An aunsvvere by the Reuerend 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 Iesu 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 ...

THE CONFVTATION OF the fourth booke.

THus hauing perused the effect of the third booke, I will likewise peruse the fourth, and then shall follow in direct course, to speake of the matter of transub∣stantiacion. In this fourth Book the author intreateth eating and drinking of Chri∣stes body and bloud: And in the first part therof trauayleth to confirme his purpose, and in the second part, aunswereth as he can so his aduersaries, and so taketh accasion to speake of Adoration.

His chiefe purpose is to proue that euill men receiue not y^e body and bloud of Christ [ 1] in the Sacrament, which after this authors doctrine, is a very superfluous matter. For if the sacrament be onely a figure, and the body and bloud of Christ be there onely fyguratiuely, whereto should this author dispute of euill mens eating, when good menne can not eate Christ in the sacrament, bycause he is not there. For by the effect of this authors doctrine, the Sacrament is but a visible preaching by the tokens and signes of bread and wine, that in beleeuing and remembring Christes benefites, with reuoluing them in our mynde, we should in fayth feed vpō Christ spiritually, beleuing that as the bread & wine feedeth & nourisheth our bodies, so Christ feedeth & nourisheth [ 2] our soules, which be good wordes, but such as the wordes in Christes supper do not learneds, & yet may be well gathered, not to limitte y^e mistery of the supper, but to be [ 3] spoken & taught touching y^e beleuing & remēbring Christes benefites, with y^e reuoluing of thē in our minde, therby to learne vs how to feed vpō Christ cōtinually without the vse of the visible Sacramēt, beyng called of S. Augustine the inuisible sacramēt, wher [ 4] in by fayth we be nourished with y^e word of God, & the vertus of Christes body & bloud, which the true teaching of the church calleth spirituall manducation only, without which no man is to be accompted a true membre of the mysticall body of Christ. And therfore who so feedeth vpon Christ thus spiritually, must needes be a good man, for [ 5] onely good men be true members of Christes misticall body, which spirituall eating is so good a frute, as it declareth the tree necessaryly to be good, and therfore it must be and is certayne conclusion, that onely good men do eat and drincke the body and bloud of Christ spiritually, that is to say, effectually to life. So as this author shall haue of me no aduersary therin. And if this author had proued that to be the true doc¦trine that Christes very body and bloud is not present in the visible Sacrament, then might he haue left this fourth booke vnwritten. For after his doctrine, as I sayd be∣fore, good men do not eate Christes body in the Sacrament vnder the visible signes, for bycause it is not there, and then much lesse should euyll men reach it.

In the Catholike teaching, all the doctrine of eating of Christ is concluded in two [ 6] maner of eatings, one in the visible Sacrament Sacramentall, an other spirituall without the sacrament. And because in the eating of the visible Sacrament S. Paule speaketh of vnworthy, the same true teaching to open the matter more clerely accor∣ding to Scripture noteth vnto vs three maner of eatinges, one spirituall onely, which onely good men do, feeding in fayth without the visible Sacrament. An other is both spirituall and Sacramentall, which also good men only do, receiuing the visible Sa∣crament, with a true sincere charitable fayth. The third maner of eating is Sacramē∣tall only, which after S. Paule, euell men do vnworthely, and therfore haue iudge∣ment and condemnation, and be gilty of our Lords body, not esteming our Lordes body there. And here ariseth the knot of contention with this author, who sayth euell men eate but the Sacramentall bread, wher vnto I reply, no more do good men ney∣ther, if this authors doctrine of the Sacrament be true, seing he will haue it but a fi∣gure, If this author will say the effect is other in good men, then in euill men, I will not striue therin. But to discusse this matter euidētly, we must rightly open the truth, and then must consider, the visible Sacraments as they be of Gods ordinaunce, who directeth vs where to seeke for his giftes, and how, whose working all be it it be not re∣strayned by his Sacramentes, and therfore God may and doth inuisibly sanctifie and salue as it pleaseth hym: yet he teacheth vs of his ordinary working in the visible Sa∣cramentes,

& ordereth vs to seeke his giftes of helth and lyfe there, wherupon S. Au∣gustine noteth how Baptisme among the Christian men of Aphrike was very well called health, and the Sacrament of Christes body called lyfe, as in which God geueth helth and lyfe, if we worthely vse them. The ordinaunce of these Sacramentes is Goddes worke, the very author of thē, who as he is in him selfe vniforme, as S. Iames sayth, without alteration, so as Dauid sayth, his workes be true, which is asmuch as uniforme, for truth and uniforme aunswereth together. As God is all Goodnes, so all his workes be good. So [ 7] as considering the substaunce of Gods workes & ordinaunces as they be in themselfe, they be alwayes vniforme, certayne and true, in theyr substance as God ordered them. Among men for whom they be worught and ordered there is varietie, good men, euill men, worthy, vnworthy, but as S. Paule sayth, there is but one Lord one fayth, one Baptisme. And the parable of the sower which Christ de∣clared himselfe, sheweth a diuersity of the groundes where the seed did fall, but the seed was all one, that did fall in the good ground, and y^t did fall in the naughty ground, but it fructified onely in the good ground, which seed Christ calleth his word.

And in the sixt of S. Iohn sayth, his word is spirit and life, so as by the teaching of [ 8] Christ, spirite and lyfe may fall vpon naughty men, although for theyr malice, it ta∣rieth not nor fructifieth not in them. And S. Augustine according hereunto, noteth how Christes wordes be spirit and lyfe, although thou doest carnally vnderstād them, and hast no frute of them, yet so they be spirite and lyfe, but not to thee, wherby ap∣peareth the substaunce of Gods ordinaunce to be one, though we in the vsing of it va∣ry. [ 9] The promises of God can not be disapoynted by mans infidelitie, as S. Paule sayth which place Luther alleageth to shew the vnitie in the substaunce of Baptisme, whi∣ther it be ministred to good or euill. But S. Paule to the Corinthians declareth it no∣tably in these wordes. We be the good sauour of Christ in them that be salued, and them that perish. Here S. Paule noteth the sauour good and one to diuers men: but after the diuersitie in men of diuers effectes in them, that is to say, the sauour of life, and the sauour of death, which saying of S. Paule the Greeke scooles gathered by Oe∣cumenius, open and declare with similitudes in nature very aptly. The doue (they say) and the bèetell, shall feed both vpon one oyntment, and the beetell dye of it, and the doue strengthned by it. The diuersitie in the effect following of the diuersitie of them that eate, and not of that is eaten, which is alway one. According hereunto S. Au∣gustine agaynst the donatists geueth for a rule the sacramentes to be one in all, al∣though they be not one that receaue & vse them. And therfore to knitte vp this matter for the purpose, I intend and write it, for we must consider the substance of the vi∣sible [ 10] sacrament of Christes body and bloud to be alwayes, as of it selfe it is by Christes ordinaunce, in the vnderstanding wherof, this author maketh variaunce, and would haue it by Christes ordinaunce but a figure, which he hath not proued, but and he had proued it, then is it in substaunce but a figure, and but a figure to good men. For it must be in substaunce one to good and bad, and so neyther to good nor bad this sacra∣ment is otherwise dispensed then it is truely taught to be by preaching.

Wherefore if it be more then a figure, as it is in deed, and if by Christes ordinance it hath present vnder the forme of those visible signes of bread and wine, the very bo∣dy and bloud of Christ, as both bene truly taught hitherto, then is the substance of the Sacrament one alwayes as the oyntment was, whether doues eate of it or beteles. And this Issue I ioyne with this author, that he shall not be able by any learning to make any diuersitie in the substance of this sacrament, what soeuer diuersite follow in the effect. For the diuersitie of the effect, is occasioned in them that receaue, as before is proued. And then to answere this author. I say that onely good men eate and drinck the body and bloud of Christ spiritually, as I haue declared, but all good and euill re∣ceiue the visible Sacrament of that substaunce, God hath ordeyned it, which in it hath no variance, but is all one to good and euill.

Caunterbury.

IN this booke, because you agre with me almost in the whole, I shall not need much to trauaile in the aunswer, but leauing all your prety taūtes agaynst me, and glorious bosting of your selfe, which neyther beseemeth our persones, nor hindreth the truth (nor furthereth) your part, but by pompouse wordes to winne a vayne glory and fame of them that be vnlearned, and haue more regarde to words then iudgement of the matter) I shall onely touch, here and there such thinges as we vary in, or that be necessary for the defence of the truth.

First after the sūme of my fourth booke, collected as pleaseth you, at the first dash you beginne with an vntrue report, ioyned to a subtell de∣ceyte or falax, saying that my chief purpose is to proue that euill men re∣ceaue not the body and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament. And hereupon you conclude, that my fourth booke is superfluouse. But of a false ante∣cedent, all that be learned do know that nothing can be rightly conclu∣ded. Now mine intent and purpose in my fourth boooke is not to proue, that euill men receaue not the body and bloud of Christ in the sacrament (although that be true) but my chief purpose is to proue, that euell men eate not Christes flesh nor drincke not his bloud, neither in the sacrament nor out of the sacrament: as on the other side good men eat and drincke them both in the sacrament: and out of the Sacrament.

And in the word (Sacrament) which is of your addition (is a subtill falax, called double vnderstanding. For when the Sacrament is called onely a figure (as you reherse) wherin the body and bloud of Christ be onely figuratiuely, there the word (Sacrament) is taken for the out∣warde signes of bread and wine. And after when you reherse that the Sacrament is a visible preaching by the tokens and signes of bread and wine, in beleuing and remembring Christes benefites, there the word (Sacrament) is taken for the whole ceremony and ministration of the Sacrament. And so when you goe about by equiuocation of the word to deceaue other men, you fall into your owne snare, and be decea∣ued your selfe, in that you think you conuey the matter so craftely, that no man can espy you.

But to vtter the matter playnly without fallax or cauilation, I teach that no man can eat Christes flesh and drincke his bloud but spiritually, which forasmuch as euill men do not, although they eat the sacramentall bread vntill theyr bellyes be full, and drincke the wine vntill they be dron∣ken, yet eat they neither Christes flesh, nor drincke his bloud, neither in the sacrament nor without the sacrament, because they cannot be eaten and dronken but by spirite and fayth, wherof vngodly men be destitute, being nothing but world and flesh.

This therfore is the summe of my teaching in this fourth booke, that in the true ministration of the Sacrament Christ is present spiritually, and so spiritually eaten of them that be godly and spirituall. And as for the vngodly and carnall, they may eate the bread, and drincke the wine, but with Christ him selfe they haue no communion or company, and ther∣fore they neyther eate his flesh nor drincke his bloud, which who soeuer eateth, hath (as Christ sayth him selfe) life by him, as Christ hath life by his father. And to eate Christes body or drincke his bloud (sayth S. Au∣gustine)

is to haue life. For whether Christ be in the Sacrament corpo∣rally (as you say) or spiritually in them that rightly beleue in him, and duely receaue the Sacrament (as I say) yet certayne it is, that there he is not eaten corporally but spiritually. For corporal eating with y^e mouth, is to chaw & teare in peces with y^e teeth, after which maner Christes body is of no man eaten: although Nicholas the second, made such an article of the fayth, and compelled Berengatius so to professe. And therfore al∣though Christ were corporally in the Sacrament, yet seeing that he can∣not be corporally eaten, this booke commeth in good place and is very necessary, to know that Christes body can not be eaten but spiritually, by beleuing and remembring Christes benefites, and reuoluing them in our mynd, beleeuing that as the bread and wine feed and nourish our bo∣dyes, so Christ feedeth and nourisheth our soules.

