Whole Works — William Tyndale

Whole Works · William Tyndale

¶ The mynde and expoſition of the old Doctours vppon the wordes of Chriſtes maundey.

More.ANd where M. More ſayth, that if Chriſte had not ment after the plaine literal ſece, that both the hearers at that tyme, and the expoſitours ſince, and all Chriſtē people beſide this xv. c. yeare would not hauehave taken onelyonly the litterall ſence beyng ſo ſtraunge and maruelous that it might ſeme impoſsible, & decline from the letter for allegories in all ſuch other thynges beyng (as hee ſayth) and as in deede they be, ſo many farre in nomber mo.

As touchyng y^e hearers they were Frith.deceiued and vnderſtode him not (I meane as many as tooke his wordes fleſhly as you do.) And they had their aunſwere of Chriſt (when they murmured) that his wordes were ſpirite and lyfe: that is (as S. Auſten ſayth) ſpiritually to bee vnderſtand and not fleſhly, as is before declared. And as for the expoſitours. I thinke he hath not one of the old fathers for him, but certaine new felowes: as Dominie. S. Thomas, Decam, and ſuch other More hath no olde author to maintaine hys quareling Papiſtry.whiche hauehave made the Pope a God. And as I hauehave ſhewed. S. Auſten maketh full for vsus, and ſo do all the old fathers, as Occolāpadius hath well declared in his booke, Quid veteres ſenſerint de Sacramēto euchariſtiae. And ſome of their ſayinges I ſhall alledge anone. And where you ſay that all Chriſten people hauehave ſo beleued this 1500. yeares, that is very falſe. For there is no doubt, but that the people thought as holy S. Auſten and other faithful fathers taught them. Which as I ſaid, make with vsus. Notwithſtā dyng in déede, ſith our Prelates hauehave bene made Lordes and hauehave ſet vp their lawes and decrées contrary to the prerogatiue of all Princes, & lyke moſt ſutle traytours, hauehave made all mē beleue that they may make lawes and bynde mens conſciences, to obey them: and that their lawes are Gods lawes blindyng y^e peoples eyes with The Papiſtes hauehave corrupted the Scriptures and aduaunced them ſelues aboue Kinges and rulers.two or thrée textes wrongfully wreſted, to aduaunce their pride, where they ought to obey Kyngs and Princes, and be ſubiect to their lawes, as Chriſt and his Apoſtles were euē vntounto y^e death. Sith that tyme I ſay they hauehave made men beleue what they liſt and made articles of the faith at their pleaſure. One article muſt be y^e they be the Church, and can not erre: And this is the grounde of all their doctrine. But the truth of this article is nowe ſufficiently knowen. For if Quéene Katherine be kyng Henries wife, then they do erre, and if ſhe be not, then they hauehave erred, to ſpeake no more cruelly: It is now become an article of our fayth y^e the Pope of Articles of our fayth made by the Pope.Rome muſt be y^• head of y^e Church & the Ʋicare of Chriſt: & that by Gods law. It is an article of our fayth that what ſoeuer hee byndeth in earth, is bounde in heauen, in ſo much that if he curſe wrongfully, yet ye muſt be feared, and infinite ſuch other which are not in our Crede, but bleſſed bee God that hath geuen ſome light into our Princes hart. For he hath lately put foorth a booke called the glaſſe of truth, whiche proueth many of theſe articles very fooliſhe phantaſies and that euen by their owne Doctours, & ſo I truſt you ſhalbe proued in this poynt of the Sacrament for though it To beleue the articles contayned in our crede is ſufficient for our ſaluation.be an article of our fayth it is no article of our Crede in y^e xij. articles wher of are ſufficient for our ſaluatiō. And therefore we may thinke that you lye without all ieoperdye of damnation.

Neuertheleſſe ſeing his maſterſhip ſaith that all make for him, and I ſay cleane contrarie, that all the olde fathers make againſt him, or at the leſt wiſe not with him, It were neceſſary that one of vsus ſhould proue his purpoſe. But indeede in this poynt he would loke to hauehave the vauntage of me. For he thinketh that men will ſoner Frith allegeth authorities to proue hys doctrine true.beleue hym which is a great man then me which am but a poore man, and that therfore I had more néede to proue my part true, then he to proue his. Well I am content and therfore geue eare (deare reader) and Iudge betwéene vsus.

Firſt I wil begin with Tertulian, Tertul. lib. 2. contra Marcionē.becauſe he is of moſt antiquitie. Tertulian ſpeakyng of Chriſt, ſayth: Nec panem reprobauit quo ipſum corpus ſuum repreſentat. That is to ſay. Chriſt him ſelfe did not reproue or diſcommend bread whereby he doth repreſent hys very body. For the vnderſtandyng of thys place, you muſt knowe that there was an hereticke called Marcion, which dyd reproue creatures, and ſaid that all maner of creatures were euill. Thys thyng doth Tertulian improue by the Sacrament and ſayth: Chriſt dyd not reproue or diſcōmend bread whereby he doth repreſent hys body: as though he ſhoulde ſaye, if Chriſt had counted the bread euill, then woulde he not hauehave left it for a Sacrament to repreſent hys body, meaning that it is a ſacrament, ſigne, token and memoriall of hys body, and not the body it ſelfe. And that thys is hys minde, doth playnly appeare in hys fourth booke, where hée ſayth: Tertul. lib. 4. contra Marcionē.Christus acceptum panem & distributū diſcipulis, corpus ſuum illud fecit: hoc eſt corpus meum dicendo, id eſt, figura corporis mei figura autem non fuiſſet, niſi veritatis eſſet corpus. Caeterum vacuares quod eſt phantaſma, figuram capere non poſſet. That is to ſay: Chriſt taking bread and diſtributing vntounto hys diſciples made it hys body, ſaying: thys is my body, that is to ſay, a figure of This is my body, that is to ſay, a figure of my body.my bodye, but thys bread coulde not hauehave bene a figure of it, except Chriſt had had a true bodye. For a vaine thyng or a phantaſie can take no figure. For the vnderſtāding of thys place, you muſt marke that thys hereticke Marcion, agaynſt whom thys author writeth, dyd hold opinion that Chriſt had no naturall body, but only a phantaſticall body, and thys opinion doth thys Doctor improue by the ſacramēt of y^e altar, ſaying: the ſacrament is a figure of hys body: ergo, Chriſt had a true body, and not a phā taſticall bodie: For a vaine thing or phantaſie cā take no figure, Lo, here doth this olde father which was long before S. Auſten: or S. Hierome, expound theſe wordes of Chriſt This is my body: that is to ſay, a figure of my body therfore you are to blame to call it new learning. Now becauſe they ſhall not of temerarious preſumption reiecte this olde father, I ſhall eſtabliſhe his wordes by S. Auſtē which commendeth Chriſtes merue. lous pacience for ſuffering ſo long y^e traitor Iudas, as though he had bene a good man, and yet was not ignorant of his wicked thoughtes. Adhibuit (inquit) ad conuiuium in quo corporis August. in prafa. Pſal. 3.& ſanguinis ſui figuram diſcipulis commendauit ac tradidit. That is to ſay he admitted hym (ſayth S. Auſtē) vntounto the maundye wherein he did be take and deliuer vntounto the diſciples y^e figure of his body and bloud, Here doth this holy father S. Auſten call it a figure of his body. And I am ſure Chriſt deliuered to his deſciples the figure of hys body.there is no man ſo childiſhe, but that he knoweth that the figure of a thing is not the thing it ſelfe. As by example the figure of Chriſt is not Chriſt hym ſelfe, the figure of S. Peter is not S. Peter him ſelfe. And yet we do neuertheleſſe cōmonly call thoſe figures by the name of the thing that they do repreſent. As I may ſay when I ſée y^e figure of S. Peter, this is S. Peter to whom Chriſt deliuered y^e keyes of the kingdome of heauen. And yet he were a foole that would thinke that figure to be S. Peter him ſelfe: for it is only a repreſētatiō of him. Beſides that S. Auſten ſayth, Non hoc corpus quod videtis eſtis manducaturi, nec bibituri August. ſuper Pſal. 98.illum ſanguinem quem effuſuri ſunt qui me crucifigent. Sacramentū aliquod vobis commendaui, ſpiritualiter intellectum viuificat vos. That is to ſay, you ſhall not eate this body that you ſee, nor drinke that bloud which they that crucifie me ſhall ſhed out. I hauehave geuen a certayne ſacrament vntounto you if it be ſpiritually vnderſtād it quickeneth you: What thinges can bee more playnly ſpoken?

Furthermore S. Auſten ſayth. Sepe S. Auſten ad Bonifaciū, Epist. 23.it a loquimu… vt paſcha appropinquāte craſtinam vel perendinam Domini paſſionem dicamus: cum ille ante tam multos annos paſſus ſit, nec omnino niſi ſemel illa paſsio facta ſit. Nempe ipſo die dominico dicimus bodie Dominus reſurrexit, cum ex quo ſurrexit tot anni tranſierunt. Quare nemo tam ineptus eſt, vt nos it a loquentes arguat eſſe mentitos, quia iſtos dies ſecundum illorum quibus haec geſt a ſunt ſimilitudinem nuncupamus: vt dicatur ipſe dies qui non ſit ipſe, ſed reuolutione temporum ſimilis eius: & dicatur illo die fieri propter Sacramenti celebrationem, quod nō illo die, ſed iam olim factū est. Nonne ſemel immolatus eſt Chriſtus in ſcipſo? & tamen in Sacramento nō ſolum per annuas paſcha ſolennitates, ſed omni die pro populis immolatur: nec vti que mentitur qui interrogatus, reſponderit eū immolari. Si enim Sacramenta quādam ſimilitudinē earū rerū quarū ſunt Sacramenta non haberent, omnino Sacramēta non eſſent. Ex hac autem ſimilitudine plerū que etiam ipſarū rerū nomina accipiunt. Sicut ergo ſecundū quendam modū Sacra mentū corporis Chriſti corpus Chriſti eſt, & Sacramentum ſanguinis Chriſti ſanguis Chriſti eſt. It a Sacramentum fidei ſides est. Nihileſt autem aliud credere, q fidem habere, ac per hoc eum respōdetur paruulus credere, qui fidei nō dum habet effectum reſpondetur fidem habere propter fidei Sacramentum, et conuertere ſe ad Deum propter conuerſionis Sacramentum. Quia & ipſa reſponſio pertinet ad celebrationem Sacramenti. Sicut de ipſo Baptiſmo apoſtolus conſepulti (inquit) ſu mus Christo per Baptiſmum in mortem. Non ait ſepulturam ſignificamus, ſed prorſus ait, conſepulti ſumus. Sacramentū ergo tantae rei non niſi eiuſdem rei vocabulo nuncupauit. That is to ſay: We often vſe to ſay, when Caſter draweth nye, that to morow or the next day is the Lordes paſſion, and yet it is many yeares ſith he ſuffered, and that paſſiō was neuer done but once. And vppon that Sonday we ſay, this day the Lorde dyd riſe agayne, and yet it is many yeares ſince hee roſe. Now is there no man ſo fooliſh to reproue vsus as lyers for ſo ſaying, becauſe we name theſe dayes after the ſimilitude of thoſe in whiche theſe thynges were done ſo that it is called the ſame day, whiche is not the very ſame, but by the reuolution of tyme, like it. And it is named to be done the ſame day through the celebration of the Sacrament (through kéepyng the memoriall of the thyng once done) whiche is not done that day, but was The ſacrament is the memoriall of Chriſtes death.done lōg agone. Was not Chriſt once crucified in his owne perſon? and yet in a myſterye (whiche is the remembraunce of his very paſſion) he is crucified for the people not onelyonly eueryevery feaſt of Eaſter, but eueryevery day: neither doth he lye which (when he is aſked) aunſwereth that he is crucified: for if the Sacramentes, had not certayne ſimilitudes of thoſe thynges whereof they are Sacramentes, then ſhould they be no Sacraments at all. And for this ſimilitude for the moſt part they take the names of the very thynges, and therefore as after a certaine maner the Sacrament of The ſacrament of Chriſtes body and bloud, after a maner, is Chriſtes body and bloud.Chriſtes body is Chriſtes body, and the Sacrament of Chriſtes bloud is Chriſtes bloud, ſo the Sacrament of fayth is faith. For it is no other thing to beleue then to hauehave fayth, and therfore when a mā aunſwereth that the infant beleueth which hath not the effect of fayth, he aūſwereth that it hath fayth for the Sacramēt of fayth: And that it turneth it ſelfe to God, for the Sacrament of conuertion. For the aunſwere it ſelfe perteineth vntounto the miniſtryng of the Sacrament. As the Apoſtle writeth of Baptiſme: we are buried (ſayth he) with Chriſt through Baptiſme vntounto death. He ſayth not we ſignifie burying, but vtterly ſayth we are buryed. He called therfore the Sacrament of ſo great a thyng euen with the name of y^t very thing it ſelfe. &c. If a man would auoyde cōtention and looke ſoberly on thoſe woordes of S. Auſten, hee ſhall ſoone perceiue the myſtery of this matter. For euen as the next good Friday ſhalbe called the Good Friday next is called the day that Chriſt ſuffered hys paſſion, and yet it is not ſo, for that good Friday is paſt lōg ſ…hens.day of Chriſtes paſſion: & yet he ſhall not ſuffer death agayne vponupon that day for hee dyed but once and is now immortall: euen ſo is the Sacramēt called Chriſtes body. And as that day is not the very day that he dyed on, but onelyonly a remembraūce thereof: ſo the Sacrament is not his very naturall body, but onelyonly a remembraunce of his body breakyng, & bloud ſheddyng. And likewiſe, as the next Eaſter day ſhalbe called the day of his reſurrection, not that it is the very ſame day that Chriſt dyd riſe in, but a remembraunce of the ſame: euen ſo the Sacrament is called his body: not that it is his body in déede, but onelyonly a remē braūce of the ſame. And furthermore, euē as the Prieſt doth offer hym, that is to ſay crucifie hym at Maſſe, euē ſo is the Sacrament his body. But the Maſſe doth but onelyonly repreſent hys Frith writeth of the Maſſe according to the cōmon opiniō that was at that time.paſſion. And ſo doth the Sacrament repreſent his body. And yet though the Maſſe doth but repreſent his crucifying, we may truly ſay he is crucified, euen ſo though the Sacramēt do but ſignifie or repreſent his body, yet may we truly ſay that it is his body. Why ſo? verely (ſayth he) for the Sacramentes hauehave a certaine ſimilitude of thoſe thinges wherof they are Sacraments. And for this ſimilitude for the moſt part, they take the names of the very thynges. Bleſſed be God whiche hath ſo clearely diſcuſſed this matter by this faythfull father. Notwithſtandyng hée doth yet expreſſe it more playnly ſaying: after a certaine maner, the Sacramēt of Chriſtes body is Chriſtes body. Behold deare After a certaine maner the Sacrament of Chriſtes bodye is Chriſtes body.brethren he ſayth after a certaine maner the Sacrament is Chriſtes body. And by that you may ſoone know that he neuer ment that it ſhould be his very naturall body in déede, but onelyonly a token and memoriall to kéepe in memorie the death of his body, and ſo to noriſhe our fayth. Beſides that his ſimilitude which he after alledgeth of Baptiſme, doth wholy expound this matter, for (ſayth hée) y^e Apoſtle ſayth not we ſignifie burying: but he ſayth, we are buryed (and yet in déede the Baptiſme doth but ſignifie it.) And thereupon S. Auſten addeth, that hée called the Sacrament of ſo great a thyng euen with the name of the very thyng it ſelfe. And lykewiſe it is in our Sacrament. Finally to be ſhort I will paſſe ouer many places which I hauehave gathered out of his holy father, and will touch but this one more. S. Auſten ſayth. Non enim Dominus dubitauit dicere, Hoc eſt corpus meum, cum Auguſt. contra Adamā tum. cap. 12daret ſignum corporis ſui. Et in eodem capite exponit. Sic eſt enim ſanguis anima, quomodo petra erat Christus, nec tamen petra (ait) ſignificabat Chriſtum, ſed ait petra erat Chriſtus. That is to ſay. The Lord doubted not to ſay, this is my body, when he gaue a ſigne of his Chriſte gaue to his Diſciples the ſigne of his body.body. And after in the ſame chapiter he expoundeth it. For truly ſo the bloud is ſoule, as Chriſt was y^e ſtone. And yet the Apoſtle ſayth not, the ſtone dyd ſignifie Chriſt, but he ſayth the ſtone was Chriſt.

