A Confutation of a certain BOOK, CALLED á defence of the true, and Catholic doctrine of the sacrament, etc. set fourth of late in the name of Thomas archbishop of Canterbury. By richard Smyth, Doctor of divinity, and some time reader of the same in Oxford. TAke this book I heartily beseech thee, christian reader, in good worth, considering how that jam in à strange country, without quietness, books, help of learned men, sufficient loiser and time, and without also many other necessaries, that are required unto such an enterprise, as this is. If any thing be amiss, it shall be hereafter amended, by god's grace. Our lord jesus Christ keep the in his true faith, and religion. Amen. I have put, good reader, both the leaf and the page also of the bishops book, in the margin of my confutation, that thou mayst the better compare my confutation with his sainges, and perceive also the matter with less labours, and pains. Multò melius est vera rustice, quàm falsa diserte, proffer. Hieronymus in expositione primae visionis Esaiae. The preface to the christian reader, with an exhortation, to move all men to leave disputing, and reasoning upon the high and unsearchable mystery of te sacrament of the altar, giving ever firm credence unto Christ's catholic church therein, which never errethe in our faith wholly. THe first consel, good reader, holden at Ephesus, above M. C. years passed, in which S. Cyril was precedent, wrote thus in an epistle unto one Nestorius an heretic, which therein was condemned for his heresy. We do offer an unbloody wourshipinge of a sacrifice, and so we do also come unto the holy sacrament, and are made holy, being partakers of the holy body, and precious blood of Christ, which was made the redeemer of us all, not receiving it as common flesh, (god forbidden that), nor as the flesh of a man made holy, and joined unto the son of god, by an unite of worthiness, or else as being a mansion of god, but as that, which verily giveth life (to man's soul), & was made proper unto gods own son himself. Hitherto this ancient and great council, in which were assembled. cc. bishops, and which is one of the four general concels, that S. Gregory said that he esteemed no less than the four gospels. Wherefore Lib. 1. 24. seeing that this council hath so plainly set fourth botb the holy sacrifice of the mass, and also declared by the inspiration of the holy ghost, the author and governor, of such leeful, and godly conseylles, that we do receive in the sacrament that flesh, which is adjoined to gods owone son, and which giveth life to them, that do worthily receive it, what wisdom were it to believe the bishop of Canterbury's doctrine, which denieth both of these two? Is it not much metre to believe all those fathers, rather than this bishops teaching the contrary? Promised not Christ, that he would be in the mids of. ij. or. Matth. 18. iij. assembled in his name? How then was he not with these. cc. learned men, that they erred not in their judgements? Wherefore let us believe steadfastly, (as this council teacheth us plaineie) that Christ's own very natural body is in this sacrament, although this bishop, and such other carnal preachers, and writers, do bark never so much against that our belief, and do make never so many arguments, and natural reasons to subvert it, for as strong and much stronger reasons may and heretofore hath been made of heretics, against all the articles of our faith, as it appreareth in divers old, and late writers books. Let us Cease thy reasoning upon the holy sacrament not dispute, and reason upon this matter, which can not be compassed, nor perceived by any natural reason, or wit of man, but by faith only, as S. Damascene, and many other holy Lib. 4. c. 14. doctors do testify, but let us steadfastly believe Christ's words, which sayeth, this is my body, that shall be given to death for you, which words no mà can truly understand of bread, Matth. 25. because that it was not crucified for us, as that body which he gave his apostles to eat, was. To these words Hom. 93 in Matthaeum (sayeth holy chrysostom.) let us give firm credence, yea though our senses, natural wit, understanding, and reason be clearly all against it, for Christ's words can not be false, nor deceive us, but our senses are easy to be deceived. The carnal jews Note reader Lib. 4. in 10. (as witnesseth S. Cyril) lacking faith, (as this bishop, I 〈◊〉 hoper, Ridley, ponete▪ and such o●her do), and leaning only to natural arguments, and reasons, asked how christ could give them his flesh to eat. They remembered not (sayeth he) that Lucae. 1. nothing is impossible to god, and therefore they judged that this mystery was but mere folly, and that it was but manifest madness to believe, that Christ would, or could give them his own flesh to eat bodily with their mouths, as my lord of Canterbury, hoper, ponete, Ridley, cox, and many such other, do now think, and also teach, to their own damnation, and many others besides, our lord amend them in time, for his blessed names sake. These men do now even as the unfaithful jews did in christes time, when he entreated of this matter. For they measured it by natural reason, & wit, & would not believe t●at Christ's very body was in this sacrament really, & bodily, because they could not perceive how it so might be by any natural reason, & because the senses of man do judge the contrary. They do forgaette, that the prophet isaiah Isaiae. 7. sayeth, Except ye believe, ye shall not understand. They set the cart (as they say) before the horses, when they, put reason afore, & faith after. For is not faith the foundation of our 1. cor. 3. religion? Why do they not remember that reasoning, and faith agree not Cicero well together? Cotta said to Lucilius, why dost thou require à reason, if thou dost believe? for if thou dost be leave, thou dost ask no reason, which may cause, that thou shouldest not believe. Saith not also S. Paul, that Lactantius Heb. 11. faith is the fundatio●, and thing that holdeth up the thing that appeareth not, and is the proof of things not scene? What folly is it then to labour and stud● for to try out by reason the truth in this controversy of this holy sacrament, which is unsearchable, and appertaineth only to our faith, exceeding all man's wit, and reason? Are there not a thousand things and more, which god hath Damasce. 4. lib. ca 14 done, that no reason of man can perceive by what means they were done but only by faith? Also cannest thou, I pray thee, tell me how god made Gene. 1. by his word all things of nothing? Did not the natural reasoners, and students, deny this point of our faith, because they saw that it was directly contrary unto all man's wit, and reason? Canst thou by reason tell me how Adam was made of the earth, & Eve of his ●ybbe? How the buss of thorns, which flamed with fire, burned Exod. 3. not? How the rod was made a serpent? How the rivers of egypt were Exod. 4. 7. turned in to blood? How Moses lived. xl. days and xl. nights without meat, and drink? How the children Psal. 77. of Israel were fed with Manna? How their clot●es were not woren away the space of xl. years? how the jews passed Exod. 16. thorou the red sea saflye? How water tes being yet closed? Are not these Note this. things, as impossible to man's reason, and wit, as that the same his body to be at one time, both yn heaven, and earth, and in every place, where the sacrament is? Why then dost not thou believe this, as well as the other two? Doth not god's word teach it the as plainly, as the other? Also, did joan. 20. Act. 1. 10. not Christ eat, and drink with his apostles, after his resurrection, and yet no part of that meat, and drink was turned in to his bodily nouryshement, for than he needed no nouryshement? Was not this as strange a matter, and as far abou●●ans reason, as christ to be bodily ●n divers places at one time? Wherefore then dost thou not cease disputing upon this deep, and unsearchable mystery, and give firm credence unto it, although thy reason can not perceive it? Why dost thou not remember also, that christ promised his disciples to give them such bread, as should be his own very natural flesh, which he would give joan. 6. to death for the life of the woorld? Can this his promise be verified of common bread? Was that given upon the cross for the life of the woorld? Hath not Christ, which is the troth itself, and can not lie, performed yet this his promise? And when gave he that joan. 14. Heb. 6. bread, which was his very flesh, that he gave for us to death, if he did it not at his last supper, when he said. Take, and eat, this is my body, that Matth. 26. 1. Cor. 11. shall be given for you? How manifest are these words of our dear saviour Christ? did he ever speak more plain words upon any article of our faith, than these are? Were it not then mere madness, and a strange foolishness, to believe the bishop of canterbury, cox, hoper, Ridley, ponete, and such other, that do teach contrary to this? S. Paul affirmeth, that he, 1. Cor. 12. which receiveth this holy sacrament unworthily, is guilty of Christ's body Mark. and blood? How can this be true, if there be nothing else yn the sacrament, but bread, and wine? Is a man guilty of Christ's body and blood, which eateth, and drinketh nothing else but bare bread, and wine? Who, that wise is, will say, that I am guilty in eating to much moutton, and in drinking of wine, when I eat nothing but milk, and drink only water? Again, sayeth not S. Paul, that he, 1. Cor. 11. which receiveth this holy sacrament unworthily, eateh, and drinketh it to his own damnation, because he discerneth not our lords body, that is to say, he doth no● believe that that thing is his bo●●e, or else he doth not receive it 〈◊〉 greater devotion, and pureness of conscience, than other common meats? How should this be true, if we did eat, and drink but only bread made of corn, and mere wine of the grape, in the receiving of the blessed sacrament? biddeth not us S. Paul to examine, and prove our consciences, Mark. before we receive this sacrament? And what need we to do this, when we shall eat but common bread and drink wine of the grape? Doth he sin deadly, that receive the those things in sin? Doth not then this place of paul prove sufficiently, that our saviour Christ's body, and blood are present really in this sacrament? This have all doctors of Christe● church expounded the scriptures, concerning this matter, as it shall appear, by god's gra●e, hereafter, though the bishop 〈◊〉, that they be altogether upon 〈…〉. Therefore believe man this doctri●●, without all doubting thereof. Let no man's persuasion, nor reasoning turn thy mind from this belief. Beware that thou trust not thy senses judgement in this matter. Remember that Isaac was deceived, Gen. 27. because he trusted more to his feeling of his son jacobs' hands, than he did his voice? Shalt not thou be after like sort deceived in this matter, if thou do folou the judgement of thy senses, and not only the hearing, or reading of these Christ's words, This is my body? It is sufficient for the to believe that Christ's body is both at ones in the holy sacrament, and also in heaven, because the scripture teacheth both indifferently, and teacheth not how these two may stand together, but only by gods almighty power, to whom nothing his impossible, as scripture witnesseth plainly. Marci. 10. Luc. 1. Peter Martyr recanted at oxford his first doctrine of the sacrament, and so did also the bishop of Canturberie. This taught peter Martyr, at his first coming to oxford, when he was but á lutheran in this matter, whose words I, and may other more wrote in the divinity school, when he red lecture there, but when he came once to the court, and saw that that doctrine misliked them, that might do him hurt in his living, he anon after turned his tipped, and sang an other song. The bishop also of Canterbury in his catechysme did once set forth the real presence of Christ's body Note. in the sacrament, but he changed that doctrine, when he saw, that the world served for him. O lord, what man is so mad to believe such mutable teachers which change their doctrine at men's pleasirs, as they see àvantage, and profit? They turn, and will turn, as the wind turneth, but to return to my matter. Tell me, why may not Christ's body (as I said afore) be as well in the sacrament, and yn heaven both at ones, as that his body was with the body of the stone, that lay still upon his grave, when he roseup again from death to life, in one proper place, and as his body was in one proper place at ones, with the body of Hierony. in Epitaphio Paulae. joan. 20. Ampros. in lu.. 24. Aug. the door, or gate, when he entered in to the house to his apostles, when the gates were yet shit, and closed? Christ went up out of this world in to heaven, and sitteth there at the right hand of his father, & yet paul saw him bodily upon earth after his ascension (as he testifieth), and by that sight he 1. cor. 9 15. proved that he was risen again bodily from death to life, which he could not have done, if that seeing of him, Lib. de passione petri apostoli. had been but à spiritual vision. S. Linus which was in the apostles time, and wrote saint Peter's, and paul's passion, witnesseth evidently, that saint peter saw christ, and talked with him when he was going out of Rome for fear of persecution, and that peter said to him, lord, whither goest thou? To whom christ anusweared, I go to Rome to be crucified again. Then anon after christ departed away from peter, and peter understanding that Christment, he would be crucified again, not in his own body, but in him, returned to Rome, and there was crucified, for Christ's sake. Of this Lib. 5. comen story wrote Egesippus, which was very Lib. 5. epist. nigh to the apostles time, and also S. Ambrose. This story declareth, that Christ ascended in to heaven, and yet he is also in the blessed sacrament of the altar bodily. although christ departed hence at the time of his ascension in to heaven, and sitte●h● at the right hand of god his father, yet he may be also here in the blessed sacrament of the altar This is the very catholic faith which Christ's church, that can not wholly err in the faith, hath ever taught, doth and shall ever until the worlds end. Wherefore leave reasoning, reader, upon this matter, and give credence to this our mother the church, and than thou shalt never be deceived in any point of thy faith, because she never The catholic church erreth not in the faith Matth. 16. erreth wholly therein For promised not christ, that hell gates, which are sin, and heresies, by which men do entre yn to hell, should not prevail against Matth. vlt. her? Said he not also, that he would be with the church until the worlds end? How then could she err so shamefully these. M. ccccc. years, and more, as to believe that christ was bodily in the sacrament, and to honour him therein, and yet he was not there, but bare bread, & wine? What call, ye Note. my lord, this, if it be not hell gates to prevail against Christ's church? How could she be discea●ed so many years in this weighty matter of our faith, with whom christ, the truth itself, ever was, as he promised to be? Did not christ say, that he would be in the mids of two or three assembled in his name? Was he not then among In concilio lateranensi. the M. ccc. xv. fathers, which were gathered together out of all costs of christendom, and determined that the Matth. vlt. bread and wine were in their natures and substances utterly turned in to Christ's very natural body, & blood, and that there remained only their qualities, and properties? The apostles Act. 15. with the elders were assembled together at hierusalem yn à council for the decysion of a question, touching the charging of the gentiles with the keeping of Moses law, and when they had done, & finished that their counsel, Actorum. 15 S. james ponounced their sentence, and said, that it pleased the holy ghost, and them, that the gentiles should not be burdened with that ceremonial law, by which it appeareth plainly that the holy ghost ruleth and directeth the counsels lefullye assembled, that they err not in the faith why then doth he not even so now to Mark reader. the counsels, and hath ever done? Hath now christ forsaken his dear joan. 14 16. spouse the church? Did he not promise to send his holy spirit to the church, which should teach her all truth, and abide still with her for ever? Hath he not then yet performed this his promise, which he made to his apostles, and in them to the whole church, at all times being? Of did he not fulfil it until Berengarius came, Berengariu● which about M. years, after that promise Was the first autour of this heresy, which he did penytently abjure, and recant. was made, first of all men taught and maintained this heresy, which sayeth that Christ's very natural body is not really in the blessed sacrament of the altar? Was this promise made only to him, and his scholars? Was it made to a feu carnal, unlearned men in any one country, & not rather to all the whole catholic church, and to all christian nations? Was berengarius, which was an hereretike in many other points, (as stories do witness of him), and also a man of a very il life, a meeter man, and more worthy to receive the performance of that high pròmes, than any of the apostles were, or than any other parson, which then lived, or else sense, yea than all the church of christ? But let us grant, that this promise was not fulfilled nor the truth in this matter declared until Berengarius came, & that the Mark well reader this. holy ghost, the spirit of the truth, was given unto him, and first did set forth by him this verity. Tell me then, how it chanced, that the holy ghost forsook him, suffered him to recant, to abjure, & forswaere for ever that opinion, departing out of this world with great repentance for that his heresy? Did not Christ say, that the holy ghost should ever abide with them, to whom he was promised? Did not Berengarius, which first wrote against this our faith of the sacrament, Li. de gestis regum f●an corum in vita Henrici Regis Franciae. recant his heresy willingly (as Gagwinus testifieth) and died with great repentance for it? For this was his last recantation. I Berengarius do believe Berengarius later recantation. wyih my heart, and confess with my mouth, that the bread, & wine, which are set upon the altar, are through prayer, and the words of christ in substance turned in to our saviours body and blood, which he took of his mother, offered upon the cross, and that now doth sit in heaven at the father's right hand, and that this is not done only by á sign, and the virtue of the sacrament, but in the propriety of nature, and the verity of substance. This was his confession, and belief even until his death. Our lord give all them, that have foloved his error in this matter, grace to forsake it, by his example, and to die in the true faith of christ, as he did. After this man's death by the space of c years, and more, no man wrote against the very real presence of Christ's natural body in the sacrament. Then at the length came Almericus heresy. one Almericus, a wicked man, which said, that Christ's body was as well in all manner of bread, and in every other thing else, as in the blessed sacrament of the altar. After him noman spoke (as much as we can find in writing) against the catholic faith of this matter the space of more than á hundred years. Then rose up one John wyclefe our country man, which of mere malice, that he could not obtain the bysshoprych of worcetur, and because he Wyclefes' heresy. was excommunicated and banished out of oxford, sowed many heresies in England, among which this, that my lord defendeth in his book, was one, but he was condemned in a council kept at Constantia about. c. xxxiiij. years sense, and his heresy was then abhorred of all christendom. After him came Carolostadius, Aecolampadius, Aecolampadius. Swinglius. and Swynglius, which when they had of long time set forth (as their master luther had taught them) that Christ's very natural body was really in the sacrament, and not only a sign of them, at the length (as heresy creepeth 2. timot. 2. like unto a canker (paul being witness they forsook that opinion, and denied utterly (as my lord doth) the bodily presence of christ in this holy My lords opinion began of late. sacrament. May we then not now see good christian reader, that this doctrine can not be true, which began first of all within the space of five hundred years passed, and hath been ever convicted from time to time, not rising again the space of c. years, where the true faith of christ hath ever continued and was never wholly suppressed from the first beginning of it, nor never shall be until the worlds end? For the church can not wholly err (as it is declared afore) and as saint Paul affirmeth calling her the pillar of the truth. For how can the pillar of the 1. tim●t. 3. truth sustain, and support heresy, & idolatry? S. Austen said, that Christ's januario. Bpist. 119. church approveth nothing, nor doth any thing either against the faith, or else against good meaners. Doth not my lord then err abomynablye, when he saith that the church hath committed blasphemy, heresy, and idolatry, at the least four hundred years? Is this the church not to do any thing against the faith, and good life? Wherefore let us believe the catholic churches doctrine, no less than the holy scripture, which the church teacheth us to believe, or else we would not believe it. For said not Austen, that he would Contra epistol fundamenti. ca 5. not believe the gospel except the authority of the church had moved him? Saith not also Tertulian, against Martion, that we do know, receive, and believe all the gospels of christ by the Aduersus vigilantium. church, and not other wise? Saith not hierom like wise, I reprove all opinions against the church, and openly condemn them? Moreover the ancient doctor Vincentius lyrinensis, above Aduersus prophattones etc. M c. years sense, described a very true christian man, saying, he is á good catholic man, that loveth gods tr●eth, and the church, preferring nothing utterly before the catholic faith, no man's authority, no man's love, no man's reason, no man's wit, no man's eloquence, nor nothing else, but abiding surely in the faith, he determineth to believe, & keep steadfastly every such thing, that the catholic church hath of old time universally believed, and holden, and what so ever should be set forth against that doctrine, he judgeth it not to pertain any thing unto Christ's religion, but to tentation. And if it do chance any thing to be taught, & defended contrary to that doctrine, & the scriptures to be alleged therefore, than he must (saith he) nead●s folou those doctors exposition, which agree together therein in one sense, & Note this. set nothing by all other men's judgements, be they never so well learned, and godly. And if any man shall ask (saith he) of me, what need is it to follow the authority of Christ's church & her understanding of the scriptures, seeing the scripture is perfect of it self, and sufficient? I answer to him, that we must need so do, because all men do not expound the scripture in one sense, but every man after his own wit, and fantasy, and so there should arise much dissension, debate, confusion, and many heresies spring up, and Mark reader. be defended in Christ's church, except her exposition should be admitted At the length he giveth unto us à godly lesson, which if men would follow they should not so much err, as they now do. In ipsa catholica ecclesia A godly lesson, to avoid heresies. magnopere curandum est, ut id teneamus, quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est. Sequen da est nobis antiquitas, universitas, & consensus. We must (saith he) take great heed, that in that same catholic church, we do hold that thing, which hath been believed in all places, ever, & of all men. We must folou the ancyente, the generalite, and the consent. By these three notes, or else by one of them at the lest we may soon know heresy, & all false doctrine from the true and godly doctrine. For either it is newly invented, and not old (as my lords doctrine is, which began first by Berengarius about, ccccc. years passed) or else it is but particularly received of one country, and of a few of them (as is also my lords opinion) or finally, the authors of it do not agree among themselves in the teaching, & setting forth of it, as in deed they do not, that writ and teach, as my lord doth in this book, and therefore it appeareth plainly, that his doctrine is not catholic, nor godly. For as touching the consent, and agreeing of them, that hath taught it, who knoweth not, that Aecolampadius, Swinglius, Carolastadius, my lord, peter Martyr, and their scholars descent clean in it from their father, and master, Marten luther? For luther confessed and defended the real presence of Christ's body in the holy sacrament, even until his death, which those other his disciples deny utterly, although they did of long time teach no other wise, but they recanted, as they saw occasion, and advantage serve. Were it not then a great madness to forsake the old catholic faith, which hath been ever believed of all nations, and in the teaching thereof the fathers never dissented, and to follow my lords doctrine? Moreover, what arrogant blindness, and blind arrogancy is it, to say, that all christian nations have erred in the belief of this matter, so many hundred years, as they say, that they have done, and that a very small number of men, but slenderly learned, should only know the truth thereof? What is this, good reader, if it be not a marvelous blindness, and these men to lean, against salomon's counsel, unto their own wisdom? Are they not a frayed Proverb. 3. Esaiae. 5. of this gods curse? Woe to you, that seam unto yourselves wise? Who may much marvel, if such men be shamefully deceived in their judgements, that so proudly proceed? For sayeth not christ, that his father hath hidden the knowledge of his word from proud men, and opened it unto humble Matth. 11. persons? witnesseth not also Saint jacobi. 4. 1. petri. 5. james, that god doth give grace unto the humble, and resisteth the proud? Is it then like, that he giveth so great grace to them, to see only the truth, suffering the humble, that mistrust their own wits, judgement, and learning, & do follow meakely the church's decrees, and ordonnaunces, her understanding of the scriptures, the general conciles, and the docteurs expositions of gods word, to be so much blinded, and so long à time? But pride will have a fall, as it hath ever had heretofore, & espacially in them, that have matched themselves in matieres' of religion against his dear espouse the church, against whom hell gates, that is to say, sin, & heresy, never could nor never shall prevail. For did not Matth. 16. christ, which ever was hard in his prayers (as he saith himself), pray for Peter, that his faith, that is to say, the faith of the catholic church, which Lucae. 20. joan. 11. Heb. 5. he had received, and confessed, should not decay? Again, doth not paul affirm Ephes. 5. that christ loved his spouse the church so dearly that he gave himself for her to death, for to cleanse her from all filthiness of sin, that she should not have one spot thereof? Hove can these sainges of christ, and paul stand with their opinion, that say (as my lord doth) that the church hath erred in the faith, and hath committed idolatry so many hundred years, even sense the beginning of it? Is this christ dearly to love her? Is this the office of Ro 12. 1. Cor. 11. 12 Coloss. 1. a good husband towards his wife? Is this to purge her from every spot of sin? Would christ, which is head of the church, and the church his body, suffer that his own body run in to heresy, superstition, blasphemy, & Mark. 1. peril. 9 Psal. 136 such other abymynable crimes, and to abide so long in them? He suffered the synagogue of the ieves to fall in to bodily captivity, and to lie afflicted therein, but. lxx. years, and then he made her frank and free again, and would he then suffer Christ's church, which he loved much more, than he did the synagogue, to run in to such abomynations, and to continue still in them, at the least (as my lord sayeth in his book) four, or five hundredth years? Went not (as christ saith in Matth. 20. the parable) god forth in the morning early to call men to work in his vineyard? How is it then true, that he called not men unto the right faith of this sacrament the space of M. years after this sacrament was instituted, until berengarius came, and then called but a very few in number? Called not christ his church the kingdom Matthaei. 13 Note. of heaven? Why then do these men make her the kyndom of hell, by ascribing unto her heresy, blasphemy, & idolatry? What blind arrogancy, and arrogant blindness is this? Who can abide it? What heart is so hard and stony, that it can forbear weeping, lamenting, and mourning for them, that are this blinded, & do daily make many other men so blind, that they do fall unwares headlong in to the den of heresy, and damnation for ever? Cal, and cry, good reader, continually, Psal. 67. night, & day, unto god, and say. Arise, o lord, arise, that thy enemies may be dispersed, and confounded. Say devoutly with tongue and Psal. 43. mind, Arise up, o lord, why dost thou sleep? Arise up, expel us not from the for ever. Why turnest thou thy face from us? Dost thou forget our poverty, and trouble? Arise up, o lord, help us, o lord, and deliver us for thy name's sake. Pray, I say, Christian reader, and cease not, that thou be not led in to tentation, and fall from the right belief of the holy church, but that thou maest stand therein manly, and confess it until thy death, and thereby obtain that infinite and endless joys, which god hath promised unto all that continue in his love, and the keeping of his commandments until their lives ends. The which our lord jesus Christ for his dear, and bitter passions sake, grant unto us, to whom with the father, and the holy ghost, be honour, and praise for ever. Amen. ❧ That it pertaineth only unto the church of christ to expound the scripture, & to discuss all doubts of our faith, Which shall at any time rise among us And that also the general concils ought not to be despised, but much regarded, obediently received, and foloved. Now for as much as every man is (as David and Paul Psal. 115 affirm) a liar of himself, and the holy spirit of god Rom. 3. was promised of Christ unto the church, to teach her all truth, and to abide still with her for ever, for to rule, joan. 14. 1● direct, and lead her from time to time, that she should not err in the faith and pure religion of Christ, who can justly deny, but that the authority to expound the scriptures, and to determine controversies of the faith rising out of the same, must needs pertain unto her only, and not unto one particuliere person, nor to any one country, or region? For as S. Augustine A verity unwritten. said, that he would not have believed the evangele, except Christ's De prescript. haereticorum. church had moved him so to do, and again, as we know not which is scripture, and which is not, but only, (as. Tertulian saith) by the church, so how can I be certain of the right sense of scripture, and what I ought to believe, but by the catholic church? If an heretic should now deny any part of the scripture, as Manicbaeus and other refused all the old testament, as Martion Holy scripture can not be proved to be scripture, but only by the church. denied all the gospels, except Luke'S, as Ebion would not receive pauls epistles, and as luther repealed S. james epistle and the Apocalypsis, what have we to convict them, but the church's authority? Why then ought not the church to expound scripture, and to be judge in all matters of traverse in religion? For how, tell me, can the scripture be therein judge, which every man taketh as he lysteth, and expoundeth it (as lyrinensis sayeth, & also as experience doth teach) after his own mind & fantasy? Did not all heretics, that ever have been afore our days, and that nove are, allege scripture for them as well as the catholic men? May she then, Which is a witness, alleged upon both sides, be judge between them? This moved Tertulian to say, that in De praescr. matieres' of doubt in our faith, we must not appeal unto the scripture, in which there is either no victory, or uncertain, or else but little certain, but unto the church of christ, which is ever governed, and ruled by the holy ghost, and so erreth not wholly in our faith. Did not this thing also steer the fathers even at the beginning of the church to call, and make assembles and general concels, to discuss matters of controversy, and to suppress heresies What else but that caused S. Austen januario. to affirm, that the authority of general concils, was very wholesome, & good for men's salvation, & that the judgement of then ought to be preferred before any one bishops judgement, and the concel of any one region, or Lib. 2. ca 1. contrae Donatistas' de bap.. country? Did not also the same thing move him to say, that he did well in following the custom, established after ward by a general counsel, yea although the truth lay yet unknown, & hid? S. Cyprian with almost lxxx Lib. 7. cap. 27. De bap. contra Donatistas'. bishops assembled in a council yn Africa erred, and a general counsel afterward corrected their error. What folly then were it to believe the Lib. 1. ca 18 de bapt. contra Donatistas'. determination and doctrine of any one region, before a general council? Wherefore let us follow such counsels (as all holy men have done afore our days) and not straight way deny them, if they be against our opinions, for so did ever all heretics. Arius said that Nicene concile erred, Nestorius affirmed that the council of Ephesus was deceived, Eutiches refused the counsel of Chalcedon, and so did ever all other heretics say, that the counsels erred, which did condemn their opinions, but let us follow rather S. Athanasius, Hilary, Cyprian, Austen, Cyril and such blessed fathers, and great learned men, which both were at general counsels, and also did ever regard much their sentences, and determynations in matters of our faith. If we thus do, we shall not be deceived in our belief, but ever continue in it, that we may say S. Hierom, I Ad oceanun & pamma chium. will keep that faith in my age, in which I was borne a child, & also with saint Paul. I have fought a good battle, finished my course, and kept my faith. There is a crown of righteousness laid up for me, which our lord, a just judge, shall render unto me at that 2. tim. 4. day, and to all that love his coming Unto whom be all praise, world without end. Amen. The confutation of certain sentences, which are in the preface of the bishops book. But the Romish Antichrist to deface The bishop this great benefit of christ, hath taught that Christ's sacrifice made upon the cross is not a sufficient, satisfaction and redemption for sin without an other sacrifice devised by him, and made by a priest. etc. Who saith, my lord, that Christ's The confutation. sacrifice made upon the cross is not a sufficient satisfaction for the remission of the sins of the whole world? Why do ye blame us in that, which we defend not? Have not I declared in my book of the holy mass, that Christ's sacrifice is sufficient of itself to save all the whole world, and that the sacrifice of the mass is the very self same sacrifice, touching the things offered, which are Christ's natural body and blood, and that it is distinct only from it in the manner of offering, and is à mean to apply it unto us for the remission of our sins? It is also false that the bishop of Rome devised this sacrifice, for christ himself did institute it, as I will prove, by god's grace in the confutation of the fift book. Ye say, my lord, that the bishop of Rome devised the sacrifice of the mass, and that a priest maketh no more Libr. 5. sacrifice for our sins, than the lay man doth, and also that your doctrine is approved of the ancient doctors, which your sayings are very false, for the holy martyr Anacletus, that was whythin lx years after Christ's passion, this writeth of that sacrifice of Epist. 1. omnibus ecclesiis scripta. the mass. They that do make sacrifice perfectly unto god, ought not to be vexed, but to be borne with all, comforted, and worshipped of all men. But when they do make sacrifice unto our lord, they ought not to do it alone without witness, that they might be proved to have made sacrifice unto god in places haloved. Now will ye say, my lord, that this blessed martyr devised this sacrifice of his own head, against Christ's sacrifice? He affirmeth that priests do make sacrifice at mass, & ye deny utterly that they make any sacrifice more than the lay man doth. Whether of you two more worthy to be believed? Hear what S. Clement Paul'S companion in preaching of the gospel sayeth in this matter, these are his words unto S. james the apostle. Let there be so many hosts Epistola. 2. offered upon the altar, as may suffice the people. What can ye now say, my lord, unto this holy martyr? Doth he not make plain mention here both of the sacrifice of the mass, and also of an altar for that sacrifice to be made upon? May ye not then, my lord, be ashamed of your writing that this sacrifice of the mass was devised by the bishop of Rome against Christ's bloody sacrifice, and that priests make no more sacrifice than the layte doth? Why do ye cast down the altars, which the apostles used to say mass, and to offer sacrifice upon? Is this to reform and restore, (as ye pretend) christes religion unto the state, that it was in at the beginning of the church? Do ye not rather destroy that, which the primitive church ever used? But S. Clement sayeth again Epist. 