dyd because thei had so receiued of their predecessors and fathers whose wysedomes thei had not to suspect yet you were not content with the licence grauÌ„ted vnto you of disputyng with them but you would allso apoint vnto them what order thei should take in the matter And for all their possession yet you would dryue them to shew their euidencies What if thei had lost their writinges or could not fynd them presently or wold not shew them to such as you were ys their silence or refusall in that behalfe to be accompted for a losse of their cause But thankes be to your Bishoperickes when you be now well placed you are content that the plaintyfe shoulde first and formost shew his euidence And now it ys against reason that the possessor should take the person of a plaintyfe which before this tyme would not be grauÌ„ted whiles your selfes were out of all possession But how say yow if the Catholikes doe continually yet keepe their possession for the Bishopes of Fraunce Spaigne Germanie and Italy are not yet dryuen out of their chaires and places of the Apostells And as long as they keepe their romes you can not enter in to the churche as it were a house forsaken and destitute how then will you dryue them out by force vi armis In deede it ys one of the cheifest wayes by which the new ghospel hath proceded which if you can not as yet folow thoroughly you must then either lett them alone which you do not as appeareth by your sermons writinges or els bring furth your euideÌ„ces against them which be in possession But no reason shall preuaile except it make for you and therefor you passe not vpon the possession which the Catholikes hold and keepe in the world but you wyll dryue them to the prouyng of such articles as doe offend you and for your owne part you will stand vpon the negatiue The resting vpoÌ„ which because you say it ys mistaken lett vs heare your expositioÌ„ how it must be vnderstanded M. Iuell say you perceauyng vs to make this auauÌ„t that the church hath taught as we doe these xvC yeares dyd both wyselie and lernedly see that there was none so fytt way to dryue vs from it As to rest vpon this true negatiue that we haue no sufâ—icient proufe out of the authorities of scriptures fathers or councells But Syr how can your wysedome serue you to think that because you will haue vs to proue our doctrine therefor we must do it Yf euerie Catholike Bishope in the world should in his owne conscience haue mislyked the vse of the Catholike church in sundrie articles yet for the reuerence which they owe vnto antiquitie they should not without euident and manifest reason haue lightly geauen ouer their old orders for the strength of tradition ys so great that allthough I could see no reason why I should defend it yet I should not contempne their authoritie from whom it was receiued For lyke as in the Epistle vnto the Romanes which epistell traditioÌ„ teacheth me to be S. Paules I must not blott out euerie sentence which vnto my iudgemeÌ„t may seeme either vntrue either vnprofitable but reuerently thinke that all ys well allthough my vnderstandyng be very euill so when the churche of Christ doth generallie receaue and folow a custome I ought to iudge the best of it allthough I were not able to proue it To dispute of that which the whole churche thorough the world doth vse it is sayeth S. Augustyne a poynt of most insolent madnes Yf therefor being able to geaue no other reason for my beleife then only traditioÌ„ I should not rasshely depart from it shall my aduersary require of me a cause of my doinges in wryting and except I shew it owt of hand pull me away from my religion Lett me suppose that you browght M. Iuell vnto me and that he should find me standing in this poynt of the Catholike faith that it ys not of necessitie required in a Christen man to receiue vnder both kyndes What might he thinke you say vnto me either wysely either lernedly agaynst me you would make hym I know to speake after this sort that I haue no sufficient proufe owt of Scriptures Doctours or Councells to make for me Yes Syr would I answer and please you I haue sufficient authoritie for my beleife therein but I am not disposed to tell you of it and I would not care to take a blowe for so answering a Bisshope Yes Mary shall he saye if you had any you would alleage it and except you tell me of one or other you shall be accounted to make only an auaunt and in deed to haue nothing And here I trow if all Catholikes should hold their peace in lyke manner as I do it should be declared at Paules crosse the next sunday folowing that the papistes haue no one sentence or word to make for them in all Scripture Doctours and CouÌ„cells Well Sir then allthough this be to much iniury and oppression because the Catholikes were not disposed to refell your negatiue therevpon to conclude that they are able to say nothing I will yet goe further with you and graunt for disputation sake that which for truth sake is to be denyed And what is that forsoth that I haue no other cause in all the world for defence of the article which I mentioned but only this one that it hath very long and quietly continued How say you in this case wyll you stand still vpon the negatiue which for trying of your wysedome I graunt vnto you And to keepe your negatiue wil you deny that receiuyng in one kynd only hath not ben long vsed in the church No verely that can you not doe because it is so playne and euident that receiuyng in one kynd hath continuance of tyme and approued practise of Christendome for it that your selues doe crye out and gapple in pulpites that many hundred of yeres togeather before you were breathed owt in to the worlde all Christendome as in sundrie other pointes so in that allso was miserablie deceaued How then you will perchaunse proue vnto me that my argumeÌ„t is not good because all the world hath hytherto ben seduced And truly what other thing you might say I can not tell For when I shold yeld vnto you that I haue no Scripture Doctour or Councel for coÌ„munion in both kyndes and when you should not well call me vnreasonable for dwelling against you in that article and opinion alleageing the coÌ„sent and vse of Christendome for me either you must declare that reason of myne to be nothing worth the staying vpon or els you must hold your peace as hauing no more to saye vnto me or els you must repete your begynning againe and harpe madlye vpon one string in telling me that I can shew no sufficient sentence exaÌ„ple or authoritie why coÌ„munion should be geauen vnder one kynd only Now as you haue to muche varietie
Catholikes Io. 1. Psal. 48. Psal. 132. Defence fo 49. Reply Defence Replye Defence fol. â—od Reply See how the M. of defence wyll apoint the Catholiâ—ke what argumeÌ„t he should vse that hymselfe might haue râ—me and oportunitie to reason agaiâ—st hym Cyprâ— ad â—ulianuÌ„ It is not necessarye that .ij. thinges compared togeather should be in al pointes one lyke the other Note to receiue for other and with other A sore obiection of the M. of the defeÌ„ce Defence fol. 50. Replie what new logiâ—â—e is this Defence fol. 50. Reply The needlesse and vpstart inuention of a particular coÌ„munion â–ª Defence Reply Blynde guides The false harte of the M. of the defence Defence fol. 52. Reply Eras â–ª coÌ„tra EuaÌ„gelicos Item coÌ„tra fratres inferioris Germaniae Defence fol. 54. Replye The M. of the defence confesseth sole receiuyng to haue ben vsed in the primitiue church Defence Reply Note againe how the M. of the defence ruÌ„neth from the question A great distresse of the â— of the defence Defence fol. 55. Replye 1. â—o 4. Marke how shamefully S. Hierome ys belyed of the M. of the defence 1. Cor. 7. Exod. 19. 1. Reg. 21. In Apologia aduersus louinianum Hieron aduersus vigilantium Defence fol. â—5 Reply Tripart hist. ca. 4â— lib. â— The M. of the defence doth dubly â—elie Socrates and Synodus GaÌ„grensis Concilij GangreÌ„â—is ca. 5. of coÌ„munioÌ„ vnder both kyndes Defence fol. 57. Reply The M. of the dâ—fencâ— addeth vnto the scriptures most shamefullie Defence fol. 57. Replie Defence 〈◊〉 58. Reâ—â—y Defenâ—â— fol. eod Reply Io. 1. Defence fol. eod Reply Exod. 16. 17. Defence fol. 〈◊〉 Reply Defence ibidem Reply Io. 6. That the coÌ„municantes receiue not a bodie without bloud and liffe Defence fol. 59. Reply Tertull. ad vxorem proued to make for receiuing vnder one kynd Note the chaingeablenes of heretikes Serm. 5. de Lapsis the Cathâ—like mistaken of the M. of the defence either ignorantlie either craftelie Ambros. inoratioâ—e funebri de â—â—itufrat Defencâ— Reply An other example of the M. of the defence hys flitting from the purpose The storie of holy Satirus delyuered from the suspitions and lyes which the M. of the defence wold briÌ„g in to it and proued to make for receyuing vnder one kynd what a Catholike bisshope ys Defence fol. 61. Reply Defence ibidem Reply Defence ibid. Reply Ambros. in orationâ— de fide resurrectionisâ— Epist. 85. The fallacie or folie that the M. of the defence vseth against so le receiuing Of reseruation of the Sacrament Defence fol. 67. Reply The M. of the defence would faine bring downe the challenge and make the questioÌ„ more larger out of tyme place and expectation Defence fol. 67. Reply See agayne how the M of the defence ruÌ„neth froÌ„ the questioÌ„ Neither scripture neither reason can settle our faith but only the authoritie of the church The placeâ— of refuge in doubtfull tymes August â–ª ad lanu â–ª epist. 118. Vniuersalitie Antiquitie Consent D. Cyrill ad Calosyrium Defence fol. 70. Reply All is fishe that commeth to he retikes nettes Defence fol. 71. Reply 〈…〉 〈…〉 Orig. in 7 Leuâ—tici Origine proued not to make agaynst reseruation Mat. 26 Luc. 9. Defence fol. 71. Reply see the absurditie Cypr. in serm de coena domini thei which haue any vnderstanding let them for truthe sake coÌ„sider how S. Cypriane and the vnlerned lay people are abused Euseb â–ª lib. 6. cap. vlt. Defence Reply Defence foâ— 73. Reply the shiftes of the M. of the defence concernig the story of Sirapion are cleane put â—waye yf excoÌ„municate persons receiue the Sacrament at ther death why shold the vpriht free Christians be kept froÌ„ it De Sacerâ— dotio lib. 6. Hypocrite Defence fol. 7 â— Reply Defence Replye How the sabbat daie is of necessitie to be kept and how it admitteth di spensation No necessity can serue to omitt or breake any commauÌ„demeÌ„t of God concerning the substaÌ„tce of it Defence fol. 76. Reply The M. of the defence doth ouershote hymselfe wonderfullie Defence fol. 77. Reply The .xiiij. Canon of the Nicene Councell confirmed to make for reseruatioÌ„ Fol. 73. Cypria ad Cecil ep The storie of the childe in S. Cyprian Ser. 5. de lapsis confirmed to make for receiuing vnder one kynd Defence fol. 82. Reply Vide HosiuÌ„ in confessione Cathol pa. 87 Lutherus in libro de formula Missae CoÌ„tinuance of tyme doth not a litle make for the doctrine of the catholiâ—â—â— church the author of the Apology of the Englysh church fâ—lio 8. As the world chaÌ„geth so doe the conclusions of heretikes Defence Reply Faith cuÌ„meth by heering Authoritie persuadeth No greater authoritie then the testimonie of the whole world Aug. de vtilitate credendi cap. 14. Aug. câ— 5. coÌ„tra epist. fundameÌ„ti Defence fol. 86. Reply An honest profer D. Ber. Ser. 66. sup Can. Cant. Exo. 13. Io. 14. 16. Defence Replye slauÌ„derous lyes of the M. of the defence Pride will haue a fall Defence fol. 87. Reply Defence fo 89. Reply In what sense the multitude of folowers and the continuance of a religion are to be considered the miracle of the contynuing of the Catholike fayth Luther 1. Timo. 3. Defence fol. 90. 91. Reply Of the churche as it coÌ„sisâ—eth of the chosen whom God only knoweth litle profit is to be goten Defence fol. 91. Reply 3. Reg. 19. 3. Reg. 18. Matth. 16. Psal. 2. Io. 1. Hebr. 3. Io. 14. Math. 5. Vnreasonable consequencies Matth. 23. Defence fol. 98. Reply vncertaine markes to know the church by alleaged by the M. of the defence Marke this place Gen. 26. Psal. 2. Psal. 71. Da. 2. Luk. e â— 4. Act. 1. S. Cyprian alleaged agaynst the M. of the defence hymselfe Cyp. tract 3. de simpl praelat Math. 16. Io. 20 The true certaine markes of the church Catholike Apostolike Defence fol. 102. Replye Bâ—dging reasons such as argue a faint doubtfull faithe Defence fol. 130. Reply Augustin epist. 3. ad VolusianuÌ„ Defence fol. 104 Replye Defence fol. eod Replye Note the doubtfullnes of mind and vnderstanding in the M. of the defence Defence fol. 104 Reply Feble reasons Luc. 22. Io. 1. Defence fol. 106. Reply Io. 15. Mare 14. Io. 14. Math. 11. Io. 8. Of particular premisses to conclude generallie it ys no good fasshion Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 11. the catholikes confesse signes figures in the Saâ—rameÌ„t but not onlie them Lib. 8. de trinitate Eâ—thimius in suâ— Pâ—noph pae 2. Christ is reallie in the sacrament In epist. ad Ephes. li. 1. cap. 1. Io. 6. Ho. 45 in Io. Ho. 60. ad po Anâ— Amb. lib. 4 â–ª 〈◊〉 4. de sa Cyrill lib. 11. ca. 26â— in Io. De consecrat 2. cap. Vtrum Goodlie greate wordes emong the protestantes but small and simple sense Serm. de coena Domini The M. of the defence will not â—aue the benefites of God to be so great as thei are in deeds Cold roâ—â— emong heretikes Exod. 16. Num. 11. Sâ—p 16. losue 5. Christians are worse fed then the Iewes were except they receiue the true bodie of Christ. Defence fol. 118.
