A
FRIENDLY
CAVEAT
TO
IRELANDS
CATHOLICQVES
,
CONCERning
the
Daungerous
Dreame
of
Christs
corporal●
presence
in
the
Sacrament
of
the
Lords
Supper
:
grounded
vpon
a
letter
sent
from
the
Catholicques
,
&c.
To
the
reverend
Fathers
,
the
holy
Iesuits
,
Seminaries
,
and
all
other
Priests
that
fauour
the
holy
Romane
religion
within
the
kingdome
of
Ireland
.
HVmbly
praieth
your
Fatherly
charities
,
F.
W.
and
P.
D.
with
many
other
professed
Catholicques
of
the
holie
Romane
religion
:
that
whereas
of
late
they
haue
heard
some
Protestant
Preachers
confidently
affirme
,
and
(
as
it
seems
vnto
our
shallow
capacities
)
plainly
do
prooue
,
that
these
positions
here
vnder-written
cannot
be
proued
by
anie
of
you
,
to
be
either
Apostolicall
or
Catholicque
by
canonicall
Scripture
,
or
the
auncient
Fathers
of
the
Church
which
liued
and
writ
within
the
compasse
of
the
first
fiue
hundred
yeares
after
Christs
ascention
:
which
assertion
of
theirs
,
hath
bred
in
your
suppliants
great
doubts
touching
the
trueth
of
the
same
:
vnlesse
your
fatherly
accustomed
charities
be
extended
presently
to
satisfie
our
consciences
in
the
same
,
by
the
holy
written
word
of
God
,
&
such
Fathers
of
the
Church
as
aforesaid
,
which
being
so
directly
and
plainely
prooued
by
you
(
as
aforesaid
)
may
be
a
speedie
meanes
to
convert
many
Protestants
to
our
profession
.
Otherwise
,
if
these
points
cannot
be
so
proued
by
you
,
vpon
whose
learned
resolutions
we
greatly
relie
,
then
not
onely
we
,
but
many
thousands
more
in
this
kingdome
of
Ireland
,
can
hold
these
points
to
be
neither
Apostolicall
or
Catholicque
.
And
thus
hauing
shewed
some
of
our
doubts
,
wee
desire
your
fatherly
resolutions
,
as
you
tender
the
credit
of
our
religion
,
the
convincing
of
the
Protestants
,
and
the
satisfying
of
our
poore
consciences
.
And
thus
craving
your
speedie
learned
and
fatherly
answeres
in
writing
,
at
or
before
the
first
of
Februarie
next
,
with
a
perfect
quotation
of
both
Scripture
and
Fathers
themselues
,
not
recited
or
repeated
by
others
for
our
better
instruction
:
and
the
aduersaries
speedier
&
stronger
confutation
,
we
commend
your
persons
and
studies
to
Gods
blessed
direction
and
protection
.
Positions
.
-
1
That
Transubstantiation
,
or
the
corporall
presence
of
Christ●
bodie
and
bloud
in
the
Sacrament
,
was
neuer
taught
by
the
auncient
fathers
that
euer
writ
in
the
first
fiue
hundred
years
after
Christs
ascention
,
but
a
spirituall
presence
onely
to
the
faithfull
beleeuers
.
-
2
That
the
Church
of
God
had
not
their
service
in
an
vnknowne
tongue
,
but
in
such
language
as
euery
perticuler
Church
vnderstood
,
-
3
Thirdly
that
Purgatorie
and
praiers
for
the
dead
were
not
then
knowne
in
Gods
Church
.
-
4
Fourthly
,
that
images
&
praying
to
Saints
were
then
neither
taught
by
those
Fathers
,
nor
receiued
of
the
Catholicque
Church
.
-
5
Fiftly
,
that
the
Masse
which
now
the
Church
of
Rome
vseth
,
was
not
then
knowne
to
the
Church
.
-
6
Sixtly
,
that
there
ought
not
to
bee
one
supreame
Bishop
ouer
all
the
world
,
and
that
Bishop
to
be
the
Pope
of
Rome
:
and
that
the
said
Pope
hath
not
vniversall
iurisdiction
ouer
all
Princes
,
and
their
subiects
,
in
all
causes
Temporall
and
Ecclesiasticall
.
The
Protestant
Preachers
affirme
,
vnles
you
prooue
the
premisses
by
canonicall
Scripture
,
they
cannot
be
Apostolicall
:
and
therefore
bind
not
the
conscience
of
anie
.
And
if
they
cannot
bee
proued
by
the
said
Fathers
,
then
they
be
neither
auncient
nor
Catholike
:
And
therefore
to
be
reiected
as
mens
inventions
.
PRouoked
to
prooue
either
by
Scriptures
,
or
Fathers
,
Catho
.
Priests
.
which
liued
within
the
compasse
of
fiue
hundred
yeares
after
Christs
ascention
,
that
the
Primitiue
Church
and
Catholicques
of
this
time
are
of
consent
touching
these
Articles
.
-
1
That
Christ
is
really
in
the
blessed
Sacrament
.
-
2
That
Scriptures
should
not
be
perused
by
the
vulgar
.
-
3
That
praier
for
the
dead
&
Purgatorie
was
beleeved
.
-
4
That
images
were
worshipped
,
and
praiers
made
to
Saints
.
-
5
That
Masse
was
allowed
.
-
6
That
the
supremacie
of
the
Pope
was
acknowledged
.
GEntlemen
:
Rider
.
the
cause
of
this
your
provokement
was
a
quiet
and
milde
conference
vpon
these
positions
,
maister
W.
N.
with
an
honorable
Gentleman
(
and
a
speciall
good
friend
of
yours
concerning
religion
)
wherein
he
confidently
assumed
,
that
the
Iesuits
and
Romane
Priests
of
this
kingdome
,
were
able
to
prooue
by
Scriptures
and
Fathers
,
these
Positions
to
be
Apostolicall
&
Catholicque
.
And
that
the
Church
of
Rome
and
the
Romane
Catholicques
in
Ireland
now
hold
nothing
touching
the
same
,
but
what
the
holy
Scriptures
and
primitiue
Fathers
held
within
the
first
fiue
hundred
yeares
after
Christs
ascention
.
Now
if
you
in
this
conference
for
your
part
,
haue
made
such
proofe
by
the
holy
canonicall
Scriptures
,
and
such
Doctors
of
the
Church
as
aforesaid
,
I
haue
promised
to
become
a
Roman
Catholicque
:
if
you
haue
failed
in
your
proofe
(
which
I
am
assured
you
haue
done
,
)
he
likewise
before
worshipfull
witnesses
hath
giuen
his
hand
,
to
renounce
this
your
new
doctrine
of
the
church
of
Rome
,
&
become
a
professor
of
the
gospel
of
Christ
.
This
was
the
occasion
and
maner
of
your
prouokement
,
which
J
hope
the
best
minded
will
not
mistake
,
not
you
misconster
,
being
onelie
prouoked
by
your
friend
,
1.
Pet.
3.15
yea
&
faith
(
if
you
refuse
not
Saint
Peters
counsell
)
to
be
readie
alwaes
to
giue
an
answere
to
anie
man
that
asketh
you
a
reason
of
the
hope
that
is
in
you
.
In
your
first
line
you
chaunge
a
woord
,
(
and
for
or
,
)
which
greatly
altereth
the
Catholickes
question
,
and
is
farre
from
our
first
meaning
.
For
we
hold
with
Christs
trueth
,
Ioh.
20.31
.
that
vnlesse
the
written
word
of
God
first
warrant
it
,
we
are
not
bound
in
conscience
to
beleeue
it
,
though
all
the
Doctors
and
Prelates
in
the
world
should
sweare
it
.
And
this
was
demaunded
of
you
,
not
as
the
demaunders
doubted
that
the
canonicall
Scriptures
were
insufficient
to
prooue
any
article
of
faith
;
but
onelie
,
that
all
men
might
see
and
so
be
resolved
,
whether
the
Protestants
,
or
the
now
Romane
Catholicques
ioyne
neerest
to
Christs
trueth
,
and
the
faith
of
the
first
primitiue
Fathers
.
For
that
faith
which
can
bee
prooved
to
bee
taught
in
Christs
time
,
and
so
receiued
and
continued
in
the
primitiue
Church
for
the
first
fiue
hundred
yeares
after
Christs
ascention
,
must
needs
be
the
true
,
auncient
,
Apostolicall
,
and
Catholicque
faith
.
And
that
other
faith
that
cannot
be
so
proved
,
is
but
base
,
bastardly
,
and
counterfeit
;
and
I
trust
in
Christ
,
that
the
Reader
easily
shall
perceiue
before
the
ende
of
this
small
Treatise
,
that
this
your
opinion
touching
Christs
carnall
presence
in
the
Sacrament
,
(
and
so
in
the
rest
of
the
other
Positions
)
was
never
taught
by
Christ
,
nor
once
dreamed
on
by
the
auncient
Fathers
,
but
invented
and
deviled
a
thousand
yeares
after
Christ
,
by
the
late
Church
of
Rome
:
grounding
their
proofes
onelie
of
an
emptie
sound
of
syllables
,
without
Apostolicall
or
Catholicque
sence
:
enforcing
both
Scriptures
and
Fathers
to
speake
what
they
and
you
pleased
,
not
what
the
holie
Ghost
and
the
Fathers
purposed
.
But
first
,
heere
you
wrong
your selfe
much
,
your
cause
more
,
but
the
simple
people
most
of
all
,
in
altering
the
state
of
the
question
:
for
our
controversie
is
of
the
manner
of
Christs
presence
in
the
Sacrament
:
whether
he
be
there
corporallie
or
spirituallie
.
The
Catholicque
Priests
subtilly
alter
the
state
of
the
question
.
And
you
(
no
doubt
in
your
conscience
knowing
it
vnpossible
to
prooue
your
carnall
presence
)
alter
the
question
(
verie
deceiptfully
)
from
the
manner
to
the
matter
:
That
Christ
is
really
in
the
blessed
Sacrament
:
A
thing
never
denied
by
vs
,
nor
ever
in
question
betwixt
Protestant
and
Papist
;
for
both
you
and
we
hold
Christs
reall
presence
in
the
Sacrament
,
but
you
carnallie
and
locallie
:
we
misticallie
and
spiritually
;
you
by
Transubstantiation
:
we
in
the
commanded
and
lawfull
administration
.
But
here
you
forget
your
grounds
of
divinitie
,
and
rules
of
Logicke
,
in
making
an
opposition
betwixt
spirituall
receiving
and
reall
receiving
,
opposing
them
as
contraries
,
whereas
the
opposition
is
not
betwixt
spirituall
and
reall
,
but
betwixt
corporall
and
spirituall
:
for
spirituall
receiving
by
faith
is
reall
receiving
,
and
corporall
receiving
by
the
mouth
,
is
also
reall
receiving
:
So
that
the
Scriptures
and
Fathers
that
here
you
alleadge
,
bee
altogither
impertinent
to
prooue
your
carnall
presence
of
Christ
and
his
new
conception
,
of
bread
;
not
of
the
blessed
Virgin
;
by
a
sinfull
Priest
,
not
by
the
holy
Ghost
.
For
Christ
willing
I
will
make
it
plaine
vnto
you
,
that
you
haue
shewed
little
divinitie
,
and
concealed
much
learning
in
this
?
onely
hudled
vp
a
number
of
texts
of
Scriptures
and
Testimonies
of
Fathers
out
of
Eckius
Common-places
,
and
other
like
Enchiridions
,
and
neuer
read
the
fathers
themselues
,
which
at
first
was
requested
.
)
And
thus
trusting
other
mens
reports
,
and
not
your
owne
eyes
:
you
haue
wrongd
your self
,
weakned
your
cause
,
and
abused
the
simple
.
For
if
you
had
diligently
read
&
throughly
weighed
these
Scriptures
and
Fathers
,
you
might
haue
seene
and
knowne
that
these
confute
your
erronious
opinions
,
and
confirme
them
not
.
But
this
you
should
haue
here
prooved
for
the
Catholicques
satisfaction
,
(
in
which
you
haue
altogither
failed
.
)
That
after
the
Priest
hath
spoken
over
and
to
the
Bread
and
Wine
,
Rhem.
test
.
1.
Cor.
11.
Sect.
9.
Hoc
est
corpus
meum
,
and
vsed
powrefull
words
over
it
and
then
,
which
you
call
your
consecration
:
that
presentlie
the
substances
of
Bread
and
Wine
are
gon
,
not
one
crumme
or
drop
remaining
,
but
wholly
transubstantiated
,
transnatured
,
and
chaunged
into
the
verie
reall
,
naturall
,
and
substantiall
bodie
and
bloud
of
Christ
,
which
was
borne
of
the
Virgin
Marie
,
Rhe.
Test
.
●●th
.
26.
Sect.
4.
and
nailed
on
the
crosse
,
&
is
now
in
heaven
:
and
yet
in
the
Sacrament
,
whole
,
aliue
,
and
immortall
;
and
that
this
bodie
of
Christ
must
bee
received
with
our
corporall
mouth
,
and
locally
descend
into
our
corporall
stomackes
.
Which
bodie
so
made
by
the
Priest
,
is
offered
by
the
Priest
to
God
the
father
,
as
a
propitiatorie
,
mercifull
,
and
redeeming
sacrifice
,
by
which
the
Priest
applieth
(
as
hee
saith
)
the
generall
vertues
of
Christs
passion
to
every
particular
mans
necessitie
,
either
quicke
or
dead
,
for
m●tters
temporall
,
or
graces
spirituall
,
for
whom
and
when
he
listeth
and
for
what
hee
pleaseth
.
Your
carnall
presence
shall
bee
first
handled
.
The
second
point
,
which
is
your
propitiatorie
sacrifice
,
shall
bee
handled
in
the
title
of
the
Masse
.
This
is
your
Romane
●●e
learning
which
you
should
haue
prooved
:
but
how
your
owne
proofes
(
being
duely
examined
)
disprooue
you
,
let
the
learned
iudge
.
But
now
to
your
first
proofe
out
of
the
sixth
of
Iohn
,
to
prooue
your
opinion
touching
the
first
position
.
Ioh.
6.
vers
51.
The
bread
which
I
will
giue
is
my
flesh
.
&c.
Catho
.
Priests
.
Ioh.
6.
vers
53.
Vnlesse
you
eate
the
flesh
of
the
Son
of
man
and
drinke
his
bloud
,
you
shal
haue
no
life
in
you
.
Ioh.
6.
vers
55.
My
flesh
is
meat
truly
,
&
my
bloudes
,
&c.
Gentlemen
you
mistake
vtterly
Christs
meaning
,
Rider
.
wresting
Christs
wordes
from
the
spirituall
sence
in
which
he
spake
,
to
the
litterall
sence
which
he
never
meant
,
ancient
Fathers
never
taught
,
Primitiue
Church
of
Christ
for
one
thousand
yeares
at
least
after
Christs
ascention
never
knew
or
received
.
For
the
words
and
phrases
be
figuratiue
and
allegorical
,
therefore
the
sence
must
be
spirituall
,
not
carnal
,
For
this
is
a
generall
rule
in
Gods
booke
,
ancient
Fathers
,
yea
and
in
your
Popes
Canons
and
glosses
,
that
everie
figuratiue
speech
or
phrase
of
Scripture
must
be
expounded
spirituallie
,
not
carnally
or
litterallie
,
as
anone
more
plainlie
you
shall
heare
.
But
that
the
simple
be
no
longer
seduced
by
your
Romane
doctrine
,
expounding
this
6.
of
Iohn
grammaticallie
,
and
carnally
,
contrarie
to
Christs
meaning
,
constraining
these
places
to
prooue
your
carnall
presence
of
Christ
in
the
Sacrament
,
when
there
was
no
Sacrament
then
ordained
.
J
will
set
downe
(
GOD
willing
)
Christs
meaning
truelie
and
plainlie
which
you
shall
nor
be
able
either
by
Scriptures
or
auncient
Fathers
to
contradict
.
1
First
,
I
will
plainelie
deliver
the
occasion
why
Christ
vsed
the
Metaphor
of
Bread
,
calling
himselfe
Bread
.
2
Secondlie
,
according
to
which
of
Christs
nature
▪
he
is
our
living
bread
,
whether
as
hee
is
man
onely
,
or
God
onely
;
or
as
he
is
compleate
God
and
man
.
3
Thirdly
,
how
this
bread
must
be
taken
and
eaten
,
whether
by
the
mouth
of
the
bodie
or
the
mouth
of
the
soule
.
4
Fourthly
,
the
fruit
that
comes
to
the
true
eaters
thereof
.
5
Lastly
,
the
reasons
shall
bee
alleadged
out
of
Christs
owne
words
,
to
prooue
that
your
round
Wafer-cakes
vpon
your
supposed
hall●
wed
Altars
,
are
not
that
true
bread
(
Christs
flesh
)
which
Christ
heere
speakes
of
1.
Occasion
The
question
was
mooued
by
some
Bellie-gods
that
tasted
of
Christs
banquet
,
&
bountie
(
in
feeding
fiue
thousand
men
with
fiue
loaues
and
two
fishes
)
whether
Moses
or
Christ
were
the
more
excellent
and
liberall
in
feeding
men
.
1
FIrst
,
they
commend
Moses
from
the
greatnesse
of
h●
place
and
person
,
being
Gods
Lieutenant
to
conduct
Israel
out
of
Egypt
.
2
Secondly
,
they
commend
their
Manna
from
the
place
whence
it
came
,
which
was
the
heavens
as
they
supposed
.
3
Thirdly
,
they
commend
the
bread
from
the
vertue
of
it
;
which
was
,
it
fed
their
Fathers
in
the
drie
sandie
and
barren
wildernesse
,
and
saved
them
from
famine
,
&
therfore
they
thoght
that
no
man
was
greater
than
Moses
,
no
bread
to
be
compared
with
Manna
:
Now
Christ
by
way
of
opposition
and
comparison
,
confutes
them
:
opposing
God
to
Moses
,
and
himselfe
to
Manna
.
1
First
,
denieth
that
Moses
was
the
given
of
that
Manna
,
but
that
God
was
the
authour
.
Moses
onely
the
Minister
.
2
Secondlie
,
that
it
came
not
from
the
eternall
ki●gdome
of
God
,
which
is
properlie
called
heaven
,
but
from
the
visible
clouds
improperly
called
heaven
.
3
Thirdlie
,
Christ
denieth
Manna
to
bee
the
true
bread
,
because
it
onelie
preserved
life
temporall
,
but
could
not
giue
it
:
but
this
bread
(
Christ
)
doeth
not
onelie
giue
life
corporall
,
but
also
l
fe
spiritual
in
the
kingdome
of
grace
,
&
life
eternall
in
the
kingdome
of
glorie
.
4
Fourthlie
,
this
bread
Manna
ceased
when
they
came
into
Canaan
,
and
〈◊〉
no
more
bee
found
:
but
this
bread
(
Christ
)
doth
feed
vs
●eere
in
this
earthlie
wildernesse
,
Iosua
.
5.12
.
and
raignes
for
ever
with
his
triumphant
Church
in
our
everlasting
&
glorious
Canaan
the
kingdome
of
heaven
.
5
This
bread
Manna
,
&
so
all
corporall
meates
when
they
haue
fed
the
bodie
,
they
haue
performed
their
office
,
they
perish
without
yeelding
profit
to
the
s●●e
:
but
this
bread
of
life
(
Christ
)
is
the
true
bread
,
Ioh.
6.54
.
which
once
beeing
received
into
the
soule
,
doth
not
onelie
assure
and
giue
vnto
it
eternall
life
,
but
also
〈◊〉
the
bodie
like
assurance
of
resurection
&
salvation
,
so
that
the
soule
must
first
feed
on
Christ
,
before
the
body
can
haue
any
benefit
by
Christ
;
contrarie
to
your
doctrine
,
which
is
,
that
the
bodie
must
first
feed
on
Christ
carnally
,
then
the
soule
shal
be
thereby
fed
spiritual
ie
.
And
because
they
were
so
addicted
in
Moses
time
to
Manna
:
in
Christs
time
to
his
miraculous
loaues
,
respecting
the
feeding
of
their
bodies
,
not
the
feeding
of
their
soules
:
Therefore
Christ
deborted
them
from
food
corporall
to
food
spirituall
:
Ioh.
6.27
.
Labor
not
(
saith
he
)
for
the
meat
that
perisheth
,
but
for
the
meat
that
endureth
to
euerlasting
life
,
which
the
sonne
of
man
shall
giue
vnto
you
,
&c.
And
thus
much
touching
the
occasion
,
why
Christ
is
saide
to
bee
the
true
bread
of
life
.
which
as
farre
excelled
Manna
,
as
the
soule
the
bodie
,
life
death
:
eternitie
time
:
and
heaven
earth
.
3
Point
.
NOw
let
vs
see
according
to
which
of
Christ
,
natures
,
h●
is
called
out
living
Bread
,
whether
according
to
his
manhood
or
godhead
,
or
b●th
.
Christ
calls
this
bread
his
flesh
,
and
Christ
&
his
fl●sh
are
al
one
,
&
therefore
Christ
&
his
flesh
are
all
on●
&
the
same
bre●●
;
&
as
our
bodies
are
fed
with
material
br●●d
,
so
are
our
soules
fed
with
the
flesh
of
Christ
,
&
this
flesh
hee
will
gi●e
for
the
life
of
the
world
w●●ch
flesh
is
not
Christ
bodie
separated
from
his
son●e
(
as
some
of
you
imagine
and
vntruelie
teach
)
not
Christs
bodie
and
soule
separated
from
his
divinitie
,
but
even
his
quickning
flesh
,
which
being
personally
vnited
to
his
eternall
s●irit
,
was
by
the
same
given
for
the
life
of
the
world
,
not
corpora●lie
and
really
in
the
Sacrament
as
you
vntruly
teach
:
But
in
the
sacrifice
of
his
bodie
and
bloud
once
o●
the
crosse
,
as
the
Scriptures
●ccord
:
for
the
flesh
of
Christ
profiteth
not
,
but
as
it
is
made
quickning
by
the
spirit
.
Neither
do
we
participate
the
life
of
his
spirit
,
but
as
it
is
communicated
vnto
vs
by
his
flesh
,
by
which
we
are
made
flesh
of
his
flesh
,
and
bone
of
his
bone
:
as
hath
b●n
shewed
before
.
Which
holie
misterie
is
represented
vnto
vs
in
the
Sacrament
of
the
Lords
Supper
,
and
the
trueth
thereof
assured
and
sealed
in
the
due
administration
and
receiving
of
the
same
.
So
this
true
bread
(
spoken
of
in
the
sixt
of
Iohn
)
which
hath
this
spirituall
quickning
and
nourishing
power
,
i●
compleate
Christ
,
God
&
man
,
with
all
his
soule
●●ving
merits
.
And
neither
Manna
in
the
wildernesse
:
nor
your
●o●●d
Wafer-cakes
vppon
your
supposed
hallowed
Altars
.
Manna
it
could
not
be
,
for
it
cea●●d
manie
hundred
years
before
.
Your
imagined
and
transnatured
bread
it
could
not
bee
,
because
the
Sacrament
was
not
then
instituted
.
And
〈◊〉
to
the
third
point
.
The
manner
how
this
true
bread
(
Christ
)
must
be
eaten
.
THe
meat
is
spirituall
,
3
Point
.
and
therefore
the
manner
of
eating
must
not
bee
corporall
;
for
such
as
is
the
meat
,
such
most
be
the
mouth
:
but
the
meat
is
spirituall
,
therefore
the
mouth
must
be
spirituall
,
as
before
you
haue
heard
,
Fide
non
d●nte
,
In
the
ep●stle
to
t●
Reader
.
&c.
which
thing
being
there
handled
before
out
of
holy
Scr
p
ure●
,
Fathers
,
and
your
Popes
Canons
,
I
will
onelie
referre
you
thither
,
where
you
may
(
vnlesse
you
bee
maleconte●ts
t●
)
be
fully
satisfied
touching
the
true
manner
of
eating
Christ
:
where
you
may
find
proued
out
of
Gods
booke
,
that
comming
to
Christ
,
beleeving
in
Christ
,
abiding
in
Christ
,
dwelling
in
Christ
,
and
to
be
clad
with
Christ
,
and
to
eate
Christ
,
are
all
one
,
so
that
out
of
everie
one
you
might
frame
this
or
the
like
vnaunswerable
argument
.
Whosoever
dwels
in
Christ
and
Christ
in
them
,
Ioh.
6.5
35.
onelie
eates
Christs
flesh
and
drinkes
Christs
bloud
.
B
t
the
true
belevers
onelie
dwell
in
Christ
and
Christ
in
them
:
therefore
the
true
beleevers
oneli●
we
Christs
flesh
and
drinke
Christs
bloud
.
The
proposit
on
is
Christs
owne
words
,
Ioh.
6
56.
Eph●
.
3.17
of
which
it
were
damnable
to
doubt
.
The
assumption
is
Pauls
,
Let
Christ
dwell
in
your
hearts
by
faith
:
therefore
the
conclusion
cannot
be
denied
.
And
so
to
the
fourth
.
The
fruit
and
profit
that
redoundes
to
the
true
eaters
of
this
bread
of
life
,
which
is
Christ
.
MAnie
rich
benefits
we
haue
by
eating
Christ
in
the
manner
aforesaid
:
that
is
,
4
Point
.
by
apprehending
,
applying
,
and
appropriating
vnto
vs
whole
Christ
with
his
benefits
;
I
will
onelie
name
one
or
two
,
and
referre
you
for
the
rest
to
the
sixth
of
Iohn
.
Ioh.
6
41.54.50.51
.
He
that
eateth
this
bread
,
I
will
raise
him
vp
at
the
last
day
to
life
(
concerning
hi●
bodi●
,
)
and
hee
shall
neuer
die
but
liue
for
euer
.
(
concerning
his
soule
)
But
an
opposition
being
made
betwixt
this
true
bread
Christ
,
and
this
Sacramentall
bread
,
(
as
was
betw●xt
Christ
and
Manna
,
)
it
will
bee
cleere
,
(
nay
vnpossible
)
that
your
consecrated
bread
should
bee
the
bread
of
life
which
is
spoken
of
in
the
sixth
of
Iohn
:
1
Your
consecrated
bread
never
came
from
the
heaven
of
heavens
:
therefore
it
is
not
the
true
bread
of
life
spoken
of
in
this
place
.
2
All
that
eat
of
this
true
bread
(
Christ
)
are
saved
,
but
manie
that
eate
of
your
Sacramentall
bread
are
damned
:
therefore
it
is
not
that
bread
spoken
of
in
the
sixth
of
Iohn
.
3
Your
bread
onelie
enters
the
bodilie
mouth
,
and
is
received
into
the
stomacke
of
the
bodie
,
and
so
passeth
the
way
of
all
excrements
:
and
therefore
is
not
the
true
bread
.
4
Your
bread
cannot
for
ever
preserue
temporall
life
,
much
lesse
giue
it
,
but
not
at
all
life
eternal
:
and
therefore
it
is
not
the
true
bread
of
life
spoken
of
in
this
sixth
of
Iohn
.
Ioh.
6.54.50
.
Now
seeing
that
Christ
had
not
all
this
time
when
he
made
this
sermon
in
the
sixth
of
Iohn
ordained
his
last
Supper
,
and
therefore
not
the
bread
in
the
Supper
:
And
seeing
this
bread
can
neither
assure
the
bodie
of
the
receivers
of
resurrection
,
nor
their
soules
of
salvation
,
it
cannot
be
that
this
bread
in
the
Sacrament
was
the
same
that
Christ
spake
of
in
Iohn
:
And
therefore
your
proofes
brought
to
prooue
your
carnall
presence
of
Christ
by
these
texts
,
be
impertinent
,
savouring
(
by
your
leaue
)
of
smaal
reading
in
the
Fathers
,
and
lesse
vnderstanding
in
the
Scriptures
.
But
that
all
men
that
read
this
,
may
see
your
errours
,
&
so
beware
of
your
new
daungerous
doctrine
,
J
will
bring
Augustine
&
other
Fathers
,
to
disprooue
you
in
plaine
termes
for
misalleadging
these
texts
.
Agustine
bringeth
forth
(
as
it
were
vpon
a
sta●e
)
the
three
Evangelists
,
mathew
,
Mark
,
Aug.
Tomo
quar●
de
consensu
Evangelistarum
:
lib.
C●p.
1.
math.
26
mark
14.
Luk.
22.
Ioh.
6.
These
three
Evang.
●andled
(
as
it
were
)
the
bodie
of
Christ
,
Iohn
the
soule
and
divinitie
of
Christ
.
Lyra
in
psal.
110.
and
Luke
,
delivering
the
doctrine
of
the
Sacrament
;
but
when
he
came
to
Iohn
,
he
saith
:
Iohannes
autem
de
corpore
&
sanguine
Domini
hoc
in
loco
nihil
dixit
:
Iohn
in
the
6.
of
his
gospel
spake
nothing
of
the
Lords
body
and
bloud
.
I
wonder
with
what
face
you
can
brag
to
follow
the
fathers
,
&
no
men
nor
sect
more
opposit
to
their
faith
&
facts
then
you
.
There
Aug.
hath
tract
your
credit
,
sal●e
it
how
you
can
.
And
your
own
Doctour
Lyra
condemnes
your
erronious
opinion
which
will
applie
these
as
spoken
of
the
Sacrament
,
his
words
be
these
;
Nihil
directe
pertinet
ad
Sacramentalem
vel
corporalem
manducationem
,
hoc
verbum
:
Nisi
manducaueritis
,
&c.
Nam
hoc
ve●bii
fuit
dictum
diu
antequam
Sacramentum
Eucharistia
suerit
institutum
.
This
saying
of
Christ
(
vnlesse
you
eat
the
flesh
of
the
sonne
of
man
and
drinke
his
bloud
,
)
doth
nothing
directly
appertaine
to
the
Sacramentall
or
corporall
eating
of
Christ
in
the
Sacrament
.
For
Christ
spake
this
long
before
he
ordained
this
Sacrament
.
Therefore
no
sound
argument
(
saith
he
)
can
be
grounded
vpon
that
litterall
exposition
of
the
Sacramentall
communion
,
and
●e
giues
a
reason
vnaunswereable
.
Nam
primo
debet
●●istere
in
rerum
natura
.
For
first
the
Sacrament
must
●e
ordained
,
before
it
can
be
a
Sacrament
.
But
you
here
would
haue
Christs
carnall
presence
in
the
Sacrament
before
it
bee
a
Sacrament
.
And
then
Lyra
concludes
,
De
Eucharistia
Sacramentali
quae
no●dum
suit
tam
alia
sententia
p●oferri
non
potuit
,
quae
dicitur
.
Nisi
manducaueritis
,
&c.
Therefore
of
this
place
,
there
can
bee
made
no
good
sufficient
argument
,
touching
the
sacramentall
communion
,
vnlesse
(
saith
he
)
some
curious
Heriticquet
will
take
these
words
spoken
by
Christ
to
be
spoken
propheticallie
.
Quod
nōdumed
,
non
datur
priuileg●●
.
Lyra.
eodem
loco
.
Now
s●●eth
your
owne
Doctour
,
if
you
take
this
chapter
of
the
●●xt
of
Iohn
litterallie
(
as
you
d
)
then
it
is
impossible
and
absurd
,
because
you
wil
ha●e
a
carnall
presence
in
the
Sacrament
,
before
there
be
a
Sacrament
;
if
prophetically
,
then
your
owne
champion
calls
you
curious
He
etiques
.
And
to
prooue
your
litterall
exposition
,
grosse
,
false
,
and
absurd
:
He
produceth
against
you
two
famous
examples
,
the
fast
of
the
Theefe
on
th
crosse
,
Luk
13.41
who
by
his
liuely
faith
performed
the
tenor
of
this
text
,
yet
never
communicated
Sacramentallie
;
And
Iudas
,
who
communicated
vnder
both
kinds
,
and
yet
failed
in
the
mea●ing
of
this
precept
.
Lib.
4
dist
9.
And
then
shuts
vp
the
m
uths
of
all
Latteralists
and
Heretiques
that
bold
th
s
spoken
of
the
Sacrament
,
alleadging
Thomas
Aquinas
his
draught
out
of
Augustine
,
Non
manducans
manducat
,
&
manducans
non
manducat
.
Hee
that
eateth
not
Sacramentally
,
may
yet
eate
Christ
spiritually
by
faith
,
and
so
did
the
Theefe
on
the
crosse
,
and
was
saved
.
Some
eate
the
Sacramentall
bread
but
not
Christ
,
(
which
is
the
inward
grace
of
the
Sacrament
:
)
as
Iudas
did
and
was
damned
.
manie
moe
Fathers
shall
you
haue
to
second
these
against
you
if
these
satisfie
you
not
.
Thus
you
are
condemned
by
two
learned
Fathers
,
that
you
ignorantlie
,
or
malicio
sly
,
or
both
,
mistake
and
misapplie
the
sixth
of
Iohn
,
to
speake
of
the
Sacrament
before
the
Sacrament
was
instituted
.
Now
you
shall
heare
Augustine
tell
you
,
that
th●s
sixt
of
Iohn
is
to
be
taken
figuratiuelie
,
and
allegoricallie
,
and
therfore
spirituallie
,
meaning
that
the
speeches
and
phrases
which
Christ
vsed
be
borrowed
and
translated
from
the
bodie
to
the
mind
,
you
are
not
onely
taxed
by
Aug.
to
bee
ignorant
in
the
circumstance
of
the
text
,
but
also
in
the
sence
of
the
text
which
is
a
grose
thing
in
diuines
.
from
eating
and
drinking
to
beleeving
,
from
chamming
with
the
teeth
,
to
the
beleeving
with
the
heart
.
So
that
what
eating
and
drinking
is
to
the
bodie
,
that
beleeving
is
to
the
s●ule
.
And
as
bread
and
flesh
be
meat
corporall
for
the
bodie
;
so
Christ
our
bread
is
made
spirituall
for
the
soule
.
And
as
corporall
meats
are
tak
n
with
the
corporall
mouth
so
are
spirituall
meate
(
Christ
crucified
with
all
his
benefits
)
received
with
faith
,
the
mouth
of
the
soule
.
And
therefore
to
teach
all
post●rities
low
to
expound
these
words
of
Christ
,
hee
giues
a
generall
rule
perpetually
to
be
observed
in
GODS
church
:
Saying
:
[
](A10753-e13200-b)(a)
(a)
Dedoct
Christ
.
lib.
3.
cap.
16.
The
second
proofe
out
of
the
sixt
of
Iohn
.
Si
praeceptiua
locutio
est
,
&c.
if
the
Sciptures
seeme
to
commaund
an
horrible
or
vile
fact
,
the
speech
is
figuratiue
:
and
then
alleadgeth
your
second
proofe
that
you
bring
out
of
the
sixt
of
I●hn
for
example
Except
you
eate
the
flesh
of
the
Sonne
of
man
and
drinke
his
bloud
,
ye
shall
haue
no
life
in
you
.
Fac●●us
&
flagiti●m
videtur
iubere
,
Christ
(
in
this
place
)
seemes
to
commaund
a
wicked
and
horrible
act
.
Figura
est
ergo
,
It
is
therefore
a
figuratiue
speech
,
commaunding
vs
to
keepe
in
mind
that
his
flesh
was
crucified
and
tormented
for
vs
.
Now
examine
Augustines
exposition
.
To
eate
corporallie
,
reallie
,
and
substantiallie
Christs
flesh
with
our
material
mouths
,
and
to
drinke
his
precious
,
substantiall
,
reall
bloud
with
our
bodilie
lips
,
is
a
horrible
thing
:
Therefore
Christs
words
bee
figuratiue
.
So
that
by
Augustines
owne
words
your
litterall
sence
and
carnall
presence
is
wicked
and
horrible
,
howsoever
you
cloake
it
with
fained
titles
,
to
blinde
the
eies
&
deceaue
the
hearts
of
simple
Catholiques
.
And
if
you
would
but
read
the
fifth
chapter
of
the
foresaid
booke
,
you
should
see
his
Christian
caveat
he
giues
to
Gods
Church
touching
this
point
.
In
principio
cauendum
est
ne
figuratam
locutionem
ad
litteram
accipia●
&c.
First
of
all
you
must
beware
that
you
take
not
a
figuratiue
speech
according
to
the
letter
:
his
reason
followes
,
for
the
l●tter
,
(
that
is
,
the
litterall
sence
)
killeth
.
But
the
spirit
,
(
that
is
,
the
spirituall
sence
)
giveth
life
.
For
when
one
take
the
figuratiue
speech
for
a
proper
speech
,
we
make
the
sence
carnall
,
neither
is
there
anie
t●●ng
more
fitlie
calld
the
death
of
the
soule
.
Thus
you
see
Aug.
teacheth
(
〈◊〉
you
would
learne
)
that
if
the
speech
be
proper
,
the
sence
must
bee
litteral●
and
carnall
:
but
if
it
be
figuratiue
,
it
must
bee
misticall
and
spirituall
:
and
alleadgeth
this
your
own
text
for
the
same
.
So
I
would
wish
you
either
follow
Augustines
doctrine
,
or
else
cease
to
vse
Augustines
and
the
rest
of
the
fathers
names
:
for
to
vsurping
their
names
,
and
perverting
their
doctrine
,
you
abuse
the
Fathers
,
Ber.
Serm
3.
in
ps:
Qui
habitat
.
Fol
63
Col.
2.
and
deceiue
the
Catholiques
.
Your
Bernard
also
in
later
times
condemnes
your
absurd
&
vnchristianlike
exposition
of
this
your
owne
text
,
Vnlesse
you
eate
the
flesh
of
Christ
,
&c.
He
asketh
the
question
.
Quid
autem
est
mand●●are
eu●●
c●●nem
,
&
bibere
sanguinem
?
nisi
communicare
passionibus
eius
,
&
ca●
conversationem
imitari
quam
gessit
in
carne
:
What
is
to
eate
Christs
flesh
and
drinke
his
bloud
?
but
to
communicate
with
his
passions
,
and
to
imitate
his
holie
conversation
in
the
flesh
.
And
then
followeth
:
Vnde
&
hoc
disignat
illib●tum
illud
Altaris
Sacramentum
,
vbi
Dominacum
corpus
accipimus
:
vt
sicut
viditur
●l●a
pan●s
fo●ma
in
no●
intrare
:
sic
noverimus
pe●
eam
quam
in
t●rris
habuit
conversation
in
,
ipsum
intrare
in
not
,
ad
habitandum
per
fidem
in
cordibus
nostris
.
Whence
also
this
(
text
)
signifieth
that
pure
Sacrament
of
the
Altar
,
where
we
receiue
the
bodie
of
Christ
:
that
as
the
fo●me
of
bread
is
seen
to
enter
into
vs
,
so
we
sh●l
know
Christ
entreth
into
vs
to
dwell
in
our
hearts
by
faith
,
by
that
holie
and
godlie
conversation
that
he
had
being
in
earth
.
Now
examine
Bernard
your
owne
Abbot
though
liv●ng
in
the
palpablest
time
of
the
gro●est
superstition
:
yet
he
vtterly
condemnes
your
exposition
of
this
place
,
and
showeth
you
that
it
doth
not
signifie
Christs
carnall
presence
in
the
Sacrament
.
But
as
the
Sacrament
cons●steth
of
an
outward
signe
and
inward
grace
:
so
bread
the
outward
signe
entreth
into
the
mouth
,
and
Christ
which
is
the
inward
grace
,
entreth
into
our
hearts
by
faith
.
So
that
your
owne
Author
tells
you
,
it
is
bread
that
entreth
the
mouth
,
it
is
Christ
that
entereth
the
heart
and
that
by
faith
,
not
by
teeth
:
by
beleeving
,
not
by
chamming
or
swallowing
.
So
that
this
your
Bernard
teacheth
you
,
that
this
your
text
must
be
taken
for
the
diviner
part
of
the
Sacrament
,
which
is
Christ
with
all
his
mercies
,
to
the
soules
and
hearts
of
the
beleevers
,
not
to
or
in
the
blasphemous
mouthes
,
and
stinking
stomackes
of
Jnfidells
,
wicked
men
,
dogges
,
cats
,
or
other
beastes
,
as
your
owne
bookes
most
wickedly
record
.
And
if
your
litterall
exposition
were
true
,
Grose
absurdities
follow
the
Priests
expositions
.
then
none
could
bee
saved
but
such
as
eate
your
consecrated
Christ
made
of
bread
:
then
infants
that
die
and
communicate
not
should
be
damned
.
Captiues
that
from
their
cradle
●●●e
vnder
Tyrant
,
&
those
that
before
Christ
:
in
Christes
time
:
and
in
the
first
thousand
years
after
Christ
,
before
your
new
consecration
was
stamped
,
are
damned
.
And
contrariwise
,
all
that
eate
of
your
consecrated
Oste
be
saved
,
bee
they
never
so
blasphemous
to
God
,
traiterous
to
their
Prince
,
and
iniurious
to
their
brethren
.
But
that
both
these
extreames
that
spring
from
your
litterall
e●●os●tion
contrarie
to
scriptures
and
fathers
be
false
&
horrible
to
christian
ears
:
no
godlie
man
may
doubt
,
vnlesse
he
will
denie
Christ
and
his
word
:
the
auncient
Fathers
,
and
the
Primitiue
church
,
and
you
shall
never
giue
the
Catholiques
that
haue
hanged
their
precious
soules
vpon
your
bare
sayings
,
due
satisfaction
in
this
,
without
publike
and
penitent
recantation
of
this
.
You
follow
neither
scriptures
not
Fathers
.
If
with
the
Fathers
you
would
but
obserue
duelie
the
circumstances
of
the
fifth
and
sixth
of
Iohn
,
you
might
see
,
it
cannot
be
meant
of
the
Sacrament
,
and
therefore
you
are
deceived
in
the
Scriptures
,
because
the
Sacrament
was
not
then
ordained
.
Againe
,
by
the
iudgement
of
Augustine
the
speech
is
figuratiue
,
and
therefore
the
sence
spirituall
.
And
so
Agustine
stands
with
vs
against
you
.
Olde
Lyra
saith
,
that
the
sixth
of
Iohn
.
Nihil
directe
pertinent
,
&c.
speaketh
not
one
word
directlie
&
pertinentlie
of
the
Sacrament
.
The
Father
saith
,
nihil
,
nothing
,
directs
directly
,
yet
you
against
Scriptures
and
Fathers
will
wrest
the●e
texts
indirectlie
,
and
impertinentlie
,
to
speake
of
the
Sacrament
before
it
was
a
Sacrament
.
If
we
should
commit
such
palpable
errours
against
Scriptures
,
Fathers
,
and
common
sence
,
you
would
call
vs
common
sots
without
learning
or
sence
,
plaine
murtherers
and
soule
slayers
,
from
which
sin
the
Lord
deliver
vs
both
.
Now
I
will
aske
your
conscience
this
question
,
how
durst
you
cut
off
Christs
words
by
the
waste
?
Verse
.
51.
meant
you
plainly
in
that
?
surely
no
:
for
if
you
had
recited
the
whole
verse
,
it
had
marred
your
market
:
you
onely
set
downe
the
middle
of
the
sentence
,
concealing
the
beginning
of
it
,
and
curtalling
the
end
of
it
,
and
so
thinking
that
to
serue
your
turne
,
and
blinde
the
eies
of
the
simple
.
But
God
willing
I
will
discover
the
trueth
,
which
you
seeke
to
cover
,
and
let
the
simple
people
see
how
farre
and
how
long
you
haue
deceived
and
misledde
them
,
to
the
great
perill
of
their
soules
,
with
wresting
the
scriptures
,
and
wronging
the
Fathers
.
Christs
whole
sentence
was
this
.
I
am
the
living
bread
which
came
downe
from
heauen
,
if
any
man
eate
of
this
bread
he
shall
liue
for
euer
:
and
this
you
cut
off
.
Then
followes
your
proofe
.
Iohn
.
6.50
The
bread
that
I
will
giue
is
my
flesh
:
then
you
curt
all
the
rest
:
which
I
will
giue
for
the
life
of
the
world
.
If
you
had
dealt
plainly
,
and
delivered
Christs
words
to
Gods
people
without
substraction
,
as
Christ
delivered
them
vnto
you
,
then
the
people
even
the
simplest
of
them
,
would
not
haue
so
long
beene
deceaved
by
you
.
For
the
former
part
of
the
verse
,
and
the
later
concealed
by
you
,
expound
Christs
minde
,
and
bewray
your
errours
.
Let
me
but
reason
with
you
out
of
the
first
part
of
the
verse
,
from
the
propertie
of
this
bread
heere
spoken
of
by
Christ
.
First
it
is
living
bread
,
&
giues
eternall
life
to
the
receivers
:
yours
doth
not
.
This
came
from
heaven
,
yours
did
not
.
Who
so
eates
of
this
cannot
be
damned
:
but
manie
eat
of
yours
,
and
die
eternally
:
and
therefore
the
very
properties
of
this
bread
shew
plainely
,
that
it
cannot
be
meant
of
your
singing-cakes
,
as
hath
beene
prooved
before
vnto
you
.
Because
they
haue
no
life
in
themselues
,
and
therefore
can
neither
giue
life
,
nor
preserue
life
vnto
others
.
The
later
part
of
the
verse
concerneth
Christs
flesh
,
which
is
this
true
bread
.
And
thus
out
of
Christs
words
I
prooue
that
the
flesh
of
CHRIST
spoken
of
in
this
place
,
cannot
bee
the
flesh
of
CHRIST
which
you
would
haue
given
in
the
Sacrament
.
Christs
flesh
promised
in
the
sixth
of
Iohn
,
was
onely
given
on
the
crosse
:
but
the
Sacrament
was
not
the
crosse
.
Therfore
in
the
Sacrament
the
flesh
of
Christ
was
not
given
:
So
that
these
arguments
grounded
vpon
Christs
owne
words
which
you
concealed
,
confute
you
&
your
carnall
presence
in
the
Sacrament
,
For
your
sacramental
bread
neither
came
form
heaven
,
not
your
imagined
flesh
of
Christ
made
by
the
Priest
cannot
be
this
flesh
here
spoken
of
.
For
it
was
offered
once
not
often
as
you
teach
,
and
that
by
himselfe
,
not
by
the
Priests
,
vpon
the
crosse
,
not
in
your
Masse
:
and
that
for
the
plenarie
remission
of
the
sinnes
of
all
beleevers
no
for
the
temporall
benefit
of
some
perticuler
person
,
quick
,
or
dead
,
as
the
Priest
pleaseth
.
The
third
proofe
of
the
Catholique
Priests
out
of
the
six●h
of
Iohn
,
to
prooue
Christs
carnall
presence
in
the
Sacrament
.
Catho
.
Priests
.
Vers
55.
My
flesh
is
meate
truelie
and
my
bloud
is
drinke
trulie
:
Rider
.
IF
you
should
aske
your
boy
in
his
Grammer
rules
a
question
,
if
he
aunswered
not
in
the
same
case
,
or
by
the
same
sense
of
a
verbe
that
the
question
i●
asked
by
,
you
will
count
him
a
filte
Grammatist
.
But
if
you
aske
your
Sophister
a
question
in
quid
,
and
hee
aunswere
in
quale
,
you
wil
taxe
h●●
for
an
improper
and
impertinent
aunswere
.
But
most
of
all
,
if
a
great
Divine
be
asked
a
question
,
to
prooue
the
manner
of
a
thing
:
and
he
neglecting
or
ommiting
that
,
as
t●o
hard
or
impossible
for
him
,
prooues
the
matter
that
was
never
demaunded
or
doubted
of
,
what
wil
the
Reader
thinke
of
this
matter
,
this
man
,
&
this
proofe
?
surelie
he
must
say
,
either
hee
vnderstandeth
not
the
state
of
the
question
,
or
else
he
is
not
able
to
prooue
the
question
:
and
so
vseth
this
shamefull
sh●ft
in
steed
of
a
sufficient
proofe
.
All
the
Catholiques
in
this
kingdome
expected
to
be
satisfied
by
your
a●nswere
touching
the
manner
of
Christs
presence
in
the
Sacrament
,
whether
it
be
carnall
or
spirituall
:
and
whether
he
must
be
eaten
by
faith
spirituallie
,
or
the
teeth
carnally
.
And
your
aunswere
is
as
improper
and
impertinent
,
as
tither
Grammatist
or
Sophister
,
for
you
leaue
the
maner
of
Christs
presence
which
you
should
prooue
,
and
bring
the
matter
of
his
presence
which
was
never
in
question
,
saying
;
My
flesh
is
meat
truly
,
&c.
How
this
your
aunswere
doeth
relish
of
learning
let
the
learned
iudge
.
When
all
the
Catholiques
in
the
kingdome
hang
their
soules
on
your
saying
:
Are
these
your
contentments
you
giue
them
?
If
they
aske
you
how
they
must
eate
Christs
flesh
&
drinke
Christs
bloud
,
then
you
tell
them
:
my
flesh
is
meate
in
deed
,
and
my
bloud
is
drinke
in
deed
.
Doe
you
aunswere
their
question
or
satisfie
their
conscience
or
resolue
their
doubts
?
alasse
no.
Thus
you
haue
dealt
,
dallied
,
and
deceived
a
long
time
Christs
people
with
these
your
improper
,
impertinent
,
vnprofitable
,
nay
vntrue
aunsweres
,
and
yet
you
will
be
called
Fathers
,
Doctours
,
and
what
not
.
But
I
pray
you
tell
me
why
you
added
not
the
next
words
of
Christ
?
you
thought
they
were
against
you
.
But
if
you
had
dealt
as
men
having
Gods
feare
before
your
eies
,
you
would
not
haue
staied
there
:
for
the
next
verse
plainely
discovers
your
bad
dealing
with
the
simple
people
,
for
that
aunswereth
their
question
,
&
that
would
satisfie
all
good
Catholiques
in
this
point
.
For
if
you
aske
there
the
holy
Ghost
this
question
:
how
must
Gods
children
eate
Christes
flesh
and
drinke
Christs
bloud
,
he
will
aunswere
you
:
that
whosoever
dwels
in
Christ
and
Christ
in
him
,
eates
Christs
flesh
and
drinkes
Christs
bloud
:
but
the
faithfull
onely
dwell
in
Christ
and
Christ
in
them
,
therefore
the
faithfull
onely
eat
Christs
flesh
&
drinke
Christs
bloud
:
whether
it
be
in
hearing
the
word
,
in
baptisme
,
or
in
the
Lords
Supper
,
as
you
haue
heard
before
.