3. unto S. james. We must know gods will, whiles we do live here, where the place is to offer sacrifice, for we may The mass is a sacrifice not of late devised. not make sacrifice, and say masses in any other places, then in which our own bishop hath commanded, or in that place that is, or shall be consecrated by the bishops debit of that cite. For these things shall not be other wise well done, both the old, and also the neve testament bearing there unto witness. The apostles learned these things of our lord, and taught them us. Who now may not see plainly, my lord, how far your doctrine dissenteth from the apostles, and the ancient doctors teaching, and belief? S. Clement sayeth that christ taught his apostles to offer sacrifice at mass, and in what place they should do it, & that the apostles taught the same unto him and his feloes, & ye, my lord, say that the bishop of Rome devised that sacrifice, and that priests do make no sacrifice more than the lay people do, and yet ye affirm in the title of your book, that this your doctrine is approved by the consent of the most ancient doctors of the church. O what mean ye, my lord? Think ye to blear men's eyes after such sort? Think ye that we do not espy, what ye go Epistola. ad burdegalenses, cap. 3. about? S. Martial Peter's scholar thus writeth of the masses sacrifice. A sacrifice is offered upon an altar unto god, not to man, nor angel. Nor that is An altar for mass to be said upon. not only done upon an altar haloved but a clean sacrifice is offered unto god in every place, as he doth testify, whose body and blood, we offer to obtain everlasting life. Do ye not yet, my lord, blusse? May ye not well repent your labour spent in setting forth of this your book, seeing this disciple of S. peter so openly speaketh both of the presence of Christ's body & blood in the holy sacrament, and also of the sacrifice of the mass? Why also do ye destroy altars, which were used in the apostles time (as it appeareth here) for masses to be said upon? What I The mass is a sacrifice propitiaetori for sin. pray you, my lord, is it to offer Christ's body and blood at mass, to purchase thereby everlasting life, if it be not the mass to be a sacrifice to pacify gods wrath for sin, and to obtain his mercy? Why then do ye deny this, and say that such doctrine is blasphemous and injurious unto christ, and his sacrifice? Would ye, that we should believe your saying, before all these, & all other old godly father's doctrine? Hear yet once again this holy martyr S. Peter's scholar, which saith thus That same thing, that the jews did The mass is a sacrifice for sin. kill through envy, we set forth upon the altar for our salvation knowing that by this remedy alone the life that ever lasteth, shall be given to us, and death dreaven away from us, for our lord himself bade us do this in remembrance Lucae. 22 of him. Loo, my lord, this blessed martyr S. Peter's disciple affirmeth that priests do offer for our salvation, to get heaven, and to avoided hell, the self same thing upon an altar, that the ieves did put unto death. With what face do ye then deny, that Christ's body is in the sacrament, but bread only a sign of it, and say also that the mass is no sacrifice at all for sin? This father sayeth, that christ commanded sacrifice to be made of his body and blood for our salvation, and are ye not, my lord, ashamed then to say that the sacrifice of the mass was devised by the bishop of Rome, against Christ's sacrifice, which he made upon the cross? Who denieth, my lord, but that Christ's sacrifice made upon the cross is sufficient for the remission of the sins of the whole world? But what thereof? Will ye of that gather, either that it did even, when it was made first upon the cross, take away clean in effect, and actually all Note. men's sins, or else that it needeth none application to take effect in us for our salvation? Why then should there be any hell, or any man be damned? For was not that his sacrifice à sufficient redemption 1. joan. 2 for the sins of all the whole world? Again, if the sacrifice of christ made upon the cross, need no application, why should we need to believe in him? to hope? to fear god? to do penance for our sins? to pray? to fast? to give alms? to love god? to keep his commandments? or to do any good? May we not then say (as 1. Cor. 15 many have done, and yet do) let us eat, drink, and make good cheer, for christ hath done all, & enough for us? He will not lose one of us, that he hath bought so dearly. This many men do say, that are your scholars, my lord, & they may gather no less out of many places of this your book, although ye never meant any such thing. Wherefore seying christ did not actually, nor in effect take away by his death the sins of men, but only as à meriter and deserver of grace and remission of our sins, he hath prepared a remedy to heal & cure them, that receive, do, and keep all such things, which he hath appointed to be means to apply that his benefit, virtue & strength of his passion unto them. Why then may not the sacrifice of the mass be such à mean, emoung many other more for that application of Christ's merit unto us, without any derogation of the perfection & sufficientcye of Christ's sacrifice, made by his death? Said Heb. 5. not S Paul that christ was made the cause of salvation, not of all men absolutely, but to them, that obeyed him? Doth not he then plainly declare, that this obedience of man is necessary for the application of Christ's perfect sacrifice, and yet that proveth no imperfection at all in that sacrifice? Said not Coloss. 1. also S paul that christ had pacified his father's wrath, & reconciled us unto him by his death, and yet not withstanding that that his sacrifice was full, perfect, and sufficient, he said, that he did supply those things, which lacked in Christ's passions, when he suffered afflictions, and persecution in his body for the people? What meant he, my lord, else but that the passions, afflictions and pains, which he suffered for the setting forth and defending of the gospel, were means to apply Christ's perfect, and sufficient sacrifice unto the people for the remission of their sins, and their salvation? Why then said ye, that they, which defend the sacrifice of the mass, as an instrument and a mean to apply Christ's passion unto us for our salvation, do it to supply the imperfection of Christ's sacrifice, and to do that for us, which christ either for lack of charity did not for us, or else for lack of power could not do? Were ye not plainly deceived, my lord, when ye wrote this against the sacrifice of the mass? recant then for shame, recant, this naughty doctrine, & teach it no more. Now to the confutation of your first book. ❧ The Confutation of the first book. What so ever can not be grounded The bishop fo. 1. pa. 2 upon the scripture, (touching our faith) is man's devise, changeable, & uncertain. What say ye then, my lord, unto The Confutation. the baptism of children? For of it S. Austen thus writeth upon the Genesis. The custom of our mother the church Lib. 1●. ca 23. ad literam. in baptizing of children, is not be despised, nor to be judged superfluous in any wise, neither it aught to be believed, except it had been a tradition of the apostles Again origen sayeth In ca 6. ad Romanos. after this manner. The church hath received a tradition of the apostles to give baptism also to children. See ye not nove, how that ye err? For Saint Austen sayeth that the baptism of children ought not to be believed to be necessary for their salvation, if it had not been a tradition of the apostles, & ye say, what so ever is not grounded upon the scripture, (touching our faith) is man's devise, etc. Think ye, that the baptism of children is grounded upon scripture, when S. Austen sayeth it is only a tradition of the apostles? Are ye better learned than he, and origen, that ye can find scripture for it, where they could find none? Also by what scripture is the baptism ministered of an heretic, or à schismatic, approved to be good and available? Sayeth not also S. Austen that De unico bapt. contra Donatistas'. there is no scripture to prove it? Called not also S. Hierom. Eluidium an heretic, because he defended that Christ's dear mother was not á continual vergen? Is that verity set forth in scripture? No, ye are shamefully deceived in this point, but of this matter I have spoken more at large in my book of traditions, unto which ye have yet made no answer, although ye rail daily A book of traditions. against unwritten verities, It followeth in your book. And all doctrine concerning this matter The bishop fo. 5 pa. 2. (of the sacrament) that is more than this, which is not grounded upon god's word, is of no necessity, etc. Then let The confutation. your communion be celebrated at night, my lord, when christ did institute it. Then let all men break their fast before they receive the holy sacrament, as one Bernard of Christ's church Bernard. januario epist. 119. Tertulianus. libr. 2. ad uxorem in oxford did. For Austen sayeth, our lord commanded not by what order this sacrament should be received, but left that thing unto his apostles, by whon he would set the churches in an 1. Cor. 11. order, and therefore S. paul sayeth, when he had spoken of the sacrament, I will dispose the rest, when I shall come unto you. Moreover, saint Austen sayeth. It pleased the holy ghost, that our lords body should first entre in to man's Epist. 119. mouth afore other meats, for the honour of so great à sacrament. Loo S. Austen saith it seamed good unto the holy ghost, that for the honour of so The honour of the sacrament. great à sacrament, we should receive our lords body fasting. And ye say, my lord, that we receive but bread & wine, and that the sacrament ought not to be honoured, and that all doctrine, concerning this matter, which is not grounded upon god's word, is of no necessity, & that the people's consciences ought not to be troubled there with What mean you? Do ye despise all godly order, and the father's doctrine, and yet say that your book is approved of the old doctors? Think ye that men are so mad to believe you before S. Austen? Origen sayeth that every Homi. 5. in Numeros. man must of necessity observe the order and manner of the receiving, and the ministering of this sacrament, which the church observeth. Also S. Cyprian De ablutione pedum. writeth after this sort. That thing is as firm, or as ratified, that the apostles have taught by the inspiration of the holy ghost, as that, which christ himself taught, and commanded to be done, for his remembrance. Also saint Luc. 22. Austen sayeth that this sacrifice is not well done, except the sign of the cross Tract. 189. in Joannem. Lib. 3. contra pelagic Epist. 1. ad omnes ecclesias. Lib. 1. epi. 3 be made upon the host. S. Hierom affirmeth that christ taught his apostles to say daily the pater noster in the sacrifice of his body. S. Alexander, which was within lxx years after Christ's passion, S. Cyprian & many other holy men, and great clerk say that christ mingled water with the wine in the chalice, when he made sacrifice at his mandy, and bade priests to doth same, and therefore they must do it of necessity Is this thing expressed, my lord, in scripture? It is not. With what face then, do ye say, that there is nothing of any necessity, but that only which is grounded upon scripture? Is this your doctrine to be approved (as ye say that it is) by the consent of the ancient doctors of the church? S. Clement Paul'S disciple, S. Anacletus, S. Martial peter scholars, and many other old doctors, do testify, that the sacrament ought to be celebrated only in hallowed places, and upon altars, and ye, my lord, regard nothing of this, and yet ye would make men believe that your doctrine is allowed, & set fourth by the ancient writers of the church. Think ye after such sort to blind men? Do ye not give an occasion unto men by this your doctrine, to celebrate the communion (as ye call it) in the buttery, kechen, backhouse, or else where they list? Saint Basil Lib. de spis. cap. 27. sayeth that the words of invocation, which are said when the bread of thanks giving, & the cup of blessing The sacrament was showed to the people in baesils time lege Theophilun. lib. 1. pasch. is showed, came by tradition, and that the priests said, that time at mass, certain words, that have great strength unto the mysteries, besides the words of the gospel and the apostle, and are not ye then, my lord, ashamed to say, that nothing is of any necessity in this matter, that is not grounded upon the scripture? Would ye have men rather to believe you, than this saint? S. Epist. praefixa Libr. paschalibus Hierom commended Theophilus bishop of Alexandria for teaching men to worship the holy chalices, and other things pertaining unto the ministration of the blessed sacrament of the altar, and that with the same majesty, & honour, that his body and blood are to be worshipped, because that they are there present. Should we then follow, my lord, your doctrine, which say that nothing is of any necessity, but that only, which is grounded upon god's word, and it is idolatry to whorship the holy sacrament of the altar? In how many places of his books Tract. ●3. in joan. lib. 8. capi. 27. de civitate dei. Lib. 22. cap. 10. Deverbis apost. sermone. 17. saith S. Austen that the holy martyrs and other saints names are rehearsed at mass for to pray for us? Why then deny ye this? S. Austen, Cyprian, Chrysostom, Cyril, and many other of the best writers, and most godly doctors of Christ's church, do make mention Chrysost. lib. 3. de sacerdotio ca 4. & lib. 6. cap. 4. of many things used then at mass, which are not written yn scripture, & do say that the sacrifice of the altar is made by prayer, and invocation of August. epistol. 57 Ser igi. lib. 3. cap. 4. de trinitate. the holy ghost, and gods name. Wherefore your doctrine is false, my lord, & utterly improved of the ancient doctors of the church, though ye say that they do approve it. I pass over many things, that are of necessity to be observed at mass, & be not expressed in the scripture, lest I should be to long, and tedious, ye say moreover thus. First here is to be noted, that christ The bishop fo. 4 pa. 2. called the material bread his, body, & the wine (which was the fruit of the vine) his blood. Why did ye not prove The confutation. this, my lord? Would ye that men should take you for a prophet, or for one, that could not err in his sainges? How called christ the material bread, and wine of the grape his body and blood when he added immediately these words, which shall be given for you & shed for you? For gave he material Mark. bread for our redemption upon the cross? Shed he there wine of the grape for the remission of our sins? Gave he not his own natural body, & shed his own precious blood then for us? Promised he not afore to his apostles to give them bread, that should be his own very natural body, which he joan. 6. would give by death for the life of the world? Who is then, my lord, so foolish to believe this your doctrine? But ye go forward saying. Although none eateth the body, and The bishop fo. 5. pa. 2. drinketh the blood of christ (but they have eternal life (as appeareth by Ihons' words afore rehearsed) yet the good, etc. My lord ye understand not Christ's The confutation. words written by S. John, for the right sense of them is, that every man, which eateth and drinketh Christ's body and blood worthily, hath ever lasting life, as saint paul expoundeth that place, 1. Cor. 11. writing to the corinthians. That this only was Christ's meaning there, it shall be proved anon by god's grace. Now ye recite S. Paul'S words, which sayeth. Who so ever shall eat of this 1. Cor. 11. bread, and drink of this cup unworthily, he shall be guilty of the body, & blood of the lord, and then ye say thus. Here S. paul sayeth not, that he, that The bishop eateth the bread, and drinketh the cup of the lord unworthily, eateth and drinketh the body, and the blood of the lord, but is guilty of the body & blood of the lord, but what he eateth & drinketh, he declareth, saying. He eateth and drinketh his own damnation. What if S. paul say not, my lord, that The confutation. the unworthy receiver of the holy sacrament, receiveth our lord's body, & his blood? Is that enough to prove that he receiveth them not, as ye defend? Who, that hath any learning in logic, will so reason? Doth not paul affirm that the unworthy receiver of this blessed sacrament is guilty of the body and blood of christ? May we justly say that he, which eateth only bakers bread, & drinketh wine of the grape is guilty of Christ's body and blood? May a man be gylt●e of the unworthy eating of a thing, which he eateth not at all? Will any wise man say, that I am guilty of eating á capon, when I eat but milk? Or may we say well, that he is guilty of miss entreating of a kings own person, when he doth abuse only his image, or picture? Why then have ye my lord, destroyed so many images of christ, and his holy saints? images. Were they not more lively, and manifest pictures, and representations of Christ's passion, than bread, and wine are? That they so were, I will shortly by god's grace, prove, to your reproach & shame, that have so lewdly destroyed them, without all good ground, and cause sufficient. Moreover ye are deceived, The bishop when ye say, that S. paul declareth, what the unworthy receiver 1. Cor. 11. of the sacrament, eateth and drinketh, when he sayeth, that he eateth & drinketh his own damnation. For he declareth only by those words what punishment he shall have, that unworthily receiveth Christ's body & blood Did ye not see, that paul used there a figure, and meant, that he did eat and drink, that bread and blood, unto his own damnation, that unworthily received them? But of this sufficient, ye say thus again. But all these foresaid admonitions, exhortations, and comforts doth the The bishop fo. 12. ca 15 papists (as much as lieth in them) take away from all christian people, by their transubstantation. The confutation. How prove ye this my lord, I beseech you? Marry thus say ye. For if we receive The bishop no bread, nor wine in the communion, than all the lessons, and comforts be gone, which we should learn, and receive by eating of bread, & The confutation. drinking of wine. It is very false, my lord, that ye say here. Why did ye not prove it to be true, but because ye could not, I am very certain? Wherefore may we not learn all such lessons, by that only that bread and wine are taken of the priest to be consecrated, and are so turned in to Christ's flesh and blood, that their forms, and qualities remain still? For as the bread & wine, which are consecrated, be made of many grains of corn, and of divers grapes of the vine, likewise are Cyprianus. all Christian people joined spiritually through faith, hope, love, and grace Mark reader. unto Christ the head of the church, which is his mystical body. secondly, as the bread, and wine, that we do eat, & drink daily, are so turned in to our flesh and blood, that they make but one whole body, nor are distincted from the other our flesh and blood, even so be all christian people spiritually joined both unto christ, and also one unto an other through the worthy receiving of Christ's flesh and blood in the sacrament, (in to which bread and wine of like nature and sort were chanuged by the word and power of god) that they do make altogether but one body of christ, which is the church This thing is, my lord, sufficiently represented, and signified by the bread and wine laid upon the altar to be consecrated, and by their shapes, appearances, & qualities remaining there still, and their substances presence is not required thereunto, though ye say that it is but proving not your saying. But if I should grant, (as luther teacheth, & his scholars) that the substance of bread, and wine remaineth in the sacrament, what should that, that ye here say make for your opinion? Doth not the lutherians hold and defend that the substance also of bread and wine is in the sacrament with Christ's very natural body, and blood? How can ye, my lord then prove this argument unto a lutherian? The substance of bread & wine doth still abide in the sacrament, ergo therein My lord laboureth all in vain. is not Christ's body & blood, but only bread, and wine, as ye say. See ye not then, that all this your labour was clean il spent, & lost for thereby ye proved not your purpose. Nove ye say, that the doctrine of transubstantiation doth subvert our faith in christ, and to prove that your saying, ye writ after this manner. For this sacrament is ordonned in bread, and wine (which The bishop fo. 1●. pa. 2. be foods for the body) to signify, and to declare unto us our spiritual food by christ, then if our corporal feeding upon the bread and wine, be but fantastical (so that there be no bread, nor wine to feed upon, although they appear to be there) than it doth us to understand, that our spiritual feeding in christ is also fantastical, and that The confutation. in deed we feed not in christ. As this your saying, my lord, is grounded upon no reason, nor authority, even so it may be sufficient for me at this time to deny it, and to say that our spiritual feeding in christ, & also the corporal eating and drinking of his body, and blood in the sacrament, are sufficiently signified unto us by that, that the bread and wine, which be consecrated in to christes flesh, and blood, are of that same kind and nature, of which the bread and wine be, that we do feed daily upon, and by that that their forms, and properties do remain still in the sacrament. This was the meaning of all the ancient doctors, which entreated any thing of this matter, and ye shall never be able to prove the contrary, with the help of all them, that made this your book but. I do travail yn vain to spend so many words in a thing of it self manfestly false, and therefore I will pass it over, and go forward. It followeth in your book. This spiritual The bishop fo. 1●. pa 2. cap 16. meat of Christ's body and blood: is not received in the mouth, etc. Why proved ye not this your saying? The confutation. Is your bare word à sufficient proof my lord, of this pestilent doctrine, and a reprouffe of the catholic faith of christ? The body and blood of Christ are, I confess, a spiritual food of our souls, and yet they are not only received of us spiritually, but also corporally with our mouths, when we do worthily receive the sacrament of the altar. For Tertulianus sayeth. Lib. de resurrect. ●anis. The flesh of man eateth Christ's body, and blood, that his soul may be also fed of god. How doth, my lord, man's flesh eat Christ's body and drink Lib. 4. c. ●4. his blood, if he eat it not (as ye say) with his mouth? Cyril also writeth of the same after this manner. We deny not, that we be joined spiritually unto christ through a right Lib 10. ca 11. in joan. faith and pure charity, but that we have no joining together with him bodily, we utterly deny, and do judge that against the scripture. And lest any man should say, that he spoke not this of the sacrament, and of our corporal joining unto Christ by the bodily receiving of him in the sacrament, he addeth mention of the 1. Cor. 10. sacrament, saying Although we be many, yet we be one in him, for we are all partakers of one bread. Thinketh he, that we know not the virtue of the sacrament, which when we do receive, doth it not make Christ to dwell in us yea corporally, through Mark. the partaking of his flesh? What may a man desire to be spoken more plainly, to prove, my lord, that Christ's flesh is received of us bodily in the sacrament, and not only (as ye teach falsely) by faith spiritually? May Christ dwell, I beseech you, in us corporally by the receiving of the sacrament of the altar, and yet we not receive his body with our mouths? I let pass divers such authorities both of S Cyril, Chrysostom, and also of many other, but yet I will not pass by Lib. sentential 〈◊〉 prosperi. this saying of S Austen. Whiles the host is broken, whiles the blood is poured out of the chalice in to the mouths of the faithful what thing is else signified, but the death of our lords body upon the cross, and the shedding of his blood out of his side? Saint Austen sayeth that we receive bodily Christ's blood with our mouths, & my lord denieth it, whether ought we to believe of these two? Ye say again in your book thus. And so The bishop. fo. 1●. ca 17. there remaineth whiteness, but nothing is whit, there remain colours, but nothing is coloured, there remaineth roundness, but nothing is round, and there is bigness, but nothing is big there is sweetness, but nothing is sweet, etc. What of this, my lord? Will ye deny The confutation. these things to be true, because your natural wit, and reason can not perceive how these accidents, and qualities may be in the sacrament without any substance to sustain them, and in which they may be? Who will measure an article of our faith by 1. Cor. 2. Theophilactus in Joannem. ca 3. his natural wit? Sayeth not S paul, my lord, that a man, which followeth natural arguments, and reason, perceiveth not the things, that pertain unto the spirit of god? Why remember ye not, that gods word, is his deed? Psal. ●3. Psal. 14. Sayeth not scripture that god doth all that he will, and that nothing is unto Luc. 1. Sap. 7. 11. him impossible? Can he them not make whiteness, roundness, sweetness, bygnes savour, and other the qualities of bread and wine, to be in the sacrament without their substance to bear them? Is this a greater thing, than to create, & make all thing of nothing? S Ambrose sayeth, why seekest thou a natural order in Christ's body, that is in the sacrament, Libr. de his qui mysterus initiantur. cap. 9 saying that his body was borne of the virgin without, yea against the order of nature? What mean ye then, my lord, to wonder so much at these things? The heathen men, that lacketh faith, may well marvel at them, and think that it is madness to believe any such thing, as they do judge of all the articles of our faith. Sayeth not the prophet, except ye believe, ye shall not understand? Why Esaiae. 7. then do ye not, my lord, first believe, and afterward study humbly to understand this deep mystery of our faith? Did not christ say that that Matth. 19 thing, which seamed impossible to man, was possible unto god? Is not our faith the foundation of all the things, that belong unto our salvation? 1. Cor. 3. Wherefore then build ye that upon reason without faith which ought only Hebr. 11. to be builded upon faith without reasoning? Cotta said unto Lucilius (as lactantius saith) If thou dost ask De origen erroris Lib. 2. cap. 7. a reason, thou dost not believe, why dost thou then require à reason, which may cause the not to believe? But if thou dost require a reason, and thinkest that à reason must needs be asked them thou dost not believe. Lo, my lord à paynim setteth you to school. Are ye not then á shamed of your reasoning in this matter, in which faith only ought to rule? Well I trust ye will be anon, if ye be not past all shame. Ye writ thus again. But this is not the doctrine The bishop. fo. 15. of christ, but the subtle invention of Antichrist, first decreed by Innocent the third, etc. Innocent the third, my The confutation. lord, was a great learned man (as his books declare, and as platina witnesseth) and also a godly, which caused a general council at Rome to be had, & celebrated, of M. ccc. xv father's, some out A council of. M. ccc. xv father's. of every region of all christian doom, & they after long praying to god for grace, much deliberation, and reasoning upon this matter, made this act and decree for the declaration of our belief in the sacrament. There is one universal church of the faithful, out of the which no man utterly can be saved. In which church christ himself is a priest, and á sacrifice, whose body and blood is verily contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread, and wine, the substance of the bread, and wine being turned in to christes body and blood by gods power. hitherto this the greatest counsel, that ever was kept amongst christian people, now I appeal to thy conscience, reader, and ask of the whether we ought not rather to believe this great number of learned and godly men, that were assembled together in this counsel, than either my lord of Canterbury, or else any one particulier council of any realm christened? For who can justly think, that all those men gathered together in Christ's name for the setting forth of the truth of our faith unto god's honour, and the wealth of our souls, did err so shamefully, as my lord sayeth they did? For did not Christ promise Matth. 18. to be in the mids of two or three assembled in his name? Was he not then with these. M. cccxv. fathers, that were in this council, that they erred not in their sentence? Why were ye not then ashamed, my lord, to say that Innocentius the third first decreed this our doctrine, which all these fathers did set forth above. ccc. years passed & yet not first (as ye say) but only established it, being long afore taught, even by Christ and his apostles, albeit not so plainly, as they declared it? Haymo a godly bishop, which was Haymo homiliade passione Christ secundum Matthaeum above. cccc. years before this Innocen tius, did thus write of this matter. The bread is changed in to our lords flesh, and the wine in to his blood, not by a figure, nor by a shadow, but by In. 1. Cor. 11 the verity. See ye not nove, my lord, how plainly ye err, saying that Innocentius first decreed this doctrine of Transubstantiation? Anselme, that was bishop of Canterbury. cxx. years before Innocentius was borne, wrote thus of the sacrament, It appeareth bread to the outward senses of man, but do ye know it with the senses of the mind, for this is Christ's body, no other, but that self same in substance, that was crucified for us, What can be more plainly spoken than this is, my lord, against your writing here? but let this pass, as sufficienthy disscussed, & refuted, it followeth in your Book. The papists say, that the very The bishop natural body and blood of Christ, which suffered for us upon the cross, and sittehy at the right hand of the father in heaven, is also really, et. c. in the sacrament. Here ye call papists, The confutation. my lord, not lúther only and all his scholars, which are against your doctrine, but also all christian nations, and all the ancient doctors of Christ's church, which do believe and defend the real presence of Christ's blessed body in the sacrament. Again ye falsely report of them, that they say, that Christ's body is naturally, and sensibly I●. 16. in the sacrament, for they affirm manifestly, that it is there above nature and unsensiblye. It is also very false, that ye lay unto our charges, that we say that Christ's body is in the sacrament as it was borne of the virgin, and that it is broken, and torn in pieces with our teeth, for we say that he was borne naturally of the virgin, and visibly in his own form of flesh and bone, and that he is unnaturally, invisibly and under the form of bread and wine in the sacrament, and that he is therein received wholly without breaking of his body, or tearing of it with our teeth, and that the forms only of bread are broken and toren with our teeth. This meant berengarius, Fo. 16. whon ye do allege, by such words of his recantation. And in those his words he followed. S Chrysostom, Hom. ●5●. ●● 83. in Matthaeum & homi. 45. in joannem. & certain other of the old writers, which for the more manifest setting forth of the real presence of Christ's body in the sacrament, do say often times that it is therein touched, broken, and scene, when only the forms and kinds of bread are touched, broken, and scene. And why may we not as well say, that we do touch, break, and see Christ's body in the sacrament, when we see, touch, and break only the outword forms of the bread, Gen. 18. 19 32. joshua. 5. Mar. vlt. Act. 1. 1. joan. 1. as the scripture sayeth that loath, Abrahan, jacob, josua, marry Madgalen, & the Apostles saw and touched angels, and god, when they saw only & touched te form, and shape of man? Moreover, I do ask of you, my lord, why may not we say that Christ's body is is broken, when the forms of bread are broken only in the sacrament, and his body taketh no hurt at all, as S. Thomas did put his hand in to christes side after his resurrection without all harm of his body, which was then immortal, and not apt to suffer any hurt at all? Is not this as impossible to man's natural reason, & wit, as the other, and as the qualities of bread & wine to remain still in the sacrament without any substance to sustain them? Wherefore then do ye not believe the one, as well as the other? Ye say that Fo. 16. christ is gone up from us in to heaven bodily, and shall not come hither again until domes day, and thereof ye gather that he is not bodily & really in the sacrament, but how false that saying is, it doth partly appear already, and more plainly shall by these words, which do follow here. First, Christ is both at ones in heaven, & also in the sacraement of the altar. the catholic faith is, that Christ departed vysibly and in is own form out of this world in to heaven, at the time of his ascension, and after that manner sitteth at the right hand of the father in heaven, and shall do until domes day, and yet he is bodily also in the sacrament both at ones by the almighty power of god above nature, and the understanding of all man's wit, and reason S. Austen expoundeth Ad Dardadum epist. ●7. Actorum. ●. this matter after the like sense, saying. He will come again (as the angels witnessed) after that same sort as he was scene going up in to heaven, that is to say (as S. Austen taketh it) in the same form and substance of flesh. What can be more plainly spoken to declare, that Christ is gone from us visibly in the form of flesh, and that after such sorthe is not with us now, but shall be at domes day? This proveth not, that he is not with us now ynuisibly in the form of bread and wine, and therefore this your argument, my lord, is soiled sufficiently. I ask now of you, my lord, why may not god, that made both the place and also the thing placed in it, and appointed that One body may be in divers places at ones by gods power. one body should be naturally but in one place at ones, cause that one body should be against the common order of nature in divers places at one's? May he not do this, as well as to make a virgin to conceive & bear á child wythhout man's help? Is not this as much against the order of nature, as the other? Was it not as much impossible by man's reason, Christ's body to walk upon the sea, to come out of his grave through the great stone lying upon it, and to go through the gates yet closed in to the house, where his apostles were, as the same his body to be in divers places of the earth, and in heaven also at one time? If you do deny (as John frith, peter martyr, and Peter Martyr John Frith. divers other have done) that christ entered in to the house, where his apostles were, the doors or gates being yet still Io. 20. closed, both the scripture itself, & also the doctors of the church are against you. For lo sayeth thus upon Epist. 40. that matter. Let these fantastical christians tell me, what body jesus brought into the sight of his disciples, the gates Lib. 1. contra iovinianum. being yet closed? S. Hierom also hath the same, saying after this manner. If christ went into the house, the doors being shit, which thing the nature of men's bodies suffereth not to be done, shall we then deny that both Peter, and also our lord had true bodies, because they against nature walked upon the waters? S. Austen hath the same, when Ser. 1●9. de tempore. Lib. 3. ad volusianum. Libr. 10 in lucae ca 24. he writeth thus. It was a miracle that our lord entered in to the house unto his disciples through the gates being closed. Also S. Ambrose sayeth. Thomas had a cause to marvel, when he saw christes body brought in to the house without hurt through the gates closed, Lib. de trinitate. which could not be passed through with men's bodies. Hylary dissenteth not from this, saying why dost thou ask, through what paytes of the closed door christ havin á body came in? For the evangelist diligently expresseth christes entering in to the house the doors being yet ●hit. To pass over many authorities, I will recite but this one out of Epiphani● an old writer which sayeth. Our lord entered in to the ●ow● primo. lib. pri●●●. house, the gates being yet closed, that he might declare his body to be of thin pieces, which was, afore he rose up again, of gross parts, and the same body that had flesh and bones. Now it is manifest that Christ's body entered in to the house through the doors, being them still closed. Who can them, my lord, deny, but that his body was that time of his entry in to the house, in one proper place with the body of the door & so there were two bodies in one place? Why then may not his body be in heaven Two bodies in one plac● at o●es. & in earth both at one time? Is not the one of the two as much impossible by nature, as the other? Why do ye not follow the faith of Abraham, which believed Gene 2●. Rom. 4 steadfastly the ꝓmes of god, made by the angel, concerning the having of a child by Sara his wife both old, & also barren, when the thing was by nature impossible? S. Chrysostom believed that Christ's very natural body was both in heaven, & also in the holy sacrament at ones, for he saith thus. O great Lib. 4 cap. 3 de 〈…〉 good will of god towards us, o miracle▪ He▪ that sitteth upon the right h●d of his father in heaven above, is contained in men's hands in the time of the sacrifice Also he sayeth in an other place. There is one body of christ daily Homi. ● ●n spi. 〈…〉. offered in sacrifice & one christ in every place (where the sacrament is) which is here in this place full, & there in that Homi●●●. 2. 〈…〉 popular. also full, or whole. Thirdly he writeth thus. Helias the prophet ascending up left his mantle unto his disciple, but Christ's body i● 〈…〉 the son of god ascending up in to heaven hath left unto us his own flesh. As for helias leaving his mantle unto his in the sacrament also not wythstanding his ascensió in to heaven. disciple, left it from himself, but our saviour christ hath both left his flesh with us, & also taken it with himself in his ascension. See ye not now, my lord that this holy doctor, & notable clerk, plainly setteth forth, both the sacrifice of the mass, & also Christ's bodily presence in heaven & in the blessed sacrament of the altar both at one time? Are ye not then ashamed to deny both of these two things, and yet say, that the ancient writers be altogether upon your side? S. Chrysostom perceived right well, that christ departed not so out of this world at the time of his ascension, that he tarried not still bodily therein. Also he saw that Christ's body was at ones in divers places, believed the same, & taught it us. Wherefore this our belief, that ye, my lord, do call so often blasphemy, heresy, & idolatry, and say that it rose up of late, is the old godly & catholic faith of the church. Now ye allege these Christ's words for your purpose. Ye shald have ever The bishop Matth. 26. The confutation. poor people with you, but me ye shall not ever have. This author●te proveth not your doctrine, for christ meant only that they should not have him with them ever visibly in his own for me of flesh and blood, and by familiar conversation, that Mary Magdalen might, when she listed, anoint his body, which she did whiles she might, and therefore christ commended her deed. That this was his meaning the text of Matthew showeth plainly, and Saint Mark more plainly, Marci. 