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 questiō, and on the other, I know it is none at all. For, as concernyng the folowers of new religiōs, 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, [Page] 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 vpō 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 [Page 2] 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 vocatiō 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 cō ­ueniencie. 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 miscō ­struing, prouiding not in the meane whi­le [Page] 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 cōsidered) 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.

Wherein truly you do take very much from a Bishope his libertie,Reply. if he can not safely cōferr with such as D. Cole is, withowt obteinyng of licence. And you will troble allso the coūsell 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 [Page 3] 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: ‘VVere 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 emōg their pottes and packes, to sitt iud­ges vpō great Doctours, or reuerend Ca­nons of generall Councells. Yea trulie, if [Page] either gentlemā 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 impeachmēt to the Princes authoritie▪ neuerthelesse to defend the iudgemēt, which hath pas­sed by consent of any Prince, or realme, it cōmendeth 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 [Page 4] 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 slaūdereth 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 [Page] mynd whether without further licēce, 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. [Page 5] 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 [Page] 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 possessiō of the truthe was geauē, 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 holyghost, 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, [Page 6] that the possessiō 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 cōtinued 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 [Page] 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 māner 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 disputatiō which was prepared at Westminster, the catho­like Bishopes, which then were in posses­siō, 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 [Page 7] 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 graūted 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 chā ­ge 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 [Page] tyme, would not be graūted, 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 euidē ­ces against them which be in possession. But no reason shall preuaile except it make for you, and therefor you passe not vpon the possession, which the Catho­likes hold and keepe in the world, but you wyll dryue them to the prouyng of such articles as doe offend you, and for your owne part, you will stand vpon the [Page 8] negatiue. The resting vpō which, because you say, it ys mistaken, lett vs heare your expositiō, how it must be vnderstanded? ‘M. Iuell (say you) perceauyng vs to make this auaūt,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 [Page] (which epistell traditiō teacheth me to be S. Paules) I must not blott out euerie sentence, which vnto my iudgemēt 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 traditiō, 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 [Page 9] 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 Coūcells. 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 [Page] 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 argumēt is not good, because all the world hath hytherto ben seduced. And truly, what other thing you might say, I [Page 10] can not tell. For when I shold yeld vnto you that I haue no Scripture, Doctour, or Councel, for cōmunion in both kyn­des, and when you should not well call me vnreasonable, for dwelling against you in that article and opinion, alleage­ing the cōsent 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, exāple, or authoritie, why cōmunion should be geauen vnder one kynd only. Now, as you haue to mu­che varietie to harpe still vpō one point, and as your hart is to great in you to be tongtyde, so must it remaine that you wil refell my argumēt, 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 [Page] 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 vpō 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 [Page 11] 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 becōmed 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 takē 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 vnderstāded your iud [...]gement. But this much yet is clearly go­ten, [Page] 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 cōcernyng 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 cō ­trarie 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 [Page 12] 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 cōtent to fight with his twohandsword, and so to chainge frō 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:

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 [Page] 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 vpō 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 significatiō of priuate, by which [Page 13] the heretikes haue meaned sole recei­uing, the church doth hold, that the priest may receiue alone at his masse, if no o­ther wil cōmunicate 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:

Aske not this question of Catholikes,Reply. but of Lutherās. 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 [Page] 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 suspitiō, 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 [Page 14] 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.

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 [Page] 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 scholemē 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, [Page 15] you should not without some di­stinction so absolutelie haue called it a sacrifice, whereas in the cōmoner 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 [Page] 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 cōmunicate 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 indifferēt 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. [Page 16] 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 [Page] 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 [Page 17] 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 spokē 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 cōclu­ded easelie, vnderstanding by it sole re­ceauing) or rather because you would haue some libertie to hyde your selfe vn­der [Page] 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, cōcernyng 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 [Page 18] 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 thē 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 [Page] 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 sacramēt 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 wō ­der if at euerie masse there were cōmunican­tes: 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, [Page 19] 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 thē 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 māner [...] 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 [Page] 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 indifferēt: yet whē 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 [Page 20] by them. And if I were so suspitious as you, I could saie that your owne prea­chers and masters do seeme to be of the same opinion, when thei make so exact rekonyng vpon the tyme, in which orders haue by holy men ben brought in to the church, as though nothing were to be permitted, but that which hath come frō the Apostles, or that those thinges should be alltogeather now autētike, which were vsed in the primitiue church. But if the Catholike hath ben superfluous, in pro­uing of that which no man (as you saie) hath denyed, if you wyll charitablie for­geaue hym this once, he shall within the turnyng of one leaffe in your defence, do the lyke again for you. And now (I trow) we do agree in this one poynt, that for ceremonies and thinges indifferent, we are not bound vnto the Apostells tyme. In what thinges then are we bound to do after the example of the Apostels, and the primitiue church?

And you doe alleage this cause of your [Page] 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 [Page 21] right vse of them, is to be accompted e­mong preceptes and lawes vnchangea­ble. For the right vse is but one (you saie) and therefor lyke as thei of the Apostells tyme, dyd sitt togeather in the church a­bout euening, and receiue, either after or before other meates, Christ his verie na­turall body: so should we do now of ne­cessitie in these daies, or els we vse not the sacrament rightly. To which case, if you will answer, that tyme, place, and maner of supping with common meates (which then were vsed) do nothing ap­perteine to the right vse of the sacramēt, so shall I againe inferr, that number of communicantes, and receiuing in one or both kyndes, are as litle required to the right vse of the sacrament. Therefor, to auoid the occasion of stryuing, which could not but be geauen if one part vn­derstanded not the other, our meanyng is this, that in the articles of our faith and necessary doctrine, we haue to keepe one veritie, which hath ben from the begyn­nyng: but in canons and orders which haue ben added sence, vnto the substance of [Page] our religion, the church of Christ is not so straictly bound vnto them, but that she may, with discretion, abrogate, or alter them, or permit the discontinuance of them. And in this kynd of orders we vn­derstand the vse of the sacramētes, which in substance are to this daie one with tho­se of the primitue church, do thei neuer so much differ in ceremonies, circunstan­cies, and manner of vsing them. We do not therefore graunt vnto you, that the right vse of the sacrament ys but one, or that the vse of a sacrament is in the same authoritie and estimation, as the truth of doctrine is. For he which receiueth alone (if he be in state of grace) doth well, and he which receiueth with cumpanie doth wel, if his liffe be cleane. And then againe, a conclusion in doctrine can neuer be re­moued, but in receiuing of sacramentes, diuers vses may be permitted, except you doubt, whether both parties should be thought baptised a right, of which the o­ne were but once dipped, the other thrise wasshed and perfunded. Wherefore the vse of the sacramentes being▪ with vs a [Page 22] thing indifferēt 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 indifferēt. 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 [Page] bring thinges vnto the institution of Christ. And againe: that we must not harken what other dyd before vs, but what Christ first dyd, that was before all. And yet againe: That, that ys true, that was first ordeined: and that ys corrupted, that ys after done: which rule yf you wyll haue to be vnderstanded in suche matters as cōcerne immutable do­ctrine, then haue you proued that thing which none of ours denyeth vnto you, and so you are all fallen in to the same lapse, for which you misliked with others. But if you vnderstand generally, by truth of doctrine, the vse of Sacramentes and ceremonnies, then haue you much for­goten yout selfe, which euen now made ceremonies, indifferent. But if you do it for that purpose, that a Catholike should not know where to haue you, allthough I seeme to aske your losse, yet, for truth sake, amend that fasshion. And perchaūse this myght be amended allso, that you do not trulie alleage your testimonies, saying that to be Saint Cyprianes in his Epistle vnto Cecilius, which is not at all to be found there, but in his goodly trea­tise [Page 23] De simplicitate praelatorum. In which place the seeking vnto the head, S. Cyprian mistakē, 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 [Page] 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 cōmones 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 [Page 24] 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.

[Page] For you saie: ‘Yf that tyme were the state of infancie in the church,Defence. fo. 11. whē 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 cōcernyng 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 [Page 25] 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 [Page] 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. thē 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 cōceiue 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 [Page 26] 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 whē 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 [Page] 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 cōclud, 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 [Page 27] 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 [Page] 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 cōmunicatyng 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 1 these ij. propositions: There were no mas­ses saied in the primitiue church, but there were some readie to comm [...]nicate, and, Ex­cept 2 there had ben some readie for that pur­pose, [Page 28] 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 geauē 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 [Page] 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 cōmodities, 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 cōmunion: whereas it doth presently appeare euē in your late erected churches, that, for al that you are able to do, you haue most often tymes no cōmu­nion at all. And except it were, more for the princes law, then for that by your ve­hement exhortations you shold perswad [Page 29] the people, I thinke there wold be fewer cōmunions 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 cō ­straine men by act of parleamēt, you shall neuer bring them, by the strength and dailynes of your preaching, vnto the fre­quentyng of the cōmunion, 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.

