to his disciple but the sonne of God ascending leaft to vs his flesh And Elias did so but him selfe being depriued of his cloke but Christ both leaft it vnto vs ascended hauing the selfe same vvith him Therefore let vs not fainte in courage For he that hath not refused to shed his bloud for vs all and hath communâ—cated vnto vs his flesh and the self same bloud againe he vvill refuse nothing for our saluation These are S. Chrisost wordes which tende to set forth not a similitude but an opposition not an equalitye but a supereminent excellencie in our Sauiour I wil shew you an other maner of thing saith this holy father far greater then that of Elias And how so and wherein standeth that so great and singuler difference In this That Elias leaft his cloke but the sonne of God his flesh which none but the sonne of God could doe Againe Elias leauing his cloke loste it and so was bereaft of it but Christ the sonne of God as a worke proper to his diuine maiestie both leaft his flesh with vs in the world and yet lost it not but caried the same flesh with him in to heauen Furthermore Elias tooke some paynes for the sauing of his people but neuer shed his bloud for them much lesse could he impart to them the same for this was aboue the compasse or reach of humaine imbecillitie But Christ both shed his bloud for our redemption and againe imparted vnto vs the self same bloud as the same doctor sayth elswhere Quod est in calice id est quod fluxit è latere et illius sumus participes That vvhich is in the chalice is that vvhich gushed out of his side and vve are partakers thereof This is the most euident speach and sense of S. Chisostome and no man I suppose can be so simple but he may forthwith see how well this matcheth with the doctrine of the catholike church how dissonant it is from the preaching of your congregation especially if he know your doctrine a right and be not deceaued with your fantastical painted words which you sometymes vse to beguile simple sowles seeming to aduaunce that very hyghly and magnifically which in deed your selues esteeme most basely coÌ„temptibly For thinke you of your CoÌ„munion otherwise then as of common bread and wine withouâ— al grace vertue or sanctificatioÌ„ with a bare figure of Christ absent which figure your selues caÌ„ not explicate nor shal be euer able to geue reasoÌ„ but you haue or may haue as good figures at your common breakfastes diners and suppers This is your faith in that poynt yf you be Zuinglians and beleeue as the church of Geneua The Eucharist saith Zuinglius or communion or lordes supper is nothing els but a coÌ„memoration in the vvhich they that firmely beleeue them selues to be reconciled to god the father by Christes death bloud sett forth his liuely death that is praise it geue thankes and preach And when Luther obiected to him that he and his felow heretikes were diuided amongst them selues he answered thus vvhereas thou sayst Luther that there are sectes amongest vs it is false both I Carolostadius OecolaÌ„padius and the rest auouch that the bread and vvine be only figures mary vve shift the vvords of Christ after a diuers maner verba diuersimodè expedimus And in an other booke against Luther It is to be noted saith he that Paule 1. Cor. 11. after the vvordes of the institution calleth it no othervvise then bread and the cuppe For he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is this bread of the supper or that bread hunc hunc paneÌ„ qui praeter panem non est quicquam amplius this bread this bread I say vvhich is nothing els but bread Al which he there expresseth by a playne similitude in this sort Behold this is the sacramental presence of Christ in this supper as the Emperour or the King of Fraunce are said to be in the kingdome of Naples because their banners or signes be there vvhereas in the meane season the one of them liueth in Spaine the other in FrauÌ„ce But the bread and vvine are no more one and the same thinge vvith Christes body and bloud then those kinges banners be the very kinges them selues because they note vnto vs the maiestie and povver of the kinges And that you cauill not that this is not the faith of your Geneuian church so shrowde your selfe in your ordinarie cloude of wordes whereby you seeme to speake honorably of this sacrament heare you what Theodore Beza writeth whom you extoll so highly Dico impudeÌ„tes esse calumniatores c. I say they are impudent slauÌ„derers vvho imagine that there vvas euer any coÌ„trariety betvvene the doctrine of these most excellent men Zuinglius OecolaÌ„padius and Caluine touching the sacramentes I say also that the selfe same faith in euerie respecte is proposed and defended in the Churches of Suizzerlande Sauoy and Fraunce in the Flemmish Scottish and as I thinke in the English churches also Wherefore this being your faith that in the Sacrament there is nothing but bread in such sort as hath bene declared I say with Zuinglius panis panis nihil amplius bread bread and nothing els now compare your faith with S. Chrisostome and see how handsomlie you can patch it together thus you must needes say Elias departing out of this worlde leaft his cloke but Christe leaft a thing of greater power and miracle for he leaft vs breade and wine Elias leaft his cloke and so loste it for he caried it not with him but Christ ascending leaft vs bread and wine and tooke vp bread and wine to heauen with him Againe where in Elias hath no part of coÌ„parison the bloud which Christ shed for our redemption that he imparted vnto vs in the chalice Here you must helpe me thorough for I know not what you wil say but sure I am one of these two it must needes be ether that Christ redeemed the worlde by wine which is the bloud of the grape and so coÌ„municated such wine and bread with vs and this standeth iumpe with your figuratiue supper Communion or that he redeemed the worlde with his owne pretious bloud and so communicated the same with vs in the B. Sacrament which is our faith mary you will none of that In conclusion aduise your selfe better what you write and thinke not with such balde toies to shake of such graue authoritie Regarde the wordes meaning and scope of the author so except you be to dul you can not be ignoraÌ„t but that you cleane peruert this father turne him quite vpside downe For whereas he would infinitely preferre that facte of Christ leauinge the sacrament of his body to his Christians before the facte of Elias leauinge his cloke to Elizeus for of our coÌ„uersinge with Christ in heauen by faith and vnderstanding here is no
affirmeth that no one euer so taught but euerie one taught the contrarie Thus he writeth in the same booke This truly is maruelous that no one of the fathers vvhereof the number is infinite euer spake of the Sacrament as do the Sacramentaries For none of them vseth such vvordes there is only bread and vvine or the body bloud of Christ is not there Surely it is not credible nay it is not possible vvhere as they talke againe and againe of these things but at some time at the lest once these vvordes vvould haue slipt out of their pen it is only bread or the body of Christ is not there corporally or such like But they al speake so precisely as though none doubted but that there vvere present the body bloud of Christ They al agreably and constantly vvith one mouth auouch the affirmatiue that it is there But our Sacramentaries can do nothing els but proclayme the negatiue that it is not there So Luther prince and father of this Gospel and so that Luther whose iudgmēt M.VV. preferreth before a thousand Austines a thousand Ciprians and as many churches and so at the leste more to be estemed then one M. Iewel though M.W. stand by him to helpe out the matter But this field is so large that the farther I go the farther I may therefore to breake of omitting S. Chrisostome who made 6. bookes of priesthode and neuer a one of ministerhode and therefore is not lyke to be an enemy to the sacrifice which in one part of that work he setteth forth so excellētly referring M. W. for the sacrifice to that which hath bene sayde before for the real presence to that which may by occasion be touched hereafter I wil end this matter wishinge the reader to carie in memorie M. Iewels challēge as an eternal example of his inexplicable impudency and rashnes thereby that he learne not to be moued with the bold coūtenāces of his aftercommers whose fashion is verie commonly to looke biglie when in deede settinge a syde the Tower racke Tiburne they can do nothing and then to crake vnmeasurably when besydes words and crakes and lyes they haue nothing to say which to haue bene the fashion of heretikes in his time S. Austin of old noted and we in our time finde true by experience And in this present quarel it can not be auoyded but ether Caluin Luther Beza Peter Martir Zuinglius Illyricus Bale principal Euāgelists gospellers be egregious lyers who tel vs that the fathers thus taught and thus beleeued of the Popes primacy of the sacrifice and real presence or els M. Iewel must take that to him selfe vnto whom in deede that qualitie was in a verie high degree an inseparable accidēt For in that propertie I beleeue verely he passed any one heretike that euer wrote since Christs tyme. CHAP. VIII Of Beza corruptly translating a place of scripture Act. 3. and of the real presence WHEREFORE leauing M. Iewel proceede we on in order to that which foloweth that is to Bezaes trāslatiō of the wordes of S. Peter Act. 3. in defending whereof you draw neere to the vayne I looke for and shew your selfe to be a scholer of him whose challenge you aduaūce so much For you do nothing els but dally in ambiguitie of words without any regarde of truth deceauing both your reader your self You say vvhē Beza trāslated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by this quē oportet quidē coelo capi vvho must be receaued in heauen he did it onely to auoide ambiguitie of speach vvhich is found in the other quē oportet coelū capere and the sense stil remaineth one For vvhereas Peter vvil say and teach that necessarily heauen must receaue Christ vntill the times that all things be restored this sense Beza deliuered most faithfullie in most conuenient vvordes For if heauen shal receaue Christ then necessarie it is that Christ be receaued of heauen vvhich thing cōmon sense might haue taught you For tel me I pray you M. Martin if the schole receaue and conteyne you are you not receaued conteyned of the schole Hauing obteyned thus much you fal into an idle talke that actiues or deponents may be rendered by passiues by example of Cicero whereof no man doubteth then cōclude that S. Gregorie Nazianzene doth affirme Christū 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This being the entier summe of your discourse gladly would I now learne of the reader whether he vnderstandeth hereby what you would say or what you go about to proue and reproue forsooth that the sense in a Greke writer is not hindered if a verbe deponent or actiue making the sentence doubtful and applicable to diuerse senses for playner vnderstanding in Latin be turned into a verbe passiue For so did Cicero in translating a sentence of Plato and so might you do in translating a sentence of S. Paule animalis homo non percipit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ea quae sunt spiritus spiritual things are not perceaued of a carnall man vvhere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a verbe deponent in Greke is vvell expressed in English by a verbe passiue You say wel and like a good scholer But is this al that M. Martin wēt about to shew and for which he found fault with Beza Certes it is al for ought I can cōceaue by your maner of defence but the thing it selfe is far otherwise For first although in common prophane writers where ordinarily in wordes and phrases there lieth no hid secrets or misteries to expresse doubtful Greke by vndoubtful Latin when if there be committed an error it importeth not greatly this is not so material yet in the word of God where ambiguous speaking yeldeth diuers senses and perhaps bothe or not that one which is taken principallie entended there for any mā of purpose to restraine that which the holy Ghost hath leaft at large it is to saucy and malapert if it be not wicked and impious For what if the meaning of Sainte Peter be here not that heauen should take Christ but that Christ should take heauen to rule and gouerne it euen to the end of the world according as els-where it is sayde Al things are deliuered me of my father to me is geuen al povver in heauen in earth againe thou hast put al things vnder his feete setting him on thy right hād aboue all principalitie and potestate and povver and domination and euery thinge that is named not onely in this vvorld but also in that to come But you wil say this is a false sense Suppose it be as perhaps it is not wil you take vpon you by Ciceroes authority as Beza doth oftētimes by Homers and Ouids to limite that which the Euangelist hath leaft at at large And see by this rash audacitie what confusion you bring and what a hotchpoch you make of the scriptures Suppose some other be
Next let him note that this his argument is the very shipwracke of Christian religion roote of al Paganisme destroyng our redemption destroyng our resurrection confounding and destroyng al the articles of our faith although it pretend the honor of god as wel writeth Caluin of Seruetus and the Anabaptists For what is the first corner-stone of the Seruetan and Anabaptistical buylding against Christes Incarnation Euen that which M. W. here tendereth them and was squared before to their handes by Zuinglius the Sacramentaries The Anabaptists I say vrging the selfe same Philosophical and Phisical rules obiect that the Papistes beleefe of Christes IncarnatioÌ„ of the Virgin besides that it is base and attributeth to much honor to that woman besides this is also against the rules of Phisicke and Philosophie and implieth a contradiction For ex arte medica Philosophia out of Philosophie and Physicke rules they fynd that vvomen are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore to say that Christe had a true humaine body as is ours and yet of a virgin without the seede of man was to saye he had a true humaine bodie in worde denie it in deed And if M.W. waygh the matter well he shal find their argument better then his and that it toucheth more intrinsecally the essence and origin of our nature to be conceaued of the seede of man that to be formed of a virgin is much more repugnant to nature and sith the beginning of the world hath bene wrought more seeldoÌ„ theÌ„ a body to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereof he talketh so peremptorily or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which others of his secte vrge is more to the purpose that is not circumscript nor visible nor local where of the first was practised in the self same body in his natiuitye resurrection ascension and in S. Peter Actorum 12. The second is more common and was not only in our Sauiour wheÌ„ the Iewes meante to haue throvven him dovvne headlong from the hill and he passing through the middes of them went his waye but also in Elizeus when the hoste of the King of Syria hauing him in the middes of them yet saw him not in S. Felix a martir priest of the citie of Nola of whom S. Paulinus bishop of the same citie writeth that in time of persequutioÌ„ when the citizens such as were infidels wel acquainted with him would haue appreheÌ„ded him they could not see or