A replie against an ansvver (falslie intitled) in defence of the truth, made by Iohn Rastell: M. of Art, and studient in diuinitie

A REPLIE AGAINSTE THE FALSENAMED DEfence of the truthe .

CAP. I.

WHETHER M. Iuell , or the author of the Apologie of pryuate Masse , haue for their partes done all thinges so perfectly , that they may or shold be defended of those , which are of the same opinion and faith with them : in the one syde it may be a question , and on the other , I know it is none at all . For , as concernyng the folowers of new religions , which beleiue that the true light ys reueled in these last dayes , they haue to stryue and labor for them , whom they take for their Apostells : but the Catholike , whose faith ys not to finding owt in the end of the world , he hath not to hang vpon any one mans authoritie , except he be such as ys commended by the whole worlds testimonie . Yet , forasmuch as the answerer to the Apologie of priuate masse , beginneth first with the author of that verie Apologie , I will not by my silence , be thowght to confesse hym vtterly giltie , and yet I will not make for him suche hard shift , and stoute defence , as thowgh any part of owr cause were lost , if he be not thoroughly cleared . Therefor to begyn with yow , which would seeme to defend the truth , what fault doe yow fynd with the author of the Apologie of priuate Masse ? Fyrst of all yow reproue him sharplye , that he bringeth hys owne sense vnto M. Iuels wordes , and after , so reason against it , as though it were his meaning . But , how proue yow this vpon hym ? Mary , the Bishope of Salisburie ( say yow ) ▪ He neuer said simplie , Defence . that he should make no rekonyng of his doctrine , because he was Bishope .

Trulie neither the Apologie doth simplie so report of hym . Replie . But his wordes rather be these : I maruell not a litle , why yow , being reputed a man of such lerning , wtterlie refuse to proue the doctrine you teache : alleaging verie slender causes of your refusall , &c. Meanyng hys vocation to so high a Rome , and the place where he tawght , and the honorable estate of the audience , and the doctrine authorised by the realme . Now it is .ij. thinges , to saye , I refuse to do this , and , I should not do this . Or els ▪ I refuse to do this , and I alleage my vocation for one cause , and , I shold not do this , because I am a Bishope . For in refusing and alleaging cause of it , there ys greater occasion geauen of further consideration : but in sayng , I should not do this , because I am a Bishope , there ys small grace shewed because of so hastie conclusion . This second kynd of phrase , ys for them which stand gloriouslie vpon their honor and estimation , but the first agreeth euen with such , as are readie to fullfill their vocation . The one sentence doth challenge a thing of dutie , the other emploieth within it a reason and conueniencie . And to be short , the one may be spoken , mildlye , discreetly , and charitablie , but the other is vttered ( I thinke ) stoutlie , vnwyselie , and presumptuouslie . Wherefor , Sir , you make the matter worse by your telling , then it was in the author his writyng : and yow find fault with others for misreporting and misconstruing , prouiding not in the meane while for your selfe , to vse and shew true dealing . The Catholike doth not take M. Iuell to be so folishe , as to thinke that because he is a Bishope , he should make no rekonyng of his doctrine : but he marueleth rather ( his lerning considered ) that he would alleage such causes as he dyd , for the refusall of prouing his doctrine . And so he may yet still maruell at it .

But ( say you ) my Lord Bishope dyd not saye , Defence . he should not proue his doctrine , but that he might not well do it without further licence .

Wherein truly you do take very much from a Bishope his libertie , Reply . if he can not safely conferr with such as D. Cole is , withowt obteinyng of licence . And you will troble allso the counsell of the realme with more matters then needfull , if they shall make so litle of their Bishopes , that they are not to be trusted , with vsing of their office , except they first aske leaue and licence . Yf the Catholikes , which are in prison , were such greuouse offendars against the state , that it might be suspected they would practise all treason , then in deed , for suertie that none of their religion might come vnto them , it were not done vnwyselie to make the restraint generall : and then might a new Bisshope doubt perchaunse to conferr with them , without further licence . But where as all the fault , which is laied to their charge , hath no other name but papistrie , and old religion , M. Iuels doubt was more then needfull , to refuse the prouyng of his doctrine without further licence . But it ys well that you will declare vnto vs , the rightfullnes of his refusall , and make his part more probable . Wherein your reasonyng is this : Were it good reason ( think you ) that a magistrate at the demaund of euerie subiect , Defence . should bring reason to proue any law , publisshed by the prince , to be good ? &c.

Neither euery demaund , Reply . neither euery subiect is to be answered , and God forbed , that either cardmaker , or tapster , or fyddler , or peddler , should be permitted emong their pottes and packes , to sitt iudges vpon great Doctours , or reuerend Canons of generall Councells . Yea trulie , if either gentleman or marchant , would captiouslie and proudlie appose the priest or curate of his parishe , it were not to be suffered . But is D. Cole euery man ? and the good and lerned Catholikes , which continue in indurance , are they no more to be regarded , then the common sort of Englishe men ? or on the other syde , are they to be abhorred , as a singular sort of wicked men ? To submitt the iudgement of the Prince and realme , to the myslykyng of one wayward subiect , I graunt with yow , it would be great impeachment to the Princes authoritie ▪ neuerthelesse to defend the iudgement , which hath passed by consent of any Prince , or realme , it commendeth their estimation and dignitie . But , concernyng waywardnes , hath D. Cole shewed hym selfe to be such a one , in his request and letter to M. Iuel ? In deed you speake brodely of hym , and say that he required a proufe of M. Iuels doctrine , vnder pretence of lernyng , but in deed quarelling . But a●ee herein yowr honest and true charitie . M. D. Cole in hys first letter to the Bishope , promiseth by the faith he beareth to God , that he will yeld so farr as M. Iuel shall geaue him cause . And he againe in the second letter ▪ to M. Iuell , in most hartie and humble wyse , desyreth hym to geaue eare vnto his sute , and he speaketh so loulie and baselie , that it may be wel marueiled , why such a Catholike would submitt hym selfe vnto a protestant . Yet this notwithstanding , you , which see further in other mens hartes , then you can gather by any outward signe , dare to speake it , and that in print , that for all M. D. Coles pretence , yet in deede , he went about quarelling . And you speake not onlie for your selfe , but you would haue other beleeue , that M. Iuell allso was of the same opinion , The M. of the defence slaundereth D. Cole , and Master Iuel , bothe . as though he had therefore made strange , without further licence , to shew furth the proufes for his doctrine , because he had to do with a wayward and quarelling subiect . Whereof you do fouly and vnworthely cause hym to be suspected ▪ as it doth clearly appeare by his answer to M. D. Coles first letter . In which after he had declared the doubt of hys mynd whether without further licence , he might safely geaue a rekonyng of his doctrine , M. Iuell in the answer vnto D. Coles first letter . Not withstanding ( sayeth he ) for as much as I am persuaded that you charitablie desyre to be resolued , I can allso charitablie be contented &c. to conferr with you herein . Wherefor truly , Syr , ( what so euer you be ) you be much to blame to report in such sort of D. Cole , as neither by hym is to be gathered , by the faith he oweth vnto God , neither to M. Iuell ys persuaded , as plainely appeareth by his letters . Yf therefor D. Cole was not in such sense taken by M. Iuell , as you suppose hym to haue ben receiued , it is euident that as you vnderstode not the meanyng of the author of the Apologie , so lykewyse , you haue mistaken the mynd and saying of your Lord of Salisburie . Which maketh me iustly to doubt , whether you vnderstand your selfe in such matters , as you haue enterprysed . As , in an other reason which you bring for M. Iuell , it may be partly proued , vntill I procede further . Your reason is this , In that he is orderlie called , Defence . to the state of a Bishope , he is in possession of the truth . And therefor it were not reason , he shold ●e requested first to shew his euidence .

What meane you then , Reply . I pray you , by possession of the truth ? Is the truth so ioyned vnto the Bishopericke of Sarum , that he which is sett in possession of the landes , ys straitwaies placed in the possession of the truth ? And because it is not so : how ys M. Iuell at this daye more properly in the possession of the truth , then he was seuen yeres past , when he was out of all possession of land ? And if seuen yeres past , he might haue ben required , and nothing haue doubted , to shew his euidence , vnto a Catholike Bishope : wh● ys it against reason that at this daye ( for all his temporall honor ) he should do the lyke ? For allthough palace , parkes , reuenues , seruantes , horses , and such lyke , do make hym in the sight of the world more worthyer , yet all the ryches and glorie of the world , should not make hym , by one iote , the truer . If the wyll or counsell of mightie Princes of the world , or yf the consent of the commons of any realme , were able to sett the studentes of diuinitie in the possession of the truth : then , not only such Princes or such commons might be called Lordes of the truth , but allso the truth , which is one in it selfe , should be oftentymes changed , euen as their myndes shoulde be altered whiche are letters and setters of it . But the wysedome of God hath apoynted a better order . And he hath geauen vnto his only-begoten and singularly welbeloued soun Ihesus Christ , the nations of the world , as his iust inheretance , which yet is so geauen of the father , that the soun by his pretiouse death hath truly & deerly purchased it . To take therefor the possession of the world , which he might of right challenge for his obedience vnto death , he sent furth his officers and Apostells , and by his diuine power , How the possession of the truthe was geauen , and who be the holders of it at this daye . and shewing of miracles , he placed those so few and so simple persons , in the possession of hys landes , and by sending vnto them all the giftes and graces of the holy ghost , he set them perfectly in the possession of hys truth , Io. 16. as it ys writen , when the holygost cummeth , he shall teach you all truth . Now , that the possession of this truth might not be lost for euer after , and that , allthough the Apostells and Disciples should within few yeares , depart from this world , yet that such should neuer be to seekyng , as might hold the possession of truth once taken , therefor God ( which was able to performe it ▪ ) dyd apoynt in hys church , some Apostles ; Eph. 4. some Prophetes , some Euangelistes , other some Pastors and teachers , vntill all we shall come and meete togeather in vnitie of faith , and knowledge of the soun of God . Such therefor as succeed the Apostells in their faith and places , and such as haue continued in the possession of the truth euer sence Christ hytherto , such also as keepe the Catholike tradition and priesthode in the most partes of Christendome , are to be regarded and estemed as the right heires of the Apostles and Christ . But if in some corner of Christendome , the old and auncient Bisshopes be dryuen out of their places , and if a new religion be planted . xvC . yeres after Christ , allthough it should continue without interruption in that one particular place vnto the worlds end , yet could it be neuer rightly saied , to haue the possession of truth by order . No verely , it hath not so much as the possession of place orderly , and much lesse the possession of the truth . For , I pray yow , what manner of faith was he of , whom M. Iuell succedeth in the palace of Sarum ? Or what order can yow number vp , sence England was Christened , of Bisshopes and Priestes inspired with the lyke confession of faith , as now is , for the tyme , vsed ? Well Syr yet agayne , if the order which any one Realme taketh , be able to settle men in the possession of truth , and if for the tyme of that order standyng , no Bishope is to be required to shew his euidence : how chaunseth it , that in the disputation which was prepared at Westminster , the catholike Bishopes , which then were in possession , were not yet permitted to enjoy their pruilege ? Or whi did your Bishopes now , which then were out of office , refuse to shew their euidences as thei were required ? As the church of Christ had hundred of yeares togeather vsed , so dyd the Bisshopes and clergie of England obserue and keepe in their seruice and order of church , what tyme you began to ryse and reason against them . And whereas it was sufficient cause inowgh for them to beleiue and mainteine as thei dyd , because thei had so receiued of their predecessors and fathers , whose wysedomes thei had not to suspect , yet you were not content with the licence graunted vnto you , of disputyng with them , but you would allso apoint vnto them , what order thei should take in the matter . And for all their possession , yet you would dryue them to shew their euidencies . What if thei had lost their writinges ? or could not fynd them presently ? or wold not shew them to such as you were : ys their silence , or refusall in that behalfe , to be accompted for a losse of their cause ? But ( thankes be to your Bishoperickes ) when you be now well placed , The heretikes change their argumentes , togeather with the changes of tyme . you are content that the plaintyfe shoulde first and formost shew his euidence . And now it ys against reason , that the possessor should take the person of a plaintyfe , which , before this tyme , would not be graunted , whiles your selfes were out of all possession . But how say yow , if the Catholikes doe continually yet keepe their possession ? for the Bishopes of Fraunce , Spaigne , Germanie , and Italy , are not yet dryuen out of their chaires and places of the Apostells . And as long as they keepe their romes , you can not enter in to the churche , as it were a house forsaken and destitute . how then ? will you dryue them out by force , vi & armis ? In deede it ys one of the cheifest wayes , by which the new ghospel hath proceded , which if you can not , as yet , folow thoroughly , you must then , either lett them alone ( which you do not as appeareth by your sermons & writinges ) or els bring furth your euidences against them which be in possession . But no reason shall preuaile except it make for you , and therefor you passe not vpon the possession , which the Catholikes hold and keepe in the world , but you wyll dryue them to the prouyng of such articles as doe offend you , and for your owne part , you will stand vpon the negatiue . The resting vpon which , because you say , it ys mistaken , lett vs heare your exposition , how it must be vnderstanded ? M. Iuell ( say you ) perceauyng vs to make this auaunt , Defence . that the church hath taught as we doe , these . xvC . yeares , dyd both wyselie and lernedly see , that there was none so fytt way to dryue vs from it : As to rest vpon this true negatiue , that we haue , no suf●icient proufe , out of the authorities of scriptures , fathers , or councells . But , Syr , how can your wysedome serue you to think , Reply . that because you will haue vs to proue our doctrine , therefor we must do it ? Yf euerie Catholike Bishope in the world , should in his owne conscience haue mislyked , the vse of the Catholike church in sundrie articles , yet for the reuerence , which they owe vnto antiquitie , they should not without euident and manifest reason , haue lightly geauen ouer their old orders , for the strength of tradition ys so great , that allthough I could see no reason why I should defend it , yet I should not contempne their authoritie , from whom it was receiued . For lyke as in the Epistle vnto the Romanes ( which epistell tradition teacheth me to be S. Paules ) I must not blott out euerie sentence , which vnto my iudgement may seeme either vntrue , either vnprofitable , but reuerently thinke , that all ys well , allthough my vnderstandyng be very euill : so when the churche of Christ doth generallie receaue and folow a custome , I ought to iudge the best of it , allthough I were not able to proue it . To dispute of that which the whole churche thorough the world doth vse , August . ad ●anu . epist. 118. it is ( sayeth S. Augustyne ) a poynt of most insolent madnes . Yf therefor being able to geaue no other reason for my beleife , then only tradition , I should not rasshely depart from it , shall my aduersary require of me a cause of my doinges in wryting , and except I shew it owt of hand , pull me away from my religion ? Lett me suppose that you browght M. Iuell vnto me , and that he should find me standing in this poynt of the Catholike faith , that it ys not of necessitie required in a Christen man to receiue vnder both kyndes . What might he , ( thinke you ) say vnto me either wysely , either lernedly agaynst me ? you would make hym , ( I know ) to speake after this sort , that I haue no sufficient proufe , owt of Scriptures , Doctours , or Councells , to make for me . Yes Syr ( would I answer ) and please you , I haue sufficient authoritie for my beleife therein , but I am not disposed to tell you of it , and I would not care to take a blowe for so answering a Bisshope . Yes Mary ( shall he saye ) if you had any , you would alleage it , and except you tell me of one or other , you shall be accounted to make only an auaunt , and in deed to haue nothing . And here , I trow , if all Catholikes should hold their peace , in lyke manner as I do , it should be declared at Paules crosse the next sunday folowing , that the papistes haue no one sentence or word to make for them , in all Scripture , Doctours and Councells . Well Sir then , allthough this be to much iniury and oppression , because the Catholikes were not disposed to refell your negatiue , therevpon to conclude , that they are able to say nothing : I will yet goe further with you , and graunt for disputation sake , that which for truth sake is to be denyed . And what is that ? forsoth that I haue no other cause in all the world , for defence of the article which I mentioned , but only this one , that it hath very long , and quietly continued . How say you in this case ? wyll you stand still vpon the negatiue , which for trying of your wysedome , I graunt vnto you ? And to keepe your negatiue , wil you deny , that receiuyng in one kynd only , hath not ben long vsed in the church ? No verely , that can you not doe , because it is so playne and euident , that receiuyng in one kynd hath continuance of tyme , and approued practise of Christendome for it , that your selues doe crye out and gapple in pulpites , that many hundred of yeres togeather before you were breathed owt in to the worlde , all Christendome , as in sundrie other pointes , so in that allso was miserablie deceaued . How then ? you will perchaunse proue vnto me , that my argument is not good , because all the world hath hytherto ben seduced . And truly , what other thing you might say , I can not tell . For when I shold yeld vnto you that I haue no Scripture , Doctour , or Councel , for communion in both kyndes , and when you should not well call me vnreasonable , for dwelling against you in that article and opinion , alleageing the consent and vse of Christendome for me : either you must declare , that reason of myne to be nothing worth the staying vpon : or els you must hold your peace , as hauing no more to saye vnto me : or els you must repete your begynning againe , and harpe madlye vpon one string , in telling me that I can shew no sufficient sentence , example , or authoritie , why communion should be geauen vnder one kynd only . Now , as you haue to muche varietie to harpe still vpon one point , and as your hart is to great in you to be tongtyde , so must it remaine that you wil refell my argument , and tell me that I doe not safelye and wiselie , to haue in regard and estimation a generall consent of all Christendome . After which bold saying , you must come to the particulars , and shew by councell , doctor , example or scripture , that the whole church may be fouly deceaued , and I miscarye in the folowing of her . At which point if you tell me of pilgrimages , images , pardons , or purgatorie ( with the misusing or mistaking of which the church doth neuer beare ) I must answer you , that thei apperteine to an other tyme , and that you should more properlie talke of communion vnder both kyndes , of which our question is instituted , and of which you make your selfe sure . In which matter , if you can and will proue the whole world to haue ben deceaued : then shall you be dryuen from the rest vpon your negatiue , and take vpon you the person of a plainetyfe , in prouing vnto vs , that one kynd alone should not be ministred , but both of necessitie receiued . And if you refuse to doe so , you shall hold your peace , and hold downe your head for all your negatiue , which you thought should defend you , because I put the case so , that I would graunt you your negatiue . Wherefor M. Iuells inuention of his negatiue , hath neither so great wyte nor lernyng , as you suppose , because it would neuer serue hym , if the Catholike should tell hym plainely , either that he would not , either that he could not answer hym . Now , as concernyng all this question of apposing and answering , and all the shiftes lykewyse , and practisies , which are conūeighed vnder the name of negatiues , it should haue becommed right well the professors of a new Ghospell , not to haue made their cheife defence vpon the weaknes ( if any should be ) or behauyor of their aduersaries , but openly and willingly to haue vttered their good tydinges : and not to inuent in their writyng what might greue the aduersary , but rather to haue taken euery occasion , which had ben able to edifie . Now , because you , which haue taken vpon you the defence ( as you call it ) of the truth against the Apologie of priuate masse , doe leaue the further discussing of these matters , vnto some other meeter places , I shall be contented lykewyse to geaue ouer with you , allthough it would haue done vs no harme , shortly to haue vnderstanded your iud●gement . But this much yet is clearly goten , that whereas it hath ben hytherto auouched , that the Catholikes had no one authoritie for their purpose : now yet there ys come furth a litle Apologie of priuate masse , conteinyng many good authorities for the prouyng of the Catholike faith , which boke , how truly and faithfully it is answered , it shall appeare after iust examination and heed taken .

The second Chapiter .

HERE now we are come to the very matter it selfe , in which the author of the Apologie , for auoyding of endlesse brablyng , thought good to declare hys meanyng , as concernyng the word and terme , Priuate , when it is applyed to the masse . And his conclusion is this , that if you will take the word , priuate , as it is contrarie vnto common , so the church hath no priuate masse . But if a priuate masse be vnderstanded for a masse in which the priest receiueth alone , without any imbarring of other to communicate with hym : the church in deed doth alow sole receiuyng . Mary , the terme of priuate is not properlye hers , but inuented in the scholes of heretikes . This distinction then being layed , the master of the defence , which wryteth against hym , is very much greaued with his plaine dealing , as one which could be well content to fight with his twohandsword , and so to chainge from one sense to an other , that he might not be directly ouercummed . And therefor in his anger , whereas the Catholike spake it very sadlye , that the church acknouledgeth no priuate masse , as priuate is contrary vnto common , he madlye alleageth :

That in deed we haue ben very bountifull in bestowing the benefyte of our masse , Defence . and especiallie when monie was brought in abundantly .

But , may you not be ashamed , Replie . to obiect that against your aduersaries as their owne deed and workyng , which you can neuer fynd wryten in any of their bokes , or by any of their talkes approued ? what if you can descant vpon diuerse matters , and make gaye voluntary sport vpon no laufull dittie , allthough your owne syde might make you a Bisshope for your singing , yet , when without all affection the truth should be examined , all your exceding melodie , would be found no better then barkyng . Do you not thinke , that as many poyntes might be fott vpon tapsters , fiddlers , peddlers , baggpypers allso and sowgelders ( Syr reuerence ) whiche for idlenes sake do come vnto your ministerie , and for lacke of better , are receiued by and by : as you can make vpon such wretched men , which make merchandyse of their masses ? yf you can proue , that the church of Christ , doth not teache her scholars , that the masse is a common and no priuate seruice : then should you speake vnto the purpose somwhat , and be thought to write grauely : but when you can say nothing to the matter , to obiect against vs the bestowing of masses for monie , such as the church neuer alowed , we can gather no better sense hereof , then that you can pleasauntly dallie . And thus much for the first vnderstanding of priuate Masse . Touching the other signification of priuate , by which the heretikes haue meaned sole receiuing , the church doth hold , that the priest may receiue alone at his masse , if no other wil communicate with him . Against which conclusion , what one wyse word haue you to bring furth ? Marie , you find fault , that the Catholike requireth you to proue the affirmatiue , which is , that euerie priest owght , when he receiueth , to haue a cumpanie to receiue with him , which is a shift ( as you saie ) of him that mistrusteth his quarel . Then further , you blame hym , that the question being of priuate masses , he maketh his issue in sole receiuing . And you aske the question :

Is there no difference ( thinke you ) between sole receiuing and priuate Masse ? Defence . doth euerie one that receiueth alone , saye a priuate Masse ?

Aske not this question of Catholikes , Reply . but of Lutherans . For the Catholikes haue no such priuate masse , as you haue made . It is the Lutherans inuention , whom it pleased to call that seruice and office of the church a priuate masse , in which the priest receiueth alone . Which office the church calleth masse , and the Lutherans nickname it priuate , because of sole receiuing . The church therefor doth not saie , that he , which receiueth alone , saieth a masse , or that sole receiuing and a priuate masse are all one , but she openlie telleth you that in deed no masse is priuate : yet because she hath to doe with heretikes , and for better expedition of matters is contended to vse their termes , therefor the Catholikes of this tyme doe call that a priuate masse , at which the priest receiueth alone , which they do not , out of their owne bokes , but because they read emong the heretikes , that they haue such a sense of priuate masse . Wherefor you haue done verie vnskilfullie to tell vs of Tully & Panetius , and to require that we should define priuate masse vnto you , which haue not ben the inuentors and first authors of that terme . And if the Lutherans for the breeding of suspition , and bringing furth of errours , haue so folishly mengled sole receauing and masse togeather , that it is proued an absurditie , that he which receiueth alone , sayth thereby a priuate masse : lett the shame light vpon their heades , and not vpon the Catholikes . And yet for all this you will make vs beleiue , that we must define a priuate masse , and whether we will or no , you wil define it for vs . But it is well yet that you amend the matter , in saying that you will shew out of our owne authors ( not what we take , but ) what you take our priuate masse to be .

It ys a sacrifice of the bodie and bloud of Christ , Defence . vsed in the church , 1 in place of the Lorde his supper , 2 by one priest alone offered to God the Father for the sinnes of quicke and dead , which , 3 without any to participate with hym , he may applie to the benefite of what persons and thinges he listeth .

Yf this be the definition o● a priuate masse , Replie . how will you define ( I pray you ) that masse which is called , and is in deed common ? Or where find you in all our doctors a diuision of masse , in to priuate and common ? here be so many faultes in this definition , that not only the scholes of the Catholikes would neuer haue made it , but not so much as a reasonable scholars head would euer haue permitted . first you define that thing ( and that out of our owne authors you lye ) which we do not confesse to be extant , because we beleiue , that there is no masse priuate . For you may read in the scholemen of priuate and solempne masse , D. Th. ● . part . q. 83. art. 5. ad 12. not as it were ij . kyndes of masses , but at the most .ij. circunstancies only , and accidentes of masse : but of priuate and common to make such differencies , as though the definition of the priuate were essentially distincted from the common , it ys such an inuention , as may well becum perchaunse your pregnant witt , but it ys not , I assure you , in the Catholike doctrine . Yet , lett vs consider the framyng of your definition . A priuate masse ( saie you of your owne head by the Catholikes ) ys a sacrifice . In deed , if you vnderstand by masse , the offering of the bodie and bloud of Christ , so is masse properly a sacrifice : but considering that you in reprouyng the partes and ceremonies vsed in the celebration thereof , and the common people togeather with you do vnderstand it more largelye , you should not without some distinction so absolutelie haue called it a sacrifice , whereas in the commoner sense , it ys taken for that office or seruice of the church , not which is it selfe a sacrifice , but within which there is offered vp a sacrifice . And therefor if I would not , without addition , saie , of the masse it selfe which we hold and defend , that it ys a sacrifice , ( except I would speake figuratiuelie , and call that which doth conteine , by the name of the thing which is conteined ) how much lesse would I saie that a priuate masse is a sacrifice . But you add further vnto your definition , it ys a sacrifice vsed in place of the Lorde his supper : which wordes do sound so strangely , that a Catholike would neuer vse them , as which beleiueth that he hath , not any such thing which is in place of our Lord his supper , but that vndoubtedly he hath the same meate , which was geauen to the Apostels the night before Christ suffered , and that he enioyeth the selfesame supper in deed . Againe to make vp your definition , you saie that it ys a sacrifice by one priest alone offered to God the father : As who might thinke , that there were some kynd of masses , in which more priestes then one dyd offer vp sacrifice . And againe , these wordes of one priest alone , were craftely thrust in to the heape , that thereof might be gathered some argument of priuate masse . It foloweth further : which sacrifice without any to participate with hym he may applie &c. But why doe you make mention of participantes with the priest ? might he then , applie the effect of the sacrament , when any would communicate with hym ? And is this it which greiueth you , that he may applie it without any to participate ? Who doth not se● ( which is a Catholike , or els but indifferent and lerned ) that you labor as much as you may to bring in such phrases by which à priuate masse might be suspected ? for leaue out these wordes of ( one priest alone ) and ( without any to participate with hym ) there is nothing in the definition , which might be enforced to serue for masse priuate . And yet when thei be added , we do right well know that thei are not essentiall poyntes of a masse . Wherefor I might iustly saie , that this definition of a priuate masse , which you attribute to the Catholikes , is farr vnmeete for their lernyng , as being vnproper , hereticall , superfluous , and wandering . But for all this , you will proue the truth of this definition vnto vs , wherein I wonder at your presumption , that you will attempt thinges impossible . But yet let vs geaue you the hearing . All your sort-doe rasshlie confesse , Defence . and stoutly defend , that it is a sacrifice of Christ hys bodie . But first let me heare of what you speake ? Reply . Did you not goe aboute to define a priuate masse ? And doth all our sort saie that priuate masse is a sacrifice ? How oft shall I tell you , that we know no priuate masse ? We confesse that in the masse there is the bodye and bloud of our Sauyor , and that it is our daily sacrifice , and that it is offered for quicke and dead . Yea , but doth one priest alone offer it ? Yea Syr except you thinke it necessarie to haue more priestes then one to celebrate at one aultar at one tyme . And doth not the priest , make application of the Sacrament as he li●teth ? No forsoth , not as he listeth , neither as you mak● definitions by adding and taking away what pleaseth you , but with reuerence and horror , and by way of supplication and request , he serueth for some one more then an other , the vertue of the sacrifice in it selfe considered , continuing allwaies perfect and infinite . And be not all these thinges defended of all your syde ? Not these thinges only , but .xx. other more allso , and yet euerie one of those .xx. shall not be iumbled vp togeather in one definition of masse . But all this while , how proue you that we define a priuate masse in such sort as you haue inuented ? You might haue made it probable , if you had said that we define Masse , after the same manner as you report ( and yet you should haue made a lye , for all your sight in our authors ) but you can neuer be able to shew , that we make such definition of a priuate masse , whereas so expressely we answer you , that we haue no masse priuate . But it is to be noted the authoritie , with which you make your conclusions . I do therefor ( say you ) take priuate masse to be not onlye as you &c haue wrested it , Defence . but as it was commonly vsed in the world before , and as it was sett furth in your scholemen , to the great defacing of Christ hys death and passion . Yf you haue any face at all of à true man , Replie . shew in what place of any scholeman , any such priuate masse is spoken of as you define . And I would allso that you had concluded , whether you will take this word ( priuate ) in such sense as by the Lutherans it is apointed , to expresse sole receiuing . For allthough you ioyne your issue with vs , about this definition of priuate masse which your selfe haue inuented : yet you will not refuse alltogeather , to take priuate masse as we do ( thorough the occasion of certen heretikes ) for sole receiuing . Which whether you do , because you would not seeme to graunt vnto the Catholikes , that priuate masse hath ben in the primitiue church ( which is concluded easelie , vnderstanding by it sole receauing ) or rather because you would haue some libertie to hyde your selfe vnder ambiguities , and thereby to troble your aduersarie , when he shold not know where to find you , as I feare them bothe , so I wil not determyn vpon any one . But if you mynd to stand with vs vpon that definition of priuate masse , which you haue made , we saie that there is no such thing emong vs , as you do enforce your selfe to proue owt of owr authors . And yet if you will put out the word ( priuate ) which you neuer lerned of vs , for the rest we will abyde by all that which the church hath receiued and delyuered , concernyng our sacrifice , and the value of it , and in what sense the priest may applie a benefite proper to some peculiar person .

And therefor , when you will , begyn , and you shall be answered : or rather answer when you can , for we haue allreadie begon . We , I meane , Catholikes , which speake in all tonges , that if you find not our argumentes in Englisshe , yet you may resort to the Italian , Spaynisshe , French , Laten , and to the Duch tong . But if now on the other syde , you will admitt such an interpretation of ( priuate ) which word Luther hath ioyned vnto the masse , as shall signify and declare sole receiuyng : then shall we ioyne this issue with you , that the priest is not bound to haue present companie to receiue with hym , but that without all daunger of God his indignation , he may celebrate a priuate Masse , as you terme it . &c.

The third Chapiter .

FOrasmuch as M. Iuell with other , do think them selues to hurt our church very much in their stout deniall , that there was any masse priuate ( as they terme it ) in the primitiue church , the Catholike therfor in his Apologie , although he had good authorities to confute that bold conclusion , yet for the better opening of their weake kynd of reasonyng , he so beginneth with them as though it were true , that there was no ptiuate masse in the primitiue church . And he seemeth to make these argumentes for vs . Not , if there were no priuate masse in the primitiue church , therefor it must of necessitie folow , that none might or should be vsed at these daies . For many thinges were then interdicted , which now are permitted . And many thinges were not extant then in the church , which now are to be maynteined . Examples hereof may be perceaued in wasshing of feete , 10. 13. Act. 15. Luc. 22. Cyp. ser. 5. de laps . in absteinyng from bloud , in receiuyng of the sacrament after supper , in howseling of infantes , in temporalties of Bishopes , and Christenyng of Princes . To call therefor such thinges to the state of the primitiue church , ys , to inforce a taule man to returne to his swathing clothes . Againe , men at that tyme were so well disposed , that it was no wonder if at euerie masse there were communicantes : but now there ys such coldnes of charitie , that if we should allwaies tarie for communicantes , we should verie seldome haue any masse at all . Furthermore , the people are not commaunded , but counselled only to the frequentation of their housell , but the priestes are commaunded to celebrate oftentymes . Therefor it ys no reason , that a dutie should be omitted , and the priest made to waite vpon the pleasure of the laitie . And so he shortly concludeth , that , to prescribe of necessitie , that there ought to be a cumpanie to receiue with the priest , it is an itching folie . But now , against these reasons of the Catholike , what saieth the M. of the defence ? You would seeme to take from vs , Defence . fo. 8. the true and right rule to reforme the church of Christ ? You be verie suspitiouse Syr , Reply . or verie iniurious . For no other thing was gone aboute in this third chapiter , but that all thinges should not be required to be done , as thei were vsed in the primitiue church . Which conclusion , do you simply and plainelie yeld vnto , or els will you dryue vs to the further prouyng of it ? Nay , you confesse it to be so euident and true , that you maruell at the Catholike , because he endeuored to open it . Where then is that fault which you find with him ? or what true and right rule of reformyng the church might he seeme to take awaie from you ? He saied nothing els , An vnreaso●na●●e manner 〈◊〉 fass●●on of the 〈◊〉 of the def●nce his writing but that all thinges should not be so required to be done , as thei were vsed in the primitiue church , and yourselfe confesse this ▪ to be a most true saying , and yet you mis●lyke with hym , because of the speaking of it . Here now it may appeare , who lurketh out of the light , or who draweth back . For , whereas you without distinction haue abused the name of the primitiue church , and made so litle rekonyng of these last . ixC . yeares , and more , as though you would admit no other thing , then that which should be proued to agree with the example of the primitiue church : what thing is more necessarie to be spoken of , then that discretion is to be vsed in this matter , and that all thinges are not absolutlie to be reduced vnto the paterne of the primitiue church ? For allthough you , for your owne part , be of such iudgement , that you can make distinction betwene thinges necessarie and indifferent : yet when the multitude of light heades , do heare you to appeale simplie to the primitiue church , and to crake that the right and true reformation , ys from thence to betaken : thei fall in to such a conceit by and by , that except the Catholikes can bring all their orders from the primitiue church , thei will not be ruled by them . And if I were so suspitious as you , I could saie that your owne preachers and masters do seeme to be of the same opinion , when thei make so exact rekonyng vpon the tyme , in which orders haue by holy men ben brought in to the church , as though nothing were to be permitted , but that which hath come from the Apostles , or that those thinges should be alltogeather now autentike , which were vsed in the primitiue church . But if the Catholike hath ben superfluous , in prouing of that which no man ( as you saie ) hath denyed , if you wyll charitablie forgeaue hym this once , he shall within the turnyng of one leaffe in your defence , do the lyke again for you . And now ( I trow ) we do agree in this one poynt , that for ceremonies and thinges indifferent , we are not bound vnto the Apostells tyme . In what thinges then are we bound to do after the example of the Apostels , and the primitiue church ?

In truth of doctrines and right vse of sacramentes , Defence fol. 10. as thinges in the church most necessarie .

And you doe alleage this cause of your so saying : In doctrine there is but one veritie , and but one right vse of the sacramentes .

