Chapter III: Part 3

[Sidenote: Hieronimus super eccle.] Saynte Hierome wrytynge vpon Ecclesiastes sayeth on this maner. _Caro Domini uerus cibus est, & sanguis eius uerus potus est, hoc solum habemus in presenti sæculo bonum, si uescamur carne eius cruoreque potemur, nō solum in misterio, sed etiam in scripturarum lectione, uerus enim cibus est & potus, qui ex uerbo Dei sumitur scientia scripturarum._ That is to saye: the fleshe of the lorde is verye meate, and his bloode verye drynke. This is onelye the pleasure or profytte that we haue in this worlde, that we maye eate hys fleshe and drynke his bloode, not onely in a mysterye, but also in the readynge of scryptures. For it is very meate and drynke, which is taken out of Godes worde, by the knowelege of scryptures. Here maye ye see S. Hieroms mynde in fewe wordes. For fyrste he sayeth that we eate hys fleshe and drynke hys bloode in a mysterye, whiche is the sacrament of hys remembraunce, and memoryall of his passyon. And after he addeth, that we eate his fleshe ād drynke hys bloode in the readynge ād knowelege of scriptures, ād calleth that very meate ād very drynke. And yet I am sure ye are not so grosse, as to thynke that the letters whiche you reade are tourned in to naturall fleshe ād blode. And lykewyse it is not necessarye that the breade shulde be tourned in to hys bodye, no more than the letters in scrypture are tourned in to his fleshe. And neuerthelesse through faythe we may as well eate hys bodye in receyuynge of the sacrament, as eate hys fleshe in readynge of the letters of the scrypture. Besydes that S. Hierome calleth the vnsterstōdynge of the scripture verye meate and very drynke: whiche you muste neades vnderstonde in a mysterye and spyrituall sense. For it is no materyall meate nor drynke that is receyued with the mouth and teth, but it is spyrytuall meate and drynke, and is so called for a symylytude and propertye: because that as meate and drynke counforte the bodye and outwarde man, so doth the readynge and knowelege of scrypture conforte the soule and inwarde man. And lykewyse it is of Christes bodye, whiche is called verye meate and verye drynke, whiche you muste neades vnderstonde in a mysterye or spyrytuall sense (as Saynte Hierome called it) for hys bodye is no materyall meate nor drynke that is receyued with the mouth or teth: But it is spyrytuall meate and drynke, and so called for a symilytude and propertye, because that as meate and drynke conforte the bodye, so doth the fayth in hys bodye breakynge & bloode sheadynge refreshe the soule vnto lyfe euerlastynge. We vse it customablye in our daylye speache to saye, when a chylde setteth all hys mynde and delyght vpō sporte and playe: It is meate and drynke to thys chylde to playe. And also we saye by a man that loueth well hawkynge and huntynge: It is meate and drynke to thys man to hawke and hunte. Where no man doubteth, but it is a fyguratyue speache. And therfore I wonder that they are so blynde in thys one poynte of Christes bodye. And can not also take the wordes fyguratyuelye, as these olde doctours ded. [Sidenote: Hieronimus super Matheum.] Agayne S. Hierome sayeth. _Postquam mysticum pascha fuerat impletum & agni carnes cum apostolis comederat, assumit panem qui confortat cor hominis, & ad uerū paschæ transgreditur sacramentum, quomodo in prefiguratione eius Melchisedech uinum & panem proferens fecerat, ipse quoq; ueritatem corporis repræsentaret._ That is to saye: after the mystycall Easter lābe fullfylled, and that Christe had eaten the lambes fleshe with the Apostles, he toke breade which conforteth the harte of man, and passeth to the true sacramēt of the Easter lambe: that as Melchisedech brought forthe breade and wyne fygurynge hym, so myght he lykewyse represent the truth of hys bodye. Here doth S. Hierome speake after the maner that Tertullyā ded before: that Christe with breade and wyne ded represent the truth of hys bodye. For excepte he had had a true bodye, he coulde not leaue a fygure of it nor represent it vnto vs. For a vayne thynge or fantasye can haue no fygure, nor can not be represented. As by example. How shulde a mā make a fygure of hys dreame or represent it vnto our memorye? But Christ hath lefte vs a fygure and representacyon of hys bodye in breade and wyne: therfore it foloweth that he had a true bodye. And that this was .S. Hieroms mynde doth manefestly appeare by the wordes of Bede, which doth more copyouslye sette out this sayenge of Hierome. [Sidenote: Beda super Luc.] For he wryteth on this maner. _Finitis paschæ ueteris solennijs que in commemorationē antiquæ de ægypto liberationis agebantur, transit ad nouū quod in suæ redemptionis memoriā ecclesia frequētare desiderat, ut uidelicet pro carne agni uel sanguine suo, carnis sanguinisq; sacramentum in panis ac uini figura substituens, ipsum se esse monstraret cui iurauit Dominus. Tu es sacerdos in æternum secundum ordinem Melchisedech. Frangit autem ipse panem quem porrigit, ut ostendat corporis sui fractionem non sine sua sponte futuram. Similiter & calicem postquam cœna uit dedit eis. Quia ergo panis carnē cōfirmat, uinum uero sanguinē operatur in carne, hic ad corpus Christi mystice, illud refertur ad sanguinem._ That is to saye. After the solempnyte of the olde Easter lambe was fynyshed, which was obserued in the remēbraunce of the olde delyueraūce out of Egypte, he goth vnto the newe which the churche gladlye obserueth in the remēbraunce of hys redempcyon, that he in the steade of the fleshe and bloode of the lambe, myght instytute and ordeyne the sacramēt of hys fleshe and bloode in the fygure of breade and wyne, and so declare hym selfe to be the same vnto whome the Lorde sware, thou arte a perpetuall Preste after the order of Melchisedech. And he hym selfe brake the breade which he gaue, to shewe that the breakynge of hys bodye shulde not be done without hys owne wyll. And lykewyse he gaue them the cuppe after he had supped. And because breade doth confyrme or strengthen the fleshe, and wyne worketh bloode in the fleshe, therfore is the breade mystycallye referred vnto the bodye of Christe, and the wyne referred vnto hys bloode.