discerne him being in the middes of them although which is more straunge the faithful at the same instant saw him knew him and perceaued in him no difference or chaunge at al. So that at one and the self same time he was visible and inuisible knowen and vnknowen endued with his accustomed figure proportion and lineaments yet altered chaunged and so forth subiect to other such maruelous accidentes as M.W. fondly and falsly nameth contradictions The third is so far beneath the omnipotency of God that by the vulgar opinion of Philosophers the first heauen being a perfect natural body is notwithstaÌ„ding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in no place and therefore much more may we yeld this prerogatiue to Christ the Lord of heauen and earth whose worde wil is the very rule squyre of nature And let M.W. see how vrging so vehemently his proposition Chriâ—tes body is per omnia nostris corporibus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sauing glory and immortalitye and he hath all the propertyes of a true and humaine bodye how he will free him self from the filthy and wicked heresies of the Ebionites Nestorians Who vpon this general proposition may must inferre their opinions that Christ was begotten betwene our Lady Ioseph as other men are they may and must infer that Christ assumpted as wel the person as the nature of man the personalitie being a thing much more nylie and essentially ioyned to the nature theÌ„ are these accidental qualities of visible and circumscript which here are obiected Thirdly I answere that this absurdity was forseene by the auÌ„cient fathers who for al that were neuer induced to inueÌ„t this distinctioÌ„ that you haue fouÌ„d out that is to deny the verity of Christes presence Let vs euermore beleeue God saith S. Chrisostom albeit it seeme absurd to our sense cogitation that vvhich he saith albeit his vvords surpasse our sense and reason Thus as in al things vve ought to doe so especially in the sacramentes not beholding those thinges vvhich lie before our eyes but holding fast his vvordes For in his vvordes vve can not be beguiled but our sense is easely deceaued Therefore sith he said This is my body let vs beleeue it vvithout casting any doubt and vvith the eyes of our vnderstanding conceaue the same The lyke is vsed by diuers other fathers which they neuer needed to haue spoken nether could haue spoken with reason had their faith bene so agreable to the rules of Philosophie as you would now make it Fourthly I say that your owne brethren and maisters though in other heresies they agreed with you yet in this kind of argument detested and abhorred you So the Historiographers of Magdeburg in their fourth Centurie where they proue by many authorities of S. Ambrose S. Hierome S. Hilary S. Epiphanius S. Nazianzen S. Basil and others the verity of Christes presence dedicating the same to the Quenes Maiestie thus they speake vnto her And this most excellent Quene is not to be ouerpassed that vvhereas novv there grovv euery vvhere diuers as it vvere factions of opinions amonge vvhich some flatly by Philosophical reasons make voyd and frustrate the testament of our lord so as they take avvay the body bloud of Christ touching his presence and communication according to the most cleare most euident most true and most puissant vvordes of Christe and deceaue men vvith marueilous aequiuocation of speach principally your maiestie hath to prouide that the sacramentes may be restored vvithout such pharisaical leaueÌ„ c. And MelanchthoÌ„ whom Peter Martyr maketh equal for learning and godlines with S. Austin S. Hierom S. Leo the auncient fathers debating this matter with Oecolampadius There is no care saith he that hath more troubled my mynde then this of the Eucharist And not only my self haue vvayghed vvhat might be said on ether syde but I haue also sought out the iudgemeÌ„t of the old vvriters touching the same And vvhen I haue laid al together I find no good reason that may satisfye a coÌ„science departing from the propriety of Christes vvordes You gather many absurdities vvhich folovv this opinion as here we see in M.W. but absurdities vvill not trouble him vvho remembreth that vve must iudge of diuine matters according to Gods vvorde not according to Geometrie And not far after in the same booke I find no reason hovv I may depart from this opinion touching the real
question Elizeus might haue and had no doubt his minde in heauen with Elias by your commentarie and sense far greater was the facte of Elias then that of Christ For the cloke was a far better and more liuely figure of Elias then youre bread and wine is of Christ By it Elizeus receaued greate grace strength as writeth S. Chrisostome as by the which he fought agaynst the deuill and vanquished him That your bread should geue any grace it is agaynst your whole doctrine and Zuinglius laboureth to proue it at large in sundrie places callinge it papisticall to say that any sacrament euen baptisme doth aliquid momenti conferre ad sanctificationem aut remissionem peccatorum profite any iote to sanctifie or take avvay synne Elizeus by that cloke wrought straunge miracles so did you by your figuratiue bread neuer nor neuer shall so longe as the worlde standeth Briefly whereas Elizeus cloke cariynge with it such vertue and power was a thing surmounting the abilitie and reach of man and could not be done but by the omnipotencie of god your bread being nothing but a signe or banner as it were a may-pole or token of a tauerne by Zuinglius his owne confession the king of Fraunce or Spaine can make ten thousande as good And the truth is they can make much better because theirs do no harme wheras yours leade men the hye way to damnatioÌ„ Wherefore youre answere to this place of S. Chrisostome is to to fond and childish And hereby we may haue a gesse how substanciallye you are like to deale with the next which is taken out of the same father I must needes write it doune somewhat at large for the readers better vnderstanding of vs both It is in his thirde booke de sacerdotio where he setteth forth the high estate of the priestes of the new Testament and that acte wherein priesthode especiallye consisteth that is the sacrifice thus he writeth This priesthode it selfe is exercised in earth but is to be referred to the order and revv of thinges celestiall and that for good reason because no mortall man no angell no archangell no creature but the holy Ghost him self framed this order Terrible vvere the thinges dreadfull vvhich vvere before the tyme of grace in the lavv of Moyses as vvere the litle bells pomegranats pretious stones in the breast of the prieste the mitre golden plate sancta sanctorum c. But if a man consider these thinges vvhich the tyme of grace hath brought to vs he vvil iudge all those thinges vvhich I called terrible and dreadfull to be but light and though glorious yet not comparable vvith the glorie of the nevv testament as S. Paule saith This being laide before as it were a preface or preparatiue to that which foloweth he then coÌ„meth to that place out of which M. W. culleth certaine wordes For sayth he vvhen thou seest our Lord sacrificed and the prieste earnestlie intent to the sacrifice and pouring out his prayers and the people about him imparted and made red vvith that pretious bloud thinkest thou thy self to conuerse amongest mortall men and remaine on the earth And immediatly ô miraculum ô Dei benignitatem ô miracle ô singular goodnes of God he that sitteth vvith his father aboue at the self same moment of tyme is handled vvith all mens handes and deliuereth him self to those that vvill receaue and imbrace him and this is done playnlie in the sight of all men vvithout any deceate or illusion Of this place M. Martin inferreth that M.W. reasoning Christ is in heauen ergo not in the Sacramet is wicked refuted by the old fathers But M.W. replyeth no. And I vvil geue you your ansvvere sayth he out of the same place for here Chrysostome affirmeth that vve see our Lord sacrificed in the supper and the people imparted and made red vvith the bloud and that this is done in the open sight of all that are presente But vvho seeth ether our Lord truâ—y sacrificed or one droppe of bloud vvith vvhich the people are made red so as all see it as Chrisostome vvriteth Therefore as vve see Christ sacrificed and the people embrued vvith his bloud so vve receaue him in our handes In these vvordes Chrysostome vvould both amplifie the dignitie of priestes vnto vvhom Christ gaue povver to minister the Sacrament of his bodie and bloud and make the people afrayde that they vvhich come to this supper should bring vvith them godlie and religious myndes as though they should take Christ him selfe in their handes The substance of the answere is this Chrysostome in the same place sayth we see Christ offered which in truth is not so but by a figuratiue speach therefore when he saith Christ is in heauen and in the Sacrament it is not simplie true but by like phrase and figure But whereunto then tende al these great wordes and perswasions of this father to honour the priests office and make the people afrayed and were there priestes in the church in those days No. but by priestes you must vnderstand mâ—nisters and then a simili by the sacrifice he speaketh of that is the masse you must vnderstand the CommunioÌ„ that is by Catholike relâ—gion you must vnderstande heresie and by light darkâ—es But I wil go thorough the branches of this answere in order First whereas you make that a thing most assured and certaine that no man seeth Christ offered except you meane in your English supper you are greatly deceaued For in the church Catholike we see Christ offered and that not in phrase of speach only as the protestaÌ„ts may be said to do iniurie to Christ when they abuse his image but in veritie and truth of doctrine And S. Chrysostome with the rest of the fathers neuer thought or spake otherwise How oft hath S. Chrisostome quâ—d summo honore dignum est id tibi â—n terra â—stendam That vvhich deserueth most honor that vvil I shevv thee on earth and in the same place The royal body of Christ is in heaueÌ„ vvhich novv in earth is set before thee to be seene I shevv vnto thee not angels not archangels not heauens not heauen of heauens but I shevv thee the verie Lord him selfe of al these Perceauest thou not hovv not only thou seest in earth and touchest but receauest also the soueraine and principall thing that is And in the same place This body vvhich thou seest on the altar the vvise men adored in the manger But it were tedious to note out such places which are common in euery booke This rather I would wishe M. W. to vnderstand that where it hath pleased God in certaine creatures to exhibite his presence after a more special and singular sort there in a more special and singular maner truely we may ought to beleeue that we see our Lord. God is by essence power and operation present in euerie creature yet in seing a
beast or tree we may not say as Iacob doth in Genesis vidi dominum facie ad faciem I haue seene God face to face when he wrestled with the Angell or as Moses Aaron Nadab and Abiu in the mount viderunt deum Israel savv the God of Israel and vnder his feete as it vvere a vvorke of sapphyre stone or as the prophetes many tymes savv God sitting vpon his throne Which if it be true how much more boldlie and truely may we affirme that we see Christ in the B. Sacrament where we haue most certaine warrant that his humanitie diuinitie are presente after a most singular and effectual and substantial maner Our sauiour talking with the blinde man vnto whom he gaue sight sayd to him doest thou beleeue in the sonne of God he ansvvered said vvho is he lord that I may beleeue in him And Iesus said to him both thou hast seene him he that talketh vvith thee he it is and forthvvith he fell dovvne and adored him This by your opinion must be false because he only saw the external lineaments of a mortal man but saw not nor could see the sonne of God being him self God and god no man hath seene at any tyme and not only no man hath seene but nether can see for as God him selfe sayth non videbit me homo et viuet man shal not see me and liue Yet as Christ was truth it self so he taught truely and by reason of his diuine and eternal person ioyned to that humanitie the poore man saw the eternal soÌ„ne of God and so though after a far different maner those prophetes and Patriarches saw God And therefore to you it should not seeme straunge if S. Chrysostome and the Catholikes professe that truly they see Christ offered for most true it is It should seeme no more straunge I say then it was straunge for Christ to poynte to that which he had in his handes and gaue to his Apostles and say withal this which you see is my bodie and the same vvhich shal be deliuered for you which body deliuered for vs if it were Christ then the Apostles by Christes demonstration saw Christ and in such sort as we see him So that first I answere that your taking that for a thinge plaine and euident amongest vs which is cleane contrarie most false proceedeth of ignoraÌ„ce of the Catholike faith against which you write so coÌ„uinceth you of rashnes to refute that which you vnderstand not Next I say that you are as ignorant in the doctrine of your brethren the Lutherans for this they affirme as wel as we though far more absurdlye For reteyninge stil the substance of bread wine yet because of the real presence they acknowledge that bread to be the body of Christ and so see the body of Christe and applie hereunto that auncient rule of our forefathers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and thereby adore it and geue to it godlie honor and beleeue that they take receaue and touche Christe him selfe and accompte you not to be their brethren though you so basely will needes clayme their kinred but to be brethren of the old Ethnikes Apostataes who for like beleefe scorned mocked the auncient Christians as you do vs now So Martin Luther confirming that which in the first place I haue said of gods exhibiting him selfe to vs in creatures writeth thus Although Christe be euery vvhere in all creatures yet vve may not looke for him vvithout the vvorde VVherefore he hath appointed vs a certayne vvay to finde him hovv and vvhere he is to be sought and founde This they see not nether vnderstande vvho say it is absurd to affirme or beleeue that Christ is in bread and vvine because they vnderstand not vvhat maner thinge the Kingdome of Christ is c. He is most present in his vvorde albeit he is not present in that sort as he is here in the sacrament by vvhich he exhibiteth to the ChristiaÌ„s his body and bloud by the ministerie of the vvorde ioyned in bread and vvine And that the old Paganes in this kinde of infidelitie were the fathers of our Zuinglian Protestants he sheweth in the same place writing thus The devil laboureth saith he to sup vp the egge and leaue vs the shell that is from the bread and vvine to take avvay the body and bloud of Christe so that nothing remayne but playne bakers bread And here they mocke vs at their pleasure callinge vs shamefullie sarcophagos and haemopotas eaters of flesh and drinkers of bloud and that vve vvorshippe a god made of bread as they say as of old that naughtie man loden vvith all synne Auerroes sayd vvho slydinge backe from our fayth slaundered and reproched the faythful Christians sayng that there vvas not vnder the sunne a more vvicked people then vvere the Christians because they deuoured their ovvne God vvhich vvickednes no people euer is read to haue committed And Kemnitius in his examen Concilii Tridentini vpon this grouÌ„de of the real presence approueth the custome of the Church in adoringe Christ in the sacrament by the authoritie of S. Augustine and S. Ambrose in Psal 98. by Eusebius Emissenus and S. Gregorie Nazianzene and saith it is impietie to do the contrarie Thirdly if you had bene but so conuersante in Caluine as your profession requireth you could not so far haue bene ouerseene in this easie distinction knowen to Catholike Lutheran and Zuinglian although when Caluine wrote thus perhaps he was more then halfe a Lutheran and not so far gone in Zuinglianisme as after In his little booke de caena domini thus he writeth The bread and vvine are rightely called the body and bloud of Christ because they be as it vvere instruments by vvhich Christ doth distribute them vnto vs vve haue a verie apte example in a like matter VVhen god vvould that the holy Ghost should appeare in the baptisme of Christ he represented him in the figure of a doue Iohn the Baptist rehearsing the story sayth that he savve the holy Ghost descending If vve looke narovvlie vve shall finde that he savve nothing but a doue For the essence of the holy Ghost is inuisible Yet because he knevv that vision to be no vaine figure but a most certaine signe of the presence of the holy ghost he boldlie affirmeth that he savve him because it vvas represented in such sort as he could beare So in the communion vvhich vve haue in the body bloud of Christ the misterie is spirituall vvhich vve can nether see vvith eye nether comprehend vvith humaine vvâ—â—â— Therefore is it shevved vs by signes yet so that it is not a naked or only figure but ioâ—ned to his truth and substance Rightlie therefore is it called the body vvhich it dâ—th not only represent but also exhibâ—te vnto vâ— Thus Caluine teachinge and prouâ—nge by scripture that truely we see Christ though not
