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
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
apostasie from Christ these later hundred yeres vpon which as I haue said dependeth the verie substance of this his booke is an absurditie in Christian religion so foule monstruous and abominable that it can not be defended of any man except he first of al deny the very incarnation of Christ his preaching his death and passion his eternal kingdome priesthod the sending of the holy Ghost the entier summe of all whatsoeuer hath bene written by the Apostles or foretold by the prophetes For to what end was Christes incarnation but to ioyne him selfe vnto a Church from which he would neuer be separated To what end was his preaching but to erect and instruct such a Church To what end his death and passion but to redeeme sanctifie such a Church leaue vnto it an euerlasting remedie to blot out her sinnes and offences How is he an eternal king who hath not an eternal people obeyng him and obseruing his lawes how an eternal priest whose priesthod and sacrifice for so many hundred yeres was applied to none auailed for none and to what puâ—pose was the holy Ghost sent but to remayne vvith the church for euer and leade her into al truth And vvhat is the summe of the gospels but a declaration that Christ by him self by the holy Ghost by his Apostles founded such a church in vvhich his wil should euermore be openly preached his sacramentes rightly euermore ministred true faith and religion alvvaies preserued a certain vvay for conuerting infidels to the faith for coÌ„futing errors and heresies be continued and al true ChristiaÌ„s maintained by lawful pastâ—rs in vnitie of his true faith against al blastes of vaine doctrine euen vntil his coming to the general iudgement Finally that such a citie and common welth it should be so coÌ„stant so stroÌ„g so vnmoueable that it should vpholde the glorie and name of Christ â— gainst Princes against Potentates against Kings and Emperours against al the force of the world the deuil though they al with might and mayne applyed their whole power to the suppressing and rooting out of it And the self same is the effect of al the auncient Prophetes that the preachers of Christes catholike church should neuer cease day nor night to preach the truth that howsoeuer darknes couered al other nations yet the light there of should neuer be extinguished that the spirite of God and truth of doctrine should neuer depart from it but remayne in it froÌ„ one generation to an other euen for euer that it should neuer be brought in to a narow roume as was the synagoge of the Iewes but should be diffunded thorough al prouiÌ„ces of the earth that the course of heauen of the sunne of day and night should rather faile then priests and preachers of the new testament that albeit other monarchies had an end were altered as the Assyrians the Persians the Macedonians the Romanes yet this should neuer suffer any such a teration but should stand vnchangeâ—ble for euer Wherefore to affirme that this Church hath failed is to affirme that Christ his Apostles Prophetes are al liers that what soeuer is written in the old and new testameÌ„t is all vaine and fabulous For touchâ—ng the straunge deuise of an inuisible church which some of them haue of late imagined it is nothing els but a mere poetical fansie a fansie vvhich consisteth only vpoÌ„ their ovvne vvord and credite for profe vvhereof they neuer yet brought any scripture couÌ„cel father doctor chronicler or writer nor euer shal be able a fansie by which any sect neuer so horrible may defend them selues to be a Church as wel as they a fansie framed and patched together of mere contrarieties and contradictions a fantastical opinioÌ„ which being long since abandoned of the learned protestants in other countries as most vvicked and pestileÌ„t is novv I knovv not vpon vvhat miserie and necessitie receaued of our English Diuines VVhensoeuer vve thinke of the church saith Melanchthon let vs beholde the company of such men as are gathered together vvhich is the visible church nether let vs dreame that the elect of God are to be found in any other place then in this visible societie For nether vvil God be called vpon or acknovvledged othervvise then he hath reuealed him self nether hath he reuealed him self els vvhere saue only in the visible church in vvhich only the voice of the gospel soundeth Nether let vs imagine of any other inuisible church but let vs knovv that the voice of the gospel must sound openly amongst men according as it is vvritten Psal 18 Their sound is gone forth in to al the earth Let vs knovv that the ministery of the gospel must be publike and haue publike assemblies as it is sayd Ephes 4. Let vs ioyne our selues to this company let vs be citizens and members of this visible congregation as vve are commaunded in the 25. and 83. Psalme VVhich places and other the like speake not of Platoes Idea but of a visible church c. And in sundry other places refelling this mad fansie he euer concludeth Necesse est fateri esse visibilem Ecclesiam de qua filius Dei c. It is of necessitie that vve confesse a visible church whereof the sonne of God saith Matth. 