[ 2] And ought this to come out of a christian mannes mouth, That these be good wordes, but such as the wordes of christes supper do not learne vs? Do not the wordes of Christes supper learne vs to eate the breade and drinke the wine in the remembraunce of his death? Is not the brea∣kyng and eating of the bread, after such sort as Christ ordayned, a com∣munication of Christes body vnto vs? Is not the cuppe likewise a com∣munication of his bloud vnto vs? Should not then christian people ac∣cording hereunto, in fayth feed vpon Christ spiritually, beleuing that as the bread & wine feed and nourish theyr bodyes, so both Christ their soules with his owne flesh and bloud? And shall any Christian man now say, that these be good wordes, but such as the wordes in Christes sup∣per do not learne vs?

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

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

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

here in the Printer, for I haue seen it written so both by your own hand, and by the hand of your secretary.

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

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

And here you committe two fowle faultes. One is, that you declare S. Paule to speake of the body and bloud of Christ, when he spake of

the bread and wine. The other fault is, that you adde to S. Paules wordes this word (there) and so buylde your worke vpon a foundation made by your owne selfe.

And where you say, that if my doctrine be true, neyther good men nor euill eate but the sacramentall bread, it can be none other but very fro∣wardnes and mere wilfulnes, that you will not vnderstand that thinge which I haue spoken so playnly, & repeted so many tymes. For I say, that good men eat the Lordes body spiritually to theyr eternall nourish∣ment, where as euyl men eat but the bread carnally to their eternall pu∣nishment. And as you note of S. Augustine, that baptisme is very well called health, and the sacrament of Christes body called lyfe, as in which God gyueth health and lyfe, if we worthely vse them: so is the sacramen∣tall bread very well called Christes body, and y^e wine his bloud, as in the ministration wherof, Christ geueth vs his flesh and bloude, if we wor∣thely receaue them.

[ 7] And where you teach how the workes of God in them selues be al∣way true and vniforme in all men without diuersitie in good and euill, in worthy and vnworthy, you bring in this misticall matter here clearly without purpose or reason, farre passyng the capacitie of simple readers, onely to blinde their eyes withall. By which kynde of teaching it is all one worke of God to saue and to damne, to kill and to gyue lyfe, to hate and to loue, to elect and to reiect, and to be short, by this kinde of doctrine God and all his workes be one, without diuersite eyther of one worke from an other, or of his workes from his substaunce. And by this meanes it is all one worke of God in baptisme and in the Lordes supper. But all this is spoken quite besides the matter, and serueth for nothing but to cast a myst before mens eyes, as it semeth you seeke nothing els thorow your whole booke.

[ 8] And this your doctrine hath a very euill smacke, that spirite and life should fall vppon naughty men, although for theyr malice it tary not. For by this doctrine you ioyne togither in one man, Christ and Beliall, the spirite of God and the spirite of the diuell, lyfe and death, and all at one tyme: which doctrine I will not name what it is, for all faythfull men know the name right well and detest the same. And what ignoraunce can be shewed more in him that accoumpteth himselfe learned, then to gather of Christes wordes (where her sayth, his wordes be spirit and life) that spirit and lyfe should be in euill men because they heare his wordes. For the wordes which you recyte by and by of S. Augustin, shew how vayne your argument is, when he sayth, The wordes be spirite and life, but not to thee, that doest carnally vnderstand them. What estimation of learning or of truth would you haue men to conceaue of you, that bring such vnlearned argumentes wherof the inuadilitie appeareth within six lynes after? Which must nedes declare in you either, much vntruth and vnsincere proceding, or much ignoraunce, or at the least all exceding for∣getfulnes, to say anythyng, reproued agayn within six lynes after. And if the promises of God (as you say) be not disapoynted by our infidelitie, then if euyll men eate the very body of Christ and drink his bloud, they must nedes dwell in Christ, and haue Christ dwelling in them, and by him haue euerlasting lyfe: bycause of these promises of Christ, Qui man∣ducat

meam carnem, & bibit meum sanguinem, in memanet et ego in eo. Et quiman∣ducat meam carnem & bibit meum sanguinem, habet vitam aeternam, He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud, hath euerlasting lyfe. And he that eateth my flesh and drincketh my bloud, dwelleth in me and I in him. And yet the third promise. Qui manducat me, & ipse viues propter me, He that eateth me, he shall also lyue by me. These be .iij. promises of God, which if they can not be disapoynted by our infidilitie, then if euyll men eat the very body of Christ and drinke his bloud (as you say they doe in the sacrament) then must it nedes follow, that they shall haue euerlasting life, and that they dwell in Christ and Christ in them, bicause our infidilitie (say you) can not disappoynt Goddes promises.

And how agreeth this your saying with that doctrine which you were wont earnestly to teach both by mouth and penne, that all the pro∣mises of God to vs be made vnder condition, if our infidilitie can not disappoynt Gods promises? For then the promises of God must nedes haue place, whether we obserue the condition or not.

But here you haue fetched a great compasse & circuit vtterly in vayne, [ 10] to reproue that thing which I neuer denied, but euer affirmed, which is, That the substaunce of the visible sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ, (which I say is bread and wine in the sacrament, as water is in baptisme) is all one substance to good and to badde, and to both a figure. But that vnder the fourme of bread and wine, is corporally present by Christes ordinaūce his very body and bloud, eyther to good or to ill, that you neyther haue nor can proue, & yet thereupō would you bring in your conclusion here, wherin you commit that folly in reasoning, which is caled Petitio principij.

What neede you to make herein any issue, when we agree in y^e matter? For in the substance I make no diuersitie, but I say that the substance of Christes body and bloud is corporally present, neyther in the good eater, nor in the euill. And as for the substance of bread and wine, I say they be all one, whether the good or euill eate and drincke them. As the water of Baptisme is all one, whether Symon Peter, or Symon Magus, be christned therin, and it is one word that to the euill is a sauoure of death and to the good is a sauoure of lyfe. And as it is one Sonne that shineth vppon the good and the badde, that melteth butter, and maketh the earth harde: one flower wherof the bee sucketh hony, and the spyder poyson, and one oyntment, (as Decumenius sayth) that kylleth the bet∣tyll, and strengthneth y^e doue. Neuerthelesse as all that be washed in the water be not washed with the holy spirite, so all that eate the sacramen∣tall bread, eate not the very body of Christ. And thus you see that your issue is to no purpose, except you would fight w^t your owne shadowe.

Now forasmuch as after all this vayne and friuolous consuming of wordes you begin to make answere vnto my profes, I shall here reherse my profes and argumentes, to the intent that the reader seyng both my profes and your confutations before his eyes, may the better consider and geue his iudgement therein. My forth booke begynneth thus.

THe grosse errour of the Papistes is, Of the carnall eating and drin∣king of Christes flesh and bloud with our mouthes.

For they say, that whosoeuer eate and drincke the sacramentes

of bread and wine, do eat and drincke also with theyr mouthes Christes very flesh and bloud, be they neuer so vngodly and wicked persons. But Christ him selfe taught cleane contrary in the sixt of Iohn, that we eate not him carnal∣ly with our mouthes, but spiritually with our fayth, saying:

Verily verily I say vnto you: he that beleueth in me, hath euerlasting lyfe. I am the bread of life. Your fathers did eat Manna in the wildernes, and dyed. This is the bread that cam from heauen, that who so euer shall eate therof, shall not dye. I am the liuely bread that cam from heauen. If any man eat of this bread, he shall liue for e∣uer. And the bread which I will geue is my flesh, which I will geue for the lyfe of the world.

This is the most true doctrine of our sauiour Christ, that whosoeuer eateth him, shall haue euerlasting lyfe. And by and by it followeth in the same place of S. Iohn more clearly.

Verely verely I say vnto you, except you eat the flesh of the sonne of man, and drincke his bloud, you shall not haue life in you. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my bloud, hath life euerlasting, and I will rayse him agayne at the last day: For my flesh is very meate, and my bloud is very drincke. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud, dwelleth in me and I in him. As the liuing father hath sent me, and I liue by the father, euen so he that eateth me, shall liue by me. This is the bread which came downe from heauen, not as your fathers did eate Manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread shall liue for euer.

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

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

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

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

And this is the eating of Christes flesh and drinking of his bloud, the fee∣ling wherof is to euery man, the feling how he eateth and drincketh Christ,

which none euill man nor member of the deuill can do.

For as Christ is a spirituall meate, so is he spiritually eaten and digested with the spirituall part of vs, and giueth vs spirituall and eternall lyfe, and is not eaten, swallowed & digested with our teeth, tongues, throtes & bellies.

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

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

And now to returne to our purpose, that onely the liuely members of Christ do eate his flesh and drincke his bloud, I shall bring forth many o∣ther places of auncient authors before not mentioned.

Fyrst Origen writeth playnly after this maner.

The word was made flesh and very meat, which who so eateth, shall surly liue for euer, which no euill man can eate. For if it could be, that he that continueth euill might eat the word made flesh, seing that he is the word and bread of life, it should not haue bene written: Who so euer eateth this bread, shall liue for euer. These wordes be so playne, that I need say nothing for the more clere declaration of them.

Wherfore you shall heare how Ciprian agreeth with him.

Cyprian in his sermon, ascribed vnto him, of the Lordes supper, sayth: The author of this tradition sayd,

that except we eat his flesh & drincke his bloud, we should haue no life in vs, instructing vs with a spirituall lesson, & opening to vs a way to vnderstand so priuy a thing, that we should know, that the eating is our dwelling in him, and our drincking is as it were an incorporation in him, being subiect vnto him in obedience, ioyned vnto him in our willes, and vnited in our affections. The eating therfore of this flesh, is a certayne hunger and desire to dwell in him.

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

And Athanasius speaking of the eating of Christes flesh and drincking of his bloud, sayth that for this cause he made mention of his ascentiō into hea∣uen, to plucke them from corporall phantasy, that they might lerne hereafter that his flesh was called the celestiall meate that came from aboue, and a spiri∣tuall

food, which he would geue. For those thinges that I speake to you (sayth he) be spirit and life. Which is as much to say, as that thing which you se, shalbe slayne and giuen for the nourishment of the world, that it may be distributed to euery body spiritually, and be to all men a conseruation vnto the resurrectiō of eternall life.

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

And of this eating speaketh also Basilius, that we eate Christes flesh and drincke his bloud, being made by his incarnation and sensible lyfe, partakers of his word and wisedome.

