A refutation of sundry reprehensions, cauils, and false sleightes, by which M. Whitaker laboureth to deface the late English translation, and Catholike annotations of the new Testament, and the booke of Discouery of heretical corruptions. By William Rainolds, student of diuinitie in the English Colledge at Rhemes

CHAP. IX. VVherein is refelled M. VV. ansvvere to cer∣taine places of S. Chrysostome tou∣ching the real presence and sacrifice.

IN the last chapter vve had an example hovv sufficient∣ly you are vvont to cōfirme your ovvne faith by scrip∣ture, reason, & fathers: here you geue vs an example hovv substantially you ansvvere the fathers vvhich vve vse for confirmation of our faith. Tvvo places M. Martin obiected out of S. Chrysostom against your geometrical opinion of Christes body in one place. you auoyde them so, as you geue out plaine demonstration, that you neuer cōsidered them in the author him selfe, but only tooke the answere at deliuery from M. Iewel without any farther search. Thus you write. To Chrysostom teaching that Christ both leaft his flesh vvith vs, and ascended hauing the same vvith him,

I ansvvere, that Christ placed his flesh in hea¦uen, and neuerthelesse leaft vs a sacrament of that flesh. And our fayth enioyeth the same euermore present. For the verie substance of his flesh, Christ no more leaft in earth, then Elias leaft his body, vvhen he ascended in to heauen. For so Chrisostom vvrote a litle be∣fore, that Elias vvas aftervvardes double, there vvas an Elias aboue, and there vvas an Elias beneath. Tell me I pray you M. Martyn vvas that Elias body in earth, vvhen he leaft his cloke to Elizeus? you vvill not say so. So true it is vvhich Chrisostome vvriteth, that Christ hath left his flesh vnto vs symbo∣lically, and yet hath caried the same in to heauen corporally.

This is your answere, which I say, you rather allow vs (as may be thought) because Maister Iewell ap∣plieth the same to the selfe same place, albeit in my opinion els-where he ge∣ueth you a better. For labouring to an∣swere the place of S. Ciprian de caena Do∣mini. Panis iste quem dominus &c. This bread vvhich our lord gaue to his disciples, being changed not in shape but in nature, by the almightie povver of the vvord of Christ is made flesh, after a number of phrases al∣leaged against the other partes of this sentēce, cōming to the last is made flesh,

he sheweth that nether this proueth the real presēce, & that hystore of lyke phra¦ses. For S. Aust. saith, nos Christi facti sumus, vve are made Christes. Leo saith, Corpus rege∣nerati fit caro crucifixi, the body of the man that is regenerate, is made the flesh of Christ that vvas crucified. Beda saith, nos ipsi cor∣pus Christi effecti sumus, vve our selues are made the body of Christ. Origen saith in like maner of speach, spiritus sanctus non in tur∣turem vertitur, sed colūba fit, the holy ghost is not changed into a turtell, but is made a doue. Thus if you had answered, that Christ departing tooke his flesh with him really, & leaft his flesh behinde him allegorically, that is, the Christian peo∣ple, his church, which S. Paul many ti∣mes calleth his bodye, that had bene more probable, more to S. Chrisostoms discourse (& you see what doctors you might alleage for it) thē to say, that Christ tooke away with him his flesh really, & leaft the same with vs symbolically, that is, bread and wyne, which when we receaue at the supper, we remember perhaps that Christe had flesh. But be∣cause it was ether your chaunce or choise to geue vs the other, let vs see how handsomly you frame it vnto S. Chrisostoms text.

