A defence of the true and catholike doctrine of the sacrament of the body and bloud of our sauiour Christ with a confutacion of sundry errors concernyng the same, grounded and stablished vpon Goddes holy woorde, [and] approued by ye consent of the moste auncient doctors of the Churche. Made by the moste reuerende father in God Thomas Archebyshop of Canterbury, primate of all Englande and Metropolitane.

* 1.1For whether the authors (which they alledge) say that we doo eate Christes fleshe and drynke his bloudde,* 1.2 or that the bread and wyne is con∣uerted into the substance of his fleshe and bloud, or that we bee tourned into his fleshe, or that in the Lordes supper we do receaue his very fleshe and bloudde, or that in the breadde and wyne is receaued that whyche dydde hange vppon the Crosse, or that Christe hathe lefte his fleshe with vs, or that Christe is in vs, and wee in hym, or that he is whole here and whole in hea∣uen, or that the same thynge is in the Chalice,

whyche flowed oute of his syde, or that the same thynge is receaued with our mouthe, whyche is beleued with our faythe, or that the breade and wyne after the Consecration, bee the body and bloudde of CHRISTE, or that we bee noury∣shed with the body and bloude of Christ, or that Christe is bothe gone hence, and is styll here, or that Christe at his laste supper, bare hym selfe in his owne handes.

These and all other like sentences may not be vnderstanded of Christes humanitee litterally and carnally, as the wordes in common speeche doo proprely signifie, (for so doothe no man eate Christes fleshe, nor drinke his bloudde, nor so is not the bread and wyne tourned into his fleshe and bloud, nor we into hym: nor so is the breade & wyne after the consecration his flesh and blud, nor so is not his fleshe and bloud whole heere in earth, eaten with our mouthes) nor so dydde not Christe take hym selfe in his owne handes.

But these and all other lyke sentences (whiche declare Christe to be here in earth, and to be ea∣ten and dronken of christian people) are to bee vnderstande, eyther of his diuine nature (wher∣by he is eu••ry where) or els they must be vnder∣standed figuratiuely, o•• spiritually. For figura∣tiuely he is in the breade and wyne, and spiritu∣ally he is in them that worthyly eate and drinke the bread and wyne, but really, carnally, and cor¦porally he is onely in heauen, frome whence he shall come to iudge the quycke and deade.

This briefe aunswere wyll suffice for all that the Papistes can bryng for their pourpose, yf it bee aptely applyed. And for the more euidence hereof, I shall applye the same to somme suche places, as the Papistes thynke doo make moste for theym: that by the aunswere to those pla∣ces, the reste maye bee the more easyly aunswe∣red vnto.

* 1.3They alledge saint Clement, whose words be these, as thei report.

The sacramentes of Gods secretes are cōmitted to thre degrees: to a priest, a Deacon, and a minister: whiche with feare and tremblyng ought to kepe the leauynges of the bro¦ken peeces of the Lordes body, that no corruption be founde in the holy place, least by negligence great iniury bee done to the portion of the Lordes bodye. And by and by foloweth: So many hostes muste bee offered in the altare, as wyll suffice for the people. And yf any remayn, they must not be kept vntill the mornyng, but be spent and consumed of the clearkes, with feare and tremblynge. And they that consume the residue of the Lordes bodye, may not by and by take other common meates, least they shoulde mixte that holy portion, with the meate which is dygested by the bealy, and a∣uoyded by the foundament. Therfore if the Lor∣des portion bee eaten in the mornynge, the mini∣sters that consume it, must faste vnto sixe of the clocke: and if thei do take it at thre or four of the clocke, the minister must fast vntyl the euenyng.

Thus much writeth Clement of this matter:

If the Epistle, which they alledge, were Clemen¦tes (as in dede it is not.) But they haue fayned many thynges in other mennes names, thereby to stablyshe their fayned purposes. But whose so euer the Epistle was, if it be throughly con∣sydered, it maketh muche more agaynst the Pa∣p••stes, than for their pourpose. For by the same Epistle appereth euidently thre speciall thyngs against the errours of the Papistes.

The fyrst is, that the breade in the sacramente is called the Lordes body: and the peeces of the broken bread be called the peeces and fragmen∣tes of the Lordes body. whyche can not bee vn∣derstande, but fyguratiuely.

The seconde is, that the bread oughte not to be reserued and hanged vp, as the Papistes e∣uery where doo vse.

The third is, that the priests ought not to re∣ceyue the sacrament alone (as the Papistes com¦monly do, makyng a sale therof vnto the people) but they ought to cōmunicate with the people.

And here it is diligently to bee noted, that we ought not vnreuerently and vnaduisedly to ap∣proche vnto the meate of the Lordes table, as we doo to other common meates and drynkes, but with great feare and dreade: least we shulde come to that holy table vnworthely, wherein is not onely represented, but also spirytually ge∣uen vnto vs very CHRISTE hym selfe. And therfore we ought to come to that boord of the Lorde with all reuerence, faythe, loue, and

charitee, feare and dread, accordyng to the same.

* 1.4Here I passeouer Ignatius and Ireneus, whiche make nothyng for the Papistes opini∣ons, but stand in the commendacion of the holy Communion, and in exhortacion of all men to the often and godly receiuyng therrof. And yet neither they, nor no manne els, can extolle and cōmende the same sufficiently, accordyng to the dignitee therof, if it bee godly vsed, as it ought to be.

