A19571:98
A Defence of the True and Catholic Doctrine of the Sacrament
A defence of the true and catholic doctrine of the sacrament of the body and blood of our saviour Christ with a confutation of sundry errors concerning the same, grounded and stablished upon God's holy word, [and] approved by the consent of the most ancient doctors of the Church. Made by the most reverend father in God Thomas Archbishop of Canterbury, primate of all England and Metropolitan.A defence of the true and catholike doctrine of the sacrament of the body and bloud of our sauiour Christ with a confutacion of sundry errors concernyng the same, grounded and stablished vpon Goddes holy woorde, [and] approued by ye consent of the moste auncient doctors of the Churche. Made by the moste reuerende father in God Thomas Archebyshop of Canterbury, primate of all Englande and Metropolitane.
Imprinted at London : In Poules churcheyarde, at the sign of the Brazen serpent, by Reginald Wolfe. Cum privilegio ad imprimendum solum, Anno Domini. M.D.L. 1550Imprinted at London : In Poules churcheyarde, at the signe of the Brasen serpent, by Reginald Wolfe. Cum priuilegio ad imprimendum solum, Anno Domini. M.D.L. 1550
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
Howe could Christ have expressed more plainly, that bread & wine remain, than by taking the bread in his hands, and breaking it him self, and giving it unto his disciples, commanding them to eat it? And by taking the cup of wine in his hands, and delivering it unto them, commanding them to divide it among them, & to drink it, & calling it the fruit of the vine? These words of Christ be so plain, that if an Angel of heaven would tell us the contrary, he ought not to be believed. And than much less may we believe the subtle lying of the Papists.
Howe could Christ haue expressed more plainly, that bread & wyne remayne, than by takyng the breade in his handes, and breakyng it him selfe, and geuyng it vnto his disciples, comaundyng them to eate it? And by takyng the cuppe of wyne in his handes, and deliueryng it vnto them, commaundyng them to deuide it among them, & to drynke it, & callyng it the fruit of the vyne? These wordes of Christ be so playn, that if an Angel of heauē would tel vs the contrary, he ought not to be beleued. And than much lesse may we beleue the subtyl liyng of the Papistes.
If Christ would have had us to believe (as a necessary article of our faith) that there remaineth neither bread nor wine, would he have spoken after this sort, using all such terms and circumstances as should make us believe, that still there remaineth bread & wine? What manner of teacher make they of Christ, that say, he meant one thing, when his words be clean contrary? What christian heart can patiently suffer this contumely of Christ?
If Christ would haue had vs to beleue (as a necessary article of our fayth) that there remayneth neither bread nor wyne, would he haue spoken after this sorte, vsyng all suche termes and circumstaunces as should make vs beleue, that styl there remayneth bread & wyne? What maner of teacher make thei of Christ, that say, he ment one thyng, when his wordes be cleane contrary? What christian heart can paciently suffre this contumely of Christ?