If I were able precisely to know , Replie . what you meane by the right vse of Sacramentes , I could sone answer you , how farfurth we agree with you in this part of your distinction . For to receiue in the morning or euening , to receiue fasting or after meales , and to receiue with cumpanie or alone , they be such thinges as you may , at your pleasure , vnderstand by the right vse of the Sacrament , or saie to disagree from the right vse of it . 1. Cor. 11. For in S. Paules tyme emong the Corinthians they vsed to receiue at night about supper tyme , and they made no matter of conscience , if they had dined that daie before . And you can not saie , but , notwithstanding the breaking of their fastes , or takyng of their suppers , they dyd in that beginnyng of the church , rightly vse the Sacrament . Yf therefor the vse of the Sacrament , ys to be taken for that manner and order which they rightly vsed at the begynnyng in receauyng of the sacramentes , I denie vnto you , that the right vse of them , is to be accompted emong preceptes and lawes vnchangeable . For the right vse is but one ( you saie ) and therefor lyke as thei of the Apostells tyme , dyd sitt togeather in the church about euening , and receiue , either after or before other meates , Christ his verie naturall body : so should we do now of necessitie in these daies , or els we vse not the sacrament rightly . To which case , if you will answer , that tyme , place , and maner of supping with common meates ( which then were vsed ) do nothing apperteine to the right vse of the sacrament , so shall I againe inferr , that number of communicantes , and receiuing in one or both kyndes , are as litle required to the right vse of the sacrament . Therefor , to auoid the occasion of stryuing , which could not but be geauen if one part vnderstanded not the other , our meanyng is this , that in the articles of our faith and necessary doctrine , we haue to keepe one veritie , which hath ben from the begynnyng : but in canons and orders which haue ben added sence , vnto the substance of our religion , the church of Christ is not so straictly bound vnto them , but that she may , with discretion , abrogate , or alter them , or permit the discontinuance of them . And in this kynd of orders we vnderstand the vse of the sacramentes , which in substance are to this daie one with those of the primitue church , do thei neuer so much differ in ceremonies , circunstancies , and manner of vsing them . We do not therefore graunt vnto you , that the right vse of the sacrament ys but one , or that the vse of a sacrament is in the same authoritie and estimation , as the truth of doctrine is . For he which receiueth alone ( if he be in state of grace ) doth well , and he which receiueth with cumpanie doth wel , if his liffe be cleane . And then againe , a conclusion in doctrine can neuer be remoued , but in receiuing of sacramentes , diuers vses may be permitted , except you doubt , whether both parties should be thought baptised a right , of which the one were but once dipped , the other thrise wasshed and perfunded . Wherefore the vse of the sacramentes being ▪ with vs a thing indifferent in it selfe , ( allthough not indifferent vnto euerie rasshe controller ) you speake very absurdly vnto our iudgementes , The intricate talke of the M. of the defence . first in not bynding vs vnto the obseruations of ceremonies and thinges indifferent , and then againe requiring of vs to keepe the ceremonies of the primitiue church ▪ For when you had said in one sentence , ( For the vse of ceremonies , and thinges indifferent , we do not bind you to the Apostles tyme , and the primitiue church , ) in the next sentence folowing , you call for redresse , according to the scripture and primitiue church , not only for vse of sacramentes , or false opinions , ( which are referred to the first member of your distinction ) but allso as concerning ceremonies , which allthough you call superstitious , that you might seeme to haue some iust cause of taking them awaie , yet you do against right dealing , to call vs to the primitiue churche for ceremonies , which you said before were in themselues indifferent . And here loe you make a rule , and saie , Fo. 10. & . 11. that nothing is to be added vnto the first ordinances of the law , and that we must bring thinges vnto the institution of Christ . And againe : that we must not harken what other dyd before vs , but what Christ first dyd , that was before all . And yet againe : That , that ys true , that was first ordeined : and that ys corrupted , that ys after done : which rule yf you wyll haue to be vnderstanded in suche matters as concerne immutable doctrine , then haue you proued that thing which none of ours denyeth vnto you , and so you are all fallen in to the same lapse , for which you misliked with others . But if you vnderstand generally , by truth of doctrine , the vse of Sacramentes and ceremonnies , then haue you much forgoten your selfe , which euen now made ceremonies , indifferent . But if you do it for that purpose , that a Catholike should not know where to haue you , allthough I seeme to aske your losse , yet , for truth sake , amend that fasshion . And perchaunse this myght be amended allso , that you do not trulie alleage your testimonies , saying that to be Saint Cyprianes in his Epistle vnto Cecilius , which is not at all to be found there , but in his goodly treatise De simplicitate praelatorum . In which place the seeking vnto the head , S. Cyprian mistaken , of the M. of the defence which you do mention , is not vnderstanded for to seeke vnto the beginnyng of a doctrine or custome , but vnto that head of whom it ys wryten , Math. 17 Thou art Peter ( that is to saye ) a rocke , and vpon this rocke I wyll buyld my church . But how rightlie you alleage the doctours , and how much they make for you , it wyll be perceaued before we haue ended . Hytherto let it be marked , that we refuse your rule of resorting to the first institution for the redresse about the vse of the Sacramentes . Because the vse of them is a thing indifferent , and it neither maketh neither marreth to receiue alone or with cumpanie , and to receiue in one or in both kyndes , or at night or in the morning , or thrise in the yere , or ones in all our liffe , so that the church be obeied .

And now we will come to an other part of this third chapiter , in which you do excedingly reproue the Catholike , because of the similitude of a taull man and infant , which he vsed to the openyng of his purpose , and confounding of his aduersarie . Which so much displeaseth you , that you saie : I assure you it was neuer inuented without the spirite of Antichrist , Defence . fol. 11. nor can not be mainteined withowt blasphemye agaynste Christ , and singular reproch of his Apostells and their successors . Syr , Reply . I beseche you to pacifie yourselfe , and to vse the matter so calmelie and quietly , as you promised to do in the end of the .ij. chapiter . Consider , I pray you first , whether the Catholike hath such a meaning , as yon make sense vpon hym . Let vs reherse faithfully the wordes of the Catholike , and then as farr as your grammar rules will suffer you , make your construction vpon them . He had spoken before , of the commones of all thinges in the Primitiue church , Apol. of priuate Masse fol. 5. of miracles , of couering of womens faces , of temporalties of Bisshopes , of receiuyng after supper , of eatyng of blouddinges , and houseling of infantes , of which all he saieth in manner of a conclusion : To call such thinges to the state of the Apostles tyme , and of the primitiue church againe , ys nothing els but to enforce a taule man , to come to his swadeling clothes , and to crie alarme in his cradel againe . These loe be his very wordes , in which , do your worst , and tell vs what fault you find ? He resembleth the primitiue church ( saie you ) to infancie , wich similitude you terme , as please you , an inuention of Antichrist , a blasphemie against Christ , and singular reproch of his Apostells . But see now , herein how much you be deceaued . The Catholike doth not ( as you weene ) saie , that alltogeather that church was an infant , but in such thinges as he speake of , concerning order or dispensation which then was vsed in the church , he saieth , and saieth it truly , that to require that all thinges shold be now in these daies obserued , as thei were then vsed , it were no more nor better , then to bring a taule man to his swadeling clothes againe . And yet , as though he had made no more of the primitiue church , then as if none but boyes had lyued in it , so you ful manly reason against hym , and proue your selfe to lacke discr●●ion .

For you saie : Yf that tyme were the state of infancie in the church , Defence . fo. 11. when Christ hymselfe instructed , when hys Apostles taught , when the holy fathers gouerned next their tyme : A fond collection of the M. of the defence then we must needes recken Christ , the Apostles , the fathers , to be infantes in religion , to be babes in gouernement of the church . Yf we must needes do so as you saie , Replie . then is there no remedie . But certenlie it is wonder vnto me , how any such necessitie should be concluded : yea allthough I would affirme it , that not only in a few particular causes , but allso concernyng the whole state of her , the church was then in her infancie . For allthough the whole house be full of childerne , yet it must not straitwaies folow , that the goodman and the goodwiffe must needes be childerne . Or if in a schole of one hundred of scholars , the best is not come vnto his Catechisme , or the institutions of Caluyne in Englisshe , ( bokes which will sone make one a Doctour ) it must not folow of necessitie , that the master vnderstandeth not his accidence . The Apostells of our Sauyor Christ , before the cummyng of the Holyghost in fierie tonges vpon them , Luc. 18. f 10. 20. b. thei were allwaies full of imperfection , Math. 16. c. both in will and allso vnderstanding : Math. 26. f ergo was Christ our master to be reckened for an ignorant person ? For so runneth your wyse reason , that if that tyme were the state of infancie , then we must needes recken Christ to be an infaent in religion . The Christians allso , after the ascension of Christ , and preaching of the Apostles , were for the most part fraile and weak , of which the Apostle had need to saie : If a man be preuented in any fault . &c. And againe : Gal. 6. I speake gentlie and fauorablie , Ro. 6. because of the weaknes of your flesshe . And vnto the Hebrewes : Heb. 5. Euerie bodye that is partaker of milke , is voyde of the talke of iustice , for he is litle one : but the sound and strong meate is for the perfect . Yet , not withstanding the imperfections of the weaker , there were many spirituall men apt to instruct others : and the Apostle had many thinges to tell his countriemen which could not be well interpreted , because thei were vnable to heare hym . But you , to make your part the stronger , do proue that the primitiue Church had vse of reason , and wysedome , and you goe so farr in the matter , that you define vnto vs what the word Infancie doth signifie , and you saie , that young age ys for no other cause named infancie , Defence fo● . 12. them for that it hath not the vse of tong and can not speake . But the primitiue church could speake , ergo you would haue vs discredited , because we saie that she had her infancie . In very deed it had ben better for you , if you coulde haue neither spoken , neither wryten so childishly . For ( to let that reproufe which you deserue , to passe , that you doe not rightly conceiue hys meanyng , whom you would seeme to aunswer ) you must consider , that he which shall compare the tyme of the primitiue church vnto infancy , may haue right good meaninges therin , such as yourselfe must alow . For , How the churche may be saied to haue her infancie . lyke as to infantes many thinges are permitted , which afterwardes shall leisurely be taken awaie : so in the primitiue church vnder the sight and gouernement of the Apostells , some ceremonies of the old lawe were suffered to continue , which now emong all Christians are vtterly abrogated : Act. 15. ● &c. 21. d as circuncision , purification , and absteinyng from certen meates . Againe , lyke as all thinges are not opened vnto childerne , which in further processe of yeres , serue for their profit and vnderstanding : so the wysedom of God , which was abundantly in his Apostells and their successours , did not straitwaies put furth in writyng all misteries , but as occasion afterward required , so it brought furth in to the open knouledge of the church , the auncient and Apostolical verities . I might allso saie , that because the church then , was , in externall shew , both poore and naked , and subiect to persequutions , therefor it was in her infancie , but now when it is so glorious , so strong , and mightie , that she hath the Princes of the world obedient and subiect vnto her , and hath noblely spreaden herselfe ouer the cumpasse of the whole world , it is no great absurditie ( I trow ) , if she be said to haue come to a perfect age and stature . Which yet , if you will call dotage , because of many euill maners and enormities extant in her , I would not striue with you vpon it , concernyng some members of her , if you dyd so speake without priuy spite and malice . But yet this doth folow , that the same was then , by our saying , in her infancie , which now is come , as you report , to her dotage . And as infancie then , dyd nothing preiudicate vnto her wysedome , by which she was well able to gouerne and rule her childerne , so her dotage now , which is seen in the liffe of manie , doth nothing excuse you , for contempnyng your old mother . If therefor now , it may be well said , in sundrie waies and senses , that the church in the Apostells tyme , was in a certen infancie , what spryte moued you to make such a sense of it , as against which you might vse your indignation , without the matter and purpose ? Or with what honestie could you conclud , that the Catholikes do make Christ and his Apostells infantes : of which the one , thei honor as true God , the others , thei worship as Doctours and Patrones of the world ? Brothern ( saieth the Apostle ) I could not speake vnto you as vnto spiritual , 1. Cor. 3. but as to carnall , lyke as to litle ones in Christ , I gaue vnto you milke to drinke , not meate . For as then you were not able , no neither yet you can . For as yet you be carnall . And to the Galathians : Gal. 4. O my litle childerne ( sayeth he ) with whom I am in trauaile againe , vntill Christ be formed in you . Doe not therefor , Sir , I pray you , so ernestly take the matter , when you see the Apostle hymselfe , not to leese any of his own strength and wisedome , because of the imperfection of the Corinthians and others : and consider allso , whether thei might not be called infantes , which as yet , were to be fedd with milke . But let vs goe further in to the chapiter . You laie the cause of priuate Masse vpon the keycold charitie of the people , Defence . fo. 14. ( and perhappes the first occasion came thereof in deede ) but. &c. Who tould you that this was the cause of priuate Masse ? You read it not , I am assured , in the Apologie which you would faine answer : and yet you buyld so much vpon it , as though it had ben a most plaine conclusion of it . The Catholike in hys Apologie sayeth , that the constant faith , the pure liffe , the feruent charitie , &c , whiche florisshed in the primitiue church , were causes perhappes , why no Masse was then celebrated , but that diuers Christians dyd communicate . But what conclusion doth he inferr there vpon ? not that truely which you dreame of , The M. of the defence mistaketh the Catholike . but this only which he labored to proue , that you should not therefor require the lyke manner of communicatyng with the priest , to be at these dayes vsed , when the lyke deuotion and charitie ys not in the peoples hartes grounded . He said not , that the keycold charitie of the people shold be the cause of priuate masse , no more then he saied that the number of communicantes was the efficient cause of saying masse , as though there might haue ben no masse att all , except there had ben some prepared to receiue . Is there no difference ( trou you ) betwyxt these ij . propositions : There were no masses saied in the primitiue church , but there were some readie to comm●nicate , and , Except there had ben some readie for that purpose , there would haue ben no masses in the primitiue church . The first perhappes was true , and the cause thereof ys attributed in the Apologie , vnto the deuotion of the people . The second ys denied playnely vnto you , because the sacrifice of the church of Christ , doth not depend at all , vpon communicantes ▪ for lyke as in these dayes at an Easter tyme , the perfect holy men may be espyed to go closely in to some one chapple , and there saie priuatelie a masse , in great deuotion and silence , the cause of which is , not in the lacke of such as would communicate , but , togeather with many other causes , the desire which thei haue geauen in to their hartes , to goe so much the further from the sight and respect of men , by how much the neerer they would come to the contemplation and admiration of God : so it might right well haue come to passe , without any scripture , a●thoritie , or reason to the contrary , that euen in the most best tyme of the primitiue church , such masses were saied now and then , which you do odiously call priuate . Wherefor seing there is so great fault committed of you in the misconstruing of the Catholike his reason , no wonder if you haue taken great peines in commentyng vpon it all out of purpose . As when yow tell vs of many commodities , which grow by the oft receiuing of the sacrament &c. But who shall bring the people daily or weekly , yea quarterly rather vnto the receiuyng of their maker , yf thei will not themselues ? The priestes ( saie you ) should warne them and instruct them , Defence . fo. 16. and tell them plainely , that if they be gasers only and no receiuers , they runn thereby in to displeasure of God : with many other vehement sentences , which for that purpose you alleage owt of S. Chrisostome . And you make the matter so easie , as though for the speaking , the priest could bring the people vnto the communion : whereas it doth presently appeare euen in your late erected churches , that , for al that you are able to do , you haue most often tymes no communion at all . And except it were , more for the princes law , then for that by your vehement exhortations you shold perswad the people , I thinke there wold be fewer communions by four partes , then are now in England , which as many as they are , do not lightly excede one or .ij. a quarter in most parisshes . Math. 7. First therefor pluck the beame out of your owne eie , and then you shall be better able to take a mote out of an others eie . And when you shall perceaue by experience ( which allreadie in part doth trie it ) that except you constraine men by act of parleament , you shall neuer bring them , by the strength and dailynes of your preaching , vnto the frequentyng of the communion , then lo you shall be more mercifull towardes others in your owne exact iudgement , and thinke , that with good cause , that may be vnspoken , in which you shold haue no hope of redresse to be made by your speakyng . But of the diligence and discretion of the church which she hath vsed , concernyng the calling of people vnto their housel , because of better occasion which hereafter foloweth , I will in this place leaue it vncounted .

But ye obiect , Defenc● fol. 17. that priestes are bounden of dutie to the daily frequentation of it , and the people left free . That would I faine lerne at your hande , and see some good proufe of the Scripture , for the same .

Yf you would faine lerne , Reply . tary vntill I bring our doctors and readers vnto you . But as though you had all the lernyng of the world , sett in a table before your eies , so you answer , that we haue lesse then a light shadow to hyde our assertion in .

Truly , Syr , you geaue testimonie against your selfe , that you be very blind , because you can iudge no better of colours . For this first I trust you will graunt , that priestes and laye men are not alltogeather one . You must graunt allso , that as we are vnder a proper and most excellent law , so lykewyse that we haue a correspondent priesthode : as it is writen , Heb. 7. When 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 , Heb. 5. 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 . Priestes are bound to offer . therefor whereas he in that his last supper gaue authoritie vnto priesthode in saying : Luc. 22. 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 , D● . 12. that it is a most sure token of Antichrist his presence , when 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 , Lib. de Eccle. hier . Thow hast saied : Do this in my remembrance . As who sould saie , except thow hadest geauen licence and authoritie , what man would haue been so bold , as to come nigh to the touching of so diuine misteries . S. Iustine allso the Martir witnesseth , Apo. 2. that the Apostles in their commentaries , which are the ghospells , do declare that Christ commaunded 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 , Cypr. de coena do . 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 , Chry. li. 3. de Sacerd. 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 , Defence fol. 18. as to the priest .

I haue proued vnto you the contrary , Reply . 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 consider 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 , Defence ibidem . applieth the wordes of Christ to the whole congregation of Corinth , where it ys certen , were both ministers and common people . Nay Sir , Replie . vnderstand you this rather , that you vnderstand not S. Paule , which in that his chapiter alleageth the institution 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 communicating 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 , 1. Cor. 11. 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 commaundement to be exequuted ? if you meane the first , you agree with vs : if you meane the second , you disagree from common 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 , Hoc facite . Make this . 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 complaine 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 difference to be , betwyxt the priest and the people , and confesse that , taking , blessing , and breaking , is so properly his , that it can not rightly be the common peoples . Yea marie ( saie you ) but Christ tooke the bread , Defence . &c. then the priest in his ministration must do as Christ dyd , and no otherwyse , that is , to take breake , and geaue vnto the people . &c. Speake you this of your owne mynd , Replie . or do you speake it , as it were vpon occasion of the Catholikes wordes ? Yf you thinke as you speake , why find you no fault with your communion , where no rule ys apointed vnto ministers , of taking the bread in to their handes , or of blessing it , which Christ hymselfe dyd ? But if you beleeue not , that of necessity euery thing must be done , as Christ dyd , at his maundy : what cause then moueth you , whi distributyng should be more required , then taking and blessing of the holy host , which by your seruyce is omitted ? For , the Catholike church doth teach , that as the body of Christ is a sacrifice and a sacrament , so lykewyse that it ys two distinct actes ▪ his body to be offered , and the same to be receiued . And as S. Cypriane , The body of Christ is a sacrifice and a sacr●ment . whom I haue alleaged , doth testifie , that the bread which the true Melchisedech , and our high priest Christ , gaue to his Disciples , was both a whole burnt offering and sacri●ice , and allso a medicine , so , as it is a medicine , it is to be receaued of all Christians , because all without exception are diseased : and as it is a sacrifice , it is actually to be offered for all persons , by such as are properly apoynted out for that purpose , because no man should take an office vpon hym , before he be called . Yet because one may iustly saie , that to shew furth the death of our Lord vntill he come , doth well agree with euery Christian man his part and office , and therevpon vntruly conclud , that Do this in remembrance of me , ( which is , by the interpretation of S. Paule , to shew furth the death of Christ vntill he come ) should in all pointes be referred as well vnto the people , as the priest : therfor I answer further , that allthough many thinges which Christ spake to the Apostles onlye , and their successors , may be truly applied vnto euery Christian , so is it in this case of which we talke . Christ saied vnto the Apostles onlye , You haue not chosen me , Ioan. 15. but I haue chosen you . which allthough it may be truly verified of euery Christian man , woman , and child , ( because that Christ in deed hath chosen vs to his people , so many other besides continuing in their infidelitie or Iuisshnes ) yet it must not folow , that Christ dyd not meane by those wordes , that the Apostles were singularly chosen vnto the proper office of preaching , and ministring his sacramentes . Therfor allthough one may vse the wordes ( Do this in remembrance of me ) in respect of the common peoples affection , yet it is not true that Christ had no larger or greater meanyng in them , then that by eatyng of his body , we should only remember that he dyed for vs , which euery one may do as well as a priest . Wherefor Syr , as you haue concluded , that the priest is not bound to minister to other , if there be none to receaue , ( which is quickly to be graunted vnto you ) so I say , that you haue nothing at all proued , that Christ his institution , stretcheth as well to the people , as the priest , or that the priest could not laufully receaue , except there were some cumpany . But where now are your scriptures , your Doctours , your generall councells , and your crakes , by which you should directly answer , to that which is required of you . We shall perchaunse hereafter in your defence , read many great argumentes against vs , but in the meane tyme , you thinke it good to prouyde for a place of refuge , when the ouerthrow shall be geauen vnto you . And therefor you saie : Yf we had no scripture at all , Defence fol. 18. to proue that the priest should not receaue without cumpany , yf ye dyd geaue vs the ouerthrow in that , yet could ye not triumph therein , as though ye had wonn the field . And why so , I pray you ? Our contention ( you answer ) ys for priuate Masse , &c. fo. 19. of which sole receauyng , ys but one part . You pitch your campe , Replie . Sir , in a very wyde field , and your kind of fight is such , as we perceaue , you would neuer be ouercummed . The church of God , whose armies of doctrine and verities do allwaies stand in good order , if she be iustly ouercummed in any one thing , which she absolutelye mainteineth , she straitwaies shall be forsaken , as one which is not to be credited . But you ( in whose name I will not saie ) are so trimlye prepared , that allthough you be ouerthrowen in one of your articles , yet you will not be ouercummed in the state of your whole religion . Yet how well this may be graunted , lett vs consider . Do not you distinct thinges , some in to necessarie , some in to indifferent ? Do not you saie , Defence fo. 10. & . 18. that the sole receauyng of a priest by hym selfe , is not a thing indifferent ? And do not you make a necessitie of doctrine in it , that the people must receaue with the priest , or els Christ his institution is broken ? Tell me then now further : 1. Tim. 3. Is not the church of Christ , the pillar and staie of truth ? And can that be possiblie his church , which would sett furth a lye ? No truly . It is impossible that the church should err in doctrine , lo● . 16. to whom the Holyghost was promised to teach her all truth , and allso to tary with her for euer . And if but one article which she defendeth , be proued false , I will not saie , that all the rest which she vttered is false , but this is most certen , that she is not the church , which is to be folowed . Yet see , you can so dispose your selues , that allthough you be proued lyers , in one of those your articles which you make necessary , yet you will not be mistrusted , but that neuerthelesse you be the true church of Christ . And whereas the Holyghost , Ioan. 16. which was promised vnto the church , doth teach her all truth , yet you so vnderstand the matter , that for all the ouerthrowing of one whing of your battaile , you neuerthelesse will not leese the whole field and victorie . Which one saying of yours alone , without further stroke geauen , doth so wound your church and confound it , he that discrediteth the church in one point , must either seeke an other chur●che , or recant his saing , & iudgement . that in deed you haue lost the victorie . And it may well be , that your tong is yet free , and that your feete may serue you to runn in to other questions , besides the purpose , but as concernyng the truth ( which is with you in all poyntes , if you be the true church ) you haue lost for euer the grace of it , either because ( as we know ) you can not disproue sole receiuing , either because yourselfe saie , that if you were therein ouerthrowen , you had not yet lost the victorie . Which is thus much in effect , that the church of Christ , ( which honor you challenge vnto yourselfe ) might in any one article be deceaued , and teach that sole receauyng is against the institution of Christ , and graunt for all that , that no ouerthrow is taken , if the cleane contrary be proued . But lett vs consider now , what shiftes you can make , to the disapointing of our purpose ? Our contention is for priuate Masse . &c. of which sole receauing is but one part . Defence .

You may freely make , as many and as few partes as you will herein , Replie . because it ys alltogeather of your owne priuate deuising . The Catholike church , ( as it is oftentymes told you ) hath no priuate masse , and we can not find , for what other cause you nickname it a priuate masse , then , for that the priest alone receaueth . And if we hitherto haue not vnderstanded your meaning , your selues are very much to blame , which haue not defined it vnto vs . All be it , if one may come to an others mynd , by considering his waies in reasonyng , we can thinke no other , but that you meane the priestes sole receauing without the people , by the name of priuate masse , because in all your speakyng against it , you argue directly and only against sole receauing . Which whether we haue concluded against you or no , what haue you to the contrary ? This you saie : It folowth not , Defence . fol. 19. to saie , the priest in case of necessitie , when none will receaue , may take the Sacrament alone , therefore he may do it without necessitie , when he may haue other to communicate with hym .

Yeas truly , Reply . it foloweth very well . for if it be so as you report , that the right and necessarie vse of the sacrament , ys , to receaue it with cumpanie , then can the priest neuer receaue it alone by hymselfe , what so euer necessitie should come vpon hym . for in such thinges as apperteyne to the substance of the sacrament , no creature can lawfully vse the contrary vnto them . But sole receauing seemeth to be graunted of yow to vs , in case of necessitie , ( which prouision or exception you proue not hytherto , out of the expresse word of God ) , ergo it is no part of the necessary substance , which must be obserued about the sacrament . And if it be not essential , then doubtles it may be dispensed with all , then allso may the Church of Christ without breach of his institution , lett the priestes alone with their sole receauyng . what say you then ? ys receauing with cumpanie necessarie ? if you saye , yea : then is it for no mans pleasure or ordinance , in any case to be altered . Yf you saie , no , that is , if you graunt it to be indifferent : why then might nor the priest receaue alone , for any commaundement of Christ or his Apostels ? And what law haue you , either of God or good man , that chargeth hym , to haue alwaies communicantes with hym ? And this I speake concernyng your weake argument , and allso of the libertie which is in the priest , if he be disposed to vse it : Allthough in deed that you can not shew the example , where the priest dyd receaue alone when others would communicate with hym . But now Syr , I pray you , come neerer to the matter , and shew vnto vs due and good proufes against the priests sole receauyng . Because ye vrge so ernestly , Defence fol. 19. to haue due proufe against sole receauyng by the priest if the people will not communicate , I will shew you some reasons : But before I enter . &c. Take our whole meanyng with you , Reply . Sir , we require to haue your proufes , against sole receauing by the priestes , not conditionally , ( with your if the people will not communicate ) as who should saie , see how the M. of the defence ys euer going from the purpose . that the onlye cause of the sole receauing , were thought of vs to be in the lacke of cumpanie , and as though necessitie , which hath no lawe , and not the truthe of the cause dyd make our assertion good : we will not ( I saie ) so vnperfectlye goe to worke against you , but we beleeue and hold absolutely , in the nature of the thinges themselues , that the sole receauyng is not against the word of God . And now , do you what you can , to proue , that vpon paine of God his indignation , there ought to be a cumpany to receaue with the priest at euery masse ▪ Apologie fol. 10. as the Catholike in his Apologie requireth of your side : Or that it were better , not only to plucke hym from the aultar , but allso to cast hym out of the church to , rather then he should receaue alone , and alter the institution of Christ ( as you vnderstand it ) and cause the people to runn headlong in to God his displeasure . Defence fol. 17. which wordes whether you spake in vehemencie of spryte or spyte I can not tell , ( yet who should presume to plucke Ambrose from the aultar , when the Emperour hymselfe ys commaunded out of the quyer ) But if you spake as you thought , and can proue that which you spake , lett vs haue a copie of your reasons , & of the authorities , which so necessarily do moue you . And to the end that it may be perceaued , who dealeth plainely , and who goeth from the purpose , let this be the forme of the question , which is to be talked of betwixt vs . The stat● of the controuersie of priuate masse . Whether , vpon paine of God his indignation , the priest ought to haue allwaies cumpanie to r●ceaue with hym : Now , that you may not saye , that sence your defence hath come furth , the state of the controuersie ys quite and cleane altered , turne you , vnto the .7 . and .10 . leafe of the Apologie , and you shall reade most manifestly , that , vnto this state , the question ys dryuen . Therefor Syr , after you doe perceaue the ground vpon which we do , and you shold stand , march you forward in your captaine his name , ( what so euer he be ) which moued yow . You saie then : I will shew you some reasons . Defence . fo. 19. But before I enter in to that , I must warne you once againe , that if our reasons , were not so well able to proue necessitie , yet could you not conclude your purpose , for that your priuate Masse is nothing lesse then necessitie . What we can conclude , Reply . it shall appeare before we depart . But it may be gathered allready , that you are concluded vpp in to a very hard case , Is it not plaine , that the M. of the defence shrinketh ? which make such protestations before you come to the matter . You saied a litle before , that if we dyd geaue you the ouerthrow , yet we could not triumph : and now you warne vs , that if your reasons be not so well able to proue necessitie , ( which is ment , I trow , by the necessitie of some to communicate with the priest ) that yet we could not conclude our purpose , because our priuate masse is nothing lesse then necessitie , ( by which necessitie , you vnderstand , I thinke , the lacke of communicantes , when the priest would receaue ) wherein if I do not rightly interprete you , you must be contented to excuse me : because that if you yourselfe were at this place in so greate necessitie and lacke of wordes , that you could not plainely expresse your mind , no wonder , if he , which readeth your sentencies , be brought in to doubt , what sense he should make of them . As for necessitie , in which many thinges are graunted , and as concerning the blessed thefe , which neuer ( you saie ) was baptised , ( which you saie truly in that he was not dipped in water , and yet he was baptised in the Holy ghost , and in his owne bloud ) because of our principall question , I will not stand about him . And whether in the ordinarie vse of it , the supper of the Lord , ought of necessitie to haue communicantes to be partakers of it , ( as you would make the controuersie to be , ) I will not reason with you at this tyme . Either because it ys not perceaued , what you will meane by the terme ( ordinarie vse , ) either because the question ys more generall , as we haue put it furth vnto you . And wheras at other tymes , The wauering of heretikes , & vncertaine senses . in your pulpites and allso bokes , you appeale vnto the institution of Christ , and make the matter so weighty , as though it might neuer be suffered , that one should receaue alone with out cumpanie , yet now you talke of an ordinary vse of the Sacrament , as who should thinke , that you neuer denied , but that in particular cases , and for extraordinary causes , one alone might receaue , without any iniurie done vnto the institution of Christ . And yet againe , when the Catholikes do alleage diuerse examples and authorities , to proue , that cumpanie ys not necessary , absolutely , in the vse of the Sacrame●t , then loe you be so ernest against them , as though it were in no wyse to be graunted , that in the primitiue church any one example , authoritie , or argument might be shewed , to proue sole receauing , as thowgh yowr cause were anyiote hindered by it , if in deed you hold the question not absolutely , but only concernyng the ordinarie vse of the Sacrament . Wherefor seeing that you goe so in and out , hyther and thyther , without all maner of keeping of order and place , like dimilaunces or light horsemen , or els like the wild Irisshe in their fighting . I therefor thinke it necessarie , againe to byd you remember your selfe , and to consider the state of the question , vpon which the Catholike rested .

And thee ( gentle Reader ) I desire to marke exactly , the cheife and principall matter which we haue to debate vpon . which is this . Not , whether in tyme of necessity a priest may receaue alone , Not whether the ordinary vse of the Sacrament , ought of necessitie to haue communicantes , we will not at this tyme , medle with these questions , because we haue allreadye a greater and more principall in hand : but our question ys this , Whether ( as I haue sayed before ) vppon paine of God his indignation , the priest ought to haue allwaies cumpanie to receiue with hym . Let this be first examined , and then shall the other , be quickly answered . Trusting therefor that thow wilt marke diligently , where vpon the catholike striueth against the aduersarie , I now returne againe , vnto the M. of the defence , and require the to consider the maner of his fighting . In answering the Catholike his demaund , he saieth : defen . f. 19. Our proufe ys this . Maior . In the celebration of this sacrament of the Lorde his supper , we ought to do that only and nothing els , Minor . that Christ the author of it , did in his institution : But in Christ his institution , appeareth neither sole receauyng , Conclusio . nor ministring vnder one kynd : therefore in celebration of the sacrament , neither sole receiuing , nor ministring vnder one kind ought to be vsed .

First to the maior , then to the minor , Reply . Syr I deny your maior vnto you , To do all that Christ did in his last supper , is not , with out all exception and limitation , necessarie . because you affirme , that generally , which ys true only in certen pointes of Christ his maundy . For , if we must do that only , which Christ dyd at his supper , and doe nothing els but that , then must we vse sitting , and not kneeling or standing , then must the Sacrament be delyuered vnto .xij. persons and neither to more nor lesse : then shall we not celebrate before dyner , or in a cope or surplesse , or with psalmes , organes , and solempnitie , such as you allso vse , because we must do nothing els but that , which Christ did , as your maior importeth . Now if you be to wise and lerned to thinke that in such a generall manner , we ought to do as Christ did at his last supper , then haue you iust cause to correct your maior , and we can not but deny it , vntil we may vnderstand of your limitation , which you will ( we trust ) add vnto it . And what limitation might that be , which being added , we would graunt your proposition . Forsoth if for the terme institution , you woulde put tradition . For what so euer Christ dyd about the consecrating or delyuering of his pretious body , it may be truly saied , that he dyd it in his institution , but yet such circumstancies as he then vsed , are not beleeued to be his tradition . For it is allso one thing , to saie , thys is Christ his institution , and it hath a farr other meanyng , to saie , Christ dyd this in his institution . For his institution importeth a law , and is directly to be obserued , but the phrase of in his institution , importeth a signification of tyme , and place , and circumstancies , within which his institution was vttered . Which thinges , as thei be not essentiall , but stand only about the substance , themselues being accidentall and chaingeable , so thei may be , without all hurt , altered , as the church shall thinke good and conuenient . Therefor , as I graunt , that in matter of weight and substance , Christ onlye , and no other , is to be folowed : so in that generall manner of speach , which you do vse , I am sure , it can neuer be proued . Yeas saie you : The maior is S. Cyprianes , Defence fol. 19. proued at large and much staied vpon , in his epistle ad Cecilium , de Sacramento sanguinis .

You may be for euer ashamed , Reply . that you alleage Saint Cypriane for the proufe of your proposition , which nothing at all maketh for you , and that you do so wickedly , in so ernest a matter , abuse the simplicitie of your countriemen , such as can vnderstand no Laten . And because it is not once or twyse , that you appeale vnto this epistle of S. Cypriane , I will therefor sumwhat at large , shewe it furthe in this place , to the Reader , that he take good heed for euer , of geauing hastie creditt , vnto strainge and newfound teachers .

