A detection of sundrie foule errours, lies, sclaunders, corruptions, and other false dealinges, touching doctrine, and other matters vttered and practized by M.Iewel, in a booke lately by him set foorth entituled, a defence of the apologie. &c. By Thomas Harding doctor of diuinitie.

Iewel. Pag. 246.

S. Ambrose saith of the bread and vvine, Sunt quae erant, & in aliud mutantur. They remaine the same, that they vvere, and are chaunged into an other thing. The natural creatures of the bread and wine in the supper of our Lord (saith S. Ambrose) remaine stil in sub∣stāce, as they were before: yet are they changed into an other thing, that is to say, they are made the Sacrament of the bodie and bloude of Christ, vvhich before they vvere not.

Harding.

Many other places M. Iewel make me doubte, left

you haue your conscience marked with the signe of An∣tichrist, that is to say, lest, although you see, and knowe your self to lie, and to falsify the holy Fathers, yet you wil not yeld vnto the truth in any point. Much a doo we had to perswade you, that Sabellicus wrote Decades: and I think you would neuer haue graūted it, except other men might haue found the booke in Powles Churchyard, and so haue sene your f••lsehood. But of al other impudencies, this which you stād in cōcerning this saying of S. Ambrose is not the lest of al. For you defend it, and repeat it againe and again, notwithstāding it was fully by me cōfuted: and yet it is so childish an errour, that I can not thinke you to be deceiued therin, but rather to be set desperatly in de∣fence thereof, for which ye haue nor learning, nor rea∣son, and onely bicause you would not seeme ouercome. Who would thinke, that a man of your studie, and lear∣ning, and of that place, would say and maintein it, that S. Ambrose meaneth bread and wine after Consecration, to remaine stil in substāce that, which they were before?

To beginne first here with the terme of bread and wine is no part of S. Ambroses wordes: it is your forgerie, it is your corruption, it is one of your owne falsifiyinges: His words are these: Panis iste, panis est ante verba Sacra∣mentorum, vbi accesserit consecratio, de pane fit caro Christi. Hoc igitur astruamus. Quomodo potest, qui panis est, corpus esse Christi? Consecratione. Consecratio igitur quibus verbis est, & cuius sermonibus? Domini Iesu. Nam reliqua oīa qua dicūtur, laus Deo defertur, oratio praemittitur propopulo, pro regibus, pro caeteris: vbi venitur vt cōficiatur venerabile Sa∣cramentū, iam nōsuis sermonibus sacerdos, sed vtitur sermo∣nibus Christi. Ergo sermo Christi hoc cōficit Sacramētū. Quis

sermo Christi? Nempe is, quo facta sunt oīa. Iussit Dominus, et factū est coelū. Iussit dominus, et facta est terra. Iussit Domi¦nus, et facta sunt maria. Iussit Dominus, et omnis creaturage nerata est. Vides ergo quā operatorius sit sermo Christi. Si er∣go tāta vis est in sermone Domini Iesu, vt inciperēt esse, quae nō erāt: quantò magis operatorius est, vt sint quae erāt, & in aliud commutentur? Coelum non erat, mare non erat, terra non erat. Sed audi dicentem: Ipse dixit, & facta sunt: ipse mandauit, & creata sunt. Ergo tibi vt respondeam, non erat corpus Christi ante Consecrationem, sed post Consecra∣tionem dico tibi, quòd iam corpus est Christi. Ipse dixit, & factum est: ipse mandauit, & creatum est.

This bread is bread, before the wordes of the Sacra∣mentes: when Consecration commeth to it, of breade is made the flesh of Christ. Let vs confirme this. How can that, which is bread, be the bodie of Christ? By Conse∣cration. With what wordes then is Consecration made, and with whose wordes? With the wordes of our Lord Iesus. For as for al the rest, that is there said, praise is ge∣uen to God praier for the people is sent before, for kings, and for al other. When the Priest commeth to make this honourable Sacrament, he vseth not now his owne wordes, but the wordes of our Lord. The worde there∣fore of Christ maketh this Sacrament. What worde of Christ? Verely that wherwith al things were made. Our Lord cōmaunded, and heauen was made. Our Lord com¦maūded, and the earth was made. Our Lord cōmaunded, and the seas were made. Our Lord cōmaunded, and euery creature was brought forth. Thou seest therefore howe workeful the word of Christ is. If then so great force, and strēgth be in the word of our Lord Iesus, that those things

should beginne to be, whiche were not: of how muche more strength is it to worke, that the things which were, be, that is to say, haue a beeing, and be changed into an∣other thing? The Heauen was not, the Sea was not, the Earth was not. But harken to him who saith: He saied, and they were made, he cōmaunded, and they were crea∣ted. Therefore that I maie make thee an answere to this question, it was not the body of Christ before Consecra∣tion: but after Consecration I tel thee, that now it is the body of Christe. He said, and it was made, he com∣maunded, and it was created.

Who seeth not here this drifte of S. Ambrose, to proue, that as the Worde, or speach of our Lorde, made al thinges of nothing, euen so it is much more hable, to change one thing into another thing? And bicause I re∣quired M. Iewel to cōstrue S. Ambroses wordes, which yet he would not do, though he promised to do it: I wil construe them for him, and wil shewe his ex∣treme blindnesse, or rather his wilfulnesse in the vnder∣standing of that sentence. Ergo, then, si tanta vis est, if so great strength be, in sermone Domini Iesu, in the speach of our Lord Iesus, vt, that, quae non erant, the thin∣ges which were not, inciperent esse, beganne to be, that is to saie, to haue a being: quantò magis operatorius est, how much more is our Lordes speach workful, vt, that, quae erant, the thinges which were, sint, be, that is to saie, haue a being, & in aliud commutentur, and be changed, into an other thing? By these wordes it is cleere, that S. Ambrose here speaketh generally of al thinges, whiche God worketh by his word, and not particularly of bread, and wine.