and turne the glorie of crakers in to confusion What I dyd that it might come in to the handes of our aduersaries and find emong them a direct answer vnto it or els a quiet geauing ouer of their further striuing against the truthe allthough it be harmelesse yet being needelesse I will not declare it Yet this I am bold to saye that thei might if thei would haue done by this boke as thei dyd by the Apologie as thei termed it of priuate masse and haue set it furth in print with their answer vnto it for the glorie of their religion and much liberalitie towardes poore Catholikes whose writinges without the author his labors and charges full diligentlie thei haue printed Which whether it were worth the answer or no therein let anye reasonable men be iudges and let the truthe be considered I praie the Reader most hartelye without respect of anye my manner of writing Not because I am not willing to answer to euerye point that thei maye haue against me but that the truthe should be seen the better when extraordinarie inuectiues are not intended For as I haue saied I feare by the examples of other lest this will be their chiefest answer It is not worth the answering it is full of toyes and fancies It forgetteth good nurture in writing c. As who should thinke that thei like gentle doues had no manner of gall in their writinges or as though that a wiseman might not dissimble an iniurie and answer to the matter directlye But be it so you be patient quiet fairespoken innocent harmelesse you thinke euill of no man you praie for the Pope and the Cardinals you reuerence the name of religious folkes you know not how to nickname the Papistes no bitternes no skoffing no vncurteousnes is in your preachinges and writinges espied and the contrarie vices are in Catholikes Forgeaue vs then I praie you these our singular faultes considering yourselues that you allso maye be tempted And if a sharpe word or sentence allthough it be medicinable must not be spoken vnto you take awaye all such wordes in this boke as may troble your patience and let the truthe by itselfe be considered and briefelye answer iust obiections Firstâ—y saye and replye against the maker of the defence that he proueth or impugneth that which is not denied or mainteined dissimbling as it seemeth the aÌ„swering to the point vpoÌ„ which the question resteth Def. fol. 24. 25. 26. See the rep fo 46 31. 32. 33. 72 46 113 56 133 63. 64. 65. 147 109. 110. 111. 112. 196 Furthermore I saye that whereas the question is whether priuate masse be against Christ his institution he altereth the state of the controuersie by adding these termes In case of necessitie Def. fol. 19 pa 1 Repl. fol. 36 If the people wil not communicate 19 2 37 the coÌ„mon vse of the priuate masse 27 1 49 more to vse the sacrament 29 2  in extremitie orderlie vsed 60 2 141 Againe I saye and would call it a slaunder but doe you terme it as fauorablie as you maye that he can not stand by his wordes which he reporteth of the Catholikes and their churche defence fol. 1 pa. 2 lin 21 See the repl fol. 4 6 1 10 12 8 2 13 19 28 2 20 52 29 1 4 55 34 2 2 73 45 1 13 84 55 1 24 133 Besides this I obiect that he doth greatly forgett hymselfe and mistake the matter of which he should speake Def. fol. 45 pa. 1 linea 22 See the replie folio 106 66 2 9 140 76 2 12 162 Now concernyng the argumentes which he maketh such as the knowen Logike or Diuinitie neuer alowed thei will appeare Def. fol. 11 pa. 2 lin 19 See the replie folio 24 30 1 2 58 33 1 10 72 33 2 18 75 41 2 14 94 45 2 3. 11. 108. 110 50 1 1. 7. 118 51 2 19 121 52 2 24 135 58 1 2 136 70 2 18 151 92 1  185 104 1 13 193 Finallie there is one feate much vsed in his boke and properlie it would be called a lie but how so euer it must be termed you shall find it Defence fol. 14 vpon  pa. 2 li. 9 see the replie fol. 27 18  1 10 31 45 S. Cypriane 1 20 105 21 S. Irenei 1 17. 18 44 30 S. Austine 2 18. 19 68 3â— the fath 2 1 70 31 the doctors 1 15 69 38 S. Chrisost. 1 21 81 38 Christ and 2 3 84 38 his Apostles 2 24 89 50 S. Hierome 2 5 119 55 Socratâ— and 1 13 129 55 Syn. Gang. 1 18 132 57 the EuaÌ„gel 1 15 134 86 S. Paule 2 6. 11 173. 174 I had forgoten allmost S. Cyprian excedinglye abused Defence fol. 71. pa. 1. Replye 155. and not well vnderstanded Defence fol. 100. pag. 2. Reply fol. 189. Therefor let the truthe be considered and the substance of the matter regarded that when preachers and prelates find fault with our maner of wrytinge as though all the boke were then answered if they say toyes and nothing els to be in it thou indifferent Reader be not so quieted but either iudge thou by our doings whether we be like Luther and skoffers or whether the cause it selfe be not separated from the manner and fasshion of handeling it For which purpose I haue gathered this table of such thinges as mislike vs in the maker of the defence by which one maye see what religion thei be of and how shamefullie they abuse their whole countrie The end is this let no honest man be ashamed of the truthe let no protestant belie the truthe if we defend a euill cause there are wittes to discusse it and prouing our matters so euidentlie why is no more regard made of them Yf our Lorde be the God folow hym if Baal be he folow hym Yf we slaunder or misreport our aduersaries let the places be noted and we shall satisfie them Yf they haue not done so with vs the places are quoted we loke for their aunswer That they maye be short and compendious I require them to speake to the questions and that they maye not wander in confusion of talke I haue brought our obiections in to order They can doe to their countrie at home and vs here abrode no greater pleasure except they would out of hand returne vnto the Catholike church then speedilye and honestlye to cleere themselues of such matters as are laied against them that we maye haue a further occasion to shew the weakenes of this new religion that others which through harkenyng to the world and their owne priuate lustes or opinions haue neglected the authoritie of all Christendome commended to them by longe contynuance may with reason beleue rather the Catholikes whose wordes shall be found more truer more certaine to build or els beware vpon as thei haue to mistrust their deuotions lest in deede thei be of no religion For which kynd of men if it were not lesse
authors but you can neuer be able to shew that we make such definition of a priuate masse whereas so expressely we answer you that we haue no masse priuate But it is to be noted the authoritie with which you make your conclusions I do therefor say you take priuate masse to be not onlye as you c haue wrested it but as it was commonly vsed in the world before and as it was sett furth in your scholemen to the great defacing of Christ hys death and passion Yf you haue any face at all of à true man shew in what place of any scholeman any such priuate masse is spokeÌ„ of as you define And I would allso that you had concluded whether you will take this word priuate in such sense as by the Lutherans it is apointed to expresse sole receiuing For allthough you ioyne your issue with vs about this definition of priuate masse which your selfe haue inuented yet you will not refuse alltogeather to take priuate masse as we do thorough the occasion of certen heretikes for sole receiuing Which whether you do because you would not seeme to graunt vnto the Catholikes that priuate masse hath ben in the primitiue church which is coÌ„cluded easelie vnderstanding by it sole receauing or rather because you would haue some libertie to hyde your selfe vnder ambiguities and thereby to troble your aduersarie when he shold not know where to find you as I feare them bothe so I wil not determyn vpon any one But if you mynd to stand with vs vpon that definition of priuate masse which you haue made we saie that there is no such thing emong vs as you do enforce your selfe to proue owt of owr authors And yet if you will put out the word priuate which you neuer lerned of vs for the rest we will abyde by all that which the church hath receiued and delyuered coÌ„cernyng our sacrifice and the value of it and in what sense the priest may applie a benefite proper to some peculiar person And therefor when you will begyn and you shall be answered or rather answer when you can for we haue allreadie begon We I meane Catholikes which speake in all tonges that if you find not our argumentes in Englisshe yet you may resort to the Italian Spaynisshe French Laten and to the Duch tong But if now on the other syde you will admitt such an interpretation of priuate which word Luther hath ioyned vnto the masse as shall signify and declare sole receiuyng then shall we ioyne this issue with you that the priest is not bound to haue present companie to receiue with hym but that without all daunger of God his indignation he may celebrate a priuate Masse as you terme it c. The third Chapiter FOrasmuch as M. Iuell with other do think theÌ„ selues to hurt our church very much in their stout deniall that there was any masse priuate as they terme it in the primitiue church the Catholike therfor in his Apologie although he had good authorities to confute that bold conclusion yet for the better opening of their weake kynd of reasonyng he so beginneth with them as though it were true that there was no ptiuate masse in the primitiue church And he seemeth to make these argumentes for vs. Not if there were no priuate masse in the primitiue church therefor it must of necessitie folow that none might or should be vsed at these daies For many thinges were then interdicted which now are permitted And many thinges were not extant then in the church which now are to be maynteined Examples hereof may be perceaued in wasshing of feete in absteinyng from bloud in receiuyng of the sacrameÌ„t after supper in howseling of infantes in temporalties of Bishopes and Christenyng of Princes To call therefor such thinges to the state of the primitiue church ys to inforce a taule man to returne to his swathing clothes Againe men at that tyme were so well disposed that it was no woÌ„der if at euerie masse there were coÌ„municantes but now there ys such coldnes of charitie that if we should allwaies tarie for communicantes we should verie seldome haue any masse at all Furthermore the people are not commaunded but counselled only to the frequentation of their housell but the priestes are commaunded to celebrate oftentymes Therefor it ys no reason that a dutie should be omitted and the priest made to waite vpon the pleasure of the laitie And so he shortly concludeth that to prescribe of necessitie that there ought to be a cumpanie to receiue with the priest it is an itching folie But now against these reasons of the Catholike what saieth the M. of the defence You would seeme to take from vs the true and right rule to reforme the church of Christ You be verie suspitiouse Syr or verie iniurious For no other thing was gone aboute in this third chapiter but that all thinges should not be required to be done as thei were vsed in the primitiue church Which conclusion do you simply and plainelie yeld vnto or els will you dryue vs to the further prouyng of it Nay you confesse it to be so euident and true that you maruell at the Catholike because he endeuored to open it Where theÌ„ is that fault which you find with him or what true and right rule of reformyng the church might he seeme to take awaie from you He saied nothing els but that all thinges should not be so required to be done as thei were vsed in the primitiue church and yourselfe confesse this â–ª to be a most true saying and yet you misâ—lyke with hym because of the speaking of it Here now it may appeare who lurketh out of the light or who draweth back For whereas you without distinction haue abused the name of the primitiue church and made so litle rekonyng of these last ixC yeares and more as though you would admit no other thing then that which should be proued to agree with the example of the primitiue church what thing is more necessarie to be spoken of then that discretion is to be vsed in this matter and that all thinges are not absolutlie to be reduced vnto the paterne of the primitiue church For allthough you for your owne part be of such iudgement that you can make distinction betwene thinges necessarie and indiffereÌ„t yet wheÌ„ the multitude of light heades do heare you to appeale simplie to the primitiue church and to crake that the right and true reformation ys from thence to betaken thei fall in to such a conceit by and by that except the Catholikes can bring all their orders from the primitiue church thei will not be ruled by them And if I were so suspitious as you I could saie that your owne preachers and masters do seeme to be of the same opinion when thei make so exact rekonyng vpon the tyme in which orders haue by holy men ben brought in to the church as though nothing were to
