commemoration of hym be offered vp mixt with wyne By which wordes he plainelye declareth his intent and purpose which was that for the tradition of mengling water and wyne in the chalice we should not folow any other order then that which Christ hymself fyrst vsed Therefor if you meane by your maior proposition that which S. Cypriane meaneth the plaine sense thereof is this that as concernyng the offering of wyne alone or water alone we should folow Christ his tradition only which apointeth for the chalice both water and wyne But then your argument will be very ridiculous as in example We ought to do that only which Christ did and nothing els as concerning the ordering and tempering of the chalice But in Christ his institution appeareth neither sole receiuing nor ministring vnder one kynd Therefor you may inferr wheÌ„ you will that if all abbeis were destroied we should haue fortie egges for a penie The maior of this argument is S. Cyprians and much staied vpoÌ„ in his epistle ad Cecilium The minor is your owne The conclusion ys lawfull and currant For to suche agreeable and proper premisses euerie conclusion will serue will inowgh But now if you will haue your maior to be generall first I flattly denie it then I haue declared that it ys not extant in S. Cypriane and thirdly I answer vnto you that you do not beleeue your owne maior because that in your communion no water is put in to the chalice Now as concerning your minor I graunt it vnto you that in the last supper of Christ there appeareth no sole receyuing I allso confesse that S. Iustine and S. Denyse the Areopagâ—te whom you alleage do well proue that in their daies there were coÌ„municants to receiue with the priest But as I must tell you againe our question is not of what was done but of what might haue ben done then and now ys done withowt offence of God and breach of Christ his coÌ„maundement I answer Christs institution the example of the Apostles the common vse of the fathers was otherwaies therefore the priest should not communicate without other I denye your argument for their vsages and doinges are not lawes vnto the church so as they may not be altered And by this reason you may bring vs to receiue after supper because of the institutioÌ„ of Christ example of the Apostles and coÌ„mon vse of the primitiue church As we againe myght bryng yow to take the sacrament in one kind because of the authoritie of Christ and example of the primitiue church But you seeme to yeld that you haue no expresse commaundement to bryng furthe agaynst vs and yet that notwithstanding you will haue vs to be ouercummed And to this purpose you saye You haue no expresse coÌ„maundement which forbeadeth you to baptyse in the name of the father only but that Christ his institution was otherwyse What was the institution of Christ therein was it not that his Apostles should baptise in the name of the Father the Soun and the Holighost Yet the Apostles did baptise in the name of IESVS only without mention made of the Father or the holighost Yf thei did breake Christ his institutioÌ„ thei were not faithful Apostles and yet thei do not seeme to keepe it when thei do not baptise in the name of the three persons What then shall we saie Truly that you vnderstand not the institution of Christ and that the church is the staie of all the Catholikes which doth interprete vnto them Christ his full mynd and order And lyke as it is answered by autentike and good authoritie that in baptising in the name of Ihesus Christ the sacrament is full and perfect For he which saieth CHRIST coÌ„prehendeth in that one word the father which anoynted hym and the holyghost with whom he was anoynted and then Christ which is by interpretatioÌ„ the anoynted and so doth make vp the misterie of the three persons so in receauing vnder one kynd we receaue both flesh bloude as perfectly as if both kindes had ben ministred and in receauing alone we receaue as much of the true and reall profit which cummeth vnto vs by the sacrament as if all the parishe dyd beare vs cumpanie at the aultar Therefor when you talke of Christ his institutioÌ„ of baptisme you speake you can not tell what and you know not I beleue when Christ instituted that sacrament For he baptised before his resurrectioÌ„ were it by himselfe or by his Apostells and he gaue not the commaundement of baptising in the name of the father the soun and the holighost before the tyme of his ascensioÌ„ And againe when yow tell vs that we haue no other proufe against hym which would baptise in the name of the father then Christ his institution yow would seeme to vnderstand and know all our reasons and conclusions and yet you be as ignoraÌ„t in that point as he which neuer had readen any other then his owne doctours Reade in Petrus Lombardus that lerned Bishope in what sense it may be true that one might baptise in the name of the father without specifying of the Soun or the Holyghost Therefor to conclude you haue hytherto either not prouyd your purpose either spoken owt of the purpose either made directly against your owne purpose The fourth Chapiter THE Catholike in his Apologie folowing his principall purpose beginneth to shew what the priest may doe And he alleageth S. Chrisostome by whom he would make yt plaine bothe what the priest may doe and what the people should doe that yf the people will not folowe good exhortations then the priest without all doubt maie doe his dutie As who should saie â–ª if communicantes were to be had then were the questioÌ„ a great deale more doubtfull but if none will be brought to receaue with the priest then is there nothing to staie hym but he may receaue alone For as all surseasing of sutes in the lawe ys first to be wished and if that can not be obteined that then a man may sue for his right so all good men may wishe that the people should be allwaies well disposed and yet yf they will not be brought vnto it the priestes may sue for their right Which similitude being alleaged and seruing also well for this purpose that if we can not come to the best we may laufully take the next best vnto it yet the M. of the defence doth make such a doe against it as though it were a principal argument of ours in refelling of which he might shew his florishies And thus he saieth In recityng the authoritie of Chrisostome you bring in a similitude or coÌ„parison which of how small force thei be in prouyng your lerning can not be so litle but that you must needes know The similitude of which you speake was not brought in so much to proue as to open and expound that which then was to be approued
dissolute fryar be thought worthy of estimation because he hath at these dayes manye folowers are not the religious in deede which continued in great numbre and with much praise in ther orders much more to be regarded If this be the tyme of grace and light in which we may see and lament vowes broken monasteryes ouerturned the landes of Christ and his church alyenated virginitie fasting praying and all rules of good and perfect lyfe coÌ„temned â–ª what tyme was that in which the contraries of all these were highlie commended and practysed The continuance onlye of a religion .900 yeares â–ª without interruption is a very probable argument not lightlie to passe away from it But when it is considered how many learned and godlie men how great Vniuersities how mighty Princes lyued within the compasse of those yeares and that of them all no one of the good and learned did anye thing write or preache against it and none of the Princes either would either could resist it who but vnsensible may thinke that it should not be of God Although that heresies do very shamefully encreace and that there be so many sectes and diuisions emong them that no one parte can euer be greate although the whole world were ouerturned vnto heresie yet at this day moe Catholikes are in Christendome then Lutherans Zuinglians Osiandrians Caluinyans Anabaptistes and all the rest of the lyke making togeather For these heresies are yet God make them narrower but here and there dispersed and Germanye the mother of them is for a great part of it full Catholike Yet as litle place as the new ghospell hath in comparison of Christendome see how much he whom you take for no small fole doth crake and bragg of that lytle Be ye sure sayth he so many free cityes so many kynges so many Princes as at this daye haue abandoned the sea of Rome and adioyned themselues to the Ghospell of Christ are not become madd Loe Syr if this felow might so trulye haue reported that all Kynges all Princes all free cityes of Christendome were of his religion as he doth falselye make an accompt of so many free cityes so many kynges so many princes c. how great an argument would you thinke that he dyd make for your side And againe if he had ben able to proue that for .ix. hundred yeares togeather Kynges and Princes and free cityes had contynued in his fayth without open contradiction how madd would he haue said all such to be as resist a religion confirmed by such authoritie and contynuance But this is your practise to denye all thinges which make presentlye against you and to allow the same againe when hereafter they maye serue for you and so long as you be in danger of law No man must be violentlye constrayned to receyue the religion which his conscience can not allow And when the Prince and power is with you then saye you Hanging is to good for hym which wyll not beleiue as you doe And so in the Apologye of your Englysh church the argument was â—ound and comfortable that because many Kynges had abandoned the sea of Rome therefore they might seeme not to be madd which did folow them and now in this your defence of the truth as you call it when we alleage contynuance and authoritie of .ix. hundred yeares you saye that multitude maketh not to the purpose and you thinke your selfe not a lytle wise in reprouing of our argument But how wise you proue your selfe therein it is worthwhile to consider First you say that the prescription of .xv. hundred yeares the consent of the most part of Christendome the holynes and learning of so many fathers as haue ben these .ix. hundred yeares the age and slender learning of those which stande against you all which thinges we doe bring for our defence These thinges saye you Doe nothing at all eyther feare vs or moue vs to suspect that doctrine which by Christs authoritie and wytnes of the Apostels we know to be true Stode you by the Apostles at their elbowes when they wrote their ghospells or epistles or were you then present with Christ when he walked visibly vpon the earth and by signes and myracles proued hym selfe to be the soune of God Trulye because your eye was not present at the wryting or working of our