wherefor they go not vnto the church ys Christ one abrode and an other at home that which ys not lawfull in the church ys not lawfull at home c. How saye you then Doth S. Hierome in this place inueigh against the maner of receiuing at home Is it not most playne and euident that he speaketh against such as had no feare to communicate at home after the nightes pollution and yet would not venter to come vnto the places where Martyrs bones rested or into the church And why should any man feare to come vnto the chappelles or memoryes of Martyrs after the nightes what shall I call it with his wyffe Vndoubtedlie for reuerence sake and honor which thei gaue to Martyrs as S. Hierome also testifieth of hym selfe saying I confesse vnto the my feare least perchance it come of superstition when I haue ben angrye and haue thought vpon some euyll thing in my mynde and when some fancy of the night hath deluded me I dare not goe into the churches of Martyrs I doe so thorowghly quake for feare in bodye and sowle Therfor wheras the Romanes after the vse of their wyues the night before would not come the next daye into the presence of Martyrs memories and yet were not ashamed to receiue the body of Christ at home he asketh of them earnestlie VVherfore they goe not vnto the church not in this sense which you haue inuented as though he should saie Wherfore do you receiue at home why goe you not to the church why receiue you in corners why come you not to the open congregation I lyke not these communions at home the doores of the congregation be open to the faithfull it is a shame so to receiue by your selues alone the institutioÌ„ of Christ is excedinglie broken he instituted not his sacrament that they should haue it brought home to theÌ„ or that they might cary it home with them I know not what place is better for that purpose then the house of God where all the people may be present togeather and edifie one the other through beholding the felowship and communion of themselues S. Hierome was not so full of the spirit or so emptie of wytt but onlye he correcteth their folye which in some thinges made a conscience in other some of greater force made none at all And he asketh why they doe not as well come in to the church and in to the chapples of Martyrs after they haue coÌ„panyed with their wyues as they dare to receiue the bodye of Christ at home for all the formar nightes fancye and pleasure Is Christe one abroad and an other at home As who shold saie will it hurt you if you come to church in the presence of Christ his Martyrs and make you no conscience of recâ—â—uing Christ his body at home in your houses whose Martyrs thei were Yet he doth not reproue them for receiuing at home as by his owne wordes appeareth saying That the faythfull receyue at all tymes the bodye of Christ I neyther reproue neyther allow But to this conclusion he labored to dryue the matter that whilest they should be sorye that they had not communicated some certayne daye because of their pleasure taken the night before with their wyues they might therby abstayne a lytle from them that thei might communicate with Christ. But goe you furth Haue you any other authoritie to proue that sole receiuing at home was euer condemned In Socrates the seconde booke we reade that Synodus Gangrensis coÌ„dempned Eustathium for that contrary vnto the Ecclesiastical rules he graunted liceÌ„ce to coÌ„municate at home Where a man should fynde this Socrates of whom you speake you only I beleiue doe know For in the second booke of the Tripartite historye Socrates maketh no mencion at all of any such Eustathius as you speake of but in the .2 of that booke we doe reade of one Eustathius a verâ—e good Byshop condempned by a false forged tale made against hym by a common harlot his judges being to the outward shew Catholike Bisshops but in hart and deede Arrians For which cause sayeth the historie Many holy meâ— and priestes with others forsaking the company which râ—sorted vnto the coÌ„mon churches did come togeather emong them selues whom all other callâ—d Eustathianos bâ—cause that after Eustathius departure they 〈◊〉 â—â—gâ—ather a syde from others Now if you doe allow the condempnacion of this Eustathius then must we beware of you hereafter least you bring forth new Arrians vnto vs. And any other besides this catholike Eustathius I can not fynde in the seconde booke of the Tripartite historie Therefore I turne me vnto the Councelles and there in deede I fynde that Synodus Gangrensis condempneth one Eustachius not Eustathius for many notable heresyes but yet there is no mencion that he was condempned as you saie for graunting of licence to receiue at home But rather as it appeareth by the epistle prefixed before that Synode these Eustachians were of the opinion that no prayer or oblatioÌ„ should be made in maryed mens houses thei coÌ„tempned also the places of holy Martirs or churches and reproued all such as resorted to them thei tooke further vpon them to distribute the oblations made in the church and therefore the fifth canon of that Councell is this Yf any man doe teach that the house of God is to be contemned and the meetinges which are celebrated in it let hym be accursed And the sixt canon saieth Yf any man doth make conuenticles without the church and despising the church wyll vsurpe those thinges which be the churches without the priest commyng vnto it let hym be accursed according 〈◊〉 the decree of the Bysshope This much 〈◊〉 I fynde in Gangrensis Synodus which doth not so much as seeme to found any thing nigh vnto your purpose Where then is that your Eustathius which was condemned for graunting licence to communicate at home or how well haue you proued that the custome of the primitiue church which for that tyme was tolerated was at any tyme after forbydden as prophane and wycked Yf therefor these testimonyes of S. Hierome and Gangrensis Synodus by which you would proue that to receiue at home was greatlie inueighed at and condempned do no more make for your purpose than to saye that a laye man should not lye with his wyfe the night before he receiueth or that those heretikes are to be condemned which contempne Martirs chapples or churches how lytle at all could you proue that any myslyking was euer had of the sole receiuing at home vsed in the very primitiue church The vse of which tyme you dare not openlye condemne but priuely you leaue to be gathered that it was pius error in them Whereas contrary wise if sole receiuing be such a matter as you make it that it goeth most directlie and playnlie against the substance of Christ his institution then I am sure that the contempt of this lyfe and world was so
