Thus endeth the Fourth Book.
[[ Statuimus ut in cunctis ecclesiis chrisma et [? Sacerdos vero frequenter doceat plebem suam,]
[eucharistia sub fideli custodia clavibus adhibitis ut cum in celebratione missarum elevatur hostia]
[conserventur. Decret. Concil. Lateran. 1v. cap. xx. salutaris, se reverenter inclinet, idem faciens cum]
[anno 1215. Labbei Conc. Tom. XXII. p. 1007.] eam defert presbyter ad infirmum. Decretal. Lib.]
[i? Should, 1551, and Orig. ed.] { nr. Tit. xli.] [^ Worshipping, edit. 1580.] —]
Confutation of the Second Book
j pan ΤᾺ [WiNCHESTER. ]
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 mot the true catholic doctrine, but a device of the papists, which is a term wherewith this author doth wncharitably charge the king’s true subjects, among whom he knoweth a great many to be of that faith he calleth now papish: but setting words apart and to come to the matter, as I have shewed this 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 shew this author overseen in the article of transubstantiation. For entry whereunto, first I say this, that albeit the word transubstantiation was first spoken of by public authority in that assembly of learned men of Christendom in a general council, where the bishop of Rome was present, yet the true matter signified by that word was older amd believed before upon the true understanding of Christ’s words, and was in that council confessed, not for the 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 mystery, 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”, specially discussed; and though the hardness of the law that by parliament was established of that and other articles hath been repelled, yet that doctrine was never hitherto by any public council, or any thing set forth by authority, impaired, that I have heard: wherefore methinketh this author should mot improve it by the name of the bishop of Rome, seeing we read how truth was uttered by Balaam and Caiaphas also: and St Paul teacheth the Philippians, 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 aforesaid, im the discussion of which truth of tramsubstamtiation I for my part should be special defended by two means, wherewith to avoid the envious name of papist. One is, that Zwinglius 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 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 thé sacrament, it is now by Zuinglius judgment a necessary consequence of that truth to say there is transubstantiation also; which shall be one mean of purgation, that I defend not transubstantiation as depending of the bishop of Rome’s determination, which was mot his absolutely, but of a mecessity of the truth, howsoever it liketh Duns or Gabriel8 to write in it, whose sayings this author wseth for his pleasure. Another defence is, that this author himself saith “that it is over 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 ᾿ς Qf 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 transubStamtiation, 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 handling the matter, doubt not to make the reader to see that he fighteth against the truth. TI will pass over the unreverent handling of Christ’s words, This is my body,” which words
[s [ The fourth General Council of Lateran, A.D. [7 This was held in 1539, at which Cranmer vehe-]
[1215] ARM ” TUR: mently opposed the passing of the Six Articles. ]]
[00 [Σ Innocentius 1E] [ Duns Scotus or Gabriel Biel.]
I heard this author (if he be the same that is named) once rehearse more seriously in a solemn and open audience, to the conviction and condemnation, as followed, of one that erroneously maintained against the sacrament the same that this author calleth now the catholic faith.