You must graunt allso that as we are vnder a proper and most excellent law so lykewyse that we haue a correspōdent priesthode as it is writen VVhen the priesthode is transferred it must needes be that there be made a transferring of the law allso because law and priesthode do go◠ioyntly togeather Then it foloweth herevpon That euery Bisshope chosen out of men is apointed for men in those thinges which are to Godward that he should offer vp giftes and sacrifices for synnes c. But sacrifice for synn there is none in this law and tyme of grace besides the body and bloud of our Sauyor ergo that must be offered Yet no man should take an office vpon hym except he were called and there is no place in all scripture where that calling ys expressed but only in the last supper of Christ. therefor whereas he in that his last supper gaue authoritie vnto priesthode in saying Do this in remembrance of me I conclude that priestes only are bound to blesse to breake his body and consequently to eate it I saie not that euery priest is bound to daily frequentation of the sacrament which if you thinke vs to do you speake without boke therein and misreport the Catholikes but concernyng the whole body of priesthode and the necessitie of a daily sacrifice priestes are not only bound to offer but to prouide that there be daily offering Knowing this that it is a most sure token of Antichrist his presence whē the Iuge sacrificium the daily sacrifice shall cease to be offered For thei only are called to that high office and their dutie is to folow their office And this thing being rightly considered of the auncient fathers made them so reuerently to behaue them selues towardes the blessed sacrament As S. Denyse the Areopagite speakyng of the order of masse in his tyme saieth that the Bisshope excused hymselfe that he offered vp the helthsome sacrifice which is aboue his power and that he cried out decently saying vnto God Thow hast saied Do this in my remembrance As who sould saie except thow hadest geauen licence and authoritie what man would haue bē so bold as to come nigh to the touching of so diuine misteries S. Iustine allso the Martir witnesseth that the Apostles in their cōmentaries which are the ghospells do declare that Christ cōmaunded them to consecrate the bread by the prayers of his word at what tyme he toke bread and after thankes geauing saied Do this in remembrance of me And S. Cypriane more plainely saieth that in Christ his last supper those sacramentes came furth which had ben signified from the tyme of Melchisedech and that the high priest bringeth furth vnto the sounes of Abraham which do as he dyd bread and wyne sayng this is my body Of which bread saieth this blessed martyr the Apostells dyd eate in the same supper before according vnto the visible forme but sence the time that it was saied of our Lord do this in my remembrance this is my bodye this ys my bloud as often tymes as the thing is done with these wordes and this faith this substantiall bread and chalice consecrated with the solemne blessing profiteth vnto the liffe and health of all the whole man being both a medicine and a sacrifice to heale his infirmities and purge his iniquities Wherefore if you Syr would consider how great this misterie ys you shoulde perceaue how great honor and preeminencie all priestes are indued with For when they worke then are these holy thinges which I speake of begon and perfected But say you Christ his institution was generall and his commaundement therein stretcheth as well to the people as to the priest I haue proued vnto you the contrary both by reason because priesthode ys a distinct office vnto which certen onlye are apoynted and chosen owt from the laitie and by scripture as you may cōsider by S. Paule to the Hebreues and allso by Doctours as S. Denyse Iustine and Cypriane do plainely testifie But then you byd vs to vnderstand That S. Paule a good interpretour of Christ his mind applieth the wordes of Christ to the whole congregation of Corinth where it ys certē were both ministers and cōmon people Nay Sir vnderstand you this rather that you vnderstand not S. Paule which in that his chapiter alleageth the institutiō of Christ to this purpose that the Corinthians by consideration of the charitie and maiestie which was represented therein shold be more felolyke in the cōmunicating of theyr common meates from which they were fallen vnto seuerall and priuate tables or suppers in the church And he doth tell historically what Christ saied vnto his disciples not what Christ apoynted the Corinthians and euery other of the Christians to do For I haue receiued of owr Lord that which I haue delyuered vnto you sayth the Apostell But what meaneth he by these wordes I haue deliuered he spake vnto all the Corinthians without respect of spiritualtie or temporalty but dyd he speake by waie of instruction or by waie of geauing some office and function vnto them And that which he receiued of Christ did he delyuer vnto them as a doctrine and article to be lerned or as a cōmaundement to be exequuted if you meane the first you agree with vs if you meane the second you disagree from cōmon sense and euident truth for if it apperteine vnto all Christians without distinction to doe as S. Paule receaued of Christ and as the Corinthians receaued of S. Paule then must euery Christian take bread geaue thankes and breake it and when euery body is a minister who then shall be a receauer Againe in the wordes of our Sauyor Do this in remembrance of me how much is wylled to be done Are the wordes do this to be referred only to the takyng and eating no truly for do this doth not folow in Sainct Paule immediately vpon the wordes take and eate but after the wordes thys ys my body and it were better and plainelier englyshed make this then do this thereby to geaue you to vnderstand that by those wordes authoritie of makyng and consecrating Christ his body was geauen vnto the Apostles But taking do this after the largest manner it can not yet be referred to takyng or eatyng only but must allso be vnderstanded of blessing now if you will haue these wordes of do this in my remembrance to stretch as well vnto the people as to the high order of priestes then may you cōplaine not only that thei receiue not as oft as the priest which thei will not I warrant you for all your greate mouyng but allso and rather that they take not the bread in to their handes and blesse it themselues and say masse such as may be called priuate in deed Which vnsensible and pernitiouse folissh opinion because you will not suffer to enter in to your hart therefor you must of necessitie graunt great
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
with staÌ„ding in two sundry external thinges geaue the communion of them to his Disciples This letteth nothing our beleif which do know as well as you that Christ gaue his body and bloud vnder two formes of bread and wyne and yet notwithstanding one Christ was receiued vnder both formes of bread and wyne But therefor he deliuered hymselfe vnder those two kyndes and not one that we might the better consider his passion in which the bloud was separated from the bodye Therfore the fayth of the communicantes in the one parte receiueth the body trusting to Christ his promises the same fayth in the other parte receyueth the bloud beleiuing also our Sauior his wordes therein You haue not to proue that in the one part the body was receiued but that the bodye onlye without bloud is receiued And then further where you say that the faith of the communicantes receiueth the bodie doeth it receiue it as a dead carkas shame to thinke it or else as the bodye of the soune of God Christ our Sauior saieth The flesh profiteth nothing it is the spirite which quyckeneth How then doth the communicantes faith receiue such a sole body which hath neither bloud neither lyfe neither diuinitie in it The forgeauenes of synnes commeth only from the Deitie but the cheif instrument by which God worketh is Christes our Sauior most dearlye beloued Humanitie Which if a man conceiue as separate from his Diuinitie then trulye as it is emong all creatures most excellent so yet is it but a creature and very lytle auayleable vnto vs mary as it is the bodye and bloud of hym which was not only man but also God most glorious his body and bloud doth releiue vs through the presence of his maiestie You therfore which do diuide Christ and by your faith which no wyse man doth euer trust make a receiuing of a body without all bloud lyfe or diuinitie doe most playnelie take the fructe of their redemption from the people and make them to hang vpon grosse imaginations of a bodye without bloud and bloud without a bodye to their exceading losse and iniurie But now if all other argumentes fayled vs and if your deuise were not so obscure and vyle as it is yet the authoritie of the church is no small thing emong Christians againste which you speake so lyke a madd master as though you knew the voyce of Christ better then the church of Rome which yet doe not know whether there be any Christ or no except it were for the authoritie of the church of Rome And whereas you buyld all your institutions and articles vpon the textes of the scripture and your priuate interpretations and coÌ„tempne your mother Church yet except you folow the voyce of the church of Rome you can with no reason defende that this which you holde is scripture And here againe you call vpon vs to remembre S. Cyprian which in all that epistle of his vnto which you do referr vs doth so make against them which ministred only in water that he coÌ„futeth also them which minister onlye in wyne prouing both by the old and new law that wyne and water both should be mengled togeather in the misteries But as concerning tâ—e receiuing vnder one kynde of which we haue to speake what aunswer you vnto the place of Tertullian or vnto S. Cyprian his authoritie You saye that our argumentes taken out of them are but coniectures and the same very vncertayne for often tymes in the Doctors where one kynde is mencyoned both are vnderstanded as after shall more appeare Let the wordes of the authors them selâ—es trye it whether you or we do vse the vncertayne coniectures Tertullian in his second booke vnto his wyfe where he telleth her of the sondrye faultes and inconueniencies into which those women do bring themselfes which after their husbandes death do become wyffes vnto infidell and heathen rulers or gentlemen theÌ„selues being Christians emong which this is a verye principall one that in the houses of paynyms they shall not well be able to keep the orders of Christian people he sayeth after other persuasions Shalt thou not be espied cùm lectulum cùm corpusculum tuum signas c when thow doest blesse thy bedd and thy bodye with the signe of the crossâ— when thou doest spet out with exuâ—flation some vncleane thing when also thou doest aryse in the night tyme to praye and shalt thou not be thought to worke some witchcrafte Shall not thy husband know what thou doest taste secretely of before all meate And if he know it he beleiâ—eth it to be bread and not that which it is said to be Of these wordes you gather that in the name of bread is vnderstanded also wyne and why so Mary because that some tymes emong the Doctors of which hereafter we shall speake more both kyndes are vnderstanded when but one is expressed ergo Tertullian in this place is in lyke maner to be construed But our collection is otherwise that because we reade but one kynde specifyed therefore without any necessitie we doe not make coniectures that he meaneth both And we see that Tertullian in this booke was not in such hast that he needed to speake by figures vnto his wyfe or to number syx for the dozen Then by common reason we see that wyne in so lyttle a quantitie as ones parte commeth vnto in the distributing of the mysteries was not to be reserued of any person because of the quyck alteration of it Allso we beleiue that vnder one kynde Christ wholye is geauen and therefor that the gouernors of the church were not so folysh or scrupulous as to make a necessitie of both And whereas you perceyue by this testimonye that sole receyuing was then vsed which by your sayeing Christ his institution doth not permit we had no iust occasion to mystrust the receyuing vnder one kynde which we know to be of no greater force then the receyuing with company And you also if you had good wyttes might for good cause feare least you were deceyued in the question of receiuing vnder both kindes whereas in the controuersie of sole receyuing you be so openly confounded which yet you doe as earnestile endeuor to proue as you doe shifte to vnderstand both kyndes in Tertullian whereas he mencioneth but one Note further that when Christ said This is my bodye you will haue no bloud to appertaine vnto it and when any Doctor doth speake onlie of bread you will at your pleasure make wyne to be vnderstanded Iniurious in the one and superfluous in the other Therefore let it be tryed which of our two sydes doth vse more vncertaine coniectures Now as concerning S. Cyprian When a certayne woman saieth he assayed with her vnworthye handes to open her cheste in the which SanctuÌ„ Domini fuit the holy dody of our Lorde was she was made afrayd by fyer arysing from thens that she durst
of greate prouision and it keepeth a great sturr within a mans hart to conceyue how it should be a naturall bodye and placed now in heauen and yet present and perfect on euery aultar in the whole worlde and because it were lytle inough to thynke all nyght long and mornyng before how to come to such a feast with contrition confession and satisfaction therefore it is but superfluous cost and a torment vnto the conscience Colde meate shall serve vs well inough and we shal be as merye with bread and drink in the remembraÌ„ce that Christ dyed for vs as with all the prouision which the papistes saie Christ to haue made In which similitude you haue as rightly expressed your inward thoughtes as maye be And we truly if we make greate prouisioÌ„ we doe no other then we are commaunded because we be his seruantes which euery daye geaueth the fatt calfe for ioye of his sounes which were lost and are returned agayne which was neuer a niggard of his meate and drinke in so much that when he had none other but seruantes in his howse yett he prouyded so royally for them that as euerye one of them wysshed so dyd his meate taste in his mouth For consider onlye the excellencye of Manna of the olde law First of all it came from heauen without any labor of the Israelites it came dayly except one daye in the weeke that they should haue it fressh and fressh it came so plentyfullye that yt couered all the grounde about theyr tentes and yet so equallye that he which gathered more dyd not abounde and he which gathered lesse did not want it came so simply as if it had ben the seedes of coryander and it tasted so wonderfully that it conteyned all delycates and hartes desyre it continued to them .xl. yeares togeather and as surely as their bodyes were noryshed with that bread so sure thei might be that their sowles mindes were fed with the grace of Christ. And all this yet was bestowed vpoÌ„ the Iewes before the incarnation of the souâ—e of God before the comming of the holyghost in the law of bondage in the tyme of figures and when God as I may saye did not yet keepe open householde in all coÌ„treyes of the world neither make so great cheare as he mynded to doe afterwarde Therefor if such thinges were geaueÌ„ vnto the Iewes what was to be reserued for Christians and if we haue not in deede the reall body of Christ emong vs what lyke thing haue we vnto their Manna Yf there were no other argument but this one which is gathered upon the conferring of tyme with tyme state with state figures with truthes Moyses with Christ Iewes with Christians yet of very congruence and conscience we should looke to fare better then the Israelites dyd in the barren wyldernes But except our Sauior his wordes this is my bodye this is my bloud be vnderstanded literally and really we fare a thousand partes worse For as in our bread vnitie is represented so might it haue ben in 〈◊〉 Manna and as you be as verely assured that your sowle doth participate Christ in spirite as your bodye doth receyue the externall bread so likewise they which were spirituall emoÌ„g the Israelites did in their Manna conceyue and receyue the bread of lyfe and the