14. saying. Ye have poor men ever with you, and when ye will, ye may do them good, but me ye have not ever with you. As if he had said, ye may not at all times do me good, nor ye have me not after any such common mortal and needful sort with you, as ye have me now, and as ye have the poor people, to whom ye may do good, when so ever ye list. Saint Hierom expounded that place after the same sort, saying Hierom in Matth. 26. that christ meant that they should not have him with them by familiar conversation, and living together with them, as they had him before his resurrection. And it is no strange thing to say, that christ is present ever with us invisibly in the form of bread, although he be absent from us visibly, for he used a like manner of speaking himself, when he said unto his apostles after his resurrection. Luc. 22. These are the words, which I spoke unto you, when I was with you. For he meant that he was not then with them as he was afore his resurrection, when he was mortal, apt to suffer pains, neading meat, and drink, and subject unto such other passions of man, and so he was not with them when he spoke this unto then. But this your reason is anusweared fully. Noweye allege words these of Christ. Many hereafter shall come, and say, The ●ysshop Fo. 16. et. 24 Matth. ●4. The confutation. look here is Christ, or look there is Christ, but believe them not. O lord, what blindness is this? Christ prophised of false prophets, which then should either come before the destruction of Jerusalem, such as were been Cosban, Theodas, & judas of Galilee (of whom josephus, Eusebius, and S. Act. 5. Luke in the acts do make mention) and say that they are christ, or else (which is nearer to the letter) christ spoke then of false prophets, and false Christ's, that should come with Antichrist, The confutation. and say by him, and other such, here is christ, or there is Christ, utterly denying our saviour to be the very messias, Matth. 26. or redeemer of the world. In what blindness were ye then, my lord, to allege this text against the real presence Note this reader. of Christ's natural body in the blessed sacrament? But that this is the right sense of that letter, it is evident both by the words, which go afore it making mention of Antichristes' coming, and also of the end of the world, and like wise by these words, that follow there, Then if any man say unto you, Loo here is christ, or there, believe him not, for false Christ's, and Matth. 24. false prophets shall rise up, and work gteat miracles, and wonders, in so much, yea the elected (if it may be done) shall be brought in to error. And anon after he maketh plain mention of Christ's coming again at domes day. See ye not then now, my lord, your own error, in wresting this place, against the sacrament, which christ spoke only of such false prophets, & false Christ's, that should Note. come in the time of Antichrist, and set up an other saviour of the world in his stead? Do we say, here is upon this anlter, or there upon that, an other christ, than our saviour? Who believeth, & sayeth, my lord, here is christ, or there, because any false prophet, or false christ affirmeth him to be there? Say we not that he is in the sacrament, joan. 6. because he himself promised unto his apostles to give them his flesh, which, he would give for the life of the world, and performing that his Mahtth. 2● promise said to them, take and eat, this is my body, and finally, because the holy conciles, the ancient doctors, and the catholic church hath so taught us? Moreover, have ye not, my lord, alleged here that text for you which is directly & openly against your own self? For say ye not, here Episcopus iste suo iugulatur gladio. is Christ in this part of England by his true faith, and religion, and there he is? Is it not then great marvel, that any learned and wise man doth follow your doctrine, which seeth this your wresting of the scrioture for the furtherance of your wicked doctrine? But of this place, I have spoken sufficiently. Now ye allege saint Paul or your purpose, which thus writeth. As often as ye shall eat of this bread, 1. Cor. 11. The bishop fo. 16. pa. 2. and drink of this cup, show ye fourth the lords death until he come. Unto these words ye add and say. Till he come (saith s. paul) signifying The Confutation. that he is not there corporally, No sir, he meant only that Christ was not present then visibly in his own form, but that he would come again at domes day after such sort, as it is already declared at large. For as these Christ's words, Lucae. 22. these are the words, which I spoke unto you, when I was with you, do not prove, that he was not then with them bodily, but only that he was not then with them mortal and apt to suffer pains, as he was with them before his death, & resurrection, and as this saying of Christ. The spirit joan. 7. was not yet given, because jesus was not yet glorified, doth not prove that the holy ghost was not given before that time unto his apostles, and certain other men, but only that he was not then given visibly, and in à visibly sign, as he was afterward given in fiery tongues, even so when Paul act. 2. sayeth, until he come, he meant not absolutely, that christ was not then bodily present in the sacrament, but that he was not there visibly, and in his proper form of flesh and blood, for after such sort he should come again at domes day, & therefore scripture speaking Marei. 13. Lucae. 12. joan. 16. of this Christ's returning in to this world at domes day, sayeth that he shall be scene coming in his gloyrie, and majesty. Your similitude, my lord, serveth not your purpose, for it only taketh place among men, which come not, ne can come, any other wise then visibly, and in their own form, of whom we can not say well, do ye this until they come, if they be present then, which we may truly say of christ, that is ever present with us bodily, and invisiby in the sacrament, and absent visibly. Christ used a like manner of speaking, when Lucae. 24. ge said unto his apostles, tarry ye in Jerusalem, until ye be yndued with strength from above, for he meant that they were not then endued with strength from heaven in a visible sign for their confirmation, although invisibly they had received the strength Mark. of the holy ghost by grace, why may we not then say, my lord, that S. Paul saying, until he come, meant of his visible coming again at domes day, and not that he meant that Christ was not then present invisibly in the holy sacrament of the altar? wherefore this argument is fully anusweared. Now ye writ after this manner. The papists say, that evil, and ungodly The bishop fo. 17. lib. 2. pa. 1. The confutation. men do receive in this sacrament the very body and blood of Christ, etc. All catholic learned men say even so in deed, and that not without S. Paul's authoritate, and of many of the most best and oldest doctors of the church, as it shall anon by god's grace, appear plainly. No we ye say thus against the sacrifice of the holy mass. They say, that they offer The 〈…〉. Christ every day for remission of sin, etc. But the apostles, and evangelists do say, that christ himself in his own parson made a sacrifice for our sins upon the cross, by whose wounds all our diseases were healed, and our sins pardoned, and so did never no priest, nor creature, but he, nor he did the same never but ones. What The confutation. ignorance is this, my lord, that ye are in? Who denieth that Christ hath redeemed us perfectly and sufficiently by his one sacrifice ones for all offered upon the cross, at the least concerning his office duyte, part, and merit, but yet not in effect, and actually (as it is declared before.) but he only then deserved grace, remission of sin, and ever lasting life for all them, that would believe in him, hope in gods mercy, fear god, do penance for their sins, pray, give alms to the poor, fast, receive the sacraments, love god, and their neighbours, & keep gods Hebr. 5. facto est causa salutis, etc. commandments. Why then may we not well say that à priest (as a ministre of god) sayeth mass, and offereth Christ's body and blood for to apply his sacrifice made upon the cross unto us for the actual remission of our sins, although they do not take away our sins, nor pardon them, nor heal our diseases, but god only doth it for Christ's perfect sacrifices sake? For sayeth not the scripture Matth. 6. Marci 11. 1. Timo. 4. Matth. ●. Iaco●i. 5. that we do forgive one an other our offences, that the preacher of god's word doth save the people, and himself thereby, that we must pray for the remission of our sins, & of others also, that they may be saved, that Ecclesiast. 1. joan. 20. Daniel 4. fear expelleth sin, that priests do remit sin, that sin is taken a way by alms, fasting, & baptism, Danielis. 4. Luc. 11. Matth. 17. isaiah. 43 and yet god only for Christ's merits sake remitteth our sins? Ye say that every man must apply christes sacrifice and merit unto himself and Abacuc. 2. by his own faith receive the fruit of it at Christ's hands, & not at the priests. What then, my lord? Is this a good argument, I beseech you, every man must receive the benefit of Christ's death by his own faith at Christ's hands, ergo the priest sayeth not mass for the obtaining the remission of sins? Do not they, for whom the priest offereth christ at mass, receive that Christ's benefit for the remission of their sins, and salvation, through their faith, and repentance of god only for Christ's sake? Doth not this your argument, my lord, prove as much against our praying one for an other, jacobi 5 Matth. 28. preaching of the gospel, ministering of the sacraments for the remission of our sins, and against many such other things, required of god in the scripture, for remission of our sins, Mark reader. and salvation. as it doth against the sacrifice of the mass? For must they not receive of christ by their own faith remission of their sins, for whom ye daily pray, to whom ye do ministre the sacraments and preach gods word? Why then did you thus trifie, & myspend your time in such vain things to seduce the people? Cease for shame, cease, I say, thus to reason unreasonably, and unlearnedly against the truth, which ever obtaineth the 3 Esd. 3. psal. 11●. victory, and endureth. Thus ye end your first book, and so I do mine. The confutation of the second The bishop book, which is of Transubstantiation. After ye had, my lord, made to the Lib. 2. ca 2. fo. 18. pa. 1. reader à great promise in the beginning of this your book, ye say that christ gave at his last supper bread unto his disciples, and for the proof thereof ye say thus. When christ said (This) the bread (say they) remained. O vain tryfler. And when he said (is) yet the bread remained still. And when he said (bo) yet the bread was there still. But when he finished the whole sentence, This is my body, than (they say) the bread was gone, and there remaineth no substance but Christ's body, as though the bread could not remain, when it is made á sacrament. This is in deed, my The confutation. lord, the very true sense of those Christ's words although ye mock much thereat (as it doth right well become your estate, and degree) and your reason maketh no less against your own My lords reason is as mu●h against his own doctrine, as it is against ours. opinion, than it doth against ours. For the bread, and wine are not made holy signs (as ye say that they are only) of Christ's body and blood, until the words of consecration be fully pronounced, and therefore we may use this your own reason after like sort against your doctrine, as ye do use it against ours. Again, when the priest baptizeth a child, saying. I do christian Matth. 28. the in the name of the father, the son, and the holy ghost, the child is not baptised, nor his sins forgiven him, when the priest sayeth (I christian thee) and so of the rest of those words, but only when the whole sentence is pronounced. ●uc. 22. Moreover, christ gave unto his apostles authority to consecrated the bread and wine, to offer his body and blood in sacrifice, and to ministre them unto other, when he said, do this in remembrance of me, and yet when he said (Do) they had not that authority, nor when he said (This) but when all these words were spoken, or else he speaking them, gave that authority. Wherefore ye have gotten nothing by this your reasoning, my lord, but only declared thereby your ignorance, as ye do, when you following your great Matth. 26. Hoc est, etc. god, peter martyr, deny that these words, This is my body, are the words of consecration. For S. Ireneus, Lib. 4. c. 32. De coena d. Tertulian, Saint Cyprian, Chrysostom, Hierom Ambrose, basile libro de institutione monachorum cap. 70. Damascene Contione. 2. in psal. 33. lib. 4. cap. 14. S. Austen, and many other of the oldest writers affirm plainly that those are the words of consecration, but I will rehearse now only the words of certain of them, for divers causes. S. Ambrose thus writeth. Afore it be consecrated, it is bread, Lib 4. ca ● de sacramentis but after Christ's words are come unto, it is Christ's body. Hear him saying. Take and eat. This is my body. S. Damascene also saith. The bread, Lib. 4. c. 14. and wine are not a figure of the body and blood of christ (god forbid that) but our lords body itself, joined unto the godhead, our lord himself saying. This is my body, not a figure of my body, but my body. Is Mark reader. not this plainly spoken of that holy saint to declare both that those are the words of consecration, and also that Christ's very natural body and blood are in the sacrament, and not only a figure of them? Where it not then great folly to believe your doctrine, my lord before his, which was a notable clerk, Hom. 45 in joannem. & a saint about D. ccc. years passed? Hear now S. Chrysostom, saying. It is not man, that maketh our lords Mark this reader. body & blood of the things, set forth upon the table to be consecrated, but it is christ, that was crucified for us. The words are pronounced of the priest, and the things (bread and wine) are consecrated by gods power, & Matth. 26. grace, he said. This is my body, Hoc verbo proposita consecrantur, the bread and wine, which are set forth, be consecrated by this word. See ye not, my lord, how plainly this holy father, and great learned man, that was almost M. cc. years sense, sayeth that christ himself maketh his own body and blood of the bread and wine, set forth upon the altar to be consecrated, and that by these words of consecration. This is my body? Would ye than have men to believe your contrary teaching, which are nothing like unto him, neither in virtue of life, nor in learning? May ye not be yet again ashamed, that ye said in the title of your book, that your doctrine was approved of the ancient doctors of Christ's church seeing they are so manifestly against it? In psal. 33. S. Austen also sayeth. Christ bore his own body in his hands, when he said This is my body, and that he then did S. Austen believed that Christ's very natural body was in The sacrament. that thing then, which no man could ever do, for no man can bear himself in his own hands, and therefore he meant that christ consecrated the bread by these words. This is my body, and turned it in to his natural body, which he bore at his mandy in his hands, & not bread only a figure of it, for else he had not said truly, that no man might bear himself in his own hands, but only christ, for every man may easily bear his picture or image in his own hands. Doth not them S. Austen declare, my lord, very plainly in this place, that he believed christes body to be in the holy sacrament, and not bread à sign only of it, as ye do teach, and say also that he taught? But of this sufficient. Ye say moreover. But this negative, that there is no bread, The bishop. fo. 18. pa. 1. they make of their own brains by their unwritten verities. No not so my lord, for christ, his apostles, the conciles, The confutation. the catholic church, and all the old doctors taught it us, as partly I have already proved, and will, by god's grace, more largely hereafter. And as touching unwritten verities, I wrote A book of unwritten verities not yet anusweared unto of the contrary side. a book of them, which showeth manifestly, how far your doctrine dissenteth from the faith & religion of the apostles, the primitive church, and from all the ancient doctors, where ye pretend to restore Christ's religion to that pureness that it had in the beginning of the church. Why mock you so often at unwritten verities, which came from Christ, and his apostles, (as it appeareth in that my book) and yet anusweare not unto that book? Are your mocks, and jests a sufficient anuswere to it? Ye say that we make this negative, there is no bread, of our own brains, which is very false, for christ taught it us, and his apostles, and the church, by these words, This is my body, but ye make this negative, There is not our lords natural body, but bread only, of your own brains Matth. 26. joan. 6. pais. against Christ's plain words. S. Paul's words, the concels, the catholic church, & all the holy doctors of the church, for none of them all ever said (as ye do teach) that Christ's very body is not in the sacrament, but the clean contrary. Wherefore your doctrine is to be abhorred, and detested of all good christian people. It followeth in The bishop your book. Oh good lord, how would they have bragged, if Christ had said lib. 2. fo. 18. pa. 1. The confutation. this is no bread? But Christ spoke not that negative, etc. Oh good lord, how would you, my lord, have bragged, if christ had said, this is material bread & not my body, but only a sign, or a figure of it, but Christ spoke neither Mark this that affirmative, This is material bread (as ye defend) nor that negative, This is not my body, but he said the clean contrary to them both, This is my body, that shall be given for you. For these words can not be understanded of material bread, because that is not his body, that was given for us. Again both the greek text and the latin also will not permit, that these Matth. 2●. Christ's words, this is my body, should be expounded of material bread. For the greek hath. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the latin, hoc est corpus meum, Both in the neuter gender, and therefore we can not say, that christ meant of the bread, when he said, This is my body, for than he should have said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Et hic panis est Note well this reader. corpus meum, that the pronome (This) might have been referred unto the bread, but he used the neuter gendre both in the greek, and also in the latin, Matth. 26. and therefore he meant not of the material bread, when he said. This is my body, but of his own very natural body, that was crucified for us. Doth it not then appear now, my lord, that Christ meant this negative, there is no bread, when he said, this is my body, that shall be given for you, although he said not expressly, there is no bread? Moreover did not Christ promise to his apostles to give then bread, that should be his own flesh, which he would give for the life of the joan. 6. panis. world, and performed that his promise at his last supper, saying, take and eat, this is my body, that shall be given for you? How can this be true of bakers Mark. bread? Was that given of Christ for the life of the world? Is it not as false to say, this bread made of corn is Christ's body, as to say, a man is an ass, or an ass à man, for that bread differeth much more from Christ's body, than a man from an ass, which both are lively creatures and have senses, in which they do agree? When ye have, my lord, made anusweare unto this, ye shall hear more to anusweare The bishop. fo. 19 lib. 1. pag. 2. unto. Now ye go about to prove, that bread remaineth still in the sacrament, saying thus: Christ took bread, broke it, and gave it unto his disciples and said: Take, eat. All this was spoken before the words of consecration. Wherefore they must needs be understand of very bread, that Christ took bread, broke bread, and gave bread unto his disciples, etc. This reason is very The confutation. weak, my lord, and as much against your own doctrine, as it is against ours For although the text seemeth to say, that Christ gave unto his disciples the sacrament before the words of consecration were spoken of him, yet he did not so, but he did first consecrate the bread, saying. This is my body, My lords reason is against his own doctrine. and then he said, take and eat, for else he had given unto them no sacrament, but only common bread, unconsecrated, which is very false, & as much against your opinion, as against our doctrine. For ye do say, that christ gave to his apostles holy consecrated bread, a sign, and a sacrament of his body. Ye are also deceived, when Luc. 22. fo. 19 Matth. 26. ye say that christ gave unto his disciples the cup of wine before he did consecrated it, for than he had given to them wine unconsecrated, which had been neither sign, nor sacrament of Christ's precious blood, more than all other common wine was and now is, and the apostles also had then received, & drunken but common wine, for the text of Mark, which ye follow here in your book, sayeth. They drounke of it all, and after it reciteth the words of the consecration, saying. This is Marci. 14. my blood, etc. Is not this then against your doctrine, my lord, as much as it is against ours? Why then do ye not thus construe Christ's words in Mark? My lord made an argument plaily against his own doctrine. This is my blood of the new testament, etc. Take it ye, and drink and, they drounke of it all? Shall ye not else be enforced to say, that christ did neither consecrate, the wine at all, nor give to his apostles any sacrament, or holy sign, for he did not consecrate the wine after they had drunken it? recant therefore this your error for shame, recant, yea for our lords honours sake, the saving of your own soul, and the souls of many other, whom ye have seduced with this your wicked doctrine. Ye also write thus. Now I ask The bishop of the papists, what thing it was, that christ commanded his disciples to drink, when he said. Drink ye all of this? I anusweare, my lord, that it was his own precious blood, which he shed for many as he sayeth there himself, and that he spoke those wo●des after he had consecrated the wine, (as I have already declared) although the letter hath not that order. For else ye must needs grant that Christ gave unto his apostles but common unconsecrated wine, and that he did never consecrate it, nor make it à holy sign of his blood, which how false it is, and hove plain against your own doctrine, who seeth not? May not a man now, my lord, well perceive, how ye err for lack of knowledge, though ye take upon you to correct all other, and to reform Christ's religion? Of like ignorance proceeded this reason, that now followeth in your book. Before christ delivered the cup of wine The bishop lib. 2. fo. 19 pag. 2. to his disciples, he said unto them Divide this among you. Here ye do deskant, my lord, upon this word (Divide) The confutation. and ask of the papists what thing it was, that christ bade his apostles divide among them, I think, say ye, that they will not say, that it was his blood, because those words were spoken before the consecration, and also the blood of christ is not divided. This ye reason without both reason, The Confutation. and also good learning. For if Christ had spoken those words of the wine, which appertained unto the holy sacrament (as in deed he did not, but on lie of the wine, that he drank at his supper eating the paschal lamb afore the institution of the sacrament) Marci. 14. Luc. 22. yet they should make nothing more against our belief, than against your unbelief. For if he had commanded his apostles to have drunken the wine Mark. not yet consecrated, (as ye say falsely, that he did) than it had been no sacrament, nor holy sign of Christ's blood, as ye teach that it is. But I say to thee, good reader, that he must needs be very foolish, that will give any credence unto my lords doctrine, seeing he doth so falsely allege, and wrest gods word to maintain his error. But I will pass this over, as confuted sufficiently. Ye say again. When the communion was ended, christ said unto his apostles. Verily I say unto you, Luc. 22. The bishop lib. 2. fo. 19 pa. 2. that I will drink no more hence forth of this fruit of the vine, until the day, that I shall drink it new with you in my father's kingdom. These words prove not, my lord, that Christ's apostles The confutation. drank wine in the receiving of the sacrament, (as ye say), but only that they drank wine with christ at supper, when they did eat the paschal lamb, before the institution of the sacrament, as it appeareth by Saint Luke's evangile, in which these words Lucae. 22. are written, to declare both Saint Mattheus and Saint Marks words. Again if those words had been spoken of the consecrated wine, yet they should not prove your purpose, my lord, that wine of the grape remaineth still in the holy sacrament, but only that christ called his very own blood wine, because, that wine was turned in to it by the consecration, and because it seamed to be wine, and had the qualities and properties of wine, lest we should abhor to drink it, if it did appear blood (as S. Damascene, Theophilacte, Damascene Lib. 4. c. 14. Theophi. in Marci. 14. Euthyimus, and many other learned men do witness) and that man might merit believing against his senses judgements, which hath no merit (as Saint Gregory sayeth) when he Homi. 28. in evangelia. hath a proof of the thing. It is no strange thing for Christ's blood to be called wine, for the story of the Genesis Gene. 49. sayeth of christ in the person of juda, he shall wash his stole in wine, and his garment in the blood of the grape. Did not the holy ghost call wine here christes blood? Saint Cyprian proveth ●i. 2. Epi. 3 by that text, and by an other of Esaiae the prophet, that wine must needs be put in to the chalice to be consecrated, and made Christ's blood, and therefore christ meant that he would not drink his own blood, (in to which the wine was then changed by his words and power) after that time until he drank it with his apostles in the Lege Hier. ad hedihian quaest. 2. church after his resurrection. And after this sort Saint Eucherius, that was bishop of lions in France above. Libro quaestionum novi & veteris testamenti. M. c. years passed, expoundeth that text, saying. What shall we follow here? The kingdom of god (as learned men do understand it) is the church in which christ daily drinketh his blood by his holy people, as the head in the membres. Loo this holy doctor, my lord, understood by the fruit of the vine, of which S. Luke maketh mention, not wine of the vine (as ye do) but Christ's very blood, and sayeth that he drank it, when his membres, the godly people, drank it in the church, as the head drinketh in his membres. Now I ask of you, my lord, where drinketh christ his blood daily in the church, when his membres the god men drink it, except it be in the holy sacrament? Is not this argument then anusweared sufficiently? It is very false also, that The bishop Li. 2. fo. 20 ye say, that christ used all such terms, and circumstances, which should make us believe that bread and wine remained still in the sacrament. For the term of his body, and saying that he gave even that same his body, that should be crucified for us, & his blood that he would shed for us, and that he used the neuter gender, when he said (This is, etc.) which can not be referred unto the bread, that is both in latin and also in the greek the masculine gender, aught to make us believe, that he spoke then of his own very natural body and blood. I let pass here your malicious railing upon the catholic priests, which declareth plainly by what spirit ye are led. ye writ also this. Saint Pol called bread, bread, and wine, wine, and never altered The bishop lib. 2. fo. 20 pagina. 2. Christ's words heryn. The bread, which we break (sayeth he) is it not the communion of Christ's body? It is The confutation. not true, that Saint Pol called bread, bread, and wine wine, for he called Christ's blessed body & precious blood, bread & wine, because bread & wine were turned in to them at the time of the consecration, and because there remained still the qualities and properties of bread, and wine, and thirdly, be cause that Christ's body and blood do feed the soul, as material bread, and wine doth the body. When ye say that S. Pol must needs be understanded, when he sayeth the bread, that we break, etc. of material bread, because Christ's body is not broken, I say that ye err in so saying, for the forms, & quantities of bread are broken, Christ's body lying under them taking no harm at all, as Saint Thomas did put his hand in to Christ's side without all hurt unto it, being then immortal, & joan. 20 unapt to suffer harm. Saint Pol (I grant) maketh oft mention of bread and wine, but what thereof? Is that sufficient to prove that he spoke of material 1. Cor. 10. 11 bread, and of wine of the vine? Maketh he not also often mention of Christ's body and blood? Why then Mark reader: may not we say, that he spoke of them, and meant by the bread and wine Christ's body and blood, in to which the bread was changed, and the wine also, and whose properties, and qualities remained still in the sacrament? Ye say that pol never spoke of transubstantiation, if ye mean expressly and by that name, I grant it, but that proveth nothing for your purpose, for he spoke of the thing signified, & meant by that word, that is to say, he taught us that Christ's body and blood are in the sacrament, and not bakers bread (as it is proved afore) Again Saint Pol never said that material bread remaineth still in the sacrament (as ye teach, my lord) & therefore pol by your own reason maketh no more for you, than he doth for me. Also the scripture speaketh not namely, & expressly of this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 homousios, nor that the father is ingenitus, nor that there are three persons in the trinity. Will ye, mi Mark. lord, therefore conclude that scripture setteth not forth the self same thing by other terms and words? No, god forbidden. Is it not then sufficient for our doctrine, that the scripture teacheth us the same thing, that this word (transubstantiation) signifieth, although it maketh no mention of that word? Now ye speak much against altering of Christ's words. But who doth, my lord, so much alter them, as ye do? For christ said. This is my body, that shall be given for you, and ye say, that it was not his body in deed, but bread of corn & a sign or a figure of it only can there be, my lord, any greater altering of a thing, then to deny it, and Mrrke. to say it is not it, but only a figure of it? Christ said it was he self same body, that he gave for us to death, & we say even the same, where ye say it was not it, but bread. Have ye not then blamed us in that thing, in which ye yourself is most to be blamed? Well let The bishop. fo. 21. The confutation. this pass. Now ye fall to reasoning, and say thus. Now let us consider, how the same is also against reason, and natural operation, etc. What then? Are not like wise all the articles of our faith against both reason, and natural operation? For what can be more against reason and natural operation, than a virgin to conceive and bear a child, without decay of her virginity? than man's Matth. 1. Lucae. 1. 1. Cor. 15. flesh to rise again? than all things to be made of nothing? than death to be overcome by death? than that there be three persons, and but one god? etc. Why then deny ye not as well all these articles of our faith, as the real presence of Christ's body in the sacrament? Have ye forgotten S polls saying, A man which followeth natural reason, and arguments made by his own wit perceiveth 1. Cor. 1. Theophilactus in 10. 3 not things belonging to god, and those that are above reason? Did not Nichodemus think it was impossible, that a man should be borne again because he lacked faith, and followed natural reason only? Exhorteth not us Coloss. 2. S Pol to take heed, that no man deceive us by vain reasoning, and philosophy? Did not the heathen and paynims judge it folly to believe in Christ's 1. Cor. 1. death, because they thought it against reason, that a man should be saved by a man's death? How much reasoned Saint pol against the natural philosophers to prove the resurrection 1. Cor. 15 of the flesh? Which they would not believe, because it was against reason and natural knowledge? Do ye not give men a great occasion, my lord, by your reasoning in this your book, to deny all the articles of our faith, seeing they are against natural reason & operation? I pray god, that ye bring not the people unto such madness. Athanasius Libro. 4. ad Theophilum contra potentinum. said unto one pontentine. Thou alone dost dissent in this matter from the catholics against the scriptures, and the whole world, whiles thou folovest the philosopher's doctrine. May we not, my lord, say the same of you, & such other? S. Cyprian sayeth, Lib. 4. epi. 2 there is much difference between philosophers, and Christian people, for the philosophers, and natural reasoners measure all their knowledge by wit and reason, but christian men measure their belief by faith. Tertulian sayeth Lib. de praescriptione adversus haereticos. that all heresies spring out of philosophy. Will ye bring men, my lord, with your natural reasoning in this article of our faith, to say, as one Abaillardus did, (of whom bernard writeth) Epist. 180. that nothing ought to be believed of us, that exceedeth natural rea, son? What caused many men to say Epist. 100LS. (as Solomon witnesseth) that men perish even as beasts, and therefore Ecclesiast. 3 they said, let us eat, drink, fill ourselves 1. Cor. 15. with delights, and plaisirs, for after this life there is no pleasure? Was it not natural reasoning, and measuring of things by their wits? Cease then, my lord, for shame, cease this reasoning in mattiers of our faith, and follow S. Ambrose, saying De fide ad Gratianum against such reasoning. Away hence with arguments, where the faith is sought. Let logic, or the science of reasoning and disputing probably of matters, now keep silence, and speak in the schools. Those men are daily forsaken of their compaynions, that dispute, they do increase daily, which believe simply, philosophers are not believed, and fishers are. Wherefore leave, my lord, I say again, leave this your reasoning upon this high mystery, that passeth all man's wit, and reason. Now I will examine your unreasonable reasons, and declare how foyble they are, of which this is one. Natural reason abhorreth vacuum, The bishop fo. 21. pag ● that is to say, that there should be any empty place, wherein no substance should be, but if there remain no bread, nor wine, the place, where they were before, and where their accidents be, is filled with no substance, but remaineth vacuum, clean contrary to the order of nature. This reason The confutation. may well persuade á paynim, & á heathen philosopher, or any man, that will rather follow reason than faith, but no good christian man, which believeth against all natural reason and the order of nature, as he is bound, and e'en 22. Rom. 4 as Abraham believed that Sara his wife being both old & also barren, should bear a child, which was against reason, and the order of nature. Zachary S. Than Baptist's father would not believe, that his wife, being barrenyn her youth should bear á child, because, it was against reason, and the whole order of nature, & therefore good took from him his speech until his son S. Ihan was Luc. 1. Libro debis qui mysterijs initiantur, cap. 9 Mark reader. borne. S. Ambrose sayeth. why dost thou seek here in the sacrament the order of nature yn Christ's body, seeing Christ our saviour was borne of the vyrgen against the order of nature? This body, which we (priests) do make is of the virgin. Doth not Ambrose here, my lord, overthrow utterly all your reasoning in this matter, when ye seek therein the order of nature, against our faith? What if the place, in which bread and wine were afore the consecration, be afterward empty, & unoccupied of any body, against the natural reason of man, and the order of nature? Will ye bind god, that made man's reason, nature, & the order of nature, to do nothing against those his creatures? Did he not make all things of nothing with his word? Caused he not á Gene. 1. virgin to bear á child continuing still in her virginity, raised he not up again the dead & did many other things Lib. 2 de generatione. as much against natural reason, & the order of nature, as á place to be empty. and without á body to fill it? May not god, that made both the place, & also the body, which occupieth it, and appoint, that ever place naturally should be occupied with some body, break this order, course, & law of nature, which he made himself, & cause á place to be empty, and void Mark. of every thing? See ye not then, my lord, how little this your reason is to be esteemed, and regarded? but if I said unto you, my lord, that the a yer occupieth the place of bread & wine, when their substance is turned in to christes body and blowed, and so there is not vacuum, nor any empty place, what can ye say against me? Now I will make one brief answer, my How the consecrated wine turneth in to vinegar the bread mouleth & cet. lord, unto divers of your natural reasons, and objections, that no man be seduced by them. I say that the consecrated wine turneth not in to vinegar, nor the consectated bread mouleth nor engendereth worms, nor is burned, nor receiveth in to it any poison, as long as Christ's body, & blood are under the forms of them, which do abide there so long, as the natural qualities, and properties of bread and wine tarry there in their natural disposition and condition, that the bread & wine might be naturally there, if they had not been changed in to christes body and blood, and also as long as the host and consecrated wine are apt to be received of man, and no longer, but do go and departed thence by gods power, as it pleaseth him, and then á new substance is made of god, which turneth in to vinegar, engendereth worms, mouleth, is burned, feedeth men, & the mice, receiveth poison et c. and so neither the substance of bread & wine remaineth still in the sacrament, nor they that burn the host, are christ burners, as ye mockyngly say that they should be, if Christ's body wereyn the sacrament S. Cyprian sayeth that Sermone ●. de lapsis á certain ungodly man would have eaten of the sacrifice consecrated, but he could not handle, nor eat thee, holy of god, and when he opened his hands, he found that he bore ashes in them, by the example of that one man (sayeth S. Cyprian) it is declared, that our lord goeth away, when he is denied, and that the thing, which is received, profiteth not the unworthy, seeing the wholesome grace, is turned in to ashes, the holiness fleeing awaye-See ye not, my lord, that christ, and his body departed away, when the unworthy man would Mark reader. have received them, and that ashes only remained there in their place? Why then may we not well say, that Christ's body then goeth away, and departeth when the host mouleth & corrupteth to engender worms and should be burned, as it doth, when poison is put to the host, and the consecrated wine soureth, or turneth in to vinegar? For is not the other as strange á thing, as this is, and as much unlike to be true? Again, if I said, that the accidents, and qualities of bread and wine remaining in the sacrament should nourish the receiver above and also against their natures, as they are there, without their substance against nature, what have ye to say unto me? For why may not they as well feed man against their natures by gods almighty power, as god fed Moses and 3. Reg. 13. 