I Haue hearde that in the dayes of King Henrie the eight: there preached one before him,CROWLEY. whose Sermon the King liked not, bicause it was not to be liked. And therfore he willed Sir Tho­mas More then being Lorde Chauncelor: to giue the Preacher thankes, worthie such a Sermon. He therfore being a man of a pleasant wit, spake to the Preacher with a lowde voyce, that the King might heare, and sayde:Sir Tho­mas Mores thankes. The Kings Maiestie thanketh you for your notable Sermon. Which when the King heard, he called Sir Thomas to him, and sayde: What meane you my Lorde to giue such thankes in our name? If it lyke you, quoth hée, there be some thinges notable euill. Whether the Printer ment so of these two Sermons, I knowe not. But I trust that the Reader shall perceyue, by the setting open of the subtiltie thereof: that they were not notable good.

Bicause your Printer hath not Englished your Latine text:CROWLEY. I will be so bolde as to English it: that the English Reader (whom your subtiltie may soonest hurt) maye vnderstande your text, and wey howe good a grounde it is, for you to builde, that you woulde builde vpon it. I beséech you brethren (sayth S. Paule) euen for [Page 2] the mercie of God, make your bodies a sacrifice, liuing, holy, and acceptable vnto God. &c. Roma. 12.

WATSON. Diuision. 2. Philipians. 3. If S. Paule writing to the Philippians, the thirde chap­ter, was not ashamed to saye, to write one thing diuers times to you, is not paine or sloth to mee, but profitable and necessarie for you: much lesse ought I to be ashamed, for that I propounde to you at this time, that lesson againe which before I haue twise entreated, seeing I intende (by Gods grace) to speak nothing, but that I haue learned either of S. Paule himselfe, or of such as I think was endued with the same spirit that S. Paule was. And this I do, not for lack of good matter: but for lack of better matter in my iudge­ment & more necessary to be learned of vs al at this present.

For what is better, worthyer, and more needefull to bee taught and learned of all sortes of men, in these euill dayes and corrupt time: then how to offer vp our selues to God, a liuing, holy and pleasing sacrifice, to ouercome and represse our naughtie will and affections? to mortifie our earthlye members and conuersation? And so to banish sinne, that it reigne not in our mortall bodies? the largenesse of which matter is so great, and doth extende it selfe in so many par­tes, causes, and circumstances: that although the whole matter doe pertayne and haue respect to one ende: yet the intreating of it being long, must needes be various, and for that reason can not be tedious, to him that loueth to learne to liue well, and please almightie God.

CROWLEY.Satan, transforming himselfe into the likenesse of an Angell of light, is neuer the later an enimie still, according to the true Etymologie of his name.Watson coun­terfeteth S. Paule. Euen so you (M. Watson) can not by counterfeiting S. Paule, cause vs to beléeue, that you beare lyke good will to vs, as he did to the Philippians. It is verie true, that no matter can be more profitable to be intreated off in these euill days: than that which doth teach vs to offer vp our selues to God, a liuing, holy and acceptable sacrifice to him. But if you entrea­ted it no better, in your other two Sermons that you speake off, [Page 3] than you doe in these: you might haue bene much better occupied in entreating of other matter, although the same had not béene so various as this, and therfore more tedious to the hearers.

The ende of this my matter is, WATSON. Diuision. 3. to destroye the kingdome of sinne, for which purpose, Gods sonne was incarnate, to bring which thing to passe, in vs was all the life, the exāple, the passion, the Resurrection of Christ, and all the doctrine and sacramentes of Christ. Like as contrarie, to erect and establish this kingdome of sinne is al the trauaile and temp­tation of the deuill, now fawning lyke a serpent, transfor­ming himselfe into an aungell of light, to entrappe and se­duce the simple and vnware, nowe raging like a Lion, to ouerthrow the feble and fearefull. And not only is it his tra­uaile: but also it is the whole labour and practise, of all his children by imitation. As Infidels, Iewes, Heretiks, Scisma­tikes, false brethren, and counterfet christians, both in ly­uing and learning, labouring night and daye with all witte and will: to destroye the fayth of Christ, the sacraments of Christ, and the sacrifice of Christ, as much as in them lieth. Which three be speciall meanes to destroye the kingdome of sinne, which they with all their power set vp and main­taine.

It is verie true (as you say) that the ende of our mortification,CROWLEY. the incarnation, life, suffering, resurrection, doctrine and sacra­ments of Christ: is to destroy the kingdome of sinne.Watsons words true in himselfe, & such other. And on the contrary, it is all true that you haue written: vnderstanding your selfe and other of your sort, to be the Heretikes, Scismatikes, false brethren and counterfet Christians that you speake off.

The practise of the deuill and his Ministers in thys poynt, WATSON. Diuision. 4. I haue partlye touched, and by Gods grace and your paci­ence, shall now procede further. I haue opened the decay of fayth, good workes and penance, which be remedies against sinne. One other remedie there is, that lieth in much decay, [Page 4] which will lye still, except good men (according to their bounden dueties) put to their helping handes. I meane the sacrifice of the church, the sacrifice of the newe testament, the sacrifice of our reconciliation, in the bodie and bloude of our Lorde Iesus Christ, which he hath instituted in hys last supper, and so as Ireneus sayth, Noui testamenti, nouam docuit oblationem:Ireneus. li. 4. cap. 32.quam Ecclesia ab Apostolis accipiens, in vniuerso mundo offert deo: Christ confessing, the cup to be his bloud, hath taught the newe sacrifice of the newe testament: which sacrifice, the Church receyuing of the Apostles, doth offer to God throughout the whole worlde.

CROWLEY.You say you haue opened the decaye of faith, good workes and penance. I haue neyther hearde nor séene in writing, what you haue sayd of these decayes. But me thinke I maye gesse that you doe account it a decaye of faith, when men can not beléeue, that whatsoeuer the Pope and his Clearkes shall teach, is true: of good workes, when men waxe werie of giuing their landes and goods to the maintenaunce of Idolatrie,Maister Watsons de­cay of faith, good works, and penance. and false worshipping of God: and of penance, when men can not be perswaded, that their owne works can be any part of satisfaction for their owne sinnes. If this be your opening of these decayes: then haue you done as well therein, as you doe here in the decaye of the fourth reme­die, which you call the sacrifice of the Church. &c. For neither may the supper of the Lorde bée properlye called the sacrifice of the Church, the sacrifice of the new Testament, nor the sacrifice of our reconciliation: more than to beléeue all that the Pope shall teach, may be called the faith in Christ, or to giue lands or goodes to the maintenance of Idolatrie, may be called a good worke, or the séeking to satisfie for sinnes, by our owne workes, may be cal­led penance.

And as for your wordes cited out of Ireneus, they are not so many as they should be, and therfore I will cite them as Ireneus wrote them, although it be something long, that the simple Rea­der be no longer deceyued by your subtile handling of the Fa­thers writings.

And first I must tell you that your Printer hath quoted your booke wrong. For it is in the .32. Watsons booke wrong quoted. Chapter of Ireneus his fourth booke, and not in the .35. as your printed copie hath it.

Thus sayth Ireneus lib. 4. cap. 32. Hij sunt, inquit, Zacha. cap 8. sermones quos faci­etis. Loquimini veritatē vnusquis (que) ad proximum suum, & iudicium pa­cificum iudicate in portis vestros, & vnusquis (que) malitiam fratris sui non recogitet in corde suo, & iurationem falsam ne dixeritis. Quoniam haec omnia odi, dicit Dominus omnipotens. Et Dauid autem similiter. Quis est, Psalm. 34. inquit, homo, qui vult vitam, & amat dies videre bonos. Cohibe linguam tuam à malo, & labia tua ne loquantur dolum. Declina à malo & fac bo­num, inquire pacem & sequere eam. Ex quibus omnibus manifestum est, quia non sacrificia & holocaustomata quaerebat ab eis Deus: sed fidem, & obedientiam, & iusticiam, propter illorum salutem. Oseae. 6. Sicut in Osea Prophe­tae, docens eos Deus suam voluntatem, dicebat. Misericordiam volo quam sacrificium, & agnitionem Dei super holocaustomata. Math. 9. Sed & Dominus noster eadem monebat eos, dicens. Si enim cognouissetis, quid est, miseri­cordiam volo quam sacrificium, nunquam c [...]ndemnaretis immerentes, te­stimonium quidem reddens Prophetis, quoniam veritatem predicabant, il­los autem arguens sua culpa insipientes. Sed & suis Discipulis dans consi­lium primitias Deo offerre ex suis creaturis: non quasi indigenti, sed vt ipsi nec infructuosi, nec ingrati sint, eum qui ex creatura panis est, accipit & gratias egit dicens. Hoc est meum corpus. Et calicem similiter, Math. 26. qui est ex ea creatura quae est secundum nos, suum sanguinem confessus est, & noui testamenti nouam docuit oblationem, quam Ecclesia ab Apostolis accipiens, in vniuerso mundo offert Deo, ei qui alimenta nobis praestat pri­mitias suorum munerum in nouo testamento, de quo in .12. Prophetis Ma­lachias sic praesignificauit. Malach. 1. Non est mihi voluntas in vobis dicit Dominus omnipotens, & sacrificium non accipiam de manibus vestris. Quoniam ab ortu solis vs (que) ad occasum, nomen meum glorificatur inter gentes, & in omni loco incensum offertur nomini meo, & sacrificium purum. Quoniam magnum est nomen meum in gentibus, dicit Dominus omnipotens: mani­festissime significans per haec, quoniam prior quidem populus cessabit of­ferre Deo: omni autem loco sacrificium offertur ei, & hoc purum, nomen autem eius glorificatur in gentibus.

These be the words, sayth he, that you must fulfill in déede. Let euerie one of you speake truth to his neighbour, and sée that ye [Page 6] giue quiet sentence in your gates, and let no man kéepe in me­morie the malice of his brother. And sée that you take no false othe. For the Almightie Lorde doth hate all these things. And in like maner Dauid. What man is it, sayth he, that is desirous of life, and loueth to sée good dayes? Restraine thy tongue from euill, and thy lips that they speake no guile. Decline from euill and doe good, séeke after peace and follow the same. By all which words it is manifest, that God required of them neither sacrifice nor burnt offerings. But faith and obedience, and righteousnesse, for their saluation. Euen as in Oseas the Prophete also, God teaching them his will, sayd: I desire rather mercye than sacrifice, and ac­knowledging of God, more than burnt offerings. And our Lorde also did put them in remembraunce of the same thinges when he sayde: trulye if ye had knowen what this meaneth, I desire mer­cie rather than sacrifice: ye woulde neuer condemne those that deserue it not. Testifying with the Prophetes, that it was the truth that they taught, and reprehending those that he spake too, as men that by their owne fault were without vnderstanding. Also when he gaue counsell to his Disciples, that they shoulde of­fer vnto God, first fruites out of his creatures: not as though he had néede thereof, but that they should neyther be vnfruitfull nor vnthankfull: he tooke the breade, which is of the Creature, and gaue thankes, saying. This is my bodye. And in like maner, he confessed, that the Cup, which is of that creature that is among vs, is his bloude, and taught a newe oblation of the newe Testa­ment, which the Church receyuing of the Apostles, doth in all parts of the world offer vnto God, euen vnto him that giueth the first fruites of his owne giftes in the newe Testament, to be oure foode, wherof in the twelue Prophetes, Malachie doth foreshow in this sort. I haue no pleasure in you, sayth the Lorde almightie: and I will receiue no sacrifice at your handes. For my name is glorified among the Gentiles, euen from the rising of the sunne to the going downe of the same, and in euery place is Incense and pure sacrifice offred vnto my name. For my name is great a­mong the Nations, sayth the Lorde almightie: declaring moste manifestly by these words, that the first people shall cease to offer [Page 7] to God: but in euerie place is sacrifice offered vnto him, yea, and that pure sacrifice, for his name is glorified among the Gentiles.

Now (M. Watson) let the Christian Reader, weigh the words of Ireneus. And doe you weigh them better than you did, when you vsed them to proue that the Lords supper is the sacrifice of the Church of Christ, and of our reconciliation. For Ireneus proueth that God delighteth in no outwarde sacrifices, but doth by them teach what sacrifice it is that he delighteth in. That is, faith,Ireneus tea­cheth what sacrifice God delighteth in. obedience, and iustice, which he would haue all men to offer, as a sacrifice of thankesgiuing to God for their saluation. And when Iesus Christ did institute his supper: he did thereby teach his dis­ciples to offer that sacrifice (as ye may learne in S. Augustine his sermon De sacramentis fidelium, Citatur à Be­da in Collect.) and of the Apostles hath the church learned to offer the same in all partes of the worlde, which is In­cense and pure sacrifice, and the glorifying of the name of God a­mong all Nations.

There is nothing so auncient, so profitable, WATSON. Diuision. 5. necessarie and so holesome as this sacrifice is, that hath bene of some men, and that of late, so assaulted, reuiled, reiected, blasphemed, oppressed, persecuted, and with such reproch and indigna­tion banished & exiled, without cause or any good grounde why they shoulde so haue done, but that they knewe sinne should decay, if that were vsed. And therefore intending to establishe the Kingdome of sinne, laboured with all vio­lence to subuert this enimie and remedye against sinne. Which as S. Cyprian doth say, Cyprianus ser. de coena domini. Ad totius hominis vitam salutem (que) proficit, simul medicamentum & holocaustum ad sanandas infirmitates, & purgandas iniquitates existens. Which doth profite to the lyfe and saluation of the whole man, being both a medicine to heale infirmities, and a sacrifice to purge iniquities.

Meaning (as I am sure you doe) of the sacrifice of your Masse:CROWLEY. there is nothing more true,The contra­rie of Wat­sons wordes most true. than the contrarie of that prayse that you giue it. As for the grounde and cause why we assault it, re­uile, reiect, blaspheme, oppresse and persecute it. &c. it is such, that [Page 8] you and all your sort, are not able iustly to remoue. Doth it not rob Christ of his glorie, in that it is made a sacrifice propitiatorie for sinnes? Doth it not rob the people of the comfort they shoulde conceyue by receyuing that thing, which in your Masse they may but sée and worship? Hath it not bene the ouerthrowe of many thousands, which being seduced by your false teaching, haue cal­led it their maker and redéemer, and haue giuen vnto it, the ho­nour due to both? And where ye saye that sinne must decaye where it is vsed, I pray you how decayed sinne in the Abbayes, where it was most vsed?The fruits of the Masse. Forsooth euen as in Sodome, when Lots doctrine was refused. What amendment of life wrought it in this Realme in Quéene Maries dayes? Forsooth euen such as the golden Calues wrought in Israell in king Ierobohams time, and Baals sacrifices in the dayes of king Ahab. You saye, it is an enimie and remedie against sinne, and you take record of Cypri­an the holy Martir and witnesse of Christ: but if he were liuing, he woulde giue you little thanke to take him to witnesse in so ma­nifest an vntruth. In déede Cyprian speaketh reuerentlye and trulye of the holy supper of the Lorde: for it is both a remedie to heale our infirmities, and a brent offering to purge our iniquities. For (as S. Austen sayth) carnall men must by the degrées and steps of sacramentes be brought from those things that be séene with the bodily eyes,August. octogint. quest. 41. to those that be vnderstanded by the minde. And so doe sacraments cure our infirmities. And as the brent of­ferings, did preach to the offerers, that if they woulde haue their iniquities purged by Christ, they must offer themselues wholy to God by obedience to his will: Euen so doth this holy supper teach vs to offer our soules and bodies in obedience to worke his will, whose members we be. Thus doth it both cure our infirmities, and purge our iniquities, as Cyprian hath sayd in the place that you cite.

WATSON. Diuision. 6 This little time that I haue now, I entende (God willing) to bestow in this matter, to reduce into your remembrance the foundation and commoditie of thys sacrifice of the Church, and to repel such bolts, as the foolishnesse of some, [Page 9] and the malice of other, haue shot against it, that knowing the necessitie and goodnesse of it, we may follow the coun­sell of S. Bernarde which sayd, Discamus eius humilitatem,Bernardus homil. 3. super missus est.imite­mur mansuetudinem, amplectamur dilectionem, communicemus passio­nibus, tauemur in sanguine eius: ipsum offeramus propitionem pro peccatis nostris, quoniam ad hoc ipse natus & datus est nobis. Ipsum occulis patris, ipsum offeramus & suis, quia & pater proprio filio suo non pepercit, sed pro nobis tradidit illum &c.

Let vs learne his humillitie, let vs followe his meekenesse and gentlenesse, let vs embrace his loue, let vs communi­cate his passions by suffring with him, let vs bee washed in his bloud, let vs offer him the propitiation, or a sacrifice propitiatorie for our sinnes: for to this ende was he borne and giuen to vs: let vs offer hym to hys fathers eyes, let vs offer him to his owne eyes, for the father hath not spared his owne sonne, but hath giuen him for vs, and so forth.

Your purpose is (you say) in this sermon to reduce into the re­membrance of your Auditorie,CROWLEY. the foundation and commoditie of the Masse. (For that it is that you call the sacrifice of the Church) and to repell the bolts. &c.

As foolishe and malicious as you accompt them that haue shot boltes at your Blackbird the Masse: yet haue they bestowed them so wisely and charitably in the defence of the true Turtle Doue, the Church of Iesus Christ, that you nor any of your sort, neuer yet hath bene, or euer hereafter shall be, able to repell them, as you bragge that you minde to doe.

As for your place of Bernarde: it might be aunswered with this common saying: Bernardus non vidit omnia. Bernarde sawe not all things, for his antiquitie is vnder fiue hundred yeares. So that it was a wonder that he saw any thing, the time wherein he liued being so ouershadowed with the cloudes of ignoraunce and superstition, and he himselfe also being a Monke by profession.

Yet will I not so reiect him,Bernard was the flo­wer of his time. bicause he was the flower of hys time, and séemeth by his writings to sée more, than he durst well vtter with his tongue or penne. And this sentence that you cite [Page 10] out of his Homilie, serueth not so much for your purpose, as you séeme to think that it doth. For what maner of spéeches are these? Cōmunicemus passionibus, lauemur in sanguine eius? Are they not Me­taphores? For if we vse these words in their proper signification, how is it possible for vs to doe the thing that Bernarde exhorteth vs to doe? Can we by any meanes suffer any part of that passi­on that Christ suffered in his owne person? And is it possible for vs to bathe our bodies in his bloud? I thinke you be not so mad as once to thinke it. And why will you then snatch the next sen­tence, which is, Ipsum offeramus. &c. Let vs offer him a sacrifice propitiatorie for our sinnes, for to that ende he was borne and gi­uen vnto vs, and vrge that as a proper speach, where as it is ma­nifest, that to speake properly, it cannot be true, that any eyther can or euer coulde, or euer shall be able to offer vp Christ to his father, but he himselfe only.

We therfore can offer Christ to his father none otherwise than we can bathe our selues in his bloude. That is, by beléeuing the promise that God the father hath made therein, and by receyuing the sacrament Baptisme,Now we can offer Christ to his father. the seale of that promise on Gods be­halfe, and of our faith on our behalfe. So can not we otherwise offer Christ to his father: than by beléeuing that he is that breade of life that came from heauen, and that gaue himselfe for the life of the worlde, and by receiuing that sacramentall breade and wine, which he commaunded to be receyued in remembraunce of his death and passion. Thus I trust all indifferent men doe sée how you doe wrest the wordes of Bernarde, to make them serue your purpose.

WATSON. Diuision. 7. And also, as the same Bernarde more plainly writeth in an other place, saying thus. Pauperes sumus, parum dare possumus, at­tamen reconciliari possumus pro paruo illo, si volumus: totum quod dare possum, Bernar. Sermo. 1. De Epith. miserum corpus istud est, illud si dedero satis est: si quo minus, addo & corpus ipsius, nam illud de meo est, & meum est, paruulus enim natus est nobis, & filius datus est nobis, De te domine suppleo, quod mi­nus habeo in me. O dulcissuma reconciliatio. We are poore and little can we giue: yet for that little we may be reconciled to God [Page 11] if we wil. Al that I am able to giue, is this wretched body of mine. If I giue that, it is sufficient. If it be not: I adde also Christes bodie, for that is mine and of mine: for a little one is borne vnto vs, & the sonne is giuen vnto vs. O Lord, that lacketh in mee, I supplie of thee, O most sweetest recon­ciliation.

See howe S. Bernarde ioyneth the offering of our bodies and of Christes bodie togither. That if the oblation of oure bodies be imperfite and suffice not: the oblation of Christs bodie maye fulfill and supplie, that lacketh in vs. And to what ende? That we might be reconciled, that the body of sinne might be destroyed, that it reigne not in our bodies.

And here the prayer was made.

In many wordes immediatlye before these that you cite:CROWLEY. S. Bernarde prooueth, that our saluation commeth of the mercifull goodnesse of God onely, and not of any thing that is in vs. For to that ende, he citeth the name Sauiour: both out of the wordes spoken by the Angell Gabriel to the Virgine Marie, and also out of the Aungels wordes to Ioseph, and to the Shepheardes, de­claring also the cause thereof to be, for that he should saue his peo­ple from their sinnes.To what vse Watsō would haue Christ to serue. But you (M. Watson) would haue Ber­narde to teache, that Christ serueth for none other purpose, but to be offered in the Masse, to helpe out with that, that lacketh in our merits. For you say, sée how saint Bernarde ioyneth the of­fering of our bodies and of Christes body togither. That if the ob­lation of our bodies be imperfect and suffice not: the oblation of Christes body may fulfill and supplie, that lacketh in vs.

If Bernarde had béene of that minde: then might it not onely haue bene truely said of him, Bernard saw not al things: but ra­ther thus, Bernard was blind in euery thing. For what is more manifest, both by the scriptures & iudgement of auncient fathers: then that Christ alone is our Mediator and reconcilor to God his father? Did not the Aungell say to Ioseph: he shall saue his peo­ple from their sinnes? In the Latine, it is saluum faciet. Math. 1. He shall make them safe. And what is required to be done by his peo­ple [Page 12] towardes their saluation: if he alone shall make them safe? Againe Esay sayth.Esay. 53. Liuore eius sanati sumus. By his stripes, are we made whole. Et disciplina pacis nostrae, cecidit super illum. The correc­tion that might purchase our peace:Oseas. 13. fell vpon him. And Oseas sayth. O Israel, perditio tua, tantum ex me auxillium tuum. O Israell, destruction is thine owne: but thine helpe commeth of me alone.

What can be more playnely spoken then this? And agayne Iohn Baptist sayth.Iohn. 1. Ecce qui tollit peccata mundi Beholde him that taketh away the sinnes of the world. And shall we now set him to serue but for a shift, that when we are not able to go thorow with oure matters: then he must helpe out withall? Oh blinde Ber­narde if he were suche a one as Watson would haue him to bée, But Bernarde was none suche,Bernard was decei­ued in some things. was none suche, although he were deceyued in somethings according to the déepe ignoraunce of the time he liued in. But in these wordes that you take holde of, he meaneth to teache, that for as much as there is not in vs any abilitie at all to satisfie for sinne: we must flie to that meane that God hath ap­pointed, euen Iesus Christ, and offer him vp, a sacrifice propitiato­rie for our sinnes, not by massing, but by beléeuing the promise of God his father made in him: and so shall we supplie that, that in vs lacketh altogither, and not in part. For when we shall haue done all that is giuen vs in commaundement to doe: we must saye that we are bondmen that can deserue nothing.Luc. 17. How should we then by offering vp our bodies, satisfie for anye part of oure sinnes? When we offer our bodies therefore to God in obeying his holy will:How that which lac­keth in vs, is supplyed. we doe declare thereby, that we beleue the promise of God made in his sonne Christ, which is all that he requireth of vs, and in so doing, we supply by Christ, the thing that was vt­terly lacking in vs. That is, the satisfaction for our sinnes.

WATSON. Diuision. 8. Now entring to speake of the Sacrifice of the Church, I presuppose one thing, which is the foundation of the same to be most certainly and constauntly beloued of all vs that be here present: Here y^e praier was made. which is, that in the most blessed sacrament of the Aultare, is present the true bodye and bloud of our Sauiour Christ, the price of oure redemption, not in figure [Page 13] onely, but in truth and very deede. Which the learned men call really, and essentially, that is to saye, that thing, that substance, that was vpon the Crosse, is now verily present in the blessed Sacramēt before we receiue it: the cause of which reall presence, is the omnipotent power & will of God, assis­ting the due administration of the priest, the which body & bloud we christen men receyue by the seruice of our bodies & senses, though not by the iudgemēt of our senses, but on­ly by the iudgement of faith, bicause it is giuen, not in the outwarde forme of the selfe same body and bloud, as it was slaine & shed vpō the crosse: but in the formes of our daily and special nutriments of bread & wine, and that for sundry weighty & necessary causes, foresene by our sauiour Christ.

Now you begin to builde,CROWLEY. and you presuppose the foundation to be already layd in the minds of all your hearers, which is (as you say) that in the most blessed sacrament of the Aultar, the true body and bloud of our Sauiour Christ is present, not in figure only. &c.

Surely this foundation is not that, wheron S. Paule, that wise and good builder did build,Watson and Paule builde not both vp­on one foun­dation. then the which (as he sayth) none can be laide, for christians to build vpon. For Christ hath not taught that his Church should offer such a sacrifice as you doe teach that your Sacrament is.

Wherefore, although this foundation were layde in the harts of all your hearers: yet were it not sure grounde to builde vpon, bicause it is beside the Rock Christ. But I suppose, that your hea­rers were of thrée sortes. One sort I thinke, had your foundation hard rammed in their hartes, another sort could not receyue any such rubbishe into their harts,Watsons hearers were of three sorts. as you doe vse to ramme into your false foundation, but hauing alreadie receyued the Rock Christ, they cannot admit any other. But the thirde sort, are lyke bot­tomlesse quakemires, whereon no building can stande. And ma­nye of your hearers haue since that time, when you made your Sermons: shewed themselues to be such. Wherefore your sup­position séemeth to me to be deceyued. But to your purpose. The reall and essentiall presence of Christes bodye and bloud in the [Page 14] Sacrament, is the foundation of that you minde to teache in this Sermon.The founda­tion of Wat­sons sermon. If I can proue then, that they be not so present therin: then must you séeke a new foundation to builde vppon. Which thing, by the helpe of God, I doubt not to doe.

First, by reall and essentiall presence, you meane suche a presence, that who so receyueth into his body, the visible Sacra­ment: must of necessitie be confessed, to receyue the bodye and bloud of Christ also, euen into his bodye. But that is not true. Ergo. &c.

The Maior of this argument is your owne wordes, and the Minor must be prooued by Scriptures and Doctours, which is easie ynough to be done. First our Sauiour Christ sayth. What­soeuer entreth by the mouth,Math. 15. goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught: Which thing, I thinke, you will not confesse to be true of the body and bloud of Christ. Ergo. &c.

Iohn. 6.Agayne Christ sayth, he that eateth my fleshe, and drinketh my bloude, doth dwell in mée, and hath mée dwelling in hym: but not euerye one that receyueth the Sacrament, dwelleth in Christ, and hath Christ dwelling in him: Ergo. &c.

Actes. 3.Agayne, Peter sayth that heauen must holde him, vntill that tyme come wherein all things that the prophets haue spoken, be fulfilled.The Scrip­ture ouer­throweth. Watsons foundation. Wherefore I conclude, that by the Scriptures it is ma­nifest, that the body and bloud of Christ are not receyued into the bodyes of men by the receyuing of the Sacrament thereof. And consequently that it is not really and essentially present in the Sacrament.

But you are not wont to credite the Scriptures, vnlesse you haue the sayings of the Doctours to confirme the same, vsing their wrytings as a touchstone to trie the Scriptures by, where as they themselues do desire to haue their wryting tryed by the scriptures, refusing to haue credit further then they shal be found consonant to the Scriptures.

We might therefore say, that it is more then néedeth, to go a­bout to trie the touchstone by that mettall that should be tried by it. Neuerthelesse, to let them whose eyes ye haue bleared, sée how you haue deceyued their sight: I wil not stick to cite some sayings [Page 15] out of such among the Doctours, as be most auncient and sounde in opinion, wherby it may appeare that they thought not as you haue taught.

Basilius Magnus, although not wryting of this matter,Basilius De Spiritu sanct. Cap. 22. yet going about to proue the holy ghost to be God: sayth thus. Ange­lus qui astitit Cornelio: non erat in eodem tempore etiam apud Philippum. Ne (que) qui ab altari Zachariam alloquebatur: eodem tempore etiam in coelo propriam sedem ac stationem implebat. At vero Spiritus, simul in Abacuc & in Daniele in Babilonia operari creditus est, & in Cataracta cum Hieremia esse dictus est, & cum Ezechele in Chobar. The Aungell that stood before Cornelius: was not at y^e same time with Philip also. Neyther did he that from the Altar spake vnto Zachary: at the same time occupie his owne place and order in heauen. But we beleue that the holy ghost, did at one time worke in Abacuc, and in Daniell beyng in Babilon. And it is sayde that he was with Hieremie in the Dongion, and with Ezechiell in Chobar.