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 correspōdent priesthode: as it is writen,Heb. 7. VVhen the priesthode is transferred, it must needes be, that there be made a transferring of the law allso: because law and priesthode do go [...] ioyntly togeather. Then it foloweth he­revpon: That euery Bisshope chosen out of men, Heb. 5. is apointed for men, in those thinges which are to Godward, that he should offer [Page 30] 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, whē the Iuge sacrificium, the daily sacrifice, shall cease to be offered. For thei only are cal­led [Page] 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 bē 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 cōmen­taries, which are the ghospells, do declare that Christ cōmaunded them to consecrate the bread by the prayers of his word: at what tyme he toke bread, and after thankes geauing, saied: Do this in remembrance of me. And S. Cy­priane more plainely saieth, that in Christ his last supper, those sacramentes came furth, which had ben signified from the tyme of Melchisedech, Cypr. de coena do. and that the high priest bringeth [Page 31] 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.

I haue proued vnto you the contrary,Reply. both by reason, (because priesthode ys a [Page] distinct office, vnto which certen onlye are apoynted, and chosen owt from the laitie) and by scripture (as you may cō ­sider 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 certē, were both ministers and cōmon people.’ Nay Sir,Replie. vnderstand you this rather, that you vnderstand not S. Paule, which in that his chapiter alleageth the institutiō of Christ to this purpose, that the Co­rinthians, by consideration of the chari­tie and maiestie which was represented therein, shold be more felolyke in the cō ­municating 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 [Page 32] 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 cō ­maundement to be exequuted? if you meane the first, you agree with vs: if you meane the second, you disagree from cō ­mon 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 [Page] 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 cōplaine not only that thei receiue not as oft as the priest, (which thei will not, I warrant you, for all your greate mouyng) but allso and ra­ther, that they take not the bread in to their handes, and blesse it themselues, and say masse, such as may be called priuate in deed. Which vnsensible and pernitiouse folissh opinion, because you will not suf­fer to enter in to your hart, therefor you must of necessitie graunt, great differen­ce to be, betwyxt the priest and the peo­ple, [Page 33] 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 cōmunion, 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 sacramēt, so lykewyse that it ys two distinct actes▪ his body to be offered, and the same to [Page] 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 [Page 34] 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 cōtinuing 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 cōcluded, 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 [Page] 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 [Page 35] in good order, if she be iustly ouercūmed 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 [Page] 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 geauē, doth so wound your church and confound it,he that dis­crediteth the church in one poīt, 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 [Page 36] 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 [Page] 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 cūpanie, then can the priest neuer receaue it alone by hymselfe, what so euer necessitie should come vpō hym. for in such thinges as apperteyne to the substance of the sacrament, no creature can lawfully vse the contrary vnto them. [Page 37] But sole receauing seemeth to be graun­ted of yow to vs, in case of necessitie, (which prouision or exceptiō 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, [Page] where the priest dyd receaue alone whē 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 [Page 38] paine of God his indignation, there ought to be a cūpany 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 frō the aul­tar, when the Emperour hymselfe ys cō ­maunded 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 cō ­trouersie of priuate masse. Whether, vpon paine of God his indignati­on, the priest ought to haue allwaies cumpa­nie to r [...]ceaue with hym: [Page] 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 cō ­clude 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 [Page 39] necessitie, (which is ment, I trow, by the necessitie of some to cōmunicate 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 graū ­ted, 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 questiō, I will not stand about him. And whether in the ordinarie vse of it, the supper of the Lord, ought of necessitie to haue cōmuni­cantes [Page] 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, [Page 40] 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 cōsider 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 com­municātes, 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 [Page] paine of God his indignatiō, 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:defē. 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 exceptiō and limitation, necessarie. because you affirme, that generally, which ys true only in certen pointes of Christ his maū ­dy. For, if we must do that only, which Christ dyd at his supper, and doe nothing els but that, then must we vse sitting, and not kneeling or standing, then must the Sa­crament [Page 41] 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 mā ­ner, we ought to do as Christ did at his last supper, then haue you iust cause to correct your maior, and we can not but deny it, vntil we may vnderstand of your limitation, which you will (we trust) add vnto it. And what limitation might that be, which being added, we would graunt your proposition. Forsoth if for the ter­me institution, you woulde put tradition. For what so euer Christ dyd about the cōsecrating 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, [Page] 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 māner 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 [Page 42] 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 [Page] 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 cōtempne, I am sory, that S. Cy­prian hath so sone displeased you, whom you seemed to make so much of, before. But as concernyng the argument of that epistle, he proueth by those testimonies, which I haue touched, and by many other waies, that in the offering, which the priest maketh, water and wyne bothe, are to be mengled, and that it was Christ his insti­tution so to doe, and that Christ only is [Page 43] to be folowed therein, and that we must do herein no other thing, thē that which Christ hymselfe dyd first of all. Now, Sir, then, with what face can you alleage S. Cyprian, for proufe of your proposition which is generall, whereas he speaketh of water and wyne to be mengled, when the priest doth sacrifice, which us a speciall case onlye? And see how the dyuel dyd owe you a shame. If you wyll refuse Saint Cyprian in that place, then standeth your maior like a miserable proposition with­out any similitude of defence. If you a­lowe S. Cyprian, how standeth your reli­gion, in whose communion and Lordes table, water and wyne are not mengled togeather, which should be so duly and necessarily obserued? Will you saie here that the field is not lost, and that this is but an ouerthrow of one wing only? Do you fight for the victorie, and not for the veritie? so that you may be semed to ha­ve somwhat allwaies to saie, do you ma­ke no conscience nor rekonyng, of your vniust and foule plaie? Answer directly vnto this one argument, or confesse your [Page] 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 [Page 44] 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 dili­gētly how S. Cyprian ys miscon­strued, and the reader abused by the M. of the defēce. 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 [Page] 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 [Page 45] the chalice the tradition of our Lord be kept, the diligent Reader would haue ben mo­ved to require, what tradition that should be, which must be obserued in offering the chalice? and he should be truly answe­red, that it was the tradition of vsing not wyne alone or water alone, but water and wyne both, in the chalice, togeather. which would much disgrace your com­munion. But when you make S. Cyprian to sound after this sense, that, in offering the sacrament of the Lords bloud, his owne institution is to be folowed, you geaue oc­casion to a simple and vnexpert Reader, to thinke, that hereby it is manifestly pro­ued, that the lay people at these daies all­so, must necessarily receiue his bloud, be­cause he, in his institutiō of his sacramēt, delyuered furth allso his bloud. Whiche S. Cyprian yet dyd no more thinke vpon, then he feared least any grāmarian should come, many hundred yeares after hym, and interprete his plaine wordes in such a froward sense as you haue done. And so in the Englisshing furth of the selfesame sentence, after these wordes, and no other [Page] 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: [Page 46]

The maior of this argument is S. Cy­prians, and much staied vpō 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 [Page] S. Denyse the Areopag [...]te, whom you al­leage, do well proue, that in their daies there were cōmunicants 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 cōmaun­dement.

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 insti­tutiō of Christ,Luc. 24. example of the Apostles, and cōmon 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 [Page 47] that notwithstanding, you will haue vs to be ouercummed. And to this purpose, you saye: ‘You haue no expresse cōmaundement,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 institutiō, 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 [Page] perfect. For he which saieth, CHRIST, cōprehendeth in that one word the fa­ther which anoynted hym, and the holy­ghost with whom he was anoynted, and then Christ, which is by interpretatiō 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 institutiō 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 resurrectiō, 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 ascensiō. And againe, when yow tell vs, that we haue no other proufe against hym, which would baptise in the name of the father, [Page 48] 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 ignorāt 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. [Page] As who should saie▪ if communican­tes were to be had, then were the questiō 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 cōparison, which, of how small force thei be in prouyng, your lerning can not be so litle, but that you must needes know.’

[Page 49] 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 [Page] 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 indignatiō 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 cōmaundement and his truthe or no. but let vs come to the forsaid simi­litude which so much displeaseth you.

