question Elizeus might haue and had no doubt his minde in heauen with Elias by your commentarie and sense far greater was the facte of Elias then that of Christ For the cloke was a far better and more liuely figure of Elias then youre bread and wine is of Christ By it Elizeus receaued greate grace strength as writeth S. Chrisostome as by the which he fought agaynst the deuill and vanquished him That your bread should geue any grace it is agaynst your whole doctrine and Zuinglius laboureth to proue it at large in sundrie places callinge it papisticall to say that any sacrament euen baptisme doth aliquid momenti conferre ad sanctificationem aut remissionem peccatorum profite any iote to sanctifie or take avvay synne Elizeus by that cloke wrought straunge miracles so did you by your figuratiue bread neuer nor neuer shall so longe as the worlde standeth Briefly whereas Elizeus cloke cariynge with it such vertue and power was a thing surmounting the abilitie and reach of man and could not be done but by the omnipotencie of god your bread being nothing but a signe or banner as it were a may-pole or token of a tauerne by Zuinglius his owne confession the king of Fraunce or Spaine can make ten thousande as good And the truth is they can make much better because theirs do no harme wheras yours leade men the hye way to damnatioÌ„ Wherefore youre answere to this place of S. Chrisostome is to to fond and childish And hereby we may haue a gesse how substanciallye you are like to deale with the next which is taken out of the same father I must needes write it doune somewhat at large for the readers better vnderstanding of vs both It is in his thirde booke de sacerdotio where he setteth forth the high estate of the priestes of the new Testament and that acte wherein priesthode especiallye consisteth that is the sacrifice thus he writeth This priesthode it selfe is exercised in earth but is to be referred to the order and revv of thinges celestiall and that for good reason because no mortall man no angell no archangell no creature but the holy Ghost him self framed this order Terrible vvere the thinges dreadfull vvhich vvere before the tyme of grace in the lavv of Moyses as vvere the litle bells pomegranats pretious stones in the breast of the prieste the mitre golden plate sancta sanctorum c. But if a man consider these thinges vvhich the tyme of grace hath brought to vs he vvil iudge all those thinges vvhich I called terrible and dreadfull to be but light and though glorious yet not comparable vvith the glorie of the nevv testament as S. Paule saith This being laide before as it were a preface or preparatiue to that which foloweth he then coÌ„meth to that place out of which M. W. culleth certaine wordes For sayth he vvhen thou seest our Lord sacrificed and the prieste earnestlie intent to the sacrifice and pouring out his prayers and the people about him imparted and made red vvith that pretious bloud thinkest thou thy self to conuerse amongest mortall men and remaine on the earth And immediatly ô miraculum ô Dei benignitatem ô miracle ô singular goodnes of God he that sitteth vvith his father aboue at the self same moment of tyme is handled vvith all mens handes and deliuereth him self to those that vvill receaue and imbrace him and this is done playnlie in the sight of all men vvithout any deceate or illusion Of this place M. Martin inferreth that M.W. reasoning Christ is in heauen ergo not in the Sacramet is wicked refuted by the old fathers But M.W. replyeth no. And I vvil geue you your ansvvere sayth he out of the same place for here Chrysostome affirmeth that vve see our Lord sacrificed in the supper and the people imparted and made red vvith the bloud and that this is done in the open sight of all that are presente But vvho seeth ether our Lord truâ—y sacrificed or one droppe of bloud vvith vvhich the people are made red so as all see it as Chrisostome vvriteth Therefore as vve see Christ sacrificed and the people embrued vvith his bloud so vve receaue him in our handes In these vvordes Chrysostome vvould both amplifie the dignitie of priestes vnto vvhom Christ gaue povver to minister the Sacrament of his bodie and bloud and make the people afrayde that they vvhich come to this supper should bring vvith them godlie and religious myndes as though they should take Christ him selfe in their handes The substance of the answere is this Chrysostome in the same place sayth we see Christ offered which in truth is not so but by a figuratiue speach therefore when he saith Christ is in heauen and in the Sacrament it is not simplie true but by like phrase and figure But whereunto then tende al these great wordes and perswasions of this father to honour the priests office and make the people afrayed and were there priestes in the church in those days No. but by priestes you must vnderstand mâ—nisters and then a simili by the sacrifice he speaketh of that is the masse you must vnderstand the CommunioÌ„ that is by Catholike relâ—gion you must vnderstande heresie and by light darkâ—es But I wil go thorough the branches of this answere in order First whereas you make that a thing most assured and certaine that no man seeth Christ offered except you meane in your English supper you are greatly deceaued For in the church Catholike we see Christ offered and that not in phrase of speach only as the protestaÌ„ts may be said to do iniurie to Christ when they abuse his image but in veritie and truth of doctrine And S. Chrysostome with the rest of the fathers neuer thought or spake otherwise How oft hath S. Chrisostome quâ—d summo honore dignum est id tibi â—n terra â—stendam That vvhich deserueth most honor that vvil I shevv thee on earth and in the same place The royal body of Christ is in heaueÌ„ vvhich novv in earth is set before thee to be seene I shevv vnto thee not angels not archangels not heauens not heauen of heauens but I shevv thee the verie Lord him selfe of al these Perceauest thou not hovv not only thou seest in earth and touchest but receauest also the soueraine and principall thing that is And in the same place This body vvhich thou seest on the altar the vvise men adored in the manger But it were tedious to note out such places which are common in euery booke This rather I would wishe M. W. to vnderstand that where it hath pleased God in certaine creatures to exhibite his presence after a more special and singular sort there in a more special and singular maner truely we may ought to beleeue that we see our Lord. God is by essence power and operation present in euerie creature yet in seing a
