The confutation of certen senten­ces, whych are in the pre­face of the Bysshop­pes booke.

But the Romysh Antichrist to deface The bysshop this great benefite of christ, hath taught that christes sacrifice made v­pon the crosse is not à sufficient, satis­faction and redemption for synne wythout an other sacrifice deuised by hym, and made by à priest. &c.

Who sayth, my lord, that christes The confu­tation. sacrifice made vpon the crosse is not à sufficient satisfaction for the remissiō of the synnes of the whole world? Why do ye blame vs in that, whych [Page 22] we defend not? Haue not I declared in my boke of the holy masse, that chri­stes sacrifice is sufficient of it selfe to saue al the whole world, and that the sacrifice of the masse is the very selfe same sacrifice, touchyng the thinges offered, which are christes natural bo­dy and bloud, and that it is distinct o­nely from it in the maner of offering, and is à meane to apply yt vnto vs for the remission of our synnes? It is also false that the bysshop of Rome deui­sed this sacrifice, for christ hym selfe did institute it, as I wil proue, by gods grace in the confutation of the fyft boke. Ye say, my lord, that the bysshop of Rome deuised the sacrifice of the masse, and that à priest maketh no more Libr. 5. sacrifice for our synnes, then the laye man doth, and also that your doctrine is approued of the ancient docters, which your saynges are very false, for the holy martyr Anacletus, that was whythin lx yeres after christes passion, [Page] this wryteth of that sacrifice of Epist. 1. om­nibus ecclesiis scripta. the masse. They that do make sacrifi­ce perfectely vnto god, ought not to be vexed, but to be borne wyth al, conforted, and worshipped of al men. But when they do make sacrifice vnto our lord, they ought not to do it alone wythout wytnes, that they myght be proued to haue made sacrifice vnto god in places haloued. Now wil ye say, my lord, that this blessed martyr deuised this sacrifice of his oune head, a­gainst christes sacrifice? He affirmeth that priestes do make sacrifice at mas­se, & ye deny vtterly that they make any sacrifice more then the laye man doth. Whether of you twoo is more worthy to be beleued? Heare what S. Clement pauls compaignion in prea­chyng of the gospel sayeth in this matter, these are his wordes vnto S. Iames the apostle. Let there be so many ho­ostes Epistola. 2. offered vpon the aulter, as may suffice the people. What can ye now [Page 23] say, my lord, vnto this holy martyr? Doth he not make playne mention here both of the sacrifice of the masse, and also of an aulter for that sacrifice to be made vpon? May ye not then, my lord, be ashamed of your wrytyng that this sacrifice of the masse was de­uised by the bisshop of Rome against christes blouddy sacrifice, and that priestes make no more sacrifice then the layte doth? Why do ye cast doune the aulters, which the apostles vsed to say masse, and to offer sacrifice vpon? Is this to reforme and restore, (as ye pretende) christes religion vnto the state, that it was in at the begynnyng of the chuch? Do ye not rather destroy that, which the primitiue church euer vsed? But S. Clement sayeth agayne Epist. 3. vnto S. Iames. We must knowe gods wyl, whyles we do lyue here, where the place is to offre sacrifice, for we may The masse is à sacrifi­ce not of late deuised. not make sacrifice, and say masses yn any other places, then yn which our [Page] oune bysshop hath commaunded, or yn that place that is, or shal be conse­crated by the bysshops debite of that cite. For these thynges shal not be o­ther wyse wel done, both the old, and also the neue testament bearyng ther vnto wytnes. The apostles learned these thinges of our lord, and taught thē vs. Who nowe may not see playnly, my lord, howe far your doctrine dissē teth from the apostles, and the anciēt docters teaching, and beliefe? S. Cle­ment sayeth that christe taught his a­postles to offre sacrifice at masse, and yn what place they shold do it, & that the apostles taught the same vnto him and his feloes, & ye, my lord, say that the bysshop of Rome deuysed that sa­crifice, and that priestes do make no sacrifice more then the laye people do, and yet ye affirme in the title of your book, that this your doctrine is approued by the cōsent of the most ancient doctours of the church. O what mea­ne [Page 24] ye, my lord? Thinke ye to blere mennes eyes after such sorte? Thynke ye that we do not espie, what ye goo Epistola. ad burdegalē ­ses, cap. 3. about? S. Martial peters scholer thus writeth of the masses sacrifice. A sa­crifice is offered vpon an aulter vnto god, not to man, nor angel. Nor that is An aulter for masse to be sayed vpon. not only done vpon an aulter haloued but à cleane sacrifice is offered vnto god yn euery place, as he doth testifie, whose body and bloud, we offre to ob­teyne euerlasting life. Do ye not yet, my lord, blusse? May ye not wel repēt your labour spent in settinge furth of this your booke, seyng this disciple of S. peter so openly speaketh both of the presence of christes body & bloud in the holy sacrament, and also of the sacrifice of the masse? Why also do ye destroy aulters, which were vsed in the apostles tyme (as it appeareth here) for masses to be sayed vpon? What I The masse is à sacrifi­ce propitiaetori for synne. pray you, my lord, is it to offre christes body and bloud at masse, to purchase [Page] therby euerlasting life, yf it be not the masse to be à sacrifice to pacifie gods wrath for synne, and to obteyne his mercy? Why then do ye denye this, and say that such doctrine is blasphe­mous and iniurious vnto christ, and his sacrifice? Wold ye, that we shold beleue your sayng, before al these, & al other old godly fathers doctrine? Heare yet ones agayne this holy martyr S. peters scholer, which saieth thus That same thing, that the Iewes did The masse is à sacrifice for syn­ne. kil throughe enuye, we set furth vpon the aulter for our saluation knowyng that by this remedy alone the life that euer lasteth, shal be geuen to vs, and death dreauen away from vs, for our lord hym selfe bade vs do this in remē braunce Lucae. 22 of hym. Loo, my lord, this blessed martyr S. peters disciple affir­meth that priestes do offre for our sal­uation, to get heauen, and to auoyed hel, the selfe same thinge vpon an aul­ter, that the ieues did put vnto death. [Page 25] Wyth what face do ye thē denye, that christes bodye is yn the sacrament, but bread only à signe of it, and say al­so that the masse is no sacrifice at al for synne? This father sayeth, that christ commaunded sacrifice to be made of his body and bloud for our saluation, and are ye not, my lord, ashamed then to say that the sacrifice of the masse was deuysed by the bysshop of Rome, against christes sacrifice, which he ma­de vpon the crosse? Who denyeth, my lord, but that christes sacrifice made vpon the crosse is sufficient for the re­mission of the synnes of the whole world? But what therof? Wil ye of that gather, either that it did euen, when it was made first vpon the crosse, take a­way cleane in effect, and actually al Note. mens synnes, or els that it neadeth no­ne application to take effecte in vs for our saluation? Why thē shold there be any hel, or any man be damned? For was not that his sacrifice à sufficient redemption 1. Ioan. 2 [Page] for the synnes of al the whole world? Agayne, yf the sacrifice of christ made vpon the crosse, neade no application, why shold we neade to be­leue in hym? to hope? to feare god? to do penaunce for our synnes? to praye? to fast? to gyue almes? to loue god? to keepe his commaundementes? or to do any good? May we not then saye (as 1. Cor. 15 many haue done, and yet do) let vs ea­te, drinke, and make good chere, for christ hath done al, & enoughe for vs? He wil not lose one of vs, that he hath bought so dearly. This many men do saye, that are your scholers, my lord, & they may gather no lesse out of many places of this your boke, althoughe ye neuer ment any such thinge. Wherfo­re seyyng christ did not actually, nor in effecte take away by his death the synnes of men, but onely as à meriter and deseruer of grace and remission of our synnes, he hath prepared à reme­die to heale & cure them, that receaue, [Page 26] do, and keepe al such thinges, which he hath appoynted to be meanes to ap­plye that his benefite, vertu & strēgth of his passion vnto them. Why then may not the sacrifice of the masse be such à meane, emoūg many other mo for that application of christes merite vnto vs, wythout any derogation of the perfection & sufficientcye of christes sacrifice, made by his death? Sayed Heb. 5. not S Paul that christ was made the cause of saluation, not of al men abso­lutely, but to them, that obeyed hym? Doth not he then plainly declare, that this obedience of man is necessarie for the application of christes perfect sa­crifice, and yet that proueth no imper­fectiō at al in that sacrifice? Sayed not Coloss. 1. also S paul that christ had pacyfied his fathers wrath, & recōciled vs vnto hym by his death, and yet not wyth­standing that that his sacrifice was ful, perfect, and sufficient, he sayed, that he did supplye those thinges, whych [Page] lacked in christes passions, when he suffered afflictions, and persecution in his bodie for the people? What mēt he, my lord, els but that the passions, afflictions and peynes, which he suffered for the settyng furth and defendyng of the gospel, were meanes to applie christes perfect, and sufficient sacrifi­ce vnto the people for the remission of their synnes, and their saluation? Why then sayed ye, that they, which defen­de the sacrifice of the masse, as an in­strument and à meane to applye chri­stes passion vnto vs for our saluation, do it to supplye the imperfection of christes sacrifice, and to do that for vs, which christ either for lacke of charite did not for vs, or els for lacke of pouer could not do? Were ye not playnely disceaued, my lord, when ye wrote this against the sacrifice of the masse? Recā te then for shame, recāte, this noughty doctrine, & teach it no more. Now to the confutatiō of your first boke.

❧ The Confutation of the first booke.

What so euer can not be grounded The bysshop fo. 1. pa. 2 vpon the scripture, (touchyng oure fayth) is mans deuyse, chaungeable, & vncertayne.

What saye ye then, my lord, vnto The Confu­tation. the baptisme of children? For of it S. Austen thus writeth vpō the Genesis. The custome of our mother the chur­che Lib. 1 [...]. ca. 23. ad lite­ram. in baptizing of children, is not be despised, nor to be iudged superfluous in any wyse, nother it ought to be be­leued, excepte it had bene à tradition of the apostles Agayne origen sayeth In ca. 6. ad Romanos. after this maner. The church hath re­ceaued à tradition of the apostles to geue baptisme also to children. See ye not noue, howe that ye erre? For Saynt Austen sayeth that the baptisme of children ought not to be beleued to be necessarie for their saluation, yf it had not bene à tradition of the apostles, & [Page] ye saye, what so euer is not groun­ded vpon the scripture, (touching our faith) is mans deuise, &c. Thynke ye, that the baptisme of children is grounded vpon scripture, when S. Austen sayeth yt is only à tradition of the apostles? Are ye better learned then he, and origen, that ye can fynde scriptu­re for it, where they could finde none? Also by what scripture is the baptisme mynistred of an heretike, or à schismatike, approued to be good and auay­leable? Sayeth not also S. Austen that De vnico bapt. contra Donatistas. there is no scripture to proue it? Called not also S. Hierom. Eluidium an here­tike, because he defended that christes dear mother was not á continual ver­gē? Is that verite set furth in scripture? No, ye are shamefully disceaued yn this poynt, but of this matter I haue spoken more at large in my boke of traditions, vnto which ye haue yet made no answeare, althoughe ye raile dai­lie A booke of traditions. against vnwrittē verites, It foloueth [Page 28] yn your booke.

And al doctrine concernyng this matter The bisshop fo. 5 pa. 2. (of the sacramēt) that is more thē this, which is not grounded vpon gods word, is of no necessite, &c. Then let The confu­tation. your communion be celebrated at nyght, my lord, when christ did insti­tute it. Then let al men breake their fast before they receaue the holy sacramēt, as one Bernard of christes church Bernard. Ianuario e­pist. 119. Tertulia­nus. libr. 2. ad vxorem in oxford did. For Austen sayeth, our lord commaunded not by what ordre this sacramēt should be receaued, but lefte that thing vnto his apostles, by whon he wold set the churches in an 1. Cor. 11. ordre, and therfore S. paul sayeth, whē he had spokē of the sacrament, I wil dispose the rest, when I shal come vnto yow. Moreouer, saint Austen sayeth. It pleased the holy goost, that our lor­des bodie should first entre in to mans Epist. 119. mouth afore other meates, for the ho­noure of so great à sacrament. Loo S. Austen sayth it seamed good vnto the [Page] holy goost, that for the honoure of so The honou­re of the sacrament. great à sacrament, we shold receaue our lordes body fastyng. And ye saye, my lord, that we receaue but bread & wyne, and that the sacrament ought not to be honoured, and that al doctri­ne, concerninge this matter, which is not grounded vpō gods word, is of no necessite, & that the peoples conscien­ces ought not to be troubled ther with What meane yow? Do ye despise al godly ordre, and the fathers doctrine, and yet saye that your boke is appro­ued of the old doctours? Thinke ye that mē are so mad to beleue yow be­for S. Austen? Origen sayeth that eue­ry Homi. 5. in Numeros. man must of necessite obserue the ordre and maner of the receauing, and the ministring of this sacramēt, which the church obserueth. Also S. Cypriā De ablutio­ne pedum. writeth after this sort. That thing is as firme, or as ratified, that the apostles haue taught by the inspiration of the holy goost, as that, which christ hym­self [Page 29] taught, and commaunded to be done, for his remembraunce. Also saīt Luc. 22. Austen sayeth that this sacrifice is not wel done, except the signe of the cros­se Tract. 189. in Ioannē. Lib. 3. con­tra pelagi [...] Epist. 1. ad omnes ec­clesias. Lib. 1. epi. 3 be made vpon the hoost. S. Hierom affirmeth that christ taught his apost­les to say dailie the pater noster in the sacrifice of his bodie. S. Alexander, which was withyn lxx yeres after chri­stes passion, S. Cyprian & many other holy men, and great clearkes say that christ mengled water with the wyne in the chalice, when he made sacrifice at his mandy, and bade priestes to do­the same, and therfore they must do it of necessite Is this thinge expressed, my lord, in scripture? It is not. Wyth what face then, do ye say, that there is nothing of any necessite, but that only which is grounded vpon scripture? Is this your doctrine to be approued (as ye say that it is) by the consent of the ancient docters of the church? S. Clemēt pauls disciple, S. Anacletus, [Page] S. Martial peter scholers, and many other old doctours, do testifie, that the sacrament ought to be celebrated on­ly in halowed places, and vpon aulters, and ye, my lord, regard nothyng of this, and yet ye wold make men bele­ue that your doctrine is alowed, & set fourth by the ancient writers of the churche. Thynke ye after such sorte to blynd men? Do ye not gyue an oc­casion vnto men by this your doctri­ne, to celebrate the communion (as ye cal yt) in the buttery, kechen, back­house, or els where they lyst? Saīt Basil Lib. de spis. cap. 27. sayeth that the wordes of inuocation, which are sayed when the bread of thankes geuing, & the cup of blessyng The sacra­ment was sheued to the people in baesils ty­me lege Theophilū. lib. 1. pasch. is shewed, came by tradition, and that the priestes sayed, that tyme at masse, certē wordes, that haue great strength vnto the mysteries, besides the wor­des of the gospel and the apostle, and are not ye then, my lord, ashamed to say, that nothing is of any necessite yn [Page 30] this matter, that is not grounded vpon the scripture? Wold ye haue men ra­ther to beleue yow, then this saint? S. Epist. prae­fixa Libr. paschalibus Hierom commended Theophilus bisshop of Alexandria for teaching men to worship the holy chalices, and other thinges pertaynyng vnto the ministration of the blessed sacrament of the aulter, and that with the same maieste, & honoure, that his body and bloud are to be worshipped, because that they are there present. Shold we then fo­lowe, my lord, your doctrine, which saye that nothyng is of any necessite, but that only, which is grounded vpon gods word, and it is idolatry to whor­ship the holy sacrament of the aulter? In how many places of his bookes Tract. [...]3. in Ioan. lib. 8. capi. 27. de ciuitate dei. Lib. 22. cap. 10. Deuerbis a­post. sermo­ne. 17. saieth S. Austen that the holy martyrs and other saintes names are rehearsed at masse for to pray for us? Why then denie ye this? S. Austen, Cyprian, Chrysostom, Cyril, and many other of the best wryters, and most godly docters [Page] of christes church, do make mention Chrysost. lib. 3. de sa­cerdotio ca. 4. & lib. 6. cap. 4. of many thinges vsed then at masse, which are not written yn scripture, & do saye that the sacrifice of the aulter is made by prayer, and inuocation of August. e­pistol. 57. Ser igi. lib. 3. cap. 4. de trinitate. the holy goost, and gods name. Wher­fore your doctrine is false, my lord, & vtterly improued of the ancient do­ctours of the church, thoughe ye say that they do approue it. I passe ouer many thinges, that are of necessite to be obserued at masse, & be not expres­sed yn the scripture, least I shold be to long, and tedious, ye saye moreouer thus.

First here is to be noted, that christ The bysshop fo. 4 pa. 2. called the material bread his, bodye, & the wyne (which was the fruite of the vyne) his bloud. Why did ye not pro­ue The confu­tation. this, my lord? Wold ye that men shold take yow for à prophete, or for one, that could not erre yn his sainges? How called christ the material bread, and wyne of the grape his body and [Page 31] bloud when he added immediatly the­se wordes, which shal be geuen for yow & shed for yow? For gaue he material Marke. bread for our redemption vpon the crosse? Shedde he there wyne of the grape for the remissiō of oure synnes? Gaue he not his owne natural body, & shed his owne precious bloud then for vs? Promysed he not afore to his apostles to gyue them bread, that shold be his owne very natural body, which he Ioan. 6. wold gyue by death for the lyfe of the world? Who is then, my lord, so folysh to beleue this your doctrine? But ye go forward sayng.

Althoughe none eateth the body, and The bisshop fo. 5. pa. 2. drinketh the bloud of christ (but they haue eternal lyfe (as appeareth by Ihons wordes afore rehersed) yet the good, &c.

My lord ye vnderstand not christes The confu­tation. wordes writtē by S. Ihon, for the right sense of them is, that euery mā, which eateth and drinketh christes body and [Page] bloud worthilie, hath euer lastyng ly­fe, as saynt paul expoundeth that pla­ce, 1. Cor. 11. wryting to the corinthians. That this only was christes meanyng there, yt shal be proued anon by gods grace. Now ye recite S. pauls words, which sayeth. Who so euer shal eate of this 1. Cor. 11. bread, and drinke of this cup vnwor­thilie, he shal be gyltie of the body, & bloud of the lord, and then ye saye thus.

Here S. paul sayeth not, that he, that The bysshop eateth the bread, and drinketh the cup of the lord vnworthily, eateth and drinketh the body, and the bloud of the lord, but is gyltie of the body & bloud of the lord, but what he eateth & drin­keth, he declareth, sayng. He eateth and drinketh his oune damnation.

What yf S. paul say not, my lord, that The confu­ [...]tion. the vnworthy receauer of the holy sa­crament, receaueth our lords body, & his bloud? Is that enoughe to proue that he receaueth them not, as ye de­fende? [Page 32] Who, that hath any learning in logicke, wil so reason? Doth not paul affirme that the vnworthy receauour of this blessed sacrament is gyltie of the body and bloud of christ? May we iustely say that he, which eateth only bakers bread, & drinketh wyne of the grape is gyltie of christes body and bloud? May à man be gylt [...]e of the vn­worthy eating of à thing, which he ea­teth not at al? Wyl any wyse man say, that I am gyltie of eating á capō, whē I eate but mylke? Or may we say wel, that he is gyltie of mysse intreating of à kynges oune person, when he doth abuse only his image, or picture? Why thē haue ye my lord, destroyed so ma­ny images of christ, and his holy sain­tes? images. Were they not more lyuely, and manifest pictures, and representatiōs of christes passion, than bread, and wy­ne are? That they so were, I wil shortly by gods grace, proue, to your reproche & shame, that haue so leudly destroyd [Page] them, wythout al good ground, and cause sufficient. Moreouer ye are di­sceaued, The bysshop when ye saye, that S. paul de­clareth, what the vnworthy receauer 1. Cor. 11. of the sacrament, eateth and drinketh, when he sayeth, that he eateth & drin­keth his oune damnation. For he de­clareth only by those wordes what po­nyshement he shal haue, that vnwor­thily receaueth christes body & bloud Dyd ye not see, that paul vsed there à figure, and ment, that he did eate and drinke, that bread and bloud, vnto his oune damnation, that vnworthilie re­ceaued them? But of this sufficient, ye say thus agayne.

But al these forsayed admonitions, exhortations, and confortes doth the The bysshop fo. 12. ca. 15 papistes (as much as lyeth in them) take away from al christien people, by their transubstantation. The confu­tation.

How proue ye this my lord, I besech yow? Marry thus say ye. For yf we re­ceaue The bysshop no bread, nor wyne in the com­munion, [Page 33] then al the lessons, and con­fortes be gone, which we should lear­ne, and receaue by eating of bread, & The confu­tation. drinking of wyne. It is very false, my lord, that ye say here. Why did ye not proue it to be true, but because ye could not, I am very certen? Wherfo­re may we not learne al such lessons, by that only that bread and wyne are taken of the priest to be consecrated, and are so tourned yn to christes flesh and bloud, that their formes, and qua­litees remayne stil? For as the bread & wyne, which are consecrated, be made of many graynes of corne, and of dy­uers grapes of the vyne, lykewyse are Cyprianus. al Christian people ioyned spiritually throughe fayth, hope, loue, and grace Marke reader. vnto Christ the head of the church, which is his mystical body. Seconly, as the bread, and wyne, that we do ea­te, & drinke daily, are so turned yn to oure fleash and bloud, that they make but one whole body, nor are distincted [Page] from the other our flesh and bloud, e­uen so be al christen people spiritually ioyned both vnto christ, and also one vnto an other throughe the worthy receauing of christes fleash and bloud yn the sacrament, (in to which bread and wyne of lyke nature and sorte we­re chanuged by the word and pouer of god) that they do make altogether but one body of christ, which is the church This thing is, my lord, sufficiently re­presented, and signified by the bread and wyne layed vpon the aulter to be consecrated, and by their shapes, apparaunces, & qualitees remayninge the­re stil, and their substaunces presence is not requyred therunto, thoughe ye say that it is but prouing not your sayng. But yf I should graunt, (as lu­ther teacheth, & his scholers) that the substance of bread, and wyne remay­neth in the sacrament, what should that, that ye here saye make for your opinion? Doth not the lutherians hold [Page 34] and defende that the substaunce also of bread and wyne is yn the sacramēt with christes very natural body, and bloud? How can ye, my lord then pro­ue this argument vnto à lutherian? The substance of bread & wyne doth stil abyde yn the sacrament, ergo the­ryn My lord laboureth al yn vayne. is not christes body & bloud, but only bread, and wyne, as ye say. See ye not then, that al this your labour was cleane il spēt, & lost for therby ye pro­ued not your purpose. Noue ye say, that the doctrine of transubstantiatiō doth subuerte our fayth in christ, and to proue that your sayng, ye write af­ter this maner. For this sacrament is ordōned in bread, and wyne (which The bysshop fo. 1 [...]. pa. 2. be foodes for the body) to signifie, and to declare vnto vs our spiritual foode by christ, then yf our corporal feeding vpon the bread and wyne, be but phantastical (so that there be no bread, nor wyne to feed vpon, althoughe they appeare to be there) than yt doth vs to [Page] vnderstand, that our spiritual feadyng in christ is also phantastical, and that The confu­tation. in dede we feede not in christ. As this your sayng, my lord, ys grounded v­pon no reason, nor authorite, euen so it may be sufficient for me at this ty­me to denye it, and to say that our spi­ritual feeding in christ, & also the cor­poral eating and drinking of his body, and bloud in the sacrament, are suffi­ciently signified vnto vs by that, that the bread and wyne, which be conse­crated in to christes fleash, and bloud, are of that same kind and nature, of which the bread and wyne be, that we do feed dailie vpon, and by that that their formes, and properties do re­mayne stil in the sacrament. This was the meanyng of al the ancient do­ctours, which intreated any thyng of this matter, and ye shal neuer be able to proue the contrary, wyth the helpe of al them, that made this your booke but. I do traueile yn vayne to spend [Page 35] so many wordes in à thing of it sel­fe manfestly false, and therfore I wil passe it ouer, and go forward. It folo­ueth yn your booke. This spiritual The bys­shop fo. 1 [...]. pa 2. cap 16. meate of christes body and bloud: is not receaued in the mouth, &c. Why proued ye not this your sainge? The confu­tation. Is your bare word à sufficient profe my lord, of this pestilent doctrine, and à reprouffe of the catholike fayth of christ? The body and bloud of Christ are, I confesse, à spiritual foode of oure souls, and yet they are not on­ly receaued of vs spiritually, but also corporally with our mouthes, when we do worthily receaue the sacrament of the aulter. For Tertulianus sayeth. Lib. de re­surrect. [...]a­nis. The fleash of man eateth christes bo­dy, and bloud, that his soul may be al­so fed of god. How doth, my lord, mans flesh eate christes body and drinke Lib. 4. c. [...]4. his bloud, yf he eate it not (as ye say) with his mouth? Cyril also wri­teth of the same after this maniere.