[Page 50] 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 cōtention 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 cō ­cord 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 Abingdō, 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 [Page] 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 [Page 51] 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 interpretatiō, the one member is impossible, & the other is possible. Al­so your mery folowing of the catholikes similitude, and your cōcluding (as it were by the like argument) that bisshopes must [Page] 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 defēce 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 cōclusion 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. [Page 52] 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 accoūted a Christian. The wordes are these. Omnis vtriusque sexus sidelis, Cōcilij 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 [Page] 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 defēce his honesty or know­ledg [...] ī vn­derstāding 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 accoūted 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 takē order for them, [Page 53] 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 gouermēt of the Ca­tholike Bishopes, as though they should study how to diminisshe the cōmon 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 [Page] 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 [Page 54] 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, thēto 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 natiōs togeather in to one faith, [Page] one hope, and one absolute forme of ser­uing and honoring God, and prouide no officers cōcernyng 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 consequēce, 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 [Page 55] 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 sacramēt. 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 cōcernyng such as he was hym [Page] 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 takē 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, [Page 56] which being condempned for rob­berie, sayed, that if he had neuer praied to Sainct, he had neuer come to hāging. 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 thē 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 [Page] 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 thā ­kes geauing? which onlie sacrifice yow find there, or els you lie. Then, as you might thinke vs of very small iudgemēt, 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 argumētations 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 [Page 57] 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. lud. 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, [Page] 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 thē, 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, [Page 58] 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 sacramēt and sacri­fice maye stand to­geather. thē 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 [Page] 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, thē 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 celebratiō of the Lord his supper, offered vp, wyne, breade, and other victu­als, partlie to find the priestes, and partlie to refresshe the poore, and allso to serue the communion. And so partlie

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. [Page] As, if euerie good action be called a sacrifice, thē should you haue well brought the other kindes which you speake of, vn­der this one signification, as the princi­pall largest, aboue all other. Allthough you, in deuising three maners, after which the fathers take the word sacrifice, do lea­ue this one out of the number, by which euerie good action (as you report) is cal­led a sacrifice, which yet deserueth to haue the first place emong them, if that which is most generall, should not be omitted in diuiding. Thirdlie your diuision is to be reproued, for the greate vntruth which is conteined in it, as I shall declare vnto you hereafter. If first you will consider, what an other maner of diuision was to be lerned out of the Doctours, and in what sense it is spoken and beleiued of vs, that a sacrifice propiciatorie is offe­red in our misteries.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 [Page 60] 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 perchaūse may know, but of an others mynd, who can tell, without some externall signe or to­ken shewed? Againe, if a man would vt­ter his owne inward deuotion, how can he exemplifie it, without some externall signe, either of bowing of knees, or hol­ding [Page] 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 exāples, 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 Christiās in this tyme of grace, as whē thei offer candells, burne frankincense, take ashes, beare palme, and do anything outwardlie to the honor of God. In which thinges, except the offerer haue an internall deuotiō and pietie, all those ex­ternall [Page 61] ceremonies are not to him worth the vsing, and if he be in hart and me­morie fullie disposed and aduised to con­sider his owne miserie, and god his mer­cie, then are these outwarde actions and obseruations, holie signes and tokens of the internall sacrifice, and may be called externall sacrificies. But let vs speake of one singular example for all. The visible and bitter death of our Sauior Christ v­pon the crosse, was an external aud blou­die sacrifice. But in what sense and mea­ning? vndoubtedlie as it was and is cal­led visible. But what meane I by visible? I meane, that so painefull maner of hys hanging by the handes and fcete vpon the crosse, and so vniuersall a wounding of euerie part of his pretiouse bodie, so that from the croune of his heade to the soele of his feete, there was no whole pla­ce in hym, and the panting of euerie vai­ne and stretching of euerie ioynt, and in­credible torment in all his blessed fleshe, these thinges with manie other, were (I meane) holie signes of his inward sacri­fice, in which he offered vp (before hym [Page] and to hym which seeth all secreates) his liffe, his hart, his will, his thankes, his prai­ses and praiers, and all that was his, for the sauing of mankind, and satisfieing of his fathers Iustice. Yea, concernyng the eies of men, not onlie the sight of God, who may doubt of his patience, which in all those tormētes dyd neuer once mur­mur? who can mistrust or suspect his cha­ritie, which emong so manie cruellties done to hym, forgat not to loue his ene­mies? who should not but consider hys endlesse obedience, whose soule could not be remoued from the keeping of his fathers will, when the bodie was disioyn­ted, the one member from the other? In verie deed, this was an holie signe and sacrament, of the inuisible and 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 remē ­brance of these benefites: we owe vnto [Page 62] 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 [Page] 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.

[Page 63] 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.Cōmunio. 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, thē 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 [Page] 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 cōprised, 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 cōsidered 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 remēber him, we wil neuer be brought. And in this respect, our Sacra­ment [Page 64] 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 representatiō 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 [Page] for vs. But how then is it propitia­torie? forsoth, because of the offering of one selfesame bodye. for allthough we make a cōmemoration only of his death, & not put Christ to death in deed, yet we haue (thorough hys gyft) the selfesame body, which thē 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 [Page 65] 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 cōteined, 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 [Page] 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▪ [Page 66] 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 cōsecrated 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 oblatiō, yet you could neuer [Page] 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. [Page 67] 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 thē 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 [Page] 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 cōcerning 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, [Page 68] 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 [Page] 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 [Page 69] 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 sactifice 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 thā ­kes geauing and praier? for not onlie Te Deum laudamus, or, Agnus Dei miserere nobis, are sacrificies of thankes geauing, [Page] and humble praying, but most especial­lie the holie host consecrated. And you must not by one truth take awaye an o­ther, as, because no mā 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 [Page 70] 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 defēce 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 [Page] 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 beatē 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 [Page 71] 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 [Page] 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 cōcerning God his euerlasting apointmēt, will, and pleasure, neuer wan­teth any one part of hys perfect and full misticall bodie. Otherwyse how can the bodie be well offered without the head, which for that cause onlie is an accepta­ble bodie, and worthe offering, because it cleaueth vnto such an head. Againe, S. Austine in this place, allthough he deni­eth, that the priest offereth sacrifice vnto the Martirs, yet he confesseth, that the Martirs are named at our sacrifice, decla­ring thereby most plainelie against you, that we haue a sacrifice, which thei are not, but at which thei haue a due and conuenient commemoration.

Likewyse againe, we saie with Chriso­stome as you doe, 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 [Page 72] 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 re­membrāce of Christ his body and bloud, not in respect of his reall absence from vs, but in respect of his painefull suffering for vs. You may see then by this tyme, that you haue proued a sacrifice of prai­ers, of thankes geauing, and a remembrā ­ce 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 [Page] 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 demōst. 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 cōtinue for the reste of your chapiter, alleaging out of S. Cypriane, (you tell not where) & out of the Greeke canō of the Masse, that thei offered for our Ladie, and out of S. Chrisostome, that thankes were of­fered for the whole world, and as well for them which were before, as them which shall come after, of which you conclude, saying: ‘[Page 73] 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 cōtinue 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 thē, 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 deprecatiō and praier which the church vseth in their names. For in chargeing the clergie, vnto which he there writeth, [Page] to make no oblation and praier, for the soule of one Victor, which had transgres­sed a canon and decree of the Bisshopes, he sheweth therewithall, what the clergie would haue done, had not his cōmaun­demēt staied them, and he proueth that, for some kind of such as were departed, not onlie praises and thankes, but suppli­cations rather and praiers were offered.

Then as concerning the greeke Canon, which of them you did meane, I cold not tel, but now, by reason of M. Grindal ser­mon, which he made not long sence at an Englisshe funerall, of Ferdinand the Emperor, it is euident vnto me, that you meane the masse of S. Chrisostome. In which,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 [Page 74] 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 graūt them rest, where the light of thy countenan­ce doth intend ouer them.

Now againe, allthough you alleage a true saying out of S. Chrisostome, vpon the .viij. Chapiter of S. Mathew, that the priest standing at the Aultar, when the sacrifice is sett furth, commaundeth the standers by, to offer vp thankes to God for the world (in which testimonie it ys [Page] 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 celebratiō of the ve­nerable misteries, a memorie should be made of them, which were departed hence. Thei knew, that much commoditie and much pro­fit dyd come hereof vnto them. For the who­le people standing by, with lifting vpp their handes vnto heauen, and also the cumpanie of priestes: and the venerable sacrifice being lai­ed out and proponed, how should we not pa­cifie God, in praying for them?

Therefor it is cleare, that your argu­ment is verie vnlerned 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 [Page 75] 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, [Page] which euerie soule shall geaue,Mat. 12. for the least word that is spoken against the cō ­maundementes 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 thin ges, 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, [Page 76] or when almeses are geauē 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 1 the verie good, thankes geauing: they are 2 propitiations, for such as are not verie euill: for the starke naught, allthough they are no 3 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 distinctiō 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 com­mendaciō [Page] 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 [Page 77] 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 [Page] 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 communiō? 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 cō ­municate, the sacrifice being offered eue­rie daie, it was celebrated some tymes without cōmunicants. 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 [Page 79] 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 cōclusion, 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 consequētlie, that thei came [Page] 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 cōmunicate 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 cōmunicate, (wherevpon we haue concluded, that the priest recei­ued [Page 79] 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, archedeacōs, deacons, and other officers, about hym? Or that there were no small and litle parisshe churches; ora­tories, chappells, and such like, in that [Page] 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 cōmu­nicantes were prepared, (which proper­lie ys our question,) I denie it flattlie vn­to you, vntill you can proue the contra­rie. For I see no vrgēt 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 [Page 81] one to exequute and to offer the dailie sacrifice, for the rest, cōtended 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 argumēts, 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, whō canons had need to cōstraine 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 [Page] 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 thē. 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 oblatiō, 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 cō ­municate, 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 [Page 81] 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 [Page] 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 cōmunicate, 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. oblatiō, 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 [Page 82] 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 remembrāce 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, [Page] 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 oblatiō, 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 [Page 83] 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 [Page] answer you?