The summe of your answere is, that as Helias ascendinge leaft his cloke, which for certeine reasons was called Elias, so our Sauiour ascending leaft vs bread & wyne, which is a signe of his bo¦dy, & for some reasōs is likewise called by the name of his body, but was no more his body, thē the cloke was Elias. And are ye not ashamed thus to dally & abuse the reader? Or can your ignorāce be so grosse, as to thinke that this is S. Chri∣sost. meaning? Or cā your reader other∣wise deeme of you, then as of a man al∣together rechlesse what you say, if euer he reade the place in S. Chrisostome him self? For so far of is it, that S. Chri∣sostome hath any such thing, that con∣trarywise he ouerthroweth most strōg∣ly this your folly, and vehemently vr∣geth the cleane contrary. First tou∣ching Elias, he hath some of those wor∣des which you alleage. As a great inhere∣tance (saith he) Elizeus receaued the cloke: and truly it vvas a verie great inheritance. And aftervvardes that Elias vvas double. There vvas an Elias aboue, and there vvas an Elias beneath, meaning (as it is plaine) that he was taken vp in body & soule, and remained beneath in power and operation, for so much as by the cloke

Elizeus wrought strange myracles, such as Elias him selfe did before. And so S. Chrisostome saith expresly. prop∣terea & in coelum ascendens, nihil aliud quā melotem discipulo reliquit. Therefore Elias ascending in to heauē, leaft to his disciple no∣thing els, but his cloke. And would he make a like comparison, and say the same of our Sauiour? Let vs heare his wordes. Thus he cōmeth to speake of Christ. quid igitur si vobis demonstrauero quid aliud quod illo multo maius &c. vvhat then vvil you say, if I shevv you an other ma¦ner of thing much greater thē that, vvh••ch al vve haue receaued, vvho so euer haue bene made partakers of the holy misteryes? Elias in deed leaft his cloke to his disciple, but the sonne of God ascending leaft to vs his flesh, And Elias did so, but him selfe being depri∣ued of his cloke, but Christ both leaft it vnto vs, & ascended hauing the selfe same vvith him. Therefore let vs not fainte in courage. For he that hath not refused to shed his bloud for vs all, and hath commun••cated vnto vs his flesh and the self same bloud a∣gaine, he vvill refuse nothing for our salua∣tion. These are S. Chrisost. wordes, which tende to set forth, not a simili∣tude, but an opposition, not an equali∣tye, but a supereminent excellencie in

our Sauiour. I wil shew you an other maner of thing (saith this holy father) far greater then that of Elias. And how so? and wherein standeth that so great and singuler difference? In this. [ 1] That Elias leaft his cloke: but the sonne of God his flesh, which none but the sonne of God could doe. [ 2] Againe, Elias leauing his cloke, loste it, and so was bereaft of it: but Christ the sonne of God, (as a worke proper to his diuine maiestie) both leaft his flesh with vs in the world, and yet lost it not, but caried the same flesh with him in to heauen. [ 3] Furthermore, Elias tooke some paynes for the sauing of his people, but neuer shed his bloud for them, much lesse could he impart to them the same: for this was aboue the compasse or reach of humaine imbecillitie. But Christ both shed his bloud for our redempti∣on, and againe imparted vnto vs the self same bloud, as the same doctor sa∣yth elswhere. Quod est in calice, id est quod fluxit è latere, et illius sumus participes. That vvhich is in the chalice, is that vvhich gushed out of his side, and vve are partakers thereof.

This is the most euident speach and sense of S. Chisostome, and no man I

suppose can be so simple, but he may forthwith see, how well this matcheth with the doctrine of the catholike church, & how dissonant it is from the preaching of your congregation: espe∣cially if he know your doctrine a right and be not deceaued with your fantasti∣cal painted words, which you some∣tymes vse to beguile simple sowles, see∣ming to aduaunce that very hyghly and magnifically, which in deed your selues esteeme most basely & cōtemp∣tibly. For thinke you of your Cōmuni∣on otherwise, then as of common bread and wine, withou•• al grace, vertue, or sanctificatiō, with a bare figure of Christ absent, which figure your selues cā not explicate, nor shal be euer able to geue reasō, but you haue or may haue as good figures, at your common breakfastes di∣ners, and suppers? This is your faith in that poynt, yf you be Zuinglians, and beleeue as the church of Geneua. The Eucharist (saith Zuinglius) or commu∣nion, or lordes supper, is nothing els but a cōmemoration, in the vvhich they that firme∣ly beleeue them selues to be reconciled to god the father by Christes death & bloud, sett forth his liuely death, that is, praise it, geue thankes, and preach. And when Luther