Sauior of the world and againe as your sacramentall bread is a token and seale vnto you of the goodnes and promyses of God so was Manna vnto them and that with much more myracle and coÌ„fort So that you haue nothing in this your Sacrament of the new law which should be most excellent which one maye not fynde in the Manna of the olde law which yet was but a shadow and figure of the bodye of Christ in the Sacrament but Manna of that tyme had many wonderful prerogatyâ—es by which it farr passeth in estimation the Sacrament of Christ his bodye and bloud if there be no more in it then you doe conceyue and vtter Which because it is vnreasonable therefore we can not but vnderstand Christ his wordes This is my bodye c. in that sense which we doe and we doe not feare least we shall offende in making to great a price and value of the SacrameÌ„t but rather we coÌ„fesse that we shall neuer be able to expresse the maiestie the miracles and the dignitie of it As for you if you be delighted with cold rost and would not if you might haue Christ really and naturally God and man bodye and sowle to be geauen vnto you but can satisfye your appetyte with only figures sygnes and similitudes you shal sytt by your selfe for the Catholikes vntyll God shall sende you more charitie Which if it were as it should be in you you could not fynde fault with the reall presence of Christ in his Sacrament and call it a torment vnto your conscience but rather you would be werye of all scrappes and leauinges of an yesterdayes feast and contemne all counterfait dyshes which haue more apparance then substance When you were a childe if one had brought vnto you a byrde or a fysh made in fyne and sweete paste with a figg or such lyke thing within you would haue ben more delighted in it theÌ„ with the true meate of the byrde or fysh but after that you be come to the state of a man you should couet the sounde and strong meates and lett all such creekes and knackes alone to serue for children God graunt that you fynde not hereafter fault also with the Catholikes that they teache you to beleiue a true and natural flesh and sowle in Christ and that you reproue not the charges and cost which God hath bestowed vpon the redemption of mankynde because the only worde of his blessed will was able to saue vs so that his incarnation needed not but only a similitude of a body But for this tyme let this be an end of this Replye and I would to God here might be an end of all coÌ„trouersie which because it is not verye credible in such confusion and vnrulynes of sectes and diuisions therfor some answer is to be looked for or rather some similitude of it For as concerning any true answer in the defence of your part you can neuer make it in those pointes which you are burdened withall in this Replye as your mysconstruyng of holye Fathers and reasoning out of the purpose with many absurde and vnlearned conclusion Yet no doubt but you will coÌ„tinew styll in your stoutnes and by one meane or other mayntayne your Capitaynes against vs. For if Goliath be stroken downe yet you sett vpp an Achilles and by chainging of the name you thinke to chainge the cause But if your bastard brauery had not ben sufficiently exemplified by the fact of the vncircumcided Goliath yet now by the crake which you sett vpon your prophane Achilles you proue your selfes more lyke that fell Gyant theÌ„ euer you were before For allthough
principal sacrifice of his pure hart and mynd and by this we vnderstand that God excedinglie loued man which of mere good will and compassion was content so to suffer for man What shall we geaue then againe vnto God for all this which he hath done for vs we owe to hym remeÌ„brance of these benefites we owe vnto hym thankes we owe vnto him loue Remembrance is moued by representation and signe Thankes require a present and gift to be vttered by Loue desireth to be made one with that which is loued To keepe his benefites in remembrance we might vse either reading or hearing of his actes out of bokes or painting of his passion and expressing of his liffe in colours But images we knowe are similitudes only and are farr from the thinges themselues To the signifieing of our thankes we might either sing them by mouth or sound them by instrumentes of shew them in the buylding of churches and decking of them with ornamentes And as concernyng Loue we might fetch deepe sigthes and haue ernest desires but as the seruantes of holie Iob saied by theire master in token of their exceding loue who might geaue vs to haue our full of his flesshe We ought to render singular deuotions because we haue receaued singular benefites but our memorie ys so vnstable our power so litle and our charitie so faint that allthough verie reason persuadeth that we after a most best manner shoulde remember thanke and loue so mercifull and bountiefull a Sauior as Iesus ys yet the miserie of nature declareth that we are not able to doe either as we should either perchaunse as we would In this doubt therefor who shall helpe vs but he which hath dyed for vs which because he is made our heade hath therfor this office to direct and rule the bodie And so trulie he hath done For in his last supper he toke bread and saied This ys my bodie he toke the cupp and saied This ys my bloud of the new testament and with this bodie and bloud which he hath and doth geaue vnto vs we are able to discharge all our duties and make a full and perfect offering Of which bodie and the misteries and treasures thereof if I would particularlie speake all tyme and studie were to litle for the greatnes of the matter But for those three pointes the which I make mention of thei may be perfectlie brought to passe in the hauing and enioying of his true bodie For as concernyng our charitie and loue it is the most that we can desire in the state of his liffe to be corporallie spirituallie reallie faithfullie bodilie and ghostlie ioyned vnto hym which onlie is to be loued Of which our coniunction with Christ our God the body and bloud which he gaue vnder the formes of bread and wine are a signe and sacrament and are called in respect of this signification and effect 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greeke Communio in Laten and Communion in our Englisshe Then for geauing of thankes what greater present is there in earth or heauen theÌ„ the firstfruct of the virgins wombe and the cheifest portion of all creatures which is the bodie and bloud of Iesus Christ So that if holie Abel Noâ— Abraham and other haue testified their inward sacrifice of thankes by lambes corne grapes oyle and so furth and if Moises with all his people hath pleased God in offering the firstfructes of their vineyardes and glebeland with firstfructes of men and beastes in testimonie of the honor and thankes which thei gaue vnto God how much more acceptablie are we now able to offer vnto God a most worthie and pretiouse gift which haue receaued for that purpose the bodie and bloud of Christ in whose only bodie the particular values and prices of all other presentes that euer were vnder any law are shortlie coÌ„prised and reckened summarelie And so in this respect the body of our Sauior is vnto vs Eucharistia or a sacrifice of thankes geauing But now for the third point who thanketh hym whom he remembreth not or who remembreth hym whom he is not warned of or what warning can be greater then the reall presence of the partie and the partie being present what is first coÌ„sidered but his cheefest and worthiest benefite That we should therefor allwayes remember our Sauyor hys deathe which he so openly suffered that all creatures should behold it he left vnto vs the same bodie that suffered for vs. In presence of which yf we wyll not be brought to remeÌ„ber him we wil neuer be brought And in this respect our Sacrament is called a Sacrifice because it is vnto all such as haue the true and sincere faith a most holy signe and token of that sacrifice of the crosse which so long tyme sence is ended as concerning the painefullnes and bloudnies of his crucified bodie and yet continueth styll in fresshe memorie by reason of the reall presence of the same bodie which then suffered And lyke as when Easter draweth nygh we saye to morowe or the next daye after is the passion of our Lord because it is a lyke daye vnto that in which he suffered hys passion so because that in the misteries of Christians the representatioÌ„ of Christs perfect sacrifice which he offered once for all ys perfectlie worked therfor it beareth the name of that bloudie sacrifice which it representeth For in deed we doe not at this daye sacrifice Christ bloudelie but rather celebrate the memorie of his paineful sacrifice which memorie is by no meane more effectuallie preserued then by this that the same bodie is now made reallie present before vs which at that tyme was sensiblie offered for vs. But how then is it propitiatorie forsoth because of the offering of one selfesame bodye for allthough we make a coÌ„memoration only of his death not put Christ to death in deed yet we haue thorough hys gyft the selfesame body which theÌ„ being put to death rose againe to lyffe that it might neuer more die which then was offered vpp bloudelie and now is offered misticallie and is in both maners the same Christ verelie and to the same effect dispensatiuelie Therefor as Christ is the true fontaine of lyffe and the euerlasting and shyning light of cumfort and as his pretiouse syde after it hath ben once opened is neuer shut vpp and stopped againe but alwaies geaueth out the streames of mercy and peace so it can not but make for the clensing of their synnes which stand before it and hope after remission forgeauenes and mercie by it And as the word propitiation doth signifie nothing els but graciousnes fauor cause of fauor or some such like so the misticall offering of his reall person which is the deseruer and geauer of all perdon can not be but propitiatorie vnto them which come lowlie before his grâ—ce and do hym faithful honor not withstanding his externall basenes and the curteins whiche he keepeth hym selfe vnder Thus I
haue shortlie declared what a sacrifice is And that one is internall an other externall And that vnder the name of internal sacrifice all pietie and deuotion of the hart is coÌ„teined in to how manie kindes so euer it may be deuided And that all good externall actions done in respect of God are comprehended vnder the name of externall sacrifice with all the varietie and number of them be they neuer so diuerse and manie In which kind of externall sacrifice I haue putt the sacrifice of the churche geauing warning vnto you in what sense the church doth call it a sacrifice And now therefor to returne vnto your diuision of sacrifice you maie lerne hereafter to doe your thinges in better order For the oblations which the people made of bread wine and other victualls likewise the praying for all states in the tyâ—e of celebrationâ— thirdlie euerie good act and consequentlie the action of the priest at the aultar should haue ben putt of you vnder the title or member of externall sacrifice And then you should haue spoken sumwhat of internall sacrifice And before you had come vnto that you should haue defined vnto vs what a sacrifice had ben that we might haue a little perceaued your good iudgement in the doctors But let vs forgeaue you this vnskillfullnes and consider now whether that which you haue spoken without order be not spoken allso of you without trueth or reason First we agree with you that the people made such offeringes as you speake of But we denie that the offering of the people was cause vnto the holie fathers that they should geaue the title of sacrifice vnto the sacrament For it is vnreasonable that the Sacrament should borow the name of oblation of the peoples offering and not rather the peoples wine and bread be honored with that title â–ª because of the Sacrament For in euerie kind of thing the first and cheifest in that kind is first and formest to be accompted As for example the offering of Christ which he made of hymselfe vpon the crosse because it was the most perfectest and best that euer was made you should not therefor saie that by the example taken of the offering vpp of calues sheepe or lambes Christ is saied to be offered but rather because of his principal sacrifice all other must from thence haue and borow their name And so because the oblation which ys made in the misteries is of more excellencie and of higher degree then the offeringes of the people no doctour of the church wold be so vnlike hym selfe as to call that which the priest coÌ„secrated at the aultar by the name of sacrifice because it was a selected portion out of the peoples offering Againe yf yt were true that in respect that the bread and wyne was taken out of the peoples offering therfor the bread and wine consecrated should haue the name of an oblatioÌ„ yet you could neuer call the priest an offerer except for some action in which his offering might be perceaued And this shall be the better proued by considering of your example which to shewe your purpose you bring out of S. Irenei which speaking of the bread and wine of which Christ saied Thys ys my bodie thys ys my bloud witnesseth that Christ therein taught them not vs as you conster it but the Apostles first and after them and by them vs a new oblation of the new testament which the church taking of the Apostles offereth vpp to God in all the world Here loe in this sentence if it were possible that the terme oblation should be applied not properlie vnto the sacrament but in respect as you thinke of the oblation of the people yet how doth the church offer when by your saying there is nothing to offer But consider for shame the wordes of S. Irenei He taught saieth he the Apostels a new oblation of the new testament Yf Christ taught them thei were to lerning of it if he taught them a new oblation it was such as thei neuer had before Yet of the offering of bread and wine and such like thei had not onlie hard of before but were allso offerers of it them selues because all the nation of Iewes had example or commaundement of it in the law Againe if it were a new oblation of the new testament it is plaine it was more worth and more royall and more true then any of the old law what tyme all thinges chaunsed vnto theÌ„ in figures and were done for vs which lyue now in the later end of the world And therefor if in the old law the priests oblations were true oblations and had not that name or title because thei were offered vp before of the people what a vile reproche is this to the euerlasting and new testament to saie that when the Doctours do speake of the oblation made at the masse thei meane thereby that the common people made offeringes of bread and wyne to serue therewith the aultar the priests and poore beggars Allso this holie father saieth That the church receauing that oblation of the Apostles doth offer it vpp to God in all the world Furthermore he bringeth in the testimonie of the Prophete Malachie to proue that the sacrificies of the old law should be abolisshed and one pure and cleane sacrifice succede them and please God more then all thei had done I haue no mynd to you saieth God by the Prophete vnto the Iewes as coÌ„cerning their sacrificies because from the East to the weast my name is greate emong the Gentiles and in all places there is sacrificed and offered vpp vnto my name a pure oblation or offering because my name is greate emong the Gentiles This testimonie of the Prophete S. Irenei alleageth to proue the new testament of which he spake And by all this which the church hath receaued the Apostles haue delyuered the Sonn of God hath taught the Prophete hath forshewed the whole world doth celebrate is this trow you vnderstanded that the people should in the tyme of the new law and kingdome of Messias come in to the churches with bread wyne butter egges and cheese and other good victualls that of the bread and wine which thei offer a portion should be taken to serue at the communion I will be short with you we the Christians either haue no externall sacrifice and then we be in more worse and discumfortable case then euer any before haue ben in any kind of religion or els we haue an excellent oblation delyuered vnto vs as the Prophete Malachie foreshewed and Christ exhibited and the church obserueth But this excellent oblation and so much spoken of is not the oblation which the people make for the offering of come wyne and victualls was more largelie and plentifullie vsed emong Iewes and Panimes both then it is with vs Ergo the Prophete Malachie spake of an other and better kind of offering Ergo allso S. Irenei dyd not meane in his sentence