Here maye you note, fyrste that as the lambe was a remembraunce of theyr delyueraunce out of Egipte (and yet the lābe delyuered them not) so is the sacrament a remembraunce of our redemptyon, and yet the sacrament redeamed vs not. Besydes that he sayeth, that Christ in the steade of the fleshe and bloode of the lambe, ded instytute the sacrament of hys fleshe and bloode in fygure of breade and wyne.

Marke well, he sayeth not that in the steade of lambes fleshe and bloode he ded instytute hys owne fleshe and bloode, but sayeth that he ded instytute the sacrament of hys fleshe and bloode. What thynge is a sacrament? Verelye it is the sygne of an holye thynge, and there is no dyference betwene a sygne and a sacrament, but that the sygne is referred vnto a worldlye thynge, and a Sacrament vnto a spyrytuall or holye thynge.

[Sidenote: Ad Marcellum.] As Saynte Austen sayeth. _Signa cum ad res diuinas pertinent, sacramenta appellantur._ That is to saye: sygnes when they partayne vnto godlye thynges are called sacramentes.

Therfore when Bede sayeth, that they ded instytute the Sacrament of hys fleshe and bloode in the fygure of breade and wyne, it is as moche to saye (by Saynte Austens dyffynycyon) as that he ded instytute the fygure of hys holye fleshe and bloode in the fygure of breade and wyne, that is to saye: that breade and wyne shulde be the fygure and sygne representynge hys most blessed holye fleshe and bloode vnto vs, for a perpetuall remēbraunce. And afterwarde he declared the propertye for whiche the breade is called the bodye ād the wyne the bloode: savynge he speaketh not so darkelye as I now do, but playnelye sayeth that the breade is mystycallye referred vnto the bodye of Christe: because that as breade doth strēgthē the fleshe, so Christes bodye which is fygured by the breade, doth strēgthen the soule through fayth in hys death. And so doth he clearlye proue my purpose.

[Sidenote: Crisost. super Matth.] Now lette vs see what Chrisostome sayeth, whiche shall descrybe vs the fayth of the olde Grecyans, who had not loste the true fayth, howsoeuer the wordle go now adayes. Chrisostome sayeth in thys maner. _Si enim mortuus Iesus nō est cuius signum & simbolū hoc sacrificū est? uides quantum ei studium fuerit ut semper memoria teneamus pro nobis ipsum mortuum fuisse._ That is to saye: Yf Iesus haue not dyed, whose memoryall and sygne is this sacryfyce? Thou seest what dylygence he gaue that we shulde cōtynuallye keape in memorye that he dyed for vs. Here you maye see that Chrisostome calleth the sacramet _symbolum et signum_: That is to saye, a memoryall and sygne of Christ, and that it was instytute to keape hys death in perpetuall remembraunce. But of one thynge thou muste be ware or els thou arte deceyued, he calleth it also a sacryfyce, and there thou muste wyselye vnderstonde hym. [Sidenote: Sacryfyce.] For yf it were the sacryfyce of Christes bodye, then muste Christes bodye be slayne agayne, which thynge God forbyd. And therfore thou muste vnderstōde hym whē he calleth it a sacryfyce, that he meaneth it to be a remēbraunce of that holye sacryfyce, where Christes bodye was offered on the crosse ones for all. For he can be sacryfyced no more, seynge he is immortall. Notwithstondynge our Prelates wyll here note me of presumptiō, that I dare be so bolde to expounde hys mynde on this fashyon. For in dede they take hym otherwyse, and thynke that it is a verye sacryfyce. And therfore I wyll brynge one other texte, where Chrisostome shall expounde hym selfe. Chrisostome sayeth: [Sidenote: Crisost. ad Hebre. hom. 17.] _Nonne per singulos dies offerrimus? offerrimus qdem, sed ad recordationem mortis eius facientes. Hoc autem sacrificium (sicut pontifex) sed id ipsum semper facimus: imo recordationē sacrificij._ That is to saye: do we not daylye offer or do sacryfyce: yes suerlye. But we do it for the remembraunce of hys death, for this sacryfyce is as an example of that we offer, not an other sacryfyce (as the Byshopp in the olde lawe ded) but euer the same: yea rather a remembraunce of the sacryfyce. Fyrste he sayeth that they daylye do sacryfyce, but it is in remembraunce of Christes death. Then he sayeth that the sacryfyce is an example of that. Thyrdlye he sayeth, that they offer not an other sacryfyce (that is to saye an oxe or a gotte) as the Byshoppes of the olde lawe, but euer the same.

Marke thys poynte: For though it seame at the fyrste syght to make wyth them, yet doth yt make so derectelye agaynste them, that they shall neuer be able to avoyde it. Chrisostome sayeth, they do not offer an other sacryfyce as the Bysshoppes ded, but euer the same. They offer other breade and wyne thys daye, then they ded yesterdaye: they shall saye an other Masse to morowe, then they ded this daye.

Now yf thys breade and wyne or the Masse be a sacryfyce, then do they offer an other sacryfyce, as well as the Byshoppes of the olde Lawe. For thys sacryfyce ded sygnyfye that Christe shulde come and shedde hys bloode, as well as the breade, wyne, and Masse, do represent that he hath done it in dede. And therfore yf it be a sacryfyce, then do they offer an other sacryfyce, representynge hys passyon, as well as the Byshoppe of the olde Lawe. But that doth Chrisostome denye, and sayeth that they offer euerye daye the same. What same? Verelye euen the same that was done and sacryfyced when Christe shedde hys bloode. In thys sacryfyce is Christe euerye daye bounde and buffetted, and ledde from Anna to Cayphas: he is brought to Pylate and condempned; he is scourged ād crowned with thorne, and nayled on the crosse, and hys harte opened with a spere, and so sheadeth hys bloode for our redempcyon. Why Chrisostome, and do you the selfe same sacryfyce euerye daye? Yea verelye. Then why doth Saynte Paule saye to the Romaynes [Sidenote: Rom. 6.] in the syxte Chapter: that Christe is rysen from death, and dyeth no more? Yf he dye no more, how do you daylye crucyfye hym? For sothe Paule sayeth trouthe.