We denye not, that we be ioyned spi­ritually vnto christ throughe à right Lib 10. ca. 11. in Ioan. fayth and pure charite, but that we ha­ue no ioynyng together with hym bo­dylie, we vtterly denye, and do iud­ge that against the scripture. And least any man should say, that he spa­ke not this of the sacrament, and of our corporal ioynyng vnto Christ by the bodily receauing of hym in the sacrament, he addeth mention of the 1. Cor. 10. sacrament, saying Althoughe we be many, yet we be one in hym, for we are al partakers of one bread. Thin­keth he, that we knowe not the vertu of the sacrament, which when we do receaue, doth it not make Christ to dwel in vs yea corporally, throughe Marke. the partakyng of his fleash? What may à man desire to be spoken more plainlie, to proue, my lord, that chri­stes fleash is receaued of vs bodily yn the sacrament, and not onely (as ye teach falsely) by fayth spiritually? [Page 36] May Christ dwel, I besech yow, in vs corporally by the receauing of the sa­crament of the aulter, and yet we not receaue his body with our mouthes? I let passe dyuers such authorites both of S Cyril, Chrysostom, and also of many other, but yet I wil not passe by Lib. senten­ [...]ia [...] [...] prosperi. this saying of S Austen. Whiles the hoost ys broaken, whiles the bloud is poured out of the chalice in to the mouthes of the faythful what thing is els signified, but the death of our lor­des body vpon the crosse, and the sheddyng of his bloud out of his side? Saint Austen sayeth that we receaue bodi­ly christes bloud wyth our mouthes, & my lord denyeth it, whether ought we to beleue of these twoo? Ye saye a­gayne in your boke thus. And so The bys­shop. fo. 1 [...]. ca. 17. there remayneth whytnesse, but no­thing is whyt, there remayne colours, but nothing is coloured, there remay­neth roundnes, but nothing is round, and there is bignes, but nothing is byg [Page] there is swetnes, but nothing is swete, &c. What of this, my lord? Wil ye denye The confu­tation. these thinges to be true, becau­se your natural wyt, and reason can not perceaue how these accidentes, and qualites may be in the sacrament wythout any substaunce to susteyne thē, and in which they may be? Who wil measure an article of our fayth by 1. Cor. 2. Theophila­ctus in Io­annē. ca. 3. his natural wyt? Sayeth not S paul, my lord, that à man, which foloweth natural argumentes, and reason, per­ceaueth not the thinges, that pertayne vnto the spirite of god? Why remem­bre ye not, that gods word, is his dede? Psal. [...]3. Psal. 14. Sayeth not scripture that god doth al that he wil, and that nothyng is vnto Luc. 1. Sap. 7. 11. hym impossible? Can he them not make whitnes, roundnes, swetnes, bygnes sauour, and other the qualitees of bre­ad and wyne, to be in the sacrament wythout their substance to beare thē? Is this à greater thing, thā to create, & make al thing of nothing? S Ambrose [Page 37] sayeth, why seakest thow à natural or­dre in christes body, that is in the sa­crament, Libr. de his qui myste­rus initian­tur. cap. 9. seying that his body was borne of the virgen without, yea against the ordre of nature? What meane ye then, my lord, to wounder so much at these thinges? The hethen men, that lacketh fayth, may wel merueile at them, and thinke that it is madnes to beleue any such thing, as they do iudge of al the articles of our fayth. Sayeth not the prophete, excepte ye beleue, ye shal not vnderstand? Why Esaiae. 7. then do ye not, my lord, first beleue, and afterward studye humbly to vn­derstand this deape mysterie of our fayth? Did not christ saye that that Matth. 19. thing, which seamed impossible to man, was possible vnto god? Is not our fayth the fundation of al the thin­ges, that belong vnto our saluation? 1. Cor. 3. Wherfore then bylde ye that vpon reason without fayth which ought onely Hebr. 11. to be buylded vpon fayth without reasoning? [Page] Cotta sayed unto Lucilius (as lactantius sayth) If thou doest aske De origene erroris Lib. 2. cap. 7. à reason, thou doest not beleue, why doest thou thē require à reason, which may cause the not to beleue? But yf thou doest requyre à reason, and thin­kest that à reasō must neades be asked thē thou doest not beleue. Lo, my lord à paynim setteth yow to schole. Are ye not then á shamed of your reasonyng in this matter, in which fayth onely ought to rule? Wel I trust ye wil be anō, yf ye be not past al shame. Ye wri­te thus agayne. But this is not the do­ctrine The bys­shop. fo. 15. of christ, but the subtil inuentiō of Antichrist, first decreed by Innocēt the third, &c. Innocent the third, my The confu­tation. lord, was à great learned mā (as his bookes declare, and as platina wytnesseth) and also à godly, which caused à gene­ral councel at Rome to be had, & cele­brated, of M. ccc. xv fathers, some out A councel of. M. ccc. xv fathers. of euery region of al christen dome, & they after long prayng to god for gra­ce, [Page 38] much deliberation, and reasonyng vpon this matter, made this acte and decree for the declaration of our beliefe in the sacrament. There is one vnyuersal church of the faythful, out of the which no man vtterly can be saued. In which church christ hymselfe is à priest, and á sacrifice, whose body and bloud is verily conteyned in the sacrament of the aulter vnder the for­mes of bread, and wyne, the substance of the bread, and wyne beyng tour­ned in to christes body and bloud by gods pouer. hytherto this the greatest coūsel, that euer was kept emōgest christian people, Nou I appeale to thy cō ­sciēce, reader, and aske of the whether we ought not rather to beleue this great nombre of learned and godly men, that were assembled together in this counsail, than either my lord of Canterbury, or els any one particu­lier councel of any reaulme christe­ned? For who can iustely thinke, that [Page] al those men gathered together in Christes name for the settyng furth of the trueth of oure fayth vnto gods honour, and the wealth of our souls, did erre so shamefully, as my lord sayeth they did? For did not Christ promyse Matth. 18. to be in the middes of two or three assembled in his name? Was he not thē wyth these. M. cccxv. fathers, that were in this councel, that they erred not in their sentence? Why were ye not thē ashamed, my lord, to say that Innocentius the third fyrst decreed this our doctrine, which al these fa­thers did set furth above. ccc. yers passed & yet not first (as ye say) but onely established yt, being lōg afore taught, euen by Christ and his apostles, albeit not so plainly, as they declared it? Haymo à godly bisshop, which was Haymo ho­miliade passione Christ secundum Matthaeum aboue. cccc. yeres before this Innocen tius, did thus write of this matter. The bread is chaunged in to our lordes fle­ash, and the wyne in to his bloud, not [Page 39] by à figure, nor by à shadowe, but by In. 1. Cor. 11 the veryte. See ye not noue, my lord, how plainly ye erre, saying that Inno­centius first decreed this doctrine of Transubstantiation? Anselme, that was bysshop of Canterbury. cxx. yeres before Innocentius was borne, wrote thus of the sacrament, It appeareth bread to the outward senses of man, but do ye knowe yt wyth the senses of the mynde, for this is Christes bo­dy, no other, but that selfe same in substance, that was crucified for vs, What can be more plainly spoken than this is, my lord, against your wrytīg here? but let this passe, as sufficienthy dis­scussed, & refuted, it foloweth in your Booke. The papistes say, that the ve­ry The bysshop natural body and bloud of Christ, which suffered for vs vpon the crosse, and sittehy at the rygth hand of the father in heauen, is also really, et. c. in the sacrament. Here ye cal papistes, The confu­tation. my lord, not lúther only and al his [Page] scholers, which are against your do­ctrine, but also al christen nations, and al the ancyent doctours of christes church, which do beleue and defend the real presence of christes blessed body in the sacramēt. Agayne ye fal­sely report of them, that they say, that christes body is naturally, and sensi­bly I [...]. 16. in the sacrament, for they affirme manifestly, that it is there aboue na­ture and vnsensiblye. It is also very false, that ye lay vnto our charges, that we say that christes body is in the sacrament as yt was borne of the vir­gen, and that it is broaken, and toren in peaces with our teth, for we say that he was borne naturally of the vyrgen, and visibly in his oune forme of fle­ash and bone, and that he is vnnatu­rally, inuisibly and vnder the forme of bread and wyne in the sacrament, and that he is therin receaued wholly without breaking of his body, or te­ryng of it with our teth, and that the [Page 39] formes only of bread are broaken and toren with our teth. This ment berengarius, Fo. 16. whon ye do alledge, by such wordes of his recantation. And yn those his wordes he folowed. S Chry­sostom, Hom. [...]5 [...]. [...] 83. in Mat­thaeum & homi. 45. in Ioannem. & certen other of the old wri­ters, which for the more manifest set­ting furth of the real presence of christes body in the sacrament, do say often tymes that it is therin touched, broaken, and seane, whē only the for­mes and kyndes of bread are touched, broaken, and seane. And why may we not as wel say, that we do touch, brea­ke, and see christes body in the sacra­ment, when we see, touche, and breake only the outword formes of the bread, Gen. 18. 19. 32. Iosue. 5. Mar. vlt. Act. 1. 1. Ioan. 1. as the scripture sayeth that loth, Abra­han, Iacob, Iosua, mary Madgalen, & the Apostles sawe and touched angels, and god, when they sawe only & tou­ched te forme, and shape of man? Mo­reouer, I do aske of yow, my lord, why may not we say that christes body is [Page] is broaken, when the formes of bread are broaken only yn the sacrament, and his body taketh no hurt at al, as S. Thomas did putte his hand in to christes side after his resurrection wi­thout al harme of his body, which was then īmortal, and not apte to suffre a­ny hurt at al? Is not this as impossible to mānes natural reason, & wyt, as the other, and as the qualitees of bread & wyne to remayne stil in the sacramēt wythout any substance to susteyne them? Wherfore thē do ye not beleue the one, as wel as the other? Ye say that Fo. 16. christe is gone vp from vs yn to hea­uen bodily, and shal not come hither agayne vntil domes daye, and therof ye gather that he is not bodily & real­ly in the sacrament, but how false that saying is, it doth partly appeare alrea­dy, and more playnly shal by these wordes, which do folowe here. First, Christ is both at o­nes in hea­uen, & also in the sacraement of the aulter. the catholike fayth is, that Christ de­parted vysibly and in is oune forme [Page 41] out of this world in to heauen, at the tyme of his ascension, and after that maner sitteth at the right hand of the father in heauen, and shal do vntil do­mes daye, and yet he is bodily also in the sacrament both at ones by the al­mightie pouer of god aboue nature, and the vnderstandyng of al mans wyt, and reason S. Austen expoundeth Ad Darda­dum epist. [...]7. Actorū. [...]. this matter after the lyke sense, sayn­ge. He wil come agayne (as the angels wytnessed) after that same sort as he was seane goyng vp yn to heauen, that is to say (as S. Austen taketh it) in the same forme and substance of flesh. What can be more playnly spoken to declare, that Christ is gone from vs vi­sibly in the forme of fleash, and that after such sorthe is not with vs now, but shal be at domes daye? This proueth not, that he is not wyth vs now ynui­sibly in the forme of bread and wyne, and therfore this your argument, my lord, is soyled sufficiently. I aske nowe [Page] of yow, my lord, why may not god, that made both the place and also the thyng placed in yt, and appointed that One body may be in dyuers pla­ces at ones by gods po­uer. one body shold be naturally but in one place at ones, cause that one body shold be against the common ordre of nature in dyuers places at ones? May he not do this, as wel as to make à vir­gen to conceaue & beare á child wyth­hout mans helpe? Is not this as much against the ordre of nature, as the o­ther? Was it not as much impossible by mans reason, christes body to walke vpon the sea, to come out of his graue throughe the great stone lying vpon it, and to go throughe the gates yet closed yn to the house, where his apostles were, as the same his body to be in dyuers places of the earth, and in heauen also at one tyme? If yow do de nye (as Ihon frith, peter martyr, and Peter Martyr Ihon fryth. dyuers other haue done) that christ en­tred yn to the house, where his apostles were, the doores or gates beyng yet stil Io. 20. [Page 42] closed, both the scripture it selfe, & al­so the doctours of the churche are a­gainst yow. For leo sayeth thus vpon Epist. 40. that matter. Let these phantastical christians tel me, what body Iesus brought into the sight of his disciples, the gates Lib. 1. con­tra Iouinianum. beyng yet closed? S. Hierom also hath the same, saying after this maner. If christ went into the house, the doo­res beyng shit, which thing the nature of mēnes bodies suffereth not to be done, shal we then denye that both Peter, and also our lord had true bodies, be­cause they agaynst nature walked vpō the waters? S. Austē hath the same, whē Ser. 1 [...]9. de tempore. Lib. 3. ad volusianum. Libr. 10 in lucae ca. 24. he writeth thus. It was à myracle that our lord entred in to the house vnto his disciples throughe the gates beyng closed. Also S. Ambrose sayeth. Tho­mas had à cause to merueile, when he saw christes body brought ī to the house without hurt throughe the gates closed, Lib. de tri­nitate. which could not be passed thro­vghe with mennes bodies. Hylary dis­sēteth [Page] not from this, sayng why doest thow aske, throughe what pa [...]tes of the closed doore christ hauin á body ca­me in? For the euangelist diligētly ex­presseth christes entrīg in to the house the doores beyng yet [...]hit. To passe o­uer many authorites, I wil recite but this one out of Epiphani [...] an old writer which sayeth. Our lord entred in to the [...]ow [...] pri­mo. lib. pri­ [...]. house, the gates beyng yet closed, that he myght declare his body to be of thī ne peaces, which was, afore he rose vp agayne, of grosse partes, and the same body that had fleash and bones. Nowe it is manifest that christes body entred in to the house throughe the doores, beyng thē stil closed. Who cā thē, my lord, denye, but that his body was that tyme of his ētrye in to the house, ī one ꝓpre place with the body of the doore & so there were two bodies ī one place? Why thē may not his body be in hea­uē Two bo­dies in one plac [...] at o­ [...]es. & in earth both at one tyme? Is not the one of the two as much impossible [Page 43] by nature, as the other? Wy do ye not folowe the fayth of Abrahā, which be­leued Gene 2 [...]. Rom. 4 steadfastly the ꝓmes of god, made by the angel, cōcerning the hauing of à child by Sara his wyfe both old, & also barrē, whē the thing was by natu­re impossible? S. Chrysostom beleued that christes very natural body was both in heauē, & also in the holy sacra­mēt at ones, for he saieth thus. O great Lib. 4 cap. 3 de [...] good wyl of god towardes vs, ō mira­cle▪ He▪ that sitteth vpon the right h [...]d of his father ī heauē aboue, is cōteined in mennes handes in the tyme of the sacrifice Also he sayeth in an other place. There is one bodye of christ daily Homi. [...] [...]n [...]pi. [...]. offered in sacrifice & one christ in eue­ry place (where the sacramēt is) which is here in this place ful, & there in that Homi [...]. 2. [...] po­pular. also ful, or whole. Thirdly he writeth thus. Helias the prophete ascēdyng vp lefte his mantel vnto his disciple, but Christes body i [...] [...] the sōne of god ascēding vp in to hea­uē hath lefte vnto vs his oune flesh. As [Page] for helias leauing his mantel vnto his in the sacrament also not wyth­stāding his ascensió in to heauen. disciple, lefte it from himselfe, but our sauiour christ hath both left his fleash with vs, & also taken it with hymselfe in his ascēsiō. See ye not now, my lord that this holy doctour, & notable cle­arke, plainly setteth furth, both the sa­crifice of the masse, & also christes bo­dily presēce in heauen & in the blessed sacrament of the aulter both at one tyme? Are ye not thē ashamed to denye both of these two thinges, and yet saye, that the anciēt writers be altogether v­pon your side? S. Chrysostom percea­ued right wel, that christ departed not so out of this world at the tyme of his ascension, that he taried not stil bodily therin. Also he sawe that christes body was at ones in diuers places, beleued the same, & taught it vs. Wherfore this our beliefe, that ye, my lord, do cal so often blasphemie, heresie, & idolatry, and say that it rose vp of late, is the old godly & catholike faith of the chuch. [Page 44] Nowe ye alleage these christes wordes for your purpose. Ye shald haue euer The bysshop Matth. 26. The confu­tation. poore people with yow, but me ye shal not euer haue. This author [...]te proueth not your doctrine, for christ ment only that they shold not haue hym with them euer visibly in his ou­ne for me of fleash and bloud, and by familiar conuersation, that Mary Magdalen might, when she listed, anoynte his body, which she did whiles she might, and therfore christ commen­ded her dede. That this was his mea­ning the text of Matthew sheweth plainly, and Saint Marke more plain­ly, Marci. 14. saing. Ye haue poore men euer with yow, and whē ye wil, ye may do them good, but me ye haue not euer with yow. As yf he had saied, ye may not at al tymes do me good, nor ye haue me not after any such common mortal and neadful sorte with yow, as ye haue me now, and as ye haue the poore peo­ple, to whom ye may do good, when so [Page] euer ye list. Saint Hierom expounded that place after the same sorte, saying Hierom in Matth. 26. that christ ment that they should not haue hym with them by familiar con­uersation, and lyuing together with them, as they had hym before his re­surrection. And it is no straung thing to say, that christ is present euer with vs inuisibly in the forme of bread, al­thoughe he be absent from vs visi­bly, for he vsed à lyke maner of spea­king hymselfe, when he sayed vnto his apostles after his resurrection. Luc. 22.

These are the wordes, which I spake vnto yow, when I was with yow.

For he ment that he was not then with them as he was afore his resurrection, when he was mortal, apte to suffre peynes, neadyng meate, and drinke, and subiect vnto such other passions of man, and so he was not wyth them when he spake this vnto then. But this your reason is anusweared fully. No­weye [Page 45] alleadge wordes these of Christ.

Many hereafter shal come, and say, The [...]ysshop Fo. 16. et. 24 Matth. [...]4. The confu­tation. loke here is Christ, or looke there is Christ, but beleue them not. O lord, what blyndnes is this? Christ prophi­sed of false prophetes, which then should either come before the destru­ction of Hierusalē, such as were ben Cosban, Theodas, & Iudas of Galilee (of whom Iosephus, Eusebius, and S. Act. 5. Luke in the actes do make mention) and say that they are christ, or els (w­hych is nerer to the letter) christ spake then of false prophetes, and false Chri­stes, that should come with Antichrist, The confu­tation. and say by hym, and other such, here is christ, or there is Christ, vtterly de­nying our sauiour to be the very mes­sias, Matth. 26. or redeamer of the world. In what blyndnes were ye then, my lord, to al­leage this texte against the real pre­sence Note this reader. of christes natural dody in the blessed sacrament? But that this ys the ryght sense of that letter, yt is euidēt [Page] both by the wordes, whych go afore it making mention of Antichristes cō ­myng, and also of the ende of the w­orld, and lyke wyse by these wordes, that folowe there, Then yf any mā say vnto yow, Loo here is christ, or there, beleue hym not, for false christes, and Matth. 24. false prophetes shal ryse vp, and wour­ke gteat myracles, and wounders, in so much, yea the elected (yf it may be done) shal be brought in to errour. And anon after he maketh playne mention ef christes commyng agay­ne at domes day. See ye not then no­we, my lord, your oune errour, yn wre­sting this place, against the sacrament, which christ spake only of such false prophetes, & false christes, that shold Note. come yn the tyme of Antichrist, and set vp an other sauiour of the world yn his sted? Do we say, here is vpon this anlter, or there vpon that, an other christ, then our sauiour? Who bele­ueth, & sayeth, my lord, here is christ, [Page 46] or there, because any false prophete, or false christ affirmeth hym to be there? Say we not that he is in the sa­crament, Ioan. 6. because he hymselfe promy­sed vnto his apostles to geue them his flesh, which, he wold geue for the lyfe of the world, and performyng that his Mahtth. 2 [...] promes sayed to them, take and eate, this is my body, and finally, becau­se the holy conciles, the ancient do­ctours, and the catholike church hath so taught vs? Moreouer, haue ye not, my lord, alleaged here that texte for yow which is directely & opēly aginst your owne selfe? For say ye not, here Episcopus iste suo iu­gulatur gladio. is Christ in this parte of England by his true fayth, and religion, and there he is? Is it not then great merueile, that any learned and wyse man doth folow your doctrine, whych seeth this your wreasting of the scrioture for the furtherance of your wicked doctri­ne? But of this place, I have spoken sufficiētly. Nowe ye alleage saint Paul [Page] or your purpose, which thus writeth.

As often as ye shal eate of this bre­ad, 1. Cor. 11. The bysshop fo. 16. pa. 2. and drinke of this cup, shewe ye fourth the lordes death vntil he come. Vnto these wordes ye adde and say. Tyl he come (saithe s. paul) signifiyng The Confu­tation. that he is not there corporally, No syr, he ment only that Christ was not pre­sent then visibly in his owne forme, but that he wold come agayne at do­mes daye after such sorte, as it is alrea­dy declared at large. For as these chri­stes wordes, Lucae. 22. these are the wordes, which I spake vnto yow, when I was wyth yow, do not proue, that he was not thē wyth them bodily, but only that he was not then wyth them mortal and apte to suffre peynes, as he was wyth them before his death, & resurrection, and as this saying of Christ. The spi­rite Ioan. 7. was not yet geuen, because Iesus was not yet glorified, doth not proue that the holy goost was not geuen be­fore that tyme vnto his apostles, and [Page 47] certen other mē, but only that he was not then geuen visibly, and yn à visi­bly signe, as he was afterward geuen in fyrye tongues, euen so when Paul act. 2. sayeth, vntil he come, he ment not ab­solutely, that christ was not then bo­dily present in the sacrament, but that he was not there visibly, and yn his propre forme of fleash and bloud, for after such sorte he should come agay­ne at domes daye, & therfore scriptu­re speaking Marei. 13. Lucae. 12. Ioan. 16. of this christes retourning in to this world at domes daye, sayeth that he shal be seane commyng in his gloyrie, and maieste. Your similitude, my lord, serueth not your pourpose, for it only taketh place emong men, which come not, ne can come, any o­ther wyse then visiblye, and yn their owne forme, of whom we can not say wel, do ye this vntil they come, yf they be present then, which we may truely say of christ, that is euer present with vs bodily, and inuisiby in the sa­crament, [Page] and absent visibly. Christ vsed à lyke maner of speaking, when Lucae. 24. ge sayed vnto his apostles, tarrye ye in Hierusalem, vntil ye be yndued with strength from aboue, for he ment that they were not then indued with strength from heauē in à visible signe for their confirmation, althoughe inuisibly they had receaued the strength Marke. of the holy goost by grace, why may we not then say, my lord, that S. Paul sayng, vntil he come, ment of his visi­ble comming agayne at domes daye, and not that he ment that Christ was not then present inuisibly in the holy sacrament of the aulter? Werfore this argument is fully anusweared. Nowe ye write after this maner.

The papistes say, that euel, and vn­godly The bysshop fo. 17. lib. 2. pa. 1. The confu­tation. men do receaue in this sacra­ment the very body and bloud of Christ, &c. Al catholike learned men say euen so in dede, and that not wy­thout S. Pauls authoritate, and of ma­ny [Page 48] of the most best and oldest do­ctours of the church, as it shal anon by gods grace, appeare plainly. No we ye say thus against the sacrifice of the holy masse. They say, that they offre The [...] ▪ Christ euery day for remission of syn­ne, &c. But the apostles, and euangeli­stes do say, that christ hymselfe in his oune parson made à sacrifice for our synnes vpon the crosse, by whose wo­undes al our diseases were healed, and our synnes pardoned, and so dyd ne­uer no priest, nor creature, but he, nor he did the same neuer but ones. What The confu­tation. ignorance is this, my lord, that ye are yn? Who denyeth that Christ hath re­deamed vs perfectly and sufficiently by his one sacrifice ones for al offered vpon the crosse, at the least cōcernyng his office duyte, parte, and merite, but yet not in effecte, and actually (as it is declared before.) but he only then de­serued grace, remission of synne, and euer lasting lyfe for al them, that wold [Page] beleue in hym, hope in gods mercy, fear god, do penaunce for their syn­nes, praye, gyue almes to the poore, fast, receaue the sacramētes, loue god, and their neyghbours, & keape gods Hebr. 5. fa­cto est causa salutis, &c. commaundementes. Why then may we not wel say that à priest (as à mi­nistre of god) sayeth masse, and offe­reth christes body and bloudde for to applye his sacrifice made vpon the crosse vnto vs for the actuall remis­sion of our synnes, althoughe they do not take away our synnes, nor pardon­ne them, nor heale our diseases, but god onely doth yt for christes perfect sacrifices sake? For sayeth not the scri­pture Matth. 6. Marci 11. 1. Timo. 4. Matth. [...]. Iaco [...]i. 5. that we do forgeue one an other our offences, that the preacher of gods word doth saue the people, and hym­selfe therby, that we must praye for the remission of our synnes, & of o­thers also, that they may be saued, that Ecclesiast. 1. Ioan. 20. Daniel 4. fear expelleth synne, that priestes do remitte synne, that synne is taken [Page 49] a way by almes, fastinge, & baptisme, Danielis. 4. Luc. 11. Matth. 17. Esaie. 43 and yet god only for christes merites sake remitteth our synnes? Ye saye that euery man must apply christes sa­crifice and merite vnto hymselfe and Abacuc. 2. by his oune fayth receaue the frute of it at christes handes, & not at the prie­stes. What then, my lord? Is this à good argument, I besech yow, euery man must receaue the benefite of christes death by his oune faith at christes handes, ergo the priest sayeth not masse for the obteyning the remissiō of synnes? Do not they, for whom the priest offereth christ at masse, receaue that christes benefite for the remission of their synnes, and saluation, throughe their faith, and repentaunce of god on­ly for christes sake? Doth not this your argument, my lord, proue as much a­gainst oure praying one for an other, Iacobi 5 Matth. 28. preaching of the gospel, ministring of the sacramentes for the remission of our synnes, and against many such o­ther [Page] thinges, requyred of god in the scripture, for remission of our synnes, Marke reader. and saluation. as it doth against the sa­crifice of the masse? For must they not receaue of christ by their oune fayth remission of their synnes, for whom ye daily praye, to whom ye do mini­stre the sacramentes and preache gods word? Why then did yow thus trifie, & myspend your tyme in such vayne thinges to seduce the people? Ceasse for shame, ceasse, I saye, thus to reason vnreasonably, and vnlearnedly against the trueth, which euer obteyneth the 3 Esd. 3. psal. 11 [...]. victorie, and endureth. Thus ye ende your first boke, and so I do myn.

The confutation of the seconde The bysshop booke, which is of Tran­substantiation.

After ye had, my lord, made to the Lib. 2. ca. 2. fo. 18. pa. 1. reader à great promes in the begyn­ning of this your booke, ye saye that christ gaue at his last soupper bread vnto his disciples, and for the profe [Page 50] therof ye say thus. Whan christ sayed (This) the bread (say thei) remayned. O vayne tryfler. And whan he sayed (is) yet the bread remayned stil. And whā he sayed (bo) yet the bread was there stil. But when he finished the whole sentence, This is my body, thā (they say) the bread was gone, and there remayneth no substā ­ce but christes body, as thoughe the bread could not remayne, when it is made á sacramēt. This is in dede, my The confutation. lord, the very true sense of those chri­stes wordes althoughe ye mocke much therat (as it doth right wel become your estate, and degree) and your rea­son maketh no lesse against your oune My lords reason is as mu [...]h against his oune doctrine, as it is against oures. opinion, than it doth against oures.

For the bread, and wyne are not made holy signes (as ye say that they are on­ly) of christes body and bloud, vntil the wordes of consecration be fully pronounced, and therfore we may vse this your oune reason after lyke sorte against your doctrine, as ye do vse it [Page] against oures. Agayne, when the priest baptizeth à child, saying. I do christen Matth. 28. the in the name of the father, the son­ne, and the holy goost, the child is not baptized, nor his sinnes forgeuē hym, when the priest sayeth (I christen the) and so of the rest of those wordes, but only whan the whole sentence is pro­nounced. [...]uc. 22. Moreouer, christ gaue vnto his apostles authorite to cōsecrate the bread and wyne, to offre his body and bloud in sacrifice, and to ministre thē vnto other, when he saied, do this in remembraunce of me, and yet when he sayed (Do) they had not that authori­te, nor when he sayed (This) but when al these wordes were spoken, or els he speakinge them, gaue that authorite.

Wherfore ye haue gotten nothing by this your reasoning, my lord, but only declared therby your ignoraunce, as ye do, when you folowing your great Matth. 26. Hoc est, &c god, peter martyr, denye that these wordes, This is my body, are the wor­des [Page 51] of consecration. For S. Ireneus, Lib. 4. c. 32. De coena d. Tertulian, Saint Cypriā, Chrysostom, Hierom Ambrose, basile libro de in­stitutione monachorum cap. 70. Da­mascene Contione. 2. in psal. 33. lib. 4. cap. 14. S. Austen, and many other of the oldest writers affir­me plainly that those are the wordes of consecratiō, but I wil rehearse nowe onely the wordes of certen of them, for diuers causes. S. Ambrose thus writeth. Afore it be consecrated, it is bre­ad, Lib 4. ca. [...] de sacra­mentis but after christes wordes are come vnto, it is christes body. Heare hym saying. Take and eate. This is my bo­dy. S. Damascene also saieth. The bre­ad, Lib. 4. c. 14. and wyne are not à figure of the body and bloud of christ (god forbidde that) but our lordes body it selfe, ioy­ned vnto the godhead, our lord hym­selfe sayng. This is my bodye, not à fi­gure of my bodye, but my bodye. Is Marke reader. not this plainly spoken of that holy saint to declare both that those are the wordes of consecration, and also that [Page] christes very natural body and bloud are in the sacrament, and not only à figure of them? Where it not thē great folly to beleue your doctrine, my lord before his, which was à notable cle­arke, Hom. 45 in Ioannem. & à saint about D. ccc. yeres pas­sed? Heare now S. Chrysostom, sayng. It is not man, that maketh our lordes Marke this reader. body & bloud of the thinges, set furth vpon the table to be consecrated, but it is christ, that was crucified for vs.

The wordes are pronounced of the priest, and the thinges (bread and wy­ne) are consecrated by gods pouer, & Matth. 26. grace, he sayed. This is my body, Hoc verbo proposita consecrantur, the bre­ad and wyne, which are set furth, be cō secrated by this word. See ye not, my lord, how plainly this holy father, and great learned man, that was almost M. cc. yeres sence, sayeth that christe hymselfe maketh his oune body and bloud of the bread and wyne, set furth vpon the aulter to be consecrated, and [Page 52] that by these wordes of consecration. This is my body? Wold ye then haue men to beleue your cōtrary teaching, which are nothing lyke vnto hym, no­ther in vertu of lyfe, nor in learnyng? May ye not be yet agayne ashamed, that ye sayed in the title of your boke, that your doctrine was approued of the anciēt doctours of christes church seing they are so manifestly against it? In psal. 33. S. Austen also sayeth. Christ bare his oune body in his handes, whā he sayed This is my body, and that he then did S. Austen beleued that christes ve­ry natural body was yn The sacrament. that thing then, which no man could euer do, for no man can beare hymsel­fe in his oune handes, and therfore he mēt that christ cōsecrated the bread by these wordes. This is my body, and turned it in to his natural body, which he bare at his mandy in his handes, & not bread only à figure of it, for els he had not sayed truely, that no man might beare hymselfe in his oune hā ­des, but only christ, for euery mā may [Page] easely beare his picture or image in his oune handes. Doth not them S. Au­sten declare, my lord, very plainly in this place, that he beleued christes bo­dy to be in the holy sacrament, and not bread à signe only of it, as ye do teach, and saye also that he taught? But of this sufficient. Ye say moreouer.

But this negatiue, that there is no bre­ad, The bys­shop. fo. 18. pa. 1. they make of their oune braynes by their vnwritten veritees. No not so my lord, for christ, his apostles, the cō ­ciles, The confu­tation. the catholike church, and al the old doctours taught it vs, as partly I haue already proued, and wil, by gods grace, more largely hereafter. And as touching vnwritten veritees, I wrote A booke of vnwritten veritees not yet anus­weared vnto of the cō trary side. à boke of them, which sheweth mani­festly, how far your doctrine dissēteth from the fayth & religion of the apostles, the primitiue church, and from al the ancient doctours, where ye pretende to restore christes religion to that purenes that it had in the begynning [Page 53] of the church. Why mocke youe so often at vnwritten verites, which ca­me from Christ, and his apostles, (as it appeareth in that my booke) and yet anusweare not vnto that boke? Are your mockes, and iestes à sufficient anuswere to it? Ye say that we make this negatiue, there is no bread, of our oune braynes, which is very false, for christ taught it vs, and his apostles, and the church, by these wordes, This is my body, but ye make this negatiue, There is not our lordes natural body, but bread onely, of your oune braynes Matth. 26. Ioan. 6. pa­is. against christes playne wordes. S. Pau­les wordes, the concels, the catholike church, & al the holy doctours of the church, for none of them al euer sayed (as ye do teache) that christes very body is not in the sacramēt, but the clea­ne contrary. Wherfore your doctrine is to be abhorred, and detested of al good christen people. It foloweth in The bisshop your booke. Oh good lord, how wold [Page] they haue bragged, if Christ had sayed lib. 2. fo. 18. pa. 1. The confu­tation. this is no bread? But Christ spake not that negatiue, &c. Oh good lord, howe wold yow, my lord, haue bragged, yf christ had sayed, this is material bread & not my body, but onely à signe, or à figure of it, but Christ spake nother Marke this that affirmatiue, This is material bre­ad (as ye defende) nor that negatiue, This is not my body, but he sayed the cleane contrary to them both, This is my body, that shal be giuen for yow.

For these wordes can not be vnderstanded of material bread, because that is not his body, that was geuen for vs.

Againe both the Greake texte and the latine also wil not permyt, that these Matth. 2 [...]. christes wordes, this is my body, shold be expounded of material bread. For the greake hath. [...], and the latine, hoc est corpus meum, Both in the neutre gendre, and therfore we can not say, that christ ment of the bread, when he sayed, This is my [Page 54] body, for then he shold haue sayed [...], Et hic panis est Note wel this reader. corpus meū, that the pronome (This) myght haue bene referred vnto the bread, but he vsed the neutre gendre both in the Greake, and also in the latine, Matth. 26. and therfore he mēt not of the material bread, when he saied. This is my body, but of his oune very natural bo­dy, that was crucified for vs. Doth it not then appeare now, my lord, that Christ ment this negatiue, there is no bread, when he sayed, this is my body, that shal be geuen for yowe, althou­ghe he sayed not expressely, there is no bread? Moreouer dyd not Christ promyse to his apostles to geue then bread, that shold be his oune fleash, which he wold geue for the lyfe of the Ioan. 6. pa­nis. world, and performed that his promes at his last soupper, sayeng, take and ea­te, this is my body, that shal be geuen for yow? How can this be true of ba­kers Marke. bread? Was that geuen of Christ [Page] for the lyfe of the worlde? Is it not as false to say, this bread made of corne is christes body, as to say, à man is an asse, or an asse à man, for that bread differeth much more from christes bo­dy, than à man from an asse, whych both are lyuely creatures and haue sē ­ses, in which they do agree? When ye haue, my lord, made anusweare vnto this, ye shal heare more to anusweare The bys­shop. fo. 19. lib. 1. pag. 2. vnto. Nowe ye go about to proue, that bread remayneth stil in the sacra­ment, sayng thus: Christ toke bread, brake it, and gaue it vnto his disciples and sayed: Take, eate. Al this was spo­ken before the wordes of consecratiō. Wherfore they must neades be vnder­stand of very bread, that Christ toke bread, brake bread, and gaue bread vnto his disciples, &c. This reason is very The confu­tation. weake, my lord, and as much against your oune doctrine, as it is against ou­res For althoughe the texte seameth to say, that Christ gaue vnto his disci­ples [Page 55] the sacrament before the wordes of consecration were spoken of hym, yet he did not so, but he did first consecrate the bread, sayng. This is my bo­dy, My lordes reason is against his oune doctrine. and then he sayed, take and eate, for els he had geuen vnto them no sa­crament, but only common bread, vnconsecrated, which is very false, & as much against your opinion, as a­gainst our doctrine. For ye do say, that christ gaue to his apostles holy conse­crated bread, à signe, and à sacrament of his body. Ye are also disceaued, whē Luc. 22. fo. 19 Matth. 26. ye say that christ gaue vnto his disci­ples the cup of wine before he did cōsecrated it, for then he had geuen to thē wyne vnconsecrated, which had bene neither signe, nor sacrament of chri­stes precious bloud, more thā al other common wyne was and now is, and the apostles also had then receaued, & drounken but common wyne, for the texte of Marke, which ye folowe here in your boke, sayeth. They droū ­ke [Page] of it al, and after it reciteth the wor­des of the consecration, sayng. This is Marci. 14. my bloud, &c. Is not this then against your doctrine, my lord, as much as it is against oures? Why then do ye not thus construe christes wordes in Mar­ke? My lord made an argumēt plaily against his oune doctrine. This is my bloud of the newe testa­ment, &c. Take it ye, and drinke and, they drounke of it al? Shal ye not els be enforced to say, that christ did ne­ther consecrate, the wyne at al, nor ge­ue to his apostles any sacramēt, or ho­ly signe, for he dyd not consecrate the wyne after they had drounken it? Re­cante therfore this your errour for shame, recante, yea for our lordes ho­noures sake, the sauing of your oune soul, and the souls of many other, whō ye haue seduced with this your wicked doctrine. Ye also write thus. Nowe I as­ke The bysshop of the papistes, what thing it was, that christ commaunded his disciples to drinke, whan he sayed. Drinke ye al of this? I anusweare, my lord, that it [Page 56] was his oune precious bloud, which he shed for many as he sayeth there hymselfe, and that he spoke those wo [...]des after he had consecrated the wyne, (as I haue already declared) althoughe the letter hath not that ordre. For els ye must neades graunt that Christ ga­ue vnto his apostles but common vn­consecrated wyne, and that he did ne­uer consecrate it, nor make it à holy signe of his bloud, which howe false it is, and houe playne against your oune doctrine, who seeth not? May not à man nowe, my lord, wel perceaue, how ye erre for lacke of knowlage, thoughe ye take vpon yow to correct al other, and to reforme christes religion? Of lyke ignoraunce proceded this reason, that now foloueth in your booke.

Before christ deliuered the cup of wy­ne The bysshop lib. 2. fo. 19. pag. 2. to his disciples, he sayed vnto them Deuide this among yow. Here ye do deskant, my lord, vpon this word (De­uide) The confu­tation. and aske of the papistes what [Page] thing it was, that christ bade his apost­les deuide among them, I thinke, say ye, that they wil not say, that it was his bloud, because those wordes were spo­ken before the consecration, and also the bloud of christ is not deuided.