awaye all the partes of the Lorde his supper by defence of priuate masse What a wycked and shamefull lye is this For there was neuer yet any masse celebrated emong vs so quycklie so shortlie so secretelie and so much without cumpany but it had in it breade wyne and water blessing breaking remembring of Christ his passion togeather with all that which the Apostle speaketh of vnto Timothe saying Therefore I praye the first of all that besechinges prayers requestes and thankes geuing be made for all men c. But why should we make wondring at this lye being not the first in your defence and hauing many after folowers Will you declare this in order which you haue taken in hande to proue against vs Your hart is good euer allthough your matter be nought For this you saye The Sacrament as it is in vse hath two partes the matter and the forme What partes hath it then before it come to the vse of which you speake And if there should chaunce to be no such present vse of the sacrameÌ„t what matter and forme hath it as it is considered without the vse Can you define this sacrament which are so cunnyng in the numbring of the partes of it as it is in vse And hath not euerie sacrament matter and forme of which two it is constituted Is not the sensible thing and element as bread wine oyle c. called the matter of them and the wordes which are added to those elementes are not thei called the formes The worde sayeth S. Augustyne commeth vnto the element and there is made a sacrament Bread is the matter of the sacrament of the aultar and the wordes This is my bodye are the forme of it which two when thei are brought togeather by the intention of such as are called rightlie to the office straitwaies there is a sacrament consisting of the visible signe and of the inuisible and naturall body of our Sauyor And whether it be receiued or reserued God doth not pull back his worde at the departing or not comming of men But goe to what saye you of the matter of the sacrament as it is in vse The matter is bread and the bodye wyne and the blood of Christ. Yf the bodye of Christ be the matter as you separate the matter from the forme how commeth it to passe I pray you that there is the bodye of Christ to hym which will vse the bread Do you thinke that where so euer any breade is there is allso the bodye of Christ to hym which will vse the bread Yf this be false as it is then I saye that the body with which and the bread you make vpp the matter of the sacrament as it is in vse doth not come to the breade without some diâ—ine operation Except you thinke that any power of creature is able to exhibite the body of his creator and maker What operation then is that by which this matter which you saye is bread and the body of Christ doth come to that perfection to be the bodye of our Sauior For we know that breade may be had from the bakers or if as your selfes now do mislyke with bakers bread you will haue cleane and fyne cakes to be made for the purpose thei are men or women which make them and their howses are not inuisible But how come you to haue that bodye with which and the bread you make vpp the matter of the sacrameÌ„t as it is in vse For you can not vse the wordes of the Ghospell to bring that to passe because thei are the forme of the sacrament and you in this place do so speake of the matter as it is distincted from the proper forme Then agayne how ignorantlie â–ª and vnreuerently is it deuised of you to make the bodye of Christ the materiall parte of the sacrament as it is in vse to the exhibiting of which bodye all matter and forme serueth which is requyred to the sacrameÌ„t But if this be the matter what is the forme The forme of ministration is that the minister should take the matter and with the wordes of the ghospell geaue it to them present as Christ did God send you better memorie or if memorie faill not God send you more honestie Did you not begynne to tell vs of the matter and forme of the sacrament as it is in vse make then an end of that which you beganne The matter you haue defyned what is the forme of the sacrament The forme saye you of ministration is c. The forme of ministratioÌ„ Whoe requyred it of you You must tell vs of the forme of the sacrament as it is in vse and not the forme of ministration And whereas among all learned men the forme is the perfection of the matter either els you shold neuer haue made such a diuision of the sacrament as it is in vse or els you should haue told vs of such a forme which doth geaue as I may saiâ— a grace vnto the matter Is the forme of the sacrament and forme of ministration all one with you or the forme of the sacrament as it is in vse and the forme of ministratioÌ„ is it all one what you might make of the first you could not tell and therefor you turned out of your purpose vnto the seconde And although you speake nothing of the matter of ministration you expounde yet the forme of ministration vnto vs and whereas you began with the matter of the Sacrament you refuse to declare vnto vs the forme of yt which we looked for Now if your iudgement serued you to make all one thing of the sacrament as it is in vse and of the ministration of yt then must the breade and bodye as you lye of Christ be the matter of ministration lyke as it is the matter of the sacrament as it is in vse which if it be true I put the case that the minister would not delyuer that foresaid matter vnto the people with his oune handes but bydd them take it themselfes and distribute it emong them were it not the bodye of Christ It could be no otherwise because you saye that the matter of the sacrament as it is in vse and as it is considered as a seperate parte from the forme is breade and the bodye But how can it be hys bodye before the wordes of the ghospell do come vnto it and how are the wordes of the ghospell vsed to that purpose whereas you saie that the minister taketh the matter in to his handes which is by your interpretation the breade and the bodye and delyuereth it with the wordes of the ghospell So that the wordes come after and the bodie is allreadie in his handes before Also what wordes of the ghospell are those which you meane when you saye that the matter must be deliuered with the wordes of the ghospell Yf you meane the wordes of consecration this is my bodye this is my
people with vs doe allwayes receyue vnconsecrated wyne after they haue eaten the bodye of Christ in forme of bread and that the cupp which you geaue is vnconsecrated they did receyue in the forme of wyne as much good as you minister vnto then and so by indifferent reckenyng you can not complayne that the Catholikes take any thing from the people which geaue them as much as you doe that is to saye cleane wyne and no more But doe you call this an altering of the matter of the sacrament when we vse none other matter at all besydes that which Christ appointed but only admitt a good dispensation and order in the vse of it yf there might be any faulte founde with vs in this point for ministring the sacrament at one tyme vnder the forme of bread at an other tyme vnder the forme of wyne yet it is not proued hereby that we chainge the matter of the sacrament For how so euer we doe it yet we minister in none other matter then bread or wyne how then do you proue that we chainge not only the forme but also the matter maye not euery reasonable man then see that you proue your selfe what you are doe you make any regard eyther what you promyse eyther what you performe here I challendge you to make good your worde or els if you be an honest man to reuoke your worde Where is that matter of the sacrament which the Catholikes doe alter Shew if you can that we vse in our ministeries anye other thing then breade wyne and water or any thing more or lesse for the matter of the sacrament But this can neuer be proued Yet you as though it were proued so ye conclude most wyckedlye and slauÌ„derouslye that the sacrameÌ„t of the Lord his supper hath by our doctryne eyther no parte that is of the substance or els that we haue the aucthoritie to chaynge euerye parte of it Whiche conclusion of yours is not only so false but so folysh also that if I would graunte all your premisses which you haue out of all fasshion diuided yet this your conclusion will not follow For all that which you vnderstande by the termes of matter and forme of the sacrament perteyneth only to the manner of ministryng the bread and the bodie wyne and the bloud with the wordes of the ghospell In which pointes if I would for spedines sake graunt that we obserued nothing of that which you requyer yet you should not so absolutely and boldely reporte of vs that we leaue eyther no part of substance as coÌ„cerning the sacrament either chainge it at our pleasures and take awaye Christe his institution For as I saye againe vnto you we holde the wordes of Christ This is my bodye as the forme and bread wyne and water as the matter which can not be altered We beleiue also after the wordes are spoken by a lawfull priest vpon the breade wyne and water that Christ is really present vnder eche of those formes to be vnto vs a sacrifice for synne a foode for our hunger a confort in this miserie a pledge of the euerlasting glorie And we beleiue his wordes to be so true that if none will receiue hym when he cometh before theÌ„ yet that their incredulitie or their lack of charity doth not make his presence nothing How saie you then now for shame do we leaue no parte that is of substance in the sacrament because we doe not agree with you in such kynde of substanciall partes as you haue inuented Do we make our gouernors omnipotent as you saye in transposing and altering the sacramentes instituted by Christ or maye we defraude the people of the whole sacrament I would you did no more harme to the people or take no more vpon you then the church hath done They should not be serued with signes and figures in steede of verities and the wordes of Christ should stand as he ment them saying This ys my bodye which is geauen for you and This is my bloud of the newe testament But for this matter we shall haue an other tyme and leysure The seuenth Chapiter THE Catholike in his Apologie considering that our aduersaryes doe so egerly stryue for the hauing of companye to receyue with the minister because thei would make vpp a communion answereth directly and truly that although none doth visiblie receyue at the same aultar with the priest yet neuer the lesse that there is a communion For lyke as in prayer when I am alone I praye togeather with all them which be of the same body and fayth with me so although I receiue the Sacrament alone yet in deed I communicate with other Against which so playne reason although nothing can be directly spoken yet the master of the defence wil shew his cunning how many pretye florysshes he can deuise besides the matter And first he auauÌ„seth him selfe with standing a typtoe and ouerlooking of other with these wordes VVho seeth not that prayer and the Lorde his supper in the vse of them be nothing lyke But whoe seeth not that you canâ—not tell your selfe how lyke they are For as prayer is made for other so in lyke manner is the bodye of Christ offred by him for other Offred I saye once vppon the crosse immediatlye by hym selfe in a bloudy and visible maner to the redemption of mankynde and yet daylye styll offred by hym through the ministery of his priestes in mysticall and vnbloudy fasshion to the employing of that redemption But who goeth about to proue that praying and receiuing should be both in all pointes a lyke Prayer you saye is a common action which done of one maye stretche to the benefyte of many but the Lorde his supper is no such common action The coÌ„moditie of prayer is allwayes common but it the acte of praying is more oft priuate then common The receyuing of the sacrament is a personall and singular action but the commoditye when it foloweth is communicated with the whole bodye One maye praye without a guyde one can not baptize hymselfe without a minister A mans prayer also maye profyt hym which prayeth not but any ones baptisme may not profyt hym that is not baptized And what of all this Christ saye you taught vs to praye one for an other but he neuer said receiue the communion or be baptized one for an other O Syr remembre your selfe The Catholike against whom you write doth not medle with this question of which you speake He saieth not that one maye be baptized or houseled for an other but he sayeth if you will marke that lyke as in our praying alone we communicate with all Christendome so in receiuing alone we communicate with the whole body of Christ. And to make this his saying playne vnto your runnyng wytt he alleageth the article of our Crede which is that we beleiue the coÌ„munion of sainctes And to make the matter further yet out of all doubt he reciteth a
es fui maye be taken emong the grammaryans Assumere naturam non personam which sense of the verbe substantiue Sum es fui after you haue not founde in any dictionary of the best making how will it sounde in your eares to say Deus est homo God is man The worde was made flesh sayeth the blessed Apostle and Euangelist by which we confesse and beleiue that God the worde was not changed into flessh or mingled and confounded with it or in any part altered but that he tooke vnto his person the verye nature of man and vnited it vnto his Godhed Which sense if you repyne against because the propriety of the tongue can not beare it that factuÌ„ est might be interpreted by vnita est diuina persona humanae naturae the person of God was vnited vnto the nature of man trulye then as your learning perchanse is such that you maye be suffred to reade an open lesson in some grammer schole so without all doubt you are to be amended for the vnright construyng of our Christian rules But saye you we must search the scriptures as Christ and his Apostles taught vs and as the holye Fathers dyd vse against the Arrians and other heretikes As who should saye that This is my bodye which shal be delyuered for you were not scripture playne inough or as though the Arrians had not in sight more places of scripture then the Catholike Fathers or else as though the most holy men of these fyftene hundred yeares whom we folow in the fayth of the sacrament had written whole and large treatyses of it and vsed no scripture at all Well Syr if we lack scripture you perchaunse doe abounde in it and therefore what is your opinion of the sacrament when we interprete Christ his wordes we saye it is a figuratiue speache and such as the Holyghoste often vseth in the institution of sacramentes and ceremonyes It is most true that figurative speaches are often vsed in the scripture as when Christ said I am the vyne c. but can you therfor coÌ„clude that they are allwayes vsed and if I am the vyne be figuratyue is This is my body lyke vnto it When the high Priestes of the Iewes asked Christ whether he were the soune of God he aunswered I am he sayed againe vnto his dysciples I am the waye the truth and lyfe and yet he was not a figuratyue lyfe but reall lyfe in deede And although that Christ speaking of S. Iohn the Baptyst and sayeing Yf you wyll receyue hym he is Helyas meaned not yet that he was Helyas in deed but that he represented Helyas for some pointes neuertheles saying of hym selfe I am the beginnyng which speake vnto you he willeth vs to vnderstand not that he representeth onlye or signifyeth the begynnyng which is God but that in very nature and substance he is the author of all thinges Whereby you maye or should rather perceyue that this argument which you gather out of particular phrases in the scriptures doth helpe nothing your purpose except you could proue them to be generall Now as concerning these wordes of S. Luke and S. Paule This is the new testameÌ„t in my bloud by which you vnderstande that the Sacrament is a testimony or pledge of his last will and gyfte concerning also the numbre of testimonyes which you bring out of the auncient Doctors to proue that Christ gaue a memorye token signe figure and similitude of his bodye I will not speake against them because they be true sayinges Catholike But wheÌ„ wyll you leaue to proue that which we