beast or tree we may not say as Iacob doth in Genesis vidi dominum facie ad faciem I haue seene God face to face when he wrestled with the Angell or as Moses Aaron Nadab and Abiu in the mount viderunt deum Israel savv the God of Israel and vnder his feete as it vvere a vvorke of sapphyre stone or as the prophetes many tymes savv God sitting vpon his throne Which if it be true how much more boldlie and truely may we affirme that we see Christ in the B. Sacrament where we haue most certaine warrant that his humanitie diuinitie are presente after a most singular and effectual and substantial maner Our sauiour talking with the blinde man vnto whom he gaue sight sayd to him doest thou beleeue in the sonne of God he ansvvered said vvho is he lord that I may beleeue in him And Iesus said to him both thou hast seene him he that talketh vvith thee he it is and forthvvith he fell dovvne and adored him This by your opinion must be false because he only saw the external lineaments of a mortal man but saw not nor could see the sonne of God being him self God and god no man hath seene at any tyme and not only no man hath seene but nether can see for as God him selfe sayth non videbit me homo et viuet man shal not see me and liue Yet as Christ was truth it self so he taught truely and by reason of his diuine and eternal person ioyned to that humanitie the poore man saw the eternal soÌ„ne of God and so though after a far different maner those prophetes and Patriarches saw God And therefore to you it should not seeme straunge if S. Chrysostome and the Catholikes professe that truly they see Christ offered for most true it is It should seeme no more straunge I say then it was straunge for Christ to poynte to that which he had in his handes and gaue to his Apostles and say withal this which you see is my bodie and the same vvhich shal be deliuered for you which body deliuered for vs if it were Christ then the Apostles by Christes demonstration saw Christ and in such sort as we see him So that first I answere that your taking that for a thinge plaine and euident amongest vs which is cleane contrarie most false proceedeth of ignoraÌ„ce of the Catholike faith against which you write so coÌ„uinceth you of rashnes to refute that which you vnderstand not Next I say that you are as ignorant in the doctrine of your brethren the Lutherans for this they affirme as wel as we though far more absurdlye For reteyninge stil the substance of bread wine yet because of the real presence they acknowledge that bread to be the body of Christ and so see the body of Christe and applie hereunto that auncient rule of our forefathers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and thereby adore it and geue to it godlie honor and beleeue that they take receaue and touche Christe him selfe and accompte you not to be their brethren though you so basely will needes clayme their kinred but to be brethren of the old Ethnikes Apostataes who for like beleefe scorned mocked the auncient Christians as you do vs now So Martin Luther confirming that which in the first place I haue said of gods exhibiting him selfe to vs in creatures writeth thus Although Christe be euery vvhere in all creatures yet vve may not looke for him vvithout the vvorde VVherefore he hath appointed vs a certayne vvay to finde him hovv and vvhere he is to be sought and founde This they see not nether vnderstande vvho say it is absurd to affirme or beleeue that Christ is in bread and vvine because they vnderstand not vvhat maner thinge the Kingdome of Christ is c. He is most present in his vvorde albeit he is not present in that sort as he is here in the sacrament by vvhich he exhibiteth to the ChristiaÌ„s his body and bloud by the ministerie of the vvorde ioyned in bread and vvine And that the old Paganes in this kinde of infidelitie were the fathers of our Zuinglian Protestants he sheweth in the same place writing thus The devil laboureth saith he to sup vp the egge and leaue vs the shell that is from the bread and vvine to take avvay the body and bloud of Christe so that nothing remayne but playne bakers bread And here they mocke vs at their pleasure callinge vs shamefullie sarcophagos and haemopotas eaters of flesh and drinkers of bloud and that vve vvorshippe a god made of bread as they say as of old that naughtie man loden vvith all synne Auerroes sayd vvho slydinge backe from our fayth slaundered and reproched the faythful Christians sayng that there vvas not vnder the sunne a more vvicked people then vvere the Christians because they deuoured their ovvne God vvhich vvickednes no people euer is read to haue committed And Kemnitius in his examen Concilii Tridentini vpon this grouÌ„de of the real presence approueth the custome of the Church in adoringe Christ in the sacrament by the authoritie of S. Augustine and S. Ambrose in Psal 98. by Eusebius Emissenus and S. Gregorie Nazianzene and saith it is impietie to do the contrarie Thirdly if you had