For his flesh and bloud he calleth all his misticall conuer∣sation here in his flesh and his doctrine, consisting of his whole life, pertayning both to his humanitie and diuinitie, wherby the soule is nourished and brought to the contemplation of thinges eternall.

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

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

And in an other place S. Hierom sayth,

that heritikes do not eate and drincke the body and bloud of the Lord.

And more ouer he sayth,

that heretiks eat not the flesh of Iesu, whose flesh is the meat of faythfull men.

Thus agreeth S. Hierom with the other before rehersed, that

heretikes and such as follow worldly pleasures eate not Christes flesh nor drincke his bloud, bicause that Christ sayd, He that eateth my flesh, and drincketh my bloud, hath euerlasting life.

And S. Ambrose sayth, that Iesus is the bread which is the meat of sainctes and that he that taketh this bread, dyeth not a sinners death. For this bread is the remission of sinnes. And in other booke to him intituled, he writeth thus.

This bread of life which came downe from heauen, doth minister euerlasting life, and who soeuer eateth this bread, shall not dye for euer, and is the body of Christ. And yet in an other booke set forth in his name, he sayth on this wise: He that did eate Manne dyed, but he that eateth this body, shall haue remission of his sinnes, and shall not dye for euer.

And agayne he sayth: As often as thou drinckest thou hast re∣mission of thy sinnes.

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

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

And moreouer S. Augustine most playnly resolueth this matter in his

booke De ciuitate Dei, disputing agaynst two kindes of heretikes: Wherof the one sayd,

that as many as were Christned, and receaued the sacramēt of Chri∣stes body and bloud, should be saued, how so euer they liued or beleeued, by∣cause that Christ sayd: This is the bread that came from heauen, that who so euer shall eate therof, shall not dye. I am the bread of lyfe, which came from heauen, who so euer shall eate of this bread, shall liue for euer.

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

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

But S. Augustine answering to both these heresies, sayth:

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

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

Also vpon the gospell of S. Iohn he sayth,

that he that doth not eate his flesh and drincke his bloud, hath not in him euerlasting lyfe. And he that eateth his flesh and drincketh his bloud, hath euerlasting lyfe. But it is not so in those meates, which we take to sustayne our bodyes. For although with∣out them we cannot liue, yet it is not necessary, that who so euer receaueth them, shall liue, for they may dye by age, sicknes or other chaunces.

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

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

And in the same place S. Augustine sayth further. The sacramēt of the vnitie of Christes body & bloud is takē in the Lordes table, of some men to lyfe: & of some mē to death, but the thing it selfe (wherof it is a sacramēt) is takē of all men to lyfe, & of no man to death. And more ouer he sayth:

This is to eate that meate

and drincke that drincke, to dwell in Christ, and to haue Christ dwelling in him. And for that cause he that dwelleth not in Christ, & in whome Christ dwelleth not, without doubt he eateth not spiritually his flesh nor drincketh his bloud, although carnally and visibly with his teeth, he byte the Sacrament of his body and bloud.

Thus writeth S. Augustine in the xxvj. homely of S. Iohn. And in the next homely following, he sayth thus.

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

And in his booke De doctrina Christiana. S. Augustine sayth, (as before is at length declared)

that to eate Christes flesh, and to drincke his bloud, is a figuratiue speach signifying the participation of his passion, and the delectable remem∣braunce to our benefite and profite, that his flesh was crucified and wounded for vs.

And in an other sermon also De verbis Apostoli he expoundeth what is the eating of Christes body and the drincking of his bloud, saying,

The eating is to be refreshed, and the drincking what is but to liue? Eate life, drincke life: And that shall be, when that which is taken visibly in the sacrament, is in very deed eaten spiritually and dronken spiritually.

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

And therfore sayth S. Augustine, that when the other Apostles did eate bread that was the Lord, yet Iudas did eate but the bread of the Lord, and not the bread that was the Lord. So that the other Apostles with the sacramentall bread did eate also Christ him selfe, whome Iudas did not eate. And a great num∣ber of places moe hath S. Augustine for this purpose, which for eschewing of tediousnes, I let pas for this tyme, and will speake some thing of S. Cirill. ¶ Cyrill vpon S. Iohn in his Gospell sayth,

that those which eate Manna, dyed, bycause they receaued therby no strength to liue euer: (for it gaue no lyfe, but onely put away bodily hunger) but they that receaue the bread of life, shall be made immortall, and shall eschewe all the euils that pertayne to death, liuing with Christ for euer. And in an other place he sayth•• For as much as the flesh of Christ doth naturally geue life, therfore it maketh them to liue that be partakers of it. For it putteth death away from them, & vtterly driueth destructiō out of them.

And he concludeth the matter shortly in an other place in fewe wordes, saying,

that when we eate the flesh of our sauiour, than haue we life in vs. For if thinges that were corrupt, were restored by onely touching of his clothes, how can it be, that we shall not liue that eate his flesh? And further he sayth, that as

two waxes that be molten together, do run euery part into other: so he that re∣ceaueth Christes flesh and bloud, must nedes be ioyned so with him, that Christ must be in him, and he in Christ.

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

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

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

Winchester.

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

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

Caunterbury.

IF you graunt without contention that which I do proue, then you [ 1] must graunt absolutely and franckly without any addition, that onely good men eate and drincke the body and bloud of Christ. For so say all the scriptures and authors playnly, which I haue alleadged, without your addition of spirituall manducation: and not one of them all say as you do, that in the visible Sacrament euell men receaue the same that good men do.

[ 2] But I make no such vayne proofes as you fayne in my name, that in the sacrament Christes very body is not present, bycause euil men receaue it. But this argument were good (although I make no such.) Euell men eate and drincke the sacrament, and yet they eate and drincke not Christes flesh and bloud: Ergo his flesh and bloud be not really and cor∣porally in the sacrament.

[ 3] And when you say that Christ may be receaued of the euel man to his condemnation, is this the glory that you geue vnto Christ, that his whole presence in a man, both with flesh, bloud, soule and spirite, shall make him neuer the better? and that Christ shalbe in him, that is a member of the deuell? And if an euill man haue Christ in him for a tyme, why may he not then haue him still dwelling in him? For if he may be in him a quar¦ter of an houre, he may be also an whole houre, and so a whole day, and an whole yeare, and so shall God and the diuell dwell together in one house. And this is the croppe that groweth of your sowing, if Christ fall in euell men, as good seed falleth in euell ground.

[ 4] And where you say, that all that euer I bring, to proue that euell men eate not the body of Christ, may be shortly aunswered, truth it is (as you sayd in one place of me) that all that I haue brought may be shortly aun∣swered, if a man care not what he aunswer: as it seemeth you pas not much what you aunswer, so that you may lay on lode of wordes. For where as I haue fully proued as well by authoritie of scripture, as by the testimony of many olde writers, that although euell men eate the sacra∣mentall bread, and drincke the wine (which haue the names of his flesh and bloud) yet they eate not Christes very flesh nor drincke his bloud: Your short and whole aunswer is this, that euell men may be sayd not to eate Christes flesh and drincke his bloud, bycause they do it not frute∣fully, as they ought to do. And that may be called a not eating, as they may be sayd not to heare godes word, that heare it not profitably: and a thing not well done, may be in speach called not done, in the respect of the good effect. I graunt such speaches be sometyme vsed, but very rare∣ly and when the very truth commeth in discussion, then such Paradoxes are not to be vsed. As if it come in question whether a house be builded, that is not well builded, then the diffinition of the matter must not be, that it is not builded, although the carpenters and other workemen haue fayled in theyr couenaunt and bargayne, and not builded the house in such sort as they ought to haue done. So our sauiour Christ teacheth that all heard the word, whether the seed fell in the high way, or vpon the stones, or among the thornes, or in the good groūd. Wherfore when this matter cometh in discussion among the old writers, whether euell menne eate Christes body or no, if the truth had bene that euill men eate it, the

olde writers would not so precisely haue defined the contrary, that they eate not, but would haue sayd they eate it, but not effectually, not frute∣fully, not profitably. But now the authors which I haue alleaged, de∣fine playnly and absolutely, that euell men eate not Christes body, with∣out any other addition. But after this sort that you do vse, it shall be an easy matter for euery man to say what liketh him, and to defend it well inough, if he may adde to the scriptures and doctours wordes at his plea∣sure, and make the sense after his owne phantasye. The scriptures and Doctoures which I alleadge, do say in playne wordes (as I do say) that euell menne do not eate the body of Christ nor drincke his bloud, but one∣ly they that haue life therby.

Now come you in with your addition and glose, made of your owne head, putting therto this word (effectually.) Yf I should say that Christ was neuer conceaued nor borne, could not I auoyd all the scriptures that you can bring to the contrary, by adding this word (apparantly) and de∣fend my saying stoutly? And might not the Ualentinians, Marcianistes and other that sayd that Christ dyed not for vs, defend their errour with addition (as they did,) of this word (putatiue) to all the scriptures that were brought agaynst them? And wat herisie can be reproued, if the he∣retikes may haue y^e liberty that you do vse, to adde of their owne heades to the wordes of scripture? contrary vnto Godes word directly, who cō∣maundeth vs to adde nothing to his word, nor to take any thing away.

And yet more ouer, the authorities which I haue brought to approue my doctrine, do clerely cast away your addition, adding the cause why euell men can not eate Christes flesh nor drincke his bloud. And you haue taught almost in the beginning of your booke, that Christes body is but a spirituall body, and after a spirituall manner eaten by fayth. And now you haue confessed, that who so fedeth vpon Christ spiritually, must nedes be a good man. How can you than defend now, that euell men eat the body of Christ? except you will now deny that which you graunted in the beginning (and now haue forgotten it) that Christes body cannot be eaten but after a spirituall maner by fayth? Wherin it is meruayle, that you hauing so good a memory, should forgette the common prouerbe, Mendacem memorem esse oportet.

And it had ben more conuenient for you to haue answered fully to Cy∣prian, Athanasius, Basyll, Hierom and Ambrose, then when you can∣not answer, to wipe your handes of them with this slender answer, say∣ing that you haue answered. And whether you haue or no, I refer to the iudgement of the reader.

And as concerning S. Augustine De ciuitate Dei, he sayth, that euell men receaue the sacrament of Christes body, although it auayleth them not. But yet he sayth in playne wordes, that we ought not to say, that a∣ny man eateth the body of Christ that is not in the body. And if the reader euer saw any meare cauilation in all his lyfe tyme, let him read the chapter of S. Augustine and compare it to your answer, and I dare say he neuer sawe the like.

And as for the other places of S. Augustine by me alleadged, with Origen and Cirill, for the more ease you passe them ouer with silence, and dare eate no such meate it is so hard for you to digest. And thus haue you

with post hast runne ouer all my scriptures and doctours, as it were playing at the post, with still passing and geuing ouer euery game. And yet shal you neuer be able for your part to bring any scripture that serueth for your purpose, except you may be suffered to adde therto such wordes as you please. Than come you to my questions wherin I write thus.