denye not and shewe directly vnto the purpose that Christ gaue no body at all but a figure only vnto vs The catholike fayth is this that the externall signes and formes of bread and wyne are figures of the naturall body and bloud of Christ which are vnder them for as bread is the most naturall and necessarie foode so we vnderstand the flesh of the soune of God to be vnto the faythfull Also that the very naturall body of Christ in the sacrament is a figure of the glorye to come and representeth that vnitie which shall be betweene him and his elect in heauen for he which communicateth hym selfe so freely and fully in earth vnto synners what wyll not he do to the holye ones in heauen Furthermore both the externall visible sygnes of bread and wyne and the true body of our Sauyor which is vnder the visible sacramentes are a figure and signe of the mutuall vnitie of Christ with his churche for she is made one bread through Christ as it were of many graynes and one body consisting of many members Agayne the breaking of the visible sacrament and the reall presence of the body of Christ are in signe and memorie of his passion for if a man should seeke a thousand wayes to styrremen vp to thinke on Christ this passeth all other without coÌ„parison to bring the selfe same bodye before them But with all these figures and signes which are founded in the sacrameÌ„t we confesse also that there is a reall presence not spirituall onlye but corporall For S. Hilarye proueth at large that Christ vnto thiâ— daye is in vs not onlye through concord and agreement of wyll but allso truth of nature Allso Saint Gregorye Nyssene hath this conclusion that lyke as the bread which our Sauior dyd eate whiles he lyued yet on earth was conuerted into his diuine nature because that man which dyd so eate it was also God euen so the breade of our mysteries is conuerted into the flesh of the worde Furthermore S. Hyerome wytnesseth that the bloud and flesshe of Christ is vnderstanded two wayes either for that spirituall and diuyâ—â— flessh of which he hymselfe sayd My flessh is meate in deede and my bloud is drinke in deede â–ª c. either for that flessh which was crucified and the bloud which was shedd with the speare of the souldior According vnto this diuision diuersitie of flessh and bloud is taken to be also in his Sainctes so that it is one flessh which shall see the saluations of God and an other flessh and bloud which can not possesse the kyngdome of God Of this testimoâ—ye therefore we gather that as our flesh in heauen shall be true and reall flesh although it be made spiritual so the spirituall flessh which Christ promysed vnto vs is his very true and natural flesh Againe S. Chrisostome testifyeth that we are turned into one flessh with hym not onlye by charitie but in very deede And in an other place He hath made vs his bodye sayeth he not only by fayth but allso in very deede And it is so true that Christ his naturall flesh is geauen vnto vs in the sacrament that we should also see it with our bodily eyes except diuers causes were to the contrary of which this is one lest some horror
lothsomenes might trouble vs if it were geauen in visible forme of flesh and bloud vnto vs. And to conclude The sonne of God is vnited vnto vs through the mysticall blessing corporally as man spirituallye as God Wherefore we doe not destroye one truth by an other neyther so beleiue the presence of Christ his bodye that in no case we wyll admit any significatiō or figure neither againe so magnifie signes and figures that we take awaye all reall presence S. Augustine teaching vs That the body of Christ is both a veritie and a figure a veritie whiles the substance of bread and wyne is made his bodye and bloud by the power of the holyghost and a figure because of that which is outwardly seene and perceyued And so against the next tyme if you can haue any answer prouide to proue not that Christ gaue a figure but that he gaue nothing else but a figure For if you will so graunt a figure that yet you will not denye the reall presence then will all our other cōclusions which you despyse now be deduced out of the principle of Christ his reall presence that you neede to make no further question about them As for the kynges brode seale vnto which you resemble the sacrament it may be well and trulye sayd that in deede the sacrament is a most sure confirmation of all the actes which Christ dyd worke for vs in the tyme of his visible conuersation emong vs. For how might we haue his verye true bodye emong vs except he receyued a true nature of man vpon hym or how might we Christians doubt of it whether he be rysen from death to immortalitie whose flessh and bloud is daily geauen to such as will to saue them frō corruption But if you make no more of it then that as the king his brode seale doth geaue a force to his letters patentes so lykewyse the sacramentall bread should confirme the testament and promyses of Christ and that in such a sense that as truly as our body is fedd with that bread so truly our sowle is norysshed with his spirite verely you haue taken a great wonder at a common and easye matter For euery man when he will not only in the church but at home and else where and not only by bread or wyne but also by euery thing that is true maye vse the lyke phrase and saye as truly as I stand as I sytt as this fyer burneth as the sonne shineth as I lyue as I eate c. so trulie God dyed once for vs to saue vs from death euerlasting And if you wil cōtend that although one maye so say of al thinges which are true yet that there is a speciall regarde to be had vnto bread wine which Christ him selfe appointed for that purpose yet you haue no great cause of wonder no more then you shold maruell in some weighty accompt which the kyng himselfe would sett for some profitable effect that one such peece of golde which right now stood but for a shilling should be sodainly remoued and made to signifie 1000000. Li. For if al the dignity and price of the Sacrament consisteth herein that it representeth a most wonderfull gyfte and benefyte which the soune of God bestowed vpon vs then are you very much to blame for defacing spoyling breaking and burning of crucifixes which did more lyuely represent the death of Christ then any externall forme of bread and wyne can doe Whereunto if you will answer that Christ appointed the one and not the other you maye yet gather thereby that according vnto your imagination there is no such great excellencye in the institution of bread and wyne to represent and declare vnto vs the veritie of Christ his promyses but that a paynter or caruer maye as euidently expresse them by his arte and colours and more effectually also perchaunse for the playne symple deuout and good men of the world Wherefor that the holye doctors and fathers of Christ his church ▪ should meane nothing els by their termes of transmutatiō transelementation mutation conuersion alteration c. But the chainge of the externall elementes into this meanyng that they doe showe the effecte of the Sacrament and seale vpp vnto vs the promyses of Christ it is a very abiect and vyle mysconstruyng of them For they declare most expreslye that in the externall elementes there is no chainge at all but the chainge is onely in the substance of the bread into Christ his bodye which at an other tyme is to be proued more largelie but now S. Cyprian alone maye suffise saying This bread which our Lord◠dyd vnto his disciples delyuer being chainged not in outward shew but in nature is made flesh by the allmightynes of the worde c. But as much as you can for shame you extenuate and debase the greatnes of Christ his benefytes towardes vs. For Christ saying this is my body you vnderstand hym to meane a figure onely of his body and the holy doctors prouing vnto vs that it should not be vncredible that of simple bread he maketh vnto vs his precious body because he made all thinges of no thing and can doe more then is ordynary by the cōmon course of nature yet saye you they speake of no other chainge but that which is about the external elementes And one of them hauing this similitude Lyke as wax being sett vnto fyer is lykened vnto it no substance remaineth no ouerplus resteth so doe thow thinke the misteries to be consumed by the substance of Christ his bodie No say you it is not so or els it is to be vnderstanded after this maner that lyke as when the king his broad seale is sett vnto his lettres patētes then haue those letters their effect so I trow that the Sacrament should be lyke a pece of wax to confirme I can not tell what letters For if you meane the promysses of euerlasting lyfe before we come to receiue the Sacramēt we beleiue God and his church doubt nothing of them and therefor I confesse my ignorance that I can not tell what maner of leases or grauntes you conceyue to be vnconfirmed before the seale of bread and wine be added vnto them But as I began to tell you you take all thinges at the lowest and basest maner and this perchaunse is that which you obiect vnto vs when your delicate and deyntie eloquence could not abyde to heare the Catholike to speake of the pulling skaulding drawing and rosting of a capon before you dyd eate hym resembling vs vnto the seruant which being commaunded to make the dyner readye would thinke vpon great prouysion the master hym selfe meaning to haue nothing els but such colde meate set vpon the table as was in the house As who should saye we shal be saued and fare well inough if we do but imagine that Christ dyed for us As for the hauing of his naturall bodye because it is a matter
Catholikes Io. 1. Psal. 48. Psal. 132. Defence fo 49. Reply Defence Replye Defence fol. â—od Reply See how the M. of defence wyll apoint the Catholiâ—ke what argumeÌ„t he should vse that hymselfe might haue râ—me and oportunitie to reason agaiâ—st hym Cyprâ— ad â—ulianuÌ„ It is not necessarye that .ij. thinges compared togeather should be in al pointes one lyke the other Note to receiue for other and with other A sore obiection of the M. of the defeÌ„ce Defence fol. 50. Replie what new logiâ—â—e is this Defence fol. 50. Reply The needlesse and vpstart inuention of a particular coÌ„munion â–ª Defence Reply Blynde guides The false harte of the M. of the defence Defence fol. 52. Reply Eras â–ª coÌ„tra EuaÌ„gelicos Item coÌ„tra fratres inferioris Germaniae Defence fol. 54. Replye The M. of the defence confesseth sole receiuyng to haue ben vsed in the primitiue church Defence Reply Note againe how the M. of the defence ruÌ„neth from the question A great distresse of the â— of the defence Defence fol. 55. Replye 1. â—o 4. Marke how shamefully S. Hierome ys belyed of the M. of the defence 1. Cor. 7. Exod. 19. 1. Reg. 21. In Apologia aduersus louinianum Hieron aduersus vigilantium Defence fol. â—5 Reply Tripart hist. ca. 4â— lib. â— The M. of the defence doth dubly â—elie Socrates and Synodus GaÌ„grensis Concilij GangreÌ„â—is ca. 5. of coÌ„munioÌ„ vnder both kyndes Defence fol. 57. Reply The M. of the dâ—fencâ— addeth vnto the scriptures most shamefullie Defence fol. 57. Replie Defence 〈◊〉 58. Reâ—â—y Defenâ—â— fol. eod Reply Io. 1. Defence fol. eod Reply Exod. 16. 17. Defence fol. 〈◊〉 Reply Defence ibidem Reply Io. 6. That the coÌ„municantes receiue not a bodie without bloud and liffe Defence fol. 59. Reply Tertull. ad vxorem proued to make for receiuing vnder one kynd Note the chaingeablenes of heretikes Serm. 5. de Lapsis the Cathâ—like mistaken of the M. of the defence either ignorantlie either craftelie Ambros. inoratioâ—e funebri de â—â—itufrat Defencâ— Reply An other example of the M. of the defence hys flitting from the purpose The storie of holy Satirus delyuered from the suspitions and lyes which the M. of the defence wold briÌ„g in to it and proued to make for receyuing vnder one kynd what a Catholike bisshope ys Defence fol. 61. Reply Defence ibidem Reply Defence ibid. Reply Ambros. in orationâ— de fide resurrectionisâ— Epist. 85. The fallacie or folie that the M. of the defence vseth against so le receiuing Of reseruation of the Sacrament Defence fol. 67. Reply The M. of the defence would faine bring downe the challenge and make the questioÌ„ more larger out of tyme place and expectation Defence fol. 67. Reply See agayne how the M of the defence ruÌ„neth froÌ„ the questioÌ„ Neither scripture neither reason can settle our faith but only the authoritie of the church The placeâ— of refuge in doubtfull tymes August â–ª ad lanu â–ª epist. 118. Vniuersalitie Antiquitie Consent D. Cyrill ad Calosyrium Defence fol. 70. Reply All is fishe that commeth to he retikes nettes Defence fol. 71. Reply 〈…〉 〈…〉 Orig. in 7 Leuâ—tici Origine proued not to make agaynst reseruation Mat. 26 Luc. 9. Defence fol. 71. Reply see the absurditie Cypr. in serm de coena domini thei which haue any vnderstanding let them for truthe sake coÌ„sider how S. Cypriane and the vnlerned lay people are abused Euseb â–ª lib. 6. cap. vlt. Defence Reply Defence foâ— 73. Reply the shiftes of the M. of the defence concernig the story of Sirapion are cleane put â—waye yf excoÌ„municate persons receiue the Sacrament at ther death why shold the vpriht free Christians be kept froÌ„ it De Sacerâ— dotio lib. 6. Hypocrite Defence fol. 7 â— Reply Defence Replye How the sabbat daie is of necessitie to be kept and how it admitteth di spensation No necessity can serue to omitt or breake any commauÌ„demeÌ„t of God concerning the substaÌ„tce of it Defence fol. 76. Reply The M. of the defence doth ouershote hymselfe wonderfullie Defence fol. 77. Reply The .xiiij. Canon of the Nicene Councell confirmed to make for reseruatioÌ„ Fol. 73. Cypria ad Cecil ep The storie of the childe in S. Cyprian Ser. 5. de lapsis confirmed to make for receiuing vnder one kynd Defence fol. 82. Reply Vide HosiuÌ„ in confessione Cathol pa. 87 Lutherus in libro de formula Missae CoÌ„tinuance of tyme doth not a litle make for the doctrine of the catholiâ—â—â— church the author of the Apology of the Englysh church fâ—lio 8. As the world chaÌ„geth so doe the conclusions of heretikes Defence Reply Faith cuÌ„meth by heering Authoritie persuadeth No greater authoritie then the testimonie of the whole world Aug. de vtilitate credendi cap. 14. Aug. câ— 5. coÌ„tra epist. fundameÌ„ti Defence fol. 86. Reply An honest profer D. Ber. Ser. 66. sup Can. Cant. Exo. 13. Io. 14. 16. Defence Replye slauÌ„derous lyes of the M. of the defence Pride will haue a fall Defence fol. 87. Reply Defence fo 89. Reply In what sense the multitude of folowers and the continuance of a religion are to be considered the miracle of the contynuing of the Catholike fayth Luther 1. Timo. 3. Defence fol. 90. 91. Reply Of the churche as it coÌ„sisâ—eth of the chosen whom God only knoweth litle profit is to be goten Defence fol. 91. Reply 3. Reg. 19. 3. Reg. 18. Matth. 16. Psal. 2. Io. 1. Hebr. 3. Io. 14. Math. 5. Vnreasonable consequencies Matth. 23. Defence fol. 98. Reply vncertaine markes to know the church by alleaged by the M. of the defence Marke this place Gen. 26. Psal. 2. Psal. 71. Da. 2. Luk. e â— 4. Act. 1. S. Cyprian alleaged agaynst the M. of the defence hymselfe Cyp. tract 3. de simpl praelat Math. 16. Io. 20 The true certaine markes of the church Catholike Apostolike Defence fol. 102. Replye Bâ—dging reasons such as argue a faint doubtfull faithe Defence fol. 130. Reply Augustin epist. 3. ad VolusianuÌ„ Defence fol. 104 Replye Defence fol. eod Replye Note the doubtfullnes of mind and vnderstanding in the M. of the defence Defence fol. 104 Reply Feble reasons Luc. 22. Io. 1. Defence fol. 106. Reply Io. 15. Mare 14. Io. 14. Math. 11. Io. 8. Of particular premisses to conclude generallie it ys no good fasshion Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 11. the catholikes confesse signes figures in the Saâ—rameÌ„t but not onlie them Lib. 8. de trinitate Eâ—thimius in suâ— Pâ—noph pae 2. Christ is reallie in the sacrament In epist. ad Ephes. li. 1. cap. 1. Io. 6. Ho. 45 in Io. Ho. 60. ad po Anâ— Amb. lib. 4 â–ª 〈◊〉 4. de sa Cyrill lib. 11. ca. 26â— in Io. De consecrat 2. cap. Vtrum Goodlie greate wordes emong the protestantes but small and simple sense Serm. de coena Domini The M. of the defence will not â—aue the benefites of God to be so great as thei are in deeds Cold roâ—â— emong heretikes Exod. 16. Num. 11. Sâ—p 16. losue 5. Christians are worse fed then the Iewes were except they receiue the true bodie of Christ. Defence fol. 118.
