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
great in the Christians at those blessâ—â— dayes that rather then â—hei would haue receiued alone to the confounding of Godes lâ—w and ordenance thei would haue ben coÌ„tent neuer to eate any thing in this world but â—uffre the most cruell death of hunger And vpon this ground so sâ—re that it is not against Christ his institution to receiue alone we can do none otherwise but confesse that the priest receiuing alone is not to be pulled by you from the aultar not denying but that in the primitiue church the people most tymes receiued with the priest and that if thei had not done so thei were coÌ„maunded to go out of the church which thing yet you doe labor so to proue as though the obtayning of it did make any thing to the purpose but orderly folowing our intent which is to proue that sole receiuing is not against Christ his institutioÌ„ and that it is not necessarye to haue allwaies a particular communion Now because the Catholike in his authorities of Tertullyan S. Cyprian and S. Ambrose proued not only sole receyuing to haue ben vsed at that tyme but also communion vnder one kynde which thing secondly in this chapiter you take vpon you to reproue let vs marke your fighting in this parte and trye masteryes with you Fyrst you saye that the institution of Christ is expresly against vs for In the Euangelistes and S. Paule we see testified that Christ tooke bread and gaue with it his bodye and afterwarde tooke the cupp and gaue with it his bloud and willed them to obserue and vse the same You make a shamefull and wycked lye in sayeing that it is testified either in the Euangelistes or Pawle that Christ tooke bread and gaue with it his body for it is maniâ—est that he tooke bread and delyuered it sayeing This is my body and not as you reporte with this I geaue my body But the scriptures I perceyue are not yet playne inough for your purpose and you will I feare neuer be contented vntyll after many affected translations of the scripture in to the mother toÌ„gue you alter the autentike and pure text of it by conneighing in these wordes Take and eate with this is my body Then as concerning Christ his institution lyke as he spake then to his Apostles only and in them vnto his priestes ' of the newe lawe so the priestes doe allwayes when they coÌ„secrate receyue vnder both kindes but as for priestes not consecrating or the laye people standing by it is not of necessitie to delyuer it vnto them in both And hereof we haue alleaged this cause vnto you that it is a matter indiâ—â—erent and not of the substance of the Sacrament O saye you ye flee to your olde place of refuge why Syr what would you haue vs to doe if you keepe styll one argument maye not we lykewise applye one answere And is euerye thing fresh and gaye which you bring although it be twentye tymes repeted and not once proued and shall not we haue licence to refell your obiections with such an answer as you neuer yet haue disproued yet we haue not barely affirmed our saying but we haue geauen good cause for it that to receyue vnder both kyndes should not be of the necessarie substance of the Sacrament as concernyng the people Of which causes you choose out one where we saye that per concomitantiam the body of Christ is neuer without his bloud and his bloud is not seperated from his body so that no losse or hinderance cometh vnto the receyuer which taketh as much vnder one kynde as he should haue doone vnder both At which cause you peck with a skornefull exclamation and saye O profounde and deepe fett reason wherein you seeme to make your selfe wyser then Christ hymselfe that ordeyned the sacrament But I would that you or the best of your syde were but a quarter so godly or learned or wyse as those Masters of diuinitie which were authors of the worde â—oÌ„comitantia the meaning of which worde was euer beleiued in thâ— church of Christ It is yet a comfort vnto vs that such thinges as we beleiue 〈◊〉 not inuented of late by our selues but receiued of the teachers of Christendome but o superficiall and light wittes of yours which make Christ not to haue beÌ„ so wise as he was which resist his holyeghost and goe about to reade a lecture vnto the Church of God What fault doe you fynde with concomitantia Mary saye you The communion of Christ his bodye and bloud ys not the worke of nature in this Sacrament What meane you by the wordes communion of his bodye we talke of concomitantia that is whether vnder the forme of bread there be his bodye accoÌ„panyed with his bloud and his flesh togeather And you tell vs that the communion of his bodye is not the worke of nature Speake vnto the matter and shewe some reason why that his bodie shold be without bloud in the sacrament of bread VVhat so euer is here geauen vnto vs is to be taken by fayth As whoe should saye that fayth might rest vpon a fancy or figure or that by the same fayth by which I beleiue that I receiue his body I might not also beleiue that I receiue togeather his bloud But agayne So much is geauen vnto vs as God appointed to geaue of whose will and pleasure we know no more then his wordes declare vnto vs. Why Syr doth not the worde bodye declare well inough that it is not without bloud When Saint Iohn in his ghospell sayeth The worde was made flesh will you saie with olde heretikes that the worde tooke not also our lyfe and sowle vnto hym because S. Iohn mencyoneth none of them expresly but only that the word was made fleshe Yet allmightie God wâ—â—ch spake by the Euangelist was wise and able inough to declare his mynde In Christes naturall bodye that ys in heauen I know his flesh ys not without his bloud but in the sacrament which is no naturall worke how will you assure me that the flesh and bloud ysioyntly signified and geauen vnto me vnder one parte onlye Yf the sacrament be no naturall worke what is it then Supernatural or artificial Yf you make it a lesse worke then naturall then do you debate greatlye the glorye of the new testament whereas the manna of the olde lawe and water which issued out of a rock for the Israelites were more excelleÌ„t figures then the verities of them which are emong true Christians But if you thinke that they be not naturall to make vs thereby to conceyue a greater estimation of them then saie I so muche the more it is credible that the bloud should be ioyned vnto the body because that in very common nature we see it so and nothing wonder at it But yet saye you Christ which knew as well as you the ioynt condition of his flesh and bloud dyd not