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

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

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

And if they say yea, that a wicked man hath Christes spirit in him, then the scripture also condemneth them, saying:

that as he which hath not the spirite of Christ, is none of his, so he that hath Christ in him, lyueth bycause he is iustified: And if his spirite that raysed Iesus from death, dwell in you, he that raysed Ie∣sus from death, shall geue life to your mortall bodies, for his spirites sake, which dwel∣leth in you.

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

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

Winchester.

But to encounter directly with this author, where he opposeth by interogation, and would be answered, whether an vnrepentant sinner that receaueth the sacrament, [ 1] hath Christes body within him or no. Marke reader this question, which declareth that this author talketh of the sacrament, not as him selfe teacheth, but as the true teaching is although he meane otherwise, for els how could an vnrepentant sinner receaue Chri∣stes body, but onely in the sacrament vnworthely? and how could he receaue it vnwor∣thely, [ 2] and it were not there? but to answer to this question, I answer no: for it foloweth not he receaued him, (ergo) he hath him in him, for the vessel being not meet, he depar∣ted from him, because he was a sinner, in whom he dwelleth not. And where this au∣thor now become a questionist, maketh two questions, of Christes body, and his spirite, as though Christes body myght be deuided from his spirite, he supposeth other to be as ignoraunt as him selfe. For the learned man will aunswere, that an euell man by force of Gods ordinance, in the substance of the sacrament receaued in deed Christes very body there present, whole Christ God and man, but he taried not, nor dwelled not, nor

fructified not in him, nor Christes spirite entered not into that mannes soule bycause of the malice and vnworthines of him that receaued. For Christ will not dwell with Be∣liall nor abide with sinners. And what hath this author won now by his forked questi∣on? wherin he seemeth to glory as though he had imbrased an absurditie that he hunted for, wherin he sheweth onely his ignoraunce, who putteth no difference betwene the entring of Christ into an euell man by Gods ordinance in the sacrament, and the dwel∣ling of Christes spirite in an euell man, which by scripture can not be, ne is by any ca∣tholike man affirmed. For S. Paule sayth: In him that receaueth vnworthely remay∣neth [ 3] iudgement and condemnation. And yet S. Paules wordes playnly import that those dyd eate the very body of Christ which dyd eate vnworthely, and therfore were gilty of the body and bloud of Christ. Now reader consider what is before written, and thou shalt easely see, what a fond conclusion this author gathereth in the xcvii. leafe, [ 4] as though the teaching were that the same man should be both the temple of God, and the temple of the deuell, with other termes, wherewith it liketh this author to refresh himselfe, and fayneth an aduersary, such as he would haue, but hath none, for no ca∣tholike man teacheth so, nor it is not all one to receaue Christ, & to haue Christ dwel∣ling in him. And a figure therof was in Christes conuersation vppon earth, who tarieth [ 5] not with all that receaued him in outward apparaunce: and there is noted a difference that some beleued in Christ, and yet Christ committed not him selfe to them. And the [ 6] gospell prayseth them that heare the word of God and keep it, signifiing many to haue the word of god, and not to keep it, as they that receaue Christ by his ordinaunce in the sacrament, and yet bycause they receaue him not, according to y^e entent of his ordinance worthely, they are so much the worse therby through theyr owne malice. And therfore to conclude this place with the author, who soeuer eateth Christes flesh and drincketh his bloud, hath euerlasting lyfe, with S. Paules exposition, if he doth it worthely: or [ 7] els by the same S. Paule, he hath condemnation.

Caunterbury.

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

Moreouer I make my question of the being of Christes body in an vn∣penitent [ 2] sinner, and you turne being into abiding, because being biteth you so sore. Fyrst you confes that an vnrepentaunt sinner, receauing the sacrament, hath not Christes body within him, and then may I say that he eateth not Christes body, except he eate it without him. And although [ 4] it followeth not, he receaued Christ, eego he hath him in him: yet it fol∣loweth necessarily, he receaueth him, ergo he hath him within him, for the tyme of the receipt: As a bottomleffe vessell, although it keepe no li∣cour, yet for the tyme of the receauing, it hath the licour in it. And how can Christ departe from an vnpenitent sinner (as you say he doeth) if he haue him not at all? And because of myne ignoraunce, I would fayne leran of you (that take vpon you to be a man of knowledge) how an euill man receauing Christes very body, and whole Christ God and man (as you say an euell man doth) and Christes body being such as it cannot be

deuided from his spirite (as you say also) how this euell man receauing Christes spirite, should be an euell man, for the tyme that he hath Christes spirit within him? Or how can he receaue Christes body and spirite (ac∣cording to your saying) and haue them not in him for the tyme he recea∣ueth them? Or how can Christ enter into an euell man (as you confesse) and be not in him, into whome he entreth at that present tyme? These be matters of your knowledge (as you pretend) which if you can teach me, I must confesse myne ignoraunce. And if you cannot, for so much as you haue spoken them, you must confesse the ignoraunce to be vpon your owne part.

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

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

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

But least they should seme to haue nothing to say for them selues, they al∣leadge S. Paule in the eleuenth to the Corinth. where he sayth: He that eateth and drincketh vnworthely, eateth and drincketh his owne damnation, not discerning the Lordes body.

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

In these wordes S. Paules mynd is, that for asmuch as the bread and wine in the Lordes supper, do represent vnto vs the very body and bloud of our sa∣uiour Christ, by his owne institution and ordinance, therfore although he sit in heauen at his fathers right hand, yet should we come to this misticall bread and wine with fayth, reuerence, purite and feare, as we would do, if we should come to see and receaue Christ him selfe sensibly present. For vnto the faythfull Christ is at his own holy table presēt, with his mighty spirite & grace and is of them more fruitfully receaued, then if corporally they should re∣ceaue him bodely present. and therfore they that shall worthely com to this Gods boord, must after due triall of them selues, consider first who ordeined this table, also what meat and drincke they shall haue that come therto, and how they ought to behaue them selues therat. He that prepared the table, is Christ him selfe: The meat and drincke wherwith he fedeth them that come therto as they ought to do, is his own body, flesh and bloud. They that com therto, must occupy theyr myndes in considering how his body was broken for them, and his bloud shed for theyr redemption, and so ought they to ap∣proch to this heauenly table with all humblenes of hart, and godlynes of mynd, as to the table wherin Christ hym selfe is giuen. And they that come otherwise to this holy table, they come vnworthely, and do not eat & drincke Christes flesh and bloud, but eat and drincke theyr own damnation; bicause they do not duely consider Christes very flesh and bloud, which be offred there spiritually to be eaten and drinken, but dispising Christes most holy supper, do come therto as it were to other common meates & drinckes, with∣out regarde of the Lordes body, which is the spirituall meat of that table.

Winchester.

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

is saluation to good, and iudgement to euell. And therfore as good men, eating Christ haue saluation, so euill men eating Christ haue condemnation, and so for the diuersite of the eaters of Christes body, followeth as they be worthy and vnworthy, the effect of condemnation or lyfe. Christes sacrament and his worke also in the substance of that sacrament bring alwayes one. And what so euer this author talketh otherwise in this matter, is mere trifles.

Caunterbury.

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

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

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

And where you say, that if the bread be but a figure, it is lyke Manna: as concerning the materiall bread, truely it is like Manna, but as con∣cerning Christ him selfe, he sayd of him selfe, Not as your fathers did eate Manna and are dead, He that eateth this bread shall liue for euer. And as concerning Erasmus, and the greke commentaries, neyther of [ 4] them sayth vppon the place of S. Paule, as you alleage them to say. And what soeuer it pleaseth you to gather of these wordes (examining and so eating) yet S. Paules wordes be very playne, that he spake not of the eating of the very body of Christ, but of the eating of the materiall bread in the sacrament, which is all one, whether the good or euyll eate of it. And all the care is on our syde, to take heede that we eate not that bread vnworthely. For as the eating of the bread vnworthely, not of Christ him selfe (who can not be eaten vnworthely) hath the effect of iudgemēt and damnacion, so eating of the same bread worthely, hath the effect of Chri∣stes death and saluation. And as he that eateth the bread worthely may be well sayd to eate Christ and life: So he that eateth it vnworthely may

be sayd to eate the diuell and death, as Iudas did, into whom with the bread entred Satan. For vnto such it may be called mensa daemoni orum, non mensa Domini, not Gods bourd, but the diuels. And so in the eaters of the bread worthely or vnworthely, followeth the effect of euerlasting lyfe or euerlasting death. But in the eating of Christ himselfe is no diuersite, but whosoeuer eateth him, hath euerlasting lyfe. For asmuch as the eating of him, can be to none dampnation but saluation, because he is lyfe it selfe. And what so euer you bable to the contrary, is but meare fables, deuised without goddes word or any sufficient ground. Now foloweth myne aunswer vnto such authors as y^e Papistes wrast to theyr purpose.

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

The first place is of S. Augustine Contra Cresconium Grammaticum, where he sayth,

that although Christ him selfe say: He that eateth not my flesh and drin∣keth not my bloud shall not haue life in him, yet doth not his Apostels teach, that the same is pernicious to them which vse it not well: for he sayth: Whosoeuer ea∣teth the bread and drincketh the cup of the Lord vnworthely, shalbe gilty of the body and bloud of the Lord.

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

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

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

In Sacramentes (sayth he) is to be considered, not what they be, but what they shew. For they be signes of other thinges, being one thing and signifi∣ing another.

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

And this aunswere wil serue to another place of S. Augustine agaynst the Donatistes, where he sayth, that Iudas receyued the body and bloud of the Lord. For as S. Augustine in that place speaketh of the Sacrament of Baptisme, so doth he speake of the Sacramēt of the body and bloud, which neuerthelesse he cal∣leth the body and bloud, bycause they signifie and represent vnto vs the very body, flesh and bloud.

Winchester.