cuppe that is the mettall could not be shed or powred out and therefore the wordes must needes be vnderstood of the thing conteyned in the cuppe all Catholikes now liuing all Catholikes from Christes time all heretikes though otherwise most peruerse obstinate enemies of the truth Lutherans Zuinglians Anabaptistes of any secte fashion all creatures indued with witt and reason man woman and childe agree and as Beza confesseth it is a trope vulgar and vsuall to all languages and nations But vpon your trope where you interprete the bloud of Christ by wine and refer the later part not to that which was in the chalice and so deny the reall presence no Catholike now liuing no Catholike euer liuing agreed the church of God from the beginning hath abhorred it the very graÌ„mat graÌ„matical coÌ„struction refelleth it your owne brethren deteste it Luther the Lutherans condemne it yea the Sacramentaries them selues many of theÌ„ account it a very dull and blunt euasion so far forth that Carolostadius the first father of your Sacramentarie heresie though he be not commonly so esteemed thoughte it a more cleanly expositioÌ„ to say that Christ referred those wordeâ— hic est corpus meum hic est sanguis meus to him self sittinge at the table as if Christ had sayd iccipite manducatâ— take ye and eate and be merie for I am he that must die for al. And Hulderike Zuinglius that most excellent man sent from God vvith Luther to lighten the vvhole vvorld by the iudgement of your English church is so vncertaine of your trope that he alloweth wel of this exposition and geueth you good leaue to folow it and it was allowed of many thousand Sacramentaries besides him Touching Zuinglius his wordes are euident Carolostadius pius homo c. Carolostadius that godly man saith Zuinglius doth interprete the vvordes of the supper as though Christ had directed them not to the bread but to him self sayng take eate for I vvill deliuer this body for you This interpretation he proueth because the prophetes foretell that Christ should be crucified c. And after many places of scripture brought to proue this exposition he geueth in his owne iudgement thus Ego hominis pii laudo industriam de fide gratulor hanc Carolostadii sententiam qui probauer it nos minime offendet I commeÌ„d the diligence of this godly man I praise the lord for his faith if any man vvil folovv this his opinion I shal lyke vvel of it So that great is the difference betwene our trope and yours as great as is betwene our doctrine and yours that is as great as is betwene truth and falshod light and darknes heauen and hel and therefore except you furnish it with better reasons then this your figure wil remaine a poore beggerly heretical shift deuised by a few of one sect and contemned by many of the same secte and infinite of other sectes when ours shal stand accounted a certaine truth not only to Catholikes heretikes of al sorts but also to al men endewed with coÌ„mon wit or reason And this is all that M.W. bringeth for the defence of Beza wherein after a number of faultes errors ignorances impieties he hath so behaued himselfe that he hath leaâ—t the matter worse then he fouÌ„de it so that in the next writing he hath not so much to labour for Beza so Lucifer like controling the Euangelist in one worde as he hath to shift for him selfe vvho in a greater peece and more important hath so damnably and detestably thvvarted the same Euangelist and our B. sauiour and like a playne Atheist worse then Beza hath more defaced that first and principal part this is the nevv testament in my bloud this speach of our Lord and sauiour he hath reproued I say of â—aurâ—logia vayne repetition and absurd consequence How much better and more honest had it bene for him and Beza both to haue folowed the sober counsaile of their father Martin Luther I go vâ—â—o saith he de iris Sacramentariis hoc sanc suaderent c. I truly would geue the doting Sacramentaries this aduise that seing they vvill needes be madde let them play the mad men rather vvholy then in parte Therefore vvhereas they must aduenture somevvhat let them make short vvorke and raze altogether out of the supper those vvords this is my body vvhich is geuen for yovv For touching their faith and celebration of their supper they haue no neede of these vvords but it is all one if thus they keapte it Christ tooke bread gaue thankes brake it and gaue it to his disciples sayng take eate do this in my remembrance For this proueth sufficiently that bread is to be eaten in remeÌ„brance of Christ. This is the vvhole and entier supper of the sacramentaries And then to vvhat end keepe they in the booke that other superfluous and vnprofitable text Yea as though he had foreseene this desperate boldnes whereunto the Zuinglians are now growen he before hand euen particularly and in the self same words warneth vs of these very reasoÌ„s or rather peeuish and shameles assertions which Beza and M. W. throw forth for singular mightie argumeÌ„ts against this clause of S. Lukes Gospel For what is Bezaes demonstration against the later part qui pro uobis fuÌ„ditur with which he is so offended forsooth this aut manifestum est solacophanes aut potius quum haec essent ad marginem annotata ex Mat. Mar. postea in coÌ„textum irrepserunt Ether there is some manifest fault in the Greeke or vvhich I suppose rather vvhereas these vvords vvere noted in the margent out of Matthevv and Marke aftervvards they creapt in to the text And what saith Luther of this Thus he speaketh to the Sacramentaries Quid inepti nihilne consilii habetis c. vvhat ye fooles haue ye no vvitte you must venture Dicite verba illa primum margini ascripta postea vero ab aliquo textui inserta say that those vvordes vvere first vvritten in the margent and then by some odde felovv thrust in to the text and not vvritten so by the Euangelist seing you haue a sure rule to proue al this and your rule is that that is not true vvhatsoeuer seemeth superfluous and vnprofitable vnto you And what is M.W. argumeÌ„t against the first parte this cup is my bloud of the nevv testament Mary that this implyeth an absurde sentence it is tautologia an idle repetition And what saith Luther of this vvhereas those vvordes that shevv the real presence of the bodie and bloud haue nought to do in the Sacramentaries supper eodem modo his quoque argumentari licet mera tautologia est haec verba in cana poni They might do very vvel here also to make this argument that it is tautologia a vaine repetition to put these vvords in the supper and therefore they ought not to haue any place there vvhereas the
for an old father reiecting S. Austin amongst the nevv maisters Thus saith Luther to Zuinglius and OecolaÌ„padius the rest of that sect thus he requesteth of them as we request of you being of the same order Obsecramus saith he obtestamur vos Sacramentarios c. VVe desire and beseech you Sacramentaries if hereafter you vvil needes rayle against the Lutherans or nevv papists as you cal vs yet abstaine from lying and fayne not nether vvrite of vs othervvise then vve publikely professe teach Nam ex his quae iam diximus patet nos non it a docere vt hactenus de nobis impudentissimè mentiti estis For by that vvhich hath bene spoken it is cleare that vve teach not so as hitherto you haue most impudently belyed vs. So Luther of the Zuinglians we leauing Luthers termes to him selfe request the like of our aduersaries If they tel vs of any fault coÌ„mitted in the haÌ„dling of Gods mysteries we are ready to acknowlegde and amend the same If we defend any point of doctrine erroneous in their iudgement let them refel it by Theological argument by Scriptures Fathers Councels or reasoÌ„ grounded vpon them and vve are in quiet and orderly sort ether to yeld to them or shew them their ouersight If they fal to scoffing scorning and making ridiculous boysh arguments of their owne then shew their profound wisedome in coÌ„futing the same and withal crye out vpon the Importunitie and Desperatnes of the papistes as we can not but tel them of their peeuishnes and laugh at such miserable shifts so we dare assure them that the wise wil neuer be moued to like wel of their ruinous gospel thorough such iesting trickes most vnfit for Diuines which are able to quayle and disgrace a good cause though it stoode vpon better grounds theÌ„ their gospel yet doth or I hope euer shal CHAP. XVII Of certaine blasphemies conteined in the Annotations As good orators according to the rules of their art reserue some chief and principal arguments vnto the end of purpose at parting to leaue a deepe impression in the minde of their auditors so doth M. VV. in this his inuectiue against vs. And increasing somewhat his accustomed style declaimeth terribly and laieth to our charge not errors or ouersights or meane corruptions as are our leauing the latin and folowing the greeke but horrible crimes euen blsaphemies blasphemies intolerable He presupposeth that wise men are somewhat moued by such reasons and perswasions as he hath vsed hetherto But it must needes be saith he that vvise men vvil be moued much more vvhen they consider the intolerable blasphemie of certaine places For answere whervnto we craue no pardon of him or the reader But if he proue his accusatioÌ„ let vs sustaine that iudgement as by the law of God and man to such Intolerable blasphemers is due Only of the reader we request indifferent audience and then we doubt not but this storme and tempest wil passe without any damage as quietly as the rest The first blasphemie is this The Apostle compareth together Christs priesthod and the priesthod of Melchisedech in the epistle to the Hebrues vvhere he maketh no mention at al of bread or vvine in which notvvithstanding they vvill Christ chiefly to haue bene like to Melchisedech Here these men vvrite flatly that of al those things vvhich are proposed by the Apostle it foloweth not that Christs priesthod is eternal and therefore that properly Christ is a priest after the order of Melchisedech because he instituted a sacrifice of his body to be continued for euer of his priests But this vvhich vvas principal the Apostle in that disputation omitted and brought those things vvhich proue not that vvhich he meant to proue But vvherein Christ vvas principally like vnto Melchisedech that must be learned not of the Apostle but of the Fathers vvho haue vvritten far more aptly and properly of Christs eternal priesthod then did the Apostle Of this he concludeth If they feare not to find some fault in the Apâ—stle and reprehend the holy ghost him selfe is it marueile if our doctrine displease them Thus M. VV. which if it be true if we thus disgrace the Apostle if we say he goeth about to proue a thing and proueth it not if we refuse to be taught of him and prefer the Fathers before him finally if we controle him so singular an instrument of the holy Ghost and reprehend the holy Ghost him selfe I can not blame M. W. if he crie out Intolerable blasphemie But if these things be so far of from al shevv of truth that there is no colour or pretence of so vnmeasurable lying vvhat should a man say but shame to the deuil and his ministers vvho novv are grovveÌ„ to such a passing impudencie that so they may haue licence to lye thâ—y care not hovv grosly and palpably they lye though they be takeÌ„ with the maner though it presently turne to their ovvne shame though the lyes which they inuent of others be most euidently and in truth only verified of them selues For vvho but they thus disgrace this Apostle and that in this epistle vvho but they find fault vvith the vvriter and reprehend the holy Ghost bearing vs in hand that this vvriting much differeth from other scriptures much from Christs preaching and the other Apostles therefore is to be reckened Prostipulis For stubble good for nothing els but for the fier for this vvould they signifie by that contemptible phrase And do not our english translators them selues in their Testaments leaue out S. Paules name in this epistle and plainly say It is not like that euer he was the author of it But let this passe vve vvil not vse this kinde of defence our vvords and sayings defend them selues sufficiently The vvords of vvhich he gathereth this Intolerable blasphemie stand thus Heb. 7. v. 17. A priest for euer Christ is not called a Priest for euer only for that his person is eternal or for that he sitteth on the right hand of God and perpetually praieth or maketh intercession for vs or for that the effect of his death is euerlasting for al this proueth not that in proper signification his Priesthod is perpetual but according to the iudgment of al the fathers grounded vpoÌ„ this deepe and diuine discourse of S. Paule and vpon the very nature definition and proprietie of Priesthod and the excellent act order of Melchisedec and the state of the nevv lavv he is a Priest for euer according to Melchisedecks order specially in respect of the sacrifice of his holy body and bloud instituted at his last supper and executed by his commission commaundement and perpetual concurrence vvith his priests in the formes of bread and vvine in vvhich things only the sayd high Priest Melchesedec did sacrifice For though S. Paule make no expresse mention hereof because of the depth of