apointmēt will and pleasure neuer wanteth any one part of hys perfect and full misticall bodie Otherwyse how can the bodie be well offered without the head which for that cause onlie is an acceptable bodie and worthe offering because it cleaueth vnto such an head Againe S. Austine in this place allthough he denieth that the priest offereth sacrifice vnto the Martirs yet he confesseth that the Martirs are named at our sacrifice declaring thereby most plainelie against you that we haue a sacrifice which thei are not but at which thei haue a due and conuenient commemoration Likewyse againe we saie with Chrisostome as you doe that we offer euerie daie doing it in remembrance of his death but we add further out of the same place that this sacrifice is one and not manie And allso that we do not offer vpp now one tomorow an other but allwaies the selfesame For els because it is offered vpp in manie places thei be manie Christes Not so But Christ is euerie where one being whole both here and allso there one bodie For lyke as he which is offered vpp euerie where is one bodie and not manie bodies euen so is the sacrifice allso one Therefor to conclude with S. Austine true it is that in our sacrifice there is a thankes geauing and remembrance of the bodie and bloud of Christ but consider that which foloweth that he gaue and shedd for vs. By which wordes he willeth you to vnderstand that we haue in deede a remembrāce of Christ his body and bloud not in respect of his reall absence from vs but in respect of his painefull suffering for vs. You may see then by this tyme that you haue proued a sacrifice of praiers of thankes geauing and a remembrāce of Christ his passion to be celebrated in the church which the scholes did teache manie hundred yeares before you or Luther war borne and which we knowe better then you and that you may be ashamed to haue gone so farr besides the purpose being in deed able to disproue by no authoritie the sacrifice propitiatorie of Christ in his church against which all your malice is I except this argument onlie which in deed your wisedome doth vse more then once when you saie Eusebius here maketh no mention of propitiatorie sacrifice and S. Austyne saieth not that here is an offering of Christ his bodie and bloud for sinnes Ergo there are no such thinges at all As though that all thinges could be spoken at once or all misteries should be straitwaies reuealed or as though there were no difference betwyxt not speaking of the thing and denieing the thing In which kind of reasoning you cōtinue for the reste of your chapiter alleaging out of S. Cypriane you tell not where out of the Greeke canō of the Masse that thei offered for our Ladie and out of S. Chrisostome that thankes were offered for the whole world and as well for them which were before as them which shall come after of which you conclude saying This was their offering for the dead and not a practise to pull soules out of purgatorie for merchandise and monie as you haue vsed in your priuate Masse This ys your practise both in reasoning and in slaundering In slaundering because you attribute vnto our religion a selling and byeing of soules out of purgatorie for monie which you neuer find to be taught or alowed of any one good man and much lesse of the whole church In reasoning because you conclud that not to be at all in the author which you find not expressed in some place which pleaseth you For to cōtinue in the testimonies which you doe bring allthough S. Cyprian in the .5 epistle of his fourth boke make mention of sacrifice for martirs vndoubtedlie to thanke God for thē yet in his first boke and .ix. epistle he proueth that there is an oblation which the priestes doe make for the deade such as were no martirs and he testifieth allso of a deprecatiō and praier which the church vseth in their names For in chargeing the clergie vnto which he there writeth to make no oblation and praier for the soule of one Victor which had transgressed a canon and decree of the Bisshopes he sheweth therewithall what the clergie would haue done had not his cōmaundemēt staied them and he proueth that for some kind of such as were departed not onlie praises and thankes but supplications rather and praiers were offered Then as concerning the greeke Canon which of them you did meane I cold not tel but now by reason of M. Grindal sermon which he made not long sence at an Englisshe funerall of Ferdinand the Emperor it is euident vnto me that you meane the masse of S. Chrisostome In which allthough I can not find any oblation made for our ladie the prophetes or Apostles allthough that a commemoration of thankes may be offered also for them yet if it were true that in one place of that greek Canon an oblation were made for our ladie that doth not proue but in an other place of the same Canon an expresse oblation and praier was made for the deade such as were not yet at rest For after the consecration of the sacrament ended he saieth within a few lynes we offer vnto the this reasonable seruice for those which slepe and rest in the faithe for our fathers and our greate graund fathers thorough the intercession of Patriarches Prophetes Apostels Martirs and all Sainctes But especiallie for the supplications and praiers of the perpetuall virgin Marie mother of God our Qnene for euer blessed vndefiled and most holie Sainct Iohn the baptist prophete and precursor the holie and most renoumed Apostels and the Sainct whose memorie we celebrate and all thy Sainctes visite vs o God and remember all them which sleepe in our Lord in hope of the rysing againe vnto euerlasting life and graūt them rest where the light of thy countenance doth intend ouer them Now againe allthough you alleage a true saying out of S. Chrisostome vpon the .viij. Chapiter of S. Mathew that the priest standing at the Aultar when the sacrifice is sett furth commaundeth the standers by to offer vp thankes to God for the world in which testimonie it ys playne to see that the sacrifice proposed is one thing and the sacrifice of thankes an other yet to lett goe this vantage you can not denie but he in an other place saieth It was decreed by the Apostles not in vaine that in the celebratiō of the venerable misteries a memorie should be made of them which were departed hence Thei knew that much commoditie and much profit dyd come hereof vnto them For the whole people standing by with lifting vpp their handes vnto heauen and also the cumpanie of priestes and the venerable sacrifice being laied out and proponed how should we not pacifie God in praying for them Therefor it is cleare that your argument is verie vnlerned
