night or in the morning or thrise in the yere or ones in all our liffe so that the church be obeied And now we will come to an other part of this third chapiter in which you do excedingly reproue the Catholike because of the similitude of a taull man and infant which he vsed to the openyng of his purpose and confounding of his aduersarie Which so much displeaseth you that you saie I assure you it was neuer inuented without the spirite of Antichrist nor can not be mainteined withowt blasphemye agaynste Christ and singular reproch of his Apostells and their successors Syr I beseche you to pacifie yourselfe and to vse the matter so calmelie and quietly as you promised to do in the end of the .ij. chapiter Consider I pray you first whether the Catholike hath such a meaning as yon make sense vpon hym Let vs reherse faithfully the wordes of the Catholike and then as farr as your grammar rules will suffer you make your construction vpon them He had spoken before of the coÌ„mones of all thinges in the Primitiue church of miracles of couering of womens faces of temporalties of Bisshopes of receiuyng after supper of eatyng of blouddinges and houseling of infantes of which all he saieth in manner of a conclusion To call such thinges to the state of the Apostles tyme and of the primitiue church againe ys nothing els but to enforce a taule man to come to his swadeling clothes and to crie alarme in his cradel againe These loe be his very wordes in which do your worst and tell vs what fault you find He resembleth the primitiue church saie you to infancie wich similitude you terme as please you an inuention of Antichrist a blasphemie against Christ and singular reproch of his Apostells But see now herein how much you be deceaued The Catholike doth not as you weene saie that alltogeather that church was an infant but in such thinges as he speake of concerning order or dispensation which then was vsed in the church he saieth and saieth it truly that to require that all thinges shold be now in these daies obserued as thei were then vsed it were no more nor better then to bring a taule man to his swadeling clothes againe And yet as though he had made no more of the primitiue church then as if none but boyes had lyued in it so you ful manly reason against hym and proue your selfe to lacke discrâ—â—ion For you saie Yf that tyme were the state of infancie in the church wheÌ„ Christ hymselfe instructed when hys Apostles taught when the holy fathers gouerned next their tyme then we must needes recken Christ the Apostles the fathers to be infantes in religion to be babes in gouernement of the church Yf we must needes do so as you saie then is there no remedie But certenlie it is wonder vnto me how any such necessitie should be concluded yea allthough I would affirme it that not only in a few particular causes but allso coÌ„cernyng the whole state of her the church was then in her infancie For allthough the whole house be full of childerne yet it must not straitwaies folow that the goodman and the goodwiffe must needes be childerne Or if in a schole of one hundred of scholars the best is not come vnto his Catechisme or the institutions of Caluyne in Englisshe bokes which will sone make one a Doctour it must not folow of necessitie that the master vnderstandeth not his accidence The Apostells of our Sauyor Christ before the cummyng of the Holyghost in fierie tonges vpon them thei were allwaies full of imperfection both in will and allso vnderstanding ergo was Christ our master to be reckened for an ignorant person For so runneth your wyse reason that if that tyme were the state of infancie then we must needes recken Christ to be an infaent in religion The Christians allso after the ascension of Christ and preaching of the Apostles were for the most part fraile and weak of which the Apostle had need to saie If a man be preuented in any fault c. And againe I speake gentlie and fauorablie because of the weaknes of your flesshe And vnto the Hebrewes Euerie bodye that is partaker of milke is voyde of the talke of iustice for he is litle one but the sound and strong meate is for the perfect Yet not withstanding the imperfections of the weaker there were many spirituall men apt to instruct others and the Apostle had many thinges to tell his countriemen which could not be well interpreted because thei were vnable to heare hym But you to make your part the stronger do proue that the primitiue Church had vse of reason and wysedome and you goe so farr in the matter that you define vnto vs what the word Infancie doth signifie and you saie that young age ys for no other cause named infancie theÌ„ for that it hath not the vse of tong and can not speake But the primitiue church could speake ergo you would haue vs discredited because we saie that she had her infancie In very deed it had ben better for you if you coulde haue neither spoken neither wryten so childishly For to let that reproufe which you deserue to passe that you doe not rightly coÌ„ceiue hys meanyng whom you would seeme to aunswer you must consider that he which shall compare the tyme of the primitiue church vnto infancy may haue right good meaninges therin such as yourselfe must alow For lyke as to infantes many thinges are permitted which afterwardes shall leisurely be taken awaie so in the primitiue church vnder the sight and gouernement of the Apostells some ceremonies of the old lawe were suffered to continue which now emong all Christians are vtterly abrogated as circuncision purification and absteinyng from certen meates Againe lyke as all thinges are not opened vnto childerne which in further processe of yeres serue for their profit and vnderstanding so the wysedom of God which was abundantly in his Apostells and their successours did not straitwaies put furth in writyng all misteries but as occasion afterward required so it brought furth in to the open knouledge of the church the auncient and Apostolical verities I might allso saie that because the church then was in externall shew both poore and naked and subiect to persequutions therefor it was in her infancie but now wheÌ„ it is so glorious so strong and mightie that she hath the Princes of the world obedient and subiect vnto her and hath noblely spreaden herselfe ouer the cumpasse of the whole world it is no great absurditie I trow if she be said to haue come to a perfect age and stature Which yet if you will call dotage because of many euill maners and enormities extant in her I would not striue with you vpon it concernyng some members of her if you dyd so speake without priuy spite and malice But yet this doth folow that