And yet he goeth about bycause he will make all thing clere, to answer such authors as the papistes (he sayth) bring for theyr purpose. And first he beginneth with S. Au∣gustine who writeth as playnly agaynst this authors mynd, as I would haue deuised it. If I had no conscience of truth more then I see some haue, and myght with a secret [ 1] wish haue altered S. Augustine as I had lift. And therfore here I make a playne Issue with this author, that in the searching of S. Augustine he hath trusted his man or his frende ouer negligently in so great a matter, or he hath willingly gone about to deceaue the reader. For in the place of S. Augustine agaynst the Donatistes alleadged here by this author, which he would with y^e rest assoyle, S. Augustine hath these format wordes [ 2] in Latin Corpus dominum & sanguis domini nihilominus erat etiam illis quibus dicebat A∣postolus; Qui manducat indigne, indicium sibi manducat & bibit. Which wordes be thus∣much in English: It was neuerthelesse the body of our Lord and the bloud of our Lord also vnto them to whome the Apostles sayd. He that eateth vnworthely, eateth and drin∣keth iudgement to him selfe. These be S. Augustines wordes, who writeth notably and euidently, that is was neuertheles the body and bloud of Christ to them that receaued vnworthely, declaring that theyr vnworthines doth not alter the substance of that sacra∣ment, [ 3] and doth vs to vnderstand therwith the substaunce of the Sacrament to be the bo∣dy and bloud of Christ, and neuerthelesse so though the receauers be vnworthy, wherin [ 4] this author is so ouerseene as I thinke there was neuer learned man before y^e durst in a commōwealth where learned men be, publish such an vntruth as this is to be answe∣red [ 5] in a tongue that all men knew. Yet Peter Martyr wrot in Latin and reioyseth not I think to haue his lyes in English. I will bring in here an other place of S. Augustin to this purpose:

Illud etiam, quod ait, Qui manducat carnem meam & bibit sanguinem me∣um [ 6] in me manet & ego in illo quo modo intellecturisumus? Nunquid etiamillos sic poterimus accipere, de quibus dixit Apostolus, quod indicium sibi manducent & bibant quum ipsant car∣nem manducent, & ipsum sanguinem bibant? Nūquid & Iudas Magistri venditor & tradi∣tor impius, quamuis primum ipsum manibus eius confectum sacramentum carnis & sanguinis eius cum ceteres discipulis, sicut apertius Lucas Euangelista declarat, manducaret & biberat mansit in Christo, aut Christus, in eo: Multi deni{que} qui vel corde ficto carnem illam manducant & sanguinem bibunt, vel quum manducauerint & biberint, apostate fiunt, nunquid manent in Christo, aut Christus in eis? Sed profecto est quidem modus manducandi illam carnem & bi∣bendi illum sanguinem, quomodo qui manducauerit & biberit, in Christo manet & Christus in eo. Non ergo quocun{que}, modo quis{que} manducauerit carnem Christi, & biberit sanguinem Christi, manet in Christo, & in illo Christus, sed certo quodam modo, quem modum vtique ip∣se videbat quando ista dicebat. The English of these wordes is this. That same that he al∣so sayth. Who eateth my flesh and drincketh my bloud, dwelleth in me and I in him, how shall we vnderstand it. May we vnderstand also them of whom the Apostle speake that they did eat to themselues, and drincke iudgement, when they did eate the same flesh and drincke the same bloud, the flesh it selfe, the bloud it selfe? Dyd not Iudas the wicked seller and betrayer of his master when he dyd eate and drincke (as Lucas the E∣uangilest declareth) the firste Sacrament of the flesh and bloud of Christ made with his owne handes, dwell in Christ, and Christ in him? Fynally many that with a fayned hart eate that flesh and drincke the bloud, or when they haue eaten and dronken become aposratates, do not they dwell in Christ, or Christ in them? But vndoubtedly there is a certayne manner of eating that flesh & drincking that bloud after which manner whoso∣euer eateth and drincketh, dwelleth in Christ and Christ in him. Therfore, not in whatsoeuer maner any man eateth the flesh of Christ and drincketh the bloud of Christ,

he dwelleth in Christ and Christ in him, but after a certayn maner, which maner he saw when he sayd these wordes.

This is the sense of S. Augustines saying in Latine wherby appeareth the fayth of S. Augustin to be, in the sacrament to be eaten and drō∣ken the very body and bloud of Christ, which for the substaunce of the sacrament euill men receaue as good men do, that is to say, as S. Augustine doth poynt it out by his wordes, the same flesh and the same bloud of Christ, with such an expression of speach, as he would exclude all difference that deuise of figure might imagine, and therfore sayth Ipsam carnem, ipsum sanguinem, which signifie the selfe same in dede, not by name onely as the author of the booke would haue S. Augustine vnderstanded: and when that appeareth as it is most manifest, that Iudas receaued the same being wicked that good men do, how the same is before the recept by godes omnipotencie present in the visible sacrament, and so not receaued by the onely instrument of fayth, which in euill men is not liuely, but by the instrument of the mouth, wherin it entreth with the visible element, and yet as S. Augustine sayth dwelleth not in him, that so vnworthely receiueth, bycause the effect of dwelling of Christ is not in him that receaueth by such a maner of eating as wicked men vse. Wherby S. Augustine teacheth the diuerse effect to ensue of the diuersitie of the eating, and not of any diuersitie of that which is eaten, whether the good man or euill man receaue the sacrament. If I would here encombre the reader, I could bring forth many mo places of S. Augustine to the confusion and reprofe of this Authors purpose, and yet notwithstanding to take away that he might say of me, that I way not S. Augustine: I thinke good to alleadge and bring forth the iudgement of Martyn Bucer touching S. Augustine, who vnderstandeth S. Augustine [ 7] clere contrary to this author, as may playnly appeare by that the sayd Bucer writeth in few wordes in his epistle dedicatory of the great worke he sent abroad of his enarra∣rations of the gospelles where his iudgement of S. Augustine in this poynt he vttereth thus:

Quoties scribit etiam Iudam ipsum corpus & sanguinem domini sumsisse? Nemo ita{que} auctoritate S. patrum dicet Christum in sacra Coena absentem esse: The sense in English is this. How often writeth he (speaking of S. Augustine) Iudas also to haue receaued the selfe body and bloud of our Lord? No man thefore by the authoritie of the fathers can say Christ to be absent in the holy supper.

Thus sayth Bucer who vnderstandeth S. Augustine as I haue before alleadged him, and gathereth therof a conclusion, that no man can by the fathers sayinges proue Christ to be absent in the holy supper, And ther∣fore by Bucers iudgement, the doctrine of this Author can be in no wise catholique, as dissenting from that hath ben before taught and beleued, whether Bucer will still con∣tinue in that he hath so solemnly published to the world and by me here alleadged, I can∣not tell, and whether he do or no, it maketh no matter, but thus he hath taught in his latter iudgement with a great protestation, that he speaketh without respect other then to the truth wherin because he semed to dissent from his frendes he sayth: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. which wordes haue an imitation of an elder saying, and be thus much to say: Socrates is my frend, truth is my best beloued, and the church most regarded. And with this Bucer closeth his doctrine of the sacrament, after he knew al that Zuinglius & Decolampadius could say in the matter. And here I will leaue to speake of Bucer, and bring forth Theodoretus a man most extolled by [ 8] this author, who sayth playnly in his commentaries vpon S. Paule, how Christ deli∣uered to Iudas his precious body and bloud, and declareth further therwith in that sa∣crament to be the truth. So as this author can haue no foundatiō vpon eyther to main∣tayne his figuratiue speach, or the matter of this fourth booke, which his wordes playn∣ly impugn. S. Hierom in his commentaries vpon the prophet Malachie hath first this [ 9] sentence: Polluimus panem, id est corpus Christi, quando indigne accedimus ad altare, & sor∣didi, mundum sanguinem bibimus, We defile the bread that is to say, the body of Christ; when we com vnworthy to the aulter and being filthy drincke the cleane bloud: Thus sayth S. Hierome, who sayth, men filthy drincke the cleane bloud: and in an other place after the same S. Hierom sayth: Polluit Christi misteria indigne accipiens Corpus eius & sanguinem, He that vnworthely receaueth the body and bloud of Christ, defileth, the misteries. Can any wordes be more manifest and euident to declare S. Hieroms mind how in the visible sacrament men receaue vnworthely, which be euell men, the body and bloud of Christ?

Caunterbury.

IN this poynt I will ioyne a playne issue with you, that I neyther wil∣lingly goe about to deceaue the reader in the serching of S. Augustine (as you vse to do in euery place,) nor I haue not trusted my man or frende herein, (as it semeth you haue done ouermuch) but I haue diligently ex∣pended and wayed the matter my selfe. For although in such waightie matters of scripture and aunciēt authors you must nedes trust your men, (without whom I know you can doe very litle, being brought vp from your tender age in other kindes of study (yet I hauing exercised my selfe in the study of scripture, and diuinitye from my youth (wherof I geue most harty laudes and thankes to God) haue learned now to goe alone, and do examine, iudge, and write all such waighty matters my selfe, al∣though (I thanke God). I am neyther so arrogant nor so wilfull, that I will refuse the good aduise, counsailie, and admonition of any man, be he man or master, frende or foe.

But as concerning y^e place alleadged by you out of S. Augustine, let the [ 2] reader diligently expend myne whole aunswer to S. Augustine, and he shall (I trust) be fully satisfied. For S. Augustine in his booke De bap∣tismo contra Donatistas (as I haue declared in my booke) speaketh of the mor¦sell of bread and sacrament (which Iudas also dyd eate as S. Augustine sayth? And in this speach he considered (as he writeth Contra Maximinū) not what it is, but what it signifieth, and therfore he expresseth y^e matter by Iudas more playnly in an other place saying: that he did eate y^e bread of the Lord, not the bread being the Lord (as the other Apostles dyd) sig∣nifying therby that the euell eate the bread, but not the Lord himselfe. As S. Paule sayth that they eate and drincke Panem & calicem Domini, the bread and the cup of the Lord, and not that they eate the Lord himselfe. [ 3] And S. Augustine sayth not (as you faine of him) that the substaunce of this sacrament is the body and bloud of Christ, but the substaunce of this sacrament is bread and wine, (as water is in the sacramēt of Baptisme) and the same be all one, not altered, by the vnworthines of the receauors. And although S. Augustine in the wordes by you recited, call the sacra∣ment of Christes body and bloud, his body and bloud, yet is the sacra∣ment no more but the sacrament therof, and yet is it called the body and bloud of Christ, as sacraments haue the names of the thinges wherof they be sacraments, as the same S. Augustine teacheth most playnly ad Bonifacium.

And I haue not so far ouershot my selfe or bene ouersene, that I would [ 4] haue atempted to publish this matter, if I had not before hand excussed the whole truth therin from the botome. But bicause I my selfe am cer∣tayne of the truth (which hath bene hid these many yeares, and persecu∣ted by the Papistes with fyer and fagot, and should be so yet still if you might haue your owne will) and bicause also I am desirous that all my contrey men of England (vnto whome I haue no smale cure and charge to tell the truth) should no longer be kept from the same truth, therfore haue I published the truth which I know, in the English tongue, to the entent that I may edefy all by that tongue, which all do perfectly know and vnderstand. Which my doing it semeth you take in very euell part, and be not a litle greued therat, bycause you would rather haue the light

of truth hid still vnder the bushell, then openlye to be set abroad that all men may see it. And I thinke that it so little greueth M. Peter Martyre, that his booke is in english, that he would wish it to be trāslated likewise [ 5] into all other languages.

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

As concerning M. Bucer, what meane you to vse his authoritie, [ 7] whose authoritie you neuer estemed heretofore? And yet Bucer varieth much from your errour: for he denieth vtterly, that Christ is really and substancially present in the bread, either by conuersion or inclusion, but in the ministration he affirmeth Christ to be present: and so do I also, but not to be eaten and drunken of them that be wicked and members of the deuill, whome Christ neyther fedeth, nor hath any communiō with them. And to conclude in few wordes the doctrine of M. Bucer in the place by

you alleadged, he di••••enteth in nothing from Ecolampadius and Zuinglius. Wherfore it semeth to me somwhat strange, that you should alleadge him for the confirmation of your vntrue doctrine, being so clere∣ly repugnant vnto his doctrine.