be permitted but that which hath come frō the Apostles or that those thinges should be alltogeather now autētike which were vsed in the primitiue church But if the Catholike hath ben superfluous in prouing of that which no man as you saie hath denyed if you wyll charitablie forgeaue hym this once he shall within the turnyng of one leaffe in your defence do the lyke again for you And now I trow we do agree in this one poynt that for ceremonies and thinges indifferent we are not bound vnto the Apostells tyme. In what thinges then are we bound to do after the example of the Apostels and the primitiue church In truth of doctrines and right vse of sacramētes as thinges in the church most necessarie And you doe alleage this cause of your so saying In doctrine there is but one veritie and but one right vse of the sacramentes If I were able precisely to know what you meane by the right vse of Sacramentes I could sone answer you how farfurth we agree with you in this part of your distinction For to receiue in the morning or euening to receiue fasting or after meales and to receiue with cumpanie or alone they be such thinges as you may at your pleasure vnderstand by the right vse of the Sacrament or saie to disagree from the right vse of it For in S. Paules tyme emong the Corinthians they vsed to receiue at night about supper tyme and they made no matter of conscience if they had dined that daie before And you can not saie but notwithstanding the breaking of their fastes or takyng of their suppers they dyd in that beginnyng of the church rightly vse the Sacrament Yf therefor the vse of the Sacrament ys to be taken for that manner and order which they rightly vsed at the begynnyng in receauyng of the sacramentes I denie vnto you that the right vse of them is to be accompted emong preceptes and lawes vnchangeable For the right vse is but one you saie and therefor lyke as thei of the Apostells tyme dyd sitt togeather in the church about euening and receiue either after or before other meates Christ his verie naturall body so should we do now of necessitie in these daies or els we vse not the sacrament rightly To which case if you will answer that tyme place and maner of supping with common meates which then were vsed do nothing apperteine to the right vse of the sacramēt so shall I againe inferr that number of communicantes and receiuing in one or both kyndes are as litle required to the right vse of the sacrament Therefor to auoid the occasion of stryuing which could not but be geauen if one part vnderstanded not the other our meanyng is this that in the articles of our faith and necessary doctrine we haue to keepe one veritie which hath ben from the begynnyng but in canons and orders which haue ben added sence vnto the substance of our religion the church of Christ is not so straictly bound vnto them but that she may with discretion abrogate or alter them or permit the discontinuance of them And in this kynd of orders we vnderstand the vse of the sacramētes which in substance are to this daie one with those of the primitue church do thei neuer so much differ in ceremonies circunstancies and manner of vsing them We do not therefore graunt vnto you that the right vse of the sacrament ys but one or that the vse of a sacrament is in the same authoritie and estimation as the truth of doctrine is For he which receiueth alone if he be in state of grace doth well and he which receiueth with cumpanie doth wel if his liffe be cleane And then againe a conclusion in doctrine can neuer be remoued but in receiuing of sacramentes diuers vses may be permitted except you doubt whether both parties should be thought baptised a right of which the one were but once dipped the other thrise wasshed and perfunded Wherefore the vse of the sacramentes being ▪ with vs a thing indifferēt in it selfe allthough not indifferent vnto euerie rasshe controller you speake very absurdly vnto our iudgementes first in not bynding vs vnto the obseruations of ceremonies and thinges indifferent and then againe requiring of vs to keepe the ceremonies of the primitiue church ▪ For when you had said in one sentence For the vse of ceremonies and thinges indifferent we do not bind you to the Apostles tyme and the primitiue church in the next sentence folowing you call for redresse according to the scripture and primitiue church not only for vse of sacramentes or false opinions which are referred to the first member of your distinction but allso as concerning ceremonies which allthough you call superstitious that you might seeme to haue some iust cause of taking them awaie yet you do against right dealing to call vs to the primitiue churche for ceremonies which you said before were in themselues indifferēt And here loe you make a rule and saie that nothing is to be added vnto the first ordinances of the law and that we must bring thinges vnto the institution of Christ. And againe that we must not harken what other dyd before vs but what Christ first dyd that was before all And yet againe That that ys true that was first ordeined and that ys corrupted that ys after done which rule yf you wyll haue to be vnderstanded in suche matters as cōcerne immutable doctrine then haue you proued that thing which none of ours denyeth vnto you and so you are all fallen in to the same lapse for which you misliked with others But if you vnderstand generally by truth of doctrine the vse of Sacramentes and ceremonnies then haue you much forgoten yout selfe which euen now made ceremonies indifferent But if you do it for that purpose that a Catholike should not know where to haue you allthough I seeme to aske your losse yet for truth sake amend that fasshion And perchaūse this myght be amended allso that you do not trulie alleage your testimonies saying that to be Saint Cyprianes in his Epistle vnto Cecilius which is not at all to be found there but in his goodly treatise De simplicitate praelatorum In which place the seeking vnto the head which you do mention is not vnderstanded for to seeke vnto the beginnyng of a doctrine or custome but vnto that head of whom it ys wryten Thou art Peter that is to saye a rocke and vpon this rocke I wyll buyld my church But how rightlie you alleage the doctours and how much they make for you it wyll be perceaued before we haue ended Hytherto let it be marked that we refuse your rule of resorting to the first institution for the redresse about the vse of the Sacramentes Because the vse of them is a thing indifferent and it neither maketh neither marreth to receiue alone or with cumpanie and to receiue in one or in both kyndes or at
concerning the blessed thefe which neuer you saie was baptised which you saie truly in that he was not dipped in water and yet he was baptised in the Holy ghost and in his owne bloud because of our principall questioÌ„ I will not stand about him And whether in the ordinarie vse of it the supper of the Lord ought of necessitie to haue coÌ„municantes to be partakers of it as you would make the controuersie to be I will not reason with you at this tyme. Either because it ys not perceaued what you will meane by the terme ordinarie vse either because the question ys more generall as we haue put it furth vnto you And wheras at other tymes in your pulpites and allso bokes you appeale vnto the institution of Christ and make the matter so weighty as though it might neuer be suffered that one should receaue alone with out cumpanie yet now you talke of an ordinary vse of the Sacrament as who should thinke that you neuer denied but that in particular cases and for extraordinary causes one alone might receaue without any iniurie done vnto the institution of Christ. And yet againe when the Catholikes do alleage diuerse examples and authorities to proue that cumpanie ys not necessary absolutely in the vse of the Sacrameâ—t then loe you be so ernest against them as though it were in no wyse to be graunted that in the primitiue church any one example authoritie or argument might be shewed to proue sole receauing as thowgh yowr cause were anyiote hindered by it if in deed you hold the question not absolutely but only concernyng the ordinarie vse of the Sacrament Wherefor seeing that you goe so in and out hyther and thyther without all maner of keeping of order and place like dimilaunces or light horsemen or els like the wild Irisshe in their fighting I therefor thinke it necessarie againe to byd you remember your selfe and to coÌ„sider the state of the question vpon which the Catholike rested And thee gentle Reader I desire to marke exactly the cheife and principall matter which we haue to debate vpon which is this Not whether in tyme of necessity a priest may receaue alone Not whether the ordinary vse of the Sacrament ought of necessitie to haue communicaÌ„tes we will not at this tyme medle with these questions because we haue allreadye a greater and more principall in hand but our question ys this Whether as I haue sayed before vppon paine of God his indignatioÌ„ the priest ought to haue allwaies cumpanie to receiue with hym Let this be first examined and then shall the other be quickly answered Trusting therefor that thow wilt marke diligently where vpon the catholike striueth against the aduersarie I now returne againe vnto the M. of the defence and require the to consider the maner of his fighting In answering the Catholike his demaund he saieth Our proufe ys this In the celebration of this sacrament of the Lorde his supper we ought to do that only and nothing els that Christ the author of it did in his institution But in Christ his institution appeareth neither sole receauyng nor ministring vnder one kynd therefore in celebration of the sacrament neither sole receiuing nor ministring vnder one kind ought to be vsed First to the maior then to the minor Syr I deny your maior vnto you because you affirme that generally which ys true only in certen pointes of Christ his mauÌ„dy For if we must do that only which Christ dyd at his supper and doe nothing els but that then must we vse sitting and not kneeling or standing then must the Sacrament be delyuered vnto .xij. persons and neither to more nor lesse then shall we not celebrate before dyner or in a cope or surplesse or with psalmes organes and solempnitie such as you allso vse because we must do nothing els but that which Christ did as your maior importeth Now if you be to wise and lerned to thinke that in such a generall maÌ„ner we ought to do as Christ did at his last supper then haue you iust cause to correct your maior and we can not but deny it vntil we may vnderstand of your limitation which you will we trust add vnto it And what limitation might that be which being added we would graunt your proposition Forsoth if for the terme institution you woulde put tradition For what so euer Christ dyd about the coÌ„secrating or delyuering of his pretious body it may be truly saied that he dyd it in his institution but yet such circumstancies as he then vsed are not beleeued to be his tradition For it is allso one thing to saie thys is Christ his institution and it hath a farr other meanyng to saie Christ dyd this in his institution For his institution importeth a law and is directly to be obserued but the phrase of in his institution importeth a signification of tyme and place and circumstancies within which his institution was vttered Which thinges as thei be not essentiall but stand only about the substance themselues being accidentall and chaingeable so thei may be without all hurt altered as the church shall thinke good and conuenient Therefor as I graunt that in matter of weight and substance Christ onlye and no other is to be folowed so in that generall maÌ„ner of speach which you do vse I am sure it can neuer be proued Yeas saie you The maior is S. Cyprianes proued at large and much staied vpon in his epistle ad Cecilium de Sacramento sanguinis You may be for euer ashamed that you alleage Saint Cypriane for the proufe of your proposition which nothing at all maketh for you and that you do so wickedly in so ernest a matter abuse the simplicitie of your countriemen such as can vnderstand no Laten And because it is not once or twyse that you appeale vnto this epistle of S. Cypriane I will therefor sumwhat at large shewe it furthe in this place to the Reader that he take good heed for euer of geauing hastie creditt vnto strainge and newfound teachers There were in S. Cyprians tyme some such priestes which either for simplicitie or for custome sake or for certen deuout causes dyd offer vp at the tyme of the misteries not wyne and water togeather but only water by itselfe Against whose doinges in that point S. Cypriane most ernestlye writeth and it is the only scope and marke at the which he shooteth in all that long epistle alleaging first the example of Melchisedech which brought furth bread and wyne for he was the priest of God most highest afterwardes the saying of Salomon how that wysedome killed her sacrificies and mingled her wine in a cup then further the prophesie of â—acob speaking of his soun Iuda in the figure of Christ and saying he shall wasshe his robe in wyne and his cloke in the bloud of the grape after that againe the testimonie of Esai when he saw
the vestmentes of Christ full of redd spottes as if he had come lately from the wynepresse he alleageth allso the institution of Christ and the testimonie of S. Paule by which both places he proueth that we should offer vp not water onlye but allso wyne Then he maketh further argument saying that the mixture of wyne and water in the chalice togeather doth signifie the coniunction of Christ and his church and that if wyne be offered vp alone the bloud of Christ is without vs and that if water alone be offered vp then the people begyn to be without Christ. Which reason of his if you wyll cōtempne I am sory that S. Cyprian hath so sone displeased you whom you seemed to make so much of before But as concernyng the argument of that epistle he proueth by those testimonies which I haue touched and by many other waies that in the offering which the priest maketh water and wyne bothe are to be mengled and that it was Christ his institution so to doe and that Christ only is to be folowed therein and that we must do herein no other thing thē that which Christ hymselfe dyd first of all Now Sir then with what face can you alleage S. Cyprian for proufe of your proposition which is generall whereas he speaketh of water and wyne to be mengled when the priest doth sacrifice which us a speciall case onlye And see how the dyuel dyd owe you a shame If you wyll refuse Saint Cyprian in that place then standeth your maior like a miserable proposition without any similitude of defence If you alowe S. Cyprian how standeth your religion in whose communion and Lordes table water and wyne are not mengled togeather which should be so duly and necessarily obserued Will you saie here that the field is not lost and that this is but an ouerthrow of one wing only Do you fight for the victorie and not for the veritie so that you may be semed to have somwhat allwaies to saie do you make no conscience nor rekonyng of your vniust and foule plaie Answer directly vnto this one argument or confesse your falsehode or ignorance and geaue ouer your stryuing against the manifest veritie If all thinges are to be obserued in such manner as Christ hath them instituted wherefor haue you no water in the chalice