For we do it not actuallye in dede, but onelye in a mysterye. And yet we saye, that we do sacryfyce hym, and that thys is hys sacryfyce, for the celebracyon of the Sacrament and memorye of the passyon whiche we keape: and for thys cause it hath the name of the thynge that it doth represente and sygnyfye. And therfore, as Saynte Austen declareth a fore ad Bonifacium, [Sidenote: Augustinus ad Bonifacium.] I expounde my mynde by a rethorycall correctyon and saye, _Imo recordationem sacrificij_. That is to saye: Yea rather the remembraunce, and fygure of the sacryfyce.

Graunde mercyes good Chrisostome, now do I perceyue the pyth of thys matter: euen as the Masse is the verye death and passyon of Christe, so is it a sacryfyce. Now it doth but onelye represente the verye death and passyon of Christe, therfore it doth folowe that the Masse in verye dede doth but onely represente a sacryfyce. And yet not withstandynge manye tymes it is called a sacryfyce of holye doctours, and hathe the name of the verye same thynge that it doth represent ād sygnyfye. And euen so we maye saye of this sacrament, that as the Masse is the verye sacryfyce and passyon of Christ, so is the sacrament hys verye bodye and sacryfyce that is offered. Nowe the Masse doth but onely represent and sygnyfye the passyon: so the sacrament doth but onelye represent and sygnyfye the bodye and very sacryfyce ones offred for euer. Notwithstondynge manye tymes the Masse is called the bodye and a sacryfyce. And hath the name of the verye same thynge that it doth represent and sygnyfye.

[Sidenote: Crisostome.] Furthermore Chrisostome sayeth. _Ipse quos; bibitex eo, ne auditis uerbis illis dicerēt. Quid igitur sanguinem bibimus & carnem commedimus? ac ideo perturbarentur, nam & quando prius de his uerba fecit, etiam uerbis ipsius offendabantur. Ne igitur tunc id quoque accideret, primus ipse hoc fecit, ut ad communionem misteriorum induceret intrepidam._ That ys to saye: he also dranke of yt, leaste when they harde hys wordes, they shulde saye: why do we than drynke bloode and eate fleshe? and so shulde be troubled. For when he spake before of those thynges, they were offended wyth hys wordes. And because that shulde not now also chaunce, he hym selfe dranke fyrst of yt, that he myght cause thē to come without feare to the partakynge of those mysteryes. Here Chrisostome noteth that Christe dranke of yt, to drawe them from the grosse vnderstōdynge of hys wordes, and by hys drynkynge to testyfye vnto them, that yt was not hys naturall fleshe in dede, but onely memoryalles and representacyons of hys bodye and bloode. And therfore he calleth them mysteryes: that is to saye sacramentes. For in thys place a sacramente ād a mysterye ys all one thynge. Notwithstondynge some tyme thys worde mysterye ys more common ād large in signyfyenge then this worde sacrament. And I haue shewed you before, that a sacrament ys the sygne of an holy thynge, and not the thynge it selfe that yt representeth: albeit somtyme yt beare the name of the verye thynge yt selfe. As the Image of .S. Peter ys not saynt Peter hym selfe, and yet yt beareth hys name.

Chrisostome sayeth. _Caro non prodest quicquam: hoc est, secundum spiritum uerba mea audienda sunt. Qui secundum carnem audit, nihil lucratur, nihil utilitatis accipit. Quid est autem carnaliter intelligere: simpliciter ut res dicuntur, neque aliud quippiam excogitare. Misteria omnia interioribus oculis consideranda, hoc est spiritualiter._ That is to saye. The fleshe profyteth nothynge, that is: my wordes muste be vnderstonde after the spiryte, he that vnderstondeth them after the fleshe wynneth nothynge, nor taketh no profytte. What meaneth this, to vnderstonde after the fleshe or carnallye? Verelye to take the thynges symplye as they are spoken, and to thynke none other thynge. All mysteryes or sacramentes muste be consydered with the inwarde eyes, that is to saye: spyrytuallye.

And after he expoundeth hym selfe on this maner. _Interiores autem oculi ut panem uiderint, creaturas transuolant, & non de illo pane a pistore cocto cogitant: sed de eo qui dixit se panem uitæ, qui per mysticum panem significatur._ That is to saye. The inwarde eyes as soone as they see the breade, they passe ouer the creatures, ād thynke not of that breade which is baken of the baker, but of hym that called hym selfe the breade of lyfe, which is sygnyfyed by the mystycall or sacramētall breade. Wolde you haue hym saye any more? he telleth you playne, that Christe which ys the very breade of lyfe, ys sygnyfyed by this sacramentall breade. And that is the thynge which our Byshoppes so fleshlye denye now adayes, which thynge yet you maye see, the olde Fathers cōclude with one assente. Notwythstōdynge yet I wyll alleage mo olde doctours, so that from hence forthe they maye be a shamed to call yt newe learnynge. Fulgentius sayeth. [Sidenote: Fulgentius 2. libro de fide.] _In illis enim carnalibus (tèpore legis) uictunis, significacio suit carnis Christi quam pro pctis nostris & ipse sine pctō fuerat oblaturus, & sanguinis quem erat effusurus in remissionè peccarorum nostrorum. In isto autè sacrificio gratiarum actio atq; cōmemoracio est carnis Christi quam pro nobis obtulit, & sanguinis quē pro nobis idē Deus effudit._ That is to saye. In these carnall sacrifyces in the tyme of the lawe, was a sygnyficacyon of the fleshe of Christe, which he without synne, shuld offer for our synnes, ād of the bloode which he shulde shedde out in remyssyon of our synnes. But this sacryfyce is a thankes geuynge ād remembraūce of the fleshe of Christe which he offered for vs, and of the bloode which the same God shedde for vs. Fyrste note that he calleth yt a sacryfyce, which notwithstōdyng is but a remēbraūce of that sacryfyce offered on the crosse ones for all: Thā he playnely calleth yt a thankes geuynge, and remembraunce of Christes very fleshe and bloode: and so concludeth with vs. Neuerthelesse because sophysters wolde soone thynke to avoyde thys place, I wyll alleage one other sayenge of the same autoure which they shall neuer be able to avoyde.