obiected to him, that he and his felow heretikes were diuided amongst them selues, he answered thus. vvhereas thou sayst (Luther) that there are sectes amongest vs, it is false. both I, Carolostadius, & Oeco∣lāpadius, and the rest auouch that the bread and vvine be only figures, mary vve shift the vvords of Christ after a diuers maner, verba diuersimodè expedimus. And in an other booke against Luther, It is to be noted (saith he) that Paule 1. Cor. 11. after the vvordes of the institution, calleth it no othervvise then bread and the cuppe. For he saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that is, this bread of the sup¦per or that bread, hunc hunc panē qui praeter panem non est quicquam amplius. this bread this bread I say, vvhich is nothing els but bread. Al which he there expresseth by a playne similitude in this sort. Behold this is the sacramental presence of Christ in this supper, as the Emperour or the King of Fraunce are said to be in the kingdome of Naples, because their banners or signes be there, vvhereas in the meane season, the one of them liueth in Spaine, the other in Fraūce. But the bread and vvine are no more one and the same thinge vvith Christes body and bloud, then those kinges banners be the very kinges them selues, because they note vnto vs the maiestie and povver of the kinges.

And that you cauill not, that this is not the faith of your Geneuian church, & so shrowde your selfe in your ordi∣narie cloude of wordes, whereby you seeme to speake honorably of this sacra∣ment, heare you what Theodore Beza writeth, whom you extoll so highly. Dico impudētes esse calumniatores &c. I say they are impudent slaūderers vvho imagine that there vvas euer any cōtrariety betvvene the doctrine of these most excellent men, Zuin∣glius, Oecolāpadius, and Caluine touching the sacramentes. I say also, that the selfe same faith in euerie respecte, is proposed and de∣fended in the Churches of Suizzerlande, Sa∣uoy and Fraunce, in the Flemmish, Scottish, and (as I thinke) in the English churches also.

Wherefore this being your faith, that in the Sacrament there is nothing but bread in such sort as hath bene declared, I say with Zuinglius panis, panis, & nihil amplius, bread, bread, and no∣thing els, now compare your faith with S. Chrisostome, and see how handsom∣lie you can patch it together. thus you must needes say. [ 1] Elias departing out of this worlde leaft his cloke, but Christe leaft a thing of greater power and mi∣racle, for he leaft vs breade and wine.

[ 2] Elias leaft his cloke and so loste it, for he caried it not with him, but Christ ascending leaft vs bread and wine, and tooke vp bread and wine to heauen with him. [ 3] Againe (where in Elias hath no part of cōparison) the bloud which Christ shed for our redemption, that he imparted vnto vs in the chalice. Here you must helpe me thorough, for I know not what you wil say, but sure I am, one of these two it must needes be: ether that Christ redeemed the worlde by wine, which is the bloud of the grape, and so cōmunicated such wine and bread with vs, and this standeth iumpe with your figuratiue supper & Communion: or that he redeemed the worlde with his owne pretious bloud, and so communicated the same with vs in the B. Sacrament, which is our faith, mary you will none of that. In conclusion, aduise your selfe better what you write, and thinke not with such balde toies to shake of such graue authoritie. Regarde the wordes, mea∣ning and scope of the author, & so (ex∣cept you be to dul) you can not be igno¦rāt, but that you cleane peruert this fa∣ther, & turne him quite vpside downe. For whereas he would infinitely pre∣ferre

that facte of Christ leauinge the sacrament of his body to his Christians before the facte of Elias leauinge his cloke to Elizeus (for of our cōuersinge with Christ in heauen by faith and vn∣derstanding, here is no question, & Eli∣zeus 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. [ 1] For the cloke was a far better and more liuely figure of Elias, then youre bread and wine is of Christ. [ 2] By it Elizeus re∣ceaued greate grace & strength, as wri∣teth S. Chrisostome, as by the which he fought agaynst the deuill and vanqui∣shed 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, [ 3] cal∣linge it papisticall, to say, that any sa∣crament, 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 mira∣cles. so did you by your figuratiue bread neuer, nor neuer shall, so longe as the worlde standeth. [ 4] Briefly, whereas Eli∣zeus 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 omnipo∣tencie of god: your bread being no∣thing 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 damnatiō. Where∣fore 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 rea∣ders 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 espe∣ciallye 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. Ter∣rible vvere the thinges & dreadfull, vvhich vvere before the tyme of grace in the lavv of Moyses, as vvere the litle bells, pomegra∣nats, 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 cōmeth to that place, out of which M. W. cul∣leth 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 miracu∣lum, ô Dei benignitatem, ô miracle, ô singu∣lar 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 tru••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 digni∣tie of priestes, vnto vvhom Christ gaue po∣vver 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 figu∣ratiue speach: therefore when he saith