which Christ as S. Cyprian proueth hath so solemply delyuered Now on the other syde if some thinges may be well vnfolowed which Christ hymselfe apointed why make you such a generall stoute proposition which by yourselfe is so quicklye neglected For the mixture of wyne and water in the chalice you can not saie that you haue no authoritie of scripture no example of primitiue church no testimonie of auncient Doctour for in that one epistle of Saint Cypriane of which we speake which you seeme not to haue readen onlye but allso to alow you shall find all those places by which the veritie of this tradition may be proued Where then is your memorie That which S. Cyprian of purpose declareth of the mixture of wyne and water in the chalice you either see not or regard not and that which you put furth of the generall obseruing and keeping whatsoeuer Christ dyd in the institution of his sacrament is not at all in that epistle and yet you can read it there proued at large And here now I haue to saie further against you that you do not rightly interprete not only his mynd but not so much as his wordes For whereas that blessed martir saieth Admonitos autem nos scias vt in calice offerendo dominica traditio seruetur ▪ which is Know you further that we be warned that in offering of the chalice the tradition of our Lord be kept you interprete it after this fasshion Do you know therefor that we be admonisshed that in offering the sacrament of the Lords bloud his owne institution should be kept For examinyng of which your interpretation if you should be brought but vnto a Grammar schole dominica traditio is to shortly Englisshed his owne institution and in calice offerendo is to ignorantly Englisshed in the offering of the sacrament of the Lords bloud so that I beleeue verely if the Scholemaster were not very much a sleepe he would beare softly at your backe doore and make you to remember yourselfe better But if litle regard be taken of construction which is made in scholes yet it is to be prouyded diligently that no false construction be sett furth in print especially in such kind of matter as apperteineth vnto our sowle and is of so great weight and efficacie that it maketh or marreth an heresie You Englissh traditio not tradition but institution And whi rather institution then tradition Verely for no other cause I thinke but for that you abhorr the name of tradition and because you would seeme to the ignorant Reader to be a great fauorer of Christ his institution You Englisshe in calice offerendo after this sort in offering the sacrament of the Lords bloud and whi not rather in offering the chalice as the wordes themselues do signifie You had no litle craft in your mynd when you sett vpon the translating of this plaine sentence and for the word chalice to substitute the sacrament of the Lords bloud it was a deceitfull enterprise For if you would haue plainely saied as S. Cyprians wordes do signifie that in offering the chalice the tradition of our Lord be kept the diligent Reader would haue ben moved to require what tradition that should be which must be obserued in offering the chalice and he should be truly answered that it was the tradition of vsing not wyne alone or water alone but water and wyne both in the chalice togeather which would much disgrace your communion But when you make S. Cyprian to sound after this sense that in offering the sacrament of the Lords bloud his owne institution is to be folowed you geaue occasion to a simple and vnexpert Reader to thinke that hereby it is manifestly proued that the lay people at these daies allso must necessarily receiue his bloud because he in his institutiō of his sacramēt delyuered furth allso his bloud Whiche S. Cyprian yet dyd no more thinke vpon then he feared least any grāmarian should come many hundred yeares after hym and interprete his plaine wordes in such a froward sense as you haue done And so in the Englisshing furth of the selfesame sentence after these wordes and no other thing to be done then that the Lord dyd first for vs hymselue you make a full periode and point whereas it foloweth in S. Cyprian as clause of the same sentence that in deede we should doe as our Lord had done first hymselfe but wherein and how farr trowe you in all thinges and all circumstancies no truly For straitwaies it foloweth in S. Cyprian and it is the limitation of the whole proposition that the chalice which is offered vp in
commemoration of hym be offered vp mixt with wyne By which wordes he plainelye declareth his intent and purpose which was that for the tradition of mengling water and wyne in the chalice we should not folow any other order then that which Christ hymself fyrst vsed Therefor if you meane by your maior proposition that which S. Cypriane meaneth the plaine sense thereof is this that as concernyng the offering of wyne alone or water alone we should folow Christ his tradition only which apointeth for the chalice both water and wyne But then your argument will be very ridiculous as in example We ought to do that only which Christ did and nothing els as concerning the ordering and tempering of the chalice But in Christ his institution appeareth neither sole receiuing nor ministring vnder one kynd Therefor you may inferr wheÌ„ you will that if all abbeis were destroied we should haue fortie egges for a penie The maior of this argument is S. Cyprians and much staied vpoÌ„ in his epistle ad Cecilium The minor is your owne The conclusion ys lawfull and currant For to suche agreeable and proper premisses euerie conclusion will serue will inowgh But now if you will haue your maior to be generall first I flattly denie it then I haue declared that it ys not extant in S. Cypriane and thirdly I answer vnto you that you do not beleeue your owne maior because that in your communion no water is put in to the chalice Now as concerning your minor I graunt it vnto you that in the last supper of Christ there appeareth no sole receyuing I allso confesse that S. Iustine and S. Denyse the Areopagâ—te whom you alleage do well proue that in their daies there were coÌ„municants to receiue with the priest But as I must tell you againe our question is not of what was done but of what might haue ben done then and now ys done withowt offence of God and breach of Christ his coÌ„maundement I answer Christs institution the example of the Apostles the common vse of the fathers was otherwaies therefore the priest should not communicate without other I denye your argument for their vsages and doinges are not lawes vnto the church so as they may not be altered And by this reason you may bring vs to receiue after supper because of the institutioÌ„ of Christ example of the Apostles and coÌ„mon vse of the primitiue church As we againe myght bryng yow to take the sacrament in one kind because of the authoritie of Christ and example of the primitiue church But you seeme to yeld that you haue no expresse commaundement to bryng furthe agaynst vs and yet that notwithstanding you will haue vs to be ouercummed And to this purpose you saye You haue no expresse coÌ„maundement which forbeadeth you to baptyse in the name of the father only but that Christ his institution was otherwyse What was the institution of Christ therein was it not that his Apostles should baptise in the name of the Father the Soun and the Holighost Yet the Apostles did baptise in the name of IESVS only without mention made of the Father or the holighost Yf thei did breake Christ his institutioÌ„ thei were not faithful Apostles and yet thei do not seeme to keepe it when thei do not baptise in the name of the three persons What then shall we saie Truly that you vnderstand not the institution of Christ and that the church is the staie of all the Catholikes which doth interprete vnto them Christ his full mynd and order And lyke as it is answered by autentike and good authoritie that in baptising in the name of Ihesus Christ the sacrament is full and perfect For he which saieth CHRIST coÌ„prehendeth in that one word the father which anoynted hym and the holyghost with whom he was anoynted and then Christ which is by interpretatioÌ„ the anoynted and so doth make vp the misterie of the three persons so in receauing vnder one kynd we receaue both flesh bloude as perfectly as if both kindes had ben ministred and in receauing alone we receaue as much of the true and reall profit which cummeth vnto vs by the sacrament as if all the parishe dyd beare vs cumpanie at the aultar Therefor when you talke of Christ his institutioÌ„ of baptisme you speake you can not tell what and you know not I beleue when Christ instituted that sacrament For he baptised before his resurrectioÌ„ were it by himselfe or by his Apostells and he gaue not the commaundement of baptising in the name of the father the soun and the holighost before the tyme of his ascensioÌ„ And againe when yow tell vs that we haue no other proufe against hym which would baptise in the name of the father then Christ his institution yow would seeme to vnderstand and know all our reasons and conclusions and yet you be as ignoraÌ„t in that point as he which neuer had readen any other then his owne doctours Reade in Petrus Lombardus that lerned Bishope in what sense it may be true that one might baptise in the name of the father without specifying of the Soun or the Holyghost Therefor to conclude you haue hytherto either not prouyd your purpose either spoken owt of the purpose either made directly against your owne purpose The fourth Chapiter THE Catholike in his Apologie folowing his principall purpose beginneth to shew what the priest may doe And he alleageth S. Chrisostome by whom he would make yt plaine bothe what the priest may doe and what the people should doe that yf the people will not folowe good exhortations then the priest without all doubt maie doe his dutie As who should saie â–ª if communicantes were to be had then were the questioÌ„ a great deale more doubtfull but if none will be brought to receaue with the priest then is there nothing to staie hym but he may receaue alone For as all surseasing of sutes in the lawe ys first to be wished and if that can not be obteined that then a man may sue for his right so all good men may wishe that the people should be allwaies well disposed and yet yf they will not be brought vnto it the priestes may sue for their right Which similitude being alleaged and seruing also well for this purpose that if we can not come to the best we may laufully take the next best vnto it yet the M. of the defence doth make such a doe against it as though it were a principal argument of ours in refelling of which he might shew his florishies And thus he saieth In recityng the authoritie of Chrisostome you bring in a similitude or coÌ„parison which of how small force thei be in prouyng your lerning can not be so litle but that you must needes know The similitude of which you speake was not brought in so much to proue as to open and expound that which then was to be approued
apointmēt will and pleasure neuer wanteth any one part of hys perfect and full misticall bodie Otherwyse how can the bodie be well offered without the head which for that cause onlie is an acceptable bodie and worthe offering because it cleaueth vnto such an head Againe S. Austine in this place allthough he denieth that the priest offereth sacrifice vnto the Martirs yet he confesseth that the Martirs are named at our sacrifice declaring thereby most plainelie against you that we haue a sacrifice which thei are not but at which thei haue a due and conuenient commemoration Likewyse againe we saie with Chrisostome as you doe that we offer euerie daie doing it in remembrance of his death but we add further out of the same place that this sacrifice is one and not manie And allso that we do not offer vpp now one tomorow an other but allwaies the selfesame For els because it is offered vpp in manie places thei be manie Christes Not so But Christ is euerie where one being whole both here and allso there one bodie For lyke as he which is offered vpp euerie where is one bodie and not manie bodies euen so is the sacrifice allso one Therefor to conclude with S. Austine true it is that in our sacrifice there is a thankes geauing and remembrance of the bodie and bloud of Christ but consider that which foloweth that he gaue and shedd for vs. By which wordes he willeth you to vnderstand that we haue in deede a remembrāce of Christ his body and bloud not in respect of his reall absence from vs but in respect of his painefull suffering for vs. You may see then by this tyme that you haue proued a sacrifice of praiers of thankes geauing and a remembrāce of Christ his passion to be celebrated in the church which the scholes did teache manie hundred yeares before you or Luther war borne and which we knowe better then you and that you may be ashamed to haue gone so farr besides the purpose being in deed able to disproue by no authoritie the sacrifice propitiatorie of Christ in his church against which all your malice is I except this argument onlie which in deed your wisedome doth vse more then once when you saie Eusebius here maketh no mention of propitiatorie sacrifice and S. Austyne saieth not that here is an offering of Christ his bodie and bloud for sinnes Ergo there are no such thinges at all As though that all thinges could be spoken at once or all misteries should be straitwaies reuealed or as though there were no difference betwyxt not speaking of the thing and denieing the thing In which kind of reasoning you cōtinue for the reste of your chapiter alleaging out of S. Cypriane you tell not where out of the Greeke canō of the Masse that thei offered for our Ladie and out of S. Chrisostome that thankes were offered for the whole world and as well for them which were before as them which shall come after of which you conclude saying This was their offering for the dead and not a practise to pull soules out of purgatorie for merchandise and monie as you haue vsed in your priuate Masse This ys your practise both in reasoning and in slaundering In slaundering because you attribute vnto our religion a selling and byeing of