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 cōmaunded 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 [Page 84] 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 [Page] 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 cō ­munion, 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 post (quam) sacrificiū perficitur, he speaketh this word after the sacrifice is thoroughly en­ded. Wherfor as the offering of the sacri­fice did not then hang vncertenly vpō the [Page 85] 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 vpō saturdaie only and Sunday, vsing for the rest of the wee­ke, those hostes which were consecrated before. And what other thing ys this spe­ciall obseruation of theirs,Concil. Const. 6. can. 52. in the lent, but a manifest argumēt that all the yere [Page] 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 [Page 86] the people assembled togeather for praier sake, but that ordinarilie communicants were readie to go vp and receiue with the priest. Which yet is so vnlikelie, (that, I meane, at euerie holydaie, the cummyng togeather of the people, dyd allwaies ser­ue to haue cōmunicants) that you maie well doubt, whether the best emong the people dyd receaue at the verie principall feastes and solemnities. For, by S. Chri­sostome hymselfe it appeareth, that the end of his vehemēt calling vpon the peo­ple, was not, to haue them in all hast to cōmunicate, but to make them prouyde for cleanes of lyffe and conscience, that thei might safelie and profitablie cōmu­nicate. For,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, [Page] and by S. Austyne in his sermons vnto the people.Ser. 2. do. 10. post trinitatem. What would S. Austine thē, or the fathers of the primitiue church haue thought of your maried priestes, which within an houre, two, or three, af­ter thei are departed frō their paramours, doe come vnto the cōmunion table with heades full of wordlie cares and nightes fansies, and there dare to call for the peo­ple, and presse them, (if thei come not) with the institution of Christ, and Pau­le the first vnto the Corinthians the .xj. chapiter? Whereas, if there were any re­uerence or regard of Christ, in this new law of yours, the example should neuer be suffered, by which his speciall ministers might be prouoked vnto carnalitie. For if laie men, before thei communicated, were cōmaunded to absteine from their lawful wyues, what doth a minister, a mā of God, and quicke of the sprite, with an vnlawfull woman or yokefelow, which shold exhort others to the right and wor­thie manner of receiuing? And againe, if such cleanes was required in them, whose life was occupied in worldlie bu­sines [Page 87] 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 [Page] 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 oblatiō, 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 cōsider. First, we saye with S. Chrisostom, that the ob­lation was dailie, and we take the worde daylye, in his proper signification. Then, (say you) I will vse the worde frustra, and I will saye, that the daylye oblation was had in vayne. There is no reason to lett, that [Page 88] you shold not vse it. For we both doe see that it is plaine, in S. Chrisostome, frustr [...] habetur quotidiana oblatio: the daylie sacrifi­ce is had in vayne. And as we require, that (Quotidiana) be takē in his proper signi­ficatiō of daily, so do we graunt vnto you that you shall vse the worde frustra in his most proper signification, neither do we cōtrarye you in it, but that frustra in this place, is taken for vayne. Therfor, you can vrge the worde frustra no more ex­tremely then we doe, except you can ma­ke worse of it then vayne. Yea, (say you further) it was done in vayne, because it was done without cumpany, but we thinke rather it was in vayne, as concerning the priest his looking for the people. And so it appeareth that you doe not hurt vs in alleagyng of (frustra), which we take in the proper signification of it as well as you, but our stryuing must now be vpon the referring of that worde, vnto the peo­ples receauing, or vnto the offering of the sacrifice. And further, it appeareth, as we doe vrge the worde Quotidiana, that you doe not so vrge the worde frustra, (as you [Page] asked leaue to do) but quyte leauing the signification of the worde, (as vpon the which we do not disagree) you runne vn­to the constrewyng of the worde. And if we will haue the oblation to be daylye, you will haue it so vnderstanded, that, by Sainct Chrisostome his owne wordes, it should seeme to be done in vayne, becau­se it was done without cumpany, which how well it may follow, I require but in­different iudgement. For if it were (ac­cordyng to your thinking) done in vay­ne, whē the people did not receiue: ergo yet it was done. In vayne, you say. Be it so, for a while. But yet it was done. For of that which is not done at all, you can not say any thing, the one way or the o­ther, to the prayse or disprayse of the do­ing. Now, if the sacrifice were offered in vayne, when no cōmunicantes were rea­dye, doe you make such a trifle of Sainct Chrisostome, that he wolde do any thing which he was persuaded, should be in vay­ne? And if he did thinke, that all was to no purpose, which he did in the sacrifi­cyng, except the people did cōmunicate: [Page 89] wolde he not first of all, haue ben assured to haue communicantes, before he wold enter vnto the act of offering? And in so hygh matters, wolde he haue entred in to the celebratiō of masse, of which he could not presentlye tell, whether he should say it in vayne or no? Nay, the church of En­gland yet is more wyser then so. For, left their paynes should be lost, in the Lor­des supper, the ministers must be warned before hand, yf any will communicate, that (according vnto your interpretatiō) the oblation be not in vayne, if they shall haue no cumpany to receiue with them. And yet, your wisedome, to proue that our dayly oblation, which we gather owt of S. Chrisostome, should not be as we vnderstand it, doth bring S. Chrisostomes saying vnto such a sense, which doth not become any cōmon witt and vnderstan­ding. For by you S. Chrisostome might haue this meaning: Here good people, I haue stode all this while at the aulter, and haue prayed for all states, and haue consecrated the sacrament of the Lordes body, which you should receaue with than [Page] kes geauing: and now I perceiue, all that I haue done, is in vayne, because there is none to receiue with me. But, phye vpon such a sense, in that lerned and godly har­te of Chrisostome. For we might say vn­to hym: Syr, you which do make so greate pryce of the misteryes, why did you goe vnto them, before you were sure to make a fructfull end of them? why did you not send your Deacon, to know how many would receiue with you, lest you might procede further in vayne, whē you should in the end lacke communicantes? And if you were perswaded, that you did receiue in vayne, except some cōmunicated with you, whi wolde you receiue at all? or how doe you, but receiue that to your owne cōdemnation, in which you doe not fol­lowe the institution of Christ, and take cumpany with you? This, with much mo­re, mighte be iustely sayed against Sainct Chrisostome, if the dayly sacrifice, which we reade so playnelye in hym, could be thowght of hym to be done in vayne, yf none did communicate, as you full cler­kelye doe vrge the two syllabes frustra. [Page 90] Then besides this, I answer, that how so euer you will take the worde sacrifice, all­though none, either of the clergye or lay­etie, wolde communicate with the priest, yet the act of sacrificyng can not possi­blye be therfor vayne, because there lac­keth cumpany to receiue. For, yf you vn­derstande by dayly oblation, either daylye almes, or daylye prayses and thankes, or dayly remembrance of Christes passion, or the very bodye and bloude of our Sa­uior, what one of all these are vayne, only because the people do not cōmunicate? Therfore in grawnting vnto vs, (which you can not deny) but that the oblation was daylye, how can you vse the worde frustra, to proue (as it were by S. Chriso­stomes owne meaning) that it was to no purpose, when the people did not recei­ue? Whereas euery kynde of Christian mens oblation, ys good and acceptable in it self, by reason, either of the good will with which it is offered, or the pryce and purenes of the thing which is offered, as in the example, of the body and bloud of Christ. Who, but vnsensible, can thinke [Page] 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 [Page 91] 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, thē were the people called, and then were they serued without the chauncell, in a place meeter for them. Now, these thin­ges not with standing, you be so vayne in your two syllabes frustra, that allthowgh at the begynnyng 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 cūmyng, but onlie their deuoute and worthye cummyng. For, [Page] 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 sacramēt, 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 [Page 92] 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. [Page] 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. [Page 93] 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 cōmunicate 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 [Page] 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 argumēt 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 cōclusion, 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 [Page 94] 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 cūpany, 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.

In denying and controlling the partes [Page] 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?

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 [Page 95] 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 cō ­munion, yf the priest should thinke them vnworthye, euen so, neyther Christ had this meaning in them, that they should [Page] 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. [Page 96] 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 [Page] 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 cōmaundement of distri­buting the sacrament vnto the people? It can no be diuided, (saye you) except there be cumpany. You speake somewhat therein, but tell vs fyrst, what cumpanye you meane?The sacra­mēt 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? [Page 97] 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 [Page] 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 [Page 98] that fonde principle of yours, that nothing is of necessitie to be credited, but that which is expreslie in the scriptu­res? No, you will not, I know, your harte is so great against traditions. Make then no more a doe, but graunt, that the ob­seruing of number and cumpanye, is no more requisite, then the obseruing of the tyme, place, kynde of persons, and other circūstances, which the Ghospell sheweth to haue ben vsed at the institution of the Sacrament. No saye you, that ‘Many circumstances of place, person, and tyme, maye be altered &c. we graunte you: but, that cumpanye in receyuyng is one of those circumstances, that we can not graun­te, as well for the reasons before declared, as allso that we haue none example of the Apostles, or primitiue church, that we maye so doe.’