bene but so conuersante in Caluine as your profession requireth you could not so far haue bene ouerseene in this easie distinction knowen to Catholike Lutheran and Zuinglian although when Caluine wrote thus perhaps he was more then halfe a Lutheran and not so far gone in Zuinglianisme as after In his little booke de caena domini thus he writeth The bread and vvine are rightely called the body and bloud of Christ because they be as it vvere instruments by vvhich Christ doth distribute them vnto vs vve haue a verie apte example in a like matter VVhen god vvould that the holy Ghost should appeare in the baptisme of Christ he represented him in the figure of a doue Iohn the Baptist rehearsing the story sayth that he savve the holy Ghost descending If vve looke narovvlie vve shall finde that he savve nothing but a doue For the essence of the holy Ghost is inuisible Yet because he knevv that vision to be no vaine figure but a most certaine signe of the presence of the holy ghost he boldlie affirmeth that he savve him because it vvas represented in such sort as he could beare So in the communion vvhich vve haue in the body bloud of Christ the misterie is spirituall vvhich vve can nether see vvith eye nether comprehend vvith humaine vvâ—â—â— Therefore is it shevved vs by signes yet so that it is not a naked or only figure but ioâ—ned to his truth and substance Rightlie therefore is it called the body vvhich it dâ—th not only represent but also exhibâ—te vnto vâ— Thus Caluine teachinge and prouâ—nge by scripture that truely we see Christ though not
the Prophete Esaie so in the first part coupling both toghether he sheweth what is perfect penance as likewise doth our Sauiour in S. Matthew where he condemneth that Pharisaical error but that wickednes being remoued the thinges in them selues he approueth calleth them the iustice of Christians who for the same haue their revvard vvith God and that M. W. replie not this to haue bene a Iewish ceremonie and therefore abrogated he may learne if he know not or he may remeÌ„ber if he haue forgotten that this is a duetie morall and therefore practised not onlie in the law but also out of the law and before the law and after the law both in the tyme of nature and grace Touching the lawe of nature before the law of Moyses I referre him to S. Hierome in his booke against Iouinian partlie because those examples are by him wel set forth and vrged against Iouinian partlie because M.W. may withall finde that his opinion is not new but was of old defended by that fleshlie heretike This morall duetie grounded on the law of nature God confirmed and established by his writteÌ„ law as we reade in the booke of Numbers Thus vnder the law the prophet Dauid did penaÌ„ce Thus out of the law the Niniuites did penance and God approued their doinge Thus that wicked Kinge Achab did penance the scripture alloweth him therin Thus in the time of grace S. Paule chastised him selfe and enioyned penance to others The Apostles vsuallie enioyned fastes before they ordered priestes as appeareth in the Actes This kinde of fast and penance vsed Timothe wheÌ„ though otherwise weake feeble he altogether abstayned from wine so far forth that the Apostle S. Paule thought it needeful to appoint require him to vse a litle vvine because of his vveake stomake and manie infirmites Touchinge which place were it not that M.W. hath already condemned the fathers as erringe in this point I could wish him quietlie and consideratlie to reade S. Chrisostomes notable homelie tom 5. Homelia 1. ad popul Antioche Finallie in one worde that true Christians should thus doe that is vse prescript kinde of fastinge and discipline in the new testament our Sauiour euidentlie foretelleth when he saith in excuse of his Apostles because they fasted not as did S. Ihons disciples Can the children of the bridegrome mourne as long as the bridegrome is vvith them but the dayes vvil come vvhen the bridegrome shal be taken avvay from them and then they shal fast which fast must necessarilie be vnderstoode of a fast dâ—ffering from that which they obserued with Christ And so nether can be vnderstood of the fast from sinne for so Christ would not allow them to breake their fast nether of fast as fast signifieth temperance in diet for Christ neuer allowed them excesse or intemperance and brieflie caÌ„ signifie no other fast but such as the Church after Christes departure vnto these dayes hath and yet doth obserue Agaynst al this M. W. alleageth two Greeke wordes of the Apostle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is accordinge to his sense seueritie of discipline in punishing the bodie the English Testament tourneth it sparing the bodie whereunto the Apostle opposeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in the same place is traÌ„slated satisfying of the flesh And what meaneth M.W. by this allegatioÌ„ thinketh he that the Apostle discommendeth the first and exhorteth men to the second is he so verie an Epicure that he can but once imagine of S. Paule that he should wish men to pamper vp their bodie and employ them selues to satisfie the flesh if he meane so let him speake plainlie that men may see to what filthines this new Gospel tendeth If otherwise why alleageth he those wordes in this place and against fasting and penance why at all alleageth he the bare wordes without a coÌ„mentarie Touchinge the sense let the reader peruse the Annotation vpon the same in the Catholike English TestameÌ„t he shal quickly see what pithe there is in M. W. greeke citations with which I know not to what purpose he would seme to illuminate his writinge Verie wel and succinctlie Theodorete geueth the sense of that place otherwise obscure and hard Oportet sua sponte abstinere non tanquam ab abominandis sed