There were in S. Cyprians tyme , some such priestes , which , either for simplicitie , or for custome sake , or for certen deuout causes , dyd offer vp at the tyme of the misteries , not wyne and water togeather , but only water by itselfe . Against whose doinges in that point , S. Cypriane most ernestlye writeth , Cyprian . li. 2. epi. 3. and it is the only scope and marke , at the which he shooteth in all that long epistle : alleaging first the example of Melchisedech , Gen. 14. which brought furth bread and wyne , for he was the priest of God most highest : afterwardes the saying of Salomon , Prouer. 9 how that wysedome killed her sacrificies , and mingled her wine in a cup : then further , the prophesie of ●acob , speaking of his soun Iuda in the figure of Christ , Gene. 49 and saying : he shall wasshe his robe in wyne , and his cloke in the bloud of the grape : after that againe , the testimonie of Esai , Esa. 63. when he saw the vestmentes of Christ full of redd spottes , as if he had come lately from the wynepresse : Math. 26. he alleageth allso the institution of Christ , 1. Cor. 11. 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 wyne and water should be mengled togeather in the chalic● . 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 contempne , 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 , than 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 ? Let this be answered . 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 , Note diligently how S. Cyprian ys misconstrued , and the reader abused by the M. of the defence . 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 institution of his sacrament , delyuered furth allso his bloud . Whiche S. Cyprian yet dyd no more thinke vpon , then he feared least any grammarian should come , many hundred yeares after hym , and interprete his plaine wordes in such a froward sense as you haue done . And so in the Englisshing furth of the selfesame sentence , after these wordes , and no other thing to be done , then that the Lord dyd first for vs hymselue , you make a full periode and point : whereas it foloweth in S. Cyprian , as clause of the same sentence , that in deede we should doe as our Lord had done first hymselfe , but wherein and how farr , trowe you ? in all thinges , and all circumstancies ? no truly . For straitwaies it foloweth , in S. Cyprian , and it is the limitation of the whole proposition , that the chalice which is offered vp in commemoration of hym , be offered vp mixt with wyne . By which wordes he plainelye declareth his intent and purpose , which was that for the tradition of mengling water and wyne in the chalice , we should not folow any other order , then that , which Christ hymself fyrst vsed . Therefor , if you meane by your maior proposition , that which S. Cypriane meaneth , the plaine sense thereof is this , that as concernyng the offering of wyne alone , or water alone , we should folow Christ his tradition only , which apointeth for the chalice both water and wyne . But then your argument will be very ridiculous , as in example :

We ought to do that only , Maior . which Christ did , and nothing els , as concerning the ordering and tempering of the chalice :

But in Christ his institution appeareth , Minor . neither sole receiuing , nor ministring vnder one kynd :

Therefor ( you may inferr when you will ) that , Conclusio . if all abbeis were destroied , we should haue fortie egges for a penie .

The maior of this argument is S. Cyprians , and much staied vpon in his epistle ad Cecilium . The minor is your owne . The conclusion ys lawfull and currant . For to suche agreeable and proper premisses , euerie conclusion will serue will inowgh .

But now if you will haue your maior to be generall : first I flattly denie it : then I haue declared that it ys not extant in S. Cypriane : and thirdly , I answer vnto you , that you do not beleeue your owne maior , because that in your communion no water is put in to the chalice .

Now as concerning your minor , I graunt it vnto you , that in the last supper of Christ , there appeareth no sole receyuing . I allso confesse , that S. Iustine , and S. Denyse the Areopag●te , whom you alleage , do well proue , that in their daies there were communicants to receiue with the priest . But , as I must tell you againe , our question is not of what was done , but of what might haue ben done then , and now ys done withowt offence of God , and breach of Christ his commaundement .

I answer : Defence fol. 26. Christs institution , the example of the Apostles , the common vse of the fathers , was otherwaies : therefore the priest should not communicate without other .

I denye your argument . Replie . for their vsages and doinges , are not lawes vnto the church , so as they may not be altered . And by this reason you may bring vs to receiue after supper , because of the institution of Christ , Luc. 24. example of the Apostles , and common vse of the primitiue church . As we againe myght bryng yow to take the sacrament in one kind , because of the authoritie of Christ , and example of the primitiue church . But you seeme to yeld that you haue no expresse commaundement to bryng furthe agaynst vs , and yet that notwithstanding , you will haue vs to be ouercummed . And to this purpose , you saye : You haue no expresse commaundement , Defence . fol. 26. which forbeadeth you , to baptyse in the name of the father only : but that Christ his institution was otherwyse . What was the institution of Christ therein ? Reply . was it not , that his Apostles should baptise , in the name of the Father , the Soun , and the Holighost ? Yet the Apostles did baptise , in the name of IESVS only , without mention made of the Father , or the holighost . Yf thei did breake Christ his institution , thei were not faithful Apostles , and yet , thei do not seeme to keepe it , when thei do not baptise in the name of the three persons . What then shall we saie ? Truly , that you vnderstand not the institution of Christ , and that the church is the staie of all the Catholikes , which doth interprete vnto them Christ his full mynd and order . And lyke as it is answered by autentike , and good authoritie , that in baptising in the name of Ihesus Christ , the sacrament is full and perfect . For he which saieth , CHRIST , comprehendeth in that one word the father which anoynted hym , and the holy ghost with whom he was anoynted , and then Christ , which is by interpretation the anoynted , and so doth make vp the misterie of the three persons : so in receauing vnder one kynd , we receaue both flesh & bloude , as perfectly as if both kindes had ben ministred : and in receauing alone , we receaue as much of the true and reall profit which cummeth vnto vs by the sacrament , as if all the parishe dyd beare vs cumpanie at the aultar . Therefor , when you talke of Christ his institution of baptisme , you speake you can not tell what , and you know not , Ioan. 3. & 4. I beleue , when Christ instituted that sacrament . For he baptised before his resurrection , were it by himselfe or by his Apostells , and he gaue not the commaundement of baptising , Math. vlt. in the name of the father , the soun , and the holighost , before the tyme of his ascension . And againe , when yow tell vs , that we haue no other proufe against hym , which would baptise in the name of the father , then Christ his institution , The bold ignorance of the M. of the defence . yow would seeme to vnderstand and know all our reasons and conclusions , and yet you be as ignorant in that point , as he which neuer had readen any other then his owne doctours . Reade in Petrus Lombardus , that lerned Bishope , in what sense it may be true , Senten . li. 4. dist. 3. that one might baptise in the name of the father , without specifying of the Soun or the Holyghost . Therefor to conclude , you haue hytherto , either not prouyd your purpose , either spoken owt of the purpose , either made directly against your owne purpose .

The fourth Chapiter .

THE Catholike in his Apologie , folowing his principall purpose , beginneth to shew , what the priest may doe . And he alleageth S. Chrisostome , by whom he would make yt plaine , bothe what the priest may doe , and what the people should doe , that yf the people will not folowe good exhortations , then the priest without all doubt , maie doe his dutie . As who should saie ▪ if communicantes were to be had , then were the question a great deale more doubtfull : but if none will be brought to receaue with the priest , then is there nothing to staie hym , but he may receaue alone . For as all surseasing of sutes in the lawe , ys first to be wished , and if that can not be obteined , that then a man may sue for his right : so all good men may wishe , that the people should be allwaies well disposed , and yet yf they will not be brought vnto it , the priestes may sue for their right . Which similitude being alleaged , and seruing also well for this purpose , that if we can not come to the best , we may laufully take the next best vnto it , yet the M. of the defence , doth make such a doe against it , as though it were a principal argument of ours , in refelling of which , he might shew his florishies . And thus he saieth : In recityng the authoritie of Chrisostome , Defence . fol. 27. you bring in a similitude or comparison , which , of how small force thei be in prouyng , your lerning can not be so litle , but that you must needes know .

The similitude ( of which you speake ) was not brought in , Reply . so much to proue , as to open and expound that , which then was to be approued . And whereas you confesse , and we know , that similitudes are of small force in them selues , wherefor doe you discusse so narowlie , all the partes of this similitude , as though there had not ben one speciall point , for the which it was alleaged ? which is this : Yf we can not obtaine the best , that then we should take the next best vnto it . which veritie being so natural , and reasonable , the author of the Apologie was not so scrupulous , as to passe vpon a most perfect squaring of his similitude , whereas , to his intent and conclusion , it was , he thought , well inowgh framed . But yet let vs consider your wisedome in vsing of your aduersarie , and the mightie strength of your reasons , which yow bring furth against hym . Besides this you conclude here only the case of necessitie , Defence . which helpeth the common vse of the priuate Masse , very lytle .

As for the common vse ( as you speake now ) or the ordinarie vse , ( as you spake before ) or the terme of necessitie , Fol. 20. p. 1. ( in which necessitie , it seemeth by your owne confession , that we proue vnto you our sole receauing , which you call priuate Masse , ) all these are but shiftes of yours , and starting holes , in whiche you may couche , before the ignorant , and seeme to haue some hart left vnto you . As for vs , if we proue that in necessitie , when the people wil not receiue , the priest may take and eate alone : ergo sole receiuing may be vsed , ergo the indignation of God hangeth not ouer hym which hath no felow communicantes , ergo we haue our purpose , which was , to make the state of our question , not vpon common vse or ordinarie vse , but generally vpon sole receiuing , whether , absolutely , it be against Christ his commaundement and his truthe or no. but let vs come to the forsaid similitude which so much displeaseth you .

You make your comparison , Defence betweene thinges very vnlike and of nature diuers : that is , betweene possible and impossible , and lawf●ll and vnlawfull .

I wyll not greatly wonder , Reply . if you haue strainge opinions as concernyng diuinitie , whereas in naturall matters and reasonable , yow make new conclusions besides all truth and consequence . What call you then impossible ? Mary ( saie you ) that all contention should be banisshed from emong men in this world . What thinke you then of virginitie ? Is it not as impossible , that it should be kept of all Christians , as you thinke it impossible , that an vniuersall concord might be contynued emong men , whiles thei lyue in this world ? No doubt , but you wyll graunt my saying true , in respect of the whole number of Christians , whereas many of the spirituall fathers , and brothers of your syde , do thinke that virginitie can not be kept vndefiled , no not in any one person of the world . As a Prophete of your owne , boldly preached at Abingdon , in presence of the whole deanery , A holy prea●her . to the great commendation , forsoth , of his chastitie , that All thinges which beare horne or heare , must goe to their mate , once a yeare . But , I thinke not so euil of you , that virginitie should be altogeather impossible , mary that generallie it is to be no more looked for , then surseasing from all contention , in so miserable a world , I am sure , you confesse it vnto me . Yet , I dare to make this similitude , and stand in it allso againste you , that , lyke as queene apples , ( or take what other name of good apple yow will ) are most to be chosen , and yet yf a man loue a crabb better , God make hym mery with it : so it were to be wisshed , and it ys most best in deed , that all should , be virgins , yet yf any body haue a mind to mariage , I am not master of his tast , therein . How say yow Syr , to this comparison ? will you tell me , that the nature of apples and virginity , A similitude may be made betwene thinges , in nature , diuers . are very vnlyke ? or that crabbes are sowre , and mariage is sweete ? or that it is impossible that all should be virgins , but in any markett daie of the yeare , a man shall find good apples ? or that mariage is honorable , and that crabbes are meate for swyne ? will you make such a serching or Anatomie of a simple and plaine similitude , and gather so euill a sense of it , as either folie or malice can deuyse ? Or els rather , will you examine it no further , then the present matter and cause required , for which only the similitude serued ? for as I doe not deny but that a pleasaunt felow wold make much sport vpon my similitude , yet neuerthelesse my meaning is very true and honest : that if a man will not folow counsell in the best , he may be suffered to folow hys fancie , in that which is not the worst .

Crabbes allso , are not euil , as some choke peares are , and they add a certen grace vnto the cupp when they be rosted : and , to be short , they are not so farr behind good apples in worthines , as mariage is farr beneth virginitie , be it spoken without irreuerencie , vnto the Sacrament of wedlocke . Therefore , your conclusion , vpon the Catholikes comparison , is very false and faultie , because I haue shewed a good and true similitude , in whiche yet after your interpretation , the one member is impossible , & the other is possible . Also your mery folowing of the catholikes similitude , and your concluding ( as it were by the like argument ) that bisshopes must not forbydd priestes to haue such cussons with whom Si non castè tamen cautè : ys much lyke as when Iacke an Ape , Neither apes , men : neither the M. of the defence doth folow well the Catholikes . doth besides the right waye and maner , put a reasonable man his cote vpon hymselfe . For as the suing for our ryght is lawfull , so will we proue that sole receyuyng is lawfull : but as the suing for a man hys right is lawful , so neither you neither we do thinke , that priestes to haue lemmans is lawfull . We also come to our conclusion by an honest principle , as , When the best is not obtained , let vs yet take the next best vnto it , but the principle vnto your conclusion must be this , ( when the best is not obtained , let vs take that , which is naught . ) Yea truly , not in sport but in sadd ernest , you make a worse kind of reason , fauling from the not obtayning of the best , to concluding of that , which is worse then naught . As , when you can not haue ministers to lyue chast , to geaue them free licence to take open harlottes . whom although you couer , with the name of wiues or sisters , yet are they in very deed , no better , then I haue termed them . Now after all this , you saye that all our whole drift ys , by alleaging the corruption of maners in the world , to proue that priestes must therefor receaue alone , because none will receaue with them . But once againe , I tell you , you vnderstand not our dryft . for yf the whole worlde might and would receaue togeather with a priest , yet we hold , that sole receauyng is , in itselfe , alowable . And as you do misvnderstand vs in this , so do you in an other poynt , saying : Ye haue taken order for the people , Defence fo. 28. generally to receaue , only at Easter .

As who should saie , Replie . that the church hath prouyded , that they should not receaue generally at other tymes of the yeare , but only at Easter . Which is as false as God is true . For the Canon and decree of the church , is , that who so doth not receaue at Easter , shall not be accounted a Christian. The wordes are these . Omnis vtriusque sexus sidelis , Concilij Lateranensis sub Inno. 3. ca. 21. postquam ad annos discretionis peruenerit , omnia sua solus peccata confiteatur fideliter , saltem semel in anno , proprio sacerdoti , & iniunctam sibi poenitentiam studeat pro viribus adimplere , suscipiens reuerenter , ad minus , in Pascha , Eucharistiae sacramentnm , &c. and they are thus much in Englishe , Let euerie faithfull man , woman , and child , after they come to yeares of discretion , confesse by them selues , faithfully , vnto their owne priest , all their synnes , once a yeare at the least , and studie to fullfill according to their power , the penance inioyned them , reuerently receauing the Sacrament of the Eucharist , Note the M. of the defence his honesty or knowledg● in understanding of generall councells . at Easter , at the least . &c. By which decree she doth not ( I trow , ) take order that the people shall generallie receaue onely at Easter , but that if they receaue not at that tyme ( ad minus , at the least , ) they shall be punished for it . Declaring hereby how much she mislyketh , that the people will not voluntarilie prepare them selues to receaue their maker , wheras she is constrained to put furth a law , that , at the least , they shall receaue at Easter , or els be accounted for not Christans . where lerned you then , that the people were apointed to receaue onlie at Easter ? Or in what text or glose do you find it , that the church hath taken order for them , not to receaue generally at other tymes ? Tell vs , I praie you , whether all be one in your iudgement , to saye , you shall receaue at Easter , at the least , and , you shall receaue only at Easter ? The first the church decreeth , constrainyng thereby , herr childerne to remember their dutie , and to receaue the cumfort of their sowles . The second is only by you imprinted , to make the laity suspect the gouerment of the Catholike Bishopes , as though they should study how to diminisshe the common peoples profit and knowledge , and therefor had taken order and diligence , that they should receaue only at Easter . What authoritie you haue to make such open and wicked lyes , I knowe not . but allthough it might be geauen , yet a good man wold not vse it . And allthough you might scape vnespied , thorough the greate credence in which your brothers haue you perchaunse , yet should you not shew such malice or boldnes towardes the good and indifferent reader , or towardes a neuer so euillbeloued aduersarie . But now to an other matter . An other matter I maye well saye . For whereas it was consequent , to bring in the testimonie of S. Chrisostome , you deferr that ouer vnto the fifthe chapiter , and occupie the reader and the replier allso , ( when any such would be found out for you ) with the question of the sacrifice . In which matter , although I might be long and copious in answering you , yet , as much as I can prouide for it , I will be short and compendious , in declaring the truth . Therefor let vs heare of you , where your griefe is , that , by answering yea or no vnto it , we may the quicklier end this extraordinarie eruption of yours , against the truth of our sacrifice . First you alleage , that to saie , that the priest is bound to offer vpp the daily sacrifice , ys , The roote of all the abuses of the Lords supper , Defence fol. 28. that haue ben brought in to the church of Christ . &c. Do you thinke then , Replie . that if priestes were not bound vnto it , all abuses which haue sprong vpp ( as you saie ) would straitwaies decaie and wither , the roote of them being taken awaie ? But who shall then stand at the aultar , and intend vpon the misteries , for dutie sake ? And when the parissheners shall make courtesie , and saie one to the other , ( Goe you , and , nay goe you , and , by my trothe I am not readie , and by my trothe then , lett all stand ) wyll you permitt such disorder to contynue , when the roote of abuses shall be taken awaie by you ? or will you apoint some one or other , which shall be bound to serue in the office ? whom yet if you will apoynt to be a reader only , and to haue no further authoritie , then to open the boke , and tell what is writen in it , then shall you disgrace very much the priesthode and order of the newlaw , which by all common reason , should be more worthier , then any ptiesthode that euer was in the world .

Now , if you , being venterous to take the rule of Christen sowles in to your owne handes , are enforced to keepe officies and dignities emong you , for the better commendation of your Ghospell , thinke you that the wisedom of God , and a God hym selfe Iesus Christ , would gather a multitude of nations togeather in to one faith , one hope , and one absolute forme of seruing and honoring God , and prouide no officers concernyng that effect , ouer them ? Or when he hath apointed most perfect and excellent offices to be taken and exequuted of men , for the wealth of his welbeloued , would he leaue them to their pleasure , whether they did folow their office , or no , and lett them stand vnbound and vncharged ? It seemeth then , that as by his diuine prouidence , he , as man , began a priesthode to serue for his church , in matters apperteinyng vnto God , so by as necessarie consequence , he charged his leuetenantes and vnderofficers in that kind , to exequute his wyll , and doe their dutie . Wherefor that priestes should be bound to daily offering ( concernyng the whole body of priesthode , and not euery particular person ) it is so farr of , to be the roote of abuses , that except such a dutie were folowed , we should by this tyme haue had no supper of our Lords at all , I warrant you . Iniquitie would so much haue preuailed , when the dayly sacrifice should haue ceased , and no man his law could haue continued it , if by the law of God , it had bēfound vnrequired . And further I saie , that the church hath brought in or alowed no abuses in the ministration of any sacrament . But you goe forward and lie : This is , Defence . fol. 29. wherewith you do pitifully deface the death and passion of Christ , makyng your selfe , for your glories sake , as it were meanes of reconciliation , between God and his people .

This is a shamefull lie , Reply . yea rather it is a slaunder , whereas you make the desire of glorie to haue ben the cause in the church of Christ , of hauing her priestes endued with such excellencies and prerogatiues . And you speake so aduisedlie , as though Aaron had not stode laudablie , betwyxt God and the people , when the plague was sent furth against them , Num. 16. Num. 14. or Moyses had done presumptuously , to be the spokesman for the people vnto God , or as though Christ had not sent his Apostells euen as his Father sent hym , Io. 20. or S. Paule had not geauen warnyng vnto the Corinthians , 1. Cor. 4 concernyng such as he was hym selfe , that they should take them so , as the ministers of God , and dispensators or distributours of his misteries . Againe , This ys it , Defence . that hath discoraged Christen people from the often vse and frequenting of the Sacrament . As though that , Replie . if there were no priestes at all , there would be continuall receauing , or that priestes would receaue more oft then they do , if they were free and not bound vnto it . The people ( say you ) is left free to come as seldome as they wil. You speake cuttedly and vntruly : Vntrulie , because yourselfe confesse , that the church hath taken order , that the people receaue at Easter , and then are thei not left free to come as seldome as thei wyll , which must come ones a yeare : And cuttedlie , because thei are left free to come in one yeare , not as seldome as thei wyll , but allso and rather as oft as they will . And if it be in their wil and power , to come euerie weeke or daie , in which masse is celebrated , how should the state of the priest be the cause of stopping their libertie ?

You shall goe with hym for his wysedome , which being condempned for robberie , sayed , that if he had neuer praied to Sainct , he had neuer come to hanging . As you do now put the cause of the peoples fault , in the holye order and office of priesthode . But , I trust , you had somwhat that moued you against priestes , about their office of sacrificing . Where vpon it foloweth : Sure I am , that neither the institution of Christ maketh mention of any oblation or sacrifice to be done by the minister , sauing only the sacrifice of thankesgeauing , nor yet the scripture apointeth any bounden duetie for the priest , more to vse the sacrament , then other godlie and well disposed Christians .

Whether the priest ys bound to vse the sacrament , more than other good people , it is nothing to the purpose to aske it , except you take the word ( vse ) for sacrificing . I tell you so oft of your euill maner herein , because you should hereafter amend it . But for the other matter , which in deed ys now in question , what if you reade not in the institution of Christ , speciall mention , of oblation to be done by the priest , are you straitwaies at your wittes end , that you can not tell where to seeke further for the truth ? Doe yow not know , that our Sauior was found after iij. Luc. 2. dayes seeking , in the middle of doctours ? and , doe not holy men interprete vs our Sauiors meanyng , such as ourselues should neuer find in scripture , yf we loked till our eies were out , in the letter only and text of it ? Allso where find you in the institution of Christ , any precise mention made of the sacrifice of thankes geauing ? which onlie sacrifice yow find there , or els you lie . Then , as you might thinke vs of very small iudgement , if we would denie the sacrifice of thankes geauyng , because we doe reade no such word ( sacrifice ) in the text of Christe his institution of the sacrament : so , ( as we may be content , that you shew vnto your selfe therein , some part of fauor , and beleue that which is not expressie writen ) yet do ye not vse , such argumentations by negatiues , with vs hereafter , except we should reason , only for makyng of sport , or spending of tyme . Yet to declare vnto you shortly , that some see more then you doe in this matter , I answer that ( hoc facite ) which is to saie , doe this or make this , standeth emong other his significations there , allso for sacrificare . For so is facere taken , in sundrie places of the scripture . And if you take ( facere ) in his most common signification , Leu. 24. Iud. 13. Ezech. 45 I saie , that Christ dyd make an oblation and sacrifice of his bodie , in his last supper , and his Apostles are authorised and charged to do as he dyd , ergo thei were bound to offer , and to sacrifice , Bishopes also & priestes now must folow their example , whom thei succede in office . The priestes are bound to offer . For Christ our Sauior , after he had ended the eating of the lambe , according to the manner of the old law , he instituted and brought in , the eating of his owne fleshe , of the truth of which the old paschal was but a figure . Reade S. Hierome vpon the. 27. of S. Matheu . But the paschal lambe was off●red vp to God before it was eaten , Ex. 14. therefor vndoubtedly , ( that the truth might answer the figure ) Christ offered hymselfe in his maundie before the Apostles receaued hym . Consider allso , that a sacrifice properlie , ys , when any thing is made holie to the honor of God : and what thing in old or new testament , did euer sett furth the honor of God more worthely , then the geauing of his owne flesshe to feede wretches ?

Or where was there any thing euer made of prophane holie , if not then , when Christ toke breade in to his handes , and saied in his allmightines , Math. 26. This ys my bodie ? I note , besides all this , vnto you , that in S. Luke his Ghospell it is saied expreslie of our Sauior , takyng the bread in to his handes , Luc. 22. This ys my body , which ys geauen for you . Not , which shall be geauen only vpon the crosse , but which presently is geauen , neither geauen only to you at this present , as though all consisted in the eating , but euen now geauen for you , by which , an oblation , a present , a sacrifice , or some such seruice of his bodie , is signified . Thinke you then , that you might not reade in the verie institution of the sacrament , that his bodie was offered of hymselfe , and that the Apostles had commaundement to folow his example therein , if you had a simple and faithfull eie , to see all that to be true , which the church spelleth vnto you ? But a sacrifice is a thing geauen vnto God , Defence . fol. 30. the sacrament was a thing geauen vnto vs , nothing can therefore be of nature more contrarie , then your sacrifice , and Christ his sacrament .

You must not stand herein , Reply . if you doe well . For Luthers opinion , and Zuinglius encountring hym in the sacrament , are a thousand tymes more contrarie , A sacrament and sacrifice maye stand togeather . than a sacrifice and a sacrament . For thei can neuer be brought to agreement , but sacrament and sacrifice , doe very quietlie stand togeather what ? Dyd you thinke that we offered sacrifice vnto any other then to God ? Or if we had any part in it for ourselues , weened ye , that God must be vnserued ? Marie , Syr , if there were nothing els , yet because we haue a God , there is nothing more conuenient , then to haue a sacrifice for hym , and nothing to hym ys more wellcome , then his verie owne soun his body . Were it not a great absurditie , that of our corne or any lyke thing , we might make both an offeryng vnto God , and meate allso for our selues afterwarde , and that Christ of his bodie , the true and sweete floure or meale , shold make no larger commoditie , them to geaue vndeserued breade to synners ? where lerned you , that one , the selfe same thing , can not be both a sacrifice and a Sacrament ? we haue sucked ( you saie ) our error , out of the fashions of speaking , 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 celebration 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 Defence fol. 30. of the common people ) that the administration of the sacrament of this offering , was called an oblation :

An other occasion , fol. 31. 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 , Ibidem . 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 , Fol. 32. 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 , Reply . 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 , them 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 . what a sacrifice is . 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 , August . li. 10. de ci●i . Dei ca. 4. other some externall and visible . The inward and internall sacrifice may be thus defined : It is that worshipp and seruice , what an internal sacrifice is . 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 perchaunse 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 , what an externall sacrifice is that ys to saie , an holie signe of the inuisible sacrifice . Of this second kind of sacrifice if you require examples , you may easelie find them in the sacrificies of Abel , Noe , Abraham , and others in the law of nature , Gene. 4. 8. 13. & . 20 and in the boke of Leuiticus , as concerning the old law , and in the churches and deuotions of Christians in this tyme of grace , as when 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 deuotion 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 and 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 tormentes 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 principal sacrifice of his pure hart and mynd , and by this we vnderstand , that God excedinglie loued man , which of mere good will and compassion , was content so to suffer for man . What shall we geaue then againe vnto God , for all this , which he hath done for vs ? we owe to hym remembrance of these benefites : we owe vnto hym thankes : we owe vnto him loue . Remembrance is moued by representation and signe : Thankes require a present and gift to be vttered by : Loue desireth to be made one with that which is loued .

To keepe his benefites in remembrance , we might vse , either reading , or hearing of his actes out of bokes , or painting of his passion , and expressing of his liffe in colours . But images , we knowe are similitudes only , and are farr from the thinges themselues . To the signifieing of our thankes , we might either sing them by mouth , or sound them by instrumentes , of shew them in the buylding of churches , and decking of them with ornamentes . And as concernyng Loue , we might fetch deepe sigthes , and haue ernest desires , but as the seruantes of holie Iob saied by theire master , in token of their exceding loue , who might geaue vs to haue our full of his flesshe ? Iob. 31. We ought to render singular deuotions , because we haue receaued singular benefites , but our memorie ys so vnstable , our power so litle , and our charitie so faint , that allthough verie reason persuadeth , that we , after a most best manner , shoulde remember , thanke , and loue , so mercifull and bountiefull a Sauior as Iesus ys , yet the miserie of nature declareth , that we are not able to doe , either as we should , either , perchaunse , as we would .

In this doubt therefor , who shall helpe vs , but he , which hath dyed for vs ? which because he is made our heade , hath therfor this office to direct and rule the bodie . And so trulie he hath done . For in his last supper he toke bread , and saied This ys my bodie , he toke the cupp , and saied , This ys my bloud of the new testament , and with this bodie and bloud which he hath and doth geaue vnto vs , we are able to discharge all our duties , and make a full and perfect offering . Of which bodie , and the misteries and treasures thereof , if I would particularlie speake , all tyme and studie were to litle for the greatnes of the matter . But for those three pointes , the which I make mention of , thei may be perfectlie brought to passe , in the hauing and enioying of his true bodie .

For as concernyng our charitie and loue , it is the most that we can desire in the state of his liffe , to be corporallie , spirituallie , reallie , faithfullie , bodilie , and ghostlie ioyned vnto hym , which onlie is to be loued . Communio . Of which our coniunction with Christ our God , the body and bloud which he gaue vnder the formes of bread and wine , are a signe and sacrament , and are called in respect of this signification and effect , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 in Greeke , Communio in Laten , and Communion in our Englisshe .

Then for geauing of thankes , what greater present is there in earth or heauen , them the firstfruct of the virgins wombe , and the cheifest portion of all creatures , which is the bodie and bloud of Iesus Christ ? So that if holie Abel , No● , Abraham , and other , haue testified their inward sacrifice of thankes , by lambes , corne , grapes , oyle , and so furth : and if Moises with all his people hath pleased God , in offering the firstfructes of their vineyardes , Exo. 23. & . 34. and glebeland , with firstfructes of men and beastes , Eucharisti● . in testimonie of the honor and thankes which thei gaue vnto God : how much more acceptablie , are we now able to offer vnto God a most worthie and pretiouse gift , which haue receaued for that purpose the bodie and bloud of Christ , in whose only bodie , the particular values and prices , of all other presentes , that euer were vnder any law , are shortlie comprised , and reckened summarelie ? And so in this respect , the body of our Sauior is vnto vs Eucharistia , or a sacrifice of thankes geauing .

But now , for the third point , who thanketh hym , whom he remembreth not ? or who remembreth hym , whom he is not warned of ? or what warning can be greater , then the reall presence of the partie ? and the partie being present , what is first considered but his cheefest and worthiest benefite ? That we should therefor allwayes remember our Sauyor hys deathe , which he so openly suffered , that all creatures should behold it , he left vnto vs the same bodie that suffered for vs .

In presence of which , yf we wyll not be brought to remember him , we wil neuer be brought . And in this respect , our Sacrament is called a Sacrifice , Sacrifice . because it is , vnto all such as haue the true and sincere faith , a most holy signe and token of that sacrifice of the crosse , which so long tyme sence is ended , as concerning the painefullnes and bloudnies of his crucified bodie , and yet continueth styll in fresshe memorie , by reason of the reall presence of the same bodie which then suffered .

And lyke as when Easter draweth nygh , we saye , to morowe or the next daye after , is the passion of our Lord , because it is a lyke daye vnto that in which he suffered hys passion : so , because that in the misteries of Christians , the representation of Christs perfect sacrifice , which he offered once for all , ys perfectlie worked , therfor it beareth the name of that bloudie sacrifice , which it representeth . For in deed , we doe not at this daye , sacrifice Christ bloudelie , but rather celebrate the memorie of his paineful sacrifice , which memorie is by no meane , more effectuallie preserued , then by this , that the same bodie is now made reallie present before vs , which at that tyme was sensiblie offered for vs . But how then is it propitiatorie ? forsoth , because of the offering of one selfesame bodye . for allthough we make a commemoration only of his death , & not put Christ to death in deed , yet we haue ( thorough hys gyft ) the selfesame body , which them being put to death rose againe to lyffe , that it might neuer more die , which then was offered vpp bloudelie , and now is offered misticallie , and is in both maners the same Christ verelie , and to the same effect dispensatiuelie . Therefor , as Christ is the true fontaine of lyffe , and the euerlasting and shyning light of cumfort , and as his pretiouse syde after it hath ben once opened , is neuer shut vpp and stopped againe , but alwaies geaueth out the streames of mercy and peace : so it can not but make for the clensing of their synnes , which stand before it , and hope after remission , forgeauenes , and mercie , by it . And as the word propitiation , doth signifie nothing els , but graciousnes , fauor , cause of fauor , or some such like , so the misticall offering of his reall person , which is the deseruer and geauer of all perdon , can not be but propitiatorie vnto them , which come lowlie before his gr●ce , and do hym faithful honor , not withstanding his externall basenes , and the curteins , whiche he keepeth hym selfe vnder .

Thus I haue shortlie declared , what a sacrifice is : And , that one is internall , an other externall : And that vnder the name of internal sacrifice , all pietie and deuotion of the hart is conteined , in to how manie kindes so euer it may be deuided : And that all good externall actions , done in respect of God , are comprehended vnder the name of externall sacrifice , with all the varietie and number of them , be they neuer so diuerse and manie . In which kind of externall sacrifice , I haue putt the sacrifice of the churche , geauing warning vnto you , in what sense the church doth call it a sacrifice .

And now therefor to returne vnto your diuision of sacrifice , you maie lerne hereafter to doe your thinges , in better order . For the oblations , which the people made , of bread , wine , and other victualls : likewise the praying for all states in the ty●e of celebration● : thirdlie euerie good act and consequentlie the action of the priest at the aultar , should haue ben putt of you , vnder the title or member of externall sacrifice . And then you should haue spoken sumwhat of internall sacrifice : And before you had come vnto that , you should haue defined vnto vs , what a sacrifice had ben , that we might haue a little perceaued your good iudgement in the doctors . But let vs forgeaue you this vnskillfullnes , and consider now , whether that , which you haue spoken without order , be not spoken allso of you , without trueth or reason .

First we agree with you , that the people made such offeringes as you speake of . the oblations of the people , in bread , wine , and victuals , was not the cause why the doctours call the sacrament a sacrifice . But we denie , that the offering of the people , was cause vnto the holie fathers , that they should geaue the title of sacrifice , vnto the sacrament . For it is vnreasonable , that the Sacrament should borow the name of oblation , of the peoples offering , and not rather the peoples wine and bread , be honored with that title ▪ because of the Sacrament . For in euerie kind of thing , the first and cheifest in that kind , is first and formest to be accompted . As for example , the offering of Christ , which he made of hymselfe vpon the crosse , because it was the most perfectest and best that euer was made , you should not therefor saie , that by the example taken of the offering vpp of calues , sheepe , or lambes , Christ is saied to be offered , but rather because of his principal sacrifice , all other must from thence haue and borow their name . And so because the oblation , which ys made in the misteries , is of more excellencie , and of higher degree , then the offeringes of the people : no doctour of the church wold be so vnlike hym selfe , as to call that , which the priest consecrated at the aultar , by the name of sacrifice , because it was a selected portion out of the peoples offering . Againe , yf yt were true , that in respect that the bread and wyne was taken out of the peoples offering , therfor the bread and wine consecrated , should haue the name of an oblation , yet you could neuer call the priest an offerer , except for some action , in which his offering might be perceaued . And this shall be the better proued , by considering of your example , which , to shewe your purpose , you bring out of S. Irenei , which speaking of the bread and wine , of which Christ saied , Thys ys my bodie , Iren. lib. 4 cap. 32 thys ys my bloud , witnesseth , that Christ therein taught them ( not vs , as you conster it , but the Apostles first , and after them , and by them , vs ) a new oblation of the new testament , which the church taking of the Apostles , offereth vpp to God in all the world . Here loe in this sentence , if it were possible that the terme ( oblation ) should be applied , not properlie vnto the sacrament , but in respect , ( as you thinke ) of the oblation of the people , yet how doth the church offer , when by your saying , there is nothing to offer . But consider for shame the wordes of S. Irenei : He taught ( saieth he ) the Apostels , a new oblation of the new testament . Yf Christ taught them , thei were to lerning of it : if he taught them a new oblation , it was such as thei neuer had before . Yet of the offering of bread and wine , and such like , Leu. 23. thei had not onlie hard of before , but were allso offerers of it them selues , because all the nation of Iewes had example or commaundement of it , in the law . Againe , if it were a new oblation of the new testament , it is plaine , it was more worth , and more royall , and more true , then any of the old law , what tyme all thinges chaunsed vnto them in figures , 1. Cor. 10. and were done for vs , which lyue now in the later end of the world .