Consider, I praye you Syr, the maner of your reasonyng. We cōclude vpon your owne principle, (which againe we must call vayne, leste anye should thinke, that we doe allow it) that cumpanie in recei­uing, is by expresse scripture, of no more necessitie, then the circumstances of tyme [Page] and place, which Christ vsed in the dely­uering of his sacrament: and you answer, that it is not founde in the example of the Apostles, or primitiue churche, that the cumpanie in receiuing was omitted, as tyme and place are founde to haue ben altered, in which saying you doe but en­large your vayne principle, vpō the graun­ting of which our argument proceeded. Cumpany in receiuing, in respect of the sacrament receiued, is no greater matter then the circumstance of tyme and pla­ce▪ but yet of sole receiuing (saye you) we haue none examples of the Apostles, or primitiue church, as though nothing might be vsed otherwise then as of for­mer example it maye be gathered, which addition, if you thinke good to vse, to make your foresaid principle vayne abso­lutelye, lett it be so then, and according to this reformed principle, our argument shall thus come against you. What so e­uer Christ did, at the institution of the sacrament, which we fynde not to be al­tered by the authoritie or example of A­postles, or primitiue churche, that is of [Page 99] 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? [Page] Did not the Corinthians receiue at night?An easie matter it is to troble the church if mē wold folowe the cōmon 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 [Page 100] 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, [Page] 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 argumēt, you triumphe with­out victorie, and aske of vs: ‘VVyll 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, thē you with [Page 101] 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 [Page] had ben borne without hādes, 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 takē, 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 dispensatiō 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, [Page 102] 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 cō ­panye 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 [Page] 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 [Page 103] 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 Cōmentaries 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 sacramēt 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 [Page] was eaten,An allego­ricall expositiō 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 appourtenāces, 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 sufficiēt 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 [Page 104] 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 ‘VVe 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 [Page] 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 sacramēt, 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 [Page 105] 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?

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 [Page] 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 sacramēt 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 [Page 106] 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 sacramēt? 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 ministratiō? 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 [Page] 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 ministratiō, 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 [Page 107] 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 [Page] 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 repetitiō 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 cōmunicantes, 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 distinctiō betwee­ne the matter and the forme of a thing? T [...]ewly that you [...]ight with some orde [...] [Page 108] 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 thē? 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 [Page] 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 sacramēt 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 inuēted) [Page 109] 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 ministratiō, 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 [Page] 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 forgottē 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 eatē: 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, thē it is of a rosted pece of beefe, when it is cleanely brought vnto the table, and diuided emōg 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?

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 [Page] 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 [Page 111] 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 slaū ­derouslye, that the sacramēt 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 [Page] 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 cō ­cerning the sacrament, either chainge it, at our pleasures, and take awaye Christe his institution. For, (as I saye againe vn­to you) we holde the wordes of Christ, This is my bodye, as the forme, and bread, wyne, and water, as the matter, which can not be altered. We beleiue also, after the wordes are spoken by a lawfull priest, v­pon the breade, wyne, and water, that Christ is really present, vnder eche of tho­se [Page 112] 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 thē, 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 auaū ­seth him selfe with standing a typtoe, and ouerlooking of other, with these wordes: ‘VVho seeth not,Defence▪ fo. 46. that prayer, and the Lorde his supper in the vse of them, be nothing lyke?’

[Page 113] 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 cōmoditie 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.

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 cōmuniō 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 cōmunion 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 [Page 114] not sufficient, then do you further vnder­stand, that, lyke as in our naturall bodye, whē 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, actiōs, and graces, which any one of the singuler membres, either receyueth, eyther practiseth. And this cō ­munion 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, vvhich 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, vvith all their vertues vvhich 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 [Page] 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 [Page 115] betwixt all the membres of so per­fect a dodye? And to this end only doth the Catholikes argument come, not as you grosely vnderstād 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 occasiō. 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 [Page] for an other. Against which cō ­clusion, 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 cōmu­nicate. ‘wel Syr I graunt you that,Defence fol. [...]od. but yet, ye should haue inferred the other point, &c. That is: to be lyke cōmunion 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 argumēt 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 [Page 116] 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 Sacramēt 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 [...]ulianū. 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 [Page] of heare and coat then a mā, or make sporte, against the author of that simili­tude, as though he would haue cōcluded, 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 communiō, which goeth through the whole mistical bodye of Christ not in praier only, or receiuing of [Page 117] the sacramēt, but in fasting, almes deedes, penāce, 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 cōmunion, 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 [Page] 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 communiō, 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 defēce. 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.

[Page 118] 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 whē 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. Thē 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 [Page] 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.

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 argumēt, 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 argu­mēt [Page 119] 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 argumēt as cōcerning 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 cōmunion, 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 cōmunion is nothing [Page] 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 cōmu­nion▪ be fulfilled, will you bring vs so fair downevvarde, that we must haue the particular, or els saie the whole is de­stroyed? Maye I not, because of your fancyes, rest in the end, when I am at it, but come back againe to the beginning, or myddle of the matter? The ende of a Christians desier, is, to be vnited vnto God, through Christ our head in the v­nitie of his body, and to this end I receiue his body in the sacrament, which, because he is both God an man, is therfor able to ioyne vs togeather in vnitie with God & man. And therefor when I receiue hym, I cōmunicate both naturallie and mysti­callie with his bodie. Can I desyer any more, and is any thing vnperfect herein?

But how proue you that by Christ? he which was wysedome it selfe, would he make such an accompt of a particular, [Page 120] that although the whole some and per­fection might be obtayned without it, yet he would haue a particular commu­nion? He which cōmunicateth 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 [Page] 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 cōmunion, there might be no receiuing of the sacramēt, 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 cōmaun­dement dyd not become his wysedome [Page 121] and his bountefullnes, so would it haue ben a greate foyle and discōfort 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 cō ­munion, whereas any one Christian re­ceiuing all alone, doth yet therein com­municate with Christ his whole mysticall body. Now, because this generall cōmu­nion 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 cōmunion 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 cō ­municate with hym, whether he will or no.’ Yf you thinke as you say, you be very dull of vnderstanding,Reply. or short of memorie, [Page] 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, cōmunicateth 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 [Page 122] 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 institutiō, 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 [Page] 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 cōpany, 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 cūpany 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. [Page 123] Now if you be to seeking, for your answeres in such questions, which would declare vnto us the full meaning of your opiniōs, 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 cōcerning accidences without their sub­iectes, and other such true consequēcies, 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, [Page] 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 thē 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 cōmaund 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 cō ­cerning the ordering of sacramentes. Al­so, that accidences may be cōprised 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 cōfoun­ded yet in your owne conscience. And as we haue so faithfull myndes, that in God [Page 124] 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 communicātes is not neces­sarie in the receiuing of the Sacramēt, 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 [Page] 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 instrumēt prouided of God to be­ginne the reformatiō of his church,Eras▪ cōtra Euāgelicos Item, cōtra 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 [Page 125] no better prouided, but that such as you call the singular instrumētes of vttering his pleasure and will, should be found so contrarie emong them selfes and so farr repugnant, one vnto an other? But as cō ­cerning this learned man, we take his cō ­fession, we vse not his testimonie. And we tel you what he thought, if perchaū ­se 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 Christiās? And here now to declare pe [...]chaunse that you be well scene 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 [Page] 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 cōfesse 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 [Page 126] 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 rūneth 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 [Page] 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 cōclude herevpon, that the priest can not receiue by hymselfe alone, without breach of Christ his institutiō? 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 thē 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? [Page 127] 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 impedimēt wherfor a priest maye not saie masse, and receiue alone. For if it had ben a substāciall point of Christ his institution, to haue cōmunicantes, 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 [Page] the Christiās could not come togeather, thei serued well, to delyuer mens cōscien­cies from the scruples, which thei might haue had, for not receiuing, but thei doe not licēce 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, [Page 128] that without your particular cōmunion 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 sacra­mēt, and willed them to praye for a quyet and good tyme, in which thei might cō ­municate after Christ his institution. But for all the trobles of persecution, thei did not so, Ergo it is plaine to perceiue, that thei thought not as you do of Christ his institution. And this being once confir­med, that the institution of Christ doth not requyre of necessitie, cōmunicantes, 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 [Page] [...] [Page 127] [...] [Page] [...] [Page 128] [...] [Page] 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 withstāding 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 cōfesse 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 [Page 129] of Christ his cōmaundement. 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 institutiō, 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, vvhich knoweth none other tongue then his English, trye the truth of his sayinges, which speaketh vnto hym out of Latyne authors? But if the simple can not, or should not rather, [Page] examyne these matters, let the indifferēt­lie learned take an example by this one place, with what cōscience 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 cōfuteth 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 frō 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 [Page 130] were examined whether they had layen with their wyues latelie before, whē 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 [Page] 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: VVherfore they goe not vnto the church? not in this sense which you haue inuented, as though he should saie: Wherfore do you receiue at [Page 131] 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 institutiō of Christ is excedinglie broken, he instituted not his sacrament, that they should haue it brought home to thē, 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 cōpanyed with their wy­ues, as they dare to receiue the bodye of Christ at home, for all the formar nigh­tes [Page] 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?