17. Helias long against nature, the one without meat & the other with very little? Finally, may not poison be as well in the accidents, and qualities of the bread and wine▪ against nature, as god fed the children of Israel with Manna, and with quails, water out of the rock against nature? Ye are nove, Exo. 16. P●al. 7. Exod. 7. Exod. 16. my lord, anusweared in all these objections, and natural reasons. It followeth in your book. And most of all it is against the nature of accidents to be in nothing. etc. What than, my The bishop lib. ●. fo. 21. pag. 2 The confutation. lord. I pray you? Was it not as much against nature that the angels did eat and drink, and like wise christ after his resurrection, and nothing of that meat and drink was turned Exodi 3. Exod. 17. Numerorum. 20. in to their nourishment? Did not the buss of thorns flame with fire, and not burn against nature? Was it not against nature, that water ran out of Exod. 17. the hard rock? that quails came down from the firmament? that the sea made away for the jews to pass through josuae. 3. Psal. 113. it? that the ryver of jordan ran back against his course? that the bitterness of the water of Marath was turned in to sweetness when Moses cast a peace of wood in to it? that iron did swim above upon the water? that Exod. 15. fire came down from the firmament by Helyas word? that the son & the 4. Regum. 6. moon stod still? that christ walked, 4. Regum. 1 josuae. 10. Danielis. 3. Danielis. 6. Lucae. 1. and also peter upon the see? that daniel's three feloes burned not in the great fire? that the lions hurt not daniel? that christ was borne of his mother Matth. 28. with out breaking of her closures? that he rose through the stone lying joan. 20. upon his tomb? that he entered in to the house, the doors being yet still closed? Are not these things and many such other, as much impossible, and against nature, as the accidents, and qualities of bread, and wine to remain in the sacrament without their substance to sustain them? Doth not heavy Mark. Plinius hist naturalis lib. 36. cap. 16. & libr. 36. cap. 14● iron ascend up ward against nature when it is set under a stone called Magnes, and will hang in the aer without any stay, if one magnes be set under it, when it is going upward towards an other being above? For as much as the one stone draweth it upward towards him, so much doth the other draw it down wards toward him? Also no strength can break an adamant stone (as pliny sayeth) but In prooemio lib. 20. hist. natura. the blood of a goat only. Are not these things, which be done naturally, as much against nature by man's reason, and judgement, as the accidents and qualities of bread & wine to be in the sacrament without their substance by gods power? Why then do ye, my lord, make so great à matter, that the accidents, and qualities of bread and wine should remain still in the sacrament without their substance, in which they might be? Will ye ascribe less unto gods power, than to nature? It is no great marvel, that ye judge it folly to affirm, (as we do in deed) against nature and reason, that one body is in divers places at ones, and two bodies in one proper place both together, for the heathen people (as I have declared afore) esteemed Christ's faith and religion nothing else but mere folly, and 1. Cor. 1. The bishop. fo. 21. 22. madness, which thing S Pol testifieth manifestly. Our doctrine is, I confess against all our outward senses, but proveth that, my lord, that it is false? Are not like wise all the articles of our faith against our outward senses, although not after like sort, as this is? May ye therefore deny them? Were it not much better to leave this vain reasoning, and to follow Saint Chrysostoms' godly consail, which is this? Let us believe god in every thing, and Homi 83 in Matthaeum Good counsel. not say against him, yea although the thing, that he sayeth, doth appear an inconvenience both unto our senses, thought, and understanding, and doth also exceed our sense, capacity, Mark. and reason. Let us, I beseech you, believe his words in all things, but chiefly in the sacraments, not looking only upon those things, which lie before us, but considering also his words. For by his words, we cannot be deceived, but our senses are most easy to be deceived. His words can not be Matth. 26 false, oursenses are very often times deceived. Wherefore seeing christ hath said. This is my body, let us nothing doubt thereof, but believe, and perceive it with the eyes of our understanding. Hither to this holy doctor. Now were it not much more wisdom, and á greater safety for our souls health, for to cease reasoning, in this matter, to mistrust the judgement of our senses, and to stick wholly unto god's word (as Saint Chrysostom willeth us to do) than to folove your natural reasoning here, my lord, and measuring of this high mystery by our senses? Moreover ye writ after this manner. Our faith teacheth The bishop Lib. 2. fo. 22 pag. 1. The confutation. us to believe things, that we see not, but it doth not bid us, that we shall not believe, that we see daily with our eyes, etc. What do ye, my lord, see in the sacrament, but the colour of bread, and wine? For ye see not their substance. Wherefore ye may believe that colour to be there, but not the substance of the bread and wine. S Thomas did at Christ's commandment put his had in to christes side, and felt his wounds joan. 20. (I grant) for the confirmation of his faith. What then, my lord? Can ye of that prove, that as he trusted then to his senses for to believe Christ's resurrection, even so we may believe our senses judgement touching this sacrament? No, ye are deceived, For although our senses may help some what to the proof of natural things, being in their natural forms such as Christ's body was then, yet in things that are above nature, and out of their natural being, state, and shap, as Christ's Narkc. Chrysosto. Damasce. body is in the holy sacrament, they are not to be trusted, For in such things they judge utterly against our faith. Again was not the sight, and feeling of loath, Abraham, jacob, and certain other, which saw god, and Gene. 18. 19 32. angels in men's forms and appearances, deceived, when they thought they were very men in deed, as they seamed to be unto them? Wherefore our senses may deceive us, and so it appeareth that this your reason, my lord, is of none effect, nor force at al. We open no gate (as ye say falsely, that we do) unto valentinianus heresy, nor to any such other. For although we do say, that our senses are not to be trusted in this matter of the holy sacrament, yet we deny not, but that some credence may be given well unto them in natural things, having their natural condition and state. And as concerning the heresy of them, that said christ was not a very man, or that he had not very flesh and bones, the contrary was not proved sufficiently by their senses, which saw him, but by many texts both of the old, and also the new testament. Moreover the scriptures are manifest enough in many places against Basilides, and such other, that said christ was not crucified for us, but Simon Cyrenaeus, by which scriptures that article, and the belief of it is approved, and not by our senses, Romanorum. 10. for S Paul sayeth, that faith cometh of the hearing of gods word, and not of hearing, seeing, feeling, or of any of the other our senses, for they may often times deceive us (as Saint Homi. 93. in Matthaeum joan. 14. Chrysostom witnesseth) where gods word, which is the truth itself, can never deceive us. Wherefore the senses are not to be trusted heryn, and so is all that reasoning, which ye make, my lord, here with so many words, not worth à bleve point. Ye say also thus. And if there be no trust to be given The bishop. fo. 22 pa. 2. to our senses, in this matter of the sacrament, why than do the papists so stoutly affirm, that the accidents remain after the consecration? which can not be judged but by the senses. Sir we do affirm, that there is no The confutation. trust to be given to our senses in matters of our faith, especially where they do judge against, god's word, as they do in this matter. For the scripture saith that christ promised to give his apostles bread, which should be his own very flesh, that he would give for the life of the world, and that he gave joan. 8. Matth. 28. 1. Cor. 11. to them his body, which was crucified for them, & the senses did judge, that it was but bread of corn Again our senses do judge only the accidents properly (as all learned men do well know) which every man may affirm to be in the sacrament, but notthinke there of that their substances do remain, although the scripture expressly sayeth not that there remaineth no bread, but that it is Christ's body, which he gave for us to death, and so it can not be bread, forthat was not given for us upon the cross. The sacrament is not an elusion of our senses (as ye say) although in it appear bread, Gen. 18 19 Mar ut joan. 20 Actorum. 1. and it is not there as god and the angels, seamed men to loath. Abraham and other and were not very men in deed, and yet they were no elusions of their senses wherefore an anuwseare is now made to all this your reasoning, my lord, upon the judgement of our senses, and natural reason Now ye labour The bishop lib. 2. fo. 23. pag. 1. to prove that our belief in this matter is against the faith of the old authors of Christ's church, & ye alleageiustines the Holy martyr, affirming The confutation. Anno d. ●0 103 90. that he is the oldest author, that is known this day to writ any treaty upon the sacraments, which is very false, for Anacletus the martyr, Clement, dionise, saint Martial & certain other more wrote of that matter before him a great while, as it appareth plainly by their lives, writings and books. The confutation. I much marvel, my lord, that ye are not a shamed falsely to allege justines justinus words. for the furtherance of your wicked doctrine, which never wrote as ye say butthus only: Than afterward bread, & the chalice of wine and water mixed together, is broughe unto the bishop, or priest. This nourysshement is called of us Eucharistia. And we take not these things as every meat and every drink, but as through god's word, Christ our saviour was incarnate, and took flesh, and blood for our salvation, even so we have learned by these words, This is my body, & This is my blood, that this meat, by the which our flesh & blood are through alteration nourished, when it is blessed by the prayers of the word (gods son he meaneth) is the flesh and blood of Jesus himself incarnate. These are his words, which are as plainly against your doctrine as can be in four points. The justinus, whom my lord allegeth for him, is first is, that he speaketh of menglinge of wine & water together in the chalice of which the scripture maketh no mention against him in four points. & therefore ye say, that it is not to be passed upon. secondly he is contrary to your teaching, when he affirmeth, verities not Written in scripture. that christ prayed, when he did consecrate, and that by his prayers the bread and wine were blessed, which is not mentioned in the scripture, and for that cause ye despise it, and say it is a thing of no necessity at al. Thirdly he sayeth, that these are the words of consecration, This is my body. This is mybloud, which ye deny Four thely he sayeth that the bread & wine, by which our flesh & blood are nourished, are after they be blessed through Christ's prayers, the flesh and blood Mark▪ this reader of christ. How blind were ye then, my lord, when ye alleged this author for our purpose, which is so evidently against your doctrine? But what if justinus had thought (as ye say, that he did & yet did not so indeed) that bread, & wine remained still in the sacrament? Can that have proved your doctrine, that there is nothing else in the sacrament but bread, an wine only? No man is so blind, but he may see, that it doth not prove your purpose, though it seam to make with luther Also many of the Greakes affirmed, that the holy ghost proceeded not from the father, and he son both, & they agreed not therein with the latin church, until the counsel holden at florentia, which was with in these cxx years, and yet that their opinion proved not that the latin church erred in their belief, why then should either justinus saying, Theodoretus, or any other of the great, which wrote that bread, and wine remained still in the sacrament, make against our faith touchyngetransubstantiation, which Greakes generally did not receive, manyyeres after the latin church had manifestly taught it? But justinus (say ye) affirmeth that the bread, and wine are turned in to our flesh, and blood, to nourish our bodies. It is true, but not as ye do take his saying, for he meant that common bread and wine are turned by the alteration of them in to man's flesh and blood but not that bread and wine that are consecrated, but other of like nature. Wherefore this author is against you, my lord, as IReneus is, whom ye allege, saying. The bread, wherein wegeve than es The bishop jo. 22. pa. 2 unto god, although it be of the earth yet when the name of god is called upon it, it is not than common bread, Lib. 43. but the bread of thanks giving, having two things in it, one earthily, and the other heavinlie. Here ye allege The confutation. saint IReneus wrong, as ye did justinus, for he hath thus butr Houshal it appear to them, that that bread, in which thanks are given, is the lords body, and the chalice of is blood, if they call him not his son, which made the world? Then a good way afterward he writeth this. As the bread, which is of the earth, feeling, or perceiving the calling upon of god, is not now common bread, but a good grace, or a thanks giving, consisting in two things an earthilie, and an heavynlie, even so our bodies also receiving the good grace, or sacrament, are not now apt to be corrupted, having hope of resurrection, what maketh this autour now for you, my lord, tell me? Calleth he not that bread, which is in the sacrament, Christ's body? Sayeth he not also, that it is not comen bread? Doth not this doctor say that it is a good grace, & that it preserveth our bodies from ever lasting corruption? Are these the effects, & properties of bakers bread? Who is so mad, to believe that? Now ye The bishop li. 2. pa. 2. fo. 23. ask what Irenaeus●ment by the heavenvly thing, which is in the sacrament but the sanctification, that cometh by the invocation of the name of god, & what by the earthilie, but the very bre- & of the earth. To that I say that this exposition is made of your own head The confutation. contrarily to his meaning, and mind, as his own words afore mentioned declare. Wherefore he meaneth by the heavenly thing Christ's blessed body, which was first formed, and made in his mother's womb above nature by the heavenly power and operation Mark reader. of the holy ghost, and in to which by the heavenly words of christ, by the invocation of the holy ghost, by prayers, and by gods heavenly power and working, the bread, which came from the earth, was turned in the time of the consecration. And by the earthily thing, he meant that earthily bread was taken to be consecrated, and that his properties, qualities, quantity, and shape doth still remain in the sacrament. Wherefore this authority serveth not, my lord, for your ill purpose, and as much doth Origenes, whom ye now allege, saying. The matter of the bread availeth nothing, but goeth down in to the bailie, The bishop lib. 2. fo. 23. pa. 2. and is avoided downwardly, but the word of god spoken upon the bread, is it that availeth. To this I might answer In cap. 15 Matthaei. L●b 1. paschali. The confutation. that this writer was a great heretic (as Theophilus and other declare) and the chief scholemaistre of errors, but I will not so do, for he erred not (as much as I have red) in this matter of the sacrament, and is plainly upon my side against my lords doctrine in divers places, of which this is one, upon these words of Matthew, Homi. 5. in Diversos. Domine non sum dignus, etc., for these are his words. When ye do receive Origenes is against my lords doctrine, that holy meat, and uncorrupted dish: when thou dost use the bread, and cup of lice, thou eatest, and drinkest the body of our lord, than our lord entereth in to thy house. What could he have said more plainly against this my lords opinion? Sayeth he not that we do eat our lords body, and drink his blood, and that than our lord doth entre in to our house, which is our body? I might bring many other sentences of this writers to prove this purpose, but I will not, because, I would be short. Now to the examination of this place, which ye, my lord, do here allege very unperfectly to further your matter with, for these In id Matthaei is Non quod intrat in os, etc. Fo. 23 pa. 2 are the authors words▪ But some man, chancing upon this place, will say, that as that thing which goeth in to the mouth, defileth not man, yea although it were judged polluted of the jews, like wise that thing, which goeth in to the mouth, maketh him not holy, that eateth it, though the more simple people do think that the bread doth sanctify him, which bread is called our lords bread. If all that entereth in at the mouth goeth away down into the * belli & is cast out into the draft that meat also, which is hallowed by god's word, & prayer, touching that that it hath material, goeth away in to the bailie, & is thrown forth in to the feage, but concerning the prayers, which came to it it is made profitable after the portion of man's faith, causing a man's soul to see well, looking towards that that is profitable for him. This origenes. First The Confutation. note, reader, how doubtfully he speaketh, & determynith not the matter. Secondly mark how il he applieth the se Christ's words. That thing, which Matth. 15. entereth in at the mouth, defileth not man. Al that goeth in to the mouth goeth in to the stomach or bailie, and is cast out in to the jakes. For these words were spoken only of bodily food and nothing of any spiritual meat, such as is this holy sacrament, and therefore this author erred herein, and was not origen. Thirdly, he affirmeth that the bread is hallowed not only by god's word, but also by prayer, which my lord denieth. fourthly, he affirmeth that that thing which entereth in to man's mouth, doth not sanctify him, though it be our lords bread, that is consecrated by god's word, and prayer▪ which words declare open , that origen never wrote them, for they are clean contrary to his words in an other book, which is undoubtedly his, where he writeth this. Wherefore Lib. 8. contra celsum. let celsus, as a man that knoweth not god, give thanks to the devils, but we obeying the maker of things, after that we have given god thanks for his benefits bestowed upon us, do eat the bread, which was offered in sacrifice, and is certainly by petition, and prayer, made a certain holier body, which body maketh them more holy that do use that self same with a devoter mind. How say ye now, my Mark. lord? Doth not origen affirm plainly here that the bread, when it is consecrated by prayer, is made a holier body, and that it doth make the devote, and godly eater of it, more holy, than he was afore? Can this than stand with that place, which ye allege for your purpose, where he doth deny this utterly, Legat haec caecus Petrus Martyr. and sayeth that it doth nothing sanctify the receiver? Affirmeth not origen also here, that bread is made a holier body, than it was before? What body is that if it be not Christ's body itself? But hear, my lord, what followeth in that place that ye allege here This is therewritten. As appertaineth to the eating, neither of that that we do not eat of that bread hallowed by god's word and prayer, we are defrauded of any good thing, neither we have by eating of it, any more goodness in us. Doth this saying agree with that that is rehearsed afore out of his other book, which affirmeth that the sacrament maketh us more holy? Is not this last sentence that the sacrament maketh not men holy, nor they take any hurt which receive it not, against many places of S Ihans' gospel the vj. chap. and all old doctors minds, which say, (as christ doth Io. 6.) that by this joan 6. Cyrillus. Cyprianus. sacrament christ dwelleth in us, and we in him, and that we shall not have ever lasting life without we eat Christ's flesh, and drink his blood? Why then may not I truly conclude and say, that ye, my lord, were shamefully deceived, when ye alleged this authority, and so was peter Martyr your great god, in abusing the same, as I will shortly, by god's help, declare to all men in my book against him, which is now ready for the press. Now Cyprianus. Lib. 2. epi. 3 The bishop Fo. 24. to S Cyprian, whom ye bring thus wrintinge. For as much as christ said, I am a true vine, therefore the blood is not water, but wine, nor it can not be thought, that his blood (whereby we are redeemed, and have life) is in the cup, when wine is not in the cup, whereby the blood of The confutation. christ is showed. O'lord what meaneth this man? Why remembreth he not that S Cyprian there went about to prove, that wine ought to be put in to the chalice at mass, and not only water, as then some priests did use to do, against Christ's doing, & commandment, Luc. 22. and not to prove that wine remained still therein after the consecration? Sayeth not S Cyprian here as plainly, that Christ's very blood, whereby we were redeemed, is in the chalice, as he doth that wine is therein, and more plainly also? How then for shame could you, my lord, allege the one for your purpose, and deny the other? Is this the rightwaye to set forth the truth to the people? What is this, but to seduce them utterly? But let us see what S Cyprian hath in that same epistle against your doctrine. He writeth after this manner. As men can not drink wine except the grapes be pressed afore Lib. 2. epi. 3 so we can not drink Christ's blood, except christ had been before pressed upon the cross, and had drunken first of the chalice, of which he began to drink unto them, that believed. Again Cyrillus Cyprianus. he sayeth in that same epistle If a man do put in to the chalice only water, Christ's blood begyinnythe to be in the chalice without us. Finally, he writeth thus. If in the sacrifice, which is christ, only christ must be followed, we Christ is offered at mass in sacrifice, and not bread. ought to obey & do that, which christ did, and commanded to be done of us. How can we shed our blood for christ, which are ashamed to drink Christ's blood? Who now is so blind, my lord, I beseech you, that he seeth not, how much S. Cyprian is against your ungodly doctrine, which ye would yet father upon him? God give all men grace to be ware of such teachers, which would bear men yn hand, that their doctrine is old, and grounded upon the belief, and writings of godly ancient doctors, when they are against it plainly▪ but I ask of you, my lord, how ye can prove by S. Cyprian, or any other doctor, which ye do allege here for your purpose, that there is none other substance in the blessed sacrament of the altar then bare bakers bread, and wine of the vine? Are ye so ignorant in logic (which doth teach men to reason well, and to make good arguments) as to make this argument for your matter? S. Cyprian affirmeth that wine is in the chalice, ergo there is not Christ's blood? A boy, which only hath learned the sophistry, will not dispute so fond, I am sure: but well such is your authority, & Note. power in that realm, that no man may speak against your doctrine, be it never so foolish, & wicked Christ & his apostles did not set fourth the gospel by any such means as ye use. Now ye allege S. Cyprian again, whose words are evidently against your purpose, for he sayeth, Christ offered sacrifice at his last supper, and that Christ's blood is offered yn sacrifice at mass, which both two ye deny utterly, and yet are not ashamed to say, that this your doctrine is approved So hath the title of his ●oke by the most ancient doctors of Christ's church, of which S. Cyprian is one of the chiefest. Ye bring now for you Eusebius Emissenus, which is most of all men against your cause. Thus he writeth. When the creatures The bissop lib. 2. fo. 24 pa. 2. (bread and wine) are to be blesshed with god's words, they are set upon the holy aultour, before they be consecrated with the invocation of the most high name, there is the substance of bread and wine, but after Christ's words be spoken, there is Christ's body and blood. But what marvel is it, if god can by his word turn those things that are created, which could make them with his word? And that it ought not to seam to us a new and an impossible thing, that earthly & mortal things are changed in to christes substance ask thyself et c. Again he writeth, in this wise. The heavenly authority In homi. pasehali & de cons dist 2. Quia corpus etc. confirmeth this matter. My flesh is verily meat, and my blood is verily drink. let then all doubt of unfaith fullness depart away, for he, that is the maker of the gift, is also the witness joan. 8. of the troth. For the invisible priest (christ) turneth by the word, with a Transubstantiation. secret power, the visible creatures in to the substance of his body, and blood, thus saying. Take ye, and eat, This is my body. And the sanctifying repeated, he said thus Take and drink. This is my blood. Seest thou not now clearly, good reader, that this ancient father, and great clerk is plainly against my lords doctrine? He would not allege these words, because he saw that they were against him utterly. Even so the devil alleged Matth. 4. the scriptures against christ. Altars for the sacrament. This doctor alloweth altars for the consecration of the blessed sacrament, and my lord casteth them all down. This father sayeth that the substance Mark reader: of bread and wine is by invocation of god's name, Christ's words, and god's power, turned in to Christ's body and blood, and in to the substance of them, and my lord denieth both that invocation is necessary thereto, and that the substance of bread, and wine is changed, and turned in to Christ's body, and blood, & yet sayeth that this doctor is upon his side. All the words which he reciteth here for him, do prove nothing his intent, but only that it ought not be judged of us a thing impossible to fo. 25. god, to turn the substance of bread, and wine in to christes flesh and blood. This meant only that author by those similitudes, that my lord rehearseth out of him, and not that there is none other change of bread and wine in the sacrament, then is in man's soul, when he is baptised, & his sins are forgiven him, which change is only spiritual, and not bodily for that were not the substance of bread & wine to be turned, and changed in to the substance of Christ's flesh and blood, which this aulthour affirmeth plainly to be done in the sacrament. Wherefore this writer writeth contrarily to my lords purpose, and even so doth, Hilary bishop of Rome, whom ye allege, saying Hilarius Romanus de cons. dist. 2. cap. corpus after this manner. There is a figure (sayeth he) for bread and wine be outwardly seen and there is also a truth. Here my lord again allegeth fo. 25. pa. 2. falsely this authors words, leaving The confutation. out the first part of the sentence, which maketh against him plainly, for this he writeth. The body of christ which is taken from the altar is a figure, when bread, and wine outwardly appear, but it is the truth, whiles the body, and blood of christ is inwardly believed in the truth, What may be more plainly said against my lords opinion, than this is? Saith he not, that we do receive Christ's body at the altar, and that we do believe, that Christ's body & blood are of a truth ynwardly in the sacrament? What is that, my lord, else but that Christ's body & blood are believed of good christian people to lie hid ynwardly under neath the forms of bread and wine, which are outwardly seen of us, and are also a figure? What have ye, my lord, now gotten by this allegation of hilarie? Do ye so il understand, that ye read, which fault ye were wont to ascribe unto me? Re, cante, recant for shame, and go not forth this blindly in your error to your own confusion, & many others also. Suffer learned men to say their minds for discharge of their consciences towards god, and setting forth recant my lord. of the truth. keep men no longer in prison. leave your affection, and Mark partialite, lest ye repent it at the the length when it shallbe to late to repent. Epiphanius, whom ye recite for The bishop you, is nothing for your purpose, for when he sayeth the bread is meat, fo. 25. pa. 2. he meaneth that christ the heavenly bread and his blessed body under Homi. 83. in Matth. the form of bread in the sacrament, is the food of the soul of man. S. Chrysostom sayeth truly, that christ used wine, when he gave the mysteries, not that he gave to his apostles then very material wine, but that he mixed wine and water together at the time of consecration, and them turned them in to his blood, as I have declared afore, and will more at large hereafter in this book, by god's help. The epistle, that ye allege of chrisostom unto Cesarium the Monk, is ●o. 26. feigned and forged in his name, for it is against many of his other sainges. as it shall be opened hereafter, although his saying (if it were his) that the nature of bread doth still remain, proveth not that very bread only doth remain in the sacrament. For why may not I here say (as ye do to cyprian and Ambrose) that this word (Natura, nature) signifieth not here in Chrysostom the substance of bread, but the properties and qualities of it only? Again, what maketh this saying for your purpose, which do teach, that only bread remaineth in this sacrament? Is this a good argument absolutely. There is bread, ergo there is only bread? Luther erreth not so much in this matter as my lord doth. saith not luther that there is both bread and Christ's body also? Finally, sayeth Chrysostom (as ye do) that there is not Christ's very body, & blood? No, no, nor yet any other catholic writer, that ever was. Wherefore this authority maketh not for the furtherance of your doctrine. After this ye recite Ambrose for you, when he writeth in this manner. If the word of god be of De ijs, qui mysterijs. initiantur capit. vl. that force, that it can make things of nought, and those things to be, which never were before, much more it can Lib. 4 ca 4 de sacramentis. The confutation. make things, that were before still to be, and also to be changed in to other things? This authority, my lord, seemeth a little, at the first sight, to make for the lutherans doctrine, but nothing at all for yours, which say, that Christ's body is not really in this sacrament, but only bare bread, which Ambrose never taught, but the clean contrary, as it may appear plainly by theses his words. Let us prove, Libr. de ijs, qui mist. initiantur cap. 9 that it is not that thing, which nature made, but that, which the blessing hath consecrated, and that the strength of the blessing is greater than is the force of nature, for by the blessing, yea nature, is changed. Loo here, S Ambrose denieth plainly, that the thing, which is in the sacrament, is that same that nature made, and sayeth also that nature is therein changed through the consecration, which he calleth a blessing. Who then can well and truly say, that he meant by his words, which ye, my lord, do allege, that the nature of bread remained still after the consecration? For than it were not changed (as he affirmeth here that it is) and then also it were still, that same thing, that nature made, which he denieth utterly, wherefore that was not his mind, but that the substance of the bread is changed in to our lords fleasn, as his examples, which he bringeth immediately to prove his purpose, do manifestly declare. For he bringeth there for an example, the turning of Moses rod in to à serpent, and of the serpent again in to à rod, of the rivers of Egypt turned in to blood, and how they were turned again in to their own natures. Which examples do declare that Ambrose meant of the change of the substance of bread in the sacrament, because the substance in all those examples was turned and changed. That this was saint Ambrose mind there, it appeareth plainly by these his words that do follow as a conclusion of his treaty Lib. 4. ca 4 de sacramentis. in this matter. Can not then the word of christ, which hath made of nought that thing, that was not, change the things, that are, in to that thing, which they were not? What would a man desire to be spoken more plainly, than this is, my lord, for the confutation of your opinion, and to prove that saint Ambrose is against it? He sayeth also thus. Thou dost perchauncesaye. My bread is commonly used, but this is bread before the words of the sacrament, after that the consecration is comen unto it, Christ's flesh is made of the bread. Is not this manifestly written against your teaching, Mark. my lord? Now to the words, which ye do allege here foryow, but not as they were written perfectly, & fully, for this is in that place of Ambrose. If then there be so great strength in our lord jesus word, that the things, which were not, should begin to be, how much more is that his word wourkinge, that the things be, which were, and be changed in to an other thing? Heaven was not, the sea was not, the earth was not, but hear him, that sayeth. He said, and they were made, he commanded, Psal. 32. & 148. & they were created. That I may then make answer, the body of christ was not, afore the consecration, but I tell the after the consecration, that now Christ's body is there. He said, and it was made, he bade, & it was created. This Ambrose. Now it is manifest that S Ambrose meant not that the substance of bread doth remain in the holy sacrament, but he meant by these words, ut sint, quae erant, that the things be, that were, that god's word doth preserve from perisshinge the things which were not before they were made until such time that he changeth them in to other things, & so he doth also the bread & wine continued, & keep in their being until he turn their substance in to christes body, & blood at the time of the consecration. Wherefore this is enough to S Ambrose. Now ye allege S Austen, which sayeth thus (as peter Martyr, and Aecolampadius allegeth him) in a certain sermon to infants, which is not among all his books, that are in print, nor worthy to be ascribed unto him. That which The bishop Fol. 2. pa. 2. you see in the altar, is the bread, and the cup, which also your eyes do show you. But faith showeth further that bread is the body of christ, & the cup his blood. In primis, S Austen here teacheh that altars ought to be had for The confutation. the sacrament, and ye, my lord, do cast them down, against which thing, I have wrote a book. Secondly, Austen sayeth not here that the bread and wine remain still in the holy sacrament, and that Christ's body is not Altars. there, but only that we do see bread and the cup upon the altar, which words may be verified of the bread not yet consecrated, and that after the consecration our faith teacheth us, that bread is Christ's body, that is to say, that his body is the meat, and food of man's soul, and that his body lieth there covered under neath the form of bread, as our faith showeth to us. Wherefore this authority maketh not for your purpose, as this doth not, that now followeth taken out of Saint Austen, but plainly against it, Lib. sent. prospe. Th● honour of the sacrament. fo● he sayeth thus. We do honour under the form, or kind of bread and wine, which form we see, things invisibles, that is to say, flesh and blood. And we do not take these two kinds, as we did before the consecracration, for we confess faithfully that before the consecration there is bread and wine, which nature made, but after the consecration, Christ's flesh and blood, which the blessing hath consecrated. Is it possible for any man to speak more plainly against your opinion, my lord, than Saint Austen doth in these words, that are written in that book, out of which ye allege him for you? Why winked ye at these words, which immediately go before the sentence, that you here recite to defend your opinion? Pleye ye yet again the devils part, which alleged (as ye do) that part of the psalm, which seamed to make for his purpose, and yet it did not so in deed, leaving unspoken that peace which was against him? Wherefore did ye not Matth. 