redemption you must therefor resort vnto such as maye instruct you of all thinges by the eare And because credit is not lightly to be geauen to an historie which is tolde vs of thinges passing reason therfor they ought to be of good authoritie whose wordes we should beleiue in the articles of euerlasting saluation But there can be no greater then the testimonye of all Christendome and they be few obscure and vnknowen whom you would haue to be our masters therefore no reasonable and wyse man will suspect the authoritie of the world and falsely persuade hym selfe that he beleiueth Christ or his Apostles when he hath contemned the voyce of Christendome which caused him to beleiue in Christ and credit his Apostles For how know you what doctryne Christ or his Apostles haue taught in the world Yf you know it by the scriptures what perswadeth you these scriptures to be true For when any new scripture and vnherd of vs before is alleaged or coÌ„mended vnto vs by a few without any reason which is able to confirme it we beleiue not first the scripture but them rather which browght it forth vnto vs. Therefore who told you that these be true scriptures If you name Luther and such as he was you haue done very rashly to beleiue incredible articles at the report of an vpstart rennegate which confirmed his authoritie by no myracle But on the other syde if Luther and you both haue ben content to receiue the scriptures of the Catholikes lest you should be accompted ouer frantyke or scrupulous in doubting whether al Christendome were not deceiued therein by what reason then can you suspect the contynuance pietye learnyng and multitude of Catholikes in the church of God and referr your selfe vnto Christ and his Apostles with contempt of the mysticall bodye of our Sauiour whereas you could not by reason without myracle beleiue in Christ and trust the Apostles except the authoritie of the Catholike church which you see to contynew in the world dyd moue you I wold not beleiue the Ghospell sayeth holye S. Augustine except the authoritie of the Catholike church dyd moue me thervnto Wherfore the contynuance of .ix. hundred yeares is and should be so worthelye regarded that eueÌ„ the authoritie of the church which now is shold by her selfe perswade you to beleiue her But say you our possession which we bragg of hath not ben quyet For in the .600 next after Christ our doctrines were neuer heard of which is a very fowle lye as it hath ben allready here before proued and as coÌ„cerning the 900. folowing they dyd not take
dyd because thei had so receiued of their predecessors and fathers whose wysedomes thei had not to suspect yet you were not content with the licence grauÌ„ted vnto you of disputyng with them but you would allso apoint vnto them what order thei should take in the matter And for all their possession yet you would dryue them to shew their euidencies What if thei had lost their writinges or could not fynd them presently or wold not shew them to such as you were ys their silence or refusall in that behalfe to be accompted for a losse of their cause But thankes be to your Bishoperickes when you be now well placed you are content that the plaintyfe shoulde first and formost shew his euidence And now it ys against reason that the possessor should take the person of a plaintyfe which before this tyme would not be grauÌ„ted whiles your selfes were out of all possession But how say yow if the Catholikes doe continually yet keepe their possession for the Bishopes of Fraunce Spaigne Germanie and Italy are not yet dryuen out of their chaires and places of the Apostells And as long as they keepe their romes you can not enter in to the churche as it were a house forsaken and destitute how then will you dryue them out by force vi armis In deede it ys one of the cheifest wayes by which the new ghospel hath proceded which if you can not as yet folow thoroughly you must then either lett them alone which you do not as appeareth by your sermons writinges or els bring furth your euideÌ„ces against them which be in possession But no reason shall preuaile except it make for you and therefor you passe not vpon the possession which the Catholikes hold and keepe in the world but you wyll dryue them to the prouyng of such articles as doe offend you and for your owne part you will stand vpon the negatiue The resting vpoÌ„ which because you say it ys mistaken lett vs heare your expositioÌ„ how it must be vnderstanded M. Iuell say you perceauyng vs to make this auauÌ„t that the church hath taught as we doe these xvC yeares dyd both wyselie and lernedly see that there was none so fytt way to dryue vs from it As to rest vpon this true negatiue that we haue no sufâ—icient proufe out of the authorities of scriptures fathers or councells But Syr how can your wysedome serue you to think that because you will haue vs to proue our doctrine therefor we must do it Yf euerie Catholike Bishope in the world should in his owne conscience haue mislyked the vse of the Catholike church in sundrie articles yet for the reuerence which they owe vnto antiquitie they should not without euident and manifest reason haue lightly geauen ouer their old orders for the strength of tradition ys so great that allthough I could see no reason why I should defend it yet I should not contempne their authoritie from whom it was receiued For lyke as in the Epistle vnto the Romanes which epistell traditioÌ„ teacheth me to be S. Paules I must not blott out euerie sentence which vnto my iudgemeÌ„t may seeme either vntrue either vnprofitable but reuerently thinke that all ys well allthough my vnderstandyng be very euill so when the churche of Christ doth generallie receaue and folow a custome I ought to iudge the best of it allthough I were not able to proue it To dispute of that which the whole churche thorough the world doth vse it is sayeth S. Augustyne a poynt of most insolent madnes Yf therefor being able to geaue no other reason for my beleife then only traditioÌ„ I should not rasshely depart from it shall my aduersary require of me a cause of my doinges in wryting and except I shew it owt of hand pull me away from my religion Lett me suppose that you browght M. Iuell vnto me and that he should find me standing in this poynt of the Catholike faith that it ys not of necessitie required in a Christen man to receiue vnder both kyndes What might he thinke you say vnto me either wysely either lernedly agaynst me you would make hym I know to speake after this sort that I haue no sufficient proufe owt of Scriptures Doctours or Councells to make for me Yes Syr would I answer and please you I haue sufficient authoritie for my beleife therein but I am not disposed to tell you of it and I would not care to take a blowe for so answering a Bisshope Yes Mary shall he saye if you had any you would alleage it and except you tell me of one or other you shall be accounted to make only an auaunt and in deed to haue nothing And here I trow if all Catholikes should hold their peace in lyke manner as I do it should be declared at Paules crosse the next sunday folowing that the papistes haue no one sentence or word to make for them in all Scripture Doctours and CouÌ„cells Well Sir then allthough this be to much iniury and oppression because the Catholikes were not disposed to refell your negatiue therevpon to conclude that they are able to say nothing I will yet goe further with you and graunt for disputation sake that which for truth sake is to be denyed And what is that forsoth that I haue no other cause in all the world for defence of the article which I mentioned but only this one that it hath very long and quietly continued How say you in this case wyll you stand still vpon the negatiue which for trying of your wysedome I graunt vnto you And to keepe your negatiue wil you deny that receiuyng in one kynd only hath not ben long vsed in the church No verely that can you not doe because it is so playne and euident that receiuyng in one kynd hath continuance of tyme and approued practise of Christendome for it that your selues doe crye out and gapple in pulpites that many hundred of yeres togeather before you were breathed owt in to the worlde all Christendome as in sundrie other pointes so in that allso was miserablie deceaued How then you will perchaunse proue vnto me that my argumeÌ„t is not good because all the world hath hytherto ben seduced And truly what other thing you might say I can not tell For when I shold yeld vnto you that I haue no Scripture Doctour or Councel for coÌ„munion in both kyndes and when you should not well call me vnreasonable for dwelling against you in that article and opinion alleageing the coÌ„sent and vse of Christendome for me either you must declare that reason of myne to be nothing worth the staying vpon or els you must hold your peace as hauing no more to saye vnto me or els you must repete your begynning againe and harpe madlye vpon one string in telling me that I can shew no sufficient sentence exaÌ„ple or authoritie why coÌ„munion should be geauen vnder one kynd only Now as you haue to muche varietie
concerning the blessed thefe which neuer you saie was baptised which you saie truly in that he was not dipped in water and yet he was baptised in the Holy ghost and in his owne bloud because of our principall questioÌ„ I will not stand about him And whether in the ordinarie vse of it the supper of the Lord ought of necessitie to haue coÌ„municantes to be partakers of it as you would make the controuersie to be I will not reason with you at this tyme. Either because it ys not perceaued what you will meane by the terme ordinarie vse either because the question ys more generall as we haue put it furth vnto you And wheras at other tymes in your pulpites and allso bokes you appeale vnto the institution of Christ and make the matter so weighty as though it might neuer be suffered that one should receaue alone with out cumpanie yet now you talke of an ordinary vse of the Sacrament as who should thinke that you neuer denied but that in particular cases and for extraordinary causes one alone might receaue without any iniurie done vnto the institution of Christ. And yet againe when the Catholikes do alleage diuerse examples and authorities to proue that cumpanie ys not necessary absolutely in the vse of the Sacrameâ—t then loe you be so ernest against them as though it were in no wyse to be graunted that in the primitiue church any one example authoritie or argument might be shewed to proue sole receauing as thowgh yowr cause were anyiote hindered by it if in deed you hold the question not absolutely but only concernyng the ordinarie vse of the Sacrament Wherefor seeing that you goe so in and out hyther and thyther