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
was hym selfe that they should take them so as the ministers of God and dispensators or distributours of his misteries Againe This ys it that hath discoraged Christen people from the often vse and frequenting of the Sacrament As though that if there were no priestes at all there would be continuall receauing or that priestes would receaue more oft then they do if they were free and not bound vnto it The people say you is left free to come as seldome as they wil. You speake cuttedly and vntruly Vntrulie because yourselfe confesse that the church hath takeÌ„ order that the people receaue at Easter and then are thei not left free to come as seldome as thei wyll which must come ones a yeare And cuttedlie because thei are left free to come in one yeare not as seldome as thei wyll but allso and rather as oft as they will And if it be in their wil and power to come euerie weeke or daie in which masse is celebrated how should the state of the priest be the cause of stopping their libertie You shall goe with hym for his wysedome which being condempned for robberie sayed that if he had neuer praied to Sainct he had neuer come to haÌ„ging As you do now put the cause of the peoples fault in the holye order and office of priesthode But I trust you had somwhat that moued you against priestes about their office of sacrificing Where vpon it foloweth Sure I am that neither the institution of Christ maketh mention of any oblation or sacrifice to be done by the minister sauing only the sacrifice of thankesgeauing nor yet the scripture apointeth any bounden duetie for the priest more to vse the sacrament then other godlie and well disposed Christians Whether the priest ys bound to vse the sacrament more theÌ„ other good people it is nothing to the purpose to aske it except you take the word vse for sacrificing I tell you so oft of your euill maner herein because you should hereafter amend it But for the other matter which in deed ys now in question what if you reade not in the institution of Christ speciall mention of oblation to be done by the priest are you straitwaies at your wittes end that you can not tell where to seeke further for the truth Doe yow not know that our Sauior was found after iij. dayes seeking in the middle of doctours and doe not holy men interprete vs our Sauiors meanyng such as ourselues should neuer find in scripture yf we loked till our eies were out in the letter only and text of it Allso where find you in the institution of Christ any precise mention made of the sacrifice of thaÌ„kes geauing which onlie sacrifice yow find there or els you lie Then as you might thinke vs of very small iudgemeÌ„t if we would denie the sacrifice of thankes geauyng because we doe reade no such word sacrifice in the text of Christe his institution of the sacrament so as we may be content that you shew vnto your selfe therein some part of fauor and beleue that which is not expressie writen yet do ye not vse such argumeÌ„tations by negatiues with vs hereafter except we should reason only for makyng of sport or spending of tyme. Yet to declare vnto you shortly that some see more then you doe in this matter I answer that hoc facite which is to saie doe this or make this standeth emong other his significations there allso for sacrificare For so is facere taken in sundrie places of the scripture And if you take facere in his most common signification I saie that Christ dyd make an oblation and sacrifice of his bodie in his last supper and his Apostles are authorised and charged to do as he dyd ergo thei were bound to offer and to sacrifice Bishopes also priestes now must folow their example whom thei succede in office For Christ our Sauior after he had ended the eating of the lambe according to the manner of the old law he instituted and brought in the eating of his owne fleshe of the truth of which the old paschal was but a figure Reade S. Hierome vpon the. 27. of S. Matheu But the paschal lambe was offâ—red vp to God before it was eaten therefor vndoubtedly that the truth might answer the figure Christ offered hymselfe in his maundie before the Apostles receaued hym Consider allso that a sacrifice properlie ys when any thing is made holie to the honor of God and what thing in old or new testament did euer sett furth the honor of God more worthely then the geauing of his owne flesshe to feede wretches Or where was there any thing euer made of prophane holie if not then when Christ toke breade in to his handes and saied in his allmightines This ys my bodie I note besides all this vnto you that in S. Luke his Ghospell it is saied expreslie of our Sauior takyng the bread in to his handes This ys my body which ys geauen for you Not which shall be geauen only vpon the crosse but which presently is geauen neither geauen only to you at this present as though all consisted in the eating but euen now geauen for you by which an oblation a present a sacrifice or some such seruice of his bodie is signified Thinke you theÌ„ that you might not reade in the verie institution of the sacrament that his bodie was offered of hymselfe and that the Apostles had commaundement to folow his example therein if you had a simple and faithfull eie to see all that to be true which the church spelleth vnto you But a sacrifice is a