|More.|
And where master
More sayeth, that
yf Chryste had not
ment after the playne
litterall sense, that
both the hearers at
that tyme, and the expositours
sens, and
all Christen people besyde thys xv.c. yeare
wolde not haue taken onelye the litterall
sens beynge so straunge and mervelous
that yt myght seame impossyble, ād
declyne from the letter for allegoryes in
all suche other thynges, beynge (as he sayeth)
and as in dede they be, so manye farre
in nombre mo.
|Fryth.|
¶ As towchynge the hearers they were
deceyued and vunderstoode hym not (I
meane as manye as toke hys wordes fleslye
as you do). And they had their answere
of Christe (when they mourmured) that
hys wordes were spyrite and lyfe: that is
(as S. Austen sayeth) spirytually to be
vnderstonde & not fleslye, as ys before declared.
And as for the exposytours, I
thynke he hath not one of the olde fathers
for hym, but certen newe felowes: as Dominicus,
S. Thomas, Occam, ād suche other
33which haue made the Pope a God.
And as I haue shewed S. Austen maketh
full for vs, and so do all the olde fathers.
As Oecolompadius hath well declared
in hys boke. Quid ueteres senserint de sacramento
eucharistiæ. And some of their sayenges
I shall alleage a none. And where
you saye that all Christen people haue so
beleued this .1500. yeares, that is very false.
For there ys no doubte, but that the people
thought as holye Saynt Austen and
other faythful fathers taught thē. Which
as I sayde, make with vs. Notwithstondynge
in dede syth oure prelates haue bene
made lordes and haue sette vp their lawes
and decrees contrarye to the prerogatyue
of all Prynces, and lyke moste subtle
traytours, haue made all men beleue that
they may make lawes & bynde mens cōscyences
to obeye them: and that theyr lawes
are Gods lawes, blyndynge the peoples
eyes wyth two or thre textes wrongfully
wrested, to avaunce their pryde, where
they ought to obeye Kynges & Princes
& be subiect to their lawes, as Christ & hys
Apostles were euē vnto the death. Syth
that tyme I say, they haue made mē beleue
what they lyst, & make artycles of the faythe
at their pleasure. One artycle must be
that they be the church, ād cā not erre. And
this ys the grounde of all their doctryne.
But the truth of this artycle ys now suffycyently
knowē. For yf quene Katheryne
be Kynge Hēryes wyfe, thē they do erre,
& yf she be not, they haue thē erred. It is
nowe become an artycle of our fayth that
the Pope of Rome must be the hede of the
churche ād the vycar of Christe: & that by
Gods lawe. It is an artycle of our fayth,
that what soeuer he byndeth in earth, is
boūde in heauē, in so moche that yf he curse
wrōgfully, yet yt must be feared, ād infynite
suche other which are not in our crede,
but blessed be god that hath geuē some
lyght in to oure Prynces harte. For he
hath lately put forth a boke called the glasse
of truth, which proueth many of these
artycles very folysh fātasyes, ād that euē
by theyr owne doctours, and so I truste
you shall be proued in this poynt of the sacramēt.
For though it be an artycle of our
fayth, yt is none artycle of our Crede in
the .xij. artycles, whiche are suffycyent for
our saluacyon. And therfore we may
thynke that you lye without all Ieoperdye
of dampnacyon.
Neuerthelesse seynge hys mastershyp sayeth
that all make for hym, & I say cleane
contrarye, that allthe olde fathers make
agaynste hym, it were necessarye that one
of vs shulde proue hys purpose. But in
dede in this poynte he wolde loke to haue
the vātage of me. For he thynketh that
mē wyll sooner beleue him which is a greate
34mā, thē me which am but a poore mā,
ād that therfor I had more neade to proue
my parte true, thē he to proue hys. Well,
I am content, and therfor geue eare dere
reader and iudge betwene vs.
|Tertullianus
libro. 2. cōtra
Marcionem.
Tertullianus
libro 4. cōtra
Marcionem.|
First I wyll begynne with Tertulyan,
because he is of moste antiquyte. Tertullyan
sayeth. Ipse (Christus) nec panem reprobauit
quod ipsum corpus suum representat.
That is to saye: Christ hym selfe ded not
reproue or discōmēde breade which doth
represent hys bodye. For the vnderstōdynge
of thys place, you must know that there
was an heretyke called Marcyō, which
ded reproue creatures, & sayde that all maner
of creatures were euell. This thynge
doth Tertullyā improue by the sacramēt
& sayeth. Christ ded not reproue or dyscōmende
breade the which doth represēt his
bodye: as though he shulde say, yf Christ
had counted the breade euell, then wolde
he not haue lefte yt for a sacrament to represent
hys bodye, meanynge that it is a
sacramente, sygne, token, and memoryall
of hys bodye, and not the body ytselfe.
And that this is hys mynde, doth
playnly appeare in his fourth boke, where
he sayeth. Christus acceptū panē et distributū
discipulis, corpus suū illud fecit: hoc est corpus
meū dicēdo, id est figura corporis mei. Figura
autē non fuisset, nisi ueritatis e ēt corpus.
Vacua res quod est phātasma, figuram
capere non posset.
That ys to saye: Christe takynge breade
and dystrybutynge vnto hys discyples
made yt hys bodye, sayēge. This ys my
body. But thys breade coulde not haue bene
a figure of yt, excepte Christ had had a
true bodye. For a vayne thynge or a fantasye
can take no fygure. For the vnderstondynge
of this place, you muste marke
that this heretycke Marcyō agaynst whome
thys auctoure wryteth, ded holde opynyon
that Christ had no naturall bodye,
but onelye a fantastycall bodye, ād this opynyon
doth thys doctoure improue by
the sacrament of the aulter sayenge. The
sacrament ys a fygure of hys bodye: ergo
Christ had a true bodye, ād not a fantastycall
bodye: For a vayne thynge or fantasye
can take no fygure. Loo, here doth this
olde father which was longe before .S.
Austen or .S. Hierome, expounde these
wordes of Christe. This is my bodye:
that is to saye, a fygure of my bodye.
Therfor ye are to blame to call it new lernynge.
Nowe because they shall not of temeraryous
presumpcyon reiecte this olde
father, I shall establyshe hys wordes by
S. Austen, which commendeth Christes
meruelous pacyence for sufferynge so lōge
that traytour Iudas, as though he had
bene a good man, and yet was not ignorāt
of hys wycked thoughtes.
|Augusti.|
Adhibuit (inquit)
ad cōuiuium in quo corporis & sanguinis
35sui figura discipulis commendauit ac tradidit.
That is to saye:
|in prefa.
Psalm. 3.|
he admytted hym
sayeth S. Austē vnto the mandye wherin
he dede be take and delyuer vnto the dyscyples
the fygure of hys bodye and bloode.
Here doth thys holye father .S. Austē
call yt the fygure of hys body. And I am
sure there is no mā so chyldyshe, but that
he knoweth that the fygure of Christe ys
not Christe hym selfe, the fygure of .S.
Peter ys not saynt Peter hym selfe. And
yet we do neuerthelesse commōly call those
fygures by the name of the thynge
that they do represente. As I maye saye
when I see the fygure of .S. Peter, thys
ys S. Peter to whome Christe delyuered
the keyes of the kyngdome of heauē. And
yet he were a foole that wolde thynke
that fygure to be S. Peter hym selfe. For
yt is onelye a representacyon of hym. Besydes
that S. Austen sayeth.
|Augusti
in prefa.
Psalm.
98.|
Non hoc corpus
quod uidetis estis manducaturi, nec bibituri
illum sanguinem quem effusuri sunt qui
me crucifigent. Sacramentum aliquod uobis
commendaui, spiritualiter intellectum uiuificat
nos, caro autem non prodest quicquam.