without all maner of keeping of order and place like dimilaunces or light horsemen or els like the wild Irisshe in their fighting I therefor thinke it necessarie againe to byd you remember your selfe and to coÌ„sider the state of the question vpon which the Catholike rested And thee gentle Reader I desire to marke exactly the cheife and principall matter which we haue to debate vpon which is this Not whether in tyme of necessity a priest may receaue alone Not whether the ordinary vse of the Sacrament ought of necessitie to haue communicaÌ„tes we will not at this tyme medle with these questions because we haue allreadye a greater and more principall in hand but our question ys this Whether as I haue sayed before vppon paine of God his indignatioÌ„ the priest ought to haue allwaies cumpanie to receiue with hym Let this be first examined and then shall the other be quickly answered Trusting therefor that thow wilt marke diligently where vpon the catholike striueth against the aduersarie I now returne againe vnto the M. of the defence and require the to consider the maner of his fighting In answering the Catholike his demaund he saieth Our proufe ys this In the celebration of this sacrament of the Lorde his supper we ought to do that only and nothing els that Christ the author of it did in his institution But in Christ his institution appeareth neither sole receauyng nor ministring vnder one kynd therefore in celebration of the sacrament neither sole receiuing nor ministring vnder one kind ought to be vsed First to the maior then to the minor Syr I deny your maior vnto you because you affirme that generally which ys true only in certen pointes of Christ his mauÌ„dy For if we must do that only which Christ dyd at his supper and doe nothing els but that then must we vse sitting and not kneeling or standing then must the Sacrament be delyuered vnto .xij. persons and neither to more nor lesse then shall we not celebrate before dyner or in a cope or surplesse or with psalmes organes and solempnitie such as you allso vse because we must do nothing els but that which Christ did as your maior importeth Now if you be to wise and lerned to thinke that in such a generall maÌ„ner we ought to do as Christ did at his last supper then haue you iust cause to correct your maior and we can not but deny it vntil we may vnderstand of your limitation which you will we trust add vnto it And what limitation might that be which being added we would graunt your proposition Forsoth if for the terme institution you woulde put tradition For what so euer Christ dyd about the coÌ„secrating or delyuering of his pretious body it may be truly saied that he dyd it in his institution but yet such circumstancies as he then vsed are not beleeued to be his tradition For it is allso one thing to saie thys is Christ his institution and it hath a farr other meanyng to saie Christ dyd this in his institution For his institution importeth a law and is directly to be obserued but the phrase of in his institution importeth a signification of tyme and place and circumstancies within which his institution was vttered Which thinges as thei be not essentiall but stand only about the substance themselues being accidentall and chaingeable so thei may be without all hurt altered as the church shall thinke good and conuenient Therefor as I graunt that in matter of weight and substance Christ onlye and no other is to be folowed so in that generall maÌ„ner of speach which you do vse I am sure it can neuer be proued Yeas saie you The maior is S. Cyprianes proued at large and much staied vpon in his epistle ad Cecilium de Sacramento sanguinis You may be for euer ashamed that you alleage Saint Cypriane for the proufe of your proposition which nothing at all maketh for you and that you do so wickedly in so ernest a matter abuse the simplicitie of your countriemen such as can vnderstand no Laten And because it is not once or twyse that you appeale vnto this epistle of S. Cypriane I will therefor sumwhat at large shewe it furthe in this place to the Reader that he take good heed for euer of geauing hastie creditt vnto strainge and newfound teachers There were in S. Cyprians tyme some such priestes which either for simplicitie or for custome sake or for certen deuout causes dyd offer vp at the tyme of the misteries not wyne and water togeather but only water by itselfe Against whose doinges in that point S. Cypriane most ernestlye writeth and it is the only scope and marke at the which he shooteth in all that long epistle alleaging first the example of Melchisedech which brought furth bread and wyne for he was the priest of God most highest afterwardes the saying of Salomon how that wysedome killed her sacrificies and mingled her wine in a cup then further the prophesie of â—acob speaking of his soun Iuda in the figure of Christ and saying he shall wasshe his robe in wyne and his cloke in the bloud of the grape after that againe the testimonie of Esai when he saw
the vestmentes of Christ full of redd spottes as if he had come lately from the wynepresse he alleageth allso the institution of Christ and the testimonie of S. Paule by which both places he proueth that we should offer vp not water onlye but allso wyne Then he maketh further argument saying that the mixture of wyne and water in the chalice togeather doth signifie the coniunction of Christ and his church and that if wyne be offered vp alone the bloud of Christ is without vs and that if water alone be offered vp then the people begyn to be without Christ. Which reason of his if you wyll cōtempne I am sory that S. Cyprian hath so sone displeased you whom you seemed to make so much of before But as concernyng the argument of that epistle he proueth by those testimonies which I haue touched and by many other waies that in the offering which the priest maketh water and wyne bothe are to be mengled and that it was Christ his institution so to doe and that Christ only is to be folowed therein and that we must do herein no other thing thē that which Christ hymselfe dyd first of all Now Sir then with what face can you alleage S. Cyprian for proufe of your proposition which is generall whereas he speaketh of water and wyne to be mengled when the priest doth sacrifice which us a speciall case onlye And see how the dyuel dyd owe you a shame If you wyll refuse Saint Cyprian in that place then standeth your maior like a miserable proposition without any similitude of defence If you alowe S. Cyprian how standeth your religion in whose communion and Lordes table water and wyne are not mengled togeather which should be so duly and necessarily obserued Will you saie here that the field is not lost and that this is but an ouerthrow of one wing only Do you fight for the victorie and not for the veritie so that you may be semed to have somwhat allwaies to saie do you make no conscience nor rekonyng of your vniust and foule plaie Answer directly vnto this one argument or confesse your falsehode or ignorance and geaue ouer your stryuing against the manifest veritie If all thinges are to be obserued in such manner as Christ hath them instituted wherefor haue you no water in the chalice which Christ as S. Cyprian proueth hath so solemply delyuered Now on the other syde if some thinges may be well vnfolowed which Christ hymselfe apointed why make you such a generall stoute proposition which by yourselfe is so quicklye neglected For the mixture of wyne and water in the chalice you can not saie that you haue no authoritie of scripture no example of primitiue church no testimonie of auncient Doctour for in that one epistle of Saint Cypriane of which we speake which you seeme not to haue readen onlye but allso to alow you shall find all those places by which the veritie of this tradition may be proued Where then is your memorie That which S. Cyprian of purpose declareth of the mixture of wyne and water in the chalice you either see not or regard not and that which you put furth of the generall obseruing and keeping whatsoeuer Christ dyd in the institution of his sacrament is not at all in that epistle and yet you can read it there proued at large And here now I haue to saie further against you that you do not rightly interprete not only his mynd but not so much as his wordes For whereas that blessed martir saieth Admonitos autem nos scias vt in calice offerendo dominica traditio seruetur ▪ which is Know you further that we be warned that in offering of the chalice the tradition of our Lord be kept you interprete it after this fasshion Do you know therefor that we be admonisshed that in offering the sacrament of the Lords bloud his owne institution should be kept For examinyng of which your interpretation if you should be brought but vnto a Grammar schole dominica traditio is to shortly Englisshed his owne institution and in calice offerendo is to ignorantly Englisshed in the offering of the sacrament of the Lords bloud so that I beleeue verely if the Scholemaster were not very much a sleepe he would beare softly at your backe doore and make you to remember yourselfe better But if litle regard be taken of construction which is made in scholes yet it is to be prouyded diligently that no false construction be sett furth in print especially in such kind of matter as apperteineth vnto our sowle and is of so great weight and efficacie that it maketh or marreth an heresie You Englissh traditio not tradition but institution And whi rather institution then tradition Verely for no other cause I thinke but for that you abhorr the name of tradition and because you would seeme to the ignorant Reader to be a great fauorer of Christ his institution You Englisshe in calice offerendo after this sort in offering the sacrament of the Lords bloud and whi not rather in offering the chalice as the wordes themselues do signifie You had no litle craft in your mynd when you sett vpon the translating of this plaine sentence and for the word chalice to substitute the sacrament of the Lords bloud it was a deceitfull enterprise For if you would haue plainely saied as S. Cyprians wordes do signifie that in offering the chalice the tradition of our Lord be kept the diligent Reader would haue ben moved to require what tradition that should be which must be obserued in offering the chalice and he should be truly answered that it was the tradition of vsing not wyne alone or water alone but water and wyne both in the chalice togeather which would much disgrace your communion But when you make S. Cyprian to sound after this sense that in offering the sacrament of the Lords bloud his owne institution is to be folowed you geaue occasion to a simple and vnexpert Reader to thinke that hereby it is manifestly proued that the lay people at these daies allso must necessarily receiue his bloud because he in his institutiō of his sacramēt delyuered furth allso his bloud Whiche S. Cyprian yet dyd no more thinke vpon then he feared least any grāmarian should come many hundred yeares after hym and interprete his plaine wordes in such a froward sense as you haue done And so in the Englisshing furth of the selfesame sentence after these wordes and no other thing to be done then that the Lord dyd first for vs hymselue you make a full periode and point whereas it foloweth in S. Cyprian as clause of the same sentence that in deede we should doe as our Lord had done first hymselfe but wherein and how farr trowe you in all thinges and all circumstancies no truly For straitwaies it foloweth in S. Cyprian and it is the limitation of the whole proposition that the chalice which is offered vp in