This ye reason without both reason, The Confu­tation. and also good learning. For if Christ had spoken those wordes of the wyne, which appertayned vnto the holy sa­crament (as in dede he did not, but on ly of the wyne, that he dranke at his soupper eating the paschal lambe afo­re the institution of the sacrament) Marci. 14. Luc. 22. yet they should make nothing more against our beliefe, than against your vnbeliefe. For if he had commaunded his apostles to haue drounken the wy­ne Marke. not yet consecrated, (as ye say fal­sely, that he did) than it had bene no sacrament, nor holy signe of christes bloud, as ye teache that it is. But I saye to the, good reader, that he must nea­des be very folish, that wil geue any credence [Page 57] vnto my lordes doctrine, seyng he doth so falsely alleage, and wreast gods word to maintene his errour. But I wil passe this ouer, as confuted suffi­ciently. Ye say agayne. When the cō munion was ended, christ sayed vnto his apostles. Verily I say vnto yow, Luc. 22. The bysshop lib. 2. fo. 19. pa. 2. that I wil drinke no more hence furth of this frute of the vyne, vntil the day, that I shal drinke yt newe wyth yow in my fathers kyndome. These wordes proue not, my lord, that christes apost­les The confu­tation. dranke wyne in the receauing of the sacrament, (as ye saye), but only that they dranke wyne with christ at soupper, when they did eate the pas­chal lambe, before the institution of the sacrament, as it appeareth by Saīt Lukes euangile, in which these wordes Lucae. 22. are written, to declare both Saint Mattheus and Saint Markes wordes. Agayne yf those wordes had bene spoken of the cōsecrated wyne, yet they shold not proue your purpose, my lord, that [Page] wyne of the grape remayneth stil yn the holy sacramēt, but only that christ called his very oune bloud wyne, be­cause, that wyne was turned in to it by the consecration, and because it sea­med to be wyne, and had the qualitees and properties of wyne, least we shold abhorre to drinke it, yf it did appeare bloud (as S. Damascene, Theophila­cte, Damascene Lib. 4. c. 14. Theophi. in Marci. 14. Euthyimus, and many other lear­ned men do wytnesse) and that man myght merite beleuing against his senses iudgementes, which hath no meri­te (as Saynt Gregorie sayeth) when he Homi. 28. in Euange­lia. hath à prouffe of the thinge. It is no strange thyng for christes bloud to be called wyne, for the storie of the Gene­sis Gene. 49. sayeth of christ in the person of Iu­da, he shal wash his stole in wyne, and his garment in the bloud of the grape. Did not the holy goost calle wyne he­re christes bloud? Saint Cyprian pro­ueth [...]i. 2. Epi. 3 by that text, and by an other of Esaiae the prophete, that wyne must [Page 58] neades be putte in to the chalice to be consecrated, and made christes bloud, and therfore christ ment that he wold not drinke his oune bloud, (ī to which the wyne was then chaunged by his wordes and pouer) after that tyme vn­til he dranke yt with his apostles in the Lege Hier. ad hedihiā quaest. 2. church after his resurrection. And af­ter this sorte Saint Eucherius, that was bysshop of lions in France aboue. Libro quae­stionum no­ui & vete­ris testamē ti. M. c. yeres passed, expoundeth that texte, sayng. What shal we folow here? The kyndome of god (as learned men do vnderstād it) is the church in which christ daily drinketh his bloud by his holy people, as the head in the mem­bres. Loo this holy doctour, my lord, vnderstode by the fruete of the vyne, of which S. Luke maketh mention, not wyne of the vyne (as ye do) but christes very bloud, and sayeth that he dranke it, when his membres, the god­ly people, drāke it in the church, as the head drinketh in his membres. Nowe [Page] I aske of yow, my lord, where drinketh christ his bloud daily in the churche, when his membres the god men drin­ke it, except it be ī the holy sacramēt? Is not this argument then anuswea­red sufficiētly? It is very false also, that The bysshop Li. 2. fo. 20 ye say, that christ vsed al such termes, and circumstances, which shold make vs beleue that bread and wyne remay­ned stil in the sacrament. For the ter­me of his body, and saynge that he ga­ue euen that same his bodye, that should be crucified for vs, & his bloud that he wold shed for vs, and that he vsed the neutre gendre, when he sayed (This is, &c) which can not be refer­red vnto the bread, that is both in lati­ne and also in the Greake the mascu­line gendre, ought to make vs beleue, that he spake then of his oune very natural body and bloud. I let passe here your malitious rayling vpon the ca­tholike priestes, which declareth plain­ly by what spirite ye are led. ye write [Page 59] also this. Saint Pol called bread, bread, and wyne, wyne, and neuer altered The bysshop lib. 2. fo. 20 pagina. 2. christes wordes heryn. The bread, which we breake (sayeth he) is it not the communion of christes body? It is The confu­tation. not true, that Saint Pol called bread, bread, and wyne wyne, for he called christes blessed body & precious bloud, bread & wyne, because bread & wyne were turned in to them at the tyme of the consecration, and because there remayned stil the qualitees and proper­ties of bread, and wyne, and thirdly, be cause that christes body and bloud do feede the soul, as material bread, and wyne doth the body. When ye say that S. Pol must neades be vnderstan­ded, when he sayeth the bread, that we breake, &c. of material bread, because christes body is not broken, I say that ye erre in so saying, for the formes, & quantites of bread are broken, christes body lying vnder them takyng no har me at al, as Saint Thomas did putte [Page] his hand yn to christes side without al hurt vnto it, beyng then immortal, & Ioan. 20 vnapte to suffre harme. Saint Pol (I graunt) maketh ofte mention of bread and wyne, but what therof? Is that sufficient to proue that he spake of mate­rial 1. Cor. 10. 11 bread, and of wyne of the vyne? Maketh he not also often mention of christes body and bloud? Why then Marke reader: may not we say, that he spake of thē, and ment by the bread and wyne christes body and bloud, in to which the bread was chaunged, and the wyne al­so, and whose properties, and qualitees remayned stil in the sacrament? Ye say that pol neuer spake of transubstantia­tion, yf ye meane expressely and by that name, I graūt it, but that proueth nothing for your purpose, for he spake of the thing signified, & ment by that word, that is to say, he taught vs that christes body and bloud are in the sa­crament, and not bakers bread (as it is proued afore) Agayne Saint Pol neuer [Page 60] sayed that material bread remayneth stil in the sacrament (as ye teach, my lord) & therfore pol by your oune rea­son maketh no more for yow, thē he doth for me. Also the scripture speaketh not namely, & expressely of this word [...] homousios, nor that the father is ingenitus, nor that there are three persons in the trinite. Wil ye, mi Marke. lord, therfore conclude that scripture setteth not furth the selfe same thing by other termes and wordes? No, god forbid. Is it not then sufficient for our doctrine, that the scripture teacheth vs the same thing, that this word (transubstantiation) signifieth, althoughe it maketh no mention of that word? Now ye speake much against altering of christes wordes. But who doth, my lord, so much alter them, as ye do? For christ sayed. This is my body, that shal be geuen for yow, and ye say, that it was not his body in dede, but bread of corne & à signe or à figure of it only [Page] can there be, my lord, any greater al­tering of à thinge, then to denie it, and Mrrke. to say it is not it, but only à figure of it? Christ sayed it was he selfe same body, that he gaue for vs to death, & we say euen the same, where ye say it was not it, but bread. Haue ye not then blamed vs in that thing, in which ye your selfe is most to be blamed? Wel let The bys­shop. fo. 21. The confu­tation. this passe. Now ye fal to reasoning, and say thus. Now let vs consider, how the same is also against reasō, and natural operation, &c. What then? Are not ly­ke wyse al the articles of our fayth a­gainst both reason, and natural opera­tion? For what can be more against reason and natural operation, than à vir­gen to conceaue and beare à child, without decay of her virginite? than mās Matth. 1. Lucae. 1. 1. Cor. 15. flesh to rise agayne? than al thinges to be made of nothing? than death to be ouercome by death? than that there be three persons, and but one god? &c. Why thē denye ye not as wel al these [Page 61] articles of our faith, as the real presen­ce of christes body in the sacrament? Haue ye forgetten S pols sayng, A mā which foloweth natural reason, and ar­gumentes made by his oune wyt per­ceaueth 1. Cor. 1. Theophila­ctus in 10. 3 not thinges belonging to god, and those that are aboue reason? Dyd not Nichodemus think it was impossible, that à mā should be borne agayne because he lacked faith, and folowed natural reason only? Exhorteth not vs Coloss. 2. S Pol to take heede, that no man dis­ceaue vs by vaine reasoning, and phi­losophie? Did not the heithen and paynyms iudge it folly to beleue in chri­stes 1. Cor. 1. death, because they thought it a­gainst reason, that à man shold be sa­ued by à mans death? How much rea­soned Saint pol against the natural philosophers to proue the resurrectiō 1. Cor. 15 of the flesh? Which they wold not be­leue, because it was against reason and natural knowlege? Do ye not geue mē à great occasiō, my lord, by your rea­soning [Page] in this your booke, to denye al the articles of our fayth, seyng they a­re against natural reason & operation? I pray god, that ye bringe not the peo­ple vnto such madnes. Athanasius Libro. 4. ad Theophilum contra po­tentinum. sayed vnto one pontentine. Thow a­lone doest dissent in this matter from the catholikes against the scriptures, and the whole world, whiles thow fo­louest the philosophers doctrine.

May we not, my lord, say the same of yow, & such other? S. Cyprian sayeth, Lib. 4. epi. 2 there is much difference betwene phi­losophers, and Christian people, for the philosophers, and natural reaso­ners measure al their knowlage by wit and reason, but christen men measure their belyefe by fayth. Tertulian sa­yeth Lib. de praescriptione aduersus haereticos. that al heresies spring out of phi­losophie. Wil ye bring men, my lord, wyth your natural reasoning in this article of our fayth, to say, as one A­baillardus did, (of whom bernard wri­teth) Epist. 180. that nothyng ought to be bele­ued [Page 62] of vs, that excedeth natural rea, son? What caused many men to say Epist. 1 [...]0. (as Salomon wytnesseth) that men perysh euen as beastes, and therfore Ecclesiast. 3 they sayed, let vs eate, drinke, fil our­selues 1. Cor. 15. with delites, and plaisirs, for af­ter this lyfe there is no pleasure?

Was it not natural reasoning, and measuring of thinges by their wyttes?

Ceasse then, my lord, for shame, ceas­se this reasoninge in mattiers of our fayth, and folowe S. Ambrose, sayng De fide ad Gratianum against such reasoninge. Awaye hence with argumentes, where the fayth is sought. Let logicke, or the science of reasonyng and disputing probably of matters, nowe keepe silence, and spea­ke in the scholes. Those men are daily forsaken of their compaynions, that dispute, they do encrease daily, which beleue simply, philosophers are not beleued, and fisshers are. Wherfore leaue, my lord, I say agayne, leaue this [Page] your reasonyng vpon this highe my­stery, that passeth al mans wit, and reason. Now I wil examine your vn­reasonable reasons, and declare howe foyble they are, of wich this is one. Natural reason abhorreth vacuum, The bisshop fo. 21. pag [...] that is to say, that there shovld be any emptie place, wheryn no substance should be, but yf there remayne no bread, nor wyne, the place, where they were before, and where theyr accidē ­tes be, is fylled wyth no substance, but remayneth vacuum, cleane contrary to the ordre of nature. This reason The confu­tation. may wel perswade á paynym, & á hei­then philosopher, or any man, that wyl rather folowe reason than fayth, but no good christian man, which be­leueth against al natural reason and the ordre of nature, as he is bound, and [...]ene 22. Rom. 4 as Abraham beleued that Sara his wife beyng both old & also barren, should beare à child, wich was against reason, and the ordre of nature. Zachary S. [Page 63] Than baptistes father wold not beleue, that his wyfe, beyng barrēyn her yougth shold beare á child, because, yt was aga­inst reason, and the whole ordre of na­ture, & therfore good toke from hym his speach vntill his sonne S. Ihan was Luc. 1. Libro debis qui myste­rijs initiā ­tur, cap. 9. Marke reader. borne. S. Ambrose sayeth. why doest thou seake here yn the sacrament the ordre of nature yn christes bo­dy, seyng Christ our savyour was borne of the vyrgē agaīst the ordre of nature? This body, wich we (priestes) do make is of the virgen. Doth not Ambrose here, my lord, ouerthrow vtterly al your reasoning in this matter, when ye seake theryn the ordre of nature, agaīst our fayth? What yf the place, in wich bread and wyne were afore the conse­cration, be afterward emptie, & vnoc­cupied of any body, against the natural reason of man, and the ordre of natu­re? Wyl ye bynde god, that made mās reason, nature, & the ordre of nature, to do nothing against those his creatures? [Page] Dyd he not make al thinges of not­hing wyth his word? Caused he not á Gene. 1. vyrgen to beare á child contynuing stil in her virginite, reysed he not vp agayne the deade & did many other thī ges Lib. 2 de generatione. as much against natural reason, & the ordre of nature, as á place to be emptie. and wythout á body to fil yt? May not god, that made both the pla­ce, & also the body, which occupieth it, and appoynte, that ever place na­turally shold be occupied with some body, breake this ordre, course, & lawe of nature, wich he made hymselfe, & cause á place to be emptie, and voyde Marke. of euery thing? See ye not then, my lord, howe lyttel this your reason is to be esteamed, and regarded? but yf I sa­yed unto yow, my lord, that the a yer occupieth the place of bread & wyne, when their substance is turned in to christes body and blowd, and so there is not vacuum, nor any emptie place, what can ye say against me? Nowe I [Page 64] wyl make one briefe aunsweare, my How the consecrated wyne tur­neth in to vinaygre the bread mouleth & cet. lord, vnto diuers of your natural rea­sons, and obiections, that no man be seduced by them. I say that the conse­crated wyne turneth not in to vynai­gre, nor the cōsectated bread mouleth nor engēdreth wormes, nor is burned, nor receaueth yn to yt any poyson, as long as christes body, & bloud are vn­der the formes of them, wich do abyde there so long, as the natural qualitees, and properties of bread and wyne tar­rye there yn their natural disposition and condition, that the bread & wyne myght be naturally there, yf they had not bene chaunged in to christes hody and bloud, and also as lōg as the hoost and consecrated wyne are apte to be receaued of man, and no lēger, but do go and depart thence by gods pouer, as yt pleaseth hym, and then á newe substance is made of god, wich turneth in to vynegre, engendreth wormes, mouleth, is burned, fedeth men, & the [Page] myse, receaueth poyson et c. and so neyther the substance of bread & wyne remayneth stil yn the sacrament, nor they that burne the hoost, are christ burners, as ye mockyngly say that they shold be, yf christes body wereyn the sacrament S. Cyprian sayeth that Sermone [...]. de lapsis á certen vngodly man wold haue eatē of the sacrifice cōsecrated, but he could not handle, nor eate the, holy of god, and when he opened his handes, he fo­unde that he bare asshes yn them, by the example of that one man (sayeth S. Cypriā) yt is declared, that our lord goeth away, when he is denyed, and that the thyng, wich is receaued, pro­fiteth not the vnworthy, seyng the hol some grace, is turned in to asshes, the holynes fleyng awaye-See ye not, my lord, that christ, and his body departed away, when the vnworthy man wold Marke re­ader. haue receaued them, and that asshes only remayned there yn their place? Why then may we not wel say, that [Page 65] christes body then goeth away, and departeth when the hoost mouleth & corrupteth to engendre wormes and shold be burned, as yt doth, when poy­son is put to the hoost, and the conse­crated wyne soureth, or turneth yn to vynaigre? For is not the other as strang á thing, as this ys, and as much vnlyke to be true? Agayne, yf I sayed, that the accidentes, and qualities of bread and wyne remaynyng in the sacrament should nourysshe the receauer aboue and also against their natures, as they are there, wythout theyr substance a­gaīst nature, what haue ye to say vnto me? For why may not they as wel feade mā agaīst their natures by gods al­myghtie pouer, as god fed Moses and 3. Reg. 13. 17. Helias long against nature, the one without meate & the other with very littell? Fynally, may not poyson be as wel in the accidentes, and qualitees of the bread and wyne▪ against nature, as god fed the children of Israel wyth [Page] Manna, and with quayles, water out of the rocke against nature? Ye are no­ue, Exo. 16. P [...]al. 7. Exod. 7. Exod. 16. my lord, anusweared in al these ob­iections, and natural reasons. It folo­weth in your booke. And most of al it is against the nature of accidentes to be yn nothinge. &c. What than, my The bysshop lib. [...]. fo. 21. pag. 2 The confu­tation. lord. I pray yow? Was it not as much against nature that the angeles did ea­te and drinke, and lyke wise christ af­ter his resurrection, and nothyng of that meate and drinke was tourned Exodi 3. Exod. 17. Numero­rum. 20. yn to their noryshement? Did not the busse of thornes flame wyth fyre, and not burne against nature? Was it not against nature, that water ranne out of Exod. 17. the hard rocke? that quayles came do­wne from the firmament? that the sea made away for the Iewes to passe throvghe Iosuae. 3. Psal. 113. it? that the ryver of iordane ran­ne backe against his course? that the bytternes of the water of Marath was turned yn to swetenes when Moses cast à peace of woode yn to it? that yrō [Page 66] did swime aboue vpon the water? that Exod. 15. fyre came doune from the firmament by Helyas word? that the sonne & the 4. Regū. 6. moone stod stil? that christ walked, 4. Regum. 1 Iosuae. 10. Danielis. 3. Danielis. 6. Lucae. 1. and also peter vpon the see? that Da­niels three feloes burned not in the great fyre? that the lyons hurt not da­niel? that christ was borne of his mo­ther Matth. 28. with out breaking of her closures? that he rose throughe the stone lying Ioan. 20. vpon his tombe? that he entred in to the house, the doores beyng yet stil closed? Are not these thinges and many such other, as much impossible, and against nature, as the accidentes, and qualitees of bread, and wyne to remayne in the sacrament without their substance to susteyne them? Doth not he­uy Marke. Plinius hist naturalis lib. 36. cap. 16. & libr. 36. cap. 14 [...] yron ascende vp ward against nature when it is set vnder à stone called Magnes, and wyl hang in the aer wit­hout any staye, yf one magnes be set vnder it, when it is goyng vpward to­wardes an other beyng aboue? For as [Page] much as the one stone draweth it vpward towardes hym, so much doth the other drawe it doune wardes toward hym? Also no strength can breake an adamant stone (as plinye sayeth) but In prooemio lib. 20. hist. natura. the bloud of à goate onlie. Are not the se thinges, which be done naturally, as much against nature by mans reason, and iudgement, as the accidentes and qualites of bread & wyne to be in the sacramēt without their substaunce by gods pouer? Why then do ye, my lord, make so great à matter, that the acci­dentes, and qualites of bread and wy­ne should remayne stil in the sacra­mēt wythout their substance, in which they myght be? Wyl ye ascribe lesse vnto gods pouer, than to nature? It is no great merueile, that ye iudge it fol­lye to affirme, (as we do in dede) agaīst nature and reason, that one body is in dyuers places at ones, and twoo bodies in one propre place both together, for the heithen people (as I haue declared [Page 67] afore) esteamed christes faith and reli­gion nothyng els but mere folly, and 1. Cor. 1. The bys­shop. fo. 21. 22. madnes, which thing S Pol testifieth manifestly. Our doctrine is, I confesse against al our outward senses, but pro­ueth that, my lord, that it is false? Are not lyke wyse al the articles of our fayth against our outward senses, al­thoughe not after lyke sorte, as this is? May ye therfore denye them? Were it not much better to leaue this vayne reasoning, and to folowe Saint Chry­sostoms godly consail, which is this? Let vs beleue god in euery thing, and Homi 83 in Matthaeum Good coun­sail. not say against hym, yea althoughe the thing, that he sayeth, doth appeare an inconuenience both vnto our sen­ses, thought, and vnderstandyng, and doth also excede our sense, capacyte, Marke. and reason. Let vs, I besech yow, bele­ue his wordes in al thinges, but chyefely in the sacramentes, not loking only vpon those thinges, which lye before vs, but considering also his woordes. [Page] For by his wordes, we cānot be discea­ued, but our senses are moost easy to be disceaued. His wordes can not be Matth. 26 false, oursenses are very often tymes disceaued. Wherfore seing christ hath sayed. This is my body, let vs nothing doubte therof, but beleue, and percea­ue it wyth the eies of our vnderstan­dyng. Hyther to this holy doctour. Now were it not much more wysdo­me, and á greater saftye for our souls health, for to ceasse reasonyng, in this matter, to mystrust the iudgement of our senses, and to sticke wholly vnto gods word (as Saint Chrysostom wyl­leth vs to do) than to foloue your na­tural reasonyng here, my lord, and measuryng of this highe mystery by our senses? Moreouer ye write af­ter this maner. Our fayth teacheth The bysshop Lib. 2. fo. 22 pag. 1. The confu­tation. vs to beleue thinges, that we see not, but it doth not bid vs, that we shal not beleue, that we see daily wyth our eies, &c. What do ye, my lord, see in the [Page 68] sacramēt, but the colour of bread, and wyne? For ye see not their substance. Wherfore ye may beleue that colour to be there, but not the substance of the bread and wyne. S Thomas did at christes commaundement put his had in to christes syde, and felt his woundes Ioan. 20. (I graunt) for the confirmation of his fayth. What then, my lord? Can ye of that proue, that as he trusted then to his senses for to beleue christes re­surrection, euen so we may beleue our senses iudgement touching this sa­crament? No, ye are disceaued, For al­thought our senses may helpe some what to the profe of natural thinges, beyng in their natural formes such as christes body was then, yet in thinges that are aboue nature, and out of their natural beyng, state, and shap, as chri­stes Narkc. Chrysosto. Damasce. body is in the holy sacrament, they are not to be trusted, For in such thinges they iudge vtterly against our fayth. Agayne was not the sight, [Page] and feelyng of loth, Abraham, Iacob, and certen other, which sawe god, and Gene. 18. 19 32. angels in mennes formes and apparances, disceaued, whē they thought they were very mē in dede, as they seamed to be vnto them? Wherfore our sen­ses may disceaue vs, and so it appea­reth that this your reason, my lord, is of none effecte, nor force at al. We opē no gate (as ye say falsely, that we do) vnto valentinianus heresy, nor to any such other. For althoughe we do say, that our senses are not to be trusted yn this matter of the holy sacrament, yet we denye not, but that some cre­dence may be geuen wel vnto them in natural thinges, hauyng their natural condition and state. And as concer­nyng the heresy of them, that sayed christ was not à very man, or that he had not very flesh and bones, the con­trary was not proued sufficiently by their senses, which sawe hym, but by many textes both of the old, and also [Page 69] the newe testament. Moreouer the scriptures are manyfest enoughe in ma­ny places against Basilides, and such o­ther, that sayed christ was not crucified for vs, but Simon Cyrenaeus, by which scriptures that article, and the beliefe of it is approued, and not by oure sen­ses, Romanorū. 10. for S Paul sayeth, that fayth com­meth of the hearyng of gods word, and not of hearyng, seyng, feeling, or of any of the other our senses, for they may often tymes disceaue vs (as Saint Homi. 93. in Matthaeum Ioan. 14. Chrysostom wytnesseth) where gods word, which is the trueth itself, can neuer disceaue vs. Wherfore the sen­ses are not to be trusted heryn, and so is al that reasonīge, which ye make, my lord, here wythe so many wordes, not worth à bleue point. Ye say also thus. And yf there be no trust to be geuen The bysshop. fo. 22 pa. 2. to oure senses, in this matter of the sa­crament, why than do the papistes so stoutly affirme, that the accidentes remayne after the consecration? [Page] [...] [Page 69] [...] [Page] which can not be iudged but by the senses.

Syr we do affirme, that there is no The confu­tation. trust to be geuen to our senses in mat­ters of our faith, especially where they do iudge agenst, goddes word, as they do in this matter. For the scriptu­re sayth that christ promysed to geue his apostles bread, which should be his owne very flesh, that he wold geue for the lyfe of the world, and that he gaue Ioan. 8. Matth. 28. 1. Cor. 11. to them his bodie, which was crucified for them, & the senses did iudge, that it was but bread of corne Agayne our senses do iudge only the accidentes properly (as al learned men do wel know) whiche every mā may affirme to be yn the sacrament, but notthinke ther of that their substances do remayne, althoughe the scripture expresselye sayeth not that there remayneth no bread, but that it is christes bodie, w­hich he gaue for vs to death, and so it can not be breade, forthat was not [Page 70] geuē for vs vpon the crosse. The sacra­ment is not an elusion of our senses (as ye say) althoughe in yt appeare bread, Gen. 18 19. Mar vt Ioan. 20 Actorum. 1. and yt is not there as god and the angelles, seamed men to loth. Abrahā and other and were not very men in dede, and yet they were no elusions of their senses werfore an āuwseare is now made to al this your reasoninge, my lord, vpon the iudgement of our sen­ses, and natural reason Now ye labour The bysshop lib. 2. fo. 23. pag. 1. to proue that oure belefe in this mat­ter is against the fayth of the old autours of christes church, & ye alleage­iustine the Holie martyr, affirminge The confu­tation. Anno d. [...]0 103 90. that he is the oldest author, that is knowen this daie to writte any treatie v­pō the sacramētes, which is very false, for Anacletus the martyr, Clement, dionise, saynt Martial & certen other moo wrate of that matter before hym à great while, as it appareth plainlie by their lyues, writinges and bookes. The confu­tation.

I muche merueile, my lord, that ye [Page] are not à shamed falsely to alleage iu­stine Iustinus wordes. for the furtherāce of your wicked doctrine, which neuer wrote as ye say butthus onlie: Thā afterward bread, & the chalice of wyne and water myxed together, is broughe vnto the bisshop, or priest. This nourysshemēt is called of vs Eucharistia. And we take not these thinges as euery meate and euery drinke, but as throughe goddes word, Christ oure sauiour was incarnate, and toke fleashe, and bloud for oure salua­tion, euen so we haue learned by these wordes, This is my bodie, & This is my bloud, that this meate, by the which oure flesh & bloud are throughe alteration nouryshed, when it is blessed by the prayers of the word (goddes sonne he meaneth) is the flesh and bloud of iesu hymselfe incarnate. These are his wordes, which are as plaīlie agaīst your doctrine as cā be in four pointes. The Iustinus, whō my lord alleageth for hym, is first is, that he speaketh of mēglinge of wyne & water together in the chalice [Page 71] of which the scripture maketh no mē ­tiō agaīst hym in four pointes. & therfore ye saye, that it is not to be passed vpon. Secondlye he is con­trarie to your teachinge, whan he affirmeth, verites not Wrytten in scripture. that christ prayed, when he did consecrate, and that by his prayers the bread and wyne were blessed, which is not mentioned yn the scripture, and for that cause ye despise it, and say it is à thinge of no necessite at al. Third­ly he sayeth, that these are the wordes of consecration, This is my bodye. This is mybloud, which ye denie Four thely he sayeth that the bread & wine, by which our flesh & bloud are noury­shed, are after they be blessed throug­he christes prayers, the flesh and bloud Marke▪ this reader of christ. How blynd were ye thē, my lord, when ye alleaged this authour for oure purpose, which is so euidētly against your doctrine? But what yf Iusti­nus had thought (as ye saye, that he did & yet did not so indede) that bread, & wyne remayned stil yn the sacramēt? [Page] Could that haue proued your doctri­ne, that there is nothinge els in the sacrament but bread, an wyne only? No man is so blynd, but he maye se, that it doth not proue your purpose, thoughe it seame to make with luther Also many of the Greakes affirmed, that the holie goost proceded not frō the father, and he sonne both, & they agreed not theryn with the latine church, vntil the conseil holden at flo­rentia, wich was with yn these cxx ye­res, and yet that their opinion proued not that the latine church erred yn their belefe, why then should either Iustinus saying, Theodoretus, or any other of the Greates, which wrote that bread, and wyne remayned stil yn the sacrament, make against our faith touchyngetrāsubstātiatiō, which Greakes generallie did not receaue, manyyeres after the latine church had manifestly taught yt? But Iustinus (saye ye) affir­meth that the bread, and wyne are [Page 72] turned in to our flesh, and bloud, to nouryshe our bodies. It is true, but not as ye do take his sainge, for he mēt that cōmon bread and wyne are tur­ned by the alteration of them yn to mans flesh and bloud but not that bread and wyne that are consecrated, but other of lyke nature. Wherfore this authour ys against you, my lord, as I­Reneus is, whom ye alleage, sayinge.

The bread, wherin wegeue than es The bysshop jo. 22. pa. 2 vnto god, althoughe yt be of the earth yet when the name of god is called v­pon it, it is not than common bread, Lib. 43. but the bread of thankes geuinge, hauī ge two thinges in yt, one earthely, and the other heauinlie. Here ye alleage The confu­tation. saint IReneus wrong, as ye dyd Iustinus, for he hath thus butr Houshal it appeare to them, that that bread, yn wich thankes are geuen, is the lordes bodie, and the chalice of is bloud, yf they cal hym not his sonne, wich made the world? Then à good way afterward he [Page] writeth this. As the bread, which is of the earth, feelynge, or perceauinge the callinge vpon of god, is not now common bread, but à good grace, or à thā ­kes geuinge, consistinge in twoo thīges an earthilie, and an heauynlie, euen so our bodies also receauing the good grace, or sacrament, are not now apte to be corrupted, hauinge hope of resurre­ctiō, what maketh this autour now for yow, my lord, telle me? Calleth he not that bread, which is in the sacrament, christes bodie? Sayeth he not also, that it is not commen bread? Doth not this doctour saye that it is à good grace, & that it preserueth our bodies from euer lastinge corruption? Are these the effectes, & properties of bakers bread? W­ho is so madde, to beleue that? Now ye The bysshop li. 2. pa. 2. fo. 23. aske what Irenaeus [...]ment by the hea­uēly thinge, which is yn the sacramēt but the sanctification, that cometh by the inuocation of the name of god, & what by the earthilie, but the very bre- [Page 73] & of the earth. To that I saye that this exposition is made of your oune head The confu­tation. contrarily to his meanyng, and myn­de, as his oune wordes afore mentio­ned declare. Wherfore he meaneth by the heauenly thinge christes blessed bodie, which was first fourmed, and made in his mothers wombe aboue natu­re by the heauenly pouer and opera­tion Marke reader. of the holy goost, and in to which by the heauenly wordes of christ, by the inuocation of the holy goost, by prayers, and by goddes heauenly po­uer and workinge, the bread, which ca­me from the earth, was turned in the tyme of the consecration. And by the earthely thinge, he ment that earthely bread was taken to be consecrated, and that his properties, qualitees, quantite, and shape doth stil remayne in the sa­crament. Wherfore this authorite ser­uith not, my lord, for your il purpose, and as muche doth Origenes, whom ye now alleage, sayinge.

The matter of the bread auaileth no­thinge, but goeth doune in to the bea­lie, The bysshop lib. 2. fo. 23. pa. 2. and is auoyded douneward, but the woord of god spoken vpon the breade, is it that auaileth. To this I might aunsweare In cap. 15 Matthaei. L [...]b 1. pas­chali. The confu­tation. that this writer was à great here­tike (as Theophilus and other declare) and the chyefe scholemaistre of er­rours, but I wil not so do, for he erred not (as muche as I haue red) in this matter of the sacrament, and is plain­lie vpon my syde against my lordes doctrine in diuers places, of which this is one, vpon these wordes of Matthew, Homi. 5. in Diuersos. Domine non sum dignus, &c, for these are his wordes. When ye do receaue Origenes is against my lordes do­ctrine, that holye meate, and vncorrupted disshe: whan thow doest vse the breade, and cuppe of lyse, thow eatest, and drinkest the bodie of our lord, than our lord entreth in to thy house. What could he haue sayed more plainlie a­gainst this my lordes opinion? Sayeth he not that we do eate oure lordes bo­die, [Page 74] and drinke his bloud, and that thā oure lord doth entre in to oure house, which is oure bodie? I myght bringe many other sentences of this writers to proue this purpose, but I wil not, be­cause, I wold be short. Now to the exa­mination of this place, which ye, my lord, do here alleage very vnperfectlye to further your matter with, for these In id Mat­thaei is Non quod intrat in os, &c. Fo. 23 pa. 2 are the authours wordes▪ But some man, chauncynge vpon this place, wil saye, that as that thyng which goeth in to the mouth, defileth not man, yea althoughe it were iudged polluted of the Iewes, lyke wise that thinge, which go­eth in to the mouth, maketh hym not holy, that eateth it, thoughe the more simple people do thinke that the bread doth sanctifie hym, which bread is called our lordes bread. If al that entereth in at the mouth goeth away doune yn to the belli & is cast out īto the draught that meate also, which is halowed by goddes worde, & prayer, touchinge that that it hath material, goeth away in to the bealie, & is [Page] throwen furth in to the feage, but concerninge the prayers, which came to it it is made profitable after the portion of mans faith, causynge à mans soul to se wel, lokynge towardes that that is profitable for hym. This origenes. First The Confu­tation. note, reader, how doubtfully he spea­keth, & determynith not the matter. Secōdly marke how il he applieth the se christes wordes. That thinge, which Matth. 15. entereth in at the mouth, defileth not man. Al that goeth in to the mouth goeth in to the stomake or bealie, and is caste out in to the iakes. For these wordes were spoken onlie of bodily fo­de and nothinge of any spiritual mea­te, such as is this holie sacrament, and therfore this authour erred herin, and was not origen. Thirdly, he affirmeth that the bread is halowed not onlie by goddes word, but also by prayer, which my lord denieth. Fourthlye, he affir­meth that that thing which ētereth in to mans mouthe, doth not sanctifie [Page 75] hym, thoughe it be oure lordes bread, that is consecrated by goddes word, and praier▪ which wordes declare open ly, that origen neuer wrote them, for they are cleane contrary to his wordes in an other booke, which is vndoub­tedly his, where he writeth this. Wher­fore Lib. 8. con­tra celsum. let celsus, as à man that knoweth not god, geue thankes to the deuelles, but we obeynge the maker of thinges, after that we haue geuen god thankes for his benefites bestowed vpon vs, do eate the bread, which was offered in sa­crifice, and is certenly by petition, and prayer, made à certen holier bodie, which bodie maketh thē more holie that do vse that selfe same with à de­uoter mynd. Hou saye ye now, my Marke. lord? Doth not origen affirme plainly here that the bread, when it is conse­crated by prayer, is made à holier bo­dye, and that it doth make the deuote, and godly eater of it, more holy, than he was afore? Can this then stande with [Page] that place, which ye alleage for your purpose, where he doth denie this vt­terly, Legat haec caecus Pe­trus Mar­tyr. and sayeth that it doth nothinge sanctifie the receauer? Affirmeth not origen also here, that bread is made à holier bodie, than it was before? What bodie is that yf it be not christes bodie it selfe? But heare, my lord, what folo­weth in that place that ye alleage here This is therewritten. As appertayneth to the eatinge, nether of that that we do not eate of that breade halowed by goddes word and prayer, we are defrauded of any good thinge, nother we ha­ue by eatinge of it, any more goodnes in vs. Doth this saynge agree with that that is rehearsed afore out of his other book, which affirmeth that the sacra­mēt maketh vs more holy? Is not this last sentence that the sacrament ma­keth not men holy, nor they take any hurt which receaue it not, against ma­ny places of S Ihās gospel the vj. chap. and al old doctours myndes, which [Page 76] saye, (as christ doth Io. 6.) that by this Ioan 6. Cyrillus. Cyprianus. sacrament christ dwelleth in vs, and we in hym, and that we shal not haue euer lasting lyfe without we eate chri­stes fleash, and drinke his bloud?