Jf
you
had
added
this
verse
,
it
had
overthrown
your
carnall
presence
in
the
Sacrament
,
&
your
orall
eating
of
Christ
with
your
mouth
,
teeth
&c
,
But
as
you
wrong
the
Catholiques
with
an
impertinent
answere
,
and
as
you
abuse
them
by
keeping
backe
the
next
words
of
Christ
which
expounds
his
owne
meaning
:
So
heere
you
abuse
your
holie
Father
the
Pope
,
and
your
deare
mother
the
Church
of
Rome
,
〈◊〉
expounding
this
text
contrarie
to
the
Romane
sence
:
for
you
take
this
flesh
of
Christ
which
is
our
tree
meat
,
to
be
the
flesh
which
was
borne
of
the
virg●●
and
suffered
on
the
crosse
,
but
the
Popes
&
church
of
Rome
say
contrarie
:
for
these
be
the
wordes
of
the
Canon
:
Dist.
2.
de
consec
pag
4●4
.
canon
dupliciter
.
Col.
4.
Read
the
glosse
and
you
may
see
your
errour
at
in
a
glasse
.
Dupliciter
intelligitur
caro
&
sanguis
Christi
,
vel
spiritualis
illa
atque
diuina
:
de
qua
ipse
ait
,
Caro
mea
vere
est
cibus
&
sanguis
meus
vere
est
potu●●
nisi
meam
ca●nem
&c.
Vel
caro
mea
ea
quae
crucifi●a
est
,
&c.
The
flesh
and
bloud
of
Christ
(
saith
your
own
Church
of
Rome
)
must
be
considered
two
manner
of
waies
,
either
for
the
spirituall
and
divine
flesh
spoken
of
by
Christ
,
my
flesh
is
meat
in
deed
,
&c.
and
except
you
drinke
his
bloud
,
&c.
or
else
for
that
his
flesh
which
was
crucified
,
and
that
his
bloud
shed
by
the
sharp
launce
of
a
cruell
souldiour
:
so
that
heere
you
forsake
your
Romane
Catholique
faith
,
and
become
Apostates
from
the
Church
of
Rome
.
Thus
you
abuse
the
Catholiques
,
in
making
them
beleeue
you
teach
as
the
Pope
teacheth
,
and
you
doe
not
:
therefore
either
the
Pope
or
you
must
erre
grosly
,
teaching
contraries
.
But
that
all
men
may
see
,
that
not
onely
this
Pope
,
Jnnocenti
●●●tertiu●
:
lib
4.
cap
14.
de
●a●●amento
Altars
.
page
.
179.
but
also
other
Popes
haue
held
the
contrarie
opinion
to
your
new
broched
heresie
.
I
will
all●●dge
him
that
you
dare
not
contradict
,
that
is
,
Innocentiu●
t●rtius
that
first
begat
your
abortiue
Transubstan●●tion
.
De
spirituali
commestione
Do●●nus
a●●
,
N●●i
m●nducatveritis
,
&c.
The
Lord
Christ
when
hee
s●●ke
of
the
spirituall
●aring
said
:
Except
yee
eat
the
flesh
of
the
sonne
of
man
,
&c.
Loe
,
heere
is
another
Pope
against
you
.
For
you
late
Iesuites
,
Semynaries
,
Rhemists
,
and
Priests
,
take
this
as
●poken
of
Christs
flesh
in
the
sacrament
,
and
they
take
it
for
●●at
spirituall
and
divine
flesh
of
Christ
,
whereon
all
the
faithfull
fed
by
faith
,
as
well
before
Christs
incarnation
,
as
since
his
ascention
.
I
would
bring
more
witnesses
against
your
vn●●ue
expositions
and
allegations
,
The
Pope
your
Father
,
and
Rome
your
mother
witnes
against
you
Priestes
&
the
rest
of
their
degenerat
children
.
but
that
I
thinke
it
sufficient
that
the
Parentes
Testimonie
is
the
strongest
Evidence
against
their
degenerat
children
.
And
after
,
the
Pope
alleadgeth
Augustine
and
the
Canon
.
Quid
parat
deutem
&
ventrem
,
crede
&
●●●●acasti
,
and
then
concludes
against
your
carnall
eating
of
Christes
flesh
most
strongly
:
Qui
credit
〈◊〉
Deum
,
comedit
ipsum
,
Caro
Christi
nisi
spiritualiter
comedatur
non
ad
salutem
sed
ad
iudicium
mandutatur
.
Why
(
saieth
your
Pope
)
preparest
thou
thy
teeth
to
eate
and
thy
bellie
to
be
filled
?
beleeue
&
thou
hast
eaten
,
hee
that
beleeues
eates
.
For
the
flesh
of
Christ
is
not
eaten
to
salvation
,
but
to
destruction
,
vnlesse
it
be
eaten
spirituallie
.
And
there
in
the
next
chapter
,
the
Pope
giues
this
marginall
note
:
Christus
est
spiritualis
Eucharistia
;
Pag.
180.
Christ
is
our
spiritual
Euchariste
,
not
our
carnall
food
in
the
Sacrament
.
And
in
the
same
page
he
saith
,
Cibus
est
non
corporis
,
sed
animae
:
this
is
not
meat
for
the
bodie
,
but
for
the
soule
.
And
if
it
bee
meate
for
the
soule
,
then
it
must
bee
received
by
faith
,
not
the
mouth
,
spirituallie
not
carnallie
.
You
see
now
the
Scriptures
,
Fathers
,
Popes
olde
and
new
,
the
Text
and
glosse
of
your
deare
mother
the
Church
of
Rome
against
you
.
And
least
you
should
cavil
,
I
haue
alleadged
the
Bookes
,
Chapters
,
Distinctions
and
Pages
.
And
if
you
will
still
tel
the
Cathol●ques
that
these
places
by
mee
all●●dged
be
not
true
,
then
I
tell
you
,
all
your
owne
Authors
and
prin
s
be
false
:
for
I
alleadge
Father
,
Pope
,
and
Canons
of
your
owne
print
;
and
if
you
doubt
,
looke
vnto
your
owne
bookes
and
prints
,
and
you
shal
find
them
so
verb●●●●
,
Printed
Anno.
1599.
Imp●●sis
Lazari
Zet●●ter●
.
vnlesse
your
late
Index
expurgatorius
hath
blotted
out
the
trueth
,
as
in
manie
things
it
hath
.
But
I
will
of
these
your
former
improper
and
impertinent
testimonies
out
of
the
sixth
of
Iohn
conclude
,
and
vrge
no
further
but
this
one
argument
against
you
and
them
,
and
then
let
the
indifferent
Reader
iudge
whether
you
haue
not
deceived
Gods
people
by
misvnderstanding
the
holie
Scriptures
or
no
:
Whosoever
teacheth
that
there
is
a
carnall
reall
presence
of
Christ
in
the
Sacrament
before
consecration
,
is
a
lyer
,
a
depraver
of
the
truth
,
and
a
deceiver
of
the
people
.
But
some
late
Popes
,
the
new
church
of
Rome
,
with
the
colledge
of
Cardinals
,
new
creat●d
Iesuits
,
Semynaries
,
and
all
the
Romish
Priests
now
in
Ireland
●●●ch
,
This
is
vnaunswerable
.
that
there
is
a
carnall
reall
presen●●
of
Christ
in
the
Sacrament
before
consecration
.
Therefore
some
late
Popes
the
new
Church
of
Rome
,
with
the
colledge
of
Cardinals
,
new
created
Iesuits
,
Semynaries
,
and
all
the
Romane
Priests
now
in
Ireland
be
lyers
,
depravers
of
the
trueth
,
and
deceivers
of
the
people
.
The
maior
or
first
proposition
is
your
owne
doctrine
:
for
you
teach
that
before
Hoc
est
corpus
meum
be
pronounced
,
there
is
no
consecration
.
The
assumption
or
later
proposition
is
as
cleere
,
for
your
perswade
the
simple
people
to
beleeue
that
these
texts
out
of
the
sixth
of
Iohn
prooue
a
carnall
presence
of
Christ
in
the
Sacrament
,
a
yeare
before
Hoc
est
corpus
meum
was
by
Christ
pronounced
,
or
the
Sacrament
by
Christ
instituted
.
Therefore
the
conclusion
,
that
you
be
lyers
and
deceivers
of
the
people
,
is
inevitable
.
Thus
the
Catholiques
of
this
kingdome
by
the
rules
of
your
owne
religion
you
haue
deceived
,
in
teaching
Christes
carnall
presence
in
the
Sacrament
,
a
yeare
before
either
Sacrament
or
consecration
in
the
Sacrament
,
were
instituted
.
And
that
your
leaden
divinitie
without
care
or
conscience
you
thrust
vppon
the
simple
people
a●
sound
doctrine
.
But
if
there
were
no
other
errour
or
heresie
held
and
taught
by
you
but
this
one
point
,
it
were
sufficient
to
make
all
the
Catholicks
in
this
kingdome
,
nay
in
Christendome
,
to
forsake
your
opinion
,
considering
your
ignorance
or
malice
presuming
to
iustifie
that
which
holie
scriptures
,
auncient
Fathers
,
Gods
Church
,
(
yea
and
the
perticuler
Church
of
Rome
,
with
their
Bishops
,
Archbishops
,
&
Popes
)
for
a
thousand
yeares
after
Christs
ascention
never
spake
or
heard
of
,
and
therefore
it
is
no
olde
faith
taught
by
them
:
but
a
new
heresie
invented
by
you
.
But
now
to
the
rest
of
your
proofe
.
Math.
26.26
.
Christ
tooke
bread
,
did
blesse
it
,
Catho
.
&
brake
it
and
gaue
it
to
his
disciples
,
and
said
:
Priests
.
take
and
eate
,
this
is
my
bodie
,
This
is
my
bloud
of
the
new
Testament
which
shal
bee
shed
for
●●ame
for
remission
of
sinnes
.
GEntlemen
:
this
is
your
proofe
out
of
Christs
owne
words
,
Rider
.
&
this
was
delivered
by
Christ
owne
mouth
at
the
time
of
the
institution
o●
the
Supper
,
and
the
night
before
his
blessed
passion
,
and
either
this
must
helpe
you
,
or
else
you
are
helplesse
:
but
Christ
willing
I
will
plainlie
shew
this
your
proofe
to
be
your
reproofe
,
and
I
pray
God
for
Christ
his
sake
,
that
the
eies
of
your
vnderstanding
may
be
opened
to
see
the
truth
,
&
your
hearts
toucht
to
receiue
and
confesse
the
truth
:
and
renounce
your
errors
,
and
so
cease
to
deceiue
Gods
people
and
the
Queenes
subiects
,
least
a
worse
thing
come
vnto
you
:
All
the
doubt
and
controversie
of
this
question
betwixt
vs
,
dependes
on
this
Text
which
you
say
must
bee
taken
properlie
and
litterallie
:
wee
say
,
Sacramentallie
,
improperlie
,
figuratiuelie
,
and
misticallie
.
And
our
opinion
(
God
willing
)
shall
be
proved
by
Scriptures
,
auncient
Fathers
,
and
Popes
,
and
the
olde
Church
of
Rome
.
But
this
is
straunge
,
that
men
of
your
great
learning
,
(
as
the
Catholiques
take
you
to
be
)
wil
deale
so
childshlie
and
weaklie
in
so
weightie
a
matter
.
Bee
not
offended
that
I
say
you
handle
this
childishlie
:
for
in
Schooles
he
that
alleadgeth
for
the
probation
of
a
proposition
,
the
proposition
it selfe
:
for
the
probation
of
a
text
,
the
text
it selfe
,
is
counted
childish
,
and
it
is
a
childish
point
of
Sophistrie
,
and
a
fallacie
to
be
vsed
among
young
schollers
,
not
to
be
practised
among
simple
Catholiques
.
The
Catholiques
demand
of
you
how
you
prooue
Christs
carnall
presence
in
the
Sacrament
:
and
you
bring
in
Hoc
est
corpus
meum
,
which
is
the
proposition
wherevpon
all
this
disputation
and
contention
dependeth
.
Ioh.
19.
●7
After
the
same
manner
a
man
may
prooue
the
blessed
virgin
Marie
to
be
Iohn
the
Evangelists
mother
,
and
say
still
notwithstanding
any
text
brought
against
him
,
as
Christ
said
,
Ecce
mater
tua
:
Behold
thy
mother
,
say
what
yee
will
,
the
words
be
Christs
words
,
therefore
they
must
be
true
,
they
need
no
interpretation
,
Christ
is
not
a
lyer
.
And
if
a
man
aske
a
confirmation
,
and
say
,
how
prooue
you
this
proposition
of
Christ
to
be
true
litterallie
&
in
deed
as
Christ
spake
it
?
This
is
a
lo●se
kinde
of
Logique
You
bring
in
for
confirmation
of
the
proposition
the
proposition
it selfe
,
and
say
Ecce
mater
tua
:
Behold
thy
mother
.
Thus
when
the
Catholiques
demaund
of
you
to
prooue
your
proposition
of
Hoc
est
corpus
meum
,
whether
it
must
be
taken
corporallie
or
spiritualite
,
grammaticallie
or
misticallie
,
then
you
bring
the
proposition
it selfe
,
and
say
,
Hoc
est
corpus
meum
to
prooue
Hoc
est
corpus
meum
:
Jn
Schools
it
is
called
Petit●o
principi●
.
&
so
you
would
prooue
idem
per
idem
.
which
is
verie
childish
,
and
a
begging
of
that
as
graunted
which
is
yet
in
question
betwixt
〈◊〉
and
vndetermined
:
But
you
should
haue
prooved
by
other
places
of
Scriptures
,
that
Hoc
est
corpus
meum
changeth
the
nature
and
substance
of
bread
and
wine
:
and
you
should
h●
e
proved
by
the
Scriptures
,
Esay
7.14
that
the
Prophets
foreshewed
th
s
strange
conception
of
Christ
to
be
conceaved
of
bread
,
as
well
as
they
did
foreshew
his
conception
of
the
virgin
.
And
you
should
haue
prooved
by
the
Scriptures
that
it
is
not
onelie
a
Sacrament
,
but
a
sacrifice
,
not
onely
Eucharisticall
but
as
well
propitiatorie
:
and
not
onelie
profitable
to
the
quicke
,
but
also
to
the
dead
:
nay
,
not
onelie
for
plagues
among
men
,
but
murren
and
diseases
also
among
beasts
.
Cum
multis
alijs
qua
nunc
,
&c.
Now
shew
by
the
Scriptures
that
Hoc
est
corpus
meum
hath
such
a
sence
,
that
the
simple
people
may
repose
themselues
more
securely
vpon
your
opinion
and
proofes
.
But
till
you
prooue
it
(
which
you
can
never
doe
)
they
must
know
,
you
haue
and
doe
deceiue
them
with
false
expositions
against
veritie
,
antiquitie
,
authoritie
,
yea
&
consent
of
the
old
church
of
Rome
.
And
heere
I
am
sorie
I
must
tell
you
so
plainelie
,
that
you
wrong
greatly
and
grievously
Gods
truth
,
and
the
Queenes
Subiects
,
in
thus
misalleadging
this
〈◊〉
1
First
,
by
Addition
of
a
word
.
2
Secondly
,
by
misvnderstanding
and
misapplication
of
another
word
.
3
Thirdly
,
by
omission
,
nay
plaine
subtraction
of
a
whole
verse
.
For
the
first
,
which
is
:
Addition
,
Addition
.
you
adde
this
particle
(
a
)
which
is
neither
in
the
Greeke
,
nor
in
your
Romane
Lattine
Bible
,
no
nor
in
your
Rhemish
Testament
,
nor
ever
seen
in
anie
Doctor
of
antiquitie
,
and
this
●●llable
altereth
the
sence
and
perverteth
C●●●●s
meaning
,
and
is
added
by
you
to
maintaine
that
which
the
Text
otherwise
could
not
haue
anie
shew
to
beare
.
Secondlie
,
you
misvnderstand
and
misapplie
this
word
(
Blesss
)
:
M●●lapplication
.
for
we
say
it
signifieth
to
giue
thanks
with
the
mou●h
,
and
you
say
to
make
crosses
with
the
fingers
:
wee
say
it
was
spoken
by
Christ
to
his
Father
,
you
say
it
was
spoken
to
,
over
,
or
vpon
the
bread
and
chastice
,
●he
.
●ost
.
1.
Cor.
●
.
Sect.
9.
and
that
hee
vsed
power
&
actiue
words
vpon
them
:
we
contrarie
will
shew
out
of
the
word
it selfe
,
that
it
hath
no
such
signification
.
One
part
of
the
originall
word
(
in
Greeke
)
signifieth
in
English
(
Speech
)
vttered
with
the
mouth
,
not
a
magicall
crossing
of
,
or
with
fingers
.
And
the
other
Greeke
word
which
must
be
iudge
betwixt
vs
,
doth
signifie
to
lande
,
to
praise
,
and
to
blesse
:
&
blessing
,
praising
,
and
thanksgiving
are
all
one
,
as
anone
you
shall
beere
Christ
himselfe
so
to
expound
it
,
and
all
the
Evangelists
&
Paul
agree
in
one
congruence
touching
this
matter
against
you
.
How
blesse
&
bl●ssing
are
vsed
in
Scrip●●res
But
first
I
will
shew
the
simple
how
diversly
this
word
(
Blesse
)
is
vsed
in
the
Scriptures
.
To
blesse
God
is
to
praise
him
,
and
giue
him
thankes
for
all
his
mercies
,
as
you
haue
in
Luke
:
and
the
disciples
continued
in
the
Temple
landing
&
blessing
God
:
Luk
24.53
.
I
hope
you
will
not
say
they
crost
God
with
their
fingers
or
consecrated
him
to
make
him
more
holie
,
b●t
praised
him
with
their
mouths
.
For
if
you
take
ble●●ing
of
God
in
that
fingered
sence
,
then
see
the
absu●●●●es
you
fall
into
.
Joh.
●
18.
●oh.
4.84
.
First
,
aganst
Scriptures
,
you
must
hold
that
God
the
Father
is
not
a
Spirit
,
but
hath
a
bodielie
share
that
may
bee
touched
and
crost
with
our
corporall
forget●
:
if
this
you
hold
you
ioyne
with
those
auncie●●
heretickes
of
Egypt
,
Anthrop●morphita
.
who
held
that
God
had
a
bodie
and
members
as
man
had
.
And
the
second
absurditie
(
nay
blasphemie
)
is
this
,
that
you
should
make
GOD
(
who
is
holi●esse
it selfe
)
the
holier
by
your
crossing
:
but
I
hope
you
will
not
take
blessing
in
this
sence
,
but
joy●e
with
the
Disciples
and
vs
,
that
blessing
of
GOD
signifieth
praysing
of
GOD
,
or
praying
to
GOD
:
What
it
is
for
one
man
to
blesse
another
.
Cen.
●
.
27
.
Genes.
48.
Numb.
6.23
.
for
one
man
to
blesse
another
,
is
nothing
else
but
to
praye
for
them
,
and
to
beseech
God
that
he
would
blesse
them
,
that
is
,
defend
them
,
protect
them
,
and
be
mercifull
vnto
them
:
Let
your
High-priests
of
Rome
,
and
you
low
Priestes
of
●●cland
,
learne
of
Aaron
Gods
High-Priest
,
how
to
blesse
Gods
people
:
&
so
cease
to
deceiue
them
anie
more
.
So
Isaack
blessed
Iacob
,
and
Iacob
the
sonnes
of
Ioseph
.
And
so
the
LORD
commaunded
Moses
to
speake
to
Aaron
,
and
to
his
Sonnes
,
saying
.
Thus
shall
yee
blesse
the
children
of
Israel
,
and
say
vnto
them
:
The
Lord
blesse
the
and
●eepe
thee
,
the
Lord
make
hi●
face
to
shine
v●on
thee
,
and
be
merc●full
vnto
thee
,
&c.
A
Christian
patterne
not
onelie
for
Priests
,
but
also
for
P●st●urs
and
Parents
dailie
to
practise
,
the
one
for
his
flocke
,
the
other
for
his
familie
:
yet
both
in
the
Lord
.
&
from
the
Lord
.
Which
blessings
are
derived
from
Gods
mercies
,
&
hang
not
on
the
ends
of
Priests
fingers
.
Again
,
you
see
blessing
is
praying
with
the
mouth
,
not
crossing
with
the
fingers
,
as
you
vainlie
and
foolishlie
make
your
Ghostlie
ch●●dren
beleeue
,
that
if
you
crosse
them
with
your
two
fingers
and
a
thumbe
,
they
are
pardoned
for
their
sinnes
post
,
and
preserved
that
day
from
future
daungers
and
evill
spirits
.
Which
fingered
blessing
of
yours
is
as
powerfull
to
pardon
sinne
,
and
feare
away
spirits
,
as
three
sups
of
the
Challice
is
to
cure
the
chinne-cough
.
This
blessing
was
commaunded
by
God
to
be
practised
by
Aaron
the
High-Priest
,
and
the
rest
of
the
Priests
vpon
Gods
children
,
but
how
far
your
blessing
differs
from
this
the
simplest
may
iudge
.
For
first
,
God
commaunded
this
blessing
:
the
Pope
your
blessings
.
This
was
by
mouth
onely
,
yours
with
some
mumbling
wordes
and
charming
crosses
with
your
fingers
.
This
blessing
was
a
praier
to
desire
God
to
blesse
:
and
you
teach
,
that
in
your
breath
&
fingers
there
is
a
power
&
a
certain
working
or
impression
of
some
blessing
vpon
them
by
meanes
of
your
said
mumbling
and
crossing
.
But
your
Priests
agree
with
Gods
Priests
,
and
your
blessing
with
fingers
,
with
Gods
Priests
blessings
with
praier
of
the
heart
and
mouth
,
even
as
well
is
trueth
and
falsehood
,
light
and
darknesse
,
superstition
and
religion
,
Christ
&
Belial
.
And
if
the
Catholiques
will
but
diligently
read
this
commandement
of
GOD
,
given
to
the
High-Priest
and
Priests
in
this
place
,
touching
the
manner
how
they
should
blesse
Gods
people
.
I
am
resolved
that
few
Catholiques
in
this
kingdome
heereafter
will
kneele
at
your
feet
,
or
begat
your
hand
any
finger
benediction
or
crossing
,
because
it
hath
no
warrant
from
Gods
word
,
and
therefore
ten
thousand
of
them
not
worth
a
farthing
.
How
the
Priests
blesse
the
sacrament
.
You
crosse
the
cup
or
Challice
with
a
set
number
of
crosses
and
gestures
:
sometimes
blowing
over
the
Chalice
,
sometimes
crossing
it
,
sometimes
hiding
it
that
none
must
see
it
,
sometimes
lifting
it
vp
that
all
must
see
it
:
then
ioyning
and
disioyning
of
your
thumbe
and
two
fingers
,
with
manie
moe
such
Apish
toies
,
childish
trickes
,
and
charming
prokes
,
which
haue
neither
foundation
nor
relation
to
Christs
actions
and
institution
.
But
we
in
administring
this
holy
Sacrament
,
How
the
Preachers
of
the
gospell
blesse
the
bread
&
the
cup.
confesse
the
greatnesse
and
grievousnesse
of
our
sinnes
,
that
can
no
otherwise
bee
pardoned
but
in
Christe
,
bloud●●
and
bitter
passion
:
and
wee
giue
thankes
to
God
for
Christs
blessed
obedience
to
the
shamefull
death
of
the
cursed
crosse
,
by
which
he
hath
,
satisfied
Gods
wrath
,
and
wrought
our
reconciliation
in
the
bloud
of
the
same
,
and
continue
this
Sacrament
as
be
instituted
and
commaunded
in
reverence
and
rememberance
thereof
,
without
addition
,
alteration
,
or
subtraction
.
And
pray
that
our
vnworthinesse
and
want
of
faith
hinder
nor
our
spirituall
vnion
&
reall
presence
with
Christ
,
which
is
offered
in
the
word
of
institution
,
and
sealed
in
the
right
receiving
of
the
Sacrament
.
This
is
the
force
and
effect
of
this
word
(
Blesse
)
:
the
true
vse
wherof
Christ
by
his
practize
delivered
,
the
Primitiue
Church
,
Fathers
,
and
we
imitate
.
Now
whether
your
blessing
in
the
Sacrament
,
and
your
blessing
by
crossing
the
people
,
or
ours
come
neerer
to
Gods
word
and
Christs
practize
,
let
the
best
minded
to
Gods
truth
iudge
,
and
then
with
GODS
trueth
ioyne
.
Thus
much
for
your
Addition
,
misvnderstanding
,
and
misapplication
.
Now
to
your
Omission
or
Subtraction
of
a
whole
verse
.
You
bring
for
proofe
of
your
carnall
presence
,
Omission
or
Subtraction
.
You
couer
two
errors
in
concealing
one
ver.
which
is
a
wicked
pollicie
.
the
26.
verse
and
the
28.
verse
of
the
26.
chap.
of
math.
But
you
over
skip
the
27.
verse
betwixt
them
both
,
which
if
you
had
added
,
it
had
expounded
Christes
meaning
of
this
word
(
Blesse
)
&
overthrown
your
own
crossing
,
and
discovered
and
discomfited
other
errors
of
yours
:
which
are
,
the
receiving
of
the
communion
in
one
kinde
,
of
bread
onely
:
and
onelie
the
Priest
must
drinke
of
the
cuppe
,
and
not
all
the
communicants
,
which
are
contrarie
to
Christs
institution
,
and
the
auncient
practize
of
the
ancient
Popes
&
church
of
Rome
,
as
shall
be
shewed
hereafter
Christ
willing
.
The
verse
that
you
omit
of
purpose
is
this
,
And
when
he
had
taken
the
cup
and
given
thankes
,
he
gaue
it
to
them
saying
,
drinke
yee
all
of
this
:
Now
Christ
in
this
verse
expoundeth
his
owne
meaning
of
blessing
in
the
verse
before
,
shewing
what
hee
meane
by
blessing
,
after
he
tooke
the
bread
by
the
word
of
giving
of
thankes
after
hee
tooke
the
cuppe
:
So
by
Christs
own
exposition
,
blessing
&
giving
of
thankes
are
all
one
,
or
else
Christ
did
rightlie
consecrate
the
bread
by
vsing
the
word
blessing
,
but
not
the
cup
by
vsing
the
word
of
giving
of
thankes
:
Nay
,
if
blessing
and
giving
of
thankes
were
not
all
one
,
then
neither
Luke
not
Paul
haue
rightlie
penned
Christes
institution
,
nor
Mathew
nor
Marke
of
the
cuppe
because
neither
Luke
nor
Paul
ever
vsed
the
word
blesse
,
either
in
taking
the
bread
or
cup
,
but
the
word
of
giving
of
thankes
,
nor
Mathew
nor
Marke
ever
vsed
the
word
Blesse
in
receiuing
of
the
cup.
I
pray
you
read
the
three
Evangelists
and
Paul
in
Greeke
,
and
you
shall
see
as
in
a
glasse
your
errors
,
an●
shall
finde
Mathew
and
Marke
expound
Christs
meaning
in
your
overslipt
verse
,
in
giving
of
thankes
in
taking
the
cup
,
what
he
meant
by
blessing
when
he
tooke
the
bread
:
and
read
also
Luke
and
Paul
in
Greeke
,
and
you
shall
find
that
they
never
vsed
the
word
Blesse
,
as
abouesaid
.
So
then
Luke
and
Paul
expoundeth
Mathew
and
Marke
:
nay
.
Mathew
and
Marke
in
your
concealed
verse
expound
themselues
.
●ar
.
8.6.7
If
you
will
read
the
eighth
of
Marke
in
Greeke
,
you
shall
finde
these
two
words
vsed
by
Christ
befo●e
his
miracle
of
seaven
loaues
&
a
few
fishes
,
and
you
shall
see
there
the
word
of
thankesgiving
put
downe
first
,
Blessing
and
giuing
of
thankes
are
all
one
.
when
he
tooke
the
bread
and
then
the
word
Blesse
put
downe
when
hee
tooke
the
fishes
,
&
there
was
a●
great
a
miracle
wrought
in
the
multiplication
of
the
loaues
after
his
thanksgiving
,
as
of
the
fishes
after
his
blessing
.
And
mathew
speaking
of
this
miracle
as
Marke
did
,
math.
1●
.
36
.
did
onelie
vse
the
worde
of
thanksgiving
,
and
not
the
word
to
blesse
at
all
.
Wherby
you
may
see
by
Christs
practise
,
that
blessing
and
thanksgiving
are
all
one
,
and
they
signifie
to
pray
and
praiese
with
voice
,
and
not
to
crosse
with
the
fingers
.
Peruse
your
owne
latten
Bible
,
Benedixit
by
your
latten
translation
is
expounded
by
sanctificante
.
Gen.
2.3
.
and
you
shall
see
that
●●red
is
it
must
be
taken
in
no
other
sence
then
sancti
scauit
is
.
Thus
the
simple
may
see
how
greatly
you
haue
erred
in
these
three
points
abouesaid
.
And
I
wonder
that
maister
Henry
F●●rsimon
,
a
Gentleman
so
well
learned
(
as
the
Catholickes
account
)
durst
put
his
hand
to
these
grosse
errors
(
which
most
safelie
I
keepe
with
me
)
allowing
them
to
bee
both
Apostolicall
and
Catholicke
,
whereas
they
are
most
antichristian
and
hereticall
.
And
me
thinks
,
that
all
the
Priests
are
greatlie
in
this
to
be
blamed
,
that
will
persw
de
others
to
follow
them
,
and
they
will
neither
follow
Christs
trueth
,
the
Apostles
writings
,
the
Greeke
not
latten
text
,
nor
the
auncient
practise
of
the
Primitiue
Church
of
Rome
.
But
now
to
the
test
of
the
bodie
of
the
text
and
controversie
.
Wherein
first
let
vs
examine
whether
your
two
propositions
,
this
is
my
bodie
,
&
this
is
my
bloud
of
the
new
Test●ment
,
&c.
be
proper
or
figuratiue
:
litterall
,
or
Sacramentall
.
For
if
they
be
improper
,
borrowed
figuratiue
and
Sacramentall
,
they
prooue
neither
your
Transubstantiation
;
not
your
carnall
reall
presence
,
but
even
plainly
disprooue
them
.
Augustin
de
doctr.
christi●n●
,
lib.
●
.
cap.
16
pag.
23
Paris●●
.
1●80
.
Saint
Augustines
●ul●
before
recited
,
if
you
would
be
ruled
by
it
(
but
neither
Scriptures
nor
Fathers
can
rule
you
,
but
you
will
over
rule
them
)
would
presently
satisfie
you
,
that
these
two
propositions
must
be
figuratiue
:
the
latter
you
confesse
,
but
the
former
as
yee
you
wil
not
.
His
words
again
for
the
Readers
good
I
wil
repeat
&
they
be
these
:
If
the
scripture
seem
to
command
any
vile
or
ill
fact
,
the
speech
is
figuratiue
,
as
,
Except
yee
eate
the
flesh
of
the
sonne
of
man
,
and
drinke
his
bloud
,
you
shall
haue
no
life
in
you
:
Facinus
vel
flagitium
videtur
tubere
,
●●ther
can
use
S.
●●●●d
or
confess
your
erro●
:
the
●●●st
●●poss●le
,
the
second
were
commendable
.
Christ
seemeth
to
commaund
a
wicked
act
,
(
that
is
,
carnallie
and
grosly
to
eate
Christs
flesh
,
&c.
it
is
therefore
a
figuratiue
speech
,
So
that
Augustine
thus
reasons
against
you
.
To
eate
Christs
flesh
and
drinke
Christs
bloud
corporallie
,
is
a
hainous
thing
,
therefore
Christs
wordes
be
figuratiue
:
so
that
if
to
eate
Christes
flesh
with
our
mouths
,
and
teare
his
flesh
with
our
teeth
,
as
also
actually
drinking
of
his
bloud
bee
hainous
and
wicked
:
why
doe
you
so
eagerly
presse
the
litterall
sence
of
the●e
your
two
propositions
,
against
trueth
against
faith
,
and
the
auncient
Father
.
●ead
it
:
it
co●taines
but
6.
or
7
line●
.
The
marginall
note
there
,
co●demes
your
litterall
sence
.
Agustine
in
that
short
19.
chap.
of
the
same
booke
immediatly
going
before
,
wisheth
alwaies
the
interpretation
of
these
and
all
other
figuratiue
speeches
to
be
brought
ad
regnum
charitatie
,
to
the
kingdome
of
charitie
,
to
haue
their
true
exposition
.
Now
if
you
expounde
this
litterallie
and
properlie
,
you
forsake
Agustines
rule
,
charities
kingdome
,
and
the
Apostolicall
and
Catholike
exposition
.
It
is
but
small
charitie
to
devoure
the
food
of
a
friend
,
but
to
eate
and
devoure
corporallie
and
gut●urallie
the
precious
bodie
and
bloud
of
our
Christ
and
Saviour
,
Augustine
would
haue
you
catholicks
,
but
you
wil
bee
Capernatis
and
Canibals
.
it
is
no
charitie
Nay
(
saith
Augustine
)
it
is
plaine
impietie
,
and
a
wicked
and
a
most
damnable
fact
.
And
so
to
prooue
the
action
lawfull
,
the
kingdome
of
charitie
hath
ever
taken
these
and
the
like
propositions
to
bee
figuratiue
and
the
sence
to
be
spirituall
.
Therefore
if
you
will
bee
loyall
subiects
of
charities
kingdome
,
shewe
your
subiection
to
her
charitable
and
Catholicke
exposition
,
otherwise
you
will
stand
indited
of
spirituall
and
vncharitable
rebellion
.
Ambr.
lib.
4
de
Sacramentis
.
cap.
5.
Ambrose
is
of
the
same
opinion
with
vs
against
you
,
saying
,
Fac
nobit
(
inquit
)
oblationem
ascriptam
nationabilem
,
acceptabilem
,
quod
est
figura
corporis
&
sanga●●is
Domine
nostri
Iesu
Christi
:
make
vnto
vs
(
saith
the
Priest
)
this
oblation
,
that
it
may
bee
allowable
,
reasonable
,
and
acceptable
,
which
is
a
figure
of
the
bodie
&
bloud
of
our
Lord
Iesus
Christ
.
And
Ambrose
presentlie
after
,
saith
,
the
new
Testament
is
confirmed
by
bloud
,
in
a
figure
of
which
bloud
,
wee
receiue
the
misticall
bloud
:
By
these
words
the
Reader
may
see
,
that
Ambrose
and
the
Church
in
his
daies
,
tooke
it
not
for
the
naturall
bodie
of
Christ
,
but
for
a
figure
of
his
bodie
,
and
therefore
cease
to
bragge
heereafter
to
the
simple
,
of
Ambrose
and
Augustine
,
set
they
are
not
of
your
opinion
.
[
](A10753-e16070-b)(a)
(a)
●●no●
.
Papae
lib.
tartius
cap
12.
Fol
148
&
there
shal
you
see
the
foolish
and
phantasticall
reasons
the
Pope
giues
for
those
said
crosses
.
Aug.
in
enarratione
Psal.
●
pag.
7.
col
.
1.
Printed
at
Paris
.
anno
.
1586
And
in
the
Canon
of
the
Masse
,
you
haue
these
●●●ds
of
Ambrose
in
that
part
which
begins
(
Quam
oblationem
)
but
you
deale
deceitfully
with
Gods
people
:
for
you
leaue
out
these
words
,
quod
est
figura
corporis
,
and
there
dash
in
fine
red
crosses
,
and
still
teach
the
people
,
it
is
Catholicke
doctrine
and
the
old
religion
,
but
these
iuglings
with
the
Fathers
must
be
left
,
or
else
good
men
that
follow
those
Fathers
,
will
doubt
that
Gods
spirit
hath
left
you
.
And
Augustine
elsewhere
saith
,
Christ
commended
●●d
delivered
to
his
disciples
the
figure
of
his
body
●●d
bloud
.
And
Origin
saith
,
not
the
matter
of
bread
but
the
words
recited
over
it
doth
profit
the
worthy
receiver
,
this
I
speake
(
saith
he
)
of
the
typicall
&
figuratiue
bodie
,
which
is
in
deede
the
Sacramentall
bread
:
Vpon
the
15.
of
mathew
.
Augustine
confuting
Adimautus
the
Hereticke
,
that
hold
that
the
bloud
in
man
was
the
onelie
soule
of
man
:
aunswered
,
it
was
so
figuratiuely
,
August
.
tom.
6
contra
Ad●●
.
cap.
12.
not
otherwise
:
and
to
prooue
it
he
vseth
this
proposition
of
Christ
,
Hoc
est
corpus
meum
,
this
is
my
bodie
,
saying
,
Possum
etiam
interpretari
illud
praeceptum
in
signo
posi●●●
esse
:
non
enim
dubitauit
Dominus
dicere
hoc
est
corpu●
meum
,
cum
singnum
daret
corporis
sui
.
I
maye
(
〈◊〉
Augustine
)
expound
the
precept
of
Christ
figuratiuelie
:
●or
the
Lord
doubted
not
to
say
this
is
my
●o●●e
,
when
he
ga●e
the
figure
of
his
bodie
.
Augustine
saith
Ho●●●st
corpus
meum
is
a
phrase
figuratiue
,
you
say
no
,
but
it
is
litterall
.
Now
let
the
Catholicks
take
this
Friendlie
Caueat
to
he●●●
,
for
they
haue
no
reason
to
follow
you
,
that
forsake
the
Fathers
:
and
he●re
may
you
see
that
our
expositi●n
is
auncient
,
Catholicke
,
and
Apostolicall
,
yours
new
,
private
,
and
〈◊〉
all
.
Terta●●
lib
4.
contra●
M●recon
.
pag.
●23
.
line
26.
Tertull●●
an
ancient
Father
saith
,
Acceptum
panem
&
d●stributum
discip●lis
,
&c.
The
bread
which
was
taken
and
given
to
his
disciples
Christ
made
his
bodie
,
by
saying
,
this
is
my
bodie
,
that
is
,
the
figure
of
my
bodie
,
what
could
be
more
spoken
of
them
for
vs
against
you
.
And
Hierome
calls
it
a
representation
of
the
truth
of
Christs
bodie
&
bloud
,
Hierome
super
26.
math.
Ambrose
on
Cor.
11.
&
not
the
body
and
bloud
.
And
Ambrose
seconds
his
former
sayings
in
these
words
:
In
ed●●do
.
&c.
in
eating
&
drinking
the
bread
&
wine
,
we
doe
signifie
the
flesh
&
bloud
which
was
offered
for
vs
:
so
that
they
doe
but
signifie
the
flesh
and
bloud
,
they
are
not
the
flesh
and
bloud
.
And
Chrisostome
saith
,
Chris●
in
h●●a
.
vp●n
Hebr.
&
s●per
.
Cor.
11.
Offermus
quid●●
sed
ad
recerda●●●nem
,
and
afterwards
,
Hoc
autem
sacrificium
exempl●●
est
ellius
,
&c.
We
offer
in
deed
but
in
rememberance
of
his
death
,
this
sacrifice
is
a
token
or
figure
of
that
sacrifice
,
the
thing
that
we
do
is
done
in
ten
emberance
of
the
thing
that
was
done
by
Christ
before
,
&c.
Here
is
a
manifest
●●ace
against
you
,
which
you
shall
never
aunswere
.
Chris
.
in
h●n
11
.
●●rk
.
●●●ent
Al●●
.
on
pa●●go
.
lib.
1.
cap.
6
pag
18.
line
vlt.
&
pag
19.
l●ne
1.
And
elsewhere
be
saith
,
in
the
so●e
sanctified
vessels
there
is
not
the
bodie
of
Christ
in
deed
,
b●●
a
masterie
of
the
bodie
is
contained
.
And
Clemens
Alexandrinus
who
lived
1300.
yeares
agoe
saith
,
Comedite
cornes
meas
&
bibite
sanguinem
●eum
,
&c.
E●t
ye
my
flesh
and
drinke
my
bloud
,
meaning
hereby
vnder
an
allegorie
or
figure
,
the
meat
&
drinke
that
is
of
faith
and
promise
.
And
the
same
reverend
Father
in
his
second
booke
and
second
chapter
of
his
Pedagogs
,
and
51.
pag
,
and
line
21
,
22
,
23.
hath
these
words
:
Ipse
quoque
vine
vsus
est
,
nam
ipse
quoque
homo
,
&
vinum
benedixit
,
cum
dixit
accipite
,
bibite
,
hoc
est
sanguis
meus
,
sanguis
vi●●s
,
&c.
For
our
Lord
Christ
red
wine
,
&
blessed
wine
,
when
he
said
,
take
drinke
,
that
my
bloud
,
the
bloud
of
the
vine
,
(
the
word
)
which
is
●●ed
for
manie
for
the
remission
of
sinnes
,
doth
signifie
allegorie
allie
the
holy
river
of
gladnesse
.
Out
of
which
I
note
:
First
,
it
is
sarguis
vitis
,
the
bloud
of
the
grope
properlie
,
and
that
is
wine
.
It
is
called
Christs
bloud
●acromontallie
,
and
by
way
of
signification
.
Secondlie
,
it
appeares
to
be
figura●ne
in
this
word
(
shed
)
for
the
bloud
of
the
grape
(
which
is
●●●e
)
was
not
shed
for
manie
,
but
the
bloud
of
Ch
i
st
.
But
you
will
save
it
is
true
,
before
consece●tion
,
but
after
consecration
it
is
Christs
verie
naturall
bloud
No
saith
Clement
immediatlie
following
,
Qued
autem
v●num
esset
quod
benedictum
est
&c.
And
that
it
was
wine
which
was
blessed
,
hee
sheweth
againe
,
when
he
saith
to
his
disciples
.
I
will
not
drinke
of
the
fruit
of
the
vine
,
&c.
Read
Clement
follow
Clem.
Out
of
which
premis●es
I
note
three
things
:
First
that
that
which
you
call
consecration
,
this
learned
Father
calls
it
benediction
.
Second
he
,
that
after
consecration
the
nature
of
wine
remaineth
still
and
it
is
not
changed
as
you
imagine
.
Thirdly
.
that
the
phrase
is
figuratiue
and
not
proper
.
Peda
●u
Inc.
22.
page
.
476
And
ve●●rable
Beda
one
countrie
man
tells
you
that
in
England
in
his
time
,
the
text
was
taken
figuratiuely
.
The
solemnities
of
the
old
Passover
(
saith
he
)
being
ended
,
Christ
commeth
to
the
newe
,
which
the
Church
is
des●ous
to
continue
in
remembrance
of
her
redemption
,
that
in
stead
of
the
flesh
and
bloud
of
a
LAMBE
,
hee
substituting
the
Sacrament
of
his
flesh
and
bloud
in
the
figure
of
bread
and
wine
,
might
shew
himselfe
to
bee
the
same
to
whom
the
Lord
sware
and
will
not
repent
,
&c.
Beds
calleth
it
not
the
naturall
bodie
of
Christ
that
worketh
our
redemption
,
but
a
rememberance
of
our
redemption
&
a
figure
of
it
.
Thus
the
indifferent
Reader
may
see
that
Augustine
,
Ambrose
,
Origin
.
Tertullian
,
Hiorome
,
&
Clemens
Alexandrinus
,
Beda
,
and
manie
others
,
which
I
omit
for
brevities
sake
,
all
of
them
being
auncient
approoved
w●iters
,
and
all
of
them
of
your
owne
Prints
,
doe
hold
with
vs
against
you
,
that
your
propositions
be
not
proper
but
Sacramentall
,
improper
,
significatiue
,
representatiue
,
allegoricall
,
&
figuratiue
,
which
greatlie
wounds
the
bodie
of
your
cause
,
and
will
weaken
your
credits
with
the
Catholickes
.
But
you
will
say
these
testimonies
of
these
Fathers
,
though
of
your
owne
Prints
,
yet
they
prooue
nothing
against
you
,
vnlesse
the
Church
of
Rome
should
receiue
and
allow
that
exposition
of
the
fathers
to
be
Catholicke
.
If
you
should
so
replie
,
surely
it
were
a
weake
replication
and
subiect
to
manie
exceptions
,
and
you
would
wring
(
I
cannot
say
wrong
)
the
church
of
Rome
,
that
she
should
hold
a
doctrine
against
all
the
old
Doctors
.
But
if
you
will
thus
replie
to
bleate
the
eies
of
the
simple
,
yet
will
I
frustrate
your
expectation
:
for
now
I
will
shew
you
that
the
auncient
Popes
,
and
the
auncient
Church
of
Rome
held
at
these
Fathers
did
that
the
proposition
(
Hoc
est
corpus
meum
)
to
be
significatiue
and
improper
,
and
therefore
figuratiue
against
your
opinion
.
You
shall
heare
the
Church
of
Rome
deliver
her
owne
minde
with
her
owne
mouth
,
Dist.
2.
do
consecratione
canon
:
which
you
cannot
denie
,
her
wordes
be
these
:
Ipsa
immolatio
carnis
quae
sacerdotis
manibus
fit
,
Ch●●●ti
p●ssio
,
more
crucifixio
dicitur
,
non
rei
veritate
sed
significante
misterio
:
That
offering
of
the
f
esh
which
is
done
by
the
hand
of
the
Priest
,
Hecost
:
pag.
434.
You
cannot
denie
but
this
Pope
was
a
Protestant
.
And
if
this
canon
be
Catholicke
,
then
it
your
carnall
presence
antichristian
.
is
called
the
passion
,
death
,
and
crucifying
of
Christ
,
but
not
in
exactnesse
of
truth
,
but
in
misterie
of
that
which
was
s
gnified
:
and
the
glosse
there
maketh
most
plaine
against
you
.
Dicitur
corpus
Christi
sed
improprie
vt
sit
sensus
,
vocatur
corpus
Christi
id
est
significat
corpus
Christi
:
It
is
called
the
bodie
of
Christ
but
improperly
(
that
is
figuratiuely
)
that
this
be
the
●ence●t
is
called
the
bodie
of
Christ
,
that
is
,
it
signifieth
the
bodie
of
Christ
.
J
will
alleadge
in
this
case
other
Popes
,
and
the
saith
of
the
Church
of
Rome
in
another
age
,
whereby
the
Reader
may
plainelie
see
,
that
the
auncient
P●pes
and
auncient
Rome
had
the
true
succession
in
doctrine
which
we
stand
now
on
,
not
that
false
succession
of
the
place
,
and
a
rotten
worme-eaten
chaire
that
you
brag
of
:
the
glosse
speaketh
thus
against
your
litterall
sence
of
Hec
est
corpus
meum
:
De
consecratione
dist.
●
Panis
est
in
altare
,
Glossa
ibid
page
.
43●
.
Not
possible
by
their
owne
confession
that
bread
should
bee
the
bodie
of
Christ
.
Hoc
ta●●●
est
impossible
,
quod
panis
sit
corpus
Christi
:
yet
this
is
impossible
that
bread
should
be
the
body
of
Christ
.
Now
gentle
Reader
see
the
wrong
the
late
Popes
and
Priests
offer
to
the
Catholicks
of
this
kingdome
:
they
would
haue
them
imbrace
that
for
faith
,
which
the
old
Church
of
Rome
held
for
heresie
:
that
for
poss
b
litie
,
which
she
saith
is
impossible
.
Why
,
would
you
haue
vs
to
beleeue
that
which
you
your selues
say
is
impossible
.
This
,
all
the
Iesuits
and
Priests
in
Christendome
cannot
aunswere
.
If
you
say
these
two
Popes
and
the
Church
of
Rome
then
taught
the
truth
,
why
doe
you
now
dissent
from
the
olde
Romane
faith
?
If
you
saye
the
Popes
and
Church
of
Rome
then
cited
,
you
will
be
counted
an
hereticke
:
and
therefore
in
Gods
feare
confesse
the
trueth
with
vs
and
the
olde
Church
of
Rome
,
and
deceiue
the
Catholickes
of
this
kingdome
no
more
,
with
this
litterall
sence
of
Hoc
est
corpus
meum
,
which
you
borrow
from
the
late
Popes
and
late
Church
of
Rome
,
and
is
a
new
error
dissenting
from
the
old
Catholicke
faith
.
dist.
2.
can
:
Corpus
Christi
.
pag.
4.
8.
col
.
4.
You
cannot
d●nie
this
Pope
to
be
a
protestan●
in
〈◊〉
point
.
And
I
will
adde
one
other
Popes
Canon
,
Corpus
Christi
quod
fuexitur
de
Altari
,
figura
est
,
dum
panis
&
●inum
videntur
extra
:
veritas
autem
dum
corpus
&
sa●gu●s
Christi
in
veritate
interins
creditur
.
The
bodie
of
Christ
which
is
taken
from
the
Altar
,
is
a
figure
so
long
as
the
bread
and
wine
are
seene
vnreceived
,
but
the
tru●●●
(
of
the
figure
)
is
seene
when
the
bodie
and
bloud
are
received
trul●●
,
inwardly
and
by
faith
into
the
heart
.
Now
the
glosse
in
that
place
expondeth
the
te●t
and
saith
.
Corpus
Christs
est
sacrificium
corporis
Christi
,
alias
falsum
est
quod
dicit
,
the
bodie
of
Christ
in
the
text
signifieth
the
sacrifice
of
the
bodie
of
Christ
,
otherwise
it
is
false
.
Out
of
which
I
note
,
that
the
Church
of
Rome
calls
the
outward
Elements
Christs
bodie
,
that
is
,
a
figure
of
his
bodie
,
being
not
received
though
consecrated
.
Secondly
that
the
bodie
of
Christ
,
wherof
the
Sacrament
must
be
a
figure
,
The
Popes
glosse
against
the
Popes
text
must
be
received
by
faith
into
the
soule
,
not
by
the
mouth
into
the
stomacke
:
Now
the
glosse
saieth
,
the
text
is
false
,
vnlesse
,
&c.
But
I
leaue
the
●a●re
to
be
reconciled
by
you
,
who
be
the
Popes
friends
,
yet
this
I
say
,
Maledicta
gloss
qua
corrumpit
textum
:
A●d
G●la
siu●
another
Pope
more
auncient
then
these
again●t
Eu●
.
