to the intent that men should thinke that the material bread is his ve­ry body, or that his very body is materiall bread:Christ called the materiall bread his body. Neither that wine made of grapes is his very bloud, or that his very bloud is wine made of grapes. But to signifie vnto vs,1. Cor. 10. as S. Paul sayth, that the cuppe is a communion of Christes bloud that was shed for vs, and the bread is a communion of his flesh that was crucified for vs. So that although in the truth of his humain nature, Christ be in heauen,Marck. vii. and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father, yet whosoeuer ea­teth of the bread in the Supper of the Lord, according to Christes institution and ordinaunce, is assured of Christes own promise and testament, that he is a member of his body, and receaueth the benefites of his passion, which he suf­fered for vs vpon the crosse. And likewise he that drinketh of that holy cuppe in the Supper of the Lord, according to Christes institution, is certified by Christes legacy and testament, that he is made partaker of the bloud of Christ [Page 25] which was shed for vs. And this ment S. Paule, when he sayth, is not the cup of blessing which we blesse, a communion of the bloud of Christ? Is not the can bread, which we breake, a cōmunion of the body of Christ so that no man contēne or lightly esteeme this holy cōmuniō, except he contēne also Christs body and bloud, and passe not whether he haue any felowship with him or no. And of those men S. Paule saith,1. Cor. 11. that they eate and drink their own dam­nation, because they esteme not the body of Christ.

The second thing which may be learned of the forsaid wordes of Christe and S. Paule is this:Cap. 5. that although none eateth the body of Christ and drin­keth hys bloud, but they haue eternall life (as apereth by the wordes before recited of S. Iohn) yet both the good and the bad doe eate and drynke the bread and wine, which be the Sacramentes of the same.Euill men do eat the Sacra­mēt but not the body of Christ. But beside the Sacra­mentes, the good eate euerlasting life, the euill euerlasting death. Therfore S. Paule sayth: Who soeuer shall eate of the bread, or drinke of the cup of the Lord vnworthely, he shalbe gilty of the body and bloud of the Lord. Here S. paul saith not, that he that eateth the bread,1. Cor. 11. or drinketh the cup of the Lord vn worthely, eateth & drinketh the body & bloud of the Lord: but is gilty of the body & bloud of the Lord. But what he eateth & drynketh S. Paul declareth saying: he that eateth & drinketh vnworthely, eateth & drinketh his own dā ­natiō: thus is declared the sum of al that scripture speketh of the eating & drinking, both of the body & bloud of Christ, & also of the sacramēt of the same.

And as these thinges be most certaynly true,Cap. 6. because they be spoken by Christ hym selfe, the auctor of all truth, and by hys holy Apostle S. Paule as he receaued them of Christ, so all doctrines contrary to the same, be moste certaynly false and vntrue, and of al Christen men to be eschued, because they be contrary to Gods word. And all doctrine concerning this matter, that is more then this, which is not grounded vpon Gods word, is of no necessity, neither ought the peoples heads to be busied, or their consciences troubled with the same.These thinges suffice for a chri­stian mans faith concerning this Sacrament. So that thinges spoken and done by Christ, and written by the holy Euangelists and S, Paule, ought to suffice the fayth of Christian people, as touching the doctrine of the Lordes Supper, and holy communion or sa­crament of his body and bloud.

Which thing being well considered and wayed, shall be a iust occasion to pacifie and agree both parties, as well them that hetherto haue contemned or lightly esteemed it, as also them which haue hetherto for lacke of knowledge or otherwise, vngodly abused it.

Christ ordeyned the Sacrament to moue and stirre all men to frendshippe,Cap. 7. loue, and concord, and to put away all hatred, variance, and discord, and to te­stifie a brotherly and vnfained loue between all them that be the members of Christ:The Sacramēt which was or­dayned to make loue and concord is turned into ye occasion of vari­ance and discord But the deuil, the enemy of Christ and of all his members, hath so craf­tely iugled herein, that of nothing riseth so much contention, as of this holy Sacrament.

God graunt that al contention set aside, both the parties may come to this holy communiō with such a liuely faith in Christ, and such an vnfained loue to all Christes members, that as they carnallye eate with their mouthes this Sacramentall bread, and drink the wine, so spiritually they may eate and drink the very flesh and bloud of Christ which is in heauen, and sitteth on the right hand of his father. And that finally by his meanes, they may enioy with him the glory and kingdome of heauen, Amen.

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

The ende of the first booke.

THE CONFVTATION OF THE THIRD BOOKE.

IN the beginning of the third booke, the author hath thought good to note certain differences, which I wil also par­ticularly consider. It followeth in him thus.