That ys to saye: you shall not eate thys
bodye that you see, nor drynke that bloode
which they that crucyfye me shall shedde
out. I haue geuen a certayne sacramente
vnto you, yf yt be spirytually vnderstonde,
yt quyckeneth you: but the fleshe
profyteth nothynge. What thynges can
be more playnely spoken?
Furdermore S. Austen sayeth. Sepe ita
loquimur ut Pascha appropinquante crastinam
uel perendinam Domini passionem dicamus:
cum ille ante tam multos annes 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,
ut nos ita loquentes arguat esse mentitos,
quia istos dies secundum illorum quibus hæc
gesta sunt similitudinem nuncupamus: ut dicatur
ipse dies qui non sit ipse, sed reuolucio
ne temporum similes eius: & dicatur illo die
fieri propter sacramenti celebrationem, quod
non illo die, sed iam olim factum est. Nonne
semel immolatus est Christus in seipso? & tamen
in sacramento non solum per amnuas
Paschæ solennitates, sed omni die pro popuslis
immola tur: nec utique mentitur qui interrogatus,
responderit eum immolari. Si enim
sacramenta quandam similitudinem earum rerum
quarum sunt sacramenta non haberent,
omnino sacramenta non essent. Ex hac autem
similitudine plerumque etiam ipsarum rerum
nomina accipiunt. Sicut ergo secundum quendam
modum sacramētum corporis CHRISTI
corpus CHRISTI est. Et sacramentum sanguinis
CHRISTI sanguis CHRISTI est, ita
sacramenta fidei fides est, Nihil est autem aliud
36ud credere, quam fidem habere, ac per hoc respondetur
fidem habere propter fidei sacramenta.
Et conuertere se ad Deum propter conuersionis
sacramentum. Quia & ipsa responsio
pertinet ad celebrationem sacramenti. Sicut
de ipso baptismo Apostolus dicit. Consepulti
(inquit) sumus Christo per baptismum
in mortem, Non ait sepulturam significauimus,
sed prorsus ait, consepulti sumus. Sacramentum
ergo tantæ rei non nisi eiusdem rei
uocabulo nuncupauit.
That is to saye: We often vse to saye,
when Easter draweth nyghe, that to morow
or the nexte day is the Lordes passyō,
ād yet yt is many yeares sens he suffered,
and that passyon was neuer done but
ones. And vpon that sondaye we saye,
thys daye the Lorde ded ryse agayne, and
yet yt ys many yeares sens he rose. Now
ys there no man so folyshe to reproue vs
as lyers for so sayenge, because we name
these dayes after the symylytude of those
in which these thynges were done, so
that yt is called the same daye, which is
not the verye same, but by the reuolucyon
of tyme lyke it. And yt is named to be done
the same daye through the celebracyon
of the sacramēt (through kepynge the memoryall
of the thynge ones done) which
ys not done that daye, but was done lōge
before. Was not Christe ones crucyfyed
in hys owne parson? ād yet in a mysterye
(which is the remembraunce of hys very
passyon) he ys crucyfyed for the people
not onely euery feaste of Easter, but euery
daye. Neyther doth he lye which (whē
he is asked) answereth that he is crucyfyed.
For yf the sacramentes, had not certayne
symylytudes of those thynges wherof
they are sacramentes, then shulde they be
no sacramentes at all. And for thys symylytude
for the most parte they take the names
of the very thynges, and therfore after
a certayne maner the sacramente of
Christes bodye ys Christes bodye, & the
sacramēte of Christes bloode, is christes
bloode, so the sacramēt of faythe, is fayth.
For yt ys nō other thyng to beleue, thē to
haue fayth, & therfore whē a mā āswereth
that the infante beleueth which hath not
the affecte of fayth, he answereth that yt
hath faythe for the sacramēt of fayth: And
that yt turneth yt selfe to GOD, for the
sacrament of conuersyon. For the answere
yt selfe perteyneth vnto the mynystrynge
of the sacrament. As the Apostle wryteth
of Baptyme: we are buryed (sayeth
he) wyth Christ through Baptyme vnto
death. He sayeth not, we sygnyfye buryenge,
but vtterlye sayeth, we are buryed.
He called therfore the sacrament of so
greate a thynge euen wyth the propre
37name of the verye thynge it selfe. & ce. If a
man wolde avoyde contencyon and loke
soberly vpon those wordes of Saynte Austen,
he shall soone perceyue the mysterye
of thys matter. For euē as the nexte good
frydaye shalbe called the daye of Christes
passyon: and yet he shall not suffer death
a gayne vpon that daye, for he dyed but
ones and is nowe immortall, euē so is the
Sacrament called Christes bodye. And as
that daye is not the verye daye that he dyed
vpon, but onelye a remembraunce therof:
So the Sacrament is not hys very naturall
bodye, but onelye a remembraunce
of hys bodye breakynge and bloode sheadynge.
And lykewyse, as the nexte Easter
daye shall be called the daye of hys resurrectyon,
not that it is the very same daye
that Christe ded ryse in, but a remembraunce
of the same: Euen so the Sacrament
is called hys bodye: not that it is hys bodye
in dede, but onely a remembraunce of
the same. And furdermore, euē as the Preste
doth offer hym, that is to saye, crucyfye
hym at Masse, euē so is the sacramēt hys
bodye. But the Masse doth but onely represent
hys passyon. And so doth the Sacrament
represent hys bodye. And yet
though the Masse dothe but represent his
crucyfyēge, we maye trulye saye he is crucyfyed,
euen so though the Sacrament do
but sygnyfye or represent hys bodye, yet
may we trulye saye that it is hys bodye.
Why so? verely (sayeth he) for the sacramentes
haue a certayne symylytude of
those thynges wherof they are sacramentes.
And for thys symylytude for the moste
parte, they take the names of the verye
thynges. Blessed be God which hathe so
clearelye dyscussed this matter by thys
faythfull Father. Notwithstondynge he
doth yet expresse it more playnelye sayēg:
After a certayne maner the sacrament of
Christes bodye is Christes bodye. Beholde
deare bretherne he sayeth, after a certayne
maner the sacramēt is Christes bodye.
And by that you maye soone knowe that
he neuer mēte that it shulde be hys verye
naturall bodye in dede, but onelye a token
and memoryall to keape in memorye the
death of hys bodye, and so to nouryshe
our fayth. Besydes that, hys symylytude
which he after allegeth of Baptyme, doth
througlye expoūde this matter, for (sayeth
he) the Apostle sayeth not, we sygnyfye
buryenge: but he sayeth, we are buryed, &
yet in dede the Baptyme doth but sygnyfye
it. And therevpon .S. Austen addeth,
that he called the sacrament of so greate a
thynge euen with the name of the verye
thynge it selfe. And lykewyse it is in our
sacrament. Fynallye to be shorte, I wyll
passe ouer many places which I haue gathered
out of this holye father, and wyll
38towche but this one more. Saynte Austē
sayeth.
|Augusti
cōtr. adamantū.|
Non enim Dominus dubitauit dicere,
Hoc est corpus meum, cum daret signum corporis
sui. Et in eoden capite exponit. Sic est
enim sanguis anima, quomodo petra erat Christus,
nec tamen petra (ait) significabat Christū,
sed ait petra erat Christus. That is to saye:
The lorde doubted not to saye, this is my
bodye, whē he gaue a sygne of hys bodye.
And after in the same chapyter he expoundeth
it. For trulye so the bloode is the soule,
as Christe was the stone. And yet the
Apostle sayeth not, the stone ded sygnyfye
Christ, but he sayeth the stone was Christ.
Here S. Austen sayeth playnelye, that
Christe called the sygne of hys bodye, his
bodye, and in this chapyter doth compare
these thre textes of scrypture, this is my bodye,
the bloode is the soule, and Christe
was the stone: And declareth them to be
one phrase, and to be expounded after one
fashyō. Now is there no mā so madde, as
to saye, that Christe was a naturall stone
(excepte he be a naturall foole) whose Judgemēt
we neade not greately to regarde.