You must graunt allso that as we are vnder a proper and most excellent law so lykewyse that we haue a correspōdent priesthode as it is writen VVhen the priesthode is transferred it must needes be that there be made a transferring of the law allso because law and priesthode do go◠ioyntly togeather Then it foloweth herevpon That euery Bisshope chosen out of men is apointed for men in those thinges which are to Godward that he should offer vp giftes and sacrifices for synnes c. But sacrifice for synn there is none in this law and tyme of grace besides the body and bloud of our Sauyor ergo that must be offered Yet no man should take an office vpon hym except he were called and there is no place in all scripture where that calling ys expressed but only in the last supper of Christ. therefor whereas he in that his last supper gaue authoritie vnto priesthode in saying Do this in remembrance of me I conclude that priestes only are bound to blesse to breake his body and consequently to eate it I saie not that euery priest is bound to daily frequentation of the sacrament which if you thinke vs to do you speake without boke therein and misreport the Catholikes but concernyng the whole body of priesthode and the necessitie of a daily sacrifice priestes are not only bound to offer but to prouide that there be daily offering Knowing this that it is a most sure token of Antichrist his presence whē the Iuge sacrificium the daily sacrifice shall cease to be offered For thei only are called to that high office and their dutie is to folow their office And this thing being rightly considered of the auncient fathers made them so reuerently to behaue them selues towardes the blessed sacrament As S. Denyse the Areopagite speakyng of the order of masse in his tyme saieth that the Bisshope excused hymselfe that he offered vp the helthsome sacrifice which is aboue his power and that he cried out decently saying vnto God Thow hast saied Do this in my remembrance As who sould saie except thow hadest geauen licence and authoritie what man would haue bē so bold as to come nigh to the touching of so diuine misteries S. Iustine allso the Martir witnesseth that the Apostles in their cōmentaries which are the ghospells do declare that Christ cōmaunded them to consecrate the bread by the prayers of his word at what tyme he toke bread and after thankes geauing saied Do this in remembrance of me And S. Cypriane more plainely saieth that in Christ his last supper those sacramentes came furth which had ben signified from the tyme of Melchisedech and that the high priest bringeth furth vnto the sounes of Abraham which do as he dyd bread and wyne sayng this is my body Of which bread saieth this blessed martyr the Apostells dyd eate in the same supper before according vnto the visible forme but sence the time that it was saied of our Lord do this in my remembrance this is my bodye this ys my bloud as often tymes as the thing is done with these wordes and this faith this substantiall bread and chalice consecrated with the solemne blessing profiteth vnto the liffe and health of all the whole man being both a medicine and a sacrifice to heale his infirmities and purge his iniquities Wherefore if you Syr would consider how great this misterie ys you shoulde perceaue how great honor and preeminencie all priestes are indued with For when they worke then are these holy thinges which I speake of begon and perfected But say you Christ his institution was generall and his commaundement therein stretcheth as well to the people as to the priest I haue proued vnto you the contrary both by reason because priesthode ys a distinct office vnto which certen onlye are apoynted and chosen owt from the laitie and by scripture as you may cōsider by S. Paule to the Hebreues and allso by Doctours as S. Denyse Iustine and Cypriane do plainely testifie But then you byd vs to vnderstand That S. Paule a good interpretour of Christ his mind applieth the wordes of Christ to the whole congregation of Corinth where it ys certē were both ministers and cōmon people Nay Sir vnderstand you this rather that you vnderstand not S. Paule which in that his chapiter alleageth the institutiō of Christ to this purpose that the Corinthians by consideration of the charitie and maiestie which was represented therein shold be more felolyke in the cōmunicating of theyr common meates from which they were fallen vnto seuerall and priuate tables or suppers in the church And he doth tell historically what Christ saied vnto his disciples not what Christ apoynted the Corinthians and euery other of the Christians to do For I haue receiued of owr Lord that which I haue delyuered vnto you sayth the Apostell But what meaneth he by these wordes I haue deliuered he spake vnto all the Corinthians without respect of spiritualtie or temporalty but dyd he speake by waie of instruction or by waie of geauing some office and function vnto them And that which he receiued of Christ did he delyuer vnto them as a doctrine and article to be lerned or as a cōmaundement to be exequuted if you meane the first you agree with vs if you meane the second you disagree from cōmon sense and euident truth for if it apperteine vnto all Christians without distinction to doe as S. Paule receaued of Christ and as the Corinthians receaued of S. Paule then must euery Christian take bread geaue thankes and breake it and when euery body is a minister who then shall be a receauer Againe in the wordes of our Sauyor Do this in remembrance of me how much is wylled to be done Are the wordes do this to be referred only to the takyng and eating no truly for do this doth not folow in Sainct Paule immediately vpon the wordes take and eate but after the wordes thys ys my body and it were better and plainelier englyshed make this then do this thereby to geaue you to vnderstand that by those wordes authoritie of makyng and consecrating Christ his body was geauen vnto the Apostles But taking do this after the largest manner it can not yet be referred to takyng or eatyng only but must allso be vnderstanded of blessing now if you will haue these wordes of do this in my remembrance to stretch as well vnto the people as to the high order of priestes then may you cōplaine not only that thei receiue not as oft as the priest which thei will not I warrant you for all your greate mouyng but allso and rather that they take not the bread in to their handes and blesse it themselues and say masse such as may be called priuate in deed Which vnsensible and pernitiouse folissh opinion because you will not suffer to enter in to your hart therefor you must of necessitie graunt great