thing geauen vnto God the sacrament was a thing geauen vnto vs nothing can therefore be of nature more contrarie then your sacrifice and Christ his sacrament You must not stand herein if you doe well For Luthers opinion and Zuinglius encountring hym in the sacrament are a thousand tymes more contrarie theÌ„ a sacrifice and a sacrament For thei can neuer be brought to agreement but sacrament and sacrifice doe very quietlie stand togeather what Dyd you thinke that we offered sacrifice vnto any other then to God Or if we had any part in it for ourselues weened ye that God must be vnserued Marie Syr if there were nothing els yet because we haue a God there is nothing more conuenient then to haue a sacrifice for hym and nothing to hym ys more wellcome then his verie owne soun his body Were it not a great absurditie that of our corne or any lyke thing we might make both an offeryng vnto God and meate allso for our selues afterwarde and that Christ of his bodie the true and sweete floure or meale shold make no larger commoditie theÌ„ to geaue vndeserued breade to synners where lerned you that one the selfe same thing can not be both a sacrifice and a Sacrament we haue sucked you saie our error out of the fashions of speaking
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
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
the vestmentes of Christ full of redd spottes as if he had come lately from the wynepresse he alleageth allso the institution of Christ and the testimonie of S. Paule by which both places he proueth that we should offer vp not water onlye but allso wyne Then he maketh further argument saying that the mixture of wyne and water in the chalice togeather doth signifie the coniunction of Christ and his church and that if wyne be offered vp alone the bloud of Christ is without vs and that if water alone be offered vp then the people begyn to be without Christ. Which reason of his if you wyll cōtempne I am sory that S. Cyprian hath so sone displeased you whom you seemed to make so much of before But as concernyng the argument of that epistle he proueth by those testimonies which I haue touched and by many other waies that in the offering which the priest maketh water and wyne bothe are to be mengled and that it was Christ his institution so to doe and that Christ only is to be folowed therein and that we must do herein no other thing thē that which Christ hymselfe dyd first of all Now Sir then with what face can you alleage S. Cyprian for proufe of your proposition which is generall whereas he speaketh of water and wyne to be mengled when the priest doth sacrifice which us a speciall case onlye And see how the dyuel dyd owe you a shame If you wyll refuse Saint Cyprian in that place then standeth your maior like a miserable proposition without any similitude of defence If you alowe S. Cyprian how standeth your religion in whose communion and Lordes table water and wyne are not mengled togeather which should be so duly and necessarily obserued Will you saie here that the field is not lost and that this is but an ouerthrow of one wing only Do you fight for the victorie and not for the veritie so that you may be semed to have somwhat allwaies to saie do you make no conscience nor rekonyng of your vniust and foule plaie Answer directly vnto this one argument or confesse your falsehode or ignorance and geaue ouer your stryuing against the manifest veritie If all thinges are to be obserued in such manner as Christ hath them instituted wherefor haue you no water in the chalice which Christ as S. Cyprian proueth hath so solemply delyuered Now on the other syde if some thinges may be well vnfolowed which Christ hymselfe apointed why make you such a generall stoute proposition which by yourselfe is so quicklye neglected For the mixture of wyne and water in the chalice you can not saie that you haue no authoritie of scripture no example of primitiue church no testimonie of auncient Doctour for in that one epistle of Saint Cypriane of which we speake which you seeme not to haue readen onlye but allso to alow you shall find all those places by which the veritie of this tradition may be proued Where then is your memorie That which S. Cyprian of purpose declareth of the mixture of wyne and water in the chalice you either see not or regard not and that which you put furth of the generall obseruing and keeping whatsoeuer Christ dyd in the institution of his sacrament is not at all in that epistle and yet you can read it there proued at large And here now I haue to saie further against you that you do not rightly interprete not only his mynd but not so much as his wordes For whereas that blessed martir saieth Admonitos autem nos scias vt in calice offerendo dominica traditio seruetur ▪ which is Know you further that we be warned that in offering of the chalice the tradition of our Lord be kept you interprete it after this fasshion Do you know therefor that we be admonisshed that in offering the sacrament of the Lords bloud his owne institution should be kept For examinyng of which your interpretation if you should be brought but vnto a Grammar schole dominica traditio is to shortly Englisshed his owne institution and in calice offerendo is to ignorantly Englisshed in the offering of the sacrament of the Lords bloud so that I beleeue verely if the