owne institution shall neuer be broken of the church and when you be deliuered of this feare see whether you can proue any better then you haue done hitherto that the necessitie of cumpany to receiue with the priest is determined in scripture And if it be not determined expreslie it standeth as a thing indifferent by your owne vayne principle and then it is no breache of Christ his institution to vse sole receyuing How saye you then Will you forsake that fonde principle of yours that nothing is of necessitie to be credited but that which is expreslie in the scriptures No you will not I know your harte is so great against traditions Make then no more a doe but graunt that the obseruing of number and cumpanye is no more requisite then the obseruing of the tyme place kynde of persons and other circūstances which the Ghospell sheweth to haue ben vsed at the institution of the Sacrament No saye you that Many circumstances of place person and tyme maye be altered c. we graunte you but that cumpanye in receyuyng is one of those circumstances that we can not graunte as well for the reasons before declared as allso that we haue none example of the Apostles or primitiue church that we maye so doe Consider I praye you Syr the maner of your reasonyng We cōclude vpon your owne principle which againe we must call vayne leste anye should thinke that we doe allow it that cumpanie in receiuing is by expresse scripture of no more necessitie then the circumstances of tyme and place which Christ vsed in the delyuering of his sacrament and you answer that it is not founde in the example of the Apostles or primitiue churche that the cumpanie in receiuing was omitted as tyme and place are founde to haue ben altered in which saying you doe but enlarge your vayne principle vpō the graunting of which our argument proceeded Cumpany in receiuing in respect of the sacrament receiued is no greater matter then the circumstance of tyme and place ▪ but yet of sole receiuing saye you we haue none examples of the Apostles or primitiue church as though nothing might be vsed otherwise then as of former example it maye be gathered which addition if you thinke good to vse to make your foresaid principle vayne absolutelye lett it be so then and according to this reformed principle our argument shall thus come against you What so euer Christ did at the institution of the sacrament which we fynde not to be altered by the authoritie or example of Apostles or primitiue churche that is of necessitie to be obserued But our Sauior delyuered the sacrament at night and the Apostles with the primitiue churche of their tyme haue no example or manner to warrant vs to doe otherwyse ergo we must of necessitie receiue at night But it is vnreasonable to bring in such a necessitie ergo it is a vayne principle which maintayneth such absurditie And what you might aunswer vnto this I can not diuise except you will take examples of the primitiue church which folowed the Apostles But then remembre what you be wonte to saye out of Tertullian how that is best which was fyrst and agayne out of S. Cypriane Christ is most to be followed which was the first of all And consider allso whether the church of Corinth dyd not receiue the sacrament at night and reade in the actes of the Apostels whether there was not breaking of bread at night and fynde if you can in all scripture that ministring of the sacrament was vsed in the mornyng Are you wiser then Christ can you better dispose the tymes then the maker of tyme hymselfe Did not the Corinthians receiue at night Is there anye mention in scripture of receiuing before none These loe be your common places which if I would follow I could make as great exclamations at the breaking of Christ his institution in the tyme as you doe make for the lacking of communicantes For it is no matter to vs whether you do bring two or three causes wherefore the receiuing at night is or maye be altered for if good causes would haue preuailed you would neuer haue plaied so madd partes in crying out against sole receiuing but all thinges you saie must be brought to the institution of Christ and as he gaue example so must we follow and wherfore then might not one first breake his fast and afterwarde come to the Lorde his table And if busynes lett a Merchant all the daye why might he not receiue at night If you can dispense with one thing you maye do the lyke with all If you alter the tyme you maye alter the maner the place the bread the wyne and all that Christ did This kynde Syr of Rhetoryke and Logike we learne of you which if you do greatly myslyke when you heare it of an other besides your selfe looke then vpon your selfe better and correcte that vayne glorious principle which hath a shewe of learning and pietie but is in deede most rude and wycked when you saye that nothing should be necessarylie obserued which is not expreslie in scripture or nothing thereof might be altered without auctoritie or example of the Apostles and primitiue church Which example of Apostles or primitiue church you neede not to passe vpon in this kynde of matter For if you be most surely persuaded by the very text of the scripture that companye to receiue with the priest is of the substance of the sacrament allthough example might be founde in the primitiue church of sole