tanquam a suauissimis The Apostle meante not to withdraw men from abstinence they must abstaine from meates and drinkes not as from things impure and abominable for that is Iudaical but as from things pleasant and delectable to the flesh and this is Christian His reason why he disliketh the former workes of penance is because they are iniurious to Christs passion ond death the onlie price and satisfaction for sinnes This argument is al one with the last of priesthode and therefore in parte is satisfied alreadie For a surplusage I adde that these and the lyke reasons procede rather of ignorance then ought els therefore if he would first learne what is the meaning of the Catholike Church and all Christians he would neuer so idlie trouble the world with such stuffe nor so wickedlie controule the learned auncient Bishops and withal he might ease him selfe of some labour Verie diuinelie saith the holie Councel This satisfaction vvhich vve vndertake for our sinnes is not ours so that it is not by Christ Iesus for vve that of our selues as of our selues can do nothing by his cooperatioÌ„ vvhich strengtheneth vs can do al things so man hath not vvhereof to glory but al his gloriation is in Christ in vvhom vve liue deserue and satisfie doing fruites vvorthie of penance vvhich of Christ haue force by him are offered to the father and by him are accepted of the father Thus the Councel whose doctrine wel vnderstoode maketh far more for the honour of the Crosse and bloud of Christ then doth our aduersaries without comparison And surelie ether our lucke is euill in these our dayes whose happe is to fal amongst such peruerse aduersaries that what-soeuer we can do one way or other wil gnawe at it or els our aduersaries lotte is strange and maruelous amongst whom scant any one can frame an argument against vs but presentlie he hath a brother of his owne that is readie to pul him by the sleeue and cal him foole for his labour M.W. reproueth the fathers and in them al catholikes for that by our workes we pull from Christ and diminish the vertue of his bloud Contrary-wise that most graue and learned father Iohn Brentius so M. Iewel calleth him inueigheth against vs for that by our workes we geue to much to Christ and magnifie more theÌ„ we ought the vertue of his Crosse and in truth if there were any fault in the doctrine of the Church BreÌ„tius reason carieth far more probabilitie theÌ„ M.W. Thus he reasoneth Iactat Sotus se Christo nihil detrahere sed potius glorificare sed coÌ„tra
from that sacrifice turne thy selfe to beholde our sacrifice and thou shalt see that ours is far more vvonderfull and passing all admiration For here is the priest caryinge not fyer but the holy Ghost from vvhom grace flovveth in to the sacrifice c. Wherefore vvhereas he beginneth vvith a true sacrifice and endeth vvith a true sacrifice and compareth the middle vvith the extremes as a most true and excellent sacrifice and affirmeth it so to be and vseth the other tvvo for no other purpose then by the abasinge of those sacrifices to aduaūce the dignitie of this singular sacrifice for one to come now and against such euidence vpon one or other metephorical vvord vvhich in such diuine things can not possibly be auoyded to say al is metaphors he meāt no such thing c. it is an argument nether of witte nor of learning nor shamefastnes nor conscience it is a manifest signe of one that nether seeketh after the truth nor careth what he sayth nor regardeth man nor feareth god but passe we on CHAP. X. Of the place in S. Lukes Gospel cap. 22. corrupted by Beza BEFORE you come to iustifie the corruption of S. Lukes Gospel whereof your graund Capitayne Beza is attainted very orderly you beginne with the commendation of so singular a personage sayng that M. Martin with the rest of his aduersaries in respecte of him be but Pigmees vvhom if he could once see he vvould sovv them vp in a bagge and knocke out their braynes as Polyphemus did to Vlisses companiōs wherein you speake perhaps truer then you are aware For in deed in murdering men he hath better skil then he hath in his bible as cūning as you make him whereof all Fraunce is witnesse vnto which he hath bene a knowen Catiline and fierbrand and hath in deed bene the cause that some good men haue bene so vsed as you threaten he would vse his aduersaries as in the stories of the ciuil warres of Fraunce we reade Mary that you wishe some man to write against him whose tonge he vnderstandeth as though such wanted this argueth that ether you are very ignorant know litle out of your owne territorie who thinke there are none such or els that you are not his frind who wishe him more enemies whereas he hath store of such more then euer he can turne him selfe vnto and therefore lieth continually as it were broken in backe and wind groueling vnder such heauie burdens as he is charged withal And although I take not vpon me to know much in his affaires and I wishe withal my hart I knew lesse yet thus much I am assured of that not only Catholikes of excellent fame and learning some of thē renowmed Bishops doctors haue written against him in such a tonge as he wel vnderstādeth as Claudius Santesius Espenceus Vigor Lindanus Franciscus Balduinus Michael Fabricius his nephew Gabriel but also Lutherans and Caluinistes haue plied him with such bookes as for example Heshusius Flacius Illyricus Selneccerus the Vniuersitie of Iena in Germanie Sebastianus Castalio Carolus Molineus besides many other Polonians his owne scholers whose names I know not nor list to learne These Pigmees and dwarfes how litle so euer they were in countries Catholike and Lutherish and in many places professinge Zuinglianisme haue so put out the eye and diminished the estimation of your Poliphemus that of the Catholikes he is knowē