owne institution shall neuer be broken of the church and when you be deliuered of this feare see whether you can proue any better then you haue done hitherto that the necessitie of cumpany to receiue with the priest is determined in scripture And if it be not determined expreslie it standeth as a thing indifferent by your owne vayne principle and then it is no breache of Christ his institution to vse sole receyuing How saye you then Will you forsake that fonde principle of yours that nothing is of necessitie to be credited but that which is expreslie in the scriptures No you will not I know your harte is so great against traditions Make then no more a doe but graunt that the obseruing of number and cumpanye is no more requisite then the obseruing of the tyme place kynde of persons and other circūstances which the Ghospell sheweth to haue ben vsed at the institution of the Sacrament No saye you that Many circumstances of place person and tyme maye be altered c. we graunte you but that cumpanye in receyuyng is one of those circumstances that we can not graunte as well for the reasons before declared as allso that we haue none example of the Apostles or primitiue church that we maye so doe Consider I praye you Syr the maner of your reasonyng We cōclude vpon your owne principle which againe we must call vayne leste anye should thinke that we doe allow it that cumpanie in receiuing is by expresse scripture of no more necessitie then the circumstances of tyme and place which Christ vsed in the delyuering of his sacrament and you answer that it is not founde in the example of the Apostles or primitiue churche that the cumpanie in receiuing was omitted as tyme and place are founde to haue ben altered in which saying you doe but enlarge your vayne principle vpō the graunting of which our argument proceeded Cumpany in receiuing in respect of the sacrament receiued is no greater matter then the circumstance of tyme and place ▪ but yet of sole receiuing saye you we haue none examples of the Apostles or primitiue church as though nothing might be vsed otherwise then as of former example it maye be gathered which addition if you thinke good to vse to make your foresaid principle vayne absolutelye lett it be so then and according to this reformed principle our argument shall thus come against you What so euer Christ did at the institution of the sacrament which we fynde not to be altered by the authoritie or example of Apostles or primitiue churche that is of necessitie to be obserued But our Sauior delyuered the sacrament at night and the Apostles with the primitiue churche of their tyme haue no example or manner to warrant vs to doe otherwyse ergo we must of necessitie receiue at night But it is vnreasonable to bring in such a necessitie ergo it is a vayne principle which maintayneth such absurditie And what you might aunswer vnto this I can not diuise except you will take examples of the primitiue church which folowed the Apostles But then remembre what you be wonte to saye out of Tertullian how that is best which was fyrst and agayne out of S. Cypriane Christ is most to be followed which was the first of all And consider allso whether the church of Corinth dyd not receiue the sacrament at night and reade in the actes of the Apostels whether there was not breaking of bread at night and fynde if you can in all scripture that ministring of the sacrament was vsed in the mornyng Are you wiser then Christ can you better dispose the tymes then the maker of tyme hymselfe Did not the Corinthians receiue at night Is there anye mention in scripture of receiuing before none These loe be your common places which if I would follow I could make as great exclamations at the breaking of Christ his institution in the tyme as you doe make for the lacking of communicantes For it is no matter to vs whether you do bring two or three causes wherefore the receiuing at night is or maye be altered for if good causes would haue preuailed you would neuer haue plaied so madd partes in crying out against sole receiuing but all thinges you saie must be brought to the institution of Christ and as he gaue example so must we follow and wherfore then might not one first breake his fast and afterwarde come to the Lorde his table And if busynes lett a Merchant all the daye why might he not receiue at night If you can dispense with one thing you maye do the lyke with all If you alter the tyme you maye alter the maner the place the bread the wyne and all that Christ did This kynde Syr of Rhetoryke and Logike we learne of you which if you do greatly myslyke when you heare it of an other besides your selfe looke then vpon your selfe better and correcte that vayne glorious principle which hath a shewe of learning and pietie but is in deede most rude and wycked when you saye that nothing should be necessarylie obserued which is not expreslie in scripture or nothing thereof might be altered without auctoritie or example of the Apostles and primitiue church Which example of Apostles or primitiue church you neede not to passe vpon in this kynde of matter For if you be most surely persuaded by the very text of the scripture that companye to receiue with the priest is of the substance of the sacrament allthough example might be founde in the primitiue church of sole receiuing or receiuing vnder one kynde you would yet condempne that example by the playne institution of Christ as you would take it what good then should an example do to you which although it were neuer so playne yet you would not be persuaded but that the cumpany at the communyon is allwaies of necessitie But of our examples we shall speake hereafter in the meane tyme what bring you to shewe that the hauing of company is of the necessitie of the sacrament And marke that we aske you not of companye whether it be laudable conuenient or honorable at the celebration of euerie masse but whether it be necessarie Of necessitie our question is and of expresse commaundement and you tell vs of the Paschall lambe of the Iewes and applye it vnto our Sacrament that lyke as cumpanye was of necessitie to the eating of the Paschall lambe so that it should be as necessarie to the receiuing of the sacrament After which argumēt you triumphe without victorie and aske of vs VVyll you saie that companye to eate vpp the Paschall lambe was not of the substance of the sacrament c. If you meane by the worde sacrament in this place the Paschall lambe it selfe cumpanye you know was no more of the substances of the lambe thē you with your bydden gestes be of the substance of your meate when you haue prouided for your selfe and them a fatt goose and
subiectes and bodyes be without dimension it is openlie in scholes concluded to see who can proue the contrarie But how few or how many may make oâ— marr your communion you dare not or can not aunswer vnto it least you should be reproued Wherefor seeing that you make silence your defence and will not vtter the state of your religion it is no lytle confort vnto vs that you be coÌ„founded yet in your owne conscience And as we haue so faithfull myndes that in God his misteries we go no further then he and his holy church leadeth vs so yet thankes be to God our wittes are not so simple that in a plaine and sensible question we can not tell what to answer but saie that either our aduersarie dallieth or fayne that the question which is asked conteyneth a misterie The aight Chapiter THE Catholike in his Apologie to proue that numbre of communicaÌ„tes is not necessarie in the receiuing of the SacrameÌ„t alleageth a saying of Erasmus which he sheweth to be agreable vnto the testimonies of lerned and holie fathers Tertullian S. Cyprian S. Cirill and S. Ambrose which if we should dilate so farr forth as we might our replie would he very long and tediouse and except we doe declare in what sense they serue for our purpose it can not be but intricate and comberous Shortly therefor to make a state of our question in this chapiter and to haue the more leysure to speake of the testimonies brought in for vâ— Lett this be our argument which I praie the good reader to beare awaye Eâ—asâ—us sayeth that in olde tyme the bodye of our Lorde was delyuered into folkes handes that they which had taken yt might receyue yt at home when they would Ergo yt is not necessarye to haue allwayes communicantes Now vnto this argument what doe you answer with all your defence Syr it semeth very straunge to me that you which haue so much hated Erasmus c. should now in your nede take helpe and succor at his hande Syr our store is so greate that we neede not Erasmus authoritie but our behauior is so reasonable that we doe condescend to you in alleaging your owne doctors And it seemeth very strainge vnto me that Erasmus whom you call a singular instrumeÌ„t prouided of God to beginne the reformatioÌ„ of his church shold yet be proued to haue written by name against the false ghospellers and beginners of this new reformation of Christianitie For is God diuided or hath he no better prouided but that such as you call the singular instrumeÌ„tes of vttering his pleasure and will should be found so contrarie emong them selfes and so farr repugnant one vnto an other But as coÌ„cerning this learned man we take his coÌ„fession we vse not his testimonie And we tel you what he thought if perchauÌ„se that maye moue you but we take him not for a wytnes in our cause as though we might not well spare hym And this doth hereby wel appeare that we bring forth holie and blessed mens authorities to proue that most true which Erasmus hath confessed Of whom if you be now werie for all that God prouided him singularly as you saie for you what saie you then to S. Cyprian S. Cirill S. Ambrose and Terrullian by whom it is proued that in olde tyme there was sole receiuing emong ChristiaÌ„s And here now to declare peâ—chaunse