BOOK IV. 66 66 66 2 "But yet the earth is not to be worshipped of us, because it is a creature of God. And yet let us see though, lest the prophet mean that earth to be worshipped, which our Lord Jesus took "in the taking of flesh. So then by the footstool let the earth be understanded, and then by the earth the flesh of Christ, which "we do now worship also in the mysteries, and which the Apo- 1 stles, as we have before said, worshipped in our Lord Jesu, for Christ is not divided, but one." Hitherto St. Ambrose, whereby may appear how St. Ambrose and St. Augustine took occasion to open their faith and doctrine touching adoration, upon discussion of the selfsame words of the prophet David. And St. Ambrose expressly noteth our adoration in the mysteries, where we worship Christ's flesh invisibly present, as the Apostles did, when Christ was visibly present with them. And thus with these so plain words of St. Ambrose consonant to those of St. Augustine, and the opening of St. Augustine's words as before, I trust I have made manifest how this author travaileth against the stream, and laboureth in vain to writhe St. Augustine to his purpose in this matter. The best is in this author, that he handleth St. Augustine no worse than the rest, but all after one sort, because they be all of like sort against his new catholic faith, and confirm the old true catholic faith, or do not improve it. For of this high mystery, the authors write some more obscurely and darkly than other, and use diversities of speeches and words, wherewith the true doctrine hath been of a very few impugned; but ever in vain, as I trust in God this shall be most in vain, having this author uttered such untruths with so much blind ignorance, as this work well weighed and considered, that is to say, who made it, when he made it, and of like how many were, or might have been, and should have been of counsel in so great a matter, who if they were any, be all reproved in this one work: all such circumstances considered, this book may do as much good to relieve such perplexity, as altercation hath engendered, and so do as good service to the truth, as was meant thereby to hinder and impair it. And this shall suffice for an answer to this fourth book. Canterbury. Here appeareth your sincerity in proceeding in this matter. For you leave out those words of St. Ambrose, which 1 maketh his meaning plain, that the Prophet spake of the I 2 66 66 say IV. mystery of Christ's incarnation. "Si negant quia in Christo BOOK "etiam incarnationis adoranda mysteria sunt," &c. "If they "deny," saith he, "that the mysteries of the incarnation in "Christ be to be honoured," &c. And a little after “ Qua ra❝tione ad incarnationis Dominicæ sacramentum spectare vi"deatur, quod ait Propheta, Adorate scabellum pedum ejus, "consideremus." "Let us consider, by what means this "ing of the prophet, worship his footstool, may be seen to "pertain to the sacrament of Christ's incarnation." And after the words by you rehearsed, followeth by and by, "Cum "igitur incarnationis adorandum sit sacramentum," &c. Seeing then that the sacrament of the incarnation is to be "honoured." In these words showeth St. Ambrose plainly, that the worshipping of Christ's flesh is understand of the mystery of his incarnation; so that St. Ambrose meant, not only that men should worship Christ when they receive the sacrament, but that all creatures at all times should worship him. And therefore he expresseth there by name, how the Matth. angels did worship him, and also Mary Magdalene and the Apostles after his resurrection, when they received not the sacrament. And so did also the shepherds and the wise men Luke ii. worship him, yet being in his infancy; and the Prophet, after the mind of St. Augustine and St. Ambrose, commanded to honour him before his incarnation, and we likewise honour him sitting now in heaven after his ascension. For so far is faith able to reach, without either tentering or stretching. Thus have I answered to all that you have brought against my fourth book, not obscurely (as you, like a cuttle, have done, hiding yourself in your dark colours) but plainly to the capacity of all men, as much as I can. And this have I done with some pain of writing, but little or no study for the matter, being a very easy thing for defence of the truth to answer by God's word and ancient authors to an ignorant lawyer, being well exercised in neither of both, but making such divinity as he can dream in his sleep, or devise of his own brain, or hath sucked out of the papistical laws and decrees, and for lack of arguments, furnishing up his xxviii. Matth. ii. IV. BOOK book with pretty toys, with glorious boasting and scornful taunting, and with picking out of my book such sentences as he persuadeth himself that he can make some colour of apparent answer, to deceive the reader: and such places as he seeth his rhetoric will not serve, he passeth them away slightly, because