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
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
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
preuailyng against the truthe and lesse alteration would be permitted but seeing man is free and master of his owne actions thei can be no more then warned that thei seeke after truth and folowe it God be mercifull vnto vs and if he hath saied it by some of his Prophetes vpon vs that for our synnes sake and dishonoring of his exceding greate name we shall be caried awaye prisoners in to Babilon yet as Ezechias the Kinge answered for his tyme if we allso maye be so fauored of hym Bonus sermo Domini quem locutus est sit pax veritas in diebus nostris It is a good saying which our Lord hath spoken yet for our daies let there be peace and veritie Fare well From Louanie the second of March A REPLIE AGAINSTE THE FALSENAMED DEfence of the truthe CAP. I. WHETHER M. Iuell or the author of the Apologie of pryuate Masse haue for their partes done all thinges so perfectly that they may or shold be defended of those which are of the same opinion and faith with them in the one syde it may be a questiō and on the other I know it is none at all For as concernyng the folowers of new religiōs which beleiue that the true light ys reueled in these last dayes they haue to stryue and labor for them whom they take for their Apostells but the Catholike whose faith ys not to finding owt in the end of the world he hath not to hang vpon any one mans authoritie except he be such as ys commended by the whole worlds testimonie Yet forasmuch as the answerer to the Apologie of priuate masse beginneth first with the author of that verie Apologie I will not by my silence be thowght to confesse hym vtterly giltie and yet I will not make for him suche hard shift and stoute defence as thowgh any part of owr cause were lost if he be not thoroughly cleared Therefor to begyn with yow which would seeme to defend the truth what fault doe yow fynd with the author of the Apologie of priuate Masse Fyrst of all yow reproue him sharplye that he bringeth hys owne sense vnto M. Iuels wordes and after so reason against it as though it were his meaning But how proue yow this vpō hym Mary the Bishope of Salisburie say yow ▪ He neuer said simplie that he should make no rekonyng of his doctrine because he was Bishope Trulie neither the Apologie doth simplie so report of hym But his wordes rather be these I maruell not a litle why yow being reputed a man of such lerning wtterlie refuse to proue the doctrine you teache alleaging verie slender causes of your refusall c. Meanyng hys vocation to so high a Rome and the place where he tawght and the honorable estate of the audience and the doctrine authorised by the realme Now it is .ij. thinges to saye I refuse to do this and I should not do this Or els ▪ I refuse to do this and I alleage my vocatiō for one cause and I shold not do this because I am a Bishope For in refusing and alleaging cause of it there ys greater occasion geauen of further consideration but in sayng I should not do this because I am a Bishope there ys small grace shewed because of so hastie conclusion This second kynd of phrase ys for them which stand gloriouslie vpon their honor and estimation but the first agreeth euen with such as are readie to fullfill their vocation The one sentence doth challenge a thing of dutie the other emploieth within it a reason and cōueniencie And to be short the one may be spoken mildlye discreetly and charitablie but the other is vttered I thinke stoutlie vnwyselie and presumptuouslie Wherefor Sir you make the matter worse by your telling then it was in the author his writyng and yow find fault with others for misreporting and miscōstruing prouiding not in the meane while for your selfe to vse and shew true dealing The Catholike doth not take M. Iuell to be so folishe as to thinke that because he is a Bishope he should make no rekonyng of his doctrine but he marueleth rather his lerning cōsidered that he would alleage such causes as he dyd for the refusall of prouing his doctrine And so he may yet still maruell at it But say you my Lord Bishope dyd not saye he should not proue his doctrine but that he might not well do it without further licence Wherein truly you do take very much from a Bishope his libertie if he can not safely cōferr with such as D. Cole is withowt obteinyng of licence And you will troble allso the coūsell of the realme with more matters then needfull if they shall make so litle of their Bishopes that they are not to be trusted with vsing of their office except they first aske leaue and licence Yf the Catholikes which are in prison were such greuouse offendars against the state that it might be suspected they would practise all treason then in deed for suertie that none of their religion might come vnto them it were not done vnwyselie to make the restraint generall and then might a new Bisshope doubt perchaunse to conferr with them without