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

And as concerning S. Hierome, he calleth the misteries or misticall [ 9] bread and wine Christes flesh and bloud (as Christ called them him selfe) and the eating of them he calleth the eating of Christes flesh and bloud, bicause they be sacraments and figures, which represent vnto vs his ve∣ry flesh and bloud. And all that do eate the sayd sacraments, be sayd to eate the body of Christ, bicause they eate the thing which is a representa∣cion therof. But S. Hierom ment not, that euell men do indede eate the very body of Christ, for then he would not haue written vpon Esaie, Hie∣remie, and Osee the contrary, saying, that heretikes and euill men nei∣ther eate his flesh nor drincke his bloud, which whosoeuer eateth and drincketh, hath euerlasting lyfe.

Non comedunt carnem Iesu (sayth he vpon Esai) ne{que}, bibunt sanguinem eius, de quo ipse loquitur: Qui comedit carnem meam & bibit meum sanguinem, habet vitam aternam. And yet he that cometh defiled vnto the visible sacraments, defileth not onely the sacraments, but the contumely therof pertayneth also vnto Christ him selfe who is the author of the sacraments.

And as the same S. Hierom sayth:

Dum sacramenta violantur, ipse cuius sunt sacramenta violatur, When the sacramentes (sayth he) be violated, then is he violated also to whom the sacraments aper∣tayne.

Now heare what followeth in the order of my booke.

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

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

And in a Catechisme by me translated and set forth, I vsed like maner of speach, saying, that with our bodily mouthes we receaue the body and bloud of Christ. Which my saying diuers ignorant persons (not vsed to reade olde

auncient authors, nor acquanted with theyr phra•••• and manner of speach) dyd carpe and reprehend, for lacke of good vnderstanding.

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

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

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

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

Winchester.

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

Emissene to stire vp mens deuotion comming to receaue this sacrament, requireth the roote and foundation therof in the mynd of man as it ought to be, and therfore ex∣horteth [ 3] men to take the sacrament with the hand of the hart, and drincke with the draught of the inward man, which men needes do that will worthely repayre to this feast. And as Emissen speaketh these deuout wordes of the inward office of the re∣ceiuer, so doth he in declaration of the mistery shew how the inuisible priest with his se∣cret power by his word doth conuert the visible creatures into the substance of his body and bloud, wherof I haue before intreated. The author vpon these wordes deuoutly spoken by Emissen sayth, there is required no corporall precense of Christes precious body in the sacrament, continuing in his ignorance what the woord (Corporall) mea∣neth. But to speake of Emissene, if by his fayth the very body and bloud of Christ were [ 4] not present vpon the aultar, why doth he call it a reuerend aultar? Why to be fed there with spirituall meat? and why should fayth be required to looke vpon the body & bloud of Christ, that is not there on the aultar, but as this Author teacheth onely in heauen? And why should he that cometh to be fedde honor these misteries there? And why should

Emissene allude to the hand of the hart, and draught of the inward man, if the hand of the body, and draught of the outward man had none office there? All this were vaine elo∣quence, and a mere abuse and illusion, if the sacramental tokens were only a figure. And if there were no presence but in figure, why should not Emissen rather haue followed the playne speach of the angell to the women that sought Christ, Iesum queritis, non est hic, Ye seeke Iesus, he is not here, and say as this author doeth, this is onely a figure, do no worship here, goe vp to heauen: and downe with the aulter, for feare of illusion, [ 5] which Emissen did not, but called it a reuerend alter, and inuiteth him that should re∣ceiue to honour that foode, with such good wordes as before, so far discrepant from this authors teaching as may be, & yet frō him he taketh occasiō to speake agaynst adoratiō.

Caunterbury.

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

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

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

[ 4] And what this word (corporall) meaneth, I am not ignorant, Mary

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

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

Now it is requisite, to speake some thing of the maner and forme of wor∣shipping of Christ, by them that receaue this sacramēt, least that in the stede of Christ himselfe be worshipped the sacrament. For as his humanity, ioyned to his diuinity, and exalted to the right hand of his father, is to be worshipped of all creatures, in heauen, earth, and vnder the earth: euen so if in the stead therof, we worship the signes and sacraments, we commit as great idolatry as euer was, or shall to the worldes ende.

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

For els what made the people to runne from theyr seates to the aulter, and from aulter to aulter, and from sakering (as they called it) to sakering, pee∣ping,

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

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

And yet to eschew one inconuenience (that is to say, the worshipping of the sacrament) they fall into an other as euell, and worship nothing there at all. For they worship that thing (as they say) which is really and corporally, and yet inuisibly present vnder the kindes of bread and wine, which (as before is expressed and proued) is vtterly nothing. And so they geue vnto the igno∣rant occasion, to worship bread and wine, and they them selues worship no∣thing there at all.

Winchester.

As touching the adoration of Christes flesh in the sacrament, which adoration is a true confession of the whole man soule and body, if there be oportunity of the truth of God in his worke, is in my iudgement well set forth in the booke of Common prayer, where the priest is ordered to knele and make a prayer in his owne, and the name of all that shall communicate, confessing therin that is prepared there, at which tyme ne∣uerthelesse, that is not adored that the bodely eye séeth, but that which fayth knoweth to be there inuisibly present, which and there be nothing, as this author now teacheth, [ 2] it were not well. I will not aunswere this authors eloquence, but his matter where it might hurt.

Caunterbury.

WHere as I haue shewed what idolatry was cōmitted by meanes of the Papisticall doctrine, concerning adoration of the sacra∣ment, bicause that answere to my reasons you can not, and con∣fesse the truth you will not, therfore you runne to your vsuall shift, passing it ouer with a toy and scoffe, saying, that you will not answere myne elo∣quence but the matter, and yet indede you answere neither of both, but

vnder pretence of myne eloquēce, you shift of the matter also. And yet other eloquence I vsed not, but the accustomed speach of the homely people, as such a matter requireth.

And where you say, that it were not well to worship Christ in the Sa∣crament, if nothing be there, (as you say I teach) if you meane, that [ 2] Christ can not be worshipped but where he is corporally present (as you must nedes meane, if your reason should be to purpose) then it followeth of your saying, that we may not worship Christ in Baptisme, in the fieldes in priuate houses, nor in no place els, where Christ is not corporally and naturally present. But the true teaching of the holy catholike churche is, that although Christ, as concerning his corporall presence, be continually resident in heauen, yet he is to be worshiped not onely there, but here in earth also, of all faythfull people, at all tymes, in all places, and in all theyr workes. Heare now what followeth further in my Booke.

But the Papistes (for theyr owne commodity to keepe the people still in idolatry) do often alleadge a certayne place of S. Augustine vpon the Psalmes where he sayth, that no man doth eate the flesh of Christ, except he first worship it, and that we do not offend in worshipping therof, but we should, offend if we should not worship it.

That is true, which S. Augustine sayth in this place. For who is he that professeth Christ, and spiritually fedde and nourished with his flesh and bloud, but he will honor and worship him, sitting at the right hand of his fa∣ther, and render vnto him from the botome of his hart, all laud, prayse and thankes, for his mercifull redemption?

And as this is most true, which S. Augustine sayth, so is that most false, which the Papistes would perswade vpon S. Augustines wordes, that the Sa∣cramentall bread and wine, or any visible thing is to be worshipped in the Sa∣crament. For S. Augustines mynd was so farre from any such thought, that he forbiddeth vtterly to worship Christes owne flesh and bloud alone, but in consideration, and as they be annexed and ioyned to his diuinity. How much lesse then could he thinke or allow, that we should worship the Sacramentall bread and wine, or any outward or visible Sacrament, which be shadowes, figures, and representations of Christes flesh and bloud?

And S. Augustine was afrayd, least in worshiping Christes very body, we should offend, therfore he biddeth vs, when we worship Christ, that we should not tarry and fixe our myndes vpon his flesh (which of it self auay∣leth nothing) but that we should lift vp our myndes from the flesh to y^e spirite, which geueth lyfe: and yet the Papistes be not afrayd by crafty meanes to in∣duce vs, to worship those thinges, which be signes and sacraments of Christes body.

But what will not the shamelesse Papistes alleadge for theyr purpose, when they be not ashamed to mayntayne the adoration of the Sacrament by these wordes of S. Augustine? Wherin he speaketh not one word of the adoration of the sacrament, but onely of Christ him selfe?

And although he say, that Christ gaue his flesh to be eaten of vs, yet he ment not, that his flesh is here corporally present, and corporally eaten, but onely spiritually. As his word declare playnly, which follow in the same place, where S. Augustine as it were in the person of Christ, speaketh these wordes.

It is the spirite that giueth lyfe, but the flesh profiteth nothing.

The wordes which

I haue spoken vnto you, be spirite and life. That which I haue spoken, vnderstand you spiritually. You shall not eate this body which you see, and drincke that bloud which they shall shed, that shall crucify me. I haue commended vnto you a sacramēt, vnderstand it spiritually, and it shall geue you lyfe. And although it must be vi∣sibly ministred, yet it must be inuisibly vnderstand.

These wordes of S. Augustine with the other before recited, do expresse his mynd playnly, that Christ is not otherwise to be eaten, than spiritually, (which spirituall eating requireth no corporal presence) and that he entended not to teach here any adoration, eyther of the visible sacramentes, or of any thing that is corporally in them. For in dede there is nothing really and cor∣porally in the bread to be worshipped, although the Papistes say that Christ is in euery consecrated bread.

Winchester.

[ 1] As in the wrong report of S Augustine, who speaking of the adoration of Christes flesh, geuen to be eaten, doth so fashion his speach, as it can not with any violence be drawen to such an vnderstanding, as though S. Augustine should meane of the adoring of Christes flesh in heauen, as this author would haue it. S. Augustine speaketh of the [ 2] giuing of Christes flesh to vs to eate, and declareth after, that he meaneth in the visible Sacrament, which must be inuisibly vnderstanded & spiritually, not as the Capernaites did vnderstand Christes wordes, carnally to eate that body cut in peces: and therfore there may be no such imaginations to eat Christes body after the manner he walked here, nor drincke his bloud as it was shedde vpon the Crosse: but it is a mystery and sa∣crament that is godly of godes worke supernaturall aboue mans vnderstanding, and therfore spiritually vnderstanded shall geue life, which life carnall vnderstanding must nedes exclude. And by these my wordes, I thincke I declare truely S. Augustines mea∣ning of the truth of this sacrament, wherin Christ giueth truly his flesh to be eaten, the flesh he spake of before taken of the virgine. For the spirituall vnderstanding that S. Augustine speaketh of is not to exclude the truth of Gods worke in the sacrament, but to exclude carnall imagination from musing of the manner of the worke, which is in [ 3] mistery such as a carnall man can not comprehend. In which matter if S. Augustine had had such a fayth of the visible sacrament, as the author sayth him selfe hath now of late, and calleth it catholicke, S. Augustine would haue vttered it, as an expositor playn∣ly, in this place, and sayd, there is but a figure of Christes body: Christes body and flesh is in heauen and not in this visible sacrament, Christes speach that was estemed so hard, was but a figuratiue speach. And where Christ sayd, This is my body, he ment onely of the figure of his body: which manner of saying S. Augustine vseth not in this place, and yet he could speake playnly, and so doth he, declaring vs first the truth of the flesh that Christ geueth to be eaten, that is to say, the same flesh that he tooke of the vir∣gine. [ 4] And yet bicause Christ giueth it not in a visible manner, nor such a maner as the Capernaites thought on, nor such a maner as any carnall man can conceaue, being al∣so the flesh in the sacrament, giuen not a common flesh but a liuely, godly and spirituall flesh. Therfore S. Augustine vseth wordes and speach wherby he denieth the gift of that body of Christ, which we did see, and of the bloud that was shed, so as by affirmation and deniall so nere together of the same to be geuen, and the same not to be giuen, the mistery should be thus farre opened, that for the truth of the thing giuen, it is the same, and touching the manner of the giuing, and the quality of the flesh giuen, it is not the same. And bicause it is the same, S. Augustine sayth before we must worship it, and yet bicause it is now an hidden godly mistery, we may not haue carnall imaginations of the same but godly, spiritually and inuisibly vnderstand it.