Therefore we may well cōclude that the sacrament
is not his naturall bodye, but is
called his bodye, for a symylytude that it
hath, wherin it sygnyfyeth & representeth
his bodye. And that the sacramēt of so greate
a thynge is called euē with the name of
the very thynge it selfe. As s. Austē sayde.
Thys were prove ynough to conclude
that all the olde Fathers ded holde the
same opynyon, for who wolde ones surmyse
(seynge we haue. S. Austen so playne
for vs which is the cheafest amonge thē
all) who wolde ones surmyse I say, that
they dyssented in thys greate matter frō
the other faythfull fathers, or they from
hym? Neuerthelesse I dare not lett hym stōde
post alone, leaste ye dyspyse hym. And
therfore I wyll shewe you the mynde of
certayne other also: and fyrste of hys master
Saynt Ambrose.
|Ambrosi
super illud
mortē
domini
annuncia.|
S. Ambrose wrytynge vpon the Epystle
of Paule to the Corynthyans in the .xi.
Chapter sayeth. Quia enim morte Domini
liberati sumus, huius rei in edēdo & potādo,
carnem & sanguinem qui pro nobis oblata
sunt, significamus. That is to saye: because
we be delyuered by the death of the
Lorde, in eatynge and drynkynge of thys
thynge, meanynge of the Sacrament, we
sygnyfye the fleshe and bloode which were
offered for vs. Here doth S. Ambrose
saye ynough, yf men were not sophysters,
but wolde be content with reason. For he
sayeth that in eatynge and drynkynge the
Sacramēt of Christes bodye, we sygnyfye
or represent the fleshe and bloode of
our sauyoure Iesus. Notwithstondynge
be cause you are so slyppery, we shall bynde
you a lytle better by thys mās wordes.
39|Ambrosi
de sacra.|
S. Ambrose sayeth. Sed forte dices speciem
sanguinis non uideo, sed habet similitudinem.
Sicut enim mortis similitudinem sumpsisti,
ita etiam similitudinem preciosi sanguinis
bibis. That is to saye. But perauenture
thou wylte saye, I see no apperaunce of
bloode, but it hathe a symylytude. For euē
as thou haste taken the symylytude of death,
euen so thou drynkest the symylytude
of the precyous bloode. Here maye ye see
by the conferrynge of these two Sacramentes,
what .S. Ambrose iudged of it.
For he sayeth, euen as thou haste taken a
symylytude of hys death in the sacramēt
of baptyme, so doste thou drynke a symylytude
of hys precyouse bloode in the Sacrament
of the Aulter. And yet as S. Austen
sayde before, the Apostle sayeth, not
we sygnyfye buryenge, but sayeth, we are
buryed. And lykewyse here Christe sayde,
not this sygnyfyeth my bodye, but this is
my bodye, callynge the Sacrament, a sygne,
token, and memoryall of so greate a
thynge, euen with the name of the verye
thynge it selfe. Thus doth S. Ambrose
choke our sophysters.
Neuerthelesse I wyll alleage one place
more out of Ambrose, where he sayeth.
|Ambrosi
lib .3. de
sacramē.|
Dicit sacerdos fac nobis hanc oblationē scriptam
rationabilem, quod est figura corporis
Domini nostri Iesu Christi. That is: the Preste
sayeth, make vs this oblacyon acceptable.
& ce. For it is a fygure of the bodye of
our Lorde Iesus Chryst. Here he calleth it
playnelye a fygure of Christes bodye,
which thynge you can not avoyde. Therfore
geue prayse vnto God and lette hys
trouth sprede, which is so playnelye testyfyed,
by these holye Fathers. Now lette
vs see what S. Hierome sayeth.
|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
40ād 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.
|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
41and 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.
|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
42a 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.
|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.
|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
43arte deceyued, he calleth it also a sacryfyce,
and there thou muste wyselye vnderstonde
hym.
|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:
|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
44that 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
|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,
|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.
|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
45communionem 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
46breade 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.
|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.
|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.
|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
47contynuallye be honoured through the
mysterye.
|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.
|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.
|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
48of 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.
|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.
|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.
49And 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
|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.
|Cyprianus
ad Cecilium.|
Besydes that Cypriane sayeth, that the
people is ānexed in the sacramēt through
50the 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.
|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.
|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.
|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
51it 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.
|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
52is 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.
|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
53not 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.
|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
54he 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
55suis: 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.
|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
56he 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.
|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.
|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.
|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
57sed 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.
|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.
Furthermore Christ wolde not suffer
that devoute womā which of loue sought
hym at hys sepulchre, to touche his naturall
58bodye, because she lacked a poynte of
faythe, & ded not counte hym to be equall
with hys father. And moche more yt shall
folowe that the wycked which haue no
faythe nor loue towardes hym, shall
not be suffered to eate hys fleshe
with their teth, & swallowe yt in to their
vncleane bodyes: for that were moche more
then to touche hym. And yet notwithstandynge
they receyue and eate the sacrament.
Whervpon yt shulde folowe yf
the sacrament were hys naturall bodye,
that they shulde in dede eate hys bodye.
Which thynge may be recoūted a blasphemye
agaynste God. Moreouer Christe
sayeth, he that eateth my fleshe ād drynketh
my blood dwelleth in me & I in hym:
Now we knowe ryght well that the wycked
do eate the sacrament, ād yet neyther
dwell in Christe, nor Christ in thē. Wherfore
yt muste folowe that the sacramēt is
not the very fleshe of Christe. And surelye
I can not excuse thē of blasphemye which
so dyrectlye do cōtrary Christes wordes.
Howe can you avoyde these textes which
Christ speaketh vnto hys dyscyples sayēge.
Yet a lytel whyle am I with you. And
then I departe to hym that sente me.
|Ioan. 6.|
And
agayne it is expedyent for you that I departe.
For excepte that I departe, that
counforter shall not come vnto you.
|Ioan. 6.|
And
agayne he sayeth. I forsake the worlde
|Ioan. 6.|
and go to my Father. And to be shorte, he
sayeth,
|Mat. 25.|
poore mē ye shall euer haue with
you,
|Mar. 14.|
but me shall you not euer haue. Now
we knowe ryght well that hys Godhed
is in all places,
|Ioan. 12.|
and that as towchynge
hys Godhed he forsoke not the worlde,
when he ascended vnto hys Father.
Wherfore it muste neades folowe that he
fors oke yt as towchynge hys fleshe and
manhode. And therto agreeth the exposycyons
of Saynte Austen, and Fulgentius
before alleaged, yea and all other olde
faythfull Fathers. Now yf he haue forsaken
the worlde as towchynge the presence
of hys naturall fleshe and māhode (as
all doctours defyne) then mente he not
that hys naturall fleshe shulde be presente
in the sacrament, to be eaten with our
tethe. And therfore though Christe so tell
you, yet muste you take hym as he meaneth,
or els you be begyled. For yf ye
thynke that GOD both maye and wyll
fulfyll and veryfye all thynges accordynge
to the letter as he speaketh them, I maye
call you an obedyent man, as Saynte
BARNARD doth hys Monke Adam.
And maye saye (as he doth) that yf
that be the ryght waye, so symplye to receyue
all thynge, we maye put out the
texte of scrypture which warneth vs to be
wyse as serpētes. For the texte folowynge
is suffycyent, which byddeth vs to be
59symple as doves.