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
people with vs doe allwayes receyue vnconsecrated wyne after they haue eaten the bodye of Christ in forme of bread and that the cupp which you geaue is vnconsecrated they did receyue in the forme of wyne as much good as you minister vnto then and so by indifferent reckenyng you can not complayne that the Catholikes take any thing from the people which geaue them as much as you doe that is to saye cleane wyne and no more But doe you call this an altering of the matter of the sacrament when we vse none other matter at all besydes that which Christ appointed but only admitt a good dispensation and order in the vse of it yf there might be any faulte founde with vs in this point for ministring the sacrament at one tyme vnder the forme of bread at an other tyme vnder the forme of wyne yet it is not proued hereby that we chainge the matter of the sacrament For how so euer we doe it yet we minister in none other matter then bread or wyne how then do you proue that we chainge not only the forme but also the matter maye not euery reasonable man then see that you proue your selfe what you are doe you make any regard eyther what you promyse eyther what you performe here I challendge you to make good your worde or els if you be an honest man to reuoke your worde Where is that matter of the sacrament which the Catholikes doe alter Shew if you can that we vse in our ministeries anye other thing then breade wyne and water or any thing more or lesse for the matter of the sacrament But this can neuer be proued Yet you as though it were proued so ye conclude most wyckedlye and slauÌ„derouslye that the sacrameÌ„t of the Lord his supper hath by our doctryne eyther no parte that is of the substance or els that we haue the aucthoritie to chaynge euerye parte of it Whiche conclusion of yours is not only so false but so folysh also that if I would graunte all your premisses which you haue out of all fasshion diuided yet this your conclusion will not follow For all that which you vnderstande by the termes of matter and forme of the sacrament perteyneth only to the manner of ministryng the bread and the bodie wyne and the bloud with the wordes of the ghospell In which pointes if I would for spedines sake graunt that we obserued nothing of that which you requyer yet you should not so absolutely and boldely reporte of vs that we leaue eyther no part of substance as coÌ„cerning the sacrament either chainge it at our pleasures and take awaye Christe his institution For as I saye againe vnto you we holde the wordes of Christ This is my bodye as the forme and bread wyne and water as the matter which can not be altered We beleiue also after the wordes are spoken by a lawfull priest vpon the breade wyne and water that Christ is really present vnder eche of those formes to be vnto vs a sacrifice for synne a foode for our hunger a confort in this miserie a pledge of the euerlasting glorie And we beleiue his wordes to be so true that if none will receiue hym when he cometh before theÌ„ yet that their incredulitie or their lack of charity doth not make his presence nothing How saie you then now for shame do we leaue no parte that is of substance in the sacrament because we doe not agree with you in such kynde of substanciall partes as you haue inuented Do we make our gouernors omnipotent as you saye in transposing and altering the sacramentes instituted by Christ or maye we defraude the people of the whole sacrament I would you did no more harme to the people or take no more vpon you then the church hath done They should not be serued with signes and figures in steede of verities and the wordes of Christ should stand as he ment them saying This ys my bodye which is geauen for you and This is my bloud of the newe testament But for this matter we shall haue an other tyme and leysure The seuenth Chapiter THE Catholike in his Apologie considering that our aduersaryes doe so egerly stryue for the hauing of companye to receyue with the minister because thei would make vpp a communion answereth directly and truly that although none doth visiblie receyue at the same aultar with the priest yet neuer the lesse that there is a communion For lyke as in prayer when I am alone I praye togeather with all them which be of the same body and fayth with me so although I receiue the Sacrament alone yet in deed I communicate with other Against which so playne reason although nothing can be directly spoken yet the master of the defence wil shew his cunning how many pretye florysshes he can deuise besides the matter And first he auauÌ„seth him selfe with standing a typtoe and ouerlooking of other with these wordes VVho seeth not that prayer and the Lorde his supper in the vse of them be nothing lyke But whoe seeth not that you canâ—not tell your selfe how lyke they are For as prayer is made for other so in lyke manner is the bodye of Christ offred by him for other Offred I saye once vppon the crosse immediatlye by hym selfe in a bloudy and visible maner to the redemption of mankynde and yet daylye styll offred by hym through the ministery of his priestes in mysticall and vnbloudy fasshion to the employing of that redemption But who goeth about to proue that praying and receiuing should be both in all pointes a lyke Prayer you saye is a common action which done of one maye stretche to the benefyte of many but the Lorde his supper is no such common action The coÌ„moditie of prayer is allwayes common but it the acte of praying is more oft priuate then common The receyuing of the sacrament is a personall and singular action but the commoditye when it foloweth is communicated with the whole bodye One maye praye without a guyde one can not baptize hymselfe without a minister A mans prayer also maye profyt hym which prayeth not but any ones baptisme may not profyt hym that is not baptized And what of all this Christ saye you taught vs to praye one for an other but he neuer said receiue the communion or be baptized one for an other O Syr remembre your selfe The Catholike against whom you write doth not medle with this question of which you speake He saieth not that one maye be baptized or houseled for an other but he sayeth if you will marke that lyke as in our praying alone we communicate with all Christendome so in receiuing alone we communicate with the whole body of Christ. And to make this his saying playne vnto your runnyng wytt he alleageth the article of our Crede which is that we beleiue the coÌ„munion of sainctes And to make the matter further yet out of all doubt he reciteth a