4. read these words of saint Austen, which do follow there straight after the sentence, that ye recite? It is Christ's flesh, which we receive Note this reader. in the sacrament, covered under neath the form of bread, and his blood, which we do drink under the kind, and taste of wine. How, mainfest are these words, for the refutation of my lords doctrine? May he not then be now ashamed of his part, and repent his error? but let us examine saint Austin's words, which he allegeth here for his matter, and they are even these, but more, than he rehearseth. This is the thinghe, that fo. 28. pa. 2 we do go about by all means to prove, that the sacrifice of the church is made of two things, and consisteth by two ways, the visible kind of the elements, and the ynuisible flesh & blood of our lord Jesus christ, both the sacrament, and also the thing of the sacrament, that is to say, the body of christ. What man is now so blind, my lord, but that he may easily see, that Austen is utterly against your doctrine even in these words, which ye allege for your purpose. For sayeth he not, that the sacrifice of the church is made both of the visible kind of bread & wine, which is the sacrament, and also of the flesh & blood of christ The sacrifice of the mass. which are therein invisible only, and are the things of the sacrament? Were ye not then, my lord foully deceived, Mark. when ye, following peter Martyr, rehesed this place for your purpose, and denied also (as hereafter it shall appear, to your great shame) that the priest at Libro 5. mass maketh any sacrifice more than the lay people do? ye err, my lord, openly, when ye gather of Austen, that the nature of bread and wine remain still in the sacrament, when he sayeth, that as in christ there is the manhood, and the godhead which are two natures, evenso yn the sacrament there are two things, or natures, that is to say, bread and wine (as ye take it) and the body and blood of christ. Ye err, I say, in understanding of Two errors of the bishops. this place, and that twice, once when ye think, that he meant, that the substance of bread & wine did still abide in the sacrament, for he meant (as his own words afore written declare) that the forms and kinds of them fo. 2●. pa. 2. only remain. secondly ye err shamefully, when ye affirm that saint Austen maketh here with you, for he sayeth that Christ's body and blood are in this sacrifice, and that it is made of them, being present, as both the godhead, and manhood are really present in christ, of which he is made. Where was your sight, my lord, when ye saw not this, that is so plain? Ye do now allege Chrysostom out of an epistle forged in his name, and it yet proveth not your purpose. For he meant not that the substance of bread remained in the sacrament, but the nature Ad Caesarium monachum. of it, meaning thereby the natural properties and qualities of bread, or else he should have been directly against himself in an other place, which is, Fo. 23. certainly his, where he sayeth thus. These works, which he then doth work Homi. ●3. in Matth. in that supper, are not of man's power, he himself worketh now also, he maketh, the things perfect. We priests are the ministers, but it is christ himself, that halloveth the bread and wine, and doth turn, or change them. Loo, he sayeth that christ himself changeth the bread, and wine, how than do they remain still, as ye say, that they do in their substance? Again, Chrysostom sayeth. The Homi. 24. in 1. cor. 10. thing, that is in the chalice, is that, which ran out of Christ's side, and we are partakers of it. Did wine run out of Christ's side upon the cross, & not blood? In an other place he utterly denieth, that we do see bread, and wine in the sacrament, but I ask of Homi. 60. ad populum my lord, why he triumpheth so much when some authors seam to say that as two natures and substances remain still in the sacrament, which are Christ's body and blood and bread, & wine (if he say well) even so two natures are whole in christ not turned, nor consumed, for this saying of them is fully against his doctrine, because it proveth that Christ's body & blood are realllye in the sacrament, as the nature of man, and of god both are really in christ our saviour, & not by a sign only. Wherefore, may it not be well said here, that my lord is slain with Episcopus iste suoiugulatur (& aiunt) gladio. Gelasius the pope. his own sword, as they say common lie? Gelasius the pope, whom ye now allege for you, is against you, saying, Certainly the sacraments of Christ's body, and blood, which we receive are a divine thing, wherefore we be also made by them partakers of the dyvyne nature, & yet not withstanding that, the substance or nature of bread, and wine ceaseth not to be. And undoubteldy an image, & a similitude of Christ's body and blood are celebrated in the action of the mysteries. Wherefore it is showed unto us evidently enough, that we must judge that Ex antidoto contra omnes heresies. in christ our lord himself, that we do profess, celebrate, & be in his image: that like as they pass over in to this divine substance when the holy ghost making perfect, permanente tamen in sua proprietate naturae, yet the thing abiding still yn the property of is nature, evenso that principal mystery, whose working and virtue they do verily represent unto us, of the which it is evident that the principal mystery is one christ properly remaining, for as much as they do show plainly that one and a perfect christ abideth still. hitherto that writer, Note here first, good reader, that he sayeth, that we be made partakers of the nature of god, by the sacrament, which his saying can not be understanded of the receiving of pure bread and wine, but it must needs be taken of the very body & blood of christ, joined to the godhead in one person, which when we do receive in the sacrament, we are made partakers of that same divine nature, by having it in us bodily. Secondly, this doctor sayeth not that Damascenus lib 4. cap. 14. only bread, and wine remain in the holy sacrament, and that there is not the body and blood of christ which you, my lord, do defend, and therefore he maketh not for your purpose. Thirdly, this sentence is so imperfect and so for from true latin (as it appeareth by the latin words) that no man can make of it any perfect sense, or construe it, and therefore it is not like that Gelasius, which was very well learned, wrote it. fourthly, he was pope, and setteth fourth the pope's primacy largely in many places (as it appeareth both in his book of decrees, & also in the decrees gathered by Gratiam Why then do, ye my lord, allege him in the matter of the sacrament, whom ye follow not in the other? Again, he calleth the sacrament in an other place the holy body of christ, and maketh plain mention of the showing of it to the people, which ye reprove. Also he affirmeth that virgens, Lib. svorum decretorum cap. 8. and widows, which have made a vow of virginity, and chastity may not marry, and calleth all such marriages, whoredom and incest, & biddeth that they should be broken again, as Cap. 20. ca ●1. it doth appear in his decrees. Why do ye not follow him in these things? Now ye do allege Theodoretus for you, which sayeth that christ called the bread, ad wine, his body and blood, and yet he changed not their natures. To this author I say first, Theodoretu lib. Dialogorun that he was an heretic, and defended one Nestorius' heresy, which said that christ was not god and man both (as it appeareth in Cyrillus works, & in other divers books) and therefore he ought not to be believed in this matter of our faith. Secondly I say that Lege anathematismos Cyrilli, & his adnexa. he was a greek writer, and the Greakes did not generally receive this doctrine of transubstantiation before the proceeding of the holy ghost from the father, and the son, although many of the best learned men of them believed, and taught both these things Now why should his error in this our matter of transubstantiation make any more against our belief therein, than his, or any other Greake doctors error in the proceeding of the holy ghost from the father & the son should hurt our faith therein? Thirdly, he teacheth not, as ye do, that Christ's body is not in the holy sacrament, but only bread and wine, signs and figures of them, wherefore he is not upon your side, as ye say, that he his. And that doth appear well by these his words written upon this saying of S Paul He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, shall be guilty of our lords body and blood. This is paul's meaning (sayeth he), Theodoritus in Gagnei scholijs that as the jews and judas did Christ wrong, & spoke against him spiteful checking words, even so they do injury to his name, which do touch his most holy body with their unclean Theodoretus is against the bishop, though he alleged him for his purpose. hands, and do put it unto their cursed mouth. What might he have said more evidently for me against you, my lord? Moreover theodoretus in his third dialogue allegeth Saint Ignatius, saying in his epistle to Smyrnenses. Mark well this reader. They do not receive, or admit the sacrament, and oblations, because they confess not the sacrament to be our saviours flesh, which suffered for our sins, and which the father raised up again from death to life. Doth not this authority of S Ignatius which was saint John the evangelists scholar way more upon our side than all my lords doctors, that he allegeth for him? And also doth it not appear that Theodoritus was against my lords doctrine, which allegeth that authority of Ignatius, that affirmeth so plainly that the same flesh of christ is in the sacrament, that he offered upon the cross for us, and that the sacrament is a sacrifice, which my lord denieth? The sacrifice of the mass. The same writer also in his first dialogue, which ye allege, my lord, sayeth that these words. This is my body. This is my blood, are the words of consecration, & that these words of christ joan. 6. written in Ihon. The bread, which I will give is my flesh, etc. were spoken of Christ's flesh in the sacrament, which both ye deny. He maketh also mention Theodoretus is in many points against my lord. of the putting of water in to the chalice, and sayeth that the consecration is made with invocation, which ye say are of no necessity, because scripture speaketh not of them. Again in his second dialogue, he sayeth after The honour of the sacrament set out by Theodoretus my lords own doctor. this manner. But the things, which be made, are understand, and believed, and honoured, as being those things, which they are believed. Here he speaketh of the honouring of the sacrament, which thing, as ye deny, my lord, so these words can not be well said of bread and wine, for to honour them is idolatry, as ye deny not yourself This worsshippinge, or adoration of which he speaketh here, can not be referred to christ in heaven (as ye are wont to avoid like sainges of the old authors, but very fond) for he sayeth that the things, which by the consecration are made, be worshipped of us. Finally, he saith thus. We do call also this body, the body of god, teaching that it is our lords body, and giveth life, which is not true of a common body of every man indifferently, but of the body of our lord jesus Christ both god & man. It is then now evident how well your sight, my lord, served you, when ye did recite this author for your purpose, which so plainly is against it. Farther ye go Fol. 29. about to soil our arguments, and reasons, which we do make to prove transubstantiation, and first ye improve, as Folio. 31. ye think at the jest, our understanding of those Christ's words, this is my body, by which we believe, that the bread is turned in to christs very body. This is your saying against that our godly, and true belief. But what christian ears can patiently The bishop fo. 31. pa. 1. hear this doctrine, that Christ is every day made a new, and made of an other substance, than he was made of in his mother's womb? Here, my The confutation. lord, ye make a great wounderinge at the catholic faith, and doctrine of christ, because ye understand it not, as your words declare manifestly. For christ is not made à new daily, nor we do not teach any such thing, but only that the bread now is daily Mark reader. turned in to that his body, which was made once for all in his mother's womb, so that that one body, and one Christ, which was never made but once only, nor can not be made again, is thereby really present in the holy sacrament, and in heaven also both at ones. This our doctrine, and believe is set forth in the scriptures (as it Christ's body is daily made at mass. is already declared) and also in all catholic doctors books, out of the which, I will, by gods help rehearse a certain sentences for the proof and defence Lib. 4. contra. Marciovem. of this our faith. Tertulian sayeth. Christ made the bread his body, saying, this is my body. The holy martyr Alexander, which was above Epist. 1. ad omnes ecclesias. M. cccc. xxix. years passed, confirmeth the same, saying thus. Our lords passion must be mixed in the oblations of the sacraments, which are offered to our lord at mass, that his The mass is no new thing. passion, whose body and blood is made, may be celebrated. Cyprian sayeth Our lord maketh, even continually De coena domini. until this day, this his most true and holy body, and maketh it holy, blesseth it & divideth it to them, which devoutly Ad athanasium & alios episcopos Aegypti. etc. receive it. Felix à holy martyr, which was M. cc. lxx. years sense, writeth in this manner, intreatinge of the persecution of priests. The mirth of the whole counsel is turned in to mourning, because it was not seamelie, that they which do make Christ's body daily with their own mouth, should suffer so great persecution. S Damasus sayeth unto steaphon, that was in s. Hieroms' time. The priests do make Christ's body with their mouth. s. Ambrose De ijs, qui mysterijs, & on. cap. 9 sayeth This body, that we do make, is of the virgin. Again, It was not Christ's body before the consecration, but I tell thee, that after the consecration it is now Christ's body. He hath said, & it Lib. 4. cap. 4. de sacramentis. is made, etc. Thou hast then learned, that Christ's body is made of bread & that wine and water are put in to the chalice, but blood is made through Lib. 4. cap. 5. de sacramentis. the consecration of god's words. Before Christ's words, the chalice is full of water & wine after that Christ's words have wrought, there is made the blood, which redeamed the people. Hom. 45. in joannem. Chrysostom is of that same mind, which saith. It is not man, but christ, that was crucified for us, which maketh his body & blood of the things, that are set furthupon our lords table to be consecrated Homi. 2. in 2. timo. 1. The same doctor thus sayeth. Priests, what so ever they be, do offer daily that same oblation, that christ offered himself, & gave to his apostles, adding at the length these words. And therefore both this is Christ's body, & that also is his body: he that thinketh that this body hath any thing less than that knoweth not, that it is christ, which is now also present, & worketh. And to let pass many of his sentences, I will recite Homi 17. in epist. ad Hebraeos. but this onli now. We do not offer now an other lamb, & two morrow an other, but ever the same thing itself. Therefore this sacrifice is one, or else by this reason, that he is offered in many places there are many Christ's. Nothing less, but there is one christ every where, both Hieroni. add heliodorun. being here full, & there full, one body. Hieron hath á like sentence when he saith thus. God forbidden that I should speak any ill of them, which succeeding the apostles degree, do make Christ's body with a holy mouth, through whom we be christians, Also he sayeth ad Euagrium. Lege eum in epistolam ad Titum. What eylde the minister of tables & widows (a deacon he meaneth) proudly to extol himself above them at whose prayers Christ's body, and blood is made? Finally, damascene Damas'. lib. 4. cap. 14. sayeth can not christ, which was borne of a virgin, make the bread his own body, and the wine his blood? Again he writeth after this sort, dost Christ's body is made at mass. thou ask, how bread is made Christ's body and wine and water his blood? I say to thee, that the holy ghost worketh the things above man's speech, and understanding, but the bread and wine are turned. Again he sayeth. God hath joined is godhead unto bread, wine, and water, and made them his body and blood, not that his body cometh down from heaven, but because the bread and wine are changed in to the body and Invocation helpeth to the consecration blood of god. The bread, wine & water by the invocation and coming of the holy ghost, are above nature changed in to christes body, & blood & they are not two bodies, but one, and the self same body. I pass by, good reader, many such sainges both of these same writers, and of other also. Now lerte my lord rail upon these doctors, and great clerk, whose books he is not worthy to bear after them, if they where now alive. Now he maketh certain sophistical & and captious arguments, that are builded upon a false foundation, which is (as it appeareth afore) that we do believe The bishop fo. 31. pa. 2. A false & an envious imagination of the bishop against priests. and say, Christ's body is made so of bread à new, as it was ones made in the womb of his dear mother our lady, of whose most clean and pure blood it was made by the operation of the holy ghost. This is a very pyvysh and an envious imagination of this man, which never learned christened man did teach, but we say only, that the bread and wine are by gods holy word, and almighty power, turned in to he same Christ's one body, and blood, which he took of our lady, & was once crucified to death, and that there are not two bodies (as he feigneth, that we do teach) nor two Christ's, Homi. 2. in 2 timo. 1 & homi. 17. in Hebr. but one, and the same, that is in the sacrament, and yn heaven also as S. Chrisostom witnesseth openly. Wherefore all this his sophistical reasoning is not worth a good ryshe, for he disputeth thus. If Christ's body, that The bishop fo. 3●. pa. 2 ●n autem (ut video) pro christo adversus christum pugnas Nazian in apolgetico was crucified, was not made of bread but the body, that was eaten at the supper, was made of bread (as the papists say) than Christ's body, that was eaten, was not the same, that was crucified. This reason is (as I have said afore) grounded all together upon a false principle, which is, that the catholic teachers do say, that Christ's body which was eaten at his mandy, was made of bread, as of a matter, or a substance of new, and not that the bread was and is only turned in to that self same body of christ, that was borne of the virgin, & that suffered upon the cross, which was never but once only made, and yet S. Cyprian sayeth. The bread, which our lord gave unto his disciples, not changed in form, Cyprianus de coenad. but in nature, by the almyhtie power of the word is made flesh. Which is as much to say, as that the bread is changed in to christes very flesh, which he took of is mother, and not that his body, or else he himself now Mark. is made a new of the bread (as this bishop falsely affirmeth, that we do believe, and teach) and therefore his reasons made here are of no strength at all, though he judged then never so strong, and insoluble. Again, it is an impudent lie, when he sayeth, that priests do affirm, that they make God is not made in the sacrament. god of the bread, for god is not made at all nor yet christes body à new, but they say truly with all catholic doctors, that they are ministers of god and that when they do pronounce these words of christ. This is my body, in the mass, than christ himself and the holy ghost do turn the bread in to christes body, that his mother conceived, and bare, with the which the fo. 32. godhead, that never was made, is joined unseparably. This is the catholic Note reader faith, which we do believe, and defend, and not that thing which this bishop falsely sayeth, that we defend, & therefore he is sufficiently answered in this his railing unreasonable reasoning. And so is not our strongest argument yet answered unto (as the bishop sayeth, it is) nor our chief foundation, wherponwe do buyldeour doctrine, subverted, nor never shall be by any Matth. 7. 18 heretic, for it is builded upon a sure rock, god's word, and the church of christ, which erreth not. Ye say also after this manner in your book my lord The supper of our lord can be no perfect The bishop fo. 53. pa. 1. sacrament of spiritual food, except there be as well bread and wine as the body and blood of our saviour spiritually feeding us, which by the said bread and wine is signified. Why The confutation. do ye then, my lord, deny that Christ's body and blood be in this sacrament? Again, is it enough to prove, that bread and wine must needs be there, because ye do so say? No, your bare word is not of any such force. I pass by the argument of impanation, fo. 33. pa. 1. for I do not much esteem it, although your improbation, of it, my lord, be very weak, & builded upon two similitudes, which do not serve for that purpose. For who, that is learned, will say, that christ should be none other wise joined unto the bread in the sacrament (if it were there) than the holy ghost is unto the water in baptism, or than the holy ghost was unto joan. 3. Matth. 3. the dove? For was it ever said in scripture of the holy ghost. This water is the holy ghost, or this dove is the holy ghost, as christ said. This is my body? Wherefore ye were heryn deceived manifestly, as ye were also, saying that christ spoke not theses words (the joan. 6. bread that I will give, is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the woorld) of the sacramental bread, & of the sacramental eating, but of spiritual bread, and of a spiritual eating only. Which is very false, and against both the text itself, and also the exposition of all old godly doctors, as it shall anon, by god's grace be proved sufficiently, when I have improved your reasons, which ye make for your The bishop fo. 34. pa. 1. joan. 6. opinion. They are rhese. That was spoken two, or three years before the sacrament was first ordained. I am the bread of life, which came down from heaven he that eateth this bread, shall live for ever et c. O what blindness is this? What man, that hath The confutation. any knowledge in the scriptures, will make this argument, which is made here of my lord? These words of John (The bread, which I will give is my flesh et c,) were spoken (sayeth he) before the sacrament was first ordained, ergo they were not spoken of the sacrament? May not a man prove by a like reason that all the prophecies, which were made of christsses incarnation, passion, resurrection, and ascension, and of baptism, the institution & preaching of the gospel with many other things, were not spoken thereof, because they were spoken many years before christ came, and afore the th●nges were instituted and done? how weak then is the first his proof? Now when he sayeth, that these words, I am the bread of joan. 8. life, which came down from heaven, can not be understand of the sacramental bread, for it came not down from heaven, if I should grant him, that Cyrillus. Chrysostom Theophil. to be very true, and say that they were spoken only of Christ's godhead, that should not yet prove, that these words, joan. 6. (The bread, which I will give, is my flesh, that I will give for the life of the world,) were not spoken of Christ's very natural flesh to be eaten in the sacrament, as it is evident enough of itself. Again, I may say that Christ's flesh, which he spoke of then, and there in John, came down from heaven, both because it was, and is joined with the godhead, that came from heaven, for christ used a like manner of speaking, joan. 3. when he said. And no man ascendeth up in to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, the son of man, which is in heaven. For here he said both that the son of man came down from heaven, because Christ's manhood was joined in one person with his godhead, that came from heaven, and also that his manhood was than in heaven, before his ascension in to heaven, because the godhead, with which it was knit in one person, was then in heaven. Secondly, I say, that Christ's body, which he then called bread in John, came down from heaven, for as much as it was made by the heavenly Matth. 1. power of god, and the holy ghost, by whom Christ's blessed mother conceived 1. Cor. 15 him. And this manner of speaking is not strange in the holy scripture, which calleth christ the second man 1. Cor. 10 from heaven celestial, the Manna spiritual meat, & the water, which ran out of the stone, spiritual drink, because they were prepared for the jews above nature by god's power, which is a spirit, and by the ministry of angels, that are also spirits, and therefore joan. 4. Psal. 103. that manna is called angels food psal. 77. Wherefore this reason is clearly soiled. When he sayeth, that these Ihons' words, he that eateth of this joan. 4. fo. 34. bread, shall live for ever, can not be understand of the sacrament, because pag. 2. it giveth not life to all, that eat it, I say that these words are to be understand of the sacrament, and that christ meant, that all which do worthily eat of it (as s. paul teacheth us to do) shall live for ever. Moreover ye say, my lord, 1. Cor. 11. Fo. 34. that these words of John, the bread, pa. 2. that I will give, is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world, can not joan. 6. be understand, of the sacrament, because that of such bread christ could not than presently have said, this is my flesh, because at that time bread was not made his flesh, I say that they may right well be understand of it, and that christ there used the present time Matth. 3 for the future, and did put (is) for shall be, as he did, when he said after the greek letter, the tree, which beareth not fruit, is cut down, & is cast in to the fire, where the translator said in latin, it shall be cut down, & shall be cast in to the fire. A like phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Luc. 12. 1. Cor. 11. used he, when he said. This is my body, that is given, and broken for you, meaning that it should be given, and broken for them. Even so he said, this is my blood, that is shed forth for you, as the greek hath, which the old translator turned nearer the sense, saying, which shall be shed for you. But why looked not my lord upon the greek text of John, which hath twice joan 6. this werbe (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, doso, dabo, I will give) Matth. 26. which declared plainly, that christ meant there, & then, that he would give his flesh twice, once to the apostles under the form of bread in the sacrament joan. 6. to be eaten of them, as the food of their souls, & for that cause he called it bread which promise he performed at his last supper when he took bread, blessed it, & broke it, saying. Take & eat, this is my body, that shall be given for you. Again he gave that same his Note well reader. flesh in the form of flesh for the life of the world upon the cross, and so doth this promise plainly agree with his deed upon the mandy & the next day following, which we call good frydaie. Wherefore this my lords reason is fully anusweared, & soluted, with a label which he, & his foloes, shall never be able The bishop to anusweare unto, whiles they live, I am very sure. Now mi lord goeth about to make an anusweare unto the An anuswere unto the holy doctors sainges. doctors which the catholic men allege for them, & first he laboureth to anusweare unto S Cyprian which writeth thus. This bread, which our lord gave unto his disciples, not changed in outward form, but in nature, is by omnipotency De coena domini. of the word made flesh. Here my lord raileth upon all catholic writers The bishop. & teachers, calling them papists, & saying, that they do leave out those words, which would open all the whole matter, & are these in s. Cyprians sermon. As in the person of christ, the humanity was seen, and the divinity was hid, even so did the divinity ineffably put itself in to the visible sacrament. These words (sayeth my lord) do He mysconstrueth saint Cyprians words. show manifestly, that the divinity is poured in to the bread and wine, the same bread & wine still remaining, like as the same divinity by unite of person was in the humanity of christ, the same humanity still remaining with the divinity. Which thing S. Cyprian never meant by that comparison, but only that as the manhood of Christ was seen, and his godhead not seen in him, but hid secretly from man's sight covered under ne●th the manhood, even so did the godhead power it self in to the visible sacrament unspeakably, The true sense of S. Cyprians words. when that it turned the bread and wine in to christes flesh and blood, joining itself unto them in unite of person, which how they were done, no man can tell, or express with his tongue. This was Saint Cyprians mind in that place. Now he goeth about to answer to cyprians words, which are that the bread is changed in nature, & not in outward form, & sayeth thus in effect briefly. It is not changed in substance, but The bishop. in nature, that is to say, it hath other properties, and an other condition, than folio. 35 pagina. 1 it had afore it was consecrated, which far passeth the nature & condition of common bread. It showeth to us, that we be partakers of the spirit of god, & most purely joined unto christ, & spiritually feed with his flesh and blood This is your own dream, my lord, The confutation. which is directly against the doctors meaning. For he meant that the bread, which christ gave unto his disciples at his mandie, was changed in substance in to christes very natural flesh as these his last words of that same sentence (is by the almighty power of his word made flesh) do show plainly. Why winked ye my lord, at these words? Mark this reader. Do not they declare, that cyprian ment, that the bread was so changed in nature, that it was made Christ's very flesh, by god's almighty power? What madness is it them, to wrest those words to any other sense, than unto that? Again s. Cyprian sayeth a little before, after he had recited these words. This is my body. The difference of corporal & spiritual meat is also made manifest & that it was an other thing, that was set upon the table, & confumed, & an other that was given & distributed of the master. how can, mylord, this be true, if bread remained still in the sacrament? For is it then consumed & an other thing given, than was set upon the table, if bread remain still? S. Cyprian sayeth also thus. This common bread changed in to flesh & blood procureth life & increase to the bodies. Seest thou not then good reader, that my lord wrested cyprian to his purpose, where he saith that we do wrest him unto ours? Now he answereth to Chrysostom, which wrote so plainly against him in this matter, that he can not be well wrested Chrysostom. fo. 35. pa 2. from our belief, for he sayeth thus. Dost thou see bread? Dost thou see wine? Do they avoid beneeths, as other meats do? God forbidden, think not so. For as wax (if it be put ones in to the fire) it is made like the fire, no substance remaineth, nothing is left, so here also think thou, that the mysteries be consumed by the substance of the body. Hitherto Chrisostom. Who would desire more plain words, Homilia de eucharistia. than these are of this holy father, and great clerk? For doth he notdenyee utterly, that we see bread, or wine in the sacrament? Sayeth he not plainly that they go not away beneath in to the draft, as other common meats do? Affirmeth he not also that the bread and wine are so consumed, that no substance remaineth, as wax is consumed by fire? What folly is it Mark. then to follow AEcolampadius, Peter martyrs, this bissoppes & such others wresting of this plain words? But let us now see, how learnedly my lord avoideth this authority▪ this he sayeth. The bishop. fo. 36. pa. 1. Saint. Chrisostoms' words, which do follow there immediately, do declare his mind, for he writeth thus. Wherefore fo. 36. et 83 when ye come to those mysteries, do not think, that ye receive by a man the body of god, but that with tongues, you receive fire by the angels Seraphim. of these words ye, my lord, do gather that you may as well say, that Chrisostom meant, that there is neither priest, nor Christ's body, as we may gather that there is neither bread nor wine in the sacrament, of those words, which are afore recited, and be gynne thus. Dost thou see bread? But ye are shamefully deceived therein, The bishop for he sayeth not, dost thou see the priest? Dost though see Christ's body? God forbid, think not so, for they are consumed, as he doth of the bread and wine, why then do, ye my lord so trifle and cavil in this so manifest a matter? Are ye not ashamed yet of your part? Wherefore when chrisostom sayeth, do ye not think, that ye receive by a man the body of god, he meant, that we ought to think, that we receive god's body not of him principally but of him only as a minister, and of christ himself chiefly, as he sayeth in an other place by these words. Homi. 51 in Matth. 14. When thou dost see the priest give to the Christ's body, think not that the priests hand, but christes joan. 1. hand is reached unto thee, as he doth 1. cor. 3. principally baptise. This said he to steer men for to receive Christ's body with greater reverence, and more pureness of conscience, as he did say. Dost though see bread? et c. to make men believe that although their eyes should judge bread and wine to be in the sacrament, yet they should not think, that there were very bread, and wine in deed, for the sense are deceived easily in this mystery, and therefore we must believe these Christ's words. this is my body, although all our senses, reason and understanding be utterly Homi. 93 in Matth. 28. against it, as he sayeth in an other place. Wherefore my lord was deceived in this point plainly, and so he was, in the wrong alleging of these words out of chrysostom's book. Think De eucharistia in Enceniis. ye, that the blood of salvation floweth out of the pure, and godly side of christ, and so coming to it, receive it with pure lips. Chrysostom hath not so, but quasi è divino, & impolluto latere effluere, that is to say, as it were to flow out of the godly & pure side, & not to flow out. Are these two both one, my lord, to flow out and as it were to flow out? God said, behold, Adam is made as it were Gen. 3. Matth. ●6. one of us. Is that as much as if he had said, he is made one of us? Also christ said unto the jews, ye are come forth unto me, as it were to a these Will ye, my lord, turn those words thus in to English, ye are come forth Many such translations would sonedryne christ as a these out of England. to me à these? Why then did ye so translate chrysostoms words, to deceive the reader? But let this pass, I will, not once touch your negatives by comparison (as ye term them) because they make nothing for your purpose, The bishop. as it appeareth now by the declaration of chrysostoms words, which he spoke absolutely, and without all comparison. Now ye allege these chrysostoms words for you. What dost fo. 37. fo. 3●. though, o man? diddest not though promise to the priest, which said, lyftup your minds, and hearts: and thou Homi. de Eucharistia in enceniis. diddest answer, we lift them up unto the lord? etc. Who is so blind, but if he do yea once read chrysostoms words, which ye do, my lord, here rehearse for you, he may soon see, that he meant that men in the time off the mass should be godly occupied, and not consume that time in worldly business, neither in trifling, (as he sayeth there) and talking, but to remember Christ's death, and passion, and that christ the lamb of god is then offered for them, that the blood, which was drawn out of Christ's side for their purging from sin, is in the cup, and by these and such other means to endeavour themselves to purchase them gods mercy? This meant S. Chrysostom, and ye, my lord, would make us believe, that he went about to withdraw The bishop fo. 40. lib. 3 men's minds from the consideratiom of sensible things, bread and wine, which are in the holy sacrament as ye say. But how chanced it that ye alleged these words, lyfteup your minds, etc. to prove that Chrysostomment, that bread, and wine remained still in the sacrament? Have ye so oftentimes said mass, hard it, and also the communion, that ye have forgotten, that these words, Sursum cordaet c were ever and yet are song, and said both of the Greakes in their mass, and also of the latins, before the consecr ation of bread and wine, to provoke and move men unto devotion, and especially at the time of the sacring of it? This is S. basils mind, Chrysostoms', S. Cyprian'S, and certain others. Basilius & Chrysost. in missa corum & cypr. in orad, Wherefore those words of the mass make not for you, which would prove that material bread remaineth in the sacrament after the consecration. Moreover The bishop fo. 41. pa. 2 ye say that S Ambrose (whom we do alleege affirming that the nature itself of bread is changed by the consecration) meant not that the substance of it is changed, but only that the nature of it is altered in to à higher estate Lib. de iis, qui myst intiantur. ca 9 and condition so that after the consecration it is not common bread, but a holy food of man's soul, whereby we receive spiritual feeding, and supernatural nourishment from Christ's body above yn heaven. Which your answer is vainly forged of peter martyr, whom ye do follow, and it is plainly A vain enasion of S Ambroses' Words. against the doctors mind, as these his words, which are written there and are a part of the same sentence, declare sufficiently. There is not that thing, which nature made, but that, which the consecration hath form, & the benediction is of more strength than nature. For by the blessing the nature of bread & wine is so changed through the consecration at mass, that the thing, which nature made, is not afterward remaining in the sacrament, but only that, which is made by the consecration How then meant he, that material bread remained still in the sacrament, as ye feign? For did not nature make material bakers bread? Were ye not then, my lord, plainly deceived, when you wrote thus unlearnedly to avoid the truth, which Ambrose did so manifestly set forth? The bishop fo. 43. pa. 2. Now ye ask of us, what thing it is, that is eaten, broken, chawed with the mouth, teeth, etc. in the sacrament, seeing The bishop fo. 43. pa. ● that therein is no substance of bread (as we do say) and christes body is not broken, for it is immortal & impassable? The confutation. Unto the which I anusweare, that the forms, quamtitees, and qualities of the bread are broken, chaved, etc. Which thing is done above nature, and man's natural reason. May not this be as well joan. 20. Matth. 13 Luc. 16. Matth. 