[Sidenote: Fulgen.] ¶ Fulgentius sayeth, as Haymo testyfyeth. _Hic calix nouum testamentum est, id est, hic calix quem uobis trado, nouum testamentum significat._ That is to saye. Thys cuppe or chalyce is the newe testament: That is: thys cuppe or chalyce which I delyuer you doth sygnyfye the newe testament. In this place he doth playnelye shewe hys mynde, which cā not be avoyded. For euen as the cuppe is the newe testament, so ys the breade the bodye. Nowe the cuppe dothe but sygnyfy the new testament. And therfore I may conclude, that the breade doth but sygnyfye the bodye.

[Sidenote: Eusebius.] Eusebius sayeth. _Quia corpus assumptum ablaturus erat ex oculis nostris & syderibus allaturus, necessarium erat ut uobis in hac die sacramentum corporis & sanguinis consecraret, ut coleretur iugiter per mysterium quod semel offerebatur in precium._ That is to saye: Because he wolde take awaye out of our eyes the bodye that he toke, and carye yt in to heauen, it was necessarye that in thys tyme he shulde consecrate to vs the sacramēte of hys bodye ād bloode: that that which was ones offered for the pryce of our redemptyon, myght contynuallye be honoured through the mysterye.

[Sidenote: Consecrate.] To consecrate a thynge, is to applye it vnto an holye vse. Here you maye see that he calleth yt the sacrament of hys bodye and bloode, which bodye is caryed vp into heauen. And also he calleth it a mysterye, which is ynough for them that wyll see.

[Sidenote: Druthmarius.] Also Druthmarius expoundeth these wordes, thys is my bodye on this maner: _Hoc est corpus meum in mysterio._ That is to saye: thys is my bodye in a mysterye. I thynke you knowe what a mysterye meaneth. Christe is crucyfyed euery daye in a mysterye: that is to saye: euery daye hys death ys represented by the sacramentes of remembraunce. The Masse is Christes passyon in a mysterye: that is to saye: the Masse doth represente hys passyon and keapeth yt in our memorye. The breade ys Christes bodye in a mysterye: that is to saye: it representeth hys body that was broken for vs, and keapeth yt in our remēbraunce.

You haue harde already the mynde of the doctours, how the sacrament ys Christes bodye. And now I shall shewe you how the sacrament ys our bodye, which doth not a lytle healpe to the vnderstōdynge of these wordes whych are in controversye. The sacramēt of the Aulter ys our bodye as well as it is Christes bodye. And euē as it is our bodye, so yt is Christes. But there is no man that cā saye that it is our naturall bodye in dede, but onely a fygure, sygne, memoryall, or represētacyon of our bodye: Wherfore yt must also folowe, that it is but onely a fygure, sygne, memoryall or represētaciō of Christes bodye. The fyrste parte of this argument maye thus be proued. [Sidenote: Augustino in sermone ad infantes.] S. Austen wrytynge in a sermon sayeth on this maner. _Corpus ergo Christi si uultis intelligere, apostolum audite dicentem. Vos estis corpus christi & mēbra .1. Cor. 12. Si ergo estis corpus christi & membra, mysteriū uestrumque in mensa Domini positū est, mysteriū Domini accipitis, ad id quod estis. Amē respōdetis et respōdēdo subscribitis._ That is to saye: Yf you wyll vnderstōde the bodye of Christe, here the Apostle which sayeth. We are the bodye of Christe and mēbres .1. Cor. 12. Therfore yf ye be the bodye of Christe and membres, your mysterye is put vpon the Lordes table, ye receyue the mysterye of the Lorde, vnto that you are you answer Amē. And in answerynge subscrybe vnto yt. Here you maye see that the sacramēt ys also our body, ād yet is not our naturall body, but onely our body in a mysterye, that is to saye: a fygure sygne, memoryall, or represētacyō of our body. For as the breade ys made of many graynes or cornes, so we (though we be manye) are one breade ād one bodye. And for this propertye and symylitude it is called our bodye, and beareth the name of the verye thynge which yt doth represēt & sygnyfy. Agayne s. Austē sayth. [Sidenote: Augusti in ser. de sacra feria Pasche.] _Quia Christus passy est pro nobis, cŏmēdauit nobis in isto sacramēto corpus & sanguinem suum, quod etiam fecit & nos ipsos. Nam & nos ipsius corpus facti sumus, & per misericordiā ipsius quod accipimus nos sumus. Et postea dicit. Iam in nomine Christi tanquam ad calicem Domini uenistis, ibi nos estis in mensa & ibi uos estis in calice._ That is, because Christ hath suffered for vs, he hath betakē vnto vs in thys sacramēt hys bodye and bloode, which he hath also made euen our selfes. For we also are made hys bodye, and by his mercye we are euē the same thynge that we receyue. And after he sayeth. Now in the name of Christe ye are come, as a man wolde saye, to the chalyce of the Lorde: there are ye vpon the table, and there are ye in the chalyce. Here you maye see, that the sacrament is our bodye. And yet yt is not our naturall bodye, but onelye in a mysterye, as it is before sayde.