Here. S. Auſten ſayth playnely that Chriſt called the ſigne of his body, his body, and in this chapter doth cōpare theſe thrée textes of ſcripture, this is my body, the bloud is the ſoule, and Chriſt was the ſtone: and declareth them to be one phraſe and to be expounded after one faſſhion. Now is there no man ſo mad, as to ſay, that Chriſt was a naturall ſtone (except he be a naturall foole) whoſe iudgment we nede not greatly to regard therfore we may well conclude that the ſacrament is not his naturall body, but is cauled his body, for a ſimilitude that it hath wherein it ſignifieth & repreſenteth his body. And that the ſacrament of ſo great a thing is called euen with the name of the very thing it ſelfe, as S. Auſten ſayd immediately before.

This were proufe inough to conclude that all y^e olde fathers did holde the ſame opiniō, for who would once ſurmiſe (ſeing we hauehave S. Auſten ſo playne for vsus which is the chiefeſt among them all) who would once ſur miſe I ſay, that he diſſented in this great mattter from the other faythful fathers, or they from him? neuertheleſſe I dare not let him ſtand poſt alone, leſt ye diſpiſe him. And therfore I will ſhew you y^e minde of certaine other alſo: and firſt of his maiſter S. Ambroſe.

S. Ambroſe wrighting vponupon the Epiſtle of Paule to the Corinthians Ambroſi: ſuper illud mortem domini annū …ia.in the xi. chapter ſayth. Quia enim morte Domini liberati ſumus huius rei memoris in edendo & potando, carnem & ſanguinem que pro nobis oblata ſunt ſignificamus. That is to ſay, becauſe we be deliuered by the death of the Lord being mindfull of this thinge, meaning of the ſacrament, we ſignyfie …he fleſhe and bloud which were offered for vsus. Here doth S. Ambroſe ſay inough if mē were not ſophiſters, but would be content with reaſon. For he ſayth that in eating and drinking the ſacrament of Chriſtes body, we ſignifie or repreſent the fleſh and bloud of our Sauiour Ieſus. Not withſtanding becauſe you are ſo ſlippery, we ſhall bynde you a lytle better by this mans wordes.

S. Ambroſe ſayth. Sed forte dices ſpeciem ſanguinis non video. Sed habet Ambroſi. de ſacra. Lib. 4 Cap. 4.ſimilitudinis Sicut enim mortis ſimilitudinem ſumpſiſti, ita etiam ſimilitudinem precioſi ſanguinis bibis. That is to ſay But peraduenture thou wilt ſay. I ſene appearaunce of bloud, but it hath a ſimilitude. For euen as thou haſt taken the ſimilitude of death, euen ſo thou drinkeſt the ſimilitude of the precious bloud. Here may you ſee by y^e conferring of theſe two ſacramentes, What. S. Ambroſe iudged of it For he ſayth euen as thou haſt taken a ſimilitude of his death in the ſacramēt of baptiſme, ſo dooſt thou drink a ſimilitude of his precious bloud in the ſacrament of the altar. And yet as S. Auſten ſayd before, the Apoſtle ſayth not we ſignifie burning, but ſayth, we are buried. And likewiſe here Chriſt ſayd not this ſignifieth my body, but this is my body, calling the ſacrament, ſigne, token and memoriall of ſo great a thing, euen with y^e name of the very thing it ſelfe, thus doth S. Ambroſe choke our ſophiſters. Neuertheleſſe I will alleage one place more out of S. Ambroſe, where he Ambroſi. Libro. 4. de Sacramen. Cap. 5.ſaith. Dicit ſacerdos, fac nobis inquit hanc oblationē ſcriptā rationabilē, quod eſt figura corporis Domini noſtri Ieſu Chriſti. That is, y^e Prieſt ſayth make vsus this oblation acceptable. &c. For it is a figure of the body of our Lord The Sacrament is a figure of Chriſtes body.Ieſu Chriſt. Here he cauleth it plainly a figure of Chriſtes body, which thing you can not auoyde. Therfore geue prayſe vntounto God & let his truth ſprede which is ſo plainely teſtified, by theſe holy fathers. Now let vsus ſee what S. Hierome ſayth.

S. Hierome writyng vponupon Eccleſiaſte, ſayth on thys maner: Caro Domini Hieroni. ſuper eccle. Cap. 3.verus cibus est, & ſanguis eius verus potus eſt, hoc ſolum habemus in praeſenti ſaeculo bonū, ſi veſcamur carne eius cruore que potemur, non ſolum in mysterio, ſed …tiam in ſcripturarum lectione, verus enim cibus & potus, qui ex verbo dei ſumitur ſcientia ſcripturarum est. That is to ſay. The fleſh of the Lord is very meate, & hys bloud is very drinke. This is onelyonly the pleaſure or profite that we hauehave in thys worlde, that we may eate hys fleſhe and drinke hys bloud, not onelyonly in a myſterye, but alſo in the readyng of Scriptures. For the very meate and drink, which is taken out of Gods worde, is the knowledge of Scriptures. Here may ye ſée Saint Hieromes minde in few wordes. For firſt he ſayth, that we eate hys fleſhe and drinke hys bloud in a myſterye, which is the ſacrament of hys remembraunce and memoriall We eate the very fleſh of Chriſt & drinke hys bloud in a myſtery.of hys paſſion. And after he addeth that we eate hys fleſh and drinke hys bloud in the reading and knowledge of Scriptures, and calleth that very meate and very drinke. And yet I am ſure ye are not ſo groſſe, as to thinke that the letters which you read are turned into naturall fleſhe and bloud. And likewiſe it is not neceſſary that the bread ſhoulde be turned into hys body, no more then y^e letters in ſcripture are turned into hys fleſhe. And neuertheleſſe through …ayth we may as well eate hys body in receauing of the ſacrament, as eate hys fleſhe in reading of the letters of the Scripture. Beſides that S. Hierome calleth the vnderſtanding of the Scripture very meate and very drinke: which you muſt néedes vnderſtand in a myſtery The vnderunder ſtandyng of the Scripture is very meate & very drinkeand ſpirituall ſenſe, for it is neither materiall meate nor drinke that is receaued with the mouth and téeth, but it is ſpirituall meate and drinke, and is ſo called for a ſimilitude & propertie: becauſe that as meate and drink comfort the body and outward man, ſo doth the readyng and knowledge of Scripture comfort the ſoule and inward man. And likewiſe it is of Chriſtes body, which is called very meate and very drinke, which you muſt néedes vnderſtand in a myſterye or ſpirituall ſenſe (as S. Hierome called it) Chriſtes body is no materiall meate or drinke.for hys body is no materiall meate nor drinke that is receaued with the mouth or téeth, but it is ſpirituall meate and drinke, and ſo called for a ſimilitude and propertie, becauſe that as meate and drinke comforteth the body, ſo doth the fayth in hys body breaking and bloudſheding, refreſhe the ſoule vntounto lyfe euerlaſtyng. We vſe it cuſtomably in our dayly ſpeach to ſay, when a childe ſetteth all hys mynde and delight on ſport & playe: It is meate and drinke to thys childe to playe. And alſo we ſay by a mā that loueth well hawking and hunting: it is meate and drinke to this man to hawke & hunt. Where no man doubteth, but it is a figuratiue ſpeach. And therefore I wonder that they are ſo blinde in thys one poynt, of Chriſtes body: and can not alſo take the wordes figuratiuely, as theſe olde Doctors dyd. Agayne S. Hierome ſayth. Postq mysticum paſcha fuerat impletum & agni carnes cum Apostolis comederat, aſſumit panem qui comfortat cor hominis, & ad verum paſchae Hieronimus ſuper. Math. 26.tranſgreditur ſacramentum, vt quomodo in praefiguratione eius Melchiſedech ſummi Dei ſacerdos, vinum & panem offerens fecerat, ipſe quoquè viritatem corporis & ſanguinis repraeſentaret. That is to ſay. After the myſtical Eaſter Lambe fulfilled, and that Chriſt had eaten the Lambes fleſhe with the Apoſtles, he tooke bread which comforteth the hart of man, and paſſeth to the true ſacrament of the Eaſter Lābe: that as Melchiſedech brought forth bread and wyne figuryng hym, ſo might he likewyſe repreſent the truth of hys body and bloud. Here doth S. Hierome ſpeake after the maner that Tertullian dyd before: that Chriſt with bread and wyne dyd repreſent the truth of hys body. For except Where there is no true body there can beno figure of the ſame.he had had a true body, he coulde not leaue a figure of it, nor repreſent it vntounto vsus. For a vayne thyng or phā taſie can hauehave no figure, nor can not be repreſented: as by example, how ſhould a man make a figure of hys dreame or repreſent it vntounto our memorye? But Chriſt hath left vsus a figure and repreſentation of hys bodye in bread and wyne: therefore it followeth that he had a true bodye. And that this was S. Hieromes mynde it doth manifeſtly appeare by y^e words of Beda, which doth more copiouſly ſet out thys ſaying of Hierome. For Beda ſuper. Luke. 22.he writeth on thys maner: Finitis paſchae veteris ſolennijs quae in commemorationem antique de Aegypto liberationis agebantur, tranſit ad nouum quod in ſuae redemptionis memoriam Eccleſia frequentare deſiderat, vt videlicet pro carne agni vel ſanguine, ſuae carnis ſanguiniſ que ſacramentum in panis ac vini figura ſubstituens, ipſum ſe eſſe monstraret cui inrauit Dominus & non poenitebit eum: Tu es ſacerdos in aeternum ſecundum ordinem Melchiſedech. Frangit autēipſe panem quem porrigit, vt ostendat corporis ſui fractionem nō ſine ſua ſponte futuram. &c. Et paulò poſt. Similiter & calicem poſtquam coenauit dedit eis. Quia ergo panis carnem confirmat, vinum vero ſanguinem operatur in carne, hic ad corpus Christi myſtice, illud refertur ad ſanguinem. That is to ſay. After the ſolemnitie of the olde Eaſter Lambe was finiſhed (which was obſerued in the remembraunce of the olde deliueraunce out of Egypt) he goeth vntounto the new which the Church gladly obſerueth in the remembraunce of hys redemption, that he in the ſtead of the fleſhe and bloud of the Lambe, might inſtitute and ordayne the Sacrament of hys fleſhe and bloud in the figure of bread and wyne, and ſo declare hym ſelfe to be the ſame vntounto whom the Lord ſware and will not repent, thou art a perpetuall Prieſt after the order of Melchiſedech. And he hym ſelfe brake the bread which hee gaue, to ſhewe that the breakyng of hys body ſhould not be done without hys own will. &c. And a little after. And lykewyſe he gaue them the cuppe after he had ſupped. And becauſe bread doth Bread and wi…e is miſtically referred to the body & bloud of Chriſt.confirme or ſtrength the fleſhe, and wyne worketh bloude in the fleſhe, therefore is the bread myſtically referred vntounto the bodye of Chriſt, and the wyne referred vntounto hys bloud.

Here may you note, firſt that as the Lambe was a remembraunce of theyr deliueraunce out of Egypt (and yet the Lambe deliuered them not) ſo is the Sacrament a remembrance of our redemption (and yet the Sacrament redéemed vsus not). Beſides that he ſayth, that Chriſt in the ſtead of the fleſhe and bloud of the Lambe, dyd inſtitute the Sacrament of hys fleſh and bloud in figure of bread and wyne. Marke well, he ſayth not that in the ſtead of Lambes fleſhe & bloud he dyd inſtitute hys owne fleſhe and bloud, but ſayth that he dyd inſtitute the Sacrament of hys fleſhe & bloud. What thyng is a Sacrament: verely A Sacrament what it is?it is the ſigne of an holy thyng, and there is no differēce betwene a ſigne and a Sacrament, but that the ſigne is referred vntounto a worldly thyng, and a Sacrament vntounto a ſpirituall or holy thyng: as S. Auſten ſayth: Signa Ad Marcellum(cum ad res dininas pertinēt) ſacramenta appellantur: That is to ſay: Signes when they pertain vntounto godly things are called ſacramentes. Therefore when Beda ſayth, that they did inſtitute the ſacrament of hys fleſhe and bloud in the figure of bread & wyne it is as much to ſay (by S. Auſtens definition) as that he dyd inſtitute the figure of hys holy ſleſhe and bloud in the figure of bread and wyne, that is to ſay, that bread and wyne ſhoulde Bread and wyne repreſent vntounto vsus the fleſh and bloud of Chriſt.be the figure and ſigne repreſentyng hys holy fleſhe and bloud vntounto vsus, for a perpetuall remembrance. And afterwarde hee declareth the propertie for which the bread is called the body and the wyne the bloud: ſauyng hée ſpeaketh not ſo darkely as I now do, but plainly ſaith, that the bread is myſtically referred vntounto the bodye of Chriſt: becauſe that as bread doth ſtrength the fleſhe, ſo Chriſtes bodye whiche is figured by the bread doth ſtrength y^t ſoule through fayth in hys death. And ſo doth he clerely proue my purpoſe.