Why doth your mastershyppe graunte
a necessarye allegorye, whē Paule sayeth,
CHRISTE is a stone, or when
Christ sayeth, that he is a dore? The scrypture
sayeth he is both twayne. And syth
God so sayth, he is able so to make it. And
therfore by your reason we shall neade none
allegorye in all scrypture, & thē he that
is moste symple ād folyshe, may be counted
moste faythfull. And so shall we neade
no faythfull Fathers to expounde the
texte, but it shalbe moste meryte, to beleue
the letter. This I denye not, but that God
coulde haue done yt, yf he had so entēded,
when he spake the wordes: But nowe the
scrypture stondynge as it doth, I thynke
he can not do it. As by exāple. I thynke
that God by the bloode of hys sone Christe
myght haue saued all men, both faythfull
and vnfaythfull, yf he had so intēded,
ād that yt had so pleased hym. But nowe
the scrypture stōdynge as it doth, I saye
he can not do yt, and that it is impossyble
for hym. For then he myght make hys
sone a lyer which sayeth,
|Ioan. 3.|
he that beleueth
not is dampned. And agayne, he that beleueth
not shall not see lyfe, but the wrathe
of God abydeth vpon hym. And euen
as it is impossyble to stonde with the processe
of scriptures (wherin God hath declared
hys wyll) that the vnfaythfull
shulde be saued, although God myght haue
done it at the fyrst yf he had so wolde.
Lykewyse it is impossyble the scryptures
stondynge as they do, that the naturall
bodye of Christ shulde be presente to our
teth in the sacrament. And as for our faythe,
yt neadeth not to haue hym presente
in the breade. For I maye as well eate
hym ād drynke hym through faythe, that
is to saye: beleue in hym, as though he were
as presente in the sacramēte, as he was
hangynge vpon the crosse.
And because you saye, that my naturall
reasons be not worth the reasonynge,
I wyll alleage you some mo, to see what
you can saye to them. Fyrste euery sacrament
is the sygne of an holye thynge: but
the sacramente of the aulter is a sacramēt
(as all faythfull men confesse) ergo it muste
folowe that the sacrament of the aulter
is the sygne of an holye thynge. Nowe
yf it be the sygne of an holye thynge,
then it is not the holye thynge yt selfe
which yt doth sygnyfye & represent. Why
shulde we then feare, to call that breade
a fygure, that is to saye: a sacrament
of that holye bodye of our Lorde and Sauyoure.
Besydes that I wolde knowe of what
necessyte or profyte hys fleshe muste be
present in the sacrament. For the presence
of hys fleshe can no more profyte vs, thē
60doth the remembraunce of hys bodye, but
this remembraunce maye as well be done
by the sacrament, as though hys bodye
were present. And therfore syth God and
nature make nought in vayne, it foloweth
consequentlye, that his naturall fleshe is
not there, but onelye a memoryall therof.
Furthermore, the ende and fynall cause
of a thynge is euer better then those thynges
which are prouyded for the ende (as
the house is better than the lyme, stone, &
tymber, which are prouyded for the howse)
but the ende and fynall cause of the sacramente
is the remembraunce of Christes
bodye: and thervpō yt muste folowe
that yf the sacramente be hys naturall bodye,
that the remembraunce of Christes
bodye shulde be better then hys bodye it
selfe. Whiche thynge is to be abhorred of
all faythfull men.
It were fondnes to fayne that the soule
ded otherwyse eate then do the Angelles
in heauē, and their meate is onelye the
Ioye and delectacyon that they haue of
God and of hys glorye; And euen so doth
the soule which is here vpon the earth eate
through faythe the bodye of Christe
which is in heauen. For it delyteth & reioyseth
whyles yt vnderstōdeth through faythe,
that Christ hath takē our synnes vpō
hym and pacyfyed the Fathers wrath.
Neyther yt is necessarye, that for that or
for thys cause, that his fleshe shulde be present.
For a man maye as well loue ād reioyse
in the thynge which is from hym
and not present, as though yt were presēt
by hym of that maner.
More ouer, the breade is Christes bodye,
euen as the breakynge of the breade
is the death of hys bodye. Nowe the breakynge
of breade at the maundye is not the
verye death of Christes bodye, but onelye
a representacyon of the same (albeit the
mynde through faythe doeth spirytuallye
beholde hys verye death) and euen lyke
wyse that naturall breade is not the verye
bodye of our Lorde, but onely a sacramēt,
sygne, memoryall, or representacyō of the
same, albeit through the admonycyō therof,
the mynde through fayth, doth spirytually
beholde the verye body. And surely
yf a man be faythfull, the spirite of God
worketh in his harte very swetelye at his
communyon.
Fynallye, it was not laufull to eate or
drynke the bloode not onelye of man, but
also of a brute beaste, and the Apostles
them selues moued by the rule of charyte,
ded instytute that men shulde abstayne
from bloode, somewhat fauourynge
the infyrmyte of the Iewes. Now yf
the Apostles had taught (as ye do) that
in the sacrament hys verye fleshe and
61bloode is eaten and dronken with the teth
and mouthe of faythfull and vnfaythfull,
what coulde haue bene a greater occasyō
to haue excluded the Iewes frō Christes
fayth euen at ones? Thynke you that the
Apostles wolde not haue bene to srupulous
to haue dronken hys very bloode, seynge
it was so playne agaynst Moses lawe,
yf they had vnderstonde hym so grosselye
as ye do?
|Act .10.|
Peter had a clothe sente
downe from heauen, in whiche were all
maner of beastes forbydden by the lawe,
and was commaunded to fle and eate thē.
And he answered, God forbyd, for I neuer
eate any vncleane thynge, meanynge
therbye that he neuer eate any thynge forbyddē
by the lawe. Wherof it muste neades
folowe, that eyther he neuer receyued
the sacrament (whiche is playne false) or
els that he more spyrytuallye vnderstode
the wordes of Christes maundye then ye
falselye fayne. For it was playnelye forbydden
by the lawe, to eate or drynke any
maner of bloode.
|obiectyō.|
And I knowe but one reason,
that they haue which they counte as
insoluble: how be it by Goddes grace
we shall soone avoyde it. Their reason is
this. Paule sayeth, he that eateth and drynketh
this sacrament vnworthelye, shalbe
gyltye of the bodye and bloode of the Lorde.
Now saye they, how shulde they be gyltye
of the Lordes bodye ād bloode whiche
receyue it vnworthelye, excepte it were the
verye bodye and bloode of the Lorde.
|Solutiō.|
This argument I saye, is verye weake
and slender. For I can shewe manye examples
by the whiche it may be dyssolued.
For he that dyspyseth the Kynges seale
or Letters offendeth agaynste hys owne
parson, and yet the Letters or Seale is not
hys owne parson. He that vyolentlye
plucketh downe hys graces Armes, or breaketh
hys brode Seale wyth a furyouse
mynde or wyth vyolence, commytteth treason
agaynste hys owne parson. And yet
hys Armes and brode Seale are not hys
owne parsō. He that clyppyth the Kynges
coyne, commytteth treason agaynste the
Kynges parson and the common wealth:
and yet the money is neyther hys graces
parson nor the common wealth. And therfore
your argument is but weake and slēder.
For euē as a man doth offende agaynste
the Prynces parson by dyspysinge his
Armes, Seale, or Letters, so doth a mā offende
agaynste Christes bodye and bloode,
by abvsynge the sacrament of hys bodye
and bloode, although he be not there
present, as the Kynges parsō is not presente
in hys Armes, Seale, or Letters.
Besydes that S. Paule sayeth, that euerye
man whiche prayeth or preacheth
with covered heade shameth hys heade, &
hys head is Christe; shall we therfore Imagen
62that Christe is naturallye in euerye
mās heade, as your argument cōcludeth?