soules out of purgatorie for monie which you neuer find to be taught or alowed of any one good man and much lesse of the whole church In reasoning because you conclud that not to be at all in the author which you find not expressed in some place which pleaseth you For to cōtinue in the testimonies which you doe bring allthough S. Cyprian in the .5 epistle of his fourth boke make mention of sacrifice for martirs vndoubtedlie to thanke God for thē yet in his first boke and .ix. epistle he proueth that there is an oblation which the priestes doe make for the deade such as were no martirs and he testifieth allso of a deprecatiō and praier which the church vseth in their names For in chargeing the clergie vnto which he there writeth to make no oblation and praier for the soule of one Victor which had transgressed a canon and decree of the Bisshopes he sheweth therewithall what the clergie would haue done had not his cōmaundemēt staied them and he proueth that for some kind of such as were departed not onlie praises and thankes but supplications rather and praiers were offered Then as concerning the greeke Canon which of them you did meane I cold not tel but now by reason of M. Grindal sermon which he made not long sence at an Englisshe funerall of Ferdinand the Emperor it is euident vnto me that you meane the masse of S. Chrisostome In which allthough I can not find any oblation made for our ladie the prophetes or Apostles allthough that a commemoration of thankes may be offered also for them yet if it were true that in one place of that greek Canon an oblation were made for our ladie that doth not proue but in an other place of the same Canon an expresse oblation and praier was made for the deade such as were not yet at rest For after the consecration of the sacrament ended he saieth within a few lynes we offer vnto the this reasonable seruice for those which slepe and rest in the faithe for our fathers and our greate graund fathers thorough the intercession of Patriarches Prophetes Apostels Martirs and all Sainctes But especiallie for the supplications and praiers of the perpetuall virgin Marie mother of God our Qnene for euer blessed vndefiled and most holie Sainct Iohn the baptist prophete and precursor the holie and most renoumed Apostels and the Sainct whose memorie we celebrate and all thy Sainctes visite vs o God and remember all them which sleepe in our Lord in hope of the rysing againe vnto euerlasting life and graūt them rest where the light of thy countenance doth intend ouer them Now againe allthough you alleage a true saying out of S. Chrisostome vpon the .viij. Chapiter of S. Mathew that the priest standing at the Aultar when the sacrifice is sett furth commaundeth the standers by to offer vp thankes to God for the world in which testimonie it ys playne to see that the sacrifice proposed is one thing and the sacrifice of thankes an other yet to lett goe this vantage you can not denie but he in an other place saieth It was decreed by the Apostles not in vaine that in the celebratiō of the venerable misteries a memorie should be made of them which were departed hence Thei knew that much commoditie and much profit dyd come hereof vnto them For the whole people standing by with lifting vpp their handes vnto heauen and also the cumpanie of priestes and the venerable sacrifice being laied out and proponed how should we not pacifie God in praying for them Therefor it is cleare that your argument is verie vnlerned
is the worse for your handeling We therefore doe not straitwaies looke for a priest at an aultar but first we take your confessyon that sole receiuing is lawfull as being vsed in the primitiue church and then we inferr that Christ his institution doth not requyre of necessitie a numbre to receiue allwaies togeather Ergo then Christ his institution is not broken when a priest alone by hymselfâ— receiueth Ergo you should amend your needeles appealing vnto that institution which you doe not vnderstand and confesse that there is no impedimeÌ„t wherfor a priest maye not saie masse and receiue alone For if it had ben a substaÌ„ciall point of Christ his institution to haue coÌ„municantes no necessitie might haue made for sole receiuing but in the primitiue church ther was sole receiuing Ergo that which you terme particular communion is not of the necessitie of Christ his commaundement For as concerning the persecutions of those tymes which caused that the ChristiaÌ„s could not come togeather thei serued well to delyuer mens coÌ„sciencies from the scruples which thei might haue had for not receiuing but thei doe not liceÌ„ce them to receiue against Christ his institution As for example at an Easter tyme when all Christians do receiue of dutie if through persecution certaine of them were dryuen vnto such extremytes that thei could haue neither wheaten breade nor wyne nor priest to minister the communion vnto them this necessitie doth not make it laufull that thei celebrate in oten cakes and whey or that with their laycall handes thei take blesse and receiue in the remembrance that Christ dyed for them and be thankefull but only it maketh for their quyetnes of mynde and conscience that thei thinke not them selfes to haue transgressed the law of the church because of the present necessitie which hath none other remedye but pacience And so lykewise if thâ— Bishopes which gouerned the church in those persecutions had thought it to be â—f the substance of Christ his institution that without your particular coÌ„munion the sacrament might not haue ben receiued thei would not haue sent it home to Christians howses there to be receiued of them priuately but thei would rather haue exhorted them not to be discomforted for all the lack of the visible sacrameÌ„t and willed them to praye for a quyet and good tyme in which thei might coÌ„municate after Christ his institution But for all the trobles of persecution thei did not so Ergo it is plaine to perceiue that thei thought not as you do of Christ his institution And this being once confirmed that the institution of Christ doth not requyre of necessitie coÌ„municantes we doe rightly inferr that a priest maye receiue alone without any iniuire done to the institution of our Sauyor But good Lord how miserablie are you tormented within your selfes as it maye seeme You graunt sole receiuing in some case you confesse it to haue ben vsed in the primitiue church and yet you saye that Christ his institution doth allwaies require company To denie the authoritie of the primitiue church you dare not and reuoke your owne comment made vpon Christ his institution you will not What will ye doe poore soules you turne and wâ—nde your selfes loth to refuse the aucthoritie of the primitiue church and sorye that you can not make it agree with Christ his institution as you expound it And therefore not withstaÌ„ding your former graunt that sole receyuing was vsed in the primitiue church yet now you temper the matter signifying that it was then either tolerable or pius error but that now it shold be intolerable and impia prophanatio As who should saye In deede it can not be denyed but that in the primitiue church sole receiuing was vsed vndoubtedly against the institution of Christ and example of S. Paull in his epistle to the Corynthians but yet we must not saye so expreslie for then we shall marr all but coÌ„fesse the matter making the best that we can of it and saying that it was tolerated and not alowed or a certaine good and harmeles error in the people and not a wycked prophanation of Christ his coÌ„maundement But whether this be true or no that in the primitiue church a playne transgressing of Christ his commaundement in the substance of the sacrament would haue ben tolerated of the blessed clergiâ— of that age or that they would haue smyled at the breach of Christ his institutioÌ„ and called that fault by no worse name then pius error it will easely appeare by this that sole receyuing at home was neuer yet thought vntolerable and wicked Yes saye you Hyerome against Iouinian mencioneth that in his tyme some vsed to receyue in their houses but he earnestly inueigheth against that maner Why sayeth he doe they not come into the church Is Christ sometyme abrode in the common place sometyme at home in the howse Beleiue not euery spirit sayeth the Apostle but trye them whether thei be of God But alas how shall he vvhich knoweth none other tongue then his English trye the truth of his sayinges which speaketh vnto hym out of Latyne authors But if the simple can not or should not rather examyne these matters let the indiffereÌ„tlie learned take an example by this one place with what coÌ„science and honestie you alleage and abuse the doctors Might not a man thinke which had neuer read S. Hierome against Iouinian that he expreslie condemneth the receiuing at home out of the church Yet he sayeth nothing lesse which to make more playne vnto you consider the occasion of Saint Hierome his wordes in that place Iouinian the heretike would haue no excellencie to be in virginitie aboue mariage S. Hierome coÌ„futeth hym at large vsing emong other argumentes that weddlock is not so great a good thing seeing that prayer is hyndred by it the Apostle saying Doe ye not defraude one the other except it be vpon consent for a tyme that ye maye entend to praye He said also what maner of good thing call you that which letteth a man froÌ„ the receiuing of Christ his bodye For he presupposeth that if the Israelites did abstaine from their wyues three dayes before thei receiued the law and if Dauid the kyng with his cumpanye were examined whether they had layen with their wyues latelie before wheÌ„ they desyred to haue some of the loeues which are called propositionis panes much more a Christian should absteyne a certayne tyme from his laufull wyfe before he did presume to receiue Christ his bodye Yet saieth S. Hierome I know that this custome is in Rome that the faythfull doe at all tymes receyue the bodye of Christ which thing I doe neither reproue neither allow for euery man abundeth in his owne sense But I aske of theyr consciencies which doe communicate the same day after they haue had carnall knowledge of theyr wyues iâ—xta Persium noctem flumine purgant wherefore they dare not goe vnto the Martyrs
with staÌ„ding in two sundry external thinges geaue the communion of them to his Disciples This letteth nothing our beleif which do know as well as you that Christ gaue his body and bloud vnder two formes of bread and wyne and yet notwithstanding one Christ was receiued vnder both formes of bread and wyne But therefor he deliuered hymselfe vnder those two kyndes and not one that we might the better consider his passion in which the bloud was separated from the bodye Therfore the fayth of the communicantes in the one parte receiueth the body trusting to Christ his promises the same fayth in the other parte receyueth the bloud beleiuing also our Sauior his wordes therein You haue not to proue that in the one part the body was receiued but that the bodye onlye without bloud is receiued And then further where you say that the faith of the communicantes receiueth the bodie doeth it receiue it as a dead carkas shame to thinke it or else as the bodye of the soune of God Christ our Sauior saieth The flesh profiteth nothing it is the spirite which quyckeneth How then doth the communicantes faith receiue such a sole body which hath neither bloud neither lyfe neither diuinitie in it The forgeauenes of synnes commeth only from the Deitie but the cheif instrument by which God worketh is Christes our Sauior most dearlye beloued Humanitie Which if a man conceiue as separate from his Diuinitie then trulye as it is emong all creatures most excellent so yet is it but a creature and very lytle auayleable vnto vs mary as it is the bodye and bloud of hym which was not only man but also God most glorious his body and bloud doth releiue vs through the presence of his maiestie You therfore which do diuide Christ and by your faith which no wyse man doth euer trust make a receiuing of a body without all bloud lyfe or diuinitie doe most playnelie take the fructe of their redemption from the people and make them to hang vpon grosse imaginations of a bodye without bloud and bloud without a bodye to their exceading losse and iniurie But now if all other argumentes fayled vs and if your deuise were not so obscure and vyle as it is yet the authoritie of the church is no small thing emong Christians againste which you speake so lyke a madd master as though you knew the voyce of Christ better then the church of Rome which yet doe not know whether there be any Christ or no except it were for the authoritie of the church of Rome And whereas you buyld all your institutions and articles vpon the textes of the scripture and your priuate interpretations and coÌ„tempne your mother Church yet except you folow the voyce of the church of Rome you can with no reason defende that this which you holde is scripture And here againe you call vpon vs to remembre S. Cyprian which in all that epistle of his vnto which you do referr vs doth so make against them which ministred only in water that he coÌ„futeth also them which minister onlye in wyne prouing both by the old and new law that wyne and water both should be mengled togeather in the misteries But as concerning tâ—e receiuing vnder one kynde of which we haue to speake what aunswer you vnto the place of Tertullian or vnto S. Cyprian his authoritie You saye that our argumentes taken out of them are but coniectures and the same very vncertayne for often tymes in the Doctors where one kynde is mencyoned both are vnderstanded as after shall more appeare Let the wordes of the authors them selâ—es trye it whether you or we do vse the vncertayne coniectures Tertullian in his second booke vnto his wyfe where he telleth her of the sondrye faultes and inconueniencies into which those women do bring themselfes which after their husbandes death do become wyffes vnto infidell and heathen rulers or gentlemen theÌ„selues being Christians emong which this is a verye principall one that in the houses of paynyms they shall not