The sacra ment. [Ibid.] Nor I have not spoken it for fear of punishment, and to avoid the same, thinking it rather an occasion to aggravate than to diminish my trouble; but I have spoken it for my most bounden duty to the crown, liberties, laws, and customs of this realm of England, but most specially to discharge my conscience in uttering the truth to God's glory, casting away all fear by the comfort which I have in Christ, who saith; Fear not them that kill the body, and cannot kill the soul, but fear him that can cast both body and soul into hell fire. He that for fear to lose this life will forsake the truth, shall lose the everlasting life: and he that for the truth's sake will spend his life, shall find everlasting life. And Christ promiseth to stand fast with them before his Father, which will stand fast with Him here. Which comfort is so great, that whosoever hath his eyes fixed upon Christ, cannot greatly pass on this life, knowing that he may be sure to have Christ stand by him in the presence of his Father in heaven. And as touching the sacrament, I said; forasmuch as the whole matter standeth in the understanding of these words of Christ: This is my body, This is my blood; I said that Christ in these words made demonstration of the bread and wine, and spake figuratively, calling bread his body and wine his blood, because he ordained them to be sacraments of his body and blood. And where the papists say in those two points contrary unto me, that Christ called not bread his body, but a substance uncertain, nor spake figuratively herein I said I would be judged by the old Church, and which doctrine could be proved the elder, that I would stand unto. And forasmuch as I have alleged in my book many old authors, both Greeks and Latins, which above a thousand years after Christ continually taught as I do; if they could bring forth but one old author, that saith in these two points as they say, I offered six or seven years ago, and do offer yet still, that I will give place unto them t. : But when I bring forth any author that saith in most t [See Defence, &c. (vol. ii. p. 376.)] plain terms as I do, yet saith the other party, that the authors meant not so; as who should say, that the authors spake one thing, and meant clean contrary. And upon the other part, when they cannot find any one author that saith in words as they say; yet say they, that the authors meant as they say. Now, whether I or they speak more to the purpose herein, I refer me to the judgment of all indifferent hearers: yea, the old Church of Rome, above a thousand years together, neither believed nor used the sacrament as the Church of Rome hath done of late years. For in the beginning the Church of Rome taught a pure and a sound doctrine of the sacrament. But after that the Church of Rome fell into a new doctrine of transubstantiation; with the doctrine they changed the use of the sacrament, contrary to that Christ commanded, and the old Church of Rome used above a thousand years. And yet to deface the old, they say that the new is the old; wherein for my part I am content to stand to the trial. But their doctrine is so fond and uncomfortable, that I marvel that any man would allow it, if he knew what it is. But howsoever they bear the people in hand, that which they write in their books hath neither truth nor comfort. make [Ibid.] For by their doctrine ", of one body of Christ is made two The papists bodies; one natural, having distance of members, with form Christ two and proportion of man's perfect body, and this body is in bodies. heaven; but the body of Christ in the sacrament, by their own doctrine, must needs be a monstrous body, having neither distance of members, nor form, fashion, or proportion of a man's natural body. And such a body is in the sacrament, teach they, and goeth into the mouth with the form of bread, and entereth no farther than the form of bread goeth, nor tarrieth no longer than the form of bread is by natural heat in digesting. So that when the form of bread is digested, that body of Christ is gone. And forasmuch as evil men be as long in digesting as good men, the body of Christ, by their doctrine, entereth as far, and tarrieth as long in wicked men as in godly men. And what " [See Disputation at Oxford, with Harpsfield, (vol. iv. p. 79.)] The sound true doc trine of the comfort can be herein to any Christian man, to receive Christ's unshapen body, and it to enter no farther than the stomach, and to depart by and by as soon as the bread is consumed? It seemeth to me a more sound and comfortable doctrine, that Christ hath but one body, and that hath form and sacrament. fashion of a man's true body; which body spiritually entereth [Ibid.] into the whole man, body and soul: and though the sacrament be consumed, yet whole Christ remaineth, and feedeth the receiver unto eternal life, (if he continue in godliness,) and never departeth until the receiver forsake him. And as for the wicked, they have not Christ within them at all, who cannot be where Belial is. And this is my faith, and (as me seemeth) a sound doctrine, according to God's word, and sufficient for a Christian to believe in that matter. And if it can be showed unto me that the Pope's authority is not prejudicial to the things before mentioned, or that my doctrine in the sacrament is erroneous, which I think cannot be showed, then I never was nor will be so perverse to stand wilfully in mine own opinion, but I shall with all