They teach that Christ is in the bread and wine: But we say according to the truth, that he is in them that worthely eate and drinke the bread and wine.

Untrue report.Note here (Reader) euen in the entry of the comparison of 1 these differences, how vntruly the true faith of the Church is reported, which doth not teach that Christ is in the bread and wine (which was the doctrine of Luther) but the true faith is, that Christes most precious body and bloud, is by the might of his word, and determina­tion of his will, which he declareth by his word, in his holy Supper present vnder forme of bread and wine. The substance of which natures of bread and wine, is conuerted into his most precious body & bloud, as it is truely beleeued & taught in the Catholick church, of which teaching this Author cannot be ignorant. So as the Author of this booke repor­teth 2 an vntruth wittingly against his conscience, to say they teach (calling them papists) that Christ is in the bread and wine, but they agrée in forme of teaching with that, the 3 Church of England teacheth at this day,The teaching hetherto euen at this day of the church of Eng­land agreeth wt that this author calleth papistes. in the distribution of the holy Communion, in that it is there said, the body and bloud of Christ to be vnder the forme of bread and wine. And thus much serueth for declaration of the wrong, & vntrue report, of the faith of the Catholick Church, made of this Author, in the setting forth of this difference on yt parte, which it pleaseth him to name Papistes.

And now to speake of the other parte of the difference on the Authors side, when he would tell what he and his say, he conueyeth a sence craftely in wordes to serue for a dif­ference,Crafty conuei­ance of spech by this Author. such as no Catholick man would deny. For euery Catholick teacher graunteth,4 that no man can receaue worthely Christes body and bloud in the Sacrament, vnles he hath by faith and charity, Christ dwelling in him: For otherwise, such one as hath not Christ in him, receaueth Christs body in the Sacrament vnworthely, to his condemna­tion. Christ cannot be receued worthely,Worthy recea­uing of Christs precious body & bloud. but into his own temple, which be ye (S. Paul saith) and yet he that hath not Christes Spirite in him, is not his. As for calling it bread and wine, a Catholick man forbeareth not that name, signifiyng what those creatures 5 were before the consecration in substance. Wherefore appeareth, how the Author of this booke,1. Cor. 6. in the lieu and place of a difference, which he pretendeth he would shew, bringeth in that vnder a (But) which euery Catholick man must néedes confesse, that Christ is in them who worthely eate and drinke the Sacrament of his body and bloud, or the bread, and wine, as this Author speaketh.

But as this Author would haue speaken plainly, and compared truely the difference of the two teachinges,A difference should be of con­traries. he should in the second parte haue said from what contrary to that 6 the Catholick Church teacheth, which he doth not, and therfore as he sheweth vntruth in the first report, so he sheweth a sleight, and shifte in the declaration of the second parte, to say that repugneth not to the first matter, and that no Catholicke man will deny, conside­ring the said two teachinges be not of one matter, nor shoote not (as one might say) to one 7 marke. For the first parte is of the substance of the Sacrament to be receaued, where it is truth, Christ to be present, God and man. The second parte is of Christes Spirituall presence in the man that receaueth, which in déede must be in him before he receaue the Sacrament, or he cannot receaue the Sacrament worthely, as before is sayd, which two partes may stand well together without any repugnancy, & so both the differences thus taught, make but one Catholick doctrine. Let vs sée what the Author saith further,

Caunterbury.

NOw the craftes, wiles, and vntruthes of the first booke being, partly detected, after I haue also answered to this booke, I shall leaue to the [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 ye 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 ye 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 ye 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 ye 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 ye 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 yt 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 ye 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 ye 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, yt we say Christ is not receaued in the mouth, but in the hart, specially seeing yt 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 ye 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 ye 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 yt 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, ye 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 ye 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 ye 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 ye 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, yt 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 yt supper they receue his very flesh & bloud in deed, wt 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, ye 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 ye 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 yt 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; yt 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, yt 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 ye 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 yt 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 ye spech mislike them, that like no fashion but their own.