Forsoth that were a preatye fantasye. Fynally
S. Austen sayeth, that he doth no lesse
synne whiche neglygētlye heareth the
wordes of God, thē doth the other which
vnworthelye receyueth the sacrament of
Christes bodye and bloode. Nowe yf this
be true, then is your reason not worth a ry
she, for Christes naturall bodye is not in
the worde whiche is preached, as all men
knowe. And yet he synneth no lesse that
neglygentlye heareth it, then doth he that
vnworthelye receyueth the sacramēt. And
thus you see their insoluble argument easelye
dyssolued.
|More.|
❧ But now muste thys yonge man
consyder agayne that he hym selfe confesseth,
that the cause for which hym selfe sayeth,
that Christe in so sayenge ded so meane,
is because that yf he shulde haue mēt
so, yt was impossyble to God to brynge
hys meanynge a bought: that is to saye,
that Christes bodye myght be in two places
at ones. And therfore but yf he proue
that thynge impossyble for God to do, els
he confesseth that God not onelye sayde
it but also mente it in dede. And yet ouer
thys, yf Christ had neuer sayde it, yet doubt
I nothynge, but he is able to do it, or els
were there somwhat that he coulde not
do; And then were God not almyghtye.
|Fryth.|
¶ Here Master More wolde myre me
with his sophystrye, ād wyth wyles wolde
wynne hys spores. For as he before ded
discant on these wordes, can, and impossyble,
and wolde haue made mē beleue that
I mente it coulde not be, because it coulde
not be by reason, and that I mente it was
impossyble, because reason coulde not reache
it: So now he dysputeth with lyke maner
of sophystycacyon, concludynge that
I confesse that it is impossyble and cā not
be, because that yf God shulde so haue
mente, it was impossyble for God to brynge
hys meanynge a bought. Deare bretherne,
thys bablynge is suffycyentlye discussed
alreadye. For I mente not that it
was impossyble for God to brynge it aboute,
yf he had so mēte, but I mente that
it is impossyble to stonde with the processe
of the scrypture whiche we haue receyued.
And I saye more ouer, that though it
was possyble for God to haue done it (yf
it had pleased hym) yet now, the scrypture
thus stondynge, it is impossyble for hym
to do it. For then he muste make hys sone
a lyer. And I saye, that yf he had so ment
as the letter stondeth, that he wolde then
haue geuen vs other scrypture, and wolde
not haue sayde that he muste departe to
hym that sente hym, with other textes as
are before rehearsed.
And where master More sayeth, that
63yf there were somwhat that he coulde not
do, than were God not almyghtye. I saye
it is ashame for our Prelates that they haue
gottō suche an ignoraunte proctoure to
defende them. And I am sure that they thēselues
coulde haue sayde moche better. For
els how shulde they enstructe other and leade
them in the ryght waye, yf they themselues
were so rude and vnlearned? Shulde
they not knowe what thys meaneth,
that God is almyghtye, whych is a peace
of the fyrste artycle of our Crede? Then
how shulde their shepe haue any sure syght?
More thynketh that God is called almyghtye,
because he can do all thynges.
And then in dede it shulde folowe that he
were not almyghtye. For all thynges he
can not do, he cā not saue the vnfaythfull,
he can not restore vyrgynyte ones vyolated,
sayeth S. Thomas and also (as I remember)
S. Hierome wrytynge of vyrgynyte
vnto Paula and Eustochium: he can
not synne sayeth Dunce: he can not denye
hym selfe sayeth .S. Paule.
|2. Tim.|
Now yf thys
mans learnynge were alowed, thē myght
not God be almyghtye, because there is
sumwhat that he cā not do. But they that
are a customed with scrypture, do knowe
that he is called almyghtye, not because
he can do all thynge: but because there is
no superyour power aboue hym, but that
he maye do all that he wyll: and all that
hys pleasure is to do that maye he brynge
to passe. And no power is able to resyste
hym. But he hath no pleasure nor wyll to
make hys sone alyer nor to make hys scripture
false, and in dede he maye not do it.
And yet notwithstondynge he abydeth almyghtye.
For he may do all thynge that
he wyll.
|More.|
❧ Then master More as towchynge
the reason of repungnaunce sayeth, that
many thynges may seame repungnaunte
both to hym and me, which thynges God
seeth how to make them stonde together
well ynough, and addeth such blynde reasons
of repungnaunce as induceth manye
men in to a greate erroure: some ascrybynge
all thynge vnto destenye without any
power of mans fre wyll at all. And some
genynge all to mans owne wyll. And haue
no fore syght at all to the provydēce of
God, and all because the poore blynde reason
of man can not see so farre, as to perceyue
how Goddes prescyence and mans
fre wyll can stonde together, but seame clerelye
to be repungnaunte.
|Fryth.|
¶ As for hys dygressyon of mans fre
wyll, I wyll not greatlye wrestle with
hym. But thys one thynge I maye saye,
|Ioan. 8.|
that yf the sone of God delyuer vs, then
are we verye free.
|2. Cor. 3.|
And where the spyryte
of God is, there is fredome. I meane not
fredome to do what you wyll; but fredome
64|Rom. 6.|
frō synne, that we maye be the saruaūtes
of ryghtuousnes. But yf we haue not
the spyryte of Christe, then wyll I saye
with S. Austen,
|Augustinus
de
spiritu &
litera.|
that our fre wyll is wretched,
and can do nought but synne. And as
towchynge suche textes of repugnaunce,
yf they be so dyffuse that mans reason
(which is the lyght of hys vnderstōdyng)
can not attayne to set them together, then
were you beste to make thē none artycles
of our faythe. For I thynke as manye as
are necessarye vnto our salvacyon, are conteyned
in the Crede, which I thynke euery
mā beleueth: I beseche you laye no bygger
burthen vpon vs then those faythfull
Fathers ded, which thought that suffycyent.
And then I am sure, we shulde haue fewer
heretykes. For I neuer harde of heretycke
that euer helde agaynste any artycle
of our Crede, but all that ye dyffame
by thys name, are onelye put to death, because
they saye that we are not bounde to
beleue euerye poynte that the lawes and
tyrannye of the cleargye alowe and maynteyne,
which thynge how true it is (blessed
be God) is meatelye well knowen alreadye.
For els had I and many mo bene deade
before thys daye.
|More.|
❧ I wote well that many good folke
haue vsed in thys matter manye frutefull
examples. As of one face beholden in
dyuerse glasses, and in euerye peace of one
glasse broken in to twentye, ād of one worde
comynge whole to an hundreth eares
at ones: and the syght of one lytle eye presently
beholdynge an whole greate contrye
at ones, with a thousande suche meruelles
mo: suche as those that see thē daylye
done (and therfore meruell not at thē)
shall yet neuer be able, no not this yonge
man hym selfe, to geue suche a reason by
what meane they maye be done, but that
he maye haue suche repugnaunce layde agaynste
it, that he shalbe fayne in conclusyon
(for the chefe and moste euydent reason)
to saye, that the cause of all those thynges,
is because God that hath so caused
them to be done, is almyghtye of hym selfe,
and maye do what hym lyste.
|Fryth.|
¶ As towchynge the examples that
master More doth here alleage, I maye
soone make answere vnto them. For they
that are lyke our matter, make cleane agaynste
hym, and the other can not make
for hym. The glasse I graunte is a good
example. For euen as the glasse dothe represent
the verye face of man, so doth this
sacrament represent the verye bodye and
bloode of Christe. And lyke as euery peace
of the glasse doth represent that one face,
so doth euery peace of that sacrament
represent that one bodye of Christe. But
euerye mā knoweth ryght well, that thoughe
the glasse represent my face, yet the
65substaunce of the glasse is not my verye
face, neyther is my very face in the glasse.
And euen so though the sacrament do represent
the bodye of Christe, yet the substaunce
of the sacrament is not hys verye
bodye (no more then the glasse is my face)
neyther is hys verye bodye in the sacrament,
no more thē my verye face is in the
glasse. And thus this example maketh
well for vs. And for that one worde commynge
whole to an hūdreth eares, I saye
that worde is but a sounde ād a qualyte &
not a substaunce, and therfore yt is nothynge
to our purpose, and can not be lykened
to Christes bodye which is a substaunce.