Basill thinketh this to be a sufficient reason to proue the holy ghost to be God. And so will all godly men confesse. For no crea­ture can occupie moe places at one time, than one onely. But you affirming Christs body to be really present in the sacrament: doe teache that it is present in a multitude of places at once. Ergo, Watsons doc­trine denieth the manhood of Christ. you affirme it to be God, and so doe yée destroy the mans nature in Christ, in that ye confounde it with the deuine, contrarie to that Catholike fayth that you would séeme to defende, wherein we confesse with Athanasius, that God & man is but one Christ, not by confusion of substaunce, but by the vnitie of person. This Basill is no newe writer (as you know M. Watson) for he lyued about .320. yeres after Christes ascension.

Origin also, somewhat more auncient,Origin in Math. 25. for he lyued about 200, yeres after Christ, wryting vpon the .25. Chapter of Math: sayth thus. Quod si semper omnibus suis est presens: quomodo introdu­cunt cum Parabolae eius peregrinantem? Vide vt possumus soluere hoc modo quod quaeritur. Qui enim dicit Discipulis suis, ecce vobiscum sum vs (que) ad consummationem saeculi: Et item, vbi fuerint duo vel tres congregati in nomine meo, ibi sum in medio eorum. &c. Et qui in medio etiam noscien­tium se consistit: Vnigenitus Dei est, Deus verbum, & sapicutia, & iusti­tia, [Page 16] & veritas, qui non est corporeo ambitu circumclusus. Secundum hanc diuinitatis suae naturam, non peregrinatur: sed peregrinatur secundum dispensationem corporis quod suscepit. Secundum quod, & turbatus est, & tristis factus est dicens. Nunc anima mea turbatur. Et iterum Tristis est anima mea vs (que) ad mortem. Haec autem dicentes, non soluimus suscepti corporis hominem (cum sit scriptum apud Iohannem, Omnis spiritus qui soluit Iesum, non est ex Deo) sed vnicui (que) substantiae proprietatem reserua­mus. If so be that he be alwayes present with all them that be his: Howe doe his Parables bring him in as one that is gone into a straunge Country? Marke how we may answere the questiō that is now moued. Certes, he that sayth to his Disciples, behold: I am with you to the end of the world, & also, where two or thrée shal be gathered togither in my name, there am I in y^e midst of them &c. And he also which standeth in the midst of them that knowe him not: the same is the onely begotten sonne of God, God the sonne, and the wisdome, that iustice, and that truth, that is not closed in with bodily compassing. According to the nature of this his diuini­tie: he is not gone into a straunge Country. But as touching his body which he hath receyued: he is gone into a straunge Coun­try. According to the which, he was troubled and made heauie when he sayde. Now is my soule troubled. And againe. My soule is sorowfull, euen vnto death. When we speake thus: we doe not lose in sunder the manhood of the bodye, which he hath receyued (bicause it is written in Iohn, euery spirite that dissolueth the sa­uiour is not of God) but we doe reserue to eche substaunce, the propertie thereof.

In these wordes of Origin, it is manifest, that he thought, the presence of Christ with his,Origin a­gainst Mai­ster Watson. to be vnderstanded of his diuine nature, & his absence from them of his mans nature. Whervpon I conclude, that Origin was not of your minde, in that you say that Christs body is really & essentially present in the Sacramēt.

August ad Dardanū.Saint Austen also, who lyued about .400. yeres after Christs ascension, wryteth thus vnto Dardanus. Noli ita (que) dubitare, ibi nunc esse hominem Christum Iesum, vnde venturus est. Memoriter (que) recole & fideliter tene Christianam confessionem, quoniam resurrexit à mortuis, ascendit in coelum, sedet ad dexteram Patris, nec aliunde quam inde ven­turus [Page 17] est, ad viuos mortuos (que) iudicandos. Et sic venturus est (illa angelica voce testante) quemadmodum visus est ire in coelum, id est, in eadem car­nis forma at (que) substantia, cui profecto immortalitatem dedit, naturam non abstulit. Secundum hanc formam putandus non est vbi (que) diffusus. Ca­uendum est enim, ne ita diuinitatem astruamus hominis: vt veritatem corporis auferamus. Doubt not therefore, but the man Christ Iesus is there now: from whence he shall hereafter come. And sée thou reuolue in thy minde and kéepe faythfully, the Christian confessi­on, which is, that he arose agayne from the dead, ascended into heauen, sitteth at the right hande of the father, and that he shall come from none other place but frō thence, to iudge both the quick and the dead. And as the voyce of the Angell doth witnesse, he shal come euen in such sort as he was séene go into heauen, y^t is in the same forme and substaunce of fleshe, vnto which, no doubt he hath giuen immortalitie, but hath not taken awaye the nature. And according to this forme, he is not to be thought to be spread abroad in all places. For we must beware, that we doe not so set vp the diuinitie of the man: that we take away the truth of the body.

These wordes of Austen are playne ynough. But to make them more playne, he addeth. Dominus Iesus est vbi (que) per id quod Deus: in coelo autem perid quod homo. The Lorde Iesus is euerye where in that he is God: but in that he is man, he is in heauen.

Agayne, the same Austen, Tractatu in Iohn. 30. wryting vpon saint Iohns gospell sayth thus. Corpus Domini in quo resurrexit, in vno loco esse opertet: ve­ritas cius vbi (que) diffusa est. The body of the Lord, wherin y^t he arose, must be in one place: but his truth is spread abroad in euery place.

Much more might be cited out of Austen for this matter: but this may suffice to satisfie all reasonable men, concerning his iudgement herein.

Ambrose also, who was lyuing in S. Austens time, sayeth thus. Ascendists & Paulo, qui non contentus solus te sequi, nos quo (que) do­cuit quemadinodum te sequamur, & vbi te reperire possimus dicens. Ambrosius in Lucam. lib. 10. cap. 24. Si er­go consurrexistis cum Christo. quae sursum sunt quaerite, vbi Christus est ad dexteram dei sedens. Et ne oculorum magis hoc quam animorum puta­remus officium, addidit. Quae sursum sunt sapite non quae super terram, Ergo, non supra terram, nec in terra, nec secundum carnem te quarere debe­mus, si volumus inuenire. Thou didst ascende in Paules iudgement [Page 18] also, who, not contented to folow thée alone, hath taught vs also how we may folow thée, and where we may finde thée, when he sayth. If ye be risen togither with Christ, séeke those things that are aboue, where Christ is, sitting at the right hand of God. And least we should thinke this rather to be the office of the eyes then of the mindes: he addeth. Sauour those thinges that are aboue, and not those things that are on earth. If we will finde him there­fore we must not séeke him vpon earth, neyther in earth, nor after the maner of fleshe.

What wordes can be more playne then these, or more migh­tie to ouerthrowe your foundation (M. Watson) doth not Am­brose say,Ambrose o­uerthroweth Watsons foū ­dation. that if we will finde Christ: we must séeke him in hea­uen, where he is sitting at the right hande of God? Ergo, not in your bread and Wine in such sort as you teache.

About the same time lyued Cyrill also, that was Byshop of Alexandria. Cyrillus in Iob. lib. 6. cap. 14. The same wryting vpon Iohn sayeth thus. Et si Christus corporis sui praesentiam hinc subduxit: maiestate tamen diuinita­tis semper adest, sicut ipse à discipulis abiturus pollicetur: Ecce, ego vobis­cum sum omnibus diebus, vs (que) ad consummationem saeculi. Althoughe Christ haue conueighed hence the presence of his bodye: yet is he alwaye present by the Maiestie of his diuinitie, euen as when he was departing from his Disciples he promised. Beholde I am with you euery daye, euen to the ende of the worlde.

Gregorius in homil. Pasch. Gregorie also sayth. Christus non est hic per praesentiam carnis: qui tamen nusquam deest per praesentiam maiestatis. Christ, sayth he, is not here by the presence of his fleshe: which notwithstanding is absent from no place, by the presence of his maiestie.

Ad Transi­mundum Regem. lib. 2. Fulgentius also, wryteth thus. Christus vnus, idem (que) homo localis ex homine, qui est Deus immensus ex patre. Vnus idem (que) secundum hu­manam substantiam, absens coelo, cum esset interra: & derelinquens ter­ram cum ascer disset in coelum. Christ is but one, and the selfe same is placible man of man, which is of his father God that can not be measured. One and the same, as touching his humane substance: was absent from heauen when he was on earth, and leauing the earth when he ascended into heauen. The last of these wryters hitherto cited: lyued within .500. yeres after Christ.

And Beda, who lyued about .730. yeres after Christs ascen­cion, wryting vpon these wordes Ecce ego vobiscum sum. &c. Beda in Math. cap. 28. Be­holde, I am with you .&c. sayth thus. Ipse Deus & homo est, assumptus est humanitate, quam de terra susceperat: manet cum sanctus in terra di­uinitate, qua terram pariter implet & coelum. He that is both God and man, is in his humanitie that he tooke of the earth, assumpted vp: but in his diuinitie wherewith he filleth both heauen and earth, he doth remayne with his Saints on earth.

These testimonies of Scriptures and holy fathers may suf­fice, I suppose, to shake your foundation so,The Scrip­tures & Doc­tours haue shaken Wat­sons founda­tion. that no wise man will be bolde to ioyne with you in building thereon, vnlesse it be suche as you were when you made this Sermon, what you be nowe, I knowe not.

But least you should doe, as commonly your sort vse to doe, that is to report that we teach that the Sacraments of Christ, are but bare and naked signes: I let you vnderstande, that we con­fesse, and are readie to confirme with our bloud (if God so will) that Iesus Christ is verily and in déede present, in the right and due administration and receyuing of his Sacraments. And that the worthy receyuers: doe verily & in déede,Howe Christ is present in his Sacra­ments. receyue Iesus Christ himselfe. But that this is done substantially, and really, that is, in the maner of the receyuing of a bodily substaunce or thing in­to mens bodies: that we denie, and trust we shall be able to fight against, euen to the death.

Our receyuing of Christ therfore, is spirituall into the soule by fayth: and into the body or by the senses, sacramentally, that is in suche sort as by the receyuing of Sacramentes, we maye receyue the things signified by the same. In Baptisme therefore, we doe by beléeuing the promise of God, made in Christ, receyue him into our soules, to washe and purge the same of all sinne: and the verie senses of our bodies doe vnderstand the same, when we doe by them consider the nature and vse of the creature wa­ter, wherin our Sauiour Christ hath instituted that holy Sacra­ment, which is to purge and clense from all filth, all those things that be washed therein. In like maner in the Lords supper, when we beleue the wordes of Christ written by Saint Iohn, Ego sum [Page 20] panis ille qui de coelo descendi: qui edit de hoc pane viuet in aeternum, I am that bread which came downe from heauen,Iohn. 6. he that eateth of this bread shall liue for euer: then doe we by fayth receyue Christ into our soules, and the verie senses of our bodies doe perceiue, and our common sense doth vnderstande, that as the creatures, bread and wine, wherein this Sacrament is instituted, doe strengthen and chéere mens hartes: euen so the body and bloud of our Lorde and Sauiour Iesus Christ, doe strengthen, comfort, and make chéerefull the soule of man.

And further, we doe euen sensibly perceyue in Baptisme, our buriall with Christ, to the worlde and worldly delightes: and our resurrection with him to newnesse of lyfe. And in the Lordes supper, our knitting togither into one bodye, whereof Christ is the head. According to that which Austen teacheth in that sermon that he intitleth. Of the sacraments of the faithful. We teach not therfore that they be vaine & emptie signes:August ad Iaenuarium lib. 1. but we hold that they be most effectual in significatiō, as Austen writeth to Ianuarius.

Nowe, where as you saye, that by the power of almightie God, assisting the due administration of the Priest, Christ is be­come present in the sacrament after your maner: we knowe no such due administration, as you meane of, I am sure. That is dashed full of crossings and trurnings, doukyngs and starings in Maskers apparell. But we know and acknowledge, that order of ministration, that Christ appointed, & the Apostles vsed, to be the due order of ministration. And y^e Gods almighty power doth assist that ministration, so that the worthy receyuers, that is, such as be members of Christs body: are spiritually & sacramentally parta­kers of Christ, and doe receyue into their soules whole Christ, both God and man, according as the holy scriptures, and holye Fathers doe teach, without any transubstantiating or chaunging of the substaunces of the creatures, bread and wine.

WATSON. Diuision. 9. For seing the substaunce of our Sacrifice of the newe Testament, is the very reall and naturall body of Christ, as may be proued by many Authorities. Cyprian. li. 2. Epist. 3. Saint Cyprian sayth: In sacrificio quod Christus est, non nisi Christus sequendus est. In that [Page 21] Sacrifice that is Christ, no man is to be folowed but Christ. Here he saith, that Christ is the Sacrifice that we offer to al­mightie God.

Also Saint Basyl, writeth in his forme of Masse: Basil. in Missa Tues qui offers, & offerris, & qui suscipis & impartis Christe deus noster. O Christ our God, thou art he that both doest offer, and is of­fered, that both giuest the offering and receaueth. Saint Ba­syll by this meaneth that the Sacrifice, which the Church offered to God, is Christ himselfe, who in that he is the head of his body the Church, is one offerer with the Chuch, and so is both offerer and offered, as Basyll sayth.

Lykewise Saint Ambrose wryting of the inuention of the bodies of two glorious Martirs Geruasius and Prothasi­us, & of the burying of them vnder the aultar, sayth thus: Amb. lib. 10. Epist. 85. Succedant victimae triumphales in locum, vbi Christus hostia est, sed ille super altare qui pro omnibus passus est, isti sub altari, qui illius redempti sunt passione. Let these triumphing Sacrifices (meaning the bodies of the Martirs) go into the place where Christ is a Sacrifice. But Christ is a Sacrifice aboue the aultar, who suf­fred for all men, these two vnder the aulter, that were re­deemed by his passion.

Of this place I note my purpose, which is, that the Sa­crifice of the Church and newe Testament, is the very reall body and bloud of our Sauiour Christ, which is also testifi­ed by Chrisostome in his Homely he wryteth of the praise of God in these wordes. Chrysost. hom. de Laude Dei. Vereamini mensam quaue desuper victima illa iacet Christus scilicet qui nostri causa occisus est Feare and reue­rence that table, aboue the which lyeth that Sacrifice (that is to say Christ) which for our cause was slayne.

By which wordes Chrisostome declareth his fayth, that the Sacrifice of the Church is Christ, and also that Christ is not onely in heauen, as some men damnably beareth you in hande, but is placed lying aboue the Fable of the aultare as the substaunce of our Sacrifice.

And in an other Homely he wryteth. Idem homil. De En [...]ijs. Mensa myst [...]rijs instruc­ta est, & agnus dei pro te immolatur. The Table is furnished with [Page 22] misteries, & the Lambe of God for thee is offered, teaching vs that the holy misteries wherewith the Table of our aul­ter is furnished be the bodye and bloud of Christ (that is to say) the Lambe of God, which is also then offered for vs.

August. lib 9 Confes. Ca. 12. Saint Augustine is full of such sayinges: as wryting of his mothers death, how that he wept nothing for hir all the time the Masse was saide for hir Soule, which he expres­seth by these wordes. Cum offerretur pro ea sacrificium praecij nostri. When the Sacrifice of our price was offered for hir.

I leaue out al the rest of the sentence contented to allege onely this, that proueth the sacrifice, which is offered by the Priest for the dead to be our price, which is and can bee nothing else, but the body and bloud of Christ, which he gaue vpon the crosse, as the price of our redemption.

August. lib. Senten, prosp. But playnest of all he wryteth in a Booke intituled. Liber Sententiarum prosperi. Which Booke is alledged of Gratian, in the decrees in these wordes. Hoc est quod dicimus, quod modis om­nibus approbare contendimus sacrificium Ecclesiae duobus confici, duobus constare, visibili elementorum specie, & inuisibili Domini nostri Iesu Christi corpore & sanguine, & Sacramento, & re Sacramēti, id est, corpore Christi. This is that we say, that we labour to prooue by all meanes that the Sacrifice of the Church is made and con­sisteth of two things, of the visible forme of the elementes and of the inuisible bodye and bloud of oure Lorde Iesus Christ both that outward Sacrament and the thing or sub­staunce of the Sacrament, that is the body of Christ. These words neede no declaring but poynting: and for that cause why should I tarie in this poynt any longer, seing that our Bookes be full of such like authorities.

Therefore as I began seing the substaunce of our Sacri­fice of the new Testament, is the very reall and naturall bo­dy of Christ, if this body be not present in the Sacrament as the enemies of Christes Crosse, and the destroyers of oure faith falsly pretende: then be wee christen men left altogi­ther desolate without anye Sacrifice priuate vnto vs, for both the Sacrifice of Christ vpon the crosse, and also the in­warde [Page 23] Sacrifice of mans heart be not priuate but common to vs, and to all faythfull men from the beginning of the worlde to the last ende.

All these wordes are to proue,CROWLEY. that we (whome you call the enimies of Christs Crosse and destroyers of your fayth) doe take awaye from the Church of Christ, that sacrifice, that they maye and ought continually to offer to God: and leaue them in worse case then were the Iewes or any other sect, except the Mahume­tans, for they only are without a peculier sacrifice to offer to their God. Your Argument, when the flowers of Rhetorick be taken from it: is in this forme. Seing that the substaunce of our sacri­fice, is the verie reall and naturall body of Christ, they that denie it to be in such sort present, doe denie the Church to haue any Sa­crifice to offer to God: But the Protestantes doe denie it to be in such sortes present: Ergo, they denie the Church to haue any sa­crifice to offer to God.

To proue the Maior proposition of this Argument:Cyprian. lib. 2. Ep 3. you make a long parenthesis. And first you begin with the wordes of Cy­prian. In sacrificio quod Christus est: non nisi Christus sequendus est. In that Sacrifice that is Christ: no man is to be folowed but Christ. True it is, that in the thirde Epistle of his seconde Booke: Saint Cyprian hath those wordes that you cite. But that he ment by those wordes to affirme, that Christes reall and naturall body is present in the sacrament, I deny, and doubt not to be able to stand to that deniall, agaynst all that can be iustly proued by the words of Cyprian, in that place or any other of his workes. And least you should think that of an obstinacie, I doe without good ground denie that I am not able to aunswere: I will shewe you what moueth me to denie that which you affirme.

First, the same Cyprian in the same Epistle sayth thus. Ad­monitos autem nos scias, vt in Calice offerendo, dominica traditio serue­tur, ne (que) aliud fiat a nobis, quam quod pro nobis Dominus prior fecit. Vt Calix qui in commemorationem eius offertur: mixtus vino offeratur. Nam cum dicat Christus, Ego sum vitis vera, sanguis Christi non aqua est vti (que), sed vinum. Nec potest videri sanguis cius, quo redempti & viuificati sumus [Page 24] esse in Calice: quando vinum desit calici, quo Christi sanguis ostenditur, qui scripturarum omnium sacramento ac testimonio praedicatur. Ye maye vnderstande (sayth Cyprian to Coecilius) that we are warned, that in the offering of the Cup, we obserue the Lordes tradition, and that we doe nothing therein, other then that which the Lorde did for vs before. That the Cup which is offered in remembrance of him, be offered being mixed with Wine. For when Christ sayth, I am a verie Vine, doubtlesse then the bloud of Christ is not water, but Wine. Neyther can it séeme, that his bloud wher­with we were redéemed and quickened, is in the Cup: when it wanteth Wine, whereby Christs bloud is set forth and shewed, which is by the Sacrament and testimonie of all the Scriptures preached abroade.

Agayne, the fame Cyprian sayth in the same Epistle. Laua­bit in vino stolam suam, & in sanguine vnae amictum suum. Quando au­tem sanguis vuae dicitur: quid aliud quam vinum dominici sanguinis ostenditur? He shall washe his robe in Wine, and his apparell in the bloud of the Grape. And when mention is made of the bloud of the Grape: what other things is shewed, then the Wine of the Cup of the Lordes bloud?

And after a few words, the same Cyprian sayth thus. Vini vti (que) mentio est: & ideo ponitur, vt Domini sanguis vino intelligatur. Et quod in Calice dominico postea manifestatum est: prophetis annumian­tibus praedicatur. Mention is made of the Wine (sayth Cyprian) and for this cause is it done, that the Lordes bloud might be vn­derstanded by the Wine. And that thing that was afterwarde manifestly shewed in the Lords Cup: was before preached when the Prophets shewed forth the same.

And in the same Epistle, after he hath spoken of the wordes of our Sauiour Christ, written in the .26. chapter of Saint Math. Gospell: he sayth. Qua in parte inuenimus, Calicem mixtum fuisse quem Dominus obtulit, & vinum fu sse quod sanguinem suum dixit. In which part (sayth Cyprian, speaking of the Cup) we finde that the cup, which the Lorde offered, was mixed: and that the thing which he called his bloud, was Wyne.

And againe, after he hath spoken of the words of the Apostle, [Page 25] he sayth. Miror satis vnde hoc vsurpatum sit: vt contra euangelicam & apostolicam disciplinam, quibusdam in locis, aqua offeratur in dominico ca­lice, quae sola Christi sanguinem non possit exprimere. I maruayle much (sayth Cyprian) howe it commeth to passe, that contrarie to the doctrine both of the gospell & of the Apostle: water is in certayne places offered in the Lordes cup, which being but water alone, can not expresse the bloud of Christ. These sayings of Cyprian, being written in the same Epistle y^t you cite:Cyprians words in the same Epistle that watson citeth: make against him. doe cause me to deny that which you affirme. For he saith. The Wine of the cup of the lords bloud is shewed forth. The lords bloud is vnderstand by the Wine. And that it was Wine that he called his bloud. And last of all, that water alone could not expresse the bloud of Christ.

No man that is not blinded by affection, will saye, that Cy­prian ment in that Epistle to teache, that Christes reall and na­turall body is present in the Sacrament, otherwise then spiritual­lye and sacramentally. But I maruell much that you were so blinde: when you reade that Epistle: that you could not sée these playne wordes of Cyprian, euen in the last sentence of the Epi­stle. Religioni igitur nostrae congruit & timori, & ipsi loco at (que) officio sacerdotij nostri, frater charisme, in Dominico Calice miscendo & offeren­do: custodire dominicae traditionis veritatem. Et quod prius apud quos­dam videtur erratum, Domino monente corrigere. Vt cum in claritate sua, & maiestate coelesti venire coeperit: inueniat nos tenere quod monuit, ob­seruare quod docuit, facere quod fecit. It agréeth (sayth Cyprian) with our religion, feare, and place of priestly office (most dearely beloued brother) that in the mingling and offring vp of the Lords Cup, we kepe the truth of the Lordes tradition: and that we doe by the warning that the Lorde giueth, correct that thing where­in we sée that other haue heretofore erred. That when he shall begin to come in his owne brightnesse and heauenly Maiestie: he may finde that we hold fast that wherof he gaue vs warning, obserue that which he taught vs, and doe that which he did.

Such words, as these, are not for you to loke vpon. For they will bid you leaue of your masking garments in your ministrati­on, and to set aside your halowed cups, Vestiments, Altars, and Superaltaries, wyth all your crossings, turnings and halfe tur­nings, with the reast of your Apishe toyes. For Christ ney­ther [Page 26] taught nor vsed any of all those thinges. But when Cyprian sayth. In sacrificio quod Christus est, non nisi Christus sequendus est: In that Sacrifice which is Christ, none must bée folowed but Christ: the first part of the sentence must serue your purpose, to proue, that the reall and naturall bodye and bloud of Christ is the substaunce of the sacrifice of the church, and that the same is really and substantially present in the sacrament thereof: but the later part of y^e same sentence, must not put vs in minde, to doe in the ministration thereof, that which Christ did and commaun­ded vs to doe.

The wordes that Watson cyteth, make nothing for him.Thus without shame you cite that for your purpose, which when it is taken whole togither, maketh manifestly against you. Yea the verie first part of that sentence, which you apply to your purpose, when it is well weighed, maketh nothing for you. For what is more common among the fathers, then to call the signes by the names of those things that they doe signifie?

Chrysost. in Epist. ad Heb. homil. 17.And doth not Chrysostome speaking of the same sacrament, say thus? Nō aliud sacrificium, sicut pontifex, sed idipsum semper facinus: magis autem recordationē sacrificij operamur. We doe not (sayth Chry­sostome) make another sacrifice, as the high Priest doth, but al­waye one: yea, we doe rather make a remembraunce of a sacri­fice. By these wordes of Chrysostome it appeareth, that though the fathers vsed to call the sacrament of Christes bodie a sacrifice: yet they vnderstood it to be but the remembraunce of that sacri­fice that Christ offered on the crosse once for all.

I would not gladly diminishe the aucthoritie of Cyprian or anye other auncient writer: but I am sure, you your selfe (M. Watson) wyll not buylde vpon euerye sentence of Cyprian, as you doe vpon this: For then coulde you not set your holy father of Rome, so highe aboue all the Bishops of christendome as you doe.Cyprian. li. 4. Epist. 2. Loke in the fourth booke of his Epistles and the seconde Epi­stle, where you shall finde these wordes. Ac si minus sufficiens Epis­coporum in Africa numerus videbitur, etiam Romae super hac rescripsi­mus, Equalitie of Bishops by Cyprians iudgement. ad Cornelium collegam nostrum, qui & ipse cum plurimis coepiscopis habito concilio &c. And if the number of Byshops in Africa (sayth Cyprian) shal séeme to small, I haue writtē to Rome also concer­ning [Page 27] this matier, euen to Cornelius our felow in office, who al­so holding a counsell with many bishops ioyned with him. &c. This Cornelius, whome Cyprian calleth his fellow officer: was Bi­shop of Rome, when Cyprian wrote these wordes. Yet I thinke you will not gather hereof, that there was an equalitie betwixt them: vnlesse you minde nowe at the last, to denie the suprema­cye of your holy father. And yet you may a great deale more iust­ly gather that vpō these words, then that which you would main­tayne, of the other. Yea I suppose that you and all your felowes, are not able to proue, that Cyprian ment not to teache an equa­litie amongst all those Byshops that he speaketh of. But whatso­euer he ment in this place or any other: it becommeth vs to folow the rule that he giueth,Cyprian lib. 2. Ep. 3. in vnderstanding the words that he or any other auncient father hath left in wryting. Si solus Christus audi­endus est (sayth Cyprian) non debemus attendere quid aliquis ante nos faciendum putauerit: sed quid qui ante omnes est, Christus prior fecerit. Ne (que) enim hominis consuetudinem sequi oportet, sed Dei veritatem. A rule to be folowed in the reading of Fathers. If Christ onely be to be harkened vnto, we must not marke (sayth Cyprian) what any man before vs hath thought méete to be done: but what Christ, which was before al, hath done before vs. Ney­ther ought we to folow the custome of men, but the truth of God. This is a perfite rule, méete to be folowed of all men in the rea­ding of the auncient fathers wrytings.

Then come you to Basils Masse where (as you say) are writ­ten these wordes. Tu es qui offers &c. O Christ our God, thou art he. &c. As for your maner of Englishing of Basils words: I leaue to you and your Printer to amend. In whom the fault is, I know not. It shall suffice that I aunswere your matter.

First (with your leaue M. Watson) you belye Saint Basils forme of Masse. For if that be his y^t was imprinted at Andwarp. Anno. 1562. out of an olde Booke of the Latine translation (as the Printer sayth) then is there no such matter as this that you cite, in all S. Basils forme of Masse. But S. Chrysostomes Masse, translated by Leonhardus Thuscus, hath wordes in the same sense that these be that you father vpon Basils Masse. The words be these, Concede a me peccatore & indigno famulo tuo, offerri tibi haec [Page 28] sacramenta: tu enim es offerens & oblatus, suscipiens & distributus, Christus Deus noster. If I might be put in trust to translate these wordes into Englishe: I would say thus. Graunt that I being a sinner, & thine vnworthy seruant, may offer vnto thée these sacra­ments: for thou being Christ our God, art he which art y^e offerer, and art offred, which art he that doest receiue and art distributed.

Thus much haue I done for you (M. Watson) to helpe to saue your credit, least some of your friendes should begin to mis­lyke with you, for cyting matter that is no where to be found. For though your father Chrysostomes wordes vpon Basil, they can beare with you well ynough. Yea though you doe racke them a little to serue your purpose.

Chryso­stomes and Basils iudgement can not enforce vs to graunt may­ster Watsons conclusion.But this one thing I doe much maruaile at: that this Masse could neuer be founde in Chrysostomes woorkes, as they be set forth in tomes till nowe of late. But graunt this to be the iudge­ment of Chrysostome and Basill both: shall we therefore be enforced to graunt that which you doe thereof infer? I trowe not. May not Chrysostome offer the sacraments to Christ, but he must offer Christ himselfe to himselfe? I thinke it is no straunge maner of spéeche, to saye, that those which preache the worde and minister the sacraments, doe offer the worde and sacramentes to God. As may playnely appéere, to as many as will with indiffe­rent iudgement, reade that which is written Malachiae. 1. and Actes. 13.