Caunterbury.

AS concerning the wordes of S. Augustine (which you say I do wrong report) let euery indeferēt reader iudge, who maketh a wrong

report of S. Augustine, you or I. For I haue reported his wordes as they be, and so haue not you. For S. Augustine sayth not, that Christes [ 2] body is eaten in the visible sacrament (as you report) but that Christ hath giuen vs a sacrament of the eating of his body, which must be vnderstand inuisibly, and spiritually, as you say truly in that poynt. But to the spiri∣tuall eating, is not required any locall or corporall presence in the sacra∣ment, nor S. Augustine sayth not so, as you in that poynt vniustly report him: And although the worke of God in his sacraments be effectuall and true, yet the working of God in the sacraments is not his working by grace in the water, bread, and wine, but in them that duely receaue the same, which worke is such as no carnall man can comprehend.

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

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

Winchester.

And bicause S. Hierome who was of S. Augustines tyme, writeth in his commen∣taries

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

[ 1]

Caunterbury.

TO what purpose you should bring in here this place of S. Hierome (making much agaynst you and nothing for you) I cannot conceaue. For he declareth no more in this place, but that as all men in this world haue passible bodyes, subiect to much filthynes, corruption and death, and yet after our resurrection we shalbe deliuered from corruption, vile∣nes, weakenes and death, and be made incorruptible, glorious, mighty and spirituall: so Christes body in earth was subiect vnto our infirmities, his flesh being crucified, and his bloud being shed with a spere, which now (as you truly say) is glorified, impassible, incorruptible and a spiri∣tuall body, but yet not so spirituall, that his humanitie is turned into his diuinity, and his body into his soule (as some heretikes phantasy) nor that the diuersity of his members be taken away, and so left without armes and legges, head and feete, eyes and eares, and turned into the forme and fashion of a bowle, as the Papistes imagine. The sunne and

the mone, the fier and the ayre be bodyes, but no mans bodyes, bycause they lacke hart and lungues, head and feete, flesh and bloud, vaynes and sinewes to knit them togither. When Christ was transfigured, his face shyned like the sunne, and with his mouth he spake to Moyses & Helias. And after his resurrection we read of his flesh and bones, his handes and feete, his side and woundes, visible and palpable, and with mouth, tongue and teeth, he did eate and speake, and so like a man he was in all proportions and members of man, that Mary Magdalene could not dis∣cerne him from a gardiner. And take away flesh and skinne, sinewes and bones, bloud and vaynes, and then remayneth no mans body. For take away distinction and diuersitie of partes and members, how shall Peter be Peter, and Paule be Paule? How shall a man be a man, and a wo∣man a woman? And how shall we see with our eyes, and heare with our eares, grope with our handes, and go with our feete? For eyther we shal do no such thinges at all, or see with euery part of our bodies, and likewise heare, speake and go, if there be no diuersity of members. This I haue spoken for this purpose, to declare that S. Hierome speaking of Christes [ 1] diuine and spirituall flesh, excludeth not therby any corporall member, that pertayneth to the substance of a mans naturall body, but that now being glorified, it is the same in all partes, that it was before. And that same flesh being fyrst borne mortall of the virgine Mary, and now being glorifyed and immortall as well the holy fathers did eate before he was borne, and his apostles and disciples whiles he liued with vs here in earth as we doe now when he is glorified. But what auayleth all this to your purpose, except you could proue, that to a spirituall eating is required a corporall presence?

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

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

and now you say we receaue him not as he sitteth in heauen and is glorified, and so must you nedes graunt, that we receaue him not at all.

Winchester.

But to returne to S. Augustine touching adoration, if the very flesh of Christ were not in the sacrament truely present, which is as much to say, as in substaunce present, if it were not in deede present, that is to say really present, if it were not corporally pre∣sent [ 1] that is to say, the very body of Christ there present God and man. If these truthes consenting in one were not there, S. Augustine would neuer haue spoken of adoration there. No more he doth sayth this author there, but in heauen: let S. Augustines wordes quoth I be iudge, which be these, No man eateth that flesh but he first worshippeth it.

It is found out how such a footestoole of the Lordes foot should be worshipped, and not onely that we do not sinne in worshipping, but we do sinne in not worshipping it. These be S. Augustines wordes, which I sayd before, can not be drawen to an vnderstanding [ 2] of the worshipping of Christes flesh in heauen, where it remayneth continually glorifi∣ed and is of all men christened continually worshipped.

For as S. Paule sayth, Christ is so exalted that euery tongue should confesse, that our sauiour Christ is in the glory of his father. So as the worshipping of Christ there in the estate of his glory where he [ 3] reigneth, hath neither (afore) ne (after) but an (euer) continuall worshipping in glory. Wherfore S. Augustine speaking of a (before) must be vnderstanded of the worshipping [ 4] of Christes flesh present in the Sacrament, as in the dispensation of his humility, which Christ ceaseth not to do reigning in glory, for although he hath finished his humble pa∣fible conuersation, yet he continueth his humble dispensation in the perfection of his misticall body, and as he is our inuisible priest for euer, and our aduocate with his father, and so for vs to him a mediator, to whom he is equall, so doth he vouchsafe in his sup∣per which he continueth to make an effectuall remembraunce of his offering for vs, of the new Testament confirmed in his bloud, and by his power maketh him selfe present in this visible Sacrament, to be therein of vs truely eaten, and his bloud truely drunken, not onely in fayth, but with the truth and ministery of our bodely mouth, as God hath willed and commaunded vs to do: which presence of Christ in this humility of dispensa∣tion to releaue vs and feed vs spiritually, we must adore as S. Augustine sayth before we eate: and we do not sinne in adoring, but we sinne in not adoring, remembring the diuine nature vnite vnto Christes flesh, and therfore of flesh not seuered from the god∣head. Which admonishment of S. Augustine declareth he ment not of the worshipping of Christes flesh in heauen, where can be no danger of such a thought, where all tōgues confesse Christ to be in the glory of his father, of which Christ as he is there in glory continually to be worshipped, it were a colde saying of S. Augustine to say, [ 5] wee doe not sinne in worshipping Christ in heauen, but sinne in not worship∣ping him, as though any coulde haue doubted whether Christe shoulde bee wor∣shipped in his humanitye in heauen being inseparably vnite to the diuinity. And when I say in his humanity, I speake not properly as that mistery requireth, for as Christes person is but one of two perfite natures, so the adoration is but one as Cirill declareth it, and therfore abhorreth the addition of a sillable to speake of coadoration. And will this author attribute to S. Augustine such a grossenes to haue written and giuen for a lesson, that no man sinneth to worship Christes flesh in heauen reigning in glory? wherfore taking this to be so farre from al probabilitie, I sayd before these words of S. Augustine can not be drawen with any tenters to stretch so farre as to reach to heauen, where euery christian man knoweth and professeth the worshipping of Christ in glory, as they be taught also to worship him in his dispensation of his humility, when he maketh present him selfe in this Sacrament, whome we should not receaue into our mouth before we adore him. And by S. Augustines rule, we not onely not sinne in a∣doring, but also sinne in not adoring him.

Caunterbury.

[ 1] WHere you speake of the adoration of Christe in the Sacrament, say∣ing,

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

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

And where you speake of the humiliatiō of Christ in the sacrament, you speake without the booke. For the scripture termeth not the matter in that sort, but calleth his humiliation only his incarnation and conuersa∣tion with vs here in earth, being obedient euen vnto death, and for that humiliation, he is now from that tyme forward exalted for euer in glory. And you would plucke him downe from his glory, to humiliation agayne. And thus is Christ intreated, when he commeth to the handling of igno∣raunt lawyers, blynd sophisters, and popish diuines, but the true wor∣shippers of Christ, worship him in spirite, sitting in his high glory and Maiesty, and pluck him not downe from thence, corporally to eate him with their teeth, but spiritually in hart ascend vp (as S. Chrisostō sayth) and feede vpon him where he sitteth in his high throne of glory with his father. To which spirituall feding is required no bodely presence, nor al∣so mouth nor teeth, and yet they that receaue any sacrament, must adore Christ (both before and after) sitting in heauen in the glory of his father. And this is neyther (as you say it is) a cold nor grosse teaching of S. Au∣gustine in this place, to worship the flesh and humanity of Christ in hea∣uen:

nor your teaching is not so farre from all doubtes, but that you seeme so afrayd your selfe to stand to it, that when you haue sayde, that Christ is to be worshipped in his humanity, as it were to excuse the matter a∣gayne, you say, you speake not properly.

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

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

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

Winchester.

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

Saynt Ambrose wordes in his booke De spiritu sancto li. 3. cap. 12. be these:

Non me∣diocris igitur, quaestio, & ideo diligentius consideremus quid sit scabellum. Legimus enim alibi. Coelum ucihi thronus, terra autem scabellum pedum meorum. Sed nec terra adoranda nobis, quia creatura est dei. Videamus tamen ne terràm illam dicat adorandam Propheta, quam Do∣minus

Iesus in carnis assumptione suscepit. Itaque per scabellum terrae intelligitur, per terram antem caro christi, quam hodie quoque in misterys adoramus, & quam Apostoli in Domino Iesu (ut supra diximus) adorarunt: ne{que} enim diuisus Christus, sed vnus. Which wordes may be englished thus. It is therfore no meane question and therfore we should more diligently consider, what is the foote stoole. For we read in an other place, heauen is my throne, and the earth the foote stoole of my feete. But yet the earth is not to be worshipped of vs, bicause it is a creature of God. And yet let vs see though least the prophet means that earth to be worshipped, which our Lord Iesus tooke in the taking of flesh. So then by the footestoole let the earth be vnderstanded, and then by the earth the flesh of Christ, which we do now worship also in the misteries, and which the Apostles, as we haue be∣fore [ 1] sayde, worshipped in our Lord Iesu, for Christ is not deuided, but one. Hitherto S. Ambrose, wherby may appeare how S. Ambrose and S. Augustine tooke occasion to open their fayth and doctrine touching adoration, vpon discussion of the selfe same words of the prophet Dauid.