to haue bene but a wicked sicophāt of detestable maners a feared conscience and meane learning and of the Lutherans he is accompted as ill howsoeuer among the ministers of England where perhaps Luscus may regnare inter caecos he is esteemed for a maruelous Euangelist as it were an other Hercules or Atlas that holdeth vp your gospel with his shoulders But let him be as huge as may be as big and great as you would make him he had neede be as great as Gargantua or the great diuel of hell if he beare away that which we charge him withal though you lay to your shoulders to helpe him as wel as you can M. Mar. accuseth him that he controleth our Sauiour setteth the holy Ghost to schole correcteth the Euangelist For whereas the Euangelist by Beza his owne confession wrote one thing as vttered by our Sauiour and therefore most assuredly our Sauiour spake so in substance and effect and the holy Ghost guiding the penne and hand of the Euangelist endited so this your great Giaunt cometh and shouldereth them all out altereth quite the text sayth it is false and geueth vs a new text of his owne The point of the controuersie is this that S. Luke auoucheth that that vvhich was in the chalice for to babble about the mettal of the chalice is more meete for William Sommer the Kings iester then for M. William Whitaker the Quenes reader vvas the nevv testament in Christes bloud or as S. Marke and S. Matthew write in meaning and truth al one for easynes of vnderstanding to common Christians more plaine is Christes bloud of the nevv testament and the selfe same contayned in the chalice vvas shedd for vs. So Beza him self geueth vs the translatiō in S. Matthew and S. Marke Hoc poculum est sanguis meus noui testamenti This cuppe is my bloud of the nevv testament meaning by the cuppe as him self there writeth tha◠vvhich vvas contayned therein vulgata trita omnibus linguis consuetudine loquendi by a common kinde of speach and familiar to euery language So that M. Whitakers grosse affectation of a litle subtilitie is here more out of season then in lente vnguentum or to mingle S. Paules discourse of Predestination with a tale of Robin Hoode The matter being wel at large handled by M. Martin I remitte the reader to him for more particular explication of euery parcel and circumstance I wil only note the conclusion for which al this stirre against S. Luke is kept perhaps it is a great reason why in their late conference in the Tower they haue turned him out of his auncient authoritie and matched him with Iudith and the Machabees which they esteeme litle better then Aesopes fables The conclusion is that vvhereas S. Luke most directly affirmeth that vvhich vvas in the chalice to be the self same bloud that vvas shedd for our sinnes hence vve confirme as al the vvorlde may see the old Catholike faith and refute this nevv prophane and bakerlie Communion deuised by Carolostadius and Zuinglius That this is the reason vvhy Beza altered the text him self confesseth in flat termes Quum haec verbasi constructionem spectemus necessario non ad sanguinem sed ad poculum pertineant neque tamen de poculo intelligi possint c. vvhereas these vvorde vvhich is shedd for you if you regard the plaine construction appertayne of necessitie no◠to the bloud but to the cuppe or chalice and yet can not be vnderstood of
that taketh avvay the sinnes of the vvorlde Call S. Iohn to M. VVhitakers consistorie he wil â—â—â—ke him recant his speach For first Christ is no lambe because he hath no woll on his backe It is the self same reason which here is vsed against S. Luke about the meâ—â—all of the chalice Then being driuen from that the adsurditie of tautologia still remaineth Behold this lambe is the lambe of God what an idle speache is this what is this double lambe therfore sende it to Geneua to be cast a new in Bezaes forge The Catholiks of old time to proue distinction of persons in the deitie vsed that place of Genesis pâ—uit dâ—miâ—â—â— aâ— domino our Lord rayned from our Lord to proue the Trinity of persoÌ„s they vsed the place of the psalme Benedicat nos Deus Deus noster benedis at nos Deus God our God blesse vs our God blesse vs. This to a Trinitarian is absurda sententia and induceth a pluralitie of Gods vvhereas S. Paule saith vnus Deus vnus Domâ—nus oâ—â— God one Lord what remaineth theÌ„ but that according to the arrest of this supreme arbiter we fall to newe casting of the scripture and so in short space no doubt we shal growe to perfectioÌ„ that is to the Turks Alcoran if we be not come so farre already The scriptures are full of such absurdities which neuerthelesse are absurdities only to carnal cogitatioÌ„s to Sathan Sathans ministers but to theÌ„ that haue learned in the schole of the holy Ghost to subiect their vnderstanding to the obedience of faith they are nothing so And M.W. if he had in him any droppe of religion fayth he should thus thinke Howsoeuer I can reconcile two or three Gods with one the bloud shedd on the crosse with that which was in the chalice were it bloud or wine let Christs wordes stande as he spake them and the Euangelist wrote them and let vs afterward in the name of God be we Lutherans Zuinglians Caluinists Trinitaries or Anabaptists eche according to his priuate spirite search for the sense as wel as we can Christes soule went downe to hell saith our Creede and S. Luke It is absurde sayth Beza and papisticall and therefore for soule I haue translated carcas and for hell graue whom in so doing the English congregation approueth That Christ ascended into heauen it is a fansie of Aristotle and Mahomet sayth Brentius and to the Lutherans it is absurda sententia shal they now leaue out that word and put in the text for ascendit euanuit or disparuit he vanyshed out of sight in steede of he ascended