* 1.5Dionysius also, whom they allege to praise & extoll this sacrament (as in dede it is most wor∣thy, beyng a sacrament of moste high dignitee and perfection, representyng vnto vs our moste perfect spiritual coniunction vnto Christ, & oure continual norishyng, feadyng, comforte, & spiri∣tual life in him,) yet he neuer sayd that the fleshe and bloud of Christ was in the bread and wyne, really, corporally, sensibly and naturally (as the Papistes wold beare vs in hand) but he calleth euer the bread and wyne signes, pledges and tokens, declaryng vnto the faythfull receiuers of the same, that they receiue Christ spiritually, and that they spiritually eate his flesh & drynke his bloud. And although the bread and wyne bee the figures, signes, and tokens of Christes fleshe and bloud (as sainct Dionyse calleth them bothe before the consecracion and after) yet the Greke annotations vpon the same Dionyse do say, that the very thynges them selfes be aboue in heauen.

And as the same Dionyse maketh nothing for the Papistes opinions in this point of Christes reall and corporall presence, so in diuers other things he maketh quite and clean against them, and that specially in thre pointes, In transub∣stantiation, in reseruacion of the sacrament, and in the receauinge of the same by the priest alone.

Furthermore they do alleage Tertulian,* 1.6 that hee constantly affirmeth, that in the sacramente of the altare we do eate the body and drinke the blud of our sauiour Christ. To whō we graunte that our flesh eateth and drinketh the bread and wyne, whiche be called the bodye and bloude of Christ, bicause (as Tertulian saith) they do re∣present his body and bloude, although they bee not really the same in very deed. And we graunt also, that oure soules by faith do eate his verye body and drinke his bludde, but that is spiritu∣ally, suckinge out of the same euerlastinge lyfe. But we deny that vnto this spirituall feedinge is required any reall and corporall presence.

And therefore this Tertulian speaketh no∣thinge against the truthe of our catholicke doc∣trine, but he speaketh many thinges most plain¦ly for vs, and against the Papistes, and special∣ly in thre pointes. Firste in that he saithe that Christe called breade his body. The second that Christ called it so, bycause it representeth his bo¦dye. The thirde, in that he saithe, that by these wordes of Christe, This is my bodye, is mente, This is a figure of my body.

* 1.7 Moreouer they allege for theym Origen (be∣cause they would seeme to haue many aunciente authors, fauourers of their erronious doctrine) whiche Origen is moste clearely against them.

For although hee do saye (as they allege) that those things which before were signified by ob∣scure figures, be nowe truely in dede and in theyr very nature and kinde accomplished and fulfilled. And for the declaration therof, he bringeth forth thre examples, One of the stone that floweth wa¦ter, an other of the sea and cloude, and the thirde of Manna, whiche in the olde testamente did si∣gnifie Christ to come, who is now come in deed, and is manifested and exhibited vnto vs, as it were face to face, and sensibly, in his worde, in the sacrament of regeneracion, and in the sacramentes of breade and wine,

Yet Origene mente not, that Christ is corporally either in his worde, or in the water of baptime, or in the breade and wine, nor that we carnally and corporally be regenerated and borne againe, or eate Christes flesh & blood. For our regeneracion in Christ, is spiritual, and our eating and drinking is a spirituall feeding, which kinde of regeneration and feeding, requi¦reth no real and corporall presence of Christ, but onlye his presence in spirite, grace, and effectu∣all operacion.

And that Origen thus mente, that Christes fleshe is a spirituall meate, and his bludde a spirituall drinke, and that the eating and dryn∣kinge of his fleshe and bloude maye not bee vn∣derstande

literallye, but spirytually, it is ma∣nifested by Origenes owne woordes, in his se∣uenth homylye vppon the booke called Leuiti∣cus:* 1.8 where hee sheweth that those wordes must bee vnderstande figuratiuely, and who so euer vnderstandeth theim otherwise, they bee decea∣ued and take harme by their owne grosse vn∣derstandinge.

And likewise ment Cypriane,* 1.9 in those places whiche the aduersaries of the truthe alleadge of hym, concernynge the true eatinge of Christes very fleshe and drinkinge of his bludde.

For Cyprian spake of no grosse and carnal ea∣tinge with the mouth, but of an inward spiritu∣all and pure eatinge with hart and mind, which is to beeleue in oure hartes, that his fleshe was ••ente and torne for vs vppon the crosse, and his bludde shedde for our redemption, and that the same fleshe and bludde nowe sitteth at the ryght hande of the father, making continual interces∣sion for vs, and to imprint and digest this in our mindes, puttinge our whole affiaunce and trust in him, as touchinge our saluacion and offering ourselues clearlye vnto hym, to loue and serue hym all the dayes of our lyfe: thys is trewely, sincerely, and spiritually to eate his flesh and to drinke his bludde.

And this sacryfyce of Christe vpon the crosse, was that oblation whyche Cypriane saithe was figured and signifyed before it was done,* 1.10 by the wyne whiche Noe dranke, and by the breade

and wyne whiche Melchisedech gaue to Abra∣ham, and by many other figures which Cyprian there reherseth.

And nowe when Christe is come, and hath ac∣complished that sacrifice, the same is figured, si∣gnified, and represented vnto vs, by that bread and wine, which faithfull people receaue daylye in the holy communion. Wherein lyke as wyth their mouths carnally thei eat the bread & drink the wyne, so by their faithe spiritually they eate Christes very fleshe and drinke his very bloode. And herby it appeareth that S. Cyprian clear∣ly affirmeth the moste true doctrine, and is who∣ly vpon oure side.

And against the Papistes hee teacheth moste plainly, that the communion ought to be recea¦ued of all men vnder bothe the kindes: and that CHRIST called breade his body, and wyne hys bloude: and that there is no transubstantiation (but that breade remaineth there as a figure, to represent Christes body, and wine to represente his blud) and that those whyche bee not y^• lyue∣ly membres of Christe, doo eate the breade and drynke the wyne, and bee nouryshed by theym, but the verye fleshe and bludde of CHRIST, they neyther eate nor drinke.