receiueth alone which they do not out of their owne bokes but because they read emong the heretikes that they haue such a sense of priuate masse Wherefor you haue done verie vnskilfullie to tell vs of Tully Panetius and to require that we should define priuate masse vnto you which haue not ben the inuentors and first authors of that terme And if the Lutherans for the breeding of suspitioÌ„ and bringing furth of errours haue so folishly mengled sole receauing and masse togeather that it is proued an absurditie that he which receiueth alone sayth thereby a priuate masse lett the shame light vpon their heades and not vpon the Catholikes And yet for all this you will make vs beleiue that we must define a priuate masse and whether we will or no you wil define it for vs. But it is well yet that you amend the matter in saying that you will shew out of our owne authors not what we take but what you take our priuate masse to be It ys a sacrifice of the bodie and bloud of Christ vsed in the church 1 in place of the Lorde his supper 2 by one priest alone offered to God the Father for the sinnes of quicke and dead which 3 without any to participate with hym he may applie to the benefite of what persons and thinges he listeth Yf this be the definition oâ— a priuate masse how will you define I pray you that masse which is called and is in deed common Or where find you in all our doctors a diuision of masse in to priuate and common here be so many faultes in this definition that not only the scholes of the Catholikes would neuer haue made it but not so much as a reasonable scholars head would euer haue permitted first you define that thing and that out of our owne authors you lye which we do not confesse to be extant because we beleiue that there is no masse priuate For you may read in the scholemeÌ„ of priuate and solempne masse not as it were ij kyndes of masses but at the most .ij. circunstancies only and accidentes of masse but of priuate and common to make such differencies as though the definition of the priuate were essentially distincted from the common it ys such an inuention as may well becum perchaunse your pregnant witt but it ys not I assure you in the Catholike doctrine Yet lett vs consider the framyng of your definition A priuate masse saie you of your owne head by the Catholikes ys a sacrifice In deed if you vnderstand by masse the offering of the bodie and bloud of Christ so is masse properly a sacrifice but considering that you in reprouyng the partes and ceremonies vsed in the celebration thereof and the common people togeather with you do vnderstand it more largelye you should not without some distinction so absolutelie haue called it a sacrifice whereas in the coÌ„moner sense it ys taken for that office or seruice of the church not which is it selfe a sacrifice but within which there is offered vp a sacrifice And therefor if I would not without addition saie of the masse it selfe which we hold and defend that it ys a sacrifice except I would speake figuratiuelie and call that which doth conteine by the name of the thing which is conteined how much lesse would I saie that a priuate masse is a sacrifice But you add further vnto your definition it ys a sacrifice vsed in place of the Lorde his supper which wordes do sound so strangely that a Catholike would neuer vse them as which beleiueth that he hath not any such thing which is in place of our Lord his supper but that vndoubtedly he hath the same meate which was geauen to the Apostels the night before Christ suffered and that he enioyeth the selfesame supper in deed Againe to make vp your definition you saie that it ys a sacrifice by one priest alone offered to God the father As who might thinke that there were some kynd of masses in which more priestes then one dyd offer vp sacrifice And againe these wordes of one priest alone were craftely thrust in to the heape that thereof might be gathered some argument of priuate masse It foloweth further which sacrifice without any to participate with hym he may applie c. But why doe you make mention of participantes with the priest might he then applie the effect of the sacrament when any would coÌ„municate with hym And is this it which greiueth you that he may applie it without any to participate Who doth not seâ— which is a Catholike or els but indiffereÌ„t and lerned that you labor as much as you may to bring in such phrases by which à priuate masse might be suspected for leaue out these wordes of one priest alone and without any to participate with hym there is nothing in the definition which might be enforced to serue for masse priuate And yet when thei be added we do right well know that thei are not essentiall poyntes of a masse Wherefor I might iustly saie that this definition of a priuate masse which you attribute to the Catholikes is farr vnmeete for their lernyng as being vnproper hereticall superfluous and wandering But for all this you will proue the truth of this definition vnto vs wherein I wonder at your presumption that you will attempt thinges impossible But yet let vs geaue you the hearing All your sort-doe rasshlie confesse and stoutly defend that it is a sacrifice of Christ hys bodie But first let me heare of what you speake Did you not goe aboute to define a priuate masse And doth all our sort saie that priuate masse is a sacrifice How oft shall I tell you that we know no priuate masse We confesse that in the masse there is the bodye and bloud of our Sauyor and that it is our daily sacrifice and that it is offered for quicke and dead Yea but doth one priest alone offer it Yea Syr except you thinke it necessarie to haue more priestes then one to celebrate at one aultar at one tyme. And doth not the priest make application of the Sacrament as he liâ—teth No forsoth not as he listeth neither as you makâ— definitions by adding and taking away what pleaseth you but with reuerence and horror and by way of supplication and request he serueth for some one more then an other the vertue of the sacrifice in it selfe considered continuing allwaies perfect and infinite And be not all these thinges defended of all your syde Not these thinges only but .xx. other more allso and yet euerie one of those .xx. shall not be iumbled vp togeather in one definition of masse But all this while how proue you that we define a priuate masse in such sort as you haue inuented You might haue made it probable if you had said that we define Masse after the same manner as you report and yet you should haue made a lye for all your sight in our
by you alleaged the simple and obscure oblations of the people because he speake of that which the Prophete Malachie had writen of Yet to shew the grace which you haue in vnderstanding of the Doctours whereas this present testimonie of S. Irenei maketh so plainely against you you saye that he expoundeth hymselfe in an other place as in the .34 chap. of the forsaied boke And signifieth that he speaketh not of the offering of the sacrament consecrated but of the bread and wyne offered partlie to the vse of the supper partlie to the finding of the poore It is wonder to see your boldnes For the place of S. Irenei by which you would proue this your comment doth neither make mention of the vse of the supper neither of finding the poore But rather he saieth we make offering vpp to God c. offering vnto hym the firstfructes of his creatures c. and this pure offering the church only offereth to our maker c. But where doth he saie in that place which either should haue serued your purpose or els not at all haue ben alleaged that the new oblation of the new testament and the prophesie of Malachie of which he had spoken in the 32. Chapiter before were to be vnderstanded of the bread and wyne offered to the vse of the supper and finding of the poore we do not denie but that the people offered bread and wine for such intentes but you shold haue proued that same to be the pure offering which the church onlie offereth as S. Irenei saieth Which can not possiblie be euer concluded because neither the offering of the people singularlie pure neither the Church onlie doth offer bread wyne and firstfructes which the verie panymes that naturallie do offer vp against reason vnto their false Goddes Idolls wherefor you haue brought S. Ierenei out of place not to expound hymselfe but to confound your miserable lying And thus much for the first signification which you make of the word oblation and sacrifice Now as concernyng the second we graunt and the church allso hath taught it you that there is a sactifice of praier and a sacrifice of thankes geauing But how can you proue that the sacrament it selfe is not allso a sacrifice that is to saie an externall and visible signe of our thaÌ„kes geauing and praier for not onlie Te Deum laudamus or Agnus Dei miserere nobis are sacrificies of thankes geauing and humble praying but most especiallie the holie host consecrated And you must not by one truth take awaye an other as because no maÌ„ wil deny that the praiers to God and prayses of God vsed in the masse are true sacrificies to conclude therefor that the bodie and bloud of Christ are for vs no sacrifice Further where you saie concerning the prayers and thankes geauen at the celebration of the sacrament That the Doctours in infinite places affirme that to be the true and onlie sacrifice of the new testament It ys most false and vnreasonable For thankes and praiers are coÌ„nion sacrificies vnto all religions and all lawes new and old supernaturall and naturall And then if we should speake exactlie there is none true and pure sacrifice but onlie that which our Sauior maketh of hymselfe in what so euer forme place and maner it pleaseth hym to be offered For all our Iustice considered by it selfe without relation made vnto the holines and merites of Christ are like the foule clothes of women all vncleane and polluted And the starres themselues being not cleane in his sight muchlesse any praiers or praises of men if without mercie thei should be considered Againe where you drawe the matter out with more length then truth That the fathers called euerie good action a sacrifice were it priuate or common as S. Austine allso signifieth but you tell not where you report of them vntrulie as S. Augustine may proue vnto you For he saieth not that euerie good worke absolutelie but euerie worke that is done to the intent we might cleaue vnto God in holy societie is a true sacrifice As if you should geaue an almes to one because he is your poore frind which asketh it and not referr the geauing of it vnto that supreme end and point which is God hymselfe all though the act be good morallie yet can it not be called a sacrifice After this you bring in Ireneus Eusebius Chrisostome Austyne but to what purpose verelie to proue that which is not denied that the Christians do offer vpp the sacrifices of thankes geauing of praiers and the remembrance of that great sacrifice of the crosse For who denieth this vnto you I tell you againe that to goe no further then the selfesame places of the Doctours which you recite we offer to God most high a sacriâ—ice of praise but allso as it foloweth we offer a ful a sweete and holie sacrifice after a new sort according to the new testament Yet if you meane the simple praises of our hart and lippes thei are not worth the honor of so manie epithetons and titles as Eusebius attributeth vnto the sacrifice of this owr tyme of grace Againe according to the same Eusebius true it is we celebrate the remembrance of that great sacrifice but yet we take that which foloweth according to the misteries instituted by Christ hymselfe By which wordes he geaueth you to vnderstand that the matter hangeth not vpon your newlie deuised apprehension by which we represent vnto our memorie the passion and merites of the Soun of God but thorough the institution of the misteries which the fatihfull haue allwaies honored that remembrance of the highe and bloudie sacrifice ys continued and celebrated accordinglie We hold furthermore with S. Austine that the Martirs are the misticall body of Christ but yet we hold allso with hym that at the sacrifice which we offer vnto God the Martirs in their place and order are named For as our Sauyor hath true bodies one misticall an other naturall so the offering of the misticall must not exclude the presence and offering of the naturall Yea rather how can the misticall bodie be offered except it be thorough the presence of the naturall For the offering of ourselues is not the offering of Christ his whole misticall bodie although you affirme it And if the whole parisshe would ioyne itselfe neuer so stronglie togeather how doe thei offer S. Peter S. Paule and all the rest of the elect and chosen But when the naturall bodie of Christ is offered vnto whom as the head all the elect as members are ioyned and not onlie thei which are departed this world or which are in it at this present but all thei which euer hereafter shall be borne vntill all the number be fullfilled then loe and onlie then it is verified that Christ his misticall bodie is offered because he the head is offered which as coÌ„cerning God his euerlasting
apointmēt will and pleasure neuer wanteth any one part of hys perfect and full misticall bodie Otherwyse how can the bodie be well offered without the head which for that cause onlie is an acceptable bodie and worthe offering because it cleaueth vnto such an head Againe S. Austine in this place allthough he denieth that the priest offereth sacrifice vnto the Martirs yet he confesseth that the Martirs are named at our sacrifice declaring thereby most plainelie against you that we haue a sacrifice which thei are not but at which thei haue a due and conuenient commemoration Likewyse againe we saie with Chrisostome as you doe that we offer euerie daie doing it in remembrance of his death but we add further out of the same place that this sacrifice is one and not manie And allso that we do not offer vpp now one tomorow an other but allwaies the selfesame For els because it is offered vpp in manie places thei be manie Christes Not so But Christ is euerie where one being whole both here and allso there one bodie For lyke as he which is offered vpp euerie where is one bodie and not manie bodies euen so is the sacrifice allso one Therefor to conclude with S. Austine true it is that in our sacrifice there is a thankes geauing and remembrance of the bodie and bloud of Christ but consider that which foloweth that he gaue and shedd for vs. By which wordes he willeth you to vnderstand that we haue in deede a remembrāce of Christ his body and bloud not in respect of his reall absence from vs but in respect of his painefull suffering for vs. You may see then by this tyme that you haue proued a sacrifice of praiers of thankes geauing and a remembrāce of Christ his passion to be celebrated in the church which the scholes did teache manie hundred yeares before you or Luther war borne and which we knowe better then you and that you may be ashamed to haue gone so farr besides the purpose being in deed able to disproue by no authoritie the sacrifice propitiatorie of Christ in his church against which all your malice is I except this argument onlie which in deed your wisedome doth vse more then once when you saie Eusebius here maketh no mention of propitiatorie sacrifice and S. Austyne saieth not that here is an offering of Christ his bodie and bloud for sinnes Ergo there are no such thinges at all As though that all thinges could be spoken at once or all misteries should be straitwaies reuealed or as though there were no difference betwyxt not speaking of the thing and denieing the thing In which kind of reasoning you cōtinue for the reste of your chapiter alleaging out of S. Cypriane you tell not where out of the Greeke canō of the Masse that thei offered for our Ladie and out of S. Chrisostome that thankes were offered for the whole world and as well for them which were before as them which shall come after of which you conclude saying This was their offering for the dead and not a practise to pull soules out of purgatorie for merchandise and monie as you haue vsed in your priuate Masse This ys your practise both in reasoning and in slaundering In slaundering because you attribute vnto our religion a selling and byeing of soules out of purgatorie for monie which you neuer find to be taught or alowed of any one good man and much lesse of the whole church In reasoning because you conclud that not to be at all in the author which you find not expressed in some place which pleaseth you For to cōtinue in the testimonies which you doe bring allthough S. Cyprian in the .5 epistle of his fourth boke make mention of sacrifice for martirs vndoubtedlie to thanke God for thē yet in his first boke and .ix. epistle he proueth that there is an oblation which the priestes doe make for the deade such as were no martirs and he testifieth allso of a deprecatiō and praier which the church vseth in their names For in chargeing the clergie vnto which he there writeth to make no oblation and praier for the soule of one Victor which had transgressed a canon and decree of the Bisshopes he sheweth therewithall what the clergie would haue done had not his cōmaundemēt staied them and he proueth that for some kind of such as were departed not onlie praises and thankes but supplications rather and praiers were offered Then as concerning the greeke Canon which of them you did meane I cold not tel but now by reason of M. Grindal sermon which he made not long sence at an Englisshe funerall of Ferdinand the Emperor it is euident vnto me that you meane the masse of S. Chrisostome In which allthough I can not find any oblation made for our ladie the prophetes or Apostles allthough that a commemoration of thankes may be offered also for them yet if it were true that in one place of that greek Canon an oblation were made for our ladie that doth not proue but in an other place of the same Canon an expresse oblation and praier was made for the deade such as were not yet at rest For after the consecration of the sacrament ended he saieth within a few lynes we offer vnto the this reasonable seruice for those which slepe and rest in the faithe for our fathers and our greate graund fathers thorough the intercession of Patriarches Prophetes Apostels Martirs and all Sainctes But especiallie for the supplications and praiers of the perpetuall virgin Marie mother of God our Qnene for euer blessed vndefiled and most holie Sainct Iohn the baptist prophete and precursor the holie and most renoumed Apostels and the Sainct whose memorie we celebrate and all thy Sainctes visite vs o God and remember all them which sleepe in our Lord in hope of the rysing againe vnto euerlasting life and graūt them rest where the light of thy countenance doth intend ouer them Now againe allthough you alleage a true saying out of S. Chrisostome vpon the .viij. Chapiter of S. Mathew that the priest standing at the Aultar when the sacrifice is sett furth commaundeth the standers by to offer vp thankes to God for the world in which testimonie it ys playne to see that the sacrifice proposed is one thing and the sacrifice of thankes an other yet to lett goe this vantage you can not denie but he in an other place saieth It was decreed by the Apostles not in vaine that in the celebratiō of the venerable misteries a memorie should be made of them which were departed hence Thei knew that much commoditie and much profit dyd come hereof vnto them For the whole people standing by with lifting vpp their handes vnto heauen and also the cumpanie of priestes and the venerable sacrifice being laied out and proponed how should we not pacifie God in praying for them Therefor it is cleare that your argument is verie vnlerned