which to them is the true and only sense of the place and which they may and ought to do by like reason and authoritie But S. Basil you say readeth as you translate graunt he did so but what translate you S. Basil or S. Luke if S. Basil you haue done wel to folovv your greeke copye If S. Luke then do you vvickedly to alter S. Luke vpon coniecture of one greeke doctor all greeke copies and doctors being to the contrarie And vvhat if S. Basil in an other place reade otherwise shal we not make a vvise patching of scripture if vpon euerie particular doctors citation vve alter the holie text S. Aug. in many places S. Bernard and other good men dravv exhortatioÌ„s for their frends or monks or people and commonly they do it in the verie phrase of scripture yet because they knitte together many sentences of scriptures that be in diuers places they must of necessitie adde some words or parcels of their owne Nether is it material if ofteÌ„times they leaue out one worde or a fewe words But if by such authoritie we should alter our text we should in short space haue so many texts that in deed we should haue no text because we should haue no certaine text whereunto we might trust And why remember you not that which in this self same place M. Martin tolde you out of Beza who noteth it to be the custome of the auncient fathers in citing scriptures to alleage the sense not to sticke precisely vpoÌ„ the words And that therefore how soeuer they reade that is no certaine rule to reforme or alter the vvordes of scripture But here you make your aduantage of M. Martins words and say if Basil cited not the vvords but the sense of the scripture theÌ„ Beza vvhen he so traÌ„slated missed nothing of the sense so M. Martin doth novv plainly acquite Beza vvhoÌ„ before he accused For if Basils vvords geue a true sense and the interpretation of Beza and ours all agree vvith Basils vvords then your accusation is false that vve had corrupted the sense of the scripture Somewhat you saye and this hath some appearance more then any thing that you haue sayde hitherto yet you reache not home and you are ouer hasty in your conclusion S. Basil geueth a true sense I confesse whether you respecte the particular matter whereunto he applyeth the place or the generall doctrine of the catholike church For his wordes are sufficieÌ„t for the one and the other And so are the wordes in our vulgar Latin and English and may well be taken as agreing with S. Basil hic est calix nouum testamentum in sanguine meo qui pro vobis fundetur This is the chalice the nevv testament in my bloud vvhich shall be shedde for you And whosoeuer readeth and taketh these later wordes as referring them to the bloud of Christ shedde on the crosse he thinketh very well and truly and no man would euer finde fault with such a sense or citation if it stayd there For this nothing impayreth the other truth whereof we speake that the same bloud is in the chalice But when there riseth vp a new heresie by one truth ouerthrowing an other and by one part of the sentence destroyng an other as it fareth betwixt vs this circumstance so farre altereth the case that the old father alleaging the text without any thought or imagination of heresie did well and christianlike the new heretike enforcing the same in defence of heresie doth nâ—ughtely sacrilegrously as for example If some good man as S. Basil or S. Bernard to induce his auditors to the loue of Christ had vsed this sentence of the Apostle In this appeared the benignitie of our lord sauiour tovvards vs that not by the vvorkes of iustice vvhich vve did but of his infinite mercie he saued vs. This place according to the sense had bene well trulye cited For albeit infinite is not in the text yet that is no hinderance to the meaning and although I name not Christ god yet nether that worde hindereth any thing because in a Christian audience it is all one to say our lord and sauiour Christe or our god and sauiour Christe But if there rose vp some Nestorian heretike that should diuide Christ from god and make two
cuppe that is the mettall could not be shed or powred out and therefore the wordes must needes be vnderstood of the thing conteyned in the cuppe all Catholikes now liuing all Catholikes from Christes time all heretikes though otherwise most peruerse obstinate enemies of the truth Lutherans Zuinglians Anabaptistes of any secte fashion all creatures indued with witt and reason man woman and childe agree and as Beza confesseth it is a trope vulgar and vsuall to all languages and nations But vpon your trope where you interprete the bloud of Christ by wine and refer the later part not to that which was in the chalice and so deny the reall presence no Catholike now liuing no Catholike euer liuing agreed the church of God from the beginning hath abhorred it the very graÌ„mat graÌ„matical coÌ„struction refelleth it your owne brethren deteste it Luther the Lutherans condemne it yea the Sacramentaries them selues many of theÌ„ account it a very dull and blunt euasion so far forth that Carolostadius the first father of your Sacramentarie heresie though he be not commonly so esteemed thoughte it a more cleanly expositioÌ„ to say that Christ referred those wordeâ— hic est corpus meum hic est sanguis meus to him self sittinge at the table as if Christ had sayd iccipite manducatâ— take ye and eate and be merie for I am he that must die for al. And Hulderike Zuinglius that most excellent man sent from God vvith Luther to lighten the vvhole vvorld by the iudgement of your English church is so vncertaine of your trope that he alloweth wel of this exposition and geueth you good leaue to folow it and it was allowed of many thousand Sacramentaries besides him Touching Zuinglius his wordes are euident Carolostadius pius homo