receiuing or receiuing vnder one kynde you would yet condempne that example by the playne institution of Christ as you would take it what good then should an example do to you which although it were neuer so playne yet you would not be persuaded but that the cumpany at the communyon is allwaies of necessitie But of our examples we shall speake hereafter in the meane tyme what bring you to shewe that the hauing of company is of the necessitie of the sacrament And marke that we aske you not of companye whether it be laudable conuenient or honorable at the celebration of euerie masse but whether it be necessarie Of necessitie our question is and of expresse commaundement and you tell vs of the Paschall lambe of the Iewes and applye it vnto our Sacrament that lyke as cumpanye was of necessitie to the eating of the Paschall lambe so that it should be as necessarie to the receiuing of the sacrament After which argumēt you triumphe without victorie and aske of vs VVyll you saie that companye to eate vpp the Paschall lambe was not of the substance of the sacrament c. If you meane by the worde sacrament in this place the Paschall lambe it selfe cumpanye you know was no more of the substances of the lambe thē you with your bydden gestes be of the substance of your meate when you haue prouided for your selfe and them a fatt goose and
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
the vestmentes of Christ full of redd spottes as if he had come lately from the wynepresse he alleageth allso the institution of Christ and the testimonie of S. Paule by which both places he proueth that we should offer vp not water onlye but allso wyne Then he maketh further argument saying that the mixture of wyne and water in the chalice togeather doth signifie the coniunction of Christ and his church and that if wyne be offered vp alone the bloud of Christ is without vs and that if water alone be offered vp then the people begyn to be without Christ. Which reason of his if you wyll cōtempne I am sory that S. Cyprian hath so sone displeased you whom you seemed to make so much of before But as concernyng the argument of that epistle he proueth by those testimonies which I haue touched and by many other waies that in the offering which the priest maketh water and wyne bothe are to be mengled and that it was Christ his institution so to doe and that Christ only is to be folowed therein and that we must do herein no other thing thē that which Christ hymselfe dyd first of all Now Sir then with what face can you alleage S. Cyprian for proufe of your proposition which is generall whereas he speaketh of water and wyne to be mengled when the priest doth sacrifice which us a speciall case onlye And see how the dyuel dyd owe you a shame If you wyll refuse Saint Cyprian in that place then standeth your maior like a miserable proposition without any similitude of defence If you alowe S. Cyprian how standeth your religion in whose communion and Lordes table water and wyne are not mengled togeather which should be so duly and necessarily obserued Will you saie here that the field is not lost and that this is but an ouerthrow of one wing only Do you fight for the victorie and not for the veritie so that you may be semed to have somwhat allwaies to saie do you make no conscience nor rekonyng of your vniust and foule plaie Answer directly vnto this one argument or confesse your falsehode or ignorance and geaue ouer your stryuing against the manifest veritie If all thinges are to be obserued in such manner as Christ hath them instituted wherefor haue you no water in the chalice which Christ as S. Cyprian proueth hath so solemply delyuered Now on the other syde if some thinges may be well vnfolowed which Christ hymselfe apointed why make you such a generall stoute proposition which by yourselfe is so quicklye neglected For the mixture of wyne and water in the chalice you can not saie that you haue no authoritie of scripture no example of primitiue church no testimonie of auncient Doctour for in that one epistle of Saint Cypriane of which we speake which you seeme not to haue readen onlye but allso to alow you shall find all those places by which the veritie of this tradition may be proued Where then is your memorie That which S. Cyprian of purpose declareth of the mixture of wyne and water in the chalice you either see not or regard not and that which you put furth of the generall obseruing and keeping whatsoeuer Christ dyd in the institution of his sacrament is not at all in that epistle and yet you can read it there proued at large And here now I haue to saie further against you that you do not rightly interprete not only his mynd but not so much as his wordes For whereas that blessed martir saieth Admonitos autem nos scias vt in calice offerendo dominica traditio seruetur ▪ which is Know you further that we be warned that in offering of the chalice the tradition of our Lord be kept you interprete it after this fasshion Do you know therefor that we be admonisshed that in offering the sacrament of the Lords bloud his owne institution should be kept For examinyng of which your interpretation if you should be brought but vnto a Grammar schole dominica traditio is to shortly Englisshed his owne institution and in calice offerendo is to ignorantly