Now let vsus ſée what Chriſoſtome Chriſoſto. ſuper. Math. 26.ſayth which ſhall deſcribe vsus the faith of the ould grecyās and (I doubt not) he had not loſt the true fayth, how ſo euer the world goo now a dayes. Chriſoſtome ſayth in this manner. Si enim mortuus Ieſus non eſt, cuius ſignum et ſimbolum hoc ſacrificium eſt? vides quantū ei ſtudiū fuerit vt ſemper memoria teneamus pro nobis ipſū mortuū fuiſſe That is to ſay, for if Ieſus hauehave not died, whoſe memoriall and ſigne is y^t ſacrifice? Thou ſéeſt what diligence he gaue that we ſhould continuallye kéepe in memory that he died for vsus. Here you may ſée that Chriſoſtome calleth the Sacramēt ſimbolū & ſignū: that is to ſay, a memoriall & ſigne of Chriſte, and that it was inſtitute to kéepe his death in perpetuall remembraunce. But of one thing thou muſt beware or els thou art deceiued, he calleth it alſo a ſacrifice, and there thou muſt wiſely vnderſtād hym. For Sacrifice.if it were the ſacrifice of Chriſtes body, thē muſt Chriſtes body be ſlayne there agayne, which thing God forbyd. And therfore thou muſt vnderſtand him when he calleth it a ſacrifice, that he meaneth it to be a remē braunce of that holy ſacrifice where Chriſtes body was offered on y^e croſſe once for all: For he can be ſacrifiſed no more, ſeing he is immortall. Notwithſtanding our prelates will heare Chriſtes body a ſacrifice offered on the croſſe once for all.note me of preſumption, that I dare bee ſo bolde to expound his minde on this faſhiō: For in déede the take him otherwiſe, and thinke that it is a very ſacrifice. And therfore I will bring one other text, where Chriſoſtome ſhall expound him ſelfe. Chriſoſtome ſayth: Nonne per ſingulos dies offerrimus? Chriſoſto, ad Hebre. Home. 17.offerrimus quidem, ſed ad recorda …onem mortis eius facient…s &c et paulo po…t. Non aliu… ſacrificium (ſicut pontifex) ſed id ipſum ſemper facimus: magis autem recordationem ſacrificij opera mur. That is to ſay, do we not dayly offer or do ſacrifice? yes ſurely, But we do it for the remembraunce of his death, for this ſacrifice is an example of that we offer, not an other ſacrifice as the▪ Byſhoppe (in the olde lawe) dyd, but euer the ſame: yea rather a remembraunce of the ſacrifice, firſt he ſayth that they dayly do ſacrifice, but it is in remembraunce of chriſtes death, then hee ſayth that the ſacrifice is an example of that: Thyrdly he ſayth that they offer not an other ſacrifice (that is to ſay an oxe or a goate as the Byſhops of the old law,) but euer the ſame, Marke this poynt: for though it ſéeme at y^e firſt ſight to make with thē yet doth it make ſo directlye againſt them, that they ſhall neuer be able to auoyde it. Chriſoſtome ſayth they do not offer an other ſacrifice as the Byſhops dyd, but euer the ſame. They offer other breade and wyne this day then they did yeſterday: they ſhal ſay an other Maſſe to morow thē they dyd this day. Now if this bread and wyne, or the Maſſe be a ſacrifice, then do they offer an other ſacrifice, as well as the Byſhops of the ould lawe. For this ſacrifice did ſignifie y^e Chriſt ſhould come & ſhed his bloud, The Sacrifice that we offer in bread and wyne is the remembraunce of Chriſtes death.as well as the bread, wine & Maſſedo repreſent that he hath done it in dede. And therfore if it be a ſacrifice, thē do they offer any other ſacrifice, repreſē ting his paſſiō, aſwell as y^e Biſhop of y^e ould law, But y^t doth Chriſoſtome denye, and ſayeth that they offer eueryevery day the ſame. What ſame? verely euen the ſame that was done and ſacrificed when Chriſt ſhed his bloud, In this ſacrifice is Chriſt bound and buffeted and led from Anna to Cayphas: he is brought to Pilate & condemned: he is ſcourged and crowned with thorne and nayled on the croſſe and his hart opened with a ſpeare, & ſo ſhedeth his bloud, for our redemption. Why Chriſoſtome, and do you the ſelfe ſame ſacrifice eueryevery day? yea verely. Thē why doth S. Paule ſay Roma. 6.that Chriſt is riſen from death, and dieth no more? if he dye no more, how do you dayly crucifie hym? Forſoth Paule ſayth truth. For we do not actually indéede, but onelyonly in a miſtery And yet we ſay, that we do ſacrifice As S. Auſten declareth afore ad Bonifacum.hym, and that this is his ſacrifice, for the celebration of the ſacrament and memory of y^t paſſion which we kéepe. And for this cauſe it hath the name of the thing that it doth repreſent & ſignifie. And therefore I expounde my mynde by a rethorical correction and ſay, magis recordationem ſacrificij, that is to ſay, yea rather the remēbraunce of the ſacrifice. Graunt mercies (good Chriſoſtome:) now do I perceaue y^e pith of this matter: euen as the maſſe is the very death and paſſion of chriſt ſo is it a ſacrifice. Now it doth but only repreſent the very death and paſſion of Chriſt, therefore it doth follow that the Maſſe in very dede doth but onelyonly repreſent a ſacrifice. And yet The maſſe is called a ſacrifice, be cauſe it repreſenteth the death & paſſion of Chriſt that was ſacrificed on the Croſſe.notwithſtādyng many tymes it is called a ſacrifice of holy Doctours, and hath the name of y^e very ſame thyng that it doth repreſent & ſignifie. And euen ſo we may ſay of this ſacramēt, that as the Maſſe is the very ſacrifice and paſſion of Chriſt, ſo is the Sacrament his very body & ſacrifice that is offered. Now the Maſſe doth but onelyonly repreſēt & ſignifie the paſſiō: ſo the Sacrament doth but onelyonly repreſent and ſignifie the body and very ſacrifice once offered for euer. Notwithſtādyng many tymes the Maſſe is called a ſacrifice of holy Doctours: and ſo the Sacrament is called the body and a ſacrifice. And hath the name of the very ſame thyng that it doth repreſent and ſignifie.Chriſoſt ſuper.

Furthermore Chriſoſtome ſayth. Ipſe quo que bibit ex eo, ne auditis verbis illis dicerent: quid igitur ſanguinem bibimus Math. ….& carnem comedimus? ac ideo perturbarentur. Nam & quando prius de his verba fecit multi ſolummodo propter verba ſcandalum paſsi ſunt. Neigitur tunc id quo que accideret, primus ipſe hoc fecit, vt trāquillo animo ad cōmunicationem miſteriorum induceret. That is to ſay: he alſo dranke of it, leſt whē they heard his woordes, they ſhould ſay, why do we thē drinke bloud and eate fleſh? and ſo ſhould be troubled. For when hée ſpake before of thoſe thyngs many of them were offended with his woordes. And becauſe that ſhould not now alſo chaunce, he hym ſelfe dranke firſt of it, that he might cauſe them to come without feare to the partaking of thoſe miſteries: here Chriſoſtome noteth y^e Chriſt dranke Chriſt by drinkyng of the cup, dyd ſhewe the miſtery and that it was no naturall nor carnall bloud.of it, to draw them from the groſſe vnderſtādyng of his wordes, and by his drinkyng to teſtifie vntounto them that it was not his natural bloud nor his naturall fleſh in déede, but onelyonly memorials and repreſentations of his body and bloud. And therfore he called thē miſteries: that is to ſay ſacramentes. For in this place a Sacrament and a miſtery is all one thyng. Notwithſtā dyng ſometyme this word miſtery is more commō and large in ſignifying then this worde Sacrament. And I hauehave ſhewed you before, that a Sacrament is the ſigne of an holy thyng it ſelfe, that it repreſēteth: albeit ſome tyme it beare the name of the very thyng it ſelfe, as the Image of S. Peter is not S. Peter him ſelfe and yet it beareth his name.

Chriſoſtome ſayth. Caro non prodeſt quicq: hoc eſt ſecundum spiritum verba Super Ioh. cap. 6. Ho…. 46.mea audienda ſunt. Qui ſecundum carnem audit, nihil lucratur, nihil vtilitatis accipit. Et paulò poſt. Quid eſt autē carnalit er intelligere? ſimpliciter vtres dicuntur, ne que aliud quippiam excogitare. Miſteria omnia interioribus oculis conſid…rāda ſunt, hoc eſt spiritualiter. That is to ſay. The fleſh profiteth nothing: that is, my wordes muſt be vnderſtād after the ſpirit. He that vnderſtādeth them after y^t fleſh wynneth nothyng, nor taketh any profit. And a litle after What meaneth this, to vnderſtand after the fleſh or carnally? verely to All miſteryes muſt be conſidered ſpiritually.take the thynges ſimply as they are ſpoken, and to thinke no other thyng. All miſteries or Sacramentes muſt be conſidered with the inward eyes, that is to ſay, ſpiritually.

And after he expoundeth him ſelfe on this maner. Interiores autem oculi vt panem viderint, creaturas tranſuolant, & non de illo pane a piſtore cocto cogitāt: ſed de eo qui dixit ſe panē vitae, qu… per miſticum panē ſignificatur. That is to ſay. The inward eyes as ſoone as The plaine ſaying of Chriſoſtome.they ſée the bread, they paſſe ouer the creatures, & thinke not of that bread which is baken of the baker, but of hym that called him ſelfe the bread of lyfe which is ſignified by the miſticall or ſacramentall bread. Would you hauehave hym ſay any more? hee telleth you playne, that Chriſt which is the very bread of lyfe, is ſignified by this ſacramentall bread. And that is the thyng whiche our Byſhops ſo fleſhly denye now a dayes, which thyng yet you may ſée the old fathers conclude with one aſſent. Notwithſtādyng yet I will alledge mo old Doctours, ſo that from hence forward they may be aſhamed to call it new learnyng.

Fulgentius ſayth. In illis enim carnalibus …u…pentius. …. Lib. de ….(tempore legis) victimis, ſignificatio fuit carnis Chriſti, quam pro peccatis noſtris, & ipſe ſine peccato fuerat oblaturus, & ſanguinis quem erat effuſurus in remiſsionem peccatorum noſtrorum. In …ſto autem ſacrificio gratiarum actio at que commemoratio eſt carnis Chriſti quam pronobis obtulit, & ſanguinis quem pro nobis idem Deus effudit. That is to ſay. In theſe carnall ſacrifices (in the time of the law) was a ſignification of the fleſh of chriſt which he without ſinne, ſhould offer for our ſinnes, & of the bloud which he ſhould ſhed out in remiſſion of our ſinnes. But in this ſacrifice The Sacrament of Chriſtes body is a thankes Seuyng.is a thākes geuyng & remembraunce of the fleſh of Chriſt whiche hee offered for vsus, and of the bloud which the ſame God ſhed out for vsus. Firſt note that he calleth it a ſacrifice which notwithſtādyng is but a remē braūce of that ſacrifice offered on the croſſe once for all, as it is proued before out of Chriſoſtome. Then hée playnly calleth it a thankes geuyng, & remembraunce of Chriſtes fleſh and bloud: and ſo concludeth with vsus. Neuertheleſſe becauſe Sophiſters wold ſoone thinke to auoyde this place, I will alledge one other ſaying of the ſame author, whiche they ſhall neuer be able to auoyde.

Fulgentius ſaith, as Haymo teſtifieth. Hic calix nouum Teſtamentū eſt: Fulgentius.id eſt, hic calix quem vobis trado nouum Teſtamentum ſignificat. That is to ſay This cup or chalice is the new Teſtament: That is, this cup or chalice This cup is the new Teſtamēt. is as much as this cup ſignifieth the new teſtament.which I deliuer you doth ſignifie the new Teſtamēt. In this place he doth playnly ſhew his mynde, whiche can not be anoyded. For euen as the cup is the new Teſtament, ſo is the bread the body. Now the cup doth but ſignifie the new Teſtament, and therefore I may conclude that the breade doth but ſignifie the body.

Euſebius ſayth. Quia corpus aſſū ptum ablaturus erat ex ocul…s noſtris Euſebius.& ſideribus allaturus, neceſſarium erat vt nobis in hac die ſacramentum corporis & ſanguinis conſecraret, vt colleretur iugiter per miſterium quod ſemel offerabatur in precium. That is ta ſay, Becauſe he would take away out of our eyes the body that he toke and cary it into heauen, It was neceſſary that in this time he ſhould conſecrate to vsus the ſacrament of his body and bloud that that which was once offerd for the price of our redemption, might continually be honored through the miſtery.

To conſecrate a thing, is to aply it Conſecrat.vntounto an holy vſe. Here you may ſee y^e he calleth it the ſacrament of his body and bloud, which body is caried vp in the heauen: And alſo he calleth it a miſtery whiche is inough for them that will ſee.

Alſo Druthmarius, expoundeth theſe wordes this is my body on this Druthmarius.manner: Hoc eſt corpus meum in miſterio. That is to ſay: this is my body in a miſtery. I thinke you know what a miſtery meaneth, Chriſt is crucified eueryevery day in a miſtery: that is to ſay eueryevery day his death is repreſēted by the ſacramentes of remembraunce. The Maſſe is Chriſtes paſſion in a miſtery: that is to ſay: the Maſſe doth repreſent his paſſion and kéepeth it in our memory. The bred is Chriſtes body in a miſtery: that is to ſay, it repreſenteth his body that was broken for vsus, and kéepeth it in our remembraunce.