●●
of
this
o●●●ion
.
These
three
Popes
and
the
Church
of
Rome
in
those
daies
(
it
was
before
the
birth
of
your
Transubstantiation
and
your
carnall
presence
)
jumpt
with
all
the
old
Fathers
,
and
the
Primitiue
Church
that
liv●d
the
first
sixe
hundred
yeares
after
Christ
and
say
it
is
called
the
bodie
of
Christ
,
the
flesh
of
Christ
,
the
passion
and
death
of
Christ
,
but
not
rei
veritate
,
not
in
deed
and
trueth
,
but
mistically
,
significatiuelie
,
improperlie
,
figuratiuelie
and
by
way
of
representation
,
and
that
it
is
impossible
otherwise
to
bee
the
bodie
of
Christ
.
Yet
when
we
speake
of
figures
in
the
Sacrament
you
mocke
vs
.
When
we
say
the
phrase
is
figuratiue
,
therefore
the
sence
must
be
spirituall
,
you
deride
vs
,
as
misinterpreters
of
Scriptures
and
Fathers
.
But
if
your
leisure
and
learning
would
affoord
you
but
fa●our
to
read
with
a
holie
deuotion
,
the
canonicall
Scriptures
,
&
the
ancient
doctors
of
Christs
Primitiue
Church
,
that
left
vs
these
lessons
for
our
learning
,
you
should
see
that
wee
learne
what
they
taught
,
and
doe
what
they
said
&
you
follow
not
what
they
commaunded
,
because
you
know
not
what
they
haue
recorded
.
Now
briefly
I
will
acquaint
the
Reader
onely
with
the
times
when
these
Doctors
liued
,
and
the
places
where
they
taught
this
doctrine
,
and
then
wee
shall
set
whether
this
your
litterall
exposition
of
Hoc
est
corpus
meum
be
Catholicke
or
not
.
-
Clemens
Alexandrinus
was
divinitie
Reader
in
the
famous
cittie
of
Alexandria
in
Egypt
,
In
the
yeare
of
our
Lord
,
170
-
Origen
was
his
scholler
,
If
you
will
read
aduisedly
these
fathers
,
you
shal
see
plainlie
your
owne
errors
.
and
succeeded
Lecturer
in
〈◊〉
same
place
.
204
-
Tertullian
Diuinitie
Reader
in
Carthage
,
in
Affrick
,
206
-
Ambrose
Bishop
of
Mellaine
in
Italie
.
370
-
Hierome
Diuinitie
Reader
in
Stridona
in
Hungaria
;
and
sometime
in
Slauonia
.
387
-
Chrisostome
Bishop
of
Conctantinople
in
Graecia
.
406
-
Augustine
Bishop
of
H●ppo
in
Affricke
.
42●
-
Venerable
Beda
a
famous
learned
man
in
Eng
-
570
And
thus
you
may
see
,
that
neither
Alexandria
,
Carthage
,
Mil●●s
,
Strido●a
,
Constantidople
,
Hippo
,
no●
Rome
which
are
famous
C●t●es
.
Nay
,
which
is
more
neither
Egypt
,
●●alie
,
Hungaria
and
Slavo●●●
,
not
England
,
which
are
●●mous
kingdomes
.
Nay
which
is
most
of
all
,
the
three
parts
of
the
world
,
Asia
,
Affricke
&
Europe
neve●
heard
or
had
such
a
litteral
exposition
,
of
Hoc
est
corpus
●●um
,
for
at
least
eight
hundred
years
after
Christ
,
Vincentius
●●ner
sus
Hereticos
.
That
〈◊〉
,
trulye
●atholicke
faith
●e
.
Quod
semper
vbique
&
ab●omn●bus
est
e●●ditum
.
Quastio
.
4
de
●a●stentia
corp●ris
Christs
en
●ucharilia
pag
154.
S●●h●●
your
●eligion
is
none
of
Ch●ist
be●a●s●
it
〈◊〉
not
war
●●●u●ed
by
the
●oso●ll
of
Ch
i
st
.
and
yet
your
Iesuits
and
priestes
will
haue
their
doctrine
to
be
Catholicke
,
which
cannot
be
,
vnlesse
it
were
at
all
times
,
and
in
all
places
,
and
of
all
persons
received
:
for
so
your
Vincentius
defineth
Catholicke
doctrine
.
And
he●●e
you
see
that
for
the
three
parts
of
the
world
,
and
for
many
hundred
yeares
after
Christ
at
was
not
knowne
.
And
therefore
it
is
neither
Apostolicall
nor
Catholicke
.
And
a
late
Frier
and
friend
of
yours
,
olde
Father
Iosephus
Angles
b●ings
in
Cardinall
Ca●●tans
opinion
writing
vppon
saint
Thomas
Aquinas
in
this
manner
,
Per
Evangelium
non
possunt
catholici
heretic●●
,
convincere
ad
intellegenda
verba
hac
(
hoc
est
corpus
meum
)
proprie
:
sed
tenendum
hoc
esse
salum
ex
authoritate
eccles●●
,
qua
ita
verba
consicrationis
declarat
.
That
is
,
the
Catholickes
cannot
convince
or
In●urce
the
Hereti●kes
by
the
Gospell
to
vnderstand
these
wordes
,
(
h●c
est
corpus
meum
,
this
is
my
bodie
)
properlia
,
but
this
exposition
must
bee
fetched
and
hold
from
the
authoritie
of
the
Church
,
which
so
expoundeth
the
words
of
consecration
.
See
I
pray
you
,
what
one
of
your
learnedst
Friers
reports
out
of
one
of
your
skarlet
Cardinals
of
Rome
:
that
you
cannot
prooue
by
Christs
Gospell
these
words
,
(
this
is
my
bodie
)
to
haue
a
proper
&
litterall
signification
.
So
that
CHRIST
Gospell
condemnes
your
liue
all
and
proper
exposition
:
and
so
your
carnall
presence
of
Christ
must
be
maint●●●ed
from
and
by
the
authoritie
of
the
church
Rome
though
Christ
and
his
Gospell
say
no.
Alasse
,
with
what
conscience
dare
you
teach
the
Catholicks
this
heresie
,
Super
quaest.
75.
Articl
.
primo
.
Fol.
230
Printed
at
Venice
.
1593.
which
by
your
owne
confession
hath
no
warran●
from
Ch●●sts
Gospe●
?
And
Cardinall
Caietane
himselfe
writing
vpon
your
saint
Thomas
Aquinas
speaketh
to
the
same
purpose
,
that
the
Scriptures
speake
nothing
(
expresse
)
expresly
of
Christ
his
c●rnall
presence
in
the
Sacrament
,
but
onely
in
these
words
(
hoc
est
corpus
meum
)
which
words
(
saith
he
)
are
two
waies
expounded
:
first
,
properlie
:
secondlie
,
metaphoricallie
.
But
(
saith
hee
)
the
maister
of
the
sentences
is
to
be
taxed
,
Lib.
4.
dist.
10.
who
held
too
much
with
the
figuratiue
interpretation
.
And
there
you
shall
see
that
he
blusheth
●o●
say
,
that
your
litterall
sence
,
is
not
from
the
Gospell
,
but
from
the
church
of
Rome
.
And
if
your
Romane
Church
may
be
both
partie
,
witnesse
,
and
iudge
,
there
is
no
doub
t
but
th
verdict
must
sound
on
your
side
.
And
there
the
Cardinall
handles
Duas
novitates
valda
mirabiles
,
which
being
dul
e
examined
parturiuns
m●●tes
,
&c.
with
manie
other
forgeries
and
fooleries
to
maintaine
your
carnal
kingdome
of
your
Breaden-god
.
Thus
much
concerning
your
two
consecratorie
propositions
,
which
by
the
testimonie
of
Scriptures
and
Fathers
be
figuratiuelie
to
be
expounded
as
we
say
,
not
properlie
&
litterallie
as
you
vntrulie
teach
.
But
yet
you
perchaunce
will
demaund
the
reason
why
Christ
called
it
his
bodie
,
if
it
be
not
his
body
:
Let
me
first
aske
you
another
question
,
&
then
I
wil
resolue
you
this
:
Gen
17.
to
.
11.
Rom.
4.11
.
Exod
12.11
.
Why
did
God
cal
circumscision
the
covenant
,
when
in
deed
it
was
not
the
covenant
,
but
(
as
god
himself
saith
)
a
sig●●
of
the
covenant
.
Why
did
God
cal
the
Paschall
lambe
the
Passover
,
when
it
was
but
a
signe
of
the
Angels
passing
over
the
houses
where
the
bloud
of
the
lambe
was
sprinkled
?
one
answere
wil
resolue
both
our
questions
.
It
is
the
vsuall
maner
of
the
holy
Ghost
in
all
Sacraments
both
of
the
old
Testament
and
new
,
Wheresoever
the
holie
Ghost
speakes
of
Sacraments
the
phrase
is
tropicall
me
to
yo●●micall
and
figuratiue
,
attributing
the
name
of
the
thing
signified
to
the
signe
signifying
,
as
in
these
examples
the
phrase
addeth
a
dignitie
to
the
sacrament
,
but
changeth
not
the
nature
of
the
sacrament
to
terme
the
visible
signe
by
the
name
of
the
thing
signified
,
as
circumscision
is
called
the
couenaunt
,
the
Lambe
is
called
the
Pas●ouer
.
In
Baptisme
i●
called
the
fountaine
of
●egeneration
,
and
bread
Christs
bodie
,
and
yet
in
deed
th
y
are
but
outward
signes
,
and
to
the
faithfull
onely
seales
gra●●d
by
the
holie
Ghost
,
with
the
names
of
the
things
they
represent
and
confirme
,
the
more
to
〈◊〉
me
and
sti●●e
vp
o●r
affections
,
and
to
edge
our
zeale
with
a
religious
preparation
to
receiue
the
same
,
and
to
life
vp
our
hearts
and
soules
by
faith
,
to
behold
,
consider
,
and
feed
vpon
(
Christ
crucified
)
the
thing
signified
.
Yet
for
your
further
satisfaction
,
I
will
intreat
Augustine
to
aunswere
you
doubt
who
saith
:
[
](A10753-e17870-b)(a)
(a)
Aug.
epistol.
22.
ad
bonifatium
:
Si
enim
sacramenta
quandam
similitudinem
●arum
rerum
quarum
sacramenta
sunt
non
haberent
,
omnino
sacramenta
non
essent
,
ex
hac
autem
similitudine
plerunque
etiam
ipsarum
rerum
nomina
accipiunt
,
Sicut
ergo
secundum
quendam
modum
sacramentum
corporis
Christs
,
corpus
Christs
est
,
sacramentum
sanguinis
Christs
sanguis
Chri●ti
est
,
ita
sacramentum
fides
fides
est
:
In
English
thus
,
If
the
Sacrament
had
not
some
certaine
similitude
and
likenesse
of
the
things
whereof
they
be
Sacraments
,
they
should
be
no
Sacraments
at
all
.
And
of
this
similitude
manie
times
they
haue
the
names
of
those
things
themselues
,
as
the
Sacrament
of
the
bodie
of
Christ
is
after
a
certaine
manner
the
bodie
of
Christ
,
and
the
sacrament
of
his
bloud
is
after
a
certaine
maner
his
bloud
,
So
the
Sacrament
of
faith
(
or
Baptisme
)
is
faith
.
Out
of
which
wee
may
note
:
first
,
they
are
but
Sacraments
,
or
similitudes
of
the
thing
signified
not
the
things
themselues
:
secondlie
,
that
bread
&
wine
are
the
bodie
&
bloud
of
Christ
b●●
secundum
quendam
modum
,
after
a
certaine
maner
and
shewes
,
how
by
an
example
,
as
the
Sacrament
of
faith
is
faith
,
so
the
Sacrament
of
Christs
body
is
Christs
bodie
,
but
the
Sacrament
of
faith
is
not
faith
naturallie
,
substantiallie
by
a
chaunge
of
substance
,
for
by
chaunge
of
qualitie
or
vse
,
therefore
the
Sa●●●t
of
Christs
bodie
is
not
chaunged
into
the
●●●tance
of
Christs
bodie
,
but
onely
in
qualitie
and
●●se
,
is
Theodores
saith
in
his
first
dialogue
:
Theodoret
dialog
2.
cap.
24
pag
113.
&
dialog.
1.
cap.
8.
pag.
54.
read
them
I
pray
you
.
not
changing
nature
,
but
adding
grace
vnto
nature
.
And
the
●●●e
Father
in
his
second
dialogue
explaines
this
more
plainly
,
saying
,
the
misticall
signes
after
sanctif●cation
,
Non
recedunt
a
sua
natura
manere
enim
in
pure
substantia
&
figura
&c.
they
depart
not
from
the●
nature
,
but
remaine
in
their
former
substance
,
〈◊〉
figure
,
&
may
be
seene
&
touched
as
before
:
Out
of
which
auncient
learned
Father
I
obserue
these
necessarie
points
for
the
Catholickes
instruction
,
and
your
confutation
:
First
he
saith
,
Post
sanctificationem
,
Consecration
vnknown
to
Theodor.
therefo
e
it
is
a
new
terme
.
The
change
is
in
the
name
honour
and
vse
,
not
in
the
nature
Father
answere
this
f●str
.
or
confesse
the
truth
.
after
sanctification
,
then
your
new
comed
terme
of
consecration
was
not
known
in
the
Church
of
God
,
but
sanctification
and
benediction
.
Secondly
,
I
note
cut
of
this
father
,
that
though
the
Sacraments
haue
gotten
a
new
diuine
qualitie
,
yet
they
haue
not
lost
their
nature
they
had
before
,
as
you
vntrulie
teach
.
Th●rdlie
,
I
obserue
that
he
confuted
by
the
example
of
bread
and
wine
in
the
Sacrament
,
certaine
Heretickes
who
held
that
Christs
bodie
was
changed
into
his
deitie
after
his
ascention
:
for
this
is
the
Fathers
proofe
against
those
heretickes
.
That
as
bread
and
wine
are
trulie
bread
and
wine
after
sanctification
,
as
they
were
before
sanctification
,
euen
so
is
Christs
bodie
as
trulie
a
bodie
now
after
his
ascention
,
as
it
was
before
his
ascention
.
So
now
the
Priests
of
new
Rome
cannot
say
that
the
bread
and
wine
haue
lost
their
true
natures
and
properties
in
the
Lords
supper
after
sanctification
,
vnlesse
then
will
also
say
with
the
Heretickes
,
that
Christ
hath
lost
the
nature
of
a
true
bodie
now
after
his
ascention
.
And
Chrisostom●
seconds
Theodores
saying
Ante
Sanctificationem
,
〈◊〉
●sost
.
ad
Caesarium
Monach
.
Mark
this
well
yet
Preists
&
Iesuets
&c.
Before
it
he
sanctified
we
cal
it
bread
bu●
the
deuine
grac●
once
sanctifying
it
by
the
ministrie
of
the
Priest
it
●
deliuered
from
the
name
of
bread
,
and
counted
worthy
to
be
called
the
Lords
body
,
though
the
nature
o●
bread
continue
there
still
.
Out
of
which
I
note
〈◊〉
the
father
calles
it
sanctification
,
not
consecration
.
Secondly
it
is
called
bred
before
sanctification
&
is
brea●
in
nature
after
sanctification
.
A●d
l●rdly
after
sanctification
it
is
called
the
Lords
body
yet
it
is
not
the
●ord
body
in
deede
because
the
nature
of
bread
remaine
And
therefore
in
that
it
is
calld
the
Lords
body
,
it
mu●●
be
so
Sacramentally
figura●●u●ly
&
improperly
.
And
Gelasius
your
owne
Pope
whom
you
dare
not
contradict
such
plainely
No●
defiant
esse
substantia
panis
〈◊〉
natura
vini
.
What
can
you
saie
to
th●se
pregna●te
proofes
to
satisfie
the
doubtfull
catholiques
.
There
scaceth
not
to
be
the
substance
o●
bread
and
the
nature
of
wine
.
But
you
here
will
obtrude
your
oulde
slanderous
obiection
,
that
we
accep●
of
the
Sacraments
no
better
then
bare
figures
.
No
,
we
acknowledge
a
change
and
an
alteration
,
but
not
o●
the
substance
but
of
the
vse
.
Is
not
this
a
maruelous
change
wrought
by
the
holy
Ghost
in
the
due
administration
of
the
Lords
supper
according
to
Christ
Institution
that
of
commen
bread
and
wine
such
as
daily
we
feede
our
b●●ches
with
,
is
made
the
dreadefull
and
reuerend
misteries
of
Christ
crucified
:
where
by
we
neither
looke
vppon
the
bare
naked
elements
as
common
creatures
,
but
as
sanctified
food
:
And
in
such
sort
that
even
as
the
b●ead
doth
nourish
our
bodies
,
and
the
wine
doth
comfort
our
spirits
:
so
trulie
,
reallie
,
and
vnfainedlie
doth
the
heavenlie
food
of
his
bodie
crucified
,
and
his
bloud
shed
for
our
sinnes
,
by
faith
in
the
time
of
the
holie
Supper
,
feede
and
nourish
our
soules
into
everlasting
life
:
and
so
is
made
and
sealed
our
reall
coniunction
with
Christ
,
not
by
his
bodilie
and
locall
discention
into
our
stomackes
,
but
by
〈◊〉
spirituall
ascention
to
him
by
faith
.
This
is
our
●●nne
touching
these
figuratiue
propositions
,
war●ed
by
Scriptures
,
Clem.
Alex
:
Theod:
August
.
with
many
not
neuer
heard
of
consecration
but
of
santification
&
Benedection
.
and
witnessed
by
the
auncientest
others
.
Hitherto
hath
beene
plainly
and
directlie
●ooved
,
that
your
two
propositions
bee
figuratiue
,
〈◊〉
proper
.
Secondlie
,
that
the
substances
of
bread
〈◊〉
●ime
remain
after
consecration
,
&
therfore
there
can
〈◊〉
no
such
carnall
presence
of
Christ
by
Transubstantation
vnder
the
formes
of
bread
and
wine
as
〈◊〉
deeme
.
Now
I
am
come
to
your
two
maine
pil●
that
support
&
vnderprop
your
carnall
presence
,
which
if
the●
faile
you
,
then
your
foundation
is
santif●●
,
&
your
building
will
not
be
able
to
abide
the
least
〈◊〉
of
Christs
breath
.
The
first
is
consecration
:
the
second
transubstantiation
:
for
vnles
there
he
consecration
,
there
can
be
no
transubstantiation
,
&
then
no
car●●l
presence
of
Christ
in
the
Sacrament
.
And
then
neither
your
masse
nor
mattes
worth
two
pece
And
so
the
●oules
then
in
your
imagined
purgatorie
may
crie
,
and
yell
for
lacke
of
a
dirge
and
a
masse
of
Requiem
.
But
l●●t
I
must
tell
you
,
the
word
is
new
,
neither
vsed
by
Christ
or
his
Apostles
in
the
institution
of
the
sacrament
,
●or
heard
of
in
any
ancient
Father
,
for
manie
hundred
yeares
after
Christ
.
Again
,
you
never
read
in
anie
a●●e
〈◊〉
,
sacred
or
prophane
,
that
consecration
should
signifie
to
change
one
substance
into
another
,
for
the
nature
of
the
word
wil
not
beare
it
.
Now
seeing
by
Christ
●or
his
Apostle
Paul
,
it
was
not
vsed
,
nor
ancient
father
euer
tooke
it
in
this
sence
.
Again
,
the
nature
of
the
word
〈◊〉
no
such
signification
:
I
see
not
but
you
deserue
much
blame
in
binding
the
Catholickes
consciences
to
beleeue
that
which
is
against
divinitie
,
antiquitie
,
and
●omon
sence
.
Now
Gentlemen
pardon
me
,
to
demand
of
you
but
this
question
,
what
words
be
they
that
cōse●●●
?
that
is
:
which
turn
the
substances
of
bread
&
wine
●nto
the
naturall
&
substantial
bodie
&
bloud
of
Christ
.
Me
thinkes
I
heare
you
Iesuits
and
Priests
calling
me
a
foole
for
demaunding
such
a
question
,
considering
(
as
yee
pretend
)
that
the
Church
of
Rome
&
her
learned
men
haue
euer
from
Christs
time
held
with
one
consent
one
manner
of
consecration
,
with
a
certaine
set
number
of
words
without
addition
or
alteration
,
Such
fathers
as
lived
next
to
Christs
time
,
shold
know
best
the
practise
of
the
primitiue
church
,
&
these
fathers
you
refuse
,
and
chose
others
a
thousand
years
yonger
,
and
therefore
they
be
of
lesse
credit
Gala.
9.
and
therefore
my
question
is
frivolous
&
needlesse
:
and
no
doubt
you
make
your
Catholickes
beleeue
so
,
but
alasse
you
deceiue
them
,
it
is
not
so
:
for
I
will
show
you
manie
several
opinions
amongst
your
learned
men
,
yea
Popes
themselues
one
contrarie
to
another
.
I
praye
you
let
me
and
the
Catholickes
of
this
kingdome
therefore
be
certified
and
satisfied
by
Gods
word
,
&
the
practise
of
the
Primitiue
Church
for
the
first
six
hundred
years
,
which
be
the
words
of
consecration
that
worketh
this
miraculous
alteration
of
substances
,
which
if
you
cannot
prooue
(
as
I
am
sure
you
cannot
)
then
the
Catholickes
haue
good
cause
to
looke
to
their
consciences
,
&
to
follow
you
no
further
then
you
follow
Christ
according
to
his
word
.
For
if
anie
man
,
nay
all
men
,
nay
if
an
Angell
,
nay
all
Angels
,
should
come
from
heauen
and
preach
otherwise
then
Christ
and
his
Apostles
haue
taught
,
let
him
be
accursed
.
If
Angels
,
nay
all
Angels
from
heauen
,
must
not
be
beleeued
bringing
contrarie
doctrine
to
Christ
and
his
Apostles
,
will
you
then
bindle
the
Catholickes
of
this
kingdome
to
beleeue
you
onely
comming
from
Rome
&
Rheme
,
whence
you
being
new
doctrine
not
onelie
contrarie
to
Gods
truth
,
but
to
the
Fathers
of
the
Primitiue
Church
.
And
to
beginne
with
Guide
in
his
Manipulo
curatorum
Guid●
cap.
4.
pag
23.
24.
25.
But
more
you
〈◊〉
see
on
the
cantels
or
sleights
of
your
masso
concerning
the
neces●●tie
of
the
crosses
,
word
of
the
canon
of
the
masse
,
and
the
priests
intention
.
Who
saith
there
be
foure
several
opinions
amongst
the
learned
Rabbins
of
Rome
,
touching
the
words
of
consecration
.
The
first
fore
(
saieth
hee
)
will
haue
besides
the
words
of
the
.
●
.
Euangelists
and
Paule
,
the
intention
of
●he
Preiste
(
a
and
so
saith
your
masse
booke
)
&
the
precepts
of
the
Church
to
bee
dulie
observed
,
jumping
with
your
said
Masse-booke
:
that
vnlesse
the
Priests
intention
bee
to
consecrate
,
there
is
no
consecration
,
though
he
vse
all
Christs
words
,
and
Pauls
.
And
if
the
priest
omit
pracepta
ecclesia
,
that
is
,
the
commaundements
of
the
Church
of
Rome
in
his
consecration
,
●●ttalissime
pecearet
,
he
sinnes
most
deadlie
,
and
is
to
be
punished
most
grievously
.
But
Abbot
panormitaue
do
celebratione
messarum
page
.
220.
is
of
another
minde
saying
,
Etiamsi
sacerdos
celebres
vt
Deus
perdat
aliquem
,
〈◊〉
bene
consecrat.
Notwithstanding
the
priest
saie
Masse
with
intention
that
God
would
destroy
some
〈◊〉
,
yet
doth
hee
consecrate
well
.
[
](A10753-e18340-b)(a)
(a)
In
he
canteli
prin.
at
Venice
.
1464
What
Christian
heart
doth
not
loath
this
divelish
intention
,
and
hellish
religion
.
Heere
let
all
Catholickes
marke
,
that
this
first
opinion
holds
that
Christes
institution
is
not
sufficient
without
the
priests
intention
.
At
the
people
are
not
sure
of
the
priests
intention
,
so
they
are
not
surs
of
Christs
carnal
presence
&
so
commit
●dolatr●t
●●o
worshipp●●g
bread
bei●●
not
consecrated
.
(
For
if
his
head
be
otherwise
occupied
,
he
consecrates
not
)
and
the
due
observation
of
the
precepts
of
the
Church
,
which
partlie
consist
in
wordes
,
partlie
in
gestures
,
&c.
so
that
by
this
opinion
,
those
that
simplie
and
plainlie
(
for
the
first
eight
hundred
or
a
thousand
yeares
next
after
Christ
)
vsed
the
forme
of
Christs
institution
onelie
,
never
consecrated
rightlie
:
no
not
Christ
himselfe
,
nor
Paul
,
and
so
till
of
late
daies
there
was
no
consecration
,
Transubstantiation
,
or
carnall
presence
.
So
that
this
opinion
prooveth
your
owne
transubstantiation
&
carnall
presence
,
not
to
be
either
Apostolicall
or
Catholicke
,
but
new
,
invented
,
and
phantasticall
The
second
opinion
in
of
maister
Doctor
Subtilis
(
for
so
he
call●
him
)
&
he
statlie
contradicteth
the
former
opinion
,
&
saith
,
that
all
he
words
from
qui
pri●●●●
to
Simili
modo
in
the
Canon
of
your
masse
booke
are
necessarilie
required
to
consecration
,
and
therefore
the
former
Doctor
,
If
you
say
Christs
institution
were
sufficient
,
then
your
canon
o●
your
m●sse
is
super
sludus
:
if
you
say
it
is
not
sufficient
,
without
your
masse
caug●
then
Christs
institution
were
imperfect
.
Which
to
thinke
is
blasphemy
.
flint
short
.
But
Gentlemen
,
you
know
that
the
Canon
of
the
masse
was
not
made
by
one
Pope
,
nor
by
tenne
Popes
,
b●t
in
manie
hundred
years
it
was
in
patching
togither
,
I
hope
you
will
not
sa●e
that
those
Saints
and
Martirs
of
God
from
Christes
time
,
to
the
making
of
that
Idolatrous
Canon
of
the
masse
,
beeing
manie
hundred
yeares
,
had
not
the
right
consecration
,
when
they
practiz
d
Christs
institution
.
Alij
d●xerunt
,
there
is
a
third
opinion
of
divers
Doctors
which
held
contrarie
to
both
the
former
,
but
because
it
is
but
fabulous
and
not
woorth
reading
,
therefore
I
will
seilence
it
,
as
not
worth
the
writing
.
But
Guido
his
opinion
is
flat
contrarie
to
them
all
,
and
saith
pre●sely
,
that
hoc
est
enim
corpus
menin
doth
consecrate
without
anie
more
helpe
.
So
Guido
is
contrarie
in
opinion
to
the
former
three
opinions
,
and
everie
of
them
all
contrarie
one
to
another
,
Heere
now
the
Catholickes
may
see
the
consent
and
vnitie
of
the
late
Church
of
Rome
touching
consecration
:
Yet
I
will
bring
you
a
learned
Prier
which
hath
tossed
this
question
like
a
tennisball
.
Iosephus
Angles
in
lib.
4.
sententiarum
.
Printed
by
king
Philips
previledge
.
1573.
pag
108.
&
109.
de
essentialibus
Euch.
This
Frier
saith
in
his
conclusion
:
Christus
Iesus
his
verbis
,
hoc
est
enim
corpus
meum
Eucharistiam
confecit
,
&c.
Christ
Iosus
in
these
words
for
this
is
my
bodie
,
old
consecrate
the
Euchariste
,
and
so
hath
continued
still
by
the
custome
of
the
Church
,
&c.
But
presentlie
in
his
Appendix
hee
●heckes
that
opinion
&
saith
,
yet
it
is
to
be
beleeued
,
that
Christ
consecrated
with
other
words
then
these
th●t
he
vsed
in
the
institution
,
and
there
be
manie
of
this
latter
opinion
sa●th
he
,
as
Innocentius
,
&c.
so
that
it
is
a
palpabl●
discord
amongst
them
touching
the
verie
words
of
consecration
.
And
in
the
same
page
he
delivereth
two
other
opinions
,
one
of
Thomas
Aquinas
,
the
other
of
Scotus
,
Two
other
contrarie
opinions
.
the
one
contrarie
to
the
other
,
which
(
if
you
want
the
booke
)
I
will
shew
you
.
And
in
the
same
page
he
sheweth
,
pag
109.
Soto
saith
,
if
Qui
pridie
being
the
Priests
words
,
be
not
vsed
as
well
as
Christs
,
Tuncincentiun
est
,
&c.
Then
it
is
vncertain
whether
there
be
anie
Transubstantiation
at
all
.
What
wise
,
catholicks
will
beleeue
this
your
vncertaine
doctrine
.
that
hoc
est
enim
●erpus
meum
be
the
words
of
Christ
,
&
that
Qui
pridi●
be
the
words
of
the
Priest
,
so
that
Christs
words
without
the
Priests
words
worke
nothing
,
or
are
nothing
worth
.
And
the
same
Fries
delivers
the
opini●on
of
Doctour
Soto
touching
the
intention
of
the
Priest
in
consecration
of
the
cup
,
but
checks
his
Doctorship
in
his
immediat
conclusion
verie
sharplie
(
I
will
not
say
shamefullie
)
saying
,
Magister
Soto
hee
in
locu
sibi
repugnat
:
Maister
So●o
in
this
place
disagreeth
with
himselfe
:
and
olde
Cato
tells
vs
that
he
that
disagreeth
with
himselfe
,
cannot
agree
with
anie
.
[
](A10753-e18740-b)(a)
(a)
pag
113
Read
the
place
.
But
in
the
next
pages
he
setteth
down
six
severall
opinions
touching
the
forme
of
consecration
,
one
contrarie
to
another
,
and
all
of
them
held
and
maintained
verie
stiflie
for
the
truth
,
whereof
fiue
of
them
must
●iceds
be
false
.
But
I
assure
you
there
is
none
,
of
them
of
Christs
institution
,
and
therefore
neither
true
Apostolicall
nor
Catholicke
.
If
they
were
not
fabulous
and
frivolous
,
I
would
p●●
them
down
verbatim
.
But
if
you
lift
to
fe●
their
errors
,
I
haue
trulie
quoted
their
places
,
you
may
see
them
without
same
,
and
I
trust
you
with
not
read
them
without
dislike
.
Now
let
me
intreate
you
to
heare
some
other
of
your
friends
speake
,
that
lived
in
:
nother
age
,
that
the
Catholicke
may
see
your
vncertaintie
in
this
point
,
that
none
of
you
all
knowe
what
to
say
,
nor
what
to
beleeue
,
and
the
reason
is
,
because
you
haue
denied
and
refu●ed
the
cleere
waters
of
Gods
truth
,
&
therefore
drinke
of
the
puddels
of
mens
inventions
,
which
are
nothing
else
but
fables
and
lies
,
without
ce●taintie
or
veritie
.
Giabriel
Biel.
loct
:
36.
Gabriel
a
learned
man
on
your
side
saith
,
Christus
potuit
sine
verbo
tanquam
verus
Deus
substantiam
pacit●
&
vini
consecrare
,
vel
potuit
verba
quadam
secreto
preferre
,
&
per
illa
consecrare
vel
per
hac
verba
,
hoc
●st
corpus
meum
,
Mark
this
you
Preists
&
Iesuets
.
consecrare
potuit
,
vel
potuit
prius
consecrare
,
&
postea
distribuere
:
vel
primum
distribuare
,
&
postea
consecrare
:
Quid
autem
horum
fecerit
ex
sacris
scriptari
non
constat
:
Christ
as
being
verie
God
,
might
consecrate
the
bread
and
wine
without
anie
word
:
Behould
I
pray
you
the
vncerteinty
of
your
consecration
&
therefore
ceasso
to
deceue
:
Petrus
de
Aliaco
:
in
4.
lib.
sent
Q.
5.
Marke
this
good
Reader
.
How
blasphemous
this
is
,
let
the
learned
●n
christ
Iudge
.
Bonaventura
in
.
4.
lib.
Sententiarum
dist
8.
q.
2.
Or
else
he
might
speake
certaine
words
in
secret
,
and
by
the
〈◊〉
consecrates
or
else
might
consecrate
by
these
words
This
is
my
bodie
:
or
he
might
first
consecrat
,
and
after
deliver
:
or
else
first
deliver
,
and
then
consecrate
th●●
which
of
all
these
he
did
,
by
the
holie
scriptures
it
appeareth
not
.
But
Petrus
de
Alliance
crosseth
them
all
and
saith
,
that
Christ
consecrated
before
these
word
of
hoc
est
corpus
meum
,
for
(
saith
hee
)
Quia
nisi
〈◊〉
fuisset
corpus
Christi
,
Christus
non
vere
dixisset
hee
i●
corpus
meum
.
If
it
had
not
been
Christs
bodie
before
Christ
could
not
haue
said
trulie
this
is
my
bodie
.
This
now
toucheth
your
free-hold
,
for
hee
saith
plainlie
vnlesse
consecration
goe
before
these
words
,
this
is
〈◊〉
bodie
,
both
Christ
and
priest
should
lie
.
This
trample
your
consecration
in
the
durt
.
And
your
Antididagma
printed
at
Collen
,
with
the
approbation
of
all
the
learned
Doctors
in
that
age
saith
prec●selie
,
that
the
ba●e
words
of
Christs
institution
without
the
words
of
the
Canon
of
the
Masse
,
ar●
not
sufficient
to
worke
consecration
.
And
Bonaventura
is
not
ashamed
to
say
,
that
if
wee
will
right
〈◊〉
consecrate
,
wee
must
not
seeke
to
the
Gospell
o●
Christ
,
but
to
the
Canon
of
the
Masse
.
Now
Scot●
(
though
he
be
maister
Doctour
Subtilis
)
is
put
to
〈◊〉
dumpes
what
to
do
,
in
this
doubtfull
case
of
consecration
,
when
there
betwentie
severall
opinions
one
contrarie
to
another
,
and
all
contrarie
to
Christs
truth
,
i●
th●
end
this
is
his
resolution
.
Quod
ergo
est
confilium
?
di●o
quod
sacerdos
intendens
facere
quod
facit
ecclesia
,
legens
distincte
verba
canonis
a
principio
vsque
ad
finom
,
vere
conficit
noc
est
tutum
alicui
reputare
se
valde
,
peritum
inscientia
sua
,
&
dicere
velo
vti
praecise
istit
verbis
pro
consecratione
.
The
matter
being
so
doubtfull
,
what
then
is
your
advise
?
I
say
,
that
the
priest
intending
to
doe
whatsoever
the
Church
doth
,
and
reading
the
words
of
the
Canon
distinctlie
and
plainly
from
the
beginning
to
the
end
,
doth
verelie
consecrate
:
neither
is
it
wisedome
for
a
man
to
account
himselfe
verie
skillfull
in
his
knowledge
,
and
to
say
I
will
vse
(
without
all
doubt
)
these
,
or
these
words
to
worke
consecration
.
Here
your
champion
Scotus
cares
not
a
point
for
your
three
Evangelists
,
nor
the
Apostle
Paul
:
for
reading
of
the
Canon
distinctly
is
sufficient
:
Oh
damnable
heresie
,
that
renounceth
Christs
institution
,
and
followeth
mans
invention
.
And
the
wordes
of
your
Masse-booke
are
distincte
,
secrete
.
&
attente
.
And
also
it
must
be
pronounced
vno
spiritu
.
nulla
pansatione
inter
posita
.
If
the
foresaid
cautions
be
not
performed
by
the
priest
,
your
consecration
and
application
is
marred
,
and
not
worth
a
pin
.
Now
Gentlemen
:
these
be
your
Doctors
,
&
this
is
your
doctrine
:
here
be
twentie
severall
opinions
of
consecration
in
severall
ages
,
and
none
tells
the
trueth
.
Haue
you
vsed
Gods
people
and
the
Queenes
subiects
Christianlie
,
in
perswading
them
that
all
Churches
,
and
all
fathers
,
in
all
ages
,
with
one
consent
,
haue
embraced
this
your
opinion
touching
consecration
,
for
Catholicke
without
discord
or
discention
?
I
tell
you
no
,
for
in
this
you
haue
crackt
their
conscience
,
&
do
hazard
their
soules
to
maintaine
your
superstition
.
But
perchance
you
will
perswade
the
Catholickes
,
that
though
these
Doctors
grosly
erred
,
yet
the
Church
of
Rome
ever
held
one
manner
of
consecration
,
but
that
is
as
vntrue
as
the
rest
.
For
I
will
shew
you
plainlie
,
Palse
witnesses
examined
a
sunder
must
needs
be
taken
tripping
&
founde
liers
,
for
bow
should
yee
agree
in
that
yee
knowe
not
,
nay
in
that
which
is
not
.
that
your
late
Popes
and
Church
of
Rom●
since
three
hundred
,
or
three
hundred
and
seventi●
yeares
last
past
,
knewe
not
what
to
hold
,
●or
what
t●
affirme
touching
the
fourme
of
consecration
.
An●
therefore
in
this
your
new
doctrine
there
is
neither
●●tie
,
antiquitie
,
vniversalitie
(
not
veritie
)
with
whic●
termes
you
so
long
haue
deceived
the
people
.
[
](A10753-e19120-b)a
a
Distin.
2.
de
Consecratione
sub
figura
in
sine
.
The
Pope
&
Church
of
Rome
(
as
this
Canon
testifieth
)
was
of
opinion
,
that
the
Priest
must
recite
verba
Evangelistarum
,
beginning
at
qui
pridie
,
&c.
in
h●●
ergo
creatur
illud
corpus
.
The
Priest
must
recite
th●
whole
words
of
the
three
Evangelists
,
beginning
at
the
day
before
he
suffered
.
Out
of
which
we
may
see
that
this
Pope
will
hau●
the
words
of
the
three
Evangelists
,
which
containe
th●
causes
and
effects
of
the
whole
institution
,
and
not
b●
est
enim
corpus
meum
onelie
,
&c.
Againe
,
there
is
vsed
a
most
shamefull
and
blasphemous
word
,
Creatur
,
vnlesse
you
will
haue
Christ
to
be
come
a
creature
,
and
the
Priest
to
become
a
creator
your
maister
the
Pope
was
too
forgetfull
that
this
ha●●
not
been
dashed
into
his
Index
expurgatorius
.
But
I
must
alleadge
another
Pope
to
con
radict
this
Popes
opinion
.
De
Conse
.
distinct
2.
Canon
quia
corpus
,
page
432.
In
another
age
there
was
a
Pope
,
who
with
the
Church
of
Rome
,
held
that
there
was
an
invisible
Priest
that
consecrated
and
changed
those
visible
creatures
into
the
bodie
and
bloud
of
Christ
,
no●
by
vertue
of
those
knowne
wordes
,
Hoc
est
enim
corpus
meum
,
nor
by
all
the
words
of
the
three
Evangelists
,
a●
the
other
Pope
did
,
but
secreta
potestate
,
by
a
secre●●
and
hidd
n
power
,
which
you
visible
Priestes
know●
not
.
This
Pope
will
haue
an
invisible
Priest
to
make
a
visible
sacrifice
:
and
you
Iesuits
and
Priests
will
haue
a
visible
Priest
,
to
make
the
invisible
bodie
and
bloud
o●
Christ
.
What
is
more
contrarie
and
absurd
then
this
?
This
Pope
hath
brained
your
hoc
est
enim
corpus
meum
,
●eing
your
ordinarie
consecration
,
and
records
all
o●er
Popes
and
you
Iesuits
and
Priests
for
hereticks
,
If
this
lisc●●
of
P●●●●
,
●n
ha●●●t
●rowled
in
a●●●●
knowne
tounge
,
the
Catholicks
had
forsaken
Pope
.
Preiste
,
and
Rome
,
long
since
.
〈◊〉
holding
that
hoc
est
corpus
meum
doth
consecrate
.
But
yet
I
will
b●e
so
bolde
to
aske
this
Pope
this
●●estion
,
Who
is
that
invisible
Priest
?
where
is
that
●riest
?
what
is
his
secret
power
?
do●h
it
consist
in
spea●ng
or
crossing
,
or
both
,
or
in
neither
,
or
in
some
o●her
dumbe
shewes
.
The
holie
Scripures
teach
no
●ch
Priest
speake
of
no
such
secret
power
,
and
so
●his
is
a
fable
as
is
the
rest
,
and
no
sure
foundation
for
●he
Catholickes
to
sticke
too
,
therefore
I
wish
that
〈◊〉
well
minded
Catholickes
of
this
kingdome
would
〈◊〉
beleeue
this
vncertaine
vani●ie
,
but
sticke
to
Christs
written
veritie
.
I
will
adde
one
Pope
more
,
whose
opinion
I
know
〈◊〉
will
not
gainsay
,
for
if
you
should
,
I
must
come
●●on
you
wi●h
an
old
schoole
point
,
Contra
negantem
●citia
non
est
disputantium
.
De
sacre
Aliaris
mysterio
lib
4.
cap.
6.
page
.
105.
66.
This
is
Pope
Innocentius
●e
third
of
famous
memorie
,
vnder
the
warmth
of
those
wings
,
your
transubstantiation
in
the
Synode
of
Laterans
was
hatched
,
at
least
one
thousand
and
to
hundred
yeares
after
Christs
ascention
:
This
Pope
words
three
severall
opinions
touching
consecration
,
●d
one
contrarie
to
another
.
The
first
hold
,
it
is
made
〈◊〉
Benedixit
:
The
second
sort
teach
,
that
after
bene●tion
,
when
either
it
by
the
Priest
made
some
print
on
the
bread
,
as
it
were
by
crossing
&
some
word
spoken
o●ter
&
to
the
bread
,
then
hoc
est
enim
co●pus
meum
conse●●●s
whosoever
saith
nay
.
And
this
sort
ho●
is
that
it
is
(
credibile
)
credible
,
that
Christ
first
de
ivered
the
bread
,
and
then
consecrated
the
bread
,
which
things
make
your
fingring
and
blowing
vpon
or
over
the
bread
more
palpable
,
because
one
must
hold
the
Elements
while
you
enchaunte
them
,
rather
then
consecrate
them
.
The
third
opinion
crosseth
both
the
other
,
which
is
,
that
Christ
consecrated
vertute
divina
,
by
his
divine
vertue
,
and
afterward
laid
downe
for
posterities
a
forme
,
after
which
they
should
blesse
or
consecrate
.
Thus
there
were
three
severall
opinions
that
this
Pope
spake
of
,
yet
it
seemeth
he
liked
but
one
of
them
,
which
was
the
second
,
which
he
seemeth
to
iustifie
in
the
chapter
following
.
Magister
Sent.
lib.
4.
dist.
8.
fol:
56.
which
are
alledged
out
of
A●roses
But
mag●cter
Sententiarum
commeth
neerer
the
matter
,
and
asketh
a
question
to
make
the
matter
plaine
,
corsecrati●
quibus
fit
verbis
.
Attende
quae
sunt
verba
accipi
t●
&
comedite
,
accipite
bibite
,
&c.
with
what
words
it
consecration
made
?
giue
attention
,
these
be
the
words
,
Take
yee
,
and
eate
yee
all
of
this
,
this
is
my
bodie
,
take
yee
and
drinke
yee
,
this
is
my
bloud
,
drinke
yee
all
of
this
.
Heere
you
see
that
this
maister
checks
Pope
&
Prelate
,
for
none
of
all
these
twentie
and
odde
opinions
ever
put
in
these
wordes
,
Take
yee
,
eate
yee
,
take
yee
drinke
yee
,
as
the
words
of
Christ
,
but
as
the
words
of
your
Canon
.
And
that
these
words
be
not
necessarie
parts
of
Christs
institution
,
but
onelie
shew
the
vse
of
the
institution
,
but
that
is
neither
Canonicall
no●
Catholicke
.
And
if
you
list
at
your
leisure
to
read
Cardinall
Fr.
Constantius
Sarvanus
his
worke
,
Printed
at
Romes
.
159●
.
pag.
144.
145.
146.
intituled
Summa
Theologica
,
dedicated
to
this
Pope
Clement
the
right
now
living
,
you
shall
see
that
he
repeats
other
severall
juries
that
are
now
among
your
Romane
Prelates
●●uching
consecration
as
contrarie
as
these
,
and
therefore
as
absurd
as
the
former
.
Now
Gentlemen
,
how
can
you
salu●
this
sore
,
and
reconcile
these
jarres
.
Doctours
,
Schoolemen
,
Canonists
,
Text
and
Glosse
,
Popes
,
and
great
Prelates
dissenting
most
shamefullie
about
consecration
,
none
of
them
relying
vpon
Christ
●l●ine
institution
,
and
therefore
be
hold
their
des●rved
confusion
.
Now
blame
not
vs
for
discovering
your
discords
,
and
for
forsaking
your
errors
,
but
blame
your
Doctors
,
Schoolmen
,
Friers
,
Monkes
,
Legendaries
,
Canonists
,
your
Popes
Canons
,
and
your
owne
Masse-book
,
these
are
come
to
our
hands
,
we
haue
read
their
workes
,
and
discovered
some
hundreds
of
their
heresies
,
and
sent
them
to
the
view
of
the
Catholickes
But
howsoever
you
blame
vs
,
God
and
the
world
will
blame
you
,
in
keeping
the
people
from
reading
Gods
booke
,
and
good
writers
,
which
would
instruct
and
confirme
them
in
true
religion
,
and
revoke
them
from
your
grosse
superstition
.
Thus
much
concerning
the
vncertaintie
,
absurditie
,
and
blasphemie
of
your
consecration
.
Now
the
true
Apostolicall
consecration
is
this
,
when
the
elements
of
bread
and
wine
are
set
apart
from
their
common
vse
,
and
applied
to
a
holie
vse
,
according
to
Gods
word
.
And
when
the
lawful
minister
hath
taught
the
prepared
communicants
the
grievousnes
of
their
sinnes
:
What
true
consecration
is
which
the
Gospellers
teach
.
the
●●●nes
of
Gods
wrath
:
the
sufficiencie
of
Christs
ments
fully
to
appease
the
same
:
the
nature
of
the
Sacrament
,
which
is
a
commemoration
of
that
passion
,
the
office
of
faith
to
appprehend
and
applie
Christ●
me●●s
promised
in
the
word
,
and
tendred
in
the
due
administration
of
the
Sacraments
,
then
is
there
I
say
,
a
right
consecration
of
the
Sacrament
.
Now
whether
this
consecration
of
yours
,
is
warranted
by
Christ
his
words
,
let
the
indifferent
Reader
iudge
,
and
with
the
true●h
&
a●●cion●
opinion
ioyne
.
Transubstansiation
Yet
we
contend
with
you
not
for
names
and
words
live
for
〈…〉
Thus
much
concerning
you●
imagined
&
new
stamped
consecration
.
Now
to
your
second
,
piller
,
which
i●
,
transubstansiation
.
First
,
I
must
tel
you
in
this
,
as
in
the
former
,
that
the
term
is
new
,
lately
invented
&
compounded
by
your selues
,
&
as
your
consecration
was
never
found
in
the
new
Testament
,
so
transubstansiation
was
never
found
,
in
the
●●●●us
old
.
No
,
I
do
not
remember
that
in
al
my
Grammatical
travels
&
studies
,
that
ever
,
●ead
it
.
I
can
s●●w
you
Dictionaries
many
,
&
Grammers
●●●e
of
divers
pri●●●
and
in
diverse
ages
,
printed
in
severall
Vniversities
of
Christendome
,
but
none
of
them
makes
mention
of
this
word
transubstantiure
,
much
lesse
of
the
sence
,
which
is
to
chaunge
substances
of
severall
kinds
,
one
substance
into
another
.
But
brieflie
,
as
the
word
cannot
be
found
in
Gods
booke
nor
auncient
Doctor
:
so
the
sence
hath
neither
warrant
from
holie
scriptures
,
no●
Catholicke
writers
.
For
this
is
your
opinion
,
that
after
consecration
(
which
yet
you
know
not
what
it
is
)
the
substance
of
bread
and
wine
should
be
converted
into
the
naturall
bodie
and
bloud
of
Christ
,
the
accidents
of
bread
and
wine
,
as
whitnesse
,
foundnesse
,
breadth
,
weight
,
fa●or
and
taste
of
them
onely
remaining
.
You
may
assoone
and
to
as
good
a
purpose
,
prooue
a
transaccidentation
as
a
transubstantiation
.
But
as
there
is
no
change
of
the
former
,
so
not
of
the
latter
,
but
a
meere
Friers
fable
,
and
therefore
frivolous
.
And
whereas
the
Fathers
vse
these
words
,
change
,
conversion
,
mutation
,
transelementation
,
they
alwaies
expound
themselues
in
their
severall
workes
,
that
it
is
a
changing
of
the
vse
,
not
of
the
substance
:
neither
can
you
shew
anie
one
father
that
euer
ment
such
a
change
,
of
one
substance
into
another
:
for
everie
change
of
one
thing
into
another
,
carrieth
not
with
it
at
all
transubstantiation
of
one
substance
into
another
:
for
there
may
be
a
change
without
conversion
of
substances
,
but
conversion
of
substances
cannot
bee
without
a
change
:
for
there
is
as
much
difference
betwixt
change
and
transubstantiation
,
as
betwixt
the
generall
&
the
speciall
:
for
change
is
the
generall
,
and
containes
vnder
〈◊〉
transubstansiation
:
but
not
contrariwise
.
And
as
there
is
a
change
of
substances
,
so
there
is
a
change
of
accidents
,
to
wit
,
of
qualities
,
of
times
,
of
places
,
of
habits
,
and
such
other
like
things
,
according
to
their
natures
,
and
to
the
predicaments
vnder
the
which
they
are
comprehended
.
These
Logicall
ru●●nuats
I
hope
you
haue
not
forgotten
.