the mysterie and their incredulitie or feeblenesse to vvhom he vvrote yet it is euident in the iudgment of al the learned fathers vvithout exception that euer vvrote either vpon this epistle or vpon the 14 of Genesis or the psalme 109 or by occasion haue treated of the sacrifice of the altar that the eternitie and proper act of Christs priesthod and consequently the immutability of the nevv lavv consisteth in the perpetual offering of Christes body and bloud in the Church VVhich thing is so vvel knovven to the aduersaries of Christs Church Priesthod so graunted that they be forced impudently to cauill vpon certaine Hebrevv particles that Melchisedec did not offer in bread and vvine yea and vvhen that vvill not serue plainely to deny him to haue bene a priest vvhich is to giue checkemate to the Apostle and to ouerthrovv al his discourse Thus vvhiles these vvicked men pretend to defend Christes only priesthod they in deede abolish as much as in them lieth the vvhole order office and state of his eternal lavv priesthod Arnobius saith By the mysterie of bread and vvine he vvas made a Priest for euer And againe The eternal memorie by vvhich he gaue the soode of his body to them that feare him in psal 109.110 Lactantius In the Church he must needes haue his eternal priesthod according to the order of Melchisedec Li. 14. Institut S. Hierom ep 126. to Euagrius Aarons priesthod had an end but Melchisedecks that is Christes the Churches is perpetual both for the time past and to come S. Chrysostom therefore calleth the Churches sacrifice Hostiam inconsumptibilem An host or sacrifice that can not be consumed ho. 17 in 9 Hebr. S. Cyprian Hostiam qua sublata nulla esset futura religio An host vvhich being taken avvay there could bene religion de coena Domini nu 2. Emissenus Perpetuam oblationem perpetuò currentem redemptionem A perpetual oblation and a redemption that runneth or continueth euerlastingly ho. 5 de Pasch And our Sauiour expresseth so much in the very institution of the B. Sacrament of his body and bloud specially vvheÌ„ he calleth the later kind The nevv Testament in his bloud signifying that as the old lavv vvas established in the bloud of beastes so the nevv vvhich is his eternal Testament should be dedicated and perpetual in his ovvne bloud not only as it vvas shed on the Crosse but as geuen in the chalice And therefore into this sacrifice of the altar saith S. Augustine li. de Ciuit. 17. c. 20. S. Leo ser 8 de Passione and the rest vvere the old sacrifices to be translated See S. Cyprian ep 63 ad Cecil nu 2. S. Ambrose de Sacram. li. 5. c. 4. S. Augustine in psal 33 Conc. 2. and li. 17. de Ciuit. c. 17. S. Hierom ep 17. c. 2. ep 126. Epiph. haer 55. Theodoret. in psalm 109. Damascene li. 4. c. 14. Finally if any of the fathers or al the fathers had either vvisedom grace or intelligence of Gods vvord and mysteries this is the truth If nothing vvil serue our aduersares Christ Iesus confound them and defend his eternal Priesthod and state of his nevv Testament established in the same In vvhich vvords of ours if thou marke wel and conferre them with his thou shalt find that in this short paragraph he hath povvred out together 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a fovvle and stinking heape of lyes errors ignorances and contradictions to him selfe and his brethren For first vvhere say vve that Of al those things vvhich are proposed by the Apostle it folovveth not that Christs priesthod is eternal say vve not the cleane contrarie when vve auouch that Al the fathers gather not of them selues or their ovvne vvittes but of this deepe and diuine discourse of the Apostle the eternitie of his priesthod Is this to vvrite flatly that of al the things proposed by the Apostle it folovveth not that Christs priesthod is eternal when we write flatly that not one or other but al the fathers teach that eternitie grouÌ„ding them selues vpon this discourse of S. Paule and hovv could they ground them selues vpon S. Paules discourse if no such thing vvere to be fouÌ„d there This perhaps he might haue gathered and vve vvould haue graunted that this deduction can hardly or neuer be perceaued of a Luther of a Beza of a Stancarus or such other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 damned in their owne iudgement vvhom for punishment of their Apostasie from Christ his Church God hath geuen vp into a reprobate sense Vt videntes non videant et audientes non intelligant sed credant mendacio That seing they see not and hearing vnderstand not but beleeue lyes because they would not beleeue hold fast the truth when they had it but to a S. Ambrose to a S. Chrysostom S. Primasius S. Beda or any other directed by the spirit of God these things which are proposed by the Apostle ministred sufficient matter to find out the eternitie of Christs priesthod as by their commentaries vpon these very places we learne For albeit expresse mention of the Sacrifice of the Church be not here made for reason geuen in the annotation and by the Apostle him selfe cap. 5. v. 11. yet the truth there of is inuincibly concluded out of this very disputation and that so pregnantly that vvho soeuer denieth the Churches Sacrifice he consequently denieth al the Apostles drift argument he denieth the vvhole state of the old and nevv TestameÌ„t This therefore is the first maine and capital lye and in vvhich he inueigheth not against vs alone but also against al the Fathers without exception Arnobius Lactantius S. Cyprian S. Ambrose S. Hierom S. Austin and the rest named in the annotation From this lye he draweth out 4 other as that we say The Apostle proueth not that vvhich he meant that we prefer the Fathers before the Apostle that we find fault vvith him and finally repreheÌ„d the holy Ghost Al which is nothing els but lye vpon lye no one of which is or euer was in word or sense vttered or in thought or cogitation coÌ„ceaued of vs. No saith M. VVhitaker make you not the oblation of bread and wine a principal part of Christs eternal priesthod we do so with al the Fathers of Christs Church Yet the Apostle maketh no expresse mention thereof VVe graunt Then he proueth not that which he intended This is a lying and ignorant conclusion lying because the Apostle proueth most abundantly his purpose by sundry other meanes though he vrge not that point ignorant because you knovv not what the Apostle would conclude or wherevnto he applieth his argumeÌ„t which being deliuered most euidently in sundrie places of the 7. 9 10. chapter and repeated againe and againe I wil not hâ—re make a new tâ—eatise thereof Thus much the reader that knoweth a litle diuinitie may coÌ„sider of him selfe that whereas the Apostle
one substance vvith the father Yet M.W. defending the Autotheisme of Caluin and affirming Christ to be begotten not of his fathers substance but of his person and to be God of him selfe not God of God besides the abominable heresie vvhich in so sayng he maintaineth he also manifestly gainsaith the publike confession vvhich in their Communion booke they seeme to holde In Germany it is lawful for the Lutheranes to take armes and wage battayle and bid defiance and renounce al obedieÌ„ce to the Emperour likewise for the Gewes in Flanders the Hugonots in France against their seueral princes and the principal diuines yea Luther him self that Elias Apostle and Euangelist after long deliberation wel liked that the Protestants should in warlike maner bande them selues against the Emperour and those that died in such warres were of the chiefe preachers accounted for Saintes and martirs And it was resolued by al the states Ecclesiastical and Temporal of the Lutheran religioÌ„ against Charles the Emperour that Quia religioni molitur exitium atque libertati causam praebet cur ipsum oppugnemus bona conscientia CuÌ„ enim in eum casum res deuenit licet resistere sicut sacris prophanis historiis demonstrari potest Becaue the Emperour intendeth the ouerthrovv of religion and libertie he geueth vs cause to vvarre against him vvith safe conscience For vvhen the matter coÌ„meth to that issue it is lavvful to resist as it may be proued both by sacred and prophane stories And Beza in his epistle to the Quenes maiestie holdeth those FreÌ„ch Protestants who died in warre against their king for Saints Martirs vvho by their bloud consecrated happely to God the first foundation of Christian religion vvhich vvas then to be restored in Fraunce And vvhat preacher vvas there in England of any name vvho in publike sermons commended not their cause as iust agreable to al lavves humane and diuine and therefore in al respectes allovvable Likevvise M. Fox doth extolle and magnifie the most barbarous and Turkish factes committed by the BohemiaÌ„ heretikes rebelling against their Prince for the gospel and religion of Iohn Husse For whereas the Emperour Sigismund being then in Germanie had said That he vvould shortly come into Bohemia and rule the kingdome after the same order as his father Charles had done before him the Hussites or Protestantes I vse M. Foxes ovvne vvordes vnderstanding thereby that their sect and religion should be vtterly banished vvhich vvas not begonne during the raigne of the said Charles they rebelled out of hand which rebellioÌ„ in his whole storie he much coÌ„mendeth So that the Lutheranes of Germany mâ—y lawfully take armes against their Emperour for defense of Lutheranisme and the Caluinistes of FraÌ„ce may warre against their King to bring into that realme the religion of Caluine and the Hussites of Bohemâ—a may rebelle against their soueraine Prince for the religion of Iohn Husse and Hierom of Prage far more differing from the Protestante then from the Catholike and by like right and reason euery other sect may do the like for furthering increasing their seueral faithes and religions And yet in England inâ—ocent men who neuer in fact attempted ought and neuer in word approued any such disloyaltie against the Princes estate being draweÌ„ by craftie circumuention to say that in certaine cases as if the Prince should fal to professioÌ„ of Arrianisme Turcisme or Atheisme the subâ—ecte might vvithdravv his obedience vvere therevpon defamed for heynous traytours and the same imagined supposal published at the time of their death as a matter deseruing most extreme punishment In Quene Maries time the English Protestants retired to Geneua set out sundry bookes wherein by manifold textes of scripture both of the old testament the new they excluded womeÌ„ froÌ„ al regiment Princely iurisdiction euen in matters temporal which they accounted called monstruous vnnatural against the law of God and man and therefore in no wise to be suffered Yet al this notwithstanding the next yere folowing the same men found it agreable to al scripture and al lawes that a woman might haue supreme authoritie not only in matters temporal and ciuil but also in spiritual and ecclesiastical and by terrible punishmeÌ„t euen of extreme and exquisite death were content to bynde the subiectes generally to this point of beleefe yet with this distinction that the Nobilitie and Barons of the realme should be exempted from the same as though they might haue a faith dâ—uers from others of the same realme or one and the selfe same faith might be necessarie and not necessarie true and false enlarged and restrained according to the diuers degrees of nobilitie and coÌ„munaltie Briefly concerning the whole forme of their ecclesiastical Seruice in the first Communion booke it is thus appointed that The minister at the time of the Communion and at al other times in his ministratioÌ„ shal vse such ornamentes in the church as vvere in vse by authoritie of Parlament in the second yere of the reigne of King Edvvard the sixt I appeale now to the knowledge of euery man how wel that acte of Parlament is obserued through out the realme in how many Cathedral or parish churches those ornamentes are reserued whether euery priuate minister by his owne authoritie in the time of his ministration disdaine not such ornamentes vsing only such apparel as is most vulgar prophane I omit other particular differences of feastes of holy daies of crossing in baptisme of communicating the sicke c. in which their continual alteration is wel knowen by their dayly practise and their verie Communion bookes printed in diuers yeres Only I wish the reader of his owne wisedom and consideration to marke the general chaunges which from time to time our realme hath fallen into since this schisme first began there In the later yeres of king Henry the eight we were touchâ—ng many pointes Catholikes as the Parlament holdâ—n the yere 1540 doth testifie wherein by authoritie of Parlament these articles were accorded and agreed vpon That there is the real presence of Christes natural body and bloud in the most blessed sacrament vnder the formes of bread and vâ—yne That the Communion in both kindes is not necessarie ad salutem by the lavv of God to al persons That priestes after the order of priesthod by the lavv of God may not marry That vovves of chastitie or vvydovvhead made to God aduisedly ought to be obserued by the lavv of God That priuate Masses are to be continued and admitted in the kinges English church congregation as vvhereby good christian people do receaue both many and goodly consolations and benefites and it is agreable also to Gods lavv That auricular Confession is expedient and necessary to be retained and continued vsed and frequented in the church of God In the same Parlament and
triple Antichrists I come now to speake of the secōd part vz the want of religion and conscience which M. W. sheweth in this his answere wherein I must be the shorter because I haue stayd somewhat long in the first His want of cōscience as in sundry other pointes so in this I note especially that whereas he pretendeth to set downe M. D. Sanders arguments fully and entierly and so to frame his answere accordingly he in many and the same of best moment performeth nothing lesse then that which he most pretendeth M. Iewel amongst many false practises vsed this as one very apt to beguile the simple and whereby I thinke at this present very many learned men are deceaued That is frō the discourse of his aduersary he would cut out remoue frō the sight of the reader the principal strength were it Scripture Councels Fathers or reasō whereby the aduersary iustified his cause after shufle vp some od talke impertinent allegatiōs against the rest For exāple let the Defence of the Apologie of the English church serue vvhere there is no matter seriously handled from the first beginning to the last line of the booke but the very pith and most forcible partes as it vvere the ioyntes and sinevves are thus taken avvay and left out of the booke sometime vvhole and many pages together sometime half pages sometime fovver or fiue lines in a side sometime vvhole sentences or peeces of sentēces according as he thought requisite for the bettering of his cause and disgracing of his aduersarie yet notvvithstanding he peeceth and patcheth vp the rest as though it vvere the ful and perfite discourse of D. Harding This is as much as if some bragging Thraso appointed to combat vvith his enemy should at the time of fight cause his enemy to be tied vp in prison and shevve his chiualry vpon a man made of cloutes this is in steede of a body to fight with a shadovv I vvil not exemplifie this by any particularitie because I can assure the reader by certaine experiēce let him in that booke fal vpon vvhat place he list he shal hardly misse an example This very practise hath M.W. learned of him and putteth it in vre in this his answere to D. Sanders demonstrations For wheresoeuer D.S. disputeth most firmely out of scriptures and reasons grounded there on multitude of fathers agreing in the exposition of the scriptures wheresoeuer he preuēteth the cauils of the aduersaries and forestoppeth