You hauehave heard all ready the mind of the doctours how the ſacrament is Chriſtes body. And now I ſhall ſhew you how the ſacrament is our body, which doth not a litell helpe to the vnderſtanding of theſe wordes which are in controuerſie. The ſacrament The Sacrament how it is our body.of the aulter is our body as well as it is Chriſtes body. And euen as it is our body, ſo is it Chriſtes. But there is no man that can ſay that it is our naturall bodie in déede, but onelyonly a figure, ſigne, memoriall or repreſentation of our body. Wherfore it muſt alſo followe, that it is but onlye a figure, ſigne, memoriall or repreſentation of Chriſtes body. The firſt part of this argumēt may thus be proued S. Auſten wryting in a ſermon ſayth on this manner. Corpus ergo Chriſti ſi vultis intelligere, apoſtolum audite dicē tem, Auguſtinus in ſermone ad…fantes.Vos estis corpus Chriſti & mēbra. 1. Cor. 12. Si ergo eſtis corpus Chriſti et membra, miſterium vestrumque in mēſa Dominipoſitum est, miſterium Domini accipitis, ad id quod eſtis, Amen reſpondetis, & reſpondendo ſubſcribitis. That is to ſay: Yf you will vnderſtand the body of Chriſt, heare y^e apoſtle which ſayth, ye are the body of Chriſt and members. 1 cor. 12. therfore if ye be the body of Chriſt & members, your miſterie is put vponupon the Lordes table yereceiue the miſterie of the Lord, vntounto y^e you are, you aunſwere Amen And in aunſwering ſubſcribe vntounto it. Here may you ſée that the ſacrament is alſo our body, and yet is not our naturall body, but onelyonly our body in a miſterie, that is to ſay, a figure, ſigne, memorial or repreſentation of our body, for as the bread is made of many graines or cornes, ſo we (though we be many) are one bread & one body. And for this propertie and ſimilitude it is cauled our body and beareth the name of the very thing which it doth repreſent and ſignifie.

Agayne S. Auſten ſayth. Quia Christus paſſus est pro nobis, commenda Aug. in ſermo. de ſacraferia paſcha.uit nobis in iſto ſacramento corpus et ſanguinem ſuum, quod etiam fecit & nos ipſos. Nam et nos ipſius corpus facti ſumus, & per miſericordiam ipſius quod accipimus nos ſumus. Et poſtea dicit. Iā in nomine Chriſti tanquam ad calicem Domi ni veniſtis, ibi vos eſtis in menſa & ibi vos estis in calice.

That is, becauſe Chriſt hath ſuffered for vsus, he hath betaken vntounto vsus in this ſacrament his bodie and bloud which he hath alſo made euen our ſelues. For we alſo are made his body, and by his mercy we are euen the ſame thing that we receiue. And after he ſayth, now in y^t name of Chriſt ye are come, as a man would ſay, to the chalice of the Lord, there are ye vponupon the table and there are ye in y^t Here you may ſee that y^• Sacrament is our body.chalice. Here you may ſée, that the ſacrament is our body. And yet it is not our naturall body, but onelyonly in a miſtery as it is before ſayd.

Furthermore S. Auſten ſayth. Hūc itaque cibum & potum ſocietatem vult intellegi corporis & membrorum ſuorum Auguſt. de ſacra feria paſcha.quod eſt ſancta eccleſia in praedeſtinatis et vocatis, et iuſtificatis, et gloriſicatis ſanctis & fidelibus eius. Huius rei ſacramē tum alicubi quotidie, alicubi certis inter vallis dierū in dominico preparatur, & de menſa Domini ſumitur, quibuſdā ad vitam, quibuſdam ad exitium. Res vero ipſa cuius eſt omni homini ad vitam nulli ad exitium, quicūque cius particeps fuerit. That is to ſay, he will that this meat and drinke ſhould be vnderſtād to be the felowſhip of his body & mē bers, which is the holy Church in the predeſtinate, and called and iuſtified and glorified his ſaintes & faythfull, The ſacrament of this thing is prepared in ſome place dayly, & in ſome place at certaine appoynted dayes, as on y^e Sonday And it is receiued from S. Auſten calleth it by the name of Sacramēt meanyng the figure, ſigne or token of Chriſtes body…the table of the Lord, to ſome vntounto life, and to ſome vntounto deſtruction, but the thing it ſelfe whoſe ſacrament this is, is receiued of all men vntounto life and of no man to deſtruction, who ſo euer is partaker of it. Here doth S. Auſten firſt ſay, that thys ſacrament is the fellowſhip of hys bodye and members which are we. And yet it is not our naturall bodye, as is before ſayd. And then he ſayth, that the Sacrament of thys thyng is receaued of ſome vntounto life and ſaluation, and of ſome vntounto death and damnation, for both faythfull and vnfaythfull may receiue the ſacrament. And after he ſayth, that the thing it ſelfe whoſe ſacrament it is, is receiued of all men vntounto lyfe, and of no man vntounto deſtruction, who ſo euer is partaker of it. And of this ſaying it muſt nedes follow, that onelyonly the ſaythfull eate Chriſtes body, and the vnfaithfull eate not: For he is receiued of no mā vntounto deſtruction. And of this it muſt alſo follow that the ſacrament is not Chriſtes body in déede, but onelyonly in a myſterye, for if the ſacrament were The w… ked and vnfaythfull do not receaue the body of Chriſt and yet they receaue the Sacramēt to their dā nation.his naturall bodye, then ſhould it follow, that y^• vnfaithfull ſhould receiue his bodye, which is contrarye to the minde of S. Auſten, and againſt all truth. Thus hauehave we ſufficiently proued the firſt parte of our argument, that the ſacrament is our body, as well as it is Chriſtes. And now will I proue the ſecond part more plainely although it be inough declared all ready, to them that hauehave eares, that euen as it is our bodye ſo is it Chriſtes.

Fyrſt you ſhall vnderſtand that in the wyne whiche is called Chriſtes bloud, is admixed water, which doth ſignifie the people that are redemed The Sacrament as it is our body ſo it is Chriſteswith hys bloud: ſo that y^e head which is Chriſt, is not without hys bodye which is the faythfull people, nor the body without hys head. Nowe if the wyne when it …s conſecrated, be turned bodely into Chriſtes bloud, then Note well this argument.is it alſo ne…eſſarye that the water which is admixed be bodely turned into the bloud of the faythfull people. For where as is one conſecration muſt follow one operatiō. And where as is lyke reaſon, there muſt followe lyke myſtery. But whatſoeuer is ſignified by the water as concerning the faythfull people, is taken ſpiritually. Therefore whatſoeuer is ſpoken of the bloud in the wine, muſt alſo néedes be taken ſpiritually. Thys reaſon is not myne, but it is made by one Bartram vppon a 700. yeares Bartram.ſince, when thys matter was firſt in diſputation. Whereupon at the inſtance of great Charles the Emperor he made a booke profeſſing euen the ſame thyng that I do, and proueth by The Sacrament is Chriſtes body in a myſtery.the olde Doctors & faythfull fathers, that the Sacrament is Chriſtes body in a myſtery, that is to ſay, a ſigne, figure or memoriall of hys body which was broken for vsus, and not hys naturall body. And therefore that doctrine is new which other wyſe teacheth, & not mine, which is not myne, but the doctrine of Chriſt and of the olde fathers of Chriſtes Church, till Antichriſt began to ſit and reigne in the temple of God.

Beſides that Cyprian ſayth, that the people is annexed in the Sacrament Cyprianus ad….through the mixture of water. Therefore I maruell me much that As water is the people, ſo wine is Chriſtes bloud.they are ſo contentious and will not ſée, that as the water is the people, ſo the wyne is Chriſtes bloud, that is to ſay, in a myſtery, becauſe it repreſenteth Chriſtes bloud, as y^e water doth the people.

Furthermore Euſebius ſayth: Dū in ſacramentis vino aqua miſcetur, Chriſto Euſebius.fidelis populus incorporatur & iungitur, & quandam ei copula perfecta charitatis vnitur. That is to ſay. Whiles in the Sacrament water is admixte By y^t … ture of water, y^t faithfull people are in corporate with Chriſt.with the wyne, the faythfull people is incorporate and ioyned with Chriſt, and is made one with hym, with a certayn knot of perfite charitie. Now where he ſayth, that we are ioyned and incorporate with Chriſt, what fondneſſe were it to contend, ſith we are there onelyonly in a myſtery, and not naturally: to contend I ſay with ſuch pertinacitie that hys naturall bodye muſt be there: and not rather that he is ioyned with vsus, as we are ioyned with hym and both in a myſtery, by the knot of perfite charitie.

The young man perceaueth well M. More.inough that an allegorie vſed in ſome place is not a cauſe ſufficient to leaue the proper ſignifications of Gods word in eueryevery other place and ſeeke an allegorie, and forſake the playne common ſenſe. For he confeſſeth that he would not ſo do ſaue for neceſſitie: becauſe (as he ſayth) that the cōmon literall ſenſe is impoſſible. For the thing he ſaith that is ment therby cā not be true: That is to witte, that the very body of Chriſt can be in the ſacrament, becauſe the ſacrament is in many diuers places at once, and was at the Maundy: that is to witte, in the handes of Chriſt and eueryevery of his Apoſtles mouthes. And at that time it was not glorified. And then he ſayth that Chriſtes body not being glorified, could no more be in two places at once then his owne can. And yet he goeth after further, and ſayth no more it can whē it is glorified too. And that he proueth by the ſaying of Saint Auſten, whoſe wordes be, that the bodye with which Chriſt aroſe, muſt be in one place. &c.

Hetherto hath M. More reaſoned reaſonably: but now he beginneth to …rith.decline from the dignitie of diuinitie into the dirtie dregges of vayne ſophiſtrye. For where I ſay that I muſt of neceſſitie ſéeke an allegorie becauſe the literall ſenſe is impoſſible, and cā not be true, meaning that it can not ſtand with the proceſſe of Scripture, but that other textes doe of neceſſitis conſtrayne me to conſtrue it ſpiritually. There catcheth he thys worde (can) and thys worde (impoſſible) More is a captious Sophiſter, … ſub…le Poet, and … malicious Papiſt.and woulde make men beleue that I ment, it coulde not bee true becauſe reaſon can not reach it, but thinketh it impoſſible. And there he triūpheth (before the victory) and would know what article of our fayth I coulde aſſigne, in which reaſon ſhall no…driue awaye the ſtrength of my proofe, and make me leaue y^e literall ſenſe wherin my proofe ſhoulde ſtand, and ſend me to ſéeke an allegorye that might ſtand with reaſon, and driue away y^e fayth. But now deare brethren, ſith I ſpeak not of the impoſſibilitie of reaſon, but of the impoſſibilitie to ſtand with other textes of Scripture, ye may ſée y^t thys royall reaſō is not worth a ruſh. Thē would he fayne know the place where S. Auſten ſo ſayth, which thing although it were harde for me to tell, ſith I hauehave not hys bookes to looke for it, yet I thanke God my memorye is not ſo bad, but I cā ſhew hym where he ſhall finde it. And becauſe I thinke that hee is more accuſtomed to the Popes lawes then to Saint Auſtens More is better acquainted with the Popes lawes them with S. Auſtens workes.workes (ſith hee is become the Prelates proctour and patrone) I ſay he ſhall not fayle but find it in hys lawes de conſecratione. And where as hee would wreſt the words of S. Auſten, which ſayth that the bodye in which Chriſt aroſe, muſt néedes bee in one place: ſaying that he might meane, not that hys body myght not be in diuers places at once, but that it muſte be in one place, that is to ſay, in ſome one place or other, he ſpeaketh (ſayth M. More) nothyng of the ſacrament, nor ſayth not hys body with which he roſe muſt néedes be in one place, that it can by no poſſibilitie be in any moe. Thys ſeemeth to ſome a goodly gloſe, and yet it ſhall proue but a vayne euaſion. For if a man woulde ſaye that the kings graces body muſt be in one place, and then an other woulde expound y^e notwithſtādyng hys wordes hys graces body might be in two places at once: I thinke mē myght ſoone iudge that he delighted to delaye, and myght ſay, what néede bee to determine, that he muſt be in one place, except he thought in deede, y^• he myght be in no moe but onelyonly one. And though men myght ſo argue on other mens words, yet of S. Auſtens words thys muſt néedes follow, for he bringeth them in (as God would) by a contrary Antitheſis ſaying: Corpus in quo reſurrexit in vno loco eſſe oportet, veritas Ad Hi…r… nimum.autem eius vbi que diffuſa eſt. That is to ſay. Hys body wherein he roſe, muſt be in one place, but hys truth is diſperſed in all places. Where he plainly concludeth by the cōtrary Antitheſis, Chriſtes body occupieth one place onelyonly.that as hys truth is diſperſed in all places, ſo muſt hys body néedes be in one place onelyonly. As by example, if a man ſhoulde ſay: The kyng hys graces bodye muſt needes be in one place, but hys power is throughout hys realme. Where no mā doubteth, but that in ſaying one place, he meaneth one place onelyonly. And therefore though in ſome place, y^e worde muſt, doth not ſignifie ſuch a neceſſitie as excludeth all poſſibilitie, yet in thys place it doth ſo ſignifie, as the contrary Antitheſis doth euidently expreſſe.

And where ye ſay, that he ſpeaketh nothing of the ſacrament, I would ye ſhould ſticke ſtill to that ſaying. For thys is playne, that he ſpeaketh of his naturall body, and therefore if hee ſpeake not of y^e ſacrament, then hauehave you concluded that the ſacrament is not hys naturall body: the contrary whereof you would hauehave mē beleue. Thus hauehave I ſhewed euidence, both where he ſhall finde the wordes of S. Auſten, and alſo that I hauehave rightly alleaged them.

Notwithſtandyng ſith he maketh ſo much of hys paynted ſheth, I ſhall alleage hym more authoritye that Chriſtes naturall body is in one place onelyonly. Which thyng proued, doth vtterly conclude y^t the Sacramēt is not his naturall body, but only a memoriall and a repreſentation of the ſame. And firſt let vsus ſée S. Auſtens mynde.