[Page 132] 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 cōmon 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 [Page] 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 Gā ­grensis. But rather, as it appea­reth by the epistle prefixed before that Synode, these Eustachians were of the opinion that no prayer or oblatiō should be made in maryed mens houses, thei cō ­tempned also the places of holy Martirs, or churches, and reproued all such as re­sorted to them, thei tooke further vpon them to distribute the oblations made in the church, and therefore the fifth canon of that Councell is this: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 [...] [Page 133] 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 [Page] 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 cōtent, 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 cōmaun­ded 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 institutiō, [Page 134] 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 cōmuniō 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 [Page] 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 tōgue, 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 cōsecrate, 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 [Page 135] 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 [Page] 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 bē 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 accōpanyed 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?

As whoe should saye,Re [...]y. that fayth might [Page 136] 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. [Page] 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 excellēt 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 stāding, 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 [Page 137] 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.

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 cōmunicantes 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. [Page] 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 [Page 138] 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 cō ­tempne your mother Church, yet except you folow the voyce of the church of Rome, you can with no reason defende that this which you holde, is scripture. And here againe you call vpon vs to remem­bre S. Cyprian, which in all that epistle of his, vnto which you do referr vs, doth so make against them which ministred only in water, that he cōfuteth 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 [Page] 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, thēselues 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 [Page 139] 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 [Page] 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 [Page 140] with her vnworthye handes, Serm. 5. de Lapsis. to open her che­ste, in the which (Sanctū Domini fuit) the holy dody 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 sa­cramēt was in her cheste, vnder one kyn­de, whereas S. Cyprian termeth it, Sanctū 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 argumēt, or cōiecture about it, he might seeme to haue ben fully aun­swered as cōcerning that point for which he alleaged S. Cypriā. And with lyke sub­teltie [Page] 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 cōsider 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. Whereupō he made it to be bound [Page 141] 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 cōtrary? 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 frō the principall questiō, and to talke of that which is not yet in hande. I tell you agayne, that our argumētes are [Page] 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, [Page 142] but as we reade what the cōmon vse was, so we reade that it was not such a necessarie vse, as would admitt no dispensatiō, For we bring you furth good examples, by which you shold vnderstand, that euē 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 cōfirmed 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 exāple, that reseruatiō, 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 [Page] 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 brīg 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 cōmunion of it, after the right vse of Christ his institutiō? Thē to put you out [Page 143] of doubt, thei were no ministers. For the historie saieth, that whē holy Satyrus had escaped drouning him selfe, and him selfe cōming first to lande had either holpē 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, [Page] & 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 whē 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 coūtrey, he declareth therebie, not only that he had no priestes in his companie, but also that we shold not cōmunicate 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.’ [Page 144] Yf you leese the cause yet you prouide to wynn the praise of a man full of nymble­nes and actiuety in his inuentiō.Reply. And tru­ly, you finde nothing to the cōtrarie, 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 Sa­cramēt 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 occasiō 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, whē the church was more enlarged and better set­teled, the lyke manner was allwaies vsed. You tell vs, that in taking of a long iorney [Page] 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 cōuenient lie haue caryed the bloud in some vessel for the purpose. Other (saie you) moysted a lynnen cloth in the Sacra­mēt of bloud, Some, either because they could not by nature, or would not for religiō 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 [Page 145] 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 sacramēt with thē 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 o­ratiō made of the beleif which we should [Page] 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 sacra­mēt 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 [Page 146] gesse, that it was either a mylkesopp or a wynesopp, or a lynnē 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 [Page] 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 thin ges 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, [Page 147] water, soppes, & moysted lynnē clothes altogeather, as though there were no dif­ferēce, 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 cō ­fesse 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, [Page] whereas you will cōclude 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 disctetiō, 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, [Page 148] in the begynnyng of the church, (which we graūt,) 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

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 questiō 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 vpō 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, [Page] it is sufficient for vs, to shew, that the thin ges 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 cōclude a necessitie,Reply. that it must be vsed, because it was once vsed,See agayne how the M of the defence rūneth frō the questiō 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 thē 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 [Page 149] 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 [Page] Lactantius, Cyprian, Origen, and many others, had theyr priuate opinions and errors. And if you, wil stād 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, Tertulliā, 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, [...] [Page 150] 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 Cōsent. 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 iudgemētes so high­lye) except th [...] agree with the church of Christ, or agree with other of their [...] [Page] [...] [Page 148] [...] [Page] [...] [Page 149] [...] [Page] [...] [Page 150] [...] [Page] (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. [Page 151] 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 vpō 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 foū ­de such or such a booke of S. Augusti­ne, [Page] 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 perchaū ­se 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, [Page 152] 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 he retikes 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 [Page] 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 whē 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 [Page 153] 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 [Page] it to be kept v [...]tyl the mor [...]w.Mat. 26Per­c [...]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 cōdemned 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 bondemē 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 [Page 154] 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 graūting 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 cōclusion 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 [Page] 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 [Page 155] 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 cōmendation. 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 sa­cramēt? and is this an other of your sound [Page] 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 cō ­mendation 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 cōmenda­tion [Page 156] and setting furth of Christ in the sa­crament, which cōtinueth 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 cōsider, 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 sacramēt 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 [Page] 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. Clemēt 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. [Page 157] 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. [Page] You protested to admit the Doctors, in such degree as S. Augustyne teaceth 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 cōsecrated, 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 [Page 158] 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 frō’ cōmunion, 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 [Page] for,the shiftes of the M. of the de­fence con­cernig the story of Si­rapion are cleane put [...]waye. is called his viaticū, which is his viage prouisiō, and was not so much geauē vnto him because he shold be ther­by deliuered from danger of excōmuni­cation, as that he might haue comfort of the sacrament in the terrible passage frō this world vnto an other. And the p [...]ni­tentes of the old tyme were not properly excōmunicated, as they now are, which by definitiue sentence are cutt of from the body of Christ, but they cōtinued in the payne which the officers of Christ his church did sett vpō 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 excōmunicated. And therefor although Syrapiō, 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 sacramēt as he dyd. Yea rather, if they which haue not fully satisfied for their offences, are fauored yett so much [Page 159] of the church whē 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 excōmu­nicate per­sons recei­ue the Sa­crament at ther death, why shold the vpriht & free Christians be kept frō 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 childrē, when p [...]nges of sicknes or death come vpō 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, [Page] 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 institutiō 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.

Yea Sir, this in deede is and shalbe all­waies our conclusion,Reply. not, as you deuise, that we goe about to proue, that the or­dinarye cōmon 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 sacramēt, without the which the sacrament hath not his inward perfection. Wherein, if you saie true, Syrapiō or any other shold neuer haue ben suffred to receyue the sa­crament alone, and most playnly to goe against Christs owne law and cōmaun­dement. And if, in that case, he should ha­ue dyed without his comfort and viage [Page] prouision, thē 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 di spensation. 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 [Page 161] 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 cōcerning 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 sacramētes, and geaue vnto those [Page] sacramentes forme and matter, such as shall be of the substance of them,No neces­sity can ser­ue to omitt or breake any com­maūdemēt 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 [Page 162] 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.1 In the same Councell and canon it is decreed, that neyther Deacons should 2 minister the sacramēt vnto Priestes, ney­ther receiue it before Bishops. And fur­ther it is graunted, that if the Bishops or 3 Priestes be absent, the Deacōs may bring furth the sacrament, and eate it. Vpon which propositions, the Catholike ma­keth this argumēt, 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? ‘[Page] TheDefence 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 cōmenting 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 [Page 163] all were wonne, you sing, as it were, Te Deum, and you thanke God that we are dryuē 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 [Page] 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 Deacōs could not consecrate, the Bishops and Priestes being absent, in this case then (sayeth the holy Councell) lett the Deacons them­selues bring furth the sacramēt, 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 cōfesse 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.’