further licence But where as all the fault which is laied to their charge hath no other name but papistrie and old religion M. Iuels doubt was more then needfull to refuse the prouyng of his doctrine without further licence But it ys well that you will declare vnto vs the rightfullnes of his refusall and make his part more probable Wherein your reasonyng is this VVere it good reason think you that a magistrate at the demaund of euerie subiect should bring reason to proue any law publisshed by the prince to be good c. Neither euery demaund neither euery subiect is to be answered and God forbed that either cardmaker or tapster or fyddler or peddler should be permitted emōg their pottes and packes to sitt iudges vpō great Doctours or reuerend Canons of generall Councells Yea trulie if either gentlemā or marchant would captiouslie and proudlie appose the priest or curate of his parishe it were not to be suffered But is D. Cole euery man and the good and lerned Catholikes which continue in indurance are they no more to be regarded then the common sort of Englishe men or on the other syde are they to be abhorred as a singular sort of wicked men To submitt the iudgement of the Prince and realme to the myslykyng of one wayward subiect I graunt with yow it would be great impeachmēt to the Princes authoritie ▪ neuerthelesse to defend the iudgemēt which hath passed by consent of any Prince or realme it cōmendeth their estimation and dignitie But concernyng waywardnes hath D. Cole shewed hym selfe to be such a one in his request and letter to M. Iuel In deed you speake brodely of hym and say that he required a proufe of M. Iuels doctrine vnder pretence of lernyng but in deed
quarelling But aâ—ee herein yowr honest and true charitie M. D. Cole in hys first letter to the Bishope promiseth by the faith he beareth to God that he will yeld so farr as M. Iuel shall geaue him cause And he againe in the second letter â–ª to M. Iuell in most hartie and humble wyse desyreth hym to geaue eare vnto his sute and he speaketh so loulie and baselie that it may be wel marueiled why such a Catholike would submitt hym selfe vnto a protestant Yet this notwithstanding you which see further in other mens hartes then you can gather by any outward signe dare to speake it and that in print that for all M. D. Coles pretence yet in deede he went about quarelling And you speake not onlie for your selfe but you would haue other beleeue that M. Iuell allso was of the same opinion as though he had therefore made strange without further licence to shew furth the proufes for his doctrine because he had to do with a wayward and quarelling subiect Whereof you do fouly and vnworthely cause hym to be suspected â–ª as it doth clearly appeare by his answer to M. D. Coles first letter In which after he had declared the doubt of hys mynd whether without further liceÌ„ce he might safely geaue a rekonyng of his doctrine Not withstanding sayeth he for as much as I am persuaded that you charitablie desyre to be resolued I can allso charitablie be contented c. to conferr with you herein Wherefor truly Syr what so euer you be you be much to blame to report in such sort of D. Cole as neither by hym is to be gathered by the faith he oweth vnto God neither to M. Iuell ys persuaded as plainely appeareth by his letters Yf therefor D. Cole was not in such sense taken by M. Iuell as you suppose hym to haue ben receiued it is euident that as you vnderstode not the meanyng of the author of the Apologie so lykewyse you haue mistaken the mynd and saying of your Lord of Salisburie Which maketh me iustly to doubt whether you vnderstand your selfe in such matters as you haue enterprysed As in an other reason which you bring for M. Iuell it may be partly proued vntill I procede further Your reason is this In that he is orderlie called to the state of a Bishope he is in possession of the truth And therefor it were not reason he shold â—e requested first to shew his euidence What meane you then I pray you by possession of the truth Is the truth so ioyned vnto the Bishopericke of Sarum that he which is sett in possession of the landes ys straitwaies placed in the possession of the truth And because it is not so how ys M. Iuell at this daye more properly in the possession of the truth then he was seuen yeres past when he was out of all possession of land And if seuen yeres past he might haue ben required and nothing haue doubted to shew his euidence vnto a Catholike Bishope whâ— ys it against reason that at this daye for all his temporall honor he should do the lyke For allthough palace parkes reuenues seruantes horses and such lyke do make hym in the sight of the world more worthyer yet all the ryches and glorie of the world should not make hym by one iote the truer If the wyll or counsell of mightie Princes of the world or yf the consent of the commons of any realme were able to sett the studentes of diuinitie in the possession of the truth then not only such Princes or such commons might be called Lordes of the truth but allso the truth which is one in it selfe should be oftentymes changed euen as their myndes shoulde be altered whiche are letters and setters of it But the wysedome of God hath apoynted a better order And he hath geauen vnto his only-begoten and singularly welbeloued soun Ihesus Christ the nations of the world as his iust inheretance which yet is so geauen of the father that the soun by his pretiouse death hath truly deerly purchased it To take therefor the possession of the world which he might of right challenge for his obedience vnto death he sent furth his officers and Apostells and by his diuine power and shewing of miracles he placed those so few and so simple persons in the possession of hys landes and by sending vnto them all the giftes and graces of the