with staÌ„ding in two sundry external thinges geaue the communion of them to his Disciples This letteth nothing our beleif which do know as well as you that Christ gaue his body and bloud vnder two formes of bread and wyne and yet notwithstanding one Christ was receiued vnder both formes of bread and wyne But therefor he deliuered hymselfe vnder those two kyndes and not one that we might the better consider his passion in which the bloud was separated from the bodye Therfore the fayth of the communicantes in the one parte receiueth the body trusting to Christ his promises the same fayth in the other parte receyueth the bloud beleiuing also our Sauior his wordes therein You haue not to proue that in the one part the body was receiued but that the bodye onlye without bloud is receiued And then further where you say that the faith of the communicantes receiueth the bodie doeth it receiue it as a dead carkas shame to thinke it or else as the bodye of the soune of God Christ our Sauior saieth The flesh profiteth nothing it is the spirite which quyckeneth How then doth the communicantes faith receiue such a sole body which hath neither bloud neither lyfe neither diuinitie in it The forgeauenes of synnes commeth only from the Deitie but the cheif instrument by which God worketh is Christes our Sauior most dearlye beloued Humanitie Which if a man conceiue as separate from his Diuinitie then trulye as it is emong all creatures most excellent so yet is it but a creature and very lytle auayleable vnto vs mary as it is the bodye and bloud of hym which was not only man but also God most glorious his body and bloud doth releiue vs through the presence of his maiestie You therfore which do diuide Christ and by your faith which no wyse man doth euer trust make a receiuing of a body without all bloud lyfe or diuinitie doe most playnelie take the fructe of their redemption from the people and make them to hang vpon grosse imaginations of a bodye without bloud and bloud without a bodye to their exceading losse and iniurie But now if all other argumentes fayled vs and if your deuise were not so obscure and vyle as it is yet the authoritie of the church is no small thing emong Christians againste which you speake so lyke a madd master as though you knew the voyce of Christ better then the church of Rome which yet doe not know whether there be any Christ or no except it were for the authoritie of the church of Rome And whereas you buyld all your institutions and articles vpon the textes of the scripture and your priuate interpretations and coÌ„tempne your mother Church yet except you folow the voyce of the church of Rome you can with no reason defende that this which you holde is scripture And here againe you call vpon vs to remembre S. Cyprian which in all that epistle of his vnto which you do referr vs doth so make against them which ministred only in water that he coÌ„futeth also them which minister onlye in wyne prouing both by the old and new law that wyne and water both should be mengled togeather in the misteries But as concerning tâ—e receiuing vnder one kynde of which we haue to speake what aunswer you vnto the place of Tertullian or vnto S. Cyprian his authoritie You saye that our argumentes taken out of them are but coniectures and the same very vncertayne for often tymes in the Doctors where one kynde is mencyoned both are vnderstanded as after shall more appeare Let the wordes of the authors them selâ—es trye it whether you or we do vse the vncertayne coniectures Tertullian in his second booke vnto his wyfe where he telleth her of the sondrye faultes and inconueniencies into which those women do bring themselfes which after their husbandes death do become wyffes vnto infidell and heathen rulers or gentlemen theÌ„selues being Christians emong which this is a verye principall one that in the houses of paynyms they shall not well be able to keep the orders of Christian people he sayeth after other persuasions Shalt thou not be espied cùm lectulum cùm corpusculum tuum signas c when thow doest blesse thy bedd and thy bodye with the signe of the crossâ— when thou doest spet out with exuâ—flation some vncleane thing when also thou doest aryse in the night tyme to praye and shalt thou not be thought to worke some witchcrafte Shall not thy husband know what thou doest taste secretely of before all meate And if he know it he beleiâ—eth it to be bread and not that which it is said to be Of these wordes you gather that in the name of bread is vnderstanded also wyne and why so Mary because that some tymes emong the Doctors of which hereafter we shall speake more both kyndes are vnderstanded when but one is expressed ergo Tertullian in this place is in lyke maner to be construed But our collection is otherwise that because we reade but one kynde specifyed therefore without any necessitie we doe not make coniectures that he meaneth both And we see that Tertullian in this booke was not in such hast that he needed to speake by figures vnto his wyfe or to number syx for the dozen Then by common reason we see that wyne in so lyttle a quantitie as ones parte commeth vnto in the distributing of the mysteries was not to be reserued of any person because of the quyck alteration of it Allso we beleiue that vnder one kynde Christ wholye is geauen and therefor that the gouernors of the church were not so folysh or scrupulous as to make a necessitie of both And whereas you perceyue by this testimonye that sole receyuing was then vsed which by your sayeing Christ his institution doth not permit we had no iust occasion to mystrust the receyuing vnder one kynde which we know to be of no greater force then the receyuing with company And you also if you had good wyttes might for good cause feare least you were deceyued in the question of receiuing vnder both kindes whereas in the controuersie of sole receyuing you be so openly confounded which yet you doe as earnestile endeuor to proue as you doe shifte to vnderstand both kyndes in Tertullian whereas he mencioneth but one Note further that when Christ said This is my bodye you will haue no bloud to appertaine vnto it and when any Doctor doth speake onlie of bread you will at your pleasure make wyne to be vnderstanded Iniurious in the one and superfluous in the other Therefore let it be tryed which of our two sydes doth vse more vncertaine coniectures Now as concerning S. Cyprian When a certayne woman saieth he assayed with her vnworthye handes to open her cheste in the which SanctuÌ„ Domini fuit the holy dody of our Lorde was she was made afrayd by fyer arysing from thens that she durst