S. Auſten writyng vntounto Dardanus doth playnly proue that the naturall August. ad Bardanū.body of Chriſt muſt néedes be in one place only, and alſo y^t his ſoule can bée but in one place at once. The occaſiō of his Epiſtle is this: Dardanus dyd write vntounto S. Auſten for the expoſitiō of thoſe wordes that Chriſt ſpake vn to the theefe ſaying: This day ſhalt thou be w^t me in Paradiſe: and wiſt not how he ſhould vnderſtād it, whether Chriſt mēt that the théefe ſhould be in Paradiſe with Chriſtes ſoule, or with his body, or with his Godhead: Thereupon S. Auſten writeth that as touchyng Chriſtes body, that day it was in the ſepulchre. And ſaith What Chriſt ment by thys worde Paradiſe.that it was not Paradiſe, although it were in a gardē that he was buryed. For Chriſt (he ſayth) ment of a place of ioy: And that was not (ſayth S. Auſten) in hys ſepulchre: And as for Chriſtes ſoule, it was that day in hel, and no man will ſay, that Paradiſe was there. Wherefore (ſayth S. Auſten) the text muſt néedes bee vnderſtand, that Chriſt ſpake it of his Godhead. Now marke this Argument of S. Auſten, and ye ſhall ſée my purpoſe playnly proued. For ſeing he erpoundeth this text vpō Chriſtes Godhead, becauſe his manhode as touching the body, was in the graue, and as touchyng his ſoule, was in hell: you may ſoone perceiue, that S. Auſten thought that whileſt his body was in y^e graue, it was not in Paradiſe to: & becauſe his ſoule was in hell, it could not be in paradiſe alſo. And therfore he ver…o fieth the text vppon his diuinitie. For if he had thought that Chriſtes body or ſoule might hauehave bene in diuerſe places at once, hee would not hauehave ſayd, that the text muſt néedes be vnderſtand of his diuinitie, but it might full well, yea & much better hauehave ben vnderſtand of his manhode. Marke well this place which doth determine the doubt of this matter. Notwithſtandyng the faythfull father leaueth How S. Auſten laboureth to proue that Chriſtes body might not be in ino places at once then in one.not the matter on this faſhion, but alſo taketh away ſuch ſonde imaginations as would cauſe men to ſurmiſe, that Chriſtes body ſhould be in moe places at once then one. For he ſaith. Cauendum eſt ne it a diuinitatem aſtruamus hominis, vt veritatē auſer amus corporis. Non eſt autem conſequens vt quod in Deo est, it a ſit vbi que . Nam & de nobis veraciſſime Scriptura dicit, quod in illo viuimus, mouemur & ſumus. Nec tamē ſicut ille, vbi que ſumus, ſed aliter homo ille in Deo, quoniā & aliter Deus in illo homine, proprio quodam & ſingulari modo. Ʋna enim perſona Deus & homo est, & vtrum que eſt vnus Christus Ieſus, vib que per id quod Deus eſt, in coelo autem per id quod homo. That is to ſay we muſt beware that we doe not ſo affirme the diuinitie of the man, that we take away the truth of his body. For it foloweth not that the thyng whiche is in God ſhould be in eueryevery place as God is. For the Scripture doth truly teſtifie on vsus, that we lyue, moue and be in hym. And yet are we not in eueryevery place as he is. Howbeit, that man is otherwiſe in God, and God otherwiſe in that man by a certaine peculiar and ſingular way: For God and mā is one perſon, and both of them one Chriſt Ieſu whiche is in eueryevery place in that he is God, and in heauen, in that he is mā. Here S. Auſten If we affirme that the body of Chriſt is in many places at one mſtant, thē we ſhould take away the truth of his body.doth ſay, that if we ſhould graūt Chriſt to be in all places as touchyng his manhode, we ſhould take awaye the truth of his body. For though his manhode be in God, and God in hys manhode, yet it foloweth not, that it ſhould bee in eueryevery place, as God is. And after hee concludeth that as touchyng hys Godhead hee is in eueryevery place, and as touchyng his manhode hee is in heauen. What néede he to make theſe woordes and Antitheſis, but becauſe hee thought verely that though hys Godhead were in eueryevery place, yet his manhode was in heauen onelyonly.

But yet this holy Doctour goeth further (ſo that they may be aſhamed Augustin. ibide…s.of their party) and ſayth. Secundum hominem namque in terra erat, non in coelo (vbi nunc eſt) quando dicebat, nemo aſcendit in coelū niſi qui deſcendit de coelo, filius hominis qui eſt in coelo. That is to ſay, as touching his manhod he was in the earth and not in heauen (where he now is) when he ſayd, no man aſcendeth into heauen but he y^e deſcended from heauen, the ſonne of man which is in heauē. Now I truſt you will be content and let the truth ſpred. For I am ſure it is not poſſible for you to auoyde it for he ſayeth, that as touching his manhode he was in the earth and not in heauen, when he ſpake thoſe wordes: & ſo proued that he was not in mo places at once then onelyonly one place. For els yf S. Auſten had thought y^e he could hauehave bene in mo places at once then one with his body, then might he not hauehave ſayd, that he was in earth and not in heauen. For then a man might ſone hauehave deluded hym & hauehave ſayde Auſtenyou can not tell, for he may be in eueryevery place. But they that ſo thinke after S. Auſtens mynde, do take away y^e truth of his naturall body, and make it a very phantaſticall body: from the which hereſie God deliuer his faythfull. Beſides this S. Auſten doth ſaye. Chriſtum Dominum nostrum vnigenitum DEI …ilium equalē patri, eundemque hominis filium, quo maior eſt pater, & vbique totum preſentem eſſe non dubites tanquam Deum, & in eodem templ… DEI eſſe verum DE ƲM, & in aliena parte coeli propter corpo ris modum. That is to ſay, doubt not Chriſt as touching his Godhead is in all places.but that Chriſt our Lord the onelyonly begotten ſonne of God equall to the Father and the ſame being the ſonne of man wherin the father is greater, is hole preſent in all places as touching hys Godhed and dwelleth in the ſame temple of God, as God, and in ſome place of heauen for the conditiō of his very body. Here is it euident by S. Auſtens wordes that as touching his godhed he is in all places, and as touching his manhode he is onlye in heauen, yea and not that onelyonly, but that he being in heauen as touching the meaſure, nature, condicion, and qualitye of his naturall body, is only in one certaine place in heauen, and not in many places at once. Thus much is proued out of S. Auſten.

Thys truth is not onelyonly proued by S. Auſtens authoritie, but alſo by y^e noble clerke Fulgentius which writeth on this maner. Ʋnus idem que homo Fulgentius.localis ex homine, qui est Deus immenſus ex patre, vnus idem que ſecundum bumanam ſubstātiam abſens coelo cum eſſet in terra, & derelinquens terram, cum aſcendiſſet in coelum. Secundum d…inam vero immenſam que ſubstantiam, nec coelū dimittens cum de coelo deſcendit, nec terram deſerens, cum ad coelum aſcendit: Quod ipſius Domini certiſſimo ſermone poteſt cognoſci, qui vt localem ostenderet ſuam humanitatem, dicit Diſcipulis ſuis: Aſcendo ad patrem meum & patrem veſtrum, Deum meum & Deum veſtrum, De Lazaro quo que cum dixiſſet, Lazarus mortuus eſt, adiunxit dicens, & gaudeo propter vos (vt credatis) quoniā non erā ibi immenſitatem vero ſuae di…initatis oſtendens Diſcipulis dicit: Ecce ego vobiſcum ſum vſque ad conſummationem ſ… culi. Quomodo autem aſcendit in coelum niſi quia localis & verus eſt homo, aut quomodo adeſt fidelibus ſuis, niſi quia idē immenſus & verus Deus eſt. That is to ſay. The ſame one man is locall (that is to ſay, conteined in one place) as touchyng his manhode, which is alſo God vnmeaſurable from the father: the ſame one man as touchyng the ſubſtaunce of his manhode, was abſent from heauen, when hee was in earth, and forſakyng the earth, when he aſcended into heauen, but as touchyng his godly & vnmeaſurable ſubſtaunce neither forſoke heauen whē he deſcended from heauē, nor forſoke the earth, when he aſcēded vntounto heauen. Which may be knowen by the moſt ſure word of the Lord which to ſhew his humanitie to be locall (that is to ſay, contained in one place onelyonly) dyd ſay vntounto his Diſciples. I aſcēd vntounto my father and your father, my God and your God, of Lazarus alſo when hee ſayd, Lazarus is dead, hee ſaid further, I am glad for your ſakes (that you may beleue) for that I was not there. And agayne, ſhewyng the vnmeaſurableneſſe of his Godhead, Chriſt aſcended into heauen, becauſe he is locall and a very man.he ſayd vntounto his Diſciples, behold I am with you vntounto the worldes ende, how dyd he aſcende into heauen, but becauſe he is locall and a very man? Or how is he preſent vntounto his faythfull, but becauſe he is vnmeaſurable & very God? Here may you conclude by the authority of this Doctour alſo, that Chriſtes body is onelyonly in one place at once. For he ſaith, that Chriſt as touchyng his manhood is locall: that is to ſay, conteined in one place onelyonly. And that hee proueth by the Scripture euen of Chriſtes owne woordes. Now if this be true (as my conſcience doth teſtifie, how ſo euer other men ſhall Iudge) then muſt it néedes folow that his naturall body can not be in the Sacrament. And the authoritie, I am ſure no man can auoyde, it is ſo playne.

Now as for his natural reaſōs be More.not worthy the reaſonyng. For firſt that the body of Chriſt vnglorified could no more be in ij. places at once then his owne can, becauſe he is a naturall body, as he is. I will not examine no cōpariſon betwen there ij. bodyes: but if Chriſt wold tell me that he would eche of both their bodyes to be in fiftene places at once, I would beleue hym, and would neuer aſke hym whether he would firſt glorifie them or not. But I am ſure glorified or vnglorified, if he ſayd it, hee is able to do it. For the matter is not impoſsible to God.

Truth it is, that if Chriſt ſo ſayd & in ſo ſaying ſo mēt, there is no doubt, Frith.but he were able ſo to do. But that he in déede ſo groſſely ment ye ſhall neuer proue. And in déede if he had ſo meant that hys owne body naturall ſhould hauehave continued in the Sacrament which is the meate of the ſoule through fayth, and not of the body by eatyng it, and may as well be eaten through faith although it remayne in heauen, as if it were here preſent to our mouthes: if I ſay he had ſo ment, thē wold he neuer hauehave geuē vsus ſuch Scriptures as he dyd. For I ſay, that this groſſe imagination may not ſtād with the proceſſe of the Scripture whiche is receiued as it ſhall appeare by certaine textes.

1. Firſt where our Sauiour ſayth: y^e fleſh profiteth nothyng. The waight The fleſh profiteth nothing.of thoſe woordes doth compell vsus to vnderſtād our matter ſpiritually, for by this ſhort ſentence we are no leſſe plucked backe frō the carnall eatyng, thē was Nichodemus that he ſhould not once dreame of the carnall regeneratiō, when Chriſt ſayd vntounto hym: that what ſoeuer was of y^t fleſh was fleſh. For this is a playne concluſion, that when Chriſt ſayd, the fleſh profiteth nothyng, hee ment it euen of hys The fleſhe of Chriſt profiteth much if it be eaten with fayth.own fleſh that it could not profite (as they vnderſtode hym) to be eatē with the téeth. Albeit it doth much profite to bee ſlayne for our redemption and eaten thorough fayth. Whiche thyng we may do, although his natural fleſh be not in y^e ſacrament. For I may as well beleue in hym (though he be in heauen) as if he were in earth and in the Sacrament, & before myne eyes. And that Chriſt ſpake theſe woordes of his owne body, it is playne by S. Auſtens wordes writyng vppon the ſame place: And therefore he ſayth, August. tract. ſuper 6. ….that they muſt be vnderſtand ſpiritually, and addeth: if thou vnderſtand them ſpiritually, they are ſpirite and lyfe. And though thou vnderſtād thē carnally, yet neuertheles they are ſpirite and lyfe: But vntounto thée they are not ſpirite and lyfe, which vnderſtandeſt not ſpiritually, thoſe things that I hauehave ſpoken.

Alſo Athanaſius ſayth. Spiritus est qui viuificat, caro nō prodest quic que verba Athanaſius 3. lib. qui dix. verb.quae ego locutus ſum, ſpiritus ſunt & vita. Nam & hoc loco vtrumquè de ſeipſo dicit carnem & ſpiritum, & spiritū ab eo quod eſt ſecundum carnem distinxit, vt non ſolum viſibile, ſed etiam inuiſibile quod in ipſo erat credentes diſcant, quod & ea quae dicit nō ſunt carnalia, ſed ſpiritualia. Quod enim comedētibus ſuffeciſſet corpus, vt totius mundi alimonia fiat? Sed ea propter meminit aſcenſus filij hominis in coelum vt illos a corporali cogitatione auelleret, & posthac diſcant carnem dictam cibum coelestem ſuperne veniētem & ſpiritualem alimoniam quā ipſe det, nā quae locutus ſum (inquit) vobis spiritus ſunt & vita. That is to ſay, it is the ſpirite that quickeneth, the fleſhe profiteth nothyng: the wordes whiche I ſpeake vntounto you, are ſpirite & lyfe. For in this place alſo hee meaneth both of his owne fleſhe and his owne ſpirite, & he deuided the ſpirite from the fleſh: that they might know through fayth not onelyonly y^e viſible part but alſo y^e viſible part y^e was in hym, & alſo that the wordes which he ſpake were not carnall, but ſpirituall. For what body ſhold hauehave ſuffiſed to hauehave ben the meate of all y^t world? And euē therfore dyd he make mention of the Aſcenſion of the ſonne of man into heauē, that he might withdraw them frō the bodley imagination, that they might hereafter learne, that the fleſh was called heauenly meate which cō meth from aboue and ſpiritual meate whiche hee would geue. For (ſayth Chriſt) the wordes that I hauehave ſpokē vntounto you, are ſpirite and lyfe. Here you may ſée that Chriſt ſpake it of his owne fleſhe, and ment playnly that it dyd nothyng profite, as infidelles dyd vnderſtād hym. For els it geueth life, as it is receiued of the faythfull in a myſterie. For as Bartram ſayth, in l…ram.this myſterie of the body and bloud, is a ſpiritual operation which geueth The bread and wyne in the Sacrament why they are called myſteries.lyfe. Without the whiche operation thoſe myſteries do nothyng profite, for ſurely (ſayth hee) they may féede the body, but the ſoule they can not féede.

2. Beſides that the Scripture ſayth, that, that entreth in by y^e mouth doth not defile a man, for as Chriſt ſayth, it is caſt forth into the draught. And by the ſame reaſon it foloweth that it doth not ſanctifie or make a man holy. But the Sacrament entreth in by the mouth: therfore it doth folow that (of it ſelfe) it doth not ſāctifie or make holy, & of this text ſhould folow two inconueniences, if the Sacrament were the naturall body of Chriſt. Firſt it ſhould folow that the body of If the Sacrament of the body of Chriſt, were his natural body, thē note what inconueniences muſt folowChriſt ſhould not ſanctifie the faythfull becauſe it entreth in by y^t mouth. And agayne it ſhould folow, that the body of Chriſt ſhould be caſt out into the draught, whiche thyng is abominable. Wherefore it muſt néedes folow, that the Sacrament can not be hys naturall body.