that you be well scene in antiquities you tell vs a sadd tale of much trouble vexation and persecution which was vsed in the primitiue church and that the Sacrament was sent to such as were absent and that Hereof it came that diuers receyued alone in theyr houses Now thankes be to God that at length yet you can not but coÌ„fesse that sole receiuing was vsed in the primitiue church Where now are your lowde exprobrations that we haue not one worde or sillable in all the Doctors for the space of six hundred yeares after Christ to make for vs That we haue not so much as any colour or similitude of truth as concerning sole receiuing â–ª c That Christ his institution is wholy against vs That ther must be necessarilie as you do terme it a particular communion You be not farr from the kyngdome of heauen you be allmost wellcome home or at least waies you be looking homeward a litle But this newes is to good I feare to be trew and allthough you can not denye sole receiuing yet you will not be quyet but continew styll in your stryuing For you saie this But you should bring such places as might proue that the common minister in place of the Lorde his supper did celebrate and receyue alone other being present and not partakyng No Syr you must not rule vs in the maner of our reasoning and appoint vs to proue that which we take not vpon vs. This is it which I haue wysshed before to be well remembred that our question is not whether any priest then did receiue alone but whether he might doe it laufullie or no that is our question And as the Catholike in his Apologie fol. 8. warned you most playnelie that there is an open difference betweene these two sentences There was no priuate masse at that tyme â–ª and â–ª There ought to be no priuate masse at any tyme. So take a fayer warning agayne that we labor to proue not what thing was then commonlie doone but what maye now and might then haue ben laufullie doone Mary we can not proue saye you that the common minister dyd celebrate and receyue alone other being present Verâ—â—e what the priest did we take not vpon vs to proue but what he might do that we can shew vnto you Do not you allwaies appeale vnto Christ his institution Doe not you make your selfes so cunnyng in it that you can tell vs of the indifferent partes and of the substanciall partes of it Haue not you defined it that to receiue with cumpany is a substanciall parte of it And do not you coÌ„clude herevpon that the priest can not receiue by hymselfe alone without breach of Christ his institutioÌ„ These being your principles if we do disproue any of them then is your conclusion destroyed But how can we more playnelie do it then by reciting the examples of the primitiue church by which you are contented to be tryed in which age sole receiuing was vsed and yet Christ his institution not thought to be violated Can you denye that sole receiuing was theÌ„ vsed you can not But you make this limitation that it was vsed in case of necessitie and of laye men not of priestes Well make the case how harde so euer you will we aske no more but that all men should know that sole receiuing was lawfullie then vsed Now therfor saie you let vs see how aptly vpon this graunt you conclude your purpose More aptly I trust then you haue doone it for vs which behaue your selfe so vprightly that all
preuailyng against the truthe and lesse alteration would be permitted but seeing man is free and master of his owne actions thei can be no more then warned that thei seeke after truth and folowe it God be mercifull vnto vs and if he hath saied it by some of his Prophetes vpon vs that for our synnes sake and dishonoring of his exceding greate name we shall be caried awaye prisoners in to Babilon yet as Ezechias the Kinge answered for his tyme if we allso maye be so fauored of hym Bonus sermo Domini quem locutus est sit pax veritas in diebus nostris It is a good saying which our Lord hath spoken yet for our daies let there be peace and veritie Fare well From Louanie the second of March A REPLIE AGAINSTE THE FALSENAMED DEfence of the truthe CAP. I. WHETHER M. Iuell or the author of the Apologie of pryuate Masse haue for their partes done all thinges so perfectly that they may or shold be defended of those which are of the same opinion and faith with them in the one syde it may be a questiō and on the other I know it is none at all For as concernyng the folowers of new religiōs which beleiue that the true light ys reueled in these last dayes they haue to stryue and labor for them whom they take for their Apostells but the Catholike whose faith ys not to finding owt in the end of the world he hath not to hang vpon any one mans authoritie except he be such as ys commended by the whole worlds testimonie Yet forasmuch as the answerer to the Apologie of priuate masse beginneth first with the author of that verie Apologie I will not by my silence be thowght to confesse hym vtterly giltie and yet I will not make for him suche hard shift and stoute defence as thowgh any part of owr cause were lost if he be not thoroughly cleared Therefor to begyn with yow which would seeme to defend the truth what fault doe yow fynd with the author of the Apologie of priuate Masse Fyrst of all yow reproue him sharplye that he bringeth hys owne sense vnto M. Iuels wordes and after so reason against it as though it were his meaning But how proue yow this vpō hym Mary the Bishope of Salisburie say yow ▪ He neuer said simplie that he should make no rekonyng of his doctrine because he was Bishope Trulie neither the Apologie doth simplie so report of hym But his wordes rather be these I maruell not a litle why yow being reputed a man of such lerning wtterlie refuse to proue the doctrine you teache alleaging verie slender causes of your refusall c. Meanyng hys vocation to so high a Rome and the place where he tawght and the honorable estate of the audience and the doctrine authorised by the realme Now it is .ij. thinges to saye I refuse to do this and I should not do this Or els ▪ I refuse to do this and I alleage my vocatiō for one cause and I shold not do this because I am a Bishope For in refusing and alleaging cause of it there ys greater occasion geauen of further consideration but in sayng I should not do this because I am a Bishope there ys small grace shewed because of so hastie conclusion This second kynd of phrase ys for them which stand gloriouslie vpon their honor and estimation but the first agreeth euen with such as are readie to fullfill their vocation The one sentence doth challenge a thing of dutie the other emploieth within it a reason and cōueniencie And to be short the one may be spoken mildlye discreetly and charitablie but the other is vttered I thinke stoutlie vnwyselie and presumptuouslie Wherefor Sir you make the matter worse by your telling then it was in the author his writyng and yow find fault with others for misreporting and miscōstruing prouiding not in the meane while for your selfe to vse and shew true dealing The Catholike doth not take M. Iuell to be so folishe as to thinke that because he is a Bishope he should make no rekonyng of his doctrine but he marueleth rather his lerning cōsidered that he would alleage such causes as he dyd for the refusall of prouing his doctrine And so he may yet still maruell at it But say you my Lord Bishope dyd not saye he should not proue his doctrine but that he might not well do it without further licence Wherein truly you do take very much from a Bishope his libertie if he can not safely cōferr with such as D. Cole is withowt obteinyng of licence And you will troble allso the coūsell of the realme with more matters then needfull if they shall make so litle of their Bishopes that they are not to be trusted with vsing of their office except they first aske leaue and licence Yf the Catholikes which are in prison were such greuouse offendars against the state that it might be suspected they would practise all treason then in deed for suertie that none of their religion might come vnto them it were not done vnwyselie to make the restraint generall and then might a new Bisshope doubt perchaunse to conferr with them without further licence But where as all the fault which is laied to their charge hath no other name but papistrie and old religion M. Iuels doubt was more then needfull to refuse the prouyng of his doctrine without further licence But it ys well that you will declare vnto vs the rightfullnes of his refusall and make his part more probable Wherein your reasonyng is this VVere it good reason think you that a magistrate at the demaund of euerie subiect should bring reason to proue any law publisshed by the prince to be good c. Neither euery demaund neither euery subiect is to be answered and God forbed that either cardmaker or tapster or fyddler or peddler should be permitted emōg their pottes and packes to sitt iudges vpō great Doctours or reuerend Canons of generall Councells Yea trulie if either gentlemā or marchant would captiouslie and proudlie appose the priest or curate of his parishe it were not to be suffered But is D. Cole euery man and the good and lerned Catholikes which continue in indurance are they no more to be regarded then the common sort of Englishe men or on the other syde are they to be abhorred as a singular sort of wicked men To submitt the iudgement of the Prince and realme to the myslykyng of one wayward subiect I graunt with yow it would be great impeachmēt to the Princes authoritie ▪ neuerthelesse to defend the iudgemēt which hath passed by consent of any Prince or realme it cōmendeth their estimation and dignitie But concernyng waywardnes hath D. Cole shewed hym selfe to be such a one in his request and letter to M. Iuel In deed you speake brodely of hym and say that he required a proufe of M. Iuels doctrine vnder pretence of lernyng but in deed