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
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
about hym as would had receyued then dydd the Deacon turne hymselfe to the people and saie Come you neere in the feare of God Which is confirmed by Sainct Chrisostome againe in hys Homelies vpon the Epistle vnto the Hebreus where he fayeth that the Deacon cryeth out and calleth vnto the people with these wordes sancta sanctu which ys these holie thinges are for the holie not before the priest doth consecrate but hanc emittit vocem postquam sacrificiū perficitur he speaketh this word after the sacrifice is thoroughly ended Wherfor as the offering of the sacrifice did not then hang vncertenly vpō the cummyng or going of the people so it ys vnreasonablie and vnlernedlie spoken that the daylie sacrifice had that name not because of the daily celebration but because of the seldome vsing of it when the people dyd gather themselues vnto the churche Furthermore yf for your pleasure sake Quotidiana when we talke of oblation doth not signifie dailie what will you saie vnto singulos dies euery daie by which we shal better perceaue the disease of your quotidian Nónne per singulos dies offerimus sayeth Chrisostome Doe we not offer vpp daie by daie how can so expresse mention of offering daye by daye be interpreted of you without a manifest lie to signifie a sacrifice celebrated not daylie but oftentymes you haue readen allso yf you remember it that the greeke church in the lent season dyd not celebrate but vpō saturdaie only and Sunday vsing for the rest of the weeke those hostes which were consecrated before And what other thing ys this speciall obseruation of theirs in the lent but a manifest argumēt that all the yere before and after they vsed daylie consecration Therefor trulie Syr you were to hardie in ventering vpon so strainge and vntrue interpretation of quotidian sacrifice especiallie whereas in so doing you are come within daunger of much folie For whereas by dryuing of your dailie oblation vnto seldome you would seeme to gather cumpany for euery such seldome oblation you forget the Sundaies and manie feastes of our blessed Ladie Apostels and Martirs which in the primitiue church were deuoutlie obserued by fasting watching lying on the ground and praying vnto all which the people resorting if thei dyd receaue at them all then make you S. Chrisostome yea and S. Ambrose S. Austine and the councell named Elibertinum verye forgetfull and hastie which either reproued the people because thei dyd communicate onlie at Easter or at some one or two feastes more in the yere either prouided against their slacknes that thei should receaue at the least thrise a yere Whereas after your saying there failed no such daie in which the people assembled togeather for praier sake but that ordinarilie communicants were readie to go vp and receiue with the priest Which yet is so vnlikelie that I meane at euerie holydaie the cummyng togeather of the people dyd allwaies serue to haue cōmunicants that you maie well doubt whether the best emong the people dyd receaue at the verie principall feastes and solemnities For by S. Chrisostome hymselfe it appeareth that the end of his vehemēt calling vpon the people was not to haue them in all hast to cōmunicate but to make them prouyde for cleanes of lyffe and conscience that thei might safelie and profitablie cōmunicate For sayeth he we doe alowe neither those which receaue once nor those which often nor those which seldome but those which come with a pure conscience And the preparation which thei were bydd to make was of such reuerent manner that euen the honest maried men should absteine from the cumpanie of their lawful wiues certen daies before thei receaued as it is manifest by a decree of Concilium Elibertinum and by S. Austyne in his sermons vnto the people What would S. Austine thē or the fathers of the primitiue church haue thought of your maried priestes which within an houre two or three after thei are departed frō their paramours doe come vnto the cōmunion table with heades full of wordlie cares and nightes fansies and there dare to call for the people and presse them if thei come not with the institution of Christ and Paule the first vnto the Corinthians the .xj. chapiter Whereas if there were any reuerence or regard of Christ in this new law of yours the example should neuer be suffered by which his speciall ministers might be prouoked vnto carnalitie For if laie men before thei communicated were cōmaunded to absteine from their lawful wyues what doth a minister a mā of God and quicke of the sprite with an vnlawfull woman or yokefelow which shold exhort others to the right and worthie manner of receiuing And againe if such cleanes was required in them whose life was occupied in worldlie busines and labor how could thei receaue dailie which could not be readie dailie And yet the dailie seruice of the church failed not because that peculiar and proper ministers were found to intend vpon it and the sacrifice depended not vpon the cummyng of the laitie because it is a principall and singular part of the clergies dutie But this you saye ys dallying to stand vpon the proper signification of the word quotidianum As though it were in you true dealing to bring by your exaggeration a quartan to a quotidian or by your extenuation a quotidian to a quartan as to saie that the sacrifice is named dailie in respect of the peoples receauing which perchaunse was but quarterlie or to denie that the sacrifice was dailie because the people were not readie but at principall and quaterlie feastes of the yeare And herein to greue vs againe you presse vs with the word frustra in vayne yet you doe it so manerlie that allthough much wrong be done therein vnto vs we should not for al that be iustlie or greatlie offended with you For if we wil geaue ouer the hold which we haue in the word quotidianum then will you allso let goe the word frustra but if we wil defend as the wordes literallie do sound that by S. Chrisostomes testimonie the sacrifice in his tyme was daily then saie you Then must you geaue me leaue as extremelie to vrge these .ij. sillabes frustra in vaine is our oblatiō in vaine is our sacrificing c. because it ys done without cumpanie to receiue with vs. It lyeth not in vs to geaue you leaue to make a lie and if the place itselfe will admitt your interpretation you are not so shamefast as to spare your aduantage for reuerence of the church your mother But whether you can haue any vantage in the extreme vrgyng of these .ij. sillabes frustra it ys not in vayne to cōsider First we saye with S. Chrisostom that the oblation was dailie and we take the worde daylye in his proper signification Then say you I will vse the worde frustra and I will saye that the daylye oblation was had in vayne