3. Furthermore Chriſt would not ſuffer that deuoute woman which of louelove ſought hym at hys ſepulture, to touch hys naturall body, becauſe ſhe lacked a poynt of fayth, and dyd not count hym to be equall with hys father. And much more it ſhall follow The wicked may not nor can not eate the body of Chriſt.that the wicked which hauehave no fayth nor louelove towardes hym, ſhall not be ſuffered to eate hys fleſhe with theyr téeth, and ſwallowe it into their vncleane bodyes: for that were much more then to touch hym. And yet notwithſtandyng they receaue and eate the Sacrament. Wherupon it ſhould follow, if the ſacrament were hys naturall body, that they ſhould in deede eate hys body: which thyng may be counted a blaſphemye agaynſt God. Moreouer Chriſt ſayth, he that eateth my fleſhe & drinketh my bloud, dwelleth in me and I in hym. Now we The wicked eate the Sacramēt, but yet dwell not in Chriſt.know right well that the wicked doe eate the Sacrament, and yet neither dwell in Chriſt, nor Chriſt in them. Wherefore it muſt followe that the Sacrament is not the very fleſhe of Chriſt. And ſurely I can not excuſe them of blaſphemye, which ſo directly contrary Chriſtes wordes.

How can you auoyde theſe textes which Chriſt ſpeaketh vntounto hys diſciples ſaying: yet a little while am I Iohn. 6.with you, and then I depart to hym that ſent me. And agayne: It is expedient Iohn. 6.for you that I depart. For excepte that I departe, that comforter ſhall not come vntounto you. And agayn he ſayth: I forſake the world and go Iohn. 6. Math. 26. Mark. 14. Iohn. 12.to my father. And to be ſhort he ſaith: Poore men ye ſhall euer hauehave with you, but me ſhall you not euer hauehave. Now we know right well that hys Godhead is in all places, and that as touchyng hys Godhead hee forſooke not the world, when he aſcended vntounto his father. Wherfore it muſt nedes follow that he forſooke it as touching hys fleſhe and manhode. And thereto agréeth the expoſitions of S. Auſten and Fulgentius before alleaged, yea and al other old faithful fathers. Now if he hauehave forſaken the world as touching the preſence of hys naturall fleſhe and manhode (as all Doctors define) then ment he not that hys naturall fleſhe ſhoulde be preſent in the Sacrament, to bee eaten with our téeth: And therfore though Chriſt ſo tell you, yet muſt you take hym as hee meaneth, or els you be begyled. For if ye thinke that God both maye and will fulfill and verifye all thynges accordyng to the letter as he ſpeaketh them, I may call you an obedient mā, as S. Bernard doth hys Monk Adam. And may ſay (as he doth) that if that be the right way, ſo ſimply to receaue all thyng, we may put out the texte of Scripture which warneth vsus to be wiſe as Serpentes. For the text following is ſufficient, which biddeth vsus to be ſimple as Doues.

Why doth your maſterſhip graunt a neceſſary allegorye, whē Paul ſayth, Chriſt is a ſtone, or whē Chriſt ſayth that he is a doore? The ſcripture ſayth hee is both twaine, and ſyth God ſo ſayth, he is able ſo to make it. And therfore by your reaſon we ſhall nede none allegorye in all ſcripture, and then he that is moſt ſimple and fooliſh, may be counted moſt faythfull. And ſo ſhall we néede no faythfull fathers to expoūd the text, but it ſhall be moſt merite, to beleue the letter. Thys I denye not, but that God coulde hauehave done it if he had ſo intended, when he ſpake the wordes: But now y^e ſcripture ſtandyng as it doth, I thinke he can not doe it. As by example: I thinke that God by the bloud of hys ſonne Chriſt myght hauehave ſaued all men, both faythfull and vnfaythfull, if he had ſo intended, and that it had ſo pleaſed hym. But now the Scriptures God may do all thing but yet ſo as he cānot denye hys truth, neither reſtore virginitie. &c. Iohn. 3.ſtandyng as they do, I ſay hee can not doe it, and that it is impoſſible for hym. For then he might make hys ſonne a lyer which ſayth: He that beleueth not is damned. And againe: He that beleueth not ſhall not ſée life, but the wrath of God abydeth vponupon hym. And euen as it is impoſſible to ſtand with the proceſſe of Scripture, (wherin God hath declared his will) that the vnfaythfull ſhoulde be ſaued although God might hauehave done it at the firſt if he had ſo would. Likewiſe it is impoſſible, the Scriptures ſtanding as they do, that the naturall body of Chriſt ſhoulde be preſent to our The naturall body of Chriſt is not preſent to our teeth in the Sacrament.téeth in the Sacrament. And as for our fayth, it néedeth not to hauehave hym preſent in the bread. For I may as wel eate him and drinke him through fayth, that is to ſay, beleue in hym, as though he were as preſent in the Sacrament, as he was hanging on the Croſſe.

1. And becauſe you ſay, that my naturall reaſons be not worth the reaſoning. I will alledge you ſome moe, to ſée what you can ſay to them. Firſt Argumēts to proue that Chriſtes naturall body is not in the Sacramēt of his body and bloud.eueryevery ſacrament is the ſigne of an holy thyng: but the ſacrament of the altar is a ſacrament (as all faythfull mē confeſſe) ergo it muſt follow that the ſacrament of the altar is the ſigne of an holy thyng. Now if it be the ſigne of an holy thyng, then it is not the holy thyng it ſelfe which it doth ſignifie and repreſent. Why ſhoulde we then feare, to call that bread a figure, that is to ſay, a ſacrament of that holy body of our Lord and Sauiour.

2. Beſides that I woulde know of what neceſſitie or profite hys fleſhe muſt be preſent in the ſacrament. For the preſence of hys fleſhe can no more profite vsus, then doth the remēbrance of hys body, but thys remembraunce may as well be done by the ſacramēt, as though hys bodye were preſent. And therefore …ith God and nature make nought in vayne, it followeth cōſequently, y^t his naturall fleſh is not there, but onelyonly a memoriall therof.

3. Furthermore the end and finall cauſe of a thyng is euer better then thoſe thynges which are prouided for the end (as the houſe is better then the lyme, ſtone, and timber, which are prouided for the houſe) but the ende and finall cauſe of the ſacrament is the remembraunce of Chriſtes body: and thereupon it muſt followe that if the ſacrament be hys naturall bodye, that the remembraunce of Chriſtes body ſhould be better then hys body it ſelfe. Which thyng is to be abhorred of all faythfull men.

4. It were fondnes to fayne that the ſoule did otherwiſe eate then do the Angels in heauen, and their meate is only the Ioy and delectation that they hauehave of God and of his glory, and euen ſo doth the ſoule which is here vponupon the earth eate through fayth the body of Chriſt which is in heauen. For it deliteth and reioyceth whiles The ioyfull eatyng of Chriſt, is …y fayth.it vnderſtandeth through fayth, that Chriſt hath taken our ſinnes vponupon him, and pacified the fathers wrath. Neyther it is neceſſarie that for that or for this cauſe, that his fleſh ſhould be preſent. For a man may as well louelove and reioyce in the thing, which is from him & not preſent, as though it were preſent by hym of that manner.

5. Moreouer the bread is Chriſtes body, euen as y^e breaking of y^e bread is the death of his body. Now the breaking of bread at the maundy is not the very death of Chriſtes body, but onelyonly a repreſentatiō o… the ſame (al be it the minde through fayth doth ſpirituallye behold his very death) & euen likewiſe that naturall bread is not the very body of our Lord, but only a ſacrament, ſigne, memoriall, or repreſentation of this ſame, albeit through the moniſion therof y^e mynde through fayth, doth ſpiritually behold the very body: And ſurely therof if a man be faythfull, the ſprite of God worketh in his hart very ſwéetely at his communion.

6. Finally, it was not lawfull to eate or drinke the bloud not onelyonly of man but alſo of a brute beaſte, and the Apoſtels them ſelues moued by y^e rule of Charitie, did inſtitute y^• mē ſhould abſtayne from bloud, ſomewhat ſau… ring the infirmitie of y^• Iewes. Now The Apoſtles did orde…e that we ſhould abſteine frō bloud, meaning all natural bloud.if the Apoſtels had taught (as ye do) that in the ſacrament his very fleſhe and bloud is eaten and dronke with the téeth and mouth of faythfull and vnfaythfull, what could hauehave bene a greater occaſion to hauehave excluded the Iewes from Chriſtes fayth euen at once? Thinke you that Apoſtles would not hauehave bene to ſcrupulous to hauehave dronkē his very bloud? ſeing it was ſo playne agaynſt Moſes lawe if they had vnderſtand hym ſo groſſely as ye do? Peter had a cloth ſent Actes. 10.downe from heauen, in which were all manner of beaſtes forbidden by y^e law, and was commaunded to ſlay & eate them. And he aunſwered, God The wyne in the Sacrament is no naturall bloud.forbid for I neuer eate any vncleane thing, meaning therby that he neuer eate any thing forbidden by the law. Wherof it muſt néedes follow that either he neuer recei…ed the ſacramēt (whiche is playne falſe) or elles that hee more ſpiritually vnderſtode the wordes of Chriſtes maundie, then ye falſlye fayne. For it was plainely forbidden by the law, to eate or drinke any maner of bloud. And I know Obiection.but one reaſon that they hauehave which they count inſoluble: how …e it by Godes grace we ſhall ſone auoyde it. There reaſon is this, Paule ſayth, he that eateth and drinketh this ſacrament vnworthely, ſhall be gilty of the body and bloud of the Lord. Now ſay they, how ſhould they be gilty of the Lords body and bloud which receiue it vnworthely? except it were the very body and bloud of the Lord?

This argument I ſay, is very weake and ſlender. For I can ſhew Solution.many examples by the which it may be diſſolued for he that deſpiſeth the kinges ſeale or letters offendeth agaynſt his owne perſon, and yet the letter or ſeale is not his owne perſon. He that violently plucketh downe his graces armes or breaketh his broade ſeale with a furious minde or violence, committeth treaſon againſt his owne perſon. And yet his armes To pull downe violently the kynges armes is treaſon agaynſt hys owne perſon, and yet the armes are not the kinges perſon.and broad ſeale are not his owne perſon. He that clippeth the kings coyne committeth treaſon againſt y^e kynges perſon and the common wealth, and yet the mony is neither his graces perſon nor the common wealth. And therfore your argumēt is but weake and ſlender For euen as a man doth offende againſt the princes perſon by diſpiſing his armes, ſeale or letters, So doth a man offend agaynſt Chriſtes body and bloud, by abuſing the ſacrament of his body and bloud, although he be not there preſent, as y^e kinges perſon is not preſent in his armes, ſeale or letters.

Beſides that S. Paule ſaith that eueryevery man which prayeth or prophecieth with couered hed ſhameth his hed and his hed is Chriſt: ſhall we therfore Imagin that Chriſt is naturallye in eueryevery mans hed? as your argument cōcludeth For ſoth that were a prety phantaſie. Finally S. Auſten To be negligent in the hearyng of the word of God is a great offēceſayth y^• he doth no leſſe ſinne which negligently heareth y^e worde of God then doth the other whiche vnworthely receiueth y^e ſacrament of Chriſtes body & bloud. Now if this be true, then is your reaſon not worth a riſhe For Chriſtes naturall body is not in y^e word which is preached, as all men knowe. And yet he ſinneth no leſſe that negligently heareth it, then doth he, that vnworthely receiueth the ſacrament. And thus you ſee their inſoluble argument eaſely diſſolued.

¶ But now muſt this yong man conſider againe that him ſelfe confeſſeth, M. More.that the cauſe for which him ſelfe ſayth that Chriſt in ſo ſaying did ſo meane, is becauſe that if he ſhould hauehave ment ſo, it was impoſſible to God to bring his meaning about: that is to ſay, that Chriſtes body might be in two places at once. And therfore but if he proue that thing impoſſible for God to doe, els he confeſſeth that God not onelyonly ſayd it but alſo mēt it in dede. And yet ouer this, if Chriſt had neuer ſayd it, yet doubtted I nothing, …ut he is able to doe it, or els were there ſ…m what that he could not doe: And then were God not almighty.

Here M. More would myre me w^t his ſopheſtrie, and with wiles would Frith.winne his ſpores. For as he before did diſcant on theſe wordes, can and impoſſible, and would hauehave made men beleue that I ment it could not be, becauſe it could not be by reaſon and that I ment impoſſible becauſe reaſon could not reache it. So now he diſputeth with lyke maner of ſophiſtication cōcluding that I confeſſe that it is impoſſible and can not be, becauſe that if God ſhould hauehave ment it was impoſſible for God to bring his meaning about. Deare bretheren M. More is a quarelyng brabler.this babelyng is ſufficiently diſcuſed all ready. For I ment not that it was impoſſible For God to bring it about If he had ſo ment, but I meant that it is impoſſible to ſtand with the proceſſe of the ſcripture which we hauehave receyued. And I ſaye more ouer, that though it was poſſible for God to hauehave done it (if it had pleaſed hym) yet now the ſcripture thus ſtanding, it is impoſſible for him to do it for then he muſt make his ſonne a lyar. And I ſay, that if he had ſo ment as the letter ſtandeth, that he would thē hauehave geuen vsus other ſcripture, and would not hauehave ſayd that he muſt depart to him that ſent him, with other textes as are before rehearſed.

And where M. More ſayth that if there were ſumwhat y^• he could not doe, than were God not almighty. I ſay it is a ſhame for our prelates that they hauehave gotten ſuch an ignorant procture to defend them. And I am M. More an ignoraūt proctor, for the Clergy.ſure that they them ſelues could hauehave ſayd much better: for els how ſhould they inſtructe other and leade them in the right way? if they them ſelues were ſo rude and vnlearned, ſhould they not know what this meaneth y^e God is almightie which is a peece of the firſt article of our Crede, then how ſhould there ſhip hauehave hauehave any ſure flight? More thinketh that God is cauled almighty, becauſe he can do all things. And then indéed… it ſhould follow that he were not almightye for all thinges he can not do, he can God is almighty, and yet cannot doe all thynges.not ſaue the vnfaythfull, he can not reſtore virginitie once violate, ſayth S. Thomas. and alſo (as I remember) S. Hierome writyng of virginitie vntounto Paule and Euſtochium: he can not ſinne ſayth Dunce: he can not deny hym ſelfe ſayth S. Paule. 2. Timo. 2.Now if this mans leraning were alow…d thē might not God be almightye, becauſe there is ſomewhat y^t he can not doe: but they that are acuſtomed with ſcripture, do know that he is called almightye, not becauſe he can doe all things: but becauſe there God is ſaid to bee almighty becauſe there is no ſupenour power aboue hym, and he can do all that he wil.is no ſuperiour power aboue hym, but that he may doe all that he wyll: and all that his pleaſure is to doe that may he bring to paſſe, and no power is able to reſiſt hym, but he hath no pleaſure nor will to make hys ſonne a lyer nor to make hys ſcripture falſe, and in dede he may not doe it. And yet notwithſtanding he abideth almighty, for hee may doe all that hee will.