holyghost he set them perfectly in the possession of hys truth as it ys writen when the holygost cummeth he shall teach you all truth Now that the possessioÌ„ of this truth might not be lost for euer after and that allthough the Apostells and Disciples should within few yeares depart from this world yet that such should neuer be to seekyng as might hold the possession of truth once taken therefor God which was able to performe it â–ª dyd apoynt in hys church some Apostles some Prophetes some Euangelistes other some Pastors and teachers vntill all we shall come and meete togeather in vnitie of faith and knowledge of the soun of God Such therefor as succeed the Apostells in their faith and places and such as haue coÌ„tinued in the possession of the truth euer sence Christ hytherto such also as keepe the Catholike tradition and priesthode in the most partes of Christendome are to be regarded and estemed as the right heires of the Apostles and Christ. But if in some corner of Christendome the old and auncient Bisshopes be dryuen out of their places and if a new religion be planted xvC yeres after Christ allthough it should continue without interruption in that one particular place vnto the worlds end yet could it be neuer rightly saied to haue the possession of truth by order No verely it hath not so much as the possession of place orderly and much lesse the possession of the truth For I pray yow what maÌ„ner of faith was he of whom M. Iuell succedeth in the palace of Sarum Or what order can yow number vp sence England was Christened of Bisshopes and Priestes inspired with the lyke confession of faith as now is for the tyme vsed Well Syr yet agayne if the order which any one Realme taketh be able to settle men in the possession of truth and if for the tyme of that order standyng no Bishope is to be required to shew his euidence how chaunseth it that in the disputatioÌ„ which was prepared at Westminster the catholike Bishopes which then were in possessioÌ„ were not yet permitted to enjoy their pruilege Or whi did your Bishopes now which then were out of office refuse to shew their euidences as thei were required As the church of Christ had hundred of yeares togeather vsed so dyd the Bisshopes and clergie of England obserue and keepe in their seruice and order of church what tyme you began to ryse and reason against them And whereas it was sufficient cause inowgh for them to beleiue and mainteine as thei
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
which you saie was doone in remembrance of Christs saerifice Can you vnderstand any other thing but the taking and blessing and breaking of bread for in doing these thinges we folow Christs example and remember his passion Yf then according vnto your first sense of this terme oblation you graunt that without anie to cōmunicate the priest alone dyd offer ergo you graunt as much as we require that the priest dyd take blesse and breake in remembrance of Christs sacrifice But on the other side if you take the word oblatiō for the offering vp of bread and wine for the prouision of the Lords supper that was not the priests offering of whiche S. Chrisostome speaketh but it was the offering of the people And according vnto this your sense S. Chrisostome could not saie that there was none to communicate because the good people which offered the bread and wine towardes the supper of the Lords were in that point not onlie communicantes but allso chiefe ministers and doers Or at the least the priestes and poore folke which were susteined by such oblations were neuer so euill taught that they would not remember their dailie bread or so wel fedd otherwyse that they needed not to care for the welthiers almes and make S. Chrisostome to complaine vpon it that there is no bodie to communicate And further more none of these .ij. kindes of oblations of which you now speake were in vaine or fructlesse vnto the people but as concernyng the oblation which S. Chrisostome meaneth his wordes be plaine that the dailie oblation ys in vaine offered Allso if these wordes dailie oblation and sacrifice by putting the case that none at all dyd receaue are to be vnderstanded for that which is done in remembrāce of Christs passion or for the offering vp of bread and wine to the celebration of the Lords supper you leaue I do trust a more excellent sense of these wordes dailie oblation for that tyme and place when the people doe communicate with the priest For if you doenot then is the oblation all one whether some or none do receaue and if you doe then must you tell vs of one waie more of taking this word oblation then you haue yet vttered Againe if a man will consider how royallie and yet trulie S. Chrisostome in the forsaid homelie speaketh of this dailie sacrifice calling it an oblatiō at which the verie Angells doe tremble and warning the people to thinke well vpon it how the kings table standeth there that the Angels are wayting and seruing at it that the king hymself is present that Christ the lambe of God is offered vp further if one should marke wel but those externall preparations of which he there speaketh as the drawing a syde of curteines the making cleane of the table the setting down of patins with all reuerence and diligence can he thinke that S. Chrisostome dyd meane by dailie sacrifice no more but a remembrance you doe not tell what of the sacrifice which Christ made vpon the crosse or els the onlie offering vp of bread and wyne towardes the mainteaning of the Lords supper But let vs goe further Yf you be so cunnyng in expounding of oblation against the mind of the author and besides all colour of reason make an end of your comment and tell vs what Chrisostome meaneth by quotidiana dailie He calleth it Quotidianam to the imitation of the sacrifice of the old lawe May one then imitate