25. done by gods power, as that saint Thomas did put his hand in to christes side without all harm to it? as the fire of hell to burn and torment the damned spirits and men's souls, without Gene. 1. consuming of them? And as water to be above the firmament? For are not all these things as much against nature and above man's capacity, as the accidents of the bread to be alone without their substance, and to be broken, chawed, The bishop fo. 43. pa. 2. & c? Ought ye not, my lord to have been ashamed to say in your book, that we do teach, that Christ's body is naturally in the sacrament without his accidents & qualities, seeing we say that it is there against nature with all his qualities Fol. 44 and accidents? Moreover, ye say untruly, my lord, that we do defend, that a substance is made of accidents when the bread moulyth, or engendereth worms, for we say that Christ's body departeth out of the sacrament, or the host reserved, when it beginneth to mole, or putrefy, and should engendrewormes, and that then an other substance succeedeth it, of which such things are made. Thus endeth the second book. The confutation of the third The confutation of the third book book. In this book, good reader, I will be short, for in it the bishop vainly allegeth many authorities to prove that christ bodily departed out of this fib. 3. fo. 46 world at the time of his ascension, and sitteth now upon the father's right hand in heaven, of the which no good christian man doubteth, & yet he is also bodily and really in the sacrament of the altar both at ones. This is no new doctrine, although my lord sayeth that it is, but the old catholic doctrine, taught of christ, his apostles, and all the ancient fathers at the beginning of the church and ever shall be until the 1. Cor. 11 3. Esdrae. 3 world's end, for the truth of god's word ever endureth, and hath the victory. My lord maketh a great matter The bishop. ●ol 46 pag. 2. lib. ● at the being of christ and his body in the sacrament, how he is there, and after what manner, when it is enough for us to believe, that his body is there present really, although how it is there we know not, for god's word telleth tous, that it is there, but not how it joannis. 6. Matth. 26. Luc. 22. 1 Cor. 11 is there. Now he bringeth forth four lies, the first, that we do say, that good men do eat, & drink Christ's body & blood only, when they receive the sacrament, fol. 47. for we say not so, but that they then only do eat Christ's body & drink his blood corporally, which they eat spiritually at all other seasons. The second lie is, that we do say, that christ hath his own form in the sacrament for we do say, that he is in the sacrament in form of bread and wine, and not of flesh and blood. The third lie is, that we do affirm, that the fathers and prophets of the old testament did not eat the body of christ & drink his blood, where we say they did it not corporally (as we now do) but only spiritually through faith, and virtuous living. The fourth lie is, that we do say, that christ is made every day of bread, and wine, for we do say, that he was never made touching his godhead, and but only ones in his mother's womb, concerning his manhood & body, & yet bread & wine are daily at mass turned in to that same his body & blood, that never was made but once only. The fifth lie is this, that fo. 47 pa. 2 we do say, that the mass is a sacrifice satisfactory for sin, by the devotion of the priest, and not by the thing, that is offered, which we never taught, but only that it is a sacrifice for sin, in that that Christ's very body and blood, which he ones offered upon the cross for our sins, as a full and sufficient satisfaction for the sins of the whole world, are therein offered in sacrifice for our sins, and thereby Christ's death and bloody sacrifice is applied unto us, for to obtain this effect, and benefit. Wherefore my lord might well have been ashamed so falsely to report of us, as he here doth, if he had not been all past shame. Who denieth, my lord, that christ is fo. 48. 49. ascended out of this world in to heaven, & that he sitteth there at the right hand of his father, and shall do until the worlds end, as our common creed hath, the scriptures, and the doctors also do teach? But what then? Doth any of these. iij. say, that he is only in heaven and not in the sacrament also, or that he so went hence then that he tarried not still also here with us invisibly in the saerament, as ye do say and defend? No, not one of them utterly, and therefore all your travail, my lord, is clean lost, which ye have here spent in rehearsing so many of the doctors, of which not one sayeth, as ye do maintain, that Christ is not still here bodily. When origen and other the doctors say christ is bodily gone hence, and not here present with us, they mean that he is not here in his own form visibly, for so he departed out of this world at his ascension. Augustinus ad darda●ū. Epist. 57 Saint Austen meant that Christ's body was not in all places at ones, as his godhead was, and that it was then, and is now but in one place visibly, naturally, and by circunscription of it, for so it is now only in heaven, which proveth not, that it is not in the sacrament above nature, invisibly, and without circunscription of it and sacramentally not compassed, not measured therein, as it is in heaven only. This is the anuswere briefly unto all the doctors here alleged against us It is very false, that ye do say, that as these words (This is my body) do fo. 57 58. lie, there can be gathered of them none other sense, but that bread is Christ's body, and that Christ's body is bread, for there can no such thing be gathered of those words, but only that christ gave his disciples his very body, to eat, in to which he had turned the bread, when he spoke those words. Why the scripture, and the doctors do call, Christ's body bread, is sufficiently declared at the beginning of this confutation, and therefore I say now in very few words, that the doctors, which ye, my lord, allege here for you, prove not your purpose, A brief anusweare to all the doctors alleged of the bishop in his book. but only, that christ called his body bread, because he turned the bread in to it, it seemeth and appeareth still to be bread, it hath the quantity, and qualities of bread, and because it is the food of the soul, as corporal meat is of the body. Not one of all these doctors sayeth, as ye do, my lord, that there is only bread in the sacrament, and not Christ's body, but they all say in other of their works, that it is there, as by god's grace I will declare at large shortly in an other book of latin, that every man may easily see, how A book of the doctors sentences. ye mistake, and ill understand their sentences for your purpose. Christ meant not in John the eight chapter, that the jews should not eat his very natural body corporally Io, 6 fo. 60. lib. 3. in the sacrament, (as ye say falsely) but that they should not eat it carnally, as other common meats are wont to be eaten, that they should teere it with there teeth, chaw it, digest it, and turn it in to the nourysshement of their bodies, (as S. Austen expoundeth it) But after an In psal. 98 other spiritual manner without breaking, consuming, and devouring of it for else he could not have ascended up into heaven alive wholly, and safely, joan. 6. as he did. This meant christ in shone, joan. 8. The bishop fo. 81. 82. lib. 3. origenes, chrysostom, and Austen, which ye do allege. Ye recite Tertulian for you, but he is against you plainly, for he sayeth that christ made the bread his body, when he said. This is Lib. 1. & 4. contra Macionem. my body, He said it is a figure, and a representation of Christ's body, but not (as ye do) that it is only a figure of it and not his body, for he sayeth, that he made the bread his body. The outward forms of bread and wine are signs, and figures of Christ's body, and blood, covered under them. Also the oblation and sacrifice made at mass, ●ow the sacramentis à figure of Christ's body. and the receiving of the sacrament is a sign and commemoration of Christ's body and blood in respect that they were offered upon the cross, and that meant christ, when he said do ye Luc. 22. 1. cor. 11. this in remembrance of me Thirdly the sacrament is a figure of Christ's mystical body the church, paul sayeth We be all one body, that eat of one 1. cor 10. bread. S. Cyprian, whom ye allege is fully against you (as it appeareth before in this book) although he say, that Christ's blood is showed by the wine, meaning that wine must neaades be put in to the chalice at mass to be consecrated, and not water only (as some priests than used to do) for Lib. 2. epi. 3 by the wine put in to the chalice, Christ's blood, which ran out of his side pierced with a spear at the time of his Alexander primus epi. prima. death, is represented, and showed, and therefore he sayeth even in that same epistle, that our sacrifice must answer, and be like to Christ's passion, in the time of the which both blood and water ran out of his side. This is nothing against the presence of Christ's blood in the sacrament, nor it proveth not that wine remaineth still after the consecration, but only that wine must be put in to the chalice to be consecrated with water. This only cyprian went about to prove at that time, and there. Wherefore this place of Cyprian maketh nothing for your purpose, & as much doth that, Which ye bring for you we out of the same doctor, which sayeth that christ gave bread & De unctione ●●●smatis. The bishop fo 63. wine to his apostles, because he gave them his body and blood under the forms of bread and wine, and not in the forms of flesh and blood, for after such sort and form he gave his body to be wounded with the hands of soldiers. Also he calleth the forms of bread and wine figures of Christ's body and blood, because they signified and represented them, not absent, but presently hid under them ynuisiblye. Again Cyprian sayeth in that sermon, christ gave unto priests à cup of his blood full of abundance of an infinite fullness, both to be reserved, and also to be given, which ye my lord wink at. Finally, he maketh there plain mention of the consecrating of both oil, and cream upon mandy thursday, for the anointing of kings & priests, when they Oil and cream. are made, & of children, in their confirmation, and sayeth that thruoghe the benefit of that anointing wisdom and understanding are given to us of Esaiae. 11. god, & like wise the gift of counsel, of strength, kunning, pity and fear are powered by god's inspiration in to Marks. reader. us. And also that we, being anointed with this oil, do fight with ill spirits, and can not be infected with unclean savours. Why do ye not, my lord, observe these lessons? Will ye take that only, that a little seemeth to make for your purpose, & refuse all the rest, which maketh plainly, and fully against your domges, and doctrine? Why also do ye labour so much in alleging the authors, which said that bread and wine remained still in the sacrament because there was bread & wine before the consecration, and because they seam yet to be there still, when none of all those doctors say (as ye do) that there is only bread, and wine, and not Christ's body, and blood, but the clean contrary to it? S. Chrysostom, who ye allege upon the psalm, meant In Psal. 22 that christ would show unto us bread, and wine, that is to say, his body and blood in to which, bread and wine was turned, and which appeared still bread, and wine, and that for à similitude of his body and blood, in their own proper forms offered upon the cross, for by the celebration of the holy sacrament (as Gelasius sayeth) there is an image and a similitude made of Christ's body crucified, & of his blood shed forth of that body for our redemption S. Hieroms' words do make Hierom i● Matth. 2● nothing for your doctrine, when he sayeth that christ took bread, that comforteth man's heart, that he might represent thereby his very body and blood. For first he sayeth not (as ye do) that he gave only bread, nor yet bread unto his apostles, and that he gave them not his very body and blood, but that he took bread to be consecrated, & turned it in to his body, & that by the distributing and receiving of it he might represent his body, and blood, in that they were put to death and crucified for us, which thing he bade his apostles, and by them all other priests to do, whem he said. Do ye this Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 11. for remembrance of me. Again, saint Hierom used this word (Representare to represent) for to give presently and out of hand, as divers authors R●presentare Hieroni, Matthe● 26 do use it. For Cicero said. But also I would gladly offer my body to suffer death, si representari morte mea libertas civitatis potest, id est, dari nunc, & statim, Philippica 2 if by my death the liberty of the city might be even now by and by given. Also columella sayeth. Itaque non aegre Libr 11. consequetur, si semper se representaverit, id est, se presentem ostenderit, inquit Budeus, neque discesserit Cyprianus Representare quid sit Cypriano. in orationem dominicam sayeth. We do desire the kyndom of god to be represented unto us, that is to say, to be given unto us presently. Again, there he hath thus. Christ also himself, brethren, may be understanded the kyndom of god, whom we daily desire to come, whose coming we desire soon to be represented to us, that is to say, openly, and presently to be showed unto us. By these authorities it is manifest, good reader, that hierom is against my lord very much in this place. S. Ambrose maketh not for your purpose, Lib. de i●●, qui mystery is initiantur cap. vlt. when he sayeth that Christ's body and blood are signified after the consecration, for as he sayeth not that they are only signified, and not present there fo. 63. (as ye defend) even so he mente that by the outward forms of bread, and wine Christ's body and blood were signified to bo hid secretly under them, and that the death of him in his body and blood offering upon August. ser. 28 in Lucan. the cross, was signified by the administration of the sacrament. Also it is true that he sayeth, that we do receive Lib 4. ca 4. De sacramentis. the sacrament for a similitude of Christ's flesh and blood, but he doth Lib 4. ca 4 De sacramentis. declare his meaning with these words. Wine and water are put in to the chalice, but blood is made by the consecration of the heavenly word. But thou dost peradventure say, I see not the kind or form of blood, but a similitude is there, for as though hast received (in baptism) a similitude of death, even so thou drinkest also a similitude of precious blood, that there should be no abhorring or à lothinge of blood, appearing as blood. What can be more plainly spoken to declare that he meant that the very blood of christ is made by the consecration of wine into it, and yet we receive it not in form of blood, but in a similitude & shape of it the form of wine, that is like to blood in colour, lest we should abhor to drink it, if it did appear unto our eyes very blood? Why red ye not this my lord, that ye had not erred in the alleaginge of this authority of s. Ambrose? you followed, and trusted to much peter Martyr's allegation Peter Martyr falsely allegeth them doctor which reciteth almost all authors falsely, and untruly, as I will, by god's grace, declare in my book made against him. Saint Ambrose is against you, whom ye allege for you, saying that the priest prayeth thus at mass. lib. 4. cap. ● de sacramentis. Make unto us this oblation to be acceptable, which is a figure of the body, & blood of christ. For he calleth here the mass à sacrifice, and sayeth that the priest maketh therein sacrifice to god for himself, and other, which ye deny utterly. Again he saith not, that it is only a figure (as ye defend it to be), but that it is a figure of Christ's body & blood in that respect, that they were crucified, for as much as Christ's death is in the sacrament represented, and figured. Ye do now corrupt & falsely Ambrofius in. 1. cor. 11. allege S. Ambrose, and make of his true saying a false sentence. For this ye make him say. In eating, and drinking the bread, and wine, we do signify the flesh and blood, that were offered for us, where in deed these are his words upon this text of S. Paul, ye shall show forth our lords death until he come. For because ye are (sayeth he) made free by our lords death, we remembering that thing, in eating, and drinking flesh and blood, which were offered for us, do signify, etc. Loo, my lord, S. Ambrose saith we do eat and drink flesh and blood, and ye make him say, that we do eat and drink bread and wine. Are ye not ashamed so manifestly to lie upon the authors? Also saint Ambrose sayeth well (though ye il understand his words) that we do receive the mystical cup of blood for tuition of our body and soul, in a signification or a figure, not of Christ's body (as ye would make us believe) but of that that the new testament was confirmed by Christ's blood, and that blood is a witness of Christ's benefit, which came by his blood shedding unto us. Therefore ye do il conclude, of these authorities of the doctors that Christ's body and Fol. 64. blood are not really in the holy sacrament, but that bread and wine are only signs, figures, similitudes, and representations of them, as ye do like wise Augustinus Epist. 23. il understand saint Austen writing to Bonifacius. For he meant that christ was not daily offered in the mass by death, and suffering of his passion again, for so he was never but ones offered, and yet he is daily offered in the sacrament for the people atmasse and his passion represented unto us therein. For we do use to say that christ suffered his passion upon this day (good friday) and that day he arose again, when the days of his passion, and resurrection are passed many hundred years before, and a memory, or a representation only of those two things is celebrated, and made upon such days And so is the sacrament à sign and a similitude of Christ's body in suffering death and passion and is called in a manner his body, as the outward forms and kinds of bread and wine are sacraments, and signs of Christ's body and blood, being some time called Christ's body and blood, as they may right well in a certain manner of speaking (as Saint Austen witnesseth there), because that some time things signified are called by the names of their signs, and contrarily also. This we see plainly enough that saint Austen is not upon my lords side, but against him utterly, when he sayeth, that christ is daily offered in sacrifice at mass for the people, which, my lord, denieth utterly, and yet sayeth that saint Austen is of his The bishop. fo. 62. pag 2. Contra adamantum. cap. 12. mind and belief therein To be short when Saint Austen, or any other doctor affirmeth that the sacrament is a figure, or a sign, they never say that bakers bread, or material bread, and wine of the grape are only in the sacrament as signs of Christ's body and The sign of Christ's body how it is to be understand blood only absent, but they mean (as I said afore) that the outward forms and kinds of bread and wine are signs of them there presently covered under neath them. And also that the sacrament is a sign of Christ's mystical body the church, and of his passion a representation and figure. As for Theodoretus, whom he allegeth again, is anusweared before sufficiently. Your fift note, my lord, fo. 66. pa. ● which ye gather out of Theodoretus, that nothing ought to be affirmed for a certain truth in religion, which is not spoken of in holy scripture, is a very damnable note, and the mother of many abamynable heresies, as I have declared largely in my book of traditions, and also briefly before in this book. And to touch the same matter unwritten verities. à little again, is the baptism of children set out in scripture? Confessed not origen and saint Austen the clean contrary? Sayeth not Saint Austen that it is a tradition unwritten Origenes lib. 6. in. Romanos ca 6 in scripture, that baptism ministered of an heretic, or à schismatic is sufficient and good? In the scripture is no mention made that the father of heaven is ungotten, that there are three persons, that christ is consuhstantialis patri, that our lady was a continual virgin, that the souday ought to be kept holy, and many such other certain truths in Christ's religion are not written in scripture. What then, my lord? Is he arrogant and presumptuous, that affirmeth them for certain verities in religion? You say untruly that papists do make and unmake articles of our faith at their pleasure, for they never made article of the faith, nor unmade, but heretics hath so done many times. Unto this lie, ye add two more, This lie is often repeated of him. one that we do say that Christ's body is naturally and sensibly in the bread, when we say bread is not there, and that Christ's body is there unnaturally, against nature, and unsensiblye. Fol. 71 The second lie is, that priests make of Christ a new sacrifice for sin, for it is no new sacrifice, but the self same in the thing offered, Homi. 2. in. 2 ad Timot. that (as Saint Chrysostom sayeth) Christ ones offered himself upon the cross, and which he offered at his last supper, and commanded all priests to offer like wise, as it shall be declared here after, by god's grace. Now ye rehearse many figurative speeches used in the scripture to prove that christ spoke like these words. This is my body, by a Fo. 72. 73 figure, which all proveth it not, except ye will say, that Christ spoke nothing without a figure, which, I am sure, ye will not say. Moreover, ye gather Fo. 76. three things out of s. clements epistle against the catholics belief. The first Epist. 2 is that bread is called our lords body, which is very false, for there is no mention at all of any bread, but of our lords body, and he sayeth that that holy portion of his body should not be mixed with the meat, that is digested by the belly, or stomach, and avoided out at the fundament, declaring plainly thereby that it is not material bread, for than it should be also digested in the stomach and cast out at the fundament, as other meats be. Wherefore my lord was heryn overseen. The second thing that ye note of S. Clementes words is that the bread (as ye call it falsely) ought not to be reserved, when he hath the clean contrary, saying in the same words, that ye allege here, for this he writeth in effect. The priests, deacons and ministers aught with fear and trembling keep the leavings of the broken pieces of our lords body, that no corruption be found in the holy place, least by negligence great ynyurie be done to the portion of the lords body. My lord winked at these words, & took those only that seamed to make with him and yet did not, for S. Clement willed only that none of the hosts or portions of them, which were consecrated for the lay people, should be reserved, but spent and received of the clerk Nother the third note, that ye gather of S. clements words, is true, which is that priests ought not to receive the sacrament alone, but the people must needs communicate with them. For he sayeth only that the layte did then receive the sacrament with the priests, as they ever might do, if they would themselves, but that their fact maketh no necessary law for us as divers men lived in common, and had nothing proper in the apostles time and yet that maketh no law to enforce us so to live. Moreover, ye affirm that Christ's sacrifice made upon the cross was that oblation, of which Cyprian speaketh unto cecilius, saying that it was figured before it was done The bishop fo. 78 by the bread and wine, which Melchizedech gave unto Abraham, in which saying ye make two faults, the one is that Melchizedech gave bread & wine Lib. 2. epi. 3 unto Abraham, & did not offer them to god, that the other the sacrifice of christ done at his last supper, and the sacrifice Gen. 14. of the mass was not signified and figured by Melchisedecs' deed then▪ which two errors saint Cyprian confuteth sufficiently, saying thus in that same epistle, after he had alleged the words of the Genesis written of Melchizedech for ever. Which order (sayeth he) certainly is this, coming of that sacrifice that Melchizedech was the priest of the high god, and that he offered bread and wine. For Lib. 2 epi. 3. Psal. 109. who is rather a priest of the high god than our lord jesus christ, which offered a sacrifice unto god the father? and he offered the self same sacrifice, that Melchisedech had offered, that is, bread and wine, forsooth his body and blood. Here we may plainly see, that ye, my lord, erred both in saying that Melchisedech gave bread & wine unto Abraham, for Cyprian sayeth, as the text of the Genesis also hath, that he offered them in sacrifice to god, & and also in saying that Melchisedechs doing then figured not Christ's sacrifice made at his mandy but only that Gene. 14. which was done once upon the cross for it signified and figured his sacrifice made at his mandye, as saint Cyprian affirmeth by and by in that same epistle, thus writing. There went before by Melchizedech an image of a sacrifice ordained in bread and wine. Which thing our lord perfectly doing, & fulfilling, hath offered bread, and a chalice mixed with wine, and he, that is the fullness hath fulfilled the truth of the image figured afore. Hitherto Cyprian. Where he sayeth also that christ commanded priests to offer sacrifice at mass in a remembrance of his death, saying, do ye this in my remembrance. If a man will The sacrifice the holy mass. but only look upon and consider what Cyprian went about to prove, and persuade in that epistle, he shall find anon, that my lord erred manifestly, when he said, that Melchisedechs' oblation Lucae. 22. ●. Cor. 2. figured only Christ's sacrifice made upon the cross, for Cyprians purpose and intent there was to prove by many figures of the old testament, that wine ought to be put in to the Mark. chalice at mass to be offered in sacrifice, god, as Melchisedech had done afore in a figure, and as chtist fulfilling & accomplysshing perfitly that figure had done also at his mandye. Wherefore ye ought, my lord, to recant this plain error, and to use that law upon yourself justly, which ye have used against many other men unjustly. Christ offered sacrifice at his last souppe● Ye pervert also these words of Chrysostom. When you come to these mysteries, do not think, that ye receive De eucharistia io enceniis. by a man the body of god. Upon these words my lord maketh this argument. Than if we receive not the body of christ at the hands of man, ergo the body of christ is not really corporalli, and naturally in the sacrament, and so given to us by the priest. What blindness is this? Chrysostom The bishop fo. 93. biddeth men not think that they receive Christ's body of a man the prieest, meaning that they received it not of him principally, but so of christ The confutation. himself, and that he said to steer them unto greater devotion in receiving of Christ's blessed body, and my lord gathereth thereof a pure negation, that we receive not Christ's body at the hands of ma. Is this a worthy person to be believed in his doctrine, that thus reasoneth without reason? Fourthermore my lord doth make answer unto Theophilus bishop of Alexandria, which writeth thus upon Marks gospel, Theophilus christ giving thanks did break the bread (which also we do) adding thereunto prayer. And gave unto them saying. Take, this is my body. This that I do now give, and that, which ye do now take. For the bread is not only a figure of Christ's body, but it is changed in to the very body of christ For christ sayeth. The bread which I will give you is my flesh. Nevertheless joan. 8. the flesh of christ is not seen for our weakness, but bread and wine are familiar unto us. And surely if we should vysibly see flesh & blood, we could not abide it. And therefore our lord, bearing with our weekenes doth retain and keep the form and appearance of bread and wine, but he turneth the bread and wine in to the The bishop fo. 95. pa. 2 very flesh and blood of christ. These are the very words of Theophilus, In catenaaurea in Marcum. although my lord say, that they are not his words, but one Theophilactus & maketh thereof no proof at al. Saint Thomas à great clerk, and á holy father and divers other blessed men many years afore my lord was borne said that he wrote those words, & my lord of canterbury saith nay, weather party will a wise man believe? I ask of my lord, why may not these words be Theophilus' bishop of Alexandria, as the first author of them, and yet the same to be after written our of him by Theophilactus, as well as Theophilactus followed saint Chrysostom, and used many sentences of his in his commentaries? Which sentences no man can deny but they are chrysostoms. For Chrysostom and Theophilactus hath this sentence upon paul. The thing, which is in the chalice, is that that hath flowed out of the side, and we Homi. 24 in 1. Cor. 10. are partakers of it. May a man gather now of that that Theophilactus writeth those words following Chrysostom that the same sentence was not written by Chrysostom? Why then sayeth my lord that Theophilus wrote not the sentence above recited upon S: Mark, but it was only written after his time of Theophilactus? Might not Theophilus first writ it, and Teophilactus borrow it of him, as Theophilactus did many sayings of Chrysostom? But to-go nearer the matter, it apearethe plainly by many things, that those words were not written by Theophilactus upon Mark, for first Theophilactus hath not these words (And he gave it unto then saying) nor these words (This that I do now give) nor this word (only) for this he Theophila. writeth there, as the greek letter hath When he had blessed it, that is to say giving thanks, he break the bread, which thing we do also, adding prayer. This is my body, this, I say, that ye do receive. For the bread is not a figure Note this league Grace. and a certain exemplar of our lords body, but it is chaunded in to the joan. 6. self same body of christ. For our lord sayeth, the bread, which I will give is my flesh. He said not it is a figure of my flesh, but it is my flesh. And thou sayest, how is not flesh seen? O man, this is done for our weakness. For because bread, and wine are of those things, with which we have been accustomed, we do not abhor them, but we saying blood, and flesh set forth, would not abide it, but abhor it clean Wherefore the merciful god, bearing with our infirmity, doth retain still the form of bread and wine, but he turneth them in to the virtue of flesh & blood. Hitherto Theophilactus, by whose words we see both that he wrote not the other sentence, which is before rehearsed of my lord, because these his words vary much from those other of theophilus, & also that theophilactus is utterly against my lords doctrine in this matter. Wherefore we father The bishop fol. 95. not wrong that saying upon theophilus, as my lord sayeth that we do. Again, my lord sayeth untruly that we do falsify this authors words, and meaning. For as Teophilus hath the same words afore in his name recited even so Theophilactus hath, I deny not, these words, God condescending unto our infirmity reserveth the kind of bread & wine, but he turneth them in to * the virtue of flesh & blood. Which words my lord thinketh doth declare plainly, that he meant, that bread & wine remain still in their substance, & are turned only in to the virtue of Christ's flesh & blood, for as much as, that they, which do worthily receive them, receive thereby the virtue of Christ's body & blood spiritualy. Which exposition is utterly against his meaning, for he sayeth evidently that the bread is not á figure of our lords body, but that it is turned in to the very natural body of christ. For saith he not that there is flesh and blood in the sacrament, but they appear Mark. not there to our eyes, and sight, but the forms only of them, lest we should abhor the receiving of them? Whould he have so said, if he had believed that only bread & wine were present in the Theophilactus. sacrament? Again he doth upon Matthe we declare his mind more plainly Matth. 2●. sayingt thus. Christ saying. This is my body, showeth that the bread, which is hallowed upon the altar, is our lords Altars. body itself, & not á figure aunsweringe to it For he said not, this is á figure but this is my body For it is transformed by an operation unspeakable yea although it seam bread, because we be weak, & do abhor to eat raw flesh, chiefly the flesh of a man, & for that cause it appeareth to be bread, but it is flesh in deed. Again upon Ihons' gospel In cap. 6. joannis. he is as plain as may be against my lords doctrine, when he sayeth thus. But mark that the bread, which is eaten of us in the sacrament, is not only a figure of our lords flesh, but our lords flesh itself. For christ said not, joan. 6. the bread which I will give, is a figure of my flesh, but my flesh. For that bread is transformed with secret words in to our lords flesh, through the mystical blessing, and coming of the holy ghost unto it. Now what can my lord say to this? Hath he here any starting hole, or evasion, but he must needs grant his error, and recant it? S Hierom writeth thus. There is as Hierom in ●iti. cap. 1. great difference between the loaves of show bread, and the body of christ as is between a shadow of a body, and the body itself, and as there is between an image, and the thing itself, & between an example of things to come, and the things, that be prefigurated by them. Unto this authority my lord maketh this slender anusweare. He meant, that the show bread of the The bishop fo. 86. pa. 2. law, was but a dark shadow of christ to come, but the sacrament of Christ's body is á clear testimony that christ is already come, and that he hath performed that, which was promised, & doth presently comfort, and feed us, spiritually with his precious body & blood. Is not this a shameful wreastinge, of this sentence? S Hierom allegeth 1. Regum. ●●. there that Abymelech would not give to david and his compaynye the show bread to eat, when they were almost famished through want of meat, until he had perceived, that they had forborn the compayninge with their wife's two days space before, and by that fact he exhorteth men to come with á pure conscience unto the receiving of the holy sacrament, because there is as much difference between Mark. Christ's body therein received, and those show loaves, as is between the shadow of á body & the body, between an image & the truth pictured by it, & as there is between the examples of things to come, & the things themselves, that were figured by those examples, declaring manifestly, that that Christ's body, which is received & eaten in the sacrament, is in comparison to the sheaf loaves, which were á shadow, the very body shadowed by them, the truth expressed by that image, & the very thing itself figured by that example. How can this be true, if there be but material bakers bread eaten in the sacrament, as a bare sign, & a figure of Christ's body, Note. absent thence? Is á figure the body shadowed, the truth set fourth by an image, & the very thing itself figured by an example? What man is so blind, thus to say? Again S. Hierom even there upon that same epistle sayeth, that the Hierony. in cap.▪ 1. ad Titum. priests do offer daily for their sins & the people's also, pure sacrifices, and that the priest maketh christes body at mass. This can not be understand of pure material bread, and therefore my lord must look better upon his books & then he shall see the truth in this matter, & cease thus falsely to gloze the doctors sainges. Now he laboureth, to soil S Damascenes words, which are these, that follow, but my lord did not rehearse them, because they should have marred all his matter. Dost though Damascen. lib. 4. ca 14 now ask of me, how bread is made Christ's body, and wine and water his blood? I anusweare unto the that the holy ghost worketh these things above man's speech, and understanding, but the bread, and wine are turned. The body is joined unto the deite, which body is of the virgin, not that the body taken of the virgin cometh down from heaven, but that the bread itself, and wine are changed in to the body, Christ's body is in the sacrament, and in heaven both at ones. and blood of god. The bread, wine, and water through invocation, and the coming of the holy ghost unto them, are above nature changed in to christes body, and blood, and they are not two bodies, but one & the same body. The bread and wine be Mark reader and believe. not á figure of Christ's body & blood. For god forbidden that, but it is his body itself joined unto the godhead, our lord himself saying. This is my body, not a figure of the body, but the body, not a figure of the blood, but the Matth. 