[Sidenote: Augusti de sacra feria pasche.] Furthermore S. Austen sayeth. _Hunc itaq; cibŭ & potū societatē uult intelligi corporis & mēbrorū suorū quod est sācta ecclesia in predestinatis & uocatis & iustificatis & glorificatis sanctis & fidelibus eius. Huius rei sacramentum alicubi quotidie, alicubi certis interuallis dierum in dominico preparatur, & de mensa Domini sumitur, quibusdà ad uitam, quibusdam ad exitium. Res uero ipsa cuius est sacramentum, est omni homini ad uitam, nulli ad exitium, quicumque eius particeps fuerit._ That is to saye: he wyll that this meate and drynke shulde be vnderstōde to be the felowshyp of hys bodye and membres, which ys the holy churche in hys predestynate and called and iustyfyed and gloryfyed sayntes and faythfull. The sacrament of thys thynge ys prepared in some place daylye, and in some place at certayne appoynted dayes, as vpon the sondaye. And yt is receyued at the table of the Lorde, of some vnto lyfe, and of some vnto destruccyō. But the thynge yt selfe whose sacrament thys ys, is receyued of all men vnto lyfe, and of no mā vnto destruccyon, whosoeuer is partaker of yt. Here doth S. Austen fyrste saye, that this sacrament ys the felowshyppe of his bodye and membres which are we. And yet is not our naturall bodye, as ys before sayde. And then he sayeth, that the sacrament of thys thynge ys receyued of some vnto lyfe and saluacyon, and of some vnto death and dampnacyon. For both faythfull and vnfaythfull maye receyue the sacramēt. And after he sayeth, that the thynge yt selfe whose sacrament yt ys, is receyued of all men vnto lyfe, and of no man vnto destruccyon, who so euer ys partaker of yt. And of thys sayenge yt muste neades folowe, that onely the faythfull eate Christes bodye, and the vnfaythfull eate hym not. For he is receyued of no mā vnto destruccyon. And of thys yt muste also folowe that the sacrament ys not Christes bodye in dede, but onelye in a mysterye. For yf the sacrament were hys naturall bodye, then shulde yt folowe, that the vnfaythfull shulde receyue hys bodye. Which is contrarye to the mynde of saynt Austen, and agaynst all truth. Thus haue we suffycyentlye proued the fyrste parte of our argumēte, that the sacrament is our bodye, as well as yt is Christes. And nowe wyll I proue the secōde parte more playnely (although yt be ynough declared already, to them that haue eares) that euen as yt is our bodye so it is Christes.

Fyrste you shall vnderstonde that in the wyne, which ys called Christes bloode, is admyxed water, which doth sygnyfye the people that are redeamed with hys bloode: so that the heade which is Christe, ys not without hys bodye which is the faythfull people, nor the bodye without hys heade. Now yf the wyne when it is consecrated, be tourned bodelye in to Christes bloode, then is it also necessarye that the water which is admyxed be bodelye tourned in to the bloode of the faythfull people. For where as is one cōsecracion muste folowe one operacyō. And where as is lyke reason, there muste folowe lyke mysterye. But what so euer is sygnyfyed by the water as cōcernynge the faythfull people, is taken spirytually. Therfore whatsoever is spokē of the bloode in the wyne, muste also neades be taken spyrytuallye. This reason is not myne, but it is made by one Bartrame [Sidenote: Bartrame.] vpō a .700. yeares sens, when this matter was fyrste in dysputacyon. Whervpō at the instaunce of greate Charles the Emperoure, he made a boke professynge euen the same thynge that I do, and proueth by the olde doctours & faythfull fathers, that the sacrament is Christes bodye in a mysterye, that is to saye: a sygne, figure, or memoryall of hys bodye, whiche was broken for vs, and not hys naturall bodye. And therfore that doctryne is newe which otherwyse teacheth, and not myne, which is not myne, but the doctryne of Christe and of the olde fathers of Christes churche, tyll Antichriste began to sytte and reigne in the temple of God.

[Sidenote: Cyprianus ad Cecilium.] Besydes that Cypriane sayeth, that the people is ānexed in the sacramēt through the myxture of water. Therfor I mervell moche that they are so cōtēcyous ād wyll not see, that as the water is the people, so the wyne ys Christes bloode, that is to saye: in a mysterye, because yt represēteth Christes bloode, as the water doth the people. Furthermore Eusebius sayth. [Sidenote: Eusebius.] _Dū in sacramētis uino aqua miscetur, Christo fidelis populus incorporatur & iūgitur & quadā ei copula perfecta charitatis unitur._ That is to saye: whyles in the sacrament water is admyxte with the wyne, the faythfull people is incorporate ād Ioyned with Christ, ād is made one with him, with a certayne knotte of perfecte charyte. Now where he sayeth, that we are Ioyned ād incorporated with Christe, what fondnes were it to cōtēde, syth we are there onelye in a mysterye, ād not naturallye. To cōtēde I say with suche pertynacyte that his naturall bodye must be there: ād not rather that he is Ioyned with vs, as we are Ioyned with hym, ād both in a mysterye, by the knotte of perfecte charyte. [Sidenote: More.] ❧ The yōge man perceyueth well ynough that an allegory vsed in some place is not a cause suffycyēt to leaue the proper sygnyfycacyōs of Godes worde in euery other place ād seke an allegorye, ād forsake the playne cōmō sence. For he cōfesseth that he wold not so do saue for necessyte: because (as he sayeth) that the cōmon lytterall sence is impossyble. For the thynge he sayeth that is mente therbye can not be true. That is to saye: that the verye bodye of Christe can be in the sacrament, because the sacrament ys in many dyuerse places at ones, and was at the maundye: that is to wete, in the handes of Christe ād in everye of hys Apostles mouthes. And at that tyme yt was not gloryfyed. And thē he sayeth that Christes bodye not beynge gloryfyed, could no more be in two places at ones than hys owne cā. And yet he goth after furder, ād sayeth, no more yt can whan yt is gloryfyed also. And that he proueth by the sayenge of S. Austen whose wordes be, that the body with the which Christ arose muste be in one place. &c.