Thus haue you hearde declared the mynde of Saint Cyprian.

* 1.11But Hylarius (thynke they) is plainest for theym in this matter, whose woordes they tran¦slate thus.

If the worde was made verely fleshe, & we vere∣ly receiue the worde beyng fleshe, in our Lordes meate, howe shall not Christ be thought to dwel na∣turally in vs? who beyng borne man, hath taken vnto him the nature of our fleshe, that can not be seuered, and hath put together the nature of his fleshe to the nature of his eternitee, vnder the sacrament of the communion of his fleshe vnto vs. For so wee bee all one, because the fa∣ther is in Christe, and Christe in vs. Wherfore whosoeuer will denye the father to be naturally in Christe, he muste denye fyrste either him selfe to be naturally in Christ, or Christ to be natural∣ly in him. For the beyng of the father in Christe, and the beyng of Christ in vs, maketh vs to be one in them. And therfore if Christ haue taken veri∣ly the fleshe of our body, and the man that was verely borne of the virgyn Mary is Christ, and also we receiue vnder the true mysterye the fleshe of his body, by meanes whereof wee shall bee one (for the father is in Christ, and Christ in vs) how shall that be called the vnitee of wylle, when the naturall propertie brought to passe by the sacrament, is the sacrament of vnitee?

Thus doth the Papistes (the aduersaries of Gods woorde and of his trueth) allege the au∣thoritee of Hilarius (either peruersely and pur∣posely, as it seemeth, vntruely cityng him, and wrastyng his wordes to their purpose) or els not truely vnderstandyng him.

For although he sayth that Christe is natu∣rally

in vs, yet he sayth also that we be natural∣ly in him. And neuerthelesse in so saiyng, he ment not of the natural and corporal presence of the substance of Christes body & of ours (for as oure bodyes bee not after that sorte within his body, so is not his body after that sorte within our bodyes) but he ment that Christe in his in∣carnacion receyued of vs a mortall nature, and vnited the same vnto his diuinitee, and so be we naturally in him.

And the sacramentes of Baptisme and of his holy supper (if we rightly vse the same) do moste assuredly certifye vs, that wee bee partakers of his godly nature, hauyng geuen vnto vs by him, immortalitee and life euerlastyng, & so is Christ naturally in vs. And so bee wee one with Christ, and Christ with vs, not onely in wylle & mynde, but also in very naturall properties.

And so concludeth Hilarius against Arrius, that Christe is one with his father, not in pur∣pose and wylle onely, but also in very nature.

And as the vnion betwene Christe and vs in baptisme is spiritual, and requyreth no real and corporall presence, so lykewise oure vnion with Christ in his holy supper is spiritual, and ther∣fore requyreth no real and corporall presence.

And therfore Hilarius speaking there of both the sacramentes, maketh no difference betwene our vnion with Christ in baptisme, & our vnion with him in his holy supper. And sayth further, that as Christ is in vs, so be wee in him▪ whiche

the Papistes can not vnderstand corporally and really, except they wyll say, that all our bodyes be corporally within Christes body. Thus is Hilarius answered vnto, both plainly & shortly.

And this answere of Hilarius wyll serue also vnto Cyril,* 1.12 whom they allege to speake after the same sort that Hilarius doth, that Christ is na∣turally in vs. The wordes whiche they recite be these.

We denye not (sayth Cyril against the heretike) but we be spiritually ioyned to Christ, by fayth and syncere charitee: but that we shuld haue no maner of coniunction in our fleshe with Christ, that we vtterly deny, and thynke it vtter¦ly discrepant from Goddes holy scriptures. For who doubteth, but Christ is so the vyne tre, & we so the branches, as we get thence our life. Heare what sainct Paule sayth, Wee be all one body with Christe, for though we be many, we be one in him. All we participate in one foode. Thyn∣keth this hereticke that we knowe not the strength and vertue of the mistical benediction? whiche when it is made in vs, doth it not make Christ by cōmuni∣cation of his fleshe to dwell corporally in vs? Why be the membres of faythful mens bodyes called the membres of Christe?* 1.13 Knowe you not (sayth sainct Paule) that your membres be the mem∣bres of Christ? And shall I make the membres of Christ, partes of the whoores body? God for∣byd. And our sauiour also sayth:* 1.14 He that eateth my fleshe and drynketh my bloud, dwelleth in me and I in him.

Although in these wordes Cyril doth say, that Christ doth dwell corporally in vs, whan we re∣ceiue y^• mistical benediction: yet he neither sayth that Christ dwelleth corporally in the bread, nor that he dwelleth in vs corporally onely at suche tymes as wee receiue the sacrament, nor that he dwelleth in vs, & not we in him, but he sayth as∣wel, y^t we dwel in him, as that he dwelleth in vs. Whiche dwellyng is neither corporal nor local, but an heauenly, spiritual & supernatural dwel∣lyng, wherby so long as we dwell in him & he in vs, we haue by him euerlastyng life. And ther∣fore Cyril sayth in the same place,* 1.15 that Christ is the vyne, and wee the braunches, because that by him wee haue life. For as the braunches re∣ceiue lyfe and nourishement of the body of the vyne, so receiue we by him the natural propertie of his body, whiche is life and immortalitee, & by that meanes we beyng his membres, do liue, and are spiritually norished.