Englisshed in the offering of the sacrament of the Lords bloud so that I beleeue verely if the Scholemaster were not very much a sleepe he would beare softly at your backe doore and make you to remember yourselfe better But if litle regard be taken of construction which is made in scholes yet it is to be prouyded diligently that no false construction be sett furth in print especially in such kind of matter as apperteineth vnto our sowle and is of so great weight and efficacie that it maketh or marreth an heresie You Englissh traditio not tradition but institution And whi rather institution then tradition Verely for no other cause I thinke but for that you abhorr the name of tradition and because you would seeme to the ignorant Reader to be a great fauorer of Christ his institution You Englisshe in calice offerendo after this sort in offering the sacrament of the Lords bloud and whi not rather in offering the chalice as the wordes themselues do signifie You had no litle craft in your mynd when you sett vpon the translating of this plaine sentence and for the word chalice to substitute the sacrament of the Lords bloud it was a deceitfull enterprise For if you would haue plainely saied as S. Cyprians wordes do signifie that in offering the chalice the tradition of our Lord be kept the diligent Reader would haue ben moved to require what tradition that should be which must be obserued in offering the chalice and he should be truly answered that it was the tradition of vsing not wyne alone or water alone but water and wyne both in the chalice togeather which would much disgrace your communion But when you make S. Cyprian to sound after this sense that in offering the sacrament of the Lords bloud his owne institution is to be folowed you geaue occasion to a simple and vnexpert Reader to thinke that hereby it is manifestly proued that the lay people at these daies allso must necessarily receiue his bloud because he in his institutiō of his sacramēt delyuered furth allso his bloud Whiche S. Cyprian yet dyd no more thinke vpon then he feared least any grāmarian should come many hundred yeares after hym and interprete his plaine wordes in such a froward sense as you haue done And so in the Englisshing furth of the selfesame sentence after these wordes and no other thing to be done then that the Lord dyd first for vs hymselue you make a full periode and point whereas it foloweth in S. Cyprian as clause of the same sentence that in deede we should doe as our Lord had done first hymselfe but wherein and how farr trowe you in all thinges and all circumstancies no truly For straitwaies it foloweth in S. Cyprian and it is the limitation of the whole proposition that the chalice which is offered vp in
determined Ergo it ought to remayne indifferent In denying and controlling the partes of this argument the Master of the Defence doth bestow his syxt chapiter And first he denyeth the second proposition afterwardes he cometh to the declaration of the first in which parte he casteth in betweene so many new deuises and conclusions that we haue to abhorr them which are not of the auncient religion Let vs folow the same wayes which he taketh and lett vs defende the Catholike his argument in that selfe same order by which he doth impugne yt Goe to then Syr what myslyketh you in our argument Your second proposition ys not trew For I saie that it is determyned in Christ his institution In luke he sayeth Take this and diuide it emong you Ys this your text by which you will conclude that the priest must haue of necessitie cumpanye to receyue with hym Christ you know spake then to his Apostles onlye he spake nothing of the people to receyue with them Take saieth he and diuide this emong you and not as you would fayne haue it to be take you and diuide it emong other For as concerning other whom afterwarde they should haue the gouernment of he left it vnto their wisedome to geaue it or denye it as they should see it expedient Except you thinke that the priest for diuers considerations might not kepe back the Sacrament from some which would receyue with hym whiche yet if they would be ruled by you being repelled might aunswer the priest agayne and stoutly saye that it is of the substance of the Sacrament that it should be diuided and therefor that they haue great wrong done vnto them except they maye be admitted And they might trulye alleage that Christ gaue the Sacrament vnto Iudas the traytor which without controlling did receyue it bycause of Christ his institution Take and diuyde emong you But as all the Christians generallye can not by vertue of these wordes diuyde emong you challenge their part in the cōmunion yf the priest should thinke them vnworthye euen so neyther Christ had this meaning in them that they should be as a necessarie commaundement to charge therby his priestes allwayes to diuide and distribute his sacrament but for that present cumpanye of his most dearest Apostles he said Take and diuide it emong you How then Maye not the sacrament be diuided emong the people Yes trulye But that it should be diuided emong the people such necessitie is not gathered out of Take ye and diuide it emong you But saye you How can it be taken at the minister his handes and diuided or distributed emong them vnlesse there be a cumpanye But what