and childissh to saie that Chrisostome vpon the .viij. of Mathew maketh mention onlie of thankes geauing for all men which are passed or which are to come ergo there is no other sacrifice but thankes to be offered for the soules departed or els to declare more sensiblie the absurditie of your reason ergo in hys thirde homelie vpon the epistle vnto the Philippians he hath no word of the Apostels tradition that in the presence of the reuerend misteries praiers shold be made for the deade to cause God to be mercifull vnto them But see againe S. Ambrose offered for Valentinian the Emperour then dead and S. Ambrose doubted not of his saluation ergo he dyd no more but thanke God for hym This is your argument without reason and knowledge For euerie soule of whose saluation we need not to doubt is not straitwaies in heauen As S. Austine allthough he doubted not but that his mother Monica dyd yeld at her death a saued soule vnto God of whom he testifieth that she so lyued that God was praised in her faith and maners and that she was a mercifull woman and forgaue all them which had trespased againste her and that she came euerie daie to church and serued God before the aultar from which she knew the holie sacrifice to be dispensed by which the byll of debt which was contrarie vnto vs was put out and cancelled Yet for all this knowing the accompt which euerie soule shall geaue for the least word that is spoken against the coÌ„maundementes of God and leauing a side her good deedes for which he ioyfullie thanketh God he praieth for his mother that her sinnes might be forgeauen and saieth Lett no creature pull her from thy protection Let not the lyon and dragon put hym selfe in betweene neither by force nor by subteltie c. Graunt that she may be in peace with her husband before whom and after whom she was maried to no other c. And inspire in to thy seruantes my brothers and thy childerne my masters that as manie of them as shal reade these thin ges may remember at thy aultar thy seruant Monica with Patricius her husband Therefore that you maie know your folie and lerne from hence forward to harken vnto the whole tale before you geaue definitiue sentence I will saie vnto you with S. Austine vnto Laurentius It ys not to be denied that the soules of them which are departed are relieued and eased by the dâ—â—otion of their frindes lyuing when the sacrifice of our mediator ys offered for them or when almeses are geaueÌ„ in the church c. and in the end of the chapiter he concludeth Therefore when the sacrificies either of the aultar either of any kind of almes what so euer it be are offered for all such as haue departed with baptisme they are for the verie good thankes geauing they are propitiations for such as are not verie euill for the starke naught allthough they are no healpe as concerning them being now dead yet they are cumfortes such as they are for the quicke Vnderstand you this Englisshe and do you marke how one selfesame sacrifice doth serue to render thankes by it and to be allso a propitiation for sinners such as die not desperate Will you beare awaie the distinctioÌ„ of three sortes of men which S. Austine here maketh and see by reason that some die in such case as not praises but praiers rather are to be made for them doe so I praie you then And neuer fill your papers in writinges or your audience eares in preaching with such argumentes as are taken of authoritie of holie fathers negatiuelie or with such commendacioÌ„ of one truth as craftelie shall disgrace an other as true Like as manie vse to proue that the true fast ys in absteinyng from synn which no man denieth and inferr therevpon wylilie that to absteine from corporall meates serueth not to any kind of reasonable fasting Or as some do shew by manie authorities that Christ is to be receaued spirituallie by fayth and denye therefor that he ys eaten reallie which yet is as true as the other Or lyke as you in this chapiter haue abused your reader in prouing a sacrifice of prayers and thankes geauing and denying any oblation to be in the church for sinnes which yet the holie fathers in theyr writinges haue expressed The fifthe Chapiter IN this chapiter you find fault with the Catholike that he alleageth the place of Chrisostome other wise then it ys in hym which as concerning the interpretation of Musculus you myght saye perhappes but I trowe ye should not report of him that he reciteth the place otherwyse then it ys in S. Chrisostome except you disproued hym by the greeke text it selfe which you haue not And trulie what great reproueable diuersitie should be in saying Sacrificium frustra quotidianum offerimus or frustra habetur quotidiana oblatio whereas both come to one end that the dailie oblation or sacrifice ys made in vaine I can not redelie tell except you mislike the terme of offering and thinke that the hauing of a daylie sacrifice might be made without the act of offering But goe to for quietnes sake we are content with Musculus interpretation and what saie you then vnto the argument of the Catholike The wordes of S. Chrisostome are these Frustrà habetur quotidiâ—na oblatio frustrà stamus ad altare nemo est qui simul participet Our daylie sacrifice ys had in vaine we stand at the aultar in vaine there ys none to take part with vs. By this testimonie to conclude shortlie there was dailie sacrifice in S. Chrisostoms tyme and there was not daylie receiuing with the priest ergo to haue communicantes is not of the substance of the Catholike masse Vnto this argument I find as it were fower answers for your defence of which the first ys that Chrisostom to exaggerat the peoples slacknes saieth there ys none to be partaker meaning they were verie few and seldome in comparison of that their dutie was Do you thinke then that euerie daie there was one or other of the people which dyd come to the communioÌ„ then dyd he not stand in vaine at the Aultar except you can proue that in that world such a canon was made that there should be no communion without .iij. to receiue at it on the other side if in any one daie at all there was found no one to coÌ„municate the sacrifice being offered euerie daie it was celebrated some tymes without coÌ„municants For it is not materiall vnto vs whether the people receiued some at Easter some at tweluetyde and other some more ofter but whether as the oblation was daylie that so the receiuing appropriated as you thinke vnto it should haue ben dailie And all the authorities which you bring of S. Ambrose Austine Chrisostome and Concilium Elibertinum to proue that the people dyd communicate more then once in the yeare and
wherefor they go not vnto the church ys Christ one abrode and an other at home that which ys not lawfull in the church ys not lawfull at home c. How saye you then Doth S. Hierome in this place inueigh against the maner of receiuing at home Is it not most playne and euident that he speaketh against such as had no feare to communicate at home after the nightes pollution and yet would not venter to come vnto the places where Martyrs bones rested or into the church And why should any man feare to come vnto the chappelles or memoryes of Martyrs after the nightes what shall I call it with his wyffe Vndoubtedlie for reuerence sake and honor which thei gaue to Martyrs as S. Hierome also testifieth of hym selfe saying I confesse vnto the my feare least perchance it come of superstition when I haue ben angrye and haue thought vpon some euyll thing in my mynde and when some fancy of the night hath deluded me I dare not goe into the churches of Martyrs I doe so thorowghly quake for feare in bodye and sowle Therfor wheras the Romanes after the vse of their wyues the night before would not come the next daye into the presence of Martyrs memories and yet were not ashamed to receiue the body of Christ at home he asketh of them earnestlie VVherfore they goe not vnto the church not in this sense which you haue inuented as though he should saie Wherfore do you receiue at home why goe you not to the church why receiue you in corners why come you not to the open congregation I lyke not these communions at home the doores of the congregation be open to the faithfull it is a shame so to receiue by your selues alone the institutioÌ„ of Christ is excedinglie broken he instituted not his sacrament that they should haue it brought home to theÌ„ or that they might cary it home with them I know not what place is better for that purpose then the house of God where all the people may be present togeather and edifie one the other through beholding the felowship and communion of themselues S. Hierome was not so full of the spirit or so emptie of wytt but onlye he correcteth their folye which in some thinges made a conscience in other some of greater force made none at all And he asketh why they doe not as well come in to the church and in to the chapples of Martyrs after they haue coÌ„panyed with their wyues as they dare to receiue the bodye of Christ at home for all the formar nightes fancye and pleasure Is Christe one abroad and an other at home As who shold saie will it hurt you if you come to church in the presence of Christ his Martyrs and make you no conscience of recâ—â—uing Christ his body at home in your houses whose Martyrs thei were Yet he doth not reproue them for receiuing at home as by his owne wordes appeareth saying That the faythfull receyue at all tymes the bodye of Christ I neyther reproue neyther allow But to this conclusion he labored to dryue the matter that whilest they should be sorye that they had not communicated some certayne daye because of their pleasure taken the night before with their wyues they might therby abstayne a lytle from them that thei might communicate with Christ. But goe you furth Haue you any other authoritie to proue that sole receiuing at home was euer condemned In Socrates the seconde booke we reade that Synodus Gangrensis coÌ„dempned Eustathium for that contrary vnto the Ecclesiastical rules he graunted liceÌ„ce to coÌ„municate at home Where a man should fynde this Socrates of whom you speake you only I beleiue doe know For in the second booke of the Tripartite historye Socrates maketh no mencion at all of any such Eustathius as you speake of but in the .2 of that booke we doe reade of one Eustathius a verâ—e good Byshop condempned by a false forged tale made against hym by a common harlot his judges being to the outward shew Catholike Bisshops but in hart and deede Arrians For which cause sayeth the historie Many holy meâ— and priestes with others forsaking the company which râ—sorted vnto the coÌ„mon churches did come togeather emong them selues whom all other callâ—d Eustathianos bâ—cause that after Eustathius departure they 〈◊〉 â—â—gâ—ather a syde from others Now if you doe allow the condempnacion of this Eustathius then must we beware of you hereafter least you bring forth new Arrians vnto vs. And any other besides this catholike Eustathius I can not fynde in the seconde booke of the Tripartite historie Therefore I turne me vnto the Councelles and there in deede I fynde that Synodus Gangrensis condempneth one Eustachius not Eustathius for many notable heresyes but yet there is no mencion that he was condempned as you saie for graunting of licence to receiue at home But rather as it appeareth by the epistle prefixed before that Synode these Eustachians were of the opinion that no prayer or oblatioÌ„ should be made in maryed mens houses thei coÌ„tempned also the places of holy Martirs or churches and reproued all such as resorted to them thei tooke further vpon them to distribute the oblations