And as concernynge the syght of
the lytle eye, I say that though the eye dyscrye
and see an whole contrye, yet is not
that whole contrye in the eye: but as the
contrye is knowen by the syght of the eye
(though the contrye be not in it) so is the
death of Christe and his bodye breakynge
and bloode sheadynge knowen by the
sacrament, though hys naturall bodye be
not in it. And thus hys exāples make nothyng
with hym, but rather moche agaynste
hym. And where he sayeth that the yonge
mā hym selfe cā geue no reasō, by what
meane they may be done: I maye saye vnto
hys mastershyppe, that whan I was
seauen yeare yonger then I am thys day,
I wolde haue bene ashamed yf I coulde
not haue geuen an evydent reason at the
Austēs in Oxforde before the whole vnyuersyte.
And albeit I now wochesaue not
to spende laboure and paper abought Aristotles
doctryne, yet haue I so moche
towched hys examples, that he may be
werye of them.
|More.|
❧ Also I cā not see why it shulde be more
repugnaunt that one bodye maye be by
the power of God in two places at ones,
then that two bodyes maye be together in
one place at ones. And that poynte I thynke
thys yonge man denyeth not.
|Fryth.|
¶ The beynge of our bodye in two places
at ones is agaynste nature, and scrypture
cā not allow it. But that two bodyes
shulde be in one place seameth more reasonable.
For I haue good experyence that
though my bodye can not be in two places
at ones (both in the tower and where
I wolde haue it besyde) yet blessed be god
in this one place, I am not without cōpanye.
But yf master More meane that in
one proper & severall place, maye be two
bodyes at ones, that I wyll denye, tyll
he haue laysure to proue it. And yet at
the length I am sure, hys proue shall not
be worth a podynge prycke. For I am sure
it muste be, Ratione porositatis ut in igne
& ferro: nam penetracionem dimensionum
nunquam probabit. And then he is as nyghe
as he was before.
66|More.|
❧ Now hys laste reason wyth which
he proueth yt impossyble for the bodye of
christe to be in two places at ones, is this:
You can (sayeth he) shewe no reason whye
he shulde be in many places at ones & not
in all. But in all places he can not be:
Wherfore we muste cōclude that he can
not be in many places at ones. This is
a mervelous cōcluded argumente. I am
sure that euery chylde may soone see that
this consequent can neuer folowe vpō these
two premysses of thys antecedent.
|Fryth.|
¶ When I made thys reason & compyled
my tretyse I had no regarde to the
cavyllacyons of sotle sophysters. For I
thought no sophysters shulde haue medled
wyth that meate. But neuerthelesse
syth now I perceyue that they pryncipallye
are porynge vpon yt, seakynge some
praye to sette their teth a warke, in this boke
I haue samwhat prouyded for thē, and
haue brought suche harde bones, that yf
they be to busye, maye chaunce to choke
thē. And yet is not the argumēt so feable
as he fayneth. For the fyrst part (if he lyst
to cōsyder the sēce & mynde, & be not to curyous)
where I say that they cā shewe no
reasō why he shulde be in many places &
not in all, is thus to be vnderstōd of wyse
mē, that the very reasō & cause that he shulde
be in many places must be, because the
body is so ānexed with the godhed, that yt
is in euery place as the Godhed is. Thys
I saye, muste be the cause and reason of
hys beynge in many places. And neyther
you nor no man els cā iustely asygne any
other. Now of this maior or fyrste proposycyon
thus vnderstonde doth the conclusyon
folowe dyrectlye. For yf this shulde
be the cause (as they muste neades graūte)
and thys cause proued false by scrypture:
then muste they neades graunte that
the thynge whiche so foloweth of this cause,
muste neades be false. And so is my
purpose proued, and they concluded. As
by example. The Astronomers saye: that
the naturall course of the sonne is from
the Weste to the Easte. Nowe yf a man
shulde aske them what ys then the cause
that we see hym daylye take the contrary
course, from the East to the Weste agaynste
hys nature: they answere. Because the
heyghest spere (whose course is from the
Easte to the Weste) wyth hys swyfte
movynge doth vyolently drawe the inferyoure
speres with hym. This is the cause
that they alleage, and no man can asygne
any other. And now syth I can proue
thys sense false by scrypture (for scrypture
sayth that the spere is fastened Heb. viij
and S. Austen expoundynge that texte
improueth the Astronomers which affyrme
that it moueth) they muste neades
graunte that the thynge which foloweth
67of this cause muste neades be false. And
so we maye conclude agaynste them all,
that the naturall course of the sonne is not
from the Weste to the East (as the Astronomers
saye) but contrarye from the
Easte to the Weste. And lykewyse syth
the cause that Christes bodye shulde be
in many places, is asygned of learned
men to be, because hys bodye is so annexed
with the Godhed (which is in euerye
place) that it is also in all places with it,
and no man can asygne any other. And
this cause is proued false by scrypture.
For when the women sought Christ at
hys graue, an Angell gaue the answere
that he was not there.
|Mar. 14.|
But yf hys bodye
had bene in euery place, then had the Angell
lyed.
|Luc. 16.|
Also Christ sayde vnto hys dyscyples
of Lazarus which dyed at Bathania.
|Ioan. 11.|
Lazarus ys deade. And I am gladde
for your sakes (that you maye beleue) because
I was not there. Now yf hys body
were in euery place as is the Godhed,
then Christ sayde not trulye, when he sayde
he was not there. Therfore syth (as I
sayde) this is the cause asygned, and yet
proued false by scrypture, they muste neades
graunte, that the thynge which foloweth
of this cause, muste also neades be
false. And so we maye conclude agaynste
them all, that Christes bodye is in one place
onely. And now you maye see how my
consequent folowe the premysses.
|More.|
❧ For he can no further cōclude, but
that we can shewe no reason whye he shulde
be in many places at ones. What had
he wone by that: Myght he thā conclude
thervpon, that he coulde not be in manye
places at ones? As though yt were not
possyble for God to make hys bodye in
two places at ones, but yf we were able
to tell how, and why, and wherbye, and
shewe the reason.
|Fryth.|
¶ How farre I cā conclude is shewed immedyatly
before. For though of the bare
wordes as ye toke them, it was harde to
conclude any thynge, yet haue I nowe declared
them, and so farre concluded, that
you can not avoyde them. And where he
sayeth that though they can shewe no reason,
yet I had wonne nought by it, I thynke
he wolde be angrye yf I shulde so answere.
But surely they are in good case,
for yt is ynough for them to saye, thus it
is, and neade neuer to shewe any cause or
reason whye they so saye. For they are
the churche and can not erre: so that yf
they teache contrarye thynges, yet all is
good ynough. And when they see that
no man can make the scryptures to agre
wyth their doctryne, then they saye, that
their doctryne is true ynough, but no mā
can vnderstōnde the scrypture. And though
the scrypture seame neuer so repugnaunte
68both to them ād vs, yet God seeth well
ynough (saye they) how to sette thē together,
and it is possyble for God to make it
agree, though they can not tell how. But
thys doctryne hath longe ynough deceyued
vs. For mē haue seane to lōge wyth
your spectacles, yet now (thankes be to
God) they begynne to see with their owne
eyes. And as towchyng how thys matter
was possyble to God and how it is
not possyble, is suffycyently declared before
to all them that lyste to loke.
|More.|
❧ Howbeit as for me (though I be not
bounde to yt) I am cōtēt yet to proue, that
God maye make the body of Christ to be
in all places at ones. And because thys yōge
mā coupleth that proposycyō with the
other: so wyll I do also. And I wyll proue
therfore that God cā make hys bodye be
bothe in many places at ones, & in all places
at ones, by that he is almyghtye,
and therfore can do all thynge.