There is no reason to lett that you shold not vse it For we both doe see that it is plaine in S. Chrisostome frustr◠habetur quotidiana oblatio the daylie sacrifice is had in vayne And as we require that Quotidiana be takē in his proper significatiō of daily so do we graunt vnto you that you shall vse the worde frustra in his most proper signification neither do we cōtrarye you in it but that frustra in this place is taken for vayne Therfor you can vrge the worde frustra no more extremely then we doe except you can make worse of it then vayne Yea say you further it was done in vayne because it was done without cumpany but we thinke rather it was in vayne as concerning the priest his looking for the people And so it appeareth that you doe not hurt vs in alleagyng of frustra which we take in the proper signification of it as well as you but our stryuing must now be vpon the referring of that worde vnto the peoples receauing or vnto the offering of the sacrifice And further it appeareth as we doe vrge the worde Quotidiana that you doe not so vrge the worde frustra as you asked leaue to do but quyte leauing the signification of the worde as vpon the which we do not disagree you runne vnto the constrewyng of the worde And if we will haue the oblation to be daylye you will haue it so vnderstanded that by Sainct Chrisostome his owne wordes it should seeme to be done in vayne because it was done without cumpany which how well it may follow I require but indifferent iudgement For if it were accordyng to your thinking done in vayne whē the people did not receiue ergo yet it was done In vayne you say Be it so for a while But yet it was done For of that which is not done at all you can not say any thing the one way or the other to the prayse or disprayse of the doing Now if the sacrifice were offered in vayne when no cōmunicantes were readye doe you make such a trifle of Sainct Chrisostome that he wolde do any thing which he was persuaded should be in vayne And if he did thinke that all was to no purpose which he did in the sacrificyng except the people did cōmunicate wolde he not first of all haue ben assured to haue communicantes before he wold enter vnto the act of offering And in so hygh matters wolde he haue entred in to the celebratiō of masse of which he could not presentlye tell whether he should say it in vayne or no Nay the church of England yet is more wyser then so For left their paynes should be lost in the Lordes supper the ministers must be warned before hand yf any will communicate that according vnto your interpretatiō the oblation be not in vayne if they shall haue no cumpany to receiue with them And yet your wisedome to proue that our dayly oblation which we gather owt of S. Chrisostome should not be as we vnderstand it doth bring S. Chrisostomes saying vnto such a sense which doth not become any cōmon witt and vnderstanding For by you S. Chrisostome might haue this meaning Here good people I haue stode all this while at the aulter and haue prayed for all states and haue consecrated the sacrament of the Lordes body which you should receaue with than kes geauing and now I perceiue all that I haue done is in vayne because there is none to receiue with me But phye vpon such a sense in that lerned and godly harte of Chrisostome For we might say vnto hym Syr you which do make so greate pryce of the misteryes why did you goe vnto them before you were sure to make a fructfull end of them why did you not send your Deacon to know how many would receiue with you lest you might procede further in vayne whē you should in the end lacke communicantes And if you were perswaded that you did receiue in vayne except some cōmunicated with you whi wolde you receiue at all or how doe you but receiue that to your owne cōdemnation in which you doe not followe the institution of Christ and take cumpany with you This with much more mighte be iustely sayed against Sainct Chrisostome if the dayly sacrifice which we reade so playnelye in hym could be thowght of hym to be done in vayne yf none did communicate as you full clerkelye doe vrge the two syllabes frustra Then besides this I answer that how so euer you will take the worde sacrifice allthough none either of the clergye or layetie wolde communicate with the priest yet the act of sacrificyng can not possiblye be therfor vayne because there lacketh cumpany to receiue For yf you vnderstande by dayly oblation either daylye almes or daylye prayses and thankes or dayly remembrance of Christes passion or the very bodye and bloude of our Sauior what one of all these are vayne only because the people do not cōmunicate Therfore in grawnting vnto vs which you can not deny but that the oblation was daylye how can you vse the worde frustra to proue as it were by S. Chrisostomes owne meaning that it was to no purpose when the people did not receiue Whereas euery kynde of Christian mens oblation ys good and acceptable in it self by reason either of the good will with which it is offered or the pryce and purenes of the thing which is offered as in the example of the body and bloud of Christ. Who but vnsensible can thinke that S. Chrisostome dyd iudge at the end of his masse when cumpany did not come to receiue that all his supplications and prayers which he had made before with all his harte and power for the quicke and the deade and all his praysinges of God in the memorye of his Sayntes and all his prayers vnto Christ in the sacrament that he might not receiue hym to his condempnation which sitteth at the ryght hand of God his father in heauen and yet was ther inuisibly present before him who say I can thinke that S. Chrisostome did eōclude all those thinges to haue ben done in vayne because the people did not receiue How then Yf the people doe receiue are all thinges straitwayes trymlye wrought Ergo it is the peoples wyll which geaueth strength vnto the sacramentes and not the institution of Christ. And the consecration ys perfyted not by the allmightynes of the worde as S. Cypriane sayeth nor by these wordes of our Lorde This is my body as S. Ambrose witnesseth but by the cumming of the people to receiue at the end of seruyce For as I haue shewed before after that the priest had receiued and had fully ended his office in offering thē were the people called and then were they serued without the chauncell in a place meeter for them Now these thinges not with standing you be so vayne in your two syllabes frustra that allthowgh at the begynnyng
a capon But if you vnderstand by sacrament al the act and ceremonie of preparing and eating the lambe the calling of company vnto it was in some case materyal For if the numbre be lesse then shall be able to eate vpp the lambe then saieth God he whosoeuer he be shal take his next neighbor But you may say although the calling of company were conditionall yet the hauing of companye was of the substance of the sacrament It was so of the substaunce as other things were which God in that place commaunded I meane gyrding of their loynes and hauing of shooes on their feete and holding of staffes in their hanâ—es But if by reason of some wounde or dysease anye one of them had not ben able to suffer hys shooe on hys foote although his feete would not beare hym yet if his stomache serued hym could he not haue eaten with his fellowes and eate as fast as the best without breaking of the matter Lykewise if one had ben borne without haÌ„des or had lost his handes in fighting for his countrey so that he could not hold any staff in the hand which he had not was he to be excluded from his parte in the lambe Yf these pointes then which God so distinctlie commaunded haue their interpretations and are not so absolutely to be obserued but that for considerations thei maye be omitted I see no cawse whye the hauing of numbre in eating of the lambe should be so necessarye that it could not be omitted But the matter would be playner if we were once agreed how the terme of substance is to be takeÌ„ when you speake of it For if you meane that to be of the substance of a precept whichâ— without case of necessitie and without dispensatioÌ„ of the cheife gouernors can not be rashlye omitted as euery priuate man shall thinke good in hym selfe then I graunt that all those poyntes which are comprehended within the ceremonye of eating the paschall lambe were of the substance of it But if substance shall signifye such partes of any sacrament as which no man for any respect maye omitt or chainge in which sence we doe take it in speaking of the necessarye forme and matter of euerye sacrament then doe I denye vnto you that euerie point comprehended within the ceremonye of eating the lambe was of the substance of that matter Therefor if your comparing of all Christendome vnto all the Iewes and our particuler churches vnto their sundrye houses and the eating of our Sacrament vnto their lambe did neuer so well agree togeather yet because it is not proued of you that euerie point commaunded of God about the eating of the lambe is so essentiallie of the sustance therof that in no case it maye be omitted or altered therfore you come nothing nigh to the aunswer of our question which is whether that of necessitie there must be coÌ„panye allwaies to receiue at the masse Then againe it is to be noted that in the old law God did not commaunde them to haue companye at the eating of the lambe but rather then anye parte shold be lefte vneaten he willeth them to call more conpanye presupposing that there would be in euerie household companye inough to eate a lambe but yet geauing no commaundement of companye to be at it For if one by hym selfe alone had eaten a whole lambe his wife and children rounde about hym not louing that kinde of meate and yet delighting in the histories which he would tell them of Egipt and the redd sea I see not that you were able to burden hym with the breache of Goddes institution Besides this whereas the lambe of God which is eaten of the Christians is not more meate vnto a thousande then vnto one alone and one alone receyueth the whole that he needeth not to send for his neighbor your proportion betwyxt the lambe of the lewes and our Sacrament was not rightly deuised of you Also if I could finde no faulte with your application yet except you brought greater aucthoritie for the defence of it then your owne I would lykewise of myne owne head inuent an other sence besides yours and saie that my vnderstanding of that place serueth better to the purpose then yours In which case as both of vs might vse perchaunce probable interpretations so yet none of vs both should conclude any thing of necessitie And yet I neede not to runne vnto myne owne wytt for this matter because that long sence Sainct Denyse the Carthusyan doth saie in his CoÌ„mentaries vpon Exodus that the calling of a neighbor to eate of the lambe if howsehold cumpanie were not sufficient doth signifie that euerie Christian which is neuer able by hymselfe to consider sufficientlie the mercyes of God shewed vnto vs in the death and sacrameÌ„t of his Sonn should call his neighbor to hym and prouoke him to helpe forward that all thankes and praises might be geauen vnto the author of so excellent benefites Now to speake somewhat more of this lambe whilest you are of so good a mynd and remembrance to confesse that ther is a proportion and lykenes betwyxt our sacrament and it consider that the lambe was offered vpp to God before it was eaten which proueth that Christ offred his bodie and bloode in his last supper before the Apostles did receiue hym The blood also of the lambe was put vpon both postes of the doores which signifieth that good Christians do receiue Christ in the mouth and in the hart And they which receyue vnworthely or els in receyuing doe not beleiue it to be the blood of Christ these put the blood vpon one poste onlye You are commaunded also to deuoure the head with the feete and the appourtenaÌ„ces that you shold not be curious and nyce in your feeding but faithfullie and humblie receiue his diuinitie his humanitie and all other profond and secrete mysteries In which if any thing shall seeme absurde vnto your grosse vnderstanding you must referr all vnto the working of the Holyeghost and so you shall fulfyll the law which commaundeth the residue of the lambe to be burned with fier It is sufficieÌ„t to beleeue if it be not graunted to vnderstand for moe doe eate this flesh through beleeuing then vnderstanding Wherefore as the figure of the paschall lambe doth nothing make against the order which the church vseth so it doth most playnelie confound your suppositions and imaginations by which you take Christes reall presence from vs and the offering of his body And now what foloweth in your defence You laye vnto our charge that VVe take vpon vs to alter chainge and take away by our spiritual gouernors all the partes of the Lorde his supper as you will declare to vs in order by the doctrine of our defence of priuate Masse Certainelie this is a greate accusation and we are neuer to be trusted in anye thing if this be proued Do we saie you take vpon vs to alter chainge and take
Therfor he calling the Bishop vnto him asked whether he did agree with the Catholike Bishopps that is to saye with the church of Rome for the church of that countrey as concerning that place was in a schisme Which being well considered of hym and that allthough they of those quarters had beleife in God yet they were not faythfull vnto the churche he departed from thens differring the payment of his thankes the debt which he was in for receiuing the Sacrament and went forth vntyll he came to such place where he might be safely discharged Now therefore if thei had ben ministers which deliuerd the Sacrament vnto S. Satyrus in the shipp he might haue receiued it at their handes wheÌ„ he was now come to lande and neuer haue sought further for the matter but whiles he was so desyrous to receyue his Lorde and defendor Praesulem suum sayeth S. Ambrose and yet was not so bolde as to receyue him in that couÌ„trey he declareth therebie not only that he had no priestes in his companie but also that we shold not coÌ„municate with schysmatikes â–ª and he interpreteth vnto vs what a Catholike Bishopp is saying that he is such a one as agreeth with the church of Rome But to make more doubtes and that in speaking much it should appeare that the historye of Satyrus is not cleane and cleare against you There ys say you nothing to the contrarye but that the same persons which had the Sacrament of our Lord his bodye had also about them the Sacrament of the bloud Yf you leese the cause yet you prouide to wynn the praise of a man full of nymblenes and actiuety in his inuentioÌ„ And truly you finde nothing to the coÌ„trarie but that Christ deliuered the Sacrament of his bodie only without the cupp vnto the rest of his disciples and folowers whiche were in other chambers of the house where he kept his maundey But if they of whom ye speak had the SacrameÌ„t of the bloud about them wherin had they it I praye you Eyther in some conuenient vessel or els after some other fasâ—ion as diuers of simplicitie vppon a zeale at that tyme vsed Doth the history geaue you any occasioÌ„ to thinke so or els doe you speake it but vpon your owne head For if some at the beginning when the church was persecuted openlie by the princes of the world dyd carie the sacrament of Christ his bloud about them it doth not folow that in Sainct Ambrose his tyme wheÌ„ the church was more enlarged and better setteled the lyke manner was allwaies vsed You tell vs that in taking of a long iorney some caryed the sacrament of the blould with them and because they could not conuenietly carye wyne with them they soked the Sacrament of the Lorde his bodye in the bloode As whoe should saye that thei might not more coÌ„uenient lie haue caryed the bloud in some vessel for the purpose Other saie you moysted a lynnen cloth in the SacrameÌ„t of bloud Some either because they could not by nature or would not for religioÌ„ drinke wyne vsed only water Some other vsed mylke for wyne But what of this Can you inferr vpon these perticular cases that it is lykely that they which delyuered the Sacrament vnto Satyrus as S. Ambrose writeth had the Sacrament of bloud also about them as you doe suppose As well it will folow then that thei had the Sacrament of Christ his bloud eyther in forme of