And therefor , if in the old law , the priests oblations were true oblations , and had not that name or title , because thei were offered vp before of the people : what a vile reproche is this , to the euerlasting and new testament , to saie , that when the Doctours do speake of the oblation made at the masse , thei meane thereby , that the common people made offeringes of bread and wyne , to serue therewith the aultar , the priests , and poore beggars .

Allso , this holie father saieth , That the church , receauing ( that oblation ) of the Apostles , doth offer it vpp to God , in all the world . Furthermore he bringeth in , the testimonie of the Prophete Malachie , to proue that the sacrificies of the old law should be abolisshed , and one pure and cleane sacrifice succede them , and please God more then all thei had done . I haue no mynd to you , Mala. 1. ( saieth God , by the Prophete , vnto the Iewes , as concerning their sacrificies ) because , from the East to the weast , my name is greate emong the Gentiles , and in all places there is sacrificed and offered vpp vnto my name , a pure oblation or offering , because my name is greate emong the Gentiles . This testimonie of the Prophete , S. Irenei alleageth , to proue the new testament of which he spake . And by all this , which the church hath receaued , the Apostles haue delyuered , the Sonn of God hath taught , the Prophete hath forshewed , the whole world doth celebrate , is this ( trow you ) vnderstanded , that the people should in the tyme of the new law and kingdome of Messias , come in to the churches with bread , wyne , butter , egges , and cheese , and other good victualls , that of the bread and wine , which thei offer , a portion should be taken , to serue at the communion ? I will be short with you , we the Christians , either haue no externall sacrifice , and then we be in more worse and discumfortable case , then euer any before haue ben , in any kind of religion , or els we haue an excellent oblation delyuered vnto vs , as the Prophete Malachie foreshewed , and Christ exhibited , and the church obserueth . But this excellent oblation , and so much spoken of , is not the oblation , which the people make , ( for the offering of come , wyne , and victualls , was more largelie and plentifullie vsed emong Iewes and Panimes both , then it is with vs ) Ergo the Prophete Malachie spake of an other and better kind of offering . Ergo allso S. Irenei , dyd not meane in his sentence by you alleaged , the simple and obscure oblations of the people , because he speake of that , which the Prophete Malachie had writen of .

Yet to shew the grace which you haue in vnderstanding of the Doctours , whereas this present testimonie of S. Irenei maketh so plainely against you , you saye , that he expoundeth hymselfe in an other place , as in the .34 . chap. of the forsaied boke , And signifieth , that he speaketh not of the offering of the sacrament consecrated , Defence . fo. 30. but of the bread and wyne , offered partlie to the vse of the supper , partlie to the finding of the poore . It is wonder to see your boldnes . Reply . For the place of S. Irenei , by which you would proue this your comment , doth neither make mention of the vse of the supper , An auncient doctour foulie abused by the M. of the defence . neither of finding the poore . But rather he saieth , we make offering vpp to God , &c. offering vnto hym the firstfructes of his creatures , &c. and this pure offering , the church only offereth to our maker , &c. But where doth he saie in that place ( which either should haue serued your purpose , or els not at all haue ben alleaged ) that the new oblation of the new testament , and the prophesie of Malachie , of which he had spoken in the 32. Chapiter before , were to be vnderstanded of the bread and wyne , offered to the vse of the supper , and finding of the poore ? we do not denie , but that the people offered bread and wine for such intentes , but you shold haue proued , that same to be the pure offering , which the church onlie offereth , as S. Irenei saieth . Which can not possiblie be euer concluded , because neither the offering of the people singularlie pure , neither the Church onlie doth offer bread , wyne , and firstfructes , which the verie panymes , & that naturallie , do offer vp , against reason , vnto their false Goddes & Idolls . wherefor you haue brought S. Ierenei out of place , not to expound hymselfe , but to confound your miserable lying . And thus much for the first signification , which you make of the word oblation and sacrifice .

Now as concernyng the second , we graunt , and the church allso hath taught it you , that there is a sacrifice of praier , and a sacrifice of thankes geauing . But how can you proue , that the sacrament it selfe is not allso a sacrifice , that is to saie , an externall and visible signe , of our thankes geauing and praier ? for not onlie Te Deum laudamus , or , Agnus Dei miserere nobis , are sacrificies of thankes geauing , and humble praying , but most especiallie the holie host consecrated . And you must not by one truth take awaye an other , as , because no man wil deny , that the praiers to God , and prayses of God vsed in the masse , are true sacrificies , to conclude therefor , that the bodie and bloud of Christ , are for vs no sacrifice . Further , where you saie , concerning the prayers and thankes geauen at the celebration of the sacrament : That the Doctours in infinite places affirme , Defence fol. 31. that to be the true and onlie sacrifice of the new testament :

It ys most false and vnreasonable . Reply . For thankes and praiers are cōnion sacrificies vnto all religions , and all lawes , new and old , supernaturall and naturall . And then if we should speake exactlie , there is none true and pure sacrifice , Our thankes & praiers are not the onlie and true sacrifice . but onlie that which our Sauior maketh of hymselfe , in what so euer forme , place , and maner , it pleaseth hym to be offered . For all our Iustice , considered by it selfe , without relation made vnto the holines and merites of Christ , Esaie. 64. are like the foule clothes of women , all vncleane and polluted . And the starres themselues being not cleane in his sight , Iob. 25. muchlesse any praiers or praises of men , if without mercie thei should be considered . Againe , where you drawe the matter out with more length then truth . That the fathers called euerie good action , a sacrifice , Defence fo. 31. were it priuate or common , as S. Austine allso signifieth : ( but you tell not where ) you report of them vntrulie , Reply . as S. Augustine may proue vnto you . For he saieth not , Not euery good worke is a Sacrifice , but : that euerie good worke absolutelie , but euerie worke that is done to the intent we might cleaue vnto God in holy societie , is a true sacrifice . As if you should geaue an almes to one , because he is your poore frind which asketh it , and not referr the geauing of it vnto that supreme end and point , which is God hymselfe , all though the act be good morallie , yet can it not be called a sacrifice . After this you bring in Ireneus , The M. of the defence occupieth himselfe in matters which are not in question . Eusebius , Chrisostome , Austyne . but to what purpose ? verelie to proue that which is not denied , that the Christians do offer vpp the sacrifices of thankes geauing , of praiers , and the remembrance of that great sacrifice of the crosse . For who denieth this vnto you ? I tell you againe , that ( to goe no further then the selfesame places of the Doctours which you recite ) we offer to God most high , Euseb. de demonstr . Euan. li. 1. a sacri●ice of praise , but allso as it foloweth , we offer a ful , a sweete , and holie sacrifice , after a new sort , according to the new testament . Yet if you meane the simple praises of our hart and lippes , thei are not worth the honor of so manie epithetons and titles , as Eusebius attributeth vnto the sacrifice of this owr tyme of grace . The M. of the defence beaten doune with his owne weapons . Againe , according to the same Eusebius , true it is , we celebrate the remembrance of that great sacrifice , but yet we take that which foloweth , according to the misteries instituted by Christ hymselfe . By which wordes he geaueth you to vnderstand , that the matter hangeth not vpon your newlie deuised apprehension , by which we represent vnto our memorie , the passion and merites of the Soun of God , but thorough the institution of the misteries , which the fatihfull haue allwaies honored , that remembrance of the highe and bloudie sacrifice , ys continued and celebrated accordinglie .

We hold furthermore , Lib. 22. de ciuit . Dei cap. 10. with S. Austine , that the Martirs are the misticall body of Christ , but yet we hold allso with hym , that , at the sacrifice which we offer vnto God , the Martirs in their place and order , are named . For as our Sauyor hath true bodies , one misticall , an other naturall , so the offering of the misticall , must not exclude the presence and offering of the naturall . Yea rather , how can the misticall bodie be offered , except it be thorough the presence of the naturall ? For the offering of ourselues , is not the offering of Christ his whole misticall bodie , although you affirme it . And if the whole parisshe would ioyne itselfe neuer so stronglie togeather , how doe thei offer S. Peter , S. Paule , and all the rest of the elect and chosen ? But when the naturall bodie of Christ is offered , ( vnto whom , as the head , all the elect , as members , are ioyned , and not onlie thei which are departed this world , or which are in it at this present , but all thei which euer hereafter shall be borne , vntill all the number be fullfilled ) then loe and onlie then it is verified , that Christ his misticall bodie is offered : because he the head is offered , which , as concerning God his euerlasting apointment , 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 , Chris. 〈◊〉 . 17. ad Hebr. 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 , Aug. ● . de fide ad P● . ( 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 remembrance 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 remembrance 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 , An euyll maner of reasoning by authoritie , negatiuelie . 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 , De demonst. euang. li. 1. Aug. lib. de fide ad Pet. 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 continue for the reste of your chapiter , alleaging out of S. Cypriane , ( you tell not where ) & out of the Greeke canon 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 , Defence . fol. 34. 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 . Reply . 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 continue in the testimonies which you doe bring ) allthough S. Cyprian , Cyp. li. 4. Ep. 5. in the .5 . epistle of his fourth boke , make mention of sacrifice for martirs , vndoubtedlie to thanke God for them , yet in his first boke and .ix. epistle , Lib. 1. ep. 9 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 deprecation 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 commaundement 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 , One truth must not be impugned by an other . 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 , Chris. in Liturg. 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 graunt 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 , Chris. ho. 3 ad Philip. It was decreed by the Apostles , not in vaine , that in the celebration 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 and childissh , to saie , that Chrisostome vpon the .viij. of Mathew , maketh mention onlie of thankes geauing for all men which are passed , or which are to come , ergo there is no other sacrifice but thankes , to be offered for the soules departed : or els , ( to declare more sensiblie the absurditie of your reason , ) ergo in hys thirde homelie vpon the epistle vnto the Philippians , he hath no word of the Apostels tradition , that in the presence of the reuerend misteries , praiers shold be made for the deade , to cause God to be mercifull vnto them . But see againe : S. Ambrose offered for Valentinian the Emperour then dead , Defence . and S. Ambrose doubted not of his saluation , ergo he dyd no more but thanke God for hym .

This is your argument without reason and knowledge . Reply . For euerie soule , of whose saluation we need not to doubt , is not straitwaies in heauen . As S. Austine , allthough he doubted not but that his mother Monica , dyd yeld at her death a saued soule vnto God , of whom he testifieth , that she so lyued , that God was praised in her faith and maners , and that she was a mercifull woman , and forgaue all them which had trespased againste her , and that she came euerie daie to church , and serued God before the aultar , from which she knew the holie sacrifice to be dispensed , by which the byll of debt , which was contrarie vnto vs , was put out and cancelled , Yet for all this , knowing the accompt , which euerie soule shall geaue , Mat. 12. for the least word that is spoken against the commaundementes of God , and leauing a side her good deedes , for which he ioyfullie thanketh God , he praieth for his mother , that her sinnes might be forgeauen , and saieth , Lett no creature pull her from thy protection . Conf. lib. 9. cap. 13. Let not the lyon and dragon put hym selfe in betweene , neither by force , nor by subteltie : &c. Graunt , that she may be in peace with her husband , before whom and after whom she was maried to no other , &c. And inspire , in to thy seruantes my brothers , and thy childerne my masters , that , as manie of them as shal reade these thinges , may remember at thy aultar , thy seruant Monica with Patricius her husband .

Therefore that you maie know your folie , and lerne from hence forward to harken vnto the whole tale , before you geaue definitiue sentence , I will saie vnto you with S. Austine vnto Laurentius , It ys not to be denied , that the soules of them which are departed , In Enchiri dio , c● . 110 are relieued and eased by the d●●otion of their frindes lyuing , when the sacrifice of our mediator ys offered for them , or when almeses are geauen in the church . &c. and , in the end of the chapiter , he concludeth , Therefore , when the sacrificies , either of the aultar , either of any kind of almes , what so euer it be , Prayers & helpes for the dead . are offered , for all such as haue departed with baptisme , they are for the verie good , thankes geauing : they are propitiations , for such as are not verie euill : for the starke naught , allthough they are no healpe , as concerning them being now dead , yet they are cumfortes , ( such as they are , ) for the quicke . Vnderstand you this Englisshe ? and do you marke , how one selfesame sacrifice , doth serue to render thankes by it , and to be allso a propitiation for sinners , such as die not desperate ? Will you beare awaie the distinction of three sortes of men , which S. Austine here maketh ? and see by reason , that some die in such case , as not praises but praiers rather are to be made for them ? doe so I praie you then . And neuer fill your papers in writinges or your audience eares in preaching , with such argumentes , as are taken of authoritie of holie fathers negatiuelie , or with such commendacion of one truth , as craftelie shall disgrace an other , Note the sheepe skinnes of ●eretykes . as true . Like as manie vse to proue , that the true fast ys in absteinyng from synn , ( which no man denieth , ) and inferr therevpon wylilie , that to absteine from corporall meates , serueth not to any kind of reasonable fasting . Or , as some do shew by manie authorities , that Christ is to be receaued spirituallie by fayth , and denye therefor , that he ys eaten reallie , which yet is as true , as the other . Or lyke as you in this chapiter , haue abused your reader , in prouing a sacrifice of prayers and thankes geauing , and denying any oblation to be in the church for sinnes , which yet the holie fathers in theyr writinges haue expressed .

The fifthe Chapiter .

IN this chapiter , you find fault with the Catholike , that he alleageth the place of Chrisostome , other wise then it ys in hym . which as concerning the interpretation of Musculus , you myght saye perhappes , but , ( I trowe , ) ye should not report of him , that he reciteth the place otherwyse then it ys in S. Chrisostome , except you disproued hym by the greeke text it selfe , which you haue not . And trulie , what great reproueable diuersitie should be , in saying : Sacrificium frustra quotidianum offerimus , or , frustra habetur quotidiana oblatio , whereas both come to one end , that the dailie oblation or sacrifice ys made in vaine , I can not redelie tell , except you mislike the terme of offering , and thinke that the hauing of a daylie sacrifice , might be made without the act of offering . But goe to , for quietnes sake , we are content with Musculus interpretation , and what saie you then vnto the argument of the Catholike ? The wordes of S. Chrisostome are these : Frustrà habetur quotidi●na oblatio , frustrà stamus ad altare , nemo est qui simul participet , Our daylie sacrifice ys had in vaine , we stand at the aultar in vaine , there ys none to take part with vs . By this testimonie , to conclude shortlie , there was dailie sacrifice in S. Chrisostoms tyme , and there was not daylie receiuing with the priest , ergo to haue communicantes , is not of the substance of the Catholike masse . Vnto this argument , I find , as it were fower answers for your defence , of which the first ys , that Chrisostom , to exaggerat the peoples slacknes , saieth , ( there ys none to be partaker ) meaning they were verie few and seldome , Defence . fol. 37. The first answer to S. Chrisostomes places . in comparison of that their dutie was .

Do you thinke then , that euerie daie , there was one or other of the people , which dyd come to the communion ? then dyd he not stand in vaine at the Aultar , except you can proue , that in that world , such a canon was made , that there should be no communion without .iij. to receiue at it : on the other side , if in any one daie at all , there was found no one to communicate , the sacrifice being offered euerie daie , it was celebrated some tymes without communicants . For , it is not materiall vnto vs , whether the people receiued , some at Easter , some at tweluetyde , and other some more ofter , but whether as the oblation was daylie , that so the receiuing appropriated ( as you thinke ) vnto it , should haue ben dailie . And all the authorities which you bring of S. Ambrose , Austine , Chrisostome , and Concilium Elibertinum , to proue that the people dyd communicate more then once in the yeare , and that greate fault was found with manies slacknes in that behalfe : The M. of the defence speaketh out of his purpose , to the Catholikes commoditie . as thei do make directly against hym , which would mainteine the opinion , that the people neuer receiued but at Easter , so thei confirme rather our conclusion , which is , that communicantes are not necessarie at euery tyme of masse to be celebrated . For , whereas the Bisshopes or Synodes , as you confesse , apointed and charged the Christians to receiue once , twyse , thryse , or fowre tymes in the yeare , and whereas the councell called Elibertinum , decreed that all the faithfull should communicate , at the least , thrise in the yeare , it may be verie well gathered hereof , that there was no daylie receauing with the priest . Because the councell , in charging them to receiue thrise at the least , sheweth thereby consequentlie , that thei came not so oft , as thrise in the yeare . And S. Ambrose , in that he reproueth the custome in the East partes , Amb. li. 4. de Sacra . of receiuing no more then once a yeare , he proueth therein vnto you , necessarilie , that there was such a custome . Wherfor , to graunt vnto you , that S. Chrisostome , in saying there is none to communicate , vseth a certen exaggeration , and meaneth that there are verie few and seldome which communicate , yet the sacrifice being dailie , he offered and receaued some tymes without communicants . For allthough a few might haue come dailie , and so haue made vp a communion , yet when S. Chrisostome meaneth , ( after your comment vpon hym ) that they came seldome allso , there were vndoubtedlie some vacant daies betweene , in which the dailie sacrifice was offered , and yet none dyd communicate with the priest .

But let vs come to your second answer , in which you saie , that allthough this place dyd proue , the second answer . that none of the common people would communicate , ( wherevpon we haue concluded , that the priest receiued alone , for any cummyng of theirs ) yet , saie you to vs : Ye can not , Defence fol. 37. by this testimonie , declare , that none of the ministers and clergie receiued with hym , being Bisshope there . &c. for the maner was not then , as you do vse it now . &c. but all the ministers and clergie dyd communicate togeather with the Bisshope , or chiefe minister that celebrated .

You speake herein verie reasonablie , Reply . that the Bisshope hymselfe celebrating , had ( according vnto the manner of that tyme ) not all the cleargie , I beleeue , but allwaies some of them to communicate with hym . And lykewyse in Cathedrall and principall churches , it is verie credible , that some of the clergie dyd receaue with the chiefe minister . Such was the order then , and manner in the churche . But how can you proue , that the Bishope hymselfe , celebrated euerie daie , solemplie ? or that he said masse allwaies in a greate or Cathedrall churche , with his priestes , archedeacons , deacons , and other officers , about hym ? Or that there were no small and litle parisshe churches ; oratories , chappells , and such like , in that world , whiche one priest and a clarke might haue serued well inough , without more cumpanie of the clergie ? Then allso , if the populous cities of Antioche or Constantinople , ( in which S. Chrisostome , dyd bestowe the most of his life and lernyng , ) had either but one Cathedrall church , ( which is as conuenient and reasonable , as one citie to haue one Bisshope , ) or if they had a number of faire and greate churches , and them all furnisshed , with priestes , archdeacons , deacons , subdeacons , readers , singers , exorcistes , and other officers perteinyng to the clergie : yet , that the clergie and ministers , dyd euerie daie receiue with the priest at the aultar , ( as we graunt that somtymes they dyd so in deede , ) or that the sacrifice went not forward , except some communicantes were prepared , ( which properlie ys our question , ) I denie it flattlie vnto you , vntill you can proue the contrarie . For I see no vrgent cause , why I might not thinke , that the clergie allso of that tyme , was slacke in the dailie cummyng to the communion , and that thei hauyng one to exequute and to offer the dailie sacrifice , for the rest , contended them selues , with communicating in praier onlie and spirituall eating , and not in the Sacramentall receiuing . Especiallie if it be considered , how vehementlie S. Chrisostome noteth and reproueth his clergie , for laughing not onlie abrode with good merie felowes , but allso in the church it self , Chr. ho. 15. Epist. ad Hebr. at the tyme of praier . Against whom emong other strange arguments , and well worth deepe consideration , this ys one , that he saieth , The priest of God doth stand offering vp the praiers of all , and thow doest laugh , and he trulie doth tremble in offering praiers for the , and thou settest light by the matter . By which , it is credible , that not only the people , whom canons had need to constraine to come thrise a yeare to receiue their maker , did suffer the priest to receiue alone , but that allso in the clergie , there was such lacke of consideration ( as it ys in manie Catholikes now , whose faithe is stedfastinough ) that thei were not in hast to accumpanie dailie the prieste which celebrated , nor glad to make them selues readie to communicate with him , but talked or laughed ( the more pytie ) to geather , thinking perchaunse that all will be well inough , because the priest , in all their names , offereth a most acceptable sacrifice for them . The which fault , I would it were not emong the Catholikes , and that thei would keepe themselues as attent and deuoute , when thei heare masse onlie , mynding not to communicate sacramentallie , as the truth is , that their part is in the oblation , and remember that not onlie the priest must behaue hymself reuerentlie , but all the clergie and laietie present , though thei stand neuer so farr from the aultar . Therefor , as we will not stryue against you in this one poynt , that the ministers receiued with the Bisshope or chiefe priest , so we bydd you to proue it , that allwaies the ministers dyd communicate , when the daylie sacrifice was offered . Which , because you thought ( as I gesse ) that it shold be ouer hard for you , therefor you inuent a third shift , for your defence , which is this : But if I should flatlie denie , Defence . fo. 38. that the minister receaued , when none of the people were partakers , how could you proue it , A third answer or shift . by this place ?

This is your third answer to S. Chrisostome . As who should saie , Reply . if I can not proue , first , that the people dyd communicate with the priestes , or secondly , that the clergie did allwaies communicate , yet thirdlye will I answer , that the priest at the aultar dyd not receaue , when he saw that none wold come and eate with him . And here , you require our proufe against our saying : vnto which I answer , that because the oblation and sacrifice was dailie , therefor it was offered and taken of the priest , allthough none were prepared to receaue with hym . But you are not pleased with this , and therefor you interprete S. Chrisostome , that He named it oblationem , Defence . fol. 38. either for that it was done in remembrance of Christs sacrifice , or for the offering vp of the bread and wyne , to the celebration of the Lords supper . Well Syr , Reply . first of all , what vnderstand you by that , which , you saie , was doone , in remembrance of Christs saerifice ? Can , you vnderstand any other thing but the taking and blessing and breaking of bread ? for in doing these thinges , we folow Christs example , and remember his passion . Yf then , according vnto your first sense of this terme , oblation , you graunt , that , without anie to communicate , the priest alone dyd offer , ergo you graunt as much as we require , that the priest dyd take , blesse , and breake , in remembrance of Christs sacrifice .

But on the other side , if you take the word , The M. of the defence put to the foile on bo● the sides . oblation , for the offering vp of bread and wine for the prouision of the Lords supper , that was not the priests offering , of whiche S. Chrisostome speaketh , but it was the offering of the people . And according vnto this your sense , S. Chrisostome could not saie , that there was none to communicate , because the good people , which offered the bread and wine towardes the supper of the Lords , were in that point , not onlie communicantes , but allso chiefe ministers and doers . Or , at the least , the priestes and poore folke , which were susteined by such oblations , were neuer so euill taught , that they would not remember their dailie bread , or so wel fedd otherwyse , that they needed not to care for the welthiers almes , and make S. Chrisostome to complaine vpon it , that there is no bodie to communicate . And further more , none of these .ij. kindes of oblations , of which you now speake , were in vaine or fructlesse vnto the people , but as concernyng the oblation which S. Chrisostome meaneth , his wordes be plaine , that the dailie oblation ys in vaine offered . Allso , if these wordes , ( dailie oblation and sacrifice , ) by putting the case that none at all dyd receaue , are to be vnderstanded for that which is done in remembrance of Christs passion , or for the offering vp of bread and wine to the celebration of the Lords supper , you leaue ( I do trust ) a more excellent sense of these wordes ( dailie oblation , ) for that tyme and place , when the people doe communicate with the priest . For if you doenot , then is the oblation all one , whether some or none do receaue : and if you doe , then must you tell vs of one waie more , of taking this word oblation , then you haue yet vttered . Againe if a man will consider how royallie , and yet trulie , ho. 3. ad Ephes. S. Chrisostome in the forsaid homelie , speaketh of this dailie sacrifice , calling it an oblation , at which the verie Angells doe tremble , Consider how reuerentlie we shold behaue our selues in the presence of the sacrament . and warning the people to thinke well vpon it , how the kings table standeth there , that , the Angels are wayting , and seruing at it , that , the king hymself is present , that , Christ the lambe of God is offered vp : further , if one should marke wel , but those externall preparations , of which he there speaketh , as , the drawing a syde of curteines , the making cleane of the table , the setting down of patins with all reuerence and diligence , can he thinke that S. Chrisostome dyd meane , by dailie sacrifice , no more but a remembrance ( you doe not tell what ) of the sacrifice which Christ made vpon the crosse , or els the onlie offering vp of bread and wyne towardes the mainteaning of the Lords supper ? But let vs goe further . Yf you be so cunnyng , in expounding of ( oblation ) against the mind of the author , and besides all colour of reason , make an end of your comment , and tell vs what Chrisostome meaneth by quotidiana , dailie ?

He calleth it Quotidianam , Defence fol. 38. to the imitation of the sacrifice of the old lawe . May one then imitate the old law in speaking ? he may doe it vndoubtedlie . Reply . Yet you , fo. 33. of your defence , do make that odiouse , by an vnreuerent and suspitiouse manner of vttering it , which in itselfe is honest and lawfull , and which yourselfe do vse at this present . For to saie , Quotidianam , and daylie sacrifice to be so called , to the imitation of the sacrifice of the old law , it soundeth well and tolerablie , and yourselfe do take S. Chrisostome an that sense to no dispraise or contempt of hym . Yet when the Catholikes now a daies , call their misteries by the name of sacrifice , you will not saie , that thei haue taken that manner of speaking out of the old law , ( for that soundeth to no reproche ) but of the Iewisshe priestes , as who should gather a suspition of Iewisshnes vpon vs . It is worth the noting , because it is worth the amending . But to S. Chrisostome his Quotidianam , what answer you ?

He calleth it Quotidianam . Defence . &c. not because it was done euery daie , without intermission .

How then doth it imitate the old law , which had dailie offering ? Reply . or how can it be called Quotidiana , which is dailie ? The dailie sacrifice of the old law , was .ij. lambes of one yere , without spott , which God apoynted to be offered vp in sacrifice , Nu. 28. euerie morning and euening , for euer , and thei made the quotidianum , the iuge , and the dailie sacrifice of the Iewes . You saie therefor , the inconstancie of the M. of the defen. and vnsaie . First , that the sacrifice , which S. Chrisostome calleth Quotidianam , is so termed , to the imitation of the Iewes , whose dailie , and speciallie allso dailie sacrifice is commaunded by God to be allwaies continued , and then you tell vs , that it was not done euerie daie without intermission , which is in effect to saie , that it is not called quotidian to the imitation of the Iewes . Yet lett vs heare further : He calleth it Quotidianam , not because it was done euery daye , but for that it was oftentymes celebrated , Defence . fol. 38. that is , so often as the people assembled togeather to the church or common place of prayers etc. at which tymes , he allwaies had , either some of the people , or the residue of the ministers and clergie , to communicate with hym .

Marke here , Reply . gentle Reader , the folissh hardines of this M. of defence , and consider by this one example , how wickedly the lerned and holy doctours are abused . Dyd the seruice then of the church , depend vpon the cummyng of the people ? or dyd some one or other allwaies receaue , when the dayly oblation was offered ? where should we seeke more better for the truth of this question , then in Saint Chrisostome hys owne masse and workes ? for as concernyng the daylie saying of masse in the latin church , it ys plainely concluded by the testimonie of S. Austine , which reporteth of hys mother , that she serued and honored God at hys aultar nullius diei pretermissione , Conf. li. 9. cap. 13. without letting one day passe . But let vs be contented with that which S. Chrisostome alone shall geaue vs . It appeareth then in hys masse , that they had for euerie ferie in the weeke , a certen song in the prayse of our ladie , S. Michel , S. Iohn the Baptist , and other , Chrisost. in Liturg. which they vsed immediately after the Ghospell , and called it apoliticion . Further it appeareth , that they dyd not first aske emong the people who were disposed to receiue , and vppon the answer geauen , That the sacrifice of the church was dailie in deed , & not dailie , that is to saie often . frame the matter to a communion , but first of all they went to the consecration , and after that the oblation was finisshed , and the priest with such 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 sacrificium perficitur , he speaketh this word after the sacrifice is thoroughly ended . Wherfor as the offering of the sacrifice did not then hang vncertenly vpon 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 ? ho. 17. ad Hebr. 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 vpon 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 , Concil. Const. 6. can. 52. in the lent , but a manifest argument 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 communicants ) 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 vehement calling vpon the people , was not , to haue them in all hast to communicate , but to make them prouyde for cleanes of lyffe and conscience , that thei might safelie and profitablie communicate . For , Hom. 17. ad Hebr. 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 . Ser. 2. do. 10. post trinitatem . What would S. Austine then , or the fathers of the primitiue church haue thought of your maried priestes , which within an houre , two , or three , after thei are departed from their paramours , doe come vnto the communion 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 commaunded to absteine from their lawful wyues , what doth a minister , a man 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 , Defence . fo. 38. as extremelie to vrge these .ij. sillabes frustra . in vaine is our oblation , in vaine is our sacrificing , &c. because it ys done without cumpanie to receiue with vs .

It lyeth not in vs , Reply . 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 , How faine the M. of the defence would be at one , or diuide stakes ? whether you can haue any vantage in the extreme vrgyng of these .ij. sillabes frustra , it ys not in vayne to consider . 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 . 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 taken in his proper signification of daily , so do we graunt vnto you that you shall vse the worde frustra in his most proper signification , neither do we contrarye 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 , when 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 communicantes 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 communicate : 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 celebration 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 interpretation ) 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 common 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 thankes 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 , when you should in the end lacke communicantes ? And if you were perswaded , that you did receiue in vayne , except some communicated with you , whi wolde you receiue at all ? or how doe you , but receiue that to your owne condemnation , 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 communicate ? 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 ) , Cypri . de coena Domini . nor by these wordes of our Lorde , This is my body , ( as S. Ambrose witnesseth ) , Amb. li. 4. de S● . but by the cumming of the people to receiue , at the end of seruyce . Liturgi● Chrys. For as I haue shewed before , after that the priest had receiued , and had fully ended his office in offering , them 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 you asked leaue to vse them , and toke leaue also to doe it , conditionallye , yf we wolde abyde by it , that the worde Quotidianum signifyeth dayly , and not seldome , yet in further reasonyng you doe so farr passe your owne self in knowledge , that you affirme absolutelye , that these wordes , ( the dayly oblation is had in vayne ) declare playnelye S. Chrisostomes mynde , that he thought it to be of the substance of the sacrament , that a number should be partakers of it . As who should say , that in the thirde Hom. vpon the Epistle to the ●phesians , he had spoken against sole receiuing , and not rather signifyed vnto them , that he labored , not vpon their dayly cummyng , but onlie their deuoute and worthye cummyng . For , after he had sayd : Chr. ho. 3. ●d Ephes. we stande at the aultar in vayne , there is no bodye to communicate : least the people should thinke , as you doe now , that their receiuing parteyned to the substance of the sacrament , he addeth : I speake not these thinges , because ye should simplelie communicate , but that you should make your selfes worthye . Doe we then deny , that the dayly sacrifice was done in vayne ? No. But we vnderstande it , how it was done in vayne . Not in respect of the sacrifice it self , but in respect of the people , for whom the meate was readye , and for whom preparance was made , but they wolde not come vnto it . As in an other place , speakyng agaynste certayne , which did not consider and beare awaye the textes of scripture , which were readen in the church twyse or thryse in the weeke , the reader allwaies telling them the name and place of the Prophet which was then in hande : Chr. ho. 9. ●d Heb. 5. Therfore ( sayeth he ) they owght to be more clearer vnto you , and you owght to know not onlie the text , but the cawses allso , of the thinges which are wryten , and his name which wrote them . But all is in vayne , and without fruct . Yet he meaned not absolutelye , that all the labor of the reader was in vayne , nor that all the hearers were fructlesse , ( of which he excepteth a few in that very place ) but that as concerning the peoples common profytt , which was intended in those lessons , all was vayne and fructlesse . Which being so reasonable , and so conuenient a sense , it is wonder that you would not se it , but folow rather your owne inuention , and leese the meaning of S. Chrisostome . And trulye no greate meruell , yf you mistake an other mans mynd , wheras in your owne inuentions you may be proued so forgetfull . For in this last end of your fifth chapiter , you conclude playnelie , that S. Chrisostome vnderstandeth , the oblation to be vayne , which hath no cumpany to receiue at it : and that cumpany is taken of hym , to be of the substance of the sacrament : to which purpose you alleage , that who so euer is not partaker of the misteryes , doth impudentlie and wickedlye , to stand there by in presence . Well Syr , if you call this vayne , how doth S. Chrisostome saye trulye , that the oblation is had in vayne ? For now you call it vayne , the M. of the defence is ouer cast in his owne turnyng . because of lacke of cumpany , and by your answers in this chapiter before , you proued that he neuer lacked cumpany . How can you make these your two deuyses to agree togeather ? Our daylie sacrifice , sayeth S. Chrisostome , is had in vayne . He meaneth ( say you ) that he had no cumpany , the hauing of which being a substanciall poynt , ergo that must be in vayne , which was done without it . But ( say I now against you ) S. Chrisostome dyd neuer lacke cumpany , when he receaued , ergo it is not trulye sayed of hym , that the oblation was in vayne . Either he then , so good a Bisshopp , lyeth , which so sayeth that the oblation was in vayne : or you do lye , in the interpreting of hym , and making hym to haue such a sence of this worde vayne , as destroyeth a certayne other veritie , as you do make it . But how proue I , that he neuer receiued alone ? Trulye not by my owne knowledge , but by your answers . For , your second answer , vnto the Catholikes obiection , was , that in S. Chrisostomes tyme , the clergie did allwayes receiue with the Bishope , or cheife ministre . And this you promised to proue more largelye hereafter . But the better you proue it hereafter , the worse it is for you in this present place . You sayed agayne , that daylye was taken for , often , and that at those tymes , in which the people did not daylye , but often come , he allwayes had either some of the people , or the residew of the ministres and clergie , to communicate with hym . So then , by these your owne conclusions , I proue , that the priest did , at that tyme , neuer receaue alone . How haue you then now so forgoten your selfe , in this end of your chapiter , that you make S. Chrisostome to saye , that none doth communicate with hym , and that the oblation is therfor in vayne ? wheras at the begynning of this chapiter , you would haue it cleere and euident , that the priest neuer lacked cumpany to communicate with hym solemplye . Syr , I confesse playnely , we shall be ouercummed , if we stryue long with you , or if we can not be ouercummed , because fayth doth not referr herselfe , vnto the euent of disputations , yet we shall be ( I trow ) confownded , because we can not tell where to haue you . For , when we thinke , that vpon the sight of S. Chrisostomes wordes , which we haue so much spoken of , you would saye , that we had at the least some colour of argument for sole receauyng , you make shift by and by , with all the learning that you haue , to proue that ther was allwayes some cumpany or of clergie , or of layetie , to receiue with the Bishop , or cheife minister . And when we thinke to fynde you standing in that conclusion , and draw neerer vnto you , strait wayes you fall besides your self , and runne in to a contrarye corner , where you fight against your owne saying , and proue , that allthowgh there were oblation and sacrifice daylye , which , by force of the worde Quotidianum , you could not denye vnto vs , yet that graunted , none receiued with the priest , ( say you ) and therfore it was frustra . Wherfore ( good Syr ) take the counsell vnto your selfe , which you doe geaue vnto vs , and vse not to ground doctrines vpon the coniecture of a few sillables : and ( with further counsell vnto you ) beware that you geaue not your aduersary so much , that you make your owne case the worse : as to permitt vs to enioye Quotidianum , in his proper sense , by which we proued daily sacrifice , and then to labor to proue that it was in vayne , because of lacke of cumpany , as thowgh you had not concluded before , that no oblation was without cumpany . Which to tell you of , allthough it be a litle disauantage vnto vs , yet it is recouered an other way by hauing of a reasonable and playne dealing aduersarye .