[Sidenote: Fryth.] ¶ Hetherto hath master More reasoned reasonablye: but now he begynneth to declyne from the dygnyte of dyuynyte into the dyrty dregges of vayne sophystry. For where I saye that I muste of necessyte seake an allegorye, because the lytterall sence is impossyble and can not be true, meanynge that it can not stonde with the processe of holy scrypture, but that other textes do of necessyte constrayne me to cōstrue yt spyrytuallye. There catcheth he thys worde, can, and thys worde impossyble, and wolde make men beleue that I mente, yt coulde not be true because reason can not reache yt, but thynketh it impossyble. And there he triūpheth before the vyctorye, and wolde knowe what artycle of our fayth I coulde assygne, in which reason shall not dryue awaye the strengthe of my proue, and make me leaue the lytterall sence wherin my profe shulde stonde, and sende me to seake an allegorye that myght stonde wyth reason, and dryue awaye the fayth. But now deare bretherne, seynge I speake not of the impossybylyte of reason, but of the impossybylyte to stōde with other textes of scripture, ye maye see that this royall reasō is not worth a ryshe. Then wolde he fayne knowe the place where S. Austen so sayeth, which thyng although, yt were harde for me to tell, syth I haue not hys bokes to loke for it, yet I thanke God my memorye is not so bad, but I can shewe hym where he shall fynde yt. And because I thynke that he is more accustomed to the Popes lawes then to S. Austens workes, syth he is become the prelates proctoure and patrone: I saye he shall not fayle but fynde it in his lawes de consecracione. And where as he wolde wreste the wordes of S. Austē, which sayeth that the bodye in which Christ arose muste neades be in one place: sayēge, that he myght meane not that hys body myght not be in dyuerse places at ones, but that yt muste be in one place, that is to saye: in some one place or other. He speaketh (sayth master More) nothynge of the sacrament, nor sayeth not that his bodye with which he rose muste nedes be in one place, & that it cā by no possybylyte be in any mo. Thys seameth to some a goodly glose, ād yet yt shall proue but a vayne evasyon. For yf a mā wolde saye that the Kynges graces body muste be in one place, and then a nother wolde expounde that (notwithstondynge hys wordes) hys graces bodye myght be in two places at ones, I thynke men myght soone Iudge that he delyted to delaye, ād myght saye, what neade he to determyne, that he muste be in one place excepte he thought in dede, that he myght be in no mo but onely one; And though mē myght so argue vpō other mens wordes, yet of saynte Austēs wordes thys must neades folowe, for he bryngeth them in (as God wolde) by a contrarye antithesis sayenge. [Sidenote: Ad Hieronimū.] _Corpus in quo resurrexit in uno loco esse oportet, ueritas autem eius ubique diffusa est._ That is to saye: hys bodye wherin he rose must be in one place, but hys truth ys dyspersed in all places. Where he playnelye concludeth by the contrarye antithesis, that as hys truth ys dyspersed in all places, so muste hys bodye neades be in one place onelye. As by example, yf a mā shulde saye. The Kynges graces bodye muste neades be in one place, but hys power is through out hys Realme. Where no man doubteth, but that in sayenge one place, he meaneth one place onelye: And therfore though in some place that worde, muste, doth not sygnyfye suche a necessyte as excludeth all possybylyte, yet in this place yt doth so sygnyfye, as the contrarye antithesis doth evydently expresse.

And where ye saye, that he speaketh no thynge of the sacrament, I wolde ye shulde stycke styll to that sayenge. For this is playne, that he speaketh of hys naturall bodye. And therfore yf he speake not of the sacrament, then haue you cōcluded that the sacramēte is not hys naturall bodye: the contrarye wherof you wolde haue men beleue. Thus haue I shewed evydence, bothe where he shall fynde the wordes of S. Austen and also that I haue ryght alleaged them.

Notwytstondynge syth he maketh so moche of hys paynted sheth, I shall alleage hym more auctorytes that Christes naturall bodye is in one place onely. Which thynge proued doth vtterly conclude that the sacrament ys not hys naturall bodye, but onelye a memoryall representynge the same. And fyrste let vs see S. Austēs mynde.

[Sidenote: August. ad Dardanium.] S. Austen wrytynge vnto Dardanius doth playnly proue that the naturall body of Christe muste neades be in one place onelye, and also that hys soule can be but in one place at ones. The occasyon of hys Epystle is this: Dardanius ded wryte vnto S. Austen for the exposycyon of those wordes that Christe spake vnto the thefe sayenge: This daye shalt thou be with me in paradyse: & wyste not how he shulde vnderstonde yt, whether Christe mēte that the thefe shulde be in paradyse with Christes soule, or with hys bodye, or with hys Godhed. Thervpon S. Austen wryteth that as towchynge Christes bodye, that daye it was in the sepulchre. And sayeth that it was not paradyse, although it were in a gardē that he was buryed. For Christe (he sayeth) mēt of a place of Ioye. And that was not (sayeth S. Austen) in hys sepulchre. And as for Christes soule, yt was that daye in hell. And no mā wyll saye, that paradyse was there. Wherfore (sayeth Austen) the texte muste neades be vnderstonde, that Christ spake yt of hys godhed. Now marke thys argumēt of S. Austen, and ye shall see my purpose playnelye proued. For seynge he expoundeth thys texte vpō Christes Godhed, because hys māhod as towchynge the body was in the graue, and as towchynge hys soule was in hell: you may soone perceyue that Austē thought, that whyls hys body was in the graue, yt was not in paradyse also: & because hys soule was in hell, yt coulde not be in paradyse also. And therfor he verefyeth the texte vpon hys dyuynyte. For yf he had thought that Christes bodye or soule myght haue bene in dyuerse places at ones, he wolde not haue sayde, that the texte must neades be vnderstōde of his dyuynyte, but it myght full well, yea and moche better haue bene vnderstōde of hys manhode. Marke well thys texte whiche doth determyne the doubt of this matter. Notwithstondynge the faythfull Father leaueth not the matter on thys fashyō, but also taketh a waye soche fonde ymagynacyons as wolde cause mē to surmyse, that Christes bodye shulde be in mo places at ones then one. For he sayeth. _Cauendum est ne ita diuinitatem astruamus hominis ut ueritatem auferamus corporis. Non est autem consequens ut quod in deo est, ita sit ubiq;. Nam & de nobis ueracißime scriptura dicit, quod in illo uiuimus, mouemur & sumus. Nec tamē sicut ille, ubiq; sumus, sed aliter homo ille in Deo, quam & aliter deus in illo homine, proprio quodam & singulari modo. Vna enim persona deus & homo est, et utrumq; est unus Christus Iesus, ubiq; per id quod deus est, in celo aūt per id quod homo._ That is to saye: we muste beware that we do not so affyrme the dyuynyte of the man, that we take awaye the truth of hys bodye. For it foloweth not that the thynge whiche is in God, shulde be in euery place as God is. For the scrypture doth trulye testyfye vnto vs, that we lyue, moue, and be in hym. And yet are we not in everye place as he is. Howbeit, that man is otherwyse in God, and God otherwyse in that man by a certayne peculyer and synguler waye. For God and man is one parson, and bothe of them one Christe Iesu, whiche is in euery place in that he is God, and in heauen, in that he is man. Here Austen doth saye, that yf we shulde graunte Christe to be in all places as towchynge hys manhode, we shulde take a waye the truth of hys bodye. For though hys manhode be in God and God in hys manhode, yet it foloweth not, that it shulde be in everye place, as God is. And after he concludeth, that as towchynge hys Godhed he is in euery place, and as towchynge hys manhode, he is in heauē. What neade he to make these wordes and antithesis, but because he thought verelye that though hys Godhed were in euery place, yet his māhode was in heauen onelye.