Why then may not I truely conclu­de and say, that ye, my lord, were sha­mefullie disceaued, when ye alleaged this authorite, and so was peter Martyr your great god, in abusinge the same, as I wil shortly, by goddes helpe, declare to al men in my booke against him, which is now redie for the presse. Now Cyprianus. Lib. 2. epi. 3 The bisshop Fo. 24. to S Cyprian, whom ye bringe thus wrintinge. For as much as christe sayed, I am à true vyne, therfore the bloud is not water, but wyne, nor it can not be thought, that his bloud (wherby we are redeamed, and haue lyfe) is yn the cup, when wyne is not in the cuppe, wherbye the bloud of The confu­tation. christ is shewed. O'lord what meaneth this man? Why remembreth he not that S Cyprian there went about to [Page] proue, that wyne ought to be putte in to the chalice at masse, and not onlie water, as then some priestes did vse to do, against christes doynge, & com­maundement, Luc. 22. and not to proue that wyne remayned stil therin after the cō secration? Sayeth not S Cyprian here as plainly, that christes very bloud, wherby we were redeamed, is in the chalice, as he doth that wyne is therin, and more plainlye also? How then for shame could yow, my lord, alleage the one for your purpose, and denye the other? Is this the rightwaye to set furth the trueth to the people? What is this, but to seduce them vtterly? But let vs se what S Cyprian hath in that same e­pistle agaīst your doctrine. He writeth after this maner. As mē cā not drinke wine except the grapes be pressed afore Lib. 2. epi. 3 so we cā not drinke christes bloud, ex­cepte christ had bene before pressed vpon the crosse, and had drounken first of the chalice, of which he began to [Page 77] drinke vnto thē, that beleued. Agayne Cyrillus Cyprianus. he sayeth yn that same epistle If à mā do put in to the chalice onlie water, christes bloud begyinnythe to be in the chalice without vs. Finallie, he wri­teth thus. If yn the sacrifice, which is christ, only christ must be folowed, we Christ is of­fered at masse yn sacrifice, and not bread. ought to obey & do that, which christ did, and commaunded to be done of vs. How can we shead our bloud for christ, which are ashamed to drinke christes bloud? Who now is so blynd, my lord, I besech you, that he seeth not, how much S. Cyprian is against your vngodly doctrine, which ye wold yet father vpon hym? God geue al mē grace to be ware of such teachers, w­hich wold beare men yn hande, that their doctrine is old, and grounded v­pon the belefe, and writīges of godlye ancient doctours, when they are agaīst yt plainly▪ but I aske of yow, my lord, how ye can proue by S. Cypriā, or any other doctour, which ye do alleage he­re [Page] for your purpose, that there is none other substance in the blessed sacra­ment of the aulter then bare bakers bread, and wyne of the vyne? Are ye so ignorant in logicke (which doth te­ach men to reason wel, and to make good argumentes) as to make this ar­gument for your matter? S. Cyprian affirmeth that wyne is in the chalice, ergo there is not christes bloud? A bo­ye, which only hath learned the sophistrye, wil not dispute so fondly, I am sure: but wel such is your authorite, & Note. power yn that reaulme, that no man may speake agaīst your doctrine, be it neuer so folysh, & wicked Christ & his apostles did not sette fourth the gospel by any such meanes as ye vse. Now ye alleage S. Cypriā agayne, whose w­ordes are euidentlye against your pur­pose, for he sayeth, Christ offered sa­crifice at his last soupper, and that christes bloud is offered yn sacrifice at masse, which both two ye denye [Page 78] vtterlye, and yet are not ashamed to say, that this your doctrine is appro­ued So hath the title of his [...]oke by the most ancient doctours of christes church, of which S. Cyprian is one of the chyefest. Ye bringe now for yow Eusebius Emissenus, which is moost of al men against your cau­se. Thus he writeth. When the cre­atures The bissop lib. 2. fo. 24 pa. 2. (bread and wyne) are to be bles­shed with goddes wordes, they are sette vpon the holy aultour, before they be consecrated with the inuo­cation of the most highe name, there is the substance of bread and wyne, but after christes wordes be spoken, there is christes bodie and bloud. But what merueile is it, yf god can by his word turne those thinges that are cre­ated, which could make them with his word? And that it ought not to se­ame to vs à newe and an impossible thinge, that earthly & mortal thinges are chaunged in to christes substance aske thyselfe et c. Agayne he writeth, [Page] yn this wyse. The heauenly autorite In homi. pasehali & de cons dist 2. Quia corpus &c. confirmeth this matter. My fleash is verilie meate, and my bloud is verilie drīke. lette then al doubte of vnfayth fullnes depart awaye, for he, that is the maker of the gyfte, is also the wytnes Ioan. 8. of the trouth. For the inuisible priest (christ) turneth by the word, with à Transubstā tiation. secrete power, the visible creatures in to the substance of his bodie, and bloud, thus sayinge. Take ye, and ea­te, This is my bodie. And the sancti­fieng repeted, he saied thus Take and drinke. This is my bloud. Seest thow not now clerely, good reader, that this auncient father, and great clearke is plainly against my lordes doctrine? He wold not alleage these wordes, because he saw that they were agaīst hym vtterlye. Euen so the deuel al­leaged Matth. 4. the scriptures against christ. Aulters for the sacra­ment. This doctour alloweth aulters for the consecration of the blessed sacrament, and my lord casteth them al downe. [Page 79] This father sayeth that the substāce Marke reader: of bread and wyne is by inuocation of goddes name, christes wordes, and goddes power, turned yn to christes bodie and bloud, and yn to the sub­stance of them, and my lord deny­eth both that inuocation is necessarie therto, and that the substance of bre­ad, and wyne is chaunged, and turned yn to christes bodie, and bloud, & yet sayeth that this doctour is vpon his side. Al the wordes which he reciteth here for hym, do proue nothinge his intent, but only that it ought not be iudged of vs à thinge impossible to fo. 25. god, to turne the substance of bread, and wyne in to christes fleshe and bloud. This ment onlye that authour by those similitudes, that my lord re­hearseth out of hym, and not that there is none other chaunge of bread and wyne yn the sacrament, then is in mans soul, when he is baptized, & his synnes are forgeuen hym, which [Page] chaunge is onlie spiritualle, and not bodily ffor that were not the substan­ce of bread & wyne to be turned, and chaunged yn to the substance of chri­stes fleashe and bloud, which this aulthour affirmeth plainlie to be done yn the sacrament. Wherefore this writer writeth contrarilie to my lordes pur­pose, and euen so doth, Hilary bysshoppe of Rome, whom ye alleage, say­inge Hilarius Romanus de cons. dist. 2. cap. corpus after this maner. There is a fi­gure (sayeth he) for bread and wyne be outwardly seene and there is also à trueth. Here my lord agayne allea­geth fo. 25. pa. 2. falsely this authours wordes, lea­ving The confu­tation. out the first part of the sentence, which maketh against him plain­ly, for this he writeth. The bodie of christ which is taken from the aulter is à figure, when bread, and wyne outwardly appeare, but it is the trueth, whiles the bodie, and bloud of christ is inwardly beleued in the trueth,

What may be more plainly sayed [Page 80] against my lordes opinion, than this is? Saith he not, that we do receaue christes bodie at the aulter, and that we do beleue, that christes bodie & bloud are of à trueth ynwardly yn the sacra­ment? What is that, my lord, els but that christes bodie & bloud are bele­ued of good christen people to lye hyd ynwardly vnder neath the formes of bread and wyne, which are outwardly seene of vs, and are also à figure? What haue ye, my lord, now gotten by this allegation of hilarie? Do ye so il vn­derstand, that ye reade, which fault ye were wont to ascribe vnto me? Re, cante, recante for shame, and go not furth this blyndly in your errour to your oune confusion, & many others also. Suffer learned men to saye their myndes for discharge of their consci­ences towardes god, and settinge furth Recante my lord. of the trueth. Keape men no longer yn pryson. leaue your affection, and Marke partialite, least ye repent it at the [Page] the length when it shalbe to late to repent. Epiphanius, whom ye recite for The bysshop you, is nothinge for your purpose, for when he sayeth the bread is me­ate, fo. 25. pa. 2. he meaneth that christ the hea­uenly bread and his blessed bodye vn­der Homi. 83. in Matth. the forme of bread yn the sacra­mente, is the fode of the soul of mā. S. Chrysostō sayeth truely, that christ vsed wyne, when he gaue the mysteri­es, not that he gaue to his apostles thē very material wyne, but that he my­xed wyne and water together at the tyme of consecration, and them tur­ned them in to his bloud, as I haue declared afore, and wil more at large hereafter in this booke, by goddes hel­pe. The epistle, that ye alleage of chri­sostom vnto Cesarium the Monke, is [...]o. 26. fayned and forged yn his name, for it is against many of his other sainges. as it shal be opened hereafter, althou­ghe his sainge (yf it were his) that the nature of bread doth stil remayne, [Page 81] proueth not that very bread only doth remayne in the sacrament. For why may not I here saye (as ye do to cypriā and Ambrose) that this word (Natura, nature) signifieth not here in Chryso­stom the substance of breade, but the properties and qualitees of it onlye? Agayne, what maketh this saynge for your purpose, which do teach, that on­lye bread remayneth in this sacramēt? Is this à good argument absolutely. There is bread, ergo there is onely bread? Luther er­reth not so much ī this matter as my lord doth. Saieth not luther that there is both bread and christes bodye also? Finallie, sayeth Chrysostom (as ye do) that the­re is not christes very bodie, & bloud? No, no, nor yet any other catholique writer, that euer was. Wherfore this authorite maketh not for the furtheran­ce of your doctrine. After this ye reci­te Ambrose for yow, when he writeth in this maner. If the word of god be of De ijs, qui mysterijs. initiantur capit. vl. that force, that it can make thinges of noughte, and those thīges to be, which [Page] neuer were before, much more it can Lib. 4 ca. 4 de sacramē tis. The confu­tation. make thinges, that were before stil to be, and also to be chaunged in to o­ther thinges? This authorite, my lord, seameth a lytle, at the first sight, to make for the lutherans doctrine, but no­thinge at al for yours, which saye, that christes bodie is not reallie in this sa­crament, but only bare bread, which Ambrose neuer taught, but the clea­ne contrarie, as it may appeare plain­lie by theses his wordes. Let vs proue, Libr. de ijs, qui myst. initiantur cap. 9. that it is not that thinge, which nature made, but that, which the blessīg hath consecrated, and that the strength of the blessinge is greater than is the for­ce of nature, for by the blessinge, yea nature, is chaunged. Loo here, S Am­brose denyeth plainly, that the thinge, which is in the sacrament, is that same that nature made, and sayeth also that nature is therin chaūged throughe the consecration, which he calleth à bles­singe. Who then can wel and truely [Page 82] say, that he ment by his wordes, which ye, my lord, do alleage, that the natu­re of breade remayned stil after the consecration? For then it were not chaunged (as he affirmeth here that it is) and then also it were stil, that same thinge, that nature made, which he de­nieth vtterly, wherfore that was not his mynde, but that the substance of the bread is chaunged in to oure lor­des fleasn, as his examples, which he bringeth immediatly to proue his purpose, do manifestly declare. For he bringeth there for an example, the turninge of Moses rod yn to à serpent, and of the serpent agayne in to à rod, of the ryuers of Egypt turned yn to bloud, and how they were turned agayne yn to their oune natures. Which examples do declare that Ambrose ment of the chaunge of the substaun­ce of bread in the sacrament, because the substance yn al those examples was turned and chaunged. That this [Page] was saint Ambrose mynde there, it appeareth plaīly by these his wordes that do folowe as à conclusion of his treaty Lib. 4. ca. 4 de sacramē tis. yn this matter. Can not then the word of christ, which hath made of nought that thinge, that was not, change the thinges, that are, in to that thinge, which they were not? What wold à man desire to be spoken more plain­ly, then this is, my lord, for the confu­tation of your opinion, and to proue that saint Ambrose is against it? He sayeth also thus. Thow doest perchaū cesaye. My breade is commōly vsed, but this is breade before the wordes of the sacrament, after that the consecra­tion is commen vnto it, christes flesh is made of the breade. Is not this manifestly written against your teachinge, Marke. my lord? Now to the wordes, which ye do alleage here foryow, but not as they were writtē perfectely, & fullie, for this is in that place of Ambrose. If thē the­re be so great strengthe in oure lord Iesus [Page 83] worde, that the thinges, which were not, should begynne to be, how much more is that his word wourkinge, that the thinges be, which were, and be cha­unged yn to an other thinge? Heauen was not, the sea was not, the earth was not, but heare hym, that sayeth. He sayed, and they were made, he cōmaū ­ded, Psal. 32. & 148. & they were created. That I may then make aunsweare, the bodie of christ was not, afore the consecration, but I tel the after the consecratiō, that now christes bodie is there. He sayed, and it was made, he bade, & it was created. This Ambrose. Now it is manifest that S Ambrose ment not that the substāce of bread doth remayne in the holy sacramēt, but he ment by these wordes, vt sint, quae erant, that the thinges be, that were, that goddes word doth preserue from perisshinge the thinges which were not before they were made vntil suche tyme that he chaungeth them in to other thinges, & so he doth [Page] also the bread & wyne cōtinue, & kepe in their beinge vntil he turne their substance in to christes bodie, & bloud at the tyme of the cōsecration. Wherfo­re this is enoughe to S Ambrose. Now ye alleage S Austē, which sayeth thus (as peter Martyr, and Aecolampadius allegeth hym) in à certen sermon to infantes, which is not amonge al his bookes, that are in print, nor worthy to be ascribed vnto hym. That which The bysshop Fol. 2. pa. 2. yow see in the aulter, is the bread, and the cup, which also your eies do shew yow. But fayth sheweth further that bread is the bodie of christ, & the cup his bloud. In primis, S Austen here teacheh that aulters ought to be had for The confu­tation. the sacramēt, and ye, my lord, do cast them doune, against which thinge, I haue wrote à boke. Secondly, Austen sayeth not here that the bread and wyne remayne stil in the holy sacra­ment, and that christes bodie is not Aulters. there, but onlye that we do see bread [Page 84] and the cuppe vpon the aulter, which wordes may be verified of the bread not yet consecrated, and that after the consecration our fayth teacheth vs, that bread is christes bodie, that is to saye, that his bodie is the meate, and fode of mans soul, and that his bodie lyeth there couered vnder neath the forme of bread, as oure fayeth sheweth to vs. Wherfore this authorite ma­keth not for your purpose, as this doth not, that now foloweth taken out of Saynt Austen, but plainly against it, Lib. sent. prospe. Th [...] honour of the sacrament. fo [...] he sayeth thus. We do honoure vnder the forme, or kynde of bread and wyne, which forme we see, thinges in­uisibles, that is to say, flesh and bloud. And we do not take these twoo kyn­des, as we dyd before the consecra­cration, for we confesse faythfullye that before the consecration there is bread and wyne, which nature made, but after the consecration, christes fleash and bloud, which the blessinge [Page] hath consecrated.

Is it possible for any man to speake more plainlye against your opinion, my lord, than Saint Austen doth in these wordes, that are written yn that booke, out of which ye alleage hym for yow? Why winked ye at these wor­des, which immediatly go before the sentence, that yow here recite to de­fende your opinion? Pleye ye yet a­gayne the deuelles part, which allea­ged (as ye do) that part of the psalme, which seamed to make for his purpo­se, and yet it did not so in dede, lea­uinge vnspoken that peace which was against hym? Wherfore did ye not Matth. 4. reade these wordes of saint Austen, which do folow there streight after the sentence, that ye recyte?

It is christes fleash, which we recea­ue Note this reader. in the sacrament, couered vnder neath the forme of breade, and his bloud, which we do drinke vnder the kinde, and taste of wyne.

How, maīfest are these wordes, for the refutation of my lordes doctrine? Ma­ye he not then be now ashamed of his part, and repent his errour? but let vs examine saynt Austens wordes, which he alledgeth here for his matter, and they are euen these, but moo, than he rehearseth. This is the thinghe, that fo. 28. pa. 2 we do goo about by al meanes to pro­ue, that the sacrifice of the church is made of twoo thinges, and consisteth by two wayes, the visible kinde of the elementes, and the ynuisible flesh & bloud of our lord iesu christ, both the sacrament, and also the thinge of the sacrament, that is to saye, the bodie of christe. What man is now so blynd, my lord, but that he may easely see, that Austē is vtterly against youre do­ctrine euē yn these wordes, which ye alledge for your purpose. For sayeth he not, that the sacrifice of the church is made both of the visible kinde of bread & wyne, which is the sacramēt, [Page] and also of the flesh & bloud of christ The sacrifi­ce of the masse. which are therin inuisible only, and are the thinges of the sacramēt? Were ye not then, my lord fowly disceaued, Marke. when ye, folowinge peter Martir, rehe­sed this place for your purpose, and de­nyed also (as hereafter it shal appeare, to your great shame) that the priest at Libro 5. masse maketh any sacrifice more then the laye people do? ye erre, my lord, openly, when ye gather of Austē, that the nature of bread and wyne remay­ne stil in the sacrament, when he sa­yeth, that as yn christ there is the mā ­hod, and the godhead which are twoo natures, euenso yn the sacramēt there are two thinges, or natures, that is to say, bread and wyne (as ye take it) and the bodye and bloud of christ. Ye erre, I saye, yn vnderstandinge of Twoo er­rours of the bisshops. this place, and that twyse, ones when ye thinke, that he ment, that the su­bstance of bread & wyne did stil abyde yn the sacrament, for he ment (as his [Page 86] owne wordes afore written declare) that the formes and kindes of them fo. 2 [...]. pa. 2. only remayne. Secondlye ye erre sha­mefully, when ye affirme that saint Austen maketh here with you, for he sayeth that christes bodie and bloud are yn this sacrifice, and that it is ma­de of them, beynge present, as both the godhead, and manhod are really pre­sent in christ, of which he is made. Where was your sight, my lord, whan ye sawe not this, that is so playne? Ye do now alledge Chrysostom out of an epistle forged yn his name, and it yet proueth not your purpose. For he mēt not that the substance of breade rema­yned in the sacrament, but the nature Ad Caesari­um mona­chum. of yt, meanynge therbie the natural properties and qualites of bread, or els he should haue bene directly against hymselfe in an other place, which is, Fo. 23. certainly his, where he sayeth thus. These works, which he then doth w­ourke Homi. [...]3. in Matth. in that soupper, are not of mans power, he hymselfe worketh now [Page] also, he maketh, the thinges perfect. We priestes are the ministers, but it is christ hymselfe, that halloueth the bre­ad and wyne, and doth turne, or chan­ge them. Loo, he sayeth that christ hymselfe chaungeth the breade, and wyne, how than do they remayne stil, as ye saye, that they do yn their substā ce? Agayne, Chrysostom sayeth. The Homi. 24. in 1. cor. 10. thinge, that is in the chalice, is that, w­hich ranne out of christes side, and we are partakers of it. Dyd wyne runne out of christes side vpon the crosse, & not bloud? In an other place he vtter­ly denyeth, that we do see bread, and wyne yn the sacrament, but I aske of Homi. 60. ad populū my lord, why he tryumpheth so much whē some authours seame to saye that as twoo natures and substances remayne stil yn the sacrament, which are christes bodie and bloud and bread, & wyne (yf he saye wel) euē so two natu­res are whol yn christ not turned, nor cōsumed, ffor this saiynge of them is [Page 87] fullye against his doctrine, because it proueth that christes bodie & bloud are realllye yn the sacramēt, as the na­ture of man, and of god both are really in christ our sauiour, & not by à signe only. Wherfore, may it not be wel sa­yed here, that my lord is slayne with Episcopus i­ste suoiugulatur (& aiunt) gla­dio. Gelasius the pope. his owne swerd, as they saye common lye? Gelasius the pope, whom ye now alleage for yow, is against you, sayn­ge, Certeinly the sacramētes of chri­stes bodie, and bloud, which we receue are à dyuyne thinge, wherfore we be also made by them partakers of the dyvyne nature, & yet not withstandyn­ge that, the substance or nature of bre­ade, and wyne ceaseth not to be. And vndoubteldy an image, & à similitude of christes bodie and bloude are cele­brated in the action of the mysteryes. Wherefore it is shewed vnto vs euidēt­ly enoughe, that we muste iudge that Ex antido­to contra omnes hereses. yn christ oure lord hymselfe, that we do professe, celebrate, & be in his ima­ge: [Page] that like as they passe ouer yn to this dyuine substance when the holie goost makinge perfect, per­manente tamen in sua proprietate naturae, yet the thinge abydinge stil yn the propertie of is nature, euenso that principal mysterie, whose wor­kinge and vertu they do verilie repre­sent vnto vs, of the which it is euident that the prīcipal mysterie is one christ properlie remayninge, for as much as they do shewe plainly that one and à perfect christ abydeth stil. hitherto that writer, Note here first, good rea­der, that he sayeth, that we be made partakers of the nature of god, by the sacrament, which his sayinge can not be vnderstanded of the receauinge of pure breade and wyne, but it muste neades be taken of the very bodie & bloud of christe, ioyned to the godhe­ad yn one personne, which when we do receaue in the sacrament, we are made partakers of that same dyuyne [Page 88] nature, by hauinge it yn vs bodily. Se­condly, this doctour sayeth not that Damasce­nus lib 4. cap. 14. onlye bread, and wyne remayne yn the holy sacrament, and that there is not the bodye and bloud of christ w­hich you, my lord, do defende, and therfore he maketh not for your pur­pose. Thirdly, this sentēce is so imper­fect and so for from true latine (as it appeareth by the latine wordes) that no man can make of it any perfect sē ­se, or construe it, and therfore it is not lyke that Gelasius, which was very wel learned, wrote it. Fourthlye, he was pope, and setteth fourth the popes pri­macie largely in many places (as it ap­peareth both in his boke of decrees, & also yn the decrees gathered by Gratiā Why thē do, ye my lord, alledge hym yn the matter of the sacrament, whō ye folow not yn the other? Agay­ne, he calleth the sacrament in an other place the holy bodie of christ, and maketh plaine mention of the [Page] shewynge of it to the people, which ye reproue. Also he affirmeth that vir­gens, Lib. suorū decretorum cap. 8. and wydowes, which haue made à vowe of virginite, and chastyte may not marrye, and calleth al such mari­ages, whoredome and incest, & biddeth that they should be broken agayne, as Cap. 20. ca. [...]1. it doth appeare yn his decrees. Why do ye not folow hym yn these thin­ges? Now ye do alleage Theodoretus for yow, which sayeth that christ cal­led the breade, ad wyne, his bodie and bloudde, and yet he chaūged not their natures. To this authour I saye first, Theodoretu lib. Dialogorū that he was an heretike, and defended one Nestorius heresie, which sayed that christ was not god and man both (as it appeareth yn Cyrillus workes, & yn other dyuers bookes) and therfore he ought not to be beleued in this matter of our fayth. Secondly I saye that Lege ana­thematis­mos Cyrilli, & his ad­nexa. he was à Greake writer, and the Grea­kes did not generally receaue this do­ctrine of transubstātiation before the [Page 89] procedynge of the holie goost from the father, and the sonne, althoughe many of the best learned mē of them beleued, and taught both these thinges Now why should his errour in this our matter of transubstantiation make a­ny more against oure belefe therin, thē his, or any other Greake doctours er­rour in the procedīge of the holy goost from the father & the sōne shold hurt our faith therin? Thirdly, he teacheth not, as ye do, that christes bodie is not in the holy sacrament, but only bread and wyne, signes and figures of them, wherfore he is not vpon your side, as ye saye, that he his. And that doth ap­peare wel by these his wordes written vpon this sainge of S Paul He that ea­teth and drinketh vnworthilie, shal be gyltie of our lordes bodie and bloud. This is paules meanynge (sayeth he), Theodori­tus in Ga­gnei scholijs that as the Iewes and Iudas did Christ wronge, & spake against hym spiteful checkinge wordes, euen so they do in­iurie [Page] to his name, which do touch his most holy bodie with their vncleane Theodoretꝰ is agaīst the bysshoppe, thoughe he alleaged hym for his purpose. handes, and do putte it vnto their cur­sed mouth. What might he haue saied more euidently for me against yow, my lord? Moreouer theodoretus in his third dialogue alleageth Saint Igna­tius, saynge in his epistle to Smyrnen­ses. Marke wel this reader. They do not receaue, or admitte the sacrament, and oblations, because they confesse not the sacrament to be our sauiours flesh, whiche suffered for oure synnes, and which the father rey­sed vp againe from death to lyfe. Doth not this authorite of S Ignatius which was saint Ihon the euangelistes scholer waye more vpon oure side than al my lordes doctours, that he alleageth for hym? And also doth it not appeare that Theodoritus was against my lor­des doctrine, which alledgeth that au­thorite of Ignatius, that affirmeth so plainlye that the same fleash of christ is in the sacramēt, that he offered vpō [Page 90] the crosse for vs, and that the sacramēt is à sacrifice, which my lord denyeth? The sacrifice of the masse. The same writer also in his first dialogue, which ye alledge, my lord, sayeth that these wordes. This is my bodie. This is my bloud, are the words of cō ­secration, & that these wordes of christ Ioan. 6. written in Ihon. The bread, which I wil geue is my fleash, &c. were spoken of christes flesh in the sacramēt, which both ye denye. He maketh also men­tion Theodore­tus is in many pointes against my lord. of the puttinge of water in to the chalice, and sayeth that the consecra­tion is made with inuocation, which ye saye are of no necessite, because scripture speaketh not of them. Agay­ne in his second dialogue, he sayeth af­ter The honou­re of the sacramēte set out by Theodoretus my lordes oune doctour. this maner. But the thinges, which be made, are vnderstand, and beleued, and honoured, as beinge those thin­ges, which they are beleued. Here he speaketh of the honouringe of the sa­crament, which thinge, as ye denye, my lord, so these wordes can not be [Page] wel sayed of bread and wyne, for to honoure them is ydolatrie, as ye denye not your selfe This worsshippinge, or adoration of which he speaketh here, can not be referred to christ in heauen (as ye are wount to auoid lyke sainges of the old authours, but very fondly) for he sayeth that the thinges, which by the consecration are made, be wor­shipped of vs. Finallie, he saith thus. We do cal also this bodie, the bodie of god, teachynge that it is our lordes bo­die, and geueth lyfe, which is not true of à common bodie of euery man in­differētly, but of the bodie of oure lord Iesus Christ both god & man. It is then now euident how wel your sight, my lord, seruyd yow, when ye did recyte this authour for your purpose, which so plainly is against it. Farder ye goo Fol. 29. about to soile our argumentes, and reasons, which we do make to proue tran­substantiation, and first ye improue, as Folio. 31. ye thinke at the lest, our vnderstan­dyng [Page 91] of those christes woordes, this is my bodie, by whiche we beleue, that the breade is turned in to chr [...]stes ve­ry bodie. This is your sayinge against that oure godly, and true belefe. But what christian eares can patiently The bysshop fo. 31. pa. 1. heare this doctrine, that Christe is eue­ry daie made à newe, and made of an other substaunce, than he was made of in his mothers wombe? Here, my The confu­tation. lord, ye make a great wounderinge at the catholike faith, and doctrine of christ, because ye vnderstande it not, as your wordes declare manifestlye. For christ is not made à newe dailie, nor we do not teache any such thinge, but only that the bread nou is dayly Marke reader. turned in to that his bodie, which was made ones for al in his mothers wom­be, so that that one bodie, and one Christ, whiche was neuer made but o­nes onlye, nor can not be made agay­ne, is therby reallie present in the ho­lye sacrament, and in heauen also both [Page] at ones. This oure doctrine, and bele­ue is sette furth in the scriptures (as it Christes body is daily made at masse. is alreadye declared) and also in al ca­tholique doctours bookes, out of the which, I wil, by goddes helpe rehearse à certē sentences for the profe and de­fense Lib. 4. con­tra. Marciouem. of this oure fayth. Tertulian sa­yeth. Christe made the breade his bo­die, sayinge, this is my bodye. The ho­ly martyr Alexander, which was abo­ue Epist. 1. ad omnes ecclesias. M. cccc. xxix. yeres passed, confir­meth the same, sayinge thus. Oure lor­des passion must be myxed in the o­blations of the sacramentes, which are offered to our lord at masse, that his The masse is no newe thing. passion, whose bodie and bloude is made, may be celebrated. Cyprian sayeth Oure lord maketh, euen continuallie De coena domini. vntil this daie, this his most true and holie bodie, and maketh it holy, bles­seth it & diuideth it to them, which deuoutly Ad athanasium & a­lios episco­pos Aegy­pti. &c. receaue it. Felix à holy martyr, which was M. cc. lxx. yeres sence, wri­teth ī this maner, intreatīge of the per­secution [Page 92] of priestes. The mirth of the whole conseil is turned in to mourninge, because it was not seamelie, that they which do make christes bodie dailie with their oune mouthe, should suffre so great persecution. S Damasus sayeth vnto steaphon, that was in s. Hie­roms tyme. The priestes do make christes bodie with their mouthe. s. Ambrose De ijs, qui mysterijs, & ō. cap. 9. sayeth This bodie, that we do make, is of the virgē. Againe, It was not chri­stes bodie before the cōsecration, but I tel the, that after the consecration it is now christes bodie. He hath sayed, & it Lib. 4. cap. 4. de sacramentis. is made, &c. Thow hast then learned, that christes bodie is made of breade & that wine and water are putte in to the chalice, but bloud is made throughe Lib. 4. cap. 5. de sacra­mentis. the cōsecratiō of goddes woordes. Before christes wordes, the chalice is ful of water & wyne after that christes wor­des haue wroughte, there is made the bloude, which redeamed the people. Hom. 45. in Ioannem. Chrysostō is of that same mīde, which [Page] saieth. It is not mā, but christ, that was crucified for vs, which maketh his bo­die & bloud of the thīges, that are sette furthvpō our lordes table to be cōsecrated Homi. 2. in 2. timo. 1. The same doctour thꝰ sayeth. Priestes, what so euer they be, do offre dai­lie that same oblatiō, that christ offered hymselfe, & gaue to his apostles, addinge at the lēgth these wordes. And ther­fore both this is christes bodie, & that also is his bodie: he that thinketh that this bodie hath any thīge lesse thē that knoweth not, that it is christe, which is now also presēt, & workethe. And to let passe many of his sentēces, I wil recite Homi 17. in epist. ad Hebraeos. but this onli now. We do not offre nou an other lābe, & two morowe an other, but euer the same thīge it selfe. Therfore this sacrifice is one, or els by this reasō, that he is offered ī many places the­re are many christes. Nothīge lesse, but there is one christ euery where, both Hieroni. ad heliodorū. beinge here ful, & there ful, one bodie. Hierō hath á lyke sētēce whē he saieth [Page 93] thus. God forbid that I should speake any il of thē, which succedīge the apo­stles degree, do make christes bodie with à holie mouth, throughe whō we be christians, Also he sayeth ad Euagrium. Lege eum in epistolā ad Titum. What eylde the minystre of ta­bles & widowes (à deacō he meaneth) proudly to extolle hymselfe aboue thē at whose prayers christes bodie, and bloud is made? Finallie, damascene Damas. lib. 4. cap. 14. sayeth can not christe, which was bor­ne of à virgen, make the breade his owne bodie, and the wyne his bloud? Againe he writeth after this sorte, do­est Christs body is made at masse. thow aske, how bread is made chri­stes bodie and wyne and water his bloud? I saye to the, that the holie goost worketh the thinges aboue mās speach, and vnderstandinge, but the bread and wyne are turned. Agayne he sayeth. God hath ioyned is godhe­ad vnto bread, wyne, and water, and made them his bodie and bloud, not that his bodie cometh downe from [Page] heauen, but because the bread and w­yne are chaunged in to the bodie and Inuocation helpeth to the consecratiō bloud of god. The bread, wyne & wa­ter by the inuocation and commynge of the holy goost, are aboue nature chaunged in to christes bodie, & bloud & they are not twoo bodies, but one, and the selfe same bodie. I passe by, good reader, many such sainges both of these same writers, and of other al­so. Now lerte my lord rayle vpon these doctours, and great clearkes, w­hose bookes he is not worthy to beare after them, yf they where now alyue. Now he maketh certen sophistical & and captious argumentes, that are bil­ded vpo à false fundation, which is (as it appeareth afore) that we do beleue The bisshop fo. 31. pa. 2. A false & an enuyous imaginati­on of the bysshop a­gainst pri­estes. and saye, christes bodie is made so of bread à newe, as it was ones made yn the wombe of his deare mother oure ladie, of whose most cleane and pure bloud it was made by the operation of the holie goost. This is à very pyuysh [Page 94] and an enuious imagination of this man, which neuer learned christened man did teache, but we say onlye, that the bread and wyne are by goddes ho­ly word, and almightie pouer, turned in to he same christes one bodie, and bloudde, which he toke of our lady, & was ones crucified to death, and that there are not two bodies (as he fay­neth, that we do teach) nor twoo chri­stes, Homi. 2. in 2 timo. 1 & homi. 17. in Hebr. but one, and the same, that is yn the sacrament, and yn heauen also as S. Chrisostom wytnesseth opēly. W­herfore al this his sophistical reasonynge is not worth à good ryshe, for he disputeth thus. Yf christes bodie, that The bysshop fo. 3 [...]. pa. 2 [...]n autem (vt video) pro christo aduersus christum pugnas Nazian in apol­getico was crucyfied, was not made of breade but the bodie, that was eatē at the soupper, was made of breade (as the papy­stes say) than christes bodie, that was eaten, was not the same, that was cru­cyfied. This reason is (as I haue sayed afore) grounded al together vpon à false principle, which is, that the catho­like [Page] teachers do say, that christes bodie which was eaten at his mādy, was ma­de of breade, as of a matter, or à substā ­ce of newe, and not that the breade was and is onlie turned yn to that sel­fe same bodie of christ, that was bor­ne of the vyrgen, & that suffered vpō the crosse, which was neuer but ones onely made, and yet S. Cyprian say­eth. The bread, which our lord gaue vnto his disciples, not chaūged in for­me, Cyprianus de coenad. but in nature, by the almyhtie po­wer of the worde is made flesh. Which is as moch to saye, as that the breade is chaunged in to christes very flesh, which he toke of is mother, and not that his bodie, or els he hymselfe now Marke. is made à newe of the breade (as this bysshop falselye affirmeth, that we do beleue, and teach) and therfore his re­asons made here are of no strength at al, thoughe he iudged then neuer so stronge, and insoluble. Agayne, it is an impudent lye, when he sayeth, that [Page 95] priestes do affirme, that they make God is not made yn the sacra­ment. god of the breade, for god ys not ma­de at al nor yet christes bodie à newe, but they say truely with al catholike doctours, that they are mynisters of god and that when they do pronounce these wordes of christ. This is my bo­die, yn the masse, then christ hymselfe and the holy goost do turne the breade in to christes bodie, that his mother cōceaued, and bare, with the which the fo. 32. godhead, that neuer was made, is ioy­ned vnseparably. This is the catholike Note reader fayth, which we do beleue, and defen­de, and not that thinge which this bysshop falsely sayeth, that we defende, & therfore he is sufficientlye aunsweared in this his raylinge vnreasonable reasō ynge. And so is not oure strongest ar­gument yet answeared vnto (as the bysshop sayeth, it is) nor our chiefe fū ­datiō, wherpōwe do buyldeour doctryne, subuerted, nor neuer shal be by any Matth. 7. 18 heretique, for it is buylded vpon à sure [Page] rocke, gods word, and the church of christ, which erreth not. Ye say also af­ter this maner in your booke my lord The soupper of our lord can be no per­fect The bisshop fo. 53. pa. 1. sacrament of spiritual foode, ex­cepte there be as wel bread and wyne as the bodie and bloud of oure sauiour spirituallie feedinge vs, which by the sayed bread and wyne is signified. W­hy The confu­tation. do ye then, my lord, denye that christes bodye and bloud be in this sa­crament? Agayne, is it enoughe to proue, that bread and wyne muste neades be there, because ye do so say? No, your bare word is not of any such force. I passe by the argument of impana­tion, fo. 33. pa. 1. for I do not muche esteame it, althoughe your improbation, of it, my lord, be very weake, & buylded vpon twoo similitudes, which doe not serue for that purpose. For who, that is lear­ned, wil say, that christ should be none other wise ioyned vnto the bread in the sacrament (yf it were there) than [Page 96] the holy gost is vnto the water in bap­tisme, or than the holy goost was vnto Ioan. 3. Matth. 3. the dooue? For was it euer sayed in scri­pture of the holy goost. This water is the holy goost, or this dooue is the ho­lye goost, as christ sayed. This is my bodie? Wherfore ye were heryn disce­aued manifestly, as ye were also, sayng that christ spake not theses wordes (the Ioan. 6. bread that I wil geue, is my fleash, w­hich I wil geue for the lyfe of the wo­orld) of the sacramental bread, & of the sacramental eatinge, but of spiri­tual bread, and of a spiritual eatīge on­ly. Which is very false, and against both the text it self, and also the expo­sition of al old godly doctours, as it shal anon, by goddes grace be proued sufficiently, when I haue improued your reasons, which ye make for your The bysshop fo. 34. pa. 1. Ioan. 6. opinion. They are rhese. That was spoken twoo, or three yeares before the sacrament was firste ordeyned. I am the bread of lyfe, which came [Page] doune from heauen he that eateth this breade, shal lyue for euer et c. O what blyndnes is this? What man, that hath The confu­tation. any knowledge in the scriptures, wil make this argument, which is made here of my lord? These wordes of Ihō (The bread, which I wil geue is my flesh et c,) were spoken (sayeth he) be­fore the sacrament was first ordeyned, ergo they were not spoken of the sacrament? May not à man proue by à like reason that al the prophesies, which w­ere made of christss incarnation, passi­on, resurrection, and ascension, and of baptisme, the institution & preachinge of the gospel with many other thīges, were not spoken therof, because they were spokē manye yeres before christ came, and afore the th [...]nges were insti­tuted and done? how weake then is the first his profe? Nowe when he sayeth, that these wordes, I am the bread of Ioan. 8. life, which came doune from heauen, can not be vnderstand of the sacramē ­tal [Page 97] bread, for it came not doune from heauen, yf I should graunt hym, that Cyrillus. Chrysostom Theophil. to be very true, and say that they were spoken onelie of christes godhead, that should not yet proue, that these wor­des, Ioan. 6. (The breade, which I wil geue, is my flesh, that I wil geue for the life of the world,) were not spoken of christes very natural flesh to be eaten in the sacrament, as it is euident enoughe of it selfe. Againe, I may say that christes fleash, which he spake of then, and there in Ihon, came doune from heauen, both because it was, and is ioyned with the godhead, that came frō heauē, for christ vsed à lyke maner of speakinge, Ioan. 3. when he sayed. And no mā ascendeth vp in to heauen, but he that came doune from heauen, the sonne of man, which is in heauen. For here he sayed both that the sonne of man came doune from heauen, because christes man hode was ioyned in one person with his godhead, that came from heauen, [Page] and also that his manhod was than in heauen, before his ascension in to hea­uen, because the godhead, with which it was knytte in one person, was thē in heauen. Secondly, I say, that christes bodie, which he then called bread in Ihon, came doune from heauen, for as much as it was made by the heauenly Matth. 1. pouer of god, and the holye gost, by whom christes blessed mother concea­ued 1. Cor. 15 hym. And this maner of speakin­ge is not strange in the holy scripture, which calleth christ the seconde man 1. Cor. 10 from heauen celestial, the Manna spi­ritual meate, & the water, which ranne out of the stone, spiritual drinke, because they were prepared for the Iewes a­boue nature by goddes power, which is à spirite, and by the mynistery of an­gelles, that are also spirites, and therfo­re Ioan. 4. Psal. 103. that manna is called angelles foode psal. 77. Wherfore this reason is clere­ly soiled. When he sayeth, that these Ihons wordes, he that eateth of this Ioan. 4. fo. 34. [Page 98] breade, shal lyue for euer, can not be vnderstand of the sacrament, because pag. 2. it geueth not life to al, that eate it, I saye that these wordes are to be vnder­stand of the sacrament, and that christ ment, that al which do worthily eate of it (as s. paule teacheth vs to do) shal ly­ue for euer. Moreouer ye say, my lord, 1. Cor. 11. Fo. 34. that these wordes of Ihon, the breade, pa. 2. that I wil geue, is my flesh, which I wil geue for the life of the world, can not Ioan. 6. be vnderstād, of the sacrament, becau­se that of such bread christ could not than presently haue sayed, this is my flesh, because at that tyme bread was not made his fleash, I saye that they may right wel be vnderstand of it, and that christ there vsed the present ty­me Matth. 3 for the future, and did put (is) for shal be, as he did, when he sayed after the Greake letter, the tree, which bea­reth not frute, is cutte doune, & is cast in to the fire, where the translatour sa­yed in latine, it shal be cutte doune, & [Page] shal be cast in to the fire. A lyke phrase [...]. Luc. 12. 1. Cor. 11. vsed he, when he sayed. This is my bo­die, that is geuen, and broken for yow, meaning that it should be geuen, and broken for them. Euen so he sayed, this is my bloud, that is shead furth for yow, as the Greake hath, which the old translatour turned nearer the sense, sainge, which shal be shead for yow.