Now wil I construe the same woordes, as M. Iewel would haue them to be takē. First, he vnderstandeth, and supplieth, bread and wine, to be the nominatiue case to the verbe, sint, be, or rather to the verbe, Sūt, as for his ad∣uantage he altereth that holy Doctours wordes. Wher∣as it is euident, that in the same whole sentence, breade, and wine are not particularly once named.

Secondly, he beginneth the construction with the verbe (sint) whereas (quae erant) should go before it, as it may wel appeare by setting the one part of the compa∣rison against the other. For the one part is thus to be set, Quae non erant incipiunt esse, the thinges which were not, beginne to be. Therefore the other must be thus set ac∣cordingly: quae erant, sunt, & in aliud commutantur. The thinges whiche were, be, and be changed into an other thing.

Thirdly, betwen quae, and erant, M. Iewel conueieth in a pronowne demonstratiue, which hath no place there, saying, which (they) were, as if bread, and wine were re∣spected. Againe, you translate, Sunt, quae erant, they re∣maine the same, that they were. And those wordes you put forth in great texte letters. Is Sunt, to be englished, They remaine the same? Sunt, is no more, but They be. If S. Ambrose would haue said, as you vntruly translate him, his wordes had benne these, manent eadem: for that is the Latine of this your English, they remaine the same.

But S. Ambrose meaneth thus. Those thinges that were not, by Gods word beginne to be: And those that were, by Gods word be also, but they be another thing. How so? Bicause they are changed into an other thing. But M. Iewel beginning the construction amisse, tea∣cheth

vs, that Gods worde causeth things to be, that they were, whiche is not S. Ambroses minde. For then Gods worde should cause bread to be bread stil, and that were onely the conseruing of creatures, and not a changing of creatures. But now al S. Ambroses reason procedeth to proue, that Gods worde is of force to change creatures, and he meaneth of change in substance. For al his com∣parison consisteth about the wordes, non esse, & esse, and, esse, & aliud esse. Things that were not, be, and those that be already, become to be an other thing. If they be∣come to be onely an other thing in qualitie, then they are onely already a thing in qualitie, whiche is false. For the being that they haue, is a certaine substance or substanciall being. Therefore the other being, or change, which they haue, is an other substance.

And I praye you, who would not woonder to see S. Ambrose labour so vehemently to prooue, that Gods worde is able to chaunge a creature in qualitie, as though a man were not hable to change a thing in qualitie? Can not the Cutler make rustie iron bright? Can not a Pargeter make a browne wal white? Can not a Cooke make colde liquour hote? And can not you M. Iewel shew your selfe sometimes sweet, and quiet, sometimes eager, and waspish, sometimes a true man, more often∣times a lyer? Wherin standeth this great force and wor∣king of Gods woorde, whereof S Ambrose speaketh? Soothly in the change of the substance of thinges. For as he beganne his disputation, before the wordes of Con∣secration, quod he, the bread, is bread: but when Con∣secration is come vnto it, de pane, from of bread it is made Christes flesh. Marke, whence is the change made, from

bread. And into what is it made? Into flesh. This then is that S. Ambrose must proue, That Gods word hath po∣wer to change bread into flesh.

To make short, this very sentence, whereof we nowe dispute, is in an other place thus vttered by S. Ambrose. Sermo Christi, qui potuit ex nihilo facere quod non erat, non potest ea quae sunt, in id mutare quod nō erant? The worde of Christ, which could make that, which was not, of no∣thing, can it not change those things which be, into that which they were not? He geueth an euident reason of his owne wordes, saying: Non enim minus est nouas re∣bus, dare, quàm mutare naturas. For it is not lesse, to geue new natures vnto things, then to change natures. As who should say, he that can geue new natures, can much more change natures. Now sir, I pray you, when God geueth new natures, doth he not geue new substances? When therefore he is said at the same time to worke in changing natures, it is meant that he changeth substan∣ces, to wit, bread into the bodie of Christ, and wine in∣to his bloud. You haue a giltie conscience M. Iewel, if al this considered, yet you wil hold your owne, and say stil, that S. Ambrose meant not a change in substāce, but only in qualitie. For either you haue lost your wit, or els you doo see, to what purpose S. Ambroses discourse goeth.

Besides al this, consider good Reader, howe S. Am∣brose concludeth, and endeth this discourse: Ergo didici∣sti, quòd ex pane corpus fiat Christi. Nowe then thou hast learned, that of bread the body of Christ is made. His pur∣pose then was to shewe, not that a newe qualitie, but that a newe substance was made by change of the olde substance: Of breade (I saye) the Bodie of Christe

was made, and of wine was made his bloud. And yet it appeareth not bloud, vt nullus horror cruoris sit, that there might be no abhorring of bloude. But as in deede our sinnes are vtterly taken away in Baptisme, where the olde Adam dieth, and a newe creature is made in righ∣teousnes: euen so although it appeare not bloud, yet in deede the olde substance of the wine is changed into the new substance of the bloud of our Sauiour. Thus the bread, and wine are changed in substance, and yet kepe stil their olde outward formes.

Notes

• S, Am∣brose saith not so. Phie, vvhat fal¦sifiyng is this?
• Confutat. fol. 97.
• M. Ievvel defendeth his parte by falsifi∣yng S. Ambrose Ambros. de Sacra. lib. 4. cap. 4.
• De ijs qui initiantur mysterijs. cap. 9.
• Ibidem.