Scholemaster were not very much a sleepe he would beare softly at your backe doore and make you to remember yourselfe better But if litle regard be taken of construction which is made in scholes yet it is to be prouyded diligently that no false construction be sett furth in print especially in such kind of matter as apperteineth vnto our sowle and is of so great weight and efficacie that it maketh or marreth an heresie You Englissh traditio not tradition but institution And whi rather institution then tradition Verely for no other cause I thinke but for that you abhorr the name of tradition and because you would seeme to the ignorant Reader to be a great fauorer of Christ his institution You Englisshe in calice offerendo after this sort in offering the sacrament of the Lords bloud and whi not rather in offering the chalice as the wordes themselues do signifie You had no litle craft in your mynd when you sett vpon the translating of this plaine sentence and for the word chalice to substitute the sacrament of the Lords bloud it was a deceitfull enterprise For if you would haue plainely saied as S. Cyprians wordes do signifie that in offering the chalice the tradition of our Lord be kept the diligent Reader would haue ben moved to require what tradition that should be which must be obserued in offering the chalice and he should be truly answered that it was the tradition of vsing not wyne alone or water alone but water and wyne both in the chalice togeather which would much disgrace your communion But when you make S. Cyprian to sound after this sense that in offering the sacrament of the Lords bloud his owne institution is to be folowed you geaue occasion to a simple and vnexpert Reader to thinke that hereby it is manifestly proued that the lay people at these daies allso must necessarily receiue his bloud because he in his institutiō of his sacramēt delyuered furth allso his bloud Whiche S. Cyprian yet dyd no more thinke vpon then he feared least any grāmarian should come many hundred yeares after hym and interprete his plaine wordes in such a froward sense as you haue done And so in the Englisshing furth of the selfesame sentence after these wordes and no other thing to be done then that the Lord dyd first for vs hymselue you make a full periode and point whereas it foloweth in S. Cyprian as clause of the same sentence that in deede we should doe as our Lord had done first hymselfe but wherein and how farr trowe you in all thinges and all circumstancies no truly For straitwaies it foloweth in S. Cyprian and it is the limitation of the whole proposition that the chalice which is offered vp in
determined Ergo it ought to remayne indifferent In denying and controlling the partes of this argument the Master of the Defence doth bestow his syxt chapiter And first he denyeth the second proposition afterwardes he cometh to the declaration of the first in which parte he casteth in betweene so many new deuises and conclusions that we haue to abhorr them which are not of the auncient religion Let vs folow the same wayes which he taketh and lett vs defende the Catholike his argument in that selfe same order by which he doth impugne yt Goe to then Syr what myslyketh you in our argument Your second proposition ys not trew For I saie that it is determyned in Christ his institution In luke he sayeth Take this and diuide it emong you Ys this your text by which you will conclude that the priest must haue of necessitie cumpanye to receyue with hym Christ you know spake then to his Apostles onlye he spake nothing of the people to receyue with them Take saieth he and diuide this emong you and not as you would fayne haue it to be take you and diuide it emong other For as concerning other whom afterwarde they should haue the gouernment of he left it vnto their wisedome to geaue it or denye it as they should see it expedient Except you thinke that the priest for diuers considerations might not kepe back the Sacrament from some which would receyue with hym whiche yet if they would be ruled by you being repelled might aunswer the priest agayne and stoutly saye that it is of the substance of the Sacrament that it should be diuided and therefor that they haue great wrong done vnto them except they maye be admitted And they might trulye alleage that Christ gaue the Sacrament vnto Iudas the traytor which without controlling did receyue it bycause of Christ his institution Take and diuyde emong you But as all the Christians generallye can not by vertue of these wordes diuyde emong you challenge their part in the cōmunion yf the priest should thinke them vnworthye euen so neyther Christ had this meaning in them that they should be as a necessarie commaundement to charge therby his priestes allwayes to diuide and distribute his sacrament but for that present cumpanye of his most dearest Apostles he said Take and diuide it emong you How then Maye not the sacrament be diuided emong the people Yes trulye But that it should be diuided emong the people such necessitie is not gathered out of Take ye and diuide it emong you But saye you How can it be taken at the minister his handes and diuided or distributed emong them vnlesse there be a cumpanye But what talke you of to be taken at the minister his handes as though that S. Luke did make thereof any signification He telleth vs