water only or of milke because that you haue readen that in such formes it hath ben receyued Consider also that in S. Ambrose his time the church was not so much vnder feare of princes as before neyther was holy Satyrus such a simple sowle allthough a nouice then in our faith as to receiue the Sacrament of such whom he knew not to be perfectlie instructed in the Christian religion And he being a man of honor it is not lykely that the Iniâ—â—ati the full Christians I meane which were in the selfe same ship with him did kepe the sacrameÌ„t with theÌ„ in such sort as was to be wynked at for a tyme and not absolutely to be allowed But let yt be with them as you will and you shal freely make as many supposinges as you can that thei had the Sacrament of the bloud eyther in a vessell or soked in bread or in a lynnen cloth or in any other maner Yet what saie you to holy Satyrus how did he receyue it at their handes In a stole as you call yt Well Sir the worde is orarìum which if it be not well Englished a stâ—le what other name do you geaue it You leaue it with out a name and will haue orarium to signifie perchaunse a what shall I call it to the intent you maye applie it to what so euer thing you will S. Ambrose in his oratioÌ„ made of the beleif which we should haue of your resurrection speaking of Lazarus sayeth that Facies eius orario colligata erat His face was bounde vpp with a sudarye or kerchey Againe in his tenth booke of epistles speaking of the holye relyques of Geruasius and Prothasius Quanta oraria iactitantur quant a indumenta â–ª supra reliquias sacratissimas vt tactu ipso medicabilia reposcantur How many napkins or kercheyes how manye coates or clothes are cast vpon the most holye relyques that being made medicinable through the verye touching of them they might be requyred for and had awaye agayne Therefor if orarium shall not be englysshed a stole yet that you maye not thinke that it was a bottle to carye wyne in I haue shewed you two places out of Saint Ambrose in which it is taken for a lynnen cloth And now if holy Satyrus dyd put that sacrameÌ„t which he receiued in a lynnen cloth and wrapped it about his neck it is very probable vnto vs that it was in forme of bread onlye except you will yet styll contynew in your imagination and make a gesse that it was either a mylkesopp or a wynesopp or a lynneÌ„ cloth moysted with wyne which he folded vpp in a kerchey napkyn or stole And then lett any indifferent man be iudge which of vs two speaketh most reasonably you which thinke that he had the sacrament of bloud togeather with the sacrament of Christ his bodye or we which can not deuyse how wyne should be there inclosed where we reade no mencion of other thing but only of a lynen cloth Now as concernyng that where you saye that lerned and holye men did wynke and beare with many thinges in the begynnyng as though the reseruation of the blessed Sacrament or vsing of it in suchesorte as that holy Satyrus dyd were to be numbred in that kynde of thinges you make S. Ambrose therein to lack a greate part of his fortitude of mynde and wysedome For he such a Bishop would neuer haue suffred any substanciall parte of our fayth to be defaced within
his knowledge and especiallye with his brother he might and would haue ben so bolde as to reforme his simplicitie and superstitious zeale of mynde towardes the sacrament And if you will ymagine that he was loth to tell his owne brother the perfect truth of thin ges in his lyfe tyme yet at least after his death he should neuer haue praysed hym as he doeth in a most exquysite maner for that which according to your saying was to be tolerated onlye in the quyck and not praysed and commended in the dead Saint Ambrose therfore in a most sadd maner and tyme praysing his good brother which then was departed this world for many and sundrye vertues of iustice clemencie temperancie and chastitie and especiallie commending hym for his fayth and pietie which shewed it selfe in the shipwrack of which we haue spoken how can it be thought that so wise and constant a Bishop would alleage that historie to proue the pietie of his brother which rather after your interpretation was to be wynked at and kept vnder silence least he should seeme to betray vtter his superstitious behauiour and folie You myngle also mylke wyne water soppes moysted lynneÌ„ clothes altogeather as though there were no differeÌ„ce whether one did celebrate in milke alone or wyne alone or as though that if the soking of the sacrament of Christ his bodye in his bloud was by Iulis decrees reproued therefore also receyuing vnder one kynde or sole receiuing should be in lyke case myslyked And yet against water alone or mylke in steede of wyne you haue the expresse institution of Christ and the expresse canons of Bysshops and Councelles but you can bring no such proufe against vs that the sole receiuing or receiuing vnder one kynde is in no case lawful One thing I must coÌ„fesse vnto you that in deed you haue taken paynes to proue that the common maner of receiuing in the primitiue churche was vnder both kindes and in this part you alleage Gelasius Tertullian Iustine Cyprian Ambrose Gregorye Nazianzene Hierome Hilary and Chrisostome learned men all and the most of them Sainctes How well thei serue for your purpose what should I neede to examyne whereas you will coÌ„clude no more by them but that which we graunt without prouing It was a common maner to receiue in both kindes and to receiue with cumpanie but what of that Maye you conclude thereby that it was also the only maner and except you proue that it was the only maner all your reasoning make nothing against vs. Therefor Syr as you fought all this while out of the fyelde and matter proposed so haue you triumphed without any victory at all obtayned And although you laye allmost desperate stubbernes vnto our charge and exhort your readers to beholde the slendernes and feblenes of our reasons yet we will not be aferde to resist you in those pointes against which you can saie nothing and we shall counsell lykewise the reader not to walke vpon other mens feete but by his owne sense and disctetioÌ„ to consider whether that you haue not halted out of the question of which onlye we had to talke prouing vnto vs that receiuing with cumpany and vnder both â—yndes was ordinarie and accustomable in the begynnyng of the church which we grauÌ„t but nothing at al disprouing that sole receiuing or receiuing vnder one kynde may and hath ben vsed without any breach of Christ his institution Thirdly now it foloweth to speak of reseruation of the Sacrament which you thinke that no man hath euer flatlie denyed to haue ben vsed in the primitiue church â–ª how now then are not thei impudent which will speake against it No saie you And why saie ye no Mary because we maye denye Eyther that we haue any testimony in the word of God to iustifye it or that all the holy fathers did approue it Naye verelie this can not excuse some man of impudencie those I mean which are soâ— full of bosting and so voyde of doing that thei stand not vpoÌ„ these two pointes whether it be first in expresse scripture or whether all the Doctors approue it but saie playnlie that we haue not one worde one sentence one example of the primitiue church to proue our assertions Against which kynde of men it is sufficient for vs to shew that the thin ges which we affirme haue ben vsed and that also of good men In deede it is sufficient to shew that it was then vsed but it is not sufficient that it must therfore be allwayes vsed or all dyd well at that tyme in vsing of it Sir we doe not coÌ„clude a necessitie that it must be vsed because it was once vsed but a possibilitie and lawfullnes that it maye be now vsed that which in the primitiue church was not refused and we saye not that all then dyd well in vsing of it for what can we iudge of all their doinges but if S. Ambrose his brother alone did well it is inough for our purpose against certayne heretikes which make so much a doe about the vse of the Lorde his supper that except theÌ„ sacrament be straytwaies receyued there should be no bodye of Christ at all And if we had no more but S. Câ—rills testimonye against you it is inough for vs. Whom before you answer or rather not answer but denie you make a protestation and tell vs what authoritie you attribute vnto the olde fathers And because your saying should haue the more weight you conclude with S. Augustyne that you do not count any thing therefore true because men of excellent holynes and lerning were of that opinion But because they can persuade you eyther by scripture or good reason that it is not against the truth â–ª which saying of S. Augustyne we gladly admitt and add further vnto it that although scripture and reason be alleaged plentyfully yett that there is a further and greater authoritie by which we ought to be ruled For albeâ—â— that you doe make this obiection against your selfe as it were in our behalfes that men of great holynes and learning would neuer write that which they thought not to be agreable with God his worde by which your obiection it might be suspected that we doe stiffely and stoutly holde with euery saying of the excellent doctors yet the truth is farr otherwise And we know better then you because it was the Catholike churche which hath defined it and not you that Lactantius Cyprian Origen and many others had theyr priuate opinions and errors And if you wil staÌ„d by that which you haue protested why be you not of S. Cyprian his mynde as concerning rebaptisation whereas he wanted neither scriptures neyther reasons for his purpose or why doe ye not holde with Origen Clemens Alexandrinus TertulliaÌ„ and other great clerkes in such their false opinions which they defended with apparant scripture and reason Therfor as S. Augustyne saieth wiselie that he wil beleiue
vsed only for their sakâ—s which perchaunse were lyke to dye before thei had done their penaunce so yet if that were true we neuertheles obtayne our purpose which is to declare that reseruation sole receyuing and receâ—uing vnder one kynde are not necessariely forbydden by Christ his institutioÌ„ of his Sacrament Which conclusion of ours you doe for the most parte make as though you dyd not see and you require styll that we should proue the ordinary vse of the Sacrament to haue ben at those dayes as it is now â–ª and yet priuely your conscience I thinke prycking you you come vnto the same state at the which we holde the question and make as though your selfe had inuented what we might saye and that it were not allredy to be seen expressely in our wrytinges And therefore saye you You will replye perhaps and saye by these â—xamples yt may appearâ— that 〈…〉 receiuing is not of necessitie or if it had ben they would not haue vsed the contrary Yea Sir this in deede is and shal be allwaies our conclusion not as you deuise that we goe about to proue that the ordinarye coÌ„mon and whole maner of receyuing in the primitiue church was with out company or in one kynde only and therefore your aunswer in this poynt is much to be marked which is this Necessitie and extremitie may cause some kynd of Gods commaundementes at tymes to be omitted c. No doubt therof especially if the commaundement apperteyne vnto ceremonyes and ordres in gouernement but to haue company in receyuing it is you saye a substanciall part of the sacrameÌ„t without the which the sacrament hath not his inward perfection Wherein if you saie true SyrapioÌ„ or any other shold neuer haue ben suffred to receyue the sacrament alone and most playnly to goe against Christs owne law and coÌ„maundement And if in that case he should haue dyed without his comfort and viage prouision theÌ„ might you haue vsed youâ— maxima and rule that necessitie had no law As concernyng the Sabbate daye which the Iewes were commaunded so expresselie to keepe which yet in tyme of necessitie thei did omit without breach of the commaundement it serueth nothing to your purpose because it is in some respect ceremonyall For the tables of Moyses comprehend in them nothing els but the law of nature vnto which we are bound as well as the Iewes euer were but how doe we keepe it whereas our daye of rest is not the Sabbate of the Iewes but the next daye after and that for the honor of Christ his resurrection Christ hath not sett vs at libertie to omit the naturall law but onlye the positiue and ceremonyall law of the Iewes But now we kepe not the Sabbate day as thei did ergo that commaundement as concerning that daye pertayneth vnto the positiue law which admitteth dispensation and not the law of nature which for no necessitie is to be broken Yf then iâ— were a point of ceremonyall or positiue law to keepe the seuenth daye holye the Iewes notwithstanding the charge which God gaue vnto them might in cases of necessitie worke or fight vpon the Sabbate daye But as coÌ„cerning the naturall precept which is that we shall take our selues at some tymes vnto quyetnes and rest from all worldely busynes to consider therein the more earnestlie the benefites and workes of God towardes vs ther is no such necessitie which may cause it to be omitted Marye the appointing of the tyme for that purpose and the namyng of the firste second or thirde moneth or daye of the yeare or the weeke in the which we shall leaue of all wordlye toyling and entend only vpon God this as it is ruled by positiue law so in tyme of vrgent necessitie it may be dispensed withall without breach of the law Therfore some commaundement of God may be not fullfilled in tyme of necessitie and after the necessitie ouercommed it may returne vnto his formar strength But if God make not politike orders but immutable sacrameÌ„tes and geaue vnto those sacramentes forme and matter such as shall be of the substance of them I saye that in this case no necessitie is able to make it laufull that the substantiall ordre which he appointed maye be omitted And so no man can vse cheese or mylke in consecrating of the sacrament And if receiuing with cumpanye be as you report a part of the substance of the sacrament it can not at all be omitted what so euer necessitie should be alleaged Therefore whereas reseruation and sole receiuing is so playnly proued by the historie of Syrapion that you can not denye it it is not of necessitie to receiue straitwaies the sacrament as sone as it is consecrated or to receiue it with cumpanye Last of all whether Syrapion receiued in forme of bread onlie or wyne because it were to no purpose to proue any one of them both whereas you are prouided to vnderstand both formes vnder that one which I might shewe to be agreable vnto that place therefore I will not labor to proue receiuing vnder one kynde by this historie of Syrapion contenting myselfe with this that it proueth most manifestlie the reseruation and sole receiuing of the sacrament The tenth Chapiter IN the .xiiij. canon of the Nycene Councell it is proued that Deacons haue no authoritie and power to offre sacrifice In the same Councell and canon it is decreed that neyther Deacons should minister the sacrameÌ„t vnto Priestes neyther receiue it before Bishops And further it is graunted that if the Bishops or Priestes be absent the DeacoÌ„s may bring furth the sacrament and eate it Vpon which propositions the Catholike maketh this argumeÌ„t to proue reseruation and saieth Yf the Deacons as it appeareth by this canon which had no authoritie to consecrate and to offer the sacrifice of Christ his body and bloud might in the Bishops and Priestes absence fetch furth the sacrament and receiue it can you denye but it was reserued how saie you to this argument The .xiiij. Canon of Nicene Councell in no sense doth proue sole receiuing as you would haue it seeme to doe You be foulye deceaued and besides you make a shamefull lye vpon the Catholike because he concludeth only by that canon reseruation and not sole receyuing in so much that he vseth not the place to proue receyuing vnder one kynde which if he would folow your example in coÌ„menting vpon a text he might haue doone right well inough But as concerning sole receyuing he hath no one worde by which you should or might gather that he vsed the canon for that purpose He asketh you most expressely whether you can denye that by the testimonye of this Councell the sacrament was reserued and you aunswer hym that it doth not proue sole receyuing and therevpon you make a great talke and ye tryumph in your owne folye and saie that you are beholding vnto hym for putting you in mynde of this
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