which the old fathers vsed peruerted yet of vs but what old father or young brother hath taught you the mightie contrarietie which you speake of betweene sacrifice and sacrament Yet goe to if we haue mistaken the old fathers how well doe you vnderstand them you can not denie but the old fathers do call the sacrament an oblation or sacrifice but you will expound their meanyng vnto vs. Wherevpon you tell vs that in the beginnyng the people at the celebratiō of the Lord his supper offered vp wyne breade and other victuals partlie to find the priestes and partlie to refresshe the poore and allso to serue the communion And so partlie It came to passe the example being taken first of the common people that the administration of the sacrament of this offering was called an oblation An other occasion that the Doctours vsed those termes of sacrifieng and offering was that in the celebration of the sacrament thei had praier for all states and thankes geauing to God for all benefites After the fathers called euerie good action a sacrifice were it priuate or common And therfor their successors by litle and litle bent the same name vnto the action and celebration of the Sacrament An other cause that the holie fathers call the sacrament an oblation or sacrifice is because according to Christes ordenance we celebrate the remembrance of his death and passion which was the onlie and true sacrifice Where I may begyn to speake against you for this your diuision of sacrifice I can not readelie tell there are so many thinges which are to be moued and reproued First the imperfectnes that you haue vsed in it ▪ because you haue not expressed the full cumpasse of this word sacrifice as the holie Fathers haue vnderstode it Then your superfluousnes because you make many partes of that which you should haue concluded in one member As if euerie good action be called a sacrifice thē should you haue well brought the other kindes which you speake of vnder this one signification as the principall largest aboue all other Allthough you in deuising three maners after which the fathers take the word sacrifice do leaue this one out of the number by which euerie good action as you report is called a sacrifice which yet deserueth to haue the first place emong them if that which is most generall should not be omitted in diuiding Thirdlie your diuision is to be reproued for the greate vntruth which is conteined in it as I shall declare vnto you hereafter If first you will consider what an other maner of diuision was to be lerned out of the Doctours and in what sense it is spoken and beleiued of vs that a sacrifice propiciatorie is offered in our misteries Vnderstand you therefor that A sacrifice is a reuerent seruice and worshipp due vnto God onlie Now againe Of sacrificies some be internall and inuisible other some externall and visible The inward and internall sacrifice may be thus defined It is that worshipp and seruice in which our hart and will is geauen vnto God and this is done vpon the aultar of our hart when either we burne the incense of holie and deuoute loue in his sight or when we vowe to hym ourselues and his giftes in vs or when we remember his benefites in solempne feastes and holidaies or when vpon the aultar of our hart with the fyer of charitie we burne the offeringes of humilitie and praise vnto hym And this is the pure and acceptable sacrifice which onlie God requireth of vs not because of his owne profit and vantage but that we by vniting of ourselues to hym might liue and continue for euer with hym But how shall a man know that there is such a spirituall inuisible and acceptable sacrifice Of his owne doing a man perchaūse may know but of an others mynd who can tell without some externall signe or token shewed Againe if a man would vtter his owne inward deuotion how can he exemplifie it without some externall signe either of bowing of knees or holding vp of handes or lifting vp of eyes or knocking of breast or offering vp of some gift yea rather the soule and bodie being so nigh togeather as they are it ys impossible that the hart soule shold entierlie be occupied in the true worshipe of God and that by no maner of similitude it shold be perceaued in the bodie Therefor by necessarie and naturall consequence and folowing there must be an externall sacrifice And that is defined of S. Augustine by these wordes The visible sacrifice ys a sacrament that ys to saie an holie signe of the inuisible sacrifice Of this second kind of sacrifice if you require exāples you may easelie find them in the sacrificies of Abel Noe Abraham and others in the law of nature and in the boke of Leuiticus as concerning the old law and in the churches and deuotions of Christiās in this tyme of grace as whē thei offer candells burne frankincense take ashes beare palme and do anything outwardlie to the honor of God In which thinges except the offerer haue an internall deuotiō and pietie all those externall ceremonies are not to him worth the vsing and if he be in hart and memorie fullie disposed and aduised to consider his owne miserie and god his mercie then are these outwarde actions and obseruations holie signes and tokens of the internall sacrifice and may be called externall sacrificies But let vs speake of one singular example for all The visible and bitter death of our Sauior Christ vpon the crosse was an external aud bloudie sacrifice But in what sense and meaning vndoubtedlie as it was and is called visible But what meane I by visible I meane that so painefull maner of hys hanging by the handes and fcete vpon the crosse and so vniuersall a wounding of euerie part of his pretiouse bodie so that from the croune of his heade to the soele of his feete there was no whole place in hym and the panting of euerie vaine and stretching of euerie ioynt and incredible torment in all his blessed fleshe these thinges with manie other were I meane holie signes of his inward sacrifice in which he offered vp before hym and to hym which seeth all secreates his liffe his hart his will his thankes his praises and praiers and all that was his for the sauing of mankind and satisfieing of his fathers Iustice. Yea concernyng the eies of men not onlie the sight of God who may doubt of his patience which in all those tormētes dyd neuer once murmur who can mistrust or suspect his charitie which emong so manie cruellties done to hym forgat not to loue his enemies who should not but consider hys endlesse obedience whose soule could not be remoued from the keeping of his fathers will when the bodie was disioynted the one member from the other In verie deed this was an holie signe and sacrament of the inuisible and