well be able to keep the orders of Christian people he sayeth after other persuasions Shalt thou not be espied cùm lectulum cùm corpusculum tuum signas c when thow doest blesse thy bedd and thy bodye with the signe of the crossâ— when thou doest spet out with exuâ—flation some vncleane thing when also thou doest aryse in the night tyme to praye and shalt thou not be thought to worke some witchcrafte Shall not thy husband know what thou doest taste secretely of before all meate And if he know it he beleiâ—eth it to be bread and not that which it is said to be Of these wordes you gather that in the name of bread is vnderstanded also wyne and why so Mary because that some tymes emong the Doctors of which hereafter we shall speake more both kyndes are vnderstanded when but one is expressed ergo Tertullian in this place is in lyke maner to be construed But our collection is otherwise that because we reade but one kynde specifyed therefore without any necessitie we doe not make coniectures that he meaneth both And we see that Tertullian in this booke was not in such hast that he needed to speake by figures vnto his wyfe or to number syx for the dozen Then by common reason we see that wyne in so lyttle a quantitie as ones parte commeth vnto in the distributing of the mysteries was not to be reserued of any person because of the quyck alteration of it Allso we beleiue that vnder one kynde Christ wholye is geauen and therefor that the gouernors of the church were not so folysh or scrupulous as to make a necessitie of both And whereas you perceyue by this testimonye that sole receyuing was then vsed which by your sayeing Christ his institution doth not permit we had no iust occasion to mystrust the receyuing vnder one kynde which we know to be of no greater force then the receyuing with company And you also if you had good wyttes might for good cause feare least you were deceyued in the question of receiuing vnder both kindes whereas in the controuersie of sole receyuing you be so openly confounded which yet you doe as earnestile endeuor to proue as you doe shifte to vnderstand both kyndes in Tertullian whereas he mencioneth but one Note further that when Christ said This is my bodye you will haue no bloud to appertaine vnto it and when any Doctor doth speake onlie of bread you will at your pleasure make wyne to be vnderstanded Iniurious in the one and superfluous in the other Therefore let it be tryed which of our two sydes doth vse more vncertaine coniectures Now as concerning S. Cyprian When a certayne woman saieth he assayed with her vnworthye handes to open her cheste in the which SanctuÌ„ Domini fuit the holy dody of our Lorde was she was made afrayd by fyer arysing from thens that she durst
canon and you thinke that he shall be lytle thanked for bringing in this Councell and to be short as though all were wonne you sing as it were Te Deum and you thanke God that we are dryueÌ„ so much to our shiftes that we can not mayntayne falsehod but that we are constreyned to promote the truth But o Lorde God what hath ben sayed wherefore this felow should have such a vantage against vs or what falshod is that which we would maynteyne by this canon or what truth is so singularly vttered by reason of this our testimonye This canon saye you doth not proue sole receyuing Mary Syr neyther we haue vsed it for that purpose It proueth saye you that in the primitiue church the maner was to receyue with cumpanye We knew this before you tolde vs. Ergo saye you all sole receyuing is by this testimonye confounded I deny your argument for as we confesse and know that receyuing with cumpany was ordinary in the church for some tymes and places so we beleiue and haue proued it before that sole receiuing hath sometymes ben allowed Wher now then is your gaye victory We resist not your authorities by which you may proue many to haue receyued togeather but we myslyke with your discretion which conclude that sole receyuing is not therfore allowable And agayne what talke you in this place of sole receyuing Answer rather vnto our argument which proueth reseruacion The DeacoÌ„s could not consecrate the Bishops and Priestes being absent in this case then sayeth the holy Councell lett the Deacons themselues bring furth the sacrameÌ„t and eate it But how should they eate it except they had it and how should they haue it except it were first consecrated or how could it be presentlye consecrated when both Bishops and Priestes were absent Must it not folow necessarily that it was reserued in that they are licensed to take it furth them selues and eate it Yf you can denye reseruation to be proued by this place we must wonder at your ignorancie and if you coÌ„fesse it playnlie wher is your proper answer vnto it Oh saye you in these Deacons which receyued in absence of the Bishop and Priestes There appeareth an extraordinary case Such is your ordinary answer but wherein is the case extraordinary In that the Deacons receyue it in absence of the Bishop and Priestes or in that it was reserued It was ordinarye that the Priestes should geaue the sacrament to the Deacons but what if no Priest had ben present then sayeth the Councell the Deacons may bring it furth and serue themselues And in this respect you saye truly that here is an extraordinary case But as concernyng the reseruation of the sacrament how can you deuise that it was extraordinarye Doe you thinke when the Bisshops or Priestes were sure to tarye at home vntyll the morow that they then did not make any store of the sacrament but presently bestow it emong the communicantes and when they could not intend the mysteries the next day folowing thinke you that they consecrated more hostes then needed for that tyme present and sayd vnto the Deacons Syrs here is the sacrament for you in store vntyll to morow But what necessitie was there for the Deacons to receyue on the morow that the breache of Christ his institution might be somewhat thereby excused Truly the Deacons should tarye not only one daye but one whole yeare rather then reseruation should be admitted if so greate fault as you saye be in it Now if the sacrament were not reserued vpon such a speciall case how can you saye that the reseruation was extraordinarye And if the reseruation were ordinary as vndoubtedlye it was make the case then of the Deacons receyuing as extraordinary as you will and it letteth our purpose nothing For we consider not the acte of the Deacons in any other sense or meanyng then as it proueth reseruation And here you shall note further that the sacrament was reserued not onlye for such which laye in their death beddes and were not recoÌ„cyled vnto the churche as you said in the chapiter before but also that it serued the vncorrupted and faythfull Christians whiles thei were yet in good health except you can thinke that the Deacons whom the Nycene Councell permitteth to take furth the sacrament and eate it were either excoÌ„municated persons either such as could not go abrode for weakenes Now as coÌ„cerning the receiuing vnder one kynd as it might be shewed out of this place if we would dally as you do vse and as concerning your great inuectyue against vs as though any of vs did make a tryfle of Christ his institution and not rather reproue your interpretations which make that to be Christes which is not his as also coÌ„cerning S. Cyprian whom you full madly alleage for your purpose which all togeather in that his epistle proueth that wyne and water shold be mingled togeather in our sacrifice I will not speak at this present because the first is not maynteyned of vs the secoÌ„de is not to be regarded and the third had ben spokeÌ„ of before But as coÌ„cerning reseruation which we say and say againe to be most manifestly proued by the testimonye of the Nycene couÌ„cell therein we haue you so fast bound that all accustomed shiftes do fayll you you wâ—ll not say I trust either that councell to be of smal reputatioÌ„ although the Bishop of Romes legates were cheif men there either the case of reseruation to haue ben extraordinary or that the church was dryuen vnto it by playne necessitie for their syckmens sake which laye at the point of death and were excommunicated from other Christians The eleuenth Chapiter SAint Cyprian in his fyfth sermon de lapsis declareth how an infant which had receyued before of bread and wyne offred vpp to Idolles had afterwardes emong Christians the bloud of Christ powred into her mouth by the Deacon of the church And straitwaies yexing and vomiting foloweth because that the sacrament could not abyde in a body and mouth defyled Of this historye it is gathered that the babe receyued the sacrament in forme of wyne only For if the body had ben receyued before it would no more haue taryed in a polluted mouth then the bloud did but she was wonderfully vexed or sore vexed for both these phrases are vsed of the Catholike in his Apology not before the bloud was powred into her mouth but immediatlye after therefore it is very euident that she receyued onlye in forme of wyne Naye saye you the first trouble which the childe had was euen in the â—yme of prayer before the sacrament was distributed It was so in deede For the child cryed out and turned her selfe hyther and thyther for anguyshe of mynde and inwarde torment But who suspected anye harme thereof or who did collect thereby that the childe was defyled within by reason of wyne soppes which were geauen to her of the offeringes to Idolls
But the sore and greauous vexing of her the yexing and casting vpp of that which she had receyued appeared first when the bloud of Christ was powred into her mouth And note the cause wherfore it appeared then first that the childe had ben before polluted Mary sayeth Saint Cyprian the drinke which was sanctifyed in the bloud of our Lorde did burst vpp out of the polluted bowelles So great is the power of God so great is his maiestie Yf therfore the presence and maiestie of God when it came into the babe dyd straytwaies reueale that which before was vnknowen his power and presence being no lesse vnder the forme of bread then it is of wyne out of all doubt the fact of the child had ben bewrayed before she had com to the receyuing of wyne if it had receyued the sacrameÌ„t first of all in forme of bread Because the power and maiestie of God which is fully and perfectly vnder the forme of bread would not haue stayed in the defyled mouth or bodye but straytwayes haue worked to the example of others And therfor the argument of the Catholike coÌ„tinueth in all his strength and force allthough the child were vexed before it receyued of the chalice For it was not vexed at the tyme of prayer so sore that it cast vpp anything and the fault was not espyed before the bloud was powred into her and then it was first of al opened because of the presence and maiesty of God whose presence being as certayne vnder one kynde as vnder the other the sacrament of the bodye would no more haue taryed within her then the sacrament of the bloud if the childe had receyued the body before the bloud well then say you If it were so it ys not most euident that yt was either because the child was so yong that it could not or so trobled that yt would not take the sacrament of the bodye As concerning the formost of these causes it is very credible for that it seemeth by S. Cyprian that it was a sucking childe lefte vpon the handes of the nurse the parentes being fled awaye But the second is very vnlyke for as the resistence on the childes part did not let the Deacon but that he powred the bloud into her mouth so although she would not haue takeÌ„ the sacrament of the body yet she might as well haue ben enforced therevnto as to receyue of the chalice And allso if that opinyon which you holde now had then ben in the church that it is against Christ his institution to receiue vnder one kynde they would neuer haue profered the chalice vnto any such as would not haue receyued first and for most the bodye as you are wont to recite a fragment out of Gelasius which you vnderstand not that the diuision of one and the selfe same misterie can not be done without great sacrilege But lett both your reasons stande is it not proued then sufficiently that to receyue in both kindes is not of the necessitie of Christ his institution And where then is your witt to graunt us that by which our purpose is brought to passe For allthough you think that you shall take no foyle to graunt that in necessitie one kynde might be vsed and that necessitie which hath no law maye cause a commaundemeÌ„t of God to be omitted and allthough you maye be so easily entreated to permit receiuyng in one kynde that because the childe of whom we haue spoken would not or could not receiue the sacrameÌ„t of Christ his bodye you think it to be a case of necessity in which the institution and law of Christ should or might be omitted yet if you coÌ„sider that your selfe do take the receiuing vnder both kyndes to be of the substance of Christ his institution and not of the circumstance and to be not an ornameÌ„t only but an expresse commaundement certainly when you graunt vs that in any kinde of case it maye be allowed to receyue the Sacrament vnder one forme either of bread or wyne you be straitwaies conuicted that Christ his institution doth not necessarilye requyre them both For such coÌ„maundemeÌ„tes of God as are geauen concernyng circumstances and ceremonyes they maye be omitted in tyme of necessitie without any offence committed but if he geaue commaundemeÌ„t for the necessary and substancyall either forme or matter of any sacrifice or sacrament necessitie can not excuse vs if we should offer sacrifice or minister sacrameÌ„t in other forme and matter theÌ„ was appointed by God But to omit and leaue altogeather vndone the coÌ„maundemeÌ„t I meane of sacrifice or sacrameÌ„t therein necessitie shall haue good place and saue vs from the daunger of the law Wherefore you which make the receyuing vnder both kyndes to be of the necessary substance of Christ his institutioÌ„ doe vtterly destroye this your strainge conclusion in graunting that sometymes one kinde may be lawfully vsed and you speake allso in laboring for communion in both kindes directly against your father Luther which in more theÌ„ one place declareth the precept of receyuing both kindes to be in it selfe indiffereÌ„t and such as he at his owne pleasure in some cases would either vse or refuse Whereby it maye well be gathered how lytle ye passe either what ye affirme either what ye denye which saye that any man conuersant in Luthers bookes maye right well iudge that it is not so as we reporte of hym The .xij. and .xiij. Chapiter FRoÌ„ this place furth although the Catholike doth frame the coÌ„clusion of his treatyse vnto which when any one cometh he seemeth to be at the ende of his labor yet by reason of this conclusion such principal matters are moued that if they should be answered throughlye we had neede to make a new begynnyng For we haue to reason about the contynuaÌ„ce of the church the authority of the Fathers and the reall presence of Christ in the sacrament which are so necessarye and cheif pointes to be considered that I must not speake nothing of them and yet I haue ben so long here before in trying the master of the defence that I must not saye all that I can but with conuenient spede dyspatch these worthye questions First then as it hath ben proued against you that the syxe hundred yeares which immedyatly folowed the aâ—cension of our Sauiour are not wholye with you for all your great crakes so we may wonder not a lytle why you make exception against these last nyne hundred yeares by the practyse of which you refuse to be tryed Is this thinke you a small and weeke argument to confirme and staye our consciences vpon that for .ix. hundred yeares space you our aduersaries can not deny vnto vs but that all Bishops Vniuersities Realmes and states of Christendome haue quyetlie continued in one kynde of true Apostolike fayth vntyll within these few dayes that all the olde catholike religion hath in some places ben abolyshed by publike authoritie If a rennegat and