26. blood. This S Damascene wrote. Now my lord might have been ashamed to go about to wrest, & wryth these so manifest words of this holy & great clerk to any other sense, if he had had any shame at all, but let us examine his answer unto him. In primis he sayeth. He was a young new author in respect of those, which we have brought in for our party. Sir ye have yet brought in none for The bishop ●o. 37. pa. 1. your party, that sayeth that Christ's The confutation. body is not really in the sacrament, or that there remaineth still only bakers bread, as a figure of Christ's body, as ye do teach, but this godly father sayeth, that Christ's body is present therein and that the bread is turned in to it, & that it is not now a figure, Ye can never bring any catholic writer of any age, that writeth so plainly for you, as this doth for us. Again, for his age, S. Damascenes age. he was after many learned men's minds above M. c years past, but at the least, I am certain, that he was almost eight hundred years sense, which is nigh ccc years before the father of your doctrine berengarius, was borne. Berengarius was the father of this bishops doctrine. Wherefore this is an answer sufficient unto the objection of Damascenes age Moreover ye say, my lord, that he varieth from all the old authors, when he denieth, that the bread is a figure of Christ's body, for they called it a figure. Ye say not truly, for he agreeth well with them therein, for they call not the material bread a figure of Christ's body only absent in heaven (as ye do) which How the sacrament is a figure. Aug. serm. 28. in Lu●ā Damascene also denieth, but many of them say the sacrament is a figure, because the outward forms of bread and wine are figures of Christ's body and blood hid under them, and because the oblation, ministration and receiving of them is a figure of Christ's passion and bloody sacrifice, and thirdly, because the sacrament is a figure of Christ's mystical body the church, which Damascene denieth not, and therefore he agreeth right well with the fathers in that point, and so this starting hole is stopped, that ye can not creep out at him, my lord. S. Damascene sayeth also in deed (as ye say here) my lord, that the thing, There is no material bread in the sacrament which is in the sacrament consumeth not, nor avoideth not downward from man, in which saying, as he declareth plainly that he meant not (as ye say he did) that material bread remaineth still in the sacrament, for than it must needs consume, and avoided downwardly, as all other bread doth, even so he sayeth not therein against either origin or else Austen, for neither of them sayeth that the consecrated bread consumeth, and avoideth dounewarde, but saint Austen hath the contrary Ser 23. de verbis domini secu●dum Lucan. saying. It is called bread of the priest in the mass after the consecration, when he reciteth the paternoster, in which he prayeth to god to give us our daily bread but not that bread, which goeth in to the body, but that which beareth up the substance of our soul so he denieth here manifestly that there is any such bread after the consecration in the holy sacrament as goeth in to the Saint Austen sayeth there is no material bread in the sacrament. sustenance and nourishment of man's body. Wherefore he sayeth not (as my lord sayeth) that there is material bread in the sacrament, which consumeth in eating of it, and goeth downwardly fro man. Now my lord runnyth to an other evasion, and sayeth that this holy Damascene was one of the bishop of rooms chief proctors The bishop fo. ●7. pa. 2 against the emperors to set abroad all idolatry by his own hand writing & therefore if he lost his hand (as they say he did) he lost it by gods most righteous judgement, etc. What meaneth my lord here this falsely to diffame that holy saint, and noble clerk, Images. by whom god wrought many great and notable miracles (as it appeareth plainly in his life) and against whom no man, that was a good christian man, did ever write for any error? In deed he wrote against lo the emperor for his destroying of images, and that he did full clearkely, and godly, as I have declared, and proved in my book of images. It is true that he lost his hand for the defence of images, but not (as the bishop saith) by the just judgement of god but by the cruel and malicious forging of his letters by that emperor against him to the prince of the cite Damascus, by which letters that noughty & cursed emperor certified that prince that saint Damascene would have betrayed that city to him and therefore that prince commanded his hand to be strooken of, but it was anon after restored unto him again, and mad hole, when he prayed before an image of our lady, as it appeareth both in his life written by a patriarch of Graecia long sense, and also Mark. in the seventh general council, for therein was that miracle reharsed before more them ccc. bishops above seven hundred years passed, and therefore my lord erred, when he wrote that this my racle was feigned. Yet my lord seeketh more aways to avoid this authority of S. Damascene, but all in vain, for thus he writeth, after much babbling. The bread, and wine remain still, & are changed only sacramentally, & The bishop fo. 99 lib. 3. are made figures, not naked, for that Damascene denieth, but so pithy and effectuous, that who so ever worthily eateth them, eateth spiritually christes flesh, and blood, and hath by that ever lasting life. Is not this a manifest▪ The confutation. avilling to avoided the truth? S Damascene sayeth, that christ made the bread his body, and the wine and water his blood, that the holy ghost Mark this turneth the bread in to christes body, and the wine & water in to his blood, that the bread, and wine are changed above nature in to Christ's body and blood, and that they are not two bodies, but one and the same body that still abideth in heaven, and finally, that bread and wine are not figures of Christ's body and blood, but his own body, unto which the godhead is joined, and yet this man was not ashamed to say, that he mente that bread and wine remain still in the sacrament, and that they are not turned by their substance in to christes body & blood, which be not in the sacrament but only bread and wine, as he sayeth. What is this, if it be not a wonderful blindness, and a malicious subverting of this doctors godly, and true doctrine lest he should seam to be against their erroneous, and wicked doctrine, as he is plainly? He bringeth many other fond evasions, which be so manifestly against this doctors plain words, that it were but a lost labour to confute them, because every man may soon see that they are not to the purpose, if he do but ones compare them with saint Damascens words. And as touching the worshipping of the holy sacrament, we do worship therein christ very god and man present really, and not the outward and visible forms & kinds of bread and wine, which thing S. Damascen meant. Truth it is, that Damascene sayeth not expressly, that there remaineth no bread, nor wine, but yet the very self same thing he affirmeth, when he sayeth, that they are turned and changed in to christes body and blood, which he took of his blessed mother, and unto which the The bishop fo. 99 pa. 2 god head is joined in one parson, and Christ's soul is also coupled there with them, and therefore my lord said untruly, that if we deny bread and wine to be there still, we must also by force Note this. deny, that there is either Christ's divynitee or his soul. For may not these two be joined unto Christ's body and blood in the sacrament, as they be in heaven, if neither bread, nor wine be therein? Will he have Christ's soul, & godhead to be in the bread, and wine, or else they can not be in the sacrament? What ignorance is this? Why sayeth he that we divide christ? Do they divide him, that say he his both god, and man, and that his very body, blood soul, and godhead are really in the blessed sacrament of the altar altogether joinctly? Further more it is very false, that he layeth unto our charges, that we separate Christ's body from his membres in the sacrament, for we do say, that it is there with all his membres perfectly, and wholly, but how Fo. 90. Lib. de duabus in christo, voluntatibus. we define not, nor can do. Damascene sayeth well, that the distinction of members doth pertain so unto the nature of man's body, that where there is no such distinction, there is no perfect man's body, but that is very true of every natural body of man, being in his natural estate and condition, and in his own form, and shape, after which sort christ is not in this sacrament, and therefore Damascene is not against our doctrine, and belief in this matter, but altogether with it. Thus is now made a full confutation of all my lords objections against Transubstantiation, and the real presence of Christ's very natural body and blood in the blessed sacrament of the altar. Now I make an end of this third book, and begin the fourth, in which I will confute like wise his objections made against our doctrine, which is that sinners do eat Christ's very natural body and drink his blood, although to their damnation, as saint Paul witnesseth plainly. 1. Cor. 11. Thus endeth the confutation of my lords third book, and followeth the confutation of his fourth book. First he The bishop. fo. 90. pag. 2. bringeth forth of Saint Ihons' gospel these words, to prove that sinners eat not Christ's very body with their mouths, nor drink his blood in the sacrament, but only bread and wine. I am the lively bread, that came down joan. 6. from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever, etc. The confutation. Do ye not, my lord, remember, that divers times before in your book, ye said that Christ's words written in John the sixth chapter did nothing pertain to the sacrament, but only unto a spiritual eating of Christ's body by faith? Why then bring Mark. ye now forth his words to prove that ill and ungodly men eat not Christ's body in receiving the sacrament? But yet it is very true that joan. ●. Christ spoke those words of the sacrament, and of the eating of his own body in the same with our mouths meaning that whosoever eateth his body, and drinketh his blood worthily with a perfect faith, and a clean conscience, and not only with his mouth bodily, shall live for ever there by, and have everlasting life, and therefore Saint paul declaring this doctrine of christ written by John, exhorteth every man to try and examine 1 Cor. 1●. himself, and his conscience well before he receive this holy sacrament that he receive it not to his damnation. Why looked ye not, my lord, upon that text of paul, that ye might have learned of him, the manner of eating Christ's body, which is required necessarily, that we should live for ever, through receiving of it in the sacrament? Are ye so ignorant in the scriptures, that ye know not, that there are very many such speeches and sentences in them, which are not generally and absolutely true, but with certain Marc. 16. additions and conditions? For christ said, whosoever shall believe, and be baptised, shall be saved, and yet many Matth. 7. thousands do believe, and are baptised also, that shall be damned, of the number of which they are, that shall say at domes day, lord, lord, have we not cast out devels in thy name, prophised also, and wrought many miracles in thy name? To whom christ shall say, I know ye not, get ye hence from me, ye wourkers of iniquity. Wherefore this sentence, whosoever Mar. vlt. shall believe, and be christened, shall be saved, hath this condition joined unto it, if he continue in his faith and Matth. 2● in the grace of god and pureness of soul received in baptism, as christ sayeth himself by these words, whosoever shall persevere until the end, shall be saved. furthermore sayeth not christ every man that asketh receiveth? Matth. 7 Lucae▪ 11. What then, my lord? May we thereof gather, I pray you, that the mother of the sons of Zebudaei did not ask Matth. 2● of christ that one of her sons might sit upon his right hand, and the other at his lift in his kingdom, because she obtained not that her petition? We may so say by your manner of reasoning here. Asked not also Saint Paul of god à petition, that the pricking of the flesh might be taken from him, and yet he obtained 1. Cor. 12. Iacob●. ● not his desire? Must not then this sentence of Christ, every man that asketh receiveth, be understand with this condition, if he ask godly, and necessary things for his salvation, according to 1. joan. 5 gods will and commandment, as saint John sayeth? To be short, and Matth. 1●. to pass over many such speeches, said not christ who so ever believeth in joan. 3. 5 the son of god hath everlasting life? Will ye thereof, my lord, prove against scripture, that all they believeth not in joan 12 christ, that have not everlasting life, seeing John sayeth, that many of the princes of the synagogue believed in christ, and yet confessed him not for fear of the pharisees, lest they should be cast out of the synagogue, for they loved more the glory of man, than the glory of god? Must we not then understand Christ's words, when he sayeth, who so ever believeth in the son of god, or in me, hath everlasting life, of a certain manner of believing, which is with a lively wourkinge faith, that availeth joan. 12 (sayeth paul) in christ jesus? May we not then now see plainly, how Gala. 5 that christ meant not, that every man generally which should eat that bread, which came down from heaven should have everlasting life, but only they that should eat it godly & worthily, as paul teacheth us to do? Wherefore these 1. Cor. 11 texts of John, which ye, my lord, bring moreover for your purpose, that Fo. 91 he, which eateth Christ's flesh and drinketh his blood hath everlasting life, joan. 6 dwelleth in christ, & christ in him, etc. do nothing utterly serve thereunto▪ for they must be all understand of them only, that eateth & drinketh Christ's body & blood godly, as S. Austen expoundeth it saying. When christ sayeth, he that eateth Ser. ●1. de verbis domini secundum Matthaeum. my flesh, and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me, & I ●n him, may we understand it of them, of whom paul saith that they eat and drink their own judgement, 1. Cor. 11 when they eat that body, & drink that blood? Then after Turrian example brought of judas, & of other certain ill men, he asketh whether they did eat Christ's body, & drink his blood, & thereby did abide in christ, & christ in them, or not? He doth anuswe are to that question so plainly, that he utterly taketh away all doubt in that matter, & destroyeth your false glozing clean, my lord, saying thus. But truly there is à certain manner of eating that flesh, & drinking that blood after the which, he that eateth, & drinketh, dwelleth in christ, & christ in him. Wherefore a man shall not eat Christ's flesh, & drink his blood after every Mark this reader. sort of eating & drinking of them, & abide in christ, & christ in him, but after a certain manner, which manner he himself saw, when he said these words. Loo my lord how manifestly hath S Austen opened all this matter, & declared that ye understood not well Christ's words, which ye do allege here. It is then evidently proved that Christ's words in John make nothing utterly against our doctrine which is that the ungodly men & women do eat & drink Christ's flesh & blood in receiving of the holy sacrament although they have not everlasting life as the godly only have, but everlasting damnation. Now ye say that christ is The bishop fo. 91. pa. 2. fo. 92. not eaten, swallowed, and digested, with our teeth, tongues, throats, and bealyes, which saying is only true, in that that ye say he is not digested with our bealyes, for all the rest of that sentence is very false, and neither Cyprian, nor S. Austen proveth the contrary, for S. Cyprian meant that we whet not our teeth to bit Christ's body Cyprianus de coena domini. in the sacrament, as we do bodily meats, S. Austen, whon ye do allege, my lord, maketh not for your purpose for when he sayeth. Prepare not thy Ser. 3●. de verbis d. jaws, but thy heart, he meant (as S. Cyprian did afore him) that men should not think, that Christ's flesh ought to be eaten as common meats, beuffe, lamb, veal, mouton and such other meats sold in the shambles commonly (as he sayeth himself in an other place) In psal 98. & ser. 2. de verbis apostoli. which is nothing against our belief, and doctrine For we say that we eat Christ's body as a spiritual food and meat of our souls, without breaking, renting, tearing, chawing, digesting, & such other ynyuryes doing Tract. 2● in joannem. unto it. Again, when S. Austen sayeth, Why dost thou prepare thy belly & teeth believe, & thou hast eaten, he speaketh only against the unfaithful jews, which thought that he spoke of a joa. 6. bodily meat when he said unto them work ye not the meat, that perysseth, but that abideth still unto everlanstinge life, where he spoke of believing in him, and of the spiritual eating of him, trough à lively faith, unto the which men should not need to prepare either belly, or teeth, but what is this against our teaching? Doth it follow that we eat not christ bodily with our mouth and teeth, because that we need not to prepare our belly and teeth to eat christ only spiritually through faith, which the fathers did before the institution of the sacrament, and now also many do, when they receive not the sacrament? Is there but only one manner to eat christ? Is he not eaten both when the sacrament is received, and when it is not received? Why red ye not Austin's words in his book upon John, that ye might have seen and perceived the true sense of Tract 25. them? For he thus writeth upon this text. This is the work of god, that ye believe in him. This is them to eat that joan. 8. meat, which perisheth not, but abideth still unto everlasting life, to believe in him. Why preparest thou teeth and belly? believe, & thou hast eaten. We see now that S. Austen then expounded that text, which was spoken of christ before he did entreat any thing of the sacrament, and meant only of a spiritual eating of himself by faith, unto which eating men ought not (as S. Austen said) to prepare either bealye or else teeth, as to the eating of common meat of the body they are wont to do, and as the jews ill understood christ speaking then of meat, that should bring unto them life ever enduring. Wherefore ye are anuswered, my lord, in this objection sufficiently Origen, whom ye allege next meant (as christ did in John, whose words he reciteth, and are expounded of joan. 8. S. Austen afore) that is to say that evil men receive not, nor eat not Christ's flesh worthily, and profitably, to have thereby everlasting life, but only bodily, and unworthily to their damnation, like wise S. Cyprian spoke of a spiritual eating of Christ's flesh, and denied Sers de lapsis de coena domini. not the corporal eating of it with our mouths, and said (as christ did) that none do eat of that lamb our saviour christ spiritually, and worthily (as S. fo. 92 pa. 2. Paul biddeth men do) but only true 1. Cor. 11. Israelites, that is to say, good christian men. Also Athanasius meant not (as ye Athanasius lib. de pecca to in spi. sanctum. say he did) that christ made therefore mention of his ascension in to heaven, when he spoke unto the jews of eating his flesh and of his blood, to pluck their minds utterly from thinking upon any eating of his body, and drinking of his blood with their mouths but only from believing (as they did then) that he moved them to eat his flesh dead▪ cut out in pieces▪ and to devour it clean up, as other common meats are eaten, for than he could not ascend up from them in to heaven alive, and whole, as he said unto them that he would do. This meant Athanasius joan. 6. and christ making there mention of his ascension, for so doth Cyril, Cyprian, Chrisostom, saint Austen, and many other the eldest and best doctors expound that place of Ihon. For S. Austen thus writeth expounding that same saying of Ihon. Did ye think, that I would make pieces of this body, which ye do see, and The confutation. cut the parts of my body and give them unto you? What then if ye shall the son of man ascend thither, where he was afore? Certainly he that joan. 6. could ascend up whole, could not be consumed. He hath then both given Augusti. in pal. 8 & in joannem unto us a wholesome refection of his body and blood, & also soiled a great question touching his wholnes. Hitherto S. Austen. Wherefore this authority is not against our belief, which is that we do eat Christ's flesh bodily with our mouths without all hurt Basilius' Epist. 141. and harm to it, and without devouring up of it. S Basil spoke there only of a spiritual eating of Christ's flesh by faith and godly living, and nothing of the sacrament, nor of eating of Christ's flesh therein, and therefore his saying is not to the purpose Hieron Hierom in isaiah ca 88 & in Heir 22. upon Isaiah, and Hieremie affirmeth only that sinners, and heretics eat not the body of christ worthily for to obtain the fruit, effect, and profit In Osean cap. 8. thereof, which is spiritual nourishment, increase of grace, to dwell in christ, & christ in them, and to come unto everlasting life, but he denied not Ambros de benedict. patriar. ca 9 lib. de sacramentis. 4. cap. 4. & lib. 5. cap 3. August. de civitate dei lib. 21 cap. 2●. & in joann. trac 28. & 27. de verbis a post. ser. 2. Tract. 59 in joan. The bishop fo. 18. that they eat it ungodly and unworthily to their damnation. The same meant Ambrose, and S. Austen also spoke in those places, which ye allege of a fruitful, and a profitable eating of Christ's flesh, & of drinking of his blood to the obtaining of everlasting life. Ye understand not S. Austen writing thus Albert the other apostles did eat bread, that was the lord, yet judas did eat but the bread of the lord, & not the bread that was the lord. For he meant only that the other apostles did eat Christ's body both bodily with their mouths, and also spiritually with a perfect faith, and a pure conscience, but judas did eat it only bodily with his mouth S. Cyril meant even the very same thing, that only good men do eat Christ's flesh unto their profit, and salvation, but yet he sayeth not, nor none other doctor (as ye do) that ill men do not bodily receive it with their mouths in the holy sacrament, and therefore none of The bishop fo. 97 lib. 4. them proveth your doctrine to be true. Now ye ask of us, whether an vacant sinner have Christ's body within him, or no, when he receiveth A reason taken out of Peter martyr book. the sacrament? To that I say, that he so hath, and also to the second question, I answer, that ill men, being impenitent when they do receive the sacrament, have Christ's spirit within them, and yet they are not his sons although paul do say, that he is god's son (as ye say and gather of him) and hath christ in him, and liveth, Rom. 8. because he is justified S. Paul'S words are these. And if his spirit, that raised up jesus from death, dwell in you, he that raised christ from death, shall give life to your mortal bodies, for his spirits sake, which dwelleth in you. My lord understandeth not, how that man receiveth the spirit of god by certain of his gifts, & in his very nature, substance, presence and power, and yet he is nevertheless a sinner, having not in him christes spirit by grace & adoption. To prove this I will allege of many places of the scripture à few. Hath not many the ghost Sap. 7, 1, Cor. 12 Esaiae. 11 Matth. 7 1, Cor. 13 joan. 11 and spirit of god by the gift of wisdom, prudence, kunninge, faith to work miracles, the power to do miracles, to prophesy, the grace of healing the diseased, the gift of tongues, of interpretation, the gift to give counsel (as jetro did unto Moses) the gift of fear the gift to preach, to absolve the penitent in confession, and the joan, 20 gifts of many other things, and yet they are not gods sons by grace? Was not the spirit of god in balaam 1. Regum. 18. Num. 22 joan. 11 Saul and cayphas, when they prophesied, and yet they were wicked men? Was not then, my lord, deceived openly & shamefully, when he thought that the spirit of god is in none except they be his children by grace? Did he not know that they only be his sons Rom. 5. 8 Zacha. 12 in whom his spirit is by grace and adoption, & that paul spoke those words, which he allegeth here for him through ignorancy, of that being only of the spirit of god in man by grace? But to touch the matter some what nearer, I ask of him, whether the spirit of god be not in every place, in earth, the water, in heaven, and hell and in every part, and creature of them? If he say yea, ergo he is in every sinner, & wicked man. If he say nay, the scripture is against him saying. I fill heaven, and earth, sayeth our lord. Heaven Hiere. 23 isaiah. 66 is my seat, and the earth my footstool And again. Whither shall I go from Psal, 138 Christ's spirit, which is joined in one parson unto his manhood, is by his presence in sinners. thy spirit, and fly from thy face? If I go up in to heaven, thou art there, if I go down unto hell, thou art present there. Now it appeareth that god is every where, and in every place. Why then is not the spirit of god, which is very god, in the wicked men, by his presence and substance, which is in every place, and placed in no place? Wherefore Christ's blessed flesh, blood, soul, holy spirit, and his deite joined unto them in one parson certenlylmaye be, and is often times, in a man subject to sin, and à limb of the devil, and so god, and the devil do dwell both Actorum. 17. at ones in a sinner, god by his power, preserving him, feeding him, giving to him virtue to live, to be, to move and work, and also he is in him by his presence, and substance, and the devil through sin and tentation. Thus is all my lords reasoning proved void & of none effect. And so is not our third verity, and catholic doctrine confuted, which is that the ill men do eat & drink Christ's flesh & blood unto their damnation (although he sayeth joan. 6 that it is confuted) nor proved contrary unto Christ's words, saying, whosoever eateth my flesh, & drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life, for those words were only spoken of the godly & worthy eaters, & drinkers of them, as it is proved afore sufficiently, both by the scripture, & also by the exposition of s. Austen. Now my lord goeth about to answer unto a place of paul, which 1. Cor. 11 we do allege for us. Let a man examine himself, & so eat of the bread, & drink of the cup, for he that eateth, & drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh his own damnation, not discerning The bishop fo. 98. lib. 3. the lords body. Unto this sentence he sayeth, that S Paul meant, that for as much as the bread & wine in the lords supper, do represent unto us the body & blood of christ, therefore although he doth sit at the father's right hand in heaven, yet if we come not unto this mystical bread, and wine with faith, reverence, purity of conscience, & fear, as we would do, if we should come to see & receive christ himself sensibly present, we do eat and drink our damnation. This is the effect of his answer unto that text of paul, which The confutation. is directly against his mind, for paul in the next sentence afore affirmeth that the unworthy eater & drinker of that our lords blessed bread, & holy wine, is guilty of our lords body & blood declaring thereby that he eateth & drinketh not material bread, & wine of the grape, but Christ's very body & blood, which he calleth bread & wine, because bread & wine were turned in to them by the consecration, and because they De coena domini. be the food of man's soul (as Cyprian witnesseth) like as common bread and wine are of the body, and also because they appear as bread & wine, still reteyninge all other qualities, & accidents of 1. Cor. 11 them. This was S Paul's mind. who can say truly that he is guilty of our lords body & blood, & eateth & drinketh his own damnation, that receiveth nothing else but only bread made of corn, and Mark. wine of the grape? May a man be guilty for eating of a thing, & yet eat it not but only a figure of it? Why then are Legeeyprianum ser ●. De lapsis. not they worthy to be judged guilty of destroying, and breaking of Christ's body, and of his holy saints, that have broken, and destroyed their Images Images of christ, and his saints. and pictures in England, seeing they were more plain, express, and lively signs, and figures of them, then are the bread and wine of Christ's body, and blood? Need we so diligent and so great trial & examining of ourselves (as saint paul requireth here) for the receiving, of bread and wine? Eateth he, and drinketh his own damnation, that eateth and drinketh bread of weate, and wine of the vine only? The paschal lamb, the bread of show Exodi. 12 1. Regum. 21 Deut. 8 & Mamna were figures of Christ's body and more excellent and plain, than bread and wine can be, and yet the scripture witnesseth not, that the unworthy eaters of any of them were guilty of our lords body, or did eat their own damnation, not discerning his body from other common meat. Is it not then a sufficient proof that there is Christ's body itself in the sacrament, and not only bread a figure of it? Moreover, if bread and wine were only in the sacrament, how could the receiver of it discern our lords body (as paul biddeth him do) from other common meats, to receive it with greater cleans of conscience and more devotion than such common meats? Again, sayeth not saint paul Mark this that for the unworthy receiving of 1. Cor. 11 this holy sacrament, many were sick, diseased, weak, and died? Who may well say, that god would punish men so grievously, for the unworthy eating, and drinking of bare bread, and wine? Doth it not them now appear plainly that Saint paul ment that Christ's body is really in this sacrament, and that my lords exposition of saint Paul'S words is vain, & false? Farther he maketh an answer unto Saint Austen, which doth plainly affirm, Contrae cres conium lib. 1. cap. 25. that evil man do eat Christ's body, and drink his blood unworthily in the sacrament and are thereby guilty of Christ's body, and blood, although Christ sayeth, he that eateth not my flesh, and drinketh not my blood joan. 6 shall not have life in him, and sayeth, that Austen mente not of the eating of Christ's very flesh, and of his blood, but of the sacrament, or of the bread and wine, which are signs and figures only of them. This is a wonderful fond and a blind wreastinge of Saint Austin's words? For he sayeth manifestly that sinners do eat Christ's flesh and drink his blood in the receiving of the sacrament, and my lord sayeth that he meant that only of the bread and wine. I deny not that Austin's intent was there, to prove that good things avail not them, that do evil used them. But what thereof? Is that enough to prove, that he meant that ill men receive not Christ's very body, flesh & blood in the sacrament? What learned man would make any such argument, as this is? A good thing availeth not the ill receiver of it, ergo the ill receiver receiveth it not. S. Austen meant, that good things il Aduersus Cresconium. lib. 1. ca 25 used profit not the ill user, and for an example he bringeth fourth Christ's flesh and blood, the receiving of which availeth not, but hurteth them that do ill and unworthily take them, although christ said that he, which eateth and drinketh not his flesh and joan. 6. blood, shall not have life in him. What may a man desire to be spoken more plainly? Also S. Austen openly affirmeth that the wicked man judas received the body and blood of christ De baptismo contra Dontistas'. lib. 5. ca ●. and ye say, my lord, that he received them not, but only bread and wine, as a figure of them. What anusweare is this? Is it not a manifest subverting of the truth? Who will believe such teachers, if he regard any thing the health of his soul? It is very true, that sacraments be signs (as ye allege Aduersus Maximinum. lib 3. ca 22. August. ser. 28. de verbis secundum Lucan. out of S. Austen) of other things, & so is the sacrament of the altar à figne of Christ's death and passion, of the mystical body of christ the church and of Christ's natural body really the rin present. Was not the paschal lamb, the eating and oblation of him á figure of christ, of his body, his sacrifice, and passion, and yet he was verily offered in sacrifice, and eaten? Was not also Christ's death and resurrection Rom. 6. à figure of our dying unto sin, and rising up from sin unto á new life, and yet they were also very Rom. 4. things, and done in deed? doth not paul call christ a figure of god the Heb. 1. father's substance, and yet he is one thing with him, and of the very same substance, that he is of? Why then may we not well and truly say that the sacrament of the altar is both à sign, and the thing itself signified in a manner, as S. Austen sayeth Epistola 23. that it is? The sacrament properly consisteth in the outward and visible forms of bread and wine, and in the oblation and receiving of Christ's body and blood, and the thing of the sacrament is Christ's body and blood therein contained, and increase of god's grace, with other benefits of god, which only the good men receive. What if figures and pictures be often times called by the names of the things themselves figured, & pictured? Can ye prove thereby that the sacrament is so called of the old doctors a sign of Christ's body & blood, that it is only a sign of them, The bishop fo. 99 pa. 2 and that it containeth not the same in it really? No not so, for the doctors affirm that it is both á sign of those things, and hath in it presently them also. Now ye do wrest S. Chrysostoms' words clean out of tune. For he sayeth that we see christ with our eyes in the sacrament, touch him, feel him, fix our teeth in his flesh, taste him, and so fourth, but not digest him (as ye say falsely) because that we do all those things unto the outward kinds and forms of bread, and wine, which do hide and cover him there secretly. Which saying of him is much like unto the phrase or manner of speaking, which scripture useth, when it witnesseth that loath Note. Abraham, jacob, josuae, Mary Magdalen, and the apostles saw, touched, hand led, and hard angels, and god himself because they saw, touched, and handled, the shape or form of man Gene. 18. 19 32. josuae. 5. Mar. vlt. Act. 1. and hard his voice, under which form and shape those angels and god did then appear, and spoke unto them. And S. Chrysostom used that manner in speaking to persuade us the sooner both to believe Christ's body and blood to be really present in the holy sacrament, and also to receive them with greater reverence, and devotion. Ye now excuse yourself, my lord, for setting out of the presence of Christ's body and blood in the sacrament and say that when ye wrote in a catechism by you translated out of latin in to English, that we do receive This bishop recanted his first doctrine of the sacrament. Christ's body and blood bodily with our mouths, ye meant by à figure, that is to say, that we do eat and drink bread and wine figures and signs of them. This excuse is not true, for ye wrote so manifestly then of the really presence of Christ's body and blood both in the sacrament, and also in heaven at ones, that nothing might be written more plainly, and that neither ye could yourself, nor none other of your brethren other wise take it, and therefore ye perceiving that that doctrine did mislike and offend the rest of your brethren in christ, did shortly recant it, as it appeareth by the setting forth again of that The bishop fo. 10▪ pa. 2 The worshipping of ●he sacramen book called a catechism. Moreover ye writ of the adoration, and worshipping of the holy sacrament, or of christ himself, very ungodly speaking against all learned catholic doctors, and teachers, and affirming that they have brought the people in to horrible idolatry, to worship visible things, made with their hands, as their god, and maker. Is this, my lord your charity, so openly to report falsely of men? The old doctors did ever The confutation. teach the people, as we do now also teach them, that they ought not to worship the outward forms, and appearances of bread and wine, but only christ god, and man, under neath them present, as their only maker, and god, and are ye not, my lord, then ashamed thus untruly to say of them, and of us? The running of the people out of their seats, & from altar to altar, from sakering to sakering, the lifting up of the sacrament over the priests heads, do not prove (as ye say falsely they doth) that the people worshipped that thing, which they saw with their bodily eyes, but only christ god and man, whom they believed to be under that form of bread, and this may we do right well. For did not Abraham see three like men appearing unto him, ran forth to meet them, and fell down upon the earth and worshipped one of them, which was god appearing like á man? did not also loath see two angels, like two men, and rose up, went to meet them, & falling down grevelinge unto the ground whorshipped them? What did they worship then, else but god, and his angels, which they saw not, being ynvisible, but only the shape and form of man? Why then may we not go to see christ in the sacrament, say we saw him and whorshippe therein him Both god and man, although we see him not there, as jacob did not see god, and yet he said that he saw him, because he saw the form of man, in which he Gene. 32. appeared to him? Came not the kings of colen to see christ, and did worship Matth. 2. him upon their kneenes, and worshipped not the thing, that they saw, but his godhead? Said not saint 1. joan. 1. John, that he, and his foloes the apostles saw, hard and felt with their hands, that thing, that was even from the be ginning, the son of god, when they saw, hard and felt only christes manhood? Tell me then why we may not say, that we have seen christ our maker in the holy host and sacrament, when when saw but the outward sensible form of bread, under the which he lieth hid? We do go from place to place (I grant) to see the sacrament, but not to worship the thing apearinge Mark. outwardly to our bodily eyes, but that only that we see there by faith, as loath, Abraham, and the three kings went not forth to honour and worship that thing, which they saw bodily, but that that they believed and saw then with their in ward eyes. Did not the king david offer sacrifices, caused 2. Regum. 6 instruments of music to make sweet melody, danced and played afore the ark of god? But he did those things not to worship the ark, but god, and therefore he said that he danced, leapt, and played before our lord? And to touch the matter yet some what nearer, hear what s. Austen sayeth. He Lib. 3. cap 9 De doctrina christiana. that worshippeth a profitable sign instituted of god, the strength, and signification of which he understandeth, doth not worship the thing, that is see ne, and passeth away, but rather that thing, unto which all such things must be referred. Hitherto Austen. Now we see plainly that after S Austin's mind, we might honour the sacrament, if it were but a sign only ordained of god, so that we did refer that worshipping unto christ represented & signified by it, how much more than is it leeful, yea godly, to go to see and worship the sacrament, or the host, & chalice lifted up over the priests head at mass, referring that honour unto god, saying that the sacrament is not only a sign instituted of god, but it doth also contain in it christ very god & man? Lib. de cathechy Zaudis rudibus cap. 2●. Sayeth not s. Austen again, sacraments are visible signs of godly things, but the invisible things themselves are honoured in them? He answereth now unto this place of Austen, part of which he doth only allege, lest it should hurt In psal. 98. his matter. Christ tokeflesh of the flesh of mary, and because he walked here in the same flesh, & gave unto us the self same flesh to be eaten for our salvation, & no man eateth that flesh, except he worship it before, it is found out how such a forestole of our lords feet may be worshipped, and that we should not only not sin in worshipping of it, The honour of the holy sacramed but sin in not worshipping of it. These words of s. Austen declare plainly, both that christ gave unto us to be eaten in the holy sacrament, that same flesh, that he took of his mother, & also that every man sinneth, that worshippeth it not before he eat it in the sacrament, & my lord sayeth that he He followed peter Martyr therein. giveth us to eat only bread, & wine, & that austen ment, that we must worship christ sitting in heaven at the right hand of his father, and not in the sacrament, when he spoke only of the eating and worshipping of Christ's flesh in the sacrament, as his own words show that In psal. ●8. follow anon after, when he sayeth. I have committed unto you a certain sacrament, it shall give life unto you, if it be spiritually understanded. Although it be necessary, that it be visibly celebrated, yet it must be invisibly under stand Loo, we see here that s. Austen spoke of the sacrament & of eating of Christ's flesh, & worshipping of it therein, afore we do eat it. Therefore my lord mystoke him, & was therein utterly deceived. He untruly sayeth that we would persuade the people by s. Austin's words to worship the sacramental bread, & wine, or the visible thing in the sacrament, for we do say, and teach the people, that there is neither bread, nor wine in the sacrament and that no visible thing of the sacrament must be worshipped of itself (as S. Austen teacheth us) but only god. Now he goeth In psal. 98. Deutero. 