c. Carolostadius that godly man saith Zuinglius doth interprete the vvordes of the supper as though Christ had directed them not to the bread but to him self sayng take eate for I vvill deliuer this body for you This interpretation he proueth because the prophetes foretell that Christ should be crucified c. And after many places of scripture brought to proue this exposition he geueth in his owne iudgement thus Ego hominis pii laudo industriam de fide gratulor hanc Carolostadii sententiam qui probauer it nos minime offendet I commeÌ„d the diligence of this godly man I praise the lord for his faith if any man vvil folovv this his opinion I shal lyke vvel of it So that great is the difference betwene our trope and yours as great as is betwene our doctrine and yours that is as great as is betwene truth and falshod light and darknes heauen and hel and therefore except you furnish it with better reasons then this your figure wil remaine a poore beggerly heretical shift deuised by a few of one sect and contemned by many of the same secte and infinite of other sectes when ours shal stand accounted a certaine truth not only to Catholikes heretikes of al sorts but also to al men endewed with coÌ„mon wit or reason And this is all that M.W. bringeth for the defence of Beza wherein after a number of faultes errors ignorances impieties he hath so behaued himselfe that he hath leaâ—t the matter worse then he fouÌ„de it so that in the next writing he hath not so much to labour for Beza so Lucifer like controling the Euangelist in one worde as he hath to shift for him selfe vvho in a greater peece and more important hath so damnably and detestably thvvarted the same Euangelist and our B. sauiour and like a playne Atheist worse then Beza hath more defaced that first and principal part this is the nevv testament in my bloud this speach of our Lord and sauiour he hath reproued I say of â—aurâ—logia vayne repetition and absurd consequence How much better and more honest had it bene for him and Beza both to haue folowed the sober counsaile of their father Martin Luther I go vâ—â—o saith he de iris Sacramentariis hoc sanc suaderent c. I truly would geue the doting Sacramentaries this aduise that seing they vvill needes be madde let them play the mad men rather vvholy then in parte Therefore vvhereas they must aduenture somevvhat let them make short vvorke and raze altogether out of the supper those vvords this is my body vvhich is geuen for yovv For touching their faith and celebration of their supper they haue no neede of these vvords but it is all one if thus they keapte it Christ tooke bread gaue thankes brake it and gaue it to his disciples sayng take eate do this in my remembrance For this proueth sufficiently that bread is to be eaten in remeÌ„brance of Christ. This is the vvhole and entier supper of the sacramentaries And then to vvhat end keepe they in the booke that other superfluous and vnprofitable text Yea as though he had foreseene this desperate boldnes whereunto the Zuinglians are now growen he before hand euen particularly and in the self same words warneth vs of these very reasoÌ„s or rather peeuish and shameles assertions which Beza and M. W. throw forth for singular mightie argumeÌ„ts against this clause of S. Lukes Gospel For what is Bezaes demonstration against the later part qui pro uobis fuÌ„ditur with which he is so offended forsooth this aut manifestum est solacophanes aut potius quum haec essent ad marginem annotata ex Mat. Mar. postea in coÌ„textum irrepserunt Ether there is some manifest fault in the Greeke or vvhich I suppose rather vvhereas these vvords vvere noted in the margent out of Matthevv and Marke aftervvards they creapt in to the text And what saith Luther of this Thus he speaketh to the Sacramentaries Quid inepti nihilne consilii habetis c. vvhat ye fooles haue ye no vvitte you must venture Dicite verba illa primum margini ascripta postea vero ab aliquo textui inserta say that those vvordes vvere first vvritten in the margent and then by some odde felovv thrust in to the text and not vvritten so by the Euangelist seing you haue a sure rule to proue al this and your rule is that that is not true vvhatsoeuer seemeth superfluous and vnprofitable vnto you And what is M.W. argumeÌ„t against the first parte this cup is my bloud of the nevv testament Mary that this implyeth an absurde sentence it is tautologia an idle repetition And what saith Luther of this vvhereas those vvordes that shevv the real presence of the bodie and bloud haue nought to do in the Sacramentaries supper eodem modo his quoque argumentari licet mera tautologia est haec verba in cana poni They might do very vvel here also to make this argument that it is tautologia a vaine repetition to put these vvords in the supper and therefore they ought not to haue any place there vvhereas the
in his owne forme partly because the sacrament is a figure vvhich hath the veritie ioâ—ned vvith it and therefore may wel haue his denomination of the principal partly because beyng inconuenient ether in respect of gods wisedome or of our infirmitie to receaue that glorious body in his owne forme which reason Theophilacte S. Damascene S. Cirill S. ChrisostoÌ„ and other fathers geue god hath appoynted these externall sacramentes for instrumâ—ntes by mâ—anes whereof we mâ—ght truly be made partakers of that which otherwise we shoulde abhorre But graunt we now to M.W. that it is only a phrase of speach to say vve see Chrâ—st or his body and bloud how foloweth his reason therefore it is also but a phrase of speach to saye the body is there at all Suppose a man may stand in argument that the Apostles seing the humanitie of Christ sawe not the sonne of god sawe not the creator of the world will your philosophie or diuinitie