And who doubteth that Christ did once offer himselfe for oure sinnes, and doth still offer himselfe to hys Father (for with God nothing is past) a Mediator and Aduocate for vs,1. Epist. 2. as Saint Iohn wryteth. And why shoulde not he therefore be called both the offerer and the thing offered, although he be not offered by the Priest in his Masse? Yea, and he receyueth at our hands our thankes giuing, when we make our bodies, a lyuing, holy, and acceptable sacrifice to God: and why maye it not be sayde, that it is he that receiueth? And in taking our nature vpon him, he gaue hymselfe to vs, and we by fayth are made partakers of him: and why should it not be sayde, that it is he that is distributed?

But what néedeth all this a doe, in séeking a good meaning in [Page 29] those wordes that be of none aucthoritie at all.The three formes of Masses, fayned. If Chrysostome or Basil, had written any such forme of Masse: the same would haue bene founde in their workes, or folowed of some Churches. But neyther of both is: Ergo, it is playne that they neuer did wryte any suche. And as for the fable of Saint Iameses Masse: all men may deride both the folly of the inuention of it, and of all such as estéeme it as his.

And yet I must by the waye,Against pri­uate Masse. note the blindnesse of our Pa­pistes, which make so much of that, which ouerthroweth one of the chiefe poyntes that they maintayne so stoutly, that is their priuate Masse. For all these thrée formes of Masses, doe appoynt the distribution to be made to all that be present.

Let vs nowe sée, what you haue founde in Saint Ambrose. Ambr. li. 10. Epist. 85. He sayth. Let the triumphant sacrifices which were redéemed. &c. And of this doe you note your purpose, that is, that the substaunce of the Sacrifice of the Church, is the verie reall bodye and bloud of our sauiour Christ.

I will not trouble the reader with séeking any good meaning in these wordes which you father vpon Ambrose. For as Eras­mus doth well note in the beginning of the thirde tome of the workes of Ambrose, wherin this Epistle is written: there is no cause why a man should thinke that Ambrose was the Author of anye of the Sermons. Orations, or Epistles conteyned in that tome. The wordes of Erasmus be these. Tertius hic Tomus, Erasmus his iudgement vppon the thirde tome of Ambrose. exhibe­bit orationes, Epistolas & conciones ad Populum breues, quas supposititias esse nihil addubito Nihil enim in his Ambrosianae venae. &c. Thus saith Erasmus to the Reader. This thirde tome, shall exhibit vnto thée, Orations, Epistles, and short Sermons made to the people, which I doubt not but they are falsely fathered vpon Ambrose, for in them there is no whit of Ambroses veyne. Doe you there­fore conclude vpon them what you will for your purpose, it will haue no credite with wise men. But nowe let vs sée what you haue founde in Chrysostome, in his Homily De Laude Dei. Watson lea­ueth out that should make against him­selfe. Vere­amini inquam vereamini. &c. Here you leaue out these wordes Cu­ius omnes sumus participes. Whereof we all are partakers. What you meane by this maye easily be coniectured, for these wordes [Page 30] that you haue left out, doe make manifestly for the distribution of the Sacrament, to as many as shall be present at the ministra­tion therof. But you might not suffer your hearers to vnderstand somuch of the vsage of the Church in Chrysostomes time: least they should thinke the Popes Church did wrong in maintayning the priuate Masse.

In Epist. ad hehr. homil. 17.But what should you winne by these wordes, if they were euen so as you doe cite them? doth not the same Chrysostome, as I haue cyted his wordes before, playnly affirme, that they doe in that Sacrifice rather make a remembraunce of a Sacrifice,August ad Bonifacium Epist. 23. then a Sacrifice it selfe? And is it not a common thing among the fa­thers, to call the Sacraments by the names of those things wher­of they be Sacraments? Your conclusion therefore cannot folow vpon these premisses.

Chrysost. ho­mili. De En­cenijs.Agayne, Chrysostome hath sayde (saye you) that the table is furnished with misteries. &c. And here also you leaue out those wordes that should giue light to the vnderstanding of Chryso­stomes his meaning. These words I speake (saith Chrysostome) to those persons which doe leaue the communion and congrega­tion of Saintes: and are occupied in the conuenticles of vayne talke, euen at the verye houre of the terrible and misticall table. O thou man, what doest thou? didst thou not make a pro­mise to the Priest which sayde, lift vp your mindes and hartes, and thou saydest, we haue them lifted vp to the Lorde? Art thou not ashamed and abashed? And euen the same houre, thou art founde a lyar. O good God. The table is furnished with miste­ries, and the Lambe of God is offered for thée, the Priest sorro­weth for thée, the bloud floweth from the table. The Seraphins are present, couering their faces with sixe winges, all the spiri­tuall powers, doe with the Priest, praye for thée, the spirituall fyre commeth downe from heauen, the bloud in the cup, is for thy purification, drawne out of the vndefiled side: and art thou not ashamed, abashed and confounded: neyther doest thou make God mercifull vnto thée?

Nowe (M. Watson) let vs sée howe these wordes of Chry­sostome maye séeme to serue your purpose. Chrysostome hath to [Page 31] doe with those men, that leauing the communion and congrega­tion of holye men, doe in the time of the ministration of the mi­steries of our saluation, giue themselues to vayne iangeling: and maye he not vse such figuratiue spéeches, but his wordes must by and by, be snatched,Watson doth snatch a worde for his purpose. to maintaine the reall presence of Christ in the Sacrament? If you will néedes haue Chrysostome to vse no figure in these wordes (the Lambe of God is offered for thée) then let him vse no figure in the wordes that follow after immediately. The Priest sorroweth for thée, the spirituall bloud floweth from the holy table. And the Seraphins stande there couering their fa­ces with sixe winges. &c. Which thing if you will graunt: then must euery Priest in his Masse, be sorrowfull for those that bab­ble when he is at his Masse. And he must ouer topple his cup, that the spirituall bloud may flowe of from the holy table. &c. And the bloud in the Chalice must be sucked out of the vndefiled side.

It is much to be maruayled, that you (M. Watson) when you did read this place, did not perceyue, what figure Chrysostome vseth here. But it is to be thought, that you saw it well ynough, but would not be knowne of it, for you knewe that your Auditory would not charge you with the matter: And as for vs that were then beyonde the Seas: you supposed that we should neuer come to trie the matter with you by hande blowes, and therefore you were the more bolde, to pick out a fewe wordes out of the midst of Chrysostomes sayings, and applie them pretily to your purpose. As though Chrysostome had ment by them to teach, that the re­all and naturall body of Christ,Chrysostoms meaning. is really and substantially offe­red by the Priest in his Masse. Where as Chrysostomes mea­ning was, to strike a reuerent feare into the mindes of his hea­rers, and to moue them to haue their mindes and hartes lifted vp to God: whilst the holy misteries of the body and bloud of Christ, should be in ministring and receyuing.

And that this was his meaning it doth playnely appeare, in his words in the same place, when he sayth. Didst thou not make promise to the Priest, which sayde, lift vp your minds and harts: and thou saydest, we haue them lifted vp to the Lord? And in the verie same houre, thou art found a lyar.

But you haue Saint Austen to take your part, both in his .ix. Booke of Confessions, and also of the sentences of Prosper. Yea he is full of such sayings (say you) but you tell vs not where, more then in these two places. I wil desire the reader therfore, to thinke that this is but your bragge, till you bring forth more store of that you saye Austen hath in suche plentie. But let vs weigh these two places of Austen, & sée how they maye serue your purpose a­gainst vs, and not against Austen himselfe in his other writings.

First, for aunswere to that which you cite out of the .ix. booke, and twelfe Chapter of his Confessions: I referre the learned reader, to that which the same Austen wryteth in the Chapter next folowing. And that such as haue not Saint Austens workes may sée his wordes: I will here set them in wryting, as they are there to be read.August. li. 9. Confess. ca. 13. Nan (que) illa, imminente die resolutionis suae, non congita­uit suum corpus sumptuose contegi, aut condiri aromatibus, aut monumen­tum electum concupiuit, aut curauit sepulchrum patrium. Non ista manda­uit nobis: sed tantummodo memoriam sui ad altare tuum fieri desiderauit, cui nullius diei praeteronissione seruierat, vnde sciret dispensari victimam sanctam, qua deletum est chirographum quod erat contrarium nobis, qua triumphatus est hostis computans delicta nostra, & quaerens quid obijciat, & nihil inueniens in illo in quo vincimus. Quis ei refundet innocentem sanguinem? Quis ei restituet precium quo nos emit, vt nos auferat ei? Ad cuius precij nostri sacramentum: ligauit ancilla tua animam suam vinculo fidei. Saint Austen speaking of his mother Monica, sayth thus vnto God. When the day of hir resolution was at hande: she had no minde to haue hir body sumteously buried, or to be embaulmed with Spices, neyther did shée desire to haue a fine or gorgious Tumbe, or to be buried in hir Countrie. Shée gaue vs no charge concerning these matters, but hir only desire was, that she might be had in remembraunce at thine altar, whervnto shée had giuen hir selfe in seruice euery day contynually, from which she knewe, that the holy slayne offering, whereby was blotted out the hande wryting that was against vs, was distributed: whereby that enimie that numbreth our sinnes, and séeketh what he may obiect against vs, and findeth nothing in him in whome we ouercome: is triumphed ouer. Who shall poure out innocent bloud to him [Page 33] agayne? Who shall restore to him the price wherewith he bought vs, that he may take vs awaye from him? Vnto the Sacrament of which price: thy handemayden did tie hir soule with the bond of fayth.

If you would haue weighed thys place well: you would not haue cyted the other for such purpose as you did. Yea, you would haue passed it ouer (I trowe) for it marreth a great part of your market. Saint Austen sayth here, that his mother knewe, that the holy slayne sacrifice, was daylie distributed at the aultar. It is playne therefore by these wordes, that there was no priuate Masse then, but Communion,Austen ex­pounded by himselfe. which thing maketh verie euill for your purpose. And in the later ende of those wordes, Saint Au­sten doth playnely declare, in what meaning he wrote those other wordes that you cite. For the thing that he spoke of before: he doth here cal Precij nostri sacramentum. The sacrament of our price.

As touching the place of Austen, in his booke of the Senten­ces of Prosper: ye doe well to confesse that it was cited by Gra­tian. For it will be as harde for you to finde it in Saint Austens workes, as to finde burning fyre in the bottome of the Sea, yea, or to finde that meaning in any part of his workes. It is an Au­sten of Gratians owne making that wrote those wordes, and not Austen the Bishop of Hippo. But yet if you had read y^e glosse of that text: you would not I thinke, haue made so great accompt of that place. For it sayth thus. In tertia parte, Watson will none of this glosse. quod coeleste sacramentum quod est in altari: improprie dicitur Corpus Christi, sicut Baptismus im­proprie dicitur fides. In the third part, that the heauenly sacrament that is on the altare, is improperly called the body of Christ: euen as baptisme is improperly called fayth. If this glosse doe not fight with the text: then doth not this place make so much for your pur­pose, as you would haue it to séeme to make for it.

And bicause ye make mention of Prosper: let vs sée what he sayth in his .339. sentence taken out of Austen. Prosper sen­tencia. 339. Qui discordat a Christo, nec carnem eius manducat, nec sanguinem bibit: etiam si tantae rei sacramentū, ad iudicium suae praesumtionis, quotidie indifferenter ac­cipiat. He that agréeth not with Christ, doth neither eate his flesh, nor drinke his bloud: although he doe daylie without regarde, re­ceyue [Page 34] the sacrament of so great a thing, to the condemnation of his owne presumption.

In thys one sentence is ynough to satisfie, as many as would be satisfied of the opinion of Austen and Prosper. And that Au­sten is so farre of from being full of such sayings as you doe boast that he is: that he speaketh fully and plainly the contrarie of that which you holde, in moe places then one or two.

August. De Ciuit. Dei. lib. 21. ca. 25.First he sayth thus. Qui manducat meam carnem & bibit meum sanguinem, in me manet & ego in eo. Ostendit quid sit, non sacramentote­nus, sed reuera corpus Christi manducare, & eius sanguinem bibere. Hoc est enim in Christo manere, vt in illo maneat & Christus. Sic enim hoc dixit, tanquam diceret. Qui non in me manet, & in quo ego non maneo: non se dicat, aut existimat, manducare corpus meum, aut bibere sanguinem meum. &c. He that eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloud, doth dwell in me and I in him. He doth shewe what it is, not in sacra­ment onely, but in déede to eate the fleshe of Christ and drinke his bloud. That is, so to dwell in Christ: that Christ maye dwell in him. For he spake those wordes, euen as though he should haue sayde thus. Let not that man that dwelleth not in me, nor hath me dwelling in him: thinke that he doth eate my bodye or drinke my bloud. &c.

Idem. In. Ioh. Tract. 26.And agayne vpon the same wordes he sayth. Hoc est ergo man­ducare illam escam, & illum bibere potum: in Christo manere, & illum in se manentem habere. Ac per hoc, qui non manet in Christo, & in quo non manet Christus: proculdubio, nec manducat spiritaliter carnem eius, nec bibit eius sanguinem: licet carnaliter & visibiliter, premat dentibus, sacramentum corporis & sanguinis Christi. Sed magis tantae rei sacramen­tum, adiudicium sibi manducat & bibit. &c. This is therefore to eate that meat and drinke that drinke: to dwell in Christ, and to haue Christ dwelling in him. And by this, he that dwelleth not in Christ, and in whom Christ dwelleth not: without doubt he doth neyther eate his fleshe nor drinke his bloud, spiritually: although he doe fleshely and visibly crushe in his téeth, the sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ: But he doth rather eate and drinke the Sacrament of so great a thing, to his owne condemnation.

Agayne he sayth. Si enim sacramenta, quandam similitudinem [Page 35] earum rerum, quarum sacramenta sunt, non haberent: omnino sacra­menta non essent. Ex hac autem similitudine: Idem. Ad Bo­nifacium. Epist. 23. plerum (que) etiam ipsarum rerum nomina accipiunt. Sicut ergo, secundum quendam modum, sacra­mentum corporis Christi, corpus Christi est: sacramentum sanguinis Christi, sanguis Christi est: ita sacramentum fidei, fides est. &c. For if the sacra­ments, had not a certaine similitude or lykenesse, of those things whereof they be Sacraments: they could not be Sacraments at all. And of this similitude, they doe for the most part, take the names of those things wherof they be sacraments. Euen as ther­fore, the sacrament of the body of Christ, is after a certaine ma­ner the bodye of Christ, & the sacrament of his bloud, is his bloud: so the sacrament of fayth, is fayth. &c.

By these places, it is playne,Whereof Au­sten is full. that Saint Austen is not so full of such sayings as you cite out of his Confessions. &c: but ra­ther that he is full of Sentences to the contrarie of that which you would confirme by his wordes.

Why should I tarie anye longer therefore, in aunswering this point, seing the auncient fathers bookes be full of good matter, against your doctrine? I conclude therefore, that as you vnder­stande by substaunce: so is not Christ the substaunce of our sacri­fice of the new Testament, neyther is that our sacrifice, that you doe boast so much of. But our sacrifice of the new Testament is, our fayth in Christ, and oure obedience to his worde (as I haue shewed before) and this sacrifice is acceptable in Christ, & there­fore, and in that sense, Christ is the substaunce of our Sacrifice, notwithstanding that he is not after your maner present in his sacrament. Neither is it any inconuenience,What the sa­crifice of the newe Te­stament is. that we haue not any sacrifice, priuate to our selues and not common to all the fayth­full that haue bene before vs, and shall be after vs. For we are all one Church, and saued by one sacrifice propitiatorie, which Christ offered once for all: and why should not one sacrifice of thankes to God, be generall to vs all? vnlesse you will haue, that euery age should haue a sacrifice by it selfe.

And furthermore, WATSON. Diuision. 10. seing a Sacrifice is an outwarde pro­testation of our inwarde faith and deuotion, if we christen [Page 36] men now haue no sacrifice priuate vnto vs: then be we the most miserable men that euer were, being without anye kinde of religion. For take away our sacrifice, & take away our religion, Cyprianus. Sermo. De Caena. as S. Cyprian confuting the carnall thoughts of the Capernaits, that thought they should haue eaten Christes fleshe eyther rosted or sod, and so should haue con­sumed it to nothing: wryteth thus. Cum illius personae caro si in frustra partiretur non omni humano generi posset sufficere, qua semel con­sumpta videretur religio interisse, cui nequaquàm vlterius victima su­peresset. Seing that if the fleshe of his person were deuided in­to pieces, it coulde not suffise all mankinde to eate vpon, which flesh after it were once cleane wasted and consumed, our religion might likewise seme to perish and be destroied, which had no more any sacrifice remayning. Wherevpon I conclude, that if we haue not Christes body and bloud pre­sent in the sacrament for our externall sacrifice, wherby we may mitigate and please almightie God, and obteyne re­mission of sinne and spirituall grace and giftes: then should we be no better then the Turkes, seing all nations from the beginning of the worlde, both Gentils and Iewes haue had one kinde of outwarde Sacrifice, to declare and expresse their inward deuotion and religion, eyther to the true God of heauen, or to such as they fantasied or feyned to be Gods sauing onely the Turkes, (as Petrus Cluniacensis writeth) wher­by it appeareth, that this sect that denieth and destroyeth the Masse, which is the Sacrifice of the Church, is verily the sect of Mahumet, preparing a waye for the Turke to ouer­runne all Christendome, as hee hath done a great piece alreadie.

For what could the Turke doe more against our saith, if he did ouercome vs, beside our thraldome & tirannicall op­pression, but as these men doe now to take awaye our sacra­mēts & sacrifice, & to leaue vs nothing but the bare name of Christ, & if there be any good man, that hath true religion in his hart, to compell him to keepe it within him, that he shal not expresse it outwardly? and in very deede diuers no­table [Page 37] and godly wryters at this day, call this heresie against the sacrifice of the Church which Luther first began and most maintayned, by this name Secta Mahumetica, the sect of Mahomet.

As in your former reason speaking of the substaunce of the sacrifice of the Church you haue subtilly concluded,CROWLEY. that we spoile the Church of Christ of hir sacrifice, bicause we denie that Christ is really and substantially present in the sacrament of his bodye and bloud: euen so you go about nowe to conclude as subtilly a­gainst vs, by the definitiō of a sacrifice. You reason after this ma­ner. Seing a sacrifice is an outward protestation of our inwarde fayth and deuotion, without which there is no religion: those that doe take away our sacrifice, doe take awaye our Religion. But these heretikes that doe denie and destroy the Masse, doe take a­way our sacrifice: Ergo, they spoyle vs of our Religion.

Saint Austen doth define a sacrifice something otherwise.De Ciuitate Dei. lib. 10. Cap. 5. &. 6. He sayth thus. Sacrificium ergo visibile, inuisibilis sacrificij sacramentum, id est, sacrum signum est. A visible sacrifice therefore (sayth saint Austen) is a sacrament that is to say, an holye signe of an inuisi­ble sacrifice.

And agayne he sayth. Quaecun (que) igitur in ministerio tabernaculi siue templis multis modis leguntur diuinitus esse praecepta: ad dilectionem Dei & proximi referuntur. In his enim duobis praeceptis, vt scriptum est, tota lex pendet & Prophetae. All those things therefore, sayth he, that in the ministerie of the tabernacle or temple, are read to be com­maunded of God, after many sortes concerning sacrifices: are referred to signifie the loue of God and our neyghbour. For in these two commaundements, as it is written, the whole law and Prophetes doe depend.

And in the same place he sayth. Proind [...], verum sacrificium est, omne opus quod agitur, vt sancta societate inhaereamus Deo: relatum silicet adidum finem boni, quo veraciter beati esse possimus. Vnde, & ipsa miseri­cordia qua homini subuenitur, si propter Deum non fit, non est sacrificium. Wherefore (sayth saint Austen) the right sacrifice is, euerye worke that is wrought, to the ende that we may with an holy so­cietie [Page 38] cleaue vnto God: being referred to that ende of goodnesse, whereby we maye be blessed in déede. Wherefore, euen that mercie that is shewed in succouring of a man, is no sacrifice, ex­cept it be done for Gods cause.

These wordes of Saint Austen, doe make your definition scarce sufficient, and the conclusion of your Argument nothing good. By your definition, euery such outward protestation of our inwarde fayth and deuotion, as is made in the Masse, maye be a sacrifice: and so euery Masse that is sayd or song by a Priest, may be a sacrifice. But by saint Austens definition, no Masse that is not sayd with relation to that ende of goodnesse,No Masse said for hier, may be a sa­crifice. whereby we may be happie in déede, is a true sacrifice: Ergo saint Austen and you conclude not both one thing. Yea by these words of saint Austen it is playne, that none of those Masses that be sayde in respect of hire or rewarde (as the most part of Masses be) may be accoun­ted for sacrifices.

But graunt that all Priestes were Aungels, and would say their Masses being moued thervnto by deuotion only: yet would not S. Austen allowe their Masses for the sacrifice of the Church. For he sayth in the aforenamed booke.Cap. 5. Quoniam illud quod ab homi­nibus appelatur sacrificium, signum est veri sacrificij. That thing that men doe call a sacrifice, is the signe of the true sacrifice. And that he meaneth this of that which you doe call the Masse: is manifest by his wordes in the later ende of the sixt Chapiter of that booke, where he sayth thus.The Church is offered in hir owne ob­lation. Hoc est sacrificium christianorum, multi vnum corpus sumus in Christo: quod etiam sacramento altaris fidelibus noto, fre­quent at Ecclesia, vbi ei demonstratur, quod in ea oblatione quam offert, ipsa offertur. This (sayth Saint Austen, speaking of the offering vp of our selues a sacrifice to God) is the sacrifice of the Christians, we being many, are one body in Christ: which the congregation also doth frequent in the sacrament of the Altare, which is not vn­knowne to the faythfull: Where it is playnely shewed vnto hir, that she hir selfe is in that oblation offered.

The meaning of this maner of spéeche that saint Austen vseth here: was well knowne among Christians in his dayes. But in later times it hath growne out of knowledge, and therfore we [Page 39] had néede nowe to saye something of it: least you and your sort should begin to triumph ouer vs, and saye, that nowe we haue found a sacrament of the altare, which some of vs haue denied to be. I my selfe haue denied, and doe still denie, that there is anye such sacrament of the altare, as the Popes Church doth at thys daye frequent and vse, wherein the Priest alone doth make a sa­crifice for the quick and dead: but that there is suche a sacrament of the altare, as saint Austen speaketh of here, that is, wherein Christians doe offer vp themselues to God, a sacrifice of thankes­gyuing,The Sacra­ment of the Altare. and doe exercise the workes of mercy towards them that stande in néede, and therefore called it in the Gréeke tongue Eucharistia and Agape, thankesgyuing, and loue: I neyther haue done, nor doe denie.

And bicause the fathers knewe, that this sacrifice could not be acceptable to God, except it were offered vpon Christ, their Altare: they called the sacrament, whereby they vsed chiefely to shewe themselues to be nothing else but a sacrifice to be offered to God, the sacrament of the altare, meaning by that altare Christ, wherevpon they offered themselues a Sacrifice acceptable vn­to God. But suche a sacrament as the Papistes doe hang ouer their altare, and suche an altare as they vse to saye Masse vpon: we knowe not of, neyther did the fathers knowe any suche. And this may suffise for the disproofe of your definition of a sacrifice.

Nowe something must be sayde, concerning that place of Cy­prian which you cite. In déede saint Cyprian doth in such words as you cite, reproue the grosse opinion of the Capernaits: who supposed that our Sauiour had spoken of the outward and fleshly eating of that body of his, which was present in their sight. And therefore he sayth, Cum illius personae caro &c. as you haue cited.

But here (M. Watson) I must tell you, that you deale not faythfully in cyting of the words of this father. For in the words next folowing, he sayth thus. Sed in cogitationibus huiusmodi, Cyprian. Sermone. De Caena. caro & sanguis non prodest quicquam. &c. But in such maner of thoughts (sayth Cyprian) fleshe and bloud doe not helpe any thing at all. For as the maister himselfe hath declared: these wordes are spi­rite and lyfe, neyther doth the fleshly sense, enter in vnto the vn­derstanding [Page 40] of so great a déepenesse, except there come faith ther­vnto. The breade is meate, the bloud is lyfe, the fleshe is sub­staunce, the body is the Church. A body, bicause of the agréeing of the members in one: bread, bicause of the congruence of the nourishment. Bloud, bicause of the working of lyuelynesse. Flesh, bicause of the propertie of the humane nature, that he hath taken vpon him. Christ doth sometime call this sacrament his owne bodie, sometime his fleshe and bloud, sometimes bread, a portion of euerlasting life, whereof he hath according to these vi­sible thinges, giuen part to the corporall nature. This common foode being chaunged into fleshe and bloud, doth procure lyfe and encreasing vnto bodies, and therefore, the weakenesse of oure fayth, being holpen by the accustomed effect of things, is by a sen­sible argument taught, that the effect of eternall lyfe is in the vi­sible sacramentes, and that we are made one with Christ, not so much by a bodily passing into him, as by a spirituall.

And agayne, in the same Sermon, he sayth. Esus igitur carnis huius, quaedam auiditas est, & quoddam desiderium manendi in ipso. &c. The eating therefore of this fleshe, is a certaine gréedinesse and desire to dwell in him, whereby we doe so presse and melt in our selues the swéetenesse of loue: that the taste of loue that is poured into vs, may cleaue in the roofe of our mouth and bowels, ente­ring into and making moyst all the corners, both of our soules and body. Drinking and eating, doe appertayne both to one reco­ning. And as the bodily substaunce is nourished by them, and li­ueth and contynueth in health: so the lyfe of the spirite is nouri­shed with thys foode, that doth properly belong thereto. And looke what foode is to the fleshe: the same is fayth to the soule. Looke what thing meat is to the bodye: the same is the worde to the spi­rite, with more excellent power performing euerlastingly, the thing that fleshely nourishments doe worke temporally and final­ly. Hitherto Cyprian.

If it had pleased you, to haue weighed all these wordes of Cyprian: I thinke you could not for shame, haue wrested his former wordes, to such purpose as you doe, concluding that if we haue not Christes body and bloud in the sacrament for our exter­nall [Page 41] sacrifice, whereby we may mitigate. &c. then we should be no better then Turkes. &c.

S. Cyprian himselfe, doth in these words that I haue cited out of the same Sermon: expound his meaning in the former wordes cyted by you, to be farre other, then that which you ga­ther and conclude vpon them.

In déede, if the Capernaits had deuoured the body of Christ, and none could haue bene saued, but such as had bene partakers of the same with them: a very small number should haue bene sa­ued by him. And when that number had bene dead: his religi­on must néedes haue bene at an ende, for they should haue had no more sacrifice for sinne, for as much as he which should be the a­lone sacrifice for sinne, had bene by them eaten vp and consumed.

When saint Cyprian therfore, had thus spoken of the grosse opinion of the Capernaits: he doth immediatly adde these words. Sed in cogitationibus. &c. But in such maner of cogitations: fleshe and bloud doe profite nothing at all. For as the maister himselfe hath taught: these wordes are spirite and lyfe. &c. And agayne, afterward he sayth, Esus igitur carnis huius. &c. The eating of this fleshe therefore, is a certaine gréedinesse and desire, to abide or dwell in him. &c.

It is manifest therfore, that saint Cyprian ment not to teach,Cyprians meaning. that vnlesse the body of Christ, be really and substantially present in the sacrament, the Church can haue no sacrifice, and so conse­quently no religion: but his meaning was to teache, that it was not a fleshely: but a spirituall eating that he spake of. And that by faith, y^e Church hath Christ her euerlasting sacrifice for sinne, not offered by the massing Priestes euerye daye: but offered by himselfe once for all, and yet still present with God as all things (both past and to come) are. For with God there is neyther time past, nor to come: but all present.

Other sacrifice to mitigate or please God: the Church ney­ther hath nor néedeth anye. For Christ hath by that one sacrifice once offered, made perfite as manye as be made holye, that is,Hebr. 10. as many as be sanctified by the holy spirite of adoption.