And this ment Cyril by this worde Corporal∣ly, when he sayth, that Christ dwelleth corporal∣ly in vs. And the same ment also sainct Hilarius by this woorde Naturally, whan he sayd that Christ dwelleth naturally in vs. And as sainct Paule,* 1.16 whan he sayd that in Christ dwelleth the full diuinitee Corporally, by this worde Corpo∣rally, he ment not that the diuinitee is a body, & so by that body dwelleth bodely in Christ. But by this worde Corporally, he ment that the diui∣nitee is not in Christ accidentally, lightly and

slenderly, but substantially and perfectely, wyth all hys mighte and power: so that CHRIST was not onely a mortall manne, to suffre for vs, but also hee was immortall God, able to redeeme vs.

So S. Cyril, whan he sayd that Christ is in vs corporally, he mente that we haue him in vs, not lightly and to small effecte and purpose, but that we haue him in vs substantially, pythelye, and effectually, in suche wise, that wee haue by hym redemption and euerlastinge lyfe.

And this I sucke not out of myne owne fyn∣gers,* 1.17 but haue it of Cyrils owne expresse words, where he saith:

A lyttle benediction draweth the whole manne to god, and filleth him with grace and after this manner Christe dwelleth in vs, and we in CHRIST.

But as for corporall eatinge and drinkinge with our mouths, and digesting with our bodies Cyril neuer ment that Christ doth so dwel in vs, as he plainly declareth.

Our sacrament (saith he) doth not affirme the eatinge of a manne,* 1.18 drawynge wickedly christen people to haue grosse imaginacions and carnal fantasies of suche thinges as be fine and pure, & receiued onely with a sincere faithe. But as twoo waxes,* 1.19 that be molten & put togither, they close so in one, that euery part of the one, is ioyned to euery parte of the other, euen so (saith Cyril) he that receiueth the flesh and bloode of the Lord, muste needes bee so ioyned with Christ, that Christ must be

in him, and he in Christ.

By these wordes of Cyril appeareth his mind plainly, that wee maye not grossely and rudelye thinke of the eating of Christ with our mouths, but with our faith, by which eatinge (although he be absente hence bodely and be in the eternall life and glorye with his father) yet we bee made partakers of hys nature, to bee immortal, and haue eternall lyfe and glorye with him.

And thus is declared the minde aswell of Cy∣ryll as of Hylarius.

* 1.20 And here may be wel enough passed ouer Ba∣silius, Gregorius Nissenus and Gregorius Na¦zianzenus, partely bycause they speake lyttle of this mattier, and partely bycause they maye bee easyly aunswered vnto, by that which is, before declared and often repeted, whiche is that a fy∣gure hath the name of the thing wherof it is the figure, and therefore of the fygure maye be spo∣ken the same thinge, that maye be spoken of the thynge it selfe.

And as concerninge the eatinge of Christes fleshe and drinkinge of his bludde, they spake of the spirituall eatinge and drinkinge thereof by faith, and not of corporall eating and drnkinge with the mouth and teethe.

* 1.21Likewise Eusebius Emissenus is shortly an∣swered vnto, for he speaketh not of any real and corporall conuersion of breade and wyne into Christes body and bludde, nor of any corporall and reall eating and drinkinge of the same, but

hee speaketh of a sacramentall conuersion of bread and wyne, and of a spirituall eatinge and drynkyng of the body and bloode. After whiche sorte, Christe is as well present in baptisme (as the same Eusebius plainly there declareth) as he is in the Lordes table. Which is not carnal∣ly and corporally, but by faithe and spiritually. But of thys authour is spoken beefore more at large in the matter of transubstantiation. fo. 24.

And now I wyll come to the saying of S. Am¦brose,* 1.22 whiche is alwaies in their mouthes.

Be∣fore the consecration saith he (as they allege) it is bread, but after the woordes of consecration it is the body of Chryste.

For answere herevnto, yt muste be fyrste kno∣wen what Consecration is.

Consecration is the separation of anye thing from a prophane and wordely vse,* 1.23 vnto a spiri∣tuall and godly vse.

And therfore whan vsual and common water is taken frome other vses, and put to the vse of baptisme in the name of the father and of the sonne, and of the holy ghost, than it may right∣ly be called Consecrated water, that is to saye, water put to an holy vse.

Euen so whan cōmon bread & wine be taken & seuered frō other bread and wyne, to the vse of y^e holy cōmunion, that portion of bread and wyne, although it be of the same substance that the o∣ther is, frō the whych it is seuered, yet it is nowe called consecrated or holy bread, and holy wyne.

Not that the bread and wine haue or can haue any holynes in them, but that they be vsed to an holy worke, and represent holy & godly thinges. And therfore S. Dionyse calleth the breade,* 1.24 ho∣ly breade, and the cuppe an holy cuppe, as soone as they bee sette vppon the aultate to the vse of the holy communion.

But specially they maye be called holye and consecrated, when they be separated to that ho∣ly vse of Christes owne wordes, whiche he spake for that purpose,* 1.25 saying of the breade: This is my body, And of the wyne: This is my bloude.

So that commonly the authors, before those wordes be spoken, do take the breade and wyne but as other common bread and wine, but after those woordes be pronounced ouer theym, than they take theym for consecrated and holy breade and wyne.

Not that the bread and wine can be partakers of any holynes or godlynesse, or can be the body and bloode of Christ, but that they represent the very bodye and bloude of Christe, and the holy foode and nourishement, which we haue by him, And so thei be called by the names of the body & bloud of Christ, as the signe, token and figure is called by the name of the very thinge, whiche it sheweth and signifieth.