the common arguments which they make for the cōtrary parte there M. W. diligently and carefully taketh order to cut and leaue out al such peeces that he may haue the more libertie to runne at randon and talke his pleasure of the rest So for example in the seuenth demonstration he leaueth out in the middle almost halfe a side of D. Sanders a pece of very good importance for the fortifying of his argument In the tenth demonstration where D. Sanders preuenteth and answereth their obiections and where in deede he fully cōfuteth before hand the substance of M. W. replie there a whole page is leaft out And the self same part he plaieth in the thirtenth demonstration leauing out almost two entier pages where in like maner his replie was before hand thoroughly discharged So in the sixtenth demonstration he omitteth almost a side of the argument where D. Sanders conuinceth the Protestants of contradiction to them selues and proueth them to play the part of Antichrists for corrupting the verie letter of scripture at their pleasure And to passe by the like false demeanure in other places and to make a litle stay vpon one only example in the 36 demonstratiō he so wickedly behaueth him selfe as the reader can neuer otherwise iudge of him then that he is a mā wicked vnconscionable without al feare of God or regard of man geuen only to continue talke and serue the time without any care to search out the truth D. Sanders there disputeth thus Christ instituted a true real sacrifice at his last supper This he proueth by scriptures reasons drawen out of the scriptures fathers interpreting the scriptures This sacrifice Antichrist shal abrogate take avvay This he proueth also by fathers expoūding the scriptures and gathering so much of Daniels Prophecie These be the parts of which he concludeth the Pope not to be Antichrist who taketh not away that sacrifice but defendeth wel alloweth it Nowhere wōderful it is to note what mangling and defacing and peecing and patching he vseth in setting downe this demōstratiō In the first paragraph of D. Sanders fiue lines he leaueth out wherein is compared the state of the Iewes and Christians touching the law and sacrifice Then shufling in fower lines he furthwith leaueth out almost a whole side of a leafe where D.S. by good reasons conference of Scriptures and fathers proueth the Masse to be the sacrifice of the new testament and then putting in one line of S. Ireneus cited by D.S. and leauing out many lines folowing of the same author and pertaining as much to the matter omitting withal D.S. discourse therevpon he furthwith ioyneth an other place of S. Ireneus cited likewise by D.S. but after his maner cutting of at the least the one halfe and omitting D.S. argument therevpon as also a notable place of Hippolitus the Martyr writing that in the time of Antichrist the holy churches shal be like vnto poore cottages and the pretious body and bloud of Christ shal not be extant in those daies the Masse shal be abolished c. al which he saith is nothing to the purpose whereas D. S. bringeth in a large place of S. Hierom he setteth downe one peece of a line and leaueth out ten times as much ensuing and the same most to the purpose And finally vsing the like treachery tovvards S. Chrysostom cited as the rest by D. S. from vvhom he croppeth the greater part and the most necessary thus he maketh vp his ansvvere to the 36. demonstration And that the reader imagine not the places of those fathers S. Ireneus S. Hierom S. Chrisost to be ydle needeles let him know that they are such as whereby D. Sanders proueth directly one of his principal propositions that Antichrist shal abrogate take away the sacrifice of the nevv testament according to the prophecie of Daniel Finally in the 38 demonstration where the argument is framed that the best princes haue alwaies fauoured the Sea of Rome as Constantinus Magnus Theodosius Martianus Carolus Magnus Ludouicus Pius c. persecutors tyrannes and wicked princes haue most dishonoured it as Constantius Iulianus Valens Anastasius Theodoricus c. the answere is made by cutting away al this out of the booke and thrusting in a tale of a tub that Cardinals bishops be kings who much honour the Pope This maner of answering is not to search out the truth as becometh Diuines or to bring men
you shall here note how stubborne desperate yea beyond al measure stubborne and desperate are your felowes maisters who in this so euidente a truth haue hetherto resisted the Church would neuer confesse that ether Melchisedec did the one or Christe the other I wil not stay to proue it because you confesse it only for plainer declaration I wil touch the matter briefly In the booke of Genesis where onely is described this sacrifice thus we reade Melchisedec rex Salem profereÌ„s panem vinum erat enim sacerdos Dei altissimi benedixit et Melchisedec king of Salem bringinge forth bread and vvine for he vvas the prieste of the moste high God blessed him that is Abraham In these wordes we see the reason geuen of Meschisedecs priesthode the same to consiste in his action aboute the bread and wine that is in his sacrificinge as M. W. telleth vs. But the ProtestaÌ„tes to auoide this into how many formes and fashions haue they turned them selues How many quirkes and false sleightes haue they deuised vntil in fin they haue ronne in maner generally to corrupte the sacred text for auoyding of this inconuenience In moste of their writinges manye of their translations they geue the sense thus that Mâ—lchisâ—dâ—c kinge of Salem brought forth bread wine because he was a prieste of the most hygh God therefore blessed Abraham So writeth Musculus in his common places That part of the sentence and he vvas prieste of the moste high God is to be referred to that vvhich folovveth vz and he blessed him for as a kinge he brought forth to Abraham bread vvine as a priest he gaue him his blessinge Vpon this reason to make the holy texte more aptlie serue this heretical deuise in the Englishe Bible it is turned thus Melchisedec kinge of Salem broughte forth bread vvine he vvas a prieste of the moste high God therefore he blessed him Thus the protestants commonly interprete it and to note one for al thus writeth Caluine in his commeÌ„tarie vpon the Hebrews Prius illud quod narrat regium fuit c. That firste thinge vvherof Moyses speaketh in the storie of Melchisedec vvas the parte of a Kinge to refreashe vvith bread and vvine those that came vveary from the fight the blessinge apperteined to his priestly function The difference betwene him and the aunciente fathers in the same paragraph he compriseth thus Hereby is refuted their deuise vvho seeke out the cheefe resemblance betvveene Christ and Melchisedec in bread and vvine VVe see the Apostle searcheth out euery particular point diligently and curiously he pursueth the name of the man the seate of his Kingdome the eternitie of his life the right of his tithes the benediction vvhich he gaue to Abraham In any of these there vvas lesse vveight theÌ„ in the oblation shal vve say that the holy Ghost forgat himself vvheÌ„ he maketh stay vppon these smale matters and omitteth that vvhich vvas the principal and most perteined to the purpose vvherefore I marueile the more that so many old Doctors of the Churche vvere possessed vvith this opinion that they stayd vpon the oblation of bread vvine For thus they say Christ is a priest after the order of Melchisedec but Melchisedec offered bread and vvine ergo bread and vvine appartaine to Christs priesthode Thus far Caluin the like he writeth in his coÌ„mentarie vppon the Psalmes I will not stand to satisfie his marueiling why the Apostle should pretermitte that which the holie fathers after obserued In one worde this I say that if he had wayed ether the preface of the Apostle when he began this argument saing of Melchisedec vve haue great speache and inexplicable to vtter or the same Apostles maner of writing preaching at other times to lyke auditors or S. Hierome handling this matter geuing reason of the Apostles so doing or S. Gregorie Nazianzene in his oration de moderatione in disputationibus seruaÌ„da or in his second oration de theologia he would perhaps easelie haue leaft of marueiling and rather haue marueiled at his owne folie who could be moued to marueile at a thing so reasonable and ordinarie But touching our purpose let the christian reader out of Caluin note these two pointes The one is that Caluin and the Caluinistes generally find nothing wherein Melchisedec sacrificed so by sacrificing prefigured the sacrifice priesthode of Christ The other is that the auncient fathers and the catholike Church acknowledge Melchisedec to haue sacrificed and that in bread and wine and by that sacrifice to haue foreshewed Christs sacrificing in like maner and to this side M. W. forsaking Caluin and the ProtestaÌ„ts ioyneth him selfe This therefore is cleare that Christ fulfilled this prefiguratiue sacrifice of Melchisedec we neuer finde it done but only theÌ„ when he offering bread and vvine that is sayth S. Ciprian his ovvne bodie and bloud aftervvards sayd to his disciples hoc facite in meam commemorationem and then as witnesseth S. Ireneus noui Testamenti nouam docuit oblationem quam ecclesia ab Apostolis accipiens in vniuerso mundo offere Deo he taught the nevv oblation of the nevv Testament vvhich the Church receauing from the Apostles in the vvhole vvorlde offereth vnto God This being true as M. W. grauÌ„ting so far as he doth can not go backe nor possiblie inuent any tergiuersatioÌ„ thus I frame him an argument That which Christ did and appointed to be done that may and ought to be done But Christ at his last supper offered sacrifice according to the order of Melchisedec and appointed the Apostles and priestes to do the same Ergo the Apostles and priests may and ought to offer sacrifice The Maior is euidente and no Christian will denie it The Minor hauing two parts is proued touching the later by Christes expresse commaundemeÌ„t Hoc facite in meam commemorationem doe this for a commemoration of me the former wherein lieth the difficultie is acknowledged by M. W. for if not only Aaron but also Melchisedec offered sacrifice thereby prefigured Christ theÌ„ it foloweth of necessitie that Christe offered sacrifice not only in bloudie maner as did Aaron but also in vnbloudie and mistical sort as did Melchisedec according to whose order he is specially named a priest so by perfit correspondence fulfilled that antecedent figure hereto S. Ciprian S. Ireneus S. Austine and al the auncient fathers accordinge to Caluines confession and euident truth geue witnes that M. W. be not leaft post alone to sustaine so great a burden Of this first argument I deduce one more They who may and ought to offer sacrifice as did first Melchisedec and afterwarde Christe are truly and properly sacerdotes But priestes of the new testament may and ought to offer sacrifice in suche sort Ergo they are truly and properlye sacerdotes priests The Maior is true and set
the spirite of grace CHAP. V. Of Penance and the value of good vvokes touching iustification and lyfe eternal NEXT in place foloweth Penance wherein M.W. keepeth his accustomed speaking so doubtfullie and ambiguouslie that he semeth not fullie resolued what to affirme yet in fine as commonlie his maner is he yeldeth sufficient matter to ouerthrow him selfe M. Martin here noteth him of two faultes one that he iniurieth the fathers the other that he contrarieth him selfe the iniurie done to the fathers is this that he affirmeth S. Ciprian and other fathers to haue depraued the doctrine of penance Before he come to iustifie this accusation he falleth into a common place common to all sortes of protestātes taking to him selfe supreme iudgement ouer the fathers complayninge of the Catholikes that so it fareth vvith them that excepte those thinges may preuaile vvhich in the fathers are most corrupte or vitious they are not able to maintaine their cause Whereunto I answere that so it fareth with the protestantes that except they may be soueraigne iudges of fathers Councels Church and al they must hold their peace and say nothing for this is as stale a tricke and currant amōgst any sect as any thinge hitherto spoken of to protest much reuerence to the fathers whē they are not against the word of God that is against their cōceiued heresies marie thē boldlie to stande with the word against them and say they were all beetle-blynd and saw nothinge for when and wherein the fathers hold with them then in such matters they were worse then madde altogether voyde of common sense if they would thus inueigh against thē In the last question presse them with the fathers and the primitiue Church touchinge external pristhod and the sacrifice it was their error saith Caluin Illyricus Zuinglius and Bale Presse the sacrilegious vowbreakers with the consent of the primitiue Church for condemnation of their vnlawful mariages I knovv saith Peter Martir and declared no lesse to my auditors in Oxford that Epiphanius vvith manie others of the fathers erred in that they helde it a fynne to breake the vovv of virginitie and they do ill to number it amongest the Apostolicall traditions Charge the English Puritanes with the consent of Antiquitie for obseruation of feasts holy-dayes in honour of Christ and his Saintes M. T. C. answereth VVhereas M. D. VVhiteg citeth Augustine and Hierom to proue that in the churches in their tymes there vvere holy-daies kept besydes the Lordes day he might haue also cited Ignatius and Tertullian and Ciprian vvhich are of greater aunciencie and vvould haue made more for the credite of his cause for it is not to be denied but this keepinge of holy-dayes especially of Easter and Pentecost is verie auncient and that these holy-dayes for the remembrance of Martyrs vvere vsed of long tyme. but these abuses vvere no auncienter then other vvere grosser also then this and therefore I appeale from these exāples to the scriptures Charge the Trinitarie Protestantes the Arians of Polonia Seruetus with the Coūcel of Nice and Crede of Athanasius the Councell of Nice say they vvas a congregation of Sophisters and the Crede of Athanasius may more iustlie be called the Crede of Sathanasius the first Nicene fathers vvith Athanasius inuented this tripartite God they vvere all blind Sophisters Ministers of the Beast slaues of Antichrist and bevvitched vvith his enchauntmentes for that the Pope is Antichrist in that as in verie manie other pointes they are iust of M.W. faith In like sorte dealeth the Lutherane Vbiquitarie against vvhose monstrous heresie vtterlie destroyng the mysterie of Christe Incarnatiō vvhen Bullinger vrged the consent of al the auncient fathers Brentius presētly gaue this general answere The fathers altogether in this question are of no vveight or authoritie They vvere taught not in the schole of the holy Ghost but in the schole of Aristotle they vvere deceiued and blynded by Aristotle humaine reason of celestial matters they haue childish imaginations and grosse dreames earthlie fansies and carnal conceites Thus answered Brentius and thus saith Bullinger of him Inuenit compēdium ad omnia veterum testimonia respondēdi A shorte compendious vvay hath he founde to solue all places of the fathers thus sayth euerie heretike touching euerie controuersie wherein the fathers stād against him the selfe same way hath M.W. taken But because this way is ether to large therefore to daūgerous as lying wide open for euerie kind of heretike that hath bene is or cā be or to