that Christ our Sauyor saide vnto his Apostles Take this but he maketh no worde at all of taking at the minister his handes But this would serue well your purpose if that when Christ said distinctlye vnto his twelue Take this you could perswade the rude that he spake vnto the people and commaunded them to take his sacrament at the minister his handes Then further where you aske how it can be distributed emong them except there be a cumpanye For whom you do speake I can not redely tell For if you meane the Apostles there was a good cumpany of them to take that which was distributed and if you meane the people I wonder whye you call them vnto this matter the Euangelistes speaking of the Apostles onlye You alleage the text of the scripture goe not then I praye you from the text The wordes be playne Take and diuide emong you Yf it had bene sayd indefinitelie diuide you might haue thought with some reason that a commaundement of distributing the sacrament for euer afterwarde had ben geauen in those wordes But our Sauyor determineth the worde diuide in saying Diuide this emong you Which wordes yet if you thinke to haue ben spoken not onlie to the Apostles personallie but to all Bishopes and high Priestes which should haue in tyme to come the place or office of the Apostles as I graunte this sense because it is conuenient and true so yet the people you see are not comprehended within the text of which we speake For of theis three pointes Take you diuide you emong you no one can be vnderstanded as spoken vnto the people And if one maye why not all as well as one seing that in those three pointes the persons are not varyed Where then do you fynde now any cōmaundement of distributing the sacrament vnto the people It can no be diuided saye you except there be cumpany You speake somewhat therein but tell vs fyrst what cumpanye you meane For I say that vnto this daye if you consider the whole church as one howse and euerye aultar in the world as one table and the body of Christ as it is one allthough the mysticall signes of it be in many places so shall you see it performed that which you be so glad to heare that the sacrament is daylye taken eaten and diuided emong vs. But now tell vs further what necessitie you fynde why it should be diuided In deede distribution presupposeth cumpanye But we aske what necessitie doth requyre distribution For the wordes of our Sauior doe not absolutelye commaunde it but vnto the Apostles especyallie his wordes were directed because thei were with hym to receiue at his handes And so the same wordes maye appertayne to all that celebrate masse when some are readie to receiue But as if twelue be not readie to receiue yet fower maye so if fower be not readie one maye receiue alone But then you complayne vpon vs and saye that we maye as well leaue out eatyng drynkyng and doyng in remembraunce of Christ as we doe dispense with distributing Feare not I warrant you we be nothing so folish For meates are necessarye but not distribution and without other mens mouthes we can eate but we can not distribute without others handes or mouthes to receiue it Also the remembrance of Christ his passion is and maye be allwaies vsed but distribution of the Sacrament is not allwaies possible And to be shorte the sole receiuing can not be without eating c. but the sole receiuing at masse is and maye be without distributing And here now for feare least we should not regarde the institution of Christ you tell vs againe out of Sainct Cypriane that nothing must be altered in the preceptes of Christ which saying you extende vnto sole receiuing ▪ and receiuing vnder one kynde which S. Cypriane neuer thought vpon in that epistle and you forget to mengle water and wine togeather at the communion which S. Cypriane in that place so earnestly requyreth to be done as I haue before declared at large Wherfore Syr haue no mistrust but that God the Holyghost prouideth abundantlye that Christes and his
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
no Doctor vpon his bare word without scripture or reason and as we folow his lesson therein so yet we add further that be a man neuer so auncient and well learned and let hym bring neuer so much scripture and reason yet except he be allowed of the churche he is to be eschewed with all his 〈◊〉 and learning For if it shall please you to learne more iudgement this 〈◊〉 must vnderstand 〈…〉 in all places of all persons To dispute of that which the whole church doth obserue through the world â–ª it is saieth S. Austyne a most impudent madnes and therfor it may be rightlye and well beleiued first of all that which the whole church doth teach vs. But what if ther be schismes and diuisions in the church for thetyme present Mary Syr then we must resort vnto Antiquitie and aske counsell of the most auncient fathers But then agayne what if the auncient fathers agree not emong themselfes Truly then we must folow the voyces of the most and best learned of them And so by these meanes we haue three places of refuge Vniuersalitye Antiquitye and CoÌ„sent And we the Catholikes haue most certaine and infallible rules by which we do trye priuate opinions of doctors geauing lesse vnto them then you do which esteeme your owne iudgemeÌ„tes so highlye except thâ—â— agree with the church of Christ or agree with other of their 〈…〉 as