But why loked not my lord vpon the Greake texte of Ihō, which hath twise Ioan 6. this werbe ( [...], doso, dabo, I wil ge­ue) Matth. 26. which declared plainly, that christ ment there, & then, that he wold geue his flesh twise, ones to the apostles vn­der the forme of breade in the sacra­ment Ioan. 6. to be eatē of thē, as the foode of their souls, & for that cause he called it breade which promes he performed at his last soupper whē he toke bread, blessed it, & brake it, sainge. Take & eate, this is my bodie, that shal be geuen for yow. Againe he gaue that same his Note wel reader. fleashe in the forme of flesh for the ly­fe [Page 99] of the world vpon the crosse, and so doth this promes plainlye agree with his dede vpō the mādy & the next daie folowinge, which we cal good frydaie. Wherefore this my lordes reasō is ful­lye anusweared, & soluted, with à label which he, & his foloes, shal neuer be a­ble The bysshop to anusweare vnto, whiles they ly­ue, I am very sure. Now mi lord goeth about to make an anusweare vnto the An anuswere vnto the holy do­ctours sain­ges. doctours which the catholike mē alleage for thē, & first he laboureth to anus­weare vnto S Cyprian which writeth thus. This bread, which oure lord gaue vnto his disciples, not chaunged in outward forme, but in nature, is by omnipotencie De coena domini. of the worde made flesh. He­re my lord raileth vpō al catholike writers The bys­shop. & teachers, callinge thē papistes, & sayinge, that they do leaue out those wordes, which would open al the who­le matter, & are these in s. Cypriās ser­mon. As in the person of christ, the humanite was seene, and the diuinite was [Page] hid, euen so did the diuinite ineffablye put it selfe in to the visible sacrament. These woordes (sayeth my lord) do He mysconstrueth saīt Cyprians wordes. shew manifestly, that the diuinite is poured in to the bread and wyne, the same bread & wyne stil remayninge, lyke as the same diuinite by vnite of person was in the humanite of christ, the same humanite stil remaynynge with the diuinite. Which thing S. Cy­prian neuer ment by that comparysō, but only that as the manhod of Christ was seene, and his godhead not seene in hym, but hid secretely from mans sight couered vnder ne [...]th the manhode, euē so did the godhead powre it selfe in to the visible sacrament vnspea­keably, The true sē se of S. Cy­prians wordes. when that it turned the bre­ad and wyne in to christes fleash and bloud, ioynynge itselfe vnto them in vnite of person, which how they were done, no man can tel, or expresse with his tongue. This was Saint Cyprians mynde in that place. Now he goeth a­bout [Page 100] to aunswere to cyprians wordes, which are that the bread is chaunged in nature, & not in outward forme, & sayeth thus in effecte bryefely. It is not chaunged in substaunce, but The bys­shop. in nature, that is to saye, it hath other properties, and an other condition, thā folio. 35 pagina. 1 it had afore it was consecrated, which farre passeth the nature & condition of common breade. It sheweth to vs, that we be partakers of the spirite of god, & most purely ioyned vnto christ, & spi­rituallie fead with his fleash and bloud This is your oune dreame, my lord, The confu­tation. which is directelie agaīst the doctours meaninge. For he ment that the bread, which christ gaue vnto his disciples at his mandie, was chaunged in substan­ce in to christes very natural fleash as these his last wordes of that same sen­tence (is by the almightie power of his worde made flesh) do shewe plainlie. Why winked ye my lord, at these wor­des? Marke this reader. Do not they declare, that cyprian [Page] ment, that the bread was so chaunged in nature, that it was made christes ve­ry flesh, by goddes almyghtie power? What madnes is it thē, to wreast those words to anyother sēse, thā vnto that? Againe s. Cypriā sayeth à lytle before, after he had recited these wordes. This is my bodie. The differēce of corporal & spiritual meat is also made manifest & that it was an other thinge, that was set vpō the table, & confumed, & an o­ther that was geuē & distributed of the maistre. how cā, mylord, this be true, if bread remayned stil in the sacrament? For is it thē cōsumed & an other thin­ge geuē, thā was set vpō the table, if bread remayne stil? S. Cyprian sayeth also thus. This cōmō bread chaūged in to flesh & bloud procureth lyfe & encrease to the bodies. Seest thou not then good reader, that my lord wreasted cyprian to his purpose, where he saieth that we do wreast hym vnto ours?

Now he aunswereth to Chrysostom, which wrote so plainly against hī ī this [Page 101] matter, that he can not be wel wrea­sted Chrysostō. fo. 35. pa 2. from oure belefe, for he sayeth thus. Doest thou see bread? Doest thou see wyne? Do they auoide beneeth, as other meates do? God forbid, thīke not so. For as waxe (yf it be put ones in to the fyre) yt is made lyke the fyre, no substance remayneth, nothynge is le­fte, so here also thinke thou, that the mysteries be consumed by the substā ce of the bodie. Hitherto Chrisostom. Who would desire more playne wor­des, Homilia de eucharistia. than these are of this holy father, and great clearke? For doeth he notde­nyee vtterly, that we see bread, or wy­ne yn the sacrament? Sayeth he not playnly that they goo not awey be­neth yn to the draught, as other cōmō meates do? Affirmeth he not also that the bread and wyne are so consumed, that no substance remayneth, as waxe is consumed by fier? What follye is it Marke. then to folow AEcolampadius, Peter martyrs, this bissoppes & such others [Page] wreasting of this playne wordes? But let vs nowe see, how learnedly my lord auoideth this authorite▪ this he sayeth. The bisshop. fo. 36. pa. 1. Saint. Chrisostoms wordes, which do folowe there immediatly, do declare his mynde, for he writeth thus. Wher­fore fo. 36. et 83 whē ye come to those mysteries, do not thinke, that ye receaue by à mā the bodye of god, but that with ton­gues, you receaue fyer by the angels Seraphim. of these wordes ye, my lord, do gather that yow may as wel say, that Chrisostom ment, that there is neither priest, nor christes bodie, as we may gather that there is neither bread nor wyne in the sacrament, of those wordes, which are afore recited, and be gynne thus. Doest thow see bread? But ye are shamefullye disceaued theryn, The bysshop for he sayeth not, doest thow se the priest? Doest thowe see Christes bodie? God forbyde, thinke not so, for they are consumed, as he doth of the bread and wyne, why then do, ye my lord so [Page 102] trifle and cauil yn this so manifest à matter? Are ye not ashamed yet of your part? Wherfore when chrisostom sayeth, do ye not thinke, that ye receaue by à man the body of god, he mēt, that we ough to thinke, that we recea­ue goddes boddie not of hym princi­pally but of hym only as à minister, and of christ hymselfe chyefely, as he sayeth yn an other place by these wor­des. Homi. 51 in Matth. 14. Whan thow doest see the priest geue to the christes bodye, thinke not that the priestes hand, but christes Ioan. 1. hand is reached vnto the, as he doth 1. cor. 3. principallie baptize. This sayed he to stere mē for to receaue christes bodye with greater reuerence, and more pu­renes of conscience, as he did saye. Doest thowe see bread? et c. to make men beleue that althoughe theyr eies should iudge bread and wyne to be in the sacrament, yet they shold not thinke, that there were very bread, and wyne in dede, for the sense are disceaued [Page] easely in this mysterie, and therfore we must beleue these christes wordes. this is my bodie, althoughe al our senses, reason and vnderstādynge be vtterly Homi. 93 in Matth. 28. against it, as he sayeth in an other pla­ce. Wherfore my lord was disceaued yn this point playnlie, and so he was, yn the wronge alleagynge of these wordes out of chrysostoms booke. Thin­ke De eucharistia in En­ceniis. ye, that the bloud of saluation flow­eth out of the pure, and godly side of christ, and so commynge to yt, rece­aue it with pure lippes. Chrysostom hath not so, but quasi è diuino, & im­polluto latere effluere, that is to saye, as it were to flowe out of the godly & pure side, & not to flowe out. Are the se twoo both one, my lord, to flowe out and as it were to flowe out? God sayd, behold, Adam is made as it were Gen. 3. Matth. [...]6. one of vs. Is that as much as yf he had sayed, he is made one of vs? Also christ sayed vnto the iewes, ye are come furth vnto me, as it were to à these [Page 103] Wil ye, my lord, turne those wordes thus in to Englysh, ye are come furth Many such translatiō [...] would sonedryne christ as à these out of En­gland. to me à these? Why then did ye so translate chrysostoms wordes, to dis­ceaue the reader? But let this passe, I w­il, not ones touch your negatiues by comparison (as ye terme them) because they make nothinge for your purpose, The bisshop▪ as it appeareth now by the declara­tion of chrysostoms wordes, which he spake absolutely, and without al com­paryson. Nowe ye alledge these chry­sostoms wordes for yow. What doest fo. 37. fo. 3 [...]. thowe, o man? Didest not thowe pro­myse to the priest, which sayed, lyftvp your myndes, and hartes: and thowe Homi. de Eucharistia in enceniis. didest answeare, we lyfte thē vp vnto the lord? etc. Who is so blynd, but yf he do yea ones reade chrysostoms wordes, which ye do, my lord, here reherse for you, he may sone see, that he mēt that men yn the tyme off the masse shold be godly occupied, and not consume that tyme in wordly busynes, [Page] nother in triflynge, (as he sayeth the­re) and talkynge, but to remēbre chri­stes death, and passion, and that christ the lambe of god is then offered for them, that the bloud, wich was drawen out of christes syde for their purgyn­ge from synne, is in the cuppe, and by these and such other meanes to ende­uoure them selfes to purchase them goddes mercy? This ment S. Chryso­stom, and ye, my lord, wold make vs beleue, that he went about to withdra­we The bysshop fo. 40. lib. 3 mennes myndes from the cōside­ratiom of sensible thinges, bread and wyne, which are yn the holy sacramēt as ye saye. But howe chaunced it that ye alleaged these wordes, lyftevp your myndes, etc. to proue that Chrysostō ment, that bread, and wyne remayned stil in the sacrament? Haue ye so oftē tymes sayed masse, hard it, and also the communion, that ye haue forgot­ten, that these wordes, Sursum cordaet c were euer and yet are songe, and [Page 104] sayed both of the Greakes in their masse, and also of the latins, before the cō ­secr atiō of bread and wyne, to prouo­ke and moue men vnto deuotion, and especially at the tyme of the sacrynge of it? This is S. basils mynde, Chryso­stoms, S. Ciprians, and certen others. Basilius & Chrysost. ī missa corū & cypr. in orad, Wherfore those wordes of the masse make not for yow, which wold proue that material bread remayneth in the sacrament after the consecration. Mo­reouer The bysshop fo. 41. pa. 2 ye saye that S Ambrose (whō we do alleege affirmīg that the nature itselfe of bread is chaunged by the cō ­secration) ment not that the substāce of it ys chaunged, but only that the nature of yt ys altered yn to à hygher e­state Lib. de iis, qui myst intiātur. ca. 9 and condition so that after the consecration it is not common bread, but à holy fode of mās soul, wherby we receaue spiritual fedyng, and superna­tural nouryshement from christes bo­dy aboue yn heauen. Which your an­sweare is vaynly forged of peter mar­tyr, [Page] whom ye do folow, and it is playn­ly A vayne e­nasion of S Ambroses Wordes. against the doctours mynde, as the­se his wordes, which are written there and are à part of the same sentence, declare sufficiently. There is not that thing, which nature made, but that, w­hich the consecration hath formed, & the benediction ys of more strength thā nature. For by the blessyng the na­ture of bread & wyne is so chaunged throughe the consecration at masse, that the thyng, which nature made, is not afterward remaynyng yn the sa­crament, but only that, which is made by the consecration How then ment he, that material bread remayned stil in the sacrament, as ye fayne? For did not nature make material bakers bre­ad? Were ye not then, my lord, playn­ly disceaued, when yow wrote thus vn­learnedly to auoyde the trueth, which Ambrose did so manyfestly set furth? The bysshop fo. 43. pa. 2. Now ye aske of vs, what thīg it is, that is eaten, broaken, chawed wyth the [Page 105] mouth, teth, &c. in the sacramēt, seyng The bisshop fo. 43. pa. [...] that therin is no substance of bread (as we do say) and christes body is not broaken, for it is immortal & impassible? The confu­tation. Vnto the which I anusweare, that the formes, quātitees, and qualitees of the bread are broaken, chaued, &c. Which thing is done aboue nature, and mans natural reason. May not this be as wel Ioan. 20. Matth. 13 Luc. 16. Matth. 25. done by gods pouer, as that saint Tho­mas did put his hand in to christes sy­de wythout al harme to it? as the fyre of hel to burne and torment the dam­ned spirites and mennes souls, without Gene. 1. consumyng of them? And as water to be aboue the firmament? For are not al these thinges as much against nature and aboue mans capacyte, as the acci­dentes of the bread to be alone without their substance, and to be broaken, chawed, The bisshop fo. 43. pa. 2. &c? Ought ye not, my lord to ha­ue bene ashamed to say in your boke, that we do teach, that christes body is naturally in the sacrament without his [Page] accidētes & qualites, seyng we say that it is there against nature with al his qualytes Fol. 44 and accidentes? Moreouer, ye say vntruely, my lord, that we do defende, that à substance is made of accidentes whan the bread moulyth, or engen­dreth wormes, for we say that christes body departeth out of the sacrament, or the oost reserued, whē it begynneth to moule, or putrifie, and shold engen­drewormes, and that then an other substāce succedeth it, of which such thin­ges are made. Thꝰ endeth the seconde booke. The cōfutatiō of the third The confu­tatiō of the third booke booke. In this boke, good reader, I wil be short, for in it the bisshop vainly alleageth many authorites to proue that christ bodily departed out of this fib. 3. fo. 46 world at the time of his ascension, and sitteth now vpō the fathers right hand in heauen, of the which no good chri­stian man doubteth, & yet he is also bodily and really in the sacrament of the aulter both at ones. This is no new do­ctrine, [Page 106] althoughe my lord sayeth that it is, but the old catholike doctrine, taught of christ, his apostles, and al the ancyent fathers at the begynnyng of the church and euer shal be vntil the 1. Cor. 11 3. Esdrae. 3 worlds ende, for the trueth of gods word euer endureth, and hath the vy­ctorie. My lord maketh à great matter The bis­shop. [...]ol 46 pag. 2. lib. [...] at the beynge of christ and his bodie in the sacrament, howe he is there, and after what maner, when it is enoughe for vs to beleue, that his body is there present really, althoughe how it is the­re we knowe not, for goddes word tel­leth tovs, that it is there, but not how it Ioannis. 6. Matth. 26. Luc. 22. 1 Cor. 11 is there. Nowe he bringeth furth four lyes, the first, that we do saye, that good mē do eate, & drinke christes bodie & bloud only, whē they receaue the sacramēt, fol. 47. for we saye not so, but that they thē only do eate christes bodie & drin­ke his bloud corporally, which they eate spiritually at al other seasons. The second lye is, that we do say, that christ [Page] hath his oune forme in the sacrament for we do say, that he is in the sacra­ment in forme of bread and wyne, and not of flesh and bloud. The third lye is, that we do affirme, that the fathers and prophetes of the old testament did not eate the bodie of christ & drin­ke his bloud, where we say they did it not corporally (as we nowe do) but on­lye spiritually throughe fayth, and vertuous lyuinge. The fourth lye is, that we do say, that christ is made euery daye of bread, and wyne, for we do say, that he was neuer made touchinge his godhead, and but only ones in his mo­thers wombe, concerninge his manhod & bodie, & yet bread & wyne are dailie at masse turned in to that same his bodie & bloud, that neuer was made but ones only. The fyfth lye is this, that fo. 47 pa. 2 we do say, that the masse is à sacrifice satisfactorie for synne, by the deuo­tion of the priest, and not by the thin­ge, that is offered, which we neuer [Page 107] taught, but onlye that it is à sacrifice for synne, yn that that christes very bodie and bloud, which he ones offe­red vpon the crosse for oure synnes, as à ful and sufficient satisfaction for the synnes of the whole world, are theryn offered in sacrifice for our synnes, and therby christes death and bloudy sacrifice is applyed vnto vs, for to obteyne this effect, and benefite. Wherfore my lord myght wel haue bene ashamed so falsely to reporte of vs, as he here doth, yf he had not bene al past shame. Who denyeth, my lord, that christ is fo. 48. 49. ascēded out of this world in to heauē, & that he sitteth there at the right hād of his father, and shal do vntil the worldes ende, as our common crede hath, the scriptures, and the doctours also do teach? But what then? Doth any of these. iij. saye, that he is only in heauen and not in the sacrament also, or that he so went hence then that he tarryed not stil also here wyth vs inuisiblye in [Page] the saerament, as ye do saye and defende? No, not one of them vtterly, and therfore al your traueile, my lord, is cleane lost, which ye haue here spent in rehearsinge so manye of the do­ctours, of which not one sayeth, as ye do mayntene, that Christ is not stil here bodyly. When origen and other the doctours saye christ is bodily gone hence, and not here present with vs, they meane that he is not here yn his oune forme visiblye, for so he depar­ted out of this world at his ascension. Augustinus ad darda­ [...]ū. Epist. 57 Saint Austen ment that christes bodie was not in al places at ones, as his god­head was, and that it was then, and is now but yn one place visibly, natural­ly, and by circunscription of it, for so it is now only in heauen, which pro­ueth not, that it is not in the sacra­ment aboue nature, inuysibly, and without circunscription of it and sacra­mentally not compased, not measu­red theryn, as it is in heauen only. [Page 108] This is the anuswere bryefely vnto al the doctours here alleaged against vs It is very false, that ye do saye, that as these wordes (This is my bodie) do fo. 57. 58. lye, there can be gathered of them no­ne other sense, but that bread is chri­stes bodie, and that christes bodie ys bread, for there can no such thinge be gathered of those wordes, but only that christe gaue his disciples his very bo­die, to eate, in to which he had turned the bread, when he spake those wor­des. Why the scripture, and the do­ctours do cal, christes bodie bread, is sufficiently declared at the begynning of this confutation, and therfore I saye nowe in very fewe wordes, that the do­ctours, which ye, my lord, alleage he­re for yow, proue not your purpose, A briefe anusweare to al the doctours alleaged of the byshop yn his boke. but only, that christ called his bodie bread, because he turned the bread in to it, it semeth and appeareth stil to be bread, it hath the quantite, and quali­tes of bread, and because it is the food [Page] of the soul, as corporal meat is of the bodie. Not one of al these doctours sayeth, as ye do, my lord, that there is only bread in the sacrament, and not christes body, but they al saye in o­ther of their workes, that it is there, as by goddes grace I wil declare at lar­ge shortly in an other booke of lati­ne, that euery man may easely see, ho­we A boke of the doctours sentences. ye mystake, and yl vnderstand their sentences for your purpose. Christ ment not yn Ihon the eyght chaptre, that the Iewes should not eate his very natural body corporal­ly Io, 6 fo. 60. lib. 3. in the sacrament, (as ye say false­ly) but that they should not eate it carnally, as other common mea­tes are wount to be eaten, that they should teere it wyth there teth, cha­we it, digest it, and turne it yn to the nourysshement of their bodies, (as S. Austen expoundeth it) But after an In psal. 98 other spiritual maner without brea­kyng, consuming, and deuouring of it [Page 109] for els he could not haue ascended vp yn to heauen alyue wholly, and sa­fly, Ioan. 6. as he did. This ment christ yn shō, Ioan. 8. The byshop fo. 81. 82. lib. 3. origenes, chrysostom, and Austen, w­hich ye do alledge. Ye recyte Tertuliā for yow, but he is against youe playnly, for he sayeth that christ made the bread his body, when he sayed. This is Lib. 1. & 4. contra Ma­cionem. my bodie, He sayed it is à figure, and à representation of christes bodie, but not (as ye do) that it is onely a figure of it and not his bodie, for he sayeth, that he made the bread his bodie. The out­ward formes of bread and wyne are si­gnes, and figures of christes bodie, and bloud, couered vnder them. Also the oblation and sacrifice made at masse, [...]ow the sacrament­is à figure of christes bodye. and the receauing of the sacrament is à signe and commemoration of chri­stes bodye and bloud yn respecte that they were offered vpon the crosse, and that ment christ, when he sayed do ye Luc. 22. 1. cor. 11. this in remembrance of me Thirdly the sacrament is à figure of christes [Page] mystical body the church, paul sayeth We be al one body, that eate of one 1. cor 10. bread. S. Cyprian, whom ye alleage is fully against yow (as it appeareth befo­re in this booke) althoughe he saye, that christes bloud is shewed by the w­yne, meanynge that wyne must nea­ades be put yn to the chalice at masse to be consecrated, and not water only (as some priestes then vsed to do) for Lib. 2. epi. 3 by the wyne put yn to the chalice, christes bloud, which ranne out of his side perced with à speare at the tyme of his Alexander primus epi. prima. death, is represented, and shewed, and therfore he sayeth euen yn that same epistle, that oure sacrifice must aunsw­eare, and be lyke to christes passion, yn the tyme of the which both bloud and water ranne out of his side. This is no­thinge against the presence of christes bloud in the sacrament, nor it proueth not that wyne remayneth stil after the consecration, but only that wyne must be put yn to the chalice to be consecrated [Page 110] with water. This only cyprian w­ent about to proue at that tyme, and there. Wherfore this place of Cyprian maketh nothinge for your purpose, & as much doth that, Which ye bringe for yo we out of the same doctour, w­hich sayeth that chryst gaue bread & De vnctiōe [...]smatis. The bysshop fo 63. wyne to his apostles, because he gaue them his bodie and bloud vnder the formes of bread and wyne, and not yn the formes of fleshe and bloud, for af­ter suche sorte and forme he gaue his body to be wounded with the handes of souldiours. Also he calleth the for­mes of bread and wyne figures of chri­stes bodie and bloud, because they si­gnified and represented them, not ab­sent, but presently hidde vnder them ynuisiblye. Agayne Cyprian sayeth yn that sermon, Chryst gaue vnto pri­estes à cuppe of his bloud ful of abo­und ance of an infinite fulnes, both to be reserued, and also to be geuē, which ye my lord wynke at. Fynally, he ma­keth [Page] there playne mention of the consecratynge of both oyle, and creame vpon mandy thursday, for the anoyntynge of kynges & priestes, when they Oyle and creame. are made, & of children, yn theyr cō ­firmatiō, and sayeth that thruoghe the benefite of that anoyntinge wisdome and vnderstandyng are geuen to vs of Esaiae. 11. god, & lyke wyse the gyft of counsel, of strength, kunnyng, pyte and fear a­re powred by goddes inspiration in to Marks. reader. vs. And also that we, beinge anoynted with this oile, do fyght with il spirites, and can not be infected with vncleane sauours. Why do ye not, my lord, ob­serue these lessons? Wil ye take that only, that à litle seameth to make for y­our purpose, & refuse al the rest, which maketh playnly, and fully against y­our domges, and doctryne? Why also do ye labour so much in allegynge the authours, which sayed that bread and wyne remayned stil yn the sacramēt because there was bread & wyne before [Page 111] the consecration, and because they se­ame yet to be there stil, when none of al those doctours saye (as ye do) that there is only bread, and wyne, and not christes bodye, and bloud, but the cle­ane contrarie to it? S. Chrysostom, w­ho ye alleage vpon the psalme, ment In Psal. 22 that christ would shewe vnto vs bread, and wyne, that is to saye, his bodie and bloud yn to which, bread and wyne was turned, and which appeared stil bread, and wyne, and that for à similitude of his bodie and bloud, yn their owne propre formes offered vpon the crosse, for by the celebration of the holy sa­crament (as Gelasius sayeth) there is an image and à similitude made of christes bodie crucified, & of his bloud shead furth of that bodye for oure re­demption S. Hieroms wordes do ma­ke Hierom i [...] Matth. 2 [...] nothinge for your doctryne, when he sayeth that chryst toke bread, that conforteth mans heart, that he myght represent therby his very bodye and [Page] bloud. For first he sayeth not (as ye do) that he gaue only bread, nor yet bread vnto his apostles, and that he gaue thē not his very bodie and bloud, but that he toke bread to be cōsecrated, & tur­ned it in to his bodie, & that by the di­stributinge and receauinge of it he might represent his body, and bloud, yn that they were putte to death and crucyfied for vs, which thing he bade his apostles, and by them al other prie­stes to do, whem he sayed. Do ye this Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 11. for remembrance of me. Agayne, saynt Hierom vsed this word (Repre­sentare to represent) for to geue presētly and out of hand, as dyuers authours R [...]presentare Hieroni, Matthe [...] 26 do vse it. For Cicero sayed. But also I wold gladly offre my body to suffre death, si representari morte mea libertas ciuitatis potest, id est, dari nūc, & statī, Philippica 2 yf by my death the liberte of the citee might be euen nowe by and by geuen. Also columella sayeth. Itaque non ae­gre Libr 11. consequetur, si semper se represen­tauerit, [Page 112] id est, se presentem ostenderit, inquit Budeus, neque discesserit Cypri­anus Representare quid sit Cypriano. in orationē dominicam sayeth. We do desire the kyndom of god to be represented vnto us, that is to say, to be geuen vnto vs presently. Agayne, the­re he hath thus. Christ also hymselfe, brethren, may be vnderstanded the kyndom of god, whom we dailie desire to come, whose commynge we desire sone to be represented to vs, that is to say, openly, and presently to be shew­ed vnto vs. By these authorites it is manifest, good reader, that hierom is aga­inst my lord very much yn this place. S. Ambrose maketh not for your pur­pose, Lib. de i [...], qui mysteri is initiātur cap. vlt. when he sayeth that christes body and bloud are signified after the cō ­secratiō, for as he sayeth not that they are onlie signified, and not present there fo. 63. (as ye defende) euen so he mente that by the outward formes of bread, and wyne chrystes bodie and bloud w­ere signified to bo hidde secretly vn­der [Page] them, and that the death of hym in his bodie and bloud offeringe vpon August. ser. 28 in Lucā. the crosse, was signified by the admi­nistration of the sacrament. Also yt is true that he sayeth, that we do recea­ue Lib 4. ca. 4. De sacramē tis. the sacrament for à similitude of christes flesh and bloud, but he doth Lib 4. ca. 4 De sacramē tis. declare his meanynge with these wor­des. Wyne and water are put in to the chalice, but bloud is made by the con­secration of the heauenly word. But thow doest perauenture say, I see not the kinde or forme of bloud, but à si­militude is there, for as thowe hast re­ceaued (in baptisme) à similitude of death, euen so thowe drinkest also à si­militude of precious bloud, that there should be noo abhorringe or à lothin­ge of bloud, appearīge as bloud. What can be more playnly spoken to decla­re that he ment that the very bloud of christ is made by the consecration of wyne ynto it, and yet we receaue it not in forme of bloud, but in a similitude [Page 113] & shape of it the forme of wyne, that is lyke to bloud in colour, least we should abhorre to drinke it, if it did appeare vnto oure eies very bloud? Why red­de ye not this my lord, that ye had not erred in the alleaginge of this authori­te of s. Ambrose? yow folowed, and trusted to much peter Martyrs allegation Peter Martyr falsely alledgeth thē doctour which reciteth almost al authours fal­sely, and vntruely, as I wil, by goddes grace, declare in my booke made a­gainst hym. Saint Ambrose is against yow, whom ye allege for yowe, sayinge that the priest prayeth thus at masse. lib. 4. cap. [...] de sacramē tis. Make vnto vs this oblation to be acce­ptable, which is à figure of the bodie, & bloud of christ. For he calleth here the masse à sacrifice, and sayeth that the priest maketh therin sacrifice to god for hym self, and other, which ye de­nye vtterly. Againe he saieth not, that it is only à figure (as ye defende it to be), but that it is à figure of christes bodie & bloud in that respecte, that they [Page] were crucified, for as much as christes death is in the sacrament represented, and figured. Ye do nowe corrupt & fal­sely Ambrofius in. 1. cor. 11. alleage S. Ambrose, and make of his true sainge à false sentence. For this ye make hym say. In eatinge, and drinkynge the bread, and wyne, we do signifie the fleshe and bloud, that were offered for vs, where in dede these are his wordes vpon this texte of S. Paul, ye shal shewe furth our lordes death vntil he come. For because ye are (sayeth he) made free by oure lordes death, we remembringe that thinge, in eatinge, and drinkinge fleash and bloud, which were offered for vs, do signifie, &c.