6 about to prove that Saint Austen meant not, that Christ's flesh is corporally present, and eaten corporally in the sacrament, Fo. 102 pa 2 by these his words, written there also. But the flesh profiteth nothing, the words, which I have spoken unto you, are spirit and life. In psal. 98. That, which I have spoken, understand you spiritually. You shall not eat this body, which you, see, and drink that blood, which they shall shed, that will crucify me. I have commended unto you a sacrament, understand it spiritually, and it shall give you life, etc. Here is not one word, my lord, that proveth your purpose, for his words à little afore recited there, do declare what he meaneth. For these are his words expounding this text of Ihon. Except a man eat the flesh of the son joan. 6. of man, etc. They took that foolishly, they thought of it carnally, and judged that our lord would cut of from his body certain pieces, and give them unto them to eat, and they said, this is a hard saying. He instructed them, saying. The spirit giveth life, but the flesh profiteth nothing, etc. Dost thou not see here, reader, that Saint Austen meant not to deny the corporal and real being, and eating of Christ's body in the sacrament? For he meant that flesh, that is to say, such à fleshly and foolish understanding of Christ's words, werby they thought that christ would that they should eat his flesh cut out in pieces ●er. 2. de verbis apost (as common meats are eaten) and not alive and whole without all hurt done to it, profiteth nothing, but the spirit, that is to say, à spiritual understanding of his words, that they should eat his flesh alive, joined unto his spirit, and godhead, whole, and not harmed in any thing, giveth life. And so he would that they should not think that they should eat that his body, which they saw, after any such manner and as they saw it in that same form of flesh visibly, but invisibly (as he sayeth there) nor drink the blood, which the jews should shed forth in that form of blood, in which it should be shed out, and visibly. This meant he, as his own words afore recited declare plainly, and therefore those words, which my lord allegeth for him, maketh nothing for him at al. The end of the fourth book. The fifth book of the sacrifice of the holy mass. Although, ye, my lord, do say, without any good ground, that it is a great blaspheme ye against christ, to say that in the mass is made a sacrifice propitiatory for sin, yet all the eldest, and best learned doctors that ever were, are utterly against your error therein, as I have declared, touching The bishop fol. 104. many of them in my book of the sacrifice of the holy mass, and as I will anon, by god's grace, prove by some of their sainges briefly. We make no sacrifice The confutation. Luc. 22. at mass, but only as ministers of christ, which bade us so to do, & offereth himself daily for us therein, and therefore ye are deceived at the beginning of this your book, when ye say, that priests do make their mass a sacrifice propitiatory for the sins of the quick and dead, as never no creature made, but christ alone, and that one's only for all upon the cross. And to prove this ye allege S. Paul which spoke there to the Hebrews of Christ's Hebr. 9 10. bloody sacrifice made by his death only, which he offered never but once (as he sayeth) or else he must needs have died more than once, for as much as that kind of sacrifice is necessarily joined with his passion, but this maketh nothing utterly against the sacrifice of the mass, in which christ himself turneth the substance of bread, and wine in to his own very natural flesh and blood, and offereth How, and in What sense the mass is a sacrifice. them in a remembrance of his death for the application of his passion, and the merit of it for remission of the sins, both of the quick and the dead, as all holy doctors both Graekes and latins, do witness Fo. 105. plainly, of whose sentences I will allege some anon. But here I ask of you, my lord, why may not Christ every day be offered in sacrifice without dying again for us, as well as he was slain (as John sayeth) even from Apocal. 13. the beginning of the world, and yet he suffered death not many thousand years after? Were not the sacrifices of Abel, Isaac, of the paschal lamb, and many other sacrifices of the old law, certain figures of Christ's sacrifice them Exodi. 12. 1 L●●●ti. 24. Gene. 4. to come upon the cross, and were offered to put men in mind of it? What then should let, my lord, that the mass might not be a sacrifice for a remembrance of Christ's passion and death now passed, as well as they were of it to come, & that this sacrifice should not as well be an application of Christ's merits unto us for remission of our sins, as they were? I am very sure, Lib. 17 ca 20 De civitate Dei. that ye are not able with the help of althem, that made this your book to avoid this. Austen writeth after this sort therein. Solomon sayeth A man hath nothing that god is to him, Ecclesiastes 8. but that thing, which he shall eat, & drink. What thing more credible may here be understanded to say than that which doth pertain to the partaking of this table? Which that priest the mediator of the new testament giveth of his body and blood after Mark this reader. the order of Melchisedech. For that sacrifice hath succeeded all the sacrifices of the old testament, which were offered in a shadow of it to come. Wherefore we do acknowledge that voice of the same mediator written in the Psal. 39 psalm, by the prophet. Thowe wouldest not have (said christ the son to his father) a sacrifice & an oblation, but thou madest me a perfect body for because in the stead of all those old sacrifices, and oblations Christ's body is offered in sacrifice, and ministered Three errors confuted here. unto the partakers. Here are three of your errors, my lord, confuted. The first that Melchisedech offered not sacrifice in bread and wine for a figure of Christ's sacrifice made at his last supper. The second that christes body and blood are not in the holy sacrament but only bread, and wine. The third that Christ's body is not offered in sacrifice at mass. We do confess that Christ's sacrifice made upon the cross was full, perfect, sufficient, and did & doth still put away the sins of all them, that believe perfectly in him, trust in god's mercy, repent their illyves, and receive the holy saeramentes, by which, as means, that Christ's sacrifice is, and needs must be applied unto them, and therefore it cometh not of any imperfection of Christ's sacrifice, once made for ever upon the cross, that his blessed body is offered daily in sacrifice for our sins, but only to apply that perfect sacrifice unto us, for to take away actually our imperfectenes of sin. This a unswear is sufficient for the soiling of all that is brought out of S. paul's epistle unto the hebrews. Now ye make a distinction of sacrifices, saying, that there is one kind of sacrifices a propitiatory, or a merciful sacrifice, that is to say, such as pacyfieth god's wrath and indignation, & obtaineth mercy for our sins and forgiveness of them, which is only Christ's death, & sacrifice made once for all upon the cross. Which no good christian man The confutation. denieth. But what then? Canye thereby prove, my lord, that christ offereth not himself yet daily at mass, by the priest as his ministre, for an applying of that his propitiatory, and most merciful sacrifice, made never but once? May not the sacrifice of the mass made in a remembrance of Christ's death, and bloody sacrifice, be as well a mean to apply Christ's passion and sacrifice made upon the cross unto us for remission of our sins and the obtaining of god's mercy, through the force and virtue of it, as many sacrifices of the old law, made to signify & figure the same his death and sacrifice were applications of it for remission of sin, and the pacyfing Mark reader. of god's wrath, and indignation not through their own strength, virtue and merit, but through the virtue and merit of Christ's bloody sacrifice to come of which they were figures representations, and shadows? For bade not god by Moses, that Aaron, and his sons, should offer sacrifices, that Exode. 24. Exode. 32. Num. 15. were called, victimae pacificae, & sacrificia placabilia, that is to say, sacrifices to pacify god's wrath, and to appease his indignation? Did god then bid them commit blasphemy against christ, and to rob him of his honour, and glory, which consisteth in reconciling of mankind unto god's Exodi 9 favour, and grace? Did they not then offer at his commanding sacrifices for sin, to obtain god's mercy, as priests do now at mass, although not so perfectly, neither the same things, but only figures, & shadows? Were not their sacrifices means to apply Christ's death, and sacrifice then to come, unto the people for remission of their sins, and the purchasing of mercy and grace, as the sacrifice of the mass is, although not in like degree? Why then are priests now more injurious to christ, than the priests were then in Moses law? Did they not as well deprive christ of his honour, & took it unto themselves, as priests do that now say mass, and offer sacrifice therein for sin? If ye did well understand the matter, my lord, ye would not so rail without all charity upon Io. 1. 10. priests,, as ye now do. Is not christ called 2. Timo. 2. the light, a good pastor, the only mediator of god and man, he that baptizeth, and many such other things, and yet preachers of his gospel are the light of the world, pastors, mediators between god and man by prayer, and offering of gifts and sacrifices Hebr. 5. (as paul sayeth) for sin? Why then may they not be called, in some sense, as well workers with christ in reconciling of man unto good, as his ministers? Is it not Christ's office as well to christian (for John baptist sayeth he it is that baptizeth) and to be intercessor joan. 1. for man unto god, as it is to reconcile man unto god by offering 1 Tim. 2. of sacrifice? Is not the sacrifice of prayer, repentance, contrition of heart, alms, fasting, and such other things, means to purchase god's favour, & mercy, as it appeareth plainly in the scripture? May they not then be esteemed well sacrifices to pacify god's wrath, and to obtain, of him mercy and grace through the merit of Christ's passion, and sacrifice made thereby, notwithstanding that only christ satisfied sufficiently for our sins, and reconciled us unto god by his only sacrifice? Did ye not then, my lord, ill & unlearnedly divide the kinds of sacrifices in this your book? Who, but you, will say that that repentance and contrition of a sinner's heart, is a sacrifice of a reconciled man, and of laud? It is also a perilous error, that ye do teach, my lord, when ye say that christ did so purge an infinite heap of sins by his one oblation, that he remitted them, acquyeted our consciences and that there remaineth now utterly no sacrifice for sin. For as I deny The confutation. not, but he did merit and deserve by his death grace, and mercy for remission of all the whole worlds sins, even so he remitted yn effect and actually, when he died, the sins of very few, for he suffered for us (as paul sayeth) Ro. 5. when we were yet gods enemies, and sinners. For if he had in deed remitted men's sins actually, and acquyeted their consciences in act (as ye writ here) why then said saint Ro. 6. paul that we die unto sin in baptism? Why then said he that christ Ephes. 5. purgeth his spouse the church from sin by baptism? Why bade saint Peter after Christ's passion, that the Act. 2. people should repent, that every one of them might be baptised for remission Matth. 6 of their sins? Why commanded Luc. 24 than christ men to ask remission of their sins, and bade his apostles after his resurrection to preach penance for remission of sin? Why said also saint John, that if we do say that 1. joan. 1 we have not sin in us, we say not truly? And if we do confess our sins god will forgive them us? and that there is à sin unto death? Doth it not 1. joan 5 then openly appear, that christ did only merit, and purchase grace, and remission of our sins by his passion and that actually he remitted them not, nor quieted men's consciences, (as ye say untruly, my lord, that he did) but that the actual remission of them, and quyetinge of men's consciences must be obtained by faith, hope, fear, repentance, prayer, alms deeds, fasting, charity, and receiving of the holy sacraments? Who sayeth The bishop fo. 10. lib. 5. that priests do merit or deserve remission of sins by their sacrifice made at mass? say we not that only christ merited and deserved remission of sin by his death, and bloody sacrifice Rom. 3. made upon the cross, (as paul sayeth) and that the sacrifice made in the mass by christ himself chiefly, and of the priest as à minister at his commandment, is only an application of that his merit unto men for the free and frank remission of their sins? Who is so mad to say, (as ye feign that we do) that the act, or administration of a priest hath the same office, that christ executed in offering Fo. 108 himself upon the cross for us? We say not that Christ's sacrifice is imperfect, nor unsufficient, but most perfect and sufficient in itself for the remission of all the worlds sins, and yet the most part of the world shall be damned, through their own default, and through want of 1. Fo. 2 Matth. 22. application of Christ's death, and therefore christ said, that his blood should Matth. 26 be shed for many and not for all, and saint Paul witnesseth, that christ offered himself to consume away Heb. 9 many men's sins, and not all, because many men (sayeth upon that text Chrisostom) will not do their duite, Christ's sacrifice is in itself, sayeth he, sufficient to save all men and he saveth all, Heb. 7 as much as lieth in him. Now ye allege saint Paul, saying, that The bishop Christ's priesthood can not pass from one to an other. Which sentence maketh The confutation. nothing for your purpose to prove that priests offer not sacrifices for sin. For who sayeth that Christ's priesthood passeth from him to any Psal. 109 priest? say we not with the holy ghost speaking in David, and saint Paul, Heb. 7 that he is a priest for ever? We affirm and teach that he himself offereth his body, and blood daily at mass by the ministery of the priest, as he joan. 1. 10. 1. Cor. 3. doth continually baptise, and preach unto the people by his ministers the priests. My lord ye understand not Saint paul, for he only meant, that no other priesthood should ever succeed Christ's priesthood, as his priesthood did Aaron's, but that it should 1. Cor. 11. endure until the worlds end. Wherefore, saying we say, that christ ever continueth a priest still, and that we priests are but his ministers, executing his office, by his own commission, saying. Do ye this in remembrance Luc. 22. of me, my lord reproved us without a just cause. What needeth any more The bishop fo. 128. lib. 5 sacrifices if Christ's sacrifice be perfect, and sufficient? Sir the sacrifice The confutation. of the holy mass is not an other sacrifice then Christ's, but the very self same sacrifice concerning the things offered, which are his body and blood. Again this sacrifice of the mass is not made for any unperfectenes, or unsufficiencye of Christ's death and sacrifice, as ye would make men believe that we do teach), but only to apply it unto us for our imperfectenes through our sin. May I not prove by a like reason grounded upon the perfectenes and sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice, that we shall all be saved, and that none of all should be damned and that we need not to believe, hope, fear god, repent our lives sinfully spent fast, pray, give alms, receive the sacraments, nor to keep gods commandments at all? For may I not thus argue? Christ's sacrifice is sufficient to save me, what need I then to do any thing of my party for to add any thing unto that which is of itself perfect, and sufficient? Think ye not, my lord, that many of your scholars hath gathered such arguments, and will gather here after of your doctrine, & thereby cast all virtue aside, lead their lives in a lewd liberty, and Mark. say Christ hath perfectly, and sufficiently satisfied for me, I need to do nothing at all, for he will not lose, that he hath so dearly bought? Paul said (I deny not) that if Aaron's sacrifices Heb. 8 had been sufficient to have put away sin, Christ's sacrifice should not have been required. But what thereof? Will ye prove by that, that for as much as Christ's sacrifice is sufficient we need not the sacrifice of the mass? Is it not declared sufficiently in my book of the sacrifice of the mass and also here afore, that it is not for any unperfectness or insufficiency of Christ's sacrifice that the mass is a sacrifice As it was that Christ's sacrifice succeeded Aaron's. The bishop fo. 109. li. 5 commanded of christ (as it shall be proved anon) but only to apply that sacrifice unto us? But now ye object against our answer to your arguments, which is, that we do make no new sacrifice, nor none other, than christ made himself at his mandy and upon the cross. Than The bishop say you, it must needs follow, that ye slay or kill Christ every day, for as much as Christ's oblation was made by his death, and effusion of his blood. No, sir, not so, for it is the same The confutation. sacrifice touching the things offered, that is to say, Christ's body and blood, but the manner of offering is not one one is bloody, & the other unblouddye, the one by death, and the other by the representation and commemoration of that death. Did not the fathers of the old law offer christ in figures, and shadows, which admonished Apoc. 13. them of his death, and yet they slayed him not in deed, although John sayeth, that he was slain even from the beginning of the world? Why then may we not offer his body and blood in the sacrament, in which he Epist. 23. is daily offered (as Saint Austen sayeth) for the people, without killing of him? Why should we not, my lord, I be seche you, believe the holy church (which doth thus expound this matter,) as well as we do, and needs must, in many other things, that appertain unto our faith? Would ye, that we should believe you before all the ancient doctors of Christ's church both Graekes and latins of all ages? For they are altogether utterly against your doctrine? Why do ye not make answer unto my books of the sacrifice of the blessed mass, and of the sacrament of the altar? But now hear S. Chrysostom Homi. 17. in Heb. 9 which teacheth us how this may well be done, saying. Do we not offer sacrifices daily? We do offer, but doing it in remembrance of Christ's death. And this host is one, not many. How is it one, & not many? And that oblation was once offered in to heaven, but this sacrifice is an example of that, we do ever offer the self same thing. When offer not to day one lamb (christ) and two morrow an other, but ever the self same thing. Wherefore this sacrifice is one, or else by that reason that it is offered in many places, are they many Christ's? Nothing less, but there is one christ every were, being both here full, and there full, one body For as that, which is offered in every place, is one body, and not many bodies, even so it is also one sacrifice, but he is our bishop, which offered a sacrifice making us clean, we do offer the same, and that which then was offered, can not now be consumed. Hitherto chrysostom, out of whose words many notable lessons may be gathered for the confutation of all your railing reasoning, my lord, & false charging of all catholic teachers with many things, which they never dreamt upon. The first lesson is, that notwithstanding that saint paul affirmeth that christ was never but ones offered upon the cross, & that he made all them perfect with that his one sacrifice, which are made holy, yet priests do offer him daily at mass. The second is, that this our oblation of christ, is not a killing of him, but a remembering of his death. The third lesson is, that we offer daily, and ever one, and the self same host, or sacrifice, which can not be verified of bread and wine, for they are not one and the same in many places, but it is only true of Christ's body and blood, that are one, and the same in all places, where they be offered in sacrifice. The fourth lesson is, that the thing offered is the lamb christ, that is offered in sacrifice daily in many places, and yet he is but one christ, which is here upon this altar, and there (upon that) full, one body, and not many bodies, & one sacrifice. The fift lesson is, that priests do daily offer in sacrifice that same host, or sacrifice, which christ himself offered once by his death to cleanse us from sin. The sixth and last lesson is, that the host or sacrifice which priests do offer daily, can not be consumed, and therefore it is not bread, and wine, for they are soon consumed, but christes body & blood, which are not consumed in eating, and drinking of them, but they still ever remain whole, and safe. Now a man may see evidently that my lords doctrine is against saint Chrysostoms' belief and teaching, and that he raileth upon him, and his doctrine in this his last book. For first my lord sayeth, that priests have invented of themselves a new sacrifice, unto the great blasphemy, & yniurye of christ. But ancient doctors say that christ himself offered the same sacrifice (that priests offer at mass) both at his last supper, and upon the cross also, and commanded priests to offer it in remembrance of his death, as these autoritees do show manifestly. S. Ireneus above M. ccc lxxiiij. wrote thus Christ took bread and gave thanks saying. lib. 4. ca 32. Christ did institute the sacrifice of the mass. This is my body. And took the chalice of wine, and confessed it to be his blood, and he taught a new sacrifice of the new testament, which the church receiving of the apostles, offereth unto god in all the whole world This holy martyr, which was very night Christ's time, sayeth that christ taught his apostles at his mandy by say in he these words. This is my body. This is my blood, a new sacrifice of the new testament, & that the apostles taught it unto the church, which offereth the same in the whole world and my lord sayeth that christ offered not his body and blood in sacrifice at his last supper, nor taught his apostles to offer them in sacrifice, nor finally, that priests offer any sactifice more than the laite doth, but they have iwented a new sacrifice distincted from Christ's, iviurious and blasphemous unto it. What is this, if it be not plain blindness, and ignorance? Is this, my lord, your doctrine to be approved of the ancient doctors sainges? S. Cyprian agreeth with this, saying. Luc. 22. Epist. lib. 2. epist. 3. If our lord iusus christ, and god himself be the high priest of god the father, and he himself did first offer a sacrifice unto god the father, and hath commanded that same to be done in remembrance of him, that priest is verily christes vicar, which doth follow that thing, that christ hath done And then he offereth in the church á true, and a full sacrifice unto god. if he begin to offer, as he may perceive, that christ offered. And in the beginning of that epistle he sayeth, that christ is the author and teacher of this sacrifice of the mass, and bade priests Homi. 24. in 1. Cor. 10. offer it unto god, as he himself had done afore at his mandy. Chrysostom Homi. 2. in 2. time. 1. sayeth also thus. But christ hath prepared a much more wonderful, and a magnificent sacrifice, both when he changed the sacrifice itself, and also when he did command himself to be offered in the stead of brute beasts, which were offered in the Homi. 2. in 2 Tim. 1. old law. Again he writeth thus, that holy oblation, whether peter offer it, or Note this well. paul, or else a priest, what soever his deserving be, is the same sacrifice, which christ himself gave unto his disciples, and which also priests do now make. This the priests sacrifice hath in it nothing less, than that of Christ's making Why so? because men do not make holy this the priests sacrifice, but christ, that had made that his own sacrifice holy afore. For as the words, which christ spoke, are the same, that the priests do now also pronounce, even so is the sacrifice also the same. Then he concludeth saying. Wherefore this sacrifice is Christ's body, and that also. He that thinketh that this body hath any thing less than that, knweth not that it is christ. which is now also present, and worketh. Eusebius, which was about M cc years passed, Eusebius lib 1. ca 10. Demonst. evangelicae. holdeth also against my lords doctrine, saying, Wherefore after all things, christ wrought a certain marvelous host, and an excellent sacrifice, he offered it unto his father for all our salvation, and did ordain that we should offer a remembrance of that same thing to god himself for a sacrifice. Ambrose sayeth. I o lord, remembering thy passion, do come unto thy Primae precatione praeparante ad missam. altar, although I be à sinner, that I may offer to the that sacrifice, which thou didst ordain, and command to be offered for our salvation in remembrance De eccles. hierarch. of the. S. Dionyse paul's disciple writeth thus. Wherefore he both reverently, and also according to the office of a bishop, after holy praises of god's works, excuseth himself, that he offereth a sacrifice of salvation (which is excellenter than he is himself) criing out unto him. Thou didst bid, o lord. Do ye this for a remembrance of me. Ignatius Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 11. Epist. 8. S. Ihons' scholar sayeth. It is not leeful to offer, neither make sacrifice, nor to celebrate masses without the bishops authority or consent. finally, for I pass over many other doctors authorities, li. 10. ed. 20 de civitate dei. Austen hath thus speaking of Christ's bloody sacrifice made upon the cross. A sacrament of the which thing, he would that the daily sacrifice of the church should be, seiing he is the head of his body the church, and she also is the body of that head, as well she by him, as he by her, used to be offered in sacrifice, Now can my lord, justly, say that priests have invented Christ is offered in sacrifice. of themselves a new sacrifice against Christ's sacrifice, and that his doctrine is approved of all the ancient The mass is á sacrifice propitiatory for sin. doctors? Moreover let us see, whether this sacrifice of the mass, which we have now proved to be instituted of christ be a sacrifice for remission of sin, or not. Of which matter thus writeth Hom. 69. ad pop. Antiochenum & in cap. 1. ad phil.. Chrysostom. These things were not unadvisedly, rashly, or without cause ynacted or decreed of the apostles, that the dead should be remembered in the dreadful mysteries. For they do know that much good, & profit cometh unto them thereof. For whem the people Hebr. 5. shall stand holdyngup their hands with the priests, & the dreadful sacrifice is set forth, how shall we not obtain gods favour prainge for them? Again he sayeth. We must travail as much as may Homi. 41. in 1. Cor. 15 be that the dead may be helped, not with weapinge, but with prayer, supplications, almesses, & sacrifices. This thing was not invented without a cause nor we do not in vain remember the dead in the mass, nor we come not in vain thither, praying for them unto that lamb lying there, & taking away the sins of the world, but there doth come there of unto them some comfort. Ambrose affirmeth the same, when he sayeth. A lamb was offered afore, and a calf, now Lib. 1. cap. 48. officiorum christ is offered, but he is offered as a man, & as it were receiving passion, & he himself doth offer himself, as a priest, that he might remit our sins Oratione de obitu fratris sui Satyri. Again speaking of his brother Satyrus departed hence, he sayeth I commend unto the o god almighty, the innocent soul of my brother now dead. I offer to the my sacrifice. Take mercifully, and gladly the present or gift of a brother, the sacrifice of a priest. Again he saith untoone faustines comfortinge him lamenting the death of his sister. I judge that she is not so much to be lamented, as to be prayed for, nor so much to be wept for, as her soul to be commended unto our lord with sacrifices. He sayeth also thus. We have seen the prince of priests In psal. 38. coming unto us. We saw him & hard him offering for us his blood. Let us priests follow, as we may offer sacrifice for the people, although we be weak by our deserving, yet we are honourable through the sacrifice, for Lib. de heresibus. haeres. 53. albeit christ is not seen to be offered, nevertheless he is offered upon the earth, when his body is offered. Yea he is declared plainly to offer it in us, whose word maketh holy the sacrifice, which is offered. Saint Austen reproved Lib. 3 Aerius for an heretic as also Epiphaphanius did, because he said) as my lord, & his sect doth (that men should not pray for the dead, nor offer sacrifice for them & S Austen said thus in that In Enchir. cap. 110. & ad Dulcimun 4 ●e. 2 matter. It is not to be denied, that the souls of men dept, are relieved through the godliness of their friends alive when the sacrifice of our mediator Lege Aug. ser. 11. de sanctis. christ is offered for them or else alms be given for them in the church. But these things do profit them, which did deserve, when they lived, that they might afterward ꝓfite them. Anon after he saith thus. Therefore when sacrifices, either of the altar, or else of any manner of al-masses are offered for all the dead, which were baptised, they are thanks giving Note this. for them, that be very good people, & for them, which are not very bad, they are propitiations, or purchasinges of mercy & favour of god. But whom they do perfect, either they profit unto this thing that there may be full remission, or else at the least, that the pain should be made more tolerable. What can, ye, my Tolerabilior fiat iposa damnatio. lord, say now to this? For sayeth not here S Austen plainly, that the sacrifice of the mass is a sacrifice propitiatory for the sins of the dead? Why deny ye it them, and yet say that your doctrine is apꝓued of the old doctors & agreeable unto the faith of the primative church of christ? I do remember well, At lambeth my lord, that about three years sense, when ye reasoned with me in this matter of purgatory, & I did allege this place of s. Austen, ye said unto me, that Austen was deceived here, because he sayedut tolerabilior fiat ipsa damnatio that their damnation, or pain might be made more easy to be borne, but ye did not understand s. Austen, for he spoke not those words of the damned in hell (as ye then said, that he did) but only of them, that depart not very ill, & had deserved whiles they lived here, that such sacrifices might profit them after their death (as he sayeth) for as concerning the damned, whom he calleth very bad, he affirmeth that such things help not them. Austen saith also serm. 32. deverb apost. It is not to be doubted but the souls departed are helped by the holy churches prayers, and the sacrifice of salvation, and alms, when they be given for them, that god should deal more mercifully with them, than their sins had deserved. He sayeth Epist. 44. yet once again, thus. We must believe that sacrifices do help verily some what the souls departed out of this life. Hear now S Alexander that holy martyr, which was within lxxxxx years after Christ's death, and writeth thus. Our lords passion must be recited in all solennites of masses, that are offered unto our lord, that his passion, whose body & blood are made, may be celebrated. The masses sacrifice is propitiatory. For crimes & sins are put away through these sacrifices offered unto our lord, and therefore his passion must be also remembered, & often recited Mark reader. & this body & blood offered unto our lord. With such sacrifices our lord will be delighted & pacified, & will for give great sins, for among sacrifices there can be nothing greater than our lords body, & blood. There is no sacrifice better than this, but this excelleth all other, which must be offered unto our lord with a pure conscience, & received with á clean mind, and worshipped The honour of the holy sacrament of the altar. of all men. And as this sacrifice is better than other, even so it ought to be rather much made of & worshipped Here are improved three of my my lords errors. The first against the making Here are. of Christ's body in the sacrament, & the real presence of it therein. The second Three errors confuted. that the mass is not a sacrifice for sin, & that the priest maketh no more sacrifice at mass, than a lay man doth, but only ministereth the sacrament unto the people. The third against the worshipping of the holy sacrament. But Lib. 4. ca 14 nove hear s. damascene, saying. This is the pure, and unblouddie sacrifice, which our lord saith by the prophet Malach. 1 is offered unto him from the aeste unto the west, forsooth Christ's body & blood for the establyshement of our soul, & body. Now to let pass many other writers sainges, I will speak of cyprians mind, Cyprianus▪ De coena dmini. & of one or two more, & then so end this chapter & book Cyprian saith. After our lord had said, this is my body & this is my blood, do ye this in my remembrance, as often as the thing is done with these words & this faith, the bread Mark. & the cup made holy with a solemn blessing, perfecteth unto the life & salvation of the whole man, being both a medicine, & a sacrifice also to heal sucknesses, & to purge sin. The same holy Lib. 1. epi. 9 martyr witnesseth tgat the bishops had made a decree before is time that he should not be prayed for oft priest at the altar nor any sacrifice made for Mark. his soul departed hence, that did make a priest executor of his testament, because that he deseruerth not to be prayed for at the altar, or that any sacrifice should be offered for him at the altar, which calleth priests from the altar. Doth not this ordinance of those bishops, whichwere before saint Cyprians time, and the allowing of the same by Cyprian, declare plainly, that the sacrifice of the mass was then judged to be available for the dead, & Homi. 37. incuangelia propitiatory for their offences? Who then now seeth not manifestly, that your doctrine, my lord is not approved (as ye say it is) of the ancient doctors but that they are utterly against it S. Gregory, which was above D ccccxl years passed, writeth thus also agrinst your doctrine. Let us send, brethren, unto god our ambassadors, by weapinge, giving of alms, and offering of holy hosts. For the sacrifice of the holy altar, offered with weapinge & devotion of mind, doth singularly help unto our absolution from sin. For as often times as we offer unto him the sacrifice, or host of his passion, so often we do repair unto us his passion, for our absolution. Again, after he had recited a story, that a man's chains, which was in preson, were lo used by one's saying mass for him, he writeth thus. Whereof then gather ye, most dear brethren, how much the holy host offered of us may louse in us the bant of our heart, if it offered of an other could louse the bands of the body in an other. Many of you, dearly beloved brethren, have known cassie the bishop of the cite Naruia, which daily used to offer sacrifice to god, in so much as that no day almost of his life passed away, upon which he offered Haymo in ●. Cor. 11 not unto god hostiam placationis, an host of pacyfiing, or a sacrifice of appeasinge god's wrath. Hitherto S. Gregory. This confirmeth Haymo a bishop, which was above seven hundred Mark years passed. That flesh, which christ took of his mother, and the bread, that priests do consecrate, are not two bodies, but they make one body The real presence of Christ's body in the sacrament. of christ, in so much that, whiles this is broken and eaten, christ is offered in sacrifice and eaten, and yet he abideth still whole alive. And as that body, which he offered upon the cross, was offered for our salvation and redemption, even so is this bread daily offered unto god for our salvation & redemption, which is Christ's body, although it seam bread. For our The mass is a sacrifice for sin lord, and redeemer providing for our frailness, because he knew us frail to commit sin, hath given this sacrament unto us, that for as much as he can not now die, and we do sin daily, we should have a very true sacrifice by which we might be made clean from sin. Wherefore I letting pass now many authorities of the ancient doctors, that do set forth this matter plainly, exhort meant nothing to doubt of this, doctrine, but to believe with S To. Io. se●igi. de tempore. Austen that sayeth thus. What so ever and who so ever he be, he is no christian man, that is not in Christ's church. For it is only the church, by which our lord receiveth gladly sacrifice. In one house the lamb is eaten, for as much as in one catholic church vera hostia redemptoris Exo. 12. immolatur, the very host of our redeamour is offered in sacrifice. Unto whom with the father and the holy ghost be honour and glory for ever. Amen. Certain faults. Leaf, Page, The line, read 2 1 5 of the 2 2 5 worthiness 2 2 11 bishop 2 2 18 Author 2 2 21 adjoined 3 1 1 bishop 3 1 12 plainly 7 2 15 saviour 10 2 6 sitteth 22 1 the last wythyn 24 2 23 an altar 25 2 23 our 26 1 22 sacrifice 30 1 8 precious 32 2 21 Transubstanti 39 1 21 sitteth ation 41 1 10 after 45 1 1 these words 45 1 11 mention 45 2 9 great 46 2 1 for 46 2 24 apostles 52 1 14 race out them 60 2 4 the selt 60 2 5 which 63 2 11 Appointed that 71 1 20 your every 72 1 18 but how 72 1 22 if they 72 2 24 bread 73 1 3 contraryly 78 1 11 altar 79 2 6 plainly 87 2 3 maketh 88 2 20 in 88 2 24 nor the 89 2 12 which he 91 2 3 in all 94 1 9 there are 94 2 4 almighty 94 2 22 them 95 2 8 which 117 2 17 the other that 118 1 1 ynt out these worlds for ever 118 1 16 also hath 119 1 20 sacrifice 119 1 1 to god 119 2 21 of 120 1 15 whether 120 1 20 out 121 2 24 which 127 2 9 cavilling 133 2 13 life 133 2 15 through THE END. A un SEVL DIEV HONNEUR ET GLOIRE. Est jesus Christ pain vif an sacrament: Ses fils par grace, en mangent dignement. Quant plus l'article a croire est difficile, Cheoir en erreur tant plus yeast facile. Christ dit son corps estre an sacrament: voire Sans autre prowe, a son dire fault croire. DEUM COLE. De tout ton coeur, de ta force, & puissance, Rents gloire a Dieu, honneur & reverence. Encontre tous par parolle notable, Dois soustenir ce qui est veritable. Devant toute oewre, en toute place, & lieu, Donne lovenge, & gloire a un seul Dieu. En chaschun case iuge par equitè. L'homme prudent aim le veritè. FIN.