[Sidenote: Augustinus ibidē.] But yet thys holye doctoure goth furder (so that they maye be ashamed of their parte) and sayeth. _Secundū hominē namq; in terra erat, non in cœlo (ubi nunc est) quādo dicebat, nemo ascendet in cœlum nisi qui descendit de cœlo, filius hominis qui est in cœlo._ That is to saye; as towchynge hys manhod he was in the earth and not in heauen (where he now is) when he sayde, no man ascendeth into heauē but he that descended from heauen, the sone of man whiche is in heaven. Now I truste ye wyll be content and let the truth spreade. For I am sure it is not possyble for you to avoyde it, for he sayeth, that as towchynge hys manhod he was in the earth and not in heauē, whē he spake those wordes: and so proueth that he was not in mo places at ones then onelye one place. For els yf S. Austen had thought that he coulde haue bene in mo places at ones then one wyth hys bodye, then myght he not haue sayde, that he was in earth and not in heauen. For then a mā myght soone haue deinded hym and haue sayde. Austen you can not tell, for he maye be in euery place. But they that so thynke after Austens mynde, do take awaye the truthe of hys naturall bodye, and make it a very fantastycall bodye: from the which heresye God delyuer hys faythfull. Besydes thys S. Austen doth saye. _Christum Dominum nostrum unigenitum DEI suium equalem patri, eundemq; hominis filium quo maior est pater, & ubiq; totum presentem esse non dubites tanquam DEVM, & in eodem templo DEI esse uerum DEVM, & in aliena parte cœli propter corporis modum._ That is to saye: Doubt not but that Christe our Lorde the onlye begottē sonne of God equall to the Father, and the same beynge the sonne of mā wherin the father is greater, is whole present in all places as to towchynge hys Godhed, and dwelleth in the same temple of God as God, ād in some place of heauen, for the condycyon of hys very bodye. Here is it euydent by .S. Austēs wordes, that as towchynge hys Godhed he is in all places. And as towchynge hys manhod, he is onelye in heauen: yea and not that onelye, but that he beynge in heauen as towchynge the measure, nature, condycyon, and qualyte of hys naturall bodye, is onelye in one certayne place in heauen, and not in many places at ones. Thus moche is proued out of Saynte Austen.

This truth is not onelye proued by S Austens auctoryte, but also by the noble clarke Fulgentius, which wryteth on this maner. _Vnus idemq; homo localis ex homine, qui est Deus immensus ex patre, unus idemq; secundum humanam substantiam absens cœlo cum esset in terra, et derelinquens terram cū ascendisset in cœlum. Secundum diuinam uero immensamq; substantiam, nec cœlum dimittens cum de cœlo descendit, nec terram deserens, cum ad cœlum ascendit. Quod ipsius Domini certisisimo sermone potest cognosci, qui ut localem ostenderet suam humanitatem, dicit discipulis suis: Ascendo ad patrem meum & patrem uestrum, Deum meun & Deum uestrum. De Lazaro quoq; cum dixisset, Lazarus mortuus est, adiunxit dicens, & gaudeo propter uos (ut credatis) quoniam non eram ibi immensitatem uero suæ diuinitatis ostendens discipulis dicit: Ecce ego uobiscum sum usq; ad consummationen sæculi. Quomodo autem ascendit in cœlum nisi quia localis & uerus est homo, aut quomode adest fidelibus suis, nisi quia idem inmensus & uerus Deus est._ That is to saye. The same one man is locall (that is to saye: conteyned in one place) as towchynge hys manhod, whiche is also God vnmesurable from the Father. The same one man as towchynge the substaunce of hys manhod, was absent frō heauen, whē he was in earth, and forsakynge the earth, when he ascended in to heauē, but as towchynge hys Godly ād vnmeasurable substaunce he neyther forsoke heauen whē he descēded frō heauen, nor forsoke the earth, whē he ascēded vnto heauē, which may be knowē by the moste sure worde of the Lorde, whiche to shewe hys humanyte to be locall (that is to saye: contayned in one place onelye) ded saye vnto hys dyscyples. I ascēde vnto my Father and your Father, my God and your God. Of Lazarus also when he sayde, Lazarus is ded, he sayde further. I am gladde for your sake (that you may beleue) for that I was not there. And agayne, shewynge the vnmeasurablenes of hys Godhed, he sayde vnto hys discyples. Beholde, I am with you vnto the worldes ende, how ded he ascende in to heauen, but because he is locall and a verye mā? Or howe is he present vnto hys faythfull, but because he is vnmeasurable and verye God? Here maye you conclude by the auctoryte of thys doctoure also, that Christes bodye is onelye in one place at ones. For he sayeth, that Christ as towchynge hys manhod is locall: that is to saye: contayned in one place onelye. And that he proueth by the scrypture euen of Christes owne wordes. Now yf thys be true (as my conscyence doth testyfye, how so euer other men shall Iudge) then muste it neades folowe that this naturall bodye can not be in the sacrament. And the auctorite, I am sure no man can avoyde, yt is so playne.