And where as you compare vs to the Turkes, as hauing no [Page 42] peculier sacrifice to offer: I must tell you, that you do belye your friend Cluniacensis, Watson be­lyeth Clu­niacensis. whose testimonie you vse to prooue the Turkes and vs to be one sect. His wordes be these. Nam cum sint his nostris diebus, quatuor in mundo precipuae diuersitates sectarum, hoc est chirstianorum, Iudaeorum Saracenorum, & Paganorum: si Christiani non sacrificant, iam nullus in mundo sacrificat. Iudaei enim more suo. &c. For where as at thys day (sayth Cluniacensis) there be in the worlde foure chiefe diuersities of sects: that is, Christians, Iewes, Sa­racens and Paganes: if the Christians doe not sacrifice, there is none in the worlde that doth sacrifice. For the Iewes, according to their maner, beholding all thinges with Oxe eyes, and lyke Asses bearing the burdens of Gods lawe, without taking anye fruite thereof: doe sacrifice in no place, bicause they saye, that Ierusalem alone is the place where God must be honoured and worshipped in sacrifices. &c. And afterwarde speaking of the Pa­ganes,Petrus Clu­niacensis. he sayth. Et cum slendi homines, ignominiosius alijs a Diabolo, his & multis modis nobis ignotis deludantur: sacrificia tamen, nec Creato­ri, nec creaturae exhibent. Sed quod innatus error docuit, abs (que) omnium sa­crificiorum notitia custodiunt. Where as these men, méete to be by­wayled, are of the Deuill, by these and many meanes that we knowe not deluded more shamefully then other: yet doe they not giue any sacrifice, eyther to the Creator, or to the creature. But beyng without the knowledge of all sacrifices: they doe obserue that thing, which naturall error hath taught them.

Here it is manifest, that your Cluniacensis, sayth not that the Turkes onely are without sacrifice: for the Paganes & Turkes, are (euen by his playne wordes) two seuerall sectes, and farre ynough a sunder.

Cluniacensis a corrupter of scripture.But what thoughe Cluniacensis, and you did agrée in all poyntes? Are you of such credit, that nought that you say maye be denied? A more manifest wrester and corrupter of manifest scriptures, then Cluniacensis was: did neuer set Pen to Paper, except you selfe (M. Watson.)

Coloss. 1.He is not ashamed to saye thus, grounding his wordes vpon Saint Paule to the Colossians. Vbi est secundum Apostolum, mini­sterium, quod absconditum fuit a saeculis. &c. Where is, according to [Page 43] the saying of the Apostle, the ministerie that hath bene hid since the beginning of generations, and is nowe opened to his saintes, vnto whome God would make knowne the ryches of the glorie of this sacrament among the Gentiles, which sacrament is Christ, the hope of glorie? Where saint Paule hath sayde Mysterium, the misterie or hid secret: Cluniacensis sayth Ministerium, y^e ministe­rie. And where Paule sayth Qui est Christus: Cluniacensis sayth. Quod est Christus, which sacrament is Christ. For immediatly be­fore he had sayde Sacramentum, in place of Mysterium: The sacra­ment, in place of the mistery. And all this is to make men beléeue that saint Paule wryting to the Colossians, had taught them, that the sacrament of Christes body, is Christ himselfe.

Much such matter is manifest in your Cluniacensis. I estéeme his aucthoritie therefore, euen as I estéeme youres. And so I doe estéeme those notable wryters, which at this daye doe terme our Religion by the name of Mahumets sect. For whatsoeuer they or you say or wryte: we are well able to proue that we hold, the true and catholike fayth, which was taught by the Apostles and Pro­phets, Iesus Christ being the foundation thereof. With the Pro­phets we beleue the promise of God concerning the sending of his sonne in the similitude of sinfull fleshe, that in the fleshe he might satisfie for the sinnes of all his elected and chosen children. And with the Apostles we beleue that he is come, and hath by one sa­crifice once offered, satisfied for al their sinnes that be of that num­ber. And that there remayneth no more sacrifice for sinne.Hebr. 10. And that the Church of Christ is bound continually to offer vnto God, a sacrifice of thanks, for this so great and frée redemption, by the sacrifice of his owne onely begotten sonne. And that this sacrifice of thankes, is our obedience in walking in those good workes that God hath prepared for vs to walke in. This is not to prepare a way for the Turkes to ouerunne all, as you say it is. But this is to be at defiaunce, both with Turke and Pope.

But for the auoyding of these absurdities, WATSON. Diuision. 11. and for suche causes as I shal God wylling declare hereafter, I presuppose this foundation of christes body, to be really present in the [Page 44] blessed sacrament, to be stedfastly beleeued of vs all, vpon the which I builde all that remayneth now to be sayde. Which foundation although it hath beene vndermined of many men and many wayes, & therfore requireth a full and perfite treatise to be made of it alone: yet as I intende not to occupie all this time in that, so I maye not well so slenderly leaue it, that hath bene so much and often assaul­ted, but shall declare the summe of that moueth me to con­tinue still in that truth I was borne in, to keepe still that fayth I was baptised in and put on Christ, which fayth seing it is vniuersall, if I should leaue it, I should forsake Christ, and be an heretike, not folowing that forme of doctrine I receyued of my fathers, and they of theirs from the begin­ning, but chosing my selfe a newe waye and newe maysters that please me, being so condemned by mine owne consci­ence and iudgement, which is the very propertie and defi­nition of an heretike.

CROWLEY.The obsurdities ye speake of, we haue something touched al­readie. The other causes that moue you, we minde by Gods help to saye somewhat to, when you shall declare them. But in the meane while, let vs sée the summe of that which moueth you to continue still in that fayth you were baptised in. &c.

WATSON. Diuision. 12. There be three things that holde mee in this faith: the manifest and plaine scripture, the vniforme aucthorities of holy men, and the consent of the vniuersall Church. These three be the argumentes, that a christen man may stick vn­to, and neuer be deceaued, specially if they be knit and ioyned togither, concerning one matter but if they be sepe­rate, then some of them be but weake staffes to leane vn­to. As for example the scripture without the consent of the church is a weapon as meete for an heretike, as for a catho­like, for Arius, Nestorius, and such other Heretikes did al­ledge the scripture for their opinions, as the catholikes did, but their alledging was but the abusing of the letter, which [Page 45] is indifferent to good and euill, and deprauing of the true sense, which is onely knowne by the tradition and consent of the catholike church: so that the one without the other is not a direction, but a seduction to a simple man, bicause the very scripture in deede, is not the bare letter, as it ly­eth to be taken of euery man, but the true sense, as it is de­lyuered by the vniuersall consent of christes church.

Lykewise the writings and sayings of the fathers, if they be but the minde of one man without the consent of other, were he neuer so well learned and vertuous, otherwise yet his wrytings I say in that point be not a confirmation for an ignoraunt man to holde him in the truth, but a temptation to seduce him, and pull him from the truth.

The consent of the Church is alwayes a sure staffe, the verie piller of truth, whether it bee in things expressed in the letter of the scripture, or in things deliuered vnto vs by tradition of the Apostles. He that holdeth him by this staffe can not fall in faith, but stande in truth.

The thrée staues that you saye you leane vnto,CROWLEY. are very good stayes, & such as a man may be bold to trust vnto, & especially (as you haue wel said) when they be knit and ioyned togither, concer­ning one matter. But if they be seuered: then some of them be but weake staues to leane vnto. Hitherto you haue said very wel. But when amōgst these thrée staues, you make the consent of y^e Church onely to be the sure staffe, and the scriptures and sayings of lear­ned and godly fathers, without the consent of the Church, to be but a seduction or tentation to seduce the simple and ignoraunt man: me thinketh you shewe your selfe to beastly blinde. Where was this sure staffe of yours, when all the Apostles were so farre from the hope of the resurrection of their maister: that they could not beleue the report of them that had séene him after he was ri­sen againe?Marc. 16. Had this consent of theirs in vnbeliefe bene a sure staye, for men to leane vnto? And was the prophecie of Dauid, at that time a seduction or tentation,Psalm. 16. Act. 2. to seduce a simple ignoraunt man, bicause it was not ioyned with the consent of the Church? [Page 46] Did Christ go about to seduce the Iewes: when hée bad them search the scriptures?Iohn. 5. When all the Apostles had consented, that none should go in vnto the heathen, to preache the Gospell vnto them,Act. 11. and Christ had sayde, go and teache all Nations: where was then the sure staffe to leane to? What staffe was it, that the worshipfull of Berrhaea leaned vnto, when they had heard Paule preach there?Act. 17. Was it the consent of the Church? No, saint Luke sayth, Scrutabantur scripturas. They searched the scriptures. That was then the sure staffe to leane to.

Saint Austen woulde haue no credite, further then hys wordes might be confirmed,De Trinitat. libr. 3. by Scripture and sounde reason. His wordes are these. Noli meis literis quasi scripturis canonicis inser­uire, sed in illis & quod non credebas eum inueneris incunctanter crede: in istis autem quod certum non habebas, nisi certum intellexeris, noli firmi­ter credere. Be thou not bound to my wrytings, as to the canonicall scriptures: but in the scriptures, beléeue without feare, whatso­euer thou shalt finde therein, which thou didst not beleue before: But in my wrytings, doe not firmely beléeue, that which thou wast not sure of before: vnlesse thou mayst certainly vnderstand it. Doe not correct my wrytings by thine owne opinion or con­tention: but by that thou readest in holye Scripture, or vnsha­ken reason. &c.

Contr. Petili­ani. Epist. Cap. 12.Agayne, the same Austen sayth. Nemo mihi dicat, O quid dixit Donatus? Aut quid dixit Parmenianus? aut Pontius? aut quilibet il­lorum. Quia, ne Catholicis Episcopis consentiendum est, sicubi sorte fal­luntur, vt contra canonicas scripturas aliquid sentiant. Let no man say vnto me, Oh, what hath Donatus saide? Or, what hath Parme­nian sayde? Or Pontius? Or any of those men: For we maye not consent to the Catholike Byshops, if they be at any time de­ceyued, so that they holde anye thing contrarie to the canonicall Scriptures. Here it is manifest, that saint Austen supposed the scriptures to be the sure staffe that we should stay vpon. And the consent of the Byshops or other learned men, to be but a weake stay, and such as no man maye trust to, when it is seuered from the other: contrarie to the opinion that you holde (M. Watson.) And yet more playnely the same saint Augustine sayth in an o­ther [Page 47] place. Cedamus igitur, & consentiamus autoritati scripturae sanctae: Libr. De Pec­cat. merit. & Remissi. Cap. 22. quae nescit falli, nec fallere. Let vs therfore consent to the aucthority of the holy scripture: which can neither be deceiued nor deceiue.

Gerson also sayth thus. Dicto autoris, autoritate, canonica munito: plus quam declarationi Papae credendum est. We must giue more cre­dite to the saying of an Author,Gerson a­gainst maister Watson. y^t is confirmed with the aucthori­tie of the canonicall scripture: then to the declaration of the Pope himselfe. And agayne he sayth. In sacris litteris excellenter erudito, at (que) autoritatem catholicam proferenti: plus est credendum quam generali concilio. More credite is to be giuen to a man that is excellenly learned in the holy scriptures, and bringeth forth a catholike auc­thoritie: then to the generall counsell.

All this considered, I thinke it better to leane to the staffe of the scripture, with Austen, Gerson, and other auncient fathers: then with you and such as you are, to trust to that broken staffe, that maye and often times hath deceyued, such as haue stayed themselues thereon.

I doe reuerence the wrytings and sayings of Fathers,Chrysost. in Galat. 1. so doe I the consent of the Church: but the worde of God aboue both: and neither of both, without it. For as Chrysostome saith, Paulus verò, etiam Angelis è coelo descendentibus, praeponit scripturas: id (que) valde congruenter. Siquidem Angeli, quamlibit magni: tamen serui sunt ac ministri. Caeterū omnes scripturae, non à seruis, sed ab vniuersorum Domi­no Deo venerūt ad nos. Paule doth preferre the scriptures before the Aungels that come downe from heauen: and that verie orderly? For although the Aungels be great: yet are they seruaunts and ministers. But all the scriptures are commen vnto vs: from him that is Lorde and God of all creatures.

I allowe therefore, all your thrée staues, and I lyke them all well, so long as they be fast tyed togither. But if you doe once pluck them in sunder, then I am well pleased, that you take to your selfe the two latter, and leaue me the first to stay vpon.

Now concerning this matter of the presence: WATSON. Diuision. 13. I am able by Gods helpe to shewe all these three thinges, ioyned and knit togither so, that we can not be deceyued in this point, [Page 48] except we will deceaue our selues as many wilfully doe.

The scripture by playne and manifest words, against the which hell gates shall neuer preuayle, doth testifie and con­firme our fayth in many places, but specially in the wordes of our sauiour Christ himselfe in his last supper, saying to his Disciples: Math. 26. Take, eate this is my bodye, which is giuen for you. This is my bloud of the newe Testament, which is shed for many, and for you in remission of sinnes: which most plaine scriptures many haue gone about to delude, & to reduce them to a base vnderstanding by figuratiue spee­ches, contending these words. This is my body. This is my bloud to be spoken figuratiuely, and not as the words pur­port: bicause other like sayinges in the scripture be taken figuratiuely, as these: I am the waye, I am the dore. The stone is Christ and such other, wherein they haue declared their deuilishe and detestable sophistrie to their owne dam­nation and the subuersion of a great many other.

They professe themselues to be learned men, but who heard euer tell of any such kinde of learning, as to prooue one singuler by an other, as if one should reason thus: Tho­mas is an honest man, ergo Iohn is an honest man: The Swan is whyte, ergo the Crow is white.

Which arguments be like this: I am the waye, is a figu­ratiue speeche, ergo likewise. This is my body, is a figura­tiue speech. With such fond folies & sophismes is the truth assaulted against all good learning, and the rules of all true reasoning. God open their eyes to see, and followe his hea­uenly wisedome.

CROWLEY.For the matter of the presence of Christ in the sacrament: you haue manifest Scripture, as you saye, thys is my body, this is my bloud. &c. Which Scriptures some haue gone about to delude with fonde follies and sophismes, such as it pleaseth your selfe to frame. I am sure you did neuer reade in any of their wri­tings that you speake of, any argument so framed as you haue set forth in your Sermon. We doe know that one méere particuler [Page 49] cannot be proued by another. And therfore we vse not to conclude, as you would make your Auditorie beléeue that we doe. We say that the scripture hath many such spéeches, as this is my bodye, and this is my bloud, which are not proper spéeches, but figura­tiue: wherefore it is not of necessitie required, that this is my bo­dy, and this is my bloud, should be taken for proper spéeches.The circum­stances must giue the vn­derstanding. But if the circumstaunces be such, that by them, the spéeche can not be proper, but figuratiue: then is there no cause why, we maye not vnderstande these places by the figure, as well as the other. I will therefore consider your circumstaunces, and then shape you a further aunswere.

But if we will consider the circumstaunces of the text, WATSON. Diuision. 14 who was the speaker, for what intent, what time, and such other: it shall plainely appeere that the literall sense, as the wordes purport, is the true sense, that the holy Ghost did principally intend. As for example. First it appeareth eui­dently, the speaker to be Iesus Christ our Lord, Gods sonne equall and omnipotent God with the father, and that these hys wordes be not wordes of a bare narration and teaching, but wordes whereby a sacrament is instituted. And for that reason we must consider that it is otherwise with Christ, then with vs, for in man the worde is true, when the thing is true, whereof it is spoken: In God the thing is true when the worde is spoken of the thing. Mans worde declareth the thing to be as it is before, Gods worde maketh the thing to be, as it was not before.

In man the truth of his worde dependeth of the truth of the thing. Contrarie in God the truth of the thing de­pendeth vpon the speaking of the worde, as the psalme sayth: Ipse dixit & facta sunt. He spake the worde, Psalm. 148. and the things were made. And this thing the Deuill knewe well ynough, being sure that if Iesus were Christ and God, hee could with his worde both create newe thinges, and also chaunge the nature and substaunce of any thing: Math. 4. and ther­fore sayde vnto him tempting him, whether he was Gods [Page 50] sonne or no: if thou be Gods sonne speake the worde, that these stones maye be made bread. Whereby we maye learne that although in mans speeche it is not true to saye, these stones be bread: yet if God should say so, it should be true the inferior nature of creatures gyuing place to the omni­potent power of God the Creator.

After which sort Ireneus reasoneth against those here­tikes, that denied Iesus Christ to be Gods sonne, vsing that most constantly beleeued truth of the sacrament, that we holde nowe grounded vpon Christes wordes, for an argu­ment to conuince Iesus the speaker to bee Gods sonne. His words be these. Quomodo autem constabit eis eum panem in quo gratiae actae sunt corpus esse domini sui,Libr. 4. ca. 34.& calicem sanguinis eius si non ipsum fa­bricatoris mundi filium dicant? Howe shall it bee certaine vnto them, that that bread vpon which thankes are giuen (that is to say the Eucharisticall bread) is the body of their Lord, and the Cup of his bloud, if they say not that he is the son of him that made the worlde? as though he should reason thus: These words which Iesus spake of the blessed bread, saying: This is my body. This is the Cup of my bloud, be eyther true or false. If the speaker of them be pure man and not God as they saye, then can they not be true: for mans worde chaungeth not the nature of things, as it is here. But if the wordes be true, as they certainely beleeue, then the speaker of them must needes be Gods sonne, of infinite po­wer, able to make the things to be as he sayth they be. And also in his .57. Ireneus lib. 4. Cap. 57. Chapiter the same fourth booke, he maketh the lyke argument in these words. Quomodo iustè Dominus si al­terius patris existit huius conditionis quae est secundum nos, accipiens panem suum corpus confitebatur, & temperamentū calicis, sui sanguinem confir­mauit. If our Lorde be a pure man, that nature and conditi­on that wee be of, the sonne of an other father then God: Howe did he iustly and truely taking bread into his hande, confesse and saye it to be his body, and confirme that mix­ture of wine and water, that was in the Chalice, to be his owne bloud?

By these two places of Ireneus that lyued within .150. yeares of Christ, we are taught not to flie to our figures of Grammer to make these wordes of Christ true, which indeede we must needes doe, or else say they be false, if Christ the speaker be but onely man and not God, but we bee taught by him to beleue them to be most true, and for that reason to beleue also, that Christ the speaker is Gods son, by whose almightie power the things be chaunged & made as he speaketh so that we may iustly, after the minde of Ire­neus and dyuers other olde Authors, which were long to rehearse nowe, conceaue this opinion of these men, that say these wordes of Christ cannot be true, except they be vnderstanded by a figuratiue speeche: that they eyther be­leeue not themselues that Christ is Gods sonne, or else giue occasion to other to reuiue that olde damnable Heresey of Arius that denied Christs Godhead, the experience whereof we haue had of late dayes, of some that from Sacramētaries by necessarie consequence of that Heresey, became Arianes.

The first circumstaunce that you consider:CROWLEY. is the speaker of these wordes. I am contented to beginne with the same. And al­so to agrée with you vpon the equalitie of Christ with his heauen­ly father in all pointes, touching his diuine nature: wherefore, if you conceyue such an opinion of me as you speake of, bicause I say that these wordes. This is my body, is a figuratiue spéeche: you conceyue a wrong opinion. And I am sure, I may safely say as much, for all those that you speake of.

But nowe let vs sée, howe honestly you haue behaued your selfe: in applying the words of Ireneus to your purpose.Libr. 4. ca. 34. He saith thus. Quomodo autem constabit &c. First I must tell you, that euen as in the place that you did before cite out of Ireneus, you picked out a péece for your purpose, and left that which might make the Writers meaning playne: so you haue done here also. For in the same Chapiter, not twentie lynes before those wordes that you cite: Ireneus sayth thus. Igitur, non sacrificiae sanctificant hominem, non enim indiget sacrificio Deus: sed conscientiae [Page 52] eius qui offert sanctificat sacrificium, pura existens, & praestat accep­tare Deum, quasi ab amico. The sacrifices doe not make the man that doth offer them, holye (for God hath no néede of Sacrifice) but the conscience of him that offereth, being pure: doth make the sacrifice holye, and causeth God to take it in good part, as at the hande of a friend.

And agayne he sayth. Oportet enim nos oblationem Deo facere. &c. We must needes make an oblation to God: and be found thank­full to God our maker in all things. In pure iudgement, in faith without Hipocrisie, in firme hope, in feruent loue, offering vp the first fruites of those thinges which are his creatures. And the Church only may offer this pure oblation to hir maker, offering vnto him, some part of his creature, with thankesgyuing vnto him. But the Iewes doe not now offer, for their handes be full of bloud: for they haue not receyued the worde, whereby offering is made to God. No more doe all the Synagogs of heretikes. And other which saye that there is another father, besides him that is the maker: doe therefore when they offer to him, those thinges that be of the same creation that we are: declare thereby, that he is desirous of that which is not his owne, and coueteth after those things that appertayne to other. And such as doe saye, that the things which are of the same creation with vs, be made by defect and ignoraunce and suffering: doe when they offer the fruites of ignoraunce and of suffering and defect, sinne against their father, reuiling him rather then giuing him thankes.

After these wordes, doe those wordes followe that you haue cited for your purpose. Quomodo autem constabit eis. &c. Howe shall it be certaine vnto them, that, that bread, wherein thankes are giuen, is the body of their Lorde, and the Cup of his bloud, if they say not that he is the sonne of him that is the maker of the world? Thus farre go the wordes that you cite. And where as you shut vp the matter with an interrogation, as though there were the whole of that which the Author doth there wryte of this matter: in as many Copies as I haue séene, the poynt there is but a com­ma, and the sentence contynued with these wordes, id est, verbum eius, per quod lignum fructificat. &c. That is, his wordes, whereby [Page 53] the trée is made fruitfull, & the Fountaynes to flowe, that gyueth first the blade, then the eare, and then the full corne in the eare? And agayne, how doe they saye that the fleshe which is nourished with the body and bloud of the Lorde, doth come into corruption, and not receyue lyfe? Therefore eyther let them chaunge their minde, or abstayne from offering the things that are spoken of before. As for our iudgement, it is agréeable to the Euchariste or thankesgyuing: and on the contrarie part, the Euchariste, doth confirme our sentence or iudgement. For we doe offer vnto him the things that are his, and doe agréeably preach the communion and vnitie of the fleshe and the spirite. For euen as the breade which is of the earth, taking the name of God, is not nowe com­mon bread, but the Eucharist (or sacrament of thankesgyuing) consisting of two things, one earthly and another heauenly: so our bodies also, being made partakers of the Euchariste, are not nowe corruptible, for as much as they haue the hope of the re­surrection. &c.

And agayne in the ende of the Chapter he sayth. Sic & idio nos quo (que) offerre vult munus ad altare frequenter sine intermissione. Est ergo altare in caelis. &c. His will is also, that in such sort and therefore, we should oftentimes and contynually offer a gift at the aultar: The aultar therefore is in heauen. For thither are all oure pray­ers and oblations directed: and our temple, euen as Iohn sayth in his reuelations: And the Temple of God and tabernacle was set open.

If you had weighed all these wordes of Ireneus togither,Watson did not weight Ireneus wordes. be­ing written in the same Chapter with those that you cite in your Sermon: I suppose you would not haue thought his wordes so méete for your purpose. The sacrifice (sayth he) is sanctified by the pure conscience of the offerer. We must be founde thankefull to our maker in all things: in pure iudgement, in vnfayned fayth, in stedfast hope, and in feruent loue, offring to him the first fruits of those things that be his creatures. And the Church onely may offer this oblation. The bread which is of the earth receyuing the name of God, is not now common bread: but the Eucharist, con­sisting of two things the one earthly, and the other heauenly. He [Page 54] wyll haue vs to offer a gift vpon the aultar continually wythout ceasing. The aultar therefore is in heauen.

How doe these words agrée with the reall presence of Christ in the sacrament? And howe can these wordes suffer your Masse to be accompted the sacrifice of the Church? The whole purpose of Ireneus in that Chapiter, is to shewe, that the workes of loue procéeding from an vnfayned fayth, and a pure conscience: are that sacrifice that God regardeth. And in the vse of the sacrament which he calleth the Eucharist or thankesgiuing: this sacrifice so acceptable to God, is not onely taught by sensible signes, but also exercised. And the aultar whereon this sacrifice is offered, is Christ, which is in heauen.

Against whome Ire­neus did write.The wordes that you cite, were by Ireneus spoken against such as affirmed that God is not the maker of those creatures that we haue the vse of. Which affirmation if it were true: then Christ being the sonne of God (whome those men denied to be the maker of the worlde) had no power, to institute the sacrament of his body & bloud in any of those creatures: for he should not then haue béene Lorde ouer them.

As touching the names, body and bloud giuen to this sacra­ment, the reason thereof his declared before. Your reasons ther­fore that you make in Ireneus name, are not worth a Lowse.

To the same ende tendeth the other place, which you cite out of the .57. Chapter of the same booke. Wherefore, those two pla­ces of Ireneus, who liued within .150. yeres after Christ, doe teach you to vse the figure called Metaphora or translation, in the vn­derstanding of these wordes. This is my body, and this is my bloud: notwithstanding that Christ the speaker is both God and man,Psalm. 148. and euen he of whom Dauid spake, when he sayde Ipse dixit & facta sunt. He spake the worde and the things were made. For he spake not those words as one that would by them creat a new, or alter and chaunge the substaunce of that which he had before created:Christs pur­pose in speak­ing y^e wordes of his last supper. but his purpose was to institute a sacrament or visible signe of the excéeding great mercie that he should shortly shewe, in giuing his body and bloud, for the redemption of the sinnes of the worlde, and of that wonderfull misterie of ioyning the fayth­full [Page 55] togither into the felowship of members of one body, and of the same to him their head. These wordes of Christ therefore are true in his meaning, notwithstanding ought that you can saye: and yet to be vnderstanded by the figure, and not as the wordes doe purport. And yet are we that saye so: farre ynough from the A­rians heresie.

The second circumstance I spake of, WATSON. Diuision. 15. was to consider to what purpose and intent Christ spake those wordes, and I sayde they were wordes not of a bare narration, teach­ing some doctrine, but the wordes of the institution of a sa­crament of the new Testament. And then it followeth, that if they be the forme of a sacrament as they be in dede: then must they needes be that instrument wherby Gods almigh­tie power assisting the due ministration of his Priest, wor­keth that grace inwardly, that the words purport outward­ly. For so it is in all other sacraments. In Baptisme, these wordes. Ego Baptizo te, I baptise thee, and so forth, like as out­wardly to the eares, of the hearer they signifie a washing, so almightie God assisting the due pronouncing of them, doth inwardly woorke the grace of washing the soule of him, to whome the wordes be spoken, if their be no stop or impedi­ment of his partie.

And lykewise in penaunce as the wordes of the Priest saying: Ego absoluo te ab omnibus peccatis tuis in nomine Patris, & filij, & spiritus sancti. I absolue thee from al thy sinnes in the name of the father, and the sonne, and the holy Ghost, doe signi­fie forgiuenesse, so God doth inwardly forgiue, if the partie be truely penitent.

Lykewise in marriage that knot the man knitteth with the woman in taking hir to his wyfe, and she him to hir hus­band, God also inwardly doth knit the same, which man can not loose: and so foorth of all other sacraments.

Nowe to oure purpose: The grace which is included in these wordes, this is my body, this is my bloud, is not on­ly accidentall grace as in the other, but the body of Christ [Page 56] to be our sacrament, which is the substaunce of grace, the Author, Bernar. Sermone De Coena. Fountayne, & Well of all grace, as S. Bernard sayth. Dicitur Eucharistia per excellentiā. In hoc enim Sacramēto non solum quae­libet gratia, sed ille à quo est omnis gratia sumitur. This sacrament is called Eucharistia, for some excellencie aboue all other, for in this sacrament is receyued not onely any other grace, but he of whome proceedeth all grace.

Then it followeth, that where as the grace of this sacra­ment, which the wordes purport to the outward eares of all men, is the essentiall grace of Christes body and bloud to be there present, it followeth, I saye that Christ by these wordes, as by a conuenient instrument, worketh inwardly, in that he gaue to his Disciples the reall presence of his owne body and bloud, Emesenus. Oratione De corp. & san­guine Christi. as Eusebius Emesenus sayth: Fide aestiman­di non specie, nec exterioris censenda est visu, sed interioris hominis affectu. To be esteemed by fayth, and not by the outwarde forme, and not to be iudged by the sight of the outwarde man, but by the affection of the inwarde man.

CROWLEY.First you considered the person of him that spake these words, This is my body: and nowe you consider his intent in speaking. His purpose was not (saye you) by these words to shewe what the thing was that he spake of: but to vse the words as an instrument whereby the inwarde thing signified by the outwarde wordes is wrought. And to make this your opinion playne: you vse the wordes in Baptisme, in Penaunce, and the contract in mari­age, for examples.

Surely (M. Watson) this must néedes appéere a straunge maner of doctrine, when it shall be waighed by them that doe cō ­sider what the vse of wordes is, and what the almightie power of God is. Learned men haue alwayes taught, that the vse of wordes is to teach the hearers: and that they be instruments ser­uing onely to that vse. None but Sorcerers wyll say that words are instrumentes to worke wonders with. In déede, the Poete speaking of magicall verses, sayth thus. Carmina vel caelo, possunt deducere lunam. Verses are of such force that they are able to bring [Page 57] the Moone downe from heauē. But we finde not in the holy scrip­ture, or in any Catholike Wryter, that wordes haue any other vse, then to teache.