But the sore and greauous vexing of her the yexing and casting vpp of that which she had receyued appeared first when the bloud of Christ was powred into her mouth And note the cause wherfore it appeared then first that the childe had ben before polluted Mary sayeth Saint Cyprian the drinke which was sanctifyed in the bloud of our Lorde did burst vpp out of the polluted bowelles So great is the power of God so great is his maiestie Yf therfore the presence and maiestie of God when it came into the babe dyd straytwaies reueale that which before was vnknowen his power and presence being no lesse vnder the forme of bread then it is of wyne out of all doubt the fact of the child had ben bewrayed before she had com to the receyuing of wyne if it had receyued the sacrameÌ„t first of all in forme of bread Because the power and maiestie of God which is fully and perfectly vnder the forme of bread would not haue stayed in the defyled mouth or bodye but straytwayes haue worked to the example of others And therfor the argument of the Catholike coÌ„tinueth in all his strength and force allthough the child were vexed before it receyued of the chalice For it was not vexed at the tyme of prayer so sore that it cast vpp anything and the fault was not espyed before the bloud was powred into her and then it was first of al opened because of the presence and maiesty of God whose presence being as certayne vnder one kynde as vnder the other the sacrament of the bodye would no more haue taryed within her then the sacrament of the bloud if the childe had receyued the body before the bloud well then say you If it were so it ys not most euident that yt was either because the child was so yong that it could not or so trobled that yt would not take the sacrament of the bodye As concerning the formost of these causes it is very credible for that it seemeth by S. Cyprian that it was a sucking childe lefte vpon the handes of the nurse the parentes being fled awaye But the second is very vnlyke for as the resistence on the childes part did not let the Deacon but that he powred the bloud into her mouth so although she would not haue takeÌ„ the sacrament of the body yet she might as well haue ben enforced therevnto as to receyue of the chalice And allso if that opinyon which you holde now had then ben in the church that it is against Christ his institution to receiue vnder one kynde they would neuer haue profered the chalice vnto any such as would not haue receyued first and for most the bodye as you are wont to recite a fragment out of Gelasius which you vnderstand not that the diuision of one and the selfe same misterie can not be done without great sacrilege But lett both your reasons stande is it not proued then sufficiently that to receyue in both kindes is not of the necessitie of Christ his institution And where then is your witt to graunt us that by which our purpose is brought to passe For allthough you think that you shall take no foyle to graunt that in necessitie one kynde might be vsed and that necessitie which hath no law maye cause a commaundemeÌ„t of God to be omitted and allthough you maye be so easily entreated to permit receiuyng in one kynde that because the childe of whom we haue spoken would not or could not receiue the sacrameÌ„t of Christ his bodye you think it to be a case of necessity in which the institution and law of Christ should or might be omitted yet if you coÌ„sider that your selfe do take the receiuing vnder both kyndes to be of the substance of Christ his institution and not of the circumstance and to be not an ornameÌ„t only but an expresse commaundement certainly when you graunt vs that in any kinde of case it maye be allowed to receyue the Sacrament vnder one forme either of bread or wyne you be straitwaies conuicted that Christ his institution doth not necessarilye requyre them both For such coÌ„maundemeÌ„tes of God as are geauen concernyng circumstances and ceremonyes they maye be omitted in tyme of necessitie without any offence committed but if he geaue commaundemeÌ„t for the necessary and substancyall either forme or matter of any sacrifice or sacrament necessitie can not excuse vs if we should offer sacrifice or minister sacrameÌ„t in other forme and matter theÌ„ was appointed by God But to omit and leaue altogeather vndone the coÌ„maundemeÌ„t I meane of sacrifice or sacrameÌ„t therein necessitie shall haue good place and saue vs from the daunger of the law Wherefore you which make the receyuing vnder both kyndes to be of the necessary substance of Christ his institutioÌ„ doe vtterly destroye this your strainge conclusion in graunting that sometymes one kinde may be lawfully vsed and you speake allso in laboring for communion in both kindes directly against your father Luther which in more theÌ„ one place declareth the precept of receyuing both kindes to be in it selfe indiffereÌ„t and such as he at his owne pleasure in some cases would either vse or refuse Whereby it maye well be gathered how lytle ye passe either what ye affirme either what ye denye which saye that any man conuersant in Luthers bookes maye right well iudge that it is not so as we reporte of hym The .xij. and .xiij. Chapiter FRoÌ„ this place furth although the Catholike doth frame the coÌ„clusion of his treatyse vnto which when any one cometh he seemeth to be at the ende of his labor yet by reason of this conclusion such principal matters are moued that if they should be answered throughlye we had neede to make a new begynnyng For we haue to reason about the contynuaÌ„ce of the church the authority of the Fathers and the reall presence of Christ in the sacrament which are so necessarye and cheif pointes to be considered that I must not speake nothing of them and yet I haue ben so long here before in trying the master of the defence that I must not saye all that I can but with conuenient spede dyspatch these worthye questions First then as it hath ben proued against you that the syxe hundred yeares which immedyatly folowed the aâ—cension of our Sauiour are not wholye with you for all your great crakes so we may wonder not a lytle why you make exception against these last nyne hundred yeares by the practyse of which you refuse to be tryed Is this thinke you a small and weeke argument to confirme and staye our consciences vpon that for .ix. hundred yeares space you our aduersaries can not deny vnto vs but that all Bishops Vniuersities Realmes and states of Christendome haue quyetlie continued in one kynde of true Apostolike fayth vntyll within these few dayes that all the olde catholike religion hath in some places ben abolyshed by publike authoritie If a rennegat and
of the church Apostolike and for good cause they are to be dyscredited Loe Syr if you be of a good conscience contynew in the fayth which you haue professed and for two symple markes which euery man will set vpon his religion take these fower notes which al christendome aloweth of which fower there is no heretike which worke he neuer so craftely shall euer be able to proue that any one may serue for hym The .xiiij. Chapiter IF you had acquaynted your selfe with faythfull Abraham and Isaac and dyd beleiue that God is able to performe what so euer he promiseth you would make no question of the reall presence of Christ in the Sacrament and that cheif principle being once confessed you shold neuer make great quarreling about certayne consequencies which folow therevpon As whether Christ his bodye be vpon a thousand aultars at one tyme or whether accidentes be without substance and bodye without place or whether reseruation may be alowed with diuers other questions This is the fault which the Catholike in this last Chapiter fyndeth with you in auoyting of which you saie first We graunt as freely as you with Abraham and Isaac that God is able to perfourme what so euer he doeth promyse Yf you thinke as you speake why are these bodging and souterly argumentes so ofte repeted emong you that Christ his naturall bodye is in heauen ergo yt can not be on the earth Item a natural body occupyeth onlye one place but the sacrament is in many places Againe accidences can not be without substance ergo the substance of bread is not chainged into the substance of Christ his bodye Are not these your argumentes most manyfest tokens that you speake against the possibilitie to haue Christ his naturall bodye in the Sacrament For otherwise you should not aske how it might be after the Iewysh fasshyons but rather proue that it is not so after the maner of wyse heretikes Well yet thankes be to God that you be not so folysh as your fellowes and that you graunt that yt ys possible inough vnto God to bring all that vnto passe which the church teaceth vs as concerning the sacrament but saye you How can you shew that it was God his holy wyll to haue so many myracles wrought as you without necessitie doe make in the Sacrament Mary Syr we shew it by his owne wordes This is my bodye This is my bloud vpon which one myracle all the rest of our beleif therein doeth follow by necessitie of consequence You aske allso for an example in some place of all the scriptures lyke vnto this merueylous worke which is beleiued to be in the sacramēt Wherein I answer you with the same wordes as S. Augustine answered Volusianus as concerning the incarnation of God Yf you aske for a reason the thing shal not be wonderfull and if you requyre an example the thing shall not be singular Also the myracles which the scriptures speake of are not therefore beleiued because they haue other myracles of lyke sute with them but because God is allmightie and because all scripture is true We doe not apoint as though all were of our one making but we belieue that Christ his very body is truly in the sacramēt and that it is there not in maner of proportion quantitie or figure also that it maye be in a thousand places at once and yet in neuer a one of them all locallye which is to saye as in a place of his owne Oh saye you Is not this to take awaye the nature of a bodye from his bodye and in deede to affirme it to be no bodye See loe where you be now Do not these wordes importe that it can not be that a naturall body shold contynue naturall and be in a thousand places at once in which your saying what other thing doe you but priuelye conclude that it is impossyble In which least you should seeme to denye the power of God of which you spake reuerentlye a lytle before you amend the matter and saye Yet we say not but that God is able to worke that also if it be his pleasure Verely verelye you be vncertayne in all your conclusions for if you graunt that God is able to do that which we reporte of hym that he worketh in our Sacrament why talke you of the nature of a bodye and taking awaye of the nature of it if Christ be really in the Sacramēt And if it be vnpossible to haue a bodye without quantitie and in a thousand places at once as it is to make that one selfe same thing should be a bodye and no body why saie you that God is able t◠worke this also if it be his pleasure you offende in both sydes doubting at one tyme of God his allmightmes by which we beleiue his naturall bodye to be in the sacrament and at an other tyme making hym so allmighty as though he could bring to passe that such thinges might agree togeather as are in them selues plaine contradictorie the one to the other But as in this later point you goe beyond all truth and possibility so in the other I trust you wil hereafter be more stedefast and neuer argue against the power of God which is able to performe all those articles which the Catholikes haue gathered vpō the sacramēt Which now you begynn to doe at length and saye that it is not God his will to doe as we beleiue he hath done in the sacramēt But how proue you this For neither is there any necessitie that shold once trayne hym to doe yt nor doeth his word teach vs that euer he did the lyke These be your owne reasons as it is easylye to be perceyued by the weight of them which if you will follow in other pointes of our fayth you maye conclude all our Crede to deserue no credit at all For neyther anye necessitie cōstrayned God first to make and afterward to redeeme mankynde and the most of all his workes are of such a peculyar excellency that we maye thinke right well of eche of them that they are in theyr kynde singular what necessitie constrayned our Sauior to take our death vpon hym and what example haue you in all the scriptures lyke vnto the myracle of the death of God Ergo according vnto your diuine logike it is only an inuention of the papistes that God hym selfe did suffre a most paineful death for man It is wysedome for vs rather to beleiue the church then to allow such argumentes by which we maye destroye all true religion And yet not only the church teacheth but the scripture also wytnesseth that this which the Christians receyue in the Sacrament is the bodye of Christ hym selfe as he said most playnly This is my bodye which is geuen for you Now whether the verbe substātiue Sum es fui might be interpreted by transsubstantiare tell me fyrst I praye you whether Sum
bloud c. Then is the English ministration vnperfecte which vsed not those wordes in the delyuering of their what shall I call it And except you meane those wordes what other in the ghospell maye serue to that purpose I can not deuise For as concernyng those wordes Take eate diuide yt emong you doe this in my remembrance they neede no repetitioÌ„ by mouth but onlye expressing of them in deede And then as concerning the worde diuide when yt is spoken to eche one of the coÌ„municantes to whom shall eche one of them diuide any partâ— of that the which he receyueth wholye hymselfe Yet if the worde diuidite diuide yt be an essentiall and formall parte of the sacrament as it is in vse then must euery one which shall rightlye vse it make partes and diuision of it except you meane that the vse of the sacrament perteyneth only vnto the minister or that the people must take and eate as the Ghospell commaundeth them and that to diuide it was not spoken to them although that worde doth also folowe in the ghospell But to what purpose haue you so scholastically made such a distinctioÌ„ betweene the matter and the forme of a thing Tâ—ewly that you â—ight with some ordeâ— declare it that our spirituall gouernours haue chainged all the partes of the Lord supper for they which take awaye both matter and forme leaue no substanciall part or point of the thing And you saie we haue done so Ergo yf this be proued the Catholikes be very traytors vnto God But how proue you that we haue chainged those principall partes belonging to Christ his supper saye first as concerning the forme and tell vs wherein we haue altered it mary Sometymes saye you the priest maye receyue alone without the people sometyme the people without the priest sometyme both togeather Call you this the altering of the forme and haue you so quyckly forgotten that you said the forme to be when the minister did geaâ—e the matter with the wordes of the ghospell how thinke you theÌ„ when he geaueth it to one alone with the wordes of the ghospell hath not that one person receyued the perfect Sacraâ—â—nt with all his partes according vnto your newlie deuised diuision what if the priest alone receyue the matter with his owne handes and vse the wordes of the ghospell doth he not fulfill all that which is to be requyred The priest you know doth fyrst receyue hym selfe before he geaueth vnto other And what doth he receyue I praye you doth there lack either matter or forme or anye essentiall parte vnto that which he receyueth Or will you saye that the sacrament which he hath allready taken and eaten hath not his iust forme before the people also haue receyued yf the case be so harde then were it necessarye that when the matter is taken into the handes of the communicantes a watchworde should be geauen when all they at once with the wordes of the ghospell should receyue that matter But if this be but a folysh toye meete for an idle brayne to thinke that eche one doth not receyue the sacrameÌ„t with all the partes of yt except his neighbor eate with hym how doe the Catholikes take awaye that very forme which you speake of in vsing of sole receyuing for your forme which you haue inueÌ„ted is to delyuer the matter with the wordes of the ghospell but the matter maye be delyuered vnto one alone or receyued of one alone with the wordes of the ghospell ergo the allowing of sole receiuing doth not take awaye your forme And this I speake as though it were true that which you bable of the forme of the sacrament For as concerning the verye forme of the sacrament the church hath allwayes taught and in all scholes it is openly declared that these wordes This is my bodye are the forme of the Sacrament But saye you I talke of the forme of the ministration of the sacrament Why dyd you not tell vs so much of your mynde at the beginnyng And if we did not keepe the forme of ministratioÌ„ how could you proue thereby that we altered the formall parte of the Lorde his supper For I trust you be not so voyde of naturall sense but that you vnderstand the matter and forme of a good dyshe of meate and the seruing in of the same meate to be sundrye thinges and different And as the man and the meate are different so is the matter and forme of either man or meate seperately to be distincted and talked of Yet you in so playne a matter haue so forgotteÌ„ your selfe that begynning to speake of the matter and forme of the sacrament as it is in vse and hauing ended the definyng of the matter you skyp straytwayes to an other thing and tell vs of the forme of the ministration Much lyke as if you would saye I will tell you my masters the matter and forme of a marchepane when it is come to be eateÌ„ the matter of it is suger rosewater allmondes c. The forme is not that you should fetch it out of the ouen your selfes but tarye vntyll one cleane fellow or other bring it to the table and some other diuyde vnto euery geste a conuenient parte an portion of it Which yet is no more the forme of a marchepane theÌ„ it is of a rosted pece of beefe when it is cleanely brought vnto the table and diuided emoÌ„g the gestes But make an end of your accusation and declare how we doe chainge the other substanciall parte of the sacrament which is the matter The matter also â–ª ye signifye maye be altered at your pleasure This is a most euident lye For all our scholes doe holde that the necessarye matter of the Sacrament is breade and wyne and the most due and conuenyent matter is vnleauened bread and wyne mixed with water Yea we be so earnest in the defence of this truth that we be angrye very much with a certayne kynde of heretikes which will vse no water in the celebrating of the misteries I meruail therefore much what reason you maye alleage to proue this fault by vs. Yet you saye For to receyue the Sacrament of the bloud is not of the substance of Christ his institution for if it were the churche could not alter yt as you doe comonly in the ministryng to the people Yf this be true tell vs what name that hath which the geaue to the people in steed of the blood Doe we geaue them the sacrament of blood either in ale beere mylke or any other liquor besides wine yf we do not how can you saye that we chainge the matter no mary saye you you geaue them no sacrament of the bloud at all That which we doe we haue receyued from antiquitie and authoritie and the receyuer taketh no losse therein except he thinke that Christ his Sauior is not perfectlie vnder the forme of bread And againe if you consider that the