Ione of Kent.And what doth this further ye 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 ye 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 ye 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, yt 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 ye 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 ye 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 ye 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 ye 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 ye 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, ye 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 yt 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 ye 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, yt 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 ye 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 ye 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 ye 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 ye 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 ye 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, yt Christ offered himself neuer but once,Rom. 6. Heb. 7. 9. 10. 1. Pet. 3. because ye scripture so precisely & so many times saith so, & hauing ye same for my warrāt, it maketh me ye bolder to stād against you, yt deny ye thing which is so often times repeated in scripture. And where you say, that there is 7 no scripture wherupō we might cōclude, yt Christ did in this mortal life, but in one particular momēt of time offer him self to ye father: to what pur­pose you bring forth this momēt of time I cānot tell, for I made no mēt [...]on therof, but of ye day of his death, & the scripture saith plainly,Heb. 9. yt 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 ye sacrifice Christ onely made, and by that his sacrifice, all our Sa­crifices be acceptable to God, & without yt, 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 yt 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 yt 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, yt 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 yt 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 yt 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 ye holy supper (meaning of corporal presence) but yt 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 substantiallyReally, 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 presenceManer 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 Bu­cerBucerus. 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) yt 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 yt maner he is also among them yt be assembled together in his name. And if they yt say so, doe abolish the mistery of ye 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, yt whatsoeuer those authors say, they meane no more, but yt 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 ye 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 ye 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 ye 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, yt 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 yt 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 wt 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 ye 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, yt 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, yt 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) yt we must beware, that we take not litterally, any thing that is spoken fi­guratiuely. And specially he would not haue expressed by name ye 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 ye figure of the body, is now my body. And so Tertulian sayd before ye 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 ye 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 ye 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 ye 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 ye 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, ye body of christ, ye sacramēt of ye bloud of christ, ye bloud of christ, but after what maner? yt 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 ye 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 yt 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?

Eran.

I know that.

Orth.

And in an other place he calleth his body corne.

Eran.

I know that also, for I haue heard him say: The houre is come, that the sonne of man 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.

Orth.
[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.

Eran.

So he called them.

Orth.

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

Eran.

It is playne.

Orth.

But our sauiour without doubt chaunged the names, and gaue to the body the name of the signe or token, and to the token he gaue the name of the body. And so whē he called himself a vyne, he called bloud that, which was the token of bloud.Ioh. 15.

Eran.

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

Orth.

The cause is manifest to them that be expert in true religion. For he would that they which be partakers of the godly sacraments, 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.

Eran.

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

Ortho.

Seyng then that it is certayne, that the Patriarch called the lords body a vestiment and apparell,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?

Eran.

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

Orth.

Meanest thou of his body and bloud?

Eran.

Euen so I meane

Orth.

Thou hast spoken as one that loueth the truth, for the Lord when he tooke the token or signe, he sayd not. This is my diuinity, but This is my body, & this is my bloud. And in an other place.Ioh. 6. The bread which I wil giue is my flesh, whi­che I will geue for the life of the world.

Eran.

These things be true, for they be Gods words.

All these writeth Theodoretus in hi first Dialogue.'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.

Orth.

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

Era.

It is meet they be so called.

Orth.

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

Eran.

Truth it is.'

Orth.

The body of Christ therfore did rise quite cleane from all corruption & death,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.

Era.

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.

Orth.

I would not so say for the persuation of mans reason: nor I am not so ar­rogant and presumptious, to affirme any thing which scripture passeth ouer in silence. But I haue heard S. Paule cry,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.

Eran.

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

Orth.

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

Eran.

Of the Lordes body and bloud.

Orth.

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

Eran.

Of a very body.

Orth.

Very well, for an image must be made after a true paterne: for Payn­ters follow nature, and paynt the images of such thinges, as we see with our ;eyes.

Eran.

Truth it is.

Orth.

If therfore the godly sacramentes represent a true body, than is the Lordes body yet still a body, not conuerted into the nature of his Godhead, but replenished with Goddes glory.

Eran.

It cometh in good tyme, that thou makest mention of Gods sacra­mentes, for by the same I shall proue, that Christes body is tourned into an o­ther nature. Answer therfore vnto my questions.

Orth.

I shall answer.

Eran.

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

Orth.

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

Eran.

Answer couertly.

Orth.

It is a nourishment made of sedes that be like.

Eran.

Than how call we the other signe?

Orth.

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

Eran.

But how doest thou call them after the sanctification.

Orth.

The body of Christ, and the bloud of Christ.

Eran.

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

Orth.

I beleue so.

Eran.

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

Ortho.

Thou art taken with thine owne nette. For the sacramentall signes go not from their owne nature after the sanctification, but continue in their former sub­stance, forme and figure, and may be seene and touched as well as before, yet in our mindes we do consider, what they be made, and do repute and esteme them and haue them in reuerence, according to the same thinges that they be taken for. Therfore 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.

Eran.

But the sacramentall token chaungeth his former name, for it is no more called as it was before, but is called Christes body. Therfore must his body after his ascention be called God, and not a body.

Orth.

Thou semest to me ignorant: for it is not called his body onely but also the bread of lyfe, as the Lord called it. So the body of Christ we call a godly body, a body that giueth life, Gods body, the Lordes body, our masters body, name ning that it is not a common body, as other mennes bodies be, but that it is the body of our Lord Iesu Christ, both God and man.