Christ is in heauen and in the Sacra∣ment, 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 vn∣derstand m••nisters. and then, a simili, by the sacrifice he speaketh of, that is the masse, you must vnderstand the Commu∣niō, that is by Catholike rel••gion, you must vnderstande heresie, and by light, dark••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 protestāts may be said to do iniurie to Christ, when they abuse his image, but in ve∣ritie and truth of doctrine. And S. Chrysostome with the rest of the fa∣thers, neuer thought or spake other∣wise. How oft hath S. Chrisostome, qu••d summo honore dignum est, id tibi ••n terra ••stendam. That vvhich deserueth most ho∣nor,

that vvil I shevv thee on earth. and in the same place. The royal body of Christ is in heauē, vvhich novv in earth is set before thee to be seene. I shevv vnto thee, not an∣gels, 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 tou∣chest, but receauest also the soueraine and principall thing that is? And in the same place. This body vvhich thou seest on the al∣tar, 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 spe∣cial 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 domi∣num facie ad faciem, I haue seene God face to face, when he wrestled with the An∣gell: 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 singu∣lar, 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 humani∣tie, the poore man saw the eternal sōne of God: and so though after a far diffe∣rent

maner, those prophetes and Patri∣arches saw God. And therefore to you it should not seeme straunge, if S. Chry¦sostome 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 Apos∣tles by Christes demonstration saw Christ, and in such sort as we see him. [ 1] 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 ignorāce of the Catholike faith against which you write, & so cōuinceth you of rashnes to refute that which you vnderstand not.

[ 2] Next I say, that you are as ignorant in the doctrine of your brethren the Lu∣therans, 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 aun∣cient rule of our forefathers 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 & Apo∣stataes, who for like beleefe scorned & mocked the auncient Christians, as you do vs now. So Martin Luther confir∣ming that, which in the first place I haue said of gods exhibiting him selfe to vs in creatures, writeth thus. Al∣though Christe be euery vvhere in all crea∣tures, yet vve may not looke for him vvith∣out the vvorde. VVherefore he hath appoin∣ted 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 vn∣derstand not vvhat maner thinge the King∣dome 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 Christiās his body and bloud by the ministerie of the vvorde ioy∣ned in bread and vvine. And that the

old Paganes in this kinde of infidelitie were the fathers of our Zuinglian Pro∣testants, 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 a∣vvay 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, slaun∣dered and reproched the faythful Christians, sayng that there vvas not vnder the sunne a more vvicked people, then vvere the Christi∣ans, 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 groūde of the real presence, approueth the custome of the Church in adoringe Christ in the sacrament, by the authori∣tie 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.

[ 3] Thirdly, if you had bene but so con∣uersante

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 rehear∣sing 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 bold∣lie 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 miste∣rie is spirituall, vvhich vve can nether see vvith eye, nether comprehend vvith humaine

vv••••••. Therefore is it shevved vs by signes, yet so, that it is not a naked or only figure, but io••ned to his truth and substance. Right∣lie therefore is it called the body, vvhich it d••th not only represent, but also exhib••te vn∣to v••. Thus Caluine, teachinge and pro∣u••nge by scripture, that truely we see Christ (though not in his owne forme) partly because the sacrament is a figure vvhich hath the veritie io••ned vvith it, and therefore may wel haue his denomina∣tion of the principal, partly because be∣yng 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. Chrisostō, and other fathers geue) god hath ap∣poynted these externall sacramentes for instrum••ntes, by m••anes whereof we m••ght truly be made partakers of that, which otherwise we shoulde ab∣horre.