Loo, my lord, S. Ambrose sayth we do eate and drinke fleash and bloud, and ye make hym say, that we do eate and drinke bread and wyne. Are ye not a­shamed so manifestly to lye vpon the authours? Also saint Ambrose sayeth wel (thoughe ye il vnderstand his wor­des) that we do receaue the mystical [Page 114] cup of bloud for tuition of our bodie and soul, in à signification or à figure, not of christes bodie (as ye would ma­ke vs beleue) but of that that the newe testament was confirmed by christes bloud, and that bloud is à wytnes of christes benifite, which came by his bloud sheadynge vnto vs. Therfore ye do il conclude, of these authorites of the doctours that christes bodie and Fol. 64. bloud are not really in the holy sacra­ment, but that bread and wyne are on­ly signes, figures, similitudes, and representations of them, as ye do lyke wyse Augustinus Epist. 23. il vnderstand saint Austen wrytinge to Bonifacius. For he ment that christ was not dailye offered in the masse by death, and sufferinge of his passion a­gaine, for so he was neuer but ones of­fered, and yet he is daily offered in the sacrament for the people atmasse and his passion represented vnto vs the­ryn. For we do vse to say that christ suffered his passion vpon this day (good [Page] fryday) and that day he arose agayne, when the daies of his passion, and resurrection are passed manye hundred ye­res before, and à memorie, or à repre­sentation only of those two thinges is celebrated, and made vpon such daies And so is the sacrament à signe and à similitude of christes body in sufferin­ge death and passion and is called in à maner his body, as the outwarde for­mes and kindes of bread and wyne are sacramentes, and signes of christes bo­die and bloud, beynge some tyme cal­led christes bodie and bloud, as they may ryght wel in à certen maner of speakinge (as Saint Austen wytnesseth there), because that some tyme thin­ges signified are called by the names of their signes, and contrarily also.

This we see plainlye ynoughe that saint Austen is not vpon my lordes syde, but against hym vtterly, when he sayeth, that christ is dailye offered in sacrifice at masse for the people, [Page 115] which, my lord, denyeth vtterly, and yet sayeth that saint Austen is of his The bys­shop. fo. 62. pag 2. Contra adamantum. cap. 12. mynde and beliefe therin To be short when Saint Austen, or any other do­cter affirmeth that the sacrament is a figure, or à signe, they neuer saye that bakers bread, or material bread, and wyne of the grape are only in the sa­crament as signes of christes body and The signe of christes body how hit is to be vnderstand bloud only absent, but they meane (as I sayed à fore) that the outward for­mes and kyndes of bread and wyne a­re signes of them there presently couered vnder neath them. And also that the sacrament is à signe of christes mystical bodie the church, and of his passion à representation and figure.

As for Theodoretus, whom he allea­geth agayne, is anusweared before suf­ficiently. Your fyfte note, my lord, fo. 66. pa. [...] which ye gather out of Theodoretus, that nothinge ought to be affirmed for à certen trueth in religion, which is not spoken of in holy scripture, is à [Page] very damnable note, and the mother of many abamynable heresies, as I ha­ue declared largely in my booke of traditions, and also briefely before in this boke. And to touche the same mat­ter vnwrittē verytees. à lytel agayne, is the baptisme of children sette out in scripture? Con­fessed not origen and saynt Austē the cleane contrarye? Sayeth not Saint Austen that it is à tradition vnwrit­ten Origenes lib. 6. in. Romanos ca. 6 in scripture, that baptisme mi­nistred of an heretike, or à schismati­ke is sufficient and good? In the scri­pture is no mention made that the fa­ther of heauen is vngotten, that the­re are three persons, that christ is con­suhstantialis patri, that oure lady was à continual vyrgen, that the souday ought to be kept holy, and many such other certen truethes in christes reli­gion are not written in scripture. What then, my lord? Is he arrogant and presumptuous, that affirmeth them for certen verites in religion? [Page 116] Yow saye vntruely that papistes do make and vnmake articles of our faith at their pleasure, for they neuer ma­de article of the fayth, nor vnmade, but heretikes hath so done many ty­mes. Vnto this lye, ye adde twoo moo, This lye is often repe­ted of hym. one that we do saye that christes bo­die is naturally and sensibly in the bread, when we say bread is not the­re, and that christes bodie is there vn­naturally, against nature, and vnsen­siblye. Fol. 71 The second lye is, that prie­stes make of Christ à newe sacrifice for synne, for it is no newe sacrifice, but the selfe same yn the thinge offe­red, Homi. 2. in. 2 ad Timot. that (as Saynt Chrysostom sa­yeth) Christ ones offered hymselfe vpon the crosse, and whyche he of­fered at his last soupper, and com­maūded al priestes to offer lyke wyse, as it shal be declared here after, by goddes grace. Nowe ye reherse ma­ny figuratiue speaches vsed in the scri­pture to proue that christ spake lyke [Page] these wordes. This is my bodie, by à Fo. 72. 73 figure, which al proueth it not, except ye wil saye, that Christ spake nothin­ge wythout à figure, which, I am sure, ye wil not say. Moreouer, ye gather Fo. 76. three thinges out of s. Clemētes epistle against the catholikes belefe. The first Epist. 2 is that bread is called our lordes bodie, which is very false, for there is no mention at al of any bread, but of our lor­des bodie, and he sayeth that that ho­ly portion of his bodye should not be myxed wyth the meate, that is dy­gested by the bealy, or stomake, and a­uoyed out at the foundament, declaringe plainly therby that it is not mate­rial bread, for then it should be al­so digested yn the stomacke and cast out at the foundament, as other meates be. Wherfore my lord was heryn ouerseene. The second thinge that ye note of S. Clementes wordes is that the bread (as ye calle it false­ly) ought not to be reserued, when he [Page 117] hath the clene contrary, sayinge yn the same wordes, that ye alleage he­re, for this he writeth yn effect. The priestes, deacons and ministers ought with feare and tremblinge keepe the leauinges of the broken peaces of our lordes bodie, that no corruption be founde in the holy place, least by negli­gence great ynyurie be done to the portion ef the lordes bodie. My lord wynked at these wordes, & toke those only that seamed to make with hym and yet did not, for S. Clement willed only that none of the hoostes or porti­ons of them, whyche were cōsecrated for the laye people, should be reserued, but spent and receaued of the clearkes Nother the third note, that ye gather of S. Clemētes wordes, is true, which is that priestes ought not to receaue the sacrament alone, but the people must neades communicate with them. For he sayeth only that the layte did then receaue the sacrament with the prie­stes, [Page] as they euer myght do, yf they w­ould themselfes, but that their fact maketh no necessarie lawe for vs as dyuers men lyued in common, and had nothinge propre yn the apostles tyme and yet that maketh no lawe to enfor­ce vs so to lyue. Moreouer, ye affirme that christes sacrifice made vpon the crosse was that oblation, of which Cy­prian speaketh vnto cecilius, saynge that it was figured before it was done The bysshop fo. 78 by the bread and wyne, which Melchi­zedech gaue vnto Abraham, in which sayng ye make twoo faultes, the one is that Melchizedech gaue bread & wy­ne Lib. 2. epi. 3 vnto Abrahā, & did not offer thē to god, that the other the sacrifice of christ done at his last soupper, and the sacri­fice Gen. 14. of the masse was not signified and figured by Melchisedecs dede than▪ which twoo errours saint Cyprian confuteth sufficiently, sayinge thus yn that same epistle, after he had alleaged the wordes of the Genesis wrytten of [Page 118] Melchizedech for euer. Which ordre (sayeth he) certenly is this, commyn­ge of that sacrifice that Melchizedech was the priest of the highe god, and that he offered bread and wyne. For Lib. 2 epi. 3. Psal. 109. who is rather à priest of the highe god than oure lord iesus christ, which offe­red à sacrifice vnto god the father? and he offered the selfe same sacrifice, that Melchisedech had offered, that is, bre­ad and wyne, forsoth his bodie and bloud. Here we may playnly see, that ye, my lord, erred both yn saynge that Melchisedech gaue bread & wyne vn­to Abraham, for Cyprian sayeth, as the texte of the Genesis also hath, that he offered them in sacrifice to god, & and also in saying that Melchisedechs doinge then figured not christes sacri­fice made at his mandy but only that Gene. 14. which was done ones vpon the crosse for it signified and figured his sacrifice made at his mandye, as saynt Cyprian affirmeth by and by in that same epi­stle, [Page] thus writinge. There went before by Melchizedech an ymage of à sacri­fice ordeyned in bread and wyne. W­hich thinge our lord perfectly doinge, & fulfillynge, hath offered bread, and à chalice mixed with wyne, and he, that is the fulnes hath fulfilled the trueth of the image fygured afore. Hit­herto Cyprian. Where he sayeth also that christ commaunded priestes to offre sacrifice at masse in à remem­brance of his death, sayīge, do ye this in my remembraunce. If à man wil The sacrifice the holy masse. but only loke vpon and consider what Cyprian went about to proue, and per­swade in that epistle, he shal fynde a­non, that my lord erred manifestly, when he sayed, that Melchisedechs o­blation Lucae. 22. [...]. Cor. 2. figured only christes sacrifice made vpon the crosse, for Cyprians purpose and intent there was to proue by many figures of the old testament, that wyne ought to be put yn to the Marke. chalice at masse to be offered in sacrifi­ce, [Page 119] god, as Melchisedech had done afo­re in à figure, and as chtist fulfillinge & accomplysshyng perfitely that figure had done also at his mandye. Wherfore ye ought, my lord, to recante this playne errour, and to vse that lawe v­pon youre selfe iustely, which ye haue vsed against many other mē vniustly. Christ offered sacrifi­ce at his last souppe [...] Ye peruerte also these wordes of Chry­sostom. When yow come to these mysteries, do not thinke, that ye receyue De eucharistia io enceniis. by a man the bodye of god. Vpō these wordes my lord maketh this ar­gument. Than yf we receaue not the body of christ at the handes of man, ergo the bodie of christ is not reallye corporalli, and naturallie in the sacra­ment, and so geuen to vs by the priest. What blyndnes is this? Chrysostom The bysshop fo. 93. byddeth men not thinke that they re­ceaue christes body of a man the prie­est, meanynge that they receyued yt not of hym prīcipally, but so of christ The confutation. hymself, and that he sayed to stere thē [Page] vnto greater deuotion in receauing of christes blessed bodie, and my lord ga­thereth therof a pure negation, that w­e receaue not christes bodie at the handes of ma. Is this a worthy persō to be beleued in his doctrine, that thus rea­soneth without reason? Fourthermore my lord doth make aunswere vnto Theophilus bysshop of Alexandria, which writeth thus vpon Markes gos­pel, Theophilus christ geuinge thankes did breake the bread (which also we do) addynge therunto prayer. And gaue vnto thē sayinge. Take, this is my bodie. This that I do nowe geue, and that, which ye do nowe take. For the bread is not onely à figure of christes bodie, but it is chaunged in to the very bodie of christe For christ sayeth. The bread w­hich I wil gyue yowe is my flesh. Ne­uerthelesse Ioan. 8. the flesh of christ is not se­ene for oure weakenes, but bread and wyne are familiar vnto us. And surelie yf we should vysibly see flesh & bloud, [Page 120] we could not abide it. And therfore our lord, bearynge wyth our weekenes doth reteyne and keepe the forme and apparaunce of bread and wyne, but he turneth the bread and wyne yn to the The bysshop fo. 95. pa. 2 very flesh and bloud of christ. These are the very wordes of Theophilus, In catenaaurea in Marcum. althoughe my lord saye, that they are not his wordes, but one Theophilactus & maketh therof no profe at al. Saint Thomas à great clearke, and á holy father and dyuers other blessed men many yeares afore my lord was borne sayed that he wrote those wordes, & my lord of canterburye sayth nay, wether partie wil à wise man beleue? I aske of my lord, why may not these wordes be Theophilus bysshop of Alexandria, as the first authour of them, and yet the same to be after written our of hym by Theophilactus, as wel as Theophi­lactus folowed saynt Chrysostom, and vsed many sentences of his in his commentaries? Which sentences no man [Page] can denye but they are chrysostoms. For Chrysostom and Theophilactus hath this sentence vpon paul. The thī ­ge, which is in the chalice, is that that hath flowed out of the side, and we Homi. 24 in 1. Cor. 10. are partakers of yt. May à man gather nowe of that that Theophilactus wri­teth those wordes folowyng Chrysostō that the same sentence was not wryt­ten by Chrysostom? Why then sayeth my lord that Theophilus wrote not the sentence aboue recited vpon S: Marke, but it was only writtē after his tyme of Theophilactus? Myght not Theophilus first write it, and Teophi­lactus borowe it of hym, as Theophilactus did many sayinges of Chryso­stom? But to-go nearer the matter, it a­pearethe plainlye by many thinges, that those wordes were not written by Theophilactus vpon Marke, for first Theophilactus hath not these wordes (And he gaue it vnto then sayinge) nor these wordes (This that I do nowe [Page 121] geue) nor this word (onlye) for this he Theophila. writeth there, as the Greake letter hath When he had blessed it, that is to say geuinge thankes, he breake the bread, which thinge we do also, addinge pra­yer. This is my body, this, I say, that ye do receyue. For the bread is not a fi­gure Note this lege Grace. and a certen exemplar of our lordes bodye, but it is chaunded in to the Ioan. 6. selfe same bodie of christ. For oure lord sayeth, the bread, which I wil gyue is my flesh. He sayed not it is à figure of my flesh, but it is my flesh. And thow sayest, howe is not flesh seene? O man, this is done for oure weakenes. For by­cause bread, and wyne are of those thinges, wyth which we haue bene accusto­med, we do not abhorre them, but we seynge bloud, and flesh sette furth, would not abide it, but abhorre it clene Wherfore the mercyful god, bearinge wyth our infirmite, doth reteyne stil the forme of bread and wyne, but he turneth them ī to the vertu of flesh & [Page] bloud. Hitherto Theophilactus, by whose wordes we see both that he wro­te not the other sentence, which is be­fore rehersed of my lord, because the­se his wordes varye much from those other of theophilꝰ, & also that theophi­lactus is vtterly against my lordes do­ctrine in this matter. Wherfore we father The byshop fol. 95. not wronge that sainge vpon theophilus, as my lord sayeth that we do.

Agayne, my lord sayeth vntruely that we do falsifie this authours wordes, and meaninge. For as Teophilus hath the same wordes afore in his name recited even so Theophilactus hath, I denie not, these wordes, God condescēdinge vnto oure īfirmite reserueth the kinde of bread & wyne, but he turneth them in to the vertu of flesh & bloud. Which wordes my lord thinketh doth declare playnly, that he ment, that bread & wyne remayne stil in their substance, & are turned only in to the vertue of christes flesh & bloud, for as much as, that they, wich [Page 122] do worthilye receaue thē, receaue ther­by the vertu of christes body & bloud spiritualy. Which exposition is vtter­ly against his meanynge, for he sayeth evidētly that the bread ys not á figure of our lordes body, but that it is turned in to the very natural bodie of christe. For sayth he not that there is flesh and bloud in the sacramēt, but they appeare Marke. not there to oure eyes, and sight, but the formes only of thē, least we should abhorre the receauīge of thē? Whould he haue so saied, yf he had beleued that only bread & wyne were present in the Theophila­ctus. sacrament? Agayne he doth vpon Matthe we declare his mynde more plaīlye Matth. 2 [...]. sayingt thus. Christ sayīge. This is my bodie, sheweth that the bread, which is halowed vpon the aulter, is oure lordes Aulters. bodie it selfe, & not á figure aunswerī ­ge to it For he sayed not, this is á figure but this is my bodie For it is transfor­med by an operation vnspeakable yea althoug it seame bread, bycause we be [Page] weake, & do abhorre to eate rawe flesh, chyefely the flesh of à man, & for that cause it appeareth to be bread, but it is flesh in dede. Agayne vpon Ihons gospel In cap. 6. Ioannis. he is as playne as may be agaīst my lordes doctrine, when he sayeth thus. But marke that the bread, which is ea­ten of vs in the sacrament, is not only à figure of oure lordes flesh, but our lordes flesh itselfe. For christ sayed not, Ioan. 6. the bread which I wil gyue, is à figure of my flesh, but my flesh. For that bread is transformed wyth secret wordes in to oure lordes fleshe, throughe the mystical blessinge, and commynge of the holy goost vnto it. Nowe what can my lord say to this? Hath he here any startinge hole, or euasion, but he must neades graunt his errour, and recante it? S Hierom writeth thus. There is as Hierom in [...]iti. cap. 1. great difference betwene the loaues of shewe bread, and the bodie of christ as is betwene à shadowe of à bodie, and the bodie itselfe, and as there is betwe­ne [Page 123] an ymage, and the thinge itselfe, & betwene an example of thinges to co­me, and the thinges, that be prefigura­ted by them. Vnto this authorite my lord maketh this sclender anusweare. He ment, that the shewe bread of the The bysshop fo. 86. pa. 2. lawe, was but à darke shadowe of christ to come, but the sacrament of christes bodye is á clere testimonye that christ is already come, and that he hath per­formed that, which was promysed, & doth presently conforte, and feed vs, spirituallie wyth his precious bodie & bloud. Is not this à shameful wreastin­ge, of this sentence? S Hierom allegeth 1. Regū. [...]. there that Abymelech wold not gyue to dauid and his compaynye the she­we bread to eate, when they were al­most famyshed throughe want of meate, vntil he had perceaued, that they had forborne the cōpaynīge with their wyfes twoo daies space before, and by that facte he exhorteth men to come with á pure cōscience vnto the recea­uinge [Page] of the holy sacrament, because there is as muche difference betwene Marke. christes bodie therin receaued, and those shewe loaues, as is betwene the sha­dowe of á bodie & the bodie, betwene an ymage & the trueth pictured by it, & as there is betwene the exāples of thī ges to come, & the thinges them sel­fes, that were figured by those exāples, declarīge manifestly, that that christes bodie, which is receaued & eatē in the sacramēt, is in cōparyson to the sheue loaues, which were á shadow, the very bodie shadowed by thē, the trueth ex­pressed by that image, & the very thinge itselfe figured by that exāple. Howe can this be true, yf there be but mate­rial bakers bread eatē in the sacramēt, as à bare signe, & à figure of christes bodie, Note. absēt thence? Is á figure the bodye shadowed, the trueth set fourth by an image, & the very thīge itselfe figured by an exāple? What mā is so blind, thꝰ to say? Agayne S. Hierom euen there [Page 124] vpon that same epistle sayeth, that the Hierony. in cap▪ 1. ad Titum. priestes do offre daily for their synnes & the peoples also, pure sacrifices, and that the priest maketh christes bodie at masse. This can not be vnderstād of pure material bread, and therfore my lord must loke better vpon his bookes & thē he shal see the trueth in this matter, & ceasse thus falsely to glose the doctours sainges. Nowe he laboureth, to soile S Damascenes wordes, which are these, that folowe, but my lord did not rehearse them, because they should haue marred al his matter. Doest thowe Damascen. lib. 4. ca. 14 nowe aske of me, howe bread is made christes bodye, and wyne and water his bloudde? I anusweare vnto the that the holy goost worketh these thin­ges aboue mans speache, and vnder­standinge, but the bread, and wyne a­re turned. The bodye is ioyned vn­to the deite, which bodye is of the vyrgen, not that the body taken of the vyrgen commeth downe from [Page] heauen, but that the bread itselfe, and wyne are chaunged in to the bodie, Christes bo­dy is in the sacrament, and in hea­uen both at ones. and bloud of god. The bread, wyne, and water throughe inuocation, and the comminge of the holy goost vn­to them, are aboue nature chaunged in to christes bodie, and bloud, and they are not two bodies, but one & the same bodye. The bread and wyne be Marke reader and beleue. not á figure of christes bodye & bloud. For god forbid that, but it is his body itselfe ioyned vnto the godhead, oure lord hymselfe sayinge. This is my bo­die, not à figure of the bodie, but the bodie, not à figure of the bloud, but the Matth. 26. bloud. This S Damascene wrote. No­we my lord might haue bene ashamed to goo about to wreaste, & wryth these so manifeste wordes of this holy & gre­at clearke to any other sēse, if he had had any shame at al, but let vs examyne his aunsweare vnto hym. In pri­mis he sayeth. He was à yonge newe authour in respecte of those, whiche [Page 125] we haue brought yn for oure partie. Syr ye haue yet brought yn none for The bysshop [...]o. 37. pa. 1. youre partie, that sayeth that christes The confu­tation. bodie is not really in the sacrament, or that there remayneth stil onely bakers bread, as à figure of christes bodye, as ye do teach, but this godly father say­eth, that christes bodye is present therī and that the bread is turned in to it, & that it is not nou à figure, Ye can neuer bringe any catholike writer of any a­ge, that writteth so plainly for yow, as this doth for vs. Agayne, for his age, S. Damascenes age. he was after many learned mennes myndes aboue M. c yeares past, but at the least, I am certē, that he was almost eight hundred yeres sence, which is nyghe ccc yeares before the father of your doctrine berengarius, was borne. Berengari­us was the father of this bysshops doctrine. Wherfore this is an answeare sufficiēt vnto the obiection of Damascenes age Moreouer ye say, my lord, that he va­rieth from al the old authours, when he denieth, that the bread is à figure of [Page] christes bodie, for they called it à figu­re. Ye say not truely, for he agreeth wel with them therin, for they cal not the material bread à figure of christes bo­die only absent in heauen (as ye do) w­hich How the sacrament is a figure. Aug. serm. 28. in Lu [...]ā Damascene also denyeth, but many of them saye the sacrament is à fi­gure, because the outwarde formes of bread and wyne are figures of christes bodie and bloud hyd vnder them, and because the oblation, ministratiō and receauinge of them is à figure of chri­stes passion and bloudy sacrifice, and thirdly, because the sacrament is à fi­gure of christes mystical bodie the churche, which Damascene denyeth not, and therfore he agreeth right wel with the fathers in that point, and so this startinge hole is stopped, that ye can not crepe out at hym, my lord. S. Damascene sayeth also in dede (as ye saye here) my lord, that the thinge, There is no material bread yn the sacrament which is yn the sacrament cōsumeth not, nor auoydeth not downeward frō [Page 126] man, in which saynge, as he declareth playnly that he ment not (as ye saye he did) that material bread remayneth stil in the sacrament, for then yt must neades consume, and auoyed doune­ward, as al other bread doth, euen so he sayeth not therin against either origē or els Austen, for nother of them say­eth that the consecrated bread consu­meth, and auoydeth dounewarde, but saynt Austen hath the contrarie sayin Ser 23. de verbis do­mini secu [...] ­dum Lucā. ge. It is called bread of the priest in the masse after the cōsecratiō, when he re­cyteth the paternoster, in which he prayeth to god to gyue vs our daily bread but not that bread, which goeth yn to the bodie, but that which beareth vp the substance of our soul soo he deni­eth here manifestly that there is any such bread after the consecration in the holy sacrament as goeth in to the Saint Austē sayeth the­re is no material bread in the sacrament. sustynaunce and nouryshement of mans bodie. Wherfore he sayeth not (as my lord sayeth) that there ys material [Page] bread in the sacrament, which con­sumeth in eatinge of it, and goeth do­uneward fro man. Nowe my lord runnyth to an other euasion, and sayeth that this holy Damascene was one of the byshop of romes chyefe proctours The bysshop fo. [...]7. pa. 2 against the emperours to set abroad al idolatrie by his owne hand writinge & therfore yf he lost his hand (as they say he did) he lost yt by goddes most righteous iud [...]ement, &c What meaneth my lord here this falsely to diffa­me that holy saint, and noble clearke, Images. by whom god wrought many greate and notable myracles (as it appeareth plainlye in his life) and against whom no mā, that was à good christen man, did euer write for any errour? In dede he wrote against leo the emperour for his destroynge of images, and that he did ful clearkely, and godly, as I ha­ue declared, and proued in my boke of images. It is true that he lost his hand for the defence of images, but not (as [Page 127] the bysshop sayth) by the iust iudge­ment of god but by the cruel and ma­litious forgynge of his letters by that emperour against hym to the prince of the cite Damascus, by which letters that noughtie & cursed emperour certified that prince that saint Damasce­ne wold haue betrayed that cyte to hym and therfore that prince commaunded his hand to be stroken of, but it was anon after restored vnto hym a­gayne, and mad hole, when he prayed before an image of oure lady, as it appeareth both in his lyfe written by à pa­triarche of Graecia long sence, and also Marke. in the seuenth general councel, for therī was that miracle reharsed before mo them ccc. bysshoppes aboue seuen hundred yeres passed, and therfore my lord erred, when he wrote that this my racle was fayned. Yet my lord seaketh moo awayes to auoyd this authorite of S. Damascene, but al in vayne, for thus he writeth, after much bablyng. [Page] The bread, and wyne remayne stil, & are chaunged onelie sacramentally, & The bisshop fo. 99. lib. 3. are made figures, not naked, for that Damascene denyeth, but so pythy and effectuous, that who so euer worthilie eateth them, eateth spirituallie chri­stes flesh, and bloud, and hath by that euer lastynge lyfe. Is not this a mani­fest▪ The confu­tation. auillynge to auoyed the trueth? S Damascene sayeth, that christ made the bread his bodie, and the wyne and water his bloud, that the holy goost Marke this turneth the bread in to christes bodie, and the wyne & water in to his bloud, that the bread, and wyne are chaunged aboue nature in to christes bodie and bloud, and that they are not twoo bo­dies, but one and the same body that stil abideth in heauen, and finallye, that bread and wyne are not figures of christes bodie and bloud, but his owne bodie, vnto which the godhead is ioy­ned, and yet this mā was not ashamed to saye, that he mente that bread and [Page 128] wyne remayne stil in the sacrament, and that they are not turned by their substance in to christes bodie & bloud, which be not in the sacrament but on­ly bread and wyne, as he sayeth. What is this, yf it be not à wounderful blyndnes, and à malitious subuertinge of this doctours godly, and true doctrine least he should seame to be agaīst their erronious, and wicked doctrine, as he is playnly? He bringeth many other fonde euasiōs, which be so manifestly against this doctours playne wordes, that it were but à lost labour to confu­te them, because euery man may sone see that they are not to the purpose, yf he do but ones compare them wyth saint Damascens wordes. And as tou­chynge the worshippinge of the holy sacrament, we do worship therin christ very god and man present really, and not the outwarde and visible formes & kindes of bread and wyne, which thīg S. Damascen ment. Trueth it is, that [Page] Damascene sayeth not expressely, that there remayneth no bread, nor wyne, but yet the very selfe same thinge he affirmeth, when he sayeth, that they a­re turned and chaunged in to christes bodie and bloud, which he toke of his blessed mother, and vnto which the The bysshop fo. 99. pa. 2 god head is ioyned in one parsone, and christes soul is also coupled there with them, and therfore my lord sayed vn­truely, that yf we denye bread and wyne to be there stil, we must also by for­ce Note this. denye, that there is either christes diuynitee or his soul. For may not the­se twoo be ioyned vnto christes bodie and bloud in the sacrament, as they be in heauen, yf neither bread, nor wyne be therin? Wil he haue christes soul, & godhead to be in the bread, and wyne, or els they cā not be in the sacramēt? What ignorance is this? Why sayeth he that we deuyde christ? Do they de­uide hym, that saye he his both god, and mā, and that his very bodie, bloud [Page 129] soul, and godhead are really in the blessed sacrament of the aulter altogether ioynctly? Further more it is very false, that he leyeth vnto our charges, that we separate christes body from his membres in the sacrament, for we do saye, that it is there with al his mem­bres perfectely, and wholly, but howe Fo. 90. Lib. de duabus in chri­sto, voluntatibus. we define not, nor can do. Damascene sayeth wel, that the distinction of mē ­bres doth pertayne so vnto the nature of mans bodie, that where there is no such distinction, there is no perfecte mās bodie, but that is very true of euery natural bodie of man, beynge in his natural estate and condition, and in his oune forme, and shape, after which sorte christe is not in this sacrament, and therfore Damascene is not against our doctrine, and beliefe in this mat­ter, but altogither wyth it. Thus is now made à ful confutation of al my lor­des obiections against Transubstan­tiation, and the real presence of chri­stes [Page] very natural bodie and bloud in the blessed sacrament of the aulter. Nowe I make an ende of this thir­de boke, and begynne the fourth, yn whiche I wil confute lyke wyse his ob­iections made against our doctrine, which is that synners do eate christes very natural bodye and drinke his bloud, althoughe to their damnation, as sainct Paul wytnesseth playnly. 1. Cor. 11.

Thus endeth the confutation of my lords third booke, and foloweth the cō futation of his fourth boke. First he The bys­shop. fo. 90. pag. 2. bringeth furth of Sainct Ihons gospel these wordes, to proue that synners ea­te not christes very body wyth their mouthes, nor drinke his bloud in the sacrament, but only bread and wyne. I am the lyuely breade, that came doune Ioan. 6. from heauen. If any man eate of this bread, he shal lyue for euer, &c. The confu­tation.

Do ye not, my lord, remembre, that dyuers tymes before in youre booke, ye sayed that christes wordes written [Page 130] in Ihon the syxt chapiter did nothin­ge pertayne to the sacrament, but on­ly vnto à spiritual eatynge of chri­stes bodie by fayth? Why then brin­ge Marke. ye nowe furth his wordes to pro­ue that il and vngodly men eate not christes body in receauynge the sa­crament? But yet it is very true that Ioan. [...]. Christ spake those wordes of the sa­cramēt, and of the eatinge of his oune bodie in the same wyth oure mouthes meanynge that whosoeuer eateth his bodye, and drinketh his bloud wor­thily wyth à perfect fayth, and a clea­ne conscience, and not only wyth his mouth bodilye, shal lyue for euer ther by, and haue euerlastynge lyfe, and therfore Sainct paule declaringe this doctrine of christ written by Ihon, ex­horteth euery man to trie and examy­ne 1 Cor. 1 [...] ▪ hymselfe, and his conscience wel before he receaue this holy sacrament that he receaue it not to his damna­tion. Why loked ye not, my lord, vpon [Page] that texte of paul, that ye myght haue learned of hym, the maner of eatinge christes bodie, which is requyred ne­cessarilie, that we should lyue for euer, throughe receauinge of it in the sacra­ment? Are ye so ignorant in the scri­ptures, that ye knowe not, that there a­re very many such speaches and sen­tences in them, which are not general­ly and absolutely true, but wyth certē Marc. 16. additions and conditions? For christ sayed, whosoeuer shal beleue, and be baptized, shal be saued, and yet many Matth. 7. thousandes do beleue, and are bapti­zed also, that shal be damned, of the nombre of which they are, that shal saye at domes day, lord, lord, haue we not cast out deuelles in thy name, pro­phised also, and wrought many myra­cles in thy name? To whom christ shal say, I knowe ye not, gette ye hence from me, ye wourkers of iniquitee.