the old law in speaking he may doe it vndoubtedlie Yet you fo 33. of your defence do make that odiouse by an vnreuerent and suspitiouse manner of vttering it which in itselfe is honest and lawfull and which yourselfe do vse at this present For to saie Quotidianam and daylie sacrifice to be so called to the imitation of the sacrifice of the old law it soundeth well and tolerablie and yourselfe do take S. Chrisostome an that sense to no dispraise or contempt of hym Yet when the Catholikes now a daies call their misteries by the name of sacrifice you will not saie that thei haue taken that manner of speaking out of the old law for that soundeth to no reproche but of the Iewisshe priestes as who should gather a suspition of Iewisshnes vpon vs. It is worth the noting because it is worth the amending But to S. Chrisostome his Quotidianam what answer you He calleth it Quotidianam c. not because it was done euery daie without intermission How then doth it imitate the old law which had dailie offering or how can it be called Quotidiana which is dailie The dailie sacrifice of the old law was .ij. lambes of one yere without spott which God apoynted to be offered vp in sacrifice euerie morning and euening for euer and thei made the quotidianum the iuge and the dailie sacrifice of the Iewes You saie therefor and vnsaie First that the sacrifice which S. Chrisostome calleth Quotidianam is so termed to the imitation of the Iewes whose dailie and speciallie allso dailie sacrifice is cōmaunded by God to be allwaies continued and then you tell vs that it was not done euerie daie without intermission which is in effect to saie that it is not called quotidian to the imitation of the Iewes Yet lett vs heare further He calleth it Quotidianam not because it was done euery daye but for that it was oftentymes celebrated that is so often as the people assembled togeather to the church or common place of prayers etc. at which tymes he allwaies had either some of the people or the residue of the ministers and clergie to communicate with hym Marke here gentle Reader the folissh hardines of this M. of defence and consider by this one example how wickedly the lerned and holy doctours are abused Dyd the seruice then of the church depend vpon the cummyng of the people or dyd some one or other allwaies receaue when the dayly oblation was offered where should we seeke more better for the truth of this question then in Saint Chrisostome hys owne masse and workes for as concernyng the daylie saying of masse in the latin church it ys plainely concluded by the testimonie of S. Austine which reporteth of hys mother that she serued and honored God at hys aultar nullius diei pretermissione without letting one day passe But let vs be contented with that which S. Chrisostome alone shall geaue vs. It appeareth then in hys masse that they had for euerie ferie in the weeke a certen song in the prayse of our ladie S. Michel S. Iohn the Baptist and other which they vsed immediately after the Ghospell and called it apoliticion Further it appeareth that they dyd not first aske emong the people who were disposed to receiue and vppon the answer geauen frame the matter to a cōmunion but first of all they went to the consecration and after that the oblation was finisshed and the priest with such
you asked leaue to vse them and toke leaue also to doe it conditionallye yf we wolde abyde by it that the worde Quotidianum signifyeth dayly and not seldome yet in further reasonyng you doe so farr passe your owne self in knowledge that you affirme absolutelye that these wordes the dayly oblation is had in vayne declare playnelye S. Chrisostomes mynde that he thought it to be of the substance of the sacrament that a number should be partakers of it As who should say that in the thirde Hom. vpon the Epistle to the â—phesians he had spoken against sole receiuing and not rather signifyed vnto them that he labored not vpon their dayly cuÌ„myng but onlie their deuoute and worthye cummyng For after he had sayd we stande at the aultar in vayne there is no bodye to communicate least the people should thinke as you doe now that their receiuing parteyned to the substance of the sacrameÌ„t he addeth I speake not these thinges because ye should simplelie communicate but that you should make your selfes worthye Doe we then deny that the dayly sacrifice was done in vayne No. But we vnderstande it how it was done in vayne Not in respect of the sacrifice it self but in respect of the people for whom the meate was readye and for whom preparance was made but they wolde not come vnto it As in an other place speakyng agaynste certayne which did not consider and beare awaye the textes of scripture which were readen in the church twyse or thryse in the weeke the reader allwaies telling them the name and place of the Prophet which was then in hande Therfore sayeth he they owght to be more clearer vnto you and you owght to know not onlie the text but the cawses allso of the thinges which are wryten and his name which wrote them But all is in vayne and without fruct Yet he meaned not absolutelye that all the labor of the reader was in vayne nor that all the hearers were fructlesse of which he excepteth a few in that very place but that as concerning the peoples common profytt which was intended in those lessons all was vayne and fructlesse Which being so reasonable and so conuenient a sense it is wonder that you would not se it but folow rather your owne inuention and leese the meaning of S. Chrisostome And trulye no greate meruell yf you mistake an other mans mynd wheras in your owne inuentions you may be proued so forgetfull For in this last end of your fifth chapiter you conclude playnelie that S. Chrisostome vnderstandeth the oblation to be vayne which hath no cumpany to receiue at it and that