18 Dic ecclesiae Tel the church vvhereof Paule saith 1. Cor. 4 VVe are made a spectacle to the vvhole vvorld to angels and to men VVhat a spectacle I beseech you is that vvhich is not seene and whereunto tendeth this monstruous speach vvhich denieth the visible church Delet omnia testimonia antiquitatis abolet iudicia facit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 infinitam illam Cyclopum politiaÌ„ in qua◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vt est apud Euripidem It abolisheth al testimonies of antiquitie it taketh avvay al iudgementes it causeth an endles confusion and induceth a common vvelth of vnruly ruffians or Atheists vvherein no one careth for an other And Caluin interpreteth the article of our creede Credo Ecclesiam CatholicaÌ„ of the Catholike visible Church saith furthermore that the knowledge therof is so necessary that there is no hope of life by grace in this world except we be conceaued brought forth nourished aâ—d ruled by her so long as we liue Adde quod extra eius gremium nullae est spâ—randa peccatoruÌ„ remissio neque vlla salus teste Iesai c. 37. vers 32. Ioel. ca. 2. v. 32. Ezechiel ca. 13. v. 9. psal 106. v. 4. Adde here vnto that out of the lap of this visible church no pardon of synnes is to be hoped for nor any saluation as vvitnesse Isaie Ioel Ezechiel and the Prophete Dauid And OecolaÌ„padius writing vpoÌ„ the Prophete Isaie and those wordes ca. 2. Fluent ad eum omnes gentes Create is the dignitie saith he of the Christian church aboue the synagoge of the Ievves in that it shal
obserued novv vvith so much seueritie rigour as the heremites as Hierome Austine Gregorie Bernard FrauÌ„cis Dominike many others obserued it litle perhaps should I profite by my doctrine of faith against that state of papistrie yet neuertheles after the example of Paule inueighing against the false Apostles in apparance most holy and good men I ought to fight against such Iustice vvorkers of the papisticall Kingdome and say though you liue a chast life and vvearie your bodies vvith much exercise yea though ye vvalke in the humilitie and religion of Angels yet are ye bondmen of the lavv of sinne and the deuill ye are to be cast out of the house because you seeke for iustice and saluatioÌ„ by your vvorkes and not by Christ Thus Luther and this being the general doctrine of the Protestantes in al their treatises of iustification and M. W. pretending to be of the number supposing the fault to be true which he layeth to the fathers if he folowed the iudgment of S. Paule S. Ciprian S. Augustine al Catholike ChristiaÌ„s he must needes accompt them aduersaries of Christ prophane and wicked cast out eternally from the face of God if he folowed the vniuersal sway of his owne doctrine teaching only faith and iustification thereby he could not but with Luther hold them for impious hipocrites bondmâ—n of sinne and the deuil idolaters vvithout knovvledge of God as il as any monke Turke Ievv or Anabaptist And certainly no monke except perhaps some Apostataes as Luther him self Bucer P. Martir or such founders of this new Gospel liuing in his order thought euer so ethnicallie of Christes passion as by M.W. iudgment S. Ciprian and those fathers did And therefore I see not how he so excusing the fathers in this point and calling it a light error or none at al caÌ„ him self be excused from plaine Atheisme whether he be arraygned before his lawful Iudges S. Paule S. Ciprian S. Austine and their successours Catholike Bishoppes or before Luther that Apostata vvhom he honoreth for his father the rest of that coÌ„fraternitie except perhappes he wil pleade in his defence that he knew not this which is so coÌ„monly knowen to al and so to quitte him self of so foule impietie wil condemne him self of notorious ignorance But howsoeuer he shift the matter M. Martins charge standeth vndischarged that to say that the fathers tooke from Christ ascribed to them selues the office of his mediatorship satisfaction and remission of sinnes and iustice before God and yet to cal them most holie is as plaine a coÌ„tradictioÌ„ as to say such a man seeth most sharply yet both his eyes are out of his head he geueth consaile excelleÌ„t wel in any coÌ„trouersie of law mary his head for al that is a mile of from his shoulders And yet to mende the matter presently and fast vpon the former talking of the same thinge he stumbleth in to an other contradiction as grosse as the other For labouring to make our faultes more odious and to seuer vs as far as may be from the fathers thus he writeth the fathers vvrite sometimes that it is our part to do satisfactioÌ„ vnto God that God is pacified vvith our satisfactioÌ„ that thereby vve promerite him and redeeme our sinnes vvhich albeit they are not verie conueniently spoken yet by these they vvould haue no other thinge vnderstood or signified theÌ„ that pardon of sinnes and Gods grace vvas to be requested and craued of vs vsinge also those external actions of penance teares fastes vvatchinges almes vvhich thing may appeare