|Fryth.|
¶ Now ys the good man in hys olde
dreame agayne, and thynketh that God
is called almyghtye, because he can do all
thynges. And then in dede yt shulde folowe
that he were not almyghtye. For all
thynges he can not do, he can not saue
the vnfaythfull, he can not restore virgynyte
ones vyolated, he cā not synne, he cā
not denye hym selfe. Yf thys mās lernynge
were alowed, thā myght not god be called
almyghty, because there is somwhat
that he can not do. But they that are accustomed
with scrypture, do knowe that he
is called almyghtye, not because he can
not do all thynges, but because there is no
superyour power aboue hym, but that he
may do all that he wyll, and all that hys
pleasure is, maye he brynge to passe. But
he hath no wyll nor pleasure, to make his
sone a lyer, & to make hys scrypture false
and yet notwitstondynge he abydeth almyghtye
and may do what he wyll. And
euē as it is impossyble to stonde with the
processe of the scryptures (wherin God
hath declaeed hys wyll) that the unfaythfull
shulde be saued (although at the fyrst
god myght haue done it, yf he had so wolde)
lykewyse it is impossyble the scryptures
stōdynge as they do, that the naturall
bodye of Christ, shulde be present to our
teth in the sacramēt. And as for our fayth,
yt neadeth not to haue hym present in the
breade. For I may as well eate hym and
drynke hym through fayth (that is to say,
beleue in hym) though he contynue styll
in heauen, as though he were as present in
the sacramēt, as he was hangynge on the
crosse. But yet hys mastershype hath lefte
one thynge vnproued, and that is euen
the pyth of hys purpose. For though he
had proued (as he hath not) that God by
hys almyghtynes myght make Christes
69bodye in many places, and in all places, &
in the sacrament, yet he forgotte to proue
that God hath so done. And therfore albeyt
I dyd graūte hym (as I wyll not) that
he myght so do, yet therof it doth not folow,
that he hath so done in dede. For god
maye do manye thynges whiche he doth
not. And therfore hys argument doth not
proue hys purpose. Now yf he do but
thynke that God hath so done, I am well
pleased ād wyll not put hym to the payne
to proue it. For anone ye shall see hym so
intaungled in bryars, that he shall not wete
where to be come.
|More.|
❧ But yet this yonge man goeth aboute
to proue thys poynte by scrypture.
For excepte we graunte hym that poynte
to be true, he sayeth that els we make the
Angell a lyer that sayde, he is not here, ād
also that els we make as though Christes
bodye in hys assensyon ded not go vp in
the cloude in to heauē from earth, but onelye
hyd hym selfe in the cloude, and playeth
boo pyppe and taryed beneth styll. Here
in the ende he forgetteth hym selfe so
fowle, that whan he was a yonge sophyster
he wolde I dare say, haue bene full sore
ashamed so to haue oversene hym selfe
at Oxforde at a pervyse. For ye wote well
that thynge whiche he sayeth, and whiche
he muste therfore proue, is that the bodye
of Christ cā not be in euerye place at ones
by no meane that God coulde make. And
the textes that he bryngeth in for the proue,
saye no further but that he was not in
all places at ones.
|Fryth.|
¶ There are two thynges dysputed
betwene master More and me: the one is
whether God cā make the bodye of Christe
in manye places, and in the sacramente.
And therto hys mastershyppe sayeth
yea. For God is almyghtye and maye do
all thynges. And I saye naye, and affyrme
that God is not called almyghtye because
he maye do all thynges, but because he
maye do all that he wyll. And I saye that
he wyll not make hys sonne a lyer, nor
hys scrypture false, and that he can not do
it, and yet abydeth almyghtye. The other
thynge is thys, whether he haue done
it or not. For albeyt I ded graunte hym
that it were possyble, yet is he neuer the
nere excepte he eyther can proue that he
hath done it in dede, or els thynke that
God hath so done. For as I sayde God
can do manye thynges which he doth not.
And the controversye of thys doubte is
dyssolued by the Aungell and scrypture
whiche (as master More graunteth hym
selfe) proueth that he was not in all places
at ones, And therof it foloweth, that God
hath not done it, although it be possyble.
And so is hys mastershyppe at a poynte.
For yf I shulde graunte it neuer so possyble,
70yet yf scrypture proue that it be not so
in dede, then is he neuer the nere hys purpose,
but moche the further from it. And
thys is euen it that I sayde before: that it
was not possyble to stonde with the processe
of the scrypture which we haue receyued.
And now hys mastershyppe hath
graunted it hym selfe, which you maye be
sure he wolde not do yf he coulde otherwyse
avoyde it. And here you maye see
howe sore I haue overseane my selfe.
|More.|
❧ God forbyd that any man shulde
be the more prone and readye to beleue
thys yonge man in thys greate matter, because
he sayeth in the begynnynge that he
wyll brynge all men to a concorde and a
quyetnes of conscyence. For he bryngeth
men to the worste kynde of quyetnes that
maye be deuysed, when he telleth vs as he
doth, that euery man in thys matter, maye
with out parell beleue which waye he lyste.
Euery man maye in euerye matter
without any counsell, soone set hym selfe
at reste, yf he lyste to take that waye and
to beleue as he lyste hym selfe, ād care not
how. But ād yf that waye had bene sure,
Saynte Paule wolde neuer haue shewed
that manye were in parell of sycknes
and death also, for lacke of dyscernynge
reuerentlye the bodye of our Lorde in that
Sacramente, when they came to receyue
hym.
|Fryth.|
¶ When Christe shulde departe thys
worlde and go to hys Father,
|Ioan. 15.|
he gaue hys
dyscyples a commaundement that they
shulde loue eche other, sayenge by thys
shall all men knowe, that ye are my dyscyples,
yf ye loue eche other, as I haue loued
you. Thys rule of charyte wolde I not
haue broken, which notwithstondynge is
often in Ieopardye a monge faythfull folke.
This thynge consydered, I thought it
necessarye to advertyse both partyes to saue
thys rule of charyte, and proued in the
fyrste chapter of my treatyse, that it was
none artycle of the fayth necessarye to be
beleued vnder payne of dampnacyon, and
therfore that they were to blame that wolde
be contencyous for the matter. For syth
it is none artycle of the fayth, they may
lawfullye dyssente without all Ieoperdye:
and neade not to breake the rule of
charyte, but rather to receyue eche other
lyke weake bretherne.
This I saye I proued in the fyrste chapter
agaynste which master More maketh
no busynes, and improueth it not. Wherbye
you maye soone gather that it is very
true. For els syth hys mastershyppe so laboureth
in these other poyntes, he wolde
not haue lefte that vntowched you maye
be sure. Thys is the concorde that I wolde
brynge them vnto. And as towchynge
quyetnes of conscyence, I haue knowen
71manye that haue sore bene combrede wyth
it. And amōge all, a certayne master of arte
which dyed in Oxforth, confessed vpon
hys death bedde, that he had wepte lyenge
in hys bedde an hundreth nyghtes
wythin one yeare space, because he coulde
not beleue it. Now yf he had knowen that
it had bene no necessarye artycle, what cōforte
and quyetnes shulde it haue bene vnto
hym. Furthermore, euerye man can not
so quyet hymselfe, as master More Imageneth.
For there are manye that thynke
them selfes no smalle foles, which whan
they haue receyued some folyshe superstycyon,
eyther by their owne Imagynacyon,
or by belevynge their gossepes gospell ād
olde wyfes tales, by and bye thynke the cōtrarye
to be deadly synne, and vtterly forbydden
by Chrystes gospell. As by example,
I knowe an house of relygyon, wherin
is a parson that thynketh it deadly synne
to go ouer astrawe yf it lye acrosse.