The syxt Chapiter .

THat which is not euidentlye determined in scripture ( saieth the Catholyke vpon his aduersaries graunting , of this vayne principle ) ought to stand as indifferent .

But the necessitie of cumpanye to receyue with the priest , ys no where determined :

Ergo it ought to remayne indifferent .

In denying and controlling the partes of this argument , the Master of the Defence , doth bestow his syxt chapiter . And first he denyeth the second proposition , afterwardes he cometh to the declaration of the first , in which parte , he casteth in , betweene so many new deuises and conclusions , that we haue to abhorr them , which are not of the auncient religion . Let vs folow the same wayes which he taketh , and lett vs defende the Catholike his argument , in that selfe same order , by which he doth impugne yt .

Goe to then Syr , what myslyketh you in our argument ?

Your second proposition ys not trew . Def●nce . fol. 41. For I saie , that it is determyned in Christ his institution . In luke he sayeth , Take this , and diuide it emong you .

Ys this your text , Reply . by which you will conclude , that the priest must haue of necessitie cumpanye to receyue with hym ? Christ , Luc. 22. you know , spake then to his Apostles onlye , he spake nothing of the people to receyue with them . Take ( saieth he ) and diuide this emong you , and not , ( as you would fayne haue it to be , ) take you and diuide it emong other . For as concerning other , whom afterwarde they should haue the gouernment of , he left it vnto their wisedome , to geaue it or denye it , as they should see it expedient . Except you thinke , that the priest , for diuers considerations , might not kepe back the Sacrament from some , which would receyue with hym . whiche yet , ( if they would be ruled by you , ) being repelled , might aunswer the priest agayne , and stoutly saye , that it is of the substance of the Sacrament , that it should be diuided , and therefor that they haue great wrong done vnto them , except they maye be admitted . And they might trulye alleage , that Christ gaue the Sacrament vnto Iudas the traytor , which without controlling did receyue it , bycause of Christ his institution , Take and diuyde emong you . But , as all the Christians generallye , can not by vertue of these wordes , ( diuyde emong you ) challenge their part in the communion , yf the priest should thinke them vnworthye , euen so , neyther Christ had this meaning in them , that they should be as a necessarie commaundement to charge therby his priestes , allwayes to diuide and distribute his sacrament , but for that present cumpanye of his most dearest Apostles , he said , Take and diuide it emong you . How then ? Maye not the sacrament be diuided emong the people ? Yes trulye . But that it should be diuided emong the people , such necessitie is not gathered out of , Take ye , and diuide it emong you . But saye you How can it be taken at the minister his handes , Defence . and diuided or distributed emong them , vnlesse there be a cumpanye ?

But what talke you , Reply . of , to be taken at the minister his handes , as though that S. Luke did make thereof any signification ? He telleth vs , that Christ our Sauyor saide vnto his Apostles , Take this : but he maketh no worde at all , of taking at the minister his handes . But , this would serue well your purpose , if that when Christ said distinctlye vnto his twelue , Take this , you could perswade the rude , that he spake vnto the people , and commaunded them to take his sacrament at the minister his handes . Then further , where you aske , how it can be distributed emong them , except there be a cumpanye ? For whom you do speake , I can not redely tell . For if you meane the Apostles , there was a good cumpany of them , to take that which was distributed : and if you meane the people , I wonder whye you call them vnto this matter , the Euangelistes speaking of the Apostles onlye . You alleage the text of the scripture : goe not then , I praye you , from the text . The wordes be playne : Take and diuide emong you . Yf it had bene sayd indefinitelie , diuide , you might haue thought with some reason , that a commaundement of distributing the sacrament for euer afterwarde , had ben geauen in those wordes . But , our Sauyor determineth the worde diuide , in saying , Diuide this emong you . Which wordes yet if you thinke to haue ben spoken , not onlie to the Apostles personallie , but to all Bishopes and high Priestes , which should haue in tyme to come , the place or office of the Apostles , as I graunte this sense , because it is conuenient and true , so yet the people ( you see ) are not comprehended within the text of which we speake . For , The M. of the defence hath promised more then he can performe . of theis three pointes , Take you , diuide you , emong you , no one can be vnderstanded , as spoken vnto the people . And if one maye , why not all , as well as one , seing that in those three pointes , the persons are not varyed ? Where then do you fynde now any commaundement of distributing the sacrament vnto the people ? It can no be diuided , ( saye you ) except there be cumpany . You speake somewhat therein , but tell vs fyrst , what cumpanye you meane ? The sacrament is truly diuided emong vs euerie day . For I say , that vnto this daye , if you consider the whole church , as one howse , and euerye aultar in the world , as one table , and the body of Christ , as it is one , allthough the mysticall signes of it be in many places , so shall you see it performed , that which you be so glad to heare , that the sacrament is daylye taken , eaten , and diuided emong vs . But now , tell vs further , what necessitie you fynde , why it should be diuided ? In deede distribution presupposeth cumpanye . But we aske what necessitie doth requyre distribution ? For the wordes of our Sauior doe not absolutelye commaunde it , Let the M. of the defence speake to the question . but vnto the Apostles especyallie his wordes were directed , because thei were with hym , to receiue at his handes . And so , the same wordes maye appertayne to all that celebrate masse , when some are readie to receiue . But as , if twelue be not readie to receiue , yet fower maye : so , if fower be not readie , one maye receiue alone . But then you complayne vpon vs , and saye , that we maye as well leaue out , eatyng , drynkyng , and doyng in remembraunce of Christ , as we doe dispense with distributing . Feare not ( I warrant you ) we be nothing so folish . For meates are necessarye , but not distribution , and without other mens mouthes we can eate : but we can not distribute , without others handes or mouthes to receiue it . Also , the remembrance of Christ his passion , is and maye be allwaies vsed : but distribution of the Sacrament , is not allwaies possible . And ( to be shorte ) the sole receiuing can not be without eating , &c. : but the sole receiuing at masse , is and maye be without distributing . And here now , for feare least we should not regarde the institution of Christ , you tell vs againe , out of Sainct Cypriane , that nothing must be altered in the preceptes of Christ , which saying you extende vnto sole receiuing ▪ and receiuing vnder one kynde , ( which S. Cypriane neuer thought vpon in that epistle , ) and you forget to mengle water and wine togeather at the communion , which S. Cypriane in that place so earnestly requyreth to be done , as I haue before declared at large . Wherfore Syr , haue no mistrust , but that God the Holyghost prouideth abundantlye , that Christes and his owne institution , shall neuer be broken of the church : and when you be deliuered of this feare , see whether you can proue any better , then you haue done hitherto , that the necessitie of cumpany to receiue with the priest , is determined in scripture . And if it be not determined expreslie , it standeth as a thing indifferent , by your owne vayne principle , and then it is no breache of Christ his institution , to vse sole receyuing . How saye you then ? Will you forsake that fonde principle of yours , that nothing is of necessitie to be credited , but that which is expreslie in the scriptures ? No , you will not , I know , your harte is so great against traditions . Make then no more a doe , but graunt , that the obseruing of number and cumpanye , is no more requisite , then the obseruing of the tyme , place , kynde of persons , and other circumstances , which the Ghospell sheweth to haue ben vsed at the institution of the Sacrament . No saye you , that Many circumstances of place , person , and tyme , maye be altered &c. we graunte you : but , that cumpanye in receyuyng is one of those circumstances , that we can not graunte , as well for the reasons before declared , as allso that we haue none example of the Apostles , or primitiue church , that we maye so doe .

Consider , I praye you Syr , the maner of your reasonyng . We conclude vpon your owne principle , ( which againe we must call vayne , leste anye should thinke , that we doe allow it ) that cumpanie in receiuing , is by expresse scripture , of no more necessitie , then the circumstances of tyme and place , which Christ vsed in the delyuering of his sacrament : and you answer , that it is not founde in the example of the Apostles , or primitiue churche , that the cumpanie in receiuing was omitted , as tyme and place are founde to haue ben altered , in which saying you doe but enlarge your vayne principle , vpon the graunting of which our argument proceeded . Cumpany in receiuing , in respect of the sacrament receiued , is no greater matter then the circumstance of tyme and place ▪ but yet of sole receiuing ( saye you ) we haue none examples of the Apostles , or primitiue church , as though nothing might be vsed otherwise then as of former example it maye be gathered , which addition , if you thinke good to vse , to make your foresaid principle vayne absolutelye , lett it be so then , and according to this reformed principle , our argument shall thus come against you . What so euer Christ did , at the institution of the sacrament , which we fynde not to be altered by the authoritie or example of Apostles , or primitiue churche , that is of necessitie to be obserued . But , our Sauior delyuered the sacrament at night , and the Apostles with the primitiue churche of their tyme , haue no example or manner to warrant vs to doe otherwyse : ergo , we must of necessitie receiue at night . But , it is vnreasonable to bring in such a necessitie : ergo it is a vayne principle which maintayneth such absurditie . And what you might aunswer vnto this , I can not diuise , except you will take examples of the primitiue church which folowed the Apostles . But then remembre what you be wonte to saye out of Tertullian , how that is best which was fyrst : and agayne out of S. Cypriane , Christ is most to be followed , which was the first of all . And consider allso , 1. Cor. 11. whether the church of Corinth dyd not receiue the sacrament at night , Acto . 20. and reade in the actes of the Apostels , whether there was not breaking of bread at night : and fynde , if you can , in all scripture , that ministring of the sacrament was vsed in the mornyng . Are you wiser then Christ ? can you better dispose the tymes , then the maker of tyme hymselfe ? Did not the Corinthians receiue at night ? An easie matter it is to troble the church if men wold folowe the common places of heretikes . Is there anye mention in scripture of receiuing before none ? These , loe , be your common places , which if I would follow , I could make as great exclamations at the breaking of Christ his institution in the tyme , as you doe make for the lacking of communicantes . For it is no matter to vs , whether you do bring two or three causes , wherefore the receiuing at night , is or maye be altered , ( for if good causes would haue preuailed , you would neuer haue plaied so madd partes in crying out against sole receiuing ) but , all thinges ( you saie ) must be brought to the institution of Christ , and as he gaue example , so must we follow : and wherfore then , might not one first breake his fast , and afterwarde come to the Lorde his table ? And , if busynes lett a Merchant all the daye , why might he not receiue at night ? If you can dispense with one thing , you maye do the lyke with all . If you alter the tyme , you maye alter the maner , the place , the bread , the wyne , and all that Christ did . This kynde , Syr , of Rhetoryke and Logike we learne of you , which if you do greatly myslyke , when you heare it of an other besides your selfe , looke then vpon your selfe better , and correcte that vayne glorious principle , which hath a shewe of learning and pietie , but is in deede most rude and wycked , when you saye , that nothing should be necessarylie obserued , which is not expreslie in scripture , or , nothing thereof might be altered , without auctoritie or example of the Apostles and primitiue church . Which example of Apostles or primitiue church you neede not to passe vpon in this kynde of matter . For if you be most surely persuaded , by the very text of the scripture , that companye to receiue with the priest , is of the substance of the sacrament , allthough example might be founde in the primitiue church of sole receiuing , or receiuing vnder one kynde , you would yet condempne that example , by the playne institution of Christ , as you would take it : what good then should an example do to you , which , although it were neuer so playne , yet you would not be persuaded , but that the cumpany at the communyon is allwaies of necessitie ? Note this point . But , of our examples , we shall speake hereafter , in the meane tyme , what bring you , to shewe that the hauing of company , is of the necessitie of the sacrament ? And marke , that we aske you not of companye , whether it be laudable , conuenient , or honorable at the celebration of euerie masse , but whether it be necessarie . Of necessitie our question is , and of expresse commaundement , and you tell vs of the Paschall lambe of the Iewes , and applye it vnto our Sacrament , that lyke as cumpanye was of necessitie to the eating of the Paschall lambe , so that it should be as necessarie to the receiuing of the sacrament . After which argument , you triumphe without victorie , and aske of vs : Wyll you saie , Defence . that companye to eate vpp the Paschall lambe was not of the substance of the sacrament ? &c. If you meane by the worde ( sacrament ) in this place , Reply . the Paschall lambe it selfe , cumpanye ( you know ) was no more of the substances of the lambe , them you with your bydden gestes , be of the substance of your meate , when you haue prouided for your selfe and them a fatt goose and a capon . But , if you vnderstand by sacrament , al the act and ceremonie of preparing and eating the lambe , the calling of company vnto it was in some case materyal . For if the numbre be lesse , then shall be able to eate vpp the lambe , Exo. 12. then ( saieth God ) he , whosoeuer he be , shal take his next neighbor . But you may say , although the calling of company were conditionall , Cumpanie in eating of the Paschal lambe was not of absolute necessitie . yet the hauing of companye was of the substance of the sacrament , It was so of the substaunce , as other things were which God in that place commaunded , I meane gyrding of their loynes , and hauing of shooes on their feete , and holding of staffes in their han●es . But if by reason of some wounde or dysease , anye one of them had not ben able to suffer hys shooe on hys foote , although his feete would not beare hym , yet if his stomache serued hym , could he not haue eaten with his fellowes , and eate as fast as the best , without breaking of the matter ? Lykewise if one had ben borne without handes , or had lost his handes in fighting for his countrey , so that he could not hold any staff in the hand which he had not , was he to be excluded from his parte in the lambe ? Yf these pointes then , which God so distinctlie commaunded , haue their interpretations , and are not so absolutely to be obserued , but that , for considerations , thei maye be omitted , I see no cawse , whye the hauing of numbre in eating of the lambe , should be so necessarye , that it could not be omitted . But the matter would be playner , if we were once agreed how the terme of ( substance ) is to be taken , when you speake of it . For if you meane , that to be of the substance of a precept , which● , without case of necessitie , and without dispensation of the cheife gouernors , can not be rashlye omitted , as euery priuate man shall thinke good in hym selfe , then I graunt , that all those poyntes , which are comprehended within the ceremonye of eating the paschall lambe , were of the substance of it : But , if substance shall signifye such partes of any sacrament , as which no man for any respect maye omitt or chainge ( in which sence we doe take it , in speaking of the necessarye forme and matter of euerye sacrament ) then doe I denye vnto you , that euerie point comprehended within the ceremonye of eating the lambe , was of the substance of that matter . Therefor if your comparing of all Christendome vnto all the Iewes , and our particuler churches vnto their sundrye houses , and the eating of our Sacrament vnto their lambe , did neuer so well agree togeather , yet , because it is not proued of you , that euerie point commaunded of God , about the eating of the lambe , is so essentiallie of the sustance therof , that in no case it maye be omitted or altered , therfore you come nothing nigh to the aunswer of our question , which is , whether that of necessitie there must be companye allwaies , to receiue at the masse ? Then againe , it is to be noted , that in the old law , God did not commaunde them to haue companye at the eating of the lambe , but , rather then anye parte shold be lefte vneaten , he willeth them to call more conpanye , presupposing that there would be in euerie household companye inough to eate a lambe , but yet geauing no commaundement of companye to be at it . For if one by hym selfe alone , had eaten a whole lambe , his wife and children rounde about hym , not louing that kinde of meate , and yet delighting in the histories which he would tell them of Egipt and the redd sea , I see not that you were able to burden hym with the breache of Goddes institution . Besides this , whereas the lambe of God which is eaten of the Christians , is not more meate vnto a thousande then vnto one alone , and one alone receyueth the whole , that he needeth not to send for his neighbor , your proportion betwyxt the lambe of the lewes , and our Sacrament was not rightly deuised of you . Also , if I could finde no faulte with your application , yet , except you brought greater aucthoritie for the defence of it then your owne , I would lykewise of myne owne head , inuent an other sence besides yours , and saie that my vnderstanding of that place , serueth better to the purpose then yours . In which case , as both of vs , might vse perchaunce probable interpretations , so yet none of vs both should conclude any thing of necessitie . And yet , I neede not to runne vnto myne owne wytt for this matter , because that , long sence , Sainct Denyse the Carthusyan doth saie in his Commentaries vpon Exodus , Dionisius Carth. in 12. ca. Exp. that the calling of a neighbor to eate of the lambe , if howsehold cumpanie were not sufficient , doth signifie that euerie Christian , which is neuer able by hymselfe to consider , sufficientlie , the mercyes of God , shewed vnto vs in the death and sacrament of his Sonn , should call his neighbor to hym , and prouoke him to helpe forward that all thankes and praises might be geauen vnto the author of so excellent benefites . Now , to speake somewhat more of this lambe , ( whilest you are of so good a mynd and remembrance , to confesse that ther is a proportion and lykenes betwyxt our sacrament and it , ) consider that the lambe was offered vpp to God before it was eaten , An allegoricall exposition of the paschall lambe . which proueth that Christ offred his bodie and bloode in his last supper , before the Apostles did receiue hym . The blood also of the lambe , was put vpon both postes of the doores , which signifieth , that good Christians do receiue Christ in the mouth and in the hart . And they which receyue vnworthely , Euseb. Emi scenus in hom. feriae 2. post Pascha . or els in receyuing , doe not beleiue it to be the blood of Christ , these put the blood vpon one poste onlye . You are commaunded also , to deuoure the head with the feete , and the appourtenances , that you shold not be curious and nyce in your feeding , but faithfullie and humblie receiue his diuinitie , his humanitie , and all other profond and secrete mysteries . In which , if any thing shall seeme absurde vnto your grosse vnderstanding , you must referr all vnto the working of the Holyeghost , and so you shall fulfyll the law , which commaundeth the residue of the lambe to be burned with fier . It is sufficient to beleeue if it be not graunted to vnderstand , Eusebius ibid. for moe doe eate this flesh , through beleeuing , then vnderstanding . Wherefore , as the figure of the paschall lambe doth nothing make against the order which the church vseth , so it doth most playnelie confound your suppositions and imaginations , by which you take Christes reall presence from vs , and the offering of his body . And now , what foloweth in your defence ? You laye vnto our charge , that We take vpon vs to alter , Defence . fo. 45. chainge , and take away , by our spiritual gouernors , all the partes of the Lorde his supper , as you will declare to vs in order , by the doctrine of our defence of priuate Masse .

Certainelie , Reply . this is a greate accusation , and we are neuer to be trusted in anye thing , if this be proued . Do we ( saie you ) take vpon vs to alter , chainge , and take 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 , Note how freelie and sensiblie the M. of the defence belieth the Catholikes . 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 , 1. Timo. 2. 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 , Defence fol. 45. as it is in vse , hath two partes , the matter and the forme . What partes hath it then , Reply . before it come to the vse of which you speake ? And if there should chaunce to be no such present vse of the sacrament , 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 , The matter and for me of the sacrament . 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 , Aug. tract. 80. super loan . 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 , Defence . fo. 45. is bread and the bodye , wyne and the blood of Christ .

Yf the bodye of Christ be the matter , Reply . 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 di●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 , Let this be distinctlie and directlie answered . with which ( and the bread ) you make vpp the matter of the sacrament 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 ▪ 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 sacrament ? But if this be the matter , what is the forme ? The forme of ministration is , Defence fo. 45. 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 , Reply . 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 ministration ? 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 , Consider , by this one place , what proper scholemen the new ghospell hath created . or els you should haue told vs of such a forme , which doth geaue ( as I may sai● ) 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 ministration , 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 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 repetition 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 communicantes , to whom shall eche one of them diuide any part● 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 distinction betweene the matter and the forme of a thing ? T●ewly that you ●ight with some orde● 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 , Defence . sometyme the people without the priest , sometyme both togeather .

Call you this the altering of the forme ? Replye . and haue you so quyckly forgotten , that you said the forme to be , what a dodger i● this M. of the defence . when the minister did gea●e the matter with the wordes of the ghospell ? how thinke you then ? when he geaueth it to one alone with the wordes of the ghospell , hath not that one person receyued the perfect Sacra●●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 sacrament 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 inuented ) 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 ministration , 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 forgotten 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 eaten : 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 , than it is of a rosted pece of beefe , when it is cleanely brought vnto the table , and diuided emong 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 ▪ ye signifye , Defence fo. 45. maye be altered at your pleasure .

This is a most euident lye . Replye . For all our scholes doe holde , that the necessarye matter of the Sacrament , Note the lye of the M. defendour of the truthe . 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 , Defence for if it were , the churche could not alter yt , as you doe comonly in the ministryng to the people .

Yf this be true , Replie . 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 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 . Answer if you can . 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 slaunderouslye , that the sacrament 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 concerning 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 them , 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 auaunseth him selfe with standing a typtoe , and ouerlooking of other , with these wordes : Who seeth not , Defence ▪ fo. 46. that prayer , and the Lorde his supper in the vse of them , be nothing lyke ?

But whoe seeth not , Reply . that you can●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 , Defence . which done of one maye stretche to the benefyte of many , but the Lorde his supper is no such common action .

The commoditie 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 , Replye . 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 , a perfect communion is in all thinges emong Catholikes . 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 communion of sainctes . And to make the matter further yet out of all doubt , he reciteth a testimonie of S. Denyse the Areopagite , in which it is proued vnto you , that the supper of our Lorde is therefore called a communion , because all the lyuelye membres of the church are brought thereby to an vnitie with Christ their head . And if all this be not sufficient , then do you further vnderstand , that , lyke as in our naturall bodye , when one parte reioyseth , all the rest is glad of it , and if anye one be payned , all the rest doth feele it : so , in the mysticall bodye of Christe , there is a diuine , entiere , and charytable communion , of all the fructfull paynes , actions , and graces , which any one of the singuler membres , either receyueth , eyther practiseth . And this communion is not only in respect of the vniformitie of the church in Sacramentes and scriptures , ( as you saye , ) but also , as concerning the communicating of benefytes , which are receyued by those sacramentes , or deserued by good deedes , and meritoryous . Of which fellowshipp , it commeth to passe , that the obedience of Abraham , and pacience of Iob , with all their vertues which lyued in the feare and knowledge of God before the commyng of Christ , and the humilitie of the most blessed virgyn , labors of the Apostles , constancie of martyrs , and holynes of all good Sowles , sence the Ascention of our Sauyor , goe forth without enuye , to the bewtifying and comforting of euery ioynt of the whole mysticall bodye . Of which , Io. 1. Christ is the head , which is blessed for euer , which is full of grace and truth ; of whose fullness euery membre receiueth a portion , Psal. 48. whom the holy ghost hath annoynted with the oyle of gladnes and reioysing , which oyle from the head droppeth downe into the berde , Psal. 132. and so continueth in communicating his graces , vntyll that the very skyrte of his vestimentes , and the leste of all his church , receyue of his influence . And this heades example , all the membres doe folow , eche of them gladly communicating with his next felow , some parte and measure of his merites and glorye , vnto whom againe the inferiors do ascende with a sweete sauor of thanke and prayses , so that in the whole bodye , there is no one parte for it selfe , but as God is for all , so all they are for God , and are , both for their begynning and ending , in most perfect socyetie . Therefor in this bodye , how can any parte doe anye thing for it selfe alone ? or how can there be but a communion betwixt all the membres of so perfect a dodye ? And to this end only doth the Catholikes argument come , not as you grosely vnderstand hym , that he went about to proue , that as one maye praye for an other , so one might receyue for another . Against which point , the more you talke , the more you make some to laugh , and some to be angrie , that you reason so hardly without any occasion . And yet , you can not pretend ignorance herein , for at length you espye your owne fault your selfe , and you declare , that you see wel inough what we might say against you , and therefor you come in with these wordes : You wyl saye perhappes you do not inferr this vpon the argument of general communion . Defence fo. 49. but onelye that they which are in diuers places maye communicate . Yea Syr , we saye so without perhappes , Reply . and if you had ben a reasonable man , you would neuer haue made such an earnest battaill against your owne fancye ▪ supposing one to stand before you , which should saye , that as one maye praye for an other , so one myght receyue the Sacrament for an other . Against which conclusion , you myght haue some aduantage , by gathering therof this absurditie , that , so it wold folow , that our baptisme here in England , myght benefite some that are in Fraunce , yet oure only meaning was , to shewe , how they which are in diuers places , maye , that notwithstanding , communicate togeather . Of which thing what saye you now ? wel Syr , Defence . I grawnte yow that .

Remembre , Replye . I praye you then , what you graunt . you graunt vs this , that they which be in diuers places maye communicate . wel Syr I graunt you that , Defence fol. ●od . but yet , ye should haue inferred the other point , &c. That is : to be lyke communion in the Lorde his supper of one alone receyued , as there is in prayer , when one man in place alone , prayeth for a multitude .

That your selfe maye not seeme to haue spoken much out of the purpose , Reply . therefore you tell vs , See how the M. of defence wyll apoint the Catholi●ke what argument he should vse , that hymselfe might haue r●me and oportunitie to reason agai●st hym . what we should haue inferred . But lett the Apologie be considered agayne , and if it can be proued that any such conclusion was intended as you doe speake against , then shall you haue the victorie . You vnderstand the catholike in this fashion , that whereas he sayd , there is a communion betweene all faythfull Christians , as well in receyuing the Sacrament as in prayer , you conclude , that lyke as one alone maye praye for a multitude : so , that we shold inferr , that one alone may receyue the Sacrament for a multitude . As who should saye , when a similitude or proportion is made betwyxt two thinges , that they must in all partes answer one an other , or els the comparison is nothing worth . Yet we reade in wyse mens workes this similitude , Cypr● ad ●ulianum . Lyke as a munkey doth counterfait and folow a mann , so doe the heretykes couet to appeare lyke vnto the trew Catholykes : It is not necessarye that .ij. thinges compared togeather , should be in al pointes one lyke the other . in which so saying , no man ( I trow ) doth meane that all heretikes haue tayles , but only that in the acte of imitating perfect and good Christians , they playe verye munkyshe partes . which comparison , yf you shall despyse , because it is made of twoe thinges of nature very diuers , and tell vs that a munkey hath an other maner of heare and coat then a man , or make sporte , against the author of that similitude , as though he would haue concluded , that a reasonable man is no better then a beast , I would not geaue ouer so , but further continew in the similitude , and saye , that lyke as munkeyes , when thei haue spent all their other knackes , doe make moppes and mowes cunninglie , to delight thereby the lookers on : so some men in the world , when they haue no more to saye or do , least they should seeme to be y●le , resorte vnto making of newe constructions , as it were distorted and madd faces . For in deed , it is of your owne making , when you saie that the catholike shold haue proued , if he had folowed good order , that lyke as one may praye for a multitude , so lykewise that one may receyue for a greate number . For it was not said vnto you , that receyuing and praying were in all thinges lyke and proportionable , but only , as concerning the strength of communion , which goeth through the whole mistical bodye of Christ not in praier only , or receiuing of the sacrament , but in fasting , almes deedes , penance , or anye other good acte or benefyte . And therefor , concerning the proportion , which is in this respect betwyxt prayer and receyuing of the sacrament , you haue to answer , why there is not a communion to be graunted , when one alone receiueth , as you can not denie , a plaine communion , when one alone prayeth . We aske not o● 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 so●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 , Note , to receiue for other and 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 communion , 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 , A sore obiection of the M. of the defence . 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 when 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 . Then 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 , Defence fol. 50. and say , that neyther th one , nor thother doth communicate with any Christian man , because neyther of both receiueth according to Christ his institution .

You be allwaies lyke your selfe , Replie . 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 . what new logi●●e is this ? 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 argument , 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 argument 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 argument as concerning 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 communion , 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 . Defence fol. 50. You do wisely to mitigat the matter , and as it were , Reply . to aske leaue that you may call it a particular communion . But you must haue none , your request is so vnprofitable . For this particular communion 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 , The needlesse and vpstart inuention of a particular communion . be fulfilled , will you bring vs so fair downewarde , 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 communicate 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 communicateth 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 . But what of this ? for , euerie thing of which a good meanyng may be gathered , is not , of necessitie , to be obserued of vs . To communicate with Christ our head and his mysticall bodye , is a thing most necessarie , if we thinke to receiue hym worthelie : but to haue a particular communion , ( as you terme it ) although it be very laudable , yet is it not necessarie , and the institution of Christ doth not requyre it of vs . For if his blessed will had ben , as you do seme to interprete it , that there should be a visible company to receiue togeather at his table , that the beholding of one the other , might lyuelie represent the vnitie , which Christ with them and thei haue with Christ , and that , without this particular communion , there might be no receiuing of the sacrament , woe then vnto poore blynde folkes , which can not see how many receiue with them . Whom , if the mercy of our Sauior hath not excluded from commyng to his table , it must folow then necessarilye , that it was not Christ his institution and commaundement , that without a visible cumpany of communicantes , his sacramentes could not be ministred . And as such a commaundement dyd not become his wysedome and his bountefullnes , so would it haue ben a greate foyle and disconfort vnto his church , if the neighbors slacknes should haue letted the deuotion of the well willing persons , or if no receiuyng at all , might be suffred without a particular communion , whereas any one Christian receiuing all alone , doth yet therein communicate with Christ his whole mysticall body . Now , because this generall communion of which we speake , doth greaue you very sore , which loue to make partes and separations , you complayne that excommunication seemeth to be taken awaie , by this our deuise ( as you call it ) of a communion betweene such as are absent and distant . But , as you are allwaies very discrete and wittye , so you geaue a reason hereof , to excuse you from folye . And what reason is that ? Marye , After your deuise , a priest , that is excommunicated of the Byshopp , Defence . maye saye masse in his chamber , and affirme that he wyll communicate with hym , whether he will or no. Yf you thinke as you say , you be very dull of vnderstanding , Reply . or short of memorie , because our opinion proueth the cleane contrarie . For whereas we tell you , that he which receiueth alone , doth communicate yet , with the rest of the bodye of which he is a parte , how farr and wyde so euer the whole be dilated : so he which is separated by excommunication from the body , communicateth with no parte of it , whether he receiue alone , or receiue with many . But , if your sentence were true , as concerning particular , communion , then would it straitwaies be very hard , to haue any excommunication . For if England would not receiue one , he might seeke after the congregation of Scotland . If thei would reiect hym , he might seeke many corners of Germany and Hungary . If Lutherans would defye hym , he might be intertayned of the Zuinglians . If thei both were to honest for hym , he might receiue after the institution of Christ ( as thei would saie ) with Anabaptistes , Arrians , and such other . But with vs , how can it come to passe by any deuise of yours , that he , which is excommunicated by the Byshop , and therefor quyte separated from the communion of all Sainctes and Catholikes , should communicate with the Byshop , or any other , whether thei would or no ? Naye truly Syr , if Christ his institution had specially commaunded a particular communion , as you saye it doth , so in deede if the Bishope should excommunicate you , yet you might call halfe a dozen of good fellowes vnto you , and in chamber , orcharde , groue , denne , stable , or vnder hedges , celebrate a memory of Christ his passion , and challendge vnto your selfes the folowing of his institution , which institution whilest you vnderstand so grossely as you doe , you must further expounde vnto vs , in what quantitie of numbre , tyme , and place , a communion may be celebrated . And if for al your fancying of particular communion , you haue no ioye to speake of such particular cases , albeit you may tell vs , that you haue weightie matters in hand , and can not therfore dallie , yet we see playnelie , that you haue not what to answer vs , lest you should be dryuen vnto many absurde folyes . And therefor to shifte your handes of those questions , in which your spirites might be tryed , you tell vs , that you see in the Euangelist and S. Paule , that Christ tooke bread , brake it , gaue it . &c. and that he did his thinges , in conuenient tyme and place , and that he had company , which if we either did not know , either would denie vnto you , then had you said somewhat . But our principall question is , whether such a company and numbre , as he vsed , be necessarie , or no : as yourselfe haue before confessed , that the obseruation of place and tyme , which Christ vsed , is not necessarie . And because you styffelie holde , that cumpany is necessarie , we would vnderstande your mynde further , within how greate and how small numbre , that necessarie company consisteth . For it is written in the Englysh seruice , that without three , no communion maye be celebrated , except vpon the speciall request of the syck person , and in tyme of plagues , when one maye receiue with the priest alone . But yet , ( I trow ) the institution of Christ , doth permit well inough two alone to receiue togeather at all tymes . Now if you be to seeking , for your answeres in such questions , which would declare vnto us the full meaning of your opinions , how dare you sett vpp a religion , Blynde guides . which know not the partes of your owne religion , and can not tell how fa●r you maie graunt , or how much you maie denie . As concerning accidences without their subiectes , and other such true consequencies , which doe folow necessarylie vpon other principles of the Catholike fayth , we are able to proue them , if you were able to vnderstand them . Of which thinges , we are not ashamed , because thei haue ben openlie declared and beleiued in all the Vniuersities and diuinitie scholes of Christendome ( many faier yeares before your diuinity was published ; ) and if the● might be any offence taken of them , or else not sufficient defence made for them , ( if your syde should be iudge , ) yet the questions are so subtile and curyous , that a good Bysshop might with honesty saie , that he needeth not to proue them . But you , which are the fynders out and founders of the ghospell ▪ the controllers of Christendome , the speciall vessells of God , and reformers of the perfect and Apostolike religion , in so plaine and sensible a matter , as place , number , and tyme is , for them which will communicate , to runne into corners , The false harte of the M. of the defence . and fayne that you haue weightie matters in hande , and commaund your aduersaries to silence , and not to trouble your grauities with any particular questions , it is much against your worship and honestie , which would be accepted of priuie counsell with God and Christ , as concerning the ordering of sacramentes . Also , that accidences may be comprised without subiectes , and bodyes be without dimension , it is openlie in scholes concluded , to see who can proue the contrarie . But how few , or how many may make o● marr your communion , you dare not , or can not aunswer vnto it , least you should be reproued . Wherefor , seeing that you make silence your defence , and will not vtter the state of your religion , it is no lytle confort vnto vs , that you be confounded yet in your owne conscience . And as we haue so faithfull myndes , that in God his misteries we go no further , then he and his holy church leadeth vs : so yet ( thankes be to God ) our wittes are not so simple , that in a plaine and sensible question we can not tell what to answer , but saie that either our aduersarie dallieth , or fayne , that the question which is asked , conteyneth a misterie .