dissolute fryar be thought worthy of estimation because he hath at these dayes manye folowers are not the religious in deede which continued in great numbre and with much praise in ther orders much more to be regarded If this be the tyme of grace and light in which we may see and lament vowes broken monasteryes ouerturned the landes of Christ and his church alyenated virginitie fasting praying and all rules of good and perfect lyfe coÌ„temned â–ª what tyme was that in which the contraries of all these were highlie commended and practysed The continuance onlye of a religion .900 yeares â–ª without interruption is a very probable argument not lightlie to passe away from it But when it is considered how many learned and godlie men how great Vniuersities how mighty Princes lyued within the compasse of those yeares and that of them all no one of the good and learned did anye thing write or preache against it and none of the Princes either would either could resist it who but vnsensible may thinke that it should not be of God Although that heresies do very shamefully encreace and that there be so many sectes and diuisions emong them that no one parte can euer be greate although the whole world were ouerturned vnto heresie yet at this day moe Catholikes are in Christendome then Lutherans Zuinglians Osiandrians Caluinyans Anabaptistes and all the rest of the lyke making togeather For these heresies are yet God make them narrower but here and there dispersed and Germanye the mother of them is for a great part of it full Catholike Yet as litle place as the new ghospell hath in comparison of Christendome see how much he whom you take for no small fole doth crake and bragg of that lytle Be ye sure sayth he so many free cityes so many kynges so many Princes as at this daye haue abandoned the sea of Rome and adioyned themselues to the Ghospell of Christ are not become madd Loe Syr if this felow might so trulye haue reported that all Kynges all Princes all free cityes of Christendome were of his religion as he doth falselye make an accompt of so many free cityes so many kynges so many princes c. how great an argument would you thinke that he dyd make for your side And againe if he had ben able to proue that for .ix. hundred yeares togeather Kynges and Princes and free cityes had contynued in his fayth without open contradiction how madd would he haue said all such to be as resist a religion confirmed by such authoritie and contynuance But this is your practise to denye all thinges which make presentlye against you and to allow the same againe when hereafter they maye serue for you and so long as you be in danger of law No man must be violentlye constrayned to receyue the religion which his conscience can not allow And when the Prince and power is with you then saye you Hanging is to good for hym which wyll not beleiue as you doe And so in the Apologye of your Englysh church the argument was â—ound and comfortable that because many Kynges had abandoned the sea of Rome therefore they might seeme not to be madd which did folow them and now in this your defence of the truth as you call it when we alleage contynuance and authoritie of .ix. hundred yeares you saye that multitude maketh not to the purpose and you thinke your selfe not a lytle wise in reprouing of our argument But how wise you proue your selfe therein it is worthwhile to consider First you say that the prescription of .xv. hundred yeares the consent of the most part of Christendome the holynes and learning of so many fathers as haue ben these .ix. hundred yeares the age and slender learning of those which stande against you all which thinges we doe bring for our defence These thinges saye you Doe nothing at all eyther feare vs or moue vs to suspect that doctrine which by Christs authoritie and wytnes of the Apostels we know to be true Stode you by the Apostles at their elbowes when they wrote their ghospells or epistles or were you then present with Christ when he walked visibly vpon the earth and by signes and myracles proued hym selfe to be the soune of God Trulye because your eye was not present at the wryting or working of our redemption you must therefor resort vnto such as maye instruct you of all thinges by the eare And because credit is not lightly to be geauen to an historie which is tolde vs of thinges passing reason therfor they ought to be of good authoritie whose wordes we should beleiue in the articles of euerlasting saluation But there can be no greater then the testimonye of all Christendome and they be few obscure and vnknowen whom you would haue to be our masters therefore no reasonable and wyse man will suspect the authoritie of the world and falsely persuade hym selfe that he beleiueth Christ or his Apostles when he hath contemned the voyce of Christendome which caused him to beleiue in Christ and credit his Apostles For how know you what doctryne Christ or his Apostles haue taught in the world Yf you know it by the scriptures what perswadeth you these scriptures to be true For when any new scripture and vnherd of vs before is alleaged or coÌ„mended vnto vs by a few without any reason which is able to confirme it we beleiue not first the scripture but them rather which browght it forth vnto vs. Therefore who told you that these be true scriptures If you name Luther and such as he was you haue done very rashly to beleiue incredible articles at the report of an vpstart rennegate which confirmed his authoritie by no myracle But on the other syde if Luther and you both haue ben content to receiue the scriptures of the Catholikes lest you should be accompted ouer frantyke or scrupulous in doubting whether al Christendome were not deceiued therein by what reason then can you suspect the contynuance pietye learnyng and multitude of Catholikes in the church of God and referr your selfe vnto Christ and his Apostles with contempt of the mysticall bodye of our Sauiour whereas you could not by reason without myracle beleiue in Christ and trust the Apostles except the authoritie of the Catholike church which you see to contynew in the world dyd moue you I wold not beleiue the Ghospell sayeth holye S. Augustine except the authoritie of the Catholike church dyd moue me thervnto Wherfore the contynuance of .ix. hundred yeares is and should be so worthelye regarded that eueÌ„ the authoritie of the church which now is shold by her selfe perswade you to beleiue her But say you our possession which we bragg of hath not ben quyet For in the .600 next after Christ our doctrines were neuer heard of which is a very fowle lye as it hath ben allready here before proued and as coÌ„cerning the 900. folowing they dyd not take
by the worde of God there is no cause lefte to reiect it but in this case when one shall say here is Christ in Geneua an other saie here is Christ in Wyttenberge an other saie behold he is 〈◊〉 the wooddes of Bohemye euery faction pulling the symple vnto it here loe to trye such voyces whether they come of God or no the sure waye is to harken vnto the practyse and doctrine of the most part of Christendome as it hath ben for hundreds of yeares togeather And continuance of tyme in one doctrine with multitude of folowers doth make a very good persuasion to reiecte the vpstart and vnaccompanyed religion Naye say you if continuance of tyme and multitude of persons might be rulers to gouerne mens consciences then would that argument serue For the Israëlites against the Iewes for the priestes against the prophetes for the Iewes Gentiles against Christ his Apostles for the Turkes against vs Christians at this day See loe how you be deceyued For I would saye first not that a multitude of Turkes are better then a few Christians or that a long cōtynued Idolatrie is better then a new religion but in cōferring Turke with Turke Iew with Iew Christian with Christian and so furth I saye if the Mahometes law were good and that schismes and diuisions should aryse emong the professors of it that then the surest waye should be so to vnderstand and receiue that law as it hath ben taken of longest tyme before and of the most parte of all Turkes And in lyke maner when so euer emong vs which professe one Christ diuisions and taking of partes doe trouble mens consciences the best waye is by all good reason to folow that syde which hath longest continued and which hath most voyces for it And so it a Turke or panyme would alleage continuance of tyme to proue thereby his religiō to be good the next and wysest waye to aunswer hym is not to call him vnreasonable and folysh for the bringing of that argument for vndoubtedly vnto our naturall and common reason it is no tryfeling persuasion to see contynuance and multitude of folowers to be with vs but the right waye of cōuerting or confounding them in that argument is either to shew that naturall reason is against them as it was in their worshipping of stockes and stones either by myracle to persuade them as the Apostles in their dayes haue done or as good and religious persons doe in this our tyme emong the Indians or else to shew that it is no wonder if the religion of which thei be hath allreadie long contynued and shall from hense forward encreace daylie because it geaueth libertie vnto the flesh and vnto all bodely pleasures But the continuance and multitude of folowers which commend the doctrine of the church are so notable and myraculouse that except the finger of God were here it is vnpossible it should be regarded For prescript fastinges watchinges prayers preferring of virginitie before wedlock submitting of our owne willes vnto the cōmaundemēt of others confessing of our secrete faultes quiet suffring of harde penance these are verye much against the nature and appetyte of our flesh on the other syde that which the church teacheth of sainctes of sowles departed of seuen sacramentes and especiallye of that one in whiche allmightie God is receyued all this is so farr beyonde the capacitie of carnall reason that except fayth be infunded it is neuer rightly beleiued Yet this religion so repugnant vnto naturall appetyte so much surmounting all reason hath ben embraced of the poore and ryche the symple and the learned the stout and the tender the beggers and the Cesars and in spite of the dyuell the world the flesh and heretikes hath contynued these .xv. hundred yeares as we beleiue and as you be sorye for it these nyne hundred yeares togeather It is no wonder if a Turkyshe religion be much made of and cherisshed for they are permitted to haue here carnall pleasures for the worlde to come they are promysed to haue their full of them Againe I doe not maruayll if many follow Luther the Father or anye of his euyll fauored broode and children for the flesshe doth well allow it to eate what it will at all tymes to be free from earely rysing to haue short seruice in the churche to haue matrymonye no sacrament to be bounde to no ceremonye and to be subiect vnto none other authoritie then the expresse scripture But that the Catholike religion which is so exacte so deuout and so graue that it maketh the carnall men to wyssh that it were out of the worlde should haue cōtynuall folowers of it and before so long tyme preserued it is not for flessh and bloud to bring it to passe but it is the verye worke of God whom nothing can resyst and withstande Consider also their lyues and maners which haue ben emong other the maynteyners of it And because none are more odious vnto the world then prelates monkes and fryars I wysh that some of them were rightly considered For if you can beleiue historyes and monumētes what fault do you fynde in S. Francys and S. Dominike if you will reade their bookes what can you saye against S. Bernard S. Bonauenture S. Thomas of Aquyne Rupertus Anselmus Dionysius the Carthusian with a numbre of such holy and reuerende fathers whose writinges sufficiently declare how much they remembred Christ how diligently they did reade the scriptures how freely they reproued faultes and lamented the euill lyfe of Christians how much they were acquaynted with the sweete spirite of God and practysed in fightyng for the sowle against the dyuell The doctrine therfor of our church hath not only contynued meruaylouslye but contynued in many and in those many no few haue ben excellent and in such sort excellent that if not before it might our religion haue ben now alowed because such godly and graue heades did vse it Whereas on your syde if your inuentions were tollerable yet those Apostles of yours whō in these latter dayes you say God hath styrred to reproue our vice and irreligion and to reuyue his truth and testament haue ben so vyle themselues that vndoubtedly God dyd neuer sende them and a reasonable man should neuer folow them What an Apostle was Luther who gaue hym leaue to break his vow which those holye men whom euen now I named did keepe vnto death who moued hym to lye with a noune If he lyued chaste being yet within his ordre what spirite trow you was that which could not afterwardes keepe hym chaste when he was selected to preache a Ghospell Then if he lyued abominably when he was kept in Cloyster was he a meete instrument for God to worke the redemption of his church so long deceaued And if God had forgeauē his former great offences that he should be more humble in preaching of grace and mercie would he so sone haue forsakē hym that in