made in the church and therefore the fifth canon of that Councell is this Yf any man doe teach that the house of God is to be contemned and the meetinges which are celebrated in it let hym be accursed And the sixt canon saieth Yf any man doth make conuenticles without the church and despising the church wyll vsurpe those thinges which be the churches without the priest commyng vnto it let hym be accursed according 〈◊〉 the decree of the Bysshope This much 〈◊〉 I fynde in Gangrensis Synodus which doth not so much as seeme to found any thing nigh vnto your purpose Where then is that your Eustathius which was condemned for graunting licence to communicate at home or how well haue you proued that the custome of the primitiue church which for that tyme was tolerated was at any tyme after forbydden as prophane and wycked Yf therefor these testimonyes of S. Hierome and Gangrensis Synodus by which you would proue that to receiue at home was greatlie inueighed at and condempned do no more make for your purpose than to saye that a laye man should not lye with his wyfe the night before he receiueth or that those heretikes are to be condemned which contempne Martirs chapples or churches how lytle at all could you proue that any myslyking was euer had of the sole receiuing at home vsed in the very primitiue church The vse of which tyme you dare not openlye condemne but priuely you leaue to be gathered that it was pius error in them Whereas contrary wise if sole receiuing be such a matter as you make it that it goeth most directlie and playnlie against the substance of Christ his institution then I am sure that the contempt of this lyfe and world was so
great in the Christians at those blessâ—â— dayes that rather then â—hei would haue receiued alone to the confounding of Godes lâ—w and ordenance thei would haue ben coÌ„tent neuer to eate any thing in this world but â—uffre the most cruell death of hunger And vpon this ground so sâ—re that it is not against Christ his institution to receiue alone we can do none otherwise but confesse that the priest receiuing alone is not to be pulled by you from the aultar not denying but that in the primitiue church the people most tymes receiued with the priest and that if thei had not done so thei were coÌ„maunded to go out of the church which thing yet you doe labor so to proue as though the obtayning of it did make any thing to the purpose but orderly folowing our intent which is to proue that sole receiuing is not against Christ his institutioÌ„ and that it is not necessarye to haue allwaies a particular communion Now because the Catholike in his authorities of Tertullyan S. Cyprian and S. Ambrose proued not only sole receyuing to haue ben vsed at that tyme but also communion vnder one kynde which thing secondly in this chapiter you take vpon you to reproue let vs marke your fighting in this parte and trye masteryes with you Fyrst you saye that the institution of Christ is expresly against vs for In the Euangelistes and S. Paule we see testified that Christ tooke bread and gaue with it his bodye and afterwarde tooke the cupp and gaue with it his bloud and willed them to obserue and vse the same You make a shamefull and wycked lye in sayeing that it is testified either in the Euangelistes or Pawle that Christ tooke bread and gaue with it his body for it is maniâ—est that he tooke bread and delyuered it sayeing This is my body and not as you reporte with this I geaue my body But the scriptures I perceyue are not yet playne inough for your purpose and you will I feare neuer be contented vntyll after many affected translations of the scripture in to the mother toÌ„gue you alter the autentike and pure text of it by conneighing in these wordes Take and eate with this is my body Then as concerning Christ his institution lyke as he spake then to his Apostles only and in them vnto his priestes ' of the newe lawe so the priestes doe allwayes when they coÌ„secrate receyue vnder both kindes but as for priestes not consecrating or the laye people standing by it is not of necessitie to delyuer it vnto them in both And hereof we haue alleaged this cause vnto you that it is a matter indiâ—â—erent and not of the substance of the Sacrament O saye you ye flee to your olde place of refuge why Syr what would you haue vs to doe if you keepe styll one argument maye not we lykewise applye one answere And is euerye thing fresh and gaye which you bring although it be twentye tymes repeted and not once proued and shall not we haue licence to refell your obiections with such an answer as you neuer yet haue disproued yet we haue not barely affirmed our saying but we haue geauen good cause for it that to receyue vnder both kyndes should not be of the necessarie substance of the Sacrament as concernyng the people Of which causes you choose out one where we saye that per concomitantiam the body of Christ is neuer without his bloud and his bloud is not seperated from his body so that no losse or hinderance cometh vnto the receyuer which taketh as much vnder one kynde as he should haue doone vnder both At which cause you peck with a skornefull exclamation and saye O profounde and deepe fett reason wherein you seeme to make your selfe wyser then Christ hymselfe that ordeyned the sacrament But I would that you or the best of your syde were but a quarter so godly or learned or wyse as those Masters of diuinitie which were authors of the worde â—oÌ„comitantia the meaning of which worde was euer beleiued in thâ— church of Christ It is yet a comfort vnto vs that such thinges as we beleiue 〈◊〉 not inuented of late by our selues but receiued of the teachers of Christendome but o superficiall and light wittes of yours which make Christ not to haue beÌ„ so wise as he was which resist his holyeghost and goe about to reade a lecture vnto the Church of God What fault doe you fynde with concomitantia Mary saye you The communion of Christ his bodye and bloud ys not the worke of nature in this Sacrament What meane you by the wordes communion of his bodye we talke of concomitantia that is whether vnder the forme of bread there be his bodye accoÌ„panyed with his bloud and his flesh togeather And you tell vs that the communion of his bodye is not the worke of nature Speake vnto the matter and shewe some reason why that his bodie shold be without bloud in the sacrament of bread VVhat so euer is here geauen vnto vs is to be taken by fayth As whoe should saye that fayth might rest vpon a fancy or figure or that by the same fayth by which I beleiue that I receiue his body I might not also beleiue that I receiue togeather his bloud But agayne So much is geauen vnto vs as God appointed to geaue of whose will and pleasure we know no more then his wordes declare vnto vs. Why Syr doth not the worde bodye declare well inough that it is not without bloud When Saint Iohn in his ghospell sayeth The worde was made flesh will you saie with olde heretikes that the worde tooke not also our lyfe and sowle vnto hym because S. Iohn mencyoneth none of them expresly but only that the word was made fleshe Yet allmightie God wâ—â—ch spake by the Euangelist was wise and able inough to declare his mynde In Christes naturall bodye that ys in heauen I know his flesh ys not without his bloud but in the sacrament which is no naturall worke how will you assure me that the flesh and bloud ysioyntly signified and geauen vnto me vnder one parte onlye Yf the sacrament be no naturall worke what is it then Supernatural or artificial Yf you make it a lesse worke then naturall then do you debate greatlye the glorye of the new testament whereas the manna of the olde lawe and water which issued out of a rock for the Israelites were more excelleÌ„t figures then the verities of them which are emong true Christians But if you thinke that they be not naturall to make vs thereby to conceyue a greater estimation of them then saie I so muche the more it is credible that the bloud should be ioyned vnto the body because that in very common nature we see it so and nothing wonder at it But yet saye you Christ which knew as well as you the ioynt condition of his flesh and bloud dyd not
not to touche yt Of this place if you will not admit our collection that the sacrameÌ„t was in her cheste vnder one kynde whereas S. Cyprian termeth it SanctuÌ„ Domini which is spoken of one singular thing whether you will English it the holy bodye of our Lorde or that holye thing of our Lordes which phrase hath much reuerence in yt yet vnderstand you that the Catholike dyd not bydd you note in this example the receyuing vnder one kynde but the sole receyuing and reâ—eruation of the Sacrament with the miracle also that was here wrought Yet â–ª see your crafte you say that the Catholike vsed S. Cyprian his authoritie in this place to proue communion vnder one kynde that whiles you might make some probable argumeÌ„t or coÌ„iecture about it he might seeme to haue ben fully aunswered as coÌ„cerning that point for which he alleaged S. CypriaÌ„ And with lyke subteltie you examyne the testimony of S. Ambrose in that parte of your chapiter where you talke of receyuing vnder one kynde whereas the principall point for which that authoritie was vsed serued to proue reseruation which you can not denye and then afterwardes receiuing vnder one kynde vnto which only purpose you doe 〈◊〉 applie it Yet for all that let vs coÌ„sider how properlie you doe handle that historie that it might not seeme to make for receiuing vnder one kynde Satyrus S. Ambrose his brother what tyme that vpon the sea the vessell in which he was caryed hym selfe was dryuen vpon the rockes of the shore and shaken with the whaues which laied vpon her on euery side he not for feare of death but for feare least he should depart this lyfe without our mysteries required of the full and perfect Christians S. Ambrose calleth them Initiatos whom he knew to be there that diuine sacrament of the faythfull not to fasten a curious eye vpon those secretes but to gett some helpe for his fayth WhereupoÌ„ he made it to be bound vpp in a stole or because that worde doth not lyke you in a lynnen cloth or napkyn and the napkyn he wrapped about his neck and cast hym selfe out in to the sea This is a parte of the historie and out hereof we gather this argument that the sacrament was then vsed vnder one kynde And what can you say to the coÌ„trary Mary fyrst of all you contemne the argument and you are so much deceyued that you aske whether that any feare of God be in them which in most weightye matters will vse so weake reasons And then you report it agayn with much skornefull brauerye and aske of meete audience for such a preacher whether ours be a strong reason as thei thinke For saye you Though