though that the Catholikes did make an article of faith of euery thing which thei reade in the fathers but consider rather that we trye them more exactly then you doe and we can not be straitwaies persuaded without further question if the best learned that euer was shold bring scripture and reason to proue his singular opinion Yet seeing that you can finde in your harte so quicklie to yeld vnto the learned and holy mens scriptures or good reasons although there is a better waye which you shold take neuertheles to lett you haue a litle your owne mynde what saie you now vnto S. Cyrill his wordes be these vnto Calosyrius They are then madd which saye the mystical beâ—ediction or blessing to recise from her sanctification if any leauinges remayne vntyll the next daye ' Because the very holy body of Christ shall not be chainged but the vertue blessing and lyuely quyckenyng is in it rather This is S. Cyrill against you an how can you auoyde hym You wyll not you say playnlie deny the place because it is alleaged of diuers other Yet because this worke of S. Cyrill is not extant you haue good cause to suspect it Although the worke be not extant vnto you yet it maye be in some libraries of the world and the place being alleaged of many an honest plaine dealing man would not suspect without some good and great cause that it were falsely fathered vpon S. Cirill For if the Catholikes could haue founde in their hartes to haue mysused the simplicitie of others and to attribute vnto holie fathers such sentences as were neuer thers it had ben an easie matter for the Bisshoppes of Christendome in that great consent and peace of faith which hath ben in the church for eight or nine hundred yeares togeather vntill the dyuell raised vpp Luther to haue agreed vpoÌ„ such a booke which should make expressely against new vpstart heretikes and haue the name of S. Augustine S. Ambrose S. Hierome or some other And againe it had ben an easye matter for some one Bisshop Abbot or Doctor to fayne that he had fouÌ„de such or such a booke of S. Augustine S. Ambrose S. Hierome or other if there had ben no more conscience in Catholikes then is proued to be now in heretikes It is sone said this is not Saint Cyrill his testimonie and as the prouerbe is in some scholes Plus potest asinus negare quà m Aristoteles probare And further also if the Catholikes should be perceiued neuer to haue had emong them this testimonie of S. Cyrill before that late heretikes of these dayes beganne to impugne them openlye as one might easely alleage at all aduenture vpon some priuate wylfulnes that S. Cyrill sayeth this vnto Calosyrius so might he probably be suspected of an other lest perchauÌ„se he inuented false testimonies But you can not proue it by vs that we haue vsed this defence out of S. Cyrill only sence we haue striued against you but rather when all thinges were quyet you shall finde those testimonies which you suspect to haue ben recyted of Catholikes And especiallye that saying of his which maketh for the supremacie of the Bishop of Rome which some hundred yeares agoe S. Thomas Aquinas hath recyted out of S. Cyrill Thesaurorum .xij. which testimony if it be not in the Latyn now extant yet it maye be in the Greeke and what Greeke copyes are beyonde sea you can not tell and if it be not in print yet it may be in wryten bookes whereas many yeares before any printing was in the world this testimonie is alleaged by approued men and excellent both for learning and lyuing Also if you haue cause to suspect the testimonie which hath not the worke extant out of which it was taken what cause moued you then to make so greate store of a fragment of Gelasius which you doe allwaies alleage most busylye when you talke of receyuing vnder both kyndes And allthough Gelaâ—sius in that selfe same abrupt and short sentence doth expresselye declare that he speaketh against such as which vpon a certayne superstition abstayned from the receyuing of Christ his bloud and serueth nothing at all vnto the purpose of which we talke Yet you delight so much in it as though all were fysâ—he which commeth to your nett and no testimony were to be suspected which may seeme to serue for your purpose although the work be not extant Whereby it appeareth that you picke onlye a quarrell againste the testimonye which we bring out of S. Cyrill and myslyke with it not because the worke is not extant but because he calleth you madd men in reprouing reseruation of the sacrament Now wheÌ„ you haue said as much as you could to the disgracyng of the testimony then flatter you with it agayne and saye But be yt so that these are Cyrill his owne wordes in deede â–ª we haue for that one suspected place a numbre of sounde testimonyes that all dyd not allow reseruation nor thinke it according to the worde of God You geaue and take awaye againe You graunt that they shall be Saint Cyrill his owne wordes in deede and yet stratwayes you call it a suspected place But lett vs consider how sounde your testimonies beâ— First you alleage Origine which in deede hath those wordes which you recite but his meaningâ— yet was not to reproue all reseruation of the sacrament â–ª For he expounding those wordes Leu. 7. in which it is commaunded that the flesshe of the sacrifice which shall be offred in
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