Peraduenture you will saye, that the Prophet Dauid will take your part, bicause he sayth. Verbo Domini caeli firmati sunt: Psalme. 33. & spiritu oris eius omnis exercitus eorum. By the worde of the Lorde were the heauens established, and all the armie thereof by the breath of his mouth. But saint Austen, and as many as I haue séene, y^t doe write vpon that Psalme, doe with one voyce affirme, that the Prophet doth not there meane of such a formed worde as you doe here, neyther of the breath that issueth out at the mouth in the vttering of such wordes: but of the sonne of God and the holy Ghost. So that his wordes are this much to say. In the sonne and the holy Ghost: hath the Lorde, which is but one diuine power, established the heauens. &c.

The power of God is such, that at his worde, beck, or twinck­ling of his eye: he is able to doe what he will doe. According to the wordes of the same prophet in another Psalme. Deus noster in caelo, omnia quaecun (que) voluit fecit in caelo & in terra. Our God is in heauen,Psal. 114. looke what he would doe, that hath he done, both in heauen and in earth.

I conclude therefore, that it is the power of God, that wor­keth all in all. And that the worde formed is no instrument to worke by, otherwise then in teaching. And therefore, your exam­ples be euill fauouredly applied.

As for your Bernarde and your Emisenus, I néede not much to estéeme, sith (as it maye séeme) they be Doctors of your owne making: and therfore I can not blame them, though they speake as you would haue them speake. But it should haue bene much more for your honesty, being father of y^e act when they procéeded: to haue instructed them so before hand, that they might haue béene able to speake congrue latine. I know not by what rule of Gram­mer, this can be iustified to be congrue latine. Fide estimandi non specie, nec exterioris hominis censenda est visu. &c. Neyther doe I know by what figure it may be excused.

But though your Emisenus had written as good latine as [Page 58] euer did Cicero: yet could I not much regarde his iudgemēt, for that I finde that he was Signifer arianae factionis, Chronico. Hieronymi. the standard bea­rer of the Arian faction. Or if you haue any other Emisenus to shewe: I suppose he will be founde (when you shall shewe him) such one as Byshop Iewell prooueth Mayster Hardyngs Am­philochius to be.

Your Bernardus also: must be such another. For that Ber­nardus that was Claraeuallensis Abbas, was of another minde as it appéereth in his Sermon In caena Domini. His words be these. Vt enim de vsualibus sumamus exemplum: datur anulus absolutè propter anulum, & nulla est significatio: datur ad inuestiendum de haereditate ali­qua, & signum est: ita vt iam dicere possit qui accipit: Anulus non va­let quicquam, sed haereditas est quam quaerebam. In hunc ita (que) modum ap­propinquans passioni Dominus, de gratia sua inuestire curauit suos, vt i [...]u­sibilis gratia, signo aliquo visibili praestaretur. Ad haec instituta sunt omnia sacramenta, ad haec Eucharistiae participatio &c. That we may take an example from among those things that be vsuall: a King is dely­uered as a King without condition, and it hath no signification. And the same is giuen to inuest in some enheritaunce, and so it is a signe: so that the partie that receyueth it, may now saye: The King, is a thing of no value: but the inheritance is the thing that I sought. After this sort the Lorde therefore drawing néere vnto his passion, did of his owne frée mercy, prouide to inuest those that appartayned vnto him, that the inuisible grace, might by some vi­sible signe be set forth and shewed. For this purpose were all sa­craments instituted. The participation of the Eucharist, was in­stituted for this purpose, and so was the washing of féete. To cō ­clude, Baptisme, which is the beginning of all sacraments, was instituted for this purpose, wherein we are planted togither to the similitude or lykenesse of his death: wherefore, the thrée solde dip­ping, doth beare the figure of the thrée dayes space that must now be celebrated.

This matter is farre disagréeing to that which you cite out of your Bernarde. Watson hath a Bernard of his owne. I conclude therefore that your Bernarde, is not the right Bernarde: but a counterfait of your owne making. Such a one as your Emisenus is. And therefore his Sermons [Page 59] are printed by themselues with this note before them: Proculdubio, non a nostro Bernardo editi fuerunt. Without doubt, they were neuer of our Bernards setting out.

Thirdly, we maye consider, that these wordes, WATSON. Diuision. 16 be the performaunce of a former promise, where Christ (as it is written in the sixt Chapiter of S. Iohn) promised to giue vs the same fleshe to eate, that he would giue to the death, for the lyfe of the worlde saying. Panis quem ego dabo, caro mea est, Iohn. 6. quam ego dabo pro mundi vita. The bread which I shall giue vnto you, is my flesh, which I shall giue for the lyfe of the world.

Which promise, we neuer read, that Christ (which is the very truth & can not lye) did euer at any time performe, but in his last supper, when he gaue his bodye and bloud to his Disciples: and to promise his fleshe, and to giue bare bread and not his fleshe, is no performing, but a breaking of his promise, and a deluding of them to whome he made the promise. For as for the interpretation, which some men make of Christes words, that he will giue his fleshe to vs to be eaten spiritually by faith: is but a vaine and fained glose for that text.

And although Christ doe so giue it to be eaten by faith: yet we maye not exclude one truth by another truth as So­phisters doe. For Christ gaue his fleshe to vs to be eaten spi­ritually by fayth, euer from the beginning of the worlde, and also at that present, when he spake those words, so that it were a verye vaine thing for Christ, to promise to giue a thing which he euer before, and also at that present, and euer after contynually doth giue.

But it was neuer so taken of any good auncient aucthor which all with one consent doe expounde this text of saint Iohn, of the giuing of his fleshe in his last supper vnder the forme of breade, and therefore Cirillus wryteth, Cirillus in Iohn. li. 4. Capit. 14. that oure sauiour Christ did not expounde and make plaine the ma­ner of the mistery, & the performaunce of this his promise, to them that asked the vnfaythfull question, Howe, with­out [Page 60] fayth, but to his Disciples that beleeued him and as­ked no such question of him, he declared the maner of it in his last supper.

Wherefore we maye well conclude vpon this circum­staunce that Christs flesh is verily present in the sacrament to be giuen vnto vs, bicause he promised before, that he would giue vs the same fleshe for our foode, that he would giue on the crosse for our redemption.

CROWLEY.The thirde circumstaunce (you saye) that you consider, is a promise that our Sauiour made when he sayde, the bread that I shall giue is my fleshe. &c. If I did not knowe your blindnesse, and shamelesnesse, in fathering vpon the auncient Writers, such matter as they neuer ment to vtter in their wrytings: I coulde not wonder ynough at your beastly boldnesse, which driueth you to saye, that all the good auncient Writers doe with one consent, expound the wordes of saint Iohn as you doe.

But after this great boast, you giue vs a taste of your small roste (as the common saying is) and you make Cyrillus to speake after your fantasie, in this sort. Our Sauiour Christ did not ex­pounde. &c. But that the reader may sée, how faythfully you deale with Cyrillus in this point: I will let him sée the words as they be written in the place that you note in the margent. His wordes be these.

Misericors certè & mitis Christus est: vt à rebus ipsis videre licet. Non enim aspere ad crudelitatem eorum respondit, nec vllo modo contendit: sed viuificantem huius mysterij cognitionem, iterum at (que) iterum, in mentibus eorum imprimere studebat. Et quomodo quidem carnem suam dabit ad manducandum non docet: quia intelligere illi non potuerunt. Quam magna verò bona, si cum fide manducabunt adipiscentur, id iterum at (que) iterum aperit, vt aeternae desyderio vitae, ad fidem compellantur, per quam etiaem, doceri facilius poterint. Esay. 7. Sic enim Esaiaes dixit. Si enim inquit, non credide­ritis: nec intelligetis. Oportebat igitur fidei primum radices in amimo ia­cere: deinde illa quaerere, quae homini quaerenda sunt. Illi verò antequam crederent, importunè quaerebant. Hac igitur de causa Dominus, quomodo id fieri possit, non enodauit, sed fide id quaerendum hortatur: sic credentibus [Page 61] discipulis, fragmenta panis dedit, dicens. Accipite & manducate, hoc est corpus meum. Calicem etiam similiter circumtulit dicens. Bibite ex hoc om­nes, hic est Calix sanguinis mei, qui pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. Perspicis, quia sine fide quaerentibus mysterij modum nequa­quam explanauit: credentibus autem, etiam non quaerentibus exposuit. Vndoubtedly (sayth Cyrill) Christ is mercifull and mylde: as a man maye perceyue euen by the verie things themselues. For he did not shape a sharpe aunswere to their cruelty, neyther doth he by any meanes contende: but he doth indeuor more then once, to print in their mindes the quickning knowledge of this mysterie. But after what maner, he will giue his owne fleshe to be eaten, he doth not declare: bicause they could not vnderstande it. But howe great good things they shall obtayne, if they shall with faith eate it: he doth oftentimes declare, that by the desire of eternall lyfe, they might be compelled to imbrace fayth, by the meane wherof, they might the more easily be taught. For thus hath Esay sayde. If ye will not beléeue: ye shall not vnderstande. It beho­ued therefore, first to cast the rootes of fayth in the minde: and af­terwarde to séeke those things that man should séeke. But those men did before they beléeued, out of season seeke for those things. For this cause therfore, the Lorde did not declare, how that thing might be done: but he doth encourage them to séeke it by fayth. In lyke maner vnto his Disciples which beléeued: he gaue the péeces of bread saying, take and eate, this is my bodye. The cup also he did in like maner beare about saying: drinke ye all of this, this is the Cup of my bloud, which shall be shed for many, for the remission of sinnes. Thou séest that he opened not the maner of the mysterie, to them that sought it without fayth: but to such as beléeued, he did expound it, before they asked any question.

Nowe let the indifferent Reader iudge howe faythfully you haue handled the wordes of Cyrill, and so he may haue the lesse cause to credite you in your large affirmation, wherein you saye,Watsons store is but small. that all the good auncient Writers doe with one consent, expound this place of Iohn as you doe. Whereas, when your store shall be sought: there shall not one that lyued within .600. yeres after Christ, be founde of your minde in thys point.

Wherfore, we may well conclude, that Christes fleshe is not in the sacrament in such sort as ye teach: and that Christ ment not by those wordes that you cite out of Iohn, to promise, that he would giue his bodye in such sort to be eaten, as ye haue affirmed that he did. But that he ment to teache, that he himselfe is that heauenly foode that the father giueth for the lyfe of the world,The mea­ning of Christ in the 6. of Iohn. and that he would giue them none other foode from heauen but onely that which at the time appointed, he would yéelde vp for the lyfe of the worlde. And that not to be eaten after a fleshly sort, but after such a spirituall sort, as the fathers that lyued afore he was incar­nated, had and did eate it. Your exposition of saint Iohns wordes therefore, is but a vayne and fayned glosse for that text.

WATSON. Diuision. 17 The time also is to be considered, that he spake these wordes the night before hee suffered death, at which time, and the next day after, he ended and fulfilled al figures, say­ing on the crosse, Consummatum est. All figures and shadowes be ended and expired, which was no time then, to institute and begin new figures. Is it lykely or probable, that our saui­our Christ then entring into his Agony, and beginning his passion, accustoming commonly before to teach his Disci­ples in playne wordes, without Parables or figuratiue spee­ches: would then so lightly behaue himselfe, as to delude his chosen and entirely beloued Disciples, in calling those things his bodye that is giuen for them, and his bloud that is shed for them, which were neither his body nor his bloud, but bare bread and wyne? Or is there any religion in oure christen fayth, in nicknaming thinges, or calling them o­therwise, then they be?

If any man thinke himselfe able to aunswere that, by­cause Christ sayde he was a Vine, he was a dore, being ney­ther Vine nor dore: that man seemeth to mee not substan­tially to way the wordes and speeches of scripture.

For let him consider thorowout all the scripture wher­soeuer he shall finde, that Christ, spake any thing of him­selfe by wordes of our common speeche (for the God head [Page 63] and the properties of the Godhead be ineffable, and cannot be expressed to our capacitie, but by wordes and names of wordly and naturall things here among vs.) He shall alwaies finde that Christ was a better and more singular thing then the worde did properly signifie, that was attribute vnto him, and to make this matter more playne by examples.

Where Christ sayde, I am the waye, he ment not, that he was the way that leadeth to the Citie, or to some other place but that he was a more excellent waye. A way that leadeth to the father, to heauen, to euerlasting lyfe.

When he sayde, he was the dore, he ment not, Iohn. 10. that he was the dore of the sheepefold here in earth, but a farre bet­ter dore, the dore of the Church, the spirituall sheepefold, by the which dore whosoeuer entereth, shall be saued.

Also calling himselfe a Vine, Iohn. 15. hee ment that he was the spirituall Vine, whereof all christen men be braunches, and better then such a Vine as groweth in the fieldes.

And lykewise by that he calleth himselfe the light, we vnderstand, that he was not the sensible light of this world but the heauenly light that neither by course is chaunged, nor by shadowe is darkened.

So that it maye be obserued for a rule, when Christ doth attribute the name of any sensible creature to himselfe, euer the vnderstanding exceedeth and excelleth the worde in dignitie.

And if this be true in all kinde of teaching and doctrine shall we nowe in the highe mysteries and sacraments of God come from the Hall to the Kitchin, from the better to the worst? that where Christ sayth. This is my bodye, we shall vnderstande it is bread a worse thing, then his body. This is my bloud, that is to say, wine a worse thing then his bloud. This be fond and false gloses, neyther true, nor lykely, nor yet tolerable.

Wherfore leauing out a great many other circumstaun­ces, that would serue verye well, Math. 26. to set foorth the truth of this doctrine, I shall conclude thus, seing saint Mathewe [Page 64] sayth in plaine termes, it is my body, it is my bloud: Saint Marke sayth it is my body: Mar. 14. Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 11. Iohn. 9. Saint Luke sayth it is my body: Saint Paule sayth it is my bodye: Saint Iohn sayth it is my fleshe, shall we nowe fiftene hundreth yeare after them, han­dle the matter so finely, and waye the scripture so substan­tially, that we shall affirme the contradictory to be the true sense, saying this is not my body, this is not my bloud, but a figure and a signe of my bodye and bloud? These euident scriptures moue me to continue still stedfast in that fayth I was borne in, and not to be moued with vaine words and reasons without probabilitie, against all rule and forme of true reasoning.

CROWLEY.I would not haue thought, that any man could haue bene a­ble by Arguments to haue perswaded you to graunt so much, as you haue here graunted, of your owne voluntary and willing ac­corde.Watsons vo­luntarie graunt. That is, that all figures and shadowes are ended and ex­pired, and that it was no time for Christ, at that time to institute newe figures. I trust you will nowe be an enimie to all those fi­gures and shadowes, that the Pope hath brought into y^e Church of Christ. But me thinketh I heare you say, that you meane on­ly to affirme that the time wherein Christ spake these words, this is my body, was the time not méete, for the institution of figures and shadowes. Well. If we shall haue occasion hereafter, to charge you with these words: we will vrge them with such force, that so slender an aunswere shall not serue you.

But in the meane while you dalley with those figuratiue spéeches that are vsed in the scriptures. I am the way, I am the dore, I am the Vine, I am the lyght. A generall rule may be (say you) obserued: that when Christ speaketh of himselfe by the name of anye creature, there must be a better thing vnderstande, then the thing is, that such a name doth properly signifie. And there­fore we must in the matter of the sacrament, vnderstand a better and more excellent thing, then is Bread and Wine.

Me thinketh (M. Watson) you might haue spared all this labour. For none of vs hath or doth denie, that when Christ spea­keth [Page 65] of himselfe, and gyueth himselfe the name of any creature: we must vnderstande a better thing, then is properly signified by that name. But what maketh this for your purpose? It séemeth to me, that eyther you your selfe haue forgotten your Logick: or else when you did set forth your Sermon in print, you thought that the worlde would neuer turne so, that any Logition might be bolde in open wryting to controule your subtile sophistrie.

When I was Logitioner in Oxford: I learned, that in euery Cathegoricall proposition, there be Tres termini. Subiectum, prae­dicatum, & Copula. Nowe the Subiectum, is that, whereof af­firmation or negation is made: and Predicatum is that, which is affirmed or denied. And Copula is the verbe Substantiue, that in construction standeth betwixt them.

You must not be offended with me,Watsons so­phistrie hath made him forget his Logick. for that I talke with you of things so farre vnder the profession of a Doctour of Diuinitie: for surely you séeme to me to haue forgotten all, seing you shame not to saye, that Christ speaketh here of himselfe, as in the other places that you cite for example. I am the Vine, and this is my body: haue both one Subiectum, by your sophistry. If Christ had sayde I am bread, as in the sixt of Iohn he sayde, I am that bread which came downe from heauen: then your rule would haue ser­ued. But sith he sayth, this is my bodye: it is manifest, that he speaketh of the bread and sayth that it is his body.

Mathew, Marke, Luke, Iohn, and Paule, be no more on your side then they be on oures. But rather their playne words doe prooue, that you for your reasoning without probabilitie, and contrarie to the rule of all true reasoning,Watson must be promoted. are méete to be promo­ted out of the Hall into the Kitchin, or rather from the Diuinitie Schoole to the Logick lecture. For they all with one consent say, that our sauiour Christ spake not of himselfe, but of the bread af­firming it to be his body and his fleshe. Which we doe not denie, affirming the contradictorie (as you say that we doe) but we doe most constauntly affirme that to be true which Christ both spake and ment. That is, that in the sacrament, y^e bread is his body,Watson de­nieth Christs words to be true. and the wine his bloud. But you and your sort do denie his words to be true, & do affirme the contradictory: for you say there is neither bread nor wine remayning in the sacramēt. So that when Christ [Page 66] tooke bread in his hande, and speaking of the bread sayde, this is my body: the bread was not his body (by your doctrine) but his body was there vnder the accidents of bread, and the substaunce of the bread (as some of you saye) turned into the body of Christ: or as some other teache, the substaunce of the bread being con­ueighed away: the substaunce of Christs body commeth in place vnder the accidents of that bread that was there. These be fond and false gloses, neyther true nor lykely, nor yet tollerable. But if you and your sort doe not beléeue, and therefore can not vnder­stande,Howe the bread is Christes body. how Christes body and bloud can be in the sacrament, vn­lesse the substaunce of bread and wine be done awaye, and will therefore aske the vnfaythfull question, howe: then I must tell you, that euen as all true Christians are the members of Christ, of his flesh and of his bones: so is the sacrament (receiued of such) his verie body and his bloud mysticallie.Ephesi. 5. But for your really, sub­stancially, and corporally: we can no skill of, bicause we finde them not in the holy Scriptures, neyther yet in the auncient Or­thodox Fathers.

August. serm. ad Infantes.Saint Austen in his Sermon Ad infantes, cited by saint Beda, sayth thus. Si ergo vos estis corpus Christi & membra, mysterium vestrum in mensa Domini positum est, mysterium Domini accipitis, ad id quod estis, amen, respondetis. If you therefore, be the bodye and members of Christ: the mysterie of you, is set vpon the Lordes table, yée re­ceiue the mysterie of the Lord, you answere Amen, to that which you your selues are.

Agayne, the same saint Austen, wryting against Adiman­tus: sayth thus. Non dubitauit Dominus dicere, hoc est corpus meum, cum signum daret corporis sui. August. ad Adimantum Cap. 12. The Lorde did not doubt to say, this is my body: when he gaue the signe of his body. A signe it could not be, if it were not a thing that might signifie.

It is manifest therefore, both by the expresse wordes of the Scripture, and also by the iudgement of saint Austen: that the thing that our sauiour spake of, when he sayde this is my bodye: was bread. And bicause he had appointed it to be a sacrament of his bodye: he gaue it the name of that thing that it was a sacra­ment of. And sacramentally, or mystically, it was his body and [Page 67] bloud that he spake of.

Moreouer the nature of a sacrament doth moue me ve­rie much to beleeue still, as I doe. WATSON. Diuision. 18 For where as euery sacra­ment of the newe Testament is a visible forme of an inuisi­ble grace, as saint Augustine sayth, it can not be a sacramēt of the newe Testament, except it haue a promise of some, such grace to be giuen, to the worthye receyuer, as is signi­fied by the outward forme of the sacrament. As in baptisme the water, which is the outwarde forme signifieth the grace of saluation and remission of sinnes, which grace is both gi­uen to the worthy receyuer, and is also promised in scrip­ture to be giuen, by the mouth of Christ saying: Qui credi­derit & baptizatus fuerit, saluus erit: Mar. 16. He that beleeueth and is baptised, shall be saued.

Euen so the outward element of this sacrament, which is bread & wine, doth signifie the grace of the vnitie of Christs misticall bodye, that lyke as one bread is made of manye graynes, one wine is pressed out of many Grapes: so one misticall body of Christ is compact and vnited of the mul­titude of all Christen people, as saint Cyprian sayth.

Nowe if our sacrament be bread and wine, as they say then shal they finde the promise of this grace, Cypri. li. 1. Epist. 6. or of some o­ther in the Scriptures made to the receyuer of bread and wine. And if there be no promise in all the scriptures made to the receyuing of bread and wine, then be they no sacra­ments: Iohn. 6. But if they will looke in the sixt Chapiter of saint Iohn, they shall finde this grace of the mysticall vnitie pro­mised, not to the receauing of breade and wine, but to the worthy receauing of Christes body & bloud: where Christ sayeth, he that eateth my fleshe, and drinketh my bloud, he abydeth in me, and I in him, and so is ioyned and incor­porate into one misticall body with him.

Our sacrament therfore that hath the promise annexed vnto it, is not bread and wine be they neuer so much ap­pointed to signifie heauenly things (as they say) but the very [Page 68] body and bloud of oure Lorde Iesus Christ, the bread that came from heauen.

CROWLEY.It is sayde, that there was once one so malicious, that when he perceyued, that asking for himselfe what he would, he should receyue it, but yet vpon such condition, that another whome he hated, should receyue double so much of the same: he being desi­rous to doe the greatest mischiefe he could to the other, asked that one of his owne eyes might be put out, for then he knewe that the other should loose both his.

This mans malice was but little in comparison of yours (M. Watson) for to haue one of your neyghbors eyes put out: you will not stick to put out both your owne eyes your selfe. You tell vs that saint Austen sayth (but you tell vs not where) that euery sacrament of the newe testament, is a visible forme of an inuisible grace. And that it can not be a sacrament of the newe testament, except it haue a promise of some such grace to be giuen to the wor­thye receyuer, as is signified by the outwarde forme of the Sa­crament. &c.

Watson hath lost fiue of the Popes seauen sacra­ments.By this you haue at one blowe striken of from the number of your holy fathers sacraments, no moe but fiue. For where wyll you finde in all the Scripture: that eyther confirmation, order, matrimonie, penaunce, or extreme vnction, are such sacraments as you speake of? Or that they or anye of them, haue anye such grace promised to the worthy receyuer of them?

Well. Thus you haue dispossessed your selfe of fiue sacra­ments, in hope to spoile vs of one. But let vs sée whether we cānot kéepe our two sacraments still, and so disappoint you of your pur­pose. Baptisme you doe graunt vs, for you say water is y^e visible or outwarde forme, and doth signifie the grace of saluation, and remission of sinnes. Which grace is not only giuen to the worthy receyuer: but also promised by Christes owne mouth, when he sayth. Qui crediderit. &c. He that will beléeue and be baptised: shall be saued. But fearing least you should marre all: you leaue out the wordes that folowe. Qui verò non crediderit: condemnabitur. But he that will not beléeue shall be damned. Where is now the [Page 69] grace of saluation and forgiuenesse of sinnes, that is promised to the outwarde baptising or washing in water? Take awaye be­liefe, and there is no forgiuenesse of sinnes at all. No not though you be baptised in water a thousand times. Beliefe must goe be­fore, and baptising in water must folow after, as a seale or con­firmation of the fayth. And whosoeuer doth beléeue, will surely be baptised: according to the institution of him in whome he doth be­léeue.The cause why children be baptised. And such as doe beléeue that the promise of forgiuenesse of sinnes through Christ, doth apperteyne to them and to their séede: will not fayle to begge baptisme for their children also, that when they shall come to the yéeres of discretion, they may be put in re­membraunce that they were dedicated to God, and that therefore they ought to lead a godly lyfe, as it becommeth such to doe. And so many among these, as shall be founde worthy, that is to saye, elected in Christ before the beginning of the worlde: shall surely be saued, as our Sauiour Christ hath promised. But such among them as were not elected in Christ from the beginning, shall not be saued: although they doe beléeue after a sort, as Iudas and Si­mon Magus did, and be baptised too. For onely Gods elect, are effectually baptised, and doe effectually beléeue.

Baptisme therefore, is a visible or outwarde signe of an in­uisible grace, which grace is by the promise of Christ, so annexed to the outward ministration of the visible element water: that in Gods elect it neuer fayleth, but is euer more effectuall.Election in Christ ma­keth men worthy for­giuenesse of sinnes. But in the other that are not elected: it is effectuall in preaching lyuely the inuisible grace, that is by Christ, but it can not make them par­takers of that grace, bicause they be not worthy of it. That is, they be not elected in Christ: which election alone, is it that maketh men worthy.

Thus haue we one sacrament with your consent (M. Watson) nowe let vs sée whether we can kéepe another also, maugre your beard. But first let vs trie if there be not some contradiction in your wordes. First you say, that the outwarde element in this sa­crament, is bread and wine,Cypri. li. 1. Epist. 6. and that it doth signifie the grace of the vnitie of Christs mysticall body. &c. And this you confirme by the testimonie of saint Cyprian. And afterwarde you saye, that [Page 70] our sacrament that hath the promise annexed vnto it: is not bread and wine,Contradicti­on in Wat­sons words. but the very body and bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ, the bread that came from heauen. Nowe, if yea and naye, may be contrarie: then is there contradiction in your wordes. But to the matter. There is no promise of grace, made in the scripture, to the worthy receyuer of bread and wine: Wherefore, it is ma­nifest, that bread and wine can be no sacrament. The same rea­son might be made against that which you haue saide of baptisme. For as I haue declared before: there is no promise of grace made in the scriptures, to the washing in water alone: but the promise is made to the beléeuer, which beléeuing, will be baptised. Those therefore that did put to that part of the definition of a sacrament, did not minde thereby to shewe the difference betwéene the sacra­ments of the olde and new Testament: but to signifie, that with­out faith in the promise made in Christ, it should not auayle to re­ceyue any sacrament. Faith therefore is it, that hath the promise of grace annexed vnto it.

You haue sayde, that if we would looke in the sixt Chapter of saint Iohns Gospell, we should finde, that the promise of the mysticall vnitie that is amongst christians, is not made to the re­ceyuing of bread & wine: but to the worthy receyuing of Christs body and bloud. We haue looked there, and haue found it euen so. And we haue founde also, that the worthy receyuing of the bodye and bloud of Christ: is the receyuing of it in fayth. For Christ sayth there. Amen amen dico vobis, qui credit in me, habet vitam aeter­nam. He that beléeueth in me, hath euerlasting lyfe. And againe. Sicut misit me viuens Pater, & ego viuo propter patrem: & qui mandu­cat me, & ipse viuet propter me. Euen as the lyuing father hath sent me, and I doe lyue through the father: so he that eateth me, the same shall also liue by the meanes of me.

Tractatu. 26.S. Austen expounding this sixt Chapter of S. Iohns Gospell sayth thus. Daturus ergo Dominus Spiritum sanctum, dixit se panem qui de coelo descendit, hortans vt credamus in eum credere enim in eum, hoc est manducare panem viuum. When the Lorde therfore would giue the holye Ghost, he called himselfe the bread that came downe from heauen, exhorting vs to beléeue in him. For, to beléeue in him, is [Page 71] to eate the lyuing bread. And in the same treatise, speaking of the visible sacrament: he sayth thus. Nam & nos hodie accepimus visibi­lem cibum: sed aliud est sacramentum, aliud est virtus sacramenti. For we also, haue this day receiued visible foode: but the sacrament is one thing, and the vertue and strength of the sacrament, is another thing. And againe. Hic est ergo panis qui de coelo descendit: vt si quis manducauerit ex ipso, non moriatur. Sed quod pertinet ad vim sacramenti, non quod pertinet ad visibile sacramentum. Qui manducat intus, non foris: Qui manducat in corde, non qui premit dente. This is therefore the bread that came downe from heauen: that if any man should eate thereof, the same might not die. But yet that which appertayneth to the vertue and force of the sacrament: not that which belon­geth to the visible sacrament. He that eateth within, not without. He that eateth in his hart: not he that crusheth it with his téeth. And agayne he sayth. Hoc est ergo manducare illam escam, & illum bi­bere potum: in Christo manere, & illum manentem in se habere. Ac per hoc qui non manet in Christo, & in quo non manet Christus: proculdubiò, nec manducat spiritaliter carnem eius, nec bibit eius sanguinem, licet carnali­ter & visibiliter premat dentibus, sacramentū corporis & sanguinis Christi: sed magis tantae rei sacramentum, ad iudicium sibi manducat & bibit. This is therfore to eate that meate and to drinke that drinke: for a man to dwell in Christ, and to haue Christ dwelling in him. And by this meanes, he that dwelleth not in Christ, and in whome Christ dwelleth not: without doubt, he doth neyther eate his flesh nor drinke his bloud spiritually: although he doe fleshly and visi­bly crushe with his téeth, the sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ, but he doth rather eate and drinke the sacrament of so great a thing, to his owne condemnation.