The aight Chapiter .

THE Catholike in his Apologie , to proue that numbre of communicantes is not necessarie in the receiuing of the Sacrament , alleageth a saying of Erasmus , which he sheweth to be agreable vnto the testimonies of lerned and holie fathers , Tertullian , S. Cyprian , S. Cirill , and S. Ambrose . which if we should dilate so farr forth as we might , our replie would he very long and tediouse , and except we doe declare in what sense they serue for our purpose , it can not be but intricate and comberous . Shortly therefor to make a state of our question in this chapiter , and to haue the more leysure to speake of the testimonies brought in for v● : Lett this be our argument , which I praie the good reader to beare awaye , E●as●us sayeth , that in olde tyme the bodye of our Lorde was delyuered into folkes handes , that they which had taken yt might receyue yt at home , when they would , Ergo yt is not necessarye to haue allwayes communicantes . Now vnto this argument what doe you answer with all your defence ? Syr it semeth very straunge to me , Defence fol. 52. that you , which haue so much hated Erasmus , &c. should now in your nede take helpe and succor at his hande . Syr , Reply . our store is so greate , that we neede not Erasmus authoritie , but our behauior is so reasonable , that we doe condescend to you , in alleaging your owne doctors . And it seemeth very strainge vnto me , that Erasmus , whom you call a singular instrument prouided of God to beginne the reformation of his church , Eras ▪ contra Euangelicos Item , contra fratres inferioris Germaniae shold yet be proued to haue written by name against the false ghospellers and beginners of this new reformation of Christianitie . For is God diuided ? or hath he no better prouided , but that such as you call the singular instrumentes of vttering his pleasure and will , should be found so contrarie emong them selfes and so farr repugnant , one vnto an other ? But as concerning this learned man , we take his confession , we vse not his testimonie . And we tel you what he thought , if perchaunse that maye moue you , but we take him not for a wytnes in our cause , as though we might not well spare hym . And this doth hereby wel appeare , that we bring forth holie and blessed mens authorities to proue that most true which Erasmus hath confessed . Of whom , if you be now werie , for all that God prouided him singularly ( as you saie ) for you , what saie you then to S. Cyprian , S. Cirill , S. Ambrose , and Terrullian , by whom it is proued , that in olde tyme , there was sole receiuing emong Christians ? And here now to declare pe●chaunse that you be well seene in antiquities , you tell vs a sadd tale of much trouble , vexation , and persecution which was vsed in the primitiue church , and that the Sacrament was sent to such as were absent , Defence fol. 54. and that Hereof it came , that diuers receyued alone in theyr houses . Now thankes be to God , Replye . that at length yet , you can not but confesse that sole receiuing was vsed in the primitiue church . Where now are your lowde exprobrations , The M. of the defence confesseth sole receiuyng to haue ben vsed in the primitiue church . that we haue not one worde or sillable in all the Doctors , for the space of six hundred yeares after Christ , to make for vs ? That we haue not so much as any colour or similitude of truth , as concerning sole receiuing ▪ & c ? That Christ his institution is wholy against vs ? That ther must be necessarilie ( as you do terme it ) a particular communion ? You be not farr from the kyngdome of heauen , you be allmost wellcome home , or at least waies , you be looking homeward a litle . But this newes is to good ( I feare ) to be trew , and allthough you can not denye sole receiuing , yet you will not be quyet , but continew styll in your stryuing . For you saie this : But you should bring such places , Defence . as might proue , that the common minister in place of the Lorde his supper , did celebrate and receyue alone , other being present , and not partakyng .

No Syr , you must not rule vs in the maner of our reasoning , Reply . and appoint vs to proue that , which we take not vpon vs . This is it , which I haue wysshed before to be well remembred , that our question is not , whether any priest then did receiue alone , but whether he might doe it laufullie , or no , that is our question . And as the Catholike in his Apologie fol. 8. warned you most playnelie , that there is an open difference betweene these two sentences : There was no priuate masse at that tyme ▪ and ▪ There ought to be no priuate masse at any tyme . So take a fayer warning agayne , that we labor to proue , not what thing was then commonlie doone , but what maye now , and might then haue ben laufullie doone . Mary , we can not proue ( saye you ) that the common minister dyd celebrate and receyue alone , Note againe how the M. of the defence runneth from the question . other being present . Ver●●e what the priest did we take not vpon vs to proue , but what he might do , that we can shew vnto you . Do not you allwaies appeale vnto Christ his institution ? Doe not you make your selfes so cunnyng in it , that you can tell vs of the indifferent partes , and of the substanciall partes of it ? Haue not you defined it , that , to receiue with cumpany is a substanciall parte of it ? And do not you conclude herevpon , that the priest can not receiue by hymselfe alone , without breach of Christ his institution ? These being your principles , if we do disproue any of them , then is your conclusion destroyed . But how can we more playnelie do it , then by reciting the examples of the primitiue church , by which you are contented to be tryed , in which age sole receiuing was vsed , and yet Christ his institution not thought to be violated ? Can you denye that sole receiuing was then vsed ? you can not . But you make this limitation , that it was vsed in case of necessitie , and of laye men , not of priestes . Well , make the case how harde so euer you will , we aske no more , but that all men should know , that sole receiuing was lawfullie then vsed . Now therfor ( saie you ) let vs see , how aptly vpon this graunt you conclude your purpose ? More aptly ( I trust ) then you haue doone it for vs , which behaue your selfe so vprightly , that all 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 hymself● receiueth : Ergo you should amend your needeles appealing vnto that institution which you doe not vnderstand , and confesse that there is no impediment wherfor a priest maye not saie masse , and receiue alone . For if it had ben a substanciall point of Christ his institution , to haue communicantes , 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 Christians could not come togeather , thei serued well , to delyuer mens consciencies from the scruples , which thei might haue had , for not receiuing , but thei doe not licence 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 th● Bishopes which gouerned the church in those persecutions , had thought it to be ●f the substance of Christ his institution , that without your particular communion 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 sacrament , and willed them to praye for a quyet and good tyme , in which thei might communicate 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 , communicantes , 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 , A great distresse of the ● . of the defence . 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 w●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 withstanding 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 confesse 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 commaundement . 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 clergi● of that age , or that they would haue smyled at the breach of Christ his institution , 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 , Defence fol. 55. 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 . Replye . 1. ●o. 4. But ( alas ) how shall he , which 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 indifferentlie learned take an example by this one place , with what conscience and honestie you alleage and abuse the doctors . Might not a man thinke , which had neuer read S. Hierome against Iouinian , Marke how shamefully S. Hierome ys belyed of the M. of the defence . 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 confuteth 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 , 1. Cor. 7. 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 from the receiuing of Christ his bodye ? For he presupposeth , Exod. 19. 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 , when they desyred to haue some of the loeues which are called propositionis panes : 1. Reg. 21. 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 , In Apologia aduersus louinianum . 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 , & i●xta Persium , noctem flumine purgant , wherefore they dare not goe vnto the Martyrs ? 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 , Hieron . aduersus vigilantium . 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 : Wherfore 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 institution of Christ is excedinglie broken , he instituted not his sacrament , that they should haue it brought home to them , 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 companyed 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 rec●●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 condempned Eustathium , Defence . fol. ●5 . for that , contrary vnto the Ecclesiastical rules , he graunted licence to communicate at home .

Where a man should fynde this Socrates , Reply . 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 , Tripart . hist. ca. 4● lib. ● . but in the .2 . of that booke , we doe reade of one Eustathius a ver●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 me● and priestes with others , forsaking the company which r●sorted vnto the common churches , did come togeather emong them selues , whom , all other call●d Eustathianos , b●cause that after Eustathius departure , they 〈◊〉 ●●g●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 . The M. of the defence doth dubly ●elie Socrates and Synodus Gangrensis . But rather , as it appeareth by the epistle prefixed before that Synode , these Eustachians were of the opinion that no prayer or oblation should be made in maryed mens houses , thei contempned 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 : Concilij Gangrē●is ca. 5. 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 great in the Christians at those bless●● dayes , that rather then ●hei would haue receiued alone , to the confounding of Godes l●w and ordenance , thei would haue ben content , neuer to eate any thing in this world , but ●uffre the most cruell death of hunger . And vpon this ground so s●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 commaunded 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 institution , 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 , of communion vnder both kyndes . is expresly against vs , for , In the Euangelistes and S. Paule , Defence fol. 57. 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 , Reply . 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 mani●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 , The M. of the d●fenc● addeth vnto the scriptures , most shamefullie . vntyll , after many affected translations of the scripture in to the mother tonge , 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 consecrate , 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 indi●●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 ( ●ōcomitantia ) the meaning of which worde , was euer beleiued in th● 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 been 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 , Defence fol. 57. ys not the worke of nature in this Sacrament .

What meane you by the wordes ( communion of his bodye ) we talke of concomitantia , Replie . that is , whether vnder the forme of bread there be his bodye accompanyed 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 ?

What so euer is here geauen vnto vs , Defence 〈◊〉 . 58. is to be taken by fayth .

As whoe should saye , Re●●y . 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 , Defen●● . fol. eod. of whose will and pleasure , we know no more , then his wordes declare vnto vs .

Why Syr , Reply . doth not the worde ( bodye ) declare well inough that it is not without bloud ? When Saint Iohn in his ghospell sayeth , Io. 1. 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 , w●●ch spake by the Euangelist , was wise and able inough to declare his mynde . In Christes naturall bodye , Defence . fol. eod. 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 , Reply . 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 , Exod. 16. & 17. and water which issued out of a rock for the Israelites , were more excellent 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 , Defence . fol. 〈◊〉 . dyd not with standing , in two sundry external thinges , geaue the communion of them to his Disciples .

This letteth nothing our beleif , which do know , Reply . 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 , Defence ibidem . 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 , Reply . 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 : Io. 6. The flesh profiteth nothing , it is the spirite which quyckeneth . That the communicantes receiue not a bodie without bloud and liffe . 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 contempne 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 confuteth 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 t●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 , Defence . fol. 59. both are vnderstanded , as after shall more appeare . Let the wordes of the authors them sel●es trye it , Reply . 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 , themselues 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 , Tertull. ad vxorem , proued to make for receiuing vnder one kynd . cùm corpusculum tuum signas . & c ? ) when thow doest blesse thy bedd and thy bodye with the signe of the cross● ? when thou doest spet out with exu●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 belei●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 the chaingeablenes of heretikes . 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 , Serm. 5. de Lapsis . to open her cheste , in the which ( Sanctum Domini fuit ) the holy body of our Lorde was , she was made afrayd by fyer arysing from thens , that she durst not to touche yt . Of this place , if you will not admit our collection , that the sacrament was in her cheste , vnder one kynde , whereas S. Cyprian termeth it , Sanctum Domini , ( which is spoken of one singular thing , whether you will English it , the holy bodye of our Lorde , or that holye thing of our Lordes , which phrase hath much reuerence in yt ) yet vnderstand you , that the Catholike dyd not bydd you note in this example the receyuing vnder one kynde , the Cath●like mistaken of the M. of the defence either ignorantlie , either craftelie . but the sole receyuing and re●eruation of the Sacrament , with the miracle also that was here wrought . Yet ▪ ( see your crafte ) you say that the Catholike vsed S. Cyprian his authoritie in this place , to proue communion vnder one kynde , that whiles you might make some probable argument , or coniecture about it , he might seeme to haue ben fully aunswered as concerning that point for which he alleaged S. Cyprian . And with lyke subteltie you examyne the testimony of S. Ambrose , in that parte of your chapiter , where you talke of receyuing vnder one kynde , whereas the principall point for which that authoritie was vsed , serued to proue reseruation , which you can not denye , and then afterwardes receiuing vnder one kynde , vnto which only purpose , you doe 〈◊〉 applie it . Yet for all that , let vs consider how properlie you doe handle that historie , that it might not seeme to make for receiuing vnder one kynde .

Satyrus , Ambros. inoratio●e funebri de ●●itufrat . S. Ambrose his brother , what tyme that vpon the sea , the vessell in which he was caryed hym selfe , was dryuen vpon the rockes of the shore , and shaken with the whaues which laied vpon her on euery side , he , not for feare of death , but for feare least he should depart this lyfe without our mysteries , required of the full and perfect Christians , ( S. Ambrose calleth them Initiatos ) whom he knew to be there , that diuine sacrament of the faythfull , not to fasten a curious eye vpon those secretes , but to gett some helpe for his fayth . Whereupon he made it to be bound vpp in a stole , or ( because that worde doth not lyke you ) in a lynnen cloth or napkyn , and the napkyn he wrapped about his neck , and cast hym selfe out in to the sea . This is a parte of the historie , and out hereof we gather this argument , that the sacrament was then vsed vnder one kynde . And what can you say to the contrary ? Mary fyrst of all , you contemne the argument , and you are so much deceyued , that you aske , whether that any feare of God be in them which in most weightye matters will vse so weake reasons ? And then you report it agayn with much skornefull brauerye , and aske of meete audience for such a preacher , whether ours be a strong reason as thei thinke ? For , ( saye you ) Though yt had b●n here mencioned , Defenc● that Satyrus in this extremitie receyued one kynde alone , yt had ben no argument to proue that yt might orderlye be vsed . It is a very euell maner of all such as you are , Reply . to goe from the principall question , and to talke of that which is not yet in hande . I tell you agayne , that our argumentes are not directed to proue , that in case of necessitie , An other example of the M. of the defence hys flitting from the purpose . or in some extraordinarie cause , one maye receiue alone , or vnder one kynde : but we seeke to proue , that you are fowlie deceyued , which preache and write , that to receyue with companie , and to receyue in both kyndes , is of the necessarie substance and forme of the sacrament . Against which your conclusion we saye , that if those thinges hadd ben thought of the fathers of the primitiue church , to haue ben of the substance of the Sacrament , they would neuer haue suffred them at anie time to be ●sed , but in some examples , we see that they were not only suffred , but also allowed , therefore you be very ignorant or peuysh , to make there a necessity where none shold be at all . You doe harpe in this chapi●er very oft , vpon this one st●●g , that we can not proue that the common vse , or the ordinary vse of the sacrament in the primititiue church , was to be receyued of one alone , or vnder one kynde . And this you wil enforce vs to proue against you , vpon the which we stryue not with you , but as we reade what the common vse was , so we reade that it was not such a necessarie vse , as would admitt no dispensation , For we bring you furth good examples , by which you shold vnderstand , that euen in the primitiue church , receyuing vnder one kynd was vsed . We do not saye that it was vsed commonlie , eyther ordinarilie , or as a generall rule , ( for you be so full of playe , that it is best to keepe you shorte ) but we saye , that it was vsed , and the vse of it was not reproued , and that the presence of Christ vnder one kynde was confirmed by miracle , al which pointes doe appeare in this one historie of Satyrus . Whom if you can proue not to haue had the Sacrament about his neck , vnder one kinde only , then shall you saye somwhat to the purpose . If we can proue by any one example , that reseruation , sole receiuing or receiuing vnder one kind was alowed , your buyldinges shal straitwaies come into contempt and confusion , because that you worke , ( or els you lye , ) after the substanciall and liuelie paterne of Christ his institution , which is neuer to be altered ( saie you ) in the substantial pointes , The storie of holy Satirus delyuered from the suspitions and lyes , which the M. of the defence wold bring in to it , and proued to make for receyuing vnder one kynd . of which you speake . The better willing therefore I am , to consider the historye of Satyrus , which maketh ( we thinke ) so directlie for vs . In answering of which , you tell vs first that Satyrus was a nouice in our fayth , wherein you saye verie truly , and make the example the greater , if he , which was not yet fully instructed in our misteries , did thinke so diuinely and excellentlie of them . Further you alleage that it doth not appeare whether they , of whom Satyrus receiued the Sacrament , were ministers or other . Why Syr , to what purpose would it serue , if you could proue , that they had ben ministers ? Doe you thinke , that vpon the sodayne , when the tempest was comming , thei prepared them selues to a comm●nion , and had not the Sacrament prepared before ? And if thei had ben of your order , would thei haue suffred a sage person , to tye the Sacrament about his neck for safegarde sake , and not rather to make a communion of it , after the right vse of Christ his institution ? Then to put you out of doubt , thei were no ministers . For the historie saieth , that when holy Satyrus had escaped drouning him selfe , and him selfe comming first to lande had either holpen to saue other , or sawe them all to be recouered , then he straytwaies asked where the church was , there to geaue thankes , and receiue also those euerlasting misteries , aeterna mysteria . Also , prouing so great defence to haue come vnto him , by hauing the heauenly misterie folded vpp in a cloth , how much ( thought he ) shall I wyn , if I doe receyue him in my mouth and with all the botome of my hart ? But although he were desirous , yet he was not folish venterous . 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 when 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 countrey , he declareth therebie , not only that he had no priestes in his companie , but also that we shold not communicate with schysmatikes ▪ and he interpreteth vnto vs what a Catholike Bishopp is , saying that he is such a one as agreeth with the church of Rome . what a Catholike bisshope ys . 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 , Defence fol. 61. 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 inuention . Reply . And truly , you finde nothing to the contrarie , 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 Sacrament of the bloud about them , wherin had they it , I praye you ? Eyther in some conuenient vessel , Defence ibidem . or els after some other fas●ion as diuers of simplicitie vppon a zeale at that tyme vsed . Doth the history geaue you any occasion to thinke so , Reply . 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 , when 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 conuenient lie haue caryed the bloud in some vessel for the purpose . Other ( saie you ) moysted a lynnen cloth in the Sacrament of bloud , Some , either because they could not by nature , or would not for religion 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 Ini●●ati , the full Christians I meane , which were in the selfe same ship with him , did kepe the sacrament with them 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 ) Defence ibid. Well Sir , the worde is orarìum , which if it be not well Englished a st●le , Reply . 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 . Ambros. in oration● de fide resurrectionis● S. Ambrose in his oration 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 . Epist. 85. Againe , in his tenth booke of epistles , speaking of the holye relyques of Geruasius and Prothasius : Quanta oraria iactitantur , quant a indumenta ▪ 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 sacrament 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 lynnen 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 his knowledge , and especiallye with his brother he might and would haue ben so bolde , as to reforme his simplicitie and superstitious zeale of mynde towardes the sacrament . And if you will ymagine , that he was loth to tell his owne brother the perfect truth of thinges in his lyfe tyme , yet at least , after his death he should neuer haue praysed hym , ( as he doeth in a most exquysite maner ) for that , which ( according to your saying ) was to be tolerated onlye in the quyck , and not praysed and commended in the dead . Saint Ambrose therfore , in a most sadd maner and tyme , praysing his good brother , which then was departed this world , for many and sundrye vertues , of iustice , clemencie , temperancie , and chastitie , and especiallie commending hym , for his fayth and pietie , which shewed it selfe in the shipwrack of which we haue spoken , how can it be thought , that so wise and constant a Bishop would alleage that historie to proue the pietie of his brother , which rather ( after your interpretation ) was to be wynked at and kept vnder silence , least he should seeme to betray & vtter his superstitious behauiour and folie ? You myngle also mylke , wyne , water , soppes , & moysted lynnen clothes altogeather , as though there were no difference , whether one did celebrate in milke alone , or wyne alone , or as though that , if the soking of the sacrament of Christ his bodye in his bloud was by Iulis decrees reproued , therefore also receyuing vnder one kynde , or sole receiuing should be in lyke case myslyked . And yet , against water alone , or mylke in steede of wyne , you haue the expresse institution of Christ , and the expresse canons of Bysshops and Councelles , but you can bring no such proufe against vs , that the sole receiuing or receiuing vnder one kynde is in no case lawful . One thing I must confesse vnto you , that in deed you haue taken paynes to proue , that the common maner of receiuing in the primitiue churche , was vnder both kindes , and in this part you alleage Gelasius , Tertullian , Iustine , Cyprian , Ambrose , Gregorye Nazianzene , Hierome , Hilary , and Chrisostome learned men all , and the most of them Sainctes . How well thei serue for your purpose , what should I neede to examyne , whereas you will conclude no more by them , The fallacie or folie that the M. of the defence vseth against so , le receiuing . but that which we graunt without prouing . It was a common maner to receiue in both kindes , and to receiue with cumpanie , but what of that ? Maye you conclude thereby that it was also the only maner ? and except you proue that it was the only maner , all your reasoning make nothing against vs . Therefor Syr , as you fought all this while out of the fyelde and matter proposed , so haue you triumphed , without any victory at all obtayned . And although you laye allmost desperate stubbernes vnto our charge , and exhort your readers to beholde the slendernes and feblenes of our reasons , yet we will not be aferde to resist you in those pointes , against which you can saie nothing , and we shall counsell lykewise the reader , not to walke vpon other mens feete , but by his owne sense and disctetion , to consider whether that you haue not halted out of the question of which onlye we had to talke , prouing vnto vs , that receiuing with cumpany and vnder both ●yndes was ordinarie , and accustomable , in the begynnyng of the church , ( which we graunt , ) but nothing at al disprouing , that sole receiuing , or receiuing vnder one kynde may and hath ben vsed without any breach of Christ his institution .

Thirdly now it foloweth , to speak of reseruation of the Sacrament , which you thinke that no man hath euer flatlie denyed to haue ben vsed in the primitiue church ▪ how now then ? Of reseruation of the Sacrament . are not thei impudent which will speake against it ? No saie you . And why saie ye no ? Mary because we maye denye

Eyther that we haue any testimony in the word of God to iustifye it , Defence fol. 67. or that all the holy fathers did approue it .

Naye verelie , Reply . this can not excuse some man of impudencie , The M. of the defence would faine bring downe the challenge , and make the question more larger out of tyme , place and expectation . those I mean , which are so● full of bosting , and so voyde of doing , that thei stand not vpon these two pointes , whether it be first in expresse scripture , or whether all the Doctors approue it , but saie playnlie , that we haue not one worde , one sentence , one example of the primitiue church , to proue our assertions . Against which kynde of men , it is sufficient for vs , to shew , that the thinges which we affirme haue ben vsed , and that also of good men . In deede it is sufficient to shew that it was then vsed , Defence . fol. 67. but it is not sufficient , that it must therfore be allwayes vsed , or all dyd well at that tyme in vsing of it . Sir we doe not conclude a necessitie , Reply . that it must be vsed , because it was once vsed , See agayne how the M of the defence runneth from the question but a possibilitie and lawfullnes , that it maye be now vsed , that which in the primitiue church was not refused , and we saye , not that all then dyd well in vsing of it ( for what can we iudge of all their doinges ) but , if S. Ambrose his brother alone , did well , it is inough for our purpose against certayne heretikes , which make so much a doe about the vse of the Lorde his supper , that except them sacrament be straytwaies receyued , there should be no bodye of Christ at all . And if we had no more , but S. C●rills testimonye against you it is inough for vs . Whom , before you answer , or rather not answer , but denie , you make a protestation , and tell vs what authoritie you attribute vnto the olde fathers . And because your saying should haue the more weight , you conclude with S. Augustyne , that you do not count any thing therefore true , because men of excellent holynes and lerning were of that opinion . But because , they can persuade you , eyther by scripture or good reason , that it is not against the truth ▪ which saying of S. Augustyne , we gladly admitt , and add further vnto it , that although scripture and reason be alleaged plentyfully , yett that there is a further and greater authoritie , Neither scripture neither reason can settle our faith , but only the authoritie of the church by which we ought to be ruled . For albe●● , that you doe make this obiection against your selfe , as it were in our behalfes , that men of great holynes and learning would neuer write that which they thought not to be agreable with God his worde , by which your obiection it might be suspected , that we doe stiffely and stoutly holde with euery saying of the excellent doctors , yet the truth is farr otherwise . And we know better then you ( because it was the Catholike churche which hath defined it and not you ) that Lactantius , Cyprian , Origen , and many others , had theyr priuate opinions and errors . And if you , wil stand by that which you haue protested , why be you not of S. Cyprian his mynde , as concerning rebaptisation , whereas he wanted neither scriptures , neyther reasons for his purpose ? or why doe ye not holde with Origen , Clemens , Alexandrinus , Tertullian , and other great clerkes in such their false opinions which they defended with apparant scripture and reason ? Therfor as S. Augustyne saieth wiselie , that he wil beleiue no Doctor vpon his bare word , without scripture or reason , and as we folow his lesson therein : so yet we add further , that , be a man neuer so auncient and well learned , and let hym bring neuer so much scripture and reason , yet except he be allowed of the churche , he is to be eschewed , with all his 〈◊〉 and learning . For if it shall please you to learne more iudgement , this 〈◊〉 must vnderstand , 〈…〉 in all places , The place● of refuge in doubtfull tymes . August ▪ ad lanu ▪ epist. 118. of all persons . To dispute of that which the whole church doth obserue through the world ▪ it is ( saieth S. Austyne ) a most impudent madnes , and therfor it may be rightlye and well beleiued , first of all , Vniuersalitie . that which the whole church doth teach vs . But what if ther be schismes and diuisions in the church , for thetyme present ? Mary Syr then , we must resort vnto Antiquitie , Antiquitie and aske counsell of the most auncient fathers . But then agayne , what if the auncient fathers agree not emong themselfes ? Truly then , Consent . we must folow the voyces of the most and best learned of them . And so by these meanes , we haue three places of refuge , Vniuersalitye , Antiquitye , and Consent . And we the Catholikes haue most certaine and infallible rules , by which we do trye priuate opinions of doctors , geauing lesse vnto them then you do ( which esteeme your owne iudgementes so highlye ) except th●● agree with the church of Christ , or agree with other of their 〈…〉 ( as though that the Catholikes did make an article of faith , of euery thing which thei reade in the fathers ) but consider rather that we trye them more exactly then you doe , and we can not be straitwaies persuaded , without further question , if the best learned that euer was , shold bring scripture and reason , to proue his singular opinion . Yet , seeing that you can finde in your harte , so quicklie to yeld vnto the learned and holy mens scriptures or good reasons , although there is a better waye which you shold take , neuertheles , to lett you haue a litle your owne mynde , what saie you now vnto S. Cyrill ? his wordes be these vnto Calosyrius : They are then madd , D. Cyrill . ad Calosyrium . which saye , the mystical be●ediction or blessing to recise from her sanctification , if any leauinges remayne vntyll the next daye . ' Because the very holy body of Christ , shall not be chainged , but the vertue , blessing , and lyuely quyckenyng , is in it rather . This is S. Cyrill against you , an how can you auoyde hym ? You wyll not ( you say ) playnlie deny the place , Defence fol. 70. because it is alleaged of diuers other . Yet because this worke of S. Cyrill is not extant , you haue good cause to suspect it . Although the worke be not extant vnto you , Reply . yet it maye be in some libraries of the world : and the place being alleaged of many , an honest plaine dealing man would not suspect , without some good and great cause , that it were falsely fathered vpon S. Cirill . For if the Catholikes could haue founde in their hartes , to haue mysused the simplicitie of others , and to attribute vnto holie fathers , such sentences as were neuer thers , it had ben an easie matter for the Bisshoppes of Christendome , in that great consent and peace of faith , which hath ben in the church for eight or nine hundred yeares togeather ( vntill the dyuell raised vpp Luther ) to haue agreed vpon such a booke , which should make expressely against new vpstart heretikes , and haue the name of S. Augustine , S. Ambrose , S. Hierome , or some other . And againe , it had ben an easye matter for some one Bisshop , Abbot , or Doctor , to fayne that he had founde such or such a booke of S. Augustine , S. Ambrose , S. Hierome , or other , if there had ben no more conscience in Catholikes , then is proued to be now in heretikes . It is sone said , this is not Saint Cyrill his testimonie , and as the prouerbe is in some scholes , Plus potest asinus negare , quàm Aristoteles probare . And further also , if the Catholikes should be perceiued neuer to haue had emong them this testimonie of S. Cyrill , before that late heretikes of these dayes beganne to impugne them openlye , as one might easely alleage , at all aduenture , vpon some priuate wylfulnes , that S. Cyrill sayeth this vnto Calosyrius , so might he probably be suspected of an other , lest perchaunse he inuented false testimonies . But you can not proue it by vs , that we haue vsed this defence out of S. Cyrill , only sence we haue striued against you , but rather , when all thinges were quyet , you shall finde those testimonies which you suspect , to haue ben recyted of Catholikes . And especiallye that saying of his , which maketh for the supremacie of the Bishop of Rome , which some hundred yeares agoe , S. Thomas Aquinas hath recyted out of S. Cyrill Thesaurorum .xij. which testimony if it be not in the Latyn now extant , yet it maye be in the Greeke , and what Greeke copyes are beyonde sea you can not tell , and if it be not in print , yet it may be in wryten bookes , whereas many yeares , before any printing was in the world , this testimonie is alleaged by approued men and excellent , both for learning and lyuing . Also , if you haue cause to suspect the testimonie which hath not the worke extant , out of which it was taken , what cause moued you then , to make so greate store of a fragment of Gelasius which you doe allwaies alleage most busylye , All is fishe that commeth to heretikes nettes . when you talke of receyuing vnder both kyndes . And allthough Gela●sius in that selfe same abrupt and short sentence , doth expresselye declare , that he speaketh against such as which vpon a certayne superstition , abstayned from the receyuing of Christ his bloud , and serueth nothing at all vnto the purpose of which we talke : Yet you delight so much in it , as though all were fys●he which commeth to your nett , and no testimony were to be suspected , which may seeme to serue for your purpose , although the work be not extant . Whereby it appeareth , that you picke onlye a quarrell againste the testimonye which we bring out of S. Cyrill , and myslyke with it , not because the worke is not extant , but because he calleth you madd men , in reprouing reseruation of the sacrament . Now when you haue said as much as you could , to the disgracyng of the testimony , then flatter you with it agayne , and saye : But be yt so , Defence fol. 71. that these are Cyrill his owne wordes in deede ▪ we haue for that one suspected place , a numbre of sounde testimonyes , that all dyd not allow reseruation , Reply . nor thinke it according to the worde of God .

You geaue and take awaye againe . You graunt that they shall be Saint Cyrill his owne wordes in deede , and yet stratwayes you call it a suspected place . But lett vs consider , how sounde your testimonies be● First you alleage Origine , which in deede hath those wordes which you recite , but his meaning● yet was not to reproue all reseruation of the sacrament ▪ For he , 〈…〉 expounding those wordes Leu. 7. in which it is commaunded that the flesshe of the sacrifice which shall be offred in waye of thankes geauing , shall be cat●h the same daye , and that nothing thereof shall remayne ●●●yll the morow , 〈…〉 sayeth , The flesh which ys appointed for the priestes 〈◊〉 of the sacrifice● , Orig. in . 7 Leu●tici . ys the word● of God , which they teache in the church . For this therfore they are warned by mysticall figures , that when they begin to preach vnto the people , they bring furth not the yesterdayes leauinges , 〈◊〉〈◊〉 old thinges which are after the letter , but that they speak allwayes , ●re●●e and n●w thinges , through the grace of God , and fynde out allwaies spirituall thinges . Now to sett furth , Origine proued not to make agaynst reseruation . as it were , this his interpretation , ●he gathereth many argumentes very 〈◊〉 , out of many thinges , in such sore yet , that you maye rather prayse his inuention , then requyer it to be taken of vs for an assured conclusion . For ( sayeth he ) our Lorde also did not di●●●● the ●read which he gaue to his disciples , saying . Take and 〈◊〉 , neyther did be commaund it to be kept v●tyl the mor●w . Mat. 26 Perc●a●●●● also this myst●rye is 〈◊〉 , in that , that he doth not commaund bread to be caryed in our w●y● or iourney● , to 〈◊〉 that we should bring ●●rth the bread of the worde of God , Luc. 9. which we carye with vs allway● new and fresh . Those Gabaonytes also , ( of whom it is written in the 〈◊〉 of Iosue ) are therfor condemned and made hewers 〈◊〉 wood , and caryars of water , because they brought old 〈◊〉 bread vnto the 〈◊〉 , which the spirituall lawe 〈◊〉 commaund to occupy fresh and new . Hereby therefore it doth appeare manifestlie , that Origine did not entend to make a necessarie conclusion , that the sacrament must not be reserued , no more then he doth affirme that the cause why the Gabaonites were made bondemen vnto the Iewes , was ; that they brought old crustes of who●e bread in their pouches and budgetes . But , as he was an exceading subtyle diuine , and latbored to drawe all thinges vnto a good spirituall sense , so he sayeth , that Christ gaue breade vnto his Disciples , and bad them ●ate it straitwaies , and not keepe it vntyll the morow , to signifie that our preching vnto the people , and our praysing of God , should be allwaies new , that is to saye , spirituall and harty . Vnto which his argument and reason , if I would answer and say , that neyther Christ did bydd his Apostles to eate his body straitwaies , and that graunting also so much vnto hym , yet reseruation of the sacrament in the church , might stande with Christ his fact in his supper well inough , I see not what might be replyed against me , or how he should mayntayne his proposition . Yet because his conclusion is true ( that in preching of the Ghospell , and praysing of God , we should bring furth a new and spirituall sense , ) I will not stryue with him vpon the premisses , but rather be glad of his wyt●●e interpretation . As in an other example , to make this matter more easie , when some holy father saieth that God at the begynnyng made two light●s , one greater , an other smaller , to signifie that the Christians are gouerned by spirituall and temporall officers . &c. I haue not to contende with hym vpon his subtyle collection , but to graunt hym that I see so much in the Sonne and Mone , because I am not hindred by his conclusion . To be short , this mysticall Theologie is not ●ounde and certaine to make argumentes by . Therefore if you thinke Origine , in this place , to serue for your purpose , and so to serue , that it is a more sounde place for you , then is S. Cyrilles against you , then truly , as you maye haue perchaunse a good tast to trye which baker of the towne hath the best bread , so haue you a very corrupt iudgement vndoubtedlie , in the vnderstanding of auncient Doctors , But let vs heare now an other sound testimony of yours . He that wrote the sermon de coena Domini in Cyprian , Defence . fol. 71. sa●eth playnlie of the sacrament , Recipitur , non in●luditur , it is r●ceyued , not inclosed and shut vp . First you might doe well to name hym which wrote these sermons , Reply . and to shew some probable authoritie why thei are not S. Cyprianes . Then whereas you promysed to bring such testimonyes , which should be ●ound and not suspected , see the absurditie . why alleage you that sermon for your defence , which beareth the name of blessed S. Cyprian , and yet drawe the authoritie of his name awaye from it , whereby it hath lesse commendation . Yet it is no● I , which doubt of the authoritie of that sermon , but glad I am , that though it be not S. Cyprians , yet it is of such a truth and antiquitie , that a sounde testimonie may be borowed allwaies out of it . Onlie this I would haue you warned of , that after fayer and greate promyses of sound and ●●tentik● testimontes , you disgrace not your owne cause , and geaue aduantage vnto your aduersarie to refuse that worke as altogeather of no authoritie , which your selfe do thinke vnworthie to be fathered vpon a right learned Doctor . But now , whereas S. Cyprian , or that other , which ( as you reporte ) wrote that sermon , saieth : The sacram●nt is receyued , and not included , or inclosed , and shut vp , as you English it , what vnderstand you , by shutting vp of the sacrament ? doth that place make against reseruation of the sacrament ? and is this an other of your sound testimonies , which you make so to sound as though the sacrament were not to be inclosed within a pyxe , or shut vp within some conuenient place , one or other ? S. Cyprian in that sermon , after many other excellencies , which he founde to be in our sacrament of the aultar , aboue the sacrifices of the Iewes , saieth in further commendation of it , in this sorte : The prerogatiue of the L●uitical dignitie , Cypr. in serm. de coena domini . doth admit to these loeues and bread , not priestes onlie , but the whole church is inuited vnto these bankettes . An equal portion is geauen vnto all , he is bestowed continuing whole , he is distributed and not dismembred , he is incorporated and not wronged or iniuried , he is receiued and not included , dwelling with the weak● and sicklie , he is not weake . &c. he is not offended with the seruice of the poore . A pure f●●yth , a 〈◊〉 mynde doth delight this dweller , and the narrownes of our sely poore house , doth not offende or bynde in the greatnes of God , which is large and allmightye . How saie you then ? is not the sense of those wordes , he is receyued , and not included , referred onlie vnto the commendation and setting furth of Christ in the sacrament , which continueth allwaies whole and one , although he should be diuided emong neuer so manye persons ? and is not included within them , which yet doe receiue hym ? Yet what a sense haue you put vpon this place ? as though this were the meaning of it , thei which haue any vnderstanding , let them for truthe sake consider , how S. Cypriane , and the vnlerned lay people are abused . that Christ is receiued and not included , that is to saie , we must receiue the sacrament and keepe no parte of it vntyll the next daie , nor shut vp any portion of it within pyx , boxe , or coffer , but straitwaies make a perfect communion , that there may be in any case no reseruation . Yet in that place , there is nothing lesse intended , which ( as euery meane learned maye perceiue ) is wholy sett furth and decked , with the coopling of contraries togeather , as , To be distributed , which importeth a making of partes , and not to be dismembred , which signifieth no parte to haue ben pulled from the whole . To be incorporated , which should not seeme to be done without some alteration , and yet not to be iniuried , which declareth agayne the thing to contine●● in his former estate . To be receiued , by which worde we seeme to haue it within vs , and not to be included , which setteth agayne the thing at libertie . Wherfore this place as it maketh nothing for your purpose , so yet it maye serue vs , and all other which haue regarde of their soules , to beware how thei go vpon other mens feete , or ryde ( if thei be gentlemen ) vpon an others bayard , except thei be sure before , that togeather with his boldenes he hath also his eyes . After this , you alleage out of Isichius that the residue of the sacrament not receiued , was in his tyme burned , and out of S. Clement , ( whom you contemptuouslie doe call our Clement ) you recite that the ministers must with feare and reuerence , eate vpp the remaynent of the consecrated hostes , wherevpon you conclude that reseruation was not generally vsed , which being graunted vnto you , it remayneth yet that S. Cyrill maye stande well inough with S. Clement and Is●chius . For as examples are brought for declaration of both partes , so is reseruation a thing indifferent to be vsed , or to be omitted . And lyke as we should proue our selues very ignorant , if we should denye absolutelye that reseruation was at anye ●yme omitted , so doth S. Cyrill saie wiselie and trulie , that thei are madd men , which make no price of the sacrament , if it be once reserued . In the later end of the chapiter , you presse vs with S. Clement his authoritie , as though we had euer graunted vnto you , that all is to be folowed now of necessitie , which was once obserued in the primitiue church , or as though our answer had not euer ben , that receiuing alone or with cumpany is in it selfe a thing indifferent . But it seemeth , you were well apaied , that you had shifted away the article of reseruation , which troubleth you verye ●ore , to which your aunswer is exceding symple and vnperfect , yea rather it is no aunswer at all . Because you confesse as much as we do requyre , that reseruation was then sometymes vsed . But you tell vs , that sometymes it was not vsed , which maketh nothing so the purpose . Now one thing more will I saie , and so end this chapiter . You protested to admit the Doctors , in such degree as S. Augustyne teacheth you , which is to saie , if they bring either scripture or good reason . Therefor what saie you to the reason , which S. Cyril maketh , that the sacrament , if it be reserued , is for all that of one state and strength , because the vertue and power of consecration continueth with it ? It is not man which blesseth or consecrateth the bread , but it is Christ hym selfe , which doth sanctifie and chainge the bread and wyne , whose worde being permanent , and out of the dainger and mutabilitie of tyme , how can it be otherwise then his bodye , that which is once consecrated , if it should remayne vnreceiued a thousand yeares to geather ? vnto this reason and question , you haue to aunswer with all your cunnyng and learnyng .