Our
regeneration
is
a
change
,
not
substantiall
,
We
confes
a
change
of
name
,
&
of
vse
,
but
onelie
during
the
action
,
not
after
to
be
a
sacrament
,
no
more
then
water
in
the
fond
after
that
baptisme
is
finished
by
the
minister
.
but
accidentall
,
that
is
:
it
is
not
a
change
of
the
substance
of
our
bodies
and
soules
into
anie
other
substance
,
but
the
change
i●
in
qualitie
:
which
is
,
from
vice
to
vertue
,
from
sinne
to
righteousnesse
,
&c.
and
this
our
change
now
in
question
is
sacramentall
,
not
substantiall
,
of
the
vse
of
the
creatures
,
not
of
the
substance
.
But
if
you
will
needes
haue
a
change
of
substances
,
speake
like
schollers
,
and
tell
me
for
my
learning
,
in
what
predicament
I
shall
seeke
it
,
and
yet
I
thinke
I
shall
never
finde
it
.
But
I
will
not
bee
tedious
in
transubstansiation
,
seeing
the
great
Rabbynes
of
Rome
can
no
more
agree
vpon
this
,
then
they
could
about
consecration
,
as
also
because
we
haue
confuted
it
in
such
places
,
where
we
prooue
bread
to
remaine
after
consecration
:
for
so
manie
fathers
as
prooue
bread
to
remaine
after
consecration
,
confute
transubstansiation
,
I
will
one●i●
giue
the
best
minded
Catholickes
iuste
of
the
rest
of
your
late
School-doctors
,
by
alleadging
one
Grand-captain
in
stead
of
the
rest
,
whose
words
be
these
.
magister
Sent.
lib.
●
.
dist.
11.
pag.
58.
Si
tandem
queritur
qualis
sic
illa
conversio
,
an
formalis
,
an
substantialis
,
vel
alterius
generis
,
di
finire
van
suffici●
:
But
if
it
be
asked
mee
(
saith
this
your
great
Moderator
)
what
kinde
of
change
is
made
in
the
Sacrament
,
whether
it
be
formall
,
or
substantiall
,
or
of
anie
other
kinde
,
I
am
not
able
to
define
it
vnto
you
.
Will
you
heare
your
owne
friend
Cuthb
.
T●nustall
Bishop
of
Dirrh●m
deliver
his
opinion
,
de
mode
,
de
Eucharistia
lib.
1
pag.
46.
quo
id
fieret
fortasie
satius
erat
curiosum
quemqu●
suae
nelinquere
coniectutae
,
sicut
liberum
fu●t
ante
concilium
Lateranum
.
Of
the
maner
of
this
change
or
conversion
how
it
might
be
done
,
perhaps
it
had
been
better
to
leaue
every
man
that
would
be
curious
to
his
own
opinion
or
coniecture
,
as
it
was
before
the
Councell
of
Laterane
left
at
libertie
.
Is
this
your
antiquitie
,
vniversalitie
,
and
consent
you
see
it
is
a
jarring
noveltie
,
voide
of
veritie
.
Why
then
will
you
take
vpon
you
to
teach
that
which
you
never
learned
,
and
perswade
the
Catholickes
to
beleeue
that
which
the
chiefest
on
your
side
maketh
a
doubt
of
?
nay
,
all
of
your
side
cannot
prooue
:
nay
which
is
in
deed
but
a
fable
without
trueth
,
for
one
thousand
&
two
hundred
yeares
after
Christ
never
heard
of
.
And
therefore
seeing
it
is
neither
Apostolicall
not
Catholicke
,
Absurdities
follow
the
granting
of
Transubstatiation
.
no
mans
conscience
is
bounde
to
beleeue
it
.
Now
J
will
onelie
shewe
some
grosse
absurdities
that
followe
the
graunting
of
it
,
and
so
proceed
to
the
rest
.
This
fable
of
transubstansiation
overthroweth
sundrie
articles
of
our
faith
,
and
therefore
it
is
abhominable
.
It
teacheth
a
new
conception
of
Christ
to
bee
made
of
bread
by
a
sinfull
priest
,
and
every
day
,
&
in
everie
place
where
it
pleaseth
the
priest
,
contrarie
to
the
Article
of
our
faith
:
which
is
,
that
Christ
was
conceaved
by
the
holie
Ghost
,
and
borne
of
the
blessed
vi●gin
,
and
but
once
:
for
such
a
Christ
as
you
tender
to
the
poore
ignorant
Catholickes
is
not
a
true
Christ
,
neither
can
be
,
for
manie
respects
,
which
are
before
in
the
beginning
alleadged
.
Secondlie
,
if
Christ
be
in
the
Sacrament
,
he
is
not
then
ascended
,
and
so
there
is
another
article
of
our
faith
destroyed
by
this
damnable
fable
.
And
thirdlie
,
if
hee
be
couchant
or
dormant
in
the
pixe
,
then
the
Scriptvres
deceiue
vs
,
in
telling
vs
hee
shall
come
from
heaven
to
iudge
both
quicke
and
dead
,
&
so
another
article
of
our
faith
is
overthrowne
.
And
if
your
doctrine
were
true
.
Christ
should
haue
eaten
himselfe
corporally
,
but
you
confesse
he
did
eat
himselfe
[
](A10753-e20020-b)(a)
(a)
Iosephus
Angles
page
.
●●0
.
conclusioness
cunda
.
spiritually
.
Jf
your
doctrine
of
transubstansiation
were
true
,
then
the
Lords
supper
were
no
Sacrament
,
&
the
reason
is
this
,
for
every
Sacrament
consisteth
of
the
outward
signe
,
&
the
inward
●ing
signified
,
&
they
must
both
still
remaine
during
●e
outward
action
of
the
Sacrament
.
Now
if
bread
which
is
the
visible
outward
part
of
the
Sacrament
be
changed
into
Christs
bodie
,
then
there
is
no
sacrament
,
because
there
remaines
but
one
part
of
the
Sacrament
,
which
is
the
thing
signified
,
&
then
you
vtterlie
deceiue
●he
people
,
which
●o●l
them
it
is
the
Sacrament
of
the
Altar
when
it
is
no
Sacrament
at
all
.
Againe
,
another
●surditie
followes
vppon
it
:
for
if
the
substance
of
●read
be
changed
,
then
there
is
no
proportion
or
analogie
betwixt
the
signe
and
the
thing
signified
,
because
accidents
cannot
nourish
.
For
the
likenesse
or
resemblance
betwixt
bread
and
Christ
,
consisteth
chieflie
in
this
,
that
as
bread
nourisheth
the
bodie
,
so
Christs
body
crucified
nourisheth
the
soule
:
but
if
the
substance
of
●read
be
changed
into
another
substance
,
then
the
●roportion
and
propertie
is
so
changed
,
that
it
must
●●ease
to
be
the
thing
for
which
it
was
first
ordained
,
and
so
the
best
you
would
make
of
the
Sacrament
is
●●t
a
shaddow
without
a
substance
.
Another
vnreasonable
absurditie
wil●
follow
,
that
Christ
hath
two
bodies
,
one
of
bread
made
by
the
Priest
,
another
of
the
blessed
virgin
conceived
by
the
holie
Ghost
.
Againe
,
of
his
owne
bodie
shall
be
in
manie
places
at
once
,
that
is
contrarie
to
a
naturall
bodie
,
and
is
as
voyde
of
learning
,
as
the
other
of
religion
:
and
by
this
your
new
thirteenth
Article
of
your
〈◊〉
faith
,
you
would
maintaine
the
being
of
qualities
without
a
subiect
,
and
the
being
of
quantities
without
a
substance
,
which
both
are
impossible
.
But
because
the
opinion
is
false
and
forged
,
without
Scripture
or
testimonie
of
auncient
Father
,
I
will
alleadge
no
more
absurditities
at
this
time
till
I
be
vrged
.
See
now
the
fruits
of
your
fained
transubstansiation
,
not
f●ll
foure
hundred
yeares
olde
,
&
yet
forsoeth
you
teach
it
is
Apostolicall
and
Catholi●ke
,
whereas
it
lackes
one
thousand
and
two
hundred
yeares
of
that
age
.
Lib
4.
sent.
fol.
257.
Innocentius
3.
de
.
sacro
Altaris
mysteria
lib.
4
cap.
●0
.
per
totum
.
Distinct
:
de
consecr
,
distinct
2.
canon
.
1.
pag.
429.
But
he
that
list
to
see
the
shifts
and
wranglings
of
your
Schoolmen
to
vphold
this
rotter
Romish
heresie
,
let
him
read
Guillermus
,
&
Innocentius
the
third
,
a
Pope
,
parent
,
and
patrone
of
this
fable
,
the
first
Canon
of
the
second
distinction
,
where
you
shall
finde
in
the
Glosse
there
,
varia
sunt
opiniones
.
That
in
the
Popes
Court
and
in
his
Consistorie
,
there
bee
divers
opinions
touching
transubstansiation
,
yet
the
deniall
of
it
,
or
the
contradicting
of
the
Popes
opinion
,
was
then
[
](A10753-e20230-b)(a)
(a)
Deniall
of
Transubstantiation
,
in
Rome
was
no
death
.
no
death
,
though
in
those
mercilesse
daies
of
Spanish
Philip
,
and
Romish
Marie
,
it
was
made
the
thirteenth
Article
of
our
faith
,
and
it
had
been
lesse
daunger
to
haue
denied
those
twelue
old
articles
of
our
old
faith
,
then
this
one
of
your
new
faith
;
for
the
one
was
dispensed
with
for
monie
,
but
the
deniall
of
the
other
was
punished
with
death
without
mercie
.
But
you
will
replie
and
say
,
notwithstanding
the
dissentions
aforesaid
,
yet
Christs
words
be
true
,
he
cannot
lie
,
he
hath
said
,
hoc
est
corpus
meum
,
this
is
my
bodie
,
therefore
it
is
his
bodie
.
We
confesse
these
words
to
be
Christs
words
,
and
therefore
true
,
but
the
litterall
sence
is
yours
,
&
therefore
false
.
But
that
I
will
not
bee
tedious
vnto
you
,
I
could
shew
you
as
manie
severall
opinions
dissenting
about
the
meaning
of
hoc
:
est
:
and
corpus
,
as
I
haue
done
in
the
premisses
:
but
that
the
Catholickes
shall
know
there
is
no
such
vnitie
not
veritie
in
your
doctrine
,
as
you
confidentlie
(
but
vntrulie
)
haue
taught
them
,
therefore
I
will
giue
them
but
a
taste
till
some
other
time
,
onelie
pointing
you
and
them
to
their
Authors
and
places
,
and
then
read
aduisedlie
,
and
iudge
without
partiall
affection
.
This
Frier
you
heard
latelie
recited
your
severall
〈…〉
touching
consecration
:
Iosepus
Angles
de
Essentialibus
Euch.
pag.
114.
115.
116.
now
heare
him
with
your
patience
to
deliver
his
and
other
severall
opinions
touching
the
exposition
of
these
three
words
severallie
,
hoc
,
est
,
corpus
.
The
first
opinion
is
,
that
this
demonstratiue
pro●oune
hoc
,
must
bee
referred
not
to
the
bread
,
but
to
the
bodie
of
Christ
,
that
this
should
be
the
sence
,
1.
Iosepus
hoc
〈◊〉
,
&c.
id
est
corpus
:
est
corpus
meum
.
That
is
,
this
my
bodie
,
is
my
bodie
:
but
how
absurd
this
is
,
let
the
young
Sophisters
in
the
Schooles
giue
their
censures
.
But
the
second
opinion
is
of
Bonaventura
,
2.
Bonauentura
.
who
saith
this
,
pronoune
hoc
,
must
be
referred
to
the
bread
●●●t
must
be
converted
into
Christs
bodie
,
but
not
to
Christs
bodie
.
The
third
opinion
is
Occhams
,
3.
Occam
in
lib.
4.
and
he
is
of
opinion
with
the
first
.
There
followeth
three
other
learned
mens
opinions
contrarie
to
all
the
former
,
1.
S.
Thom.
2.
Ricar
.
3.
Scotus
.
Nec
pa●em
nec
corpus
sub
ratione
corporis
,
sed
corpus
Christs
sub
ratione
entis
vel
Indiuidui
,
&c.
lib.
4
pag.
182
de
sacro
Altaris
mysterio
,
cap.
17
and
say
flatlie
that
this
demonstratiue
hoc
,
must
not
be
referred
to
note
either
the
bread
or
the
bodie
of
Christ
,
but
that
this
might
be
the
sence
,
hoc
eus
vel
hac
substantia
,
quae
continetur
sub
speciebus
,
&c.
This
thing
or
this
substance
which
a
contained
vnder
the
accidents
of
bread
,
is
my
bodie
:
but
how
well
these
opinions
with
their
straunge
Logicall
manner
of
reasoning
will
content
the
learned
Priests
and
Iesuits
,
I
would
faine
know
?
for
this
I
am
〈◊〉
,
they
sound
not
either
of
divinitie
or
learning
.
But
this
Frier
for
a
farewell
concludes
,
pag.
118.
prono●●n
hoc
,
nihil
.
This
pronoune
hoc
signifieth
nothing
,
till
the
last
sillable
vm
,
be
pronounced
.
Pope
Innocentius
the
third
saith
,
that
hoc
signifieth
●either
bread
,
nor
Christs
bodie
,
because
the
whole
words
of
consecration
were
not
spoken
:
vnlesse
saith
he
,
you
will
say
the
Priest
consecrates
at
this
word
Benedixit
,
Hoc
,
nihil
demosstrat
.
In
the
same
pag.
marke
this
you
Iesuits
&
priests
.
he
blessed
.
But
the
Pope
saith
,
hee
signifie●
nothing
,
and
his
reason
is
,
that
the
Priest
sheweth
〈◊〉
noteth
nothing
,
because
he
vseth
hoc
est
,
&c.
not
b●
way
of
demonstration
,
but
by
way
of
cursorie
repetition
:
so
then
,
this
Pope
will
haue
this
sence
,
hoc
e●●
corpus
meum
,
that
is
,
nothing
is
my
bodie
.
But
in
th●
three
of
the
last
lines
of
that
chapter
,
his
wisedom●
changed
his
minde
&
said
,
this
is
my
bodie
,
that
is
,
wha●
soever
is
vnder
the
formes
of
bread
is
my
bodie
.
I●
not
this
thinke
you
deepe
divinitie
for
a
Pope
?
You
may
see
herein
how
the
Pope
vseth
shamefull
shifts
t●
cover
his
sensible
errors
,
and
to
deceiue
Christs
litt●
flocke
.
In
his
Marc.
Anton.
Con.
Stephen
Gardner
living
bu●
latelie
,
seeing
every
man
opinion
expounding
what
hoc
should
be
,
heed
slikes
〈◊〉
them
all
,
and
saith
,
it
signifieth
iudiuiduum
vagum
,
as
i●
Christ
had
said
,
This
(
but
what
it
is
I
cannot
tell
,
but
i●
must
of
necessitie
be
somewhat
)
is
my
bodie
.
De
consec
.
dist.
2.
can
.
P
morem
.
Glossa
ibi
dem.
But
I
will
conclude
with
your
owne
Popes
Cano●
and
Glosse
,
which
you
hold
for
Canonicall
,
though
in
deed
hereticall
,
solet
quari
quid
demonstratur
per
pron●●●
men
hoc
.
It
is
a
common
question
what
is
meant
by
●hi●
pronounce
this
,
whether
bread
,
or
the
bodie
of
Christ
not
bread
,
for
that
is
not
the
bodie
of
Christ
:
nor
yet
tho●
bodie
of
Christ
,
for
it
appereath
not
that
there
is
anie
transubstansiation
,
till
the
words
hoc
all
pronounced
,
yea
the
last
sillable
●m
.
To
this
question
this
must
be
aunswered
:
That
by
the
word
this
,
nothing
is
mean●
)
but
it
is
there
put
materially
without
anie
signifia●ion
all
.
See
now
whither
you
are
brought
,
or
rather
whither
haue
you
brought
Gods
people
,
from
●●deth
to
falsehood
:
if
hoc
signifieth
nothing
,
where
then
is
your
transubstanstation
.
For
if
in
〈◊〉
word
which
should
first
worke
in
the
change
there
bee
no
mention
of
bread
,
how
c●n
that
which
is
no
wa●
comprised
in
them
,
be
chaunged
by
them
,
&
so
you
sp●ake
against
your selues
.
Againe
,
as
you
are
rent
in
sun●●
opinions
touching
hoc
,
so
also
are
you
touching
●●er
when
you
saw
that
est
would
not
serue
in
his
proper
Evangelicall
and
Apostolicall
signification
,
What
est
signifieth
,
there
is
great
variance
amongst
the
Romish
Prelats
.
Est
i.
Fit
.
Est
,
est
verbum
anuntiativum
non
constetutium
.
Est
1.
erit
Iosephus
Angles
i●
loco
praedicto
.
pag.
115.
then
you
gaue
him
a
new
exposition
.
For
Bonaventure
seeing
that
est
(
as
Christ
and
Paul
meant
it
)
would
not
fit
their
purpose
,
then
hee
of
purpose
expounded
it
by
fit
,
vt
fit
sensus
,
panis
fit
corpus
meum
,
that
it
might
be
thus
in
sence
,
The
bread
is
made
my
bodie
.
Yet
Occham
hee
likes
not
Bonaventures
Fit
,
because
hee
thinkes
it
is
too
grosse
and
too
false
:
and
therefore
he
will
expound
est
by
erit
,
that
it
may
carrie
with
it
this
sence
:
this
shall
be
my
bodie
,
but
(
saith
he
)
it
is
a
verie
rash
and
brainsicke
opinion
,
and
alleadgeth
as
brainsicke
a
reason
,
as
there
you
may
see
.
Yet
Caietanus
the
Cardinall
de
Encharistia
cap.
7.
pag.
104.
col
.
2.
C.
D.
denieth
est
to
haue
anie
such
signification
,
vnlesse
it
be
in
metaphors
and
parables
.
But
lest
that
I
shuld
be
too
offensiue
vnto
you
,
I
could
del
ver
so
many
several
opinions
of
yours
,
touching
the
praedicat
corpus
:
one
saith
it
must
bee
meant
of
Christes
bodie
glorified
,
no
saith
another
,
that
is
false
:
but
it
must
be
vnderstood
of
his
bodie
,
as
it
was
before
his
passion
.
And
a
third
opinion
obiects
certaine
doubts
against
both
the
former
,
Magister
Sententiarum
lib
4.
distinct.
12.
page
.
60.
delivers
foure
severall
opinions
,
de
fractione
&
partibus
.
Now
Gentlemen
,
I
appeale
to
your
consciences
(
if
they
be
not
cauteriated
)
whether
you
haue
dealt
well
with
the
ignorant
Catholickes
of
this
land
,
in
perswading
them
that
in
all
your
doctrine
there
is
consent
without
jarres
,
antiquitie
without
innovation
,
and
vniversalitie
without
limittation
,
whereas
there
is
nothing
but
iarres
,
discords
&
dissentions
,
in
your
consecration
,
in
your
transubstantiation
,
&
in
every
word
almost
,
nay
perticle
,
as
hoc
,
and
est
,
be
so
wrested
by
your
construction
,
that
you
haue
brought
both
their
prope●
significations
to
plaine
destruction
.
Is
this
exposition
Catholicke
?
what
auncient
fathe●
ever
expounded
it
so
?
let
the
Catholickes
know
,
o●
else
they
with
vs
,
will
iudge
,
neither
you
nor
you
doctrine
Catholicke
.
Will
you
follow
a
foolish
Frier
an
ignorant
Abbot
,
a
late
vpstart
Pope
or
Priest
tha●
writ
(
and
wrested
)
within
these
foure
hundred
yeares
and
forsake
Scriptures
and
the
auncient
Doctours
o●
the
Church
?
Now
let
the
indifferent
minded
Catholikes
be
iudges
whether
you
or
wee
haue
antiqui●●
consent
and
veritie
on
our
sides
.
And
who
differs
from
Scriptures
,
&
fathers
:
from
,
&
amongst
themselues
not
onelie
in
one
point
of
religion
,
but
almost
in
●verie
point
and
particle
of
doctrine
.
Thus
much
co●cerning
your
discords
amongst
your selues
,
and
●l
●gainst
the
auncient
Apostolicall
and
Catholick
truth
.
Now
to
conclude
this
matter
,
I
will
shewe
plainl●●
by
scriptures
,
Hoc
est
corpus
meum
expou●
b●
scripente
.
that
hoc
est
corpus
meum
can
haue
no
such
sence
as
you
teach
,
which
is
:
that
bread
is
not
by
this
or
anie
other
words
transubstantiated
or
chau●ged
into
Christs
bodie
and
bloud
,
but
that
bread
remaineth
after
sanctification
,
or
(
as
you
say
)
consecrat●on
,
and
that
the
scriptures
speaking
of
Christs
bodie
and
of
the
bread
,
speake
distinctlie
,
not
confusedlie
,
that
is
,
they
doe
divide
them
,
not
confound
them
giving
to
e●ther
of
them
their
severall
nature
and
propertie
,
yea
after
consecration
.
And
whereas
we
haue
now
heard
too
much
of
the
jarres
of
your
late
Popes
and
writers
voide
of
vnitie
and
veritie
:
Now
let
vs
heare
the
holie
scriptures
expound
hoc
est
corpus
meum
,
plainlie
and
truelie
by
the
Evangelists
and
Paul
,
who
knew
best
Christs
meaning
.
Vpon
whose
exposition
all
Christians
may
and
must
onelie
rest
satisfied
inspite
of
Pope
and
poperie
.
Debt
.
math.
26
26.
ANd
first
we
will
prooue
it
from
the
difference
of
the
signe
and
the
thing
signified
,
The
scriptures
when
they
speak
of
bread
they
speak
actiuely
,
He
gaue
.
D●tur
.
Luc
22.19
But
when
they
speake
of
Christs
naturall
bod●e
,
they
speake
passiuelie
,
Is
given
.
●regit
.
Luc.
21.19
When
they
speake
of
bread
,
they
speake
actiuelie
,
He
brake
it
.
●●ngitur
.
1.
Cor.
11.24
.
But
when
they
speake
of
Christs
body
,
they
speake
passiuelie
,
Which
is
broken
.
●●s
.
marke
.
14.22
When
they
speake
of
bread
,
they
say
,
To
you
,
Pro
vobis
.
1
Cor.
11.14
.
But
when
they
speake
of
Christs
naturall
bodie
,
they
say
,
For
you
,
Dedit
.
marke
.
14
12
Likewise
when
they
speake
of
wine
,
they
speake
actiuely
:
He
gaue
,
●●●nditur
.
Luc.
11.20
.
But
when
they
speake
of
Christ
his
bloud
,
they
speake
passiuelie
,
Is
shed
,
●it
.
math
.
26.27
When
they
speake
of
the
wine
,
they
say
,
To
them
,
Pro
multis
pr●rebis
.
Luc.
22
.
●0
math.
26.26
.
But
when
they
speake
of
Christs
bloud
,
they
speake
,
For
you
,
or
,
for
manie
,
I●
mean
commemotationem
.
1.
Cor.
11.24
.
When
they
speak
of
the
cup
,
they
speak
,
In
rememberance
of
me
.
I●
remissìonem
peccatorum
.
Mat.
26.28
.
But
when
they
speake
of
Christs
naturall
bloud
,
they
speake
,
For
the
remissione
of
sinn●
.
So
when
Christ
speaketh
actiuelie
,
as
,
he
gaue
,
hee
brake
,
it
is
alwaies
spoken
of
the
sacrament
But
when
be
speaketh
passiulie
,
which
is
given
,
which
is
broken
,
which
it
shed
,
and
for
you
,
not
to
you
,
then
he
sp●akes
of
his
naturall
bodie
given
and
broken
on
the
crosse
.
And
this
rule
is
a
plaine
and
sure
rule
to
direct
v●in
and
to
the
true
vnderstanding
of
hoc
est
corpus
meum
,
This
is
my
bodie
,
In
which
plaine
pathes
of
the
holie
Scriptures
if
you
would
walke
,
Bread
and
wine
remain
afer
consecration
by
C●ri●t
his
testimony
,
therefore
trāsubstanst●●tion
is
a
f●rged
and
false
fable
,
invented
by
new
Rome
to
support
your
new
heresies
of
Christs
carnall
presence
.
you
might
be
preserved
from
wandring
.
Thus
you
see
how
distinctlie
Christ
disioynes
them
,
sundring
them
with
their
severall
properties
,
the
signe
from
the
thing
signified
,
not
confounding
them
as
you
vntrulie
teach
,
yea
and
after
that
Christ
vttered
h●c
est
corpus
meum
,
which
you
call
your
co●●ecration
.
Now
let
vs
compare
the
phrase
and
words
that
the
holie
Ghost
vseth
in
both
the
new
Testament
&
the
old
,
and
then
you
will
say
they
are
so
like
,
that
they
are
rather
borrowed
of
the
old
testament
,
then
instituted
in
the
new
,
and
so
of
necessitie
seeing
they
are
be●●
.
Sacraments
,
and
of
like
words
,
and
ordained
by
one
Author
,
and
to
one
end
,
they
w●st
needs
haue
one
sence
,
so
that
the
one
will
best
expound
the
other
,
and
the
one
being
Sacramentall
and
relatiue
,
the
other
cannot
be
Grammaticall
and
proper
.
As
it
is
said
in
the
old
[
](A10753-e21840-b)(a)
(a)
Gen.
17
10.
Testament
of
the
sacrament
of
circumsition
,
hic
est
pactum
meum
,
this
is
my
covenant
.
So
it
is
said
in
the
new
[
](A10753-e21870-b)(b)
(b)
math.
26.26
.
testament
by
the
same
spirit
,
hoc
est
corpus
meum
,
this
is
my
bodie
,
but
as
by
those
words
like
to
these
in
s●llables
,
sound
,
and
sence
,
there
was
no
transubstansiation
of
the
peece
of
flesh
of
the
foreskin
that
was
cut
off
,
into
Gods
covenant
made
with
his
Church
,
so
there
is
no
naturall
nor
miraculous
chaunge
made
of
anie
part
of
the
bread
or
wine
into
Christs
bodie
and
bloud
.
Exod.
12
And
as
it
was
said
of
the
Paschall
Lambe
,
h●c
erit
vobis
in
memoriam
,
this
shall
be
to
you
a
rememberance
,
so
it
is
said
of
the
Lords
Supper
,
1.
Cor.
11.24
.
Exod.
24.8
.
Doe
this
in
rememberance
of
me
And
as
it
was
said
in
the
olde
Testament
,
hic
est
sanguis
faederis
,
This
is
the
bloud
of
the
covenant
,
yet
was
not
the
couenant
but
a
signe
of
the
covenant
.
So
is
it
said
by
Christ
himselfe
,
Luc.
22.20
.
This
cup
is
the
new
Testament
in
my
bloud
,
yet
the
cup
was
neither
the
Testament
,
nor
the
bloud
,
but
a
signe
representation
,
〈◊〉
rememberance
of
Christs
bloud
.
And
the
new
Testament
is
an
obligation
or
bond
therein
God
for
his
part
binds
himselfe
with
most
see
covenaunts
:
and
seales
it
with
word
,
oath
and
sacraments
,
that
hee
will
receiue
into
his
protection
and
favour
the
beleever
and
penitent
.
And
the
beleever
and
repentant
of
their
parts
,
binde
themselues
〈◊〉
like
indented
covenants
,
to
performe
vnto
his
saued
Maiestie
,
Rom.
1.5
.
a
liuelie
and
steadfaste
faith
with
holy
obedience
.
Now
the
cup
or
the
wine
in
the
cup
,
is
a
representation
or
commemoration
vnto
vs
of
this
cove●●nt
of
grace
made
in
the
newe
Testament
,
as
the
Paschall
Lambe
and
the
bloud
of
beasts
were
signes
of
Gods
covenant
in
the
old
Testament
.
This
may
s●●fice
for
the
plaine
and
true
vnderstanding
of
these
words
,
this
is
my
bodie
,
and
this
is
my
bloud
,
beeing
●●
pounded
according
to
the
holie
scriptures
.
Now
to
your
first
proofe
out
of
saint
Paul
,
1.
Cor.
11.
This
is
my
bodie
which
shall
bee
delivered
for
you
:
whoso
doth
eate
vnworthelie
.
Catho
.
Priests
.
&c.
shall
be
guiltie
of
the
bodie
and
bloud
of
Christ
.
A
Most
learned
writer
in
the
like
case
,
Rider
.
Athenaus
D●pn●sophist
.
lib.
12.
brings
in
an
Athenian
historie
of
Thrasilaus
(
a
fr●ntick
man
amongst
the
Greekes
)
who
whensoever
●e
saw
anie
ships
arriue
in
the
harbor
thought
them
all
his
own
,
&
tooke
an
Inventorie
of
their
wares
&
bad
them
welcome
home
verie
ioyfully
,
as
if
they
had
bin
his
own
servants
&
ships
.
After
the
same
maner
(
pardon
the
comparison
)
you
deal
in
the
proofe
of
this
question
.
for
wheresoever
you
finde
in
scriptures
or
fathers
,
hoc
est
corpus
meum
,
this
is
my
bodie
,
or
,
this
is
my
bloud
,
or
,
my
flesh
is
meat
trulie
,
&c.
or
,
except
yee
eate
the
flesh
of
the
sonne
of
man
and
drinke
his
bloud
,
&c.
or
,
the
bread
which
I
will
giue
is
my
flesh
,
or
the
like
tropical
or
sacramentall
phrase
,
which
ever
carrieth
with
it
a
spirituall
sence
,
presentlie
you
clap
hands
,
lift
vp
Stentorian
voices
,
and
crie
to
the
Catholickes
against
vs
poore
heretickes
,
that
all
these
texts
of
Scriptures
and
testimonies
of
Fathers
are
on
your
side
,
and
prooue
your
carnall
presence
:
and
condeme
our
opinion
as
hereticall
and
damnable
,
and
then
you
register
in
your
note-books
(
as
in
an
Inventorie
)
all
these
proofes
for
your
owne
proper
evidence
,
when
as
God
knowes
,
you
are
neither
Owners
,
Marchants
,
nor
faithfull
Factors
.
And
it
shall
be
directlie
prooved
,
that
these
texts
of
Scriptures
and
testimonies
of
Fathers
,
belong
no
more
to
the
proofe
of
your
carnall
presence
,
then
the
Merchants
ships
and
goods
of
Athens
belonged
to
franticke
Thrasylaus
.
But
now
to
prooue
that
I
speak
,
that
the
Catholickes
may
see
,
(
yea
and
let
maister
Henry
Eytsimon
trulie
censure
)
wee
speake
nothing
without
proofe
,
I
will
beginne
to
examine
your
slips
and
sl●ights
in
this
place
of
the
1.
Cor.
11.
First
,
you
bring
a
peece
of
a
verse
,
so
much
as
you
thinke
by
the
sound
of
your
eare
will
fit
your
purpose
:
then
you
cut
off
the
beginning
and
ending
of
the
same
verse
,
which
would
expound
the
Apostles
meaning
,
and
overthrow
your
opinion
.
Then
you
ioyne
a
peece
of
the
17
verse
with
the
24.
verse
,
and
overskip
the
25
and
26
verses
,
which
(
all
that
you
left
out
,
and
cut
off
)
doth
first
deliver
Christs
institution
:
secondly
,
expounds
his
owne
meaning
in
everie
particuler
point
that
is
in
controversie
betwixt
vs
:
and
thirdlie
,
overthrowes
your
opinions
.
Now
,
what
mooved
you
thus
to
mangle
,
cut
off
,
disioynt
,
and
dismember
this
place
of
Paul
(
as
you
did
with
the
text
before
)
let
the
Reader
after
my
examination
of
your
errors
,
iudge
.
But
first
I
must
deliver
you
this
generall
rule
observed
of
all
sound
Divines
,
that
all
the
Evangelists
and
Apostles
doctrine
,
being
pend
by
one
spirit
,
doe
agree
in
the
matter
of
the
Sacrament
,
one
expounding
another
,
as
partlie
you
heard
a
little
before
.
So
that
the
three
Evangelists
must
not
be
expounded
to
contradict
Paul
,
nor
Paul
expounded
to
contradict
them
,
but
all
duke
and
trulie
in
the
spirit
of
humilitie
,
being
examined
according
to
the
Canon
and
rule
of
the
word
of
God
,
you
shall
finde
neither
darknesse
in
speech
,
nor
difficultie
in
sence
,
but
that
the
simplest
may
know
Christs
meaning
.
You
should
haue
begunne
at
the
23.
verse
,
and
so
to
the
end
of
the
29.
verse
,
and
that
had
been
plaine
dealing
.
Christs
institution
penned
by
Paul
delivers
vs
foure
observations
.
First
,
Christ
his
action
.
Secondlie
,
Christes
precept
.
Thirdlie
,
Christs
promise
.
Fourthlie
,
Christes
caution
.
-
1
Christes
action
,
-
He
gaue
thankes
,
brake
bread
,
&
tooke
the
cup
,
&c.
-
2.
Christes
precept
.
-
1.
Take
yee
,
eate
yee
.
-
2.
This
do
as
often
as
yee
drinke
it
,
and
both
,
in
rememberance
of
me
.
-
3.
The
minister
must
shewe
and
preach
the
Lords
death
till
he
come
.
-
3.
Christes
proud●e
.
-
1.
This
is
my
body
which
is
broken
for
you
.
-
2.
This
is
the
new
Testament
in
my
bloud
.
-
4.
Christes
caution
or
caveat
,
Whosoever
●hall
eate
this
bread
or
drinke
this
cup
vnworthelie
,
shall
bee
guiltie
of
the
bodie
and
bloud
of
the
Lord
.
Thus
you
see
plainlie
without
anie
dismembring
or
curtalling
.
Christs
action
,
precept
,
promise
,
&
caution
delivered
out
of
the
text
,
Out
of
which
place
I
obserue
for
the
Catholick●
better
instruction
and
your
confutation
,
two
things
against
you
in
this
your
skipping
and
curtalling
of
th●
text
.
First
,
the
comforts
you
conceale
from
them
by
this
mangling
of
the
text
.
Secondlie
,
the
errours
you
still
hold
them
in
,
in
concealing
the
most
part
of
th●
text
,
first
by
following
your
Latten
translation
,
&
neglecting
the
holie
tongue
(
the
Greeke
)
,
wherein
the
holie
Ghost
pend
this
institution
.
You
tra●slate
,
Whic●
shall
be
delivered
for
you
,
for
,
which
is
broken
for
you
.
Ou●
of
which
I
note
,
first
you
change
the
tense
,
that
is
in
the
Greeke
,
that
is
,
the
present
tense
,
for
so
wee
haue
it
,
and
you
follow
the
Latten
translation
,
which
is
the
future
tense
,
Euallage
.
and
therefore
not
so
comfortable
.
Christ
vseth
a
sweet
figure
of
the
time
present
for
the
time
to
come
,
to
assure
our
soules
and
consciences
that
whatsoever
Christ
promiseth
,
is
as
surelie
to
bee
performed
(
in
his
appointed
time
)
as
if
it
were
alreadie
done
.
And
this
tense
Christ
vsed
to
take
all
doubts
from
his
disciples
,
who
in
respect
of
their
vnworthinesse
might
iustlie
haue
doubted
,
that
Christ
would
not
haue
died
and
shed
his
precious
bloud
for
them
,
they
being
such
vnprofitable
servants
,
and
miserable
sinners
.
But
to
take
away
that
doubt
from
them
and
the
Church
,
now
hee
assures
both
,
that
whatsoever
is
promised
by
him
,
is
as
sure
to
be
done
,
as
if
it
were
alreadie
done
And
this
staieth
Christs
Church
and
everie
perticular
member
of
the
same
from
distrusts
,
doubts
,
grudgings
,
&c.
in
and
vnder
their
severall
crosses
,
because
they
know
there
is
a
ioyfull
Iubile
,
and
freedome
for
them
purchased
and
prepared
,
and
shall
as
surelie
be
accomplished
,
as
if
now
it
weere
performed
.
Now
your
altring
of
this
particle
,
(
is
.
)
depriveth
vs
of
all
this
comfort
.
Againe
,
you
following
still
your
corrupt
Latten
translation
,
say
,
delivered
for
you
,
wheras
you
should
say
as
the
Greeke
is
,
and
as
Christ
saith
,
Broken
for
you
,
for
this
word
broken
is
more
Emphatical
and
piercing
then
delivered
,
for
it
is
one
thing
for
a
man
to
be
delivered
or
to
be
betraied
for
me
,
another
thing
to
be
broken
in
peeces
for
me
.
Out
of
this
I
obserue
first
the
greatnesse
of
my
sinne
:
secondlie
,
the
kindnes
and
exceeding
loue
of
my
Saviour
.
In
the
first
,
that
Christs
birth
and
life
(
though
both
innocent
)
was
not
sufficient
to
cleanse
my
sinne
.
In
the
second
,
Christ
would
vndergoe
shamefull
buffets
on
the
face
,
pricking
of
thornes
vpon
his
head
,
piercing
nailes
into
his
hands
and
feete
,
a
bloudie
speare
into
his
blessed
side
,
before
mans
sinne
could
bee
satisfied
,
Gods
wrath
appeased
,
Sathan
,
death
and
hell
conquered
:
this
our
living
Christ
would
haue
his
bodie
broken
for
vs
,
he
would
not
leaue
one
sigh
in
his
soule
for
our
s●kes
,
nor
one
drop
of
bloud
in
his
bodie
vnshed
for
our
sinnes
.
These
comforts
are
expressed
by
this
word
broken
,
which
are
not
,
nor
can
be
gathered
by
this
word
delivered
.
Another
comfort
is
concealed
from
the
Catholickes
in
omitting
the
25.
verse
,
in
these
words
,
The
newe
Testament
in
my
bloud
.
Math.
25.40
.
Heb.
2.12.13.17
.
Ioh.
10.27
.
Out
of
which
everie
man
may
gather
these
comforts
to
himselfe
by
particular
application
.
First
,
that
I
am
not
a
straunger
to
Christ
,
but
one
of
his
younger
brethren
,
and
not
onelie
well
knowne
vnto
him
:
but
also
as
well
beloved
of
him
:
which
appeareth
in
this
,
that
hee
did
not
onelie
remember
me
in
his
last
will
,
but
also
most
freelie
and
liberallie
bequeached
vnto
my
soule
and
bodie
most
precious
Legacies
,
where
wee
may
finde
them
registred
&
most
safelie
kept
in
Gods
booke
,
and
daylie
pronounced
in
our
Creed
,
as
remission
of
sinnes
of
both
guilt
&
punishment
:
peace
of
conscience
in
this
life
:
at
the
latter
day
rising
of
my
bodie
from
death
and
dust
:
&
afterwards
life
eternall
both
to
soule
and
bodie
.
These
Legacies
be
bequeathed
and
contained
in
this
Testament
,
which
he
hath
not
onely
sealed
outwardlie
with
Sacraments
,
but
also
inwardlie
with
his
bloud
by
faith
,
to
assure
vs
of
the
performance
of
his
promise
,
and
therefore
he
addeth
in
me
bloud
:
so
that
all
other
Testaments
,
Wils
,
B●ls
or
Pardons
,
which
are
not
sealed
with
Christs
bloud
,
but
with
lead
or
wax
,
are
but
counterfeit
labels
st●●cht
to
Christs
testament
.
by
some
false
forgeries
of
p●●ured
N●●●ies
,
wherin
they
doe
falselie
promis●
remission
of
sinnes
and
the
kingdome
of
heaven
.
Acts
5.3
These
deceivers
must
be
told
,
as
Peter
told
Ananias
:
Why
hath
Sathan
fild
thy
heart
that
thou
shouldest
lie
,
not
onelie
vnto
men
,
but
also
vnto
the
holie
Ghost
?
In
Ananias
heart
there
was
a
wicked
conceit
,
in
his
practises
a
wicked
deceit
,
and
for
his
reward
a
suddaine
d●ath
.
You
Chaplens
of
the
Pope
,
doe
tell
the
poore
people
many
waies
to
haue
remission
of
their
sinnes
besides
Christes
Testament
,
and
Christes
bloud
,
(
which
I
will
deliver
particularlie
if
I
be
vrged
)
but
you
are
deceived
,
and
so
you
deceiue
them
,
and
because
you
would
keepe
them
still
blinde
,
that
they
should
neither
see
your
deceit
,
nor
their
owne
daunger
,
therefore
you
kept
this
comfortable
clause
from
them
,
The
new
Testament
in
my
bloud
,
without
which
there
is
neither
remission
of
sins
,
nor
saving
of
soules
.
Another
comfort
you
conceale
from
the
devout
meditation
of
everie
good
Christian
,
which
is
,
In
rememberance
of
me
.
Suetonius
Plutach
.
We
read
in
histories
after
Iulius
Caesar
was
slaine
,
Marcus
Anthonius
made
an
Oration
to
the
people
of
Rome
,
in
which
he
shewed
Caesars
loue
,
and
pointed
out
verie
Rhetoricallie
Caesars
bountie
to
them
while
he
lived
,
but
in
the
heat
of
his
speech
he
made
a
pause
,
and
shewed
them
Caesars
robes
sprinkled
with
his
princelie
bloud
,
shed
by
the
bloudie
hand
of
his
cruell
and
malicious
enemies
:
which
when
the
Cittiezens
sawe
,
(
remembring
h●s
lo●e
)
presentlie
they
ranne
vpon
the
murtherers
and
slew
them
.
Did
the
Cittizens
of
Rome
(
being
Pagans
)
revenge
Caesars
death
vppon
his
enemies
,
onelie
remembring
his
loue
and
liberalitie
?
Then
with
what
Christian
courage
and
spirituall
manhood
,
ought
we
that
professe
to
bee
Christians
,
revenge
our
Christs
death
vpon
his
cruell
,
bloudie
,
and
malicious
enemies
,
which
so
mercilesse
put
him
to
death
?
&
these
enemies
be
our
sinnes
,
for
he
died
for
our
sinnes
:
which
,
Rom.
4.
the
last
verse
.
let
vs
mortifie
,
nay
murther
them
:
let
vs
kill
surfetting
by
abstinence
,
adulterie
by
continencie
,
crueltie
by
mercie
,
hatred
by
loue
,
covetousnesse
by
almes
,
superstition
by
religion
,
&c.
These
and
the
like
consorts
of
sinne
put
our
Caesar
(
Christ
)
to
death
.
Therefore
when
we
heare
not
Marcus
Anthonius
,
but
anie
man
of
God
out
of
the
booke
of
God
,
preach
vnto
vs
Christs
bloudie
passion
that
died
in
our
quarrell
,
and
shed
his
bloud
for
our
sinnes
:
let
the
rememberance
of
his
precious
death
and
mercifull
deliverance
,
put
vs
in
minde
to
revenge
his
death
,
by
killing
our
sinnes
which
slew
our
Saviour
,
and
endevour
to
serue
him
with
all
thankfulnesse
in
a
life
spirituall
,
who
hath
delivered
vs
freelie
from
death
eternall
.
Now
see
what
comfort
the
Catholickes
loose
for
the
lacke
of
this
Apostolicall
rememberance
of
me
,
and
this
commeth
by
your
omitting
of
that
you
should
not
passe
without
expressing
the
true
tenour
of
it
,
as
you
received
it
of
the
Lord
,
1.
Cor.
11.22
.
for
the
profit
of
his
Church
.
Thus
much
touching
the
spirituall
comforts
concealed
from
the
people
by
your
skipping
of
Scriptures
:
now
let
vs
see
what
errours
purposelie
you
seeke
to
cover
by
this
course
.
First
,
if
you
had
put
downe
these
words
,
Errors
.
In
rememberance
of
me
,
and
,
till
I
come
,
these
two
had
overthrowne
your
carnall
presence
,
for
if
the
bread
&
wine
must
bee
received
in
rememberance
of
Christ
,
then
bread
and
wine
are
not
Christ
substantiallie
,
corporallie
,
and
by
way
of
transubstantiation
.
And
if
Christ
be
risen
,
as
the
Angell
said
,
math.
28.6
and
as
wee
in
our
Creed
confesse
,
and
that
we
must
receiue
this
Sacrament
〈◊〉
his
rememberance
till
he
come
,
then
Christ
being
not
come
,
but
to
come
,
is
not
,
nor
cannot
be
carnallie
and
bodilie
vnder
the
formes
of
bread
and
wine
,
as
you
fondlie
imagine
.
And
these
words
(
doe
this
in
rememberance
of
mee
)
condemneth
all
your
Masses
,
that
be
said
in
rememberance
of
He-Saints
and
Shee-Saints
,
Missale
.
Printed
at
Venice
.
1494.
and
no
Saints
,
a●
your
Popes
,
Bishoppes
,
and
in
rememberance
of
Pilgrims
,
Marriners
,
women
in
travaill
,
and
mutten
o●
beasts
.
So
that
all
the
foresaid
Masses
said
or
sung
in
rememberance
of
Saints
,
persons
,
or
diseases
,
be
abhominable
,
vnlesse
you
will
say
(
which
were
damnable
to
thinke
)
that
those
Saintes
,
Popes
,
Bishopes
,
Pilgrims
,
&c.
died
for
you
.
But
I
will
cease
to
speake
o●
those
abhominable
abuses
,
vntill
I
come
to
the
controversie
of
the
Masse
,
and
yet
then
nothing
but
what
shall
be
found
in
your
owne
bookes
,
whose
chapters
,
leaues
,
pages
,
if
not
lines
,
shall
be
quoted
trulie
without
fraud
or
affection
.
Another
errour
you
would
cover
in
leaping
over
the
26.
verse
,
in
these
wordes
,
you
doe
shew
the
Lords
death
till
he
come
:
Chrisosto●●
Tom.
4.
Hom.
27.
vpon
these
words
:
Facietis
commemorationem
salutis
vestrae
&
beneficij
mei
.
This
shewing
of
the
Lords
death
consisteth
in
preaching
and
expounding
some
scripture
,
wherein
the
communicants
must
be
instructed
of
the
horrour
of
their
sinne
,
the
greatnesse
of
Gods
loue
,
the
price
of
the
precious
merits
of
Christ●
blessed
passion
,
which
is
the
remission
of
sinnes
,
and
our
reconciliation
to
Gods
favour
,
through
his
bitter
and
bloudie
passion
:
And
this
condemneth
your
foolish
May
games
and
Puppet-plaies
,
in
your
va●●e
shewing
of
Christ
his
death
by
such
ydle
gestures
and
dumbe
shewes
,
without
anie
glorification
of
GODS
name
,
o●
edification
of
Christ
his
people
,
that
I
dare
boldlie
say
,
and
so
God
willing
will
plainlie
prooue
that
from
your
first
Introibo
ad
Aliare
Dei
,
which
is
the
beginning
of
your
Masse
,
vntill
you
come
to
the
last
hoe
,
see
missa
est
,
there
is
nothing
but
magicall
superstition
,
heresie
&
idolatrie
,
without
veritie
or
antiquitie
.
Now
let
the
Catholickes
iudge
what
wrong
is
done
them
,
when
in
stead
of
a
comfortable
declaration
of
the
Lords
death
,
they
haue
a
histrionicall
dumbe-shew
,
without
true
signification
or
sence
warranted
from
Christs
trueth
.
And
wheras
you
exclaime
against
vs
,
for
allowing
tropes
and
figures
,
and
Sacramentall
phrases
in
the
handling
of
this
controversie
:
if
you
had
not
concealed
this
phrase
,
This
cup
is
the
new
Testament
is
my
bloud
,
the
Catholicks
might
haue
seen
your
error
,
and
that
we
in
so
doing
,
onelie
immitate
Christ
,
whom
you
should
rather
follow
then
the
precepts
&
doctrine
of
men
,
whose
precepts
are
no
warrants
for
you
nor
me
to
build
our
faith
vpon
:
nor
for
the
Catholickes
to
imitate
.
And
you
with
vs
must
either
say
that
Christ
vsed
a
double
figure
,
or
else
most
absurdly
confesse
,
that
not
onelie
the
wine
is
transubstantiated
&
changed
into
Christs
last
Testament
:
but
that
the
challice
or
cup
is
transubstantiated
into
his
last
testament
,
&
is
his
testament
substantiallie
,
properlie
,
&
reallie
,
the
accidents
of
the
challice
onlie
remaining
:
that
is
to
say
,
the
height
,
depth
,
weight
,
colour
,
&c.
Now
if
you
cannot
denie
a
figure
in
the
challice
,
how
dare
you
for
the
like
or
worse
inconvenience
denie
it
in
the
bread
.
This
you
thought
to
omit
,
hoping
thereby
to
cover
this
your
error
.
But
it
was
ill
done
to
deceiue
the
Catholicks
,
who
so
liberallie
relieue
you
,
&
so
dearely
haue
loved
you
.
And
wheras
you
translate
challice
for
cup
,
telling
the
people
that
the
challice
consecrated
by
you
,
is
holier
then
other
vsual
cups
,
&
that
Christ
vsed
in
the
institution
a
challice
&
no
vsual
drinking-cup
,
I
say
in
saying
thus
,
you
shew
your self
ignorant
in
the
Greek
tongue
,
Poterion
.
wherein
Christ
spake
it
,
&
the
Evang.
writ
it
:
for
they
all
,
&
so
hath
Paul
but
one
vsuall
word
which
signifieth
a
vsual
drinkin●
cup
,
and
no
charmed
Challice
,
as
you
ydlie
&
vain●
informe
the
Catholickes
.
And
now
to
your
27.
verse
,
which
you
would
co●ple
to
your
24.
verse
,
which
thus
you
recite
very
co●ruptlie
,
who
so
doth
eate
vnworthelie
,
&c.
shall
be
gu●tie
of
the
bodie
and
bloud
of
the
Lord
,
but
if
you
ha●
meant
plainlie
and
trulie
,
you
should
haue
recied
a●
the
Apostles
words
in
this
manner
:
whosoever
shall
●a●
this
bread
and
drinke
this
cup
of
the
Lord
vnwerthel●●
shall
be
guiltie
of
the
bodie
and
bloud
of
the
Lord
.
Bread
ramaines
after
Consecration
&
therefore
no
carnall
presence
,
&
likewise
the
Cup
&
therefore
no●
Transubstansiation
in
either
.
Out
of
which
I
obserue
,
that
you
would
cover
,
an●
conceale
that
which
overthrowes
your
carnall
presence
:
for
if
bread
remaine
after
consecration
,
the●
there
is
no
carnall
presence
,
but
bread
remaine●h
afte●
consecration
,
therefore
there
is
no
carnall
presene
.