Here appéereth playnely the iudgement of saint Austen, con­cerning the outwarde and visible sacrament: and also touching the inward thing, signified by the outward signe. The outwarde signe is bread and wine: and the thing signified, is the body and bloud of Christ. Of the first, may such be partakers as shall pe­rishe, bicause they be not elected in Christ: but of the other can none be partaker, but such as shall be saued and can not perishe, bicause they be elected in Christ, before y^e beginning of the world. [Page 72] And therefore saint Austen sayth afterwarde. Res verò ipsa cuius & sacramentum est: omni homini ad vitam, nulli ad exitium, quicu [...] (que) eius particeps fuerit. The thing it selfe whereof it is a sacrament, is life vnto euery man that shall be partaker thereof, whosoeuer he be, and destruction to none.

Onely Gods elect haue cōmoditie by Christes sa­craments.The promise therefore, can not be made, to the receiuer of the outwarde and visible sacrament, who receyueth nothing but the visible and outwarde element: but the promise is made to the worthy receyuer, that is to the elected and chosen of God, who receyueth both the outward and visible element, and the inward vertue that is signified thereby. And it is vnto him life, bicause he dwelleth in Christ, and hath Christ dwelling in him. Yea he ea­teth Christ daylie by faith, notwithstanding that he be sometime for a long season holden, from the vse of the outward and visible sacraments. For God hath not so tyed his grace to the outwarde sacraments: that he can not saue without them.

To conclude this matter, I would wishe you (M. Watson) to looke once againe in the sixt Chapter of saint Iohns Gospell that you would haue vs to looke in. You shall finde therein (not many words after the promise that you doe so greatly vrge) these open and playne wordes. Amen amen dico vobis, nisi manducaueritis carnem filij hominis, & biberitis eius sanguinem: non habebitis vitam in vobis. Verily, verily, I saye vnto you, except ye eate the fleshe of the sonne of man, and drinke his bloud: you shall not haue lyfe in you. When you haue read and weighed this place: let vs haue your iudgement, whether our sauiour Christ spake there, of the receyuing of your sacrament, which you saye is not bread and wine, or of that maner of eating that I haue spoken of before. If he spake of your maner of eating, then can none haue eternall lyfe: but such onely as doe receyue it so. And then what auayleth the promise made to the washing in water, which you saye is pronounced by Christs owne mouth?By Watsons doctrine, no Infants can be saued. For notwithstanding they be so baptised: yet if they die before they can be communicants, they perishe, nothwithstanding the promise made to them that be baptised.

It shall be best for you and vs both therefore, to saye with [Page 73] saint Austen. Hunc ita (que) cibum & potum societatem vult intelligi cor­poris & membrorum suorum, In Iohā. tract. 26. quod est sancta Ecclesia in praedestinatis & vocatis, & iustificatis, & glorificatis sanctis, & fidelibus suis. His wyll is, that this meat and drinke should be vnderstanded to be the so­cietie or felowship of his body and members, which is the holye Church, which consisteth of his predestinated, called, iustified, and glorified saints and faithfull ones. To these is the promise of grace made and confirmed by sacraments. These beléeuing the promise doe worthily receyue the sacraments. And these, being preuented by death, before they can come to the vse of the outward and visi­ble sacraments: shall haue lyfe euerlasting, bicause they are elec­ted in Christ before the beginning of creatures.

Luther, and such as be of his sect, WATSON. Diuision. 19 as taking his dreames for the ground of their fayth: were much pressed with this argument, deduced of the propertie of the sacrament: and sawe playnely that it could not be a sacrament of the newe Testament, except it had a promise annexed to the worthy vsing of it. And yet for all that, he would not condiscend to say as the Church sayth, that Res sacramenti, the thing of the sacrament signified and not conteyned, which is the vnitie of the mysticall body, were that grace, which by Christ in S. Iohn was promised to the worthy receyuer of it: but went and sought about for another promise, and after much pooreyng, at last he brought forth a promise (as he thought) meete and conuenient, which is, the wordes of Christ, Quod pro vobis tradetur. Which shall be giuen for you. And in thys point, 1. Cor. 11. he shewed with what violence he handled other mat­ters of our fayth: that in this great matter, so much ouer­shot himselfe.

First, with what face could he call that a promise: which hath no apparaunce of anye promise, but that the wordes in latine be spoken in the future tense, which in Greeke be written in the present tense, both in S: Paule, and in Saint Luke. Quod pro vobis datur. Which is giuen for you. And if they were spoken in the future tense, as they were not: yet [Page 74] they be wordes, not promising a thing to be done, but de­claring what shall be done.

And further, if we should graunt them to be wordes of a promise: yet they promise not the grace of the sacrament, which is to be giuen to the worthy receyuer. For the passi­on of Christ, or the gyuing of Christs body vpon the crosse, is not a grace giuen by the sacrament to the receiuer: but it is that worke that hath deserued grace to bee giuen by the sacrament, for all our sacraments, take their vertue of the passion of Christ, & doe not promise the passion of Christ.

This may suffise for this short time, to shewe vnto you the folly of these men, that neyther wot nor care, what they affirme in these weightie matters. I could saye more in it, but that I haue more necessarie matter behinde to be sayd.

Augst. in Ioh. tract. 15. In Psal. 138. Saint Austen in dyuers places, and other auncient Au­thors: haue this doctrine in their bookes. Elatere Christi, fluxe­runt duo sacramenta. Two sacraments did issue forth of Christs side. And in those places, he teacheth vs by comparing the creation of Eue, the wyfe of Adam the first man, and of the Church, the spouse of Christ, the second man. Lyke as God casting Adam into a sleepe, tooke forth a bone out of hys side, and thereof builded and created him a wyfe: euen so, when Christ did sleepe by death vpon the crosse, vpon wa­ter and bloud that came forth of his side, when it was ope­ned with a speare, God did forme and builde the Church, the spouse of Christ, in that by water we be regenerated, by bloud we be redeemed and nourished.

Nowe concerning our purpose, if two sacraments came out of Christes side, we are sure there came out no wine, ex­cept ye will say the wine of the true vine, which Christ shal neuer drinke with vs any more, but after a newe sort in the glorie and kingdome of his father. Therfore it must needes be, that our sacrament is Christs bloud, and not wine.

CROWLEY.If you had tolde vs, when and where Luther wrote or spake that which you charge him with here: something might haue [Page 75] béene sayde to the matter, eyther in noting his fault, or yours, or both. But for as much as you doe but saye it: I wyll neyther defende Luthers doing therein, nor condemne it: but passe it ouer, tyll ye tell where, when and by whome he was so pressed. But for your owne dealing I must néedes note, that you are ve­rie forgetfull, sith yée doe so straightly charge him, as with a great fault, for that, the lyke whereof is to be found, euen in your owne assertion concerning this matter.Watson is faultie in that which he re­prehendeth in Luther. The fault that you finde with Luther, is for that he alledgeth a promise, made in wordes of the present time or tense (as you terme it) And haue you forgot­ten what tense Christ spake in, when he saide. Qui manducat meam carnem & bibit meum sanguinem: in me manet, & ego in eo? Men say, it is a great fault, for a man to be found faultie in y^t thing where­with he himselfe findeth fault. Well, if you will promise that you will doe no more so: I could be content to winke at this fault. Ad­uertising you to looke better vpon saint Iohns Gospell, where you shall finde (as I haue sayde before) that he which eateth Christ, shall liue by the meanes of Christ. Here is a promise made to him that eateth Christ, not sacramentally onely: but by fayth. As ap­péereth by the wordes that Christ spake before, saying, he that be­léeueth in me, hath lyfe euerlasting. This may suffise for aun­swere to that great fault that you finde with Luther: till you tell vs where and when he committed that fault. &c.

As touching the doctrine that you say saint Austen and other auncient Authors, haue in dyuers places: I know saint Austen hath the wordes: but the doctrine that you would confirme by the wordes, is not saint Austens, but yours. You cite the fourth trea­tise of Austen vpon Iohn: but in that treatise is not one worde that soundeth any thing that waye. You therefore, or else your printer, haue misreported the place. I suppose you would haue noted the .xv. treatise, where saint Austen sayth thus. Adam qui erat forma futuri: praebuit nobis magnum iudicium sacramenti: Imo, August. in Ioh. tract. 15. Deus in illo praebuit. Nam & dormiens meruit accipere vxorem, & de costa eius facta est ei vxor: quoniā de Christo in cruce dormiente, futura erat Ecclesia de latere eius de latere silicet dormientis. Quia de latere in cruce pendentis, laucea percusso: sacramenta Ecclesiae profluxerunt. Adam, which was the [Page 76] shadow or ymage of one to come: did giue vs a great tokē of a sa­crament or hid secret. Yea rather, God did giue it vs in him. For in his sléepe, he obtayned a wyfe, and of his owne ribbe there was made a wyfe for him. Bicause, that of Christ sléeping vpon the crosse, the Church should be made of his side, that is to saye, of his side whilst he was sléeping. For the sacraments of the Church did flowe out of his side, which was pearsed with a speare, whilst he hanged on the crosse.

These wordes of saint Austen, haue some shewe of that which you cite: but they are not the same wordes, neyther can haue the same sense that you would those wordes should haue. As may well appéere by the wordes that saint Austen addeth imme­diatly after, saying. Sed quare hoc dicere volui fratres? Quid infirmi­tas Christi, nos facit fortes. &c. But wherefore would I speake this, sayth saint Austen? Bicause the weakenesse of Christ doth make vs strong. A great ymage was it, that did there proceede or go be­fore. For God might haue taken from the man, fleshe, whereof he might haue made the womā. And it séemeth that it might haue as it were, agréed better. For the sex that was made, was the weaker, and the weakenesse should rather haue bene made of the fleshe then of the bone. For in the fleshe, the bones are the strong part. He did not take from man, fleshe to make a woman of: but he did take a bone. And when a bone was taken out: a wo­man was made therof, and flesh was filled vp in the place where the bone was. God was able to haue restored a bone for the bone that he tooke out, he was able to haue taken out flesh to haue made the woman, and not a ribbe: what did it therefore signifie? The woman was made of a ribbe as being strong: and Adam is be­come fleshe, as being weake. Christ and the Church. His infir­mitie is our strength. Thus farre saint Austen.

As many as wyll, may by these wordes vnderstande, what Saint Austen ment by those wordes that go before, where­vpon you would conclude, that the sacrament (which you terme the sacrament of the aultar) is not Wine, but bloud. For in these wordes saint Austen sheweth his meaning to be farre o­therwise. He doth in diuers places of his wrytings vse this ma­ner [Page 77] of speaking: but in euerye of those places, hée doth by playne wordes shewe himselfe, to minde nothing lesse then to teache, that the sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ,The scope of saint Au­stens doc­trine. is not bread and wine, but bloud onely. His meaning was (as it maye be iustly gathered of his wordes) to teach that our sacramentes take their worthynesse of none other thing, then the worthynesse of the death and bloudsheding of our Sauiour Christ, and that the infirmitie of oure nature in Christ, is become our strength in him.

It séemeth to me a straunge maner of reasoning that you vse, when you saye, that for as much as there came no wine out of Christs side: therefore, our sacrament is not wine, but Christes bloud. If you will giue me leaue to reason after that sort: I will proue yet once againe, that the Church hath but two sacraments. For saint Austen sayth, that the sacraments of the Church did flowe out of Christes side, and you say, two sacraments did flowe out of his side, that is to saye, water and bloud. Therefore I con­clude, that the other fiue be no sacramentes: for they flowed not out of Christes side.

Yea I will by this maner of reasoning, proue: that these two sacraments are not whole sacraments neyther. For the word and fleshe flowed not out of Christes side: but without the worde and fleshe, these two sacraments, be not whole sacraments: Ergo, they be but maymed sacraments. Saint Austen sayth.In Iohannem tract. 80. Detrahe ver­bum, & quid aqua, nisi aqua? Accedit verbum ad clementum: & fit sa­cramentum. Take away the worde from the water: and what is the water other then water? The word commeth to the element: and so is it made a sacrament. And in the other sacrament, except you haue two creatures, bread and wine, or (as you terme them) flesh and bloud: it can be no perfite sacrament. Yea and the word of fayth is necessarie here also. For as saint Austen sayth in the same place. Hoc verbum fidei tantum valet in Ecclesia Dei [...] vt ipsum cre­dentem, offerentem, benedicentem, tingentem, etiam tantillum mundet in­fantem &c. This worde of fayth is of such force in the Church of God: that by it he doth make cleane the beléeuer, the offerer, the blesser, yea and him that baptiseth the little infant, although it be [Page 78] not yet able to beléeue with the hart vnto righteousnesse, and con­fesse with the mouth to saluation.

Watson con­cludeth fondly.A fond maner of conclusion is it, that you gather therfore (M. Watson) of the flowing of water and bloud out of Christes side. For you doe not onely denie your holy fathers fiue sacraments: but also mayme the other two. Yea, you make the baptisme that was ministred before the death of Christ, and the sacrament of Christs body and bloud that was ministred at his last supper: to be of none effect. And last of all, you affirme that part of the sacra­ment to be the whole sacrament: which you and your sort doe withholde from all Christians that be not massing priestes.

WATSON. Diuision. 20 Beside these circumstaunces and arguments deduced vp­pon the scripture, there be also other of no lesse strength then these, able to confirme anye true christen man in the faith of the reall presence of Christes body and bloud in the blessed sacrament.

And these be the effectes of the sacrament expressed in the scripture, which be so great, so glorious, so excellent and heauenly, that it were great blasphemie to ascribe the same to bread and wine, which be onely the workes and effectes of almightie God, and of such creatures onely, as Gods son hath taken and vnited to himself in vnitie of person which be the body and bloud of our Sauiour Christ.

The first effect is, that our Sacrament is the confirmati­on of the newe testament, as saint Mathew and saint Marke also doe write: Math. 26. Mar. 14. Hic est sanguis meus noni Testamenti, this is my bloud of the newe Testament, that is to say: which confir­meth the new Testament, as all holy wryters doe expound. Lyke as the bloud of Calues did confirme the olde Testa­ment, Exod. 24. as the booke of Exodus doth declare: so the bloud of Christ our priest and sacrifice doth confirme the newe Testament, which Testament bicause it is eternall and shall neuer haue ende, is confirmed by the eternall bloud of the Lambe of God, that euer is receyued and neuer consumed, and not by any corruptible bloud, or any other creature of [Page 79] lesse value and efficacie.

In the olde lawe, and also in saint Paule it is sayde. Exod. 24. Heb. 9. Hic est sanguis Testamenti, quod vobiscum pepigit Deus. This is the bloud of the Testament that God hath couenaunt with you he sayth not, This is the bloud of the newe Testament. But if these wordes (This is my bloud of the newe Testament) the Euangelist had ment, that it had beene the figure of the bloud of the newe Testament, what had he sayde more then Moyses sayde before: for the bloud of Calues and Goates was the figure of this bloud of Christ. And then were the Iewes and the olde lawe of more dignity, then we Christen men of the newe lawe, bicause beside we both be but vnder figures (as these men saye) yet their figure was of more estimation then oures is, being (as they saye) but bare bread and wine: wherfore seing these words of Christ (this is my bloud) be the forme of our sacramēt, the effect wherof is the confirmation of the new Testament, it foloweth well, that the cause must be of like or more dignity, and so by no meanes can be the materiall creature of wine, but must needes be the innocent and precious bloud of our immacu­late and vndefiled Lambe of God Iesus Christ.

When you haue after your maner,CROWLEY. passed thorow the circum­staunces of this text. Hoc est corpus meum. &c. You come to y^e effects of the sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ: The first effect of our sacrament (say you) is to confirme the new Testament. &c.

Much adoe you make about the confirming of the two Testa­ments by bloud: The olde by the bloud of Calues and Goates: and the newe by the bloud of Christ. If you had bene so expert in the wrytings of the fathers, as you would séeme to be: you would neuer haue spent halfe this labour, about the confirmation of the two Testaments by bloud. Affirming that all holy wryters doe expounde these wordes of our sauiour Christ (This is my bloud of the newe Testament) to signifie, this bloud doth confirme the newe Testament. Me thinketh you might haue done very well to haue named some one of these holy wryters. But for as much as [Page 80] you name none: I will not trouble the reader with any other ex­positions of those wordes: then that which may iustly be gathe­red of the verie scriptures.

S. Paule wryting to the Hebrues, sayth of the confirming of the olde Testament or couenaunt that God made with Ha­braham: Hebr. 6. that it was confirmed with an othe, not with the bloud of Calues and Goats. Abrahae nam (que) promittens Deus. &c. For (saith saint Paule) when God made a promise to Habraham: bicause he had none greater then himselfe by whome he might sweare: he swore by himselfe, saying. I will blesse and multiplie thée ex­céedingly. &c.

As for the maner of spéeche that is vsed by Moses and the E­uangelists,1. Cor. 11. in the places that you doe cite: is playnely expounded by saint Paule when he sayth. Hic calix nouum testamentum est in meo sanguine. This Cup is the newe Testament in my bloud. And these wordes doth saint Paule wryte, not as his owne, but as the wordes of the Lorde Iesus: spoken at his last supper, when he deliuered the holy Cup to his Apostles.

The coue­naunt of God is confirmed with an othe, and not with bloud.By this it is manifest, that the couenaunt which God made with Habraham, and all the faythfull that should beléeue that co­uenaunt or promise: was confirmed with an othe, and not with the bloud of Calues or Goates. But the bloud of Christ, wherein that couenant was made: was prefigured by the bloud of Calues and Goats, and is nowe kept in memorie by the vse of the Lordes Cup, as saint Paule teacheth in the same place, saying. Hoc facite, quociescun (que) biberitis, in meam commemorationem. Doe this, as oft as ye shall drinke in the remembraunce of me.

The difference that is betwéene the olde Testament and the newe: is playnely shewed by saint Austen, in his booke against Adimantus. His wordes are these. Duorum testamentorum diffe­rentiam sic probamus: Contr. Adi­mant. cap. 17. vt in illo sint onera seruorum, in isto gloria libero­rum. In illo cognoscatur, prefiguratio possessionis nostrae: in isto teneatur ipsa possessio. On this wise doe we proue the difference of the two Testamentes: for that the burdens of bondmen are in the one, and the glorie of frée men in the other. In the olde, the prefigura­tion of our possession is knowne: and in the newe, the possession [Page 81] it selfe is enioyed. We therefore, that be christen men of the new Testament, be not vnder figures, as were the Iewes: but we are in possession of the thing signified by the figures of the olde Testament. And yet we may be bolde to saye, that we haue the signes or figures of the body and bloud of our sauiour Christ, to put vs in remembraunce of that possession, and doe not doubt to call the same by the name of the things signified, as saint Austen wryteth against the same Adimantus. Non enim Dominus dubita­uit dicere, hoc est corpus meum: cum signum daret corporis sui. Capit. 12. The Lord doubted not to say, this is my body: when he delyuered the signe of his body.

We holde therefore, that the confirmation of the olde Testa­ment, and of the newe both: is the othe that God made vnto Abraham, and his faythfull séede. And that the thing promised, was prefigured by the figures of the olde law. And that the same is playnely represented and set forth before our senses, by those figures that our Sauiour hath instituted: not as a thing to come, but as a thing alreadie had in possession, and not to be forgotten of such as haue receyued it. We therefore are not vnder figures, as were the Iewes, before the shedding of Christs bloud: but we doe vse those figures that Christ himselfe hath instituted, to such purpose as he did institute them for. Neyther doe we say or thinke that they be but bare bread and wine: but we teach, that the wor­thy receyuer is by them assured, euen as it were sensibly, that he is made one with Christ and Christ with him, that he dwelleth in Christ and Christ in him, that he receiueth into his soule whole Christ,We teach not that the sa­crament is but bare bread and wine. euen as he receyueth the sacramentall bread and wine in­to his body. And to conclude, that he hath by Christ, euerlasting lyfe: euen as our bodies haue this temporall lyfe by the meanes of bodyly foode, whereof the chiefe is bread and wine, the one ser­uing to strengthen mans hart, and the other to make it chéerefull and merie.

I conclude therefore thus. The othe which God swore to A­braham, is the confirmation of the olde and newe Testament: Ergo, neyther was the olde confirmed by the bloud of Calues and Goates, neyther the new by the sacrament of Christes bloud. [Page 82] And so consequently, it is not any inconuenience at all, to holde that the substaunce of bread and wine doth still remayne in the Sacrament.

Yet one other thing I must néedes note, that in all this adoe, that you make about this effect of the sacrament: you speake not one worde of the fleshe of Christ, but altogither of his bloud: These wordes, This is my bloud, must be the forme of our sacra­ment. &c. But in the next effect, I trust you will speake as much of the fleshe as you haue done nowe of the bloud, and so make vs a mendes for all.

WATSON. Diuision. 21. Lucae. 24. Another effect of this sacrament is taught vs in S. Luke, the 24. Chapter of his Gospell. Where our Sauiour Christ sate downe with his two Disciples that went to Emaus, and taking bread, blessed it and brake it, and gaue it to them. And then their eyes were opened, August. de consensu E­uangelesta­rum. libr. 3. ca. 25. Theophiloct. in Lucam. cap. 24. and they knew him. Saint Austen in his booke De consensu Euangelistarum, teacheth vs to vnderstande this place of the blessed bread, which is the sacrament of the aultar: and sayth the effect of it is to o­pen our eies, that we may knowe God. And Theophiloctus vpon this place of saint Luke, wryteth this. Insinuatur & aliud quiddam, nempe, quod oculi eorum qui benedictum panem assumunt, aperiuntur, vt agnoscant illum. Magnam enim & indicibilem vim habet caro Domini. By this scripture another thing is giuen vs to vn­derstande, that the eyes of them which receyue this blessed bread, be opened, that they might knowe him: for the fleshe of our Lorde, hath a great and vnspeakable vertue. Here we maye perceyue both by the scripture, and also by the holy Doctors and fathers: that the effect of this sacra­ment, is the opening of our eyes to knowe God. And that the cause of that is, the fleshe of Christ, which is our sacra­ment, and in no wise can be eyther bread or wine.

CROWLEY. Watsō seketh vauntage by translating.First, you Englishe the wordes of saint Luke after your owne maner, to make a shewe of the crossing that is vsed in the Popishe Masse. Taking bread, he blessed it. &c. As though the bles­sing [Page 83] had bene the making of the signe of the crosse, vpon or ouer the bread (for so the Popishe Priestes vse to blesse their bread and Cup in their Masse) but if it would haue serued for your purpose to haue translated otherwise: you coulde haue founde occasion enough in the circumstaunce of the text, to haue sayde thus. Ta­king bread, he gaue thankes, brake it, and gaue it to them. For it was his common maner, to giue thankes to God, his heauen­ly father, at the beginning of euery refection. And none did then vse to blesse, by making the signe of the crosse (as your Papistes doe nowe) wherefore it is manifest that our Sauiour Christ did not vse it, eyther at that time or any other.

Howe rightly you gather the meaning of saint Austen, in the place that you cite: shall appéere by his owne wordes in the same place, which are these. Pro merito quippe mentis corum ad huc ignoran­tis quod oportebat Christum mori & resurgere simele quiddam eorum oculi passi sunt: non veritate fallente, sed ipsis veritatem percipere non valenti­bus, & aliud quam res est opinantibus: ne quisquam se Christum agnouisse arbitretur, si eius corporis particeps non est, id est Ecclesiae. Cuius vnita­tem in sacramento panis commendat Apostolus dicens. Vnus panis, vnum corpus multi sumus: vt cum eis benedictum panem porrigeret, aperirentur oculi corum, & agnoscerent eum. Aperientur vti (que) ad eius cognitionem, re­moto silicet impedimento, quo tenebantur, ne eum agnoscerent. Ne (que) enim clausis oculis ambulabant: sed incrat aliquid, quo non sinebantur agnosce­re quod videbant, quod silicet & caligo vel aliquis humor efficere solet. For according to the deseruing of their minde, which was as yet igno­raunt, that it behoued Christ to die and rise againe: their eyes did suffer some such thing, not being deceyued by the truth, but they themselues not being able to perceyue the truth, & supposing the thing to be otherwise then it was: least any man should thinke that he knoweth Christ, not being partaker of his body, that is of his Church. The vnitie whereof the Apostle doth set forth in the sacrament of bread, saying, we being manye, are but one bread and one bodye: that when he should giue vnto them the blessed bread, their eyes might be opened and they know him. That they might be opened to know him: the let whereby they were holden that they should not know him being taken away. For they wal­ked [Page 84] not with their eyes shut vp: but there was something in them, whereby they were kept from knowing that which they sawe. Which thing is accustomed to come to passe by the meanes of some daseing or humor.

Now let all indifferent readers iudge, whether S. Austens purpose in this place,None can knowe God, but such as be members of Christ. be to teach vs, that the opening of our eyes that we maye know God, be the effect of the sacrament of the al­tar. Or whether his purpose be rather to teache, that none can knowe God, but such as be members of his body, that is, of the number of his Church, the vnitie whereof is set forth in the sacra­mentall bread. And therefore the two Disciples, being members of that Church that is Christes body: had the blindnesse of their vnderstanding taken away, at the breaking of bread. And so they knewe Christ, whome before they knewe not.

As for the wordes that you cite out of Theophilacte: doe ra­ther make against you then with you. For where your purpose is to proue (as you conclude) that the sacrament is neyther bread nor wine: Theophilacte doth euen in the same wordes that you cite call it the blessed bread. But this is to be noted, how craftily you can make one sentence of two, leauing out the Periodus or full point,One of Wat­sons shiftes. that in Theophilacts owne workes, standeth betwene illum and Magnam. And bicause you would not haue your reader to looke for any Periodus there: you make no point at all (in your printed Copie) nor any signe of pawse. But the translator of the Author hath set it thus. Vt agnoscant illum. Magnam enim & in­dicibilem vim habet caro Domini: Euanuit autem ab eis: ne (que) enim ad huc habebat corpus, quod multum corporali modo cum eis conuersaretur, vt ex hoc illorum cresceret desyderium. &c. So that the whole might be englished thus. Another thing also is giuen vs to vnderstande: that is: that the eyes of them that doe receyue the blessed bread are opened, that they might know him. For the fleshe of the Lord hath an vnspeakable power. For it vanished out of their sight: neither had he stil such a body, as might be much conuersant with them after a bodily maner, y^t thereby their desire might encrease.

When these wordes be well weighed and considered togi­ther: they doe rather teache vs, that the power of Christs fleshe [Page 85] is vnspeakable in vanishing out of the Disciples sight, then in o­pening their eyes. For he sayth not, that the eyes of them that did receyue his fleshe, were opened that they might knowe him: but the eyes of them that did receyue that bread, where ouer he gaue thankes (which he calleth blessed bread) were opened to knowe him. Howe can you then prooue by this place: that in the sacrament of Christes bodye and bloud, there is neyther bread nor wine.

Your conclusion therefore is to large, when you saye,To large a conclusion. that thereby men may sée, that the opening of our eyes to sée God: is one of the effectes of the sacrament that you talke of. And that in no wise the same may be eyther bread or wine.

Christ sayth, Beati mundo corde: quoniam ipsi Deum videbunt. Blessed are the cleane in hart: for they shal sée God. It is therfore the cleanesse of the hart that worketh the effect that you speake of. And without that it can not be wrought. And many thousandes there be that receyue the sacrament of Christes bodye without cleane hartes: and therefore doe not by the receyuing of the sa­crament, sée or know God. But let vs sée your other effects.

Another effect is, WATSON. Diuision. 22 the immortalitie of our bodies and soules, the resurrection of our fleshe to euerlasting lyfe, to haue lyfe eternall dwelling in vs. This effect is declared in the sixt of saint Iohn. He that eateth me, shall liue for me, Ioan. 6. he that eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloud, hath euer­lasting lyfe, and I shall rayse him vp in the last day.

Vpon this place Cyrillus sayth: Ego enim dixit, id est corpus meum quod comedetur resuscitabo eum: Cyrillus. li. 4. Capit. 15. ego igitur inquit qui homo factus sum per meam carnem in nouissimo die comedentes resuscitabo. Christ sayth I (that is to say) my body which shall be eaten, shall raise him vp, I that am made man by my fleshe shall raise vp them that eate it in the laste daye. Cyrillus in Ioan lib. 10. Capit 13. And in hys tenth booke he sayth more playnely: Non potest aliter corruptibilis haec natura corporis ad incorruptibilitatem & vitam traduci, nisi naturalis vitae corpus ei coniungeretur. This corruptible nature of our bo­dies can not otherwise be brought to immortalitie and life, [Page 86] except the body of naturall lyfe be ioyned to it.