[Page 164] 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 reseruatiō. 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 [Page] 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 recōcyled 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 [Page 165] the sacrament, and eate it, were either ex­cōmunicated persons, either such as could not go abrode for weakenes. Now, as cō ­cerning the receiuing vnder one kynd, as it might be shewed out of this place, if we would dally, as you do vse, and as con­cerning your great inuectyue against vs, (as though any of vs did make a tryfle of Christ his institution, and not rather re­proue your interpretations, which make that to be Christes which is not his,) as also cōcerning 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 secōde is not to be regarded, and the third had ben spokē of befo­re. But as cōcerning reseruation, which we say, and say againe, to be most manifestly proued by the testimonye of the Nycene coūcell, 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 reputatiō, although the [Page] 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 [Page 166] 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, [Page] 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 sacramēt 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 cōtinueth 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 [Page 167] 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 takē 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 [Page] 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 com­maundemēt 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 sacramēt 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 cōsider, that your selfe do take the receiuing vn­der both kyndes to be of the substance [Page 168] of Christ his institution, and not of the circumstance, and to be, not an ornamēt 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 cōmaundemētes 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 commaun­demēt 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 sacramēt in other forme and matter, thē was appointed by God. But to omit and leaue altogeather vndone, (the cōmaun­demēt I meane of sacrifice or sacramēt) 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 [Page] substance of Christ his institutiō, 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 Ho­siū in con­fessione Cathol. pa. 87 directly against your fa­ther Luther, which in more thē one pla­ce declareth the precept of receyuing both kindes to be in it selfe indifferēt,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.

FRō this place furth, although the Catholike doth frame the cōclusion 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 [Page 169] they should be answered throughlye, we had neede to make a new begynnyng. For we haue to reason about the conty­nuāce 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, [Page] 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 cōtemned▪ what tyme was that, in which the contraries of all these, were highlie commended and practysed?Cōtinuan­ce 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 [Page 170] 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 [Page] 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 chāgeth, 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 [Page 171] 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)

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 1 the wryting or working of our redem­ption,Faith cū ­meth 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 2 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 3 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 [Page 172] 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 cōmended 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 [Page] 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. cōtra epist. fundamēti Wher­fore, the contynuance of .ix. hundred yea­res, is and should be so worthelye regar­ded, that euē 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 cōcerning the 900. folowing, they dyd not take place so sone as we would have wyshed thē. Let vs see thē, how you proue that. Mary, say you whē they were rooted, Defence fol. 86. God stirred vp frō tyme to tyme, diuers in all ages, that reproued them.

[Page 173] 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 thē 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.

[Page] 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 [Page 174] much fauor and reuerēce. 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, cōsider with what diuine force and power, he made Moyses and Aarō to ouerturne the might of Pharao. But we,Exo. 13. which are in the tyme of grace, and are cōducted, not by Moy­ses, and a pyller of fyer, or a cloude, but by IESVS CHRIST, and his holye and cōfortable 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 [Page] 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,slaūderous 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 Christiās, 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 [Page 175] 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, [Page] 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 cō ­sider 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 [Page 176] .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.’

[Page] 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 cōtynued 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 cōferring Turke with Turke, Iew with Iew, Chri­stian with Christian, and so furth, I saye, if the Mahometes law were good, and that schismes and diuisions should aryse emong the professors of it, that then, the surest waye should be, so to vnderstand and receiue that law, as it hath ben taken of longest tyme before, and of the most parte of all Turkes. And in lyke maner, when so euer emong vs which professe one Christ, diuisions and taking of par­tes doe trouble mens consciences, the best waye is, by all good reason, to folow that syde which hath longest continued, and which hath most voyces for it. And so, it a Turke or panyme, would alleage continuance of tyme to proue thereby his religiō to be good, the next and wy­sest waye to aunswer hym, is not to call him vnreasonable and folysh for the brin­ging of that argument, (for vndoubtedly [Page 179] vnto our naturall and common reason it is no tryfeling persuasion to see conty­nuance and multitude of folowers to be with vs,) but the right waye of cōuerting or confounding them in that argument, is, either to shew that naturall reason is 1 against them, (as it was in their worship­ping of stockes and stones,) either by myracle to persuade them, (as the Apost­les 2 in their dayes haue done, or as good and religious persons doe in this our ty­me emong the Indians,) or else to shew,3 that it is no wonder, if the religion of which thei be, hath allreadie long conty­nued, and shall from hense forward en­creace daylie, because it geaueth libertie vnto the flesh, and vnto all bodely plea­sures. But the continuance and multitu­de of folowers which commend the do­ctrine of the church are so notable and myraculouse, that except the finger of God were here, it is vnpossible it should be regarded. For prescript fastinges, wat­chinges, prayers, preferring of virginitie before wedlock, submitting of our owne willes vnto the cōmaundemēt of others, [Page] 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 [Page 180] the Father, or anye of his euyll fauored broode and children, for the flesshe doth well allow it, to eate what it will at all ty­mes, to be free from earely rysing, to ha­ue short seruice in the churche, to haue matrymonye no sacrament, to be bounde to no ceremonye, and to be subiect vnto none other authoritie, then the expresse scripture. But, that the Catholike reli­gion, which is so exacte, so deuout, and so graue, that it maketh the carnall men to wyssh that it were out of the worlde, should haue cōtynuall folowers of it, and before so long tyme preserued, it is not for flessh and bloud to bring it to passe, but it is the verye worke of God, whom nothing can resyst and withstande. Con­sider also their lyues and maners, which haue ben emong other, the maynteyners of it. And because none are more odious vnto the world, then prelates, monkes, and fryars, I wysh that some of them were rightly considered. For if you can beleiue historyes and monumētes, what fault do you fynde in S. Francys, and S. Domini­ke, if you will reade their bookes, what [Page] can you saye against S. Bernard, S. Bo­nauenture, S. Thomas of Aquyne, Ru­pertus, Anselmus, Dionysius the Carthu­sian, with a numbre of such holy and re­uerende fathers? whose writinges suffi­ciently declare, how much they remem­bred Christ, how diligently they did rea­de the scriptures, how freely they repro­ued faultes, and lamented the euill lyfe of Christians, how much they were ac­quaynted with the sweete spirite of God, and practysed in fightyng for the sowle against the dyuell. The doctrine therfor of our church, hath not only contynued meruaylouslye, but contynued in many, and in those many no few haue ben ex­cellent, and in such sort excellent, that, if not before, it might our religion haue ben now alowed, because such godly and graue heades did vse it. Whereas on your syde, if your inuentions were tollerable, yet those Apostles of yours, whō in these latter dayes (you say) God hath styrred to reproue our vice and irreligion, and to reuyue his truth and testament, haue ben so vyle themselues, that vndoubtedly God [Page 181] 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 forgeauē his former great offences, that he should be more humble in prea­ching of grace and mercie, would he so sone haue forsakē hym, that in 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 [Page] 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 cōdemned: such a one (I say) is much to be regarded, and such a one is not found, but onlye emong the Catholikes. whose [Page 182] 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.

[Page] 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 cōsis [...]eth 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 cō ­cerning the profyt and cōmoditye which they that would, might take of this chur­che, [Page 183] 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 [Page] 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 sacramētes, 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 [Page 184] 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 thē 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 [Page] 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 spokē 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 cōdition to tarye with them [Page 185] if they would folow his cōmaundemen­tes, most absolute performāce of the spi­rite of truth to be with vs vntyl the worl­des end: in this tyme of grace so gloriou­se, so much made of, so deere and welbe loued, so defenced, so priuileaged, to ma­ke so harde and pynching rekoning, that the light of the world should be couered vnder some busshell, and that cytie be vn­perceauable, which Christ him selfe plan­ted vpon the topp of a hyll,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 1 Iewes had not allwayes the truthe of do­ctryne, And if it must follow, because the 2 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 [Page] 3 reproued the maners of the high Priestes, therefore they condemned theyr doctry­ne 4 and religyon, or if Christ, because he was cōdemned of the high Priestes, sayed not vnto the people concerning the do­ctors of Moyses law: Doe that which they saye vnto you, Matth. 23. but doe not after theyr doin­ges. And, (to be short) if all these unrea­sonable consequēcies (which would plea­se you very well) should be graunted vn­to you, tell vs then, for conscience sake, what church we shall follow? If the chur­che of Rome, which hath ben and is so well receyued, hath ben and may be vn­trulye perswaded, maye not that church, which you perchanse, shall point out vn­to vs with your lytle fynger, be also with good lykelyhood very fowlie deceyued? And maye not one thirde person, com­mend vnto vs an other church, which a­greeth with none of our two, and yet is nothing the better? In this doubt, which doth so necessarilye aryse, what is your ghostly counsell vnto such as are feare­full of conscience? ‘The right church therfore,Defence fol. 98. as the fold of [Page 186] 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 tokē of good wine ready to be solde, and euery tapster will easily saie for his owne truth and honestye,) so you haue tolde vs such markes to know the true church by, that as the true church hath them in deede, so yet euery mysbegotten congre­gatiō, will chalendge them vnto herselfe. Except you thinke, that Luther and Zuinglius, [Page] with all their forked tayles of he­resies, doe not eche of them stande in yt, that they haue the true worde of God, and right vse of the sacramētes on eche of their sydes, which yet are contrary the one to the other. I had thought, you would haue tolde of one such marke and signe to come by the knowledge of the true church, that in all the controuersies of opinions, and all the euill conditions of lyuing, we might haue ben directed vnto one certayne and approued staye of our consciences, and you, (to declare your wysedome and vnderstanding) haue named two such markes, as euery kynde of religion will boldely chalendge vnto her selfe. First, the true worde of God (saye you) is one true marke of the church.