cumpany is taken of hym to be of the substance of the sacrament to which purpose you alleage that who so euer is not partaker of the misteryes doth impudentlie and wickedlye to stand there by in presence Well Syr if you call this vayne how doth S. Chrisostome saye trulye that the oblation is had in vayne For now you call it vayne because of lacke of cumpany and by your answers in this chapiter before you proued that he neuer lacked cumpany How can you make these your two deuyses to agree togeather Our daylie sacrifice sayeth S. Chrisostome is had in vayne He meaneth say you that he had no cumpany the hauing of which being a substanciall poynt ergo that must be in vayne which was done without it But say I now against you S. Chrisostome dyd neuer lacke cumpany when he receaued ergo it is not trulye sayed of hym that the oblation was in vayne Either he then so good a Bisshopp lyeth which so sayeth that the oblation was in vayne or you do lye in the interpreting of hym and making hym to haue such a sence of this worde vayne as destroyeth a certayne other veritie as you do make it But how proue I that he neuer receiued alone Trulye not by my owne knowledge but by your answers For your second answer vnto the Catholikes obiection was that in S. Chrisostomes tyme the clergie did allwayes receiue with the Bishope or cheife ministre And this you promised to proue more largelye hereafter But the better you proue it hereafter the worse it is for you in this present place You sayed agayne that daylye was taken for often and that at those tymes in which the people did not daylye but often come he allwayes had either some of the people or the residew of the ministres and clergie to communicate with hym So then by these your owne conclusions I proue that the priest did at that tyme neuer receaue alone How haue you then now so forgoten your selfe in this end of your chapiter that you make S. Chrisostome to saye that none doth coÌ„municate with hym and that the oblation is therfor in vayne wheras at the begynning of this chapiter you would haue it cleere and euident that the priest neuer lacked cumpany to communicate with hym solemplye Syr I confesse playnely we shall be ouercummed if we stryue long with you or if we can not be ouercummed because fayth doth not referr herselfe vnto the euent of disputations yet we shall be I trow confownded because we can not tell where to haue you For when we thinke that vpon the sight of S. Chrisostomes wordes which we haue so much spoken of you would saye that we had at the least some colour of argumeÌ„t for sole receauyng you make shift by and by with all the learning that you haue to proue that ther was allwayes some cumpany or of clergie or of layetie to receiue with the Bishop or cheife minister And when we thinke to fynde you standing in that coÌ„clusion and draw neerer vnto you strait wayes you fall besides your self and runne in to a contrarye corner where you fight against your owne saying and proue that allthowgh there were oblation and sacrifice daylye which by force of the worde Quotidianum you could not denye vnto vs yet that graunted none receiued with the priest say you and therfore it was frustra Wherfore good Syr take the counsell vnto your selfe which you doe geaue vnto vs and vse not to ground doctrines vpon the coniecture of a few sillables and with further counsell vnto you beware that you geaue not your aduersary so much that you make your owne case the worse as to permitt vs to enioye Quotidianum in his proper sense by which we proued daily sacrifice and then to labor to proue that it was in vayne because of lacke of cuÌ„pany as thowgh you had not concluded before that no oblation was without cumpany Which to tell you of allthough it be a litle disauantage vnto vs yet it is recouered an other way by hauing of a reasonable and playne dealing aduersarye The syxt Chapiter THat which is not euidentlye determined in scripture saieth the Catholyke vpon his aduersaries graunting of this vayne principle ought to stand as indifferent But the necessitie of cumpanye to receyue with the priest ys no where
testimonie of S. Denyse the Areopagite in which it is proued vnto you that the supper of our Lorde is therefore called a communion because all the lyuelye membres of the church are brought thereby to an vnitie with Christ their head And if all this be not sufficient then do you further vnderstand that lyke as in our naturall bodye wheÌ„ one parte reioyseth all the rest is glad of it and if anye one be payned all the rest doth feele it so in the mysticall bodye of Christe there is a diuine entiere and charytable communion of all the fructfull paynes actioÌ„s and graces which any one of the singuler membres either receyueth eyther practiseth And this coÌ„munion is not only in respect of the vniformitie of the church in Sacramentes and scriptures as you saye but also as concerning the communicating of benefytes vvhich are receyued by those sacramentes or deserued by good deedes and meritoryous Of which fellowshipp it commeth to passe that the obedience of Abraham and pacience of Iob vvith all their vertues vvhich lyued in the feare and knowledge of God before the commyng of Christ and the humilitie of the most blessed virgyn labors of the Apostles constancie of martyrs and holynes of all good Sowles sence the Ascention of our Sauyor goe forth without enuye to the bewtifying and comforting of euery ioynt of the whole mysticall bodye Of which Christ is the head which is blessed for euer which is full of grace and truth of whose fullness euery membre receiueth a portion whom the holy ghost hath annoynted with the oyle of gladnes and reioysing which oyle from the head droppeth downe into the berde and so continueth in communicating his graces vntyll that the very skyrte of his vestimentes