he is afraid to file his hands therewith. Wherefore I may now right well and justly conclude here mine answer to his Confutation with the words of my fourth book, which be these. [See vol. ii. p. 445, 446. "But our"" his blood."] THUS ENDETH THE FOURTH BOOK. The Confutation of the Second Book. BOOK II. HAVING declared how much against all truth this author would bear in hand, that the real presence, the corporal presence, and substantial presence of Christ's most precious body and blood in the sacrament, is not the true catholic doctrine, but a device of 1 the papists, which is a term wherewith this author doth uncharitably charge the King's true subjects, among whom he knoweth a great many to be of that faith he calleth now papists': but setting words apart, and to come to the matter, as I have showed this 2 author to err partly by wilfulness, partly by ignorance, in the understanding of the old authors, concerning the true real presence of Christ's body and blood in the sacrament, so I trust to show this author overseen in the article of transubstantiation. For entry whereunto, first I say this, that albeit the word "transubstan"tiation" was first spoken of by public authority in that assembly of learned men of Christendom, in a Generale Council, where the Bishop of Rome was present, yet the true matter signified by that word was older, and believed before upon the true understanding of Christ's words, and was in that Council confessed, not for the 3 authority of the Bishop of Rome, but for the authority of truth, being the article such as toucheth not the authority of the Bishop of Rome, but the true doctrine of Christ's mysteries; and therefore in this realm (the authority of Rome ceasing) was also confessed for a truth by all the clergy of this realm in an open Council spe4 cially discussed: and though the hardness of the lawf that by Parliament was established of that and other articles hath been repealed, yet that doctrine was never hitherto by any public Coun- Repealed. cil or any thing set forth by authority impaired, that I have heard; wherefore methinketh this author should not improve it by the [The fourth General Lateran Council held under Innocent III. A. D. 1215.] f[The Act of the Six Articles, which was passed in 1539, after a strenuous opposition from Cranmer.] BOOK 66 : name of the Bishop of Rome, seeing we read how truth was uttered by Balaam and Caiphas also; and St. Paul teacheth the Philippenses, that whether it be by contention or envy, so Christ be preached, the person should not impair the opening of truth, if it be truth which Luther indeed would not allow for truth, impugning the article of transubstantiation, not meaning thereby, as this author doth, to impair the truth of the very presence of Christ's most precious body in the sacrament of the altar, as is afore said; in the discussion of which truth of transubstantiation, I for my 5 part should be specially defended by two means wherewith to avoid Zuinglius. the envious name of papist. One is, that Zuinglius himself, who was no papist, as is well known, nor good Christian man, as some said, neither, saith plainly writing to Luther in the matter of the sacrament: "It must needs be true, that if the body of Christ be really in the sacrament, there is of necessity transubstantiation 'also." Wherefore seeing by Luther's travail, who favoured not the 7 Bishop of Rome neither, and also by evidence of the truth most certain and manifest it appeareth, that, according to the true catholic faith, Christ is really present in the sacrament, it is now by Zuinglius' judgment a necessary consequence of that truth to say there is transubstantiation also, which shall be one meau of purgation, that I defend not transubstantiation as depending of the Bishop of Rome's determination, which was not his absolutely, but of a necessity of the truth, howsoever it liketh Duns or Gabriel to write in it, whose sayings this author useth for his pleasure. Another defence is, that this author himself saith that it is over 6 great an absurdity to say, that bread insensible, with many other terms that he addeth, should be the body of Christ; and therefore I think that the "is," that is to say, the inward nature and essence of that Christ delivered in his supper to be eaten and drunken, was of his body and blood, and not of the bread and wine, and therefore can well agree with this author, that the bread of wheat is not the body of Christ, nor the body of Christ made of it as of a matter; which considerations will enforce him that believeth the truth of the presence of the substance of Christ's body, as the true catholic faith teacheth, to assent to transubstantiation, not as determined by the Church of Rome, but as a consequent of truth believed in the mystery of the sacrament; which transubstantiation how this author would impugn, I will without quarrel of envious words consider, and, with true opening of his |