There is no reason to lett that you shold not vse it For we both doe see that it is plaine in S. Chrisostome frustr◠habetur quotidiana oblatio the daylie sacrifice is had in vayne And as we require that Quotidiana be takē in his proper significatiō of daily so do we graunt vnto you that you shall vse the worde frustra in his most proper signification neither do we cōtrarye you in it but that frustra in this place is taken for vayne Therfor you can vrge the worde frustra no more extremely then we doe except you can make worse of it then vayne Yea say you further it was done in vayne because it was done without cumpany but we thinke rather it was in vayne as concerning the priest his looking for the people And so it appeareth that you doe not hurt vs in alleagyng of frustra which we take in the proper signification of it as well as you but our stryuing must now be vpon the referring of that worde vnto the peoples receauing or vnto the offering of the sacrifice And further it appeareth as we doe vrge the worde Quotidiana that you doe not so vrge the worde frustra as you asked leaue to do but quyte leauing the signification of the worde as vpon the which we do not disagree you runne vnto the constrewyng of the worde And if we will haue the oblation to be daylye you will haue it so vnderstanded that by Sainct Chrisostome his owne wordes it should seeme to be done in vayne because it was done without cumpany which how well it may follow I require but indifferent iudgement For if it were accordyng to your thinking done in vayne whē the people did not receiue ergo yet it was done In vayne you say Be it so for a while But yet it was done For of that which is not done at all you can not say any thing the one way or the other to the prayse or disprayse of the doing Now if the sacrifice were offered in vayne when no cōmunicantes were readye doe you make such a trifle of Sainct Chrisostome that he wolde do any thing which he was persuaded should be in vayne And if he did thinke that all was to no purpose which he did in the sacrificyng except the people did cōmunicate wolde he not first of all haue ben assured to haue communicantes before he wold enter vnto the act of offering And in so hygh matters wolde he haue entred in to the celebratiō of masse of which he could not presentlye tell whether he should say it in vayne or no Nay the church of England yet is more wyser then so For left their paynes should be lost in the Lordes supper the ministers must be warned before hand yf any will communicate that according vnto your interpretatiō the oblation be not in vayne if they shall haue no cumpany to receiue with them And yet your wisedome to proue that our dayly oblation which we gather owt of S. Chrisostome should not be as we vnderstand it doth bring S. Chrisostomes saying vnto such a sense which doth not become any cōmon witt and vnderstanding For by you S. Chrisostome might haue this meaning Here good people I haue stode all this while at the aulter and haue prayed for all states and haue consecrated the sacrament of the Lordes body which you should receaue with than kes geauing and now I perceiue all that I haue done is in vayne because there is none to receiue with me But phye vpon such a sense in that lerned and godly harte of Chrisostome For we might say vnto hym Syr you which do make so greate pryce of the misteryes why did you goe vnto them before you were sure to make a fructfull end of them why did you not send your Deacon to know how many would receiue with you lest you might procede further in vayne whē you should in the end lacke communicantes And if you were perswaded that you did receiue in vayne except some cōmunicated with you whi wolde you receiue at all or how doe you but receiue that to your owne cōdemnation in which you doe not followe the institution of Christ and take cumpany with you This with much more mighte be iustely sayed against Sainct Chrisostome if the dayly sacrifice which we reade so playnelye in hym could be thowght of hym to be done in vayne yf none did communicate as you full clerkelye doe vrge the two syllabes frustra Then besides this I answer that how so euer you will take the worde sacrifice allthough none either of the clergye or layetie wolde communicate with the priest yet the act of sacrificyng can not possiblye be therfor vayne because there lacketh cumpany to receiue For yf you vnderstande by dayly oblation either daylye almes or daylye prayses and thankes or dayly remembrance of Christes passion or the very bodye and bloude of our Sauior what one of all these are vayne only because the people do not cōmunicate Therfore in grawnting vnto vs which you can not deny but that the oblation was daylye how can you vse the worde frustra to proue as it were by S. Chrisostomes owne meaning that it was to no purpose when the people did not receiue Whereas euery kynde of Christian mens oblation ys good and acceptable in it self by reason either of the good will with which it is offered or the pryce and purenes of the thing which is offered as in the example of the body and bloud of Christ. Who but vnsensible can thinke that S. Chrisostome dyd iudge at the end of his masse when cumpany did not come to receiue that all his supplications and prayers which he had made before with all his harte and power for the quicke and the deade and all his praysinges of God in the memorye of his Sayntes and all his prayers vnto Christ in the sacrament that he might not receiue hym to his condempnation which sitteth at the ryght hand of God his father in heauen and yet was ther inuisibly present before him who say I can thinke that S. Chrisostome did eōclude all those thinges to haue ben done in vayne because the people did not receiue How then Yf the people doe receiue are all thinges straitwayes trymlye wrought Ergo it is the peoples wyll which geaueth strength vnto the sacramentes and not the institution of Christ. And the consecration ys perfyted not by the allmightynes of the worde as S. Cypriane sayeth nor by these wordes of our Lorde This is my body as S. Ambrose witnesseth but by the cumming of the people to receiue at the end of seruyce For as I haue shewed before after that the priest had receiued and had fully ended his office in offering thē were the people called and then were they serued without the chauncell in a place meeter for them Now these thinges not with standing you be so vayne in your two syllabes frustra that allthowgh at the begynnyng