And therefore as S. Ambrose in the wordes before cited by the aduersaries, saith, that bee∣fore the consecration, it is bread, and after the cō¦secration, it is Christes body: so in other places

he dothe more plainly sette forth his meaninge, saying these wordes:* 1.26

Before the benediction of the heauenly wordes, it is called an other kinde of thinge, but after the consecration, is signified the body of Christ. Likewise before the consecration it is called an other thing, but after the consecra∣tion it is named the bludde of Christe.* 1.27 And again he saith: When I treated of the sacramentes, I tolde you that that thinge whiche is offered be∣fore the woordes of Christ, is called Bread, but when the wordes of Christ be pronounced, than it is not called bread, but it is called by the name of Christes body.

By whiche woordes of S. Ambrose, it appe∣reth plainly, that the bread is called by the name of Christes body after the consecration, and al∣though it be styll bread, yet after consecration it is dignyfyed by the name of the thing, whych it representeth, as at lengthe is declared before in the proces of transubstantiation, and speciallye in the woordes of Theodoretus.

And as the bread is a corporal meat,* 1.28 and cor∣porally eaten, so saith S. Ambrose, is the bodye of Christe a spirituall meate, and spiritually ea∣ten, and that requireth no corporall presence.

Now let vs examine S. Iohn Chrysostome,* 1.29 who in sounde of woordes, maketh moste for the aduersaries of the truthe: but they that bee fa∣milyar and acquainted with Chrysostomes ma∣ner of speaking (how in all his writinges hee is full of allusions, schemes, tropes and figures,

shall soone perceyue, that he healpeth nothyng their purposes, as it shal wel appeare by the dis∣cussyng of those places, whiche the Papistes do allege of him, whiche bee specially two. One is in sermone de Eucharistia in Encaenijs. And the other is De perditione Iudae.

And as touchyng the first, no mā can speake more plainly against them, than sainct Iohn Chrysostome speaketh in that sermone. Where∣fore it is to be wōdered, why they should allege him for their partie, vnlesse they be so blynde in their opinion, that they can see nothyng, nor de∣cerne what maketh for them, nor what against them.* 1.30 For there he hath these woordes.

Whan you comme to these mysteries (speakyng of the Lordes boorde and holy Communion) do not thynke that you receyue by a man the body of God, meanyng of Christe.

These bee S. Ihon Chry∣sostome his owne wordes in that place.

Than if we receiue not the body of Christe at the handes of a man, Ergo, the body of Christ is not really, corporally and naturally in the sacra¦ment, and so geuen to vs by the priest. And than it foloweth, that all the Papistes bee lyars, be∣cause they fayue and teache the contrary.

But this place of Chrysostome is touched be¦fore more at length in answeryng to the Papi∣stes Transubstantiation.

Wherfore nowe shall be answered the other place whiche the allege of Chrysostome in these wordes.* 1.31

Here he is present in the sacrament and

dothe consecrate, whiche garnished the table at the maundy or last supper. For it is not man, whi∣che maketh of the bread and wyne, beyng set furth to be consecrated, the body and bloud of Christe, but it is Christe him selfe: (whiche for vs is cruci∣fyed) that maketh him selfe to bee there present. The wordes are vttered and pronounced by the mouthe of the priest, but the consecration is by the vertue, myght, and grace of God hym selfe. And as this saying of God (Increase,* 1.32 be multiplied, and fyl the yearth) ones spoken by God, toke alwayes effect towarde generation. Euen so the saiyng of Christe,* 1.33 This is my bodye▪ beyng but ones spoken, doth throughout all churches to this present, and shall to his last commyng, geue force and strength to this sacrifice.

Thus farre they reherse of Chrysostomes wordes. Whiche woordes although they sound muche for their purpose, yet if they be through∣ly considered, and cōferred with other places of the same author, it shall well appeare, that he mente nothyng lesse, than that Christes bodye should be corporally and naturally presēt in the bread and wyne, but that in suche sorte he is in heauen only, and in our myndes by fayth we a∣scend vp into heauen, to eat him there, although sacramentally as in a signe and figure, he be in the bread and wyne (and so is he also in the wa∣ter of Baptisme) & in theim that rightly receiue the bread & wyne, he is in a much more perfectiō than corporally (whiche should auayle them no∣thyng)

but in them he is spiritually with his di∣uine power, geuing them eternall lyfe.

And as in the first creation of the world, al ly∣uyng creatures had their first life by gods only word. (for god only spake his word, and al thin∣ges were created by and by accordingly) and af∣ter their creation hee spake these woordes:* 1.34 In∣crease and multiply▪ and by the vertue of those wordes, al thinges haue gendred and increaced euer sithens that tyme: euen so after that Christe sayd;* 1.35 Eate, this is my body. & Drink, this is my bloud, Do this hereafter in remembrance of me. by vertu of these words, and not by vertu of any man, the bread and wine be so consecrated, that who so euer with a lyuely faithe dothe eate that bread and drink that wine, doth spiritually eate, drynke and feede vpon Christe, syttynge in hea∣uen with his father. And this is the whole mea∣nynge of S. Chrysostome.

And therefore dooeth hee so often saye, that wee receaue Christe in baptisme, and whanne he hathe spoken of the receauinge of hym in the holy Communion, by and by he speaketh of the receauing of him in baptisme, withoute decla∣rynge any diuersytee of his presence in the one, from his presence in the other.

* 1.36He saieth also in many places, that we ascende into heauen, and do eate Christe sittinge there aboue.

AND where S. Chrysostome ••nd other Au∣thors doo speake of the wonderfull operation of God in his sacramentes, passynge all mannes

wytte, senses, and reason, he meaneth not of the workyng of God in the water, bread and wyne, but of the meruaylous workyng of God in the hartes of them that receaue the sacramentes, se∣cretely, inwardly, and spiritually transformyng them, renuyng, fedyng, comfortyng and nouri∣shyng them with his fleshe and bloud, thorough his most holy spirite, the same fleshe and bloud styll remaynyng in heauen.