The nynth Chapiter .

SYrapion of Alexandria lying in his death bedd , Euseb ▪ lib. 6. cap. vlt. sent in the night season for the priest to minister the sacrament vnto him . The priest , being syck him selfe , deliuered it to his ladd , and badd him moyst it , and so geaue it to his syck master . Of this history it is to be gathered , ( sayeth the Catholike , ) that the Sacrament was reserued , that it was receiued vnder one kynde , and that it was receiued without companie . Therfore what saye you the Master of the defence vnto it ? First you aunswer , that It was a case of necessitie , or great difficulty . Defence

As though that were not inough for vs to shew , Reply . that sole receiuing , reseruation , and receiuing vnder one kynde , are not against the substance of Christ his institution . Secondlye you tell vs , that The history speaketh not generally of all that lye in theyre death ●edd , but only of one sorte , Defence fo● . 73. but only of one sorte , that before were restrayned from communion , whom they called penitentes .

As though it were materyal what maner of person it was whiche laye in his bed , Reply . and not rather in what manner of fasshion he receyued the Sacrament , which in those dayes was reserued . For how soeuer the person was , the thing which ●elonged for , the shiftes of the M. of the defence concernig the story of Sirapion are cleane put ●waye . is called his viaticum , which is his viage prouision , and was not so much geauen vnto him because he shold be therby deliuered from danger of excommunication , as that he might haue comfort of the sacrament in the terrible passage from this world vnto an other . And the p●●nitentes of the old tyme were not properly excommunicated , as they now are , which by definitiue sentence are cutt of from the body of Christ , but they continued in the payne which the officers of Christ his church did sett vpon their fault , and were in the meane tyme yet in the state of grace , so that if they had departed this world without the external receiuing of the sacrament , yet they should not haue ben damned for euer , with those which dyed excommunicated . And therefor although Syrapion , was in a great necessity and difficultie , as concerning his owne lyfe , yet ther was no such necessitie wherfore he , more then any other Christian , shold receiue the sacrament as he dyd . Yea rather , if they which haue not fully satisfied for their offences , are fauored yett so much of the church when they are at the point of death , that they shal enioye the benefite which is reserued for true & vpright Christians , how much more is it good reason , yf excommunicate persons receiue the Sacrament at ther death , why shold the vpriht & free Christians be kept from it ? that he which hath not fallen into lapse , and hath not in any thing offended the church , should enioye the comfort of his viage prouision , which is not denyed vnto the manifest before , & now penitent synners ? Yf the beggars at our dore be serued with the white bread of children , when p●nges of sicknes or death come vpon them , how much more ought the children , to haue of their owne proper loffe , when they come vnto the lyke cases ? Ther● was one which told me , ( saieth blessed Chrisostome , ) not which had ben taught it of an other , De Sacer● dotio . lib. 6. but which was accomp●ed worthy to see yt and heare yt hym selfe , that they which are departyng out of this lyfe , if they be made partakers of these mysteries ( meanyng the Sacrament ) with a p●●●e and cleane conscience , when they are geauing vp the ghost , they are caryed from hence vp straitwayes into heauen by Ang●ls , which for that holy thing sake , which was r●ceyued , doe stand thyck about their bodies in maner of a garde or of ●anchmen . Therefore , as you can neuer proue , that reseruation was vsed only for their sak●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 rece●uing vnder one kynde , are not necessariely forbydden by Christ his institution 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 ▪ and yet priuely ( your conscience I thinke prycking you ) you come vnto the same state at the which we holde the question , Hypocrite 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 , Defence fol. 7 ● . by these ●xamples yt may appear● 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 , Reply . not , as you deuise , that we goe about to proue , that the ordinarye common 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. Defence No doubt therof , especially if the commaundement apperteyne vnto ceremonyes and ordres in gouernement , Replye . but to haue company in receyuing , it is ( you saye ) a substanciall part of the sacrament , without the which the sacrament hath not his inward perfection . Wherein , if you saie true , Syrapion or any other shold neuer haue ben suffred to receyue the sacrament alone , and most playnly to goe against Christs owne law and commaundement . And if , in that case , he should haue dyed without his comfort and viage prouision , them might you haue vsed you● 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 , How the sabbat daie is of necessitie to be kept and how it admitteth dispensation . 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 i● 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 concerning 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 sacramentes , and geaue vnto those sacramentes forme and matter , such as shall be of the substance of them , No necessity can serue to omitt or breake any commaundement of God concerning the substātce of it . 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 sacrament vnto Priestes , neyther receiue it before Bishops . And further it is graunted , that if the Bishops or Priestes be absent , the Deacons may bring furth the sacrament , and eate it . Vpon which propositions , the Catholike maketh this argument , 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 Defence fol. 76. .xiiij. Canon of Nicene Councell in no sense doth proue sole receiuing , as you would haue it seeme to doe . You be foulye deceaued , Reply . and besides you make a shamefull lye vpon the Catholike , The M. of the defence doth ouershote hymselfe wonderfullie . 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 commenting 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 canon , and you thinke that he shall be lytle thanked for bringing in this Councell , and , to be short , as though all were wonne , you sing , as it were , Te Deum , and you thanke God that we are dryuen so much to our shiftes , that we can not mayntayne falsehod , but that we are constreyned to promote the truth . But , o Lorde God , what hath ben sayed wherefore this felow should have such a vantage against vs ? or what falshod is that , which we would maynteyne by this canon ? or what truth is so singularly vttered , by reason of this our testimonye ?

This canon ( saye you ) doth not proue sole receyuing . Mary , Syr , neyther we haue vsed it for that purpose . It proueth , ( saye you ) that in the primitiue church the maner was to receyue with cumpanye . We knew this before you tolde vs . Ergo ( saye you ) all sole receyuing is by this testimonye confounded . I deny your argument , for as we confesse and know , that receyuing with cumpany was ordinary in the church for some tymes and places , so we beleiue and haue proued it before , that sole receiuing hath sometymes ben allowed . Wher now then is your gaye victory ? We resist not your authorities , by which you may proue many to haue receyued togeather , but we myslyke with your discretion , which conclude that sole receyuing is not therfore allowable . And agayne , what talke you in this place of sole receyuing ? Answer rather vnto our argument , which proueth reseruacion . The Deacons could not consecrate , the Bishops and Priestes being absent , in this case then ( sayeth the holy Councell ) lett the Deacons themselues bring furth the sacrament , and eate it . But how should they eate it , except they had it ? and how should they haue it , except it were first consecrated ? or how could it be presentlye consecrated , when both Bishops and Priestes were absent ?

Must it not folow necessarily , that it was reserued , in that they are licensed to take it furth them selues , and eate it ? Yf you can denye , reseruation to be proued by this place , we must wonder at your ignorancie : and if you confesse it playnlie , wher is your proper answer vnto it ? Oh ( saye you ) in these Deacons , which receyued in absence of the Bishop and Priestes , There appeareth an extraordinary case . Defence fol. 77.

Such is your ordinary answer , but wherein is the case extraordinary ? Reply . In that the Deacons receyue it in absence of the Bishop and Priestes , or in that it was reserued ? It was ordinarye , that the Priestes should geaue the sacrament to the Deacons , but what if no Priest had ben present ? then , sayeth the Councell , the Deacons may bring it furth , and serue themselues . And in this respect , you saye truly , that here is an extraordinary case . But as concernyng the reseruation of the sacrament , how can you deuise that it was extraordinarye ? Doe you thinke when the Bisshops or Priestes were sure to tarye at home vntyll the morow , that they then did not make any store of the sacrament , The .xiiij. Canon of the Nicene Councell confirmed to make for reseruation . but presently bestow it emong the communicantes , and when they could not intend the mysteries the next day folowing , thinke you , that they consecrated more hostes then needed for that tyme present , and sayd vnto the Deacons : Syrs , here is the sacrament for you in store vntyll to morow ? But what necessitie was there for the Deacons to receyue on the morow , that the breache of Christ his institution might be somewhat thereby excused ? Truly the Deacons should tarye , not only one daye , but one whole yeare , rather then reseruation should be admitted , if so greate fault ( as you saye ) be in it . Now , if the sacrament were not reserued vpon such a speciall case , how can you saye , that the reseruation was extraordinarye ? And if the reseruation were ordinary , ( as vndoubtedlye it was , ) make the case then of the Deacons receyuing as extraordinary as you will , and it letteth our purpose nothing . For we consider , not the acte of the Deacons in any other sense or meanyng , then as it proueth reseruation . And here you shall note further , that the sacrament was reserued not onlye for such which laye in their death beddes , and were not reconcyled vnto the churche , Fol. 73. ( as you said in the chapiter before ) but also that it serued the vncorrupted and faythfull Christians , whiles thei were yet in good health , except you can thinke that the Deacons , whom the Nycene Councell permitteth to take furth the sacrament , and eate it , were either excommunicated persons , either such as could not go abrode for weakenes . Now , as concerning the receiuing vnder one kynd , as it might be shewed out of this place , if we would dally , as you do vse , and as concerning your great inuectyue against vs , ( as though any of vs did make a tryfle of Christ his institution , and not rather reproue your interpretations , which make that to be Christes which is not his , ) as also concerning S. Cyprian , Cypria . ad Cecil . ep. whom you full madly alleage for your purpose , which all togeather in that his epistle , proueth that wyne and water shold be mingled togeather in our sacrifice , I will not speak at this present , because the first is not maynteyned of vs , the seconde is not to be regarded , and the third had ben spoken of before . But as concerning reseruation , which we say , and say againe , to be most manifestly proued by the testimonye of the Nycene councell , therein we haue you so fast bound that all accustomed shiftes do fayll you : & you w●ll not say ( I trust ) either that councell to be of smal reputation , although the Bishop of Romes legates were cheif men there , either the case of reseruation to haue ben extraordinary , or that the church was dryuen vnto it by playne necessitie for their syckmens sake , which laye at the point of death , and were excommunicated from other Christians .

The eleuenth Chapiter .

SAint Cyprian in his fyfth sermon de lapsis , declareth , how an infant , which had receyued before of bread and wyne offred vpp to Idolles , had afterwardes emong Christians the bloud of Christ powred into her mouth by the Deacon of the church . And straitwaies yexing and vomiting foloweth , because that the sacrament could not abyde in a body and mouth defyled . Of this historye it is gathered , that the babe receyued the sacrament in forme of wyne only . For if the body had ben receyued before , it would no more haue taryed in a polluted mouth then the bloud did , but she was wonderfully vexed , or sore vexed , ( for both these phrases are vsed of the Catholike in his Apology ) not before the bloud was powred into her mouth , but immediatlye after , therefore it is very euident , that she receyued onlye in forme of wyne . Naye ( saye you ) the first trouble which the childe had , was euen in the ●yme of prayer , before the sacrament was distributed . It was so in deede . For the child cryed out , and turned her selfe hyther and thyther for anguyshe of mynde and inwarde torment . But who suspected anye harme thereof ? or who did collect thereby , that the childe was defyled within , by reason of wyne soppes , which were geauen to her , of the offeringes to Idolls ? But the sore and greauous vexing of her , the yexing and casting vpp of that which she had receyued , appeared first when the bloud of Christ was powred into her mouth . And note the cause wherfore it appeared then first , that the childe had ben before polluted . Mary ( sayeth Saint Cyprian ) the drinke which was sanctifyed in the bloud of our Lorde , did burst vpp out of the polluted bowelles . So great is the power of God , so great is his maiestie . Yf therfore , the presence , and maiestie of God , when it came into the babe , dyd straytwaies reueale that , which before was vnknowen , his power and presence being no lesse vnder the forme of bread , then it is of wyne , out of all doubt the fact of the child had ben bewrayed , before she had com to the receyuing of wyne , if it had receyued the sacrament first of all in forme of bread . Because the power and maiestie of God , The storie of the childe in S. Cyprian . Ser. 5. de lapsis , confirmed to make for receiuing vnder one kynd . which is fully and perfectly vnder the forme of bread , would not haue stayed in the defyled mouth or bodye , but straytwayes haue worked to the example of others . And therfor , the argument of the Catholike continueth in all his strength and force , allthough the child were vexed before it receyued of the chalice . For it was not vexed at the tyme of prayer , so sore that it cast vpp anything , and the fault was not espyed before the bloud was powred into her , and then it was first of al opened , because of the presence and maiesty of God , whose presence being as certayne vnder one kynde , as vnder the other , the sacrament of the bodye would no more haue taryed within her , then the sacrament of the bloud , if the childe had receyued the body before the bloud . well then , say you , If it were so , Defence fol. 82. it ys not most euident , that yt was either because the child was so yong that it could not , or so trobled , that yt would not take the sacrament of the bodye ? As concerning the formost of these causes , Reply . it is very credible . for that it seemeth by S. Cyprian , that it was a sucking childe lefte vpon the handes of the nurse the parentes being fled awaye . But the second is very vnlyke , for as the resistence on the childes part did not let the Deacon , but that he powred the bloud into her mouth , so although she would not haue taken the sacrament of the body , yet she might as well haue ben enforced therevnto , as to receyue of the chalice . And allso , if that opinyon which you holde now , had then ben in the church , that it is against Christ his institution , to receiue vnder one kynde , they would neuer haue profered the chalice vnto any such as would not haue receyued first and for most the bodye , as you are wont to recite a fragment out of Gelasius , which you vnderstand not , that the diuision of one and the selfe same misterie , can not be done without great sacrilege . But lett both your reasons stande , is it not proued then sufficiently , that to receyue in both kindes is not of the necessitie of Christ his institution ? And where then is your witt , to graunt us that , by which our purpose is brought to passe ? For allthough you think , that you shall take no foyle , to graunt that in necessitie one kynde might be vsed , and that necessitie which hath no law , maye cause a commaundement of God to be omitted , and allthough you maye be so easily entreated to permit receiuyng in one kynde , that because the childe , of whom we haue spoken , would not or could not receiue the sacrament of Christ his bodye , you think it to be a case of necessity , in which the institution and law of Christ should or might be omitted : yet if you consider , that your selfe do take the receiuing vnder both kyndes to be of the substance of Christ his institution , and not of the circumstance , and to be , not an ornament only but an expresse commaundement , certainly when you graunt vs , that in any kinde of case , it maye be allowed to receyue the Sacrament vnder one forme , either of bread or wyne , you be straitwaies conuicted , that Christ his institution doth not necessarilye requyre them both . For such commaundementes of God , as are geauen concernyng circumstances and ceremonyes , they maye be omitted in tyme of necessitie without any offence committed , but if he geaue commaundement for the necessary and substancyall either forme or matter of any sacrifice or sacrament , necessitie can not excuse vs , if we should offer sacrifice or minister sacrament in other forme and matter , than was appointed by God . But to omit and leaue altogeather vndone , ( the commaundement I meane of sacrifice or sacrament ) therein necessitie shall haue good place , and saue vs from the daunger of the law . Wherefore you , which make the receyuing vnder both kyndes to be of the necessary substance of Christ his institution , doe vtterly destroye this your strainge conclusion , in graunting that sometymes one kinde may be lawfully vsed , and you speake allso in laboring for communion in both kindes , Vide Hosium in confessione Cathol. pa. 87 directly against your father Luther , which in more than one place declareth the precept of receyuing both kindes to be in it selfe indifferent , Lutherus in libro de formula Missae . and such as he , at his owne pleasure , in some cases would either vse or refuse . Whereby it maye well be gathered , how lytle ye passe , either what ye affirme , either what ye denye , which saye , that any man conuersant in Luthers bookes , maye right well iudge , that it is not so , as we reporte of hym .

The .xij. and .xiij. Chapiter .

From this place furth , although the Catholike doth frame the conclusion of his treatyse , vnto which when any one cometh , he seemeth to be at the ende of his labor , yet by reason of this conclusion , such principal matters are moued , that if they should be answered throughlye , we had neede to make a new begynnyng . For we haue to reason about the contynuance of the church , the authority of the Fathers , and the reall presence of Christ in the sacrament , which are so necessarye and cheif pointes to be considered , that I must not speake nothing of them , and yet I haue ben so long here before in trying the master of the defence , that I must not saye all that I can , but with conuenient spede dyspatch these worthye questions .

First then as it hath ben proued against you , that the syxe hundred yeares , which immedyatly folowed the a●cension of our Sauiour , are not wholye with you , for all your great crakes , so we may wonder not a lytle , why you make exception against these last nyne hundred yeares , by the practyse of which you refuse to be tryed ? Is this ( thinke you ) a small and weeke argument to confirme and staye our consciences vpon , that for .ix. hundred yeares space , you , our aduersaries , can not deny vnto vs , but that all Bishops , Vniuersities , Realmes , and states of Christendome , haue quyetlie continued in one kynde of true Apostolike fayth , vntyll within these few dayes , that all the olde catholike religion hath in some places ben abolyshed by publike authoritie ? If a rennegat and dissolute fryar , be thought worthy of estimation , because he hath at these dayes manye folowers , are not the religious in deede , which continued in great numbre and with much praise in ther orders , much more to be regarded ? If this be the tyme of grace and light , in which we may see and lament , vowes broken , monasteryes ouerturned , the landes of Christ and his church alyenated , virginitie , fasting , praying , and all rules of good and perfect lyfe contemned ▪ what tyme was that , in which the contraries of all these , were highlie commended and practysed ? Continuance of tyme , doth not a litle make for the doctrine of the catholi●●● church . The continuance onlye , of a religion .900 . yeares ▪ without interruption , is a very probable argument not lightlie to passe away from it . But when it is considered , how many learned and godlie men , how great Vniuersities , how mighty Princes lyued within the compasse of those yeares , and that of them all no one of the good and learned , did anye thing write or preache against it , and none of the Princes either would either could resist it , who but vnsensible , may thinke that it should not be of God ? Although that heresies do very shamefully encreace , and that there be so many sectes and diuisions emong them , that no one parte can euer be greate , although the whole world were ouerturned vnto heresie , yet at this day moe Catholikes are in Christendome , then Lutherans , Zuinglians , Osiandrians , Caluinyans , Anabaptistes , and all the rest , of the lyke making , togeather . For these heresies are yet ( God make them narrower ) but here and there dispersed , and Germanye the mother of them , is for a great part of it full Catholike . Yet as litle place as the new ghospell hath , in comparison of Christendome , see how much he , whom you take for no small fole , the author of the Apology of the Englysh church f●lio . 8. doth crake and bragg of that lytle . Be ye sure ( sayth he ) so many free cityes , so many kynges , so many Princes , as at this daye haue abandoned the sea of Rome , and adioyned themselues to the Ghospell of Christ , are not become madd . Loe Syr , if this felow might so trulye haue reported , that all Kynges , all Princes , all free cityes of Christendome were of his religion , as he doth falselye make an accompt of so many free cityes , so many kynges , so many princes , &c. how great an argument would you thinke that he dyd make for your side ? And againe , if he had ben able to proue , that for .ix. hundred yeares togeather , Kynges , and Princes , and free cityes had contynued in his fayth without open contradiction , how madd would he haue said all such to be as resist a religion confirmed by such authoritie and contynuance ? But this is your practise , to denye all thinges , which make presentlye against you , and to allow the same againe , when hereafter they maye serue for you , As the world changeth , so doe the conclusions of heretikes . and so long as you be in danger of law , No man must be violentlye constrayned to receyue the religion which his conscience can not allow . And when the Prince and power is with you , then saye you , Hanging is to good for hym , which wyll not beleiue as you doe . And so , in the Apologye of your Englysh church , the argument was ●ound , and comfortable , that because many Kynges had abandoned the sea of Rome , therefore they might seeme not to be madd , which did folow them : and now in this your defence of the truth , ( as you call it ) when we alleage contynuance , and authoritie of .ix. hundred yeares , you saye , that multitude maketh not to the purpose , and you thinke your selfe not a lytle wise in reprouing of our argument . But how wise you proue your selfe therein , it is worthwhile to consider . First , you say , that the prescription of .xv. hundred yeares , the consent of the most part of Christendome , the holynes and learning of so many fathers as haue ben these .ix. hundred yeares , the age and slender learning of those which stande against you , ( all which thinges we doe bring for our defence , ) These thinges ( saye you )

Doe nothing at all , eyther feare vs , Defence . or moue vs , to suspect that doctrine , which by Christs authoritie , and wytnes of the Apostels , we know to be true .

Stode you by the Apostles at their elbowes , Reply . when they wrote their ghospells or epistles ? or were you then present with Christ , when he walked visibly vpon the earth , and by signes and myracles proued hym selfe to be the soune of God ? Trulye , because your eye was not present at the wryting or working of our redemption , Faith cummeth by heering . you must therefor resort vnto such as maye instruct you of all thinges by the eare . And because credit is not lightly to be geauen , to an historie which is tolde vs of thinges passing reason , Authoritie persuadeth therfor they ought to be of good authoritie , whose wordes we should beleiue in the articles of euerlasting saluation . But there can be no greater , then the testimonye of all Christendome : and they be few , obscure , No greater authoritie , then the testimonie of the whole world . and vnknowen , whom you would haue to be our masters : therefore no reasonable and wyse man will suspect the authoritie of the world , and falsely persuade hym selfe , that he beleiueth Christ or his Apostles , when he hath contemned the voyce of Christendome , which caused him to beleiue in Christ , and credit his Apostles . For how know you what doctryne Christ or his Apostles haue taught in the world ? Yf you know it by the scriptures , what perswadeth you these scriptures to be true ? For when any new scripture and vnherd of vs before , is alleaged or commended vnto vs by a few , without any reason which is able to confirme it , Aug. de vtilitate credendi cap. 14. we beleiue not first the scripture , but them rather which browght it forth vnto vs . Therefore , who told you that these be true scriptures ? If you name Luther , and such as he was , you haue done very rashly to beleiue incredible articles at the report of an vpstart rennegate , which confirmed his authoritie by no myracle . But on the other syde , if Luther and you both haue ben content to receiue the scriptures of the Catholikes , lest you should be accompted ouer frantyke or scrupulous , in doubting whether al Christendome were not deceiued therein , by what reason then can you suspect the contynuance , pietye , learnyng , and multitude of Catholikes in the church of God , and referr your selfe vnto Christ , and his Apostles , with contempt of the mysticall bodye of our Sauiour ? whereas you could not by reason , without myracle , beleiue in Christ and trust the Apostles , except the authoritie of the Catholike church , which you see to contynew in the world , dyd moue you ? I wold not beleiue the Ghospell , ( sayeth holye S. Augustine ) except the authoritie of the Catholike church dyd moue me thervnto . Aug. c● . 5. contra epist. fundamenti Wherfore , the contynuance of .ix. hundred yeares , is and should be so worthelye regarded , that euen the authoritie of the church , which now is , shold by her selfe perswade you to beleiue her . But , ( say you ) our possession which we bragg of , hath not ben quyet . For in the .600 . next after Christ , our doctrines were neuer heard of ( which is a very fowle lye , as it hath ben allready here before proued ) and as concerning the 900. folowing , they dyd not take place so sone as we would have wyshed them . Let vs see then , how you proue that . Mary , say you when they were rooted , Defence fol. 86. God stirred vp from tyme to tyme , diuers in all ages , that reproued them .

This shall be no lye at all , Reply . if you can name the persons . And because we will not trouble you much , we shal requyer of you but the name of one for your side against vs , for euery one of the last .900 . yeares , in which Christendome generally hath gone against you . If you dare , and if you can , shew now your cunnyng and learnyng , An honest profer . so shall the world easyly perceiue , what maner of predecessors you haue had in your religion , and what maner of credit you geaue to holy & blessed men , or els what a greate and open lye you haue made in this matter . For to make this more plaine in one short example : In S. Bernardes tyme we reade of certaine , which named them selues Apostolicos , as if you should saie , folowers of the Apostles , and some of their opinions were these : That maryage was vnlawfull , D. Ber. Ser. 66. sup. Can. Cant. except it were betweene virgin & virgin : that all meates which come of engendring are vncleane : that chyldren are not to be baptised : that the dead are not to be prayed for : and that there is no fyer of purgatory after death , but that straytwayes the sowles goe vpp to heauen or downe to hell .

How say you then by these felowes ? shall they be in the numbre of them , whom God styrred vpp againste our doctrines for that age , in which S. Bernard was ? Yf you saye , they were of God , then doe you condempne Saint Bernard , which of purpose wrote againste them in his .66 . sermon vpon Cant. Canticorum , and you must also then forbyd mariage , flesh meates , and baptizing of children . Yf you say , they were not of God , then let vs haue your testimony , that they were vile heretikes , and so shall you holde with praying to Sainctes , praying for the dead , purgatorye . &c. And further , tell vs what they were in S. Bernardes tyme ▪ ( except they were these ) which God styrred vpp to reproue our doctrynes ? Now , if you will or can tell what they were in euery one of these last .900 . yeares , whom God sent to testifye his truth against the doctryne of our knowen Catholike church , it will folow , I am assured , that you shall name either playne heretikes , or els condempne most holye and learned men , whom now you will not seeme , but to receyue with much fauor and reuerence . But now agayn what an vnlyke tale is this , that for these .900 . yeares God hath from tyme to tyme labored , and at no tyme preuayled , and that he , being allmightie , hath styrred vp the hartes of diuers in all ages to reproue our doctryne , and yet that no man knoweth their writinges , or the only names of those iolye prophetes ? when the holy Ghost was not yet geauen , because IESVS was not yet glorified , and in the night and shadowes of the olde law , yet the longest captiuitie that euer the people of God had , was much lesse then .400 . yeares in Egypt , and when it pleased God to sende them delyuerance , consider with what diuine force and power , he made Moyses and Aaron to ouerturne the might of Pharao . But we , Exo. 13. which are in the tyme of grace , and are conducted , not by Moyses , and a pyller of fyer , or a cloude , but by IESVS CHRIST , and his holye and confortable spirite : yet ( say you ) we haue ben in miserable and blind captiuitie these . Io. 14. & 16. 900. yeares togeather , and the prophetes , whom God hath sent vnto vs , haue lefte no signe of their doinges . The spirituall powers ( you saye , Defence . but you lye ) haue disgraced such men and abolyshed theire bookes , and memoryes as much as might be , flatterers also haue corrupted auncient fathers , and forged new workes , &c. It were pytty to troble your weake head with the prouing of all these thinges at large , Replye . therefore we will aske no more of you at this tyme , slaunderous lyes of the M. of the defence . but that you tell vs the names onlye , of those spirituall powers , corrupters , and flatterers , with the place where we shall finde it declared , that there were such , as you report some to be . Not because I denye that flatterers and forgers are to be found emong the Christians , but because you can neuer proue , that by such meanes our doctrine hath ben maintayned , against the wil of God , and labors of his seruantes . As for the donation of Constantyne , ( although it appertayne to no article of our fayth , who so euer gaue it , so that the church lawfully haue it , ) yet we haue to saye further therein against you , when you haue declared how Sainct Syluester came by the possession of Rome with manye Seignioryes belonging vnto it , or what Constantyn the Emperor did with the olde and auncient Rome , when he buylded his palace at Byzant , and called it Constantinople and new Rome ? Then for your recityng of places out of the Decrees , such as are not found in the Doctors vpon whom they are fathered , except any place in all the Decrees , conteine an vntrue and vngodly doctrine , it is no matter of my faith , ( I assure you , ) if the author be mistaken , and if the scribe or the printer doe fayll in his memorie or attention . And last of all , where you saye , that the east church hath not allowed our errors , I will make no other replie against that your saying at this tyme , but desyer you to consider quyetly , how well they are rewarded for their labor . For whilest thei , contentiously and wyckedly endeuored to make them selues and their Archebishopp as high as the Bishop and churche of Rome , Pride will haue a fall . and to departe from the vnitie thereof , they were brought in to myserable and pytefull bondage , and affecting the first place , whilest they florished in the seconde , they are long agoe fallen in to the lowest and worst of all . And if you thinke it more sure , to beleiue the Greeke then the Latyne church , tell vs , I praye you , what you beleiue of the holye ghost ? And so , whereas the donation of Constantyne , and quotations of the decrees do make nothing for you , so should the example of Grece geaue an occasion to amende you . When you consider that the whole West church within it selfe hath continued so many hundred yeares in one state of doctrine , and that her syster and fellow the East church in coueting to be maestres , hath lost her perfect libertie , of body , by reason of the Turkes , of sowle , because of schisme and the diuell . But , as you be alwaies good vnto vs , when it is not worth thankes , ( as you do geaue it ) so you suffre vs to take that , as it were a gyft of your handes , which for verie truth and euidencie of the matter , we doe wring cleane out of your fingers whether you will or no. And you saie : But be it so , Defence fol. 87. that the most parte of Christendome .ix. hundred yeares , hath taught as you doe , is that a sufficient argument , to reiect a doctrine euident by the worde of God ? Syr , if a doctrine be euident by the worde of God , Reply . there is no cause lefte to reiect it , but in this case , when one shall say , here is Christ in Geneua , an other saie , here is Christ in Wyttenberge , an other saie , behold he is 〈◊〉 the wooddes of Bohemye , euery faction pulling the symple vnto it , here loe , to trye such voyces whether they come of God or no , the sure waye is , to harken vnto the practyse and doctrine of the most part of Christendome , as it hath ben for hundreds of yeares togeather . And continuance of tyme in one doctrine with multitude of folowers , doth make a very good persuasion to reiecte the vpstart and vnaccompanyed religion . Naye , ( say you ) if continuance of tyme , and multitude of persons , might be rulers to gouerne mens consciences , then would that argument serue For the Israëlites against the Iewes , Defence fo. 89. for the priestes against the prophetes , for the Iewes & Gentiles against Christ & his Apostles , for the Turkes against vs Christians at this day .