By these Authorities we learne, that the effect of Christs body in the sacrament, is the raysing vp of oure bodyes to eternall lyfe. And also we learne, that the eating of Christs body is not onely spiritually by fayth (as the sacramenta­ries saye: but also corporally by the seruice of our bodyes, when Christes body in the sacrament is eaten and receyued of our bodyes, as our spirituall foode: and bicause it is of infinite power, it is not conuerted into the substaunce of oure fleshe, as other corruptible meates bee, but it doth chaunge and conuert our fleshe into his propertie, making it of mortall and dead, immortall and liuely.

As the same Cyrillus writeth in his fourth booke: Re­cordare quamuis naturaliter aqua frigidior sit,Cyrill. lib. 4. Capit. 14.aduentu tamen ignis fri­giditatis suae oblita aestuat: Hoc sanè modo etiam nos, quamuis propter na­turam carnis corruptibiles sumus participatione tamen vitae ab imbecilli­tate nostra reuocati, ad proprietatem illius ad vitam reformamur. Oportuit enim certè, vt non solum anima per spiritū sanctum in beatam vitam ascen­deret: verum etiam vt rude atque terrestre hoc corpus cognato sibi gustu, tactu & cibo ad immortalitatem reduceretur. The Englishe is this. Remember howe water although it be colde by nature, yet by reason of fyre put to it, it forgetteth the colde, and wax­eth whot: euen so doe wee although we be corruptible by reason of the nature of our fleshe, yet by participation of (Christs flesh which is lyfe) we are brought from our weak­nesse, and reformed to his proprietie, that is to say, to lyfe for it is necessary that not onely our soule should ascend to an happy (and spirituall) lyfe, by receyuing the holy ghost, but also that this rude and earthly body should be reduced to immortalitie by tasting, touching, and corporall meat lyke to it selfe.

This place is verie playne declaring vnto vs, that lyke as our selues are reuiued from the death of sinne to the lyfe of grace and glory by the receiuing of Gods spirite the holy Ghost in baptisme: euen so our bodyes being corruptible by nature, and dead by reason of the generall sentence of [Page 87] death, are restored againe to lyfe eternall and celestiall, by the receyuing of Christes lyuely fleshe into them, after the maner of meat in this sacrament of the aultar

And in his eleuenth booke he sayth, Cyrill. li. 11. Capit. 27. that it is not possi­ble for the corruptible nature of man to ascende to immor­tality: except the immortall nature of Christ doe reforme and promote it from mortalitie to lyfe eternall by partici­pation of his mortall fleshe.

In the proouing of this effect of your sacrament:CROWLEY. you deale as faythfully as you haue done in the rest. First, how faythfully doe you deale, in cyting the words of our sauiour Christ,Watson will not leaue his olde wont. in the sixt of Iohn, as ment of the sacramentall eating of his fleshe, whereas the circumstaunce of the text will not suffer any such sense? For if he should meane there, of the sacramentall eating of his fleshe and drinking of his bloud: then could none be saued but such only as doe so eate and drinke the same. And contrariewise, none that doe so eate and drinke them, could perishe. For he sayth, he that eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloud: hath euerlasting lyfe. It is manifest therefore that these wordes of Christ, be spoken of the spirituall eating and drinking of his flesh and bloud, and not of a sacramental eating or drinking. For the sacrament was not then instituted neyther did our Sauiour Christ, go about to institute a sacrament of his body and bloud at that time.

But in cyting the wordes of Cyrill, in the fiftene chapter of his fourth booke: your faithfull dealing is most manifest. If you had cyted Cyrillus his wordes wholy as they stande in his booke: they would haue made to much against you. And therfore, when you had sayde. Ego enim dixit (id est corpus meum quod comedetur) re­suscitabo eum: Christ sayde, I (that is to saye, my body that shall be eaten) will raise him vp: then you passe ouer the wordes that folowe, which are these. Non enim alius ipse est quam caro sua. Non id dico quia natura non sit alius: sed quia post incarnationem, in duos diui­di filios minime patitur. For he is not any other then the same which his flesh is. I speake not this bicause he is not another in nature: but bicause after his incarnation, he doth not suffer himselfe to be deuided into two sonnes. All these words you doe slylie passe ouer: [Page 88] bicause the meaning of Cyrillus in the other wordes, which you cite, is made playne by these. And then you cite the wordes that folowe. Ego igitur &c. But you go not so farre as you should. For Cyrillus sayth this much more, in the wordes immediatly folow­ing. Nempe impossibile omninò est, ne in territus & mors, ab eo qui natu­raliter vita est superetur: propterea, quamuis mors, quae propter peccatum nostrum in naturam nostram insilijt, corpus humanum ad corruptionem im­pellat, tamen, quia filius Dei homo factus est, omnes profectò resurgemus. Non enim potest natura nostra vitae coniuncta non viuisicari. For it is vt­terly impossible, that destruction and death should not be ouer­come of him, which naturally is lyfe: wherefore although death, which for our sinnes hath skipt into our nature, doe driue mans body to corruption: yet bicause the sonne of God is made man, we shall all surely rise agayne. For it is not possible that our nature which is ioyned to lyfe,Christes in­carnation is the cause of our resur­rection. should not be quickned. Here it is mani­fest, that not the eating, and drinking of Christes body and bloud sacramentally, but the incarnation of Christ, is the cause of our resurrection as Cyrillus thinketh.

But you haue yet another place of Cyrillus, where he sayth. Recordare. &c. You haue a maruellous grace in leauing out that, which should make against your purpose. But this foly I doe note in you, that you can not beware of cyting matter for your purpose, which in the places that you cite, is beset with matter against you, as though you were assured that no man had those bookes but you, or that no man would take paynes to waigh those places, or were able to espie your slights. Immediatly before those wordes that you cite:Lucae. 7. Cyrillus hath sayde, vpon these wordes, Adolescens, tihi dico, surge. Yong man, I say vnto thée, arise. Non ergo verbo solum semper (vt diximus) verum etiam tactu mortuos exitahat: vt ostenderet, corpus quo (que) suum viuificare posse. Quod si solo tactu suo corrupta redintegrantur: quomodo non viuemus, qui carnem illam & gusta­mus & manducamus? Reformabit enim omninò ad immortalitatem suam, participes sui. Nec velis Iudaice quomodo quaerere: sed recordare. &c. He did not therefore alwayes (as we haue sayde) rayse vp the dead with a worde onely, but with a touche also, to declare that his bo­dy also was able to giue lyfe. And if thinges corrupted be made [Page 89] sounde againe by touching alone: how should we, which doe both taste and eate that flesh, be without lyfe? For it will reforme vn­to the immortalitie that is in it selfe: those that be partakers ther­of. Neyther be thou wylling, after the maner of the Iewes, to en­quire how: but remember. &c. as you haue cited afore.

Cyrillus doth here go about to proue, that there was power in the body of Christ, to make sounde those corrupted things that he did but touch. And that therefore such as doe tast and eate the fleshe of that body, must néedes be quickned therby. But how doth this proue, that the sacrament of Christes body and bloud, being eaten: is the cause of resurrection and euerlasting lyfe to the ea­ter? By your vnderstanding of Cyrillus: The sequele of Watsons doctrine. his doctrine must teache vs, that if the Capernaits had layde handes on Christ and eaten him vp euerye morsell, they had done verie well and wisely: for so they should haue bene sure of euerlasting lyfe. But farre was that learned father from so vnlearned a meaning: as may well appéere, euen in the wordes that you cite. For in vsing the similitude of water made whot by fyre: he sheweth what life it is, that doth quicken vs into euerlasting lyfe. Euen that lyfe, which is Christ God and man, which commeth vnto vs by faith, and maketh vs forget our coldnesse of infidelitie and lack of loue, and doth heat vs with most constaunt faith, made fruitful by loue. And so we doe profitably eate the fleshe and drinke the bloud of Christ, for we dwell in Christ, and haue him dwelling in vs.

And yet more plainely doth Cyrillus open his owne meaning in the wordes that follow immediatly after the wordes that you cite. For he sayth thus. Nec putet ex tarditate ment is suae Iudaeus, inaudita nobis excogitata esse mysteria: videbit enim si attentius quaerit, hoc ipsum a Mosis temporibus, per figuram semper factitatum fuisse. Quid enim maiores eorum ab ira Aegyptiorum liberauit, quando mors in primo­genita Aegypti seuicbat? Nonne omnibus palam est, quia diuina institu­tione per docti, agni carnes manducauerūt, & postes & superliminaria san­guine perunxerunt, propterea mortem ab eis diuertisse. &c. Neyther let the Iewe through the dulnesse of his minde, thinke that we haue sacraments deuised for vs, which haue not bene hard of before: for if he will looke well, he shall sée, that by a figure, the verie [Page 90] same thing hath bene done euer since the dayes of Moses. For what was it that did delyuer their fathers from the wrath, when death did rage against the first borne of Egypt? Doe not all men knowe, that they being thorowly enstructed of God, did eate the fleshe of a Lambe, and did annoynt the two side postes and the vpper postes of their dores, with the bloud of the same, and that therfore death turned away from them. And a little after, he saith. Et cuinis carnibus at (que) sanguine sanctificati (Deo ita volente) perniciem ef­fugiebant. They being made holye by the fleshe and bloud of a Lambe, did (by the will of God) escape the destruction.

I suppose that there is no man so mad, as to thinke, that these words of Cyrill should be taken in such sort and meaning, as you take those wordes that you cite. For then shoulde Cyrillus bée thought to ascribe the deliuerance of the people from destruction, to the eating of the fleshe of a Lambe, and the annoynting of the dore postes with the bloud thereof. Which were to farre from such christian knowledge, as appeared to be in y^e christian Bishop.

Watsons cō ­clusion dif­fereth much from Cyril­lus minde.Wherefore, I maye conclude, that you conclusion is verye farre from Cyrillus minde, when you say, that this place is verie playne, declaring vnto vs, that lyke as our selues (you should haue sayde our soules) are reuiued from death. &c. For it is plaine by that which I haue cyted out of the same Chapter of Cyrillus, that he meaneth to teache, that the receyuing of the outwarde sa­crament of the body and bloud of Christ, is all one with the eating of the Passouer Lambe in Egypt.

Lib. 11. & Capit. 27.One other place you haue founde in Cyrillus. But by lyke your conscience tolde you that it serueth not so well for your pur­pose as you would wishe, and therefore you doe but teach Cyrill to speake after you in English (a tongue y^t he neuer vnderstood) but if he were nowe lyuing,Watson tea­cheth Cyrill to speake Englishe. and should vnderstande howe you haue handled him therein, he would (I doubt not) giue you wor­thy thankes. And that other men of iudgement and knowledge, may iudge betwéene Cyrill and you: I will cite his wordes in latine, as Trapezontius hath translated him out of Gréeke. Nexus igitur vnionis nostrae ad Deum Patrem, Christus est, nobis quidem vt homo, Deo autem Patri, vt Deus naturaliter vnitus. Non erat enim possibile, cor­ruptioni [Page 91] subiectam hominis naturam, ad immortalitatem conscendere: nisi natura immortalis at (que) incommutabilis, ad eam descendisset, ac communione participatione (que) sui, a mortalitatis nostrae terminis, ad suum bonum re­formatos, eleuaret. Christ therefore sayth (Cyrill) is the bonde of our vnitie with God the father. Who is naturally vnited vnto vs, as a man, and vnto God the father, as God. For it was not possible for mans nature being subiect to corruption, to clyme vp to immortalitie: except the immortall and vnchaungable nature, had descended vnto it, and by the communion and participation of it selfe, lifted vp from the bondes of our mortalitie, such as be reformed or fashioned a newe, according to the goodnesse of that nature.

Nowe, let all men that haue eyther learning or wyt, iudge how faithfully you deale with Cyrill, when you say, in his name. Except the immortall nature of Christ, doe reforme and promote it, from mortalitie to lyfe eternall, by participation of his mortall fleshe. For who séeth not, that Cyrill doth there speake of that im­mortall and vnchaungable nature in Christ: which came downe from the throne of maiestie in heauen, to take our mortall nature vpon him, that he might frame and fashion vs lyke vnto himself. And so exalt vs aboue the boundes of our mortall nature. Which thing he did by receyuing our nature vnto himselfe, and gyuing his nature vnto vs. And so is he the bond, whereby we are faste­ned to God. But this is the maner of all your sort, in cyting the sayings of the auncient fathers.

Here perchaunce some men will stumble, WATSON. Diuision. 23 considering that we beleeue the bodyes of yong innocentes shall rise to euerlasting lyfe, which we knowe neuer receyued Christes fleshe in the sacrament.

But their doubt in this point may sone be resolued, if they consider that scripture and the olde fathers, speake af­ter the ordinarie working of God making no preiudice to the absolute power of God, who oftentimes giueth the pro­per grace of the sacraments before the outwarde receyuing of the same. As for example. Without baptisme in water [Page 92] and the holy Ghost, no man can enter into the kingdome of heauen,Iohn. 3.as S. Iohn wryteth. Yet we read, that the theefe on the right hande of Christ was saued and neuer baptised, and many conuerted sodainely to our faith were made mar­tyrs before they could come to baptisme in water.

And saint Ambrose thinketh Valentinian the Emper­our to be saued, which dyed in his iourney before saint Am­brose which he sent for, could come vnto him.

And therefore though baptisme be necessarie, and the ordinarie dore to saluation, yet the proper grace of bap­tisme is sometimes giuen by Gods extraordinarie and ab­solute power to such, as without contempt of the sacrament by their wyll and earnest desire receyue the sacrament of baptisme, though not in deede: euen so they that be bap­tised, and haue an earnest desire and longing to receyue Christs body and bloud in the sacrament, and by some vio­lence or impediment are letted to receyue it in deede: or such children as by baptisme haue faith infused into their hartes, and are preuented by death before they can prooue and trie themselues, (which probation saint Paule seemeth to require before the receypt of Christes body) hauing no contempt nor refusal of the same, 1. Cor. 11. but depart in the faith of Christ: These I saye receyue the grace of the sacrament, which is the immortalitie of their bodies and lyfe eternall by Gods extraordinary working, without the receypt of the sacrament in deede. By this little yee maye perceyue, what may be further sayde to this obiection, if the time and my principall matter would suffer me.

CROWLEY. Watson is not able to aun­swere his owne obiec­tion.By making and aunswering of this obiection: you would haue it séeme to all men, y^t this is all that any man can stumble at. And that this one stumbling stock being remoued, the way is so playne and cleare: that none can stumble, vnlesse it be such as wilfully will stumble, in euery playne way. But as you are not able to aunswere this obiection to the satisfiyng of any that know­eth and will consider what the vse of a sacrament is: so may there [Page 93] much more be obiected, whervnto you and the rest of your mind, shall neuer be able to make such aunswere as may be allowed a­mong those that haue knowledge.

It might be obiected, that Adam and Eue, with all the holy men and women that were before this sacrament was institu­ted, and looked for the promise of God made in his sonne: shall rise agayne in the last day and haue euerlasting lyfe. It might also be obiected, that all, both good and bad: shall in that day rise againe and lyue for euer, eyther in euerlasting ioy, or in euerlasting tor­ments, and wishing to die, death shall flie from them. I am sure you being a Doctor of diuinitie, doe knowe this to be true: wher­fore I shall not néede to prooue it. The wordes of Christ,Iohn. 5. Marc. 9. in the fift of Iohn and the ninth of Marke, may suffise for the proufe of both. All that be in the graues. &c. And their worme dyeth not, neyther doth the fyre go out. &c.

But let vs sée howe you haue aunswered this obiection. You say that this doubt may sone be resolued, if men will consider that the scripture and the olde fathers doe speake after the ordinarie working of God, making no preiudice to the absolute power of God. But how haue you proued that? I graunt that the scripture and the fathers doe so speake, & doe make no preiudice to the abso­lute power of God. Shall we thinke therefore, that if the resur­rection of our bodies and euerlasting lyfe, be one of the effectes of the sacrament of Christes body and bloud: he must néedes vse his absolute power, in gyuing the resurrection of body & euerlasting life, to as many as we wil hold from the receyuing of y^e sacramēt?

It appéereth, that in Aunstens time, such as were of your minde, durst not be so bolde,The vse in saint Au­stens time. as to presume vpon the absolute po­wer of God in this point: and therefore they ministred the sacra­ment of Christes body to the Infants so sone as they were bapti­sed, but we kéepe them from the receyuing of it, till they bée growne to discretion, and be sufficiently instructed in Christ, and doe know how to examine themselues before they come to y^e lords table. And if they die in this meane while: shal we think that God must vse his absolute power in raising their bodies, & giuing them euerlasting lyfe? We might as well kéepe all our children from [Page 94] baptisme, and saye that God shall giue them the proper grace of baptisme, by his absolute power without the sacrament. And so should we be all one with the Anabaptistes.

But vayne is all that you haue affirmed, of this effect of your sacrament:Cyrill. li. 4. Cap. 15. and therfore the obiection and the aunswere that you make, can not be other then vayne. We holde with Cyrillus (whose wordes you haue cyted) that bicause the sonne of God is become man: all mankinde shall in the last daye arise out of the earth. All the ofspring of the first Adam that sinned: shall be rai­sed agayne by the second Adam that neuer sinned himselfe, ney­ther was partaker of the sinne of the first.

The cause of the resurrec­tion and im­mortalitie.The Infants therefore (whome you call Innocents) being of the ofspring of the first Adam: shall be raysed agayne by the se­cond, whether they be partakers of any sacraments or not. For the resurrection and immortalitie commeth not by the receyuing of sacraments:Rom. 6. but by the incarnation of the sonne of God. And euerlasting lyfe in ioye and felicitie is the frée gift of God, thorow Iesus Christ our Lorde.

And this frée gift was giuen to all the elect and chosen chil­dren of God: euen before the foundations of the world were layd. But the reprobates, which be not chosen in Christ, shall haue by Christ (that hath taken mans nature vpon him) the resurrection and immortalitie of their bodies: but bicause that they beléeue not in Christ, they shall haue this immortalitie in those torments that their first fathers sinne did deserue. The receyuing of sacraments can not make the reprobates partakers of endlesse felicitie: ney­ther can the lack of them be a cause,August. De catechiz. rudib. Quest. in Leu. 9.84. why Gods elect should not be partakers thereof. But they be the visible seales of heauenlye things: and being receiued without those heauenly things wher­of they be feales: they profite the receyuers nothing at all, more then circumcision did Esau, and baptisme Simon Magus. But when they doe both concurre: then doe the outwarde and visible sacraments, confirme the fayth, and comfort the weake and wa­uering conscience. These therefore be the effectes of Christes sa­craments: and not such as you imagine. But let vs sée what you haue more to say of this effect that you last spake of.

This effect is commonly taught of many auncient au­thors with one consent. For Ignatius one of the oldest cal­leth this sacrament M [...]dicamentum immortalitatis, Ignatius ad Ephesos. antidotum non moriendi, a medicine of immortalitie, a preseruatiue against death.

And the great generall counsayle at Nice, Concilium Nicenum de Eucharistia. wryteth that they beleeued these sacramentes of the body and bloud of Christ to be Simbola resurrectionis nostrae, the pledges or causes of our resurrection.

And Athanasius who was one of the chiefe men in that counsaile, calleth it Conseruatorium ad immortalitatem vitae aeternae. Athanasius de peccato in spiritum sanctum. A conserue or a thing that preserueth our bodyes to the im­mortalitie of eternall lyfe.

Ireneus that was a great deale older wryting against the heretikes, that denied the resurrection of the fleshe, Ireneus lib. 4. Cap. 34. proueth it and confuteth them by the effect of this sacrament say­ing thus: Quomodò dicunt carnem in corruptionem deuenare. quae á cor­pore & sanguine Domini alitur? By what reason doe they say, that our fleshe goeth wholy to corruption, seing that it is nou­rished with the body and bloud of our Lord? and in his fift booke he sayth: Quomodo carnem negant capacem esse donationis Dei, Ireneus lib. 5. quae est vita aeterna, quae sanguine & corpore Christi nutritur? How doe they denie our fleshe to be able to receyue the gift of God, which is eternall life, which is nourished with the body and bloud of Christ.

The greatest argument that Ireneus could bring to proue the resurrection of our fleshe to lyfe eternall, was to alledge the cause of that resurrection, which was the nourishing of our fleshe with the lyuely fleshe of Christ in the sacrament, not to this temporall lyfe as other earthly meates doe, but to eternall lyfe, as onely Christes fleshe doth, and this cause was beleued and confessed of all men at that time, both Ca­tholikes and heretikes. In so much that these heretikes of our time, that denie this cause, that is to say, Christes fleshe to be really giuen in the sacrament, and eaten of our fleshe: doe giue occasion, yea I am afrayde, doe giue more then oc­casion, [Page 96] for vs to thinke of them, that they denie also the re­surrection of our fleshe, which is the proper effect of it, al­though as yet, they dare not impudently burst out in plaine words, though they expresse the same euidently to all mens eyes in their carnall and beastly lyues.

To proue this effect further, I could bring in many moe authorities, Hilarius De Trinit. li. 8. as the saying of Hilarius. Haec vero vitae nostra cau­sa est, quod in nobis carnalibus manentem per carnem Christum habemus. This is the verie cause of our life, that we haue Christ by his fleshe dwelling in our fleshe.

But I will not in so playne a matter, through my curi­ositie seeme to mistrust the credire of you, that be faythfull men. Therefore to conclude, knowing the greatnesse and excellencie of this effect, shall we ascribe it to so base crea­tures as be bread and wine, which be not able to worke such an effect? God forbid.

CROWLEY.Many auncient authors (you saye) doe with one consent teach this effect. As Ignatius, the fathers of the Nicene counsaile, Athanasius, Ireneus, and Hilarius, and many moe you could bring in, but you will not by curiositie, séeme to mistrust the cre­dite of your auditorie. Well, let vs sée what your auncient au­thors haue sayde. First Ignatius, speaking of your Sacra­ment, hath sayde. Medicamentum immortalitatis. &c. A Medi­cine of immortalitie. &c. In hys Epistle to the Ephesians, he sayth thus. State fratres firmi in fide Iesu Christi, & in eius charitate, in passione & Resurrectione, omnes in gratia nominatim congregemini in commune, in vna fide Dei Patris, & Iesu Christi, vnigeniti eius filij, pri­mogeniti totius creaturae, secundum carnem ex genere Dauid: praeunte & deducente vos paracleto, obedientes Episcopo, at (que) presbyterorum caetui, in­diuulso animo: vnum panem frangentes, quod est medicamentum immor­talitatis, antidotus ne moriamini, sed vinatis in Deo, per Iesum Christum: purgatio malorum expultrix. Brethren stand fast in the fayth of Ie­sus Christ, and in his loue, his passion, and resurrection. Con­gregate your selues togither all into one place, in louing fauour one towardes another, in one fayth of God the father, and of [Page 97] Iesus Christ, his onely begotten sonne, the first begotten of all creatures, of the lynage of Dauid after the fleshe: the holy ghost being your guide, and leading you thether. Obeying your By­shop and the whole company of elders, with one consent of mind: breaking one loafe of bread, which is a medicine of immortalitie, and a thing to preserue you that you should not dye, but lyue in God thorow Iesus Christ: and a purgation, that doth expel euils.

This much hath Ignatius written in the place that you cite. And can any indifferent man gather of these words, that he ment here to teach, that our resurrection is the effect of the sacrament of Christs body and bloud? I thinke not. Yea I suppose,Effectes doe spring out of efficient causes. that none can gather that meaning of his wordes, but you, and such as you are, whome affection hath blinded. Doe ye not know, that effects must spring out of efficient causes? And dare you say that the sa­crament of Christes body and bloud: is the efficient cause of our immortalitie. If you haue any shame left: you will not affirme it. For Saint Paule sayth,1. Thess. 4. 2. Cor. 4. that the efficient cause of our resur­rection, is the same that raysed vp Christ from death to lyfe. How can the sacrament of his body and bloud be the efficient cause of our resurrection, and immortalitie then, as you thinke you haue proued it to be?

If Ignatius were nowe lyuing: he would not, I am sure, commend you as he doth commend those Ephesians that he wrot vnto. For he should finde in you, the contrarie of that he found in them, by the testimonie of Onesimus their Bishop. Wherevpon he wryteth thus. Onesimus autem ipse, valde laudat vestram in Deo mo­derationem & dispensationem, quod omnes secundum veritatem viuatis: quod (que) in vobis nulla haeresis inhabitet: sed ne (que) auditis quenquam, nisi so­lum lesum Christum, verum pastorem & magistrum, ac estis sicut Pau­lus ad vos scribebat, vnum corpus & vnus spiritus. &c. And Onesimus himselfe (sayth Ignatius) doth greatly commend your modera­tion and disposition of things in God, for that you doe all lyue according to the truth, and for that there is in you no heresie aby­ding, but you refuse euen to heare any other then Iesus Christ alone, which is the true Shepheard and teacher: and you are, euen as Paule wrote vnto you, one body and one spirite. &c. How [Page 98] farre you and your sort be from the harkening to Christ alone: may easily be séene of all that will consider, the multitude of tra­ditions that you haue brought into the Church of Christ, and doe estéeme them aboue the ordinaunce of God. Wherefore Ignatius might say vnto you, as he wryteth in the same Epistle. Similiter autem, & omnis homo, quisquis indicium a Deo accepit, punietur si im­peritum pastorem secutus fuerit, & falsam opinionem vt veram exceperit. And in lyke maner euery man, that hath receyued at Gods hand habilitie to iudge: shall be punished, if he shall follow an vnskil­full shepheard, and receyue a false opinion as true.

Thus you sée, that when Ignatius is well considered, he will be found none of those auncient Authors, that doe commonlye teache this affect of the sacrament of Christs body: but contrary­wise, he will tell you that you shall be punished, for that you fol­low an vnskilfull shepheard, and accept a false opinion as though the same were true. And euen in that place which you cite, hys wordes are flat against your doings, and therefore you dissemble those wordes, and begin with the next. He hath written thus Vnum panem frangentes, quod est. &c. Breaking one loafe of bread, which is a medicine of immortalitie, and a preseruatiue against death. Now tell me, how this breaking of one loafe of bread, doth or can agrée with your priuate Masse that you call the sacrifice of the Church: and with your Popishe Easter housell, when euery one hath a mock loafe by himself. Ignatius would haue the Ephe­sians to breake (that is to be partakers of) one leafe of bread, and he sayth that is a medicine of immortalitie, and a preseruatiue a­gainst death.Watson was foule ouer­sene. Why then. It is neyther your priuate Masse, nor your Easter housell, that he speaketh of: but our communion. If I had bene of your counsell before you made this Sermon: you should neuer haue cited this place for shame. Well it is out now, and can not be called in againe.

But nowe let vs sée, what the fathers that were gathered togither in the generall counsell of Nice,Concilium Nicenum. haue sayde to this mat­ter. They haue called this sacrament, Symbola Resurrectionis nostrae. The pledges or causes of our resurrection, say you. But I would faine knowe where you haue read Symbolum in that signification. [Page 99] I beléeue you neuer read it in any of the eloquent Gréekes or La­tinistes. You were sure that you had Auditorium beneuolum, A straunge signification of Symbo­lum. and therefore you might be bolde to saye, that Symbolum signifieth a cause: and so translate Symbolum Resurrectionis, the cause of resur­rection. But perhaps you haue some secret Authors, wherin you read Simbolum, written with ī, and not with y. And that Simbolum it is that you translate so: for your printer hath so printed it. Well I leaue this translation of yours, to the iudgement of such as be skilfull in the Gréeke and Latine tongues. But to our purpose. You shall neuer be able to proue that Symbolum signifieth a cause: but a pledge it may signifie. And what haue the fathers of the Ni­cene counsell done for you then? Euen as much as Ignatius hath done before. I will not stick to graunt you both the sayings to be true. The sacrament of Christes body and bloud,Medicines be not the efficient cau­ses of health. is a medicine of immortalitie, a preseruatiue against death, a purgation to ex­pell euils, & a pledge of our resurrection. Are medicines, preserua­tiues, and purgations, the efficient causes of health? And how can this medicine, preseruatiue and purgation, be the efficient cause of our resurrection & immortalitie? And is a pledge the efficient cause of the thing or déede that is promised when the pledge is gi­uen? For in that sense is Symbolum taken here. And vnlesse you can proue that these be efficient causes: you shal neuer prooue that our immortalitie and resurrection be the effects thereof.