But graunt we now to M.W. that it is only a phrase of speach to say vve see Chr••st or his body and bloud, how folow∣eth 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 di∣uinitie serue you to infer, ergo that per∣son 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 ima∣ginarie. It is not possible for vs in the height & excellencie of the diuine mis∣teries, and the basenes of our vnder∣standing and barrennes of our tonge scarce to thinke, much lesse to speake of them, but we shal fall in to some vn∣proper 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 vn∣constante 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 go∣spell▪ for vpon this piller was erected the sacramentarie heresie in Zuricke, as Zuinglius him selfe signifieth: for thus he reasoned. When Christ sayd this i•• my body, he spake tropically, because when Moyses sayd, the lambe is the pas∣ouer (which notwithstanding is a text of his owne coyning, as Luther pro∣ueth against him) this is a tropical speache. Agaynst which, Luther reply∣ing 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 con∣fesse, & perhaps amplifieth. But where∣in is he vehement, or what doth he am∣plifie? 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 ad∣vaunceth

the priest in regarde of the sa∣crifice. Now this amplificatiō 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, vvhe∣ther 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 blas∣phemous lye. The priest bēt earnestly to the sacrifice, that is a lye, for there vvas no such sacrifice within six hūdred 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. Chry∣sost.) ô singular goodnes of god, he that sitteth vvith his father aboue, at the selfe same momēt 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 a∣gaynst M. Ievvels sixt article, & there fore needes it must be false, so to speake or thinke. What truth novv remay∣neth for S. Chrysostome to amplifie,

vvhereas euerie vvord he speaketh beyng taken as it standeth, according to your religion is false? Belike he m••āt to aduaūce such dealing of bread and vvine as you vse in your congre∣g••tions, and consequently your mini∣sterie vvhich is promoted to so vvor∣thie a vocation. But vvhat sentence, vvhat vvord, vvhat sillable hath he to that purpos? yet graunt it be so. Thē your faith and religion being all one vvith S. Chrisostomes (as you tel vs) let your ministers vse such amplificati∣on to their people (and you neede not to be ashamed to borovve or learne of so excellent a doctor) and see vvhe∣ther both the people vvill not crye out vpon them as false prophetes, and the Commissioners bring them vvith∣in the Premunire, for preaching a∣gaynst the pure gospel receaued and authorised by parlament. Let them preach that they offer and sacrifice their lord and maister, that they are ear∣nest lye be••t to performe that dutie of priesthode, that at their hands the peo∣p••e receaue the pretious bloud of Christ, let such preachers be brought before you M. W. as th•• publike professor of di∣uinitie, and I appeale to your consci∣ence,

vvhether you vvill allovv such preaching as an amplification of their m••nisterio & not condemne it as vvic∣ked, and detestable, and blasphemous against the gospel.

[ 6] Finally M. W. could in no place more vndiscreetly haue vsed this ma∣ner of ansvvere then here. For S. Chry∣sostome so placeth the sacrifice of the church betvvene tvvo notorious sacri∣fices, and maketh the comparison be∣tvvene all three so nighly and exact∣ly, preferring alvvayes ours by in∣finite 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 cōsiderately perused the place him selfe. Before the vvords pertayninge to the sacrifice of the church, S. Chrysostome thus speaketh of the Le∣uiticall sacrifice. All thinges vvere terri∣ble and dreadfull about that sacrifice and priesthode: but if you match it vvith this sacri∣fice and priesthode, vvherein by the priest, our lord himselfe is sacrificed, all that is nothing as in the vvords set dovvne in the be∣ginning appeareth. Immediately after, thus he proceedeth▪ vvilt thou see the ex∣cellencie of this holines by an other miracles

put before thy eyes Elias and that infinite multitude aboute him, and the sacrifice l••yd vpon the altar, the prophete p••vvring forth his prayers, suddenly fyer descending from heauen and consuming the sacrifice, all straunge and full of admiration. Ab illis sa∣cris ad nostra sacra te transfer, from that sa∣crifice turne thy selfe to beholde our sacri∣fice, and thou shalt see that ours is far more vvonderfull and passing all admiration. For here is the priest caryinge not fyer, but the ho∣ly 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 ex∣tremes as a most true and excellent sa∣crifice, and affirmeth it so to be, and vseth the other tvvo for no other pur∣pose, then by the abasinge of those sa∣crifices 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 argu∣ment nether of witte, nor of learning nor shamefastnes, nor conscience. it is a manifest signe of one, that nether see∣keth

after the truth, nor careth what he sayth, nor regardeth man, nor feareth god. but passe we on.

Notes

• pag. 11.
• Iewel. art. 6. ¶. 4.5.
• Ibid. art. 10. ¶. 2.
• 1. Cor. 12. v. 27. Ephes. 5. v. 23.
• A commen¦tarie cleane against the text.
• Chrisost. ho¦mil. 2. ad pop. Antio. in fine.
• The great difference betwene Elias lea∣uing his mā¦tel to Eli∣zeus, and Christ lea∣uing his flesh to vs.
• Chrisost. in 1. Cor. ca. 10. hom. 24.
• The true o∣piniō of the Zuinglians, touching their Sup∣per or Com¦munion.
• Zuing. tom. 2. lib. de ve∣ra & falsa re¦lig. c. de Eu∣charist. fol. 212.
• Ibid. in ex∣egesi ad Lu∣therum fol. 362.363.
• Symbola tā∣tum esse. the Sacra∣ment, only a figure.
• Ibi. ad Luth. Confes. res∣ponsio. duae fo. 435. & ad Matth. Rut∣ling. fo. 155, & ad Theob. Billica. 261. The Sacra∣ment no∣thing out bread.
• Ibi. respons. duae, ad Lu∣therum fol. 477.
• Signa. The Sacra∣ment is no more the body of Christ, then a painted scutchion is the Quene of England or kinge of Fraunce.
• Beza. in epi. theologicis epist. 1.
• How aptly M. W. an∣swere and S. Christ. text matche together.
• M. W. quite peruerteth S. Chrisost. sense and sentence.
• Chrisost in hoc loco.
• zuing. to. 2. li. de pecca∣to origin. fo. 121. et ibid. respon. ad D. Baltaza∣rem. fo. 105.
• 4. Regum 2. v. 14.
• Chrisos. lib. 3. de sacer∣dotio. paulò post initium
• The excel∣lency of the priesthode of the new Testament. aboue that of the old.
• 2. Cor. 3.
• Intingi & ru¦befieri.
• Pag. 12.
• A bad way to make thē afrayde, if they vniuer∣sally knew & beleeued the cōtrary,
• We see Christ offe∣red in the church.
• Chrysost. in 1. Cor 10. hom. 24.
• Genes. 32. ver. 30.
• Exod. 24. ver. 9.
• 3. Reg. 22. ver. 19. Esa. 6. v. 1.
• Ioan 9. v. 38
• Ioan. 1. v. 18. 1 Tim. 6. v. 16. Exod. 33. vers. 20.
• 2. Cor. 11.
• Luth. Tom. 7 serm. de Eu∣charistia. fo. 337.
• Ibid. fo. 335.
• the zuingliā Communiō plaine ba∣kers bread.
• Infidels and Apostataes forefathers of the Pro∣testants, in mocking & scorning the Sacra∣ment.
• Kemnit. in exam. conc. Trident. cō∣tra canones de Eucharis∣tia.
• Calu. de ••oe∣na Domini inter opus∣cula.
• Ioan. 1. v. 32.
• The Sacra∣ment in what sort a figure.
• The Protes∣tāts by their analogie of faith. of eue¦ry place of scripture or doctor con∣clude what they lyst.
• Ioan. 3.
• Exod. 12.
• Luther to. 7. defens. ver∣borum coe∣nae fo. 386.
• Impossible to interpret S. Chrysost. of the En∣glish Com∣munion.
• supra pa. ••7.
• M. Iewels 17. article.
• The 5. artie.
• The 6. artie.
• True sacri∣fice in the church.
• Chryso. vbi supra.