ben spoken sence and now presently doe take place our Sauior faythfully promysing vnto Sainct Peter that Thow art Peter which is to saye a rock and vpon this rock I will buyld my church and the gates of hell shall not preuayll against it So that if nothing might be said to the contrary but that in the olde law the church of God was not to be founde which is vnpossible to be proued yet in this tyme of grace when all nations of the world are in the heritage of Christ as only the Israelites then were and when for figures we haue truthes for Moyses the seruant and his chayer Iesus the soune of God and his lieutenant for the inspirations which came at sondry tymes vpon the Prophetes a continuall presence of the maiestie of the holie ghost for promyses vnder cōdition to tarye with them if they would folow his cōmaundementes most absolute performāce of the spirite of truth to be with vs vntyl the worldes end in this tyme of grace so gloriouse so much made of so deere and welbe loued so defenced so priuileaged to make so harde and pynching rekoning that the light of the world should be couered vnder some busshell and that cytie be vnperceauable which Christ him selfe planted vpon the topp of a hyll it is an ignominious and Iewysh and cruell dysgracing of the church of Christ. But because we maye have a better tyme and leysure to speake against you in this matter if this visible church which hath contynued so long in one maner of doctrine and sacramentes be not the true church of God because the visible church of the Iewes had not allwayes the truthe of doctryne And if it must follow because the kynges of Iuda were some tymes Idolators that the clergie of those tymes agreed vnto them and if some did so in deede that all therefore without exception did it or if because the Prophetes reproued the maners of the high Priestes therefore they condemned theyr doctryne and religyon or if Christ because he was cōdemned of the high Priestes sayed not vnto the people concerning the doctors of Moyses law Doe that which they saye vnto you but doe not after theyr doinges And to be short if all these unreasonable consequēcies which would please you very well should be graunted vnto you tell vs then for conscience sake what church we shall follow If the churche of Rome which hath ben and is so well receyued hath ben and may be vntrulye perswaded maye not that church which you perchanse shall point out vnto vs with your lytle fynger be also with good lykelyhood very fowlie deceyued And maye not one thirde person commend vnto vs an other church which agreeth with none of our two and yet is nothing the better In this doubt which doth so necessarilye aryse what is your ghostly counsell vnto such as are fearefull of conscience The right church therfore as the fold of Christ hath the true worde of God and vse of his sacramentes according vnto the same for the due markes therof After this maner you shall haue some tymes the symple idiotes of the countrey to make answer vnto straingers asking the right waye vnto this or that place which they would come vnto For saye they you must goe by my grandsyres close and then keepe the straytwaye and you shall neuer mysse Or else lyke as a man would sende his seruant to London for a cupp of pure and cleane wyne and tell hym that he shall be sure to haue it there where he seeth an Iuye garland to hang at the dore or the drawer of the wyne to vse no deceptfull bruyng of it wheras the Iuye garland is no certayne tokē of good wine ready to be solde and euery tapster will easily saie for his owne truth and honestye so you haue tolde vs such markes to know the true church by that as the true church hath them in deede so yet euery mysbegotten congregatiō will chalendge them vnto herselfe Except you thinke that Luther and Zuinglius with all their forked tayles of heresies doe not eche of them stande in yt that they haue the true worde of God and right vse of the sacramētes on eche of their sydes which yet are contrary the one to the other I had thought you would haue tolde of one such marke and signe to come by the knowledge of the true church that in all the controuersies of opinions and all the euill conditions of lyuing we might haue ben directed vnto one certayne and approued staye of our consciences and you to declare your wysedome and vnderstanding haue named two such markes as euery kynde of religion will boldely chalendge vnto her selfe First the true worde of God saye you is one true marke of the church what meane you then by the worde of God for if you meane the volume of the olde and new testament and that wheresoeuer we fynde the byble in any persons handes that we must thereby straitwayes take this for a certayne tokē that he which hath the byble in his hande is one of the right churche so shal you haue not only your selfe but Arrians Anabaptistes and all the rabell of myscreantes to be of the true churche by good lykelyhod On the otherside if you meane by the worde of God the two testamentes not as they are to be solde at bookebynders shopps but as they are expounded of sincere and true preachers what tokē thē shall we haue of you to know readily who is a true preacher And as I haue said of this first marke which you geaue so maye I saye againe of your seconde which is the right vse of the sacramētes Which as I will graunt vnto you to be rightlye practized onlye within the true churche so yet you haue to shewe vs further how I maye know such as doe minister them accordinglye You would proue by S. Augustine S. Cyprian Saint Chrisostome and Origine that the scripture is the true tryall of the churche Yea Syr in one sense that is true in deed as also that the church maketh the tryall and declaration of the true scripture But that euer any good and reasonable man had this meanyng that who so euer would might take the scriptures into his handes and sytt iudge ouer the church I denye it vtterly and I am sure you can neuer proue it For as the scripture declareth which is the true church so doeth the churche shewe the authoritie of the scripture and the scripture and the churche are the better the one for the other of them Do you thinke to make vs aferde by the appealing vnto scripture or doe you labor to moue a suspition that you only haue the Ghospell for you Verely we are content to be tryed not only by the scriptures but euen by those holy fathers which you depraue in this place towardes your purpose The cōtrouersie now betwene vs and you is the same which
was betwene S. Augustine and the Donatistes We seeke for the church and the place where she resteth You say that it hath ben vnknowen defaced obscured and coarcted you saye that it is now in England and before these last .lx. yeares you knew not where she was to be founde On the other syde we beleiue that it hath ben and shall be continually visible tholike vpon the topp of the hill not in gardens or chambers not in corners of countreyes but in the open sight of the worlde And here now at this point we shal haue no other thing but our yea and our nay Yes saye you lett the matter be tryed by scripture So lett it be and because you are so trymlye seene in them that you will make vs altogeather ignorant shewe vs your scriptures to proue your pretie narrow and shamefast churche Yf you can shewe none reade for the truthes sake those places which we shall name vnto you In thy seede all nations shall be blessed Aske of me and I wyll geaue the for thy heritage the Gentyles He meaning the Messias shall rule frō sea vnto sea and from the floud euen vnto the endes of the worlde Agayne The stone which was cutt out of the hyll without handes fylled the whole worlde So it hath ben wrytten and so it behoued Christ to suffre and repentance and remission of synnes to be preached in his name through all nations You shall be my wytnesses in Iury and Samaria and vnto the endes of the earthe But what of all this Marye Syr that you shold reade in these scriptures how playnly it was promysed that the whole world should be Christ his inheritage and that his churche should be sought for not in pelting corners of Africa of Europa or Asia not in wyttenberge Geneua or England but in all nations and in all countreyes of the world And if you myslyke this our cōclusion gathered out of these places of scripture consider then better then you haue done S. Augustins reasoning against Petilian and against all other Donatistes when so euer he wrote against them as in his 162. 166. 170. 171. and other of his epistles In all which places he proueth that it is vnpossible that Donate which was an vpstart heretike in Africa should haue the truth on his syde because the scriptures do so playnlye promyse vs that the church of Christ should be enlarged ouer the whole worlde and because it was so sensibly performed that euery one might see that churche which was extended through all nations Now if you haue any scriptures or authorityes or reasons to proue that the church should not be openly knowen for 900. yeares togeather or that about the yeare of our Lorde God .1500 the light of the Ghospell should begynne to appeare or that the churche may be in one countrey only or that Christ shold leese his inheritage which was promysed hym ouer the world or that all the dryfte of S. Augustyns reasoning against the Donatistes doth not expresly make against you then shall you speake somewhat worth the answering Against which tyme prouyde also to tell vs how S. Cyprian whom you alleage to proue that recourse should be had to the scriptures doth make any thing for you Yea rather he maketh cleane against you and if you had taken but small leysure to consider hym he teacheth you that to come vnto the truth and to be sure of it there is an other and better waye then you haue yet inuented For after those wordes Hereof aryse schysmes because we seeke not to the head nor haue recourse vnto the spring nor keepe the cōmaundementes of the heauenly master After which wordes you make a full point as though you had tolde all his meanyng he saieth further that to proue this there is no neede of long talke or reasonyng Our Lorde spake vnto Peter and sayed I tell the thow art Peter and vpon this rock I wyll buyld my church and the gates of hell shall not overcome it c. And allthough he gaue lyke authoritie vnto all his Apostles after his resurrection and said Euen as my father sent me I also sent you receyue you the holyghost yf you remyt any man his synnes they are forgeauen hym yf you reteyne them they are reteyned yet that he might make playne and set furth an vnitie he disposed by his owne authoritie the head and spring of that vnitie which beginneth of one And a lytle after he sayeth Doeth he beleiue that he holdeth and keepeth his fayth which keepth not this vnitie of the church How then could you bring in S. Cyprian in the commendatyon of anye of your two markes of the church which so expressely warneth you to consider the vnitie thereof and the authoritie which was geauen vnto S. Peter in which vnitie who so euer is not found hath lost all true fayth crake he neuer so much of his sacramentes and scriptures But now because it is not inough to declare that your markes of the church are vncertayne and controuersious except we geaue some better signes which may leade all men vnto the true church therfore it is to considered what we professe openlye in one of the articles of our Crede I beleiue sayeth euery Christian one holye Catholike and Apostolike church and if he knoweth also what he speaketh then shall he neuer be to seeking of the churche For she must be fyrst of all One church that is to saye she must haue one profession of fayth one ordre in sacramentes and one head for her gouernement by which one worde thei be quicklye tryed for no good Christians which can neuer agree vpon their fayth or haue no certayne head or gouernour Secondlye the church is holye in this sense either because none are holye which are out of this church either because she hath ben bought with bloud a deare price either because she is stable and inuiolable Which note doth warne vs to beware of them which haue no contynuance in their religion but are quyckely altered at euery new preachers inuention Thirdly the church must be Catholike which is to say she must goe through the whole world not only in respect of place but also of persons and tyme wherevpon it foloweth that all such religion as lurketh only in particular countreyes or which hath no antiquitie and contynuance at all is to be reiected as a singuler naught and no Catholike or good religion And last of all the true church must be Apostolike by which worde I meane that if they of England now or those of Geneua can by degrees ascende and frō one minister vnto an other go vpwardes in a cōtynual ordre vntyll they do come vnto one of the Apostles whō they will proue to haue ben a father to their religion that then they haue one good signe to commende their doinges But because this is vnpossible to be doone of them therfore they are not