[Sidenote: More.] ❧ Now as for hys naturall reasons be not worthye the reasonynge. For fyrste that the bodye of Christe vngloryfyed coulde no more be in two places at ones then hys owne can, because he is a naturall bodye, as he is. I wyll not examyne no comparyson betwene their two bodyes: but yf Christe wolde tell me that he wolde eche of both their bodyes to be in fyftene places at ones, I wolde beleue hym, and wolde neuer aske hym whether he wolde fyrste gloryfye them or not. But I am sure gloryfyed or vngloryfyed, yf he sayde it, he is able to do it. For the matter is not impossyble to God.

[Sidenote: Fryth.] ¶ Truthe it is that yf Christe so sayde and in so sayenge so mente, there is no doubte, but he were able so to do. But that he in dede so grosselye mēt, ye shall neuer proue. And in dede yf he had so mēte that hys owne naturall bodye shulde haue contynued in the sacrament which is the meate of the soule through faythe, and not of the bodye by eatynge it, and maye as well be eaten through fayth, although it remayne in heauen, as yf it were here present to our mouthes: yf (I saye) he had so mente, then wolde he neuer haue geuen vs suche scriptures as he ded. For I saye that thys grosse ymagynacyon may not stonde with the processe of the scrypture which is receyued, as it shall appeare by certayne textes.

Fyrste where our sauyoure sayeth: the fleshe profyteth nothynge. The wayght of those wordes doth compell vs to vnderstonde our matter spyrytuallye. For by thys shorte sentence we are no lesse plucked from the carnall eatynge, then was Nichodemus that he shulde not ones dreame of the carnall regeneracyon, whē Christe sayde vnto hym: that whatsoeuer thynge was of the fleshe was fleshe. For this is a playne conclusyon, that whē Christe sayde the fleshe profyteth nothynge, he ment it euē of hys owne fleshe, that it coulde not profyte (as they vnderstode hym) to be eaten with the teth. Albeyt it doth moche profyte to be slayne for our redemptyon, & eaten through fayth. Which thyng we may do although hys naturall fleshe be not in the sacrament. For I maye as well beleue in hym though he be in heauen, as yf he were in earth and in the sacrament, and before myne eyes. And that Christe spake these wordes of hys owne bodye, it is playne by S. Austens wordes wrytynge vpon the same place. [Sidenote: Augustitract. su. 6. Joan.] And therfore he sayeth, that they muste be vnderstonde spyrytuallye, and addeth: yf thou vnderstonde them spyrytuallye, they are spyryte and lyfe. And though thou vnderstonde them carnallye, yet neuerthelesse they are spyryte and lyfe: But vnto thē, they are not spyryte and lyfe, which vnderstondest not spyrytuallye those thynges that I haue spoken.

[Sidenote: Athanasius. 3. li. qui dix. verb.] Also Athanasius sayeth. _Spiritus est qui uiuificat, caro non prodest quicquà: uerba que ego locutus sum, spiritus sunt & uita. Nam & hoc loco utrumque de seipso dicit carnem & spiritum, & spiritum ab eo quod est secundum carnem distinxit, ut non solum uisibile, sed etiam inuisibile quod in ipso erat credentes discant, quod & ea que dicit non sunt carnalia sed spiritualia. Quod enim comedentibus suffecisset corpus, ut totius mundi alimonia fiat? Sed ea propter meminit ascensus filii hominis in cœlum ut illos a corporali cogitacione auelleret, & post hac discant carnem dictā cibum cœlestem superne uenientem & spiritualem alimoniam quam ipse det, nā quæ locutus sum (inquit) uobis spiritus sunt & uita._ That is to saye: it is the spyryte that quyckeneth, the fleshe profyteth nothynge. The wordes which I speake vnto you, are spiryte and lyfe. For in this place also he meaneth both of hys owne fleshe and his owne spyryte, and he deuyded the spiryte from the fleshe: that they myght knowe through faythe not onelye the vysyble parte, but also the invysyble parte that was in hym, and also that the wordes which he spake were not carnall, but spirytuall. For what bodye shulde haue suffysed to haue bene the meate of all the worlde? And euen therfore ded he make mencyon of the ascensyon of the sonne of man in to heauen, that he myght wythdrawe them from the bodelye ymagynacyon, that they myght hereafter learne, that the fleshe was called heauēly meate which cōmeth frō a boue, & spirytuall meate which he wolde geue. For (sayeth Christe) the wordes that I haue spokē vnto you, are spiryte & lyfe. Here you maye see that Christe spake yt of his owne fleshe, & playnely that yt ded nothynge profyte as infideles ded vnderstonde hym: For els yt geueth lyfe, as yt is receyued of the faythfull in a mystery. [Sidenote: Bartrame.] For as Bartrame sayeth, in this mysterye of the bodye and bloode, is a spirytuall operacyon which geueth lyfe. Without the which operacyon those mysteryes do no thynge profytte, for surelye (sayth he) they may feade the bodye, but the soule they can not feade.

Besydes that the scrypture sayeth, that that entreth in by the mouth doth not defyle a man, for as Christe sayeth, it is caste forthe in to the drawght. And by the same reason it foloweth that it doth not sāctyfye or make a man holye. But the sacrament entreth in by the mouth: therfore yt doth folowe that (of it selfe) it doth not sāctyfye or make holye any mā. And of this texte shulde folowe two incōueniences, yf the sacramēte were the naturall bodye of Christ. Fyrste it shulde folowe that the body of Christ shulde not sāctyfye the faythfull because it ētreth in by the mouth. And agayne yt shulde folowe, that the bodye of Christe shulde be caste out in to the drawght, whych thynge is abhominable. Wherfore yt muste neades folowe, that the sacramēt cā not be his naturall bodye.