Thus is this place of Chrysostome sufficient∣ly answered vnto. And yf any man requyre any more, than let hym looke what is recited of the same author before in the matter of transubstan∣tiation.

Yet furthermore they bryng for theim Theo∣philus Alexandrinus,* 1.37 who (as they alledge) sai∣eth thus.

CHRISTE gyuynge thankes, dydde breake, (which also we do) addynge therto prai∣er. And he gaue vnto them, sayeng: Take, this is my body. this that I doo now gyue, and that whiche ye nowe doo take. For the breade is not a figure onely of Christes body, but it is chaunged in∣to the very body of Christe. For Christ saith: The bread whiche I wyll geue you,* 1.38 is my fleshe. Ne∣uerthelesse the fleshe of Christ is not sene for our weakenesse, but bread and wyne ar familiar vn∣to vs. And surely yf we shoulde visibly see fleshe and bloude, we coulde not abyde it. And there∣fore our Lord, bearing with our weakenes, doth reteyne and keepe the forme and apparaunce of bread and wyne, but he doth tourne the very bread

and wyne into the very fleshe and bloude of Christe.

These be the wordes whyche the Papistes do cite out of Theophilus vpon the gospel of saint Marke. But by this one place it appeereth eui∣dently, either howe negligente the Papistes bee in serchyng out and examynyng the saiynges of the authors, which they allege for their purpose, or els howe false and deceytfull they be, whyche willyngly and wittyngly haue made in this one place, and as it were with one breath, two loude and shamefull lyes.

The first is, that bycause they wolde geue the more authorite to the woordes by them alleged, they (like fals Potycaties that sell quid pro quo) falsifie the authors name, fatherynge suche say∣enges vpon Theophilus Alexandrinus, an olde and auncient author, whiche were in dede none of his wordes, but wer the wordes of Theophi∣lactus, who was many yeres after Theophilus Alexandrinus. But suche hathe euer been the Papisticall subtiltees, to set forth their owne in∣uentions, dreames, and lyes, vnder the name of antiquitee and auncient Authors

The second lye or falshod is, that thei falsifie the authors wordes and meanyng, subuertynge the truth of his doctrine. For where Theophy∣lactus (accordynge to the catholike doctrine of auncient authors) sayth, that almightie God (cō¦descēdyng to our infirmitee) reserueth the kynde of bread & wyne, and yet tourneth them into the vertue of Christes fleshe and bloud: They saye

that he reserueth the formes and apparances of bread & wyne, and turneth them into the Uerite of his fleshe and bloud. so tornyng and alteryng kyndes into fourmes and apparances, and ver∣tue into Ueritee, that of the vertue of the fleshe and bloud, thei make the veritee of his flesh and bloud. And thus haue they falsified as well the name as the wordes of Theophilactus, turnyng veritee into playne and flatte falsitee.

But to sette foorth playnely the meanyng of Theophylactus in this matter▪ As hot and bur∣nyng yron is yron styll, and yet hath the force of fyer, and as the fleshe of Christ styl remainynge fleshe, geueth lyfe, as the flesshe of hym that is God: so the sacramentall bread & wyne remayne styll in their propre kyndes, and yet to them that worthyly eate and drynke them, they be tourned not into the corporall presence, but into the ver∣tue of Christes fleshe and bloud.

And although Theophylactus spake of the eatyng of the very body of Christ, and the drin∣kyng of his very bloud, (and not only of the fi∣gures of them) and of the cōuersion of the bread and wyne into the body and bloud of Christ, yet he meaneth not of a grosse, carnal, corporall, and sensible conuersion of the breade and wyne, nor of a lyke eatyng and drynkynge of his fleshe and bloud (for so not only our stomakes wold yerne and oure heartes abhorre to eate his fleshe and to drynke his bloude, but also suche eatyng and drynkynge could nothyng profit and auayle vs)

but he spake of the celestial and spiritual eatyng of Christ, and of a sacramental conuersion of the bread, callyng the bread not onely a figure, but also the bodye of Christ••, geuynge vs by those woordes to vnderstande, that in the sacramente wee not onely eate corporally the bread (whyche is a sacrament and figure of Christes body) but spiritually we eate also his very body, & drynke his very bloud. And this doctrine of Theophi∣lactus is both true, godly and comfortable.

* 1.39Besides this, our aduersaries doo allege saint Hierome vpon the Epistle ad Titum, that there is as great difference betwene the loaues called Panes propositionis, and the body of Christe, as there is betwene a shadowe of a bodye, and the body it selfe, and as there is betwene an ymage and the thyng it self, and betwene an example of thynges to come, and the thynges that be prefi∣gured by them.

These wordes of saincte Hierome truely vn∣derstand, serue nothyng for thentent of the Pa∣pistes. For he ment that the Shew breade of the lawe, was but a darke shadow of Christ to come, but the sacrament of Christes body is a clere te∣stimony, that Christ is already comme, & that he hath performed that whiche was promysed, and doth presently comforte and feede vs spiritually with his precious body and bloud, not withstan∣dyng that corporally he is ascended into heuen.

* 1.40And the same is to be answered vnto all that the aduersaries bryng of S. Augustin, Sedu∣lius,

Leo,* 1.41 Fulgentius, Cassiodorus, Gregorius, and other, concernyng the eatyng of Christe in the sacrament.

Which thyng can not be vnderstanded plain∣ly as the wordes sounde, but fyguratiuely and spiritually, as before is sufficiently proued, and herafter shalbe more fully declared in the fourth parte of this booke.