And
because
this
verse
sheweth
to
the
world
that
ther●
is
bread
after
consecration
,
therefo
e
you
cut
off
th●
part
of
the
verse
,
which
is
verie
deceitfully
done
.
An●
leaue
this
word
bread
out
after
consecration
to
blin●
the
eies
of
the
simple
.
And
also
you
cut
off
the
ne●
words
,
to
cover
other
two
errors
,
the
words
be
these
Or
drinke
the
Challice
of
the
Lord
vnworthelie
.
Out
o●
which
I
note
,
first
,
that
you
keepe
this
backe
,
hoping
thereby
to
establish
your
halfe
communion
vnder
on●
kinde
,
that
the
Catholickes
might
thinke
that
the
receiving
of
bread
were
sufficient
,
because
(
you
saye
)
Christs
bodie
must
needes
even
by
the
necessitie
of
concomitancie
haue
bloud
in
it
,
Concomitancie
suine
what
yonger
then
your
Transubstantiation
both
forged
by
your selues
neuer
known
in
Christs
Church
for
a
1000
yeares
at
leaste
,
And
therfore
they
are
to
new
to
be
Catholick
&
no
strang
to
be
true
.
and
therefore
it
is
no
need
to
receiue
the
cup
:
which
if
it
be
true
,
(
but
I
a●sure
it
is
most
false
)
then
Christ
was
deceived
in
his
wisedome
,
and
the
Apostles
and
primitiue
Church
in
their
practise
,
which
I
hope
you
da●e
not
say
for
sinne
and
shame
.
And
therefor
giue
over
these
irreligious
practises
of
Additions
,
Subtractions
,
Interpositions
,
and
vaine
expositions
,
with
new
Inkhorne-termes
of
●●mitancie
,
and
confesse
Christ
his
a
melent
and
A●●olicall
trueth
truelie
.
Thus
much
to
giue
the
Catholickes
a
taste
of
the
〈◊〉
you
offer
them
,
in
lulling
them
a
sleepe
in
the
●●e
of
ignorance
and
superstition
,
whereas
they
●●ld
be
most
willing
and
readie
to
obey
the
aun●t
,
[
](A10753-e23390-b)(a)
(a)
Reuel.
14.6
.
Rom.
1.16
.
2.
Thess:
1.8
.
powerfull
,
and
everlasting
Gospell
of
Iesus
●ist
,
if
you
d
d
not
mislead
them
by
your
wilfull
●●ors
,
and
keepe
backe
from
them
the
reading
of
the
●●ptures
,
which
holds
them
and
hardeneth
them
in
●●usancie
.
But
take
heed
,
least
you
by
this
ignorance
(
which
you
keepe
them
,
and
the
disobedience
to
the
●ospell
in
which
you
letter
them
,
you
with
them
and
〈◊〉
them
,
hazard
not
that
dolefull
taste
and
torment
●ep●ted
for
wilfull
ignorant
Recusants
of
Christ
his
●ospell
,
where
it
is
said
:
Rendring
vengeance
in
fla●ng
fire
to
the●●
that
knew
not
God
,
nor
obey
not
the
gos●●
of
Iesus
Christ
.
Now
Gentlemen
,
if
you
be
authors
●f
their
sinnes
,
you
must
be
partakers
of
their
punish●●●t
;
which
both
the
Lord
in
mercie
prevent
.
The
Text
is
the
Lord
,
not
Christ
,
the
writer
mistook
at
the
Author
I
blame
not
.
Now
floweth
another
part
of
your
proofe
drawen
out
of
part
of
the
27.
verse
,
in
these
words
:
Shal
be
guiltie
〈◊〉
the
bodie
and
bloud
of
Christ
:
Out
of
these
words
some
late
writers
since
your
●●ansubstansiation
was
invented
,
would
prooue
two
●ine
questions
that
are
in
controversie
betwixt
you
●●d
vs
.
1.
The
first
,
is
your
carnall
presence
of
Christ
in
●●e
Sacrament
.
The
second
,
that
the
wicked
doe
eate
the
bodie
●●d
drinke
the
bloud
of
Christ
In
handling
and
aunswering
these
,
I
shall
hardlie
●ver
the
one
from
the
other
,
but
as
you
inferre
,
that
the
graunting
of
the
one
confirmes
the
other
:
So
must
in
confuting
the
one
destroy
the
other
,
and
so
one
aunswere
will
serue
to
confute
both
.
Rh●m
:
Te●t
:
1.
Cor:
11
:
Sect
16.
Thus
you
record
to
the
worlds
wonder
,
(
&
Rome
&
Rhemes
shame
)
against
God
,
Christ
,
Scriptures
,
and
Fathers
,
that
ill
livers
and
Infidels
,
eate
the
bodie
and
drinke
the
bloud
of
Christ
in
the
Sacrament
,
and
your
reason
there
followeth
:
that
they
could
not
bee
guiltie
of
that
they
received
not
,
and
that
it
could
not
bee
so
hainous
an
offence
,
for
anie
man
to
receiue
a
peece
of
bread
or
a
cup
of
wine
though
they
were
a
true
Sacrament
.
First
,
old
father
Origen
shall
answere
you
,
who
saith
,
Origen
super
Math:
15
,
page
2●
.
●
st
verus
cibus
quem
nemo
malus
potest
edere
:
It
is
true
meat
which
no
wicked
man
can
eate
.
Heere
Origen
condemneth
the
Rhemists
,
Romanists
,
and
all
late
Priests
and
Iesuites
,
for
holding
this
opinion
i●urious
to
Christs
death
,
and
all
true
Catholickes
saith
.
But
you
may
obiect
against
Origen
,
and
say
,
the
Rhemists
laid
downe
their
opinion
,
and
gaue
reasons
to
confirme
it
:
But
where
is
Origens
reason
by
which
he
prooues
●●s
former
position
,
that
no
wicked
man
can
eate
Christs
bodie
?
Super
Math.
26.
forsooth
it
is
in
his
Comentarie
vpon
your
text
,
brought
forth
of
mathew
in
these
words
:
Panis
quem
silius
Dei
corpus
suum
esse
dicit
,
verbum
est
nutritori●●
animarum
:
the
bread
which
the
son
of
God
said
to
be
his
bodie
,
is
the
nourishing
word
of
our
soules
.
Out
of
which
this
we
gather
,
that
seeing
this
bread
or
meate
is
the
nourishment
of
our
soules
,
&
not
of
our
bodies
,
he
spake
of
the
heavenlie
part
of
the
sacrament
.
For
we
know
in
common
sence
,
that
bread
and
wine
cann●t
nourish
the
soule
,
but
the
bodie
,
&
I
have
proved
by
scriptures
and
Fathers
before
,
that
the
hand
and
mouth
of
the
soule
,
is
a
liuelie
&
iustifying
faith
,
which
you
&
all
your
side
cannot
denie
but
the
wicked
want
Now
if
the
wick●d
haue
no
mouth
nor
stomacke
to
rec●●●
this
spirituall
food
,
and
digest
it
,
as
the
foresaid
Fa●
〈◊〉
haue
affirmed
,
why
doe
you
say
,
that
the
wicked
and
Infidels
can
eate
the
bodie
of
Christ
,
wanting
both
hands
,
mouth
,
and
stomacke
?
And
the
scriptures
call
wicked
men
dead
men
:
Now
you
know
dead
men
cannot
eate
meate
corporall
,
Chrysost.
Hom.
60.
ad
pop.
Antioch
.
no
more
can
the
wicked
which
are
dead
spirituallie
,
eate
meat
caelestiall
.
And
Chrysostome
saith
,
Let
no
Iudas
stand
to
,
no
covetous
person
,
if
anie
be
a
disciple
,
let
him
be
present
,
for
this
Table
receiues
no
such
as
Iudas
or
Magna
,
for
Christ
saith
,
I
keepe
my
Passover
with
my
disciples
.
And
to
conclude
with
Augustine
,
Tract.
26.
super
lib.
pag.
175.
Qui
non
manet
in
Christo
&
in
quo
non
mane●
Christus
procul
dubio
,
&c.
Hee
that
abides
not
in
Christ
,
and
in
whom
Christ
abides
not
,
out
of
doubt
eateth
not
spirituallie
his
flesh
,
nor
drinketh
his
bloud
,
although
carnallie
and
visiblie
he
presse
with
his
teeth
the
Sacrament
of
the
bodie
and
bloud
of
Christ
,
but
rather
eateth
and
drinketh
the
Sacrament
of
so
great
a
thing
to
his
iudgement
,
&
the
reason
followeth
,
Quia
i●mundus
,
&c.
because
hee
is
vncleane
in
heart
,
and
presumes
to
come
to
the
Sacrament
of
Christ
,
which
no
man
can
worthilie
receiue
,
Math.
5.
vnlesse
he
be
pure
and
cleane
in
heart
:
as
Christ
saith
,
Blessed
are
the
pure
in
heart
for
they
shall
see
God
.
Out
of
Augustine
I
obserue
against
both
your
opinions
these
things
:
First
,
hee
makes
a
difference
of
Christes
flesh
,
and
the
Sacrament
of
Christes
flesh
,
for
they
bee
two
things
,
and
to
be
distinguished
with
their
severall
substances
and
properties
,
and
not
to
bee
confounded
or
transubstantiated
one
into
the
other
,
and
so
the
nature
of
bread
perish
,
as
you
vntruelie
imagine
and
teach
.
Secondlie
,
that
the
wicked
receiue
and
grinde
with
their
teeth
and
swallow
with
their
throat
the
outward
Sacrament
,
that
is
,
the
outward
vis●ble
creatures
of
bread
and
wine
,
to
their
iudgement
or
condemnation
,
because
they
presume
to
come
without
a
cleane
heart
and
conscience
purified
by
faith
.
Acts.
15
9
But
the
godly
eat
the
heavenlie
part
of
the
Sacrament
:
which
is
Christ
with
his
benefits
,
because
they
dwel
in
Christ
(
by
faith
)
and
Chrih
in
them
(
by
his
spirit
)
as
hath
been
plainel●
handled
before
.
And
now
I
will
be
bolde
to
vrge
your
owne
Pope
●
decrees
against
you
:
Part
3.
distinct
2.
cap.
65.
Qui
discordus
a
Christo
&c
whosoever
dissenteth
from
Christ
,
doeth
neither
eate
his
flesh
nor
drinke
his
bloud
,
but
the
wicked
distent
from
Christ
,
therfore
they
neither
eat
Christs
flesh
no●
dr●●
his
bloud
.
And
cap.
69.
following
quie
unque
panem
&c.
Whosoever
eateth
this
bread
the
Lord
,
shall
live
for
ever
,
but
the
wicked
liue
nor
for
ever
,
therefore
the
wicked
eate
not
this
bread
the
Lord
.
Now
Gentlemen
,
I
would
faine
see
how
you
can
disprooue
these
Fathers
and
old
Popes
,
and
satisfie
the
Catholicks
in
this
case
:
but
I
shall
haue
a
f●t
place
to
speak
of
the
vnreasonablenesse
of
this
opinion
in
the
title
of
the
Masse
,
where
I
must
shewe
to
the
Catholickes
,
the
Popes
,
Priests
,
and
Iesuits
shamefull
opinions
,
that
you
thinke
it
no
inconvenience
not
onelie
for
the
wicked
,
but
also
for
all
such
bruit
beasts
,
as
cats
or
dogs
,
rats
or
mice
,
hogs
or
swine
,
to
eate
the
blessed
bodie
,
and
drinke
the
precious
bloud
of
Iesus
Christ
:
This
you
blush
not
to
print
,
but
I
protest
,
my
hand
shakes
and
my
heart
quakes
to
write
it
,
because
it
is
so
monst●ous
and
beast
●e
a
blasphemie
to
that
blessed
bodie
&
that
precious
bloud
,
that
suffered
and
was
shed
for
my
salvation
.
Now
for
this
second
part
of
your
Rhemish
note
vppon
this
place
,
Chrysost.
Tom.
3.
Hom.
60.
&
61.
de
lum●n●●bu●
iudigne
divina
&
sancto
mysteria
praecipu●
de
caena
Domin●
&
de
baptismate
.
which
is
,
How
can
a
man
bee
guiltie
of
Christs
bodie
,
if
he
touch
not
Christs
bodie
?
I
had
rather
Chrisostome
vpon
this
text
in
one
of
his
workes
should
aunswee
you
then
I
,
his
words
be
these
:
Nam
si
Reg●am
contami●antes
purpuram
,
similiter
puniuntur
,
sicut
,
&c.
For
if
he
that
hath
disteined
,
violated
,
or
polluted
the
●●gs
robes
,
whether
it
bee
of
purple
or
some
other
●●ter
,
shall
be
as
severelie
in
iustice
punished
,
as
if
he
had
rent
them
:
Even
so
it
shall
be
with
such
as
receiue
●he
Lords
bodie
unpura
mente
,
with
an
vnprepared
and
●●lean
mind
,
they
shall
be
punished
with
equall
torments
with
such
as
nailed
him
to
the
crosse
.
Out
of
which
I
obserue
,
first
,
that
Chrysostome
condemneth
your
carnall
presence
and
corporall
eating
,
in
●●ing
you
they
must
be
eaten
with
the
mind
,
not
with
the
mouth
:
but
of
this
we
haue
sufficientlie
spoken
of
before
.
Secondlie
,
by
comparison
,
he
sheweth
you
how
you
may
bee
guiltie
of
treason
against
the
kings
person
(
though
he
neither
touch
nor
hurt
his
person
)
in
offering
disgrace
but
to
his
garments
his
person
being
abse●t
And
as
he
that
contuineliously
receiveth
the
princes
seale
(
though
of
waxe
)
is
guiltie
of
the
Maiestie
of
the
Prince
,
not
which
he
receiueth
,
but
which
hee
despiseth
:
so
he
that
eateth
this
bread
,
and
drinketh
this
cap
of
the
Lord
without
due
preparation
(
as
aforesaid
)
considering
they
are
seales
of
Christs
promised
benefits
,
purchased
in
his
bitter
and
blessed
passion
,
committeth
high
treason
against
Christ
:
though
in
deed
in
substance
they
receiue
but
bread
and
wine
.
And
as
a
man
may
be
guiltie
of
treason
in
renting
,
defacing
,
or
●●pping
the
kings
picture
,
seale
,
or
coine
,
though
the
king
be
not
locallie
in
place
:
so
the
wicked
in
the
Sacraments
which
are
Christs
seales
,
which
being
abused
by
them
,
they
are
guiltie
of
Gods
iudgements
,
though
Christ
be
not
inclosed
locallie
in
the
bread
&
wine
.
And
what
Chrysostome
speaketh
heare
of
the
Lords
Supper
,
the
same
hee
doth
of
Baptisme
,
and
saith
,
a
man
may
be
as
well
guiltie
of
the
Lords
bodie
and
bloud
in
contemning
Baptisme
,
which
is
but
a
seale
of
〈◊〉
washing
in
the
bloud
of
Christ
,
though
hee
never
washed
but
in
water
,
and
alleadgeth
Paul
,
Heb.
10
.
1●
.
saying
,
Of
how
much
sorer
punishment
suppose
ye●
shal
he
be
worthy
which
treadeth
vnder
foot
the
sonne
of
God
,
&
counteth
the
bloud
of
the
testament
as
an
vnholie
thing
,
&c.
These
Fathers
haue
aunswered
you
and
I
hope
will
satisfie
fullie
the
indifferent
Reader
.
Now
three
sorts
of
men
are
guilty
of
the
body
and
bloud
of
the
Lord
.
The
first
are
plaine
Atheists
,
that
are
without
God
or
godlinesse
in
this
present
world
and
such
eate
this
bread
vnworthelie
,
and
therefore
are
guiltie
of
Christes
bodie
and
bloud
.
Three
sorts
of
men
guilty
of
the
Lo:
●die
.
2
The
second
sort
haue
a
historicall
faith
,
and
a
generall
knowledge
,
and
beleeue
that
whatsoever
is
taught
in
Gods
booke
is
true
,
but
they
lacke
apprehension
and
application
to
make
a
particular
and
holy
vse
of
the
same
,
and
therefore
if
such
come
and
eate
of
this
bread
,
they
are
guiltie
of
the
bodie
and
bloud
of
the
Lord
.
3
The
third
sort
haue
a
liuelie
apprehending
&
applying
faith
,
yet
in
their
life
they
slippe
and
fall
,
yea
sometimes
verie
grievouslie
,
yet
they
awake
&
weep
with
Peter
,
and
repent
for
the
same
.
All
these
are
said
to
eate
vnworthelie
,
but
the
first
two
sorts
vnto
their
condemnation
.
The
third
sort
for
their
faults
,
frailties
,
negligences
,
and
vndue
preparation
,
are
in
this
life
of
the
Lord
corrected
,
least
with
the
world
they
should
be
damned
The
two
first
sorts
eateth
onelie
the
outwardelements
:
the
last
sort
eateth
the
bodie
of
Christ
and
drinketh
the
bloud
of
Christ
.
And
now
to
your
second
proofe
out
of
Saint
Paul
.
1.
Cor.
10.16
.
The
challice
of
benediction
which
w●●
blesse
,
Catho
.
Priestes
.
is
it
not
the
communication
of
the
bodie
of
Christ
?
And
the
bread
which
wee
besse
,
is
it
not
the
participation
of
his
flesh
?
GEntlemen
,
yee
wrong
the
Apostles
text
:
Rider
.
first
in
your
abuse
of
words
,
Verse
.
21.
secondlie
in
mistaking
the
sence
.
Your
words
be
these
,
The
challice
of
benediction
:
Pauls
words
in
Greeke
that
must
be
iudge
betwix●
vs
,
and
which
wee
doe
follow
(
if
we
will
follow
Christ
)
are
these
.
The
cup
of
thansgiving
.
And
the
holie
Ghost
so
expounds
his
owne
meaning
after
,
calling
it
peculum
Domini
,
the
cup
of
the
Lord
.
But
you
are
much
to
be
blamed
of
all
good
men
,
because
you
had
rather
follow
some
late
corrupt
translation
,
&
vse
some
superstitious
Inkhome-termes
latelie
devised
,
and
so
forsake
the
olde
Apostolical
phrase
which
the
holie
Ghost
vseth
in
that
holie
tongue
,
and
in
which
it
is
still
recorded
for
our
instruction●
either
confesse
your
ignorance
in
the
Greeke
,
or
your
malice
against
the
trueth
,
that
the
Catholickes
bee
no
longer
seduced
by
you
,
that
long
trusted
in
you
and
to
your
doctrine
.
Againe
,
you
say
,
The
bread
which
we
blesse
,
we
say
to
Paul
said
,
and
the
holie
Ghost
pend
,
The
bread
which
we
breake
:
Alasse
,
alasse
,
what
sinne
doe
you
commit
in
thus
seducing
Christs
flocke
,
and
the
Queens
subiects
,
who
hitherto
haue
builded
their
saith
v●pon
your
ba●e
words
.
Is
this
plaine
dealing
with
Gods
heritage
?
are
you
Catholicke
Priestes
?
I
pray
you
certifie
the
Catholickes
what
tongue
or
translation
hath
it
thus
as
you
pen
it
,
The
bread
which
wee
blesse
:
I
tell
you
plainelie
,
(
yet
in
charitie
)
that
you
doe
belie
the
Texte
,
falsifie
the
tongue
,
and
seeke
to
keepe
the
people
in
blinde
ignorance
,
and
superstitious
palpable
darkenes
,
to
their
everlasting
condemnation
,
vnlesse
the
Lord
recall
them
,
and
they
repent
them
.
Paule
wordes
are
these
in
Greeke
,
and
so
your
owne
Ieromes
translation
hath
them
:
The
bread
which
we
breake
.
But
you
are
so
besotted
with
the
crossing
of
your
fingers
,
which
you
tell
the
simple
people
is
the
true
Catholicke
blessing
,
that
you
forget
and
forgoe
the
true
blessing
of
the
cup
,
which
is
the
Apostolicall
thanksgiving
to
God
for
ou●
redemption
purchased
in
Christs
bloud
,
whereof
the
cup
i●
the
true
signe
.
Againe
,
we
say
as
the
holy
Ghost
indited
it
,
and
Paul
writ
it
,
The
communion
of
the
bodie
of
Christ
:
you
say
as
no
learned
man
or
the
Greeke
text
ever
said
,
the
participation
of
his
flesh
.
Thus
much
I
haue
shewed
how
vntrulie
you
deale
:
First
,
in
abusing
the
words
of
the
Apostle
:
secondlie
,
in
seducing
and
deceiving
the
Catholickes
.
Let
heere
the
charitable
Catholickes
iudge
how
you
will
abuse
their
eares
with
fables
,
that
dare
thus
falsifie
the
plaine
text
.
Error
in
the
sence
of
the
Texte
.
Now
I
come
to
sh●w
how
you
mistake
the
sence
of
the
words
in
the
text
,
seeking
by
indirect
wresting
to
make
the
text
prooue
your
errour
,
which
it
denieth
in
flat
termes
and
trueth
.
For
I
assure
the
Catholickes
,
that
not
one
word
,
sil●able
,
letter
,
or
title
of
this
text
once
sou●d●
of
your
carnall
presence
.
Rhem.
Testament
.
1.
cor.
10.
sect.
4.
You
follow
the
Rhemist
,
who
in
this
place
thus
expounds
the
words
of
the
Apostle
,
The
cup
which
wi●
bl●sse
,
that
is
to
say
,
the
challice
of
consecration
which
we
Apostle●
&
priest
by
Christs
commis●ion
do
consecrate
.
&c.
and
afterwards
it
followeth
,
the
Apostle
expresly
referreth
h●
benediction
to
the
Challice
,
and
not
to
God
,
making
the
holie
bodie
and
the
communicating
thereof
,
the
effect
of
the
benediction
Now
let
mee
intreate
you
to
aunswere
●e
and
the
Catholickes
,
but
these
necessarie
qvestions
drawne
out
of
this
your
owne
opi●ion
.
1.
First
,
by
what
scripture
do
you
prooue
that
you
●ee
Apostles
?
2
Secondlie
,
by
wha●
scripture
doe
you
prooue
that
you
are
Priests
?
3
Thirdlie
,
by
what
scripture
doe
you
prooue
your
commission
to
consecrate
Challices
?
4
Fourthly
,
by
what
scripture
doe
you
prooue
,
that
the
holie
bloud
of
Christ
is
an
effect
of
your
benediction
of
the
cup
?
5
Last
ie
,
by
what
scripture
prooue
you
that
this
blessing
or
thanksgiving
is
re●e●●ed
to
the
Challice
and
not
to
God
?
V●l
sse
you
prooue
these
points
by
canonicall
scriptures
to
be
true
,
Apostles
ye
are
not
.
Gall
1.1
.
1.
Cor.
9.1
.
2.
Acts
,
9.15
.
Rom.
1.1
.
(
which
you
shall
never
doe
)
they
bind
no
●an●
conscience
to
beleeue
them
or
you
.
Against
the
first
I
thus
obiect
,
that
you
are
no
Apostles
,
&
thus
I
prooue
it
.
A
true
Apostle
mvst
be
called
by
Christ
immediatlie
,
and
that
you
are
not
.
He
must
see
the
Lord
Iesus
in
the
flesh
,
which
you
haue
not
.
Hee
must
haue
his
immediat
commission
from
Christ
to
preach
everie where
,
which
neither
Priest
,
Semynarie
,
Iesuit
,
Cardinall
,
no●
Pope
can
haue
,
as
your
owne
consciences
full
well
doth
know
,
Gall
2.
Ephes.
●
.
and
therefore
you
are
not
Christs
Apostles
.
The
true
Apostles
were
equall
in
authorit
e
,
you
disdaine
i●
,
nay
more
,
you
have
made
against
this
,
a
new
article
of
the
Popes
supremacie
,
and
whole
vol●●es
of
Cardinals
Primacies
,
Iesuits
Excellencies
,
&
Priests
Soveraignties
.
But
I
will
say
to
you
,
Ter
tuia●
contra
.
Marcion
.
as
Tertullian
saide
to
Marcion
the
hereticke
:
If
you
bee
Prophets
,
foretell
vs
some
things
to
come
:
if
that
you
be
Apostles
,
preach
every
where
,
and
agree
with
the
Apostles
in
doctrine
.
For
whosoever
preach
not
the
same
doctrine
the
Ap●stles
did
,
haue
not
the
same
commission
the
Apostles
had
.
But
you
late
Priests
and
Iesuits
preach
not
the
sa●●
doctrine
the
Apostles
did
:
Iesuits
&
Priests
be
no
Apostles
.
therefore
you
haue
not
the
same
commission
the
Apostles
had
.
The
maior
hath
no
difficultie
:
the
minor
is
so
plaine
it
needs
no
proofe
the
conclusion
is
inevitable
.
Priests
ye
are
not
.
We
read
of
foure
kinds
of
Priests
in
Gods
Booke●
three
of
them
in
the
old
Testament
,
and
one
in
th●
new
.
First
,
Because
yee
will
not
offer
the
flesh
of
beasts
.
The
first
after
the
order
of
Aaron
:
and
one
other
after
the
order
of
Melchisedechs
and
the
third
af●ther
the
order
of
Baall
.
After
Aaroa●
order
you
wil
no●
be
:
And
after
Melchised
ch
:
you
cannot
be
:
And
concerning
the
third
order
,
I
would
you
were
as
fre●
from
the
ydolatrie
of
that
salte
order
,
as
you
would
be
free
of
the
imputation
of
their
heresies
.
Secondly
,
none
after
Melchisedechs
order
but
Christ
onely
.
Now
[
](A10753-e24910-b)(a)
(a)
1.
Pet.
2
9.
Exod.
19.6
.
Saint
Peter
in
the
new
Testament
seueth
downe
a
fourth
order
of
Priests
,
which
is
a
kinglie
o●
royall
Priesthood
,
but
that
is
spirituall
,
not
carnal●
inward
,
not
outward
,
common
to
all
beleevers
,
no●
proper
(
as
you
imagine
)
to
anie
naturall
order
,
or
ecclesiasticall
function
.
For
this
is
sound
divinitie
,
whi●●
you
shall
never
disprooue
:
that
the
office
of
●acu●cers
and
sacrificing
,
is
either
singular
to
Christ
,
in
respect
of
his
sacrifice
propitiatorie
onelie
vppon
th●
crosse
:
or
else
common
to
all
true
Christian●
,
in
respect
of
their
spirituall
sacrifices
of
praise
and
thanksgiving
:
The
name
&
office
of
Priests
,
abused
by
Priests
.
neither
shall
you
ever
finde
this
word
Sacerdo●
,
ever
applied
in
the
new
Testament
to
any
Ecclesiasticall
order
and
function
of
men
.
And
therefore
you
deceiue
the
people
by
this
name
of
Priest
which
is
no
more
proper
to
you
,
then
to
everie
bele●ving
Christian
.
But
it
is
likely
you
will
giue
me
occasion
to
speake
of
this
in
the
controversie
o●
your
Masse
,
and
therefore
J
will
heere
be
the
briefe
in
this
place
.
Thirdlie
,
in
what
place
of
scripture
did
Christ
gro●
you
commission
to
consecrate
challices
,
or
to
ma●●
●●ie
challice
more
holie
by
your
charmed
consecrati●n
,
then
Christs
cup
was
in
his
blessed
institution
,
which
did
none
of
your
consecration
,
for
this
the
Catholicks
must
know
by
the
premisses
formerly
handled
,
that
your
consecration
is
not
like
to
Christs
consecration
:
for
either
Christs
blessing
or
thanksgiving
,
with
the
whole
action
of
Christ
in
the
institution
,
was
sufficient
to
consecrate
or
insufficient
:
if
you
will
affoord
Christ
that
favor
that
it
was
sufficient
,
then
yours
is
frivolous
.
And
whereas
we
vse
the
same
sanctification
Christ
did
,
how
dare
you
say
ours
is
defectiue
,
without
blasphemie
to
Christes
institution
?
But
this
your
vsurped
title
of
sanctitie
which
yee
attribute
to
your selues
,
in
making
the
people
beleeue
that
you
can
make
one
cup
(
water
s●lte
,
or
season
)
more
holie
then
an
other
,
by
your
fingred
blessing
:
is
vntrue
and
a
pharisaicall
brag
.
This
maintaineth
your
Priesthoode
in
glorie
,
pompe
,
and
worldlie
estimation
,
but
hath
brought
many
of
s●elie
Catholickes
to
beggerie
,
ignorance
,
and
grosse
superstition
.
Fourthlie
,
by
what
scripture
can
you
prooue
that
Christs
holie
bloud
is
but
an
effect
of
your
consecration
,
or
benediction
of
the
cup
?
If
Christs
bloud
bee
an
effect
of
your
cup
benediction
,
then
your
cup
benediction
is
the
cause
of
Christs
holie
bloud
.
O
hellish
and
damnable
divinitie
:
as
if
a
sinfull
ignorant
Priest
could
by
his
magicall
consecration
,
make
the
holie
bloud
of
Christ
my
Saviour
,
which
was
shed
on
the
crosse
for
my
sinnes
.
Now
Catholicks
looke
to
your selues
,
I
mean
to
your
soules
:
You
cannot
prooue
it
either
by
scripture
or
fathers
.
for
this
is
the
doctrine
of
Rome
and
Rhemes
fitte●
to
be
taught
in
hell
by
fiendes
,
then
maintained
in
earth
by
Priests
.
Fifthlie
and
lastlie
,
by
what
scripture
do
you
prooue
,
(
nay
by
what
auncient
Father
)
that
this
blessing
or
thanksgiving
is
referred
to
the
cup
or
challice
,
and
not
vnto
God
:
scriptures
you
haue
none
,
and
fathers
of
the
first
sixe
hundred
yeare●
never
heard
of
it
.
And
that
the
Catholickes
may
le●
the
antiquitie
and
veritie
of
this
out
doctrine
,
and
th●
noveltie
and
heresie
of
yours
,
I
will
onelie
produc●
but
two
learned
Fathers
with
vs
against
you
,
&
forbeare
to
alleadge
the
rest
,
till
you
giue
mee
furthe●
occasion
.
Chrys.
super
1
Cor.
10.
Chrysostome
vpon
this
place
,
calleth
it
the
cuppe
o●
blessing
,
because
when
we
haue
it
in
our
hands
,
w●●●
admiration
and
a
certaine
horror
of
that
vnspeakable●
gift
,
we
praise
and
blesse
him
,
because
he
hath
shed
h●●
bloud
,
that
we
should
not
remaine
in
error
:
and
hath
not
onelie
shed
it
,
but
made
vs
all
partakers
of
it
.
〈◊〉
like
sort
did
Photius
and
Oecumenius
expounde
thi●
word
,
Photius
&
Occumen●us
.
which
wee
blesse
,
which
having
in
our
handes
blesse
him
,
which
hath
graciously
given
vs
his
bloud
:
t●at
is
,
we
giue
him
thanks
,
or
which
we
prepare
when
we
blesse
or
giue
thankes
.
Now
the
Catholickes
may
see
by
the
auncient
fathers
(
whom
your selues
doe
brag
of
)
that
they
condemne
your
cup
blessed
exposition
.
And
the
Catholickes
may
see
as
in
a
glasse
,
that
wee
ioine
with
the
scriptures
and
fathers
in
the
true
sence
of
these
words
The
cup
which
we
blesse
:
and
that
your
exposition
i●
erronious
and
superstitious
,
and
therefore
to
be
rec●nted
by
you
,
and
shunned
by
the
Catholickes
,
and
my
reasons
be
drawne
out
of
the
foresaid
fathers
,
not
made
on
my
owne
fingers
.
1
First
,
he
saith
that
benediction
,
blessing
,
or
thanksgiving
,
is
referred
to
him
that
shed
his
bloud
for
vs
:
I
hope
you
will
not
say
the
cup
shed
anie
bloud
for
vs
.
2
Secondlie
,
this
father
saith
,
that
blessing
God
and
praising
God
is
all
one
:
and
therefore
when
we
say
,
the
cup
of
thanksgiving
,
we
follow
Christ
,
Paul
,
the
Greek
text
,
and
the
olde
fathers
.
And
when
you
translate
it
,
The
challice
of
benediction
,
it
is
flat
contrarie
to
Christ
Paul
,
veritie
,
and
antiquitie
.
And
there
is
as
great
difference
betwixt
your
opinion
and
the
old
fathers
faith
,
is
betwixt
praising
with
mouth
,
and
crossing
with
fingers
:
nay
,
as
much
as
betwixt
your
superstitious
challice
and
our
soule-saving
Christ
:
for
so
,
if
you
marke
the
fathers
words
,
the
difference
stands
.
The
text
it selfe
offers
vs
three
things
in
a
comfortable
distinction
,
and
you
would
confound
them
with
your
new
imagined
transubstansiation
.
1
The
first
is
Christs
bodie
crucified
,
and
his
bloud
shed
,
with
all
his
purchased
benefits
,
2
Secondlie
,
our
communion
&
fellowship
,
which
all
beleevers
haue
in
that
crucified
Christ
,
and
those
soule
saving
merits
.
3
Thirdly
,
the
outward
seals
of
those
benefits
which
are
called
,
the
cup
which
we
blesse
,
and
the
bread
which
●●e
breake
to
witnesse
to
the
world
,
and
to
confirme
to
our selues
,
the
fruition
and
possession
of
all
those
benefits
.
Now
if
I
should
say
,
that
the
bread
&
cup
being
outward
seals
,
were
our
communion
with
Christ
:
the
wicked
would
laugh
at
my
folly
,
though
the
godly
would
pittie
my
ignorance
in
the
trueth
or
my
malice
against
the
trueth
:
and
the
reason
is
this
,
because
the
seal
be
things
outward
,
and
the
communion
of
Christs
bodie
and
bloud
,
be
things
inward
:
the
one
sensible
,
the
other
spirituall
and
intellectuall
:
&
as
much
difference
it
betwixt
them
,
as
there
is
betwixt
outward
and
inward
:
sensible
,
and
intellectuall
:
so
much
difference
there
is
betwixt
the
outward
seals
of
Christs
body
and
bloud
and
his
bodie
and
bloud
.
And
if
the
seales
cannot
be
changed
into
the
communion
of
Christs
bodie
and
bloud
,
but
remaine
still
in
their
severall
natures
and
substances
,
everie
one
performing
his
severall
distinct
office
,
much
lesse
can
they
be
reallie
and
substantiallie
changed
into
Christs
bodie
and
bloud
,
which
are
things
more
remote
,
but
mos●
impossible
.
And
if
you
had
added
the
next
verse
th●
Apostle
had
made
it
plaine
in
shewing
you
a
doubt●
communion
sealed
in
this
Sacrament
.
The
first
,
our
communion
with
Christ
and
his
benefits
.
The
second
,
ou●
communion
amongst
our selues
,
1.
Soli.
which
both
are
proper
onely
to
gods
church
,
2.
Omni.
&
to
euery
one
of
gods
church
,
and
all
waies
to
gods
Church
.
3.
Jemper
.
Now
let
the
learned
Iudge
whether
you
or
we
,
misconster
scripture
,
wrest
fathers
,
deceaue
Christs
flocke
and
the
Queenes
subiects
&
peruerte
the
true
meaning
of
this
Text.
And
now
to
the
next
.
Catholick
a
Priests
.
This
councell
consils
of
318.
fathers
.
The
second
Proofe
by
Councells
and
Fathers
.
Concilium
Nicen
:
cap
:
14.
Anno
:
363.
No
rule
or
custome
doth
permittae
,
that
they
which
haue
not
the
authority
to
offer
the
sacrifice
,
should
giue
it
to
the●
that
offer
the
bodie
of
Christe
.
Rider
.
Gentelmen
you
are
possessed
with
a
threefold
erro●
which
is
the
cause
when
you
read
the
scriptures
Councells
,
&
fathers
,
you
misunderstand
then
your
first
error
is
,
when
you
vnderstand
that
spoken
of
the
outward
Elements
,
with
these
three
Sophisticall
points
you
peruert
all
the
fathers
you
bring
for
this
purpose
&
deceue
the
Catholickes
.
which
is
meant
of
the
inward
invisible
grace
.
Your
second
error
is
when
you
referre
that
to
the
visible
partes
of
the
bodie
,
which
they
intended
to
the
inuisible
powers
of
the
minde
and
soule
.
Thirdlie
,
your
former
two
errors
beget
a
third
eror
which
is
your
mistaking
the
state
of
our
question
:
And
so
wheras
you
should
proue
the
maner
of
Christs
presence
in
the
Sacraments
:
you
offer
to
proue
the
matter
but
of
that
we
haue
spoken
before
.
Thus
if
you
will
reade
the
scripturs
,
fatheres
&
Councells
with
these
.3
.
cautions
or
derections
,
you
shall
easily
see
how
farre
thus
longe
you
haue
gone
from
the
truth
and
misled
the
Queenes
subiects
.
Now
with
Gods
permission
wee
will
proceed
to
the
●e
examination
of
your
proofe
,
as
it
is
alledged
out
of
your
owne
Colen
print
,
Ex
officina
Iohannis
Quin●d
Typographi
,
Anno
Domini
,
1561.
which
you
cannot
denie
,
it
is
in
the
first
Tome
and
the
fourteenth
Chapter
,
and
the
two
hundreth
fiftie
fiue
page
of
the
first
edition
,
and
the
Chapter
beginnes
thus
:
Peruenit
ad
sanctum
Concilium
quod
in
loci●
quibusdam
&
ciuita●●us
presbyteris
Sacramenta
Diaconi
porrigant
.
Then
followes
your
fraction
(
verie
abruptlie
)
in
the
midst
of
a
sentence
:
Hoc
neque
regula
neque
consuetudo
,
&c.
The
sacred
Councell
is
aduertized
,
that
in
certaine
places
and
Citties
the
Dea●ons
doe
reach
and
giue
the
sacraments
to
the
Priests
(
al
this
you
leaue
out
,
and
then
followes
your
weake
warrant
)
Noe
rule
or
custome
doth
permite
&c.
I
praie
you
what
one
word
of
this
prooues
your
Carnall
presence
?
Let
me
knowe
it
for
my
learning
and
the
Catholickes
better
Instruction
:
if
you
would
gather
out
of
this
word
Sacrifice
:
then
you
are
deceued
,
for
that
Councell
in
another
place
calles
it
Sacrificium
Eucharisticum
a
Sacrifice
of
praise
&
thanksgiuing
,
not
propitiatorie
.
And
if
out
of
these
wordes
The
bodie
of
Christ
:
the
councell
expounds
their
meaning
in
that
which
you
omitte
,
and
purposely
conceale
,
when
they
call
that
Sacrifice
,
and
the
bodie
of
Christ
by
the
name
of
Sacraments
giuen
by
the
Deacons
to
the
priests
:
for
the
Deacons
deliuered
them
after
Consecration
to
the
priestes
and
still
were
Sacramenta
,
Sacraments
,
not
the
bodie
or
bloud
of
Christ
made
of
bread
&
wine
by
the
Priest
:
for
the
Sacrament
and
Christs
bodie
differ
as
much
,
as
the
lambe
&
the
Passover
,
circumcision
&
the
couenant
,
the
washing
of
new
birth
&
regeneration
,
for
the
one
is
the
outward
seal
,
the
other
the
inward
grace
,
and
here
is
another
error
of
yours
of
the
second
and
third
kinde
,
in
referring
that
to
the
mouth
which
is
proper
to
our
faith
:
and
still
mistaking
the
matter
for
the
manner
.
Catho
.
Priests
.
Concilium
Ephesiuum
in
Epist.
ad
Nestorium
:
Wee
approach
to
the
misticall
benedictions
,
and
we
are
sanctified
,
And
this
had
200.
Fathers
.
being
partakers
of
the
holie
bodie
and
precious
bloud
of
Christ
.
THis
your
proofe
is
trulie
quoted
,
pag.
535.
&
the
Epistle
beginneth
thus
,
Religioso
&
Deo
amabil●
consacerdoti
Nostorio
,
Rider
.
Cyrillus
,
&c.
The
Councell
calleth
it
a
misticall
benediction
,
no
miraculous
transubstansiation
.
And
this
neither
prooues
your
opininion
,
nor
disprooues
ours
:
for
you
say
,
yee
are
made
partakers
of
the
holie
bodie
and
precious
bloud
of
Christ
,
and
so
say
we
:
but
you
say
with
the
late
church
of
Rome
,
that
you
are
made
partakers
of
that
holie
bodie
and
precious
bloud
,
by
your
mouth
,
teeth
,
throat
,
and
stomacke
;
And
we
sey
with
Scriptures
,
fathers
,
and
the
old
Church
of
Rome
,
that
we
are
made
partakers
of
Christs
bodie
and
bloud
,
by
the
hand
,
mouth
,
and
stomack
of
our
soules
,
which
is
a
liuelie
faith
in
Christ
crucified
:
as
you
haue
heard
before
.
And
thus
you
referre
that
to
the
visible
parts
of
the
bodie
(
as
your
mouth
,
teeth
,
and
stomacke
)
which
the
scriptures
and
fathers
meant
of
the
invisible
powers
of
the
soule
,
as
our
Euel●e
he
faith
,
being
the
spirit
all
hand
,
mouth
,
and
stomacke
thereof
.
And
heere
is
your
errour
of
the
second
kinde
.
And
so
your
two
testimonies
out
of
those
two
Councels
,
are
proofes
neither
proper
nor
pertinent
brought
onelie
to
dazell
the
eies
of
the
sim●le
,
and
o●m●●e
the
minds
of
the
weake
.
But
I
refer●e
the
the
ba●nesse
of
you●
curse
,
and
the
weaknesse
of
your
proof●s
,
(
nay
your
disproofes
)
to
the
censure
of
the
indifferent
Reader
.
Onelie
giving
the
Reader
this
note
by
the
way
,
that
these
Councels
were
called
by
the
Emperour
,
not
by
the
Pope
,
nay
the
Pope
was
not
president
in
these
Councel
,
but
other
Bishops
chosen
by
the
Emperour
.
And
in
the
Councell
of
Nice
the
Popes
Legat
had
but
the
fourth
roome
,
no
better
account
was
made
of
him
.
For
in
deed
he
then
was
no
Pope
but
an
Archbishop
.
Thus
the
Reader
may
see
that
these
Councels
be
against
you
.
And
now
to
your
testimonie●
out
of
the
fathers
,
The
flesh
is
fed
by
the
bodie
and
bloud
of
Christ
,
Catholick
Priests
,
Tertullian
de
resurrectione
caruis
,
floruit
200.
that
the
soule
might
be
fat
in
God
.
OVt
of
this
,
thus
you
frame
an
argument
(
as
sometimes
an
old
Romane
friend
of
yours
did
,
)
to
maintaine
your
carnall
presence
.
The
soule
●led
by
that
which
the
bodie
eateth
,
Rider
.
but
the
soule
is
sed
by
the
flesh
of
Christ
,
therefore
the
bodie
eateth
the
flesh
of
Christ
in
the
Sacrament
.
I
might
as
fitlie
invert
this
argument
vpon
you
,
as
●learned
man
of
our
side
once
inverted
it
,
saying
.
As
the
soule
feeds
vpon
Christ
,
so
doth
the
bodie
:
but
the
soule
is
fed
by
faith
,
therefore
the
bodie
is
fed
by
faith
,
which
is
verie
absurd
and
improper
,
yet
as
partinent
and
as
proper
as
yours
.
And
heere
you
should
remember
the
olde
distinction
of
the
fathers
spoken
of
before
.
The
Sacrament
is
one
thing
,
and
the
matter
of
the
sacrament
is
another
thing
.
Outwardlie
the
bodie
eateth
the
sacrament
,
and
inwardly
the
soule
by
faith
feeds
on
the
body
of
Christ
.
As
in
Baptisme
the
flesh
is
washed
by
water
(
as
that
old
father
saith
in
that
place
)
that
the
soule
may
be
purged
spirituallie
:
so
our
bodies
eate
the
outward
Sacrament
,
that
the
soule
may
be
fed
of
God
.
Againe
,
it
〈◊〉
not
generall
is
true
,
that
whatsoever
the
bodie
eateth
,
the
soule
is
fed
by
the
same
.
And
if
you
would
propound
but
particularlie
this
instance
of
eating
oneli●
in
the
Sacrament
,
then
the
argument
proven
nothin●
standing
vpon
meere
perticulers
.
Moreouer
,
the
bodie
and
soule
are
fed
by
the
sam●●ear
in
the
sacrament
,
but
not
after
the
same
manner
For
the
bodie
is
nourished
by
the
naturall
propertie
of
the
Elements
which
they
haue
to
nourish
:
But
th●
soule
by
the
sacramentall
and
supernaturall
power
,
a●
they
are
signes
and
scales
of
heavenlie
graces
.
An●
we
graunt
that
the
soule
is
sed
by
the
precious
bodi●
and
bloud
of
Christ
,
but
not
after
a
carnall
maner
,
a●
you
say
,
but
spiritualitie
by
saith
.
Againe
,
a
mean
Scholler
in
Gods
booke
,
may
se●
this
phrase
is
figuratiue
,
and
therefore
the
sence
spirituall
.
For
how
can
a
soule
be
sat
in
God
?
will
ye●
say
it
is
a
corporall
fatnesse
,
such
as
is
proper
to
bodies
?
I
thinke
yee
will
not
,
I
know
you
should
not
then
this
place
is
in
pertine
pille
brought
,
neither
savoring
of
sence
,
●or●n●reable
to
that
you
alleadge
it
.
Fo●
if
you
would
haue
read
the
same
Father
in
the
sam●
booke
following
,
be
would
haue
told
you
so
,
for
(
sait●
he
)
the
word
which
was
made
flesh
which
is
Christ
Devorandus
est
〈◊〉
,
page
:
47
:
printed
〈◊〉
pa●●●
:
1580.
●uminandus
intellell●
&
f
de
aspere●●●
.
This
Lord
Christ
must
be
swallowed
whole
by
heauing
,
must
be
meditated
vpon
of
remembred
by
vnderstanding
,
&
digested
by
faith
Now
you
see
Tertullian
of
your
owne
Parts
print
aunsweres
you
,
&
exp●nn●s
himselfe
.
And
seeing
no
man
can
better
expound
Tertullian
his
meaning
then
Tertullian
himselfe
therefore
haue
brought
him
from
your
owne
Catholicke
Presse
of
Paris
to
condemne
all
Iesuits
and
Priest
that
set
a
litterall
s●nce
vppon
an
allegor●●ll
phrase
onelie
to
deceiue
the
simple
plaine
Catholicks
and
to
abuse
the
godlie
learned
Fathers
,
by
an
ignora●●
and
fo●tish
construction
.
And
now
to
the
rest
of
you●
proofes
that
follow
.
And
in
bless
vs
his
flesh
to
eate
,
and
his
bloud
to
drinke
,
Catholicke
Priestes
.
that
we
might
he
nourished
by
that
,
by
which
we
haue
been
red●emed
.
A
Blinde
man
may
see
that
you
never
read
this
in
Cyprian
your selfe
,
Cyprian
de
Duplici
Marts
floruit
:
249.
Rider
.
or
else
that
you
vnderstand
them
not
.
For
Cyprian
saith
not
,
God
hath
left
in
his
flesh
:
but
Reliquit
nobis
edendam
carnem
suam
,
●ubquis
bibendum
sanguinem
,
&c.
he
hath
left
vs
his
flesh
meate
,
and
his
bloud
to
drinke
.
I
pray
you
pardon
me
to
aske
you
which
is
the
nominatiue
case
to
the
tube
,
is
Deus
?
no
,
but
if
you
had
begunne
seven
lines
sooner
,
as
you
ought
in
deed
to
haue
done
,
at
Nemo
ma●em
charitatem
habet
,
&c.
you
should
haue
found
the
right
nominatiue
case
,
that
there
might
haue
been
not
onelie
a
grammatticall
concord
,
but
also
a
Theologicall
harmonie
,
and
then
the
sence
had
bene
plaine
.
For
it
was
hee
that
died
for
his
enemies
,
that
left
vs
his
flesh
,
&c.
And
that
was
Christ
,
not
God
the
father
.
But
you
begunne
(
after
your
accustomed
manner
)
in
the
middest
of
a
sentence
,
mistaking
the
nominatiue
case
to
the
verbe
;
and
so
lay
downe
heresie
for
divinities
for
God
the
father
hath
neither
flesh
nor
blould
.
But
if
I
should
helpe
you
with
a
charitable
construction
,
by
attributing
that
to
Christes
Deitie
,
which
is
proper
to
his
humanitie
,
yet
you
still
haue
wrested
the
father
and
abused
the
Reader
.
But
thus
Cyprian
is
to
be
read●
Christ
truth
left
vs
his
flesh
to
eate
and
his
bloud
to
drinke
:
so
we
confesse
it
,
we
beleeue
is
,
and
we
teach
it
:
but
to
be
eaten
and
drunke
spirituallie
by
saith
,
not
corporallie
,
nor
●●turallie
,
as
you
imagine
.
For
this
is
the
inward
invisible
Grace
of
the
Sacramente
that
you
propound
.
Now
how
this
flesh
and
bloud
of
Christ
is
to
be
e●ten
,
or
how
Christs
flesh
and
bloud
are
naturalli●
substantiallie
,
&
reallie
vnder
the
formes
of
bread
an●
wine
,
which
is
our
question
,
you
cannot
prooue
b●
Cyprian
:
and
so
still
you
propound
the
matter
to
v●
when
you
should
prooue
the
maner
to
vs
:
and
here
〈◊〉
your
error
in
the
third
kinde
,
(
if
not
in
moe
)
befor●
specified
.
Cyprian
de
Cana
Domini
nu.
9.
And
heere
you
bring
a
testimonie
out
of
Cyprian
where
hee
speaketh
not
properlie
of
the
sacrament
but
of
the
threefold
Martyrdome
,
which
hee
gathere●
out
of
the
death
of
Christ
:
and
therefore
you
shew
〈◊〉
great
weaknesse
in
running
to
that
Tractate
,
wherea●
you
might
haue
spedde
better
(
if
you
had
list
)
neere●
home
.
For
if
you
had
reade
or
woulde
reade
tha●
Father
vpon
his
Treatise
of
the
Lords
Supper
,
hee
would
haue
either
changed
your
minde
,
or
hardned
your
heart
,
but
howsoever
,
discoverd
your
errors
.