straight if M. W. wil make it priuate to him self and deny it to all others let him therfore without this preiudicate condemnation geue reason whie he offereth the fathers this intolerable iniurie for so it must be called vntill he proue the cōtrarie his reasons are these Penance consisteth not in certaine externall penalties or in a certaine exquisite seueritie of discipline vvhich the Apostle calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vvherebie the bodie is chastised vvith certaine voluntarie punishmentes but in internal dolour conceiued through remembranco of out sinnes and in amendmente of lyfe and the fathers vvhen they supposed that by such greuous penalties their sinnes should be acquited and God pleased they erred greuously and somevvhat diminished the force of Christes deathe and bloud by vvhich onlie our sinnes are expiated for pardon of sinnes is to be expected of nothinge but of the bloud of Christ In which wordes three thinges I note his description of penance his reason prouinge the same and the sequele or absurditie which he inserreth thereof wherein stoode the auncient fathers error His description of penance is partlie affirmatiue as that he requireth internal greefe of hart and correction of life partlie is negatiue as that he remoueth from it all externall chastisement or discipline In the first we agree with him in the seconde we say he erreth and vnderstādeth not the scriptures As without the first the second is worth nothinge so ioyne them bothe together they greatlie please God are highlie commended in the Gospel our Sauiour when he denounced vae to Corozain and Bethsaida sayng if the miracles vvrought in thee had bene done in Tyre and Sidon they had not onlie done penance longe agoe but they had done it in beare-cloth ashes he sheweth this external afflictiō to be verie commendable and to make the penance more auaylable and withall pointeth the Iewes to their Prophetes who willed them with such external humiliatiō to prostrate them selues before God thereby the sooner to procure his mercie Conuert ye to me sayth the Prophete Ioel vvith al your hart in fastinge and mourninge and lamentation and rente your hartes and not your garmentes saith our Lorde omnipotent In the later parte of which sentence as he disproueth externall signes without internall remorse as being hipocritical reiected of God by
and it is no reason that any one should take to him selfe that vvhich by equal right agreeth to al. This being the true meaning of such places and this being verie often times geuen by S. Gregorie him selfe saepe et in multis epistolis you see how iustly we accuse both M. Iewel you of wilfulnes and blindnes how iustly we obiect vnto you a verbal and talkatiue diuinitie who could not or would not see that is which so commonly repeted againe and againe in so many epistles But maketh S. Gregorie ether in this word or in al his words or workes ought against the primacie of that church This writer proceedeth on thus Verumtamen ex aliis constat c. notvvithstanding by other places it is euident that Gregorie thought that the charge and principalitie of the vvhole church vvas committed to Peter by the voice of our Lord. And thus much he vvrote plainely almost vvord for vvord lib. 4. epistola 32. to the emperour Maurice and confirmed it by testimonie of scripture It is manifest saith Gregorie to al men that knovv the gospel that by the voice of our Lord the care of the vvhole church vvas cōmitted to holy S. Peter Prince of al the Apostles For to him it is said feede my sheepe Iohn 21. To him it is said I haue prayed for the that thy faith fayle not Luc. 22. To him it is said thou art Peter and vpon this rock I vvil build my church c. Mat. 16. Behold he receaueth the keys of the kingdom of heauen povver to bind and loose is geuen to him to him is committed the charge principalite of the vvhole church And yet for this cause Gregorie thought not that Peter vvas the forerunner of Antichrist Thus he prouing both by scripture by reason that S. Gregorie though he disliked and condemned that proude name of vniuersal bishop both in him selfe and others as doth also Pope Gregorie the 13. at this day yet he nether disliked nor condemned the supreme charge and gouernment of the church for Antichristian which him selfe exercised nether could he so do except he first cōdemned for Antichristian S. Peter the Apostle who receaued it and Christ our Sauiour who gaue it So tha◠M. Iew. hath hetherto shewed smal wit learning faith or honestie in making these mē S. Gregorie Leo Xistus Anacletus his maisters in that heresie against the supremacie who haue not only no one word or sillable against it but contrariwise haue whole and long epistles chapters discourses examples and factes arguments reasons scriptures to proue it And here the reader may gesse how like I were to cloy him with abundance and store if I would in like sort go thorough with the other articles which I might do as wel and with as great aduantage But I wil not cast more water into the sea and therefore nether wil prosequute in this order the other two questions but only touch them in a word and so proceede to other matter As here against the Pope so against the real presence for the zuinglian imagination M. Iewel likewise chalengeth al the fathers vnto him namely those aboue rehearsed S. Gregorie S. Leo c. and besides S. Austin S. Hierom and S. Chrisostome then which I thinke he could not haue picked out amongst al the fathers more heauy and deadly enemies to him touching any parte of his false faith and those two partes of the real presence and sacrifice especially For was there euer besides this wicked man any Luther or Bucer or who so euer was worse then other so desperate in lying that would say S. Gregorie was a minister and ministred the holy communion as now is the fashion in England when his bookes in so many places shew him to haue bene a prieste and a prieste to celebrate masse and not to minister communion vnto whom other protestants commonly attribute the framing of the masse because of two or three rites which he ordeined therein Whom for this cause Theodorus Bibliāder scornfully nameth patriarcham caeremoniarum the Patriarch of ceremonies Melanchthō that he horribly prophaned the Communiō allovving by publike authoritie the sacrifice of Christes body and bloud not only for the liuing but also for the dead Flacius Illyricus that by miracle he cōuerted a faithles vvoman vvho beleeued not that the body of Christ vvas substancially in tbe Sacrament ex Paulo Diacono lib. 2. cap. 41.42 and that euery vvhere be doth inculcate sacrifices and masse and by diuers miracles confirmeth the same against whom Petrus Paulus Vergerius for authoritie place and estimation as great a Protestant as any in our dayes hath written a whole booke entituled de nugis fabulis Papae Gregorii primi and finally to passe by many others when your owne English writers protest him to haue bene a perfite and absolute Papist that therefore your first Apostles and Euangelistes in bringing in this your Gospel did directly oppose them selues vnto him and rooted out that which he and his Legate our Apostle S. Austin had planted Gregorie the first saith your Chronicler Iohn Bale the yere of our lord 596. sent Austine the monke to plante in our churches his Romane religion But Latimer is much more vvorthie to be called our Apostle then Austine For Austine brought nothing but mans traditions masse Crosses litanies c. vvhereas Latimer vvith the hooke of truth cut of those superstitions vvhich he had planted and cast them out of the Lords vineyard And doth not M. Horne the late called bishop of Winchester in playne termes reuile this glorious Apostle and name him most ethnically a blinde bussard because he was ignorant of your Alcoran and knew nothing els and therefore induced our forefathers to no other Gospel then to the auncient Gospel of Christ and religion Catholike And doth the other S. Austin make more for you in this point of your vnbeleefe then doth this later S. Austin or S. Gregorie I know you alleage him much more but with what honestie I had rather you should heare of your owne father Luther then of me In my iudgement saith Luther after the Apostles the church hath not had a better doctor then vvas S. Austin And that holie man hovv filthilie hovv spitefullie is he mangled and disfigured by the Sacramentaries that he may become a defender patrone of their venemous blasphemous and erroneous heresie Verely as much as in me lieth so long as I haue breath in my body I vvil vvithstand them and protest that they do him iniury vvhich thing any man may do vvith an assured and confident mynde because the Sacramentaries only pul teare his vvords into their ovvne sense prouing their applicatiō by no reason but only by vayne boasting of their most certaine truth And concerning the rest of the fathers whereas M. Iewel affirmeth that they all taught as he did against the real presence Luther contrarywise
bloud of the holy virgin framed him selfe flesh vvithout the seede of man can not he in the sacrament make of bread his ovvne body and of vvine vvater his bloud No mary can he not saith M.W. for that is against reason and so he should haue tvvo bodies one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. But S. Damascene conteÌ„ning such ethnical ioyes proceedeth coÌ„cludeth that as god in the beginning said let the earth bring forth greene hearbes and hetherto being holpen and strengthened by that precept it so doth so god said this is my body and this is my bloud and doe this in commemoration of me and by his omnipotent coÌ„maundement it is vvrought vvhich thing onely faith can conceaue Hovv shal this be done saith the B. Virgin the Archangel Gabriel ansvvered the holy Ghost shal come vpon thee and the povver of the most high shal ouershadovv thee And novv demauÌ„dest thou hovv bread is made the body of Christ and vvine and vvater his bloud I ansvvere in like maner that the holy Ghost commeth vpon it vvorketh that vvhich passeth the capacitie of reason and reach of vnderstanding Whereby you see that hovv soeuer circumscript remained circumscript and visible visible S. Damascene neuer intended by such visible folies so to circumscribe our fâ—â—th or subiecte our religion to humaine reason that Christes presence should be excluded out of the sacrament or the sacrameÌ„t should be esteemed a Zuinglian figure vvhich to induce you take much paine but to very smale effect CHAP. IX VVherein is refelled M. VV. ansvvere to certaine places of S. Chrysostome touching the real presence and sacrifice IN the last chapter vve had an example hovv sufficiently you are vvont to coÌ„firme your ovvne faith by scripture reason fathers here you geue vs an example hovv substantially you ansvvere the fathers vvhich vve vse for confirmation of our faith Tvvo places M. Martin obiected out of S. Chrysostom against your geometrical opinion of Christes body in one place you auoyde them so as you geue out plaine demonstration that you neuer coÌ„sidered them in the author him selfe but only tooke the answere at deliuery from M. Iewel without any farther search Thus you write To Chrysostom teaching that Christ both leaft his flesh vvith vs and ascended hauing the same vvith him I ansvvere that Christ placed his flesh in heauen and neuerthelesse leaft vs a sacrament of that flesh And our fayth enioyeth the same euermore present For the verie substance of his flesh Christ no more leaft in earth then Elias leaft his body vvhen he ascended in to heauen For so Chrisostom vvrote a litle before that Elias vvas aftervvardes double there vvas an Elias aboue and there vvas an Elias beneath Tell me I pray you M. Martyn vvas that Elias body in earth vvhen he leaft his cloke to Elizeus you vvill not say so So true it is vvhich Chrisostome vvriteth that Christ hath left his flesh vnto vs symbolically and yet hath caried the same in to heauen corporally This is your answere which I say you rather allow vs as may be thought because Maister Iewell applieth the same to the selfe same place albeit in my opinion els-where he geueth you a better For labouring to answere the place of S. Ciprian de caena Domini Panis iste quem dominus c. This bread vvhich our lord gaue to his disciples being changed not in shape but in nature by the almightie povver of the vvord of Christ is made flesh after a number of phrases alleaged against the other partes of this senteÌ„ce coÌ„ming to the last is made flesh he sheweth that nether this proueth the real preseÌ„ce that hystore of lyke phrases For S. Aust saith nos Christi facti sumus vve are made Christes Leo saith Corpus regenerati fit caro crucifixi the body of the man that is regenerate is made the flesh of Christ that vvas crucified Beda saith nos ipsi corpus Christi effecti sumus vve our selues are made the body of Christ Origen saith in like maner of speach spiritus sanctus non in turturem vertitur sed coluÌ„ba fit the holy ghost is not changed into a turtell but is made a doue Thus if you had answered that Christ departing tooke his flesh with him really leaft his flesh behinde him allegorically that is the Christian people his church which S. Paul many times calleth his bodye that had bene more probable more to S. Chrisostoms discourse you see what doctors you might alleage for it theÌ„ to say that Christ tooke away with him his flesh really leaft the same with vs symbolically that is bread and wyne which when we receaue at the supper we remember perhaps that Christe had flesh But because it was ether your chaunce or choise to geue vs the other let vs see how handsomly you frame it vnto S. Chrisostoms text The summe of your answere is that as Helias ascendinge leaft his cloke which for certeine reasons was called Elias so our Sauiour ascending leaft vs bread wyne which is a signe of his body for some reasoÌ„s is likewise called by the name of his body but was no more his body theÌ„ the cloke was Elias And are ye not ashamed thus to dally abuse the reader Or can your ignoraÌ„ce be so grosse as to thinke that this is S. Chrisost meaning Or caÌ„ your reader otherwise deeme of you then as of a man altogether rechlesse what you say if euer he reade the place in S. Chrisostome him self For so far of is it that S. Chrisostome hath any such thing that contrarywise he ouerthroweth most stroÌ„gly this your folly and vehemently vrgeth the cleane contrary First touching Elias he hath some of those wordes which you alleage As a great inheretance saith he Elizeus receaued the cloke and truly it vvas a verie great inheritance And aftervvardes that Elias vvas double There vvas an Elias aboue and there vvas an Elias beneath meaning as it is plaine that he was taken vp in body soule and remained beneath in power and operation for so much as by the cloke Elizeus wrought strange myracles such as Elias him selfe did before And so S. Chrisostome saith expresly propterea in coelum ascendens nihil aliud quaÌ„ melotem discipulo reliquit Therefore Elias ascending in to heaueÌ„ leaft to his disciple nothing els but his cloke And would he make a like comparison and say the same of our Sauiour Let vs heare his wordes Thus he coÌ„meth to speake of Christ quid igitur si vobis demonstrauero quid aliud quod illo multo maius c. vvhat then vvil you say if I shevv you an other maner of thing much greater theÌ„ that vvhâ—ch al vve haue receaued vvho so euer haue bene made partakers of the holy misteryes Elias in deed leaft his cloke