Wherfore this sentence, whosoeuer Mar. vlt. shal beleue, and be christened, shal be [Page 131] saued, hath this condition ioyned vn­to yt, yf he continue in his fayth and Matth. 2 [...] in the grace of god and purenes of soul receaued in baptisme, as christ sayeth hymselfe by these wordes, whosoeuer shal perseuere vntil the ende, shal be saued. Forthermore sayeth not christ euery man that asketh receaueth? Matth. 7 Lucae▪ 11.

What then, my lord? May we therof gather, I praye yow, that the mother of the sonnes of Zebudaei did not aske Matth. 2 [...] of christ that one of her sonnes myght sitte vpon his right hand, and the o­ther at his lyfte in his kyndome, be­cause she obteyned not that her peti­tion? We may so say by your ma­ner of reasonynge here. Asked not al­so Sainct Paul of god à petition, that the prickynge of the fleash myght be taken from hym, and yet he obteyned 1. Cor. 12. Iacob [...]. [...] not his desire? Must not then this sen­tence of Christ, euery man that asketh receaueth, be vnderstand with this condition, yf he aske godly, and necessarie [Page] thinges for his saluation, accordyng to 1. Ioan. 5 goddes wil and commaundement, as sainct Ihon sayeth? To be short, and Matth. 1 [...]. to passe ouer many such speaches, sa­yed not christ who so euer beleueth in Ioan. 3. 5 the sonne of god hath euerlastinge ly­fe? Wil ye therof, my lord, proue agaīst scripture, that al they beleueth not in Ioan 12 christ, that haue not euerlastinge lyfe, seinge Ihon sayeth, that many of the princes of the Synagoge beleued yn christ, and yet confessed hym not for fear of the pharisees, least they should be cast out of the Synagoge, for they loued more the glorie of man, than the glory of god? Must we not then vnder­stand christes wordes, when he sayeth, who so euer beleueth in the sonne of god, or in me, hath euerlastinge life, of a certen maner of beleuinge, which is wyth à lyuely wourkinge fayth, that a­uaileth Ioan. 12 (sayeth paul) in christ Iesu? Maye we not thē nowe see plainly, hou Gala. 5 that christ ment not, that euery mā generally [Page 132] which should eate that bread, which came doune from heauē should haue euerlastinge lyfe, but onely they that should eate it godly & worthily, as paul teacheth vs to do? Wherfore the­se 1. Cor. 11 textes of Ihon, which ye, my lord, brīge moreouer for your purpose, that Fo. 91 he, which eateth christes flesh and drinketh his bloud hath euerlastinge lyfe, Ioan. 6 dwelleth in christe, & christ ī hym, &c. do nothīge vtterly serue thervnto▪ for they must be al vnderstād of thē only, that eateth & drinketh christes body & bloud godly, as S. Austē expoundeth it saying. When christ sayeth, he that ea­teth Ser. [...]1. de verbis domini secundū Matthaeum. my flesh, and drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me, & I [...]n him, may we vnderstād it of thē, of whō paul saieth that they eate and drinke their oune iudge­mēt, 1. Cor. 11 whē they eate that bodie, & drīke that bloud? Thē after ā exāple brought of Iudas, & of other certē il men, he as­keth whether they did eate christes bodie, & drinke his bloud, & therby did [Page] abide in christ, & christ in thē, or not? He doth anuswe are to that questiō so plainly, that he vtterly taketh awaye al doubt ī that matter, & destroyeth your false glosynge cleane, my lord, sayinge thus. But truely there is à certē maner of eatinge that flesh, & drinkinge that bloud after the which, he that eateth, & drīketh, dwelleth in christe, & christ in him. Wherfore a mā shal not eate christes flesh, & drīke his bloud after euery Marke this reader. sorte of eatinge & drinking of thē, & a­byde in christ, & christ ī hym, but after à certē maner, which maner he himselfe sawe, whē he saied these wordes. Loo my lord how manifestly hath S Austē opened al this matter, & declared that ye vnderstod not wel christes wordes, which ye do alleage here. It is thē eui­dētly proued that christes wordes in Ihō make nothinge vtterly agaīst oure doctrine wich is that the vngodly mē & womē do eate & drīke christes flesh & bloud ī receauīge of the holi sacramēt althoughe they haue not euerlastīg lyf [Page 133] as the godly only haue, but euerlastīge damnatiō. Nowe ye saye that christ is The bysshop fo. 91. pa. 2. fo. 92. not eaten, swalowed, and dygested, with oure teth, tungues, throtes, and bealyes, which sayinge is only true, in that that ye saye he is not dygested with oure bealyes, for al the rest of that sentence is very false, and neither Cy­prian, nor S. Austen proueth the con­trarie, for S. Cypriā ment that we whet­te not oure teeth to bytte christes bo­dy Cyprianus de coena do­mini. in the sacrament, as we do bodily meates, S. Austen, whon ye do alleage, my lord, maketh not for your purpose for when he sayeth. Prepare not thy Ser. 3 [...]. de verbis d. iawes, but thy hert, he ment (as S. Cy­prian did afore hym) that men should not thinke, that christes flesh ought to be eaten as cōmon meates, beuffe, lāb, veale, mouton and such other meates sold in the shambles commonly (as he sayeth hymselfe in an other place) In psal 98. & ser. 2. de verbis apo­stoli. which is nothinge against oure beliefe, and doctrine For we saye that we eate [Page] christes body as à spiritual foode and meate of oure souls, without breakyn­ge, rentinge, tearinge, chawynge, dige­stinge, & such other ynyuryes doyng Tract. 2 [...] in Ioānem. vnto yt. Agayne, whē S. Austē sayeth, Why doest thow prepare thy bealy & teth beleue, & thowe hast eaten, he speaketh only against the vnfaythful iewes, which thought that he spake of à Ioa. 6. bodily meate when he sayed vnto thē wourke ye not the meate, that perys­seth, but that abydeth stil vnto euerlā ­stinge life, where he spake of beleuīge in hym, and of the spiritual eatinge of hym, troughe à lyuely fayth, vnto the which men should not neade to prepare either bealy, or teth, but what is this against oure teachinge? Doth it folowe that we eate not christ bodyly with oure mouth and teth, because that we neade not to prepare our bealy and teth to eate christ only spiritually throughe fayth, which the fathers did before the institution of the sacramēt, [Page 134] and nowe also many do, when they re­ceaue not the sacrament? Is there but only one maner to eate christ? Is he not eaten both when the sacrament is receaued, and when it is not receaued? Why red ye not Austens wordes in his booke vpon Ihon, that ye myght haue sene and perceaued the true sense of Tract 25. them? For he thus writeth vpon this texte. This is the worke of god, that ye beleue in hym. This is thē to eate that Ioan. 8. meate, which perysheth not, but aby­deth stil vnto euerlasting life, to beleue in hym. Why preparest thou teth and bealy? beleue, & thowe hast eaten. We see nowe that S. Austen then expoun­ded that texte, which was spoken of christe before he did intreat any thin­ge of the sacrament, and ment only of à spiritual eatinge of hymselfe by fayth, vnto which eatynge men ought not (as S. Austen sayed) to prepare ei­ther bealye or els teeth, as to the eatīg of common meate of the bodie they [Page] are wount to do, and as the iewes il vnderstod christ speakinge then of mea­te, that should bringe vnto them lyfe euer enduringe. Wherfore ye are anu­swered, my lord, in this obiection suf­ficiently Origen, whom ye allege next ment (as christ did in Ihon, whose wordes he reciteth, and are expounded of Ioan. 8. S. Austen afore) that is to say that euil men receaue not, nor eate not christes flesh worthyly, and profitably, to haue therby euerlasting lyfe, but only bodi­ly, and vnworthily to their damnatiō, lyke wyse S. Cyprian spake of à spiritual eating of christes flesh, and denyed Sers de lapsis de coena domini. not the corporal eatinge of it with our mouthes, and sayed (as christ did) that none do eate of that lābe oure sauiour christ spiritually, and worthily (as S. fo. 92 pa. 2. Paul biddeth men do) but only true 1. Cor. 11. Israelites, that is to say, good christian men. Also Athanasius ment not (as ye Athanasius lib. de pecca to in spi. sanctum. saye he did) that christ made therfore mention of his ascension in to heauē, [Page 135] when he spake vnto the iewes of eatīg his flesh and of his bloud, to plucke their myndes vtterly from thinkinge vpon any eatinge of his bodie, and drī kinge of his bloud with their mouthes but only from beleuinge (as they did then) that he moued them to eate his flesh deade▪ cutte out in peaces▪ and to deuoure it cleane vp, as other commō meates are eaten, for then he could not ascende vp from them in to hea­uen alyue, and whole, as he sayed vnto them that he would do. This ment A­thanasius Ioan. 6. and christ makinge there mention of his ascension, for so doth Cyril, Cyprian, Chrisostom, saint Au­sten, and many other the eldest and best doctours expounde that place of Ihon. For S. Austen thus writeth expoundyng that same saying of Ihon. Did ye thinke, that I wold make pea­ces of this body, which ye do see, and The confu­tation. cut the partes of my body and geue them vnto yow? What then yf ye shal [Page] the sonne of man ascende thither, where he was afore? Certenly he that Ioan. 6. could ascēde vp whole, could not be consumed. He hath then both geuen Augusti. in pal. 8 & in Ioannem vnto vs a holsome refection of his body and bloud, & also soyled à great question touchyng his wholnes. Hyt­herto S. Austen. Wherfore this autho­rite is not against oure beliefe, which is that we do eate christes fleash bodi­ly with oure mouthes without al hurt Basilius Epist. 141. and harme to it, and without deuou­ringe vp of yt. S Basil spake there only of à spiritual eatinge of christes fleash by fayth and godly lyuinge, and no­thinge of the sacrament, nor of eatin­ge of christes flesh therin, and therfore his sainge is not to the purpose Hierō Hierom in Esaie ca. 88 & in Hiere 22. vpon Esaye, and Hieremie affirmeth only that synners, and heretikes eate not the bodie of christ worthily for to obteyne the frute, effecte, and profite In Osean cap. 8. therof, which is spiritual nourishemēt, encrease of grace, to dwel in christ, & [Page 136] christ in them, and to come vnto e­uerlastinge lyfe, but he denyed not Ambros de benedict. patriar. ca. 9. lib. de sacramentis. 4. cap. 4. & lib. 5. cap 3. August. de ciuitate dei lib. 21 cap. 2 [...]. & in Ioann. trac 28. & 27. de verbis a post. ser. 2. Tract. 59. ī Ioan. The bysshop fo. 18. that they eate it vngodly and vnwor­thyly to their dānatiō. The same mēt Ambrose, and S. Austen also spake in those places, which ye alleage of à fru­teful, and a profitable eatinge of chri­stes flesh, & of drinkinge of his bloud to the obteyning of euerlastinge life. Ye vnderstand not S. Austen writing thus Albert the other apostles did ea­te bread, that was the lord, yet Iudas did eate but the bread of the lord, & not the bread that was the lord. For he ment only that the other apostles did eate christes body both bodyly with their mouthes, and also spiritu­ally with à perfect fayth, and à pure conscience, but Iudas did eate it only bodyly with his mouth S. Cyril ment euen the very same thinge, that only good men do eate christes flesh vn­to their profite, and saluation, but yet he sayeth not, nor none other doctour [Page] (as ye do) that il men do not bodyly receaue it with their mouthes in the holy sacrament, and therfore none of The bysshop fo. 97 lib. 4. thē proueth your doctrine to be true. Nowe ye aske of vs, whether an vnre­pentaunt synner haue christes bodie within hym, or no, whan he receaueth A reason ta­ken out of Peter martyr booke. the sacrament? To that I saye, that he so hath, and also to the seconde questi­on, I answeare, that il men, beinge im­penitent when they do receaue the sacrament, haue christes spirite wythin them, and yet they are not his sonnes althoughe paul do saye, that he is god­des sonne (as ye saye and gather of hym) and hath christ in hym, and ly­ueth, Rom. 8. because he is iustified S. pauls wordes are these. And yf his spirite, that raysed vp iesus from death, dwel in yowe, he that raysed christ from de­ath, shal gyue life to your mortal bo­dies, for his spirits sake, which dwel­leth in yow. My lord vnderstandeth not, howe that man receaueth the [Page 137] spirite of god by certen of his giftes, & in his very nature, substance, presence and power, and yet he is neuerthelesse à synner, hauīg not in hym christes spirite by grace & adoptiō. To proue this I wil alleage of many places of the scripture à fewe. Hath not mani the goost Sap. 7, 1, Cor. 12 Esaiae. 11 Matth. 7 1, Cor. 13 Ioan. 11 and spirite of god by the gifte of wis­dom, prudence, kunninge, fayth to wourke myracles, the power to do my­racles, to prophesie, the grace of healinge the diseased, the gyfte of toungues, of interpretation, the gyfte to gyue counsel (as Ietro did vnto Moses) the gyft of fear the gyft to preach, to absolue the penitent in confession, and the Ioan, 20 gyftes of many other thinges, and yet they are not goddes sonnes by grace? Was not the spirit of god in balaam 1. Regū. 18. Num. 22 Ioan. 11 Saul and cayphas, when they prophe­sied, and yet they were wicked men? Was not then, my lord, disceaued o­penly & shamefully, when he thought that the spirite of god is ī none except [Page] they be his children by grace? Did he not knowe that they only be his son­nes Rom. 5. 8 Zacha. 12 in whom his spirite is by grace and adoption, & that paul spake those wor­des, which he alleageth here for hym throughe ignorācye, of that beyng on­ly of the spirite of god in mā by grace? But to touche the matter some what nearer, I aske of hym, whether the spi­rite of god be not in euery place, in earth, the water, in heauen, and hel and in euery part, and creature of them? If he saye yea, ergo he is in euery synner, & wicked mā. If he saye nay, the scri­pture is against hym sayinge. I fil hea­uen, and earth, sayeth our lord. Heauē Hiere. 23 Esaie. 66 is my seate, and the earth my fotestole And againe. Whyther shal I goo from Psal, 138 Christes spirite, which is ioyned in one parson vnto his mā hod, is by his presen­ce in syn­ners. thy spirite, and flye from thy face? If I go vp in to heauen, thow art there, yf I go doune vnto hel, thow art present there. Nowe it appeareth that god is e­uery where, and in euery place. Why thē is not the spirite of god, which is very [Page 138] god, in the wicked men, by his pre­sence and substance, which is in euery place, and placed in no place? Wherfo­re christes blessed flesh, bloud, soul, ho­ly spirite, and his deite ioyned vnto them in one parson certenlylmaye be, and is often tymes, in à man subie­cte to synne, and à lymne of the deuil, and so god, and the deuel do dwel both Actorū. 17. at ones in à synner, god by his power, preseruinge hym, feadynge him, geuinge to hym vertue to lyue, to be, to moue and wourke, and also he is in hym by his presence, and substance, and the deuel throughe synne and tentation. Thus is al my lordes reasonīge proued voyed & of none effect. And so is not our third verite, and catholike doctri­ne confuted, which is that the il mē do eate & drīke christes flesh & bloud vnto their dānation (althoughe he sayeth Ioan. 6 that it is cōfuted) nor proued cōtrarye vnto christes wordes, saynge, whosoe­euer eateth my flesh, & drinketh my [Page] bloud, hath euerlastinge life, for those wordes were only spoken of the godly & worthy eaters, & drinkers of thē, as it is proued afore sufficiently, both by the scripture, & also by the exposition of s. Austē. Nowe my lord goeth about to aunswere vnto à place of paul, which 1. Cor. 11 we do allege for vs. Let à man examy­ne hymselfe, & so eate of the bread, & drinke of the cup, for he that eateth, & drinketh vnworthely, eateth and drin­keth his oune damnation, not discer­ninge The bisshop fo. 98. lib. 3. the lordes bodie. Vnto this sentē ce he sayeth, that S Paul ment, that for as much as the bread & wine in the lordes soupper, do represent vnto vs the body & bloud of christ, therfore althoughe he doth sitte at the fathers ryght hāde in heauē, yet yf we come not vn­to this mystical bread, and wyne wyth fayth, reuerence, purite of cōsciēce, & fear, as we wold do, if we should come to see & receaue christ hymselfe sensi­blie present, we do eate and drinke our [Page 139] damnation. This is the effecte of his aunswere vnto that texte of paul, which The confu­tation. is directely agaīst his mynde, for paul in the nexte sentence afore affirmeth that the vnworthy eater & drinker of that our lordes blessed bread, & holy wine, is gyltie of our lordes body & bloud declaringe therby that he eateth & drī keth not material bread, & wyne of the grape, but christes very body & bloud, which he calleth bread & wyne, becau­se breade & wine were turned in to thē by the consecration, and because they De coena domini. be the foode of mans soul (as Cyprian wytnesseth) lyke as cōmon breade and wyne are of the body, and also because they appeare as bread & wyne, stil reteyninge al other qualites, & accidētes of 1. Cor. 11 thē. This was S Pauls mynde. who can say truely that he is giltie of our lordes body & bloud, & eateth & drinketh his oune dānatiō, that receaueth nothinge els but onli breade made of corne, and Marke. wyne of the grape? May à man be giltie [Page] for eatinge of à thinge, & yet eate it not but only à figure of it? Why then are Legeeyprianum ser [...]. De lapsis. not they worthy to be iudged giltie of destroyinge, and breakinge of christes body, and of his holie saintes, that ha­ue broken, and destroyed their Images Images of christ, and his saintes. and pictures in Englande, seinge they were more playne, expresse, and lyue­ly signes, and figures of theym, then are the bread and wyne of christes bo­dy, and bloud? Neade we so diligent and so great trial & examining of our­selues (as saint paul requireth here) for the receauinge, of bread and wyne? Eateth he, and drinketh his oune dam­nation, that eateth and drinketh bread of weate, and wyne of the vyne only? The paschal lambe, the bread of shewe Exodi. 12 1. Regū. 21 Deut. 8 & Māna were figures of christes bodie and more excellent and playne, than bread and wyne can be, and yet the scripture wytnesseth not, that the vn­worthy eaters of any of theim were giltie of our lordes bodie, or did eate their [Page 140] oune damnation, not discerninge his body from other common meate. Is it not then à sufficient profe that there is christes bodie itselfe in the sacra­mēt, and not only bread à figure of it? Moreouer, yf bread and wyne were only in the sacrament, howe could the receauer of it discerne our lordes bo­die (as paul biddeth hym do) from o­ther common meates, to receaue it with greater cleanes of conscience and more deuotion than such common meates? Agayne, sayeth not saint paul Marke this that for the vnworthy receauinge of 1. Cor. 11 this holy sacrament, many were sicke, diseased, weake, and died? Who may wel saye, that god wold punysh men so greuously, for the vnworthy ea­tinge, and drinking of bare breade, and wyne? Doth it not them nowe appea­re playnly that Saint paul ment that christes bodie is really in this sacra­ment, and that my lordes exposition of saint pauls wordes is vayne, & false? [Page] Farder he maketh an aunsweare vnto Saint Austen, which doth plainly affirme, Contrae cres conium lib. 1. cap. 25. that euel man do eate christes bo­dy, and drinke his bloud vnworthyly in the sacrament and are therby giltie of christes bodie, and bloud, althou­ghe Christ sayeth, he that eateth not my fleash, and drinketh not my bloud Ioan. 6 shal not haue life in hym, and sayeth, that Austen mente not of the eatyn­ge of christes very fleshe, and of his bloud, but of the sacrament, or of the bread and wyne, which are signes and figures only of them. This is à woun­derful fond and à blynd wreastinge of Saint Austens wordes? For he sayeth manyfestly that synners do eate chri­stes fleash and drinke his bloud in the receauinge of the sacrament, and my lord sayeth that he ment that only of the bread and wyne. I denye not that Austens intent was there, to proue that good thinges auayle not them, that do euel vsed them. But what therof? [Page 141] Is that ynoughe to proue, that he mēt that il men receaue not christes very bodie, flesh & bloud in the sacrament? What learned man wold make any such argument, as this is? A good thī ­ge auayleth not the il receauour of it, ergo the il receauer receaueth it not. S. Austen ment, that good thinges il Aduersus Cresconiū. lib. 1. ca. 25 vsed profite not the il vser, and for an example he bringeth fourth christes flesh and bloud, the receauinge of which auayleth not, but hurteth them that do il and vnworthilie take them, althoughe christ sayed that he, which eateth and drinketh not his flesh and Ioan. 6. bloud, shal not haue lyfe in hym. What may à man desyre to be spokē more plainly? Also S. Austen opēly affirmeth that the wicked man Iudas receaued the bodie and bloud of christ De baptis­mo contra Dontistas. lib. 5. ca. [...]. and ye saye, my lord, that he recea­ued them not, but only bread and wyne, as à figure of thē. What anusweare is this? Is it not à manifest subuertinge [Page] of the trueth? Who wil beleue such teachers, yf he regarde any thinge the health of his soul? It is very true, that sacramentes be signes (as ye alleage Aduersus Maximinū. lib 3. ca. 22. August. ser. 28. de ver­bis secundū Lucan. out of S. Austen) of other thinges, & so is the sacrament of the aulter à fi­gne of christes death and passion, of the mystical body of christ the church and of christes natural body really the rin present. Was not the paschal lābe, the eatinge and oblation of hym á fi­gure of christ, of his body, his sacrifi­ce, and passion, and yet he was veryly offered in sacrifice, and eaten? Was not also christes death and resurrection Rom. 6. à figure of oure dyinge vnto syn­ne, and rysinge vp from synne vnto á newe life, and yet they were also very Rom. 4. thinges, and done yn dede? doth not paul cal christ à figure of god the Heb. 1. fathers substaunce, and yet he is one thinge with hym, and of the very sa­me substance, that he is of? Why then may we not wel and truely saye [Page 142] that the sacrament of the aulter is both à signe, and the thinge it selfe si­gnified in à maner, as S. Austen sayeth Epistola 23. that it is? The sacrament properlye consisteth in the outward and visible formes of bread and wyne, and in the oblation and receauinge of chri­stes body and bloud, and the thynge of the sacrament is christes body and bloud therin conteyned, and encrease of goddes grace, with other benefites of god, which only the good men re­ceaue. What yf figures and pictures be often tymes called by the names of the thinges themselfes figured, & pictured? Can ye proue therby that the sacrament is so called of the old doctours à signe of christes body & bloud, that yt is only à signe of them, The bysshop fo. 99. pa. 2 and that it conteyneth not the same in yt reallye? No not so, for the do­ctours affirme that it is both á signe of those thinges, and hath in it presently them also. Nowe ye do wreast S. [Page] Chrysostoms wordes cleane out of tune. For he sayeth that we see christ with oure eies in the sacrament, touch hym, feele hym, fyxe oure teth in his flesh, tast hym, and so fourth, but not dygest hym (as ye saye falsely) becau­se that we do al those thinges vnto the outward kindes and formes of bread, and wyne, which do hyde and co­uer hym there secretly. Which sainge of hym is much lyke vnto the phrase or maner of speakinge, which scriptu­re vseth, when it wytnesseth that loth Note. Abraham, Iacob, Iosuae, Mary Magda­lē, and the apostles sawe, touched, hand led, and hard angelles, and god hym selfe because they sawe, touched, and handled, the shape or forme of man Gene. 18. 19 32. Iosuae. 5. Mar. vlt. Act. 1. and hard his voice, vnder which for­me and shape those angelles and god did then appeare, and spake vnto thē. And S. Chrysostom vsed that maner in speakinge to perswade vs the so­ner both to beleue christes body and [Page 143] bloud to be really present in the holy sacrament, and also to receaue them wyth greater reuerence, and deuotiō. Ye nowe excuse your selfe, my lord, for settinge out of the presence of christes bodye and bloud in the sacramēt and say that when ye wrote in à ca­techisme by you translated out of latine in to Englishe, that we do rece­aue This bysshop recāted his first doctryne of the sacrament. christes bodye and bloud bodily wyth our mouthes, ye ment by à figure, that is to say, that we do eate and drink bread and wyne figures and si­gnes of them. This excuse is not true, for ye wrote so manifestly then of the really presence of christes bodie and bloud both in the sacrament, and also in heauē at ones, that nothinge myght be written more plainly, and that nei­ther ye could yourselfe, nor none o­ther of your brethren other wyse take it, and therfore ye perceauinge that that doctrine did myslike and offend the rest of your brethren yn christ, [Page] did shortly recante yt, as it appeareth by the settinge furth agayne of that The bysshop fo. 10▪ pa. 2 The Wors­hippinge of [...]he sacramē booke called à catechisme. Moreouer ye write of the adoration, and worshippinge of the holy sacrament, or of christ hymselfe, very vngodly speakinge against al learned catholike do­ctours, and teachers, and affirminge that they haue brought the people in to horrible idolatrie, to worship visible thinges, made with their handes, as their god, and maker. Is this, my lord your charite, so openly to report falsely of men? The old doctours did euer The confu­tation. teach the people, as we do now also teach them, that they ought not to worship the outward formes, and appara­unces of bread and wyne, but only christe god, and man, vnder neath thē present, as their only maker, and god, and are ye not, my lord, then ashamed thus vntruely to say of them, and of vs? The runnyng of the people out of their seates, & frō altar to aultar, from [Page 144] sakering to sakering, the lyfting vp of the sacramēt ouer the priestes heades, do not proue (as ye say falsely they doth) that the people worshipped that thinge, which they sawe with theyr bodily eyes, but only christ god and mā, whom they beleved to be vnder that forme of bread, and this may we do right wel. For did not Abraham see three lyke men appearinge vnto hym, ranne furth to mete them, and fel downe vpon the earth and worshypped o­ne of them, which was god appearinge lyke á man? did not also loth see two angelles, lyke two men, and rose vp, went to mete them, & fallynge doune greuelinge vnto the groūde whorship­ped them? What did they worshippe then, els but god, and his angelles, w­hich they sawe not, beynge ynvisible, but only the shape and forme of mā? Why then may we not go to see christ yn the sacrament, saye we sawe hym and whorshippe therī hym Both god [Page] and man, althoughe we see hym not there, as Iacob did not see god, and yet he sayed that he sawe hym, because he sawe the forme of man, in which he Gene. 32. appeared to hym? Came not the kin­ges of colen to see christ, and did worshippe Matth. 2. hym vpon their kneenes, and worshipped not the thinge, that they sawe, but his godhead? Sayed not saīt 1. Ioan. 1. Ihon, that he, and his foloes the apost­les sawe, hard and felt with their han­des, that thīge, that was euen frō the be gynnynge, the sonne of god, whē they sawe, hard and felt only christes man hode? Tel me then why we may not say, that we haue seene christ oure ma­ker in the holy hoost and sacrament, when whe sawe but the outward sen­sible forme of bread, vnder the which he lyeth hid? We do go from place to place (I graunt) to see the sacramēt, but not to worshippe the thinge apearīge Marke. outwardly to our bodily eyes, but that only that we see there by fayth, [Page 145] as loth, Abraham, and the three kin­ges went not furth to honoure and worship that thinge, which they sawe bodily, but that that they beleued and sawe then with their in warde eies. Did not the kinge dauid offre sacrifices, caused 2. Regum. 6 instrumentes of musyke to make swe­te melody, daunsed and played afore the arke of god? But he did those thin­ges not to worship the arke, but god, and therfore he sayed that he daunsed, lept, and played before our lord? And to touche the matter yet some what nerer, heare what s. Austen sayeth. He Lib. 3. cap 9 De doctrina christiana. that worshippeth a profitable signe in­stituted of god, the strength, and signi­fication of which he vnderstandeth, doth not worship the thinge, that is see ne, and passeth away, but rather that thinge, vnto which al such thīges must be referred. Hitherto Austen. Nowe we see plainly that after S Austens myn­de, we myght honoure the sacrament, if it were but à signe only ordayned of [Page] god, so that we did referre that worshippinge vnto christ represented & signi­fied by it, how much more then is it le­ful, yea godly, to go to see and worship the sacrament, or the hoost, & chalice lifted vp ouer the priestes heade at masse, referringe that honoure vnto god, seynge that the sacramēt is not only à signe instituted of god, but it doth also cōteyne in it christ very god & man? Lib. de ca­thechy Zau­dis rudibus cap. 2 [...]. Sayeth not s. Austen agayne, sacramē ­tes are visible signes of godly thinges, but the inuisible thinges thē selues are honoured in thē? He answeareth now vnto this place of Austē, part of which he doth only alleage, least it shold hurt In psal. 98. his matter. Christ tokeflesh of the flesh of Marye, and because he walked here in the same flesh, & gaue vnto vs the selfe same flesh to be eaten for oure saluatiō, & no mā eateth that flesh, except he worship it before, it is found out how such à forestole of our lordes feete may be worshipped, and that we should not [Page 146] only not synne in worshippinge of it, The honou­re of the holy sacram [...] but synne in not worshippinge of it. These wordes of s. Austē declare plainly, both that christ gaue vnto vs to be eaten in the holy sacrament, that same flesh, that he toke of his mother, & al­so that euery man synneth, that wor­shippeth it not before he eate it in the sacrament, & my lord sayeth that he He folowed peter Mar­tyr theryn. giueth vs to eate only bread, & wine, & that austē mēte, that we must worship christ sittinge in heauē at the right hād of his father, and not in the sacramēt, when he spake only of the eatinge and worshippīge of christes flesh in the sa­cramēt, as his oune wordes shewe that In psal. [...]8. folowe anon after, when he sayeth. I haue cōmitted vnto yowe à certē sacra­mente, it shal gyue life vnto yow, if it be spiritually vnderstāded. Althoughe it be necessarie, that it be visiblye cele­brated, yet it must be inuisiblye vnder stand Loo, we see here that s. Austē spake of the sacramēt & of eatinge of christes [Page] flesh, & worshippinge of it therin, afore we do eate it. Therefore my lord mystoke hym, & was therin vtterly disceaued. He vntruely sayeth that we wold perswade the people by s. Austēs wordes to worship the sacramental bread, & wyne, or the visible thinge in the sacrament, for we do saye, and teach the people, that there is nother bread, nor wyne in the sacrament and that no visible thinge of the sacramēt must be worshipped of itselfe (as S. Austen tea­cheth vs) but only god. Nowe he goeth In psal. 98. Deutero. 6 about to proue that Saint Austen mēt not, that christes flesh is corporally present, and eaten corporallie in the sacrament, Fo. 102 pa 2 by these his wordes, written there also. But the flesh profiteth no­thinge, the wordes, which I haue spo­ken vnto yowe, are spirite and lyfe. In psal. 98.

That, which I haue spoken, vnderstād yow spirituallye. Yow shal not eate this bodie, which yow, see, and drinke that bloud, which they shal shed, that wil [Page 147] crucifie me. I haue commended vnto yow a sacrament, vnderstande it spiri­tually, and it shal gyue yow lyfe, &c. Here is not one word, my lord, that proueth your purpose, for his wordes à littel afore recited there, do declare what he meaneth. For these are his wordes expounding this texte of Ihon. Ex­cept a man eate the fleash of the sonne Ioan. 6. of man, &c. They toke that folyshely, they thought of it carnallye, and iud­ged that oure lord wold cut of from his body certen peaces, and gyue them vnto them to eate, and they sayed, this is à hard sayinge. He instructed them, sayinge. The spirite gyueth ly­fe, but the fleash profiteth nothinge, &c. Doest thow not see here, reader, that Saint Austen ment not to de­nye the corporal and real beynge, and eatinge of christes bodie in the sacra­ment? For he ment that fleash, that is to say, such à fleshely and folyshe vn­derstādynge of christes wordes, werby [Page] they thought that christ wold that they shold eate his flesh cut out in pea­ces [...]er. 2. de verbis apost (as common meates are eaten) and not alyue and whole without al hurt done to it, profiteth nothinge, but the spirite, that is to say, à spiritual vnder­standinge of his wordes, that they should eate his flesh alyue, ioyned vn­to his spirite, and godhead, whole, and not harmed in any thīge, geueth lyfe. And so he wold that they shold not thinke that they should eate that his bodie, which they sawe, after any such maner and as they sawe it in that same forme of fleash visibly, but inuisiblye (as he sayeth there) nor drinke the bloud, which the iewes should shed furth in that forme of bloud, in which it should be shed out, and visiblie.

This ment he, as his oune wordes afo­re recited declare plainly, and therfore those wordes, which my lord alleageth for hym, maketh nothinge for hym at al.

The ende of the fourth booke.