See , Reply . loe , how you be deceyued ? For I would saye , first , not that a multitude of Turkes are better then a few Christians , or that a long contynued Idolatrie , is better then a new religion , In what sense , the multitude of folowers and the continuance of a religion , are to be considered . but in conferring Turke with Turke , Iew with Iew , Christian with Christian , and so furth , I saye , if the Mahometes law were good , and that schismes and diuisions should aryse emong the professors of it , that then , the surest waye should be , so to vnderstand and receiue that law , as it hath ben taken of longest tyme before , and of the most parte of all Turkes . And in lyke maner , when so euer emong vs which professe one Christ , diuisions and taking of partes doe trouble mens consciences , the best waye is , by all good reason , to folow that syde which hath longest continued , and which hath most voyces for it . And so , it a Turke or panyme , would alleage continuance of tyme to proue thereby his religion to be good , the next and wysest waye to aunswer hym , is not to call him vnreasonable and folysh for the bringing of that argument , ( for vndoubtedly vnto our naturall and common reason it is no tryfeling persuasion to see contynuance and multitude of folowers to be with vs , ) but the right waye of conuerting or confounding them in that argument , is , either to shew that naturall reason is against them , ( as it was in their worshipping of stockes and stones , ) either by myracle to persuade them , ( as the Apostles in their dayes haue done , or as good and religious persons doe in this our tyme emong the Indians , ) or else to shew , that it is no wonder , if the religion of which thei be , hath allreadie long contynued , and shall from hense forward encreace daylie , because it geaueth libertie vnto the flesh , and vnto all bodely pleasures . But the continuance and multitude of folowers which commend the doctrine of the church are so notable and myraculouse , that except the finger of God were here , it is vnpossible it should be regarded . For prescript fastinges , watchinges , prayers , preferring of virginitie before wedlock , submitting of our owne willes vnto the commaundement of others , confessing of our secrete faultes , quiet suffring of harde penance , these are verye much against the nature and appetyte of our flesh : on the other syde , that which the church teacheth , the miracle of the contynuing of the Catholike fayth . of sainctes , of sowles departed , of seuen sacramentes , and especiallye of that one , in whiche allmightie God is receyued , all this is so farr beyonde the capacitie of carnall reason , that except fayth be infunded , it is neuer rightly beleiued . Yet this religion so repugnant vnto naturall appetyte , so much surmounting all reason , hath ben embraced of the poore and ryche , the symple and the learned , the stout and the tender , the beggers and the Cesars , and in spite of the dyuell , the world , the flesh , and heretikes , hath contynued these .xv. hundred yeares , as we beleiue , and as you be sorye for it , these nyne hundred yeares togeather . It is no wonder , if a Turkyshe religion be much made of and cherisshed , for they are permitted to haue here carnall pleasures , & for the worlde to come , they are promysed to haue their full of them . Againe , I doe not maruayll , if many follow Luther the Father , or anye of his euyll fauored broode and children , for the flesshe doth well allow it , to eate what it will at all tymes , to be free from earely rysing , to haue short seruice in the churche , to haue matrymonye no sacrament , to be bounde to no ceremonye , and to be subiect vnto none other authoritie , then the expresse scripture . But , that the Catholike religion , which is so exacte , so deuout , and so graue , that it maketh the carnall men to wyssh that it were out of the worlde , should haue contynuall folowers of it , and before so long tyme preserued , it is not for flessh and bloud to bring it to passe , but it is the verye worke of God , whom nothing can resyst and withstande . Consider also their lyues and maners , which haue ben emong other , the maynteyners of it . And because none are more odious vnto the world , then prelates , monkes , and fryars , I wysh that some of them were rightly considered . For if you can beleiue historyes and monumentes , what fault do you fynde in S. Francys , and S. Dominike , if you will reade their bookes , what can you saye against S. Bernard , S. Bonauenture , S. Thomas of Aquyne , Rupertus , Anselmus , Dionysius the Carthusian , with a numbre of such holy and reuerende fathers ? whose writinges sufficiently declare , how much they remembred Christ , how diligently they did reade the scriptures , how freely they reproued faultes , and lamented the euill lyfe of Christians , how much they were acquaynted with the sweete spirite of God , and practysed in fightyng for the sowle against the dyuell . The doctrine therfor of our church , hath not only contynued meruaylouslye , but contynued in many , and in those many no few haue ben excellent , and in such sort excellent , that , if not before , it might our religion haue ben now alowed , because such godly and graue heades did vse it . Whereas on your syde , if your inuentions were tollerable , yet those Apostles of yours , whom in these latter dayes ( you say ) God hath styrred to reproue our vice and irreligion , and to reuyue his truth and testament , haue ben so vyle themselues , that vndoubtedly God dyd neuer sende them , and a reasonable man should neuer folow them . What an Apostle was Luther ? who gaue hym leaue to break his vow , which those holye men , whom euen now I named , did keepe vnto death ? who moued hym to lye with a noune ? If he lyued chaste , being yet within his ordre , what spirite ( trow you ) was that , which could not afterwardes keepe hym chaste , when he was selected to preache a Ghospell ? Then , Luther . if he lyued abominably when he was kept in Cloyster , was he a meete instrument for God , to worke the redemption of his church so long deceaued ? And if God had forgeauen his former great offences , that he should be more humble in preaching of grace and mercie , would he so sone haue forsaken hym , that in the heate of his preachementes , he could not but take a noune to his bedfellow ? And as he was in his doinges , so is he in his writinges , so shameles , so fylthy , so vncleane , so slaunderous , so mutable , so presumptious , and so desperate , that it is wonder that he is accompted for a man , & much lesse , for a man of God . I speake these thinges , to declare , what difference ther is betweene our holy Abbates , and your rennegate fryars , the folowers of our religion , and the founders of yours , to enforce you hereby , to shew what you thinke of S. Bernard , S. Bonauenture , S. Denyse , and others , and to signifye hereby vnto you , that as we staye vpon contynuance and numbre , so yet we reioyce at the vertues and graces , which haue and do appeare playnly in many of this numbre . wherefore , it is not without cause , that we are confirmed in our fayth and doctryne , because of such a contynuance of it . Note , that I saye , such a contynuanbe . For Turkes , Sarracenes , and Panymes may alleage contynuance , but such a contynuance , in which the doctrine taught , is greauous vnto the carnall man , and yet receyued , and the greatest professors of it , are hated of all heretikes , and yet for conscience and wordlye shame are not condemned : such a one ( I say ) is much to be regarded , and such a one is not found , but onlye emong the Catholikes . whose waies in doctrine , if they be not open & secure , especially so great cumpany for so long tyme going in them with prosperous faring to their iourneyes end , then will I neuer trust any waye , but be , as the cumpany is , indifferent to go with euery one , vntyll I am wery . But thankes be to God , he hath better prouyded for vs , appointing his catholike churche to be the pyller and staye of true religion . 1. Timo. 3. Which , although it is quyckly to be founde out , because it is in deede Catholike , yet you thinke it necessarye to examyne what is the church , and how it maye be knowen . Goe to then , we will follow you to the end of your defence , in euery conclusion which you make against vs .

The Scripture ( saye you ) speaketh of the church two waies , Defence fol. 90. & . 91. sometyme as it is in deede before God , & not knowen allwaie to mans iudgement . &c.

Sometyme the church is taken for the vniuersall multitude of all those , which beyng dispersed through the world , acknowledge one Christ . &c.

Sometyme the church is taken for the multitude of those that beare rule in the church .

You performe more then you promysed . Reply . We looked but for two wayes , and you haue declared three , in which the scripture speaketh of the church , by which it appeareth , that you haue pretye knowledge , but you keepe lytle good ordre in setting furth your diuisions . Yet goe to , as concerning the first sense , which you make of the church , what make you of her ? Can it err , or no ? No ( say you ) this church is the pyller of truth , that neuer continueth in error . This church is neuer forsaken of the spirite of God . In to this church none be receyued but onlye the children of grace and adoption . How might a man then ( I praye you ) know this church ? Verely neither you , neither any other can tell . Of the churche as it consisteth of the chosen whom God only knoweth , litle profit is to be goten . For whereas it consisteth of such , as be the elect and chosen , who can saye either of hymselfe , that he is one of them , or how can one say that of an other , whose hart he seeth not , which he can not vnderstand of his owne case , which is best knowen vnto hymselfe ? Therfore as concerning the profyt and commoditye which they that would , might take of this churche , which is the pyller of truth , we can receyue very lytle of it , because she is inuisible vnto man , and knowen onlye before God . And if you dare saye , that this churche may also be knowen vnto man , I would you had showen one token or other of her , that we might be sure where to fynde the pyller of truthe .

Now as concerning the church , which is dispersed through the worlde , and acknowledgeth one Christ , and is Through baptisme admitted thervnto , and by the vse of the Lordes supper , openlye professeth the vnitie therof in doctryne and charitie : Is this church ( trow you ) the pyller of truthe , or what other opinion shall we haue of her ? This church , ( saye you ) is resembled vnto a nett , Defence fol. 91. which hath good and bad in it , it is resembled vnto a field which hath pure corne and cockle also in it .

You saye herein trulye , and you agree now very wel with the catholike church , Reply . which teacheth vs , that in this world , the good and euyll Christians are mengled togeather . You make also much , against certayne heretikes , which stand in it stoutly , that onely the elect are of the howsehold and familye of God , which yet ( as you haue clerkely defined it , ) can not be so , because the good and the badd which acknowledge one Christ , and receyue the sacramentes , are the true church of Christ . Graunting therefor vnto you , that the church hath good men and euill in her , I aske now the cause of you , wherfore you labor to proue that this church maye goe out of the waye for some part of her ? you tell vs of Noe , of the .x. trybes of Israell , of the Prophetes , of the captiuitie of Babilon , and other such historyes . But to what end and purpose ? yf you wil proue thereby , that thei which beare the name of the people of God haue often tymes forsaken his law , and destroyed his Prophetes , you haue spoken that , for proufe wherof I wold neuer haue gone to the flood of Noe , hauing so many examples at home , to make this conclusion manifest . For all they which be Christened , doe beare the name of the people of God , and the promyses are made only vnto them , yet this world maye declare how many coniurars , dissemblers , wycked lyuers , faithlesse ministers , lecherous friars and desperate peruerters of all law and honestie , doe lyue in the churche . But if you would proue , that , because a great numbre was deceyued , therefore the whole churche was subuerted , you speake alltogeather without booke . For , ( to consider one example for all , ) in the tyme of Elias the Prophet , when he , good man , thought , that all had forsaken God besydes hym selfe , yet said God vnto hym , I haue lefte my selfe seuen thousand in Israell , 3. Reg. 19. which haue not bowed their knees before Baal . And before that , it is playne by the booke of kynges , that Abdyas the stewarde of kyng Achab his house , 3. Reg. 18. dyd hyde a hundred Prophetes of God from the sight of Iezabell the quene , and fedd them with bread and water . Therefore , as it can not be denyed , but that they which haue borne the name of the people of God , haue not allwayes and wholy folowed hym , so yet it can neuer be proued , that the visible church of God hath ben in all her partes subuerted . And yet in the old law , the church was not then so richely endowed as it was afterward in the commyng of Christ and his holie ghost , neither were those wordes spoken then , which haue ben spoken sence and now presently doe take place , our Sauior faythfully promysing vnto Sainct Peter , Matth. 16. that Thow art Peter ( which is to saye ) a rock , and vpon this rock I will buyld my church , and the gates of hell shall not preuayll against it . So that if nothing might be said to the contrary , but that in the olde law the church of God was not to be founde , ( which is vnpossible to be proued , Psal. 2. ) yet in this tyme of grace , when all nations of the world are in the heritage of Christ , as only the Israelites then were : Io. 1. and when for figures we haue truthes : for Moyses the seruant and his chayer , Hebr. 3. Iesus the soune of God and his lieutenant : for the inspirations which came at sondry tymes vpon the Prophetes , a continuall presence of the maiestie of the holie ghost : Io. 14. for promyses vnder condition to tarye with them if they would folow his commaundementes , most absolute performance of the spirite of truth to be with vs vntyl the worldes end : in this tyme of grace so gloriouse , so much made of , so deere and welbe loued , so defenced , so priuileaged , to make so harde and pynching rekoning , that the light of the world should be couered vnder some busshell , and that cytie be vnperceauable , which Christ him selfe planted vpon the topp of a hyll , Math. 5. it is an ignominious and Iewysh , and cruell dysgracing of the church of Christ . But because we maye have a better tyme and leysure , to speake against you in this matter , if this visible church , which hath contynued so long in one maner of doctrine and sacramentes , be not the true church of God , because the visible church of the Iewes had not allwayes the truthe of doctryne , And if it must follow , because the kynges of Iuda were some tymes Idolators , that the clergie of those tymes agreed vnto them , Vnreasonable consequencies and if some did so in deede , that all therefore without exception did it , or if , because the Prophetes reproued the maners of the high Priestes , therefore they condemned theyr doctryne and religyon , or if Christ , because he was condemned of the high Priestes , sayed not vnto the people concerning the doctors of Moyses law : Doe that which they saye vnto you , Matth. 23. but doe not after theyr doinges . And , ( to be short ) if all these unreasonable consequencies ( which would please you very well ) should be graunted vnto you , tell vs then , for conscience sake , what church we shall follow ? If the churche of Rome , which hath ben and is so well receyued , hath ben and may be vntrulye perswaded , maye not that church , which you perchanse , shall point out vnto vs with your lytle fynger , be also with good lykelyhood very fowlie deceyued ? And maye not one thirde person , commend vnto vs an other church , which agreeth with none of our two , and yet is nothing the better ? In this doubt , which doth so necessarilye aryse , what is your ghostly counsell vnto such as are fearefull of conscience ? The right church therfore , Defence fol. 98. as the fold of Christ , hath the true worde of God and vse of his sacramentes , according vnto the same , for the due markes therof . After this maner , you shall haue some tymes the symple idiotes of the countrey to make answer vnto straingers asking the right waye vnto this or that place , Reply . which they would come vnto . For , ( saye they ) you must goe by my grandsyres close , and then keepe the straytwaye , and you shall neuer mysse . Or else , lyke as a man would sende his seruant to London for a cupp of pure and cleane wyne , vncertaine markes to know the church by , alleaged by the M. of the defence and tell hym that he shall be sure to haue it there , where he seeth an Iuye garland to hang at the dore , or the drawer of the wyne to vse no deceptfull bruyng of it , ( wheras the Iuye garland is no certayne token of good wine ready to be solde , and euery tapster will easily saie for his owne truth and honestye , ) so you haue tolde vs such markes to know the true church by , that as the true church hath them in deede , so yet euery mysbegotten congregation , will chalendge them vnto herselfe . Except you thinke , that Luther and Zuinglius , with all their forked tayles of heresies , doe not eche of them stande in yt , that they haue the true worde of God , and right vse of the sacramentes on eche of their sydes , which yet are contrary the one to the other . I had thought , you would haue tolde of one such marke and signe to come by the knowledge of the true church , that in all the controuersies of opinions , and all the euill conditions of lyuing , we might haue ben directed vnto one certayne and approued staye of our consciences , and you , ( to declare your wysedome and vnderstanding ) haue named two such markes , as euery kynde of religion will boldely chalendge vnto her selfe . First , the true worde of God ( saye you ) is one true marke of the church .

what meane you then , by the worde of God ? for if you meane the volume of the olde and new testament , and that wheresoeuer we fynde the byble in any persons handes , that we must thereby straitwayes take this for a certayne token , that he which hath the byble in his hande is one of the right churche , so shal you haue not only your selfe , but Arrians , Anabaptistes , and all the rabell of myscreantes , to be of the true churche , by good lykelyhod . On the otherside , if you meane by the worde of God , the two testamentes , not as they are to be solde at bookebynders shopps , but as they are expounded of sincere and true preachers , what token them shall we haue of you , to know readily who is a true preacher ? And as I haue said of this first marke which you geaue , so maye I saye againe of your seconde , which is , the right vse of the sacramentes . Which as I will graunt vnto you , to be rightlye practized onlye within the true churche , so yet you haue to shewe vs further , how I maye know such as doe minister them accordinglye . You would proue by S. Augustine , S. Cyprian , Saint Chrisostome , and Origine , that the scripture is the true tryall of the churche . Yea Syr , in one sense that is true in deed , as also that the church maketh the tryall and declaration of the true scripture . But , that euer any good and reasonable man had this meanyng , that who so euer would , might take the scriptures into his handes , and sytt iudge ouer the church , I denye it vtterly , and I am sure , you can neuer proue it . For as the scripture declareth which is the true church , so doeth the churche shewe the authoritie of the scripture , and the scripture and the churche , are the better , the one for the other of them . Do you thinke to make vs aferde by the appealing vnto scripture ? or doe you labor to moue a suspition , that you only haue the Ghospell for you ? Verely we are content to be tryed , not only by the scriptures , but euen by those holy fathers , which you depraue in this place towardes your purpose . The controuersie now , betwene vs and you , is the same , Marke this place . which was betwene S. Augustine and the Donatistes . We seeke for the church , and the place where she resteth . You say , that it hath ben vnknowen , defaced , obscured , and coarcted , you saye that it is now in England , and before these last .lx. yeares , you knew not where she was to be founde . On the other syde , we beleiue that it hath ben and shall be continually visible , tholike , vpon the topp of the hill , not in gardens or chambers , not in corners of countreyes , but in the open sight of the worlde . And here now at this point we shal haue no other thing , but our yea and our nay . Yes ( saye you ) lett the matter be tryed by scripture . So lett it be , and because you are so trymlye seene in them , that you will make vs altogeather ignorant , shewe vs your scriptures to proue your pretie , narrow , and shamefast churche . Yf you can shewe none , reade , for the truthes sake , those places which we shall name vnto you . Gen. 26. In thy seede all nations shall be blessed . Aske of me , and I wyll geaue the for thy heritage the Gentyles . Psal. 2. He ( meaning the Messias ) shall rule from sea vnto sea , and from the floud euen vnto the endes of the worlde . Agayne : The stone which was cutt out of the hyll without handes , Psal. 71. fylled the whole worlde . Da. 2. So it hath ben wrytten , and so it behoued Christ to suffre , Luk. e ● 4. and repentance and remission of synnes to be preached in his name , through all nations . You shall be my wytnesses in Iury and Samaria , Act. 1. and vnto the endes of the earthe . But what of all this ? Marye Syr , that you shold reade in these scriptures , how playnly it was promysed , that the whole world should be Christ his inheritage , and that his churche should be sought for , not in pelting corners of Africa , of Europa , or Asia , not in wyttenberge , Geneua , or England , but in all nations and in all countreyes of the world . And if you myslyke this our conclusion gathered out of these places of scripture , consider then , better then you haue done , S. Augustins reasoning against Petilian , and against all other Donatistes , when so euer he wrote against them , as in his . 162. 166. 170. 171. and other of his epistles . In all which places , he proueth , that it is vnpossible , that Donate , which was an vpstart heretike in Africa , should haue the truth on his syde , because the scriptures do so playnlye promyse vs , that the church of Christ should be enlarged ouer the whole worlde , and because it was so sensibly performed , that euery one might see that churche , which was extended through all nations . Now , if you haue any scriptures , or authorityes , or reasons , to proue that the church should not be openly knowen for 900. yeares togeather , or that about the yeare of our Lorde God .1500 . the light of the Ghospell should begynne to appeare , or that the churche may be in one countrey only , or that Christ shold leese his inheritage , which was promysed hym ouer the world , or that all the dryfte of S. Augustyns reasoning against the Donatistes , doth not expresly make against you , then shall you speake somewhat worth the answering . Against which tyme prouyde also to tell vs , how S. Cyprian ( whom you alleage , S. Cyprian alleaged agaynst the M. of the defence hymselfe . to proue that recourse should be had to the scriptures ) doth make any thing for you ? Yea rather he maketh cleane against you , and if you had taken but small leysure to consider hym , he teacheth you , that to come vnto the truth , and to be sure of it , there is an other and better waye then you haue yet inuented . For after those wordes , Hereof aryse schysmes , Cyp. tract. 3. de simpl . praelat . because we seeke not to the head , nor haue recourse vnto the spring , nor keepe the commaundementes of the heauenly master . After which wordes , you make a full point , as though you had tolde all his meanyng ) he saieth further that to proue this , there is no neede of long talke or reasonyng . Our Lorde spake vnto Peter , and sayed : I tell the , thow art . Peter , Math. 16. and vpon this rock I wyll buyld my church , and the gates of hell shall not overcome it . &c. And allthough he gaue lyke authoritie vnto all his Apostles after his resurrection , and said : Io. 20 , Euen as my father sent me , I also sent you , receyue you the holy ghost , yf you remyt any man his synnes , they are forgeauen hym , yf you reteyne them , they are reteyned , yet that he might make playne , and set furth an vnitie , he disposed by his owne authoritie the head and spring of that vnitie which beginneth of one . And a lytle after he sayeth : Doeth he beleiue , that he holdeth and keepeth his fayth , which keepth not this vnitie of the church ? How then could you bring in S. Cyprian in the commendatyon of anye of your two markes of the church , which so expressely warneth you to consider the vnitie thereof , and the authoritie which was geauen vnto S. Peter , in which vnitie who so euer is not found hath lost all true fayth , crake he neuer so much of his sacramentes and scriptures ? But now , because it is not inough , to declare that your markes of the church are vncertayne and controuersious , except we geaue some better signes , which may leade all men vnto the true church , therfore it is to considered , what we professe openlye in one of the articles of our Crede . I beleiue ( sayeth euery Christian ) The true & certaine markes of the church one , holye , Catholike , and Apostolike church : and if he knoweth also what he speaketh , then shall he neuer be to seeking of the churche . For she must be fyrst of all , One church , that is to saye , she must haue one profession of fayth , one ordre in sacramentes , and one head for her gouernement : by which one worde , thei be quicklye tryed for no good Christians , which can neuer agree vpon their fayth , or haue no certayne head or gouernour . Secondlye , the church is holye , in this sense , either because none are holye which are out of this church , either because she hath ben bought with bloud , ( a deare price , ) either because she is stable and inuiolable . Which note doth warne vs to beware of them which haue no contynuance in their religion , but are quyckely altered at euery new preachers inuention . Thirdly , the church must be Catholike , Catholike . which is to say , she must goe through the whole world , not only in respect of place , but also of persons and tyme , wherevpon it foloweth , that all such religion as lurketh only in particular countreyes , or which hath no antiquitie and contynuance at all , is to be reiected as a singuler naught , and no Catholike or good religion . And last of all , the true church must be Apostolike , Apostolike by which worde I meane , that if they of England now , or those of Geneua , can by degrees ascende , and from one minister vnto an other go vpwardes in a contynual ordre , vntyll they do come vnto one of the Apostles , whom they will proue to haue ben a father to their religion , that then , they haue one good signe to commende their doinges . But , because this is vnpossible to be doone of them , therfore they are not 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 , Defence . fol. 102. that God is able to perfourme what so euer he doeth promyse .

Yf you thinke as you speake , Replye . 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 . B●dging reasons & such as argue a faint & doubtfull faithe . 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 teacheth vs , as concerning the sacrament , but , saye you

How can you shew , Defence fol. 130. that it was God his holy wyll to haue so many myracles wrought , as you without necessitie , doe make in the Sacrament ?

Mary Syr , Reply . 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 sacrament . Wherein I answer you , with the same wordes , as S. Augustine answered Volusianus , Augustin . epist. 3. ad Volusianum 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 sacrament , 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 , Defence . fol. 104 and in deede to affirme it to be no bodye ?

See loe where you be now . Do not these wordes importe , Replye . 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 , Defence . fol. eod. but that God is able to worke that also , if it be his pleasure . Verely verelye you be vncertayne in all your conclusions , Replye . for if you graunt that God is able to do that , Note the doubtfullnes of mind and vnderstanding in the M. of the defence . 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 Sacrament . 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 , vpon the sacrament . 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 sacrament . But how proue you this ? For neither is there any necessitie that shold once trayne hym to doe yt , Defence fol. 104 nor doeth his word teach vs that euer he did the lyke . These be your owne reasons , Reply . 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 , Feble reasons . to deserue no credit at all . For , neyther anye necessitie constrayned 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 substantiue Sum , es , fui , Luc. 22. 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 , Io. 1. 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 ( factum 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 , Defence fol. 106. 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 , Reply . as when Christ said : I am the vyne . &c. but can you therfor conclude , Io. 15. 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 , Mare . 14. I am , he sayed againe vnto his dysciples , Io. 14. 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 , Math. 11. meaned not yet that he was Helyas in deed , but that he represented Helyas for some pointes , neuertheles saying of hym selfe , Io. 8. 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 , Of particular premisses to conclude generallie it ys no good fasshion . 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 , Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 11. This is the new testament 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 when 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 , the catholikes confesse signes & figures in the Sa●rament but not onlie them . 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 comparison , to bring the selfe same bodye before them . ) But with all these figures and signes which are founded in the sacrament , we confesse also , that there is a reall presence , not spirituall onlye , Lib. 8. de trinitate but corporall . For S. Hilarye proueth at large , that Christ vnto thi● daye is in vs not onlye through concord and agreement of wyll , E●thimius in su● P●noph . pae . 2. 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 , Christ is reallie in the sacrament . 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 , In epist. ad Ephes. li. 1. cap. 1. is vnderstanded two wayes , either for that spirituall and diuy●● flessh , of which he hymselfe sayd , Io. 6. My flessh is meate in deede , and my bloud is drinke in deede ▪ &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 testimo●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 , Ho. 45 . in Io. not onlye by charitie , but in very deede . And in an other place , He hath made vs his bodye , sayeth he , Ho. 60. ad po . An● . 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 , Amb. lib. 4 ▪ 〈◊〉 . 4. de sa . of which this is one , lest some horror & lothsomenes might trouble vs , if it were geauen in visible forme of flesh and bloud vnto vs . And to conclude : The sonne of God is vnited vnto vs through the mysticall blessing , Cyrill . lib. 11. ca. 26● . in Io. corporally as man , spirituallye as God . Wherefore we doe not destroye one truth by an other , neyther so beleiue the presence of Christ his bodye , that in no case we wyll admit any signification or figure , neither againe so magnifie signes and figures , that we take awaye all reall presence , De consecrat . 2. cap. Vtrum . S. Augustine teaching vs , That the body of Christ , is both a veritie , and a figure : a veritie , whiles the substance of bread and wyne is made his bodye and bloud by the power of the holy ghost : and a figure , because of that which is outwardly seene and perceyued . And so against the next tyme , ( if you can haue any answer , ) prouide to proue , not that Christ gaue a figure , but that he gaue nothing else but a figure . For if you will so graunt a figure , that yet you will not denye the reall presence , then will all our other conclusions , which you despyse now , be deduced out of the principle of Christ his reall presence , that you neede to make no further question about them . As for the kynges brode seale , vnto which you resemble the sacrament , it may be well and trulye sayd , that in deede the sacrament is a most sure confirmation of all the actes which Christ dyd worke for vs , in the tyme of his visible conuersation emong vs . For how might we haue his verye true bodye emong vs , except he receyued a true nature of man vpon hym ? or how might we Christians doubt of it , whether he be rysen from death to immortalitie , whose flessh and bloud is daily geauen to such as will , to saue them from corruption ? But , if you make no more of it , then that , as the king his brode seale doth geaue a force to his letters patentes , Goodlie greate wordes emong the protestantes but small and simple sense . so lykewyse the sacramentall bread should confirme the testament and promyses of Christ , and that in such a sense , that as truly as our body is fedd with that bread , so truly our sowle is norysshed with his spirite : verely you haue taken a great wonder at a common and easye matter . For euery man , when he will , not only in the church , but at home and else where , and not only by bread or wyne , but also , by euery thing that is true , maye vse the lyke phrase , and saye : as truly as I stand , as I sytt , as this fyer burneth , as the sonne shineth , as I lyue , as I eate , &c. so trulie God dyed once for vs to saue vs from death euerlasting . And if you wil contend , that although one maye so say of al thinges which are true , yet that there is a speciall regarde to be had vnto bread & wine which Christ him selfe appointed for that purpose , yet you haue no great cause of wonder , no more then you shold maruell in some weighty accompt which the kyng himselfe would sett for some profitable effect , that one such peece of golde which right now stood but for a shilling , should be sodainly remoued and made to signifie . 1000000. Li. For if al the dignity and price of the Sacrament consisteth herein , that it representeth a most wonderfull gyfte and benefyte , which the soune of God bestowed vpon vs : then are you very much to blame for defacing , spoyling , breaking , and burning of crucifixes , which did more lyuely represent the death of Christ , then any externall forme of bread and wyne can doe . Whereunto if you will answer , that Christ appointed the one and not the other , you maye yet gather thereby , that ( according vnto your imagination ) there is no such great excellencye in the institution of bread and wyne to represent and declare vnto vs the veritie of Christ his promyses , but that a paynter or caruer maye as euidently expresse them by his arte and colours , and more effectually also perchaunse , for the playne , symple , deuout and good men of the world . Wherefor that the holye doctors and fathers of Christ his church ▪ should meane nothing els by their termes of ( transmutation , transelementation , mutation , conuersion , alteration , &c. ) But the chainge of the externall elementes into this meanyng , that they doe showe the effecte of the Sacrament , and seale vpp vnto vs the promyses of Christ : it is a very abiect and vyle mysconstruyng of them . For they declare most expreslye , that in the externall elementes there is no chainge at all , but the chainge is onely in the substance of the bread into Christ his bodye , which at an other tyme is to be proued more largelie , Serm. de coena Domini . but now S. Cyprian alone , maye suffise , saying This bread , which our Lord● dyd vnto his disciples delyuer , being chainged not in outward shew , but in nature is made flesh by the allmightynes of the worde , &c. But as much as you can for shame you extenuate and debase the greatnes of Christ his benefytes towardes vs . The M. of the defence will not ●aue the benefites of God to be so great as thei are in deeds . For Christ saying this is my body , you vnderstand hym to meane a figure onely of his body , and the holy doctors prouing vnto vs , that it should not be vncredible , that of simple bread he maketh vnto vs his precious body , because he made all thinges of no thing , and can doe more then is ordynary by the common course of nature , yet , ( saye you ) they speake of no other chainge , but that which is about the external elementes . And one of them , hauing this similitude , Lyke as wax being sett vnto fyer , is lykened vnto it , no substance remaineth , no ouerplus resteth : so doe thow thinke , the misteries to be consumed by the substance of Christ his bodie . No , ( say you ) it is not so , or els it is to be vnderstanded after this maner , that lyke as when the king his broad seale is sett vnto his lettres patentes , then haue those letters their effect , so , ( I trow ) that the Sacrament should be lyke a pece of wax to confirme I can not tell what letters . For if you meane the promysses of euerlasting lyfe , before we come to receiue the Sacrament , we beleiue God and his church , & doubt nothing of them , and therefor I confesse my ignorance , that I can not tell , what maner of leases or grauntes you conceyue to be vnconfirmed , before the seale of bread and wine be added vnto them . But ( as I began to tell you ) you take all thinges at the lowest and basest maner , and this perchaunse is that , which you obiect vnto vs , ( when your delicate and deyntie eloquence could not abyde to heare the Catholike to speake of the pulling , skaulding , drawing , and rosting of a capon , before you dyd eate hym , ) resembling vs vnto the seruant , which being commaunded to make the dyner readye , would thinke vpon great prouysion , the master hym selfe meaning to haue nothing els but such colde meate set vpon the table , as was in the house . As who should saye , Cold ro●● emong heretikes . we shal be saued and fare well inough , if we do but imagine that Christ dyed for us . As for the hauing of his naturall bodye , because it is a matter 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 remembrance 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 prouision , 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 : Exod. 16. 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 : Num. 11. and it tasted so wonderfully that it conteyned all delycates and hartes desyre : S●p . 16. it continued to them .xl. losue . 5. 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 vpon the Iewes , before the incarnation of the sou●e of God , before the comming of the holy ghost , 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 contreyes of the world , neither make so great cheare , as he mynded to doe afterwarde . Therefor , if such thinges were geauen vnto the Iewes , Christians are worse fed then the Iewes were , except they receiue the true bodie of Christ . 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 emong 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 confort . 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 prerogaty●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 Sacrament , but rather we confesse 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 , Defence fol. 118. 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 , than 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 controuersie , 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 continew 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 than euer you were before . For allthough Goliath was bygg in stature and wordes , and contemned the simple staffe and scripp with which the loueable Dauyd came against hym , yet after the stone once fastened in his forehead , and the overthrow geuen vnto hym , the Philistians hartes were in their heeles , and they fledd awaye without any further bragging . But he , whom you nyckname Parys , allthough he hath vtterlye kylled your Achilles , shooting ( as you saye ) his arrowes out of a corner priuely , but how so euer they were shott , hitting ( as we beleiue ) the marke perfectlye , yet you make your Achilles so invincible , as though he could not be wounded at all in this quarrell , and as though he passed no more of any shott of ours then if benettes or strawes should be cast agayne hym . Which is so exceading and vayne glorious a crake , that it maye rather be thought that your Achilles would be very gladd , if he might neuer hereafter heare any more wordes , about his open and loude challendge . For as concerning the manifest obiections , which are made against hym , they are to be read in playne prent , which he hath not been yet in haste to answer ( as far as we know ) because perchaunse he knoweth his owne imbecillitie . And if this Apologye of the priuate Masse had ben allso putt in prent , that it might haue come vnto his sight , he would ( I thinke ) haue dyssembled the matter or despysed the argumentes , to shifte awaye from hym all the labor of answering . But how so euer your Achilles be dysposed , you haue shewed your selfe a frindlye Patroclus , which to saue his worshipp , haue taken vpon you to answer in his behalfe . Which although you haue done , with much infelicitie , yet you haue declared , your good hart and fidelitie . You shall cause Achilles himselfe , to take the matter into his owne handes , partly for the chalenge sake , which he fyrst of all pronunced , partly for you his frendes sake , whom he wil be loth to see vndefended . God sende you of his grace abundantly , that you fyght not for an Helena in deede , mainteyning the lustes and appetytes of your carnall reason , striuing for your owne inuentions , and following your owne prayses . The church and spouse of Christ is shamefast , chaste , gentle , faythfull , obedient , without murmour and spitefullnes , full of good vowes , stedfast in her profession , allwayes desyrous of vnitie , which vertues whiles some haue neglected , they haue themselues ben contemned of God , and permitted to folow their owne frowardnes , to the increasing of their iust dampnation . Of this kynde was Luther and his folowers , which as though they had nothing els to study vpon , but only how thei might inuent sectes and diuisyons , so they lefte no one thing which the church taught them , vncontrolled , or vncorrupted making , at their will and pleasure , of thinges necessarye , no matter at all , ( as appeareth in the seauen sacramentes , which they haue brought to two only or three , and them corrupted , ) of vniuersall and autentyke , so indifferent , that euerye one might omitt them , ( as prescript fastinges , orders of praying , and ceremonies ) and of indifferent in the nature of them , so necessary and absolute , that no dispensation may serue for the altering of them , ( as in sole receyuing , receauing in one kynde , and reseruation of the sacrament . ) So that nothing pleased them , that the churche , in which they toke their fayth , delyuered vnto them , because they loued them selues to much , and their owne deare Cate and Helena . Whom , God shall at length , destroye with the spyrite of his mouth , and by sending of his feare into their hartes which honor her , dryue away that wycked one , which maynteyneth the battayle , and make such peace and tranquillitie in their conscience , that it maye haue good space and mynde to consider the securitie which is in the catholike church , and learne emong many other , this one point of charitie , that neither sole receyuing vnder one kynde , neyther receyuing vnder both kyndes with company , doth commende vs vnto God , but the keeping of his commaundementes , and obeying of his ordynances , which he hath or shal vtter , eyther by him selfe immedyatly , or by the Catholike church his interpretour .

Amen .