and the leste of all his church receyue of his influence And this heades example all the membres doe folow eche of them gladly communicating with his next felow some parte and measure of his merites and glorye vnto whom againe the inferiors do ascende with a sweete sauor of thanke and prayses so that in the whole bodye there is no one parte for it selfe but as God is for all so all they are for God and are both for their begynning and ending in most perfect socyetie Therefor in this bodye how can any parte doe anye thing for it selfe alone or how can there be but a communion betwixt all the membres of so perfect a dodye And to this end only doth the Catholikes argument come not as you grosely vnderstaÌ„d hym that he went about to proue that as one maye praye for an other so one might receyue for another Against which point the more you talke the more you make some to laugh and some to be angrie that you reason so hardly without any occasioÌ„ And yet you can not pretend ignorance herein for at length you espye your owne fault your selfe and you declare that you see wel inough what we might say against you and therefor you come in with these wordes You wyl saye perhappes you do not inferr this vpon the argument of general communion but onelye that they which are in diuers places maye communicate Yea Syr we saye so without perhappes and if you had ben a reasonable man you would neuer haue made such an earnest battaill against your owne fancye â–ª supposing one to stand before you which should saye that as one maye praye for an other so one myght receyue the Sacrament for an other Against which coÌ„clusion you myght haue some aduantage by gathering therof this absurditie that so it wold folow that our baptisme here in England myght benefite some that are in Fraunce yet oure only meaning was to shewe how they which are in diuers places maye that notwithstanding communicate togeather Of which thing what saye you now wel Syr I grawnte yow that Remembre I praye you then what you graunt you graunt vs this that they which be in diuers places maye coÌ„municate wel Syr I graunt you that but yet ye should haue inferred the other point c. That is to be lyke coÌ„munion in the Lorde his supper of one alone receyued as there is in prayer when one man in place alone prayeth for a multitude That your selfe maye not seeme to haue spoken much out of the purpose therefore you tell vs what we should haue inferred But lett the Apologie be considered agayne and if it can be proued that any such conclusion was intended as you doe speake against then shall you haue the victorie You vnderstand the catholike in this fashion that whereas he sayd there is a communion betweene all faythfull Christians as well in receyuing the Sacrament as in prayer you conclude that lyke as one alone maye praye for a multitude so that we shold inferr that one alone may receyue the SacrameÌ„t for a multitude As who should saye when a similitude or proportion is made betwyxt two thinges that they must in all partes answer one an other or els the comparison is nothing worth Yet we reade in wyse mens workes this similitude Lyke as a munkey doth counterfait and folow a mann so doe the heretykes couet to appeare lyke vnto the trew Catholykes in which so saying no man I trow doth meane that all heretikes haue tayles but only that in the acte of imitating perfect and good Christians they playe verye munkyshe partes which comparison yf you shall despyse because it is made of twoe thinges of nature very diuers and tell vs that a munkey hath an other maner of heare and coat then a maÌ„ or make sporte against the author of that similitude as though he would haue coÌ„cluded that a reasonable man is no better then a beast I would not geaue ouer so but further continew in the similitude and saye that lyke as munkeyes when thei haue spent all their other knackes doe make moppes and mowes cunninglie to delight thereby the lookers on so some men in the world when they haue no more to saye or do least they should seeme to be yâ—le resorte vnto making of newe constructions as it were distorted and madd faces For in deed it is of your owne making when you saie that the catholike shold haue proued if he had folowed good order that lyke as one may praye for a multitude so lykewise that one may receyue for a greate number For it was not said vnto you that receyuing and praying were in all thinges lyke and proportionable but only as concerning the strength of communioÌ„ which goeth through the whole mistical bodye of Christ not in praier only or receiuing of the sacrameÌ„t but in fasting almes deedes penaÌ„ce or anye other good acte or benefyte And therefor concerning the proportion which is in this respect betwyxt prayer and receyuing of the sacrament you haue to answer why there is not a communion to be graunted when one alone receiueth as you can not denie a plaine coÌ„munion when one alone prayeth We
waye of thankes geauing shall be catâ—h the same daye and that nothing thereof shall remayne â—â—â—yll the morow sayeth The flesh which ys appointed for the priestes 〈◊〉 of the sacrificeâ— ys the wordâ— of God which they teache in the church For this therfore they are warned by mysticall figures that when they begin to preach vnto the people they bring furth not the yesterdayes leauinges 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 old thinges which are after the letter but that they speak allwayes â—reâ—â—e and nâ—w thinges through the grace of God and fynde out allwaies spirituall thinges Now to sett furth as it were this his interpretation â—he gathereth many argumentes very 〈◊〉 out of many thinges in such sore yet that you maye rather prayse his inuention then requyer it to be taken of vs for an assured conclusion For sayeth he our Lorde also did not diâ—â—â—â— the