And
that
the
eating
of
Christs
flesh
and
drinking
of
Christs
bloud
,
is
not
a
grosse
corporall
swallowing
of
his
blessed
flesh
and
precious
bloud
,
What
it
is
to
eate
Christes
flesh
and
drinke
Christs
bloud
.
as
you
deeme
;
but
that
Esus
carnis
Christs
,
est
quaedam
aeuiditas
,
&
quoddam
desyderium
manendi
in
ipso
,
&c.
The
eating
of
Christs
flesh
is
a
certaine
egernesse
and
a
certaine
desire
to
abide
in
Christ
,
&c.
And
three
lines
before
this
he
saith
.
Our
abiding
in
him
is
our
eating
of
him
:
and
the
drinke
is
a
certaine
incorporation
into
him
.
And
in
the
latter
end
of
the
Treatise
,
you
shall
finde
that
Father
touch
the
point
in
question
betwix
vs
:
How
Christ
must
bee
eaten
.
haec
quotiens
agimus
,
non
dentes
ad
mordendum
acuimus
,
sed
fid●
,
syn●ora
panem
sanctum
frangimus
&
partimus
,
&c.
As
often
as
we
receiue
these
holie
mysteries
,
we
whet
not
our
teeth
to
bite
or
chew
,
but
breake
and
divide
this
holie
bread
by
a
sincere
faith
,
&c.
And
foure
lines
before
that
(
saith
he
)
Edulium
carnis
Christs
de
facatis
animis
,
&c.
The
food
of
Christs
flesh
must
be
eaten
with
purified
minds
,
saith
not
with
washed
mouthes
.
Impij
nec
se
iudicant
nec
sacramenta
diiudicant
.
ibid.
n.
13.
And
●ttle
before
that
,
hee
saith
,
the
wicked
lambunt
pe●●
,
&c.
licke
the
rocke
,
but
neither
sucke
honie
nor
●●e
,
&c.
that
is
to
say
,
they
eate
the
Sacrament
,
but
〈◊〉
the
inward
grace
of
the
Sacrament
.
Thus
I
hope
●e
indifferent
Reader
is
satisfied
that
your
proofe
is
〈◊〉
pertinent
to
the
matter
in
question
,
and
therefore
●●eweth
the
weaknesse
of
your
cause
,
Transubstansiation
is
but
in
deede
a
fable
.
and
the
wilful●esse
of
your
mindes
,
that
will
seeke
so
stiflie
to
main●●ine
fables
with
wresting
fathers
:
for
Cyprians
place
●●at
you
bring
,
handleth
the
invisible
grace
of
the
Sa●rament
.
And
in
this
place
which
I
bring
,
he
toucheth
〈◊〉
:
manner
how
that
grace
is
to
be
received
,
that
is
,
●ith
faith
as
we
say
,
not
●eeth
as
you
teach
,
&c.
And
〈◊〉
Cyprian
agrees
with
himselfe
,
and
we
with
Cyprian
●●yne
against
your
carnall
opinion
.
And
thus
having
●●nswered
Cyprian
with
Cyprian
,
and
shewed
you
your
●●●e
sight
and
mistaking
of
Cyprian
,
I
will
come
to
●●e
examination
of
your
next
proofe
.
There
is
no
doubt
left
of
the
veritie
of
the
flesh
and
bloud
of
Christ
,
for
now
by
the
assurance
of
our
Lord
,
Caththo●
Priests
.
and
certaintie
of
our
faith
,
Hyllarius
de
Trinitate
lib:
4.
&
8.
floruit
:
370.
it
is
his
true
flesh
and
his
true
bloud
.
GEntlemen
:
now
we
must
needs
commend
you
,
for
you
giue
testimonie
with
the
truth
and
vs
,
against
the
late
church
of
Rome
&
your selues
,
●ow
you
come
neere
the
quicke
in
deed
,
Rider
.
and
therefore
●peake
both
the
trueth
,
and
trulie
.
This
is
the
manner
●w
Christ
must
be
eaten
,
by
faith
,
but
you
should
〈◊〉
added
the
next
line
following
,
Et
haec
accepta
at●●
exhausta
id
efficiunt
&c.
and
these
,
(
that
is
,
sancti●●●d
bread
and
veine
)
being
thus
by
faith
taken
&
thus
●●ple
bring
this
to
passe
,
that
Christ
is
in
vs
,
and
we
●
Christ
:
so
now
you
say
with
Hyllarie
,
that
Christ
dwelleth
in
all
them
that
receiue
him
by
faith
.
Your
owne
proofe
is
one
our
side
.
An●
so
by
this
your
owne
warrant
you
witnesse
to
the
world
,
that
there
is
no
place
for
the
corporall
receiving
of
Christ
by
the
wicked
,
(
as
Rome
teacheth
it
)
because
Christ
dwelleth
not
in
them
,
nor
they
in
him
.
And
so
because
this
your
proofe
prooues
our
part
of
the
matter
in
question
against
your selues
,
that
Christ
i●
to
bee
eaten
or
received
by
our
faith
,
not
by
our
mouth
or
teeth
,
I
will
addresse
my selfe
to
the
examination
of
your
next
proofe
.
Catholicks
Priestes
.
Nothing
remaineth
in
the
world
of
the
bodie
and
bloud
of
Christ
,
Athan
:
lib.
de
Passione
Imaginis
Christs
cap.
7.
florni●
:
375.
but
that
which
daylie
is
made
by
the
Priest
on
the
Altar
.
GEntlemen
:
I
perceiue
you
are
soone
wearie
of
well
doing
:
in
your
last
proofe
you
confessed
a
trueth
with
vs
,
even
against
your selues
:
But
now
you
leaue
fathers
and
bring
fables
,
and
so
produce
one
fable
to
prooue
another
fable
:
Rider
.
that
is
,
you
produce
one
fable
of
the
crucifying
of
the
image
of
Christ
,
and
the
miraculous
aboundant
gushing
of
water
and
bloud
out
of
the
image
his
side
,
Like
opinion
like
proofe
.
that
cured
all
diseases
in
all
parts
and
places
of
the
world
,
to
prooue
your
carnall
presence
of
the
Sacrament
,
by
your
fained
transubstansiation
.
When
fathers
helpe
not
,
you
bringe
fables
.
For
aunswere
to
which
,
first
I
say
,
that
you
should
fitter
haue
placed
this
proofe
in
the
ranke
of
your
fained
miracles
following
,
or
in
your
question
of
ymages
hereafter
.
But
to
cover
the
fooletie
and
forgerie
thereof
,
you
couch
it
amongst
the
auncient
Doctors
and
Fathers
of
the
Church
,
thereby
hoping
〈◊〉
haue
him
passe
with
more
credit
.
But
I
will
shew
first
,
that
you
haue
not
dealt
well
nor
trulie
with
the
Author
of
this
fable
,
not
with
the
Catholickes
of
this
kingdome
,
because
you
haue
left
out
such
wor●es
as
would
wound
both
your
credit
in
this
case
,
and
spoile
〈◊〉
cause
:
besides
,
your
Translation
is
nothing
●●nd
.
You
leaue
out
in
your
two
lines
these
foure
words
,
●oc
si
per
manus
,
and
spiritualiter
:
you
left
out
qua●●
because
belike
it
was
but
an
Adverb
of
likenesse
,
and
〈◊〉
because
omne
simile
is
not
idem
,
you
thought
it
●ere
better
to
leaue
it
behinde
,
then
to
bring
it
to
your
hurt
.
Secondlie
,
you
leaue
out
per
manus
,
for
your
●●bout
saith
,
per
manus
sacerdotum
,
by
the
handes
of
the
Priestes
,
and
you
leaue
them
both
out
,
and
say
,
per
sacerdotem
,
least
the
people
should
thinke
and
say
,
if
onelie
the
Priest
made
it
,
then
it
can
neither
haue
flesh
nor
bloud
,
and
so
the
miracle
were
●●●red
.
And
therfore
it
were
better
to
leaue
out
per
e●a●●
,
〈◊〉
to
say
per
sacerdotem
,
by
the
Priest
,
for
then
might
be
vnderstood
,
not
onelie
all
the
members
of
his
bodie
,
to
intentions
of
his
minde
,
but
also
all
the
gestur●s
and
motions
of
both
,
required
to
the
conception
of
s●ch
a
wodd●n
Saviour
.
And
lastlie
,
you
leaue
out
spiritualiter
,
s●iritualle
,
hee
saith
not
ca●nallie
,
and
therefore
this
pr●ofe
is
verie
vnschollerlike
alleadged
:
when
our
question
is
of
a
presence
carnall
,
you
produce
a
presence
spirituall
:
this
word
makes
for
vs
,
but
that
wee
s●orne
(
and
knowe
it
sinfull
)
to
bring
in
such
forgerie
(
for
proofe
)
in
a
question
of
divinitie
.
For
this
you
shoulde
haue
brought
in
thus
,
which
is
dailie
made
by
the
Priest
spirituallie
.
Now
how
this
proofe
fitteth
you
,
let
others
censure
:
shame
makes
mee
scilent
.
This
fable
containeth
seven
chapters
of
the
crucifying
of
the
image
of
CHRIST
done
by
the
Iewes
for
envie
to
CHRIST
:
who
no
sooner
pierced
the
Image
his
side
,
but
Continue
exiui●
sanguis
&
aqua
,
The
word
is
Hydria
,
which
you
may
ses
Iohn
.
2.
verse
.
6.
containes
two
or
three
measures
or
firkines
a
peece
,
which
shewes
it
to
be
a
notable
loudlie
,
&
lewd
legend
.
forthwith
gushed
out
both
water
and
bloud
in
such
aboundance
,
that
they
filled
manie
vesseles
with
the
same
,
and
this
bloud
was
carried
into
all
the
parts
of
the
world
,
through
Asia
,
Affricke
,
&
Europe
,
and
cured
all
manner
of
diseases
.
Vpon
sight
of
which
miracle
the
cruell
Iewes
repented
,
&
were
baptised
:
and
presentlie
there
was
a
holie
[
](A10753-e26850-b)(a)
(a)
Quinto
Idu●
Nouemb
.
day
made
in
rememberance
thereof
,
which
was
kept
with
no
lesse
solemnitie
then
the
feast
of
Easter
,
and
the
Nativitie
of
our
Lord
,
as
the
Author
saith
.
Then
in
the
seventh
and
last
chapter
comes
in
your
proofe
,
which
concludeth
a
peace
amongst
the
Chargie
,
touching
the
trueth
of
Christs
bloud
:
for
now
saith
the
Author
,
there
can
no
other
flesh
nor
bloud
of
Christ
be
found
in
the
world
,
then
that
which
is
daylie
made
by
the
hands
of
the
Priests
spirituallie
vpon
the
Altar
.
But
this
your
proofe
is
not
trulie
translated
according
to
the
Latten
,
but
because
it
is
a
loude
lie
,
I
will
neither
reprooue
you
for
your
defectiue
translation
,
nor
correct
it
for
anie
mans
direction
:
for
I
see
no
reason
to
bestow
a
true
translation
,
vpon
a
false
miracle
or
forged
fable
.
Other
circumstances
,
as
,
where
this
image
was
saide
to
bee
kept
and
brought
foorth
,
[
](A10753-e26870-b)(b)
(b)
Like
Translation
like
truth
.
&c.
I
referre
the
curious
Reader
,
to
the
foolish
&
forged
Author
.
B●t
that
all
the
Catholicks
of
this
kingdome
may
see
the
reasons
that
mooue
me
to
think
it
to
be
a
fable
,
be
these
:
all
of
them
gathered
out
of
Reason
.
1
the
bodie
of
this
fable
,
falselie
fathered
vpon
Athanasius
.
So
seuerall
places
&
persons
falsly
chale●g
to
themselues
that
euery
o●e
hath
a
proper
peece
of
Christs
crosse
.
Athanasius
printed
at
Paris
.
1581.
pag.
534
,
&c.
So
our
Iesuits
and
Priests
now
,
would
perswade
the
Catho
.
The
first
reason
,
is
the
occasion
:
for
no
small
error
sprung
vp
in
those
daies
touching
the
bloud
that
issued
saith
of
Christs
side
on
the
crosse
:
one
sort
of
Priests
said
,
that
they
had
the
right
bloud
,
and
another
sort
of
Priests
in
other
citties
said
,
that
they
had
Christs
verie
bloud
that
assured
forth
of
his
side
:
and
so
the
content
on
among
the
Priest●
grew
to
bee
verie
hote
(
as
it
is
this
day
betwixt
you
Iesuits
and
Priestes
about
other
matters
)
wherevpon
the
whole
Cleargie
met
togither
〈◊〉
Cesaria
in
Cappadotia
,
for
the
appeasing
of
this
dangerous
broile
.
The
reverend
Fathers
were
no
sooner
●et
,
but
vpstart
Don
Petrus
Bishop
of
Nicomedia
,
&
said
:
●everend
Fathers
,
I
haue
a
little
booke
heere
of
Athanasius
,
which
I
greatlie
desire
to
present
to
your
fatherhoods
view
and
consideration
:
Sancta
Synodus
respon●e
:
place
bene
,
&
vt
legatur
optamus
:
The
holy
Synode
unswered
:
wee
are
verie
well
pleased
,
and
desire
it
may
be
read
.
Thus
concerning
the
occasion
:
which
〈◊〉
a
solemne
Synode
,
to
appease
a
foolish
supersticion
contention
amongst
the
lying
covetous
Priests
of
that
age
;
when
everie
hedge-priest
would
perswade
the
simple
people
,
that
he
had
in
his
viall
the
very
bloud
of
Christ
,
which
was
of
force
to
pardon
their
sinnes
.
The
stile
of
this
agreeth
not
with
the
booke
which
Reason
.
2
〈◊〉
knowne
to
bee
Athanasius
worke
contra
Idola
:
a
meane
Grammarian
may
see
it
and
discerne
it
:
and
therefore
it
cannot
be
his
worke
.
Athanasius
writ
a
most
sharp
tractate
against
Idolatrie
,
Reason
.
3
when
he
was
living
,
and
now
they
would
father
his
fable
vpon
him
after
his
death
:
and
therefore
it
●●not
bee
his
worke
:
for
so
wee
should
wickedlie
●arge
that
godlie
father
either
with
recantation
of
trueth
:
contradiction
in
and
with
himselfe
,
or
open
maintenance
of
palpable
Idolatrie
.
It
was
taken
to
be
Athanasius
worke
,
onelie
vpon
Reason
.
4
he
credit
of
the
Popes
Stipendarie
chaplen
Petrus
●ishop
of
Nicomedia
,
as
you
may
see
in
the
title
page
,
●34
.
and
therefore
is
not
his
worke
by
open
confession
.
The
time
bewraies
the
forgerie
:
for
this
thing
should
Reason
.
5
●e
done
by
report
of
your
owne
stories
,
seven
hundred
and
threescore
yeares
after
Christ
,
Sigebert
in
anno
.
755.
vnder
Constantine
he
fift
,
yet
coloured
with
Athanasius
name
,
as
writ●●
by
him
,
that
was
dead
foure
hundred
yeares
before
this
matter
hapned
,
and
therefore
plaine
and
palpable
forgerie
.
Reason
.
6
It
was
imagined
to
be
done
some
twentie
yeares
or
thereabouts
,
Actione
quarta
synodi
2.
Ni●e●ae
.
tom.
3.
before
the
second
Councell
of
Niceu●
as
a
preparatiue
for
the
planting
of
images
in
Churches
:
in
which
Councell
it
was
accordinglie
performed
:
and
this
fable
registred
in
the
same
,
as
a
sui●
foundation
for
such
a
building
:
and
a
fit
proofe
fo●
such
a
proposition
.
Now
let
the
indifferent
Reader
peruse
at
his
leisure
but
the
seven
chapters
of
this
Treatise
,
and
hee
shall
scarce
read
one
line
without
a
lie
.
Yet
superstition
blusht
not
to
in
sert
this
fable
into
this
fathers
worke
.
But
if
we
should
render
such
proofes
,
and
preach
such
fabulous
stuffe
for
sound
divinitie
to
the
people
,
you
would
call
vs
sots
and
souleslaiers
.
But
for
Christes
sake
and
the
peoples
salvation
,
confesse
your
errour●
and
forsake
them
,
with
these
lying
fables
:
it
is
no
shame
to
forsake
sinne
,
but
it
is
daungerous
when
sinne
forsakes
you
.
And
so
to
your
next
proofe
.
Catho
.
Priests
.
Damascen
lib.
4
de
fide
orthod.
cap.
14.
floruit
.
391.
Let
vs
approach
in
ardent
faith
,
laying
our
hands
in
manner
of
a
crosse
,
and
let
vs
receiue
the
bodie
of
him
that
was
crucified
.
YOu
leaue
out
ei
:
for
it
is
in
the
father
,
Acced●mus
ei
,
let
vs
come
and
approach
to
him
,
which
is
in
heaven
,
Rider
.
not
on
your
Altar
,
or
in
your
miraculous
accidents
;
Damascen
flatlie
sheweth
the
impossibilitie
of
your
carnall
presence
.
and
then
sheweth
the
maner
how
:
in
ardent
faith
:
not
with
mouth
,
teath
,
and
stomacke
.
So
this
father
is
against
your selfe
,
for
the
manner
of
receiving
of
Christ
,
which
is
spirituall
,
not
corporall
.
And
in
the
same
chapter
,
the
same
father
saith
,
Carpu●
Christi
.
&c.
that
Christs
bodie
being
vnited
to
the
godhead
,
descended
not
from
heaven
to
the
earth
,
and
therefore
cannot
be
in
your
sacrament
corporally
and
carnallie
.
And
as
fire
and
heat
be
in
a
burning
coale
,
so
,
(
and
more
)
neerelie
are
Christs
humanitie
and
divinitie
ioyned
together
,
so
that
he
which
shall
touch
the
coale
should
taste
of
heat
,
and
hee
that
should
eate
Christs
humanitie
,
must
also
eate
Christs
divinitie
:
which
is
damnable
to
thinke
,
for
a
man
to
eate
and
devoure
his
God
.
But
because
this
your
imp●rtinent
proofe
is
your
apparant
disproofe
,
I
will
proceed
to
the
next
.
Cath.
Priests
.
This
bread
is
bread
before
the
consecration
:
but
when
it
is
consecrated
,
of
bread
it
is
made
the
flesh
of
Christ
.
Ambr.
de
sacrament●s
,
lib
4
cap.
4.
fl●ruit
.
40●
ALl
this
we
graunt
to
be
true
,
but
you
come
not
to
the
point
,
whether
Christs
flesh
be
made
of
bread
by
way
of
transubstansiation
:
that
is
,
by
the
changing
of
one
nature
or
substance
into
another
,
by
hec
est
corpus
meum
:
this
is
our
question
,
Rider
.
but
you
dare
not
touch
it
,
because
you
cannot
prooue
it
.
But
seeing
you
recite
fathers
by
peeces
and
patches
,
taking
that
you
thinke
will
fit
your
purpose
,
and
leaving
that
which
would
crosse
your
course
or
weaken
your
cause
:
I
will
for
the
trueth
sake
,
and
the
Catholickes
good
adde
that
out
of
Ambrose
,
which
I
am
sure
some
of
you
would
wish
out
of
Ambrose
.
If
you
had
read
a
few
lines
moe
,
you
should
haue
heard
him
tell
you
another
●ale
,
In
the
same
chapter
.
and
haue
expounded
himselfe
in
this
place
,
his
words
be
these
:
Si
ergo
tanta
vis
est
in
sermon●
Domini
Iesu
,
vt
inciperent
esse
qua
non
erant
,
quanto
magis
operatorius
est
,
vt
sint
quae
erant
,
&
in
liud
commutentus
?
If
there
be
such
a
force
in
the
word
of
the
Lord
Iesus
,
that
the
things
which
were
not
,
began
to
bee
,
how
much
more
can
it
worke
this
,
that
they
shall
be
the
same
they
were
,
and
yet
bee
changed
into
another
thing
?
And
then
bringeth
in
an
example
,
how
a
thing
may
be
that
that
it
was
,
and
yet
be
chaunged
.
Tu
ipse
eras
,
sed
eras
vetus
creatura
,
&c.
Thou
t●
selfe
waste
:
but
thou
wast
an
olde
creature
:
afte●
when
thou
wast
baptised
,
thou
begannest
to
be
a
ne●
creature
:
wilt
thou
know
how
,
a
new
creature
?
eve●
one
saith
the
Apostle
,
that
is
in
Christ
,
is
a
new
cre●ture
.
Learne
then
how
the
word
of
God
is
accust●med
to
change
everie
creature
:
and
when
he
will
〈◊〉
altereth
the
course
of
nature
,
If
you
had
read
〈◊〉
knowne
this
,
you
would
never
haue
alleadged
the
●ther
,
for
his
example
is
this
:
as
he
that
is
baptised
su●fereth
no
materiall
substancial
or
corporall
chang●
though
he
be
borne
a
new
spirituallie
,
Vide
dist.
2
de
consecr.
cap.
quia
corpus
.
page
.
432.
and
put
o●
Christ
.
But
he
his
changed
not
loosing
or
altrin●
th●
bodie
or
soule
which
hee
had
:
but
in
attaining
th●
grace
which
hee
had
not
.
And
so
the
change
is
acc●dentall
,
not
substantiall
,
as
from
vice
to
vertue
.
So
〈◊〉
substance
the
bread
and
wine
are
the
same
they
we●
before
,
but
in
accident
or
qualitie
,
they
are
turned
l●
to
another
thing
,
of
common
bread
,
made
a
Sacr●ment
.
Chrisost.
●n
Math.
hom.
83.
So
Chrisostome
amplifying
the
change
of
bread
〈◊〉
the
Euchariste
,
he
addeth
immediatlie
withall
:
Sic
●tium
in
baptisme
:
even
so
there
is
the
like
change
〈◊〉
water
in
baptisme
,
as
of
bread
in
the
Lords
Suppe●
but
that
is
not
of
substance
,
but
in
qualitie
,
respec●
or
vse
,
and
so
in
this
.
Dialog.
1.
cap.
8.
And
this
change
is
not
in
casting
away
the
substanc●
of
bread
or
wine
,
but
in
casting
grace
vnto
them
:
〈◊〉
Theodoret
saith
,
Non
naturam
ipsam
transmutans
,
s●
naturae
adijciens
gratiam
:
not
changing
nature
,
but
●●ding
grace
to
nature
.
Ambrose
de
sys
qui
Initiantr●
cap.
9.
But
who
can
better
expoud
A●brose
his
meaning
then
Ambrose
himselfe
?
who
sait●
Ante
benedictionem
,
&c.
before
the
blessing
of
the
he●venlie
words
,
it
is
called
another
kind
:
after
the
wor●
of
consecration
the
bodie
of
Christ
is
signified
:
do●
not
say
,
is
the
bodie
of
Christ
,
but
signifieth
the
bod●
of
Christ
.
And
else
where
:
In
comedendo
&
potando
,
&c.
〈◊〉
eating
and
drinking
we
signifie
the
bodie
&
bloud
●●at
were
offered
for
vs
.
And
againe
he
saith
,
Ambr.
1.
cor.
11.
Quod
〈◊〉
figura
,
Ambr.
de
Sacramentis
lib.
4
cap.
4.
&c.
which
is
a
figure
of
the
bodie
and
bloud
of
the
Lord
.
But
of
this
we
haue
sufficientlie
spoken
before
.
And
thus
now
the
Reader
may
be
sufficientlie
satisfied
that
the
change
is
not
naturall
,
but
misticall
,
not
of
substance
,
but
of
accidents
and
qualities
.
And
so
bread
remaineth
in
substance
,
but
is
changed
in
misterie
.
And
so
is
bread
made
the
flesh
of
Christ
,
not
by
your
miraculous
transubstansiation
,
but
by
mistical
and
Apostolicall
benediction
or
sanctification
,
not
in
changing
the
nature
of
it
,
but
adding
grace
to
it
,
as
beforesaid
.
And
thus
Ambrose
hath
aunswered
Ambrose
.
And
if
you
would
read
him
without
partiall
affection
,
hee
would
withdraw
you
from
this
your
imagined
opinion
.
But
now
to
that
which
followeth
.
Catholicke
Priests
.
Not
onelie
the
Sacrament
,
but
the
bodie
of
Christ
is
propounded
vnto
vs
,
not
that
we
should
touch
is
onely
,
Chrisost.
hom.
51.
in
cap.
4.
Math.
floruis
.
410.
but
that
we
should
eate
it
.
GEntlemen
:
it
is
in
the
51.
Hom.
of
the
14.
chapter
of
Mathew
,
not
in
the
fourth
:
though
it
cost
me
great
labour
to
finde
the
place
,
Rider
.
yet
I
blame
not
you
,
it
might
be
the
writer
,
not
the
Author
:
and
if
it
were
the
Author
,
it
is
but
the
slip
of
his
penne
,
and
therefore
in
discretion
pardonable
.
But
you
alleadge
it
verie
impertinentlie
and
improperlie
:
still
prooving
the
matter
never
denied
:
Still
you
runne
from
the
maner
to
the
matter
and
skipping
the
manner
which
I
vrged
,
and
you
should
aunswere
.
But
if
you
had
read
a
few
lines
more
,
Chrysostome
would
haue
told
you
the
manner
how
Christ
is
to
be
received
,
not
by
your
mouth
,
teeth
,
throate
or
stomacke
:
but
Magna
cum
fide
,
mundo
cum
corde
,
with
great
faith
and
a
clean
heart
.
You
stopt
before
your
full
period
,
This
father
is
wholy
with
vs
,
&
therefore
vnaduisedly
brought
in
by
you
.
which
is
in
you
stil
a
great
fault
:
and
will
keepe
still
the
Catholickes
by
this
your
means
in
great
blindnesse
and
doubts
:
who
beleeues
when
they
heare
you
alleadge
one
sentence
of
a
Father
,
that
all
his
workes
are
suttable
to
that
,
iudging
him
to
speake
on
your
side
by
the
sound
of
the
eare
,
not
by
the
touch
of
knowledge
:
whereas
if
you
would
read
a
Father
your selues
from
the
beginning
of
a
controversie
to
the
end
,
though
it
were
painfull
vnto
you
,
yet
it
were
profitable
vnto
you
and
the
Catholicks
,
then
you
should
see
the
thing
plainlie
by
the
father
expounded
,
which
is
by
you
often
and
too
much
wrested
.
Read
this
father
vpon
the
seventeeth
Homilie
vpon
the
tenth
of
the
Hebrewes
,
and
1.
Cor
11.
Hom.
27
,
and
you
shall
finde
him
there
condemning
your
carnall
presence
,
masse
,
with
your
sacrifice
,
wherby
you
may
perceiue
in
this
point
your
opinion
new
and
doubtfull
:
and
our
religion
old
and
certaine
.
But
though
this
place
be
impertinent
to
prooue
the
maine
,
which
is
our
question
,
yet
it
proveth
with
vs
against
you
,
that
Christ
must
be
eaten
by
faith
spirituallie
,
not
by
the
mouth
●arnallie
,
and
that
overthroweth
one
of
your
chiefe
pillers
.
And
so
to
to
your
next
proofe
.
Catho
.
Priests
.
We
ought
rather
to
beleeue
in
Christ
,
and
humbly
to
learn
of
him
,
Carill
in
Ioh.
lib.
4.
cap.
13.
floruit
.
Anno.
423
then
like
drunken
sots
to
crie
out
,
how
can
he
giue
vs
his
flesh
?
GEntlemen
:
I
wonder
you
bring
in
this
for
your
proofe
:
al●sse
:
this
is
nothing
pertinent
to
our
matter
in
hand
,
we
crie
not
how
can
he
giue
vs
his
flesh
?
Rider
.
For
we
know
that
hee
gaue
his
flesh
for
vs
substantiallie
on
the
crosse
:
misticallie
in
the
Sacrament
:
&
spirituallie
in
his
word
.
And
therefore
this
might
haue
beene
rather
well
spared
,
then
ill
applied
:
●y
by
your
leaue
,
there
is
no
such
sentence
in
that
●lace
,
as
you
preciselie
alleadge
:
some
such
sound
of
●ords
he
hath
,
but
no
such
carnall
sence
.
But
read
●e
chapter
through
,
and
these
marginall
quotations
,
Ciria
lib
4
cap.
14.21.22.24
.
lib.
11.
cap
26.
〈◊〉
you
shal
plainly
see
how
you
are
deceived
.
For
what
●oever
hee
speaketh
in
all
those
places
,
is
nothing
else
〈◊〉
to
confirme
and
explaine
our
spirituall
vnion
with
Christ
our
head
:
and
for
that
purpose
brings
in
for
ex●mple
,
the
neere
and
naturall
vnion
&
coniunction
of
●●e
vine
and
the
branches
,
head
and
members
,
&
so
of
Christ
and
all
beleevers
.
So
this
being
lesse
pertinent
●hen
the
rest
,
shal
haue
a
more
short
(
yet
a
sufficient
)
an●●ere
then
the
rest
.
The
bread
which
descended
from
heaven
is
the
bodie
of
our
Lord
,
and
the
wine
he
gaue
his
disciples
is
his
bloud
.
Catho
.
Priests
.
THis
place
in
deed
is
in
his
third
Tom.
pag
142.
Hieron
.
ad
Hedib
.
Q.
2.
floruit
Anno
424.
There
was
a
learned
and
godlie
woman
proposed
twelue
questions
of
divinitie
to
Hierom
:
wherin
,
&
of
which
she
desired
resolution
:
For
in
those
daies
,
it
was
lawfull
for
women
and
all
men
to
aske
doubts
touching
religion
:
Rider
.
and
for
their
further
instruction
&
consolation
might
read
Gods
word
,
&
freelie
conferre
touching
matters
that
concerned
their
salvaton
.
And
this
greatly
blemisheth
your
Roman
doctrine
,
that
will
haue
neither
men
nor
women
to
read
divinitie
,
&
the
reason
is
th●
,
least
they
should
see
your
errors
,
Marke
this
yee
Catholickes
.
and
forsake
your
profession
.
For
this
is
your
strongest
tenure
,
to
keepe
them
in
blindnesse
with
ydle
ceremonies
,
dumb
shewes
,
&
Latten
service
.
But
I
trust
in
Christ
shortlie
to
see
most
of
their
eies
opened
,
that
wil
discover
your
privie
plots
,
&
discourage
your
haughtie
stomacks
,
and
generallie
forsake
your
new
religion
,
being
in
deed
but
mans
invention
.
This
is
the
second
question
of
the
twelfth
,
but
you
omit
some
words
,
&
cut
off
some
,
which
obscures
the
matter
.
But
if
a
little
charitable
chiding
would
make
you
more
painfull
in
your
bookes
,
and
lesse
carefull
to
please
mens
humors
,
I
could
finde
in
my
heart
to
bestow
it
vpon
you
,
but
prameniti
,
pramuniti
:
you
are
now
fore warned
,
I
hope
you
will
bee
hereafter
better
armed
,
or
better
minded
:
which
I
wish
with
all
my
soule
as
to
my selfe
.
But
your
proofe
is
thus
in
Latten
,
Siergo
panis
qui
de
caelo
descendit
,
corpus
est
Domini
,
&
vinum
quod
discipulis
dedit
,
sanguis
illius
est
novi
Testamenti
qui
pro
multis
effusus
est
in
remissionem
peccatorum
,
iudaicas
fabulas
repellamus
,
&c.
If
therefore
the
bread
that
descended
from
heaven
bee
the
bodie
of
the
Lord
,
and
the
wine
which
he
gaue
his
disciples
,
be
his
bloud
of
the
new
testament
which
is
shed
for
many
for
the
remission
of
sinnes
,
then
let
vs
cast
away
all
Iewish
fables
.
Here
you
omit
Siergo
,
and
novi
Testamenti
qui
pro
multis
effusus
est
in
remissionem
peccatorum
.
If
therefore
:
and
of
the
now
Testament
which
is
shed
for
manie
for
the
remission
of
sinnes
:
All
this
you
haue
left
out
,
which
was
ill
done
.
What
now
can
you
gather
out
of
this
,
to
prooue
that
Christes
bodie
is
made
of
bread
,
and
his
bloud
of
wine
,
no
substance
of
either
creature
remaining
,
but
onelie
Christs
carnall
presence
as
he
was
on
the
crosse
?
Surelie
here
is
not
one
word
,
sillable
,
or
letter
to
prooue
it
,
but
the
contrarie
.
You
wronged
the
father
so
to
mangle
him
:
yet
as
you
deliver
him
,
it
prooveth
nothing
of
the
manner
of
Christs
presence
that
is
in
question
,
but
the
matter
never
in
controversie
:
for
saith
shee
to
this
learned
father
,
if
therefore
the
bread
which
came
downe
from
heaven
bee
the
bodie
of
Christ
:
so
she
speakes
of
Christs
divinitie
,
that
came
downe
from
heaven
:
(
for
his
humanitie
did
not
)
and
our
question
is
of
his
humanitie
by
transubstansiation
in
the
Sacrament
:
so
that
this
proofe
nothing
sorteth
your
purpose
.
And
the
bloud
here
spoken
of
,
is
his
bloud
of
the
new
Testament
shed
on
the
crosse
,
not
is
the
Sacrament
:
once
for
all
,
not
for
anie
that
pleaseth
the
Priest
.
And
therefore
as
she
said
,
Iudaicas
fabelas
repellamus
,
let
vs
cast
away
Jewish
fables
:
So
in
Gods
name
for
the
loue
of
Gods
trueth
,
and
of
the
peoples
salvation
,
cast
yee
from
you
all
Munkish
fables
,
and
forged
legends
,
that
haue
misled
the
people
into
this
blinde
superstition
,
and
ioyne
with
vs
to
teach
Christs
precious
flocke
.
the
old
Apostolicall
and
Catholicke
religion
,
commaunded
in
Gods
word
,
&
practised
in
the
primitiue
Church
:
that
you
with
vs
,
and
we
with
you
,
and
all
in
the
Lord
,
may
now
in
this
plentifull
vintage
so
labour
in
the
Lords
vinyard
(
his
Church
)
according
to
our
talents
received
,
that
every
one
of
vs
may
deliver
his
talent
with
advantage
of
manie
soules
:
and
then
we
shall
be
partakers
of
that
sweet
saying
,
Well
done
,
then
good
and
faithfull
servant
,
enter
into
thy
maisters
ioy
.
Which
God
graunt
to
vs
both
,
And
so
to
the
next
,
as
followeth
.
Catholicke
Priests
.
The
mediator
betwixt
God
and
man
Iesus
Christ
,
with
faithfull
heart
and
mouth
we
receiue
,
August
.
contra
Aduersar
.
legis
&
prophetarum
:
cap.
9.
floruit
430.
giving
vs
his
flesh
to
eate
and
his
bloud
to
drinke
.
Although
it
seeme
more
horrible
to
eate
the
flesh
of
man
then
to
kill
:
and
to
drinke
the
bloud
of
man
then
to
sheed
it
.
AVgustine
writing
against
that
pestilent
adversarie
of
the
Law
and
Prophets
,
who
obiected
,
that
because
Abraham
by
adulterie
with
Agar
brake
the
Law
,
therefore
either
the
Law
was
not
good
,
Rider
.
or
else
the
vniversall
promise
made
to
God
by
Abraham
was
of
none
effect
:
Paris
print
,
page
264.
confuting
him
by
scriptures
and
reasons
,
telleth
him
that
the
promise
was
made
in
Isaack
,
not
in
Ismaeli
,
and
disprooveth
him
for
disliking
such
figures
,
similitudes
,
and
comparisons
,
as
it
hath
pleased
the
holie
Ghost
to
vse
for
the
plaine
expressing
of
the
neere
vnion
and
coniunction
that
is
betwixt
Christ
and
his
Church
.
And
saith
,
what
wil●
this
pestilent
adversarie
say
,
when
hee
heareth
Pau●
speake
?
they
shall
be
two
in
one
flesh
,
he
will
scorne
and
deride
it
.
Ephe.
5.
But
it
is
a
great
misterie
spoken
of
Christ
and
his
Church
.
For
saith
Augustine
,
we
vnderstand
by
the
two
sonnes
of
Abraham
,
and
the
two
mothers
,
two
Testaments
,
though
in
respect
of
times
and
ceremonies
,
divers
,
but
in
respect
of
the
substance
all
one
and
the
same
.
And
also
by
the
neere
vnion
and
coniunction
betwixt
man
and
wife
,
we
vnderstand
our
naturall
vnion
with
Christ
,
and
that
without
anie
obscenitie
or
absurditie
,
maugre
the
beards
of
the
adversarie
.
Then
followes
your
proofe
,
even
in
the
middest
of
a
sentence
verie
vntowardlie
,
I
will
not
say
negligentlie
.
And
yet
you
omit
one
word
(
Sicut
)
which
though
it
be
small
in
shew
,
yet
it
is
in
this
place
of
great
consequence
.
For
as
you
alleadge
Augustine
,
it
is
nothing
material
to
confute
the
adversarie
of
Gods
grace
.
Thus
Augustine
speaketh
,
and
so
you
should
haue
said
,
Sicut
mediatorem
Dei
&
hominum
:
as
the
mediator
betwixt
God
and
man
,
&c.
And
thus
after
your
wonted
manner
,
you
leaue
out
the
point
materiall
,
&
begin
in
the
middle
of
a
sentence
,
leaving
out
beginning
and
ending
,
neither
respecting
what
went
before
,
whereof
,
&
wherefore
he
spake
the
thing
:
nor
what
followeth
after
to
prooue
&
disprooue
the
thing
so
spoken
of
.
And
this
your
neglecting
the
coherence
,
makes
you
faile
in
the
sence
and
in●erence
,
For
this
word
(
Sicut
)
which
you
leaue
out
,
sheweth
plainlie
that
it
is
a
similitude
,
and
I
hope
you
know
that
similitue
,
be
no
Sillogismes
.
And
as
there
was
no
o●●●eritie
or
absurditie
in
the
similitude
of
m●●●●●●
(
they
t●●●●
shall
be
one
flesh
:
so
in
li●●
case
he●●
i●
no
absurditie
or
inhumaine
Caniballisme
,
in
this
similitude
of
the
Sacrament
,
vsed
to
expresse
our
vnion
with
Christ
:
for
though
it
seem
more
horrible
to
eate
the
flesh
of
man
,
then
to
kill
man
,
and
to
drinke
his
bloud
then
to
shed
it
:
yet
we
without
horror
or
absurditie
,
eat
the
flesh
and
drinke
the
bloud
of
the
Mediator
betwixt
God
&
man
Iesus
Christ
.
And
if
the
adversarie
in
Augustines
time
,
or
you
Romanists
now
,
would
know
how
this
may
bee
so
done
without
slaughter
of
Christ
,
sinne
to
our
soules
,
or
offence
to
the
world
,
Augustine
tells
you
in
that
place
,
fideli
cordi
&
ore
,
with
a
faithfull
heart
and
mouth
.
So
that
now
you
see
Agustines
scope
,
and
your
drift
,
cleane
contrarie
the
one
to
the
other
:
for
Augustine
brings
it
as
a
similitude
to
expresse
our
spirituall
vnion
with
Christ
by
faith
:
you
wrest
it
as
spoken
of
the
corporall
and
gutturall
eating
and
drinking
of
Christs
bodie
and
bloud
in
the
Sacrament
,
vnder
the
formes
of
bread
and
wine
with
our
mouths
and
stomackes
.
Manie
places
you
haue
vnfitlie
,
&
in
deed
vntrulie
alleadged
:
yet
shewed
in
none
of
them
lesse
learning
and
true
meaning
,
then
in
this
.
For
this
is
your
great
fault
,
that
wheresoever
you
see
or
heare
in
Scripture
,
Father
,
Councell
,
or
historie
:
Corpus
&
sanguinem
Domini
,
or
such
like
words
or
phrases
,
presentlie
you
inferre
(
and
so
perswade
the
Catholicks
)
that
there
is
Christs
carnal
presence
in
the
Sacrament
,
never
examining
the
circumstance
of
the
place
,
or
the
end
wherefore
they
bee
alleadged
.
And
thus
you
erre
not
knowing
(
or
wilfullie
contemning
)
the
state
of
the
question
,
the
sence
of
the
holie
writ
,
and
iudgement
of
the
auncient
Fathers
.
I
am
sure
you
never
read
this
place
of
Augustine
your selfe
,
but
snatcht
it
out
of
some
late
ignorant
and
foolish
ydle
Munkish
or
Franciscan
Euchiridien
.
And
my
reason
why
I
thinke
so
of
you
,
is
drawen
out
of
Augustine
himselfe
.
For
a
few
lines
before
this
your
proofe
,
he
calleth
the
Sacraments
Sacra
signa
,
holie
signes
(
not
the
things
themselues
as
you
doe
)
and
so
distinguisheth
that
which
you
confound
.
And
within
three
lines
after
your
proofe
,
if
you
would
haue
read
him
,
you
should
haue
heard
him
record
to
your
great
discredit
in
this
case
,
that
this
your
proofe
is
(
as
other
former
examples
are
)
figurare
dictum
secundum
sacrae
fides
regulam
:
that
it
is
spoken
figuratiuelie
,
according
to
the
rule
of
sound
faith
and
religion
.
August
in
his
place
as
in
the
places
formerly
alledged
,
is
against
you
still
.
Now
let
the
Reader
iudge
betwixt
you
and
mee
,
whether
of
vs
is
in
the
right
.
Augustine
saith
,
the
Sacraments
be
sacra
signa
,
holie
signes
,
and
so
say
wee
:
But
you
Iesuiets
and
Priests
say
no
,
they
be
the
things
themselues
.
Augustine
saith
it
is
spoken
figuratiuelie
,
and
so
say
we
:
you
say
no
,
but
properlie
.
Augustine
saith
,
that
this
opinion
is
squ●red
out
for
patterne
to
Christs
Church
,
by
the
straight
rule
of
sound
faith
,
and
so
say
we
:
and
as
you
alleadge
your
prrofe
,
you
say
no
:
&
make
a
flat
opposition
betwixt
Augustines
saith
and
your
faith
.
And
yet
you
will
brag
of
Fathers
,
and
that
they
all
speake
on
your
side
,
and
you
all
follow
their
sayings
:
when
they
neither
speake
for
you
,
nor
you
imitate
them
.
And
so
though
we
follow
scripture
,
fathers
,
&
primitiue
Church
,
yet
you
call
vs
hereticks
.
And
you
that
wrest
scriptures
,
falsifie
fathers
,
that
haue
neither
with
you
,
consent
,
antiquitie
,
nor
veritie
,
yet
will
be
Catholickes
.
And
thus
if
a
man
should
haue
hired
you
to
haue
brought
a
place
out
of
Augustine
against
your selues
,
you
could
no
better
haue
fitted
yourselfe
,
or
your
setter
on
,
then
in
this
:
who
verie
plainlie
delivereth
the
manner
how
Christs
bodie
and
bloud
is
to
bee
eaten
and
drunke
:
that
is
,
with
a
faithfull
heart
and
mouth
,
not
with
our
materiall
mouth
,
teeth
,
and
stomacke
,
as
is
you
vntrulie
teach
.
And
thus
hoping
the
Catholicks
will
lesse
trust
you
in
the
rest
,
that
haue
so
groslie
deceived
them
in
this
,
I
will
proceed
by
Christes
assistance
to
the
examination
of
your
next
proofe
.
Catho
.
Priests
.
In
what
darknesse
of
ignorance
,
in
what
sluggish
carelesnesse
,
haue
they
been
?
Leo
epist.
22.
ad
Clerum
&
plebem
Constantinopolitanae
vrbis
floruit
Anno.
466.
as
not
to
haue
heard
by
beare-say
,
nor
by
reading
to
haue
found
,
which
in
the
Church
of
God
is
so
plaine
,
as
that
the
mouthes
of
children
do
tell
,
the
bodie
and
bloud
of
Christ
to
be
trulie
in
the
blessed
sacrament
.
GEntlemen
,
you
mistake
the
Epistle
:
it
is
in
the
23.
Epistle
,
pag.
74.
beginning
in
the
12
line
,
printed
at
Lovaine
,
1575.
and
seeing
it
is
both
your
owne
proofe
,
and
your
own
print
,
Rider
.
if
vpon
due
examination
it
make
against
you
,
This
Leo
was
the
13.
Archb.
of
Romes
&
twentie
more
succeeded
him
before
any
vsurped
the
name
of
Pope
.
you
must
thinke
God
dealeth
with
you
,
as
he
did
with
Balaam
,
who
when
he
made
account
for
gaine
to
haue
cursed
Gods
people
,
then
God
put
into
his
heart
,
and
vttered
by
his
mouth
a
blessing
to
his
people
.
You
made
account
to
haue
here
overthrowne
the
trueth
,
established
errour
,
and
strengthned
your
credit
:
and
God
hath
put
into
your
heart
,
and
you
haue
subscribed
with
your
hand
to
confirme
the
trueth
,
confute
your
owne
error
,
and
discredit
your selues
:
and
more
to
the
worlds
wonder
,
&
the
soile
of
your
Romane
faith
,
even
by
a
Bishop
of
Rome
:
against
whom
you
can
take
no
exceptions
.
So
that
now
the
Catholicks
shall
see
that
your
carnall
presence
was
not
known
to
the
first
bishops
of
Rome
for
the
first
fiue
hundred
yeares
,
and
therefore
it
is
not
Catholicke
.
Nomb.
23.8
.
And
you
shall
see
how
vntrulie
you
not
onelie
quot
him
,
but
alleadge
him
,
nay
wrest
and
inforce
him
to
speake
that
after
his
death
,
which
hee
never
meant
during
his
lif
.
So
that
from
the
first
to
the
last
,
you
deale
neither
trulie
with
the
booke
of
God
:
not
the
works
of
men
.
Mathew
.
15.6
.
And
as
Christ
saide
to
the
Scribes
and
Pharesees
;
You
haue
made
the
commaundement
of
God
of
no
Authoritie
by
your
Tradition
.
So
you
Iesuites
and
Priests
haue
made
neither
Scripture
,
Auncient
father
,
Councell
,
or
Pope
of
anie
Authoritie
,
by
your
new
and
false
constructions
,
addicions
,
and
subtractions
,
&c.
But
now
to
the
examination
of
your
proofe
.
But
I
will
first
showe
to
the
Catholicks
the
occasion
,
why
Leo
writt
this
:
and
there
they
shall
see
how
greatly
you
are
deceaued
in
mistaking
Leo
:
and
much
al
use
their
simplicitie
and
the
credite
they
repose
in
you
.
The
occasion
whie
Leo
writte
this
Epistle
was
this
:
That
whereas
the
errour
of
the
Manichees
had
greatlie
infected
the
Church
of
God
throughout
all
Christendome
:
They
denied
Christs
manhood
,
&
taught
that
his
bodie
was
not
a
true
bodie
but
a
phantasticall
bodie
.
he
in
a
charitable
manner
sent
Epiphanius
and
Dionisius
,
two
publike
Notaries
of
the
Church
of
Rome
,
to
the
Cleargie
and
people
of
Constantinople
:
requesting
them
,
that
such
as
professed
these
damnable
heresies
,
might
not
onelie
bee
excommunicated
from
sermons
&
sacraments
,
but
also
be
banished
from
their
Citties
for
feare
of
further
infection
.
For
(
saith
hee
)
such
as
beleeue
not
that
Christ
hath
taken
our
nature
and
flesh
vpon
him
beleeue
neither
the
veritie
,
nor
vertue
of
Christs
passion
and
resurrection
.
And
then
commeth
in
your
proofe
,
which
properlie
must
be
applied
to
such
hereticks
,
as
denie
Christ
his
manhood
to
bee
borne
of
the
blessed
virgin
:
and
hold
that
his
bodie
is
not
a
true
bodie
,
but
a
phantasticall
bodie
,
and
not
to
vs
that
beleeue
both
.
Againe
,
you
haue
not
truelie
translated
this
place
:
for
thus
it
stands
in
the
Author
.
In
quibus
isti
ignorantiae
tenebris
,
in
quo
hactenus
desidiae
torpore
●acucre
,
vt
nec
auditu
discerent
:
and
afterwards
.
Vt
nec
ab
infantium
lingui●
veritas
corporis
,
&
sanguinis
Christi
inter
communis
sacramenta
fidei
tentatur
?
In
what
darknes
of
ignorance
,
in
what
sluggish
carelesnes
,
haue
they
remained
,
as
not
to
haue
learned
by
hearesay
(
not
●eard
by
hearesay
as
you
translate
)
that
the
trueth
of
the
bodie
and
bloud
of
Christ
among
the
sacraments
of
our
common
faith
,
is
not
kept
backe
even
of
the
tongues
of
infants
?
It
seemeth
you
had
this
out
of
some
mans
note-booke
by
hearesay
,
not
by
your
proper
and
diligent
reading
of
the
Authour
himselfe
:
and
my
reasons
why
I
thinke
so
,
be
there
:
because
you
mistake
so
much
,
and
translate
so
vntrue
.
Yet
will
not
I
take
exceptions
to
everie
particular
fault
.
1
First
,
you
say
it
is
in
the
two
and
twentieth
Epistle
,
it
is
not
so
,
but
in
the
three
and
twentieth
,
and
therefore
I
thinke
you
never
read
the
Author
.
2
Secondlie
,
you
say
,
heard
by
hearesay
,
the
Author
saith
,
Learned
by
hearesay
.
3
Thirdly
,
you
translate
lenguis
for
mouths
:
it
should
be
tongues
.
Yet
if
the
rest
had
been
true
,
J
would
not
haue
excepted
against
this
.
4
Fourthlie
,
you
chaunge
a
Nowne
into
an
Adverb
,
vere
for
veritas
,
trulie
for
trueth
:
and
transpose
it
also
ou●
of
that
proper
place
to
alter
the
sence
of
Leo
the
Bishop
of
Rome
,
which
is
great
wrong
to
the
dead
Author
,
and
living
Reader
.
5
Fiftlie
,
you
change
the
singular
number
for
the
plurall
,
sacrament
for
sacraments
.
Sixtlie
,
you
quite
leaue
out
two
wordes
of
great
consequence
,
communis
and
fidei
.
7
Seventhlie
,
you
adde
this
word
(
Blessed
)
which
is
not
in
the
Author
.
8
Eighthlie
,
you
point
it
not
right
,
considering
the
Authour
spake
it
onelie
by
way
of
interrogation
.