in his owne forme partly because the sacrament is a figure vvhich hath the veritie ioâ—ned vvith it and therefore may wel haue his denomination of the principal partly because beyng inconuenient ether in respect of gods wisedome or of our infirmitie to receaue that glorious body in his owne forme which reason Theophilacte S. Damascene S. Cirill S. ChrisostoÌ„ and other fathers geue god hath appoynted these externall sacramentes for instrumâ—ntes by mâ—anes whereof we mâ—ght truly be made partakers of that which otherwise we shoulde abhorre But graunt we now to M.W. that it is only a phrase of speach to say vve see Chrâ—st or his body and bloud how foloweth his reason therefore it is also but a phrase of speach to saye the body is there at all Suppose a man may stand in argument that the Apostles seing the humanitie of Christ sawe not the sonne of god sawe not the creator of the world will your philosophie or diuinitie serue you to infer ergo that person or man whom they beheld was not the sonne of god Agayne what logicke what wit permitteth you from one particular to conclude as many as you liste It is a figure when we reade in scripture god hath hands face nosetrils ergo it is a figure when we reade that Christ tooke flesh of the virgin It is a figure when Christ said that he descended from heauen ergo his ascension is not true but imaginarie It is not possible for vs in the height excellencie of the diuine misteries and the basenes of our vnderstanding and barrennes of our tonge scarce to thinke much lesse to speake of them but we shal fall in to some vnproper termes as appeareth by the whole course of diuinitie From which necessitie he that taketh this licence which M. W. alloweth to him selfe from one word spoken figuratiuelie at his pleasure will deduce the like of an other he will make Christian religion as variable as is the raynebowe as vnconstante as the wethercocke And yet this lose kinde of talking for who can call it reasoning is the verie roote and mother of the Zuinglian gospell for vpon this piller was erected the sacramentarie heresie in Zuricke as Zuinglius him selfe signifieth for thus he reasoned When Christ sayd this iâ— my body he spake tropically because when Moyses sayd the lambe is the pasouer which notwithstanding is a text of his owne coyning as Luther proueth against him this is a tropical speache Agaynst which Luther replying and scorning sayth it is as valiant wyse a proufe as if a man would argue that Sara or Rebecca brought forth children and remayned virgins because our Ladie did so or that Pilate and Herode vvere tvvo glorious Apostles of Christe because Peter and Paule vvere But see you not saith M. W. that S. Chrisostome is full of vehemencie and amplification He is vehement I confesse perhaps amplifieth But wherein is he vehement or what doth he amplifie a lye or a truth a truth to witte the dignitie of priests say you Then there were priests and so there was a sacrifice by your owne definition and playne it is that S. Chrysostome so much advaunceth the priest in regarde of the sacrifice Now this amplificatioÌ„ must rise vpon a true grounde othervvise he may rather be said to magnifie a lye then to amplifie a truth Then gather me out of S. Chrisost any one truth vvhere vpon he doth thus enlarge and vse his vehemencie Nay consider by your opinion and faith vvhether almost euery vvorde in this place be not a lye VVe see Christ sayth he that is a lye and novv refuted by you VVe see him offered that is a lye and a blasphemous lye The priest beÌ„t earnestly to the sacrifice that is a lye for there vvas no such sacrifice within six huÌ„dred yeres after Christ The people receaue the pretious bloud that is a lye for no man beleeued the reall presence vvithin six hundred yeres nether O miracle saith S. Chrysost ô singular goodnes of god he that sitteth vvith his father aboue at the selfe same momeÌ„t of tyme is receaued in the church at the priests hands that is a lye for so should the body of Christ at one tyme be in a thousand places vvhich is agaynst M. Ievvels sixt article there fore needes it must be false so to speake or thinke What truth novv remayneth for S. Chrysostome to amplifie vvhereas euerie vvord he speaketh beyng taken as it standeth according to your religion is false Belike he mâ—aÌ„t to aduauÌ„ce such dealing of bread and vvine as you vse in your congregâ—tions and consequently your ministerie vvhich is promoted to so vvorthie a vocation But vvhat sentence vvhat vvord vvhat sillable hath he to that purpos yet graunt it be so TheÌ„ your faith and religion being all one vvith S. Chrisostomes as you tel vs let your ministers vse such amplification to their people and you neede not to be ashamed to borovve or learne of so excellent a doctor and see vvhether both the people vvill not crye out vpon them as false prophetes and the Commissioners bring them vvithin the Premunire for preaching agaynst the pure gospel receaued and authorised by parlament Let them preach that they offer and sacrifice their lord and maister that they are earnest lye beâ—t to performe that dutie of priesthode that at their hands the peopâ—e receaue the pretious bloud of Christ let such preachers be brought before you M. W. as thâ— publike professor of diuinitie and I appeale to your conscience vvhether you vvill allovv such preaching as an amplification of their mâ—nisterio not condemne it as vvicked and detestable and blasphemous against the gospel Finally M. W. could in no place more vndiscreetly haue vsed this maner of ansvvere then here For S. Chrysostome so placeth the sacrifice of the church betvvene tvvo notorious sacrifices and maketh the comparison betvvene all three so nighly and exactly preferring alvvayes ours by infinite degrees of excellencie that a man vvith halfe an eye may see that M. W. thrust it in rather because he had so read in M. Ievvel then because he coÌ„siderately perused the place him selfe Before the vvords pertayninge to the sacrifice of the church S. Chrysostome thus speaketh of the Leuiticall sacrifice All thinges vvere terrible and dreadfull about that sacrifice and priesthode but if you match it vvith this sacrifice and priesthode vvherein by the priest our lord himselfe is sacrificed all that is nothing as in the vvords set dovvne in the beginning appeareth Immediately after thus he proceedeth vvilt thou see the excellencie of this holines by an other miracles put before thy eyes Elias and that infinite multitude aboute him and the sacrifice lâ—yd vpon the altar the prophete pâ—vvring forth his prayers suddenly fyer descending from heauen and consuming the sacrifice all straunge and full of admiration Ab illis sacris ad nostra sacra te transfer
the cuppe or chalice vvhich he speaketh presupposing his heresie to be true therefore I haue made this alteration sayth he That he neuer found among all his auncient copies latin or greeke any one reading as he translateth himselfe also confesseth Omnes tamen vetusti nostri codices ita scriptum habebant Albeit I thus translate yet all our old auncient bookes had it othervvise that is so vvritten as it is commonly read and as the papistes vvould haue it Wherefore this beinge his fault that vpon priuate fansie to serue his peculiar heresie he hath altered the very letter and text of the Gospel is he a Christian is he a common heretike nay is he not worse then a Iew then a Turke then the worst kinde of Paganes that pretendinge the name of a Christian will defende suche a vile caitife and monster directly against the sacred Euangelist our blessed Sauiour him selfe and yet forsooth because this man is not only a great piller but also for some great parte a very coyner of this nevv Gospel as it vvere their very Euangelist for much of their text is made by him he must needes be defended though the old Euangelistes go to vvracke for it Pardon me ChristiaÌ„ reader if I seeme somevvhat vehement their dealing being such that if men held their peace the very infaÌ„tes yea the very stones vvould speake as saith our Sauiour And vvithal consider thou vvhen they vvil geue ouer those barbarous Paradoxes of feminine primacie of baptisme not remitting sinnes of their tropical bread c. vvherein they staÌ„de only against the Catholiks or at the most against vs and their brethren the Lutherans when as they wil not geue ouer but continevv and mainteyne their trayterous and Satanicall action commenced against our blessed Sauiour But if vve may vvithout sinne spend time in hearing what they haue to say against him let vs attend M. Whitaker and waygh what he dareth vtter in that behalfe Thus he disputeth The vvordes of Luke are This cuppe is the nevv testament in my bloud that is if vve folovv M. Martins interpretation This bloud is the nevv testameÌ„t in my bloud vvhich is shedd for you vvhat sense is there of these vvords M. Martin and vvhat doubte bloud is this See you not here a manifest repetition of the same thing rising of your interpretation VVherefore seing your sentence is plainely absurde vvho vvil not rather vvith Beza say there is a faulte in the vvordes or vvith Basil reade 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 First of all to beginne you somewhat misreporte M. Martin in sayng that he interpreteth Hic sanguis est nouum testamentum in sanguine meo this bloud is the nevv testament in my bloud For though he deduce that by necessarie consequence yet is it an other thing to say he interpreteth it so The interpretation he geueth you precisely out of S. Chrysostome hoc quod est in calice illud est quod fluxit de latere that vvhich is in the chalice is that vvhich flovved out of Christs syde which also S. Leo the greate very diuinelye expresseth Fudit sanguinem instum qui reconciliando mundo et pretium esset et poculuÌ„ he shed the iust bloud vvhich should be both the price the cuppe to reconcile the vvorlde the one in his passion on the crosse the other in the sacrameÌ„t at his last supper whereof though you may truly infer that the bloud of Christ in the chalice is the selfe same bloud that flowed out of the syde of Christ as here S. Leo doth yet talking exactly of propositions you may finde a greate difference As if a man pointing to you should saye this man is a Caluinist or heretike he sayth in deed this Caluinist is a Caluinist yet can you not deny but there is a greate difference in the proposition VVherefore we holde you to the wordes and sense of the Euangelist as your greate Rabbine setteth them doune hoc est sanguis mens noui testamenti This cuppe is my bloud of the nevv testament which is the selfe same without any the least difference which M. Martin geueth you out of S. Chrysostome Now what haue you against it Oh say you it is tautologia an absurd repetition of the selfe same thinge for vvhat double bloud is this First why lye you so grossly and intolerably as to say here is mention of double bloud If I say this Christ is Christ the sonne of God this Messias is the Messias Sauiour of the world this God is God of heauen and earth finde you mentioned a double Christ a double Messias a double God as here you finde double bloud if we say this bloud is the bloud of the new testament Againe lett the reader see if you be not possessed vvith a sprite of giddines and what a miserable surgeon you are who going about to cure Bezaes wounde wouÌ„de your selfe as deepely and whiles you endeuour to excuse his Atheisme and impietie runne headlonge on the same rocke your selfe For what is Bezaes faulte this that to helpe forth his Zuinglian heresie he corrected S. Luke in the later parte of the sentence shedde for you and altered that accordinge to his fansie How doth M. W. mende this by rayling at the first parte This cuppe is the bloud of the nevv Testament for this saith he is tautologia here is double bloud here is an absurd sentence So that now betwene you and Beza S. Luke hath neuer a worde right Beza reprouing and mending the later parte and you being as saucie with the former Is not this well defended Now graunt we al these faults of â—autâ— ogia an absurde sentence an idle repetition c. where lie these faults doubtlesse not so much in the Euangelist who wrote them as in our Sauiour who spake them Suppose I say it seeme harde to your delicate and Ciceronian eares must therefore Christ be sett to schole to learne his lesson of that fierbrande of sedition that sinke gulfe of iniquitie Theodore Beza and what is the absurditie you find in these words mary that that vvhich vvas in the chalice vvas shedde for our sinnes and therefore consequently it was the real bloud of our Sauiour which is plaine Papistrye and against our Communion booke Is it so Then to hell with your Communion booke and you to if that be so opposite to the Gospel of Christ you dare mainteyne it by open checking and controling Christ the eternall wisdome of God And see what rouel we shal haue in scripture if this vnchristian diuinitie go forward And alwayes I desyre the reader to remember that I am by force constrayned to remaine in this base kinde of talkinge in so plaine a matter against these enemies of Christ that seeme to haue lost the common senses of men S. Iohn the Baptist beholding Christ saith Ecce agnus dei ecce quitollit peccata mundi Behold the lambe of God Behold the lambe