what meane you then, by the worde of God? for if you meane the volume of the olde and new testament, and that whe­resoeuer we fynde the byble in any per­sons handes, that we must thereby strait­wayes take this for a certayne tokē, that he which hath the byble in his hande is one of the right churche, so shal you haue [Page 187] not only your selfe, but Arrians, Anabap­tistes, and all the rabell of myscreantes, to be of the true churche, by good lyke­lyhod. On the otherside, if you meane by the worde of God, the two testamentes, not as they are to be solde at bookebyn­ders shopps, but as they are expounded of sincere and true preachers, what tokē thē shall we haue of you, to know readily who is a true preacher? And as I haue said of this first marke which you geaue, so maye I saye againe of your seconde, which is, the right vse of the sacramētes. Which as I will graunt vnto you, to be rightlye practized onlye within the true churche, so yet you haue to shewe vs fur­ther, how I maye know such as doe mi­nister them accordinglye. You would proue by S. Augustine, S. Cyprian, Saint Chrisostome, and Origine, that the scri­pture is the true tryall of the churche. Yea Syr, in one sense that is true in deed, as also that the church maketh the tryall and declaration of the true scripture. But, that euer any good and reasonable man had this meanyng, that who so euer [Page] would, might take the scriptures into his handes, and sytt iudge ouer the church, I denye it vtterly, and I am sure, you can neuer proue it. For as the scripture de­clareth which is the true church, so doeth the churche shewe the authoritie of the scripture, and the scripture and the chur­che, are the better, the one for the other of them. Do you thinke to make vs afer­de by the appealing vnto scripture? or doe you labor to moue a suspition, that you only haue the Ghospell for you? Ve­rely we are content to be tryed, not only by the scriptures, but euen by those holy fathers, which you depraue in this place towardes your purpose. The cōtrouersie now, betwene vs and you, is the same,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, [Page 188] 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 frō sea vnto sea, and from the floud euen vnto the endes of the worlde. Agayne: The stone which was cutt out of the hyll without han­des, 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. [Page] But what of all this? Marye Syr, that you shold reade in these scriptures, how playnly it was promysed, that the whole world should be Christ his inheritage, and that his churche should be sought for, not in pelting corners of Africa, of Europa, or Asia, not in wyttenberge, Geneua, or En­gland, but in all nations and in all coun­treyes of the world. And if you myslyke this our cōclusion gathered out of these places of scripture, consider then, better then you haue done, S. Augustins reaso­ning against Petilian, and against all o­ther Donatistes, when so euer he wrote against them, as in his. 162. 166. 170. 171. and other of his epistles. In all which pla­ces, he proueth, that it is vnpossible, that Donate, which was an vpstart heretike in Africa, should haue the truth on his syde, because the scriptures do so playn­lye promyse vs, that the church of Christ should be enlarged ouer the whole worl­de, and because it was so sensibly perfor­med, that euery one might see that chur­che, which was extended through all na­tions. Now, if you haue any scriptures, or [Page 189] 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 cōmaundementes of the [Page] 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 holyghost, yf you remyt any man his synnes, they are forgea­uen hym, yf you reteyne them, they are re­teyned, yet that he might make playne, and set furth an vnitie, he disposed by his owne authoritie the head and spring of that vnitie which beginneth of one. And a lytle after he sayeth: Doeth he beleiue, that he holdeth and keepeth his fayth, which keepth not this vnitie of the church? How then could you bring in S. Cyprian in the commenda­tyon of anye of your two markes of the church, which so expressely warneth you to consider the vnitie thereof, and the au­thoritie which was geauen vnto S. Peter, [Page 190] 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 1 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,2 either because none are holye which are out of this church, either because she hath ben bought with bloud, (a deare price,) [Page] 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. 3 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 4 must be Apostolike, Apostolike by which worde I meane, that if they of England now, or those of Geneua, can by degrees ascende, and frō one minister vnto an other go vpwardes in a cōtynual ordre, vntyll they do come vnto one of the Apostles, whō they will proue to haue ben a father to their religion, that then, they haue one good signe to commende their doinges. But, because this is vnpossible to be doone of them, therfore they are not of the church [Page 191] 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 [Page] 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

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 [Page 192] so folysh as your fellowes, and that you graunt, that yt ys possible inough vnto God, to bring all that vnto passe which the church teaceth vs, as concerning the sacrament, but, saye you

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 sacramēt. Wherein I answer you, with the same wordes, as S. Augustine answered Volu­sianus, Augustin. epist. 3. ad Volusianū 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 [Page] with them, but because God is allmigh­tie, and because all scripture is true. We doe not apoint, (as though all were of our one making,) but we belieue, that Christ his very body is truly in the sacra­mēt, and that it is there, not in maner of proportion, quantitie, or figure, also that it maye be in a thousand places at once, and yet in neuer a one of them all local­lye, which is to saye, as in a place of his owne. Oh, saye you, ‘Is not this to take awaye the nature of a bodye from his bodye,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.’ [Page 193] 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 Sacramēt. And if it be vnpossible to haue a bodye without quantitie, and in a thousand places at once, (as it is to make that one selfe same thing should be a bodye and no body,) why saie you, that God is able t [...] worke this also, if it be his pleasure? you offende in both sydes, doubting at one tyme of God his allmightmes, by which we beleiue his naturall bodye to be in the sacrament, and at an other ty­me making hym so allmighty, as though he could bring to passe, that such thinges might agree togeather, as are in them, selues plaine contradictorie, the one to the other. But as in this later point, you goe beyond all truth and possibility, so in the other, I trust you wil hereafter be more stedefast, and neuer argue against the power of God which is able to performe [Page] all those articles, which the Catholikes haue gathered, vpō the sacramēt. Which now you begynn to doe at length, and saye, that it is not God his will to doe, as we beleiue he hath done in the sacramēt. But how proue you this? ‘For neither is there any necessitie that shold once trayne hym to doe yt,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 cōstrayned God first to make, and afterward to re­deeme mankynde, and the most of all his workes are of such a peculyar excellency, that we maye thinke right well of eche of them, that they are in theyr kynde sin­gular. what necessitie constrayned our Sauior, to take our death vpon hym, and what example haue you in all the scri­ptures, lyke vnto the myracle of the death of God? Ergo, (according vnto your diuine logike,) it is only an inuen­tion [Page 194] of the papistes, that God hym selfe did suffre a most paineful death for man. It is wysedome for vs, rather to beleiue the church, then to allow such argumen­tes by which we maye destroye all true religion. And yet not only the church teacheth, but the scripture also wytnes­seth, that this which the Christians re­ceyue in the Sacrament, is the bodye of Christ hym selfe, as he said most playnly, This is my bodye which is geuen for you. Now whether the verbe substātiue Sum, es, fui, 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 [Page] 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 (factū 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, [Page 195] 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?

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 cōclude,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 [Page] 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 testamēt 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 whē 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 [Page 196] 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 [...]ramēt 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 [Page] vp to thinke on Christ, this passeth all other without cōparison, to bring the selfe same bodye before them.) But with all these figures and signes which are founded in the sacramēt, 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 [Page 197] 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, [Page] neyther so beleiue the presence of Christ his bodye, that in no case we wyll admit any significatiō 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 holyghost: 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 cō ­clusions, 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 [Page 198] 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 frō 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 [Page] death euerlasting. And if you wil cōtend, 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 [Page 199] 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 (transmutatiō, 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 [Page] 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 cōmon 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 patētes, then haue those letters their effect, so, (I trow) that the Sacrament should be lyke a pece of wax to confirme [Page 200] I can not tell what letters. For if you meane the promysses of euerlasting lyfe, before we come to receiue the Sacramēt, 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 shalbe saued and fare well inough, if we do but imagine that Christ dyed for us. As for the hauing of his na­turall [Page] 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 shalbe as merye with bread and drink in the remembrāce 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 prouisiō, 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 [Page 201] 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 vpō the Iewes, before the incarnation of the sou [...]e of God, before the comming of the holyghost, in the law of bondage, [Page] in the tyme of figures, and when God (as I may saye) did not yet keepe open householde in all cōtreyes of the world, neither make so great cheare, as he myn­ded to doe afterwarde. Therefor, if such thinges were geauē 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 [Page 202] likewise they, which were spirituall emōg 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 cōfort. 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 Sacramēt, but rather we cōfesse [Page] 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, thē 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 [Page 203] 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 cōtrouersie, 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 [Page] doubt, but you will cōtinew 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 thē 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, [Page 204] yet you make your Achilles so in­vincible, as though he could not be woū ded 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 bē 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 argumē ­tes, 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 [Page] 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 hā ­des, 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 vpō, but only how thei might [Page 205] 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 sacramēt.) 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 [Page] 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.