serue you to infer ergo that person or man whom they beheld was not the sonne of god Agayne what logicke what wit permitteth you from one particular to conclude as many as you liste It is a figure when we reade in scripture god hath hands face nosetrils ergo it is a figure when we reade that Christ tooke flesh of the virgin It is a figure when Christ said that he descended from heauen ergo his ascension is not true but imaginarie It is not possible for vs in the height excellencie of the diuine misteries and the basenes of our vnderstanding and barrennes of our tonge scarce to thinke much lesse to speake of them but we shal fall in to some vnproper termes as appeareth by the whole course of diuinitie From which necessitie he that taketh this licence which M. W. alloweth to him selfe from one word spoken figuratiuelie at his pleasure will deduce the like of an other he will make Christian religion as variable as is the raynebowe as vnconstante as the wethercocke And yet this lose kinde of talking for who can call it reasoning is the verie roote and mother of the Zuinglian gospell for vpon this piller was erected the sacramentarie heresie in Zuricke as Zuinglius him selfe signifieth for thus he reasoned When Christ sayd this iâ— my body he spake tropically because when Moyses sayd the lambe is the pasouer which notwithstanding is a text of his owne coyning as Luther proueth against him this is a tropical speache Agaynst which Luther replying and scorning sayth it is as valiant wyse a proufe as if a man would argue that Sara or Rebecca brought forth children and remayned virgins because our Ladie did so or that Pilate and Herode vvere tvvo glorious Apostles of Christe because Peter and Paule vvere But see you not saith M. W. that S. Chrisostome is full of vehemencie and amplification He is vehement I confesse perhaps amplifieth But wherein is he vehement or what doth he amplifie a lye or a truth a truth to witte the dignitie of priests say you Then there were priests and so there was a sacrifice by your owne definition and playne it is that S. Chrysostome so much advaunceth the priest in regarde of the sacrifice Now this amplificatioÌ„ must rise vpon a true grounde othervvise he may rather be said to magnifie a lye then to amplifie a truth Then gather me out of S. Chrisost any one truth vvhere vpon he doth thus enlarge and vse his vehemencie Nay consider by your opinion and faith vvhether almost euery vvorde in this place be not a lye VVe see Christ sayth he that is a lye and novv refuted by you VVe see him offered that is a lye and a blasphemous lye The priest beÌ„t earnestly to the sacrifice that is a lye for there vvas no such sacrifice within six huÌ„dred yeres after Christ The people receaue the pretious bloud that is a lye for no man beleeued the reall presence vvithin six hundred yeres nether O miracle saith S. Chrysost ô singular goodnes of god he that sitteth vvith his father aboue at the selfe same momeÌ„t of tyme is receaued in the church at the priests hands that is a lye for so should the body of Christ at one tyme be in a thousand places vvhich is agaynst M. Ievvels sixt article there fore needes it must be false so to speake or thinke What truth novv remayneth for S. Chrysostome to amplifie vvhereas euerie vvord he speaketh beyng taken as it standeth according to your religion is false Belike he mâ—aÌ„t to aduauÌ„ce such dealing of bread and vvine as you vse in your congregâ—tions and consequently your ministerie vvhich is promoted to so vvorthie a vocation But vvhat sentence vvhat vvord vvhat sillable hath he to that purpos yet graunt it be so TheÌ„ your faith and religion being all one vvith S. Chrisostomes as you tel vs let your ministers vse such amplification to their people and you neede not to be ashamed to borovve or learne of so excellent a doctor and see vvhether both the people vvill not crye out vpon them as false prophetes and the Commissioners bring them vvithin the Premunire for preaching agaynst the pure gospel receaued and authorised by parlament Let them preach that they offer and sacrifice their lord and maister that they are earnest lye beâ—t to performe that dutie of priesthode that at their hands the peopâ—e receaue the pretious bloud of Christ let such preachers be brought before you M. W. as thâ— publike professor of diuinitie and I appeale to your conscience vvhether you vvill allovv such preaching as an amplification of their mâ—nisterio not condemne it as vvicked and detestable and blasphemous against the gospel Finally M. W. could in no place more vndiscreetly haue vsed this maner of ansvvere then here For S. Chrysostome so placeth the sacrifice of the church betvvene tvvo notorious sacrifices and maketh the comparison betvvene all three so nighly and exactly preferring alvvayes ours by infinite degrees of excellencie that a man vvith halfe an eye may see that M. W. thrust it in rather because he had so read in M. Ievvel then because he coÌ„siderately perused the place him selfe Before the vvords pertayninge to the sacrifice of the church S. Chrysostome thus speaketh of the Leuiticall sacrifice All thinges vvere terrible and dreadfull about that sacrifice and priesthode but if you match it vvith this sacrifice and priesthode vvherein by the priest our lord himselfe is sacrificed all that is nothing as in the vvords set dovvne in the beginning appeareth Immediately after thus he proceedeth vvilt thou see the excellencie of this holines by an other miracles put before thy eyes Elias and that infinite multitude aboute him and the sacrifice lâ—yd vpon the altar the prophete pâ—vvring forth his prayers suddenly fyer descending from heauen and consuming the sacrifice all straunge and full of admiration Ab illis sacris ad nostra sacra te transfer