by Ciprian alone in many places most euideÌ„tly in his 55. epistle in his booke against Demetrian and in his sermon de lapsis what sense you deuise and frame to your self I know not nether skilleth it greatly but surely the discourse of S. Ciprian and his words be as much against you as possibly may be deuised and especially in the places by you quoted to geue the reader a tast of your sinceritie thus he there writeth By satisfaction and iust mourning our sinnes are redeemed and our vvoundes by teares are cleansed our lord is to be prayed vnto our lord is to be pacified by our satisfaction let euerie man confesse his sinnes vvhile his confession may be admitted vvhile satisfaction and pardon geuen by the priestes is acceptable before God let our soule prostrate her self before god and satisfie him by sorovvfulnes let vs pacify gods vvrath and indignation by fasting lamentation mourning as he him self hath vvarned vs. The prophete Daniel by fasting endeuoured to deserue gods fauour and the like haue done al humble vvel-meaning and innocent men Thinkest thou that God is so easely pacified vvhom vvickedly thou hast denied Thou must pray and intreate him earnestlie thou must spend the day in mourning the night in vvatching lamentations prostrate on the ground in ashes and hearecloth thou must imploy thy self vpon iust vvorkes by vvhich sinnes are purged thovv must geue much almes by vvhich soules are deliuered from death In this sort the faith florished in the Apostles tyme. in this sort the first faithful Christians kept Christes coÌ„maundemeÌ„tes to be short for a great part of that treatise de lapsis runneth after this maner thus he endeth the same he that thus shal do satisfaction to God c. being heard and holpen of God shal not only deserue pardoÌ„ of him but also a crovvne in heauen Thus S. Ciprian which how it should most clearly make against satisfaction and workes satisfactorie M.W. knoweth belike for I gladly professe my self therein to vnderstaÌ„d nothing But graunt we the conclusion let S. Ciprian speake meane as you would haue him looke a litle backe consider how palpably you contradicte your self for if it be most euident that S. Ciprian meante vvel though he spake not so conueniently if he vnderstoode nothing els but that vve ought to request pardon for our sinnes at Gods hand and craue his grace vsing vvithal these externall actions of penance fasting vvatching almes why sayd you immediatly before that Ciprian vvith the other fathers corrupted the doctrine of penance why sayd you that they greuously erred somevvhat diminished the force of the death and bloud of Christ by vvhich only our sinnes are expiated how is it not a sensible lye when you say that by their penitentiall vvorkes they derogated not a litle froÌ„ Christes death attributed to much to their ovvne inuentions when you haue quitted theÌ„ of that superstitious opinion of merite satisfaction which commonly you obiect to them how can the actions seeme any way reproueable to any maÌ„ except he be worse then Epicurus or Diagoras do these holie actions being done with a good minde and intent such as you now graunt to the fathers corrupt the doctrine of repentance doth fasting in it self derogate from Christes death doth watching detract from his passioÌ„ do almesdedes
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
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
euery day more and more misdoubt the ruine of their Atheistical gospel which dayly the more it is knovven the more it grovveth in horror and execration amonge honest natures not only such as are directed by the spirit of God but euen such as are somevvhat holpen vvith the assistance of natural wisedome and honest inclination But come vve to the particular crymes layde against vs and vvherevpon this dreadful inuectiue is properly builded vvhich is our corrupting the text or departing from our latin testament For as vve in examining their testament framed according to the greeke as they pretended reproued them not in their translation nor could so doe reasonably so long as precisely they kept them selues to their greeke for vvhether the greeke â—aâ—ere so to be folovved is an other question in like maner vve proposing to translate the latin vvhich to vs is as autentical as the greeke to them can not reasonabâ—y be blamed as false and corrupt translators but vvhere vve haue gone aside and leaft that original which vve pretended to translate And if herein vve haue erred vve gladly vvil acknovvledge our ouersight and are ready to ameÌ„d the same And here Reader hast thou specially to marke by what argument he verifieth that which he obiecteth Our prophane corruptions our outragâ—ous boldnes our more violence vsed to the holy testameÌ„t of Christ then euer vvas vsed by any kinde of heretike so notorious that al the world may iudge that our intent was To make the peopâ—e scorne and contemne the vvord of God how iustifieth â—e al this by what proofe for hitherto we haue wordes and nothing but wordes such as euery grammar-boy can picke out of the booke which he readeth and ioyne together But