yt had bâ—n here mencioned that Satyrus in this extremitie receyued one kynde alone yt had ben no argument to proue that yt might orderlye be vsed It is a very euell maner of all such as you are to goe froÌ„ the principall questioÌ„ and to talke of that which is not yet in hande I tell you agayne that our argumeÌ„tes are not directed to proue that in case of necessitie or in some extraordinarie cause one maye receiue alone or vnder one kynde but we seeke to proue that you are fowlie deceyued which preache and write that to receyue with companie and to receyue in both kyndes is of the necessarie substance and forme of the sacrament Against which your conclusion we saye that if those thinges hadd ben thought of the fathers of the primitiue church to haue ben of the substance of the Sacrament they would neuer haue suffred them at anie time to be â—sed but in some examples we see that they were not only suffred but also allowed therefore you be very ignorant or peuysh to make there a necessity where none shold be at all You doe harpe in this chapiâ—er very oft vpon this one stâ—â—g that we can not proue that the common vse or the ordinary vse of the sacrament in the primititiue church was to be receyued of one alone or vnder one kynde And this you wil enforce vs to proue against you vpon the which we stryue not with you but as we reade what the coÌ„mon vse was so we reade that it was not such a necessarie vse as would admitt no dispensatioÌ„ For we bring you furth good examples by which you shold vnderstand that eueÌ„ in the primitiue church receyuing vnder one kynd was vsed We do not saye that it was vsed commonlie eyther ordinarilie or as a generall rule for you be so full of playe that it is best to keepe you shorte but we saye that it was vsed and the vse of it was not reproued and that the presence of Christ vnder one kynde was coÌ„firmed by miracle al which pointes doe appeare in this one historie of Satyrus Whom if you can proue not to haue had the Sacrament about his neck vnder one kinde only then shall you saye somwhat to the purpose If we can proue by any one exaÌ„ple that reseruatioÌ„ sole receiuing or receiuing vnder one kind was alowed your buyldinges shal straitwaies come into contempt and confusion because that you worke or els you lye after the substanciall and liuelie paterne of Christ his institution which is neuer to be altered saie you in the substantial pointes of which you speake The better willing therefore I am to consider the historye of Satyrus which maketh we thinke so directlie for vs. In answering of which you tell vs first that Satyrus was a nouice in our fayth wherein you saye verie truly and make the example the greater if he which was not yet fully instructed in our misteries did thinke so diuinely and excellentlie of them Further you alleage that it doth not appeare whether they of whom Satyrus receiued the Sacrament were ministers or other Why Syr to what purpose would it serue if you could proue that they had ben ministers Doe you thinke that vpon the sodayne when the tempest was comming thei prepared them selues to a commâ—nion and had not the Sacrament prepared before And if thei had ben of your order would thei haue suffred a sage person to tye the Sacrament about his neck for safegarde sake and not rather to make a coÌ„munion of it after the right vse of Christ his institutioÌ„ TheÌ„ to put you out of doubt thei were no ministers For the historie saieth that wheÌ„ holy Satyrus had escaped drouning him selfe and him selfe coÌ„ming first to lande had either holpeÌ„ to saue other or sawe them all to be recouered then he straytwaies asked where the church was there to geaue thankes and receiue also those euerlasting misteries aeterna mysteria Also prouing so great defence to haue come vnto him by hauing the heauenly misterie folded vpp in a cloth how much thought he shall I wyn if I doe receyue him in my mouth and with all the botome of my hart But although he were desirous yet he was not folish venterous
canon and you thinke that he shall be lytle thanked for bringing in this Councell and to be short as though all were wonne you sing as it were Te Deum and you thanke God that we are dryueÌ„ so much to our shiftes that we can not mayntayne falsehod but that we are constreyned to promote the truth But o Lorde God what hath ben sayed wherefore this felow should have such a vantage against vs or what falshod is that which we would maynteyne by this canon or what truth is so singularly vttered by reason of this our testimonye This canon saye you doth not proue sole receyuing Mary Syr neyther we haue vsed it for that purpose It proueth saye you that in the primitiue church the maner was to receyue with cumpanye We knew this before you tolde vs. Ergo saye you all sole receyuing is by this testimonye confounded I deny your argument for as we confesse and know that receyuing with cumpany was ordinary in the church for some tymes and places so we beleiue and haue proued it before that sole receiuing hath sometymes ben allowed Wher now then is your gaye victory We resist not your authorities by which you may proue many to haue receyued togeather but we myslyke with your discretion which conclude that sole receyuing is not therfore allowable And agayne what talke you in this place of sole receyuing Answer rather vnto our argument which proueth reseruacion The DeacoÌ„s could not consecrate the Bishops and Priestes being absent in this case then sayeth the holy Councell lett the Deacons themselues bring furth the sacrameÌ„t and eate it But how should they eate it except they had it and how should they haue it except it were first consecrated or how could it be presentlye consecrated when both Bishops and Priestes were absent Must it not folow necessarily that it was reserued in that they are licensed to take it furth them selues and eate it Yf you can denye reseruation to be proued by this place we must wonder at your ignorancie and if you coÌ„fesse it playnlie wher is your proper answer vnto it Oh saye you in these Deacons which receyued in absence of the Bishop and Priestes There appeareth an extraordinary case Such is your ordinary answer but wherein is the case extraordinary In that the Deacons receyue it in absence of the Bishop and Priestes or in that it was reserued It was ordinarye that the Priestes should geaue the sacrament to the Deacons but what if no Priest had ben present then sayeth the Councell the Deacons may bring it furth and serue themselues And in this respect you saye truly that here is an extraordinary case But as concernyng the reseruation of the sacrament how can you deuise that it was extraordinarye Doe you thinke when the Bisshops or Priestes were sure to tarye at home vntyll the morow that they then did not make any store of the sacrament but presently bestow it emong the communicantes and when they could not intend the mysteries the next day folowing thinke you that they consecrated more hostes then needed for that tyme present and sayd vnto the Deacons Syrs here is the sacrament for you in store vntyll to morow But what necessitie was there for the Deacons to receyue on the morow that the breache of Christ his institution might be somewhat thereby excused Truly the Deacons should tarye not only one daye but one whole yeare rather then reseruation should be admitted if so greate fault as you saye be in it Now if the sacrament were not reserued vpon such a speciall case how can you saye that the reseruation was extraordinarye And if the reseruation were ordinary as vndoubtedlye it was make the case then of the Deacons receyuing as extraordinary as you will and it letteth our purpose nothing For we consider not the acte of the Deacons in any other sense or meanyng then as it proueth reseruation And here you shall note further that the sacrament was reserued not onlye for such which laye in their death beddes and were not recoÌ„cyled vnto the churche as you said in the chapiter before but also that it serued the vncorrupted and faythfull Christians whiles thei were yet in good health except you can thinke that the Deacons whom the Nycene Councell permitteth to take furth the sacrament and eate it were either excoÌ„municated persons either such as could not go abrode for weakenes Now as coÌ„cerning the receiuing vnder one kynd as it might be shewed out of this place if we would dally as you do vse and as concerning your great inuectyue against vs as though any of vs did make a tryfle of Christ his institution and not rather reproue your interpretations which make that to be Christes which is not his as also coÌ„cerning S. Cyprian whom you full madly alleage for your purpose which all togeather in that his epistle proueth that wyne and water shold be mingled togeather in our sacrifice I will not speak at this present because the first is not maynteyned of vs the secoÌ„de is not to be regarded and the third had ben spokeÌ„ of before But as coÌ„cerning reseruation which we say and say againe to be most manifestly proued by the testimonye of the Nycene couÌ„cell therein we haue you so fast bound that all accustomed shiftes do fayll you you wâ—ll not say I trust either that councell to be of smal reputatioÌ„ although the Bishop of Romes legates were cheif men there either the case of reseruation to haue ben extraordinary or that the church was dryuen vnto it by playne necessitie for their syckmens sake which laye at the point of death and were excommunicated from other Christians The eleuenth Chapiter SAint Cyprian in his fyfth sermon de lapsis declareth how an infant which had receyued before of bread and wyne offred vpp to Idolles had afterwardes emong Christians the bloud of Christ powred into her mouth by the Deacon of the church And straitwaies yexing and vomiting foloweth because that the sacrament could not abyde in a body and mouth defyled Of this historye it is gathered that the babe receyued the sacrament in forme of wyne only For if the body had ben receyued before it would no more haue taryed in a polluted mouth then the bloud did but she was wonderfully vexed or sore vexed for both these phrases are vsed of the Catholike in his Apology not before the bloud was powred into her mouth but immediatlye after therefore it is very euident that she receyued onlye in forme of wyne Naye saye you the first trouble which the childe had was euen in the â—yme of prayer before the sacrament was distributed It was so in deede For the child cryed out and turned her selfe hyther and thyther for anguyshe of mynde and inwarde torment But who suspected anye harme thereof or who did collect thereby that the childe was defyled within by reason of wyne soppes which were geauen to her of the offeringes to Idolls