Which
premisses
,
are
faultes
great
and
grosse
,
which
sheweth
plainlie
that
you
never
reade
the
Author
himself
,
but
borrowed
them
forth
of
some
other
mans
pap●
s
,
&
therfore
you
sin
grievously
in
perswading
mens
consciences
to
take
these
things
at
your
hands
for
truth
,
&
faith
,
when
in
deed
you
tender
them
nothing
,
but
things
wrested
from
all
faith
and
trueth
.
Now
Gentlemen
,
doe
you
deale
plainlie
with
th●
world
in
bringing
this
place
against
vs
?
did
ever
anie
of
vs
denie
that
Christ
was
borne
of
the
virgin
Marie
,
and
and
conceived
by
the
holie
Ghost
?
you
cannot
charge
vs
with
it
.
Did
ever
anie
of
vs
teach
that
Christs
bodie
was
phantasticall
,
neither
did
you
ever
heare
it
.
Then
in
this
as
in
the
rest
you
wrong
vs
,
deceiue
the
Catholickes
,
and
abuse
Leo
sometime
Pope
.
But
I
will
shew
you
plainlie
,
that
this
Bishoppe
of
Rome
,
and
this
your
proofe
,
confutes
and
confounds
your
owne
opinion
,
and
confirmes
ours
.
Reade
page
.
7.
8.
on
the
same
Epist.
where
he
bringes
in
the
Sacraments
of
Redemption
&
of
Regeneration
.
First
Leo
saith
,
the
trueth
of
Christs
bodie
and
bloud
is
in
both
the
two
sacraments
,
as
well
in
Baptisme
as
in
the
Lrds
Supper
:
and
as
he
is
reallie
in
the
one
,
so
is
he
reallie
in
the
other
:
and
what
presence
of
Christ
is
in
the
one
sacrament
,
there
is
the
like
presence
in
the
other
,
as
hath
been
prooved
before
.
But
least
this
would
marre
the
fashion
of
your
transubstansiation
,
and
carnall
presence
,
therefore
you
translate
it
sacramentum
,
in
the
singuler
number
,
not
sacramenta
in
the
plurall
.
Secondlie
,
●ou
haue
left
out
two
words
,
communis
fide●
:
of
common
faith
:
because
no
man
should
see
it
was
then
a
Cotholick
opinion
,
to
beleeue
that
the
truth
of
Christ
bodie
and
bloud
,
was
as
reall
e
in
Baptisme
,
as
in
the
Lords
Supper
,
yet
in
both
spirituallie
,
in
neither
corporallie
.
But
you
will
say
I
abuse
the
Reader
,
because
Leo
never
spake
of
this
word
spirituall
,
or
spirituall
e
,
&
therfo
e
I
wrong
both
the
Author
&
Reader
.
I
answere
as
El●●s
the
Prophet
answered
Achab
the
king
,
when
he
told
Eliah
that
he
troubled
Israel
,
no
(
saith
the
Prophet
)
〈◊〉
i●
thou
and
thy
Fathers
house
that
haue
troubled
Israell
,
1.
Kings
.
18.17.18
.
〈◊〉
that
you
haue
forsaken
the
commandement
of
the
Lord
,
and
followed
Balaam
.
So
Gentlemen
,
it
is
not
J
that
wrong
the
Author
that
is
dead
,
or
the
people
that
yet
doe
th●t
it
is
you
and
your
confederates
that
followe
Balaam
of
Rome
(
God
keep
you
free
from
folowing
Balack
of
Spaine
)
and
that
the
Reader
shall
see
I
will
prooue
that
Leo
ioyneth
with
vs
,
and
we
with
him
,
and
both
of
vs
with
Christs
trueth
against
your
trash
,
I
wil
make
him
speake
in
his
owne
defence
,
and
vtter
that
which
you
concealed
It
followeth
imediatlie
after
your
profe
,
in
the
next
immediat
words
after
this
maner
:
In
the
same
page
.
quia
is
illa
mesticad
stributione
spiritualis
alimoniae
hoc
impartitur
,
vt
accipientes
caelestis
cibi
,
in
carnem
ipsius
,
qui
caro
nostra
factus
est
,
transeamus
.
Because
that
in
the
misticall
distribution
of
that
spirituall
food
,
this
is
given
and
received
,
that
we
which
receiue
the
vertue
of
that
heavenlie
meat
,
wee
passe
into
his
flesh
,
which
was
made
our
flesh
.
Gentlemen
,
this
you
should
haue
added
to
your
former
,
for
the
Author
ioyned
them
togither
,
the
one
to
accompanie
the
other
in
Gods
service
,
and
in
deed
the
latter
to
expresse
the
former
.
But
now
let
vs
out
of
this
,
but
compare
the
old
doctrine
of
the
old
Bishoppes
of
Rome
,
and
the
doctrine
of
the
moderne
Popes
and
his
Chaplens
.
1
The
old
Bishops
of
Rome
said
,
the
food
in
the
sacrament
was
spirituall
and
heavenlie
:
the
late
Popes
,
Iesuits
,
and
Priests
say
,
that
it
is
carnall
and
materiall
.
2
The
old
Popes
said
,
the
distribution
of
that
spirituall
food
was
misticall
:
you
say
presbiteriall
.
3
They
said
in
old
times
,
that
the
worthie
receiver●
of
this
spirituall
meat
were
transformed
into
Christ
his
flesh
.
The
late
Popes
and
you
his
●echoes
say
no
:
But
the
sacramentall
bread
and
wine
are
transubstantiated
and
transnatured
into
Christs
flesh
and
bloud
.
4
The
Bishop
of
Rome
brought
in
this
,
to
proo●
Christs
humanitie
conceived
by
the
holie
Ghost
,
an●
borne
of
the
virgin
Marie
,
against
heretickes
,
wh●●
taught
that
Christs
bodie
was
phantasticall
,
And
yo●
alleadge
the
same
place
to
prooue
Christs
humaniti●
to
be
made
by
a
sinfull
ignorant
Priest
,
&
that
of
bread
and
so
contrarie
to
Scripture
and
Creed
,
will
recreat
Christ
of
a
new
matter
,
which
is
as
blasphemous
an●
hereticall
.
So
Tertull
:
contra
Marcion
lib.
4.
5
The
olde
Bishoppes
and
Church
of
Rome
held
that
the
Sacraments
could
not
be
true
signes
of
Christ
bodie
,
vnlesse
he
had
a
true
bodie
,
and
because
the
were
true
signes
,
therfore
Christ
had
a
true
bodie
.
An●
the
late
popes
and
Papelings
teach
,
that
Christs
bodie
is
made
a
new
of
the
signes
,
and
so
counfoundeth
the
signes
with
Christs
bodie
,
and
in
deed
maintaineth
an●
heresie
as
grosse
as
the
Manicheans
.
For
they
held
tha●
either
he
had
no
bodie
,
or
a
phantasticall
bodie
.
And
you
hold
that
there
be
no
signes
in
the
Sacraments
,
but
that
they
are
transubstantiated
into
Christs
bodie
and
bloud
.
Iohn
.
6.
And
so
Christs
bodie
is
dailie
made
of
a
peece
of
bread
,
which
must
needs
be
a
bodie
phantasticall
〈◊〉
not
a
true
bodie
as
our
Creed
witnesseth
.
And
as
in
the
manner
of
eating
Christs
bodie
,
you
disagree
not
much
from
the
Capernaits
:
so
in
this
case
you
differ
not
much
from
the
Manicheis
.
Isale
.
5.3
.
Now
will
I
say
as
the
painfull
owner
of
the
vineyard
said
.
Now
therefore
oh
you
Inhabitants
of
Ierusalem
,
and
men
of
Iudah
,
iudge
I
pray
you
,
between
me
and
my
vineyard
.
So
,
oh
you
Inhabitants
of
this
worshipfull
Cittie
of
Dublin
,
and
you
loyall
subiects
of
Ireland
,
and
all
the
learned
and
well
minded
of
both
England
and
Ireland
,
iudge
I
pray
you
charitablie
(
yet
trulie
)
betwixt
me
and
these
my
adversaries
,
And
if
you
refuse
to
censure
vs
and
this
our
conference
according
to
the
trueth
,
i.
Sam.
●4
.
13
.
then
I
say
as
David
said
to
Saul
:
The
Lord
be
a
〈◊〉
between
thee
and
me
:
so
the
Lord
be
iudge
betwixt
vs
,
whether
of
vs
haue
more
trulie
,
and
with
●●●●ter
sinceritie
of
trueth
,
and
conscience
,
behaved
our selues
(
in
this
matter
)
for
his
glorie
,
discharge
of
our
owne
consciences
,
instruction
and
salvation
of
the
Catholickes
.
Catho
.
Priests
.
Thus
much
for
the
fathers
,
as
a
skantling
or
taste
,
leaving
the
surplus
to
the
curious
Reader
.
I
might
haue
recited
Martial
Epist.
ad
Rurd●galenses
,
cap.
3.
Anaclet
.
Epist.
general
:
Dionisius
Arcop
.
cap.
3.
page
.
3.
who
lived
within
the
compasse
of
the
first
hundred
yeares
:
I
thinke
your
meaning
was
500
years
,
otherwise
it
cannot
be
true
.
but
I
obserue
[
](A10753-e30090-b)(a)
(a)
I
praie
you
obserue
veritie
.
brevitie
,
as
by
the
next
proofe
shall
appeare
.
GEntlemen
:
Martiall
neither
in
this
place
,
nor
in
the
tenne
chapters
following
,
saith
anie
thing
against
vs
,
but
for
vs
,
&
as
I
thinke
altogither
against
you
.
For
Martiall
reproveth
those
that
honoured
such
Priests
,
as
sacrificed
mutis
&
surdis
statuis
,
Rider
.
to
dumbe
and
deaffe
images
(
which
neerlie
toucheth
your
freeholde
)
and
deswaded
them
from
it
,
Martiall
.
saying
Nunc
autem
multo
magis
sacerdotes
Dei
omnipotentia
qui
vita●
vobis
tribuunt
in
calice
&
panc
honorare
debetis
:
For
now
you
ought
much
rather
to
honour
the
Priests
of
Almightie
God
,
which
giue
you
life
in
the
cup
and
bread
.
This
is
that
which
you
thinke
knocks
vs
in
the
head
.
But
first
let
it
be
examined
,
and
then
censured
.
1
First
,
you
must
prooue
that
you
are
Priests
of
Almightie
God
:
which
you
shall
never
do
;
as
hath
been
plainlie
prooved
.
2
Secondlie
,
you
must
prooue
that
you
giue
life
to
the
communicants
,
in
the
cuppe
and
bread
,
which
is
impossible
.
And
vnlesse
you
prooue
the
premisses
,
the
allegation
is
Impertinent
.
3
Thirdlie
and
lastlie
,
if
the
Priest
could
giue
life
in
the
cup
,
wine
or
bread
,
then
it
were
cleare
that
the
substance
of
bread
&
wine
remained
.
And
that
would
knocke
out
the
braines
of
your
miraculous
transubstansiation
.
Now
maisters
,
in
alleadging
Martiall
you
are
brought
into
a
labyrinth
,
get
out
as
you
can
.
For
if
you
ever
had
read
Martiall
,
you
would
never
haue
alleadged
him
in
this
case
:
for
in
the
end
of
the
same
chapter
,
hee
sheweth
to
Sigebor●
,
and
to
others
newly
conveited
from
ydolatrie
,
ad
s●nceram
fidem
,
to
true
religion
,
that
Christ
is
sacrificed
three
maner
of
waies
.
First
,
by
himsel●
on
the
crosse
once
for
all
.
Secondlie
,
by
the
cruell
Iewes
,
who
cried
,
Crucifie
him
crucifie
him
.
Thirdlie
,
per
nos
in
sui
commemorationem
;
by
vs
in
rememberance
of
him
.
Thus
Martiall
telleth
you
that
in
rememberance
of
Christ
,
is
not
Christ
.
Now
if
you
will
needs
sacrifice
Christ
after
Martials
opinion
,
you
must
chuse
one
of
these
three
:
after
the
first
if
you
would
you
cannot
:
after
the
second
,
I
am
sure
yee
will
not
:
and
after
the
third
you
ought
,
but
do
not
.
Thus
your
proofes
mend
,
as
sower
Ale
doth
in
Sommer
,
woorse
and
woorse
,
even
like
a
conie
in
a
net
:
or
a
bird
amongst
limetwigs
,
the
more
they
stirre
,
the
faster
they
sticke
.
But
you
cannot
helpe
it
,
seeing
the
cause
is
bad
,
how
can
your
proofes
bee
good
?
But
in
Gods
name
leaue
wresting
of
Fathers
,
deceiving
of
Catholickes
,
and
come
to
the
confession
of
your
faults
,
and
recantation
of
your
errors
:
and
you
shall
glorifie
God
,
edifie
his
people
,
and
saue
your
soules
,
which
God
graunt
for
Christs
sake
.
Aaclete
.
For
Anaclete
,
I
haue
not
seen
him
,
and
therfore
cannot
censure
him
:
but
if
he
be
auncient
,
he
will
speake
with
vs
if
he
be
a
late
writer
,
hee
is
a
weake
witnesse
:
and
at
first
excepted
against
:
and
vnlesse
he
lived
within
the
first
fiue
hundred
yeares
after
Christ
,
he
must
neither
helpe
you
,
nor
hurt
vs
.
And
for
Dionisius
Arcop
.
because
he
speaketh
not
the
word
for
you
,
Dionisius
Arcop
.
therfore
I
haue
no
reason
to
speake
are
word
against
him
.
And
wheras
you
say
,
the●e
fathers
you
haue
brought
as
a
scantling
or
taste
:
I
tell
you
●●inlie
,
scant
a
taste
of
anie
truth
.
And
the
fathers
you
haue
not
brought
with
you
,
but
left
them
behind
you
,
because
yee
know
they
would
witnesse
what
they
should
,
no●
what
you
would
.
Then
you
say
,
you
will
leaue
the
Surplus
to
the
curious
Reader
:
by
your
leaue
,
it
is
better
to
be
curious
then
carelesse
.
For
if
the
Reader
had
not
been
more
carefull
then
you
were
,
it
had
been
inform●
Chaos
,
and
as
Ovid
hee
said
,
Ovid.
Metam
.
lib.
1.
page
.
1.
●udis
indigestaque
miles
,
nec
qui●
quam
nisi
pendus
m●●●
.
But
now
to
the
rest
.
The
third
proofe
.
That
the
chiefe
Protestants
did
beleeue
the
reall
presence
,
Catho
.
Priests
.
and
alleadged
all
the
Fathers
for
the
maintenance
thereof
.
THis
trulie
is
worthie
admiration
,
Luther
〈◊〉
.
7.
D
fens
.
verb.
cana
fol.
391.
that
none
of
the
fathers
,
whereof
there
is
an
infinite
number
,
but
did
speake
cleane
contrarie
to
Sacramentaries
And
though
the
fathers
all
with
one
mouth
affirme
:
yet
the
Sacramentaries
harden
themselues
to
denie
them
.
And
they
would
never
vtter
this
(
that
Christ
his
bodie
is
not
in
the
blessed
Sacrament
)
if
they
had
anie
regard
of
the
Scripture
:
Idem
fol.
390.
and
were
not
their
hearts
full
of
infidelitie
.
I
trulie
,
would
giue
the
franticke
Sacramentaries
this
advise
,
Idem
.
●b●
fol.
41●
that
seeing
they
will
needes
bee
mad
they
should
th●y
their
parts
rather
whollie
then
in
part
:
therefore
let
them
make
short
worke
,
and
rase
out
of
the
scripture
these
words
.
This
is
my
bodie
which
is
giv●n
for
you
.
For
touching
their
faith
it
is
allone
,
if
th●●
they
kepe
it
.
Christ
tooke
bread
and
gaue
thankes
,
brake
it
,
and
gaue
it
to
his
Disciples
saying
,
take
,
eate
,
doe
this
in
rememberance
of
mee
.
For
this
prooveth
sufficientlie
,
that
bread
is
to
be
eaten
in
rememberance
of
Christ
.
This
is
the
whole
and
entire
Supper
of
the
Sacramentaries
.
Luther
Tom.
2.
fol.
263.
In
vaine
doe
the
Sacramentaries
beleeue
in
God
the
father
,
God
the
Sonne
,
and
God
the
holie
Ghost
:
seeing
they
denie
this
one
article
as
false
,
of
the
reall
presence
,
wheras
Christ
doth
say
,
This
is
my
bodie
.
Luther
in
〈◊〉
ad
Ioh.
Harnagiū
Typograph
Argent
.
The
whole
opinion
of
the
sacrament
,
the
Sacramentaries
began
with
lies
,
and
with
lies
they
defend
the
same
.
GEntlemen
:
you
knowe
Luther
was
a
Munke
,
and
though
he
recanted
Poperie
,
and
vtterlie
;
condemned
your
Transubstansiation
as
a
fable
,
Rider
.
having
neither
scripture
nor
Father
to
warrant
it
:
yet
he
stuck
fast
in
another
error
,
De
Cons.
dist.
2.
canon
.
prem
en
glossa
,
tertia
tenet
page
.
429.
fitlie
named
[
](A10753-e30780-b)(a)
(a)
Luthers
heresie
was
on
●ome
before
Luther
was
borne
.
Consubstansiation
,
which
errour
hee
also
suckt
from
the
Pope●
owne
brest
,
as
you
may
see
in
his
distinctions
.
For
you
in
your
Transubstansiation
teach
,
that
of
the
substance
of
bread
and
wine
is
made
by
the
Priest
the
verie
naturall
bodie
and
bloud
of
Christ
;
no
substance
of
either
remaining
,
but
onelie
the
outward
formes
.
Luther
by
his
Consubstansiation
saith
,
that
Christs
bodie
and
bloud
bee
received
togither
in
the
bread
,
vnder
or
with
the
bread
;
both
substance
&
accidents
of
bread
and
wine
remaining
.
Now
I
pray
you
,
how
fitteth
this
your
purpose
?
you
will
say
in
this
,
that
Luther
held
a
reall
presence
.
True
,
but
Luther
denied
your
reall
presence
as
a
fable
.
And
yet
his
opinion
was
farre
wide
from
the
trueth
.
Wee
regard
not
Luthers
censure
against
vs
,
for
Chr●st
his
spirituall
presence
,
no
more
then
you
doe
for
his
condemning
of
your
Transubstansiation
.
And
Luther
is
more
to
bee
commended
,
then
all
the
Popes
,
Cardinals
,
Priests
,
and
Iesuits
in
Christendome
:
who
with
Augustine
,
though
he
did
erre
,
yet
,
would
not
persever
in
errors
,
as
you
and
they
doe
,
least
he
should
be
an
hereticke
,
Ad
●●ctorem
Tom.
1
page
.
1.
and
therefore
in
his
Epistle
to
the
Christian
Reader
,
saith
in
this
manner
:
Ante
,
omnia
,
●ro
〈◊〉
●●cteram
,
&
ore
propter
Dominum
nostrum
Jesuits
Christum
,
vt
ista
legat
cum
iudicio
,
imo
&
cum
multa
miseraluus
,
&
sciat
me
fuisse
aliquando
Monachum
.
Before
all
things
,
or
first
of
all
,
I
beseech
the
godlie
Reader
,
Quid
aqu●●●
petipotuit
and
I
beseech
him
for
our
Lord
Iesus
Christ
his
sake
,
that
he
will
read
these
my
workes
iudiciallie
,
&
with
great
compassion
and
pittie
;
and
let
him
knowe
and
vnderstand
that
I
was
sometimes
a
Monke
.
As
if
he
should
say
:
if
I
haue
erred
,
or
doe
erre
,
impute
that
to
my
Monkerie
&
Poperie
,
which
in
deed
is
but
a
sorge
of
bles
,
and
a
legend
of
lies
.
B●t
because
you
say
Luther
helde
a
reall
presence
:
therefore
you
conclude
agai●st
vs
with
his
testimonie
,
because
you
call
him
a
chiefe
Protestant
,
The
Priests
thinke
euerie
real
presence
to
be
their
Transubstansiated
reall
presence
.
perswading
the
Catholickes
,
that
either
some
chiefe
Protestants
be
of
your
opinion
touching
your
reall
presence
:
or
else
that
there
is
a●iarie
amongst
our selues
touching
the
same
.
And
because
few
of
you
haue
read
Luther
(
as
appeareth
by
your
omissions
,
transpositions
,
and
your
imperfect
translation
)
and
therefore
in
this
point
,
know
not
exactlie
the
difference
betwixts
your selues
,
Luther
,
and
vs
,
I
will
plainlie
and
trulie
set
downe
the
three
severall
opinions
touching
this
question
;
that
the
Reader
may
see
wherin
the
differnce
one
from
another
on
agreement
one
with
another
consisteth
.
The
manner
(
Christ
willing
)
shall
bee
by
question
and
aunswere
,
as
followeth
.
Questi
.
1
1.
Question
.
WHat
is
given
in
the
Lords
Supper
beside
bread
and
wine
?
Aunsw
.
1
1
Aunswere
.
First
,
you
say
,
the
bodie
and
bloud
of
Christ
.
Secondlie
,
Luther
saith
,
the
bodie
and
bloud
of
Christ
.
Thirdlie
,
we
say
,
the
bodie
and
bloud
of
Christ
.
Questi
.
2
2
Quest.
How
is
Christs
bodie
and
bloud
given
in
the
sacrament
?
Aunsw
.
2
2
Auns.
You
say
corporallie
.
Luther
saith
,
corporallie
.
We
say
with
scriptures
and
fathers
,
spirituallie
.
Questi
.
3
3
Quest.
In
what
thing
is
Christs
bodie
and
bloud
given
?
Aunsw
.
3
3
Auns.
You
say
,
vnder
the
formes
or
accidents
o●
bread
,
the
substance
being
quite
chaunged
,
the
accidents
onelie
remaining
.
Luther
saith
,
in
,
with
,
or
vnder
the
bread
,
neither
substance
nor
accidents
changed
,
but
both
remaining
.
We
with
scriptures
and
fathers
say
,
Christs
bodie
and
bloud
are
given
in
his
mercifull
promise
,
which
tendereth
whole
Christ
with
all
his
benefites
vnto
the
soule
of
man
,
sealed
and
assured
vnto
vs
in
the
worthie
receiving
of
the
sacraments
.
Questi
.
4
4.
Quest.
H●w
must
Christs
bodie
and
bloud
bee
received
?
Aunsw
.
4
4
Aun
.
You
say
,
with
the
mouth
.
Luther
saith
,
with
the
mouth
and
faith
.
Wee
say
according
to
the
holie
scriptures
,
that
Christ
must
be
received
by
faith
:
and
there
lo●ge
&
d●ell
in
our
hearts
:
for
whatsoever
Christ
giues
by
promise
,
must
of
man
be
received
by
faith
.
Questi
.
5
5
Quest.
To
what
part
of
man
is
Christes
bodie
and
bloud
given
?
Aunsw
.
5
5
Auns
.
You
say
,
to
your
bodies
,
which
is
absurd
.
Luther
saith
,
both
to
bodie
&
soule
,
which
is
impossible
We
say
,
to
our
soule●
:
for
the
promise
is
spirituall
;
the
things
promised
,
spirituall
;
the
meanes
to
receiue
them
,
spirituall
:
so
the
place
into
which
it
must
bee
received
,
must
needs
be
spirituall
,
not
corporall
:
not
that
the
substance
of
Christs
bodie
is
vnited
to
our
spirits
:
but
that
those
precious
benefits
purchased
for
vs
in
the
crucified
bodie
of
Christ
,
must
be
vnited
to
our
spirits
by
faith
.
This
doctrine
is
Apostolicall
,
sound
,
and
Catholicke
,
vppon
which
wee
boldlie
may
venture
our
soules
and
salvations
.
●
Quest.
To
whom
is
Christs
bodie
and
bloud
given
?
Questi
.
6
●
Auns.
You
say
,
to
the
godlie
or
godlesse
,
beleevers
Aunsw
6
and
infidels
,
as
hath
been
aboue
said
Luther
saith
,
both
to
the
godlie
and
godlesse
.
〈◊〉
say
,
onelie
to
the
godlie
beleevers
,
as
heeretofore
hath
been
prooved
.
●
Quest.
What
doe
the
wicked
eate
in
the
Lords
supper
?
Questi
.
7
●
Auns.
You
say
,
accidents
of
bread
,
and
Christs
bodie
.
Aunsw
.
7
Luther
saith
,
the
wicked
eat
bread
,
both
substance
and
accidents
,
and
the
bodie
of
Christ
also
.
We
say
,
the
wicked
ea●e
nothing
in
the
Lords
supper
,
but
bare
bread
,
and
drinke
nothing
but
meere
wine
,
being
the
outward
elements
of
the
sacrament
.
As
for
the
inward
grace
of
the
Sacrament
,
which
is
Christ
crucified
with
all
his
merits
,
they
eate
not
,
they
receiue
not
:
because
they
haue
neither
a
liuelie
faith
to
receiue
him
,
nor
a
purified
heart
by
faith
to
intertaine
him
.
And
therefore
they
onelie
eate
as
●udas
did
,
and
as
Augustine
said
:
Tract.
59.
super
Iohn
page
.
205.
Illi
manduca●ant
pa●em
Dominum
,
illi
pa●em
Domini
contra
Dominum
.
The
godlie
eate
bread
the
Lord
:
the
wicked
onelie
the
bread
of
the
Lord
against
the
Lord
.
●
Quest.
What
is
it
to
eate
Christs
bodie
?
Questi
.
8
●
Auns.
You
say
,
carnallie
to
eate
Christs
flesh
with
Aunsw
.
8
your
bodilie
mouth
,
&c.
Luther
saith
,
carnallie
to
eate
Christs
flesh
,
and
spirituallie
to
beleeue
in
him
.
Wee
say
,
with
the
Scriptures
,
that
to
beleeue
that
all
Christs
merits
are
ours
,
and
purchased
for
vs
in
his
passion
.
This
is
to
eat
Christs
bodie
,
as
hath
been
alreadie
prooved
.
Questi
.
9
9
Quest.
What
is
it
to
drinke
Christs
bloud
?
Aunsw
.
9
9
Auns.
You
say
,
carnallie
to
drinke
his
bloud
.
Luther
saith
,
carnallie
and
spirituallie
.
We
say
with
the
scriptures
:
it
is
to
beleeue
that
Christs
bloud
was
shed
on
the
crosse
for
our
sinnes
.
Questi
.
10
10
Quest.
How
is
bread
made
Christs
bodie
?
Aunsw
.
10
10
You
say
,
by
Transubstansiation
.
Luther
saith
,
by
Consubstansiation
.
We
say
,
by
appellation
:
signification
:
or
representation
,
as
aforesaid
.
Questi
.
11
11
Quest.
Where
is
Christs
bodie
?
Aunsw
.
11
11
Auns.
You
say
everie
where
.
Both
of
you
erre
,
for
then
Christ
should
not
haue
a
true
bodie
.
Luther
saith
,
every
where
.
We
say
,
according
to
Scripture
and
Creed
,
onelie
in
heaven
.
Quest.
12
12.
Quest.
How
is
Christ
every
where
?
Aunsw
.
12
12.
Auns
.
You
say
,
according
to
both
natures
.
But
both
of
you
speak
Monkerie
&
P
perie
.
Luther
saith
,
according
to
both
natures
.
But
both
of
you
speak
Monkerie
&
P
perie
.
We
say
with
Scriptures
and
Fathers
,
as
hath
been
proved
;
onely
according
to
his
Godhead
.
Now
gentle
Reader
,
you
see
the
agreement
&
difference
that
is
betwixt
the
Papists
,
Lutherans
,
and
Protestants
.
And
how
impertinentlie
(
I
will
not
say
vnschollerlike
)
this
is
brought
against
vs
,
which
neither
helpeth
their
carnall
presence
,
nor
hurteth
our
faith
touching
Christs
spirituall
presence
.
And
now
to
the
●●st
that
followeth
.
Amongst
factions
of
opinions
,
Catho
.
Priests
.
Magdeburg
.
in
Epist.
ad
Eliz.
Anglia
Reg.
Rider
.
some
latelie
take
away
the
bodie
and
bloud
of
Christ
,
touching
his
reall
presence
.
contrarie
to
the
most
plaine
,
most
evident
,
and
puissant
words
of
Christ
.
GEntlemen
,
this
concerneth
not
vs
:
it
may
fitter
be
inverted
vpon
your selues
,
for
we
denie
not
Christs
spirituall
presence
taught
in
the
Scriptures
,
and
received
in
Christs
Primitiue
Church
;
but
we
denie
your
imagined
carnall
presence
,
never
recorded
in
Gods
booke
,
nor
beleeved
of
auncient
father
,
nor
ever
knowne
to
Christs
spouse
the
Primitiue
Church
:
as
you
haue
heard
trulie
prooved
.
But
this
is
your
great
fault
vsuallie
practised
,
that
whether
in
Scriptures
or
Fathers
you
heare
of
Christs
bodie
and
bloud
,
and
his
presence
,
or
reall
presence
:
you
imagine
presently
without
further
examination
,
that
it
is
your
carnall
presence
,
which
thing
is
growne
vp
with
you
from
a
private
errour
to
a
publike
heresie
.
Tyndall
,
Frith
.
Barnes
,
Cranmer
,
left
it
as
a
thing
indifferent
to
beleeue
the
reall
presence
.
Catho
.
Priests
.
So
that
the
adoration
(
saith
Frith
)
be
taken
away
,
because
there
then
remaineth
no
poison
,
Fox
in
Mar●yrel
.
Kemnitius
in
Exam.
Conc.
●rid
contra
●●n
de
F●
.
ch●ristia
.
whereof
anie
ought
to
be
afraid
of
.
Yet
Kemnitius
vpon
the
assurance
of
the
reall
presence
,
approoveth
the
custome
of
the
Church
,
in
adoring
Christ
in
the
Sacrament
by
the
authoritie
of
Saint
Augustine
,
and
S.
Ambrose
,
in
Psal
98.
Eusebius
Emissenus
,
&c.
Saint
Gregorie
Nazianzen
:
and
saith
it
is
impietie
to
doe
the
contrarie
.
So
that
the
brood
being
of
such
agreement
we
haue
the
lesse
occasion
to
embusie
our
braines
to
confute
them
.
GEntlemen
:
by
peeces
you
repeat
some
of
their
words
,
not
knowing
(
as
it
seemeth
)
the
occasion
;
and
so
you
vtterlie
mistake
the
sence
,
which
was
this
.
These
godlie
Martirs
perceiving
the
flame
of
persecution
to
burne
so
fast
,
and
mount
so
high
,
as
it
was
neither
bounded
in
measure
nor
mercie
:
and
onelie
for
a
new
vpstart
opinion
having
no
warrant
from
Gods
word
.
They
in
a
Christian
&
brotherlie
discretion
,
exhorted
the
learned
bretheren
,
onelie
to
preach
that
necessarie
Article
of
our
free
iustification
by
faith
in
the
personall
merits
of
Christ
.
And
touching
the
Lords
Supper
,
to
teach
to
the
people
the
right
vse
of
the
same
:
yet
not
to
meddle
with
the
manner
of
the
presence
,
for
feare
of
daunger
,
if
not
death
:
but
leaue
it
as
a
thing
indifferent
,
till
the
matter
in
a
time
of
peace
might
be
reasoned
at
large
on
both
parties
by
the
learned
.
Provided
ever
,
that
poisonfull
adoration
be
taken
away
.
The
premisses
considered
,
what
can
yee
now
gather
,
that
prooveth
with
you
,
or
disprooveth
vs
:
Nay
,
heere
is
nothing
but
against
you
altogither
.
For
if
you
had
dealt
trulie
with
the
dead
Martirs
,
or
the
living
Catholickes
,
these
collections
(
and
not
yours
)
you
should
from
hence
haue
gathered
.
1
First
,
these
Martirs
taught
with
their
breath
,
and
sealed
with
their
bloud
,
that
your
carnall
presence
and
transubstansiated
Christ
,
was
neither
commandement
given
by
God
,
nor
Article
of
our
faith
ever
taught
in
the
primitiue
Church
,
but
a
late
invented
opinion
devised
by
man
.
2
Secondlie
,
they
wished
the
bretheren
(
considering
it
was
but
mans
invention
,
and
never
recorded
in
gods
booke
)
that
therefore
they
should
not
hazard
t●●
l●●●
of
their
liues
,
which
would
tend
so
much
to
th●
〈◊〉
of
Christs
Church
.
3
Thirdlie
,
they
wished
it
to
be
taken
for
a
season
as
a
〈…〉
,
yet
not
absolutelie
,
but
with
these
cautions
.
1
First
,
that
adoration
or
worshipping
of
the
creatures
were
quite
taken
away
,
which
never
was
done
by
you
:
and
therefore
they
held
it
not
absolutely
indifferent
.
2
Secondlie
,
till
the
Church
of
Christ
had
peace
and
test
from
your
bloudle
and
butcherly
slaughters
,
wherein
the
matter
might
be
decided
,
not
with
faggots
,
but
scriptures
:
which
was
not
graunted
in
their
daies
:
and
therefore
you
greatlie
wrong
the
dead
,
when
you
make
them
speake
that
thing
absolutelie
,
which
was
limitted
by
them
with
conditions
.
Now
I
appeall
to
the
indifferent
Reader
,
whether
you
deserue
not
a
sharpe
reproofe
,
thus
to
dazell
the
eies
and
amaze
the
minds
of
the
simple
Catholickes
,
by
violent
wresting
the
writings
of
the
martirs
,
perswading
the
ignorant
,
that
they
should
either
dissent
in
this
opinion
amongst
themselues
,
consent
with
you
,
or
varie
from
vs
.
Whereas
both
they
and
we
,
then
and
now
,
consent
with
Scriptures
,
Fathers
,
and
Primitiue
Church
,
in
vnitie
and
veritie
of
doctrine
,
against
your
dissentions
,
pestiferous
errours
,
and
open
blasphemies
.
And
next
,
you
bring
in
another
learned
Protestant
Chemnitius
,
who
(
you
say
)
alleadgeth
Augustine
,
Ambrose
,
and
Gregorie
Nazianzen
,
to
approoue
your
adoration
in
your
sacrament
:
Intimating
to
the
world
,
that
we
should
either
allow
that
in
you
which
publikely
we
preach
against
;
or
else
,
that
we
should
be
at
a
discord
amongst
our selues
touching
this
your
opinion
But
the
matter
being
exactlie
examined
out
of
these
Fathers
themselues
,
and
not
by
your
Enchiridions
or
hearesay
,
the
Catholickes
shall
see
you
wrong
vs
,
and
abuse
them
.
And
first
,
it
seemeth
verie
plaine
,
you
never
saw
or
at
least
never
read
Chemnitius
,
and
my
reasons
bee
these
.
First
,
you
know
not
so
much
as
his
right
name
,
much
lesse
his
precise
opinion
,
for
you
misspel
his
name
,
Ke●●nitius
for
Che●●nitius
,
which
had
been
a
small
fault
if
you
had
rightlie
alleadged
him
touching
the
matter
.
For
your
●ridentiue
Canon
commaundeth
an
externall
or
outward
worship
of
Christ
in
the
Sacrament
vnder
the
formes
of
bread
and
wine
.
And
Chemnitius
hee
condemneth
your
outward
worshippe
for
ydolatrous
,
and
teacheth
onelie
an
inward
spirituall
worship
.
And
to
prooue
what
I
say
,
I
will
trulie
alleadge
your
Canon
:
then
Chemnitius
his
examination
of
it
,
and
then
let
the
Catholickes
but
iudge
indifferentlie
whether
of
vs
deal
more
trulie
and
syncerelie
in
this
case
.
●qum
.
pars
.
2.
canon
.
6.
page
.
434.
This
is
your
Canon
:
Si
quit
dexerit
in
sancto
Eucharistia
sacramento
Christum
vnigenitum
Dei
filium
,
non
esse
cultulatriae
etiam
externo
adorandum
&
solemnitor
circumgestandum
,
&c.
Anathema
sit
:
That
is
,
if
anie
man
shall
say
that
in
the
blessed
sacrament
of
thanksgiving
,
that
Christ
the
onelie
begotten
Sonne
of
God
,
is
not
to
bee
worshipped
with
that
outward
and
divine
worship
which
is
proper
and
due
onelie
to
God
,
as
well
when
the
Sacrament
is
carried
about
in
procession
,
as
in
the
lawfull
vse
of
the
same
,
page
.
435.
436.
437.
let
him
be
accursed
.
Martyn
Chemnius
examining
this
your
Canon
,
first
condemneth
your
fained
Transubstansiation
,
and
sheweth
the
reason
:
for
saith
he
,
vnlesse
the
Church
of
Rome
had
devised
this
Transubstansiation
,
you
should
haue
been
palpable
ydolaters
,
worshipping
the
creatures
for
Christ
.
And
therefore
she
imagined
that
the
substance
of
bread
and
wine
were
quite
chaunged
into
Christs
bodie
&
bloud
,
no
substance
of
them
remaining
,
lest
the
simplest
should
spie
their
ydolatrie
.
Secondlie
,
he
expreslie
condemneth
your
outward
worship
as
ydolatrous
,
page
.
444.
lines
2.
3.
4
and
sheweth
there
that
Christ
must
be
received
by
faith
,
and
worshipped
in
spirit
and
truth
.
And
afterwards
hee
saith
,
comprehenditur
antem
veta
interior
,
&
spiritualis
veneratio
&
adoratio
Christi
i●
il●is
verbis
institutionis
.
hoc
facite
,
&c.
for
the
true
inward
and
spirituall
worship
of
Christ
,
is
comprehended
in
the
words
of
Christs
institution
,
Doe
this
in
rememberance
of
me
.
Now
let
the
best
minded
Catholicks
see
your
vniust
dealing
with
both
quick
and
dead
,
pretending
that
either
Chemnitius
(
as
you
say
)
allowed
your
outward
worship
in
your
Sacrament
,
or
that
wee
●arre
amongst
our selues
touching
the
same
:
which
both
bee
vntrue
.
For
you
hold
the
worship
to
bee
outward
,
hee
and
we
inward
:
you
carnall
,
he
and
we
spirituall
:
and
brieflie
,
if
you
will
yet
read
him
diligentlie
,
you
shall
find
he
vtterlie
condemneth
your
carnall
presence
,
and
your
externall
worship
,
approoving
the
one
to
bee
a
fable
,
the
other
blasphemie
.
And
thus
much
for
your
ignorance
touching
Martyn
Chemnitius
,
whom
it
seemeth
you
never
saw
,
but
onely
tooke
him
by
the
eares
,
as
Water-bearers
do
their
Tankerds
.
Againe
,
you
say
,
that
Chemnitius
vpon
the
assurance
of
the
real
presence
,
approveth
the
custome
of
the
church
in
adoring
Christ
in
the
Sacrament
,
by
the
authoritie
of
Saint
Augustine
:
Ambrose
in
Psal.
98.
by
Euschius
Emissenus
,
&
Saint
Gregorie
Nazianzen
charging
as
manie
as
doe
the
contrarie
with
impietie
:
to
everie
of
which
thus
I
aunswere
.
This
Psal.
according
to
the
Hebrew
is
the
99
Psal.
and
vpon
this
place
S.
Augustine
writ
,
as
I
will
a
leadge
him
of
your
Paris
print
:
his
words
be
these
.
Aug.
in
psa.
98.
Quid.
car●●
Maria
,
carnem
accepit
:
&
quia
in
ipsa
carne
hic
ambalauit
,
&c.
ipsam
carnem
nobis
manducandam
ad
salutem
dedit
:
Nemo
autem
illam
carnem
manducat
nisi
pr●us
adorauerit
:
which
tooke
flesh
of
the
flesh
of
Marie
,
and
because
in
that
flesh
he
walked
here
vpon
the
earth
,
he
gaue
to
vs
that
flesh
to
eat
to
our
salvation
,
for
no
man
eateth
that
flesh
vnlesse
first
he
worship
it
.
Now
let
vs
examine
this
place
,
and
see
how
that
fitteth
your
purpose
.
First
,
the
flesh
of
Christ
that
Augustine
will
haue
worshipped
,
must
be
thus
conditioned
.
1
First
,
it
must
be
borne
of
the
virgin
Marie
:
b●
yours
was
made
of
bread
,
and
therefore
not
that
tr●
flesh
of
Christ
which
Augustine
speaketh
of
,
and
not
to
be
worshipped
without
ydolatrie
.
2
Secondlie
,
that
flesh
of
Christ
which
August
〈◊〉
will
haue
vs
worship
,
walked
visiblie
with
his
Chur●
here
vpon
earth
before
Christs
ascention
.
And
vn●
you
can
approoue
vnto
vs
by
canonicall
warrant
,
s●●
a
Christ
in
your
Sacraments
as
walked
vpon
the
ear●
and
died
on
the
crosse
,
Augustine
will
not
haue
h●
worshipped
:
which
you
shall
never
be
able
to
doe
●●ring
the
world
.
3
Thirdlie
,
that
flesh
of
Christ
which
August●
will
haue
vs
to
worship
,
was
given
to
vs
for
our
s●vation
,
which
I
hope
you
will
say
(
if
you
say
truel●
was
actuallie
,
reallie
,
and
in
deed
vpon
the
crosse
.
A
in
the
Sacrament
misticallie
,
or
by
representation
,
hath
been
prooved
out
of
your
owne
bookes
.
Thus
you
wrest
that
which
Augustine
spake
of
t●
blessed
flesh
of
Christ
,
to
your
fabulous
supposed
fle●
made
by
a
priest
:
whereby
you
wickedlie
abuse
t●
learned
father
,
and
deceiue
the
simple
Reader
.
For
th●
flesh
of
Christ
which
was
conceived
by
the
holie
Gho●
and
borne
of
the
blessed
virgin
,
must
be
eaten
with
t●
spirit
,
&
adored
with
the
spirit
,
as
Augustine
there
spe●keth
:
and
neither
adored
with
your
externall
api●
worship
,
nor
eaten
with
your
corporall
mouth
.
But
speake
according
to
the
Scriptures
and
Fathers
,
the
vrie
eating
of
Christ
,
is
the
true
adoring
or
worshippin●
of
Christ
:
because
as
he
is
eaten
,
so
he
is
adored
,
b●
he
is
eaten
spirituallie
by
faith
:
therefore
he
is
ador●
spirituallie
by
faith
.
For
faith
is
the
chiefest
braun●
of
Gods
honour
.
Your
next
Author
is
Ambrose
vpo●
the
98.
Psal.
which
you
imagine
proveth
your
exte●nall
worship
of
Christ
in
the
Sacrament
.
But
Gentlemen
,
why
deale
you
so
vntrulie
w●
Gods
heritage
,
in
a
matter
of
this
importance
?
did
●rose
ever
write
vpon
this
place
,
I
tell
you
no
,
Am●se
indeed
writ
vpon
the
Psalmes
,
till
the
end
of
the
●entie
one
Psal.
and
there
brake
off
,
and
reconti●ed
at
the
118.
Psal.
but
never
writ
of
the
98.
or
99.
●d
,
as
you
vntrulie
deliver
.
For
Chemnitius
saieth
●s
.
I●a
Ambrosius
,
in
eundem
Psalmi
versum
inquit
.
〈◊〉
speaketh
Ambrose
vpon
the
same
fifth
verse
of
the
●●e
,
adorate
scabellum
,
worship
yee
his
foote
stoole
:
T●m●
.
●
.
lib.
de
spiritu-sancto
cap.
12.
page
.
157.
the
saith
not
that
Ambrose
writ
vpon
that
Psalme
,
but
●on
a
verse
of
the
Psalme
,
and
not
in
that
Tome
,
but
another
,
and
yet
not
of
a
worship
externall
,
as
you
〈◊〉
,
but
of
a
spirituall
worship
,
such
as
Christ
tea●th
in
the
fourth
of
Iohn
.
For
if
you
had
read
Am●se
you
should
haue
heard
him
speak
thus
;
Hoc
in
loco
sprituali
Christs
adoratione
,
&c.
In
this
place
we
will
●eake
onelie
of
the
spirituall
worship
of
Christ
.
So
●mbrose
vtterlie
(
if
you
had
vnderstood
him
rightlie
)
●demneth
your
externall
worship
of
Christ
.
But
be●se
Aug.
writing
vpon
this
Psal.
expoundeth
Ambrose
●s
opinion
vpon
that
one
verse
,
adorate
scabellum
,
wor●●p
yee
his
footstoole
,
&c.
and
both
against
your
ex●nall
worship
,
I
will
only
desire
you
to
read
your
own
●gustine
of
your
owne
print
,
both
thorowlie
&
deli●●ratelie
,
and
then
I
doubt
not
but
you
will
see
your
●rour
,
and
reforme
your
iudgement
.
But
now
let
vs
〈◊〉
how
fitlie
you
alleadge
Eusebius
to
prooue
your
ex●ernall
worship
of
Christ
in
the
sacrament
.
Saint
Hierome
maketh
mention
of
Eusebius
Emesenus
●shop
of
Emesa
in
Syria
,
Hieron
.
de
script●●
Ecclesiast.
in
Eusebio
Emeseu●
Tom
1.
page
.
296.
who
writ
in
Greeke
verie
●amedlie
,
and
lived
about
the
time
of
Constantius
,
a●out
the
yeare
of
our
Lord
342.
and
was
buried
in
●ntioche
:
yet
some
verie
craftilie
haue
stitched
certaine
●atten
Homilies
vpon
this
Greeke
fathers
sleeue
,
and
●orkt
vpon
him
a
straunge
wonder
,
in
making
him
●peake
Latten
at
least
fiue
hundred
yeares
after
his
death
,
that
was
ignorant
of
the
language
during
his
life
.
But
here
I
wil
not
take
vpon
me
to
discusse
whether
this
was
Eusebius
Emesenus
the
Syrian
,
or
Eusebius
Emissenus
that
Canisius
saith
was
a
Frenchman
,
Cauisij
●r●n
in
Anno.
500.
&
hoc
fort●
tempore
charuis
,
and
peradventure
(
&
peradventure
not
)
florished
at
that
time
:
or
whether
it
was
Gratians
Eusebius
.
But
this
is
most
sure
,
that
Gratian
doth
grace
his
Canon
with
his
name
,
but
which
of
them
,
anie
,
or
none
of
them
,
it
shall
neither
helpe
nor
hurt
,
because
wee
wil
examine
the
matter
,
not
the
man
.
The
Canon
is
this
:
Dist.
2.
de
consecr.
canon
quia
corpus
page
.
432.
in
fino
.
&
cum
reverendum
Altarecibis
spiritualibus
ascendis
satiandus
,
sacrum
Dei
tus
corpus
&
sanguinem
fide
respice
,
honora
maxime
,
totum
haustu
interioris
hominis
assume
.
That
is
:
and
when
thou
commest
to
the
reverend
Altar
to
be
fed
with
spirituall
meates
:
looke
vpon
and
consider
with
thy
faith
,
the
bodie
and
bloud
of
thy
God
,
Your
first
decrees
printed
at
Paris
&
your
last
at
Louaine
something
differ
in
words
&
periods
.
honour
it
with
great
reverence
,
and
receiue
the
whole
bodie
with
the
swallow
of
the
inward
man
.
Now
examine
Chemnitius
his
doctrine
and
your
opinion
:
he
brings
in
this
Canon
to
approoue
the
spirituall
eating
or
worship
of
Christ
in
the
Sacrament
.
And
you
alleadge
it
to
make
good
your
external
Tridentine
adoration
of
your
breaden
God
.
Behold
,
everie
word
of
this
your
owne
Canon
is
a
witnesse
against
you
,
for
the
meat
is
spirituall
,
the
man
is
spirituall
,
the
manner
is
spirituall
,
the
sight
is
spirituall
,
and
the
worship
or
honour
is
spirituall
.
Here
is
nothing
corporall
or
outward
,
as
you
say
,
but
all
inward
and
spirituall
,
as
we
teach
.
In
Epitaphio
Gorgonia
sore●is
sua
.
And
so
to
the
next
witnesse
,
which
is
Gregorie
Nazianzen
:
his
words
bee
these
,
Invoca●as
Christum
,
&c.
she
called
vpon
Christ
that
is
worshipped
on
the
Altar
were
the
misteries
are
celebrated
.
I
yray
you
what
can
you
gather
out
of
this
to
prooue
your
externall
worship
of
Christ
in
the
Sacrament
,
with
cap.
thumpe
,
and
knee
.
Gregorie
saieth
,
shee
worshipped
Christ
,
therfore
you
will
conclude
,
it
was
your
breaden
Christ
:
too
hastie
a
conclusion
to
be
true
.
Or
doe
you
thinke
she
worshipped
Christ
as
inclosed
in
those
●isteries
?
Surelie
no
,
for
Gregorie
saith
it
was
in
the
darke
night
shee
approached
to
the
Altar
.
At
which
time
there
was
neither
prieste
standinge
by
the
Altar
,
misteries
vpon
the
Altar
,
nor
he
[
](A10753-e33690-b)(a)
(a)
The
Pixe
was
inuented
by
Innocentius
3
,
1214.
&
Gregorie
Naz.
write
Anno.
567.
Ioh.
4.20
.
Exod.
3.12
.
pixe
hanging
over
the
Altar
,
and
therefore
she
worshipped
Christ
that
was
called
vpon
at
the
Altar
,
in
the
celebration
of
the
misteries
:
not
that
hee
was
inclosed
vnder
the
formes
of
those
misteries
,
no
more
then
the
mountaine
wherein
the
fathers
worshipped
,
was
either
God
substantiallie
,
or
that
God
was
inclosed
in
that
mountaine
vnder
the
formes
and
shapes
of
the
mountaine
.
But
the
mountaine
was
the
place
where
God
was
worshipped
.
And
so
the
Altar
was
the
place
where
Christ
was
called
vppon
and
worshipped
,
not
that
Christ
was
there
locallie
by
a
corporall
descention
,
but
that
he
was
worshipped
there
being
called
vpon
and
served
with
a
spirituall
ascention
.
And
if
you
had
read
Gregorie
Nazianzen
a
litle
after
,
you
should
haue
read
that
Gorgonia
his
sister
,
caried
about
her
still
some
peeces
of
the
figure
of
the
sacred
bodie
and
bloud
of
Christ
,
as
it
was
the
custome
of
that
age
:
and
with
her
repentant
teares
shee
bedewed
the
same
,
not
that
she
externallie
honoured
the
same
.