The lyke may be sayde to the Conseruatorium ad immortalitatem aeternae vitae. A conserue, or a thing that preserueth our bodies to the immortalitie of eternall life. But bicause it is your custome to cite matter in such sort, that the true meaning of the Author can not be perceyued by the wordes that you cite: I will let the reader sée all the wordes that Athanasius doth in that place write of that matter. Sed proptered ascensionis suae in caelum mentionem secit, Athanasius De p ccato in spiritum sanctum. vt eos a corporali intellectu abstraheret, ac deinde carnem suam de qua locutus erat, cibum è supernis, caelestem & spiritualem alimoniam, & ab ipso do­nandam intelligerent. Quae enim locutus sum vibis, inquit, spiritus est & vita. Quod perinde est acsi deceret. Corpus meum quod ostenditur & d [...]tur pro mundo: in cibum dabi [...]ur, vt sparitualiter vnicui (que), t [...]buatur, & fiat singulis tutamen, praeseruatio (que) ad Resurrectionem vitae aeternae. Ita qu [...] (que) [Page 100] Samaritanam abstrahens Dominus a rebus sensibilibus: Deum esse spiritum pronuntiauit, vt deinceps illa, non corporalia, sed spiritualia de Deo cogita­ret. But for this cause did he make mention of his ascention into heauen: that he might drawe them away from the bodily vnder­standing, and that they might afterwarde vnderstand his fleshe whereof he had spoken, to be foode from aboue, heauenly and spi­rituall nourishment, and such as he must giue. For (sayth he) that which I haue spoken vnto you: is spirite and lyfe. Which is as much as if he should say. My body, which is showed and giuen for the world: shall be giuen to be meat, that it may be spiritually giuen to euerye man, and that it maye be to eche man a defence and preseruation, vnto the resurrection of eternall lyfe. In like maner also, drawing the Samaritish womā from sensible things: the Lorde affirmed that God is a spirite, that from thence forth, she should not think of God as of corporall things, but as of things spirituall.

Now let the indifferent reader iudge, how faithfully you haue vsed your selfe, in alledging the saying of this auncient Father. His grounde is, the wordes of Christ in the sixt of Iohn. Where speaking of the eating of his body he sayth. It is the spirite that doth giue lyfe: the fleshe profiteth nothing at all. The words that I haue spoken vnto you are spirite and lyfe. Which is (sayth A­thanasius) as much as if he should say. My body, which is sho­wed and giuen for the world, shall be giuen to be foode, that it may spiritually be giuen to euery man, and that vnto eche man it may be made a defence and preseruation to the resurrection of eternall lyfe. And to make his meaning playne Athanasius sayth: that Christ made mention of his ascention into heauen, that he might draw his hearers, from the bodily vnderstanding. And further he sayth, that our sauiour talking with the Samaritish woman: did draw hir from sensible things, affirming y^t God is a spirit, that so she might imagine no corporal thing to be in God, but al spiritual.

I can not therefore but thinke, that such as will ioyne with you in alledging this place to proue immortalitie and euerlasting lyfe to be the effect of the sacrament of Christes body and bloud: are by obstinate wylfulnesse blinded, as you doe shewe your selfe [Page 101] to be. For it is as manifest as the cleare sunne light: that his mea­ning was to disproue the grosse opinion of all such as imagine,The mea­ning of A­thanasius. that Christ should giue his fleshe to fill the bellies of men. And to teach, that such as will benefite by eating of his body, must eate the same spiritually and not carnally. And that when it is spiri­tually eaten: it is Tutamen praeseruatio (que) ad resurrectionem vitae aeternae: A defence and preseruation, vnto the resurrection of eternall life. But this is not to teach y^t it is the efficient cause of our immortali­tie and resurrection, as you labor, by this & other places to proue.

But nowe let vs sée what you haue founde in Ireneus, that was a great deale older then Athanasius. He hath sayde. Quomo­do dicunt carnem. &c. By what reason doe they saye, that our fleshe goeth wholy to corruption, seing that it is nourished, with the bo­dy and bloud of our Lorde? This place of Ireneus is sufficiently opened before, in the aunswere to that which you haue sayde of the first circumstaunce of y^e sacrament (which is, who it was that spake these words. This is my body. &c) and is playnely proued not to make any thing for your purpose, eyther there or here.

Yet we haue not sayde any thing to that other place which you cite out of the fift booke of this Ireneus, where he sayth.Ireneus. li. 5. Quo­modo carnem negant capacem esse. &c. How doe they denie. &c. I might put you in remembraunce of that which Erasmus wryteth con­cerning his iudgement of the authoritie of this booke: for I am sure you can tell that he hath written thus.Censura Eras. Roterodami. In hoc quinto libro, quum multa scripturarum loca diligenter explicentur: quaedam tamen insunt, quae nisi quis comode interpretetur, non satis congruere videntur cum bis dogmatibus, quae hoc tempore praescribit Ecclesia. Where as in this fift Booke there be many places of Scripture diligently expounded: yet are there certaine things in it, which vnlesse a man doe well interpret, doe not séeme to agrée verie well, with those doctrines that at this time the Church doth prescribe.Auncient writers must be read with fauour. &c. And afterwarde he sayth. Sed in huiusmodi multis, veteres illi cum candore, nonnunquam & cum venia legendi sunt &c. But in many such things, those aun­cient wryters must be read with fauour, and sometime with par­don also.

But be it that Erasmus had not giuen vs this warning: is [Page 102] there not warning ynough giuen vs, in the wordes of the place it selfe, to looke well to the wryters meaning? You doe, accor­ding to your custome, cite those wordes onely, which may at the first sight, make some shewe, of that you would proue by them. But according to my custome, I will let the reader sée the whole circumstaunce, that he may be able to iudge which of vs both go­eth most nigh to the meaning of the writer. His wordes be these. Vani autem omnimòdo, qui vniuersam dispositionem Dei contemnunt, & carnis salutem negant, & regenerationem eius spernunt, dicentes non cam capacem esse incorruptibilitatis. Sic autem, secundum haec videlicet, nec Do­minus sanguine suo redemit nos, ne (que) Calix Eucharistiae, communicatio san­guinis eius est, ne (que) panis quem frangimus communicatio corporis eius est. Sanguis enim non est, nisi á venis & carnibus, & á reliqua quae est se­cundum hominem substantia, qua verè sactum verbum Dei, sanguine suo redemit nos. Quemadmodum & Apostolus eius ait. In quo habemus re­demptionem per sanguinem eius, & remissionem peccatorum. Et quoniam membraeius sumus, & per creaturam nutrimur. Creaturam autem ipse nobis praestat, solem suum oriri faciens, & pluens quemadmodum vult, cum Calicem qui est creatura, suum corpus confirmauit, ex quo nostra au­get corpora. Quando ergo & myxtus Calix, & factus panis, percipit ver­bum Dei: fit Eucharistia sanguinis & corporis Christi, ex quibus augetur & consistit carnis nostrae substantia. Quomodò carnem negant capacem esse donationis Dei, quae est vita aeterna, quae sanguine & corpore Christi nutri­tur, & membrum est eius, quemadmodum & Apostolus ait, in ea quae est ad Ephes. Epistola Quoniam membra sumus corporis eius: de carne eius, & de ossibus eius, non de spiritali aliquo & inuisibili homine dicens haec (Spi­ritus enim ne (que) ossa, ne (que) carnes habet) sed de ea dispositione quae est secun­dum hominem, quae ex carnibus & neruis, & ossibus consistit, quae de Ca­lice, qui est sanguis eius nutritur, & de pane, qui est corpus eius, auge­tur. Altogither veine are those men, which doe contemne the whole order that God hath set, denie the saluation of the fleshe, and despise the regeneration thereof, saying that it is not able to receyue incorruptibilitie. For by this meanes, that is to saye, if these sayings be true: neyther hath the Lorde redéemed vs with his bloud, neyther is the cup of thankesgyuing, the communion of his bloud, nor the bread that we breake, the communion of his [Page 103] bodye. For it is not bloud, except it come from the veynes and fleshe and the other substaunce which is of mans nature. Wher­in the sonne of God being borne in déede: hath with his owne bloud redéemed vs. Euen as his Apostle also sayth: in whome we haue redemption, the forgiuenesse of sinnes through his bloud. And bicause we are members of him, and be nourished by the creature. And he it is that giueth the creature vnto vs, causing his sunne to arise, and rayning in such sort as it pleaseth him, when he sayde for a suretie, that the cup, which is a creature, is his body, whereby he doth giue encrease to our bodyes. When the mixed Cup therefore, and the bread that is made, doe receiue the sonne of God: it is made the Euchariste or thankesgyuing of the bloud and body of Christ, whereof the substaunce of our flesh is encreased and doth consist. How doe they denie that fleshe is a­ble to receyue the gift of God, which is eternall lyfe, sith the same is nourished with the bloud and bodie of Christ, and is a member of him, as the Apostle saith in that Epistle which he wrot to the Ephesians. For we are members of his body, of his fleshe and of his bones, not speaking these wordes of any spirituall or in­uisible man (for a spirite hath neyther bones nor fleshe) but of that disposition of partes, that is in mans nature, which doth consist of fleshe, sinewes and bones, which is nourished by the cup that is his bloud, and encreased by the bread that is his body.

Nowe let the Reader iudge, whether Ireneus may be vn­derstanded to meane in this place, as you by cyting his wordes,What maner men Ireneus had to doe with. would haue him séeme to meane. First, it is manifest by hys wordes, that he had to doe with such men as did vtterly denie the resurrection of our bodies. And he proueth that their assertion is verie veyne, sith our bodies be nourished in this lyfe, by the same creatures that our sauiour Christ hath made the sacramēts of his body and bloud, which creatures we receyue at his hande, for he causeth the sunne to arise and to warme the earth, and he it is that giueth raine to moysten the earth, whereby the same bread and wine, that he hath assuredly sayde is his body and bloud, doe grow out of the earth, wherby he doth giue our bodies encrease.

And to what purpose should he institute the sacrament of his [Page 104] body and bloud in those creatures, if our nature, which he hath taken vpon him, and is nourished by these creatures: should not by him be made incorruptible and immortall? Howe can they therefore (sayth Ireneus) denie that fleshe is able to receyue the gift of God, which is eternall lyfe: sith the same is nourished with that creature that is the bloud and body of Christ, and is a member of him as the Apostle sayth. &c. Which wordes must be warily considered, least we should thinke that Ireneus doth deny, that the church of Christ is the spiritual or mistical body of Christ, affirming that the same is his very naturall body, which he tooke of the substaunce of the Virgine Marie.Wordes that must be wa­rily consi­dered. But when these wordes be well weighed: it appéereth that Ireneus was earnestly bent to disproue not onely the opinion of such as doe denie our resurrecti­on: but also their opinion that did affirme, that Christ tooke not mans nature vpon him, but had a fantasticall body: and there­fore, he applyed the wordes of Paule against that error, saying. Non de spirituali aliquo. &c. He spake not those wordes to the E­phesians, of any spirituall or inuisible man, but of the disposition of partes that is in man, which consisteth of fleshe, sinewes and bones. Vnderstanding Saint Paules wordes in that meaning that the wordes of Laban must be vnderstand, when he sayde to Iacob. Genes. 29. Os meum es & caro mea. Thou art my bone and my fleshe. That is, thou art of the same lynage that I am, and descended out of the same loynes. So Ireneus vnderstandeth saint Paules wordes in that place, to signifie, that Christ and we, concerning his mans nature, be descended out of y^e loynes of one man, that is the first man Adam. And so he concludeth, that for as much as our nature is nourished and encreased by those creatures bread and Wine, wherein Christ hath instituted the sacrament of his bo­dy and bloud, and doth therefore call the same creatures, by the names of those things y^t they be sacraments of: the same nature must néedes be made incorruptible and immortall through him that hath receyued it to himselfe, and is himself incorruptible and immortall.

Watson is to bolde with Ireneus.Wherfore it séemeth to me (M. Watson) that you are to bolde with Ireneus, when you affirme that his meaning is such as we [Page 105] finde to be contrarie to his playne and manifest wordes. For he sayth that the bloud and body of Christ that he speake of, is that whereby the substaunce of our flesh is encreased & doth continue. But you doe denie that. For you say y^t it nourisheth not our flesh as other earthly meates doe, to this temporal lyfe: but to eternall lyfe. I would gladly knowe therfore what Ireneus may meane by the encreasing of the substaunce of our fleshe by this foode.

Well, this matter is playne ynough to as many as will sée. And so it is, that neyther Catholikes, nor heretikes, did in the dayes of Ireneus, beléeue and confesse, that the sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ, is the cause of the vncorruption of our bodyes, and the eternall lyfe of the same. And that we which doe nowe denie our resurrection and euerlasting lyfe in an immortall state, to be the effect of the sacrament of Christs body and bloud: doe not giue thereby any iust occasion, to be suspected of the error of them that doe denie the resurrection of our fleshe. And for that you charge vs with beastlynesse of lyfe: for my part, I referre the iudgement to them that know vs both. Let other aunswere for themselues.

Well. For further proufe of this effect, you could bring in many mo Authors, as the saying of Hilarius. &c. Hilarius hath sayde thus, say you. Haec vero vitae nostrae causa est. &c. This is the verie cause of our lyfe: that we haue Christ by his flesh dwelling in our fleshe.

First, I must tell you that you shew your selfe to impudent in translating the text that you cite out of Hilarius in this place.Hilarius de Trinitate. li. 8. Let the learned iudge whether Hilarius haue sayde, this is the verie cause. &c. And againe in the ende of the sentence, dwelling in our fleshe. The wordes in Latine for the first, are these. Haec vero vitae nostrae causa est. And for the other, the words be these. Quod in nobis carnalibus, manentem per carnem Christū habemus. If I should translate the whole sentence: I could not be bolde to say other­wise then thus. Truely, this is the cause of our life: that we, which be carnall or fleshly, haue Christ dwelling in vs, by the meanes of the fleshe. But this is a common thing with men of your sort, not onely to alledge Patches out of the fathers, in such [Page 106] sort that the true meaning cannot by the wordes that you cite be perceyued: but also, to make them séeme to serue your purpose, you will not stick to adde somewhat in the translation that can not be founde in their wordes, as in this place it doth most ma­festly appéere.

Censura Erasmi.And how easie a thing it is for such as be disposed to apply the wordes of auncient wryters contrarie to their meaning, to vse the wordes of this wryter so: may well be séene by that which E­rasmus hath writtē in his Epistle, set before this Authors works, where he sayth. Plurimum sudoris compereram in emendando Hierony­mo, sed plus in Hilario, cuius talis est sermonis Charecter, vt etiam si res per se dilucidas tractaret, tamen esset & intellectu difficilis, & deprauatu facilis. I did finde (sayth Erasmus) much labour, in the correc­ting of Hierome: but more in the amending of Hilarie. Whose maner of spéeche is such, that although he did entreat of thinges which were of themselues euident and playne: yet should he bée hard to be vnderstanded, and easie to be depraued. No maruell therefore, though you in this place, fayling of the first, which is harde, haue happened on the latter, which is easie. Affirming that Hilarius is one of those auncient fathers, that doe teach, that the resurrection of our bodies and euerlasting lyfe: is the effect of the sacrament of Christes body and bloud.

Yea, and in the selfe same Booke, out of which you cite those wordes, the same Erasmus doth iudge him to teache doc­trine that is not sounde. And therefore in the aforenamed Epistle he sayth thus of him. Et quum alias, tum libro de Trinitate. 8. magna contentione defendit, nos quo (que) cum filio & patre, vnum esse natura: non adoptione, ne (que) consensu tantum. And both in other places, and chiefe­ly in his eyght booke De Trinitate: he doth with great contention defend, that we also, are all one with the sonne and the father, by nature, not by adoption and consent onely. And immediatly af­ter he sayth thus. Rursus eius operis lib. 3. sed magis lib. 10. sic loquitur de Corpore Christi, vt sentire videatur, Mariam virginem, praeter conci­piendi, gestandi, & pariendi ministerium, nihil addidisse de suo: cum or­thodoxi credant, Christum ex opificio quidem spiritus, sed ex substantia virginei corporis conceptum. Quin & alia loca sunt, quae ciuilem & com­modum [Page 107] requirant interpretem. Againe in the thirde booke of the same worke, but rather in the tenth booke: he doth so speake of the bo­die of Christ, that he may séeme to thinke, that besides the mini­sterie of conceyuing, bearing in hir wombe, and bringing forth into this life, the virgine Marie did adde nothing of hir owne. Whereas, such as be of right beliefe, doe beléeue, that Christ was conceyued by the work of the holy ghost, but of the substance of the virgins bodie. Other places also there be, which do require a curteous and gentle interpretour.

I suppose you knew all this before:Watson hath a wrong opi­nion of vs. but by lyke you thought that all such as be not of your minde, must néedes be ignorant herein. Else you would haue weighed Hillaries wordes better, before you had cited them for your purpose. But let vs sée nowe how we can weigh them, and what doctrine will ensue vpon the taking of them in such sense as you doe. And if we finde that some absurde doctrine will follow vpon such a meaning as you gather of his words: why shoulde we not call to memorie the wordes of Erasmus in the Epistle aboue named, where he sayth thus. Nemo quantumuis eruditus & oculatus, non labitur, non caecutit alicubi: videli­cet vt omnes meminerint homines esse, & à nobis cum delectu, cum iudicio, simul (que) cum venia legantur, vt homines. There is no man, be he neuer so well learned and circumspect, that doth not slip, and in some point shew himself to lacke sight: that no man should forget them to be men, and that we shoulde reade them with choyse, wyth iudgement, yea and with fauour also, as men.

But bicause you haue (as you are wont) left out those words of Hilarie, both immediatly before and after, which might gyue more light to hys meaning: I haue thought good to cyte the words that you doe, with somewhat of the circumstance.

Thus he sayth. Quod autem in nobis naturalis haec vnitas sit, ipse ita testatus est: qui edit carnem meam. &c. And that this naturall v­nitie is in vs: he himselfe doth in this sort testifie. He that eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloude, doth dwell in me and I in him. For no man shall be in him, but such as he himselfe shall be in: hauing receyued into himself the flesh of that man only, which hath taken vpon him his flesh. The sacrament or mysterie of this [Page 108] perfect vnitie, he had taught before, saying: euen as the liuing fa­ther hath sent me, and I doe liue through the father, so he that ca­teth my flesh shall liue through me. For euery comparison is ta­ken according to the forme of vnderstanding, that by the exam­ple that is proponed, we maye vnderstande the thing that is tal­ked of. Truly this is the cause of our life: that we which be car­nall or fleshly, haue by the meanes of the fleshe, Christ dwelling in vs: which shall liue through him, in such sort as he liueth tho­row the father. If we therefore doe naturally liue through him, as touching the flesh, that is, hauing obtayned the nature of hys flesh: how should it be, but that sith he doth liue by the meanes of the father, he must néedes haue the father in himselfe, naturally, as touching the spirite: And he doth lyue by the meanes of the fa­ther, seing that his natiuitie hath not giuen him a straunge and contrarie nature, for as much as, that being that he hath, is of his father, and yet for all that, he is not by any vnlikelinesse inci­dent to his nature, separated from him; seing that through his natiuitie in the strength of nature, he hath his father in himselfe. We haue made mention of these things, bicause the Heretikes (which fayne that the vnitie betwéene the father and the sonne, is onely the vnitie of will) haue vsed the example of our vnitie with God, as though, when we be by seruice onely and will of religion, knit vnto the sonne, and by the sonne to the father: there were no proprietie of naturall communion graunted vnto vs, by the sacrament of his body and bloud: where as the mysterie of the true and naturall vnitie, is to be preached, both by the honor of the sonne of God, which is giuen vnto vs, and also by the sonne that is carnally abyding in vs, being bodily, and inseparably ioyned togither in him.

In the latter part of these words Hilarius doth playnely shew the cause that moued him to write after such sort as he doth in the former part of the same. The heretikes (sayth he) which fayned that the vnitie betwixt the father and the sonne, is onely the vni­tie of will. &c. By this it is manifest, that his purpose was to proue: that the example whereby the heretikes would proue, that the vnitie that is betwixt Christ and his father, is but the vnity [Page 109] of wyll: doth serue nothing for their purpose. For the vnitie that is betwixt Christ and vs, and through Christ betwéene God the father and vs: is not onely in wyll of religion and seruice, but naturall and true. And in Christ, we are bodily and inseparably ioyned one to another, and doe altogither liue by the meanes of Christ, as Christ doth lyue by the meanes of his Father. And therfore he sayth as you haue cited. Haec verò vitae nostrae causa est. &c. Verily, this is the cause of our lyfe. &c.

Nowe (M. Watson) call to memorie, the admonition that Erasmus gyueth in his Epistle, concerning the maners of spée­ches that this author vseth in his workes, and touching the doc­trine that he teacheth in this booke, wherout you alledge those wordes that we haue nowe in hande: and then it shall appéere to you (I trowe) that you haue not vsed Hilarius well, in bearing men in hande, that he is one of them that teach our resurrection and euerlasting lyfe, to be the effect of the sacrament of Christes body and bloud. For if shall be playne that he meaneth to teache, that as Christ and his father be one in nature: so Christ and we that doe beléeue the promise that God hath made in him, and ther­fore be by loue inseparably ioyned one to another, and doe ther­fore oftentimes come togither, and be partakers of one loafe and one cup, whereby this perfite vnitie that we haue with God, and one with another, is playnely preached vnto vs, and euen oure verie senses certefied, that we are by fayth inseparably ioyned vnto Christ, as members to their head, and by loue one to ano­ther, as members of one body amongst themselues. We must therefore in this point, vse both iudgement and fauour in the rea­ding of Hilarius.

If you should therfore, go about by many such places as this, to proue this effect of y^e sacrament: you should in déede through your ouer much curiosity, séeme to much to mistrust the credite of your so faithful an auditory. Wherfore you doe well to cōclude without any more to doe. And as for the ascrybing of the effect that you haue spoken of, to so base creatures as bread and wine:God is the efficient cause of our resur­rection. you shall not néede to feare, if ye will with vs ascribe it to him, that is the efficient cause thereof, which is the diuine maiestie it selfe. But [Page 110] nowe let vs sée what other effectes, this sacrament séemeth to you to bring forth.

WATSON. Diuision. 25 1. Cor. 10. The principall effect of all is to make vs one body with Christ, which is declared in saint Paule, in these wordes: Panis quem frangimus, nonne communicatio corporis Christi est? The bread, which we breake is it not the communion of Christs bodye (that is to saye,) doth it not ioyne and knit vs in the vnity of one body of Christ?

Chrysost. in Paul. 1. Cor. 10. Vpon the which place of saint Paule Chrisostome no­teth, that he sayde not (it is the participation) but it is the communion of one body. Declaring thereby the highest and greatest coniunction that can be, sauing the vnitie of person: for the bread which we breake, that is to saye, the naturall body of Christ vnder the forme of bread, which we breake, and deuide amongst vs, not taking euery man a sundry part, but euery man taking the whole & the same: And as Cyrill sayth, Cyrillus. li. 12. Capit. 32. Gods sonne going into euery man, as it were by diuision of himselfe, yet remayneth whole with­out any diuision in euery man: this bread (I say) is the com­munion of Christes body, that is to say, maketh vs that be dyuers in our owne substaunce to be all one misticall body in Christ, indued all with one holy spirite, whereby the in­fluence of Christes grace, that is our head, is deriued and deduced vnto vs, that be members of his body, fleshe of his fleshe, and bones of his bones.

Chrysost. in Paul. 1. Cor. 10. Thus doth Chrisostome expound the words of S. Paule. Quid enim appellio (inquit) communicationem? idem ipsum corpus sumus: quidnam est panis? corpus Christi: quid autem fiunt qui accipiunt corpus Christi? non multa sed vnum corpus. What meaneth saint Paule, when he sayth (the communion) he meaneth that we be all one body: What meaneth he by this worde (bread) the bo­dy of Christ. What are they made, that receyue the bodye of Christ? they are not made many bodyes, but one bo­dye. And therefore saint Paule sayth by and by after Vnus panis vnum corpus multi sumus, omnes enim de vno pane participamus. [Page 111] We that be many, are made one bread one body, for bicause all we doe receyue and eate of one bread.

Here he telleth playne, why we that be many in num­ber, are all made one bread, one misticall bodye, bicause (sayth he) all we eate of one bread, which is one naturall bo­dye. And this worde (bread) here must needes be taken for Christes naturall body, and not for materiall bread (as the heretikes say) for it can not be conceyued, neyther by rea­son, nor by fayth, how that all we christen folkes that liue now, and haue lyued since Christes time and shall liue till Domesday, can eate all of one and the same bread, and eate also at sundrie times all of the same one bread, being one bread in number and not one bread in kinde (as some would make cauilation) seing we be not fed Cum generibus & speciebus, with kindes of bread (as the Logitianes say) but with singu­ler bread: except we vnderstand by this one bread the bread of lyfe that came from heauen, the dread of Christes natu­rall body in the sacrament, which he promised to giue vn­to vs all, wherof (as saint Cyprian sayth) Aequa omnibus portio datur, integer erogatur, distributus non dimembratur, Cyprian. De Caena. Domi. incorporatur non iniuriatur, and so forth, whereof equall portion is giuen to all this deliuered whole, and being distributed, is not dismem­bred, and being incorporate into vs, is not iniuried, and be­ing receyued, is not included, and dwelling with those that be weake, is not made weake.

And the reason why all we should be made one bodye, that receyue one body, is declared in Cyrill, Cyrillus de Trini. li. 1. the Latine is long, but the Englishe is this: We men beyng all dyuers in our owne proper substaunce, according to the which one man is Peter, an other is Thomas, an other Mathew: yet are we all made one body in Christ, bicause we be fed with one fleshe, and are sealed in vnitie with one holy spirite: and bicause Christes body is not able to be deuided, therfore be­ing of infinite power, and receyued of all our diuers bodies, maketh all vs one body with himselfe. Chrisost. in Math. hom. 83.

Which vnitie of body saint Chrisostome expresseth by [Page 112] a similitude of Dough and Leuine, that we are made one bo­dy, as meale of many graine and water, when it is kned, are made one Dough or Leuine: his wordes be these. Veniat tibi in mentem, quo sis honore honoratus qua mensa fruaris: ea nam (que) re nos ali­mur, quam angeli videntes tremunt, nec abs (que) pauore propter fulgorem, qui inde resilit aspicere possunt, & nos in vnam cum illo massam reducimur. Christi corpus vnum & cara vna. &c. Remember with what honor thou art honored, of what table thou eatest for we are fed with that thing at which the Aungels looking vpon, doe tremble and quake, and without great feare be not able to beholde it for the brightnesse, that commeth from it, and we are brought into one heape of Leuine with him, being one body of Christ, and one fleshe, for by this misterie he ioyneth himselfe to all the faythfull and those children, whom he hath brought forth, he doth not commit them to be nourished of an other, but he himselfe most diligently and louingly doth feede them with himselfe.

Let my maysters of the newe learning tell me, how that these words can be any wayes applyed and verified of bread and wine with all their figuratiue speeches and hyperbolies.

This coniunction also of vs with Christ, Cyrill expres­seth by a similitude of two waxes melted and mingled to­gither. Cyrillus li. 10. Cap. 17. & libr. 4. ca. 17. Quemadmodum si quis igne liquefactam ceram aliae cerae similiter liquefactae ita miscuerit, vt vnum quid ex vtrisque factum videatur: sic communicatione corporis & sanguinis Christi ipse in nobis est, & nos in ip­so. &c. Like as if a man mingle one waxe melted with an o­ther waxe melted, so that one whole thing of them both be sene to be made, euen so by the communion and receauing of Christes body and bloud, he is in vs and we in him, for otherwise the corruptible nature of our bodyes could not be brought to incorruption, except the body of naturall lyfe were ioyned to it.

Hilarius also, the great learned and godly Bishop sayth: Per communionem sancti corporis, Hilarius in Psal. 6. in communionem deinceps sancti corporis collocamur. By the communion of his holy body, we are af­terwarde placed and brought into the communion of hys [Page 113] holy body.

In such a playne matter as this is, what neede I to heape places one aboue another, all the fathers be full of it. Wher­fore seing the effect of this sacrament is to be made one mi­sticall body with Christ, fleshe of his fleshe, and bones of his bones, as saint Paule sayth: Ephes. 5. Cyrillus. li. 10. Capit. 13. Hilarius de trini. li. 8. which vnion (as Cyrill sayth) is not onely by will, affection, fayth, and charitie, but also carnall and naturall (as Hilary sayth) by Christs flesh ming­led with our flesh by the way of meat: I can not see, but that it is great wickednesse and plaine blasphemy to ascribe this glorious effect to the needie elementes of this worlde, as to bread and wine, but onely to the body and bloud of our sa­uiour Christ, as to the onely substaunce of the blessed sacra­ment of the aultar.

Now,CROWLEY. you are come to the principall and chiefe effect of your sacrament of the aultar. Which you say, is to make vs one body with Christ. This ye will proue first by the wordes of Paule to the Corinthes, which are these. Panis quem frangimus. &c. The bread which we breake. &c.1. Cor. 10. Howe farre the meaning of Saint Paule in the place that you cite, doth differ from your meaning in cyting his wordes: may easily appéere to as many as will and are able to iudge indifferently. I dare therefore saye to such as shall reade thys aunswere, as saint Paule sayth there, to the Co­rinthians. Vos ipsi iudicate quod dico. Be you your selues iudges of that which I speake. Saint Paules purpose in that place, is to perswade the Corinths: that they might in no case match chri­sten religion with Idole seruice. For a little after those wordes that you cite, he sayth. Nolo vos fieri socios Demoniorum. Non potestis Calicem Domini bibere, & Calicem Demoniorum. Non potestis mensae Domini participes esse, