A defence of the true and catholike doctrine of the sacrament of the body and bloud of our sauiour Christ with a confutacion of sundry errors concernyng the same, grounded and stablished vpon Goddes holy woorde, [and] approued by ye consent of the moste auncient doctors of the Churche. Made by the moste reuerende father in God Thomas Archebyshop of Canterbury, primate of all Englande and Metropolitane.

The Papistical doctrine is also against al our outward senses, called our fiue wittes. For our eies say, they se there bread and wine, our noses smell bread & wine, our mouthes taste, and oure handes feele bread and wine. And although the articles of our faith be aboue all our outward senses, so y^• we beleue thynges which we can nei¦ther see, fele, here, smell, nor taste, yet they bee not contrary to our senses, at the lest so contra∣ry, that in suche thynges whiche we from tyme

to tyme do see, smell, fele, here, and tast, we shall not trust our senses, but beleue cleane contrary. Christ neuer made no suche article of our faith.

Our faithe teacheth vs to beleeue thynges that we see not, but it doth not byd vs, that wee shall not beleue that we see dayly with our eies, and heare with our eares, and grope with our handes. For although our senses can not reache so farre as our faithe doothe, yet so farre as the compas of our senses doeth vsually reache, our faith is not contrary to the same, but rather our senses doo confirme our faith. Or els what auai¦led it to S. Thomas, for the confirmation of Christes resurrectiō, that he did put his hand in to Christs side, & felte his woundes, if he might not trust his senses, nor giue no credit therto?

And what a wyde doore is here opened to Ua¦lentinianus, Marcion, and other heretikes, whi¦che sayde that Christe was not crucified, but that Symon Cyreneus was crucifyed for him, although to the syghte of the people, it seemed that Christe was crucified? Or to suche hereti∣kes as sayde, that Christ was no man, although to mens sightes he appered in the forme of man and semed to be hūgry, dry, weery, to wepe, slepe, eate, drynke, yea and to dye lyke as other men doo? For if we ones admyt this doctrine, that no credite is to be geuen to our senses, we open a large field, & geue a great occasiō vnto an innu¦merable rablement of most heinous heresies.

And if there be no trust to be geuen to our sen∣ses

in this matter of the sacramente, why than do the Papistes so stoutely affirme, that the ac∣cidentes remayn after the consecration? whiche can not be iudged but by the senses. For the scri¦pture speaketh no woorde of the accidentes of breade and wyne, but of the breade and wyne them selues. And it is againste the nature and diffinition of accidentes, to bee alone withoute any substance. Wherefore if we may not truste our senses in this matter of the sacrament, thā if the substance of the bread and wyne be gone, why may we not then say, that the accidentes be¦gon also? And if we must nedes beleue our sen∣ses, as cōcernyng the accidents of bread & wine, why may we not do the lyke of the substance, & that rather than of the accidentes? Forasmuche as after the cōsecration the scripture saith in no place, that there is no substance of bread nor of wyne, but calleth them still by suche names as signifie the substances, and not the accidentes?

And fynally, if our senses be dayly deceiued in this matter, thā is the sensible sacrament no∣thyng els, but an elusion of our senses. And so we make muche for their purpose, that said that Christ was a crafty iuggler, that made thinges to appere to mens sightes, that in dede were no suche thynges, but formes onely, figures, and apparances of them.

But to conclude in fewe wordes this processe of our senses, let al the Papistes lay their hea∣des togither, and thei shal neuer be able to shew

one article of our faith, so directely contrary to our senses, that all our senses by dayly experi∣ence shall affirme a thynge to be, and yet oure fayth shall teache vs the contrary thervnto.

Notes

• Chap. 4
• The papi∣sticall doc∣trine is al¦so agaynst all our sen¦ses.
• Ioh. 20.