talke you of to be taken at the minister his handes as though that S. Luke did make thereof any signification He telleth vs that Christ our Sauyor saide vnto his Apostles Take this but he maketh no worde at all of taking at the minister his handes But this would serue well your purpose if that when Christ said distinctlye vnto his twelue Take this you could perswade the rude that he spake vnto the people and commaunded them to take his sacrament at the minister his handes Then further where you aske how it can be distributed emong them except there be a cumpanye For whom you do speake I can not redely tell For if you meane the Apostles there was a good cumpany of them to take that which was distributed and if you meane the people I wonder whye you call them vnto this matter the Euangelistes speaking of the Apostles onlye You alleage the text of the scripture goe not then I praye you from the text The wordes be playne Take and diuide emong you Yf it had bene sayd indefinitelie diuide you might haue thought with some reason that a commaundement of distributing the sacrament for euer afterwarde had ben geauen in those wordes But our Sauyor determineth the worde diuide in saying Diuide this emong you Which wordes yet if you thinke to haue ben spoken not onlie to the Apostles personallie but to all Bishopes and high Priestes which should haue in tyme to come the place or office of the Apostles as I graunte this sense because it is conuenient and true so yet the people you see are not comprehended within the text of which we speake For of theis three pointes Take you diuide you emong you no one can be vnderstanded as spoken vnto the people And if one maye why not all as well as one seing that in those three pointes the persons are not varyed Where then do you fynde now any cōmaundement of distributing the sacrament vnto the people It can no be diuided saye you except there be cumpany You speake somewhat therein but tell vs fyrst what cumpanye you meane For I say that vnto this daye if you consider the whole church as one howse and euerye aultar in the world as one table and the body of Christ as it is one allthough the mysticall signes of it be in many places so shall you see it performed that which you be so glad to heare that the sacrament is daylye taken eaten and diuided emong vs. But now tell vs further what necessitie you fynde why it should be diuided In deede distribution presupposeth cumpanye But we aske what necessitie doth requyre distribution For the wordes of our Sauior doe not absolutelye commaunde it but vnto the Apostles especyallie his wordes were directed because thei were with hym to receiue at his handes And so the same wordes maye appertayne to all that celebrate masse when some are readie to receiue But as if twelue be not readie to receiue yet fower maye so if fower be not readie one maye receiue alone But then you complayne vpon vs and saye that we maye as well leaue out eatyng drynkyng and doyng in remembraunce of Christ as we doe dispense with distributing Feare not I warrant you we be nothing so folish For meates are necessarye but not distribution and without other mens mouthes we can eate but we can not distribute without others handes or mouthes to receiue it Also the remembrance of Christ his passion is and maye be allwaies vsed but distribution of the Sacrament is not allwaies possible And to be shorte the sole receiuing can not be without eating c. but the sole receiuing at masse is and maye be without distributing And here now for feare least we should not regarde the institution of Christ you tell vs againe out of Sainct Cypriane that nothing must be altered in the preceptes of Christ which saying you extende vnto sole receiuing ▪ and receiuing vnder one kynde which S. Cypriane neuer thought vpon in that epistle and you forget to mengle water and wine togeather at the communion which S. Cypriane in that place so earnestly requyreth to be done as I haue before declared at large Wherfore Syr haue no mistrust but that God the Holyghost prouideth abundantlye that Christes and his
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
es fui maye be taken emong the grammaryans Assumere naturam non personam which sense of the verbe substantiue Sum es fui after you haue not founde in any dictionary of the best making how will it sounde in your eares to say Deus est homo God is man The worde was made flesh sayeth the blessed Apostle and Euangelist by which we confesse and beleiue that God the worde was not changed into flessh or mingled and confounded with it or in any part altered but that he tooke vnto his person the verye nature of man and vnited it vnto his Godhed Which sense if you repyne against because the propriety of the tongue can not beare it that factuÌ„ est might be interpreted by vnita est diuina persona humanae naturae the person of God was vnited vnto the nature of man trulye then as your learning perchanse is such that you maye be suffred to reade an open lesson in some grammer schole so without all doubt you are to be amended for the vnright construyng of our Christian rules But saye you we must search the scriptures as Christ and his Apostles taught vs and as the holye Fathers dyd vse against the Arrians and other heretikes As who should saye that This is my bodye which