And yf there be vpon the pauemente any
paynted pycture, or any Image grauen
vpon a deade mans graue, he wyll not treade
vpon it, although he shulde go a forelonge
a bowte. What is thys but vayne
superstycyon wherewith the conscyence
is combred and corrupted? May not thys
be weded out wyth the worde of God, shewynge
hym that it is none artycle of the
fayth so to thynke, & then to tell hym that
it is not forboden by the scrypture, ād that
it is no synne? Now albeyt hys conscyence
be so cankered that the ruste wyll not
be rubbed out: yet wyth Godes grace, some
other whome he hath infected with the
same, maye come agayne to Godes worde
and be cured full well, whiche shulde
neuer haue bene able to quyete them selfes.
And lykewyse there are some whiche beleue
as your superstycyous hartes haue informed
them, and these can not quyete thēselues,
because they beleue that you haue
featched your doctryne out of scrypture.
But when it is proued to them, and they
themselues perceyue that scrypture sayeth
not so, then can they be contente to thynke
the contrarye, ād Iudge it no synne at all.
And as towchynge S. Paule, surelye ye
take hym wronge. For I wyll shewe you
what processe he taketh, and how he is to
be vnderstonde. But because it is not possyble
to fynyshe it in fewe wordes, I shall
deferre it vnto the bokes ende, and then I
shall declare hym at large.
|More.|
❧ And what a fashyon is thys, to saye
that we maye beleue yf we lyste, that
there is the verye bodye of our Lorde in
dede, and then to tell vs for a trouth, that
suche a faythe is impossyble to be true:
for GOD hym selfe can neuer brynge
it abought, to make hys bodye to be
there.
72|Fryth.|
¶ Yf a man take the bare wordes of
Christe, and of symplycyte be deceyued,
and thynke that hys verye bodye be in the
sacramente present to their teth that eate
it, I dare not saye that he synneth therin,
but wyll referre the matter vnto Godes
Iudgement, and yet without doubt, I dare
saye he is deceyued. As by example, yf
a man deceyued by the litterall sence, wolde
thynke that men shulde preache to fysshes
(as S. Fraunces ded) because Christe
badde hys dyscyples go preache to all creatures,
yet wolde not I thynke that he synned
therin. But wyll referre hym vnto
Goddes Iudgement. But yet I wene euerye
woman that hath anye wytte, wyll saye
that he was deceyued.
|More.|
❧ I am verye sure that the olde holye
Doctours which beleued Christes bodye
and bloode to be there, and so taught other
to beleue, as by their bokes playnelye
doth apere, yf they had thought eyther
that it coulde not be there or that it
was not there in dede, they wolde not for
all the good in thys worlde haue wryten
as they haue done. For wolde those
holye men (wene you) haue taught that
men be bounde to beleue, that the verye
bodye and bloode of CHRISTE
is there, yf they them selfes thought that
they were not bounde thervnto? Wolde
they make men honoure and worshyppe
that thynge as the very bodye and bloode
of Christe whiche they thē selues thought
were not it? Thys gere is to chyldyshe to
speake of.
|Fryth.|
¶ That the olde doctours and faythfull
Fathers so taught or thought as ye
fayne of them, is verye false. For S. Austen
as I haue shewed, maketh whollye
for vs. Besydes that, there is none of the
olde Fathers but they call it a sacramēte,
a mysterye, and mystycall meate, which is
not eaten with toth or belye: but with eares
and faythe. And as towchynge the honoure
and worshyppe done vnto it, I saye
it is playne Idolatrye. And I saye, that he
falselye reporteth vpon the olde holy Doctours.
For they neuer taught men to worshyppe
it, neyther can he alleage one place
in any of them all whiche wolde haue
men to worshyppe the sacramente. Peraduenture
he maye alleage me certayne new
felowes for hys purpose, as Dunce, Dorbell,
Durande, and suche draffe, whiche by
their doctryne haue deceyued the worlde
wyth dampnable Idolatrye. But I speake
of the olde holye Fathers ād doctours,
S. Austen, Ambrose, Hierome, Cypriane,
Cirille, Chrisostome, Fulgentius, and suche
other: These I saye, do not teache men
to worshyppe it, and by that I dare abyde.
Of thys poynte I am so sure, that I
73wyll vse it for a contrarye argument, that
hys naturall bodye is not there presente.
For yf the holye Fathers before named
had taken thys texte after the letter and
not onelye spyrytuallye, thē in their workes
they wolde haue taught men to worshyppe
it, but they neuer taught mē to worshyppe
thys sacrament, therfore it foloweth
they toke not the texte after the letter,
but onelye spyrytuallye. Now do I
prouoke you to seake a proue of your purpose.
Neuer the lesse I wyll not denye, but
that these holye Doctours in dyuerse places,
do call it hys bodye, as Christe and
Paule do, and so do we lykewyse: and saye
also that this verye bodye is there eatē.
But yet we meane, that it is eaten with
fayth (that is to saye by beleuynge that
hys bodye was broken for vs) ād haue his
bodye more in memorye at thys maundye
thē the meate that we there eate.
|Note.|
And
therfore it hathe the name of hys bodye:
because the name it selfe shulde put vs in
remēbraunce of hys bodye. And that hys
bodye is there chefelye eaten, euen more
(through fayth) then the meate wyth the
mouth. And so are they also to be vnderstonde.
|More.|
❧ Yet one greate pleasure he doth vs,
in that he putteth vs all at lyberte, that
we maye with out parell of dampnacyon
beleue as we ded before: that is to wete,
that in the blessed sacramēt the whole substaunce
of the breade ād the wyne is transmuted
ād chaunged in to the verye bodye
and bloode of Christe. For yf we maye
wythout parell of dampnacyon beleue
thus, as hym selfe graunteth that we maye,
then graunteth he that we maye also
without parell of dampnacyō beleue that
he hym selfe lyeth, where he sayeth, the
trouth of that beleue is impossyble.
|Fryth.|
¶ The beleuynge of thys poynte, is
of it selfe not dampnable, as it is not dāpnable
to thynke that Christe is a very stone
or a vyne, because the litterall sence so
sayeth: or yf you beleue that you ought to
preache to fyshes and go Christen them another
whyle, as ye do belles. And I insure
you, if there were no worse myschefe
that ensued of thys beleue, then it is in itselfe,
I wolde neuer haue spoken agaynste
it. But now there foloweth vpon it dampnable
Idolatrye. For through the beleue
that thys bodye is there, men fall downe
and worshyppe yt. And thynkynge to please
God, do dampnable synne agaynste
hym. Thys I saye, is the cause that I so
earnestlye wryte agaynste it, to avoyde
the Idolatrye that is cōmytted through it.
Parte of the germanes do thynke that hys
naturall bodye is present in the sacramēt,
ād take the wordes fleshelye, as Martyn
taught them. But none of them worshyppe
74it, for that Martyn forbyddeth both in
hys wordes ād workes, and so (blessed be
God) they auoyde that Ieoperdye, which
thynge yf you wyll also graunte, and publyshe
but this one proposycyon, that it
ought not to be worshypped, I promyse
you I wyll neuer wryte agaynste it. For
then is the Ieoperdye taken awaye, and
then I am contēt that your mastershyppe
thynke I lye. But in the meane season I
muste thynke that ye fulfyll the worlde
with dāpnable Idolatrye. And thus haue
you also answere vnto the conclusyon,
which you alleage out of the kynges graces
boke. For I saye in your waye is no
hurte, as longe as you do but onelye beleue
the bare wordes of the texte, as S. Fraunces
ded, when he preached to fyshes.
But yf through the occasyon of those wordes,
ye fall in to the worshyppynge of it,
then I saye that in your waye is vndoubted
dampnacyon. And so is there greate
Ieoperdye in your waye, and none at all
in ours. For though he were there in dede,
yet do not we synne yf we worshyppe it
not. For we are not commaunded to
worshyppe the sacrament. But
yf he be not there, then
do you dampnable
Idolatrye.