that taketh avvay the sinnes of the vvorlde Call S. Iohn to M. VVhitakers consistorie he wil â—â—â—ke him recant his speach For first Christ is no lambe because he hath no woll on his backe It is the self same reason which here is vsed against S. Luke about the meâ—â—all of the chalice Then being driuen from that the adsurditie of tautologia still remaineth Behold this lambe is the lambe of God what an idle speache is this what is this double lambe therfore sende it to Geneua to be cast a new in Bezaes forge The Catholiks of old time to proue distinction of persons in the deitie vsed that place of Genesis pâ—uit dâ—miâ—â—â— aâ— domino our Lord rayned from our Lord to proue the Trinity of persoÌ„s they vsed the place of the psalme Benedicat nos Deus Deus noster benedis at nos Deus God our God blesse vs our God blesse vs. This to a Trinitarian is absurda sententia and induceth a pluralitie of Gods vvhereas S. Paule saith vnus Deus vnus Domâ—nus oâ—â— God one Lord what remaineth theÌ„ but that according to the arrest of this supreme arbiter we fall to newe casting of the scripture and so in short space no doubt we shal growe to perfectioÌ„ that is to the Turks Alcoran if we be not come so farre already The scriptures are full of such absurdities which neuerthelesse are absurdities only to carnal cogitatioÌ„s to Sathan Sathans ministers but to theÌ„ that haue learned in the schole of the holy Ghost to subiect their vnderstanding to the obedience of faith they are nothing so And M.W. if he had in him any droppe of religion fayth he should thus thinke Howsoeuer I can reconcile two or three Gods with one the bloud shedd on the crosse with that which was in the chalice were it bloud or wine let Christs wordes stande as he spake them and the Euangelist wrote them and let vs afterward in the name of God be we Lutherans Zuinglians Caluinists Trinitaries or Anabaptists eche according to his priuate spirite search for the sense as wel as we can Christes soule went downe to hell saith our Creede and S. Luke It is absurde sayth Beza and papisticall and therefore for soule I haue translated carcas and for hell graue whom in so doing the English congregation approueth That Christ ascended into heauen it is a fansie of Aristotle and Mahomet sayth Brentius and to the Lutherans it is absurda sententia shal they now leaue out that word and put in the text for ascendit euanuit or disparuit he vanyshed out of sight in steede of he ascended which to them is the true and only sense of the place and which they may and ought to do by like reason and authoritie But S. Basil you say readeth as you translate graunt he did so but what translate you S. Basil or S. Luke if S. Basil you haue done wel to folovv your greeke copye If S. Luke then do you vvickedly to alter S. Luke vpon coniecture of one greeke doctor all greeke copies and doctors being to the contrarie And vvhat if S. Basil in an other place reade otherwise shal we not make a vvise patching of scripture if vpon euerie particular doctors citation vve alter the holie text S. Aug. in many places S. Bernard and other good men dravv exhortatioÌ„s for their frends or monks or people and commonly they do it in the verie phrase of scripture yet because they knitte together many sentences of scriptures that be in diuers places they must of necessitie adde some words or parcels of their owne Nether is it material if ofteÌ„times they leaue out one worde or a fewe words But if by such authoritie we should alter our text we should in short space haue so many texts that in deed we should haue no text because we should haue no certaine text whereunto we might trust And why remember you not that which in this self same place M. Martin tolde you out of Beza who noteth it to be the custome of the auncient fathers in citing scriptures to alleage the sense not to sticke precisely vpoÌ„ the words And that therefore how soeuer they reade that is no certaine rule to reforme or alter the vvordes of scripture But here you make your aduantage of M. Martins words and say if Basil cited not the vvords but the sense of the scripture theÌ„ Beza vvhen he so traÌ„slated missed nothing of the sense so M. Martin doth novv plainly acquite Beza vvhoÌ„ before he accused For if Basils vvords geue a true sense and the interpretation of Beza and ours all agree vvith Basils vvords then your accusation is false that vve had corrupted the sense of the scripture Somewhat you saye and this hath some appearance more then any thing that you haue sayde hitherto yet you reache not home and you are ouer hasty in your conclusion S. Basil geueth a true sense I confesse whether you respecte the particular matter whereunto he applyeth the place or the generall doctrine of the catholike church For his wordes are sufficieÌ„t for the one and the other And so are the wordes in our vulgar Latin and English and may well be taken as agreing with S. Basil hic est calix nouum testamentum in sanguine meo qui pro vobis fundetur This is the chalice the nevv testament in my bloud vvhich shall be shedde for you And whosoeuer readeth and taketh these later wordes as referring them to the bloud of Christ shedde on the crosse he thinketh very well and truly and no man would euer finde fault with such a sense or citation if it stayd there For this nothing impayreth the other truth whereof we speake that the same bloud is in the chalice But when there riseth vp a new heresie by one truth ouerthrowing an other and by one part of the sentence destroyng an other as it fareth betwixt vs this circumstance so farre altereth the case that the old father alleaging the text without any thought or imagination of heresie did well and christianlike the new heretike enforcing the same in defence of heresie doth nâ—ughtely sacrilegrously as for example If some good man as S. Basil or S. Bernard to induce his auditors to the loue of Christ had vsed this sentence of the Apostle In this appeared the benignitie of our lord sauiour tovvards vs that not by the vvorkes of iustice vvhich vve did but of his infinite mercie he saued vs. This place according to the sense had bene well trulye cited For albeit infinite is not in the text yet that is no hinderance to the meaning and although I name not Christ god yet nether that worde hindereth any thing because in a Christian audience it is all one to say our lord and sauiour Christe or our god and sauiour Christe But if there rose vp some Nestorian heretike that should diuide Christ from god and make two
persons of this one sauiour from which heresie Beza was not farre as you know now this heresie maketh that citatioÌ„ though otherwise good and sound yet not so perfect and absolute as it had bene to put in the worde god Because in this tyme and against such an heritike the place thus alleaged is more forcible S. Bernard erred not in citing the first but this heretike playeth the verie heretike in pressing it against the later Take an other example to make the thing more manifest In S. Luke we reade that the angel thus speaketh to our blessed Ladie Spiritus sanctus superueniet in te etc. ideoque quod nascetur ex te sanctum vocabitur filius dei The holy Ghost shall come vpon thee c. and therefore that vvhich of thee shall be borne holy shall be called the sonne of god who doubteth but S. Bernard or S. Thomas and some auncient copies albeit they leaue out the wordes ex te of thee neuertheles meane the true and perfecte sense of the place that our Ladie through the power of the holy Ghost coÌ„ceaued of her body and brought forth the sonne of god Now ryse your frindes the Ana baptistes and amongest other heresies spreade this that Christ brought his flesh from heauen and tooke it not of our blessed Lady but passed thorough her as water thorough a cundit pipe or according to your auncient comparison when you first began your gospel Christ was so in her as saffron in a saffron bagge And they being pressed with this place answere as you aÌ„swere for Beza that the true reading is to leaue out those two syllables ex te and so the place proueth nothing And this they would proue by better argument then you pretend any hauing for them some auncient copies both greeke and latin besides the reading of more fathers then one Can not you in this case easily conceaue how those fathers and writers gaue a true sense and far from the Anabaptisticall heresie and yet the Anabaptists are wicked heretiks in vrging this correction of the text why so because the fathers spake truly and meant entierly the full truth although the sense be not so full and absolute to all purposes and in euerie respecte namely of this new heresie whereof these fathers neuer dreamed as is the text it selfe in his naturall strength and force put downe in those words and syllables as it was first by the holy Euangelist the Anabaptistes speake falsly and meane detestably when by that alteration they will seeme to confirme their heresie take from the Catholike church so good a grouÌ„d refelling the same which those other fathers neuer entended This is your very case and so S. Basil meant truly and simply and as a Sainte and a Christian though Beza and you deale in the selfe same matter falsely and subtilly and as it becommeth heretikes And yet one step farther vvhen you haue done spoke al al that ye doe speake is nothing to the purpose For suppose ye sinâ—e many Basils and many greeke copies reading as you vvould haue it yet shall you be neuer for al that able to iustifie Beza because he coÌ„fesseth vvhen he so translated he neuer savv any and therefore vvas not moued by any such reading And therfore your pâ—ying searching for fyg-leaues to couer his filthines can no more serue the turne then if a man should excuse Iudas for betrayng Christ by reason of the good vvhich came thereby to the redemption of mankinde Because vvhatsoeuer vvas the euent of that actioÌ„ he sinned thâ—rin damnably vvho regarded no such matter but only for malice and gayne of xxx pence sold his lord and maister and the selfe same is to be saide of this Iudas vvhose honestie you vvould so fayne sane For vvhatsoeuer may be the successe of your labours in this argument he certainely plaid therein the parte of a damnable corruptor of gods holy vvord vvho for malice against the truth and loue of his heresie vvithout any such knovvledge committed so sacrilegious an acte And the reason vvhich you make helpeth the matter neuer a vvhit but so muche the more discouereth your folly Thus you argue If by the cuppe you vnderstande not the cuppe it selfe but the bloud of Christe in the cuppe is not this a trope vvhy then are you offended vvith vs vvhen you your selues graunt that there is a trope in these vvords Is it lavvfull for you to inuent tropes is it vnlavvfull for vs to appoint one necessarie trope Whereunto I ansvvere first that this is also from the purpose For be your Zuinglian heresie most true as it is moste false it furthereth you nothing nor abbettereth his rashnes in altering the text For vve may not make the scripture speake euerie truth in euerie place much lesse may vve make it speake vile heresie in any place Then the forme of your reasoning is so lose that if a man vvould studie for an argument to make sport vvithall he could not deuise one more fond and ridiculous We allovv of a trope vvhen vve interprete the cuppe to be the bloud or the thing conteyned in the cuppe Ergo vve ought to allovv your trope in the other parte of the sentence that the bloud shed for vs should signifie a cuppe of vvine What vvit reason probabilitie or sense induceth you so to talke vvhence riseth the coherence and connexion of this consequent Is it this because in one part of the seÌ„tence there is a trope or figure therefore the other part is figuratiue also as for example S. Paule sayth by the lavv I am dead to the lavv vvith Christ I am nayled to the crosse and agayne VVe that are baptised are buried together by baptisme in to death vvith Christ in vvhich sentence the Apostle ioyneth tvvo seuerall truthes in the first Christ vvas nayled to the crosse and I am nayled to the crosse vvith him in the next Christ vvas buried and vve that are baptised are buried vvith him Novv is this your argument S. Paule vvas nayled to the crosse mystically and this a trope ergo Christ vvas nayled to the crosse in such maner and that is also a trope vvhen the baptised are sayd to be buried vvith Christ it is a figure ergo that Christ vvas buried is likevvise a figure If this be the knitting of your argumeÌ„t you see vvhat pith is in it Or is it because of one particular figure you may infer an other then also you haue your aunsvvere geuen you partly in that vvhich is hovv sayd partly before by your father Luther that it is as substantiall a reason as if I should saie Peter vvas an Apostle ergo Pilate vvas an Apostle the blessed virgin brought forth and remained a virgin ergo Sara did so Or meane you that your trope hath as good reasoÌ„ to support it as hath ours if so vve geue you infinite difference because vpon our trope to vvitte that the
c. 2 â—ed in Luc. cap. 5. Act. 4. v. 37. 2. Pet. 3. v. 3. Psal 1. Heretikes generally geuen to scorning mocking Vide Brentium contra Bullinger de mansionibus in caelo anno 1561. fol. 22.23.35 Carlile in his booke that Christ descended not in to hel fol. 35 36 37 38 96 97 98. Sleid. li. 17. pa. 311. 4. Reg. 4. v. 37. Luc. 8. v. 47. Luc. 7. v. 38. Act. 8. v. 27. Pilgrimage to holy places Phil. 2. v. â—0 D. Whit. defens tract 21. c. 7. pa. 743. M.W. taketh parte with Iewes and Infidels against Christians Why Christians do honour at the name of Iesus The Protestantes vse more deuotion and yelde more reuerence to the pictur of a dog and a lyon then to the name image or crosse of Christ. The Protestants wil haue no reuerence done at the name of Iesus How Catholikes honour the name of Iesus and other things pertaining to him Wherevnto the Protestants tenâ—t by such ridiculous coÌ„clusions Heb. 1. v. 1. Ibi. c 11. v. 1. Rom. 8. v. 24 The true nature of Christian faith Marc. 12. Mat. 22. 1. Cor. 15. How S. Paul proueth the resurrection Cor. 15. How one part or article of faith is applied to the confirmation of an other Before pa. 177.178 Whitg defeÌ„ce against M. Car. Trac 3. c. 6. ¶ 4. The English writers teach the way to scorne al Christian religion M. Iewel thoroughout his first booke against â— Harding Pag. 2â— Pag. 114. Annot. in Mat. cap. 10. v. 22. The antiquitie of the Protestants church Haddon in fine epist contra Osoriâ—â—â— Aug. de nupt et con cupis lib â— cap. 31. Luth. to 7. defens verboruÌ„ coenae fol. 400. Debacchari The Zuinglians notable lyers The pitiful shiftes of our aduersaries Pag. 23. Hebr. 7. v 17. The first blasphemy The answere Lye vpoÌ„ lye S. Paules epistle to the hebrewes reiected by the protestants Before pag. 414. 1. Cor. 3. v. 12 Bible of the yere 1579. in the preface of this epistle How Christ is a priest for euer Christs eternal priesthod consisteth in the perpetual sacrifice of his body bloud in the Church The protestants cauilling vpon particles against Melchisedecks sacrifice priesthod directly against the Apostle Christs eternal priesthod and sacrifice in the Church is proued out of the fathers Heretikes very blynd in the scripture though they crake much of their deepe insight in them Tit. 3. v. â— Rom. 1. v. 28 Luc. 8. v. 10. 2. Thess 2. v 11. See the Anotations in cap. 5. v. 11. 7. v. 11.12 c. 9.12.15.25 c. 10. v. 2. Multiplication of lyes 7. v. 4.11.23.9 v 12.15.10 v. 2.4.5.11 No time to talke of the Sacrifice of the church wheÌ„ the Sacrifice of the crosse is not first beleeued The auncient fathers speake more plainely of the church Sacrifice then doth S. Paule without any derogation to S. Paule Act. 2. v. 22. Ioan. c. 12.13 14.15.16.17 The councel of Nice expressed the consubstantialitie of Christ with his father more plainely then any Euangelist M.W. last obiection Answered Answered by him self before pag. 17. Answered by M. Iewel Iewel in his Replie art 1 ¶ 5. in M. W. translation pag. 9. Answered by Illyricus Illyric ad Heb. c. 7. v. â— Who euer saw such foly pride and partialitie Mat. 7. v. 3. The second and last blasphemie pag. 24. Rom. 6. v. 23 The principal of these Sorbonists after S. Paule is S. Austin Life euerlasting a stipend and yet grace Aug. epist 105. How eternal life is of grace yet the reward of iustice Let M W. marke this True it is Al the Prophetes Euangelists Apostles were Sorbonists by M. W. iudgment a Prou. 11. v. 18. c. 24. v. 12 Sap. 5.16 ca. 10.17 Ecclesia 16.12 c. 51.38 b Psal 61.12 c Esa 40.10 c. 62.11 d Ierem. 31.16 e 1. Peter 1.17 f 2. Ioan. 8. Apoc. 2.23 c. 22.12 g Rom. 2.6 1. Cor. 3.8 2. Cor. 5.10 2. Thess 1. v. 6.7 h Mat. 5.12 c. 6.1 c. 10.41 c. 16.27 c. 20.8 c. 25. Sorbone a famous College in Paris Shameful ignorance See before pag. 99.100 c. M. W. hath vndertaken hard matters to defend Chap. 1. Chap. 10. Chap. 5. M Iewels chalenge Chap. 7. The proceeding of our aduersaries Many of theÌ„ are proceeded thus far already See the prface pa. 65.66 c 2. Cor. 4. Hieron ad TheophiluÌ„ contra errores Ioannis Hieros Nicep li. 8. cap. 42. Mar. 2. v. 11. See before chap. 11. pag 31.32 If Luther be saâ—ed al they of English religion are damned See before chap. 3. Aug. epi. 56. 2. Pet. 2. v. 28 The ZuingliaÌ„s proue al thing by boasting Luther defens verborum caenae fol. 405. Ibi. fol. 381.382 Ibid. fo 394 406. No more reason to be a Zuinglian then a Lutheran or Arrian â—nfinite difâ—â—rence beâ—wene the Catholike â—ause and â—he proteâ—tantes Church of â—he tyme present Church of the tyme past Scriptures Preface pa. 35.36 Iudgment Neuer was there any common welth worse ordered theÌ„ the Church of Christ by the Protestants diuinitie No ground of the English religion See chap. 7. pag. 165. Chap. 4. pa. 69.70 c. c. 6. p. 121.122 Chap. 3. pag. 45. Chap. 1. 2.