aske not oâ— you why one maye not be howseled for an infidell as well as he maye praye for an infidell but whereas in our most priuate and secrete prayers we saie Our father which art in heauen and not my father by which wordes we declare that we be not alone but accompanyed with a numbre of other soâ—nes and brothers by what reason then maye you saie that he which receiueth alone to your sight hath no communion with other of the faith hope and charitie It is two thinges to saye I praye for other and I praie with other or I receiue for other and I receiue with other To praie for other is not allwaies in owre intent because of priuate and peculyar cases which doe so fully occupie vs yet a faithfull man doth allwaies praie with other because he is in that bodie whose partes are ioyned togeather and animated with charitie To receiue for other is a question of an other tyme and in some sense vnpossible but to receiue with other is most consequent for all tymes except a man be out of that bodie which copleth and vniteth all Catholikes togeather And now what foloweth hereof Truly this first of all that you which make your argumentes against receiuing for other doe verye much range out from the matter which is of receiuing with other And againe seeing there is such a felowshipp and communioÌ„ betweene the membres of one body how can any priest in his sole receiuing to our sight lack such as receyue with hym whereas he communicateth with all other which receyue of the same bodie why then saie you we inferr this that he which saieth Masse in our ladye chapple in Paules at sixe of the clock in the mornyng doth communicate with hym that doth the lyke in Iesus Church at Nyne of the clock the next daye But Syr we did not speake of this daye and the next daye which times although they make greate difference in the iudgement of folysh vnlearned men yet before God vnto whom all thinges are present six of the clock this daye and nyne to morowe make no breach of communion except you thinke that wheÌ„ all candles be put out in the night the worlde is at an end and with the next morning the worlde beginneth againe For otherwise why might not he which saieth masse this daye communicate with an other which shall celebrate an hundred yeares after hym as well as we communicate with the Apostles which haue departed this world fyfteene hundred yeare before vs. TheÌ„ what neede you to encomber your selfe with this daye and to morowe whereas your cause is vtterly lost if for the daye which is present there be found at euerye sole receyuing of the priest a communion which is shortely concluded in this maner There is a communion betweene them which being of one religion and faith receyue in sundrye places But for example sake Syr Thomas celebrateth Masse and receyueth alone in Parys and Syr Ambrose doth the lyke in Venyce Ergo Thomas and Ambrose doe communicate togeather Syr I deny your argument and say that neyther th one nor thother doth coÌ„municate with any Christian man because neyther of both receiueth according to Christ his institution You be allwaies lyke your selfe in forgetting your selfe For here you denye the argument and the cause of your denyall is the fault which you fynde with the maior and minor propositions of it But if the faulte be only in the propositions why denye you the argument And if the argument be faultie how vncunnynglie do you proue that by the denying of the propositions But go to let the first proposition be interpreted as you would haue it and lett vs then repete the argumeÌ„t saying Thei which receiue in diuers places according to the institution of Christ do communicate togeather But Syr Thomas c. as before doe so Ergo thei communicate togeather How saye you doth this argumeÌ„t please you yea truly I thinke it doth why then dyd you deny the former argument which was altogeather of the same forme and making with this But such disputors they be with whom the church hath to doe Now againe if you admitt the argumeÌ„t as coÌ„cerning the forme of it what saie you to any of the propositions Mary you deny the second proposition and say that none of those two priestes whom I named do worke according to the institution of Christ. And why so Forsoth saie you because thei receiue alone by them selfes Yea but herein you say falsely because the one of them at the least receiueth with the other and so thei haue a coÌ„munion and obserue the institution of Christ. Naie saie you againe There should be a particular communion as I maye terme it betwene the members of one congregation You do wisely to mitigat the matter and as it were to aske leaue that you may call it a particular communion But you must haue none your request is so vnprofitable For this particular coÌ„munion is nothing worth yea it is no communion at all except it be referred vnto the true and generall communion in deede And if the communicating in the most perfect and best maner be fulfilled will you bring vs so fair downevvarde that we must haue the particular or els saie the whole is destroyed Maye I not because of your fancyes rest in the end when I am at it but come back againe to the beginning or myddle of the matter The ende of a Christians desier is to be vnited vnto God through Christ our head in the vnitie of his body and to this end I receiue his body in the sacrament which because he is both God an man is therfor able to ioyne vs togeather in vnitie with God man And therefor when I receiue hym I coÌ„municate both naturallie and mysticallie with his bodie Can I desyer any more and is any thing vnperfect herein Yea mary saye you Christ would haue vs make a particular communion also But how proue you that by Christ he which was wysedome it selfe would he make such an accompt of a particular that although the whole some and perfection might be obtayned without it yet he would haue a particular communion He which coÌ„municateth with the whole bodye communicateth also with particulars and therefor what talke you of a particular communion as though that coulde want when the whole is obteyned If you would denye that there is a perfecte commonion betwene men of one religion notwithstanding thei be not in one tyme and place togeather although you should speake vntrulie yet you should speake not most absurdelie but when you graunt the generall communion and yet besydes requyre of necessitie a particular you speake so farr out of all forme and fasshion that no reason or probabilitie may be perceiued in your saying Yes saye you vnitie and concord is lyuely represented as well for the multitude which doe communicate as for the apte signification of the external elementes