Then M. More touching the reaſon M. More.of repugnaunce ſayth, that many thynges may ſeme repugnaunt both to him and me which thinges God ſeeth how to make them ſtād together well inough, and addeth ſuch blynd reaſons of repugnaūce as induce many men into a great errour: ſome aſcribyng all thyng vntounto deſtiny without any power of mās frewill at all, and ſome geuing all to mans owne will, and no foreſight at all to the prouidence of God, and all becauſe the poore blynd reaſon of man can not ſee ſo farre, as to perceiue how Gods preſcience and mans frewill can ſtand together, but ſeeme clearely to be repugnaunt.

As for hys digreſſion of mans fréewill Frith.I will not greatly wraſtle with hym. But thys one thyng I may ſay, that if the ſonne of God deliuer vsus, then are we very frée. And where the Iohn 8. 2. Cor. 3.ſpirite of God is, there is fréedome: I meane not freedome to doe what you will, but freedome from ſinne, that we may bee the ſeruauntes of righteouſnes. But if we hauehave not the Roma. 6.ſpirite of Chriſt, then will I ſay with S. Auſten, that our freewill is wretched, and cā do nought but ſinne. And Aug. de ſpiritu & litera.as touching ſuch textes of repungnancy, if they be ſo diffuſe that mans reaſon, (which is the light of hys vnderſtanding) can not attayne to ſet them together, then were you beſte to make them none articles of our fayth. For I thinke as many as are neceſſary vntounto our ſaluation, are contayned The articles in our Creede are as many as are neceſſary for our ſaluation.in the Crede which I thinke eueryevery man beleueth. I beſech you lay no bigger burthen vpō vsus then thoſe faythfull fathers dyd which thought that ſufficient. And then I am ſure, we ſhould hauehave fewer heretikes. For I neuer heard of hereticke that euer helde agaynſt any article of our crede, but all that ye defame, by thys name, are onelyonly put to death, becauſe they ſay that we are not bound to beleue eueryevery poynt that the lawes and tyrannye of the clergie allowe & maintayne. Which thyng how true it is (bleſſed be God) is meetely well knowen already. For els had I and many moe bene dead ere thys day.

I wot well that many good folke M. More.hauehave vſed in this matter many fruitfull examples, as of one face beholden in diuers glaſſes, and in eueryevery peece of one glaſſe broken into twentie: and of one word cōming whole to an hūdreth eares at once: and the ſight of one little eye preſent and beholding an whole great countrey at once, with a thouſand ſuch maruells moe, ſuch as thoſe that ſee them dayly done (and therfore maruell not at them) ſhall yet neuer be able, no not thys younge man him ſelfe, to geue ſuch a reaſon by what meane they maye bee done, but that he may hauehave ſuch repugnancy layd agaynſt it, that he ſhall be fayne in concluſion (for the chiefe and moſte euident reaſon) to ſaye, that the cauſe of all thoſe thynges is becauſe God that hath ſo cauſed them to bee done, is almighty of hym ſelfe, and may doe what hym lyſt.

As touching the examples that M. More doth here alledge, I may ſoone Frith.make aūſwere. For they that are like our matter, make cleane agaynſte hym, and the other can not make for hym. The glaſſe I graunt is a good example, for euen as the glaſſe doth repreſent the very face of man ſo doth this Sacrament repreſent the very body and bloud of Chriſt. And like as eueryevery péece of the glaſſe doth repreſēt The glaſſe that repreſenteth the face, is not the face.that one face, ſo doth eueryevery péece of that Sacramēt repreſent that one body of Chriſt. But eueryevery mā knoweth right well that though y^e glaſſe repreſent my face, yet the ſubſtaunce of the glaſſe is not my very face, neither is my very face in the glaſſe. And euen ſo though the Sacrament doe repreſent the body of Chriſt, yet the ſubſtaunce The body of Chriſt is no more in the Sacrament then my face is in the glaſſeof the Sacrament is not hys very body, no more then the glaſſe is my face, neither is his very body in y^e Sacrament, no more then my very face is in the glaſſe and thus this exā ple maketh well for vsus. And for that one word comming whole to an hundreth eares, I ſay that worde is but a ſounde and a qualitie and not a ſubſtaunce, and therfore it is nothyng to our purpoſe, and can not be likened to Chriſts body which is a ſubſtaūce. And as concernyng the ſight of the litle eye, I ſay that though the eye diſcry and ſée an whole countrey, yet is not that whole coūtrey in the eye: but as the countrey is knowen by y^e ſight of eye (though the countrey be not in it), ſo is the death of Chriſt and hys bodye breakyng and bloude ſhedyng Chriſtes deathe and body breakyng, is knowen by the Sacrament & yet it is not the naturall body of Chriſt.knowen by the Sacrament, though his naturall body be not in it. And thus his exāples make nothyng with hym, but rather much agaynſt hym. And where hee ſayth that the young man hym ſelfe can geue hym no reaſō, by what meane they may be done: I may ſay vntounto hys maſterſhyp, that whē I was ſeuen yeare yonger then I am this day, I would hauehave bene aſhamed if I could not hauehave geuen an euident reaſon at the Auſtens in Oxford before y^e whole Ʋniuerſitie. And albeit I now vouchſafe, not to ſpend labour and paper about Ariſtotles doctrine, yet hauehave I ſo much touched hys examples, that he may be werye of them.

Alſo I can not ſee why it ſhoulde be more repugnaunt that one body M. More.may be by the power of God in two places at once, then that two bodyes may bee together in one place at once. And that poynte I thinke this young mā denieth not.

The beyng of our body in two places at once is againſt nature, & Scripture Frith.cā not alow it. But that two bodyes ſhould bee in one place ſéemeth more reaſonable. For I hauehave good experience that though my body cā not be in two places at once (both in the Tower and where I would hauehave it Frith ſpeaketh mer… ly.beſide) yet bleſſed be God in this one place, I am not without cōpany. But if M. More meane that in one proper and ſeueral place, may be two bodies at once, that I will deny, till he hauehave layſure to proue it. And yet at the length I am ſure, his proue ſhall not be worth a poodyng pricke. For I am ſure it muſt bee, Ratione poroſitatis vt in igne & ferro: nam penetrationem dimenſionum nunq probabit. And then he is as neare as he was before.

Now his laſt reaſon with whiche M. More.he proueth it impoſsible for the body of Chriſt to bee in two places at once, is this: you cā (ſayth he) ſhew no reaſon why he ſhould be in many places at once & not in all. But in all places he can not be. Wherefore we muſt conclude that he can not be in many places at once. This is a maruelous concluded argument. I am ſure that eueryevery childe may ſoone ſee that this conſequēt cā neuer folow vponupon theſe two premiſſes of this antecedent.

When I made this reaſon & compiled my treatiſe I had no regard to Frith.the cauillations of ſutle Sophiſters: for I thought no Sophiſters ſhould hauehave medled with that meate. But neuertheleſſe ſith nowe I perceiue that they principally are pouryng on it, ſéekyng ſome pray to ſet their teeth a woorke. In this booke I hauehave ſomewhat prouided for them, and hauehave brought ſuch hard bones, that if they be to buſie, may chaunce to choke thē. And yet is not the Argument ſo feble as he fayneth. For the firſt part (if he lyſt to conſider the ſenſe and mynde, and bee not to curious) where I ſay that they can ſhew no reaſon why hée ſhould bee in many places and not in all, is thus to be vnderſtand of wyſe men, that the very reaſon and cauſe, that he ſhold be in many places, muſt be, becauſe y^• body is ſo annexed with the Godhead, that it is in eueryevery place as the Godhead is. This I ſay muſt be the cauſe and reaſon of his beyng in many places. And neither you nor no man els can iuſtly aſſigne any other. Now of this maior or firſt propoſition thus vnderſtand, doth the cō cluſion folowe directly. For if this ſhould be y^e cauſe (as they muſt nedes graunt). And this cauſe proued falſe by Scripture: then muſt they néedes graunt that the thyng whiche ſo foloweth of this cauſe, muſt néedes be falſe. And ſo is my purpoſe proued, & they concluded. As by example, the Aſtronomers ſay: that the naturall Aſtronomers ſay that the naturall courſe of the Sunne is from the Weſt to the Eaſt.courſe of the Sunne is frō the weaſt to the Eaſt. Now if a mā ſhould aſke them what is then the cauſe that we ſée hym dayly take the cōtrary courſe, from the Eaſt to the Weaſt agaynſt hys nature, they aunſwere. Becauſe the hygheſt ſphere (whoſe courſe is from the Eaſt to the Weaſt) with his ſwift mouyng doth violently drawe the inferior ſpheres with hym. This is the cauſe that they alleage, and no man can aſſigne any other. And now ſith I cā proue this ſenſe falſe by ſcripture. And S. Auſten (for Scripture ſayth that y^e ſphere is faſtened Hebr. viij. chap. And S. Auſten expoundyng that text improueth the Aſtronomers whiche affirme that it moueth, ſith I ſay, this cauſe is proued falſe by ſcripture, they muſt néedes graūt that the thyng whiche foloweth of this cauſe muſt néedes be falſe. And ſo we may conclude againſt them all, that the naturall courſe of the Sunne is not frō the Weaſt to the Eaſt (as the Aſtronomers ſay). But contrary from the A concluſiō agaynſt the Aſtronomers.Eaſt to the Weſt. And lykewiſe ſith the cauſe that Chriſtes body ſhould be in many places, is aſſigned of learned men to be, becauſe hys body is ſo annexed with the Godhead (which is in eueryevery place) that it is alſo in all places with it, & no man can aſſigne any other. And that this cauſe is proued falſe by Scripture, for when the women Mark. 14.ſought Chriſt at his graue, an aungell gaue the aunſwere that hée was not there. But if his body had bene in eueryevery place, then the aungell lyed. Alſo Chriſt ſayd vntounto his Diſciples Luke. 16.of Lazarus which died at Bethania. Lazarus is dead. And I am glad Iohn. 11.for your ſakes (that you may beleue) becauſe I was not there. Now if hys body were in eueryevery place as is the Godhead, then Chriſt ſayd not truly, when he ſaid he was not there. Therfore ſith (as I ſayd) this is the cauſe aſſigned, & yet proued falſe by Scripture, Chriſtes body is in one place onelyonly.they muſt néedes graūt, that the thyng whiche foloweth of this cauſe, muſt alſo néedes be falſe. And ſo we may cōclude againſt thē all, y^e Chriſts body is in one place onelyonly. And now you may ſée how my conſequent foloweth the premiſſes.

For he can no further conclude, but that we can ſhewe no reaſon M. More.why he ſhould be in many places at once. What had he wonne by that? might he then conclude therupon, that he could not be in many places at once? As though it were not poſſible for God to make his body in two places at once, but if we were able to tell how, and why, and wherby, and ſhewe the reaſon.

How far I can conclude is ſhewed Frith.immediatly before. For though of the bare wordes as ye toke them, it was hard to conclude any thyng, yet hauehave I now declared them, and ſo farre cō cluded, that you cā not auoyde them. And where he ſayth, that though they can ſhew no reaſon, yet I had wonne nought by it: I thinke he woulde be angrye if I ſhould ſo aunſwere. But ſurely they are in good caſe, for it is inough for them to ſay, thus it is, and néede neuer to ſhew any cauſe or reaſon What ſoeuer the Papiſtes ſay, that muſt ſtand for reaſon.why they ſo ſay. For they are the Church and can not erre: ſo that if they teach contrary thynges, yet all is good inough. And whē they ſée that no mā can make the Scriptures to agrée with their doctrine, then they ſay, that theyr doctrine is true inough, but no man can vnderſtand the Scripture. And though the ſcripture ſeme neuer ſo repugnant both to them and to vsus, yet God ſeeth well inough (ſay they) how to ſet them together, and it is poſſible for God to make it agree though they cānot tell how. But this doctrine hath longe inough deceaued vsus: For men hauehave ſeene to long with your ſpectacles, yet now (thankes be to God) they begin to ſee with their owne eyes. And as touching how thys matter was poſſible to God, and how it is not poſſible, is ſufficiently declared before to al that liſte to loke.

How beit as for me (though I be not bounden to it) I am content M. More.yet to proue, that God may make the body of Chriſt to be in all places at once. And becauſe this yong mā coupleth that propoſition with the other: ſo will I doe to. And I proue therefore that God cā make his body be both in many places at once, and in all places at once, by that that he is almightie, and therefore can do all thing.

Now is the good man in hys olde Frith.dreame agayne, & thinketh that God is called almightie, becauſe he can do all thinges. And then in dede it ſhould followe that he were not almightye. More harpeth vppon a falſe ſtring.For all thynges he can not do, he can not ſaue the vnfaithfull, he can not reſtore virginitie once violated, hee can not ſinne, he can not denye him ſelfe. Now if thys mans learning were allowed, then myght not God be called almighty, becauſe there is ſome what that he can not doe. But they that are accuſtomed with ſcripture, do know that he is called almighty, not becauſe he can not do all thynges, but becauſe there is no ſuperiour power aboue hym, but that he may doe all that hee will, and all that hys pleaſure is may he bring to paſſe. But he hath no wilpleaſure nor power to make hys ſōne a lyer, and to make hys Scripture falſe, and yet notwithſtandyng he abydeth almighty and may do what he will. And euen as it is impoſſible to ſtand with the proceſſe of the Scriptures (wherin God hath declared his will) that the vnfaythfull ſhoulde bee ſaued (although at y^e firſt God might hauehave done it, if he had ſo would) likewiſe it is impoſſible (the Scriptures ſtanding as they do) that the naturall body of Chriſt ſhoulde bee preſent to our teeth in the Sacrament. And as for our fayth it needeth not to hauehave hym preſent in the bread: For I may as well eate him & drink him, through fayth (that is to ſay, beléefe in hym) though he continue ſtill in heauen, as though he were as preſent in the Sacrament, as he was hangyng on the croſſe. But yet hys maſterſhip hath left one thyng vnproued, and that is euen the pith of hys purpoſe. For though hee had proued (as hee hath not) that God by hys almightynes More ſaith that God may do all thyngs, but he doth not proue that he hath ſo done.myght make Chriſtes body in many places, and in all places, and in the Sacrament, yet he forgotte to proue that God hath ſo done. And therfore albeit I dyd graunt hym (as I will not) that he myght ſo do, yet thereof it doth not followe, that he hath ſo done in déede. For God may do many thynges which he doth not. And therefore hys argumēt doth not proue hys purpoſe. Now if he do but thinke that God hath ſo done, I am well pleaſed and will not put hym to the payne to proue it. For anone ye ſhall ſee hym ſo intangled in briers, that he ſhall not witte where to become.