bloud c. Then is the English ministration vnperfecte which vsed not those wordes in the delyuering of their what shall I call it And except you meane those wordes what other in the ghospell maye serue to that purpose I can not deuise For as concernyng those wordes Take eate diuide yt emong you doe this in my remembrance they neede no repetitioÌ„ by mouth but onlye expressing of them in deede And then as concerning the worde diuide when yt is spoken to eche one of the coÌ„municantes to whom shall eche one of them diuide any partâ— of that the which he receyueth wholye hymselfe Yet if the worde diuidite diuide yt be an essentiall and formall parte of the sacrament as it is in vse then must euery one which shall rightlye vse it make partes and diuision of it except you meane that the vse of the sacrament perteyneth only vnto the minister or that the people must take and eate as the Ghospell commaundeth them and that to diuide it was not spoken to them although that worde doth also folowe in the ghospell But to what purpose haue you so scholastically made such a distinctioÌ„ betweene the matter and the forme of a thing Tâ—ewly that you â—ight with some ordeâ— declare it that our spirituall gouernours haue chainged all the partes of the Lord supper for they which take awaye both matter and forme leaue no substanciall part or point of the thing And you saie we haue done so Ergo yf this be proued the Catholikes be very traytors vnto God But how proue you that we haue chainged those principall partes belonging to Christ his supper saye first as concerning the forme and tell vs wherein we haue altered it mary Sometymes saye you the priest maye receyue alone without the people sometyme the people without the priest sometyme both togeather Call you this the altering of the forme and haue you so quyckly forgotten that you said the forme to be when the minister did geaâ—e the matter with the wordes of the ghospell how thinke you theÌ„ when he geaueth it to one alone with the wordes of the ghospell hath not that one person receyued the perfect Sacraâ—â—nt with all his partes according vnto your newlie deuised diuision what if the priest alone receyue the matter with his owne handes and vse the wordes of the ghospell doth he not fulfill all that which is to be requyred The priest you know doth fyrst receyue hym selfe before he geaueth vnto other And what doth he receyue I praye you doth there lack either matter or forme or anye essentiall parte vnto that which he receyueth Or will you saye that the sacrament which he hath allready taken and eaten hath not his iust forme before the people also haue receyued yf the case be so harde then were it necessarye that when the matter is taken into the handes of the communicantes a watchworde should be geauen when all they at once with the wordes of the ghospell should receyue that matter But if this be but a folysh toye meete for an idle brayne to thinke that eche one doth not receyue the sacrameÌ„t with all the partes of yt except his neighbor eate with hym how doe the Catholikes take awaye that very forme which you speake of in vsing of sole receyuing for your forme which you haue inueÌ„ted is to delyuer the matter with the wordes of the ghospell but the matter maye be delyuered vnto one alone or receyued of one alone with the wordes of the ghospell ergo the allowing of sole receiuing doth not take awaye your forme And this I speake as though it were true that which you bable of the forme of the sacrament For as concerning the verye forme of the sacrament the church hath allwayes taught and in all scholes it is openly declared that these wordes This is my bodye are the forme of the Sacrament But saye you I talke of the forme of the ministration of the sacrament Why dyd you not tell vs so much of your mynde at the beginnyng And if we did not keepe the forme of ministratioÌ„ how could you proue thereby that we altered the formall parte of the Lorde his supper For I trust you be not so voyde of naturall sense but that you vnderstand the matter and forme of a good dyshe of meate and the seruing in of the same meate to be sundrye thinges and different And as the man and the meate are different so is the matter and forme of either man or meate seperately to be distincted and talked of Yet you in so playne a matter haue so forgotteÌ„ your selfe that begynning to speake of the matter and forme of the sacrament as it is in vse and hauing ended the definyng of the matter you skyp straytwayes to an other thing and tell vs of the forme of the ministration Much lyke as if you would saye I will tell you my masters the matter and forme of a marchepane when it is come to be eateÌ„ the matter of it is suger rosewater allmondes c. The forme is not that you should fetch it out of the ouen your selfes but tarye vntyll one cleane fellow or other bring it to the table and some other diuyde vnto euery geste a conuenient parte an portion of it Which yet is no more the forme of a marchepane theÌ„ it is of a rosted pece of beefe when it is cleanely brought vnto the table and diuided emoÌ„g the gestes But make an end of your accusation and declare how we doe chainge the other substanciall parte of the sacrament which is the matter The matter also â–ª ye signifye maye be altered at your pleasure This is a most euident lye For all our scholes doe holde that the necessarye matter of the Sacrament is breade and wyne and the most due and conuenyent matter is vnleauened bread and wyne mixed with water Yea we be so earnest in the defence of this truth that we be angrye very much with a certayne kynde of heretikes which will vse no water in the celebrating of the misteries I meruail therefore much what reason you maye alleage to proue this fault by vs. Yet you saye For to receyue the Sacrament of the bloud is not of the substance of Christ his institution for if it were the churche could not alter yt as you doe comonly in the ministryng to the people Yf this be true tell vs what name that hath which the geaue to the people in steed of the blood Doe we geaue them the sacrament of blood either in ale beere mylke or any other liquor besides wine yf we do not how can you saye that we chainge the matter no mary saye you you geaue them no sacrament of the bloud at all That which we doe we haue receyued from antiquitie and authoritie and the receyuer taketh no losse therein except he thinke that Christ his Sauior is not perfectlie vnder the forme of bread And againe if you consider that the