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
vsed only for their sakâ—s which perchaunse were lyke to dye before thei had done their penaunce so yet if that were true we neuertheles obtayne our purpose which is to declare that reseruation sole receyuing and receâ—uing vnder one kynde are not necessariely forbydden by Christ his institutioÌ„ of his Sacrament Which conclusion of ours you doe for the most parte make as though you dyd not see and you require styll that we should proue the ordinary vse of the Sacrament to haue ben at those dayes as it is now â–ª and yet priuely your conscience I thinke prycking you you come vnto the same state at the which we holde the question and make as though your selfe had inuented what we might saye and that it were not allredy to be seen expressely in our wrytinges And therefore saye you You will replye perhaps and saye by these â—xamples yt may appearâ— that 〈…〉 receiuing is not of necessitie or if it had ben they would not haue vsed the contrary Yea Sir this in deede is and shal be allwaies our conclusion not as you deuise that we goe about to proue that the ordinarye coÌ„mon and whole maner of receyuing in the primitiue church was with out company or in one kynde only and therefore your aunswer in this poynt is much to be marked which is this Necessitie and extremitie may cause some kynd of Gods commaundementes at tymes to be omitted c. No doubt therof especially if the commaundement apperteyne vnto ceremonyes and ordres in gouernement but to haue company in receyuing it is you saye a substanciall part of the sacrameÌ„t without the which the sacrament hath not his inward perfection Wherein if you saie true SyrapioÌ„ or any other shold neuer haue ben suffred to receyue the sacrament alone and most playnly to goe against Christs owne law and coÌ„maundement And if in that case he should haue dyed without his comfort and viage prouision theÌ„ might you haue vsed youâ— maxima and rule that necessitie had no law As concernyng the Sabbate daye which the Iewes were commaunded so expresselie to keepe which yet in tyme of necessitie thei did omit without breach of the commaundement it serueth nothing to your purpose because it is in some respect ceremonyall For the tables of Moyses comprehend in them nothing els but the law of nature vnto which we are bound as well as the Iewes euer were but how doe we keepe it whereas our daye of rest is not the Sabbate of the Iewes but the next daye after and that for the honor of Christ his resurrection Christ hath not sett vs at libertie to omit the naturall law but onlye the positiue and ceremonyall law of the Iewes But now we kepe not the Sabbate day as thei did ergo that commaundement as concerning that daye pertayneth vnto the positiue law which admitteth dispensation and not the law of nature which for no necessitie is to be broken Yf then iâ— were a point of ceremonyall or positiue law to keepe the seuenth daye holye the Iewes notwithstanding the charge which God gaue vnto them might in cases of necessitie worke or fight vpon the Sabbate daye But as coÌ„cerning the naturall precept which is that we shall take our selues at some tymes vnto quyetnes and rest from all worldely busynes to consider therein the more earnestlie the benefites and workes of God towardes vs ther is no such necessitie which may cause it to be omitted Marye the appointing of the tyme for that purpose and the namyng of the firste second or thirde moneth or daye of the yeare or the weeke in the which we shall leaue of all wordlye toyling and entend only vpon God this as it is ruled by positiue law so in tyme of vrgent necessitie it may be dispensed withall without breach of the law Therfore some commaundement of God may be not fullfilled in tyme of necessitie and after the necessitie ouercommed it may returne vnto his formar strength But if God make not politike orders but immutable sacrameÌ„tes and geaue vnto those sacramentes forme and matter such as shall be of the substance of them I saye that in this case no necessitie is able to make it laufull that the substantiall ordre which he appointed maye be omitted And so no man can vse cheese or mylke in consecrating of the sacrament And if receiuing with cumpanye be as you report a part of the substance of the sacrament it can not at all be omitted what so euer necessitie should be alleaged Therefore whereas reseruation and sole receiuing is so playnly proued by the historie of Syrapion that you can not denye it it is not of necessitie to receiue straitwaies the sacrament as sone as it is consecrated or to receiue it with cumpanye Last of all whether Syrapion receiued in forme of bread onlie or wyne because it were to no purpose to proue any one of them both whereas you are prouided to vnderstand both formes vnder that one which I might shewe to be agreable vnto that place therefore I will not labor to proue receiuing vnder one kynde by this historie of Syrapion contenting myselfe with this that it proueth most manifestlie the reseruation and sole receiuing of the sacrament The tenth Chapiter IN the .xiiij. canon of the Nycene Councell it is proued that Deacons haue no authoritie and power to offre sacrifice In the same Councell and canon it is decreed that neyther Deacons should minister the sacrameÌ„t vnto Priestes neyther receiue it before Bishops And further it is graunted that if the Bishops or Priestes be absent the DeacoÌ„s may bring furth the sacrament and eate it Vpon which propositions the Catholike maketh this argumeÌ„t to proue reseruation and saieth Yf the Deacons as it appeareth by this canon which had no authoritie to consecrate and to offer the sacrifice of Christ his body and bloud might in the Bishops and Priestes absence fetch furth the sacrament and receiue it can you denye but it was reserued how saie you to this argument The .xiiij. Canon of Nicene Councell in no sense doth proue sole receiuing as you would haue it seeme to doe You be foulye deceaued and besides you make a shamefull lye vpon the Catholike because he concludeth only by that canon reseruation and not sole receyuing in so much that he vseth not the place to proue receyuing vnder one kynde which if he would folow your example in coÌ„menting vpon a text he might haue doone right well inough But as concerning sole receyuing he hath no one worde by which you should or might gather that he vsed the canon for that purpose He asketh you most expressely whether you can denye that by the testimonye of this Councell the sacrament was reserued and you aunswer hym that it doth not proue sole receyuing and therevpon you make a great talke and ye tryumph in your owne folye and saie that you are beholding vnto hym for putting you in mynde of this