But here Iohn Damascene maye in no wyse be passed ouer,* 1.42 whom for his auctoritee the ad∣uersaries of Christes true naturall bodye do re∣ken as a stout champion sufficient to defend all the whole matter alone, But neyther is the au∣thoritee of Damascene so greate, that they may oppresse vs thereby, nor his woordes so playne for them, as they boaste and vntruely pretende. For he is but a yonge newe author in the respect of those which we haue brought in for our party And in diuers pointes he varieth frō the most an¦cient authors (if he meane as thei expound him) as when he saith, that the bread and wine be not figures, which all the old authors call figures, and that the bread and wyne consume not, nor be auoyded downewarde, which Origen and S. Augustine affirme, or that they be not called the examples of Christes body after the consecrati∣on, whiche shall manyfestely appere false by the Liturgy ascribed vnto S. Basill.

And moreouer, the sayde Damascene was one of the byshoppe of Romes chiefe proctoures a∣gainst the Emperours, and as it were his ryght

hande, to set abroade all ydolatrye by his owne handewrytynge. And therefore yf he loste his hande (as they saye he dyd) he lost it by Goddes moste righteous iudgemente, what soeuer they faine and fable of the miraculous restitution of the same. And yet what so euer the sayd Dama∣scene writeth in other mattiers, surely in this place wiche the aduersaries doo alledge, he wri∣teth spiritually and godly, although the Papi∣stes either of ignorance mystake hym, or els wil∣lyngly wraste him and writhe hym to their pur∣pose, cleane contrary to his meanynge.

The sum of Damascene his doctrine in this matter is this. That as Christ beyng both God & man hath in him two natures, so hath he twoo natiuitees, one eternal, & thother temporall. And so lykewise we (beyng as it were double men, or hauyng euery one of vs two men in vs, the new man & the old man, the spirituall man & the car∣nall man) haue a double natiuitee: One of oure first carnall father Adam (by whom as by anci∣ent inheritance cometh vnto vs malediction and euerlastyng damnation) & the other of our hea∣uenly Adam, that is to saye, of Christ, by whom we be made heires of celestiall benediction, and euerlastyng glory and immortalitee.

And bycause this Adam is spirituall, therefore our generation by hym muste be spirituall, & our feedyng muste bee lykewise spirituall. And our spirituall generation by hym is playnly set forth in baptisme, and our spirituall meate and foode

is set foorth in the holy Cōmunion & supper of the Lorde. And because our sightes bee so feble that we cannot see the spiritual water wherwith we be washed in baptisme, nor the spiritual meat wherwith we be fedde at the Lordes table, ther∣fore to healpe oure infirmities, and to make vs the better to see the same with a pure fayth, our sauiour Christ hath set furth the same, as it were before our eyes, by sensible signes and tokens, whiche we be daily vsed and accustomed vnto.

And because the common custome of men is to washe in water, therfore our spiritual regene∣ration in Christe, or spirituall washyng in his blud, is declared vnto vs in baptisme by water. Lykewise oure spiritual norishement & feadyng in Christ, is sette before oure eyes by bread and wyne, because they be meates and drynkes whi∣che chiefly and vsually we be fedde withal, that as they feade the body, so doth Christe with his fleshe and bloud spiritually feade the soule.

And therefore the bread and wyne bee called examples of Christes fleshe and bloud, and also they be called his very fleshe and blode, to signi¦fie vnto vs, that as they feade vs carnally, so do they admonishe vs that Christe with his fleshe and bloud doth feade vs spiritually, and moste truely vnto euerlastyng life.

And as almyghty God by his moste myghty worde and his hollye spirite and infinite power brought forth all creatures in the begynnyng, and euer sithens hath preserued theym, euen

so by the same worde and power he woorketh in vs from time to tyme this meruailous spiritual generation & wonderfull spirituall norishment & feedyng, which is wrought onely by God, and is comprehended and receiued of vs by fayth.

And as bread and drynke by natural norishe∣ment be chaunged into a mannes body, and yet the body is not chaunged, but the same that it was before: so although the bread and wyne be sacramentally chaunged into Christes body, yet his body is the same and in the same place that it was before, that is to say, in heauen, without any alteracion of the same.

And the bread and wyne bee not so chaunged into the fleshe and bloud of Christ, that they bee made one nature, but they remayne styll distinct in nature, so that the bread in it selfe is not his fleshe, & the wyne his bloud, but vnto them that worthely eate and drinke the bread and wyne, to them the bread and wyne be his flesh and bloud, that is to say, by thynges naturall and whiche they be accustomed vnto, they bee exalted vnto thynges aboue nature. For y^• sacramental bread and wyne be not base and naked figures, but so pithy and effectuous, that whosoeuer worthely eateth them, eateth spiritually Christes fleshe and bloud, and hath by them euerlastyng life.

Wherfore, whosoeuer cōmeth to the Lordes table, must come with all humilitee, feare, reue∣rence and puritie of life, as to receiue not onely bread and wyne, but also our sauior Christ, both

God and man, with al his benefites, to the relief and sustētacion both of their bodies and soules.

This is briefly the summe and true meanyng of Damascene, concernyng this matter.

Wherfore they that gather of hym, either the natural presence of Christes body in the sacra∣mētes of bread and wyne, or the adoration of the outward and visible sacrament, or that after the cōsecracion there remayneth no bread nor wyne nor other substaunce but onely the substaunce of the body and bloude of Christe: eyther they vn∣derstand not Damascen, or els of wilful froward¦nes they wyll not vnderstande hym: whyche ra∣ther seemeth to bee true, by suche collections as they haue vniustly gathered & noted out of him.

For although he say, that Christe is the spiri∣tuall meate, yet as in baptisme the holy ghost is not in the water, but in hym that is vnfaynedly baptised: so Damascene ment not y^t Christ is in the bread, but in hym y^t worthily eateth the bred.