Therfor he calling the Bishop vnto him asked whether he did agree with the Catholike Bishopps that is to saye with the church of Rome for the church of that countrey as concerning that place was in a schisme Which being well considered of hym and that allthough they of those quarters had beleife in God yet they were not faythfull vnto the churche he departed from thens differring the payment of his thankes the debt which he was in for receiuing the Sacrament and went forth vntyll he came to such place where he might be safely discharged Now therefore if thei had ben ministers which deliuerd the Sacrament vnto S. Satyrus in the shipp he might haue receiued it at their handes wheÌ„ he was now come to lande and neuer haue sought further for the matter but whiles he was so desyrous to receyue his Lorde and defendor Praesulem suum sayeth S. Ambrose and yet was not so bolde as to receyue him in that couÌ„trey he declareth therebie not only that he had no priestes in his companie but also that we shold not coÌ„municate with schysmatikes â–ª and he interpreteth vnto vs what a Catholike Bishopp is saying that he is such a one as agreeth with the church of Rome But to make more doubtes and that in speaking much it should appeare that the historye of Satyrus is not cleane and cleare against you There ys say you nothing to the contrarye but that the same persons which had the Sacrament of our Lord his bodye had also about them the Sacrament of the bloud Yf you leese the cause yet you prouide to wynn the praise of a man full of nymblenes and actiuety in his inuentioÌ„ And truly you finde nothing to the coÌ„trarie but that Christ deliuered the Sacrament of his bodie only without the cupp vnto the rest of his disciples and folowers whiche were in other chambers of the house where he kept his maundey But if they of whom ye speak had the SacrameÌ„t of the bloud about them wherin had they it I praye you Eyther in some conuenient vessel or els after some other fasâ—ion as diuers of simplicitie vppon a zeale at that tyme vsed Doth the history geaue you any occasioÌ„ to thinke so or els doe you speake it but vpon your owne head For if some at the beginning when the church was persecuted openlie by the princes of the world dyd carie the sacrament of Christ his bloud about them it doth not folow that in Sainct Ambrose his tyme wheÌ„ the church was more enlarged and better setteled the lyke manner was allwaies vsed You tell vs that in taking of a long iorney some caryed the sacrament of the blould with them and because they could not conuenietly carye wyne with them they soked the Sacrament of the Lorde his bodye in the bloode As whoe should saye that thei might not more coÌ„uenient lie haue caryed the bloud in some vessel for the purpose Other saie you moysted a lynnen cloth in the SacrameÌ„t of bloud Some either because they could not by nature or would not for religioÌ„ drinke wyne vsed only water Some other vsed mylke for wyne But what of this Can you inferr vpon these perticular cases that it is lykely that they which delyuered the Sacrament vnto Satyrus as S. Ambrose writeth had the Sacrament of bloud also about them as you doe suppose As well it will folow then that thei had the Sacrament of Christ his bloud eyther in forme of water only or of milke because that you haue readen that in such formes it hath ben receyued Consider also that in S. Ambrose his time the church was not so much vnder feare of princes as before neyther was holy Satyrus such a simple sowle allthough a nouice then in our faith as to receiue the Sacrament of such whom he knew not to be perfectlie instructed in the Christian religion And he being a man of honor it is not lykely that the Iniâ—â—ati the full Christians I meane which were in the selfe same ship with him did kepe the sacrameÌ„t with theÌ„ in such sort as was to be wynked at for a tyme and not absolutely to be allowed But let yt be with them as you will and you shal freely make as many supposinges as you can that thei had the Sacrament of the bloud eyther in a vessell or soked in bread or in a lynnen cloth or in any other maner Yet what saie you to holy Satyrus how did he receyue it at their handes In a stole as you call yt Well Sir the worde is orarìum which if it be not well Englished a stâ—le what other name do you geaue it You leaue it with out a name and will haue orarium to signifie perchaunse a what shall I call it to the intent you maye applie it to what so euer thing you will S. Ambrose in his oratioÌ„ made of the beleif which we should haue of your resurrection speaking of Lazarus sayeth that Facies eius orario colligata erat His face was bounde vpp with a sudarye or kerchey Againe in his tenth booke of epistles speaking of the holye relyques of Geruasius and Prothasius Quanta oraria iactitantur quant a indumenta â–ª supra reliquias sacratissimas vt tactu ipso medicabilia reposcantur How many napkins or kercheyes how manye coates or clothes are cast vpon the most holye relyques that being made medicinable through the verye touching of them they might be requyred for and had awaye agayne Therefor if orarium shall not be englysshed a stole yet that you maye not thinke that it was a bottle to carye wyne in I haue shewed you two places out of Saint Ambrose in which it is taken for a lynnen cloth And now if holy Satyrus dyd put that sacrameÌ„t which he receiued in a lynnen cloth and wrapped it about his neck it is very probable vnto vs that it was in forme of bread onlye except you will yet styll contynew in your imagination and make a gesse that it was either a mylkesopp or a wynesopp or a lynneÌ„ cloth moysted with wyne which he folded vpp in a kerchey napkyn or stole And then lett any indifferent man be iudge which of vs two speaketh most reasonably you which thinke that he had the sacrament of bloud togeather with the sacrament of Christ his bodye or we which can not deuyse how wyne should be there inclosed where we reade no mencion of other thing but only of a lynen cloth Now as concernyng that where you saye that lerned and holye men did wynke and beare with many thinges in the begynnyng as though the reseruation of the blessed Sacrament or vsing of it in suchesorte as that holy Satyrus dyd were to be numbred in that kynde of thinges you make S. Ambrose therein to lack a greate part of his fortitude of mynde and wysedome For he such a Bishop would neuer haue suffred any substanciall parte of our fayth to be defaced within