This haue I rehersed of the great clerke and holy byshop Theodoretus, whom some of the Papists perceiuing to make so playnly agaynst them, haue defamed, saying that he was infected with the errour of Nestorius.

Here the Papistes shewe their old accustomed nature and condition which is euen in a manifest matter, rather to lie without shame, than to giue place vnto the truth, and confesse their owne errour. And although his aduersaries falsely bruted such a fame agaynst him, whan he was yet a liue, neuerthelesse he was purged therof by the whole Councell of Calcedon, about a leuen hundred yeares agoe.

And furthermore in his booke which he wrote agaynst heresies, he speci­ally condemneth Nestorius by name. And also all his iij. bookes of his dialo­gues before rehersed, he wrot chiefly agaynst Nestorius, and was neuer here in noted of error this thousand yeare, but hath euer bene reputed and taken for an holy Byshop, a great learned man, and a graue author, vntill now at this present tyme, whan the Papistes haue nothing to answer vnto him, they begin in excusing of them selues, to defame him.

Thus much haue I spoken for Theodoretus, which I pray thee be not wea­ry to read (good reader) but often and with delectation, deliberation, and good aduertisement to read. For it conteineth playnly and breefly the true in­struction of a Christian man, concerning the matter, which in this booke we treate vpon.

First, that our sauiour Christ in his last supper, whan he gaue bread and wine to his apostles (saying: This is my body, This is my bloud) it was bread which he called his body and wine mixed in the cup which he called his bloud: so that he changed the names of the bread and wine (which were the misteries, sacramentes, fignes, figures, and tokens of Christes flesh and bloud, [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 yt 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 ye celestial things, which by ye 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 ye same principally to be referred to ye celestial thīgs represented by ye signs: and therfore sayeth S. Augustin (potius) rathar. And this worship is as wel in ye 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 HeliasIohn. 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 fyreIohn. 4. I haue a meat to eat, which you know notIohn. 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 ye 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, yt we should list vp our harts & minds frō the things which we se vnto the things which we beleue & be aboue in heauē: wherof ye 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 ye 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 yt 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 wt 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 yt 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 ye 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 ye 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 ye 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, yt 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 ye same, the brokē pee­ces of the Lords body, and the fragments and portion therof, he calleth ye 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 ye 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 ye 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 ye body of Christ, there corporally present and receaued, but ye 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 ye 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 ye 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 yt 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, yt 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 ye communion? What if the people disapoynt ye 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 ye 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 yt 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 ye 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 yt 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 yt 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 yt 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, ye 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 ye 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 ye 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 ye flesh of our sauior Iesus Christ.4 For he meaneth no more, but that it is the sacramēt of his flesh, or ye 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 yt 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 ye 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 ye 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 ye things which they signify. But by this so manifest writhing of the mind of Ignatius from ye 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 ye 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 ye 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 ye 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 ye 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 wt 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 ye 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 ye 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 ye 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 ye 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 ye 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 yt 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, yt 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 ye 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 ye 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 ye 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 ye 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) ye 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 ye 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 ye maker him selfe. But as the words be placed, it seemeth you meane, that in ye 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 ye 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 ye 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 wt 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 ye 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 ye 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 ye 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 ye (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. yt 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 ye 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 yt 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 (yt 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 ye 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 yt 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 ye effect of ye 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 yt place ye 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 ye sacramēt, nor extēdeth to all that receaue ye sacramēt, but vnto thē yt being renued to a new life, be made partakers of the diuine nature, which nature Cirill himselfe vpō ye vi. chapiter of Iohn, declareth to be life. But he speaketh not one word of ye 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 ye 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 ye 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 ye 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 ye thing it selfe. And where this author speaketh of ye spiritual eating, & corporal eating,5 he remayneth in his ignorāce, what ye 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 ye truth of this mistery was neuer impugned opēly, you say herin very truly, for ye 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 ye 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 ye Massaliās charge and yet the corporall receiuing without ye 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 ye 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 wt 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 ye 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 ye 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 ye 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 ye 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 yt 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 ye 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 ye 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 yt 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 worldlyConsecration. [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 ye 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 ye 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 ye 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 ye 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 ye 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 ye 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 ye 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 yt 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 ye 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 earthGenes. 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 ye 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 ye receiuing corporally with the mouth corporall, or yt 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 ye 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 ye 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, yt he must say what so euer they bid him, be it neuer so much repugnāt to ye eui­dēt truth. In such sort it is in ye matter of yt 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