The fyfth boke of the sacrifice of the holy masse. Althoughe, ye, my lord, do saye, without any good grounde, that it is à great blasphem ye against christ, to saye that in the masse is made à sacrifice propitiatorie for synne, yet al the eldest, and best learned doctours that euer were, are vtterly against your errour therin, as I haue declared, tou­ching The bysshop fol. 104. many of thē in my booke of the sacrifice of the holy masse, and as I wil anon, by goddes grace, proue by some of their saīges briefely. We make no sacrifice The confu­tation. Luc. 22. at masse, but only as ministers of christ, which bade vs so to do, & offereth hymselfe daily for vs therin, and therfore ye are disceaued at the begynninge of this your boke, when ye say, that priestes do make their masse à sa­crifice propitiatorie for the synnes of the quycke and deade, as neuer no creature made, but christ alone, and that ones onely for al vpon the crosse. And [Page] to proue this ye alleage S. Paul which spake there to the hebrews of christes Hebr. 9. 10. blouddy sacrifice made by his death only, which he offered neuer but ones (as he sayeth) or els he must neades haue dyed more thē ones, for as much as that kynde of sacrifice is necessari­lie ioyned wyth his passion, but this maketh nothynge vtterly against the sacrifice of the masse, in which christ hymselfe turneth the substaunce of bread, and wyne in to his owne very natural fleash and bloud, and offereth How, and in What sē ce the masse is à sacrifi­ce. them in à remembraunce of his death for the application of his passion, and the merite of it for remission of the synnes, both of the quycke and the deade, as al holy doctours bothe Graekes and latines, do wytnes­se Fo. 105. plainly, of whose sentences I wil al­ledge some anon. But here I aske of yowe, my lord, why may not Christ euery daie be offered in sacrifice wyt­hout dyinge agayne for vs, as wel as he [Page 149] was slayne (as Ihon sayeth) euen from Apocal. 13. the begynnynge of the world, and yet he suffred death not many thousand yeres after? Were not the sacrifices of Abel, Isaac, of the paschal lambe, and many other sacrifices of the old lawe, certen figures of christes sacrifice thē Exodi. 12. 1 L [...]ti. 24. Gene. 4. to come vpon the crosse, and were of­fered to put mē in mynde of it? What thē should lette, my lord, that the masse myght not be a sacrifice for a remē brance of christes passion and death now passed, as wel as they were of it to come, & that this sacrifice shold not as wel be an application of christes merites vnto vs for remission of oure synnes, as they were? I am very sure, Lib. 17 ca 20 De ciuitate Dei. that ye are not able wyth the helpe of althem, that made this youre booke to auoyde this. Austen writeth after this sorte therin. Salomon sayeth A mā hath nothinge that god is to hym, Ecclesiastes 8. but that thinge, whych he shal eate, & drinke. What thinge more credible [Page] may here be vnderstanded to saye than that which doth pertayne to the partakinge of this table? Which that priest the mediatour of the newe testament gyueth of his bodie and bloud after Marke this reader. the ordre of Melchisedech. For that sacrifice hath succeded al the sacrifices of the old testament, which were offered in à shadowe of it to come. Wher­fore we do acknowledge that voice of the same mediatour written in the Psal. 39. psalme, by the prophete. Thowe wol­dest not haue (sayed christ the sonne to his father) à sacrifice & an oblatiō, but thowe madest me à perfecte body for because in the stead of al those old sacrifices, and oblations christes bodie is offered in sacrifice, and mynystred Three errours confuted here. vnto the partakers. Here are three of your errours, my lord, confuted. The first that Melchisedech offered not sa­crifice in bread and wyne for à figure of christes sacrifice made at his last soupper. The secōde that christes bodi [Page 150] and bloud are not in the holi sacramēt but only bread, and wyne. The thirde that christes bodie is not offered in sa­crifice at masse. We do confesse that christes sacrifice made vpon the crosse was ful, perfecte, sufficient, and did & doth stil put away the synnes of al them, that beleue perfectly in hym, trust in goddes mercy, repent their illyues, and receaue the holy saeramentes, by which, as meanes, that christes sacrifice is, and neades must be appli­ed vnto them, and therfore it cometh not of any imperfection of christes sacrifice, ones made for euer vpon the crosse, that his blessed bodie is offered daily in sacrifice for oure synnes, but only to applie that perfecte sacrifice vnto vs, for to take away actually ou­re imperfectenes of synne. This a un­sweare is sufficient for the soilynge of al that is brought out of S. paules epi­stle vnto the hebrews. Nowe ye make à distinction of sacrifices, saynge, that [Page] there is one kinde of sacrifices à pro­pitiatorie, or à mercyful sacrifice, that is to saye, such as pacyfieth goddes wrath and indignatiō, & obteyneth mercye for oure synnes and forgeuenes of them, which is onely christes death, & sacrifice made ones for al vpon the crosse. Which no good christian man The confu­tation. denyeth. But what then? Canye therby proue, my lord, that christe offereth not hymselfe yet daily at masse, by the priest as his ministre, for an applyī ge of that his propitiatorie, and most mercyful sacrifice, made neuer but ones? Maye not the sacrifice of the mas­se made in à remembrance of chri­stes death, and blouddy sacrifice, be as wel à meane to applye christes passion and sacrifice made vpon the crosse vnto vs for remission of our synnes and the obteynyng of goddes mercye, throughe the force and vertu of it, as many sacrifices of the old lawe, made to signifie & figure the same his death [Page 151] and sacrifice were applications of it for remission of synne, and the pacy­fynge Marke reader. of goddes wrath, and indignatiō not throughe their owne strength, ver­tu and merite, but throughe the vertu and merite of christes bloudy sacrifi­ce to come of which they were figures representations, and shadowes? For ba­de not god by Moses, that Aaron, and his sonnes, should offre sacrifices, that Exode. 24. Exode. 32. Num. 15. were called, victimae pacificae, & sacri­ficia placabilia, that is to say, sacrifices to pacifie goddes wrath, and to appea­se his indignation? Did god then bid­de them committe blasphemye agaīst christe, and to robbe hym of his ho­noure, and glorie, which consisteth in reconciling of mankynd vnto goddes Exodi 9. fauour, and grace? Did they not then offre at his commaundynge sacrifices for synne, to obteyne goddes mercye, as priestes do nowe at masse, althoug­he not so perfectly, nother the same thinges, but only figures, & shadowes? [Page] Were not their sacrifices meanes to applye christes death, and sacrifice then to come, vnto the people for remissiō of their synnes, and the purchasynge of mercye and grace, as the sacrifice of the masse is, althoughe not in lyke de­gree? Why then are priestes nowe more iniurious to christ, than the priestes were then in Moses law? Did they not as wel depryue christ of his honoure, & toke it vnto themselues, as priestes do that nowe saye masse, and offre sacri­fice therin for synne? If ye did wel vnderstand the matter, my lord, ye wold not so rayle without al charite vpon Io. 1. 10. priestes,, as ye now do. Is not christ called 2. Timo. 2. the light, à good pastour, the onely mediatour of god and man, he that baptizeth, and many such other thin­ges, and yet preachers of his gospel are the light of the world, pastours, medi­atours betwene god and man by pra­ier, and offeringe of gyftes and sacrifi­ces Hebr. 5. (as paul sayeth) for synne? Why [Page 152] then may they not be called, in some sense, as wel workers wyth christ in re­concylinge of man vnto good, as his mynysters? Is it not christes office as wel to christen (for Ihon baptist sayeth he it is that baptizeth) and to be inter­cessour Ioan. 1. for man vnto god, as it is to reconcile man vnto god by offeringe 1 Tim. 2. of sacrifice? Is not the sacrifice of pra­yer, repentaunce, contrition of hert, al­mes, fastinge, and such other thinges, meanes to purchase goddes fauour, & mercy, as it appeareth playnly in the scripture? May they not then be esteamed wel sacrifices to pacyfie goddes wrath, and to obteyne, of hym mercy and grace throughe the merite of christes passiō, and sacrifice made therby, notwithstandinge that only christ sa­tisfied sufficiently for our synnes, and reconciled vs vnto god by his only sa­crifice? Dyd ye not then, my lord, il & vnlearnedly deuyde the kyndes of sacrifices yn this your booke? Who, [Page] but yow, wil saye that that repentance and contrition of à sinners hart, is à sacrifice of à reconciled man, and of laude? It is also à perillous errour, that ye do teach, my lord, when ye saye that christ did so purge an infinite heape of synnes by his one oblation, that he re­mitted them, acquyeted our cōsciēces and that there remayneth nowe vtter­ly no sacrifice for synne. For as I denye The confu­tation. not, but he did merite and deserue by his death grace, and mercy for remission of al the whole worldes synnes, e­uen so he remitted yn effecte and actually, when he died, the synnes of very fewe, for he suffered for vs (as paul sa­yeth) Ro. 5. whē we were yet goddes ennymies, and synners. For yf he had in dede remytted mēnes synnes actually, and acquyeted their cōsciences yn acte (as ye write here) why then sayed saynt Ro. 6. paule that we dye vnto synne in bap­tisme? Why then sayed he that christ Ephes. 5. purgeth his spouse the church from [Page 153] synne by baptisme? Why bade sainct Peter after christes passion, that the Act. 2▪ people should repent, that euery one of them might be baptized for remis­sion Matth. 6 of their synnes? Why commaun­ded Luc. 24 then christ men to aske remission of their synnes, and bade his apostles after his resurrection to preach penaū ­ce for remission of synne? Why sayed also saint Ihon, that yf we do say that 1. Ioan. 1 we haue not synne in vs, we say not truely? And if we do confesse oure synnes god wil forgeue them vs? and that the­re is à synne vnto death? Doth it not 1. Ioan 5 then openly appeare, that christe did only merite, and purchase grace, and remission of our synnes by his passion and that actually he remitted them not, nor quyeted mennes consciēces, (as ye saye vntruely, my lord, that he did) but that the actual remission of them, and quyetinge of mennes con­sciences must be obteyned by fayth, hope, fear, repentaunce, prayer, almes [Page] dedes, fastinge, charite, and receauinge of the holy sacramentes? Who sayeth The byshop fo. 10. lib. 5. that priestes do merite or deserue re­mission of sinnes by their sacrifice made at masse? Saye we not that onely christ merited and deserued remission of synne by his death, and blouddie sa­crifice Rom. 3. made vpon the crosse, (as paule sayeth) and that the sacrifice made in the masse by christ hymselfe chiefely, and of the prieste as à mynistre at his commaundement, is onely an appli­cation of that his merite vnto men for the free and francke remission of their synnes? Who is so madde to say, (as ye fayne that we do) that the acte, or administration of à priest hath the same office, that christ executed in of­feringe Fo. 108 hymselfe vpon the crosse for vs? We say not that christes sacrifice is imperfecte, nor vnsufficient, but most perfecte and sufficient in itselfe for the remission of al the worldes synnes, and yet the most part of the [Page 154] world shal be damned, throughe their owne default, and throught want of 1. Fo. 2 Matth. 22. application of christes death, and ther­fore christ sayed, that his bloud should Matth. 26 be shedde for many and not for al, and sainct Paul wytnesseth, that christ offered hymselfe to consume away Heb. 9 many mennes synnes, and not al, be­cause many men (sayeth vpon that texte Chrisostom) wil not do their duite, christes sacrifice is in itselfe, sayeth he, sufficient to saue al men and he sa­ueth al, Heb. 7 as much as lyeth in hym. Now ye alleage sainct Paul, sayinge, that The bysshop christes priesthod can not passe from one to an other. Which sentence ma­keth The confutation. nothinge for your purpose to proue that priestes offre not sacrifices for synne. For who sayeth that christes priesthood passeth from hym to any Psal. 109 priest? Saye we not wyth the holy goost speakinge in Dauid, and sainct Paul, Heb. 7 that he is à priest for euer? We affir­me and teach that he hymselfe offe­reth [Page] his body, and bloud daily at mas­se by the ministerie of the priest, as he Ioan. 1. 10. 1. Cor. 3. doth contynually baptize, and pre­ache vnto the people by his ministres the priestes. My lord ye vnderstande not Sainct paul, for he only ment, that no other priesthode should euer succede christes priesthode, as his pri­esthod did Aarons, but that it shold 1. Cor. 11. endure vntil the worldes ende. Wher­fore, seyinge we say, that christ euer continueth à priest stil, and that we priestes are but his mynisters, executinge his office, by his owne commission, sainge. Do ye this in remembraunce Luc. 22. of me, my lord reproued vs wythout à iuste cause. What neadeth any moo The bysshop fo. 128. lib. 5 sacrifices yf christes sacrifice be per­fect, and sufficient? Syr the sacrifice The confu­tation. of the holy masse is not an other sacri­fice then christes, but the very selfe sa­me sacrifice concerninge the thinges offered, which are his body and bloud. Agayne this sacrifice of the masse is [Page 155] not made for any vnperfectenes, or vnsufficiencye of christes death and sacrifice, as ye wold make men bele­ue that we do teach), but only to ap­plye it vnto vs for our imperfectenes throughe our synne. Maye I not proue by à lyke reason grounded vpon the perfectenes and sufficiencye of chri­stes sacrifice, that we shal al be saued, and that none of al should be damned and that we neade not to beleue, hope, fear god, repent our lyfes synfully spēt fast, praye, geue almes, receaue the sa­cramentes, nor to keepe goddes com­maundementes at al? For maye I not thus argue? Christes sacrifice is suffi­cient to saue me, what neade I then to do any thinge of my partie for to ad­de any thing vnto that which is of itselfe perfecte, and sufficient? Thinke ye not, my lord, that manye of your scholers hath gathered such argumentes, and wil gather here after of your [Page] doctrine, & therby cast al vertu aside, leade their lyfes in à leude liberte, and Marke. say Christ hath perfectely, and suffi­ciently satisfied for me, I neade to do nothinge at al, for he wil not lose, that he hath so dearly bought? Paul sayed (I denye not) that yf Aarons sacrifi­ces Heb. 8 had bene sufficient to haue put away synne, christes sacrifice should not haue bene requyred. But what therof? Wil ye proue by that, that for as much as christes sacrifice is sufficiēt we neade not the sacrifice of the masse? Is it not declared sufficiently in my booke of the sacrifice of the masse and also here afore, that it is not for any vnperfectnes or insufficiency of christes sacrifice that the masse is à sa­crifice As it was that chri­stes sacrifi­ce succeded Aarons. The bisshop fo. 109. li. 5 commaunded of christ (as it shal be proued anon) but only to ap­plye that sacrifice vnto vs? But nowe ye obiecte against oure aunswere to your argumentes, which is, that we do make no newe sacrifice, nor none o­ther, [Page 156] than christ made hymselfe at his mandy and vpon the crosse. Than The bysshop saye yowe, it must neades folowe, that ye slaye or kil Christ euery daye, for as much as christes oblation was ma­de by his death, and effusion of his bloud. No, sir, not so, for it is the sa­me The confu­tation. sacrifice touchynge the thinges of­fered, that is to say, christes body and bloud, but the maner of offerynge is not one one is bloudy, & the other vn­blouddye, the one by death, and the other by the representation and com­memoration of that death. Dyd not the fathers of the old lawe offre christ in figures, and shadowes, which admo­nyshed Apoc. 13. them of his death, and yet they slayed hym not in dede, althoughe Ihō sayeth, that he was slayne euen from the begynnynge of the world? Why then may we not offre his bodye and bloud in the sacramente, in which he Epist. 23. is daily offered (as Sainct Austen sa­yeth) for the people, without killing of [Page] hym? Why shold we not, my lord, I be seche yow, beleue the holy church (which doth thus expounde this mat­ter,) as wel as we do, and neades must, in many other thinges, that appartay­ne vnto our fayth? Wold ye, that we shold beleue yow before al the ancient doctours of christes church both Grae­kes and latynes of al ages? For they are altogether vtterly against your doctrine? Why do ye not make aunsweare vnto my bokes of the sacrifice of the blessed masse, and of the sacrament of the aulter? But now heare S. Chryso­stom Homi. 17. in Heb. 9. whiche teacheth vs how this may wel be done, sayinge. Do we not offre sacrifices daily? We do offre, but doinge it in remembraunce of christes death. And this hoost is one, not ma­nye. Howe is it one, & not many? And that oblation was ones offered in to heauen, but this sacrifice is an exam­ple of that, we do euer offre the sel­fe same thinge. Whe offre not to daye [Page 157] one lambe (christ) and twoo morowe an other, but euer the selfe same thynge. Wherfore this sacrifice is one, or els by that reason that it is offered in ma­ny places, are they many christes? No­thinge lesse, but there is one christ eue­ry were, beynge both here ful, and there ful, one body For as that, which is offered in euery place, is one bodie, and not many bodies, euen so it is also one sacrifice, but he is oure bysshop, which offered à sacrifice makinge vs cleane, we do offre the same, and that which then was offered, can not nowe be consumed. Hytherto chrysostom, out of whose wordes many notable lessons may be gathered for the confutation of al your raylinge reasonynge, my lord, & false chargynge of al catholike teachers wyth many thinges, which they neuer dreamed vpon. The first lesson is, that notwythstandynge that saint paule affirmeth that christ was neuer but ones offered vpon the crosse, & [Page] that he made al thē perfect wyth that his one sacrifice, which are made holy, yet priestes do offre hī dayly at masse. The seconde is, that this oure oblatiō of christ, is not à kilynge of hym, but à remembrynge of his death. The third lesson is, that we offre dailie, and euer one, and the selfe same hoost, or sacri­fice, which can not be verified of bread and wyne, for they are not one and the same in many places, but it is only true of christes body and bloud, that are one, and the same in al places, whe­re they be offered in sacrifice. The fourth lesson is, that the thynge offe­red is the lambe christe, that is offered in sacrifice dailie in many places, and yet he is but one christ, which is here vpon this aulter, and there (vpon that) ful, one body, and not many bodies, & one sacrifice. The fifte lesson is, that priestes do dailie offre in sacrifice that same hoost, or sacrifice, which christe hymselfe offered ones by his death to [Page 158] clense vs from synne. The syxt and last lesson is, that the hoost or sacrifice which priestes do offre dailie, can not be cōsumed, and therfore it is not bre­ad, and wyne, for they are sone consumed, but christes body & bloud, which are not consumed in eatinge, and drinkīge of them, but they stil euer remay­ne whol, and safe. Nowe à mā may see euidently that my lordes doctrine is against saint Chrysostoms beliefe and teachinge, and that he rayleth vpon hym, and his doctrine in this his last booke. For first my lord sayeth, that priestes haue inuented of them selfes à newe sacrifice, vnto the great blasphemie, & yniurye of christ. But ancient docters saye that christ hym­selfe offered the same sacrifice (that priestes offre at masse) both at his last soupper, and vpon the crosse also, and commaunded priestes to offre yt in remembraunce of his death, as these autoritees do shewe manyfestly. S. Ire­neus [Page] aboue M. ccc lxxiiij. wrote thus Christ toke bread and gaue thankes sayinge. lib. 4. ca. 32. Christ did institute the sacrifice of the masse. This is my body. And toke the chalice of wyne, and confessed it to be his bloud, and he taught à newe sacrifice of the newe testament, which the church receauinge of the apostles, offereth vnto god in al the whole world This holy martyr, which was verye nyght christes tyme, sayeth that christ taughte his apostles at his mandy by say in he these wordes. This is my bo­die. This is my bloud, à newe sacrifice of the newe testamēt, & that the apo­stles taught it vnto the church, which offereth the same yn the whole world and my lord sayeth that christ offered not his body and bloud in sacrifice at his last soupper, nor taught his apostles to offre them in sacrifice, nor finally, that priestes offre any sactifice more then the laite doth, but they haue iu­uented à newe sacrifice distincted frō christes, iuiurious and blasphemous [Page 159] vnto it. What is this, yf it be not play­ne blyndnes, and ignoraunce? Is this, my lord, your doctryne to be appro­ued of the auncyent docters sainges? S. Cyprian agreeth wyth this, saynge. Luc. 22. Epist. lib. 2. epist. 3. If our lord iusus christ, and god hym­selfe be the highe priest of god the fa­ther, and he hymselfe did first offre à sacrifice vnto god the father, and hath commaunded that same to be done in remembraunce of hym, that priest is verily christes vicar, which doth fo­lowe that thynge, that christ hath done And then he offereth in the church á true, and à ful sacrifice vnto god. yf he begynne to offre, as he may perceaue, that christ offered. And in the begyn­nynge of that epistle he sayeth, that christ is the authour and teacher of this sacrifice of the masse, and bade priestes Homi. 24. in 1. Cor. 10. offre it vnto god, as he hymselfe had done afore at his mandy. Chryso­stom Homi. 2. in 2. time. 1. sayeth also thus. But christ hath prepared à muche more wounderful, [Page] and à magnificent sacrifice, both whē he chaunged the sacrifice it selfe, and also when he did commaunde hym selfe to be offered in the steade of bru­te beastes, which were offered in the Homi. 2. in 2 Tim. 1. old lawe. Agayne he writeth thus, that holy oblation, whether peter offer it, or Note this wel. paule, or els à priest, what soeuer his deseruinge be, is the same sacrifice, which christ hymselfe gaue vnto his disciples, and which also priestes do nowe make. This the priestes sacrifice hath in it nothinge lesse, than that of chri­stes makinge Why so? because men do not make holy this the priestes sa­crifice, but christ, that had made that his owne sacrifice holy afore. For as the wordes, which christ spake, are the sa­me, that the priestes do nowe also pro­nounce, euen so is the sacrifice also the same. Then he concludeth sayinge. Wherfore this sacrifice is christes bo­dy, and that also. He that thinketh that this bodye hath any thynge lesse than [Page 160] that, knweth not that it is christ. which is nowe also present, and worketh. Eusebius, which was about M cc yeres pas­sed, Eusebius lib 1. ca. 10. Demonst. euangelicae. holdeth also against my lordes doctryne, saiynge, Wherfore after al thi­ges, christ wrought à certen mer­ueylous host, and an excellent sacrifi­ce, he offered it vnto his father for al our saluation, and did ordayne that we should offre à remembraunce of that same thinge to god hymselfe for à sa­crifice. Ambrose sayeth. I o lord, remē bringe thy passion, do come vnto thy Primae pre­catione praeparāte ad missam. aulter, althoughe I be à synner, that I may offre to the that sacrifice, which thow diddest ordeyne, and commaunde to be offered for our saluation in remembraunce De eccles. hierarch. of the. S. Dionyse pau­les disciple writeth thus. Wherfore he both reuerently, and also accordynge to the office of à bysshop, after holy prayses of goddes workes, excuseth hymselfe, that he offereth à sacrifice of saluatiō (which is excellēter than he [Page] is hymselfe) criynge out vnto hym. Thow diddest bydde, o lord. Do ye this for à remembraunce of me. Igna­tius Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 11. Epist. 8. S. Ihons scholer sayeth. It is not le­ful to offre, nother make sacrifice, nor to celebrate masses without the bys­hops autorite or consent. Fynallie, for I passe ouer many other doctours au­torites, li. 10. ed. 20 de ciuitate dei. Austen hath thus speakinge of christes blouddy sacrifice made vpon the crosse. A sacrament of the which thinge, he wold that the dailie sacrifice of the church should be, seiynge he is the head of his bodie the church, and she also is the body of that head, as wel she by hym, as he by her, vsed to be offered in sacrifice, Nowe can my lord, iustely, saye that priestes haue inuen­ted Christ is offered in sa­crifice. of them selfes à newe sacrifice a­gainst christes sacrifice, and that his doctrine is approued of al the auncient The masse is á sacrifice propitiato­rye for synne. doctours? Moreouer let vs see, whether this sacrifice of the masse, which we haue now proued to be īstituted of christ [Page 161] be à sacrifice for remission of synne, or not. Of which matter thus writeth Hom. 69. ad pop. Antio­chenum & in cap. 1. ad phil. Chrysostom. These thinges were not vnaduysedly, rasshely, or without cau­se ynacted or decreed of the apostles, that the dead should be remembred in the dreadful misteries. For thei do knowe that much good, & profite cōmeth vnto thē therof. For whem the people Hebr. 5. shal stād holdyngvp their handes with the priestes, & the dreadful sacrifice is set furth, how shal we not obteine gods fauour prainge for thē? Agayne he sayeth. We must traueile as much as may Homi. 41. in 1. Cor. 15 be that the dead may be helped, not with weapinge, but with prayer, suppli­catiōs, almesses, & sacrifices. This thinge was not inuēted without à cause nor we do not in vaine remēbre the dead ī the masse, nor we come not in vayne thither, praynge for thē vnto that lābe lyinge there, & takinge away the sinnes of the world, but there doth come ther of vnto thē some cōfort. Ambrose af­firmeth [Page] the same, whē he sayeth. A lā ­be was offered afore, and à calfe, now Lib. 1. cap. 48. officiorū christ is offered, but he is offered as à mā, & as it were receyuinge passiō, & he hymselfe doth offre hym selfe, as à priest, that he migt remite our sinnes Oratione de obitu fra­tris sui Sa­tyri. Agayne speakinge of his brother Satyrus departed hēce, he sayeth I cōmēde vnto the ó god almyghtie, the innocēt soul of my brother now dead. I offre to the my sacrifice. Take mercifully, and gladly the present or gyft of à brother, the sacrifice of à priest. Againe he saieth vntoone faustine cōfortīge hym lamē tīge the death of his suster. I iudge that she is not so much to be lamēted, as to be prayed for, nor so much to be wept for, as her soul to be cōmēded vnto oure lord with sacrifices. He sayeth also thꝰ. We haue seene the prince of prie­stes In psal. 38. cōminge vnto vs. We sawe hym & hard hī offeringe for vs his bloud. Let­te vs priestes folowe, as we may offre sacrifice for the people, althoughe we [Page 162] be weake by oure deseruinge, yet we a­re honorable throughe the sacrifice, for Lib. de heresibus. hae­res. 53. albeit christ is not seene to be offered, neuerthelesse he is offered vpon the earth, when his bodie is offered. Yea he is declared plainly to offre it in vs, whose word maketh holie the sacrifice, which is offered. Saint Austē reproued Lib. 3 Aerius for an heretike as also Epipha­phanius did, because he sayed) as my lord, & his secte doth (that men should not praye for the dead, nor offre sacrifice for thē & S Austē sayed thus in that In Enchir. cap. 110. & ad Dulcimū 4 [...]e. 2 matter. It is not to be denyed, that the souls of mē depted, are relieued throu­ghe the godlynes of their frendes aliue when the sacrifice of oure mediatour Lege Aug. ser. 11. de sā ctis. christ is offered for thē or els almes be geuen for thē in the churche. But these thinges do profite thē, which did deserue, whē they lyued, that they might af­terward ꝓfite thē. Anon after he saieth thus. Therfore when sacrifices, either of the aulter, or els of any maner of al-masses [Page] are offered for al the dead, wich were baptized, they are thākes geuīge Note this. for thē, that be very good people, & for thē, which are not very badde, they are propitiations, or purchasinges of mer­cy & fauour of god. But whō they do ꝓfite, either they profite vnto this thīge that there may be ful remissiō, or els at the least, that the peyne should be ma­de more tollerable. What can, ye, my Tolerabi­lior fiat iposa damna­tio. lord, saye nowe to this? For sayeth not here S Austē plainly, that the sacrifice of the masse is à sacrifice propitiatorie for the synnes of the deade? Why de­nye ye it thē, and yet say that your doctrine is apꝓued of the old doctours & agreable vnto the faith of the primati­ue church of christe? I do remēbre wel, At lambeth my lord, that about three yeres sence, whē ye reasoned with me ī this matter of purgatorie, & I did alleage this place of s. Austē, ye sayed vnto me, that Au­sten was disceaued here, because he sa­yedvt tolerabilior fiat ipsa dānatio that [Page 163] their dānation, or peyne myght be made more easy to be borne, but ye did not vnderstand s. Austen, for he spake not those wordes of the dāned in hel (as ye then sayed, that he did) but only of thē, that depart not very il, & had deserued whiles they lyued here, that such sacrifices myght profite thē after their death (as he sayeth) for as concerning the damned, whō he calleth very badde, he affirmeth that such thinges helpe not thē. Austen saieth also serm. 32. deverb apost. It is not to be doubted but the souls departed are helped by the holy churches prayers, and the sa­crifice of saluation, and almes, when they are geuē for them, that god shold deale more mercyfully with them, than their synnes had deserued. He sa­yeth Epist. 44. yet ones agayne, thus. We must beleue that sacrifices do helpe verily some what the souls departed out of this lyfe. Heare now S Alexander that holy martyr, which was within lxxxxx [Page] yeres after christes death, and writeth thus. Our lordes passiō must be recited in al solennites of masses, that are offe­red vnto our lord, that his passiō, who­se bodie & bloud are made, may be ce­lebrated. The masses sacrifice is propitiato­rie. For crymes & synnes are put away throughe these sacrifices offered vnto our lord, and therfore his passion must be also remēbred, & often recited Marke reader. & this body & bloud offered vnto our lord. With such sacrifices our lord wil be delited & pacified, & wil for gyue great synnes, for emonge sacrifices there can be nothinge greater than oure lordes bodie, & bloud. There is no sa­crifice better than this, but this excel­leth al other, which must be offered vnto our lord with à pure consciēce, & receaued with á cleane mynde, and wor­shipped The honour of the holy sacramēt of the aulter. of al mē. And as this sacrifice is better then other, euen so it ought to be rather much made of & worshipped Here are īproued three of my my lor­des errours. The first against the makī ge Here are. of christes bodie in the sacramēt, & [Page 164] the real presēce of it therin. The secōd Three er­rours confuted. that the masse is not à sacrifice for syn­ne, & that the priest maketh no more sacrifice at masse, then à lay mā doth, but only ministreth the sacramēt vnto the people. The third against the wor­shippinge of the holy sacrament. But Lib. 4. ca 14 noue heare s. damascene, sayinge. This is the pure, and vnblouddie sacrifice, which oure lord saieth by the prophete Malach. 1 is offered vnto hym frō the aeste vnto the west, forsoth christes bodie & bloud for the establyshemēt of our soul, & bodie. Nowe to let passe many other wri­ters sainges, I wil speake of cypriās mī ­de, Cyprianus▪ De coena dmini. & of one or twoo moo, & thē so en­de this chaptre & boke Cypriā saith. After our lord had sayed, this is my body & this is my bloud, do ye this in my remēbrance, as oftē as the thinge is done with these wordes & this faith, the bre­ad Marke. & the cup made holy with à solēne blessinge, ꝓfiteth vnto the life & saluatiō of the whole mā, beinge both à medicine, [Page] & à sacrifice also to heale suck­nesses, & to purge synne. The same holy Lib. 1. epi. 9 martyr witnesseth tgat the bisshops had made à decree before is time that he should not be praied for of te priest at the aulter nor any sacrifice made for Marke. his soul departed hēce, that did make à priest executour of his testament, be­cause that he deseruerth not to be prayed for at the aulter, or that any sacri­fice should be offered for hym at the aulter, which calleth priestes from the aulter. Doth not this ordynaunce of those bysshopes, whichwere before saīt Cyprians tyme, and the allowynge of the same by Cyprian, declare playnlie, that the sacrifice of the masse was then iudged to be auaileable for the dead, & Homi. 37. incuangelia propitiatorie for their offences? Who then now seeth not manyfestly, that your doctrine, my lord is not approued (as ye saye it is) of the aūciēt doctours but that they are vtterly against it S. Gregorie, which was aboue D ccccxl [Page 165] yeares passed, writeth thus also agrinst your doctrine. Let vs send, brethren, vnto god our embassadours, by weapī ­ge, gyuinge of almes, and offeringe of holy hoostes. For the sacrifice of the holy aulter, offered wyth weapinge & deuotion of mynde, doth syngularly helpe vnto oure absolution from syn­ne. For as often tymes as we offre vnto hym the sacrifice, or hoost of his passi­on, so often we do repare vnto vs his passion, for our absolution. Agayne, after he had recited à storie, that à mans chaynes, which was in preson, were lo vsed by ones sainge masse for hym, he writeth thvs. Wherof then gather ye, most deare brethren, how much the holy hoost offered of vs may louse in vs the bāt of our hart, yf it offered of an other could louse the bandes of the bo­die in an other. Many of yow, dearly beloued brethren, haue knowen cassie the bysshop of the cite Naruia, which dailie vsed to offre sacrifice to god, yn [Page] so much as that no daie almost of his life passed awaye, vpon which he offe­red Haymo in [...]. Cor. 11 not vnto god hostiam placationis, an hoost of pacyfiynge, or à sacrifice of appeasinge goddes wrath. Hitherto S. Gregorie. This confirmeth Haymo à bysshop, which was aboue seuen hun­dred Marke yeares passed. That flesh, which christ toke of his mother, and the bread, that priestes do consecrate, are not twoo bodies, but they make one body The real presence of christes bo­dy in the sacrament. of christ, yn so muche that, whiles this is broken and eaten, christ is offered in sacrifice and eaten, and yet he aby­deth stil whole alyue. And as that bo­die, which he offered vpon the crosse, was offered for oure saluation and re­demption, euen so is this bread dailie offered vnto god for oure saluation & redemption, which is christes bodye, althought it seame bread. For oure The masse is à sacrifice for synne lord, and redeamer prouidynge for our fraylnes, because he knewe vs frail to commit synne, hath geuen this sacra­ment [Page 166] vnto vs, that for as much as he can not now dye, and we do synne daily, we should haue à very true sacrifice by which we myght be made cleane from synne. Wherfore I letting passe now many authorites of the auncient doctours, that do set furth this matter playnly, exhorte mēt nothīg to doubt of this, doctryne, but to beleue with S To. Io. se [...] ­igi. de tem­pore. Austen that sayeth thus. What so euer and who so euer he be, he is no christē man, that is not in christes church. For yt is only the church, by which our lord receaueth gladly sacrifice. In one house the lābe is eaten, for as much as in one catholike church vera hostia redēptoris Exo. 12. immolatur, the very hoost of our redeamour is offered in sacrifice. Vnto whom with the father and the holy goost be honour and glory for e­uer. Amen.