â—read which he gaue to his disciples saying Take and 〈◊〉 neyther did be commaund it to be kept vâ—tyl the morâ—w Percâ—aâ—â—â—â— also this mystâ—rye is 〈◊〉 in that that he doth not commaund bread to be caryed in our wâ—yâ— or iourneyâ— to 〈◊〉 that we should bring â—â—rth the bread of the worde of God which we carye with vs allwayâ— new and fresh Those Gabaonytes also of whom it is written in the 〈◊〉 of Iosue are therfor coÌ„demned and made hewers 〈◊〉 wood and caryars of water because they brought old 〈◊〉 bread vnto the 〈◊〉 which the spirituall lawe 〈◊〉 commaund to occupy fresh and new Hereby therefore it doth appeare manifestlie that Origine did not entend to make a necessarie conclusion that the sacrament must not be reserued no more then he doth affirme that the cause why the Gabaonites were made bondemeÌ„ vnto the Iewes was that they brought old crustes of whoâ—e bread in their pouches and budgetes But as he was an exceading subtyle diuine and latbored to drawe all thinges vnto a good spirituall sense so he sayeth that Christ gaue breade vnto his Disciples and bad them â—ate it straitwaies and not keepe it vntyll the morow to signifie that our preching vnto the people and our praysing of God should be allwaies new that is to saye spirituall and harty Vnto which his argument and reason if I would answer and say that neyther Christ did bydd his Apostles to eate his body straitwaies and that grauÌ„ting also so much vnto hym yet reseruation of the sacrament in the church might stande with Christ his fact in his supper well inough I see not what might be replyed against me or how he should mayntayne his proposition Yet because his coÌ„clusion is true that in preching of the Ghospell and praysing of God we should bring furth a new and spirituall sense I will not stryue with him vpon the premisses but rather be glad of his wytâ—â—e interpretation As in an other example to make this matter more easie when some holy father saieth that God at the begynnyng made two lightâ—s one greater an other smaller to signifie that the Christians are gouerned by spirituall and temporall officers c. I haue not to contende with hym vpon his subtyle collection but to graunt hym that I see so much in the Sonne and Mone because I am not hindred by his conclusion To be short this mysticall Theologie is not â—ounde and certaine to make argumentes by Therefore if you thinke Origine in this place to serue for your purpose and so to serue that it is a more sounde place for you then is S. Cyrilles against you then truly as you maye haue perchaunse a good tast to trye which baker of the towne hath the best bread so haue you a very corrupt iudgement vndoubtedlie in the vnderstanding of auncient Doctors But let vs heare now an other sound testimony of yours He that wrote the sermon de coena Domini in Cyprian saâ—eth playnlie of the sacrament Recipitur non inâ—luditur it is râ—ceyued not inclosed and shut vp First you might doe well to name hym which wrote these sermons and to shew some probable authoritie why thei are not S. Cyprianes Then whereas you promysed to bring such testimonyes which should be â—ound and not suspected why alleage you that sermon for your defence which beareth the name of blessed S. Cyprian and yet drawe the authoritie of his name awaye from it whereby it hath lesse coÌ„mendation Yet it is noâ— I which doubt of the authoritie of that sermon but glad I am that though it be not S. Cyprians yet it is of such a truth and antiquitie that a sounde testimonie may be borowed allwaies out of it Onlie this I would haue you warned of that after fayer and greate promyses of sound and â—â—tentikâ— testimontes you disgrace not your owne cause and geaue aduantage vnto your aduersarie to refuse that worke as altogeather of no authoritie which your selfe do thinke vnworthie to be fathered vpon a right learned Doctor But now whereas S. Cyprian or that other which as you reporte wrote that sermon saieth The sacramâ—nt is receyued and not included or inclosed and shut vp as you English it what vnderstand you by shutting vp of the sacrament doth that place make against reseruation of the sacrameÌ„t and is this an other of your sound testimonies which you make so to sound as though the sacrament were not to be inclosed within a pyxe or shut vp within some conuenient place one or other S. Cyprian in that sermon after many other excellencies which he founde to be in our sacrament of the aultar aboue the sacrifices of the Iewes saieth in further coÌ„mendation of it in this sorte The prerogatiue of the Lâ—uitical dignitie doth admit to these loeues and bread not priestes onlie but the whole church is inuited vnto these bankettes An equal portion is geauen vnto all he is bestowed continuing whole he is distributed and not dismembred he is incorporated and not wronged or iniuried he is receiued and not included dwelling with the weakâ— and sicklie he is not weake c. he is not offended with the seruice of the poore A pure fâ—â—yth a 〈◊〉 mynde doth delight this dweller and the narrownes of our sely poore house doth not offende or bynde in the greatnes of God which is large and allmightye How saie you then is not the sense of those wordes he is receyued and not included referred onlie vnto the coÌ„mendation and setting furth of Christ in the sacrament which coÌ„tinueth allwaies whole and one although he should be diuided emong neuer so manye persons and is not included within them which yet doe receiue hym Yet what a sense haue you put vpon this place as though this were the meaning of it that Christ is receiued and not included that is to saie we must receiue the sacrameÌ„t and keepe no parte of it vntyll the next daie nor shut vp any portion of it within pyx boxe or coffer but straitwaies make a perfect communion that there may be in any case no