And S. Ambrose expressely noteth our adoration in the misteries where we worship Christes flesh inuisibly present, as the Apostles did, when Christ was visibly present with them. And thus with these so playne wordes of S. Ambrose consonant to those of S. Augustine, and the opening of S. Augustines wordes as be∣fore, I trust I haue made manifest, how this Author trauayleth agaynst the streame, [ 2] and laboreth in vayne to writh S. Augustine to his purpose in this matter. The best is in this author that he handleth S. Augustine no worse then the rest, but all after one sort, bycause they be al of like sort agaynst his new catholique fayth, & cōfirme y^e old true Catholique fayth or do not improue it. For of this high mistery, the authors write some more obscurely and darkely thē other, and vse diuersities of speaches and wordes, wher∣with the true doctrine hath bene of a very few impugned, but euer in vayne, as I trust in God this shall be most in vayne, hauing this author vttered such vntruthes with so much blinde ignorāce, as this worke well wayed & cōsidered, that is to say, who made it when he made it, & of like how many were, or might haue bene & should haue bene of coūsayle in so great a matter, who if they were any, be al reproued in this one worke, all such cir∣cūstāces cōsidered, this booke may do as much good to releaue such perplexity, as altera∣tion hath engendred, and so do as good seruice in the truth; as was ment therby to hinder and empayre it. And this shall suffice for an answere to this fourth booke.

Caunterbury.

HEre apeareth your sincerity in proceeding in this matter. For you [ 1] leaue out those wordes of S. Ambrose, which maketh his meaning playne, that the prophet spake of the mistery of Christes incarnation. Si negant quia in Christo etiam incarnationis adoranda misteria sunt. &c. If they deny (sayth he) that the misteries of y^e incarnatiō in Christ be to be honored &c. And a little after Qua ratione ad incarnationis dominicae sacramentum spectare vide∣atur, quod ait Propheta, Adorate scabellum pedum eius, consideremus. Let vs consi∣der, by what meanes this saying of the prophet (worship his foote stoole) may be seene to pertayne to the sacrament of Christes incarnation. And after the wordes by you rehearsed, foloweth by and by, Cum igitur incarna∣tionis adorandum sit Sacramentum. &c. Seing then that the Sacrament of the incarnation is to be honored. In these wordes sheweth S. Ambrose playnly that the worshipping of Christes flesh is vnderstand of the miste∣ry of his incarnation. So that S. Ambrose ment not onely that men should worship Christ, when they receaue the Sacrament, but that all creatures, at all tymes, should worship him. And therfore he expresseth there by name, how the Angels did worship him, and also Mary Mag∣dalene and the Apostles after his resurrection, when they receaued not the Sacrament. And so did also the shepherds and the wise men worship him, yet being in his infancy, and the prophet (after the mynd of S. Au∣gustine

and S. Ambrose) commaunded to honor him before his incarna∣tion, & we likewise honor him sitting now in heauen after his ascentiō. For so farre is fayth able to reach, without eyther tentering or stretching.

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

But our sauiour Christ himselfe hath geuen vs warning before hand, that such false Christians and false teachers should come, and hath bydde vs to be∣ware of them, saying:

If any man tell you that Christ is here, or Christ is there, beleue him not. For there shall rise false Christes, and false prophets, and shall shew many signes and wonders, so that if it were possible, the very elect should be brought into erroure. Take heede, I haue told you before hand.

Thus our Sauiour Christ (like a most louing pastor and sauiour of our soules) hath giuen vs warning before hand of the perilles and dangers that were to come, and to be wise and ware, that we should not geue credite vnto such teachers, as would perswade vs to worship a peece of bread, to kneele to it, to knocke to it, to creepe to it, to follow it in procession, to lift vp our [ 1] hādes to it, to offer to it, to light candels to it, to shut it vp in a chest or boxe, to do all other honor vnto it, more then we do vnto God: hauing alway this pre∣tence [] or scuse for our idolatry, Behold here is Christ. But our Sauiour Christ calleth them false Prophets, and sayth: Take heed, I tell you before:

Beleue them not, If they say to you: behold Christ is a broad, or in the wildernes, goe not out. And if they say, that he is kept in close places, beleue them not.

And if you will aske me the question, who be these false prophets and sedu∣cers of the people, the aunswere is soone made: The Romish Antichristes and their adherents, the authors of all erroure, ignorance, blindnes, super∣stition, hipocrisie, and idolatry.

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

And Honorius the third, not onely confirmed the same, but commaunded also, that the priestes would diligently teach the people from tyme to tyme, that when they lifted vp the bread, called the host, the people should then reuerently bowe downe, and that likewise they should do when the priest ca∣rieth the host vnto sicke folkes. These be the statutes and ordinaunces of

Rome, vnder pretence of holines, to leade the people vnto all errour and ido∣latry: not bringing them by bread vnto Christ, but from Christ vnto bread.

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

¶ Thus endeth the fourth booke.

Notes

• August. in ser∣mone domini in moute lib. 3.
• August. de pec∣cat. meri. et re∣mist. lib. 1. Cap. 24.
• Iacob. 1.
• The substance of Gods worke
• Ephe. 4. Math. 13.
• Iohn. 6. Augustinus In Ioh. tract. 27.
• Rom. 3.
• 2. Corin. 2.
• Oecumenius.
• An Issue.
• The worde sa∣crament.
• 1. Cor. 6.
• Ihon. 6.
• August in Iohn. tract. 26. & de verbis Apost. sermon. 2.
• Nicolaus secun∣dus.
• Luke. 22. 1. Cor. 11. 1. Cor. 10.
• Augusti. in ser∣mo. domini in monte. lib. 2.
• Three manner of eatings.
• August in Ioh. tract. 26.
• 1. Cor. 11.
• August. de pec∣catorum meri∣tis & remiss. li. 1. cap. 24.
• The workes of God vniforme.
• Spirit and lyfe to fall vpon euill men.
• 2 Cor. 6.
• Iohn. 6.
• Aug. in Iohn, tract. 27.
• Iohn. 6.
• Iohn. 6.
• The promises of God vnder condition.
• One substance to good and bad.
• The issue.
• 2. Cor. 2.
• Math. 5.
• Decumenius.
• Chap. 1.
• Whether euell men do eate and drinke Christ.
• Iohn. 6.
• The godly on∣ly eat Christ.
• Iohn. 6.
• Chap. 2.
• What is the ea∣ting of Christes flesh and drin¦king of his bloud.
• Chap. 3.
• Christ is not eaten with teeth but with fayth. Cyprian de coe∣na domini.
• August. de ver∣bis domini ser. 33.
• In Ioan. tractat. 25.
• Chap. 4. The good only eate Christ.
• Origines in Math. cap. 15.
• Ciprianus in ser¦mo. de coena do∣mini.
• Athanasius de peccato in spiri∣um sanctum.
• Basilius epistol. 141.
• Hieronimus in E••aiam. cap. 66.
• In Hieremian.
• In Oseam cap. 8.
• Ambrosius de benedictione pa¦triarcharū cap. 9. De his qui miste rus initiantur. De sacramentis li. cap. 5.
• Lib. 5. cap. 3.
• Augustinus in sentētiis expro∣spero decerptis cap. 339.
• De ciuitate Dei lib. 21. Cap. 25.
• In Ihon. tractat. 26.
• In Iohn. tractat. 27.
• De doctrina christiana. lib. 3. Cap. 14.
• De verbis Apo∣stoli. sermo. 2.
• In Ioh Tract. 59
• Cirillus in Ioh. li. 4. cap. 10.
• Cap. 12.
• Cap. 14.
• Cap. 17.
• That may be sayd not done y^t is not well don.
• Li••. 8.
• Deu. 12.
• August de ciuit. Dei. lib. 22. cap.
• Chap. 5.
• Rom. 8.
• Whether a sin∣ner haue Christ within him.
• 1. Cor. 12.
• 2. Cor. 6. 1. Cor. 11.
• Chap. 6. The aunswere to the Papists. 2. Cor. 11.
• 〈◊◊◊◊◊〉〈◊◊◊◊◊〉
• To eate.
• Iohn. 3.
• 1. Cor. 2.
• Vnworthy ea∣ting.
• Manna.
• Ihon. 6.
• Iohn 6.
• Iohn 14.
• Cha. 7.
• The aunswere to the Papists authors.
• Augustinus con¦tra Cresconium li. 1. cap. 25.
• Contra Maxi∣minum li. 3. cap. 22.
• De bap. contra Donatis. lib. 5. Cap. 8.
• Augustinus.
• 〈◊〉〈◊〉
• August. de Bap. lib. 5. Cap. 8.
• The body of Christ to them y^t receaue vn∣worthely.
• August. de ver domi. Sermo. 11.
• Bucerus.
• Bucerus.
• Theodoretus in epi. 1. Cor. 11.
• Hieronimus.
• An issue.
• Augustin de Bapti. con. Do∣na. li. 5. cap. 8.
• August. In Iohn tract. 19.
• August. de ver∣bis Domini ser. 11.
• The selfe same flesh y^t was cru¦cified & is sensi∣ble, is eaten of Christē people.
• August. ad Bo∣nifacium episto. 23.
• Ioh. 13.
• Maister Bucer.
• Theodoretus.
• Hieronimus.
• Hieroni. in Esai∣am cap. 66.
• Hieron. in Ma∣lachiam cap. 1.
• Chap. 8.
• Figures be cal∣led by y^e names of the thinges which they sig∣nify.
• Eusebius Emis∣senus in sermo. de Eucharistia.
• Emissenus.
• The Catechis∣me.
• Emesserie.
• Corporall.
• Reuerend aul∣tar.
• Hieronimus in Malachiā ca. 1.
• Chap 9.
• The adoration in the sacramēt.
• De adoratione lege Rossen. & Occol. lib. 3. ca. 4. & 5.
• The simple people be de∣ceaued.
• Adoration. What true ado∣ration is.
• August. in psal. 98.
• Augustinus.
• August. in psal. 98.
• Iohn. 6.
• August. de doc∣tri. christiana. li. 3. cap. 4.
• Hieroni. ad E∣phesios.
• 1. Cor. 16.
• Spirituall bo∣dy.
• Mat. 17.
• Luc. 14. Ioh. 20.
• Ioh. 20.
• 1. Cor. 10.
• Luc. 22. .1 Cor. 10
• Truely. Really. Corporally.
• ••he••••.
• Genes. 28,
• Math. 6.
• 1. Cor 11.
• Luc. 22.
• Humiliation.
• Phil. 2.
• Saynt Augus∣tines doctrine is necessary. Psal. 99.
• Heb. 10.
• Heb. 6.
• Ambrosius de spiritu sancto li. 3. cap. 12.
• Math. 28.
• Luc. 2. Math. 2.
• Math. 24.
• Math. 24.
• Chap. 10. They be the papistes that haue deceaued the people.
• Innocentius ter¦tius.
• Honorius terti∣us.
• Cap. 11. An exhortation to the ••rew ho∣noring of Christ in the Sacrament.