of greate prouision and it keepeth a great sturr within a mans hart to conceyue how it should be a naturall bodye and placed now in heauen and yet present and perfect on euery aultar in the whole worlde and because it were lytle inough to thynke all nyght long and mornyng before how to come to such a feast with contrition confession and satisfaction therefore it is but superfluous cost and a torment vnto the conscience Colde meate shall serve vs well inough and we shal be as merye with bread and drink in the remembraÌ„ce that Christ dyed for vs as with all the prouision which the papistes saie Christ to haue made In which similitude you haue as rightly expressed your inward thoughtes as maye be And we truly if we make greate prouisioÌ„ we doe no other then we are commaunded because we be his seruantes which euery daye geaueth the fatt calfe for ioye of his sounes which were lost and are returned agayne which was neuer a niggard of his meate and drinke in so much that when he had none other but seruantes in his howse yett he prouyded so royally for them that as euerye one of them wysshed so dyd his meate taste in his mouth For consider onlye the excellencye of Manna of the olde law First of all it came from heauen without any labor of the Israelites it came dayly except one daye in the weeke that they should haue it fressh and fressh it came so plentyfullye that yt couered all the grounde about theyr tentes and yet so equallye that he which gathered more dyd not abounde and he which gathered lesse did not want it came so simply as if it had ben the seedes of coryander and it tasted so wonderfully that it conteyned all delycates and hartes desyre it continued to them .xl. yeares togeather and as surely as their bodyes were noryshed with that bread so sure thei might be that their sowles mindes were fed with the grace of Christ. And all this yet was bestowed vpoÌ„ the Iewes before the incarnation of the souâ—e of God before the comming of the holyghost in the law of bondage in the tyme of figures and when God as I may saye did not yet keepe open householde in all coÌ„treyes of the world neither make so great cheare as he mynded to doe afterwarde Therefor if such thinges were geaueÌ„ vnto the Iewes what was to be reserued for Christians and if we haue not in deede the reall body of Christ emong vs what lyke thing haue we vnto their Manna Yf there were no other argument but this one which is gathered upon the conferring of tyme with tyme state with state figures with truthes Moyses with Christ Iewes with Christians yet of very congruence and conscience we should looke to fare better then the Israelites dyd in the barren wyldernes But except our Sauior his wordes this is my bodye this is my bloud be vnderstanded literally and really we fare a thousand partes worse For as in our bread vnitie is represented so might it haue ben in 〈◊〉 Manna and as you be as verely assured that your sowle doth participate Christ in spirite as your bodye doth receyue the externall bread so likewise they which were spirituall emoÌ„g the Israelites did in their Manna conceyue and receyue the bread of lyfe and the Sauior of the world and againe as your sacramentall bread is a token and seale vnto you of the goodnes and promyses of God so was Manna vnto them and that with much more myracle and coÌ„fort So that you haue nothing in this your Sacrament of the new law which should be most excellent which one maye not fynde in the Manna of the olde law which yet was but a shadow and figure of the bodye of Christ in the Sacrament but Manna of that tyme had many wonderful prerogatyâ—es by which it farr passeth in estimation the Sacrament of Christ his bodye and bloud if there be no more in it then you doe conceyue and vtter Which because it is vnreasonable therefore we can not but vnderstand Christ his wordes This is my bodye c. in that sense which we doe and we doe not feare least we shall offende in making to great a price and value of the SacrameÌ„t but rather we coÌ„fesse that we shall neuer be able to expresse the maiestie the miracles and the dignitie of it As for you if you be delighted with cold rost and would not if you might haue Christ really and naturally God and man bodye and sowle to be geauen vnto you but can satisfye your appetyte with only figures sygnes and similitudes you shal sytt by your selfe for the Catholikes vntyll God shall sende you more charitie Which if it were as it should be in you you could not fynde fault with the reall presence of Christ in his Sacrament and call it a torment vnto your conscience but rather you would be werye of all scrappes and leauinges of an yesterdayes feast and contemne all counterfait dyshes which haue more apparance then substance When you were a childe if one had brought vnto you a byrde or a fysh made in fyne and sweete paste with a figg or such lyke thing within you would haue ben more delighted in it theÌ„ with the true meate of the byrde or fysh but after that you be come to the state of a man you should couet the sounde and strong meates and lett all such creekes and knackes alone to serue for children God graunt that you fynde not hereafter fault also with the Catholikes that they teache you to beleiue a true and natural flesh and sowle in Christ and that you reproue not the charges and cost which God hath bestowed vpon the redemption of mankynde because the only worde of his blessed will was able to saue vs so that his incarnation needed not but only a similitude of a body But for this tyme let this be an end of this Replye and I would to God here might be an end of all coÌ„trouersie which because it is not verye credible in such confusion and vnrulynes of sectes and diuisions therfor some answer is to be looked for or rather some similitude of it For as concerning any true answer in the defence of your part you can neuer make it in those pointes which you are burdened withall in this Replye as your mysconstruyng of holye Fathers and reasoning out of the purpose with many absurde and vnlearned conclusion Yet no doubt but you will coÌ„tinew styll in your stoutnes and by one meane or other mayntayne your Capitaynes against vs. For if Goliath be stroken downe yet you sett vpp an Achilles and by chainging of the name you thinke to chainge the cause But if your bastard brauery had not ben sufficiently exemplified by the fact of the vncircumcided Goliath yet now by the crake which you sett vpon your prophane Achilles you proue your selfes more lyke that fell Gyant theÌ„ euer you were before For allthough