shal be delyuered for you were not scripture playne inough or as though the Arrians had not in sight more places of scripture then the Catholike Fathers or else as though the most holy men of these fyftene hundred yeares whom we folow in the fayth of the sacrament had written whole and large treatyses of it and vsed no scripture at all Well Syr if we lack scripture you perchaunse doe abounde in it and therefore what is your opinion of the sacrament when we interprete Christ his wordes we saye it is a figuratiue speache and such as the Holyghoste often vseth in the institution of sacramentes and ceremonyes It is most true that figurative speaches are often vsed in the scripture as when Christ said I am the vyne c. but can you therfor coÌ„clude that they are allwayes vsed and if I am the vyne be figuratyue is This is my body lyke vnto it When the high Priestes of the Iewes asked Christ whether he were the soune of God he aunswered I am he sayed againe vnto his dysciples I am the waye the truth and lyfe and yet he was not a figuratyue lyfe but reall lyfe in deede And although that Christ speaking of S. Iohn the Baptyst and sayeing Yf you wyll receyue hym he is Helyas meaned not yet that he was Helyas in deed but that he represented Helyas for some pointes neuertheles saying of hym selfe I am the beginnyng which speake vnto you he willeth vs to vnderstand not that he representeth onlye or signifyeth the begynnyng which is God but that in very nature and substance he is the author of all thinges Whereby you maye or should rather perceyue that this argument which you gather out of particular phrases in the scriptures doth helpe nothing your purpose except you could proue them to be generall Now as concerning these wordes of S. Luke and S. Paule This is the new testameÌ„t in my bloud by which you vnderstande that the Sacrament is a testimony or pledge of his last will and gyfte concerning also the numbre of testimonyes which you bring out of the auncient Doctors to proue that Christ gaue a memorye token signe figure and similitude of his bodye I will not speake against them because they be true sayinges Catholike But wheÌ„ wyll you leaue to proue that which we denye not and shewe directly vnto the purpose that Christ gaue no body at all but a figure only vnto vs The catholike fayth is this that the externall signes and formes of bread and wyne are figures of the naturall body and bloud of Christ which are vnder them for as bread is the most naturall and necessarie foode so we vnderstand the flesh of the soune of God to be vnto the faythfull Also that the very naturall body of Christ in the sacrament is a figure of the glorye to come and representeth that vnitie which shall be betweene him and his elect in heauen for he which communicateth hym selfe so freely and fully in earth vnto synners what wyll not he do to the holye ones in heauen Furthermore both the externall visible sygnes of bread and wyne and the true body of our Sauyor which is vnder the visible sacramentes are a figure and signe of the mutuall vnitie of Christ with his churche for she is made one bread through Christ as it were of many graynes and one body consisting of many members Agayne the breaking of the visible sacrament and the reall presence of the body of Christ are in signe and memorie of his passion for if a man should seeke a thousand wayes to styrremen vp to thinke on Christ this passeth all other without coÌ„parison to bring the selfe same bodye before them But with all these figures and signes which are founded in the sacrameÌ„t we confesse also that there is a reall presence not spirituall onlye but corporall For S. Hilarye proueth at large that Christ vnto thiâ— daye is in vs not onlye through concord and agreement of wyll but allso truth of nature Allso Saint Gregorye Nyssene hath this conclusion that lyke as the bread which our Sauior dyd eate whiles he lyued yet on earth was conuerted into his diuine nature because that man which dyd so eate it was also God euen so the breade of our mysteries is conuerted into the flesh of the worde Furthermore S. Hyerome wytnesseth that the bloud and flesshe of Christ is vnderstanded two wayes either for that spirituall and diuyâ—â— flessh of which he hymselfe sayd My flessh is meate in deede and my bloud is drinke in deede â–ª c. either for that flessh which was crucified and the bloud which was shedd with the speare of the souldior According vnto this diuision diuersitie of flessh and bloud is taken to be also in his Sainctes so that it is one flessh which shall see the saluations of God and an other flessh and bloud which can not possesse the kyngdome of God Of this testimoâ—ye therefore we gather that as our flesh in heauen shall be true and reall flesh although it be made spiritual so the spirituall flessh which Christ promysed vnto vs is his very true and natural flesh Againe S. Chrisostome testifyeth that we are turned into one flessh with hym not onlye by charitie but in very deede And in an other place He hath made vs his bodye sayeth he not only by fayth but allso in very deede And it is so true that Christ his naturall flesh is geauen vnto vs in the sacrament that we should also see it with our bodily eyes except diuers causes were to the contrary of which this is one lest some horror