Here
Gregorie
calleth
the
Sacrament
but
a
figure
of
the
sacred
bodie
and
bloud
of
Christ
,
Esaia
42.
●●
therefore
it
had
been
ydolatrie
to
haue
worshipped
it
.
Yet
notwithstanding
your
missaleadging
and
misvnderstanding
of
the
premisses
,
as
also
your
dissenting
from
Scriptures
,
Fathers
,
and
auncient
Popes
,
&
irreligious
dangerous
●arres
amonge
your selues
,
you
easily
disburden
your
braines
from
further
answere
,
thinking
you
haue
confuted
the
protestants
,
&
satisfied
the
Catholicks
,
and
so
strike
vp
your
victorious
plaudite
in
this
maner
:
So
that
the
br●●d
beeing
of
such
agreement
,
wee
haue
the
lesse
occasion
to
embusie
our
braines
to
confute
them
.
Here
Gentlemen
you
call
vs
a
brood
:
we
will
take
it
in
the
best
sence
,
for
we
confesse
wee
are
Christ
his
brood
,
hatcht
vnder
the
warmth
of
his
mercifull
wings
comming
vnto
him
like
hungrie
chickens
at
the
heavenlie
clocke
and
call
of
his
preaching
ministerie
to
receiue
that
promised
meat
which
indureth
vnto
everlasting
life
.
math.
23.37
.
Ioh.
6.27
.
And
as
for
your
pleasant
Rhetoricall
conceit
expressed
vnder
this
word
agreement
,
it
sheweth
that
in
a
merrie
mood
you
haue
not
forgot
all
your
verball
tropes
and
figures
But
when
you
can
shew
plainlie
wherein
the
Protestants
iarre
amongst
themselues
,
Antiphrasis
.
or
dissent
from
the
Scriptures
and
primitiue
Church
in
matter
of
faith
;
then
bestow
vpon
them
these
biting
figures
.
In
the
mean
time
,
(
your
iarres
amongst
your selues
:
nay
your
revoult
from
scriptures
and
all
primitiue
practise
being
made
now
so
manifest
to
the
Catholicks
)
it
stands
you
vpon
for
the
discharge
of
a
good
conscience
,
to
confesse
and
recant
them
:
for
cure
them
you
cannot
.
And
thus
much
concerning
your
vnfortunate
successe
in
alleadging
some
of
our
chiefe
Protestants
,
Fox
page
.
586
Acts
&
monuments
.
as
you
terme
them
:
And
now
to
that
which
followeth
.
The
sixe
Articles
established
by
act
of
Parliament
,
Anno
1540.
at
the
planting
of
the
Protestants
faith
.
Catho
.
Priests
.
1
That
there
is
the
reall
presence
of
Christs
naturall
bodie
and
bloud
in
the
Sacrament
,
vnder
the
formes
of
bread
and
wine
.
2
That
the
communion
vnder
both
kinds
is
not
necessarie
3
That
Priests
by
the
law
of
God
may
not
marrie
.
4
That
vowes
of
chastitie
ought
to
be
observed
.
5
That
Masses
are
agreable
to
Gods
law
,
and
most
fruitfull
.
6
That
confession
is
necessarie
.
The
foresaid
Parliament
,
and
everie
one
saying
,
publishing
,
preaching
,
teaching
,
disputing
,
or
holding
opinion
against
the
first
of
these
Articles
,
is
adiudged
a
manifest
[
](A10753-e34140-b)(a)
(a)
was
burnt
&
loste
his
Lands
&
goods
as
in
case
of
highe
Treason
.
hereticke
:
and
misbeleevers
in
the
[
](A10753-e34150-b)(b)
(b)
They
but
loste
life
&
goods
as
in
case
of
Felonie
,
which
was
then
a
favour
.
rest
rigorouslie
punished
.
GEntlemen
,
I
expected
that
your
proofes
should
haue
ascended
to
the
first
fiue
hundred
years
after
Christs
ascention
,
&
now
they
descend
so
low
,
that
there
is
small
hope
either
of
your
recall
or
recoverie
.
I
might
iustlie
take
exceptions
against
this
your
Parliament
proofe
,
because
it
is
manie
hundred
yeares
too
young
to
prooue
our
matter
in
question
:
yet
in
respect
it
is
an
Act
done
by
all
the
Nobles
and
learned
of
the
land
,
and
least
the
Catholickes
should
thinke
it
vnaunswerable
,
I
am
content
to
admit
it
,
yet
still
keeping
my
ordinarie
course
,
in
examination
of
the
proofes
by
Scriptures
,
Fathers
,
and
the
auncient
Bishops
and
Church
of
Rome
.
1
The
first
Article
is
sufficientlie
confuted
in
the
Article
1
premisses
alreadie
handled
.
2
The
second
Article
crosseth
Christs
blessed
institution
,
Article
.
2
and
therefore
is
abhominable
.
And
your
Parliament
saith
,
it
is
not
necessarie
to
salvation
to
minister
or
receiue
in
both
kinds
,
as
Christ
and
his
Apostles
did
.
Reuel.
22.19
.
But
you
know
there
is
a
wofull
curse
pronounced
by
Gods
spirit
,
against
such
as
adde
or
detract
to
or
from
Christs
Testament
.
Dist.
2.
de
consec
.
canon
,
Comperimus
fol.
430.
And
your
owne
Pope
Gelasius
saith
flat
sacriledge
to
their
and
your
charge
,
for
this
your
halfe
communion
,
contrarie
to
Christs
institution
,
saying
:
Aut
integra
sacramenta
percipeant
aut
ab
integris
arceantur
,
quia
divisio
vnius
eius
demque
mysterij
sine
grandi
sacrilegio
non
potest
pervenire
Either
let
them
receiue
the
whole
sacraments
,
or
else
let
them
bee
kept
backe
from
the
whole
,
because
the
parting
of
one
and
the
same
misterie
,
cannot
be
done
without
great
sacriledge
.
The
beginning
of
your
Canon
calleth
this
halfe
communion
superstition
,
and
the
later
part
calleth
it
sacriledge
.
Yet
saieth
your
parliament
proofe
,
the
receiving
in
both
kinds
is
not
necessarie
to
salvation
.
Then
I
say
,
if
it
be
not
necessarie
,
why
did
Christ
vse
it
?
if
we
should
not
practise
it
,
why
did
he
command
it
?
Now
if
either
Christs
commaundement
,
Hoc
facite
,
Doe
this
,
or
the
Popes
law
can
prevaile
with
you
,
follow
Christ
his
institution
:
If
you
care
for
neither
Christ
nor
Pope
,
then
the
Catholicks
may
see
that
you
are
Antichrists
and
Antipopes
,
and
denie
Christs
written
trueth
,
&
the
primitiue
practise
of
the
Church
of
Rome
,
and
the
best
that
you
can
make
of
your selues
,
is
not
ancient
Romane
Catholickes
,
but
new
vpstart
Romish
heretickes
.
And
so
to
your
third
Article
.
Article
.
3
3
The
third
,
That
priests
by
the
law
of
God
may
not
marrie
.
I
may
not
here
make
anie
stay
,
onelie
touch
a
point
or
two
and
so
away
.
This
Article
is
contrarie
to
holie
Scriptures
,
auncient
fathers
,
the
practise
of
the
primitiue
Church
,
and
the
Canons
of
the
Popes
.
In
the
old
Testament
the
marriage
of
the
priests
is
recorded
and
commended
.
Ierem.
1.1
.
Exod.
18.
The
holie
Prophet
Jeremie
was
the
sonne
of
a
priest
.
Zapp●ra
was
the
priest
of
Midians
daughter
,
&
married
to
Moses
the
Lords
Maiestrate
.
Luke
.
1.8.9
.
Againe
,
in
the
new
Testament
John
Baptist
was
the
sonne
of
Zaoharie
a
priest
.
And
the
Scriptures
touching
marriage
giue
rules
without
exception
or
limittation
.
To
avoide
fornication
,
1.
Cor.
7.2
.
let
everie
man
haue
his
wife
,
and
everie
woman
her
husband
.
And
to
the
Hebrews
hee
saith
,
Marriage
is
honourable
amongst
all
men
,
and
the
bad
vndefiled
,
but
wheremongers
and
adulterers
God
will
iudge
.
Heb.
13.4
And
the
same
Apostle
pointeth
out
to
all
posterities
,
that
the
Authors
and
vpholders
of
this
Article
bee
liers
and
hippocrits
,
1
Tim.
●
1.2.3
.
and
the
forbidding
of
●●●es
and
marriage
,
to
bee
the
doctrine
of
Divels
.
And
this
is
onelie
proper
to
the
Church
and
Chap●●●
of
Rome
,
as
now
they
stand
in
the
view
of
God
,
Angles
,
and
men
.
Did
not
Tertullian
write
two
bookes
to
his
wife
,
Tertull.
page
42●
.
&
427.
in
the
first
hee
gaue
direction
vnto
her
toching
his
goods
and
possessions
,
if
hee
should
die
.
In
the
second
booke
,
directeth
her
in
her
Widdowhood
,
either
to
liue
solelie
serving
the
Lord
,
or
else
to
marrie
in
the
Lord
.
But
in
no
case
to
marrie
(
as
some
did
,
for
honour
or
ambition
)
with
the
Gentils
.
Who
I
praie
you
ever
checkt
or
controlled
him
for
so
doing
?
Ignatius
the
Martyr
commendeth
the
Apostles
and
other
ministers
,
Qui
operam
dederunt
nuptijs
,
Ad
philodelph●●se●
Epist
5.
page
.
34.
Dist
56.
Canon
Cenomanensius
fol.
67.
Col.
4.
&
68.
col.
1.
who
ever
blamed
him
for
it
?
Nay
,
your
owne
Popes
and
Canons
condemneth
you
and
your
parliament
proofe
.
For
thus
they
record
to
your
disgrace
:
Cum
ergo
&
sacerd●tibus
nati
du
summos
pontific●●
supra
legantur
esse
promoti
,
non
sunt
intelligendi
de
fornication●
,
sed
de
legitimit
coniugijs
nati
,
&c.
When
therefore
wee
read
that
priests
sonnes
bee
promoted
to
the
Popedome
,
you
must
not
thinke
that
they
be
bastards
,
borne
in
fornication
,
but
sonnes
borne
in
lawfull
marriage
:
which
marriage
was
lawfull
for
priests
,
before
the
late
prohibition
,
and
this
day
is
lawefull
still
in
the
East
Church
.
Heere
your
owne
Popes
record
that
priests
were
married
,
and
that
their
marriage
was
lawfull
,
and
that
Popes
haue
beene
priestes
sonnes
bone
in
law
full
marriage
.
And
that
there
was
a
prohibition
to
the
contrarie
,
made
by
man
.
But
no
scripture
or
warrant
from
God
.
Againe
,
there
hee
two
other
Canons
of
the
Popes
,
that
will
batter
downe
your
papered
rampiers
of
humane
constitution
:
Dist.
28.
siquis
fol.
3●
.
the
first
beginneth
thus
,
Si
quis
doeuerit
sacerdotem
sub
obtentu
religionis
propriam
v●orem
contemnere
,
Anathema
sit
:
If
anie
man
teach
that
a
Priest
may
contemne
his
wife
vnder
colour
of
religion
,
let
him
be
accursed
.
And
the
second
canon
immediatlie
followeth
,
which
doth
second
this
.
Si
quis
discernit
presbyter●●
coniugatum
tanquam
occasione
nuptiarum
,
quod
offere
non
debet
,
&
ab
eius
oblatione
ideo
abstinet
,
Anathema
sit
.
If
anie
man
iudge
that
a
married
Priest
ought
not
to
offer
,
(
or
to
do
his
office
)
by
reason
of
his
marriage
,
and
therefore
abstaine
from
his
oblation
,
let
him
be
accursed
.
dist.
31
Ni
cae●a
sy●oaus
fol.
34
Paphnutius
also
beeing
but
one
man
,
confounded
a
whole
Synode
of
your
Bishops
&
learned
men
,
as
your
Popes
Records
witnesse
,
and
by
Scriptures
inforced
them
to
subscribe
that
Priests
marriage
was
lawfull
.
Heere
you
see
magna
est
veritas
&
pravalet
.
Esdras
.
1.
cap.
4.41
.
Ror●●
in
vita
Mala
chiae
fol.
2.
col.
4.
about
the
yeares
of
our
Lord
1130.
Trueth
is
great
(
though
in
one
against
manie
)
and
prevaileth
.
And
to
come
neere
home
vnto
you
with
domesticall
presidents
:
were
not
eight
learned
men
,
all
of
them
immediat
Archbishops
of
Armachan
in
this
land
,
and
all
of
them
married
?
who
vtterlie
refused
this
tyrannicall
and
dyabolicall
Romish
yoke
of
forced
single
life
.
Nay
in
those
daies
the
Nobilitie
and
Gentilitie
of
that
Province
defended
that
true
religion
with
their
swordes
against
the
Pope
,
and
they
refused
to
receiue
Orders
,
Bishoprickes
,
or
Decrees
from
Rome
.
Wherevppon
you
may
see
that
Bernard
then
in
the
Popes
quarrell
,
calleth
the
Nobilitie
and
Gentility
of
that
Province
generationem
malam
&
adulteram
,
a
wicked
and
adulterous
generation
,
and
saith
it
was
Diabolica
ambitio
potentum
,
8.
Immediat
Lo.
Archbishops
.
of
Armach●
.
maried
.
a
divelish
ambition
of
the
Peeres
and
mightie
men
.
And
execranda
succestio
,
a
cursed
succession
,
that
eight
Bishops
successiuelie
all
married
(
yet
they
all
learned
,
and
preached
the
Gospell
and
ministred
the
sacraments
)
and
yet
neither
they
,
the
Nobilitie
,
nor
Gentilitie
,
cared
two
pence
for
the
Popes
blessing
or
curssing
.
O
quantum
mutantur
ab
illio
?
O
Lord
,
how
farre
is
the
Nobilitie
and
Gentilitie
of
Vlster
,
and
that
province
,
nay
the
most
part
of
the
kingdome
chaunged
from
that
olde
Apostolicall
religion
,
and
become
slaues
and
ideots
in
superstitious
service
to
that
late
Italian
priest
the
Pope
,
Gods
enemie
and
the
Queens
butcher
.
Marke
this
ye
Noblemen
&
Gentlemen
of
Ireland
Imitate
your
Auncesto●●
in
true
honour
.
Then
they
drew
their
swords
against
the
Pope
to
defend
the
trueth
:
now
too
manie
of
late
drew
their
swordes
for
the
Pope
against
the
truth
.
The
Lord
open
their
eies
to
see
the
truth
,
and
giue
them
hearts
to
renounce
this
new
heresie
,
&
cleaue
to
the
Apostolical
Romane
veritie
.
Then
will
all
of
them
be
as
readie
to
fight
the
Lords
battell
against
the
Pope
,
as
many
of
late
fought
the
Queenes
battell
most
honorably
against
the
Spaniard
.
And
that
golden
mouthed
father
Chrisost.
vpon
this
place
of
Paul
.
Chrysost.
hom.
2.
vpon
first
of
●itu●
.
That
a
Bishop
must
be
the
husband
of
one
wife
,
asked
this
question
,
what
mooved
Paul
thus
to
write
to
Timothie
?
he
aunswereth
himselfe
saying
,
obstruere
pra●sus
i●●endit
hareticorum
ora
qui
nuptias
damnant
,
ostenden●
,
&c.
The
Apostle
intendeth
to
stoppe
the
mouthes
of
all
hereticks
that
condemneth
marriage
,
shewing
that
the
thing
in
it selfe
is
faultlesse
,
and
a
thing
so
precious
,
vt
cum
ipsa
etiam
possit
quisptam
ad
sanctum
Episcopatus
solium
subvehi
:
that
a
man
beeing
married
,
may
bee
promoted
to
the
holie
function
of
a
Bishoppe
.
And
your
Pope
Gregorie
saieth
plainlie
,
writing
ad
Theotistam
Patricium
,
that
if
marriage
must
be
dissolved
because
of
religion
:
Sciendum
est
enquit
,
yet
saith
he
,
you
must
vnderstand
,
quia
etsi
hoc
lex
humana
concessit
.
lex
tamen
divina
prohibuit
,
that
if
mans
law
graunt
that
,
yet
Gods
law
forbiddeth
it
.
Now
yee
see
Scriptures
,
Fathers
,
popes
,
practise
of
the
primitiue
Church
,
and
presidents
of
godlie
Bishops
and
priests
witnesse
with
vs
against
you
,
that
the
marriage
of
priests
is
lawfull
and
honorable
and
your
parliament
stuffe
vnlawfull
and
horrible
:
the
one
hath
the
warrant
from
Christ
,
the
other
is
the
doctrine
of
Divels
,
from
which
recall
your selues
,
your
confederates
and
novices
,
least
in
abstaining
from
lawfull
matrimonie
,
yee
fall
into
damnable
adulterie
:
which
the
Lord
prevent
for
Christs
sake
.
And
thus
much
for
the
first
three
Articles
.
Article
4
4
That
vowes
of
chastitie
ought
to
be
observed
.
Article
.
5
5
That
masses
are
agreable
to
Gods
law
.
Article
.
6
6
That
confession
is
fruitfull
.
These
three
Articles
are
as
repugnant
to
Christes
truth
,
as
the
rest
.
The
fift
Article
(
Christ
willing
)
in
my
next
Treatise
shall
be
handled
,
the
fourth
and
sixth
Article
,
as
you
hereafter
giue
occasion
.
Now
let
the
Catholicks
consider
how
vnmercifullie
and
vnmeasurablie
,
the
bloudie
Bishop
of
that
Italian
murthering
Priest
shed
the
innocent
bloud
of
so
manie
Saints
,
because
they
would
not
say
and
subscribe
that
these
sixe
Articles
(
beeing
in
deed
hereticall
)
were
Apostolicali
and
Catholicke
.
Was
this
the
planting
of
the
Protestantes
faith
?
no
,
this
parliament
was
established
for
no
other
end
,
but
to
supplant
them
.
And
therefore
these
sixe
Articles
were
fitlie
termed
the
whip
with
sixe
strings
,
whip
with
sixe
strings
wherwith
your
forefathers
whipt
to
death
these
innocent
lambes
(
for
neither
conspiracie
nor
treason
)
but
onelie
for
the
word
of
God
,
and
for
the
testimonie
which
they
maintained
.
But
they
cease
not
to
crie
still
for
vengeance
against
those
murtherers
,
saying
:
How
long
Lord
holie
and
true
,
doest
not
then
iudge
&
avenge
our
bloud
on
them
that
dwell
on
the
earth
?
Reuel.
6.9.10
.
But
thankes
be
to
God
,
those
chanels
of
innocent
bloud
shed
then
in
England
by
the
Popes
direction
,
haue
quite
for
ever
banish
out
of
England
the
Pope
&
his
superstition
.
And
as
the
mother
that
would
before
Salomon
haue
the
childe
divided
,
was
not
the
true
mother
,
so
the
Church
of
Rome
that
delighteth
so
much
in
bloud
,
1.
Kings
.
3.17
.
&c.
cannot
be
the
true
Church
.
Time
will
not
permit
to
write
the
damnable
fruit
that
this
filthie
Munkish
chastitie
yeeldeth
:
but
of
that
when
opportunitie
is
offered
:
yet
stil
nothing
but
what
your
own
friends
record
.
The
fourth
proofe
.
Deniers
of
the
reall
presence
condemned
as
heretickes
.
Catho
.
Priests
.
Ignatius
ad
Smyrnenses
,
and
Theodores
dialog.
3.
circu
medium
,
do
make
mention
of
certaine
deniers
of
the
reall
presence
:
but
so
,
as
they
had
none
to
accord
vnto
them
.
Also
Iconomachi
(
as
may
appeare
out
of
the
7
Councell
)
did
affirme
that
the
Sacrament
was
but
an
image
of
Christ
:
and
they
also
had
no
followers
:
onelie
E●rengarius
in
the
time
of
Leo
the
ninth
,
about
fiue
hundred
yeares
past
,
who
thricae
recanted
such
opinion
as
erronious
,
mantained
the
onelie
spirituall
presence
.
And
hee
in
three
Councels
was
condemned
,
in
Conc.
Turon
.
sub
Victor
.
2.
in
Conc.
Rom.
sub
Nich.
2.
in
Concit
.
Rom.
sub
Gregorie
none
.
The
Councell
of
Trent
remaineth
for
the
rest
that
haue
insued
.
GEntlemen
,
Rider
.
you
should
haue
brought
Theodoret
before
Ignatius
,
because
Theodoret
onelie
reporteth
some
such
thing
out
of
Ignatius
(
but
Ignatius
himselfe
hath
not
one
word
of
it
)
and
it
seemeh
still
you
never
read
Theodoret
,
because
you
say
circa
medium
,
not
knowing
in
which
of
the
three
and
thirtie
chapters
it
was
.
To
be
briefe
,
that
which
you
thinke
maketh
for
you
,
is
in
the
ninteenth
chapter
,
which
is
but
a
sacramentall
Metonymie
,
as
the
rest
of
the
fathers
vse
:
&
you
would
wrest
it
to
your
litterall
and
proper
sence
;
which
is
still
your
error
spoken
of
&
confuted
before
.
But
read
Theodoret
dialog.
1.
cap.
8.
&
he
will
expound
himself
&
confute
you
.
And
for
Ignat.
I
haue
read
his
twelue
Epistles
vppon
this
occasion
twice
over
,
and
from
his
first
Epistle
ad
Mariam
Cassoboliten
to
his
last
ad
Romanes
,
there
is
no
such
thing
in
that
reverend
Archbishop
and
Martyr
,
but
the
contrarie
:
which
maketh
me
to
wonder
with
what
conscience
you
can
belie
so
godlie
a
Martyr
,
and
abuse
the
Catholicks
your
loving
friends
.
And
as
for
your
Iconomachi
,
they
are
verie
impertinentlie
brought
in
this
place
,
your
title
of
Images
were
more
proper
for
them
.
Yet
that
you
may
see
they
fit
not
this
purpose
,
I
referre
you
for
satisfaction
to
the
Popes
owne
Synode
and
Decree
,
beginning
at
Cum
diem
extremum
impiorum
Arabum
Tyrannus
quem
Soliman
nominabant
,
Ex
Synode
2.
Act
5.
pag.
549.
claufisset
,
&c.
and
after
followeth
the
Popes
decree
.
Petrus
deuotissimus
presbyter
,
&c.
Read
this
Act
and
Decree
,
and
they
will
giue
you
satisfaction
of
your
impertinent
allegations
:
and
if
the
Pope
cannot
content
his
Chaplens
,
then
you
are
malecontents
indeed
.
Berengarius
.
Lastlie
,
you
bring
in
poore
Berengarius
vppon
the
stage
,
to
beare
his
faggot
and
recant
his
error
,
of
the
spirituall
presence
of
Christ
in
the
Sacrament
,
which
we
haue
sufficiently
proved
before
to
be
(
by
scriptures
,
fathers
,
and
Popes
,
)
the
true
presence
.
And
now
you
bring
in
silie
Berengarius
his
recantation
,
to
bee
our
confutation
.
I
pray
you
let
me
aske
you
but
one
question
:
can
a
reason
drawne
from
a
perticular
conclude
generallie
.
If
it
should
,
I
would
reason
thus
with
you
:
Bonner
,
Standish
,
with
others
,
preached
stoutlie
against
the
Popes
supremacie
in
king
Edward
his
daies
:
therefore
the
Popes
Supremacie
is
not
lawfull
.
Would
you
admit
this
kinde
of
reasoning
,
These
Iurers
be
too
young
to
giue
evidence
,
and
too
partial
to
be
trusted
with
the
triall
of
this
Issue
.
I
thinke
no
:
no
more
doe
we
the
other
.
For
shall
one
mans
weaknesse
,
inconstancie
,
and
fall
from
the
trueth
,
conclude
generallie
against
the
trueth
;
God
forbid
.
But
you
will
obiect
and
say
,
it
is
not
one
man
but
three
severall
Synods
.
But
I
pray
you
remember
that
subornation
of
witnesses
,
and
packing
of
Iuries
done
in
Westminster
Hall
,
is
most
severelie
punished
in
that
most
honorable
Starre-chamber
:
and
shall
not
the
Pope
and
his
followers
be
called
to
an
account
one
day
before
the
great
iudge
Iesus
,
for
the
suborning
of
witnesses
and
packing
of
corrupt
Iuries
to
deface
Christes
trueth
,
and
to
maintaine
their
owne
forgeries
?
The
Catholickes
demand
a
proofe
out
of
Scriptures
and
fathers
for
the
prooving
of
your
Romane
opinion
touching
Christs
reall
and
corporall
presence
in
the
Sacrament
,
and
you
bring
in
the
Popes
Stipendarie
Chaplens
gathered
by
the
Popes
summons
to
vphold
the
Popes
rotten
declining
kingdome
,
and
everie
one
of
them
at
least
1100.
years
after
Christs
ascention
,
and
one
of
them
within
this
sixtie
yeares
to
prooue
a
thing
done
a
thousand
years
before
.
Now
I
giue
Irelands
Catholicks
this
friendlie
caveat
,
not
to
cleaue
to
the
Popes
Romish
religion
,
but
to
Paules
Romane
religion
:
&
not
to
rest
contented
with
the
name
of
Catholicks
,
vntill
they
haue
the
doctrine
that
is
Apostolicall
and
Catholicke
.
And
now
to
your
fift
proofe
,
being
your
last
refuge
and
least
helpe
.
The
fift
proofe
.
Catho
.
Priests
.
Of
manie
miraculous
testimonies
of
the
reall
presence
.
GEntlemen
,
you
know
in
Schooles
,
an
fit
,
Rider
.
is
ever
before
quid
sit
:
In
architecture
the
foundation
is
before
the
building
.
In
Christs
divinity
,
mans
philosophie
,
and
common
sence
,
the
cause
is
ever
before
the
effect
.
But
you
,
contrarie
to
divinitie
,
reason
,
and
philosophie
,
will
haue
a
thing
to
worke
wonders
supra
naturam
,
aboue
nature
,
which
is
not
in
rerum
natura
,
neither
hath
anie
beeing
at
all
:
for
you
would
make
the
simple
people
beleeue
,
that
your
transubstantiated
Christ
worketh
miracles
,
and
yet
you
haue
not
,
nay
you
cannot
prooue
anie
such
a
Christ
,
and
if
there
were
such
a
Christ
,
hee
is
none
of
ours
:
for
hee
was
never
borne
of
the
blessed
virgin
,
nor
shed
one
drop
of
bloud
for
our
sinnes
,
&
therefore
we
renounce
him
as
none
of
our
Saviour
.
It
is
straunge
to
see
the
difference
of
the
old
Church
of
Rome
,
and
this
last
giddiepated
Church
of
Rome
.
The
last
Church
of
Rome
,
Pars
2.
decret●
aurei
cans
.
1.
Q.
1
page
119
.
●enaemus
fraires
.
thinketh
that
Church
to
be
no
true
Church
,
vnlesse
she
worke
miracles
:
but
I
pray
you
heare
olde
Romes
censure
of
new
Romes
opinion
,
Praeter
vnitatem
&
qui
facit
miracula
[
](A10753-e36000-b)(a)
(a)
Glossa
Ibid
:
nihil
ad
vitam
aeternam
,
nihil
est
:
in
vnitate
fuit
populus
Israel
,
&
non
faciebat
miracula
:
praeter
vnitatem
erant
magi
Pharaonis
&
faciebant
similia
Moysi
:
He
that
worketh
miracles
without
the
vnitie
of
the
Church
doth
nothing
:
the
Israelits
were
in
the
vnitie
of
the
Church
,
and
did
no
miracles
:
the
Magicians
of
Pharao
were
out
of
the
Church
,
&
yet
did
like
things
to
Moyses
.
Therefore
true
miracles
such
as
Moyses
wrought
,
may
be
done
by
such
as
are
not
members
of
the
true
Church
,
and
so
consequentlie
miracles
by
olde
Romes
confession
,
prooue
neither
anie
such
wherein
they
are
workt
,
to
be
the
true
Church
,
nor
the
workers
true
members
of
the
same
.
And
then
it
followeth
:
Petrus
Apostolus
,
&c.
Peter
the
Apostle
wrought
miracles
,
and
so
did
Simon
Magus
manie
things
:
yet
there
were
manie
Christians
that
coulde
not
worke
miracles
,
as
Peter
did
,
or
as
Simon
did
,
and
notwithstanding
reioyced
that
their
names
were
written
in
heaven
.
The
olde
Church
of
Roome
taught
vs
to
be
assured
of
our
saluation
in
this
life
.
Now
for
the
Catholickes
good
,
let
vs
examine
the
faith
of
old
Rome
.
The
children
of
Israell
wrought
no
miracles
yet
the
true
Church
:
Pharao
his
Inchaunt
is
workt
miracles
,
yet
were
the
false
church
.
And
that
manie
of
Christs
flocke
that
neither
workt
miracles
as
Peter
did
:
yet
they
reioice
for
that
they
were
assured
that
their
names
are
written
in
the
booke
of
life
.
And
thus
much
for
your
owne
Pope
against
your
owne
miracles
.
And
doth
not
your
owne
Doctor
Lyra
tell
you
plainlie
,
that
,
The
new
Church
of
Roome
to
doubt
of
our
saluation
in
this
life
.
&
similiter
fit
aliquando
in
ecclesia
manima
deceptio
populi
in
miraculis
[
](A10753-e36170-b)(b)
(b)
fictis
.
factis
a
sacerdotibus
vel
eis
ad
haerentibus
propter
lucrum
temporale
,
&c.
and
so
in
like
manner
it
commeth
to
passe
,
that
sometimes
in
the
Church
the
people
are
often
most
shamefullie
cousoned
with
fained
and
false
miracles
devised
by
the
priests
or
their
followers
,
even
for
a
temporall
gaine
:
[
](A10753-e36190-b)(a)
(a)
Vpon
Dan.
cap.
14.
page
222.
but
Lyra
printed
ut
Venice
hath
.
which
shamefull
shifts
of
cousoning
and
covetous
priests
.
Lyra
wisheth
to
be
severelie
punished
by
the
chiefe
Prelats
,
and
to
expell
it
and
them
out
of
the
Church
.
And
your
owne
[
](A10753-e36240-b)(c)
(c)
Alex.
de
hales
part.
4.
quast.
53.
member
4.
Irrefragabilis
Doctour
(
for
that
is
one
of
his
titles
)
recordeth
more
speciall
iugling
then
this
,
saying
.
In
sacramento
apparet
caro
,
interdum
humana
procuratione
,
interdum
operatione
diabolica
.
In
your
very
Sacrament
of
the
Altar
,
there
appeareth
flesh
,
sometimes
workt
by
the
nimble
conveiance
of
man
,
sometimes
by
the
working
of
the
divell
:
so
that
if
there
bee
anie
flesh
in
the
Sacrament
of
the
Altar
,
whether
visible
or
invisible
,
it
is
either
wrought
through
the
priests
legerdemaine
,
or
the
divels
cunning
and
craft
.
Now
Gentlemen
,
you
haue
brought
your
miracles
to
a
faire
market
,
I
trust
after
a
while
the
discreet
Catholicks
will
not
giue
you
a
halfepennie
for
a
hundred
of
them
.
Tharasius
the
President
of
that
ydolatrous
Councell
demaunded
of
all
the
learned
in
that
Synode
,
Nycen
.
si●
1.
Act.
●
why
their
images
then
did
not
worke
miracles
.
Aunswere
was
made
out
of
Gods
booke
,
that
miracula
non
credentibus
data
sunt
:
Miracles
are
onelie
given
to
the
vnbeleevers
.
If
you
bee
too
busie
with
your
fained
miracles
,
we
will
make
a
whole
superstitious
Synode
yet
to
brand
your
Church
and
her
children
in
the
forehead
for
vnbeleefe
.
Crysost
.
Hom.
4●
.
in
math.
And
that
reverend
Chrysostome
saith
,
per
signa
cognoscebatur
qui
essent
veri
christiani
,
qui
falsi
:
Nunc
autom
signerum
operatio
omnino
levata
est
:
magis
autem
invenitur
apud
eos
qui
falsi
sunt
christiani
.
In
old
time
it
was
knowne
by
miracles
,
who
were
the
true
Christians
,
and
who
were
the
false
.
But
now
the
working
of
miracles
is
taken
away
altogither
,
and
is
rather
found
amongst
those
that
bee
false
disguised
Christians
.
Note
but
two
things
out
of
Chrysostome
:
First
,
miracles
are
now
quite
taken
away
:
Next
,
onely
they
remaine
with
false
Christians
in
the
false
Church
:
so
if
your
Church
will
haue
miracles
,
by
Chrisostomes
censure
she
is
a
false
Church
,
and
all
in
that
Church
be
false
Christians
.
But
if
your
miracles
were
true
,
as
all
Gods
and
Christs
miracles
are
,
then
the
change
must
be
as
well
of
the
formes
as
of
the
substances
.
When
Moses
rod
was
turned
into
a
serpent
,
Exod.
4.3
.
it
was
a
serpent
in
deed
,
Tho.
2.9.10
.
These
prooue
your
miracles
to
be
false
and
no
likenesse
of
a
rod
remaining
.
And
so
when
Christ
turned
water
into
wine
,
there
was
neither
colour
nor
taste
of
water
remaining
,
&
so
in
all
true
miracles
.
But
you
would
haue
in
your
Sacrament
,
a
change
of
the
substance
of
bread
,
yet
the
accidents
,
as
whitenesse
,
roundnesse
,
thinnesse
,
taste
,
and
relish
,
notwithstanding
remaining
,
which
is
impossible
,
and
not
onelie
contrarie
to
the
word
of
God
,
but
also
to
the
faith
of
those
primitiue
fathers
.
And
Augustine
vrgeth
this
matter
verie
Evangelicallie
,
August
.
de
civitate
dei
lib.
22.
cap.
8.
liue
.
3.
4.
saying
:
Quisquis
ad
huc
prodigia
,
vt
credat
inquirit
,
magnum
est
ipsum
prodigi●●●
,
qui
mundo
credenta
non
credit
.
Whosoever
hee
bee
that
yet
requireth
wonders
and
miracles
,
to
bring
him
to
beleeue
the
truth
,
is
himselfe
a
wonderfull
miracle
,
that
the
world
beleeving
,
yet
hee
remaineth
still
in
vnbeleefe
.
And
Augustine
else
where
telleth
you
flatlie
,
August
.
de
Trinitate
lib.
3.
cap.
10.
that
in
the
Sacrament
of
the
Lords
Supper
there
is
no
miracle
:
read
him
and
follow
him
.
And
this
is
not
to
passe
vntoucht
,
that
as
your
miracles
are
false
in
themselues
,
so
they
are
invented
and
done
to
a
most
wicked
end
,
which
is
to
confirme
your
false
doctrine
of
reall
presence
,
Purgatorie
,
praying
to
Images
,
and
the
like
trash
,
which
are
clean
contrarie
to
Christs
miracles
:
for
their
end
was
twofold
:
the
first
,
to
confirme
our
faith
in
Christs
divinitie
:
and
the
other
,
to
assure
our
soules
of
salvation
through
his
name
.
Ioh.
20.30
31.
These
things
are
written
,
that
yee
might
beleeue
that
Iesus
is
that
Christ
the
Sonne
of
God
,
and
that
in
beleeving
yee
might
haue
life
through
his
name
.
Eusebius
recounteth
,
Catho
.
Priests
.
lib.
5.
cap.
1.
that
in
the
persecution
vnder
Severe
,
that
it
was
a
great
accusation
against
Christians
,
that
they
did
eate
mans
flesh
,
because
they
beleeved
that
they
did
receiue
the
bodie
of
Christ
.
GEntlemen
,
Rider
,
in
that
booke
are
fiue
and
twentie
chapters
,
and
not
one
word
of
this
matter
in
anie
of
those
:
and
againe
,
you
mistake
the
time
,
for
Severus
then
governed
not
.
If
it
were
vnder
Severus
,
it
should
then
be
in
the
sixth
booke
,
where
you
shal
finde
fortie
fiue
chapters
,
yet
there
also
is
not
one
word
of
this
.
Yet
if
you
marke
this
that
you
bring
against
vs
,
if
it
were
to
be
found
in
Eusebius
,
it
maketh
nothing
against
vs
:
for
though
the
Pagans
were
as
grosse
in
the
matter
of
the
Sacrament
,
as
Nicodemus
was
in
the
matter
of
regeneration
,
it
is
neither
miracle
nor
wonder
,
but
a
thing
too
common
now
and
then
.
And
for
true
Christians
to
eate
Christes
flesh
spirituallie
by
faith
,
is
or
ought
to
be
no
miracle
in
the
Church
,
but
the
practise
of
the
Church
.
But
if
you
had
read
Eusebius
your selfe
diligentlie
,
you
should
haue
found
that
in
the
fifth
booke
and
seventh
chapter
,
hee
would
haue
tolde
you
that
then
miracles
ceast
,
&
were
not
in
Gods
Church
:
and
he
produceth
old
Father
Jraneus
for
confirmation
of
the
same
.
Ex
lib.
2.
Iranes
.
cap
58.
You
bring
in
Eusebius
to
maintaine
miracles
,
and
Eusebius
himselfe
denieth
them
.
This
is
your
olde
fashion
,
to
inforce
the
fathers
to
speake
not
what
they
would
,
but
what
you
please
:
but
read
that
place
well
,
and
remember
that
Eusebius
records
that
Church
wherein
miracles
are
wrought
,
not
to
be
Gods
church
:
and
so
by
his
opinion
your
Church
of
Rome
must
bee
planted
in
the
suburbs
of
Babylon
,
not
(
in
Civitate
Dei
)
within
the
gates
of
Sion
.
Catho
.
Priests
.
Amphil.
&
Guitmundus
in
vita
Basilij
.
A
Iew
present
at
masse
,
which
Saint
Basill
did
celebrate
,
was
converted
by
seeing
a
childe
devided
in
the
blessed
Sacrament
.
I
Finde
in
Basill
pag.
171.
that
he
writ
thirtie
chapters
ad
sanctum
Amphilochìum
Iconij
Episcopum
,
but
your
Munkish
Amphilochius
I
never
saw
,
Rider
.
neither
doe
I
care
,
because
he
is
a
forger
of
false
miracles
,
and
thus
I
prooue
it
.
The
fabler
saith
,
the
Iew
saw
a
childe
devided
in
the
sacrament
:
that
could
not
be
Christ
,
for
hee
was
a
perfect
man
before
his
passion
.
And
if
it
were
anie
besides
Christ
,
or
if
it
had
been
anie
in
Christ
his
likenesse
,
it
must
be
done
as
your
owne
Authour
said
a
little
before
,
either
by
mans
sleight
,
or
the
divels
illusion
.
A
lier
hath
need
of
a
good
memorie
.
But
to
be
briefe
and
yet
plaine
,
this
must
needes
be
a
verie
shamefull
lie
:
For
how
could
Basill
that
lived
about
the
yeare
of
our
Lord
367.
say
your
masse
,
that
was
in
hatching
vp
and
patching
togither
at
least
foure
hundred
or
fiue
hundred
yeares
after
his
death
?
as
shall
(
God
willing
)
bee
prooved
vnto
you
out
of
your
owne
bookes
,
Tom.
6.
Biblioth.
patrum
in
lib
Guitmundi
Archi●
.
de
veritate
Euch.
li.
2.
pag.
405
in
my
next
Treatise
of
the
masse
:
and
so
you
feed
the
Catholickes
with
these
lying
legends
,
instead
of
holie
scriptures
.
(a)
As
for
Guitmundus
,
he
hath
neither
one
word
of
Saint
Basils
life
,
nor
of
your
miracle
,
yet
hee
hath
some
other
thing
as
foolish
and
as
vntrue
,
or
else
he
had
not
been
made
Archbishop
for
his
paines
,
wherein
he
greatlie
serviced
the
Pope
.
Cath.
Pri.
Amb.
oratio
.
1.
de
obit.
Satyri
.
Ambrose
speaketh
of
a
happie
preservation
of
one
from
drowning
,
for
devotion
towards
the
same
.
IN
deed
Ambrose
Tom.
5.
pag.
720.
Rider
.
writeth
a
treatise
of
the
death
of
his
brother
Satyrus
,
wherein
he
sheweth
the
great
mercie
of
God
alwaies
towards
his
Church
and
children
in
preserving
them
from
daunger
:
and
amongst
the
rest
,
hee
bringeth
in
an
example
of
a
great
number
of
passengers
that
in
a
storme
suffered
shipwracke
,
amongst
whom
there
was
one
seeing
the
daunger
,
desired
of
some
fellow
passenger
,
So
simple
people
foolishlie
cary
about
them
halli●
bread
,
Crosses
,
Crucifixses
,
aguus
dies
,
&
such
tras●
to
giue
him
some
part
of
the
misticall
bread
(
for
in
those
daies
it
was
a
superstitious
custome
wickedlie
tollerated
,
to
carrie
some
part
of
the
sacramentall
bread
about
them
)
which
peece
of
bread
when
hee
had
inclosed
fast
in
his
garment
,
he
leapt
over
boord
and
did
swimme
safe
a
shore
.
This
now
is
your
wonderfull
miracle
,
out
of
which
let
vs
see
what
may
be
gathered
.
The
best
note
(
saith
a
learned
writer
)
is
,
that
he
was
a
good
swimmer
.
But
to
overthrow
your
miracle
,
I
will
alleadge
Ambrose
his
owne
words
in
that
place
:
First
,
he
calleth
it
but
onlie
fidei
auxilium
,
a
helpe
of
his
faith
.
And
if
hee
had
thought
it
had
beene
Christ
,
as
you
vntrulie
teach
,
hee
would
haue
called
it
the
Authour
and
finisher
of
his
faith
,
and
therefore
he
tooke
your
Oste
not
to
bee
his
maker
,
as
you
teach
,
nor
his
present
preserver
,
but
a
strengthening
of
his
faith
.
And
that
you
may
see
it
is
true
which
I
say
,
afterwards
he
calleth
it
Divinum
fidelium
sacramentum
,
the
divine
Sacrament
of
the
faithfull
.
And
therefore
he
thought
not
as
you
doe
,
that
Christ
was
locallie
in
the
sacrament
.
And
againe
,
there
was
no
miracle
in
this
,
because
other
passengers
that
had
not
such
misticall
bread
,
escaped
safe
to
shore
as
well
as
he
:
for
if
the
having
of
that
Host
preserved
him
,
the
lacke
of
the
Host
should
haue
drowned
the
rest
.
If
your
hoste
cannot
doe
the
lesser
much
lesse
the
greater
.
And
it
is
verie
straunge
that
the
Catholicks
being
so
wise
men
in
all
other
matters
,
should
be
so
sotted
in
this
,
as
to
thinke
that
a
Wafercake
consecrated
by
a
Priest
or
Pope
,
should
preserue
a
man
from
drowning
in
water
,
when
it
cannot
preserue
anie
good
fellow
from
being
drunke
with
wine
.
But
to
the
rest
as
they
follow
.
Catho
.
Priests
.
lib
8.
cap.
5.
Sozomen
recounteth
how
a
woman
not
beleeving
that
Christ
had
transformed
bread
into
his
bodie
,
was
in
danger
by
transformation
of
bread
into
a
stone
.
Rider
.
SOme
such
thing
there
is
,
but
you
misse
Sozomens
words
,
sentences
,
and
purpose
,
and
applie
it
still
to
your
Host
.
The
priest
told
Sozomen
,
that
in
giving
the
Sacramentall
bread
to
a
woman
,
shee
tooke
it
in
her
hand
,
and
privilie
gaue
it
her
maide
behinde
her
:
which
the
maid
no
sooner
toucht
with
her
tooth
,
but
it
turned
into
a
stone
,
&
the
print
of
the
tooth
is
this
day
to
be
seen
in
Constantinople
.
Beleeue
it
that
l●st
.
I
pray
you
Gentlemen
,
is
this
your
Oste
Christs
bodie
?
if
it
be
as
you
teach
,
(
but
f●e
,
it
is
a
false
lie
)
them
were
Christs
bodie
turned
into
a
stone
,
&
to
be
seen
at
Constantinople
vnder
the
forms
of
a
stone
,
as
wel
as
at
Rome
vnder
the
formes
of
bread
.
O
hellish
divinitie
:
Acts.
13.10
.
but
I
say
vnto
you
Priests
,
&
Iesuits
,
as
Paul
said
to
that
false
Arch-Iesuit
Bariesus
:
O
full
of
all
subtiltie
and
mischiefe
,
children
of
the
divell
,
and
enemies
of
all
righteousnesse
,
will
yee
not
cease
yet
to
pervert
the
straight
waies
of
the
Lord
,
but
still
like
Elimas
seeke
to
turne
Christs
flocke
from
Christs
faith
?
Catho
.
Priests
.
Crantzius
lib
5
cap
9
And
a
certaine
Duke
of
Saxonie
vpon
alike
occasion
did
become
a
christian
.
ALbertus
Krantzius
Hamburg
:
(
you
misspell
his
name
)
writes
chronica
Regnorum
,
Rider
,
Da●ia
,
Suetia
,
&
Noruagiae
,
I
haue
read
diligentlie
the
ninth
chapter
of
everie
fifth
booke
of
these
three
histories
,
and
there
is
no
such
thing
in
anie
of
them
:
therfore
you
are
to
blame
still
to
abuse
learned
men
to
bee
the
Authours
of
these
fables
:
and
the
Catholickes
most
of
all
,
to
beleeue
these
fables
.
Optatus
reporteth
a
grievonus
punishment
of
abusere
of
a
sacred
Host
.
Catho
.
Priests
.
Optatus
lib.
2.
contra
Donatist
.
OPtatus
in
deed
speaketh
of
two
professed
Donatists
,
Vrbanus
Formensis
and
Faelix
Iduconeis
,
who
comming
into
the
countrie
of
Maurit●nia
,
and
entring
the
Churches
at
the
time
of
the
celebration
of
the
holie
communion
,
Rider
.
commanded
(
Eucharistiam
)
the
Eucharist
to
be
given
to
their
dogs
,
but
the
dogges
growing
mad
presentlie
,
set
vppon
their
owne
maisters
,
and
rent
their
flesh
with
their
teeth
.
A
iust
iudgement
of
God
for
their
vile
attempt
of
so
holy
misteries
.
But
how
dare
you
say
that
this
was
your
consecrated
Host
▪
Optatus
saith
it
was
(
Eucharistia
)
the
Eucharist
,
that
is
to
say
,
the
whole
misteries
of
thanksgiving
(
and
not
a
part
)
which
was
cast
vnto
dogges
:
but
Optatus
saith
not
that
Christ
was
locallie
inclosed
in
that
bread
.
And
you
stil
continue
your
wonted
course
,
that
wheresoever
you
finde
this
word
Ecclesiam
,
it
is
your
Church
:
and
where
you
finde
this
word
Eucharistiam
,
that
is
your
consecrated
Oste
.
But
a
losse
,
you
deceaue
the
Catholickes
,
for
you
haue
neither
the
true
Church
(
because
yee
lacke
the
sincere
preaching
of
Gods
word
,
and
the
lawfull
vse
of
his
two
sacraments
,
which
be
the
two
vnfallible
markes
of
Christs
Church
)
nor
yet
haue
you
Christs
sacraments
as
hee
left
to
his
Church
;
but
as
they
are
disguised
and
prophaned
by
the
late
Church
of
Rome
,
which
doth
as
far
differ
from
the
primitiue
practise
of
the
auncient
Church
of
Rome
,
as
Christs
institution
differs
from
mans
invention
.
Read
Gregorie
Nazianzen
in
his
funerall
sermon
of
father
,
Catho
.
Priests
.
mother
,
and
sister
,
and
you
shall
finde
miraculous
demonstrations
of
the
reall
being
of
Christ
.
Rider
.
YOu
still
abuse
the
eares
of
the
simple
:
Gregorie
hath
no
such
matter
as
you
speake
of
,
wrought
by
your
charmed
Hoste
:
If
you
mean
the
spiritual
reall
being
of
Christ
in
your
sacrament
,
This
Gregorie
was
dead
500.
yeares
before
your
corporall
presence
was
knowne
.
that
is
none
of
yours
:
and
if
you
mean
of
your
corporall
presence
of
Christ
,
alasse
,
Gregorie
never
knew
it
.
But
Gentlemen
,
you
are
to
blame
to
vrge
these
fables
to
prooue
a
matter
of
faith
you
haue
alleadged
nothing
that
will
weaken
your
cause
more
then
this
.
But
if
you
wil
haue
the
world
to
beleeue
your
miracles
,
you
must
giue
over
these
iugling
trickes
,
and
shewe
vs
what
sicke
man
by
your
Hoste
you
haue
made
sound
:
out
of
whom
you
haue
cast
divels
:
what
Serpents
you
haue
touched
(
as
Paul
did
)
and
yet
were
not
stung
:
Acts.
28.5
which
of
you
haue
drunke
drinke
deadlie
poisoned
,
and
were
not
killed
:
which
of
you
speake
with
new
tongues
,
that
were
never
by
time
nor
Tutors
taught
?
Marke
.
vnlesse
you
can
doe
these
miracles
,
the
Catholicks
must
esteem
you
no
better
then
iuglers
:
And
yet
by
your
leaue
,
if
you
could
doe
all
these
and
more
to
,
Galath.
1.9
.
vnlesse
your
doctrine
be
answerable
to
Christ
his
trueth
,
the
Apostle
will
account
you
accursed
:
and
we
must
not
beleeve
you
.
Catho
.
Priests
.
I
trust
this
will
suffi●●
for
averring
the
consent
of
the
Catholickes
,
with
the
fathers
of
the
primitiue
Church
which
is
the
first
Article
we
were
provoked
to
prooue
.
Rider
,
I
Know
you
are
vtterlie
deceived
,
and
I
trust
,
this
wil
suffice
the
godlie
learned
and
indifferent
Reader
,
that
you
&
your
late
Romish
Catholicks
quite
dissent
from
Christs
truth
&
old
Romes
religion
:
&
therfore
remember
from
whence
yee
are
fallen
,
and
returne
to
the
auncient
〈◊〉
(
while
God
giues
you
time
)
which
God
graunt
,
&c.
FINIS
.