from M. W. the Q. Maiesties reader his auditors looke for sounder stuffe then such childish grammatical declaiming Many places saith he haue I noted vvherein you haue manifestly erred from that your vulgar latin edition that vvil I declare by one example the like vvhere of I could bring forth many Surely this is very weake to maintaine the greatnes of the accusation thundered out before And whereas you promise one example and geue vs two the reader may assure him self you would haue spared vs three if you had bene able But belyke these one or two are horrible monstrous faults and touch matters of maruelous great height Christs Diuinitie Humanitie Incarnation Heauen and Hel such as are the faults of these mens bibles and so these two may serue in steed of a number Let vs here them in M. W. owne words In the epistle to the Rom. ca. 13. v. 19. thus it is read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vvhich vvords the old interpreter turned thus Non vosmet ipsos desendentes but by you they are turned othervvise according to the greeke veritie Not reuenging your selues The like place is in Matth. 4. v. 16. vvhere these vvords 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the old interpreter turned The people vvhich vvalked in darkenes ambulauit in tenebris as also in Hierom vve reade but you folovving the greeke exemplat haue turned othervvise and more truly The people that sitteth in darknes Qui sedes in tenebris Thus M. VV. and this is al. And here first of al the reader may againe remeÌ„ber how iust cause I had to charge him with affected hypocrisie for exclaming so tragically vpon our testament wherein he findeth only these faultes which if they were faultes of what weight they are euery child may iudge But to passe that ouer let the reader see how blindly fovvly he is deceiued We haue left our latin folovved the greeke saith he in turning Defendentes Reuenging and why so hovv proueth he that vve leaue our latin he vvil ansvvere I suppose for reason him selfe yeldeth none because in al M. Coopers Dictionarie vve finde not that Defendere signifieth To reuenge If that be true then belike if vve vvere maister Coopers scholers the case vvould goe somvvhat hard vvith vs. But if he vvil vevv other Dictionaries as wel as M. Coopers he shal find both that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in greeke in latin is truely turned by Defendere and Defendere in latin is vvel and properly turned in English by Reuenge So the greeke dictionarie of Basile printed the yere 1557. teacheth vs. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 defendo vindico vlciscor in alicuius gratiam So the latin and french and latin greeke french dictionaries printed at Paris the yeres 1559.1575 1580. set forth by Sonnius Rob. Stephanus teach vs that Defendere signifieth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 defender garder et preseruer venger as vvel to reuenge as to defend gard preserue And which is to vs more then al the dictionarie of the Church that is the auncient ecclesiastical vse of this vvord in the scripture fathers teacheth vs somtimes in this place this to be his proper grammatical ense and so the auncieÌ„t fathers vsed this word So Tertullian Durum videbatur populo a deo expectare defensam edicendam postea per prophetam mihi defensam et ego defendam It seemed a hard thing for the Ievvish people in Moyses time to expect reuenge from God vvhich vvas aftervvards promised by the prophete saing To me reuenge and I vvil reuenge Where manifest it is that Defendere and defensa is graÌ„matically Reuenge To reuenge manifest it is that S. Ambrose doth not expound but grammatically take the word Defendere in the self same maner that is to signifie ReueÌ„ge eueÌ„ as S. Hier. put it or rather as I thinke leaft it being so vsed by the former traÌ„slator So doth Haymo so doth S. Bede and maketh no scruple at it but in his commentarie taken out of S. Augustine expresseth by Vindicare that which our interpreter vttered by Defendere And the same is most plaine by the traÌ„slatioÌ„ of the bible it self For whereas in other places for example in the storie of Holofernes the greeke is That he sware he would 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Reuenge him self of al the laÌ„ds that doth the old interpreter vtter by Defendere And in the 9. chap. where Iudith praiseth God saing according to the later English bible O Lord God of my father Symeon to vvhom thou gauest a svvord to take vengeance of the strangers the latin is Gladium ad defensioneÌ„ abienigenaruÌ„ the greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the English bible printed two yeres before traÌ„slateth A svvord for a defence against the enemies and putteth in the margent Or to reuengment The former bible vseth only Defence not ReueÌ„ge at al whereby it is cleare that those traÌ„slators hauing belike some more skil in the old vse of this word theÌ„ M.W. accoÌ„pted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be wel turned ether by Reuenge which is more proper or by Defence which is also most true respecting the vse of the latin