humility submit myself unto the Pope, not only to kiss his feet, but another part also. The Bishop Another cause why I refused to take the Bishop of Gloucester for my judge, was the respect of his own person being more than once perjured. First, for that he being divers times sworn never to consent that the Bishop of Rome should have any jurisdiction within this realm, but to take the King and his successors for supreme heads of this realm, as by God's laws they be: contrary to that lawful oath, the said Bishop sat then in judgment by authority from Rome: wherein he was perjured and not worthy to sit as a judge. The second perjury was, that he took his bishopric both of the Queen's Majesty and of the Pope, making to each of them a solemn oath which oaths be so contrary, that the The Bishop one must needs be perjured. And furthermore in swearing ter a traitor to the Pope to maintain his laws, decrees, constitutions, and an ene- ordinances, reservations, and provisions, he declareth him of Glouces realm. self an enemy to the imperial crown, and to the laws and my to the state of this realm: whereby he declared himself not worthy to sit as a judge within this realm. And for these considerations I refused to take him for my judge. [Sept. 1555.] X CCC. TO QUEEN MARY. Letters to the Queen, Coverdale's tyrs, p. 15. Contradic oaths, I learned by Doctor Martin, that at the day of Certain your Majesty's coronation you took an oath of obedience to the Pope of Rome, and the same time you took another &c. oath to this realm, to maintain the laws, liberties, and customs of the same. And if your Majesty did make an the Maroath to the Pope, I think it was according to the other Foxe, Acts, oaths which he useth to minister to princes; which is to be &c. vol. iii. obedient to him, to defend his person, to maintain his aup. 676. thority, honour, laws, lands, and privileges. And if it be so, tion in the (which I know not but by report) then I beseech your Queen's Majesty to look upon your oath made to the Crown and sworn both realm, and to expend and weigh the two oaths together, to see how they do agree, and then to do as your Grace's con- to the Pope in one day. science shall give you: for I am surely persuaded that willingly your Majesty will not offend, nor do against your conscience for no thing. But I fear me that there be contradictions in your oaths, and that those which should have informed your Grace throughly, did not their duties therein. And if your Majesty ponder the two oaths diligently, I think you shall perceive you were deceived; and then your Highness may use the matter as God shall put in your heart. Furthermore, I am kept here from company of learned men, from books, from counsel, from pen and ink, saving at this time to write unto your Majesty, which all were necessary for a man being in my case. Wherefore I be * [This is manifestly, as Foxe calls it, only "a piece of another letter "to the Queen ;" but no more is contained in any of the authorities referred to. See Letter CCXCVIII. note (k).] to the realm and [Foxe.] seech your Majesty, that I may have such of these as may stand with your Majesty's pleasure. And as for mine appearance at Romey, if your Majesty will give me leave, I will appear there. And I trust that God shall put in my mouth to defend his truth there as well as here. But I refer it wholly to your Majesty's pleasure. [Sept. 1555.] Your poor orator, T. C. Cover dale's Let Martyrs, p. 19. Foxe, Acts, CCCI. To A LAWYER. Naturæ lex hoc ab omnibus postulat, ut quatenus citra ters of the divini numinis injuriam fieri potest, quisque vitam tueatur suam. Quod cum tribus abhinc diebus mihi in mentem venisset, simulque memoriæ occurrisset appellatio Martini Lutheri a Leone Decimo ad Concilium Generale, constitui et ipse Concilium Generale legitimum et liberum appellare, ne temere et inconsulto vitam proderem meam. Verum cum appellationis materia ad legisperitos spectet, cujus ego ignarus sum, cumque Lutheri appellatio ad manum mihi non sit: decrevi amico alicui fido et jurisperito, consilium meum hac P. 1492. y [See Letter ccxcix. p. 369.] 2 z" These and other of Cranmer's smart and learned letters no "question made impression upon the Queen, or at least upon those "that read them; for they were delivered by the Queen to no less a person than the holy father Cardinal Pole himself; who was ad"vised to frame an answer to them." Strype, Cranmer, p. 381; in the Appendix to which work, No. 89, the answer, dated St. James's, 6 Nov. 1555, will be found at length. "By comparing of this letter of Pole's "with that of Cranmer's, any one may see a mighty difference; "strength, evidence, and conviction in the Archbishop's, who had "truth on his side; but a flashiness and debility in the Cardinal's, "made up of poor shifts, and weak arguings, and impertinent allega"tions of Scripture, and personal reflections, to help out a weak cause." Strype, ibid. For instance, the Cardinal admitted Cranmer's doctrine on the Eucharist to be the more probable; but,' he answered, 'the more probable it is, the more false it is, the great sophister and 'father of lies ever deceiving us by probability of reason.' "The consequence whereof," Strype remarks," one would think should be, "the more improbable any opinion in religion was, the more true.' It seems that Pole at the same time sent him another letter, in which he treated the question of the Eucharist more largely. See Strype, ibid. and App. p. 216.] 6 |