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
awaye all the partes of the Lorde his supper by defence of priuate masse What a wycked and shamefull lye is this For there was neuer yet any masse celebrated emong vs so quycklie so shortlie so secretelie and so much without cumpany but it had in it breade wyne and water blessing breaking remembring of Christ his passion togeather with all that which the Apostle speaketh of vnto Timothe saying Therefore I praye the first of all that besechinges prayers requestes and thankes geuing be made for all men c. But why should we make wondring at this lye being not the first in your defence and hauing many after folowers Will you declare this in order which you haue taken in hande to proue against vs Your hart is good euer allthough your matter be nought For this you saye The Sacrament as it is in vse hath two partes the matter and the forme What partes hath it then before it come to the vse of which you speake And if there should chaunce to be no such present vse of the sacrameÌ„t what matter and forme hath it as it is considered without the vse Can you define this sacrament which are so cunnyng in the numbring of the partes of it as it is in vse And hath not euerie sacrament matter and forme of which two it is constituted Is not the sensible thing and element as bread wine oyle c. called the matter of them and the wordes which are added to those elementes are not thei called the formes The worde sayeth S. Augustyne commeth vnto the element and there is made a sacrament Bread is the matter of the sacrament of the aultar and the wordes This is my bodye are the forme of it which two when thei are brought togeather by the intention of such as are called rightlie to the office straitwaies there is a sacrament consisting of the visible signe and of the inuisible and naturall body of our Sauyor And whether it be receiued or reserued God doth not pull back his worde at the departing or not comming of men But goe to what saye you of the matter of the sacrament as it is in vse The matter is bread and the bodye wyne and the blood of Christ. Yf the bodye of Christ be the matter as you separate the matter from the forme how commeth it to passe I pray you that there is the bodye of Christ to hym which will vse the bread Do you thinke that where so euer any breade is there is allso the bodye of Christ to hym which will vse the bread Yf this be false as it is then I saye that the body with which and the bread you make vpp the matter of the sacrament as it is in vse doth not come to the breade without some diâ—ine operation Except you thinke that any power of creature is able to exhibite the body of his creator and maker What operation then is that by which this matter which you saye is bread and the body of Christ doth come to that perfection to be the bodye of our Sauior For we know that breade may be had from the bakers or if as your selfes now do mislyke with bakers bread you will haue cleane and fyne cakes to be made for the purpose thei are men or women which make them and their howses are not inuisible But how come you to haue that bodye with which and the bread you make vpp the matter of the sacrameÌ„t as it is in vse For you can not vse the wordes of the Ghospell to bring that to passe because thei are the forme of the sacrament and you in this place do so speake of the matter as it is distincted from the proper forme Then agayne how ignorantlie â–ª and vnreuerently is it deuised of you to make the bodye of Christ the materiall parte of the sacrament as it is in vse to the exhibiting of which bodye all matter and forme serueth which is requyred to the sacrameÌ„t But if this be the matter what is the forme The forme of ministration is that the minister should take the matter and with the wordes of the ghospell geaue it to them present as Christ did God send you better memorie or if memorie faill not God send you more honestie Did you not begynne to tell vs of the matter and forme of the sacrament as it is in vse make then an end of that which you beganne The matter you haue defyned what is the forme of the sacrament The forme saye you of ministration is c. The forme of ministratioÌ„ Whoe requyred it of you You must tell vs of the forme of the sacrament as it is in vse and not the forme of ministration And whereas among all learned men the forme is the perfection of the matter either els you shold neuer haue made such a diuision of the sacrament as it is in vse or els you should haue told vs of such a forme which doth geaue as I may saiâ— a grace vnto the matter Is the forme of the sacrament and forme of ministration all one with you or the forme of the sacrament as it is in vse and the forme of ministratioÌ„ is it all one what you might make of the first you could not tell and therefor you turned out of your purpose vnto the seconde And although you speake nothing of the matter of ministration you expounde yet the forme of ministration vnto vs and whereas you began with the matter of the Sacrament you refuse to declare vnto vs the forme of yt which we looked for Now if your iudgement serued you to make all one thing of the sacrament as it is in vse and of the ministration of yt then must the breade and bodye as you lye of Christ be the matter of ministration lyke as it is the matter of the sacrament as it is in vse which if it be true I put the case that the minister would not delyuer that foresaid matter vnto the people with his oune handes but bydd them take it themselfes and distribute it emong them were it not the bodye of Christ It could be no otherwise because you saye that the matter of the sacrament as it is in vse and as it is considered as a seperate parte from the forme is breade and the bodye But how can it be hys bodye before the wordes of the ghospell do come vnto it and how are the wordes of the ghospell vsed to that purpose whereas you saie that the minister taketh the matter in to his handes which is by your interpretation the breade and the bodye and delyuereth it with the wordes of the ghospell So that the wordes come after and the bodie is allreadie in his handes before Also what wordes of the ghospell are those which you meane when you saye that the matter must be deliuered with the wordes of the ghospell Yf you meane the wordes of consecration this is my bodye this is my