But yet thys young man goeth about to proue the poynt by ſcripture. M. More.For except we graūt him that point to be true, he ſayth that els we make the angell a lyer that ſayd, he is not here, and alſo that els we make as though Chriſtes body in his aſcenſion did not goe vp in the cloud into heauen from earth, but onelyonly hid him ſelf in the cloud, and playeth bo peepe, & taried beneath ſtill. Here in the end he forgetteth him ſelfe ſo foule, that when he was a young ſophiſter, he would I dare ſay, hauehave bene full ſore aſhamed ſo to hauehave ouerſeene him ſelfe at Oxford at a peruiſe. For ye wotte well that thing which he ſayth, & which he muſt therfore proue, is that the body of Chriſt can not be in eueryevery place at once by no meane that God could make. And the textes that he bringeth in for the proofe, ſay no further but that he was not in all places at once.

There are two thinges diſputed betwene M. More and me: the one Frith.is, whether God can make the body Two thinges diſputed betwen More and Frith.of Chriſt in many places, and in the Sacrament. And thereto hys maſterſhip ſayth ye: For God is almightye and may do all things. And I ſay nay, and affirme that God is not called almightie becauſe he may do all things, but becauſe he may do all that he will, and I ſay that he will not make hys ſonne a lyer, nor hys ſcripture falſe, and that he can not do it and yet abydeth almightye. The other thyng is thys, whether he hauehave done it or not. For albeit I did graunt hym that it were poſſible, yet is he neuer y^• nere, except the other cā proue that he hath done it in deede, or els thinke that God hath ſo done. For as I ſayd God can doe many thinges which he doth not. And y^e controuerſie of thys doubt is reſolued by the Angell and Scripture, which (as M. More graunteth hym ſelfe) proueth that he was not in all places at once. And thereof it …olloweth, that God hath not done it, although it be poſſible. And ſo is hys maſterſhip at a poynt. For if I ſhould graūt it neuer ſo poſſible, yet if ſcripture proue that it be not ſo in deede, then is he neuer the neare hys purpoſe, but much the further from it. And thys is euē it that I ſayd before: that it was not poſſible to ſtand with the proceſſe of the Scripture which we hauehave receaued. And now hys maſterſhip hath graunted it hym ſelfe, which you may be ſure he would not hauehave done if hee coulde otherwyſe auoyde it. And here you may ſee how ſore I hauehave ouerſéene my ſelfe.

God forbid that any man ſhould More.be the more prone & ready to beleue this yong man in this greate matter, becauſe he ſayth in the beginning that he will bring all men to a concord & a quietnes of conſcience. for he bringeth men to the worſt kinde of quietnes that may be deuiſed when he telleth vsus as he doth, that eueryevery man in this matter, may without perell beleue which way he liſt, EueryEvery man may in eueryevery matter without any counſell, ſone ſet hym ſelf at reſt, if he liſt to take that way and to beleue as he liſt him ſelfe, & care not how. But and if that way had bene ſure S. Paule would neuer hauehave ſhewed that many were in perill of ſicknes and death to, For lacke of diſcerning reuerently the body of our Lord in that ſacrament when they came to receiue hym.

When Chriſt ſhould depart this world and go to his Father he gaue Frith.his deſciples a commaundement that Iohn. 15.they ſhould louelove ech other, ſaying by this ſhall all men knowe, that ye are Chriſtes badge is louelove.my diſciples, if you louelove ech other, as I hauehave loued you. This rule of charitie wolde I not hauehave broken, which notwithſtanding is often in Ieopardie among faythfull folke, for this ſacrament of vnitie, This thing conſidered, I thought neceſſarie, to aduertiſe both parties to ſaue this rule of charitie, and proued in y^e firſt chapter of my treatiſe, that it was That the ſacrament is the naturall body, is none article of our fayth neceſſary to be beleued vponupon payne of damnation.no article of the fayth neceſſary to be beleued vnderunder payne of damnatiō and therfore that they were to blame that would be contencious for the matter. For ſith it is no article of the fayth, that may lawfully diſſent without all Ieoperdye: & néede not to breake the rule of charitye, but rather to receiue the other like pore brethren. As by example, Some thinke that the mariage betwéene our moſt redoubted prince & Quéene Katerine is lawfull & may ſtand with y^• lawes of God: & ſome thinke that it is vnlawfull and ought to be diſanulled. now if we ſhould for this matter breake the rule of charitie, and eueryevery man hate his neighbour that would not thinke as he doth, then were we greatly to blame and in Ieoperdie of condemnation. This I ſay I proued in y^e firſt chapter againſt which More maketh no buſines, and improueth it not, whereby you may ſoone gather that it is very true. For els ſith his maſterſhip ſo laboureth in theſe other pointes, he would not hauehave left y^• vntouched, you may be ſure. This is the concorde that I woulde bring them vntounto. And as touching quietnes of conſcience, I hauehave knowne manye that hauehave ſore bene combred with it And among all, A certaine maſter of arte which died in Oxford confeſſed vponupon his death bed, that he had wept lying in his bed an hundreth nyghtes within one yeares ſpace, becauſe he coulde not beleue it. Now if he had knowne it had bene no neceſſarye article, what comfort & quietnes ſhould it hauehave bene vntounto hym. Furthermore eueryevery man can not ſo quiet him ſelfe, as M. More Imagineth. For there are many that thinke them ſelues no ſmall fooles, which when they hauehave receiued ſome fooliſh ſuperſtition, eyther by their owne Imagination, or by beleuing their goſſepes goſpel and olde wiues tales by and by thinke the contrary to be deadly ſinne, and vtterly forbidden by Chriſtes Goſpell. As by example, I know an houſe of Religion, wherein is a perſon that thinketh it deadly ſinne, to go ouer a Superſtition.ſtrawe if it lye a croſſe. And if their be on the pauement any paynted picture or any Image grauen on a dead mans graue, he will not tread vponupon it, although he ſhould goe a forelong about. What is this but vayne ſuperſtition wherewith the conſcience is combred and corrupted? May not this be wéeded out with the word of God, ſhewing hym that it is none article of the fayth ſo to thinke, & then to tell hym that it is not forbidden by the ſcripture, and that it is no ſinne? Now albeit his conſcience be ſo cankerd that the ruſt will not be rubbed out? yet with Gods grace, ſome other whom he hath enfecte with the ſame may come agayne to Gods word and be cured full well, which ſhoulde neuer hauehave bene able to quiet thēſelues And likewiſe there are ſome which beleue as your ſuperſtitious hartes hauehave informed them, and theſe can not quiet thēſelues, becauſe they beleue y^e you hauehave fet your doctrine out of ſcripture: But when it is proued to them, and they them ſelues perceiue that ſcripture ſayth not ſo, then can they not be content to thinke the contrary, and iudge it no ſinne at all. And as touching S. Paule, ſuerely ye take hym wrong, for I will ſhew you what proceſſe he taketh, and how he is to be vnderſtode, but becauſe it is not poſſible to finiſhe it in fewe words, I ſhall deferre it vntounto y^e bokes ende, and then I ſhall declare hym at large.

And what a facion is this, to ſay More.that we may beleue if we liſt, that there is the very body of our Lord in dede, and then to tell vsus for a truth, that ſuch a fayth is impoſſible to be true: For God him ſelfe can neuer bring it about, to make his body be there.

Yf a man take the bare wordes of Frith.Chriſt, and of ſimplicitie be deceiued, and thinke that his very body be in y^e A man may iudge of error: but God onelyonly muſt be iudge of condemnation.ſacrament preſent to their téeth that eate it, I dare not ſay that he ſinneth therein, but will referre the matter vntounto Gods iudgement, and yet without doubt, I dare ſay he is deceaued. As by example: If a man (deceaued by the literall ſenſe) would think that Frith is no haſty iudge.men ſhould preach to fiſhes (as Saint Fraunces did) becauſe Chriſt bad his diſciples goe preach to all creatures, yet would not I thinke y^t he ſinned therein, but will referre hym vntounto Gods Iudgment. But yet I wene eueryevery woman that hath any wit, will ſay that he was deceiued.

I am very ſure that the olde holy More.doctours which beleued Chriſtes body and bloud to be there, and ſo taught other to beleue, as by there bookes playnly doth apere, if they had thought eyther that it could not be there or that it was not ther in dede, they would not for all the good in this world hauehave written as they hauehave done. For would thoſe holy men (wene you) hauehave taught that men be bound to beleue, that the very body and bloud of Chriſt is there, if thē ſelues thought they were not bound there to? woulde they make men honoure and worſhip that thing as the very body & bloud of Chriſt which them ſelues thought were not it? this geare is to childiſh to ſpeake.

This the old Doctours and faythfull Frith.fathers ſo taught or thought as ye fayne of them, is very falſe. For S. Auſten as I hauehave ſhewed, maketh wholly for vsus. Beſides that, there is none of the old fathers but they call it a Sacrament, a miſterie, and miſticall meate, whiche is not eaten with tooth or bely, but with eares & fayth. And touchyng the honour and worſhyp done vntounto it, I ſay it is playne Idolatry. And I ſay, that he falſely reporteth To honor and worſhip the ſacrament is plaine idolatry.on the old holy doctours. For they neuer taught men to worſhip it, neither cā he alledge one place in any of them all which would hauehave men to worſhyp the Sacrament. Peraduenture he may alledge me certaine new fellowes for his purpoſe, as Dunce, Dorbell, Durand & ſuch draffe which by their doctrine hauehave drenched the world with damnable Idolatrie. But I ſpeake of the old holy fathers & Doctors as S. Auſtē, Ambroſe, Hierom, Cyprian, Cirille, Chriſoſtome, Fulgentius, and ſuch other: theſe I ſay, do not teach mē to worſhyp it, and by that I dare abide. Of this point I am ſo ſure, that I will vſe it for a contrary argument, that his naturall body is not there preſent. For if the holy fathers before named had taken this text after the letter and not onelyonly ſpiritually, then in there woorkes they The olde holy fathers hauehave not taught to worſhip the ſacrament.would hauehave taught men to worſhyp it, but they neuer taught men to worſhyp this Sacrament, therfore it foloweth they tooke not the text after the letter, but onelyonly ſpiritually. Now do I prouoke you to ſéeke a proofe of your purpoſe. Neuertheleſſe I will not deny, but y^• theſe holy Doctors in diuers places, do call it his body, as Chriſt and Paule do, & ſo do we likewiſe, and ſay alſo that his very body is there eaten. But yet we meane, that it is eaten with fayth (that is to ſay by beleuing y^t his body was brokē for vsus) and hauehave his body more in memory Note. ☜at this maundy then the meate that we there eate. And therfore it hath the name of his body, becauſe the name it ſelfe ſhould put vsus in remembraunce of his body, and that his body is there chiefly eaten, euen more (through fayth) then the meate with the mouth. And ſo are they alſo to be vnderſtand.

Yet one great pleaſure he doth vsus, in that he putteth vsus all at libertie, More.that we may without perill of damnatiō beleue as we did before: that is to witte, that in the bleſſed Sacrament the whole ſubſtance of the bread and the wine is tranſmuted & chaunged into the very body and bloud of Chriſt. For if we may without perill of damnation beleue thus, as him ſelfe graunteth that we may, then graunteth hee that we may alſo without perill of damnation beleue that him ſelfe lieth, where hee ſayth, the truth of that beleefe is impoſſible.

The beleuing of thys poynt, is of it ſelf not damnable, as it is not damnable Frith.to thinke that Chriſt is a very ſtone or a vine, becauſe the litterall ſenſe ſo ſayth: or if you beleue that you ought to preach to fiſhes and goe Chriſten them an other while, as ye do belles. And I inſure you, if there were no worſe miſchiefe that enſued of thys beléefe, then it is in it ſelfe, I would neuer hauehave ſpoken agaynſt it. But now there followeth vppon it damnable idolatry. For through the beléefe that thys body is there, mē fall downe and worſhip it. And thinking to pleaſe God, do damnably ſinne agaynſt hym. Thys I ſay, is the cauſe that I ſo earneſtly write agaynſt it, to Martin Luther ſayth y^t the natural body of Chriſt is preſent in y^e ſacramēt, but he wold not hauehave it worſhippedauoyde the idolatry that is committed through it. Part of the Germanes do thinke that his naturall body is preſent in the Sacrament and take the woordes fleſhly, as Martine taught them. But none of them worſhyp it for y^• Martine forbyddeth both in hys wordes and workes, and ſo bleſſed be god they auoyde that ieoperdy which thyng if you will alſo graunt and publiſh but this one propoſition, that it ought not to bee worſhypped, I promiſe you I will neuer write agaynſt it. For then is the ieoperdy taken away, and then I am cōtent that your maſterſhyp thinke I lye. But in the meane ſeaſō I muſt thinke that ye fill the world with damnable Idolatry. And thus hauehave you alſo aūſwere vntounto y^e concluſion which you alledge out of the kynges graces booke. For I ſay in your way is no hurt, as lōg as you do but onelyonly beleue the bare wordes of the text (as S. Fraunces dyd, whē he preached to fiſhes. But if through the occaſion of thoſe wordes, ye fall into the worſhypping of it, then I ſay that in your way is vndoubted damnation. And ſo is there great ieoperdy in your way, & none at all in ours. For though he were there in déede, yet doe not we ſinne if we worſhyp it not, for we are not commaunded to worſhyp the Sacrament. But if he be not there, then do you commit damnable Idolatry.

Whole Works, Tracts 2 · Tract 4 · Part 4

p. 125¶ The mynde and expoſition of the old Doctours vppon the wordes of Chriſtes maundey.

¶ The mynde and expoſition of the old Doctours vppon the wordes of Chriſtes maundey.