of the church Apostolike and for good cause they are to be dyscredited Loe Syr if you be of a good conscience contynew in the fayth which you haue professed and for two symple markes which euery man will set vpon his religion take these fower notes which al christendome aloweth of which fower there is no heretike which worke he neuer so craftely shall euer be able to proue that any one may serue for hym The .xiiij. Chapiter IF you had acquaynted your selfe with faythfull Abraham and Isaac and dyd beleiue that God is able to performe what so euer he promiseth you would make no question of the reall presence of Christ in the Sacrament and that cheif principle being once confessed you shold neuer make great quarreling about certayne consequencies which folow therevpon As whether Christ his bodye be vpon a thousand aultars at one tyme or whether accidentes be without substance and bodye without place or whether reseruation may be alowed with diuers other questions This is the fault which the Catholike in this last Chapiter fyndeth with you in auoyting of which you saie first We graunt as freely as you with Abraham and Isaac that God is able to perfourme what so euer he doeth promyse Yf you thinke as you speake why are these bodging and souterly argumentes so ofte repeted emong you that Christ his naturall bodye is in heauen ergo yt can not be on the earth Item a natural body occupyeth onlye one place but the sacrament is in many places Againe accidences can not be without substance ergo the substance of bread is not chainged into the substance of Christ his bodye Are not these your argumentes most manyfest tokens that you speake against the possibilitie to haue Christ his naturall bodye in the Sacrament For otherwise you should not aske how it might be after the Iewysh fasshyons but rather proue that it is not so after the maner of wyse heretikes Well yet thankes be to God that you be not so folysh as your fellowes and that you graunt that yt ys possible inough vnto God to bring all that vnto passe which the church teaceth vs as concerning the sacrament but saye you How can you shew that it was God his holy wyll to haue so many myracles wrought as you without necessitie doe make in the Sacrament Mary Syr we shew it by his owne wordes This is my bodye This is my bloud vpon which one myracle all the rest of our beleif therein doeth follow by necessitie of consequence You aske allso for an example in some place of all the scriptures lyke vnto this merueylous worke which is beleiued to be in the sacramēt Wherein I answer you with the same wordes as S. Augustine answered Volusianus as concerning the incarnation of God Yf you aske for a reason the thing shal not be wonderfull and if you requyre an example the thing shall not be singular Also the myracles which the scriptures speake of are not therefore beleiued because they haue other myracles of lyke sute with them but because God is allmightie and because all scripture is true We doe not apoint as though all were of our one making but we belieue that Christ his very body is truly in the sacramēt and that it is there not in maner of proportion quantitie or figure also that it maye be in a thousand places at once and yet in neuer a one of them all locallye which is to saye as in a place of his owne Oh saye you Is not this to take awaye the nature of a bodye from his bodye and in deede to affirme it to be no bodye See loe where you be now Do not these wordes importe that it can not be that a naturall body shold contynue naturall and be in a thousand places at once in which your saying what other thing doe you but priuelye conclude that it is impossyble In which least you should seeme to denye the power of God of which you spake reuerentlye a lytle before you amend the matter and saye Yet we say not but that God is able to worke that also if it be his pleasure Verely verelye you be vncertayne in all your conclusions for if you graunt that God is able to do that which we reporte of hym that he worketh in our Sacrament why talke you of the nature of a bodye and taking awaye of the nature of it if Christ be really in the Sacramēt And if it be vnpossible to haue a bodye without quantitie and in a thousand places at once as it is to make that one selfe same thing should be a bodye and no body why saie you that God is able t◠worke this also if it be his pleasure you offende in both sydes doubting at one tyme of God his allmightmes by which we beleiue his naturall bodye to be in the sacrament and at an other tyme making hym so allmighty as though he could bring to passe that such thinges might agree togeather as are in them selues plaine contradictorie the one to the other But as in this later point you goe beyond all truth and possibility so in the other I trust you wil hereafter be more stedefast and neuer argue against the power of God which is able to performe all those articles which the Catholikes haue gathered vpō the sacramēt Which now you begynn to doe at length and saye that it is not God his will to doe as we beleiue he hath done in the sacramēt But how proue you this For neither is there any necessitie that shold once trayne hym to doe yt nor doeth his word teach vs that euer he did the lyke These be your owne reasons as it is easylye to be perceyued by the weight of them which if you will follow in other pointes of our fayth you maye conclude all our Crede to deserue no credit at all For neyther anye necessitie cōstrayned God first to make and afterward to redeeme mankynde and the most of all his workes are of such a peculyar excellency that we maye thinke right well of eche of them that they are in theyr kynde singular what necessitie constrayned our Sauior to take our death vpon hym and what example haue you in all the scriptures lyke vnto the myracle of the death of God Ergo according vnto your diuine logike it is only an inuention of the papistes that God hym selfe did suffre a most paineful death for man It is wysedome for vs rather to beleiue the church then to allow such argumentes by which we maye destroye all true religion And yet not only the church teacheth but the scripture also wytnesseth that this which the Christians receyue in the Sacrament is the bodye of Christ hym selfe as he said most playnly This is my bodye which is geuen for you Now whether the verbe substātiue Sum es fui might be interpreted by transsubstantiare tell me fyrst I praye you whether Sum
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