And though he say that the bread is Christes body, and the wyne his bloud, yet he mente not that the bread considered in it selfe, or the wyne in it selfe, beyng not receyued, is his fleshe and bloud: but to suche as by vnfayned faith woor∣thely receyue the breade and wyne, to suche the breade and wyne, are called by Damascene the body and bloude of Christe, bycause that suche persons, through the workyng of the holy gost, be so knytte and vnited spirituallye to Christes fleshe and bloude, and to his diuinitee also, that

they bee fedde with them vnto euerlastyng life.

Furthermore Damascene sayeth not that the sacrament should be worshipped and adored, as the Papistes terme it (whiche is playne ydola∣trye) but we must worship Christ God and man. And yet we may not worship him in bread and wyne, but sittyng in heauen with his father, and beyng spiritually within our selues.

Nor he sayeth not, that there remayneth no bread nor wyne, nor none other substaunce, but onely the substaunce of the body and bloud of Christe: but he sayeth playnely, that as a bur∣nyng coale is not wodde onely, but fyre & wodde ioyned together. so the bread of the Cōmunion is not bread onely, but bread ioyned to the di∣uinitee. But those that say, that there is none other substance but the substāce of the body and bloud of Christe, doo not onely denye that there is bread and wyne, but by force they must denye also, that there is either Christes diuinitee or his soule. For if the fleshe and bloud, the soule and diuinitee of Christe bee foure substances, and in the sacrament be but two of them, that is to say, his fleshe and bloud, than where be his soule and diuinitee? And thus these men diuide Iesus, separatyng his diuinitee from his hu∣manitee. Of whom sainct Ihon sayeth,

* 1.43 Whoso¦euer diuideth Iesus, is not of God, but he is Antichrist.

And moreouer these men do so separate Chri∣stes body from his membres in the sacrament,

that they leaue hym no mans body at all. For as Damascene saith,* 1.44 that the distinction of membres pertayne so muche to the nature of a mannes body, that where there is no suche distin∣ction, there is no perfecte mans body.

But by these Papistes doctrine, there is no suche distinction of membres in the sacramente, for eyther there is no head, fete, handes, armes, legges, mouthe, eyes, and nose at all: or elles all is heade, all feete, all handes, all armes, all legges, all mouthe, all eyes, and all nose. And so they make of Christes body, no mannes bo∣dye at all.

Thus beynge confuted the Papistes errours as well concernyng Transubstantiation, as the reall, corporall and natural presence of Christ in the sacrament, whiche were two principall poin∣tes purposed in the begynnyng of this woorke. Nowe it is tyme som thyng to speke of the third errour of the Papistes, whyche is concer∣nynge the eatynge of CHRISTES very bodye and drynkyng of his bloude.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Cha. 14.
• * 1.2

  One br••fe answere to all.
• * 1.3

  The an¦swere to Clemens Epistol 2.
• * 1.4

  Ignatius in Epistola ad Ephesianos Irenaeus Lib 5. cōtra Valentin.
• * 1.5

  The an¦swere to Dionysius de eccle. Hierarch. cap. 3.
• * 1.6

  The aun¦swere to Tertullanus de resure••∣ctiōe carnis.
• * 1.7

  The aun∣swere to Origenes in Numer. Homi. 7.
• * 1.8

  In Leuit. hom. 7.
• * 1.9

  The aun∣swere to Cyprianus lib. 2. epist. 3
• * 1.10

  Gen. 9. Gen. 14.
• * 1.11

  The aun∣swere to Hylarius. 8. •••• trinitate
• * 1.12

  The an∣swere to Cyrillus.
• * 1.13

  1. Cor. 6.
• * 1.14

  Iohn. 6.
• * 1.15

  Ihon. 15.
• * 1.16

  Colloss. 2.
• * 1.17

  In Iohā. līb. 4. cap. 17
• * 1.18

  An athema••tismo. 11.
• * 1.19

  In Iohā. Lib 4. Cap. ••7.
• * 1.20

  Basilius. Nissenus & Nazianze∣nus.
• * 1.21

  The aun∣swere to E¦missenus.
• * 1.22

  The aun∣swere to Ambrosius de sacramē¦tis libro. 4. cap. 4.
• * 1.23

  Consecrati¦on.
• * 1.24

  De eccl Hie rar. cap. 3.
• * 1.25

  Math. 26 Mat. 14. Luc. 22.
• * 1.26

  De his qui mysterijs ini ciātur ca. ul.
• * 1.27

  De sacramē¦tis libro. 5. cap. 4.
• * 1.28

  De sacramē¦tis lib. 6. ca. 1.
• * 1.29

  The aun∣swere to Chrysosto¦mus.
• * 1.30

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 sermone de Eucha∣ristia in Encaenijs.
• * 1.31

  De••••rdi∣tione Iudae.
• * 1.32

  Genes. 1.
• * 1.33

  Math. 26 Marc. 14 Luc. 22.
• * 1.34

  Genes. 1.
• * 1.35

  Math. 26 Marc. 14 Luc. 22.
• * 1.36

  Ad populū Antiochenū hom. 61. & in Ioannem hom. 45.
• * 1.37

  The aun∣swere to Theophi∣lactus in Mat. 14.
• * 1.38

  Iohn. 6.
• * 1.39

  The aun¦swere to Hierony∣mus super Epistoad Titum.
• * 1.40

  Augustinus Sedulius.
• * 1.41

  Leo. Fulgentius. Cassiodorus Gregorius.
• * 1.42

  Damasce∣nus de fide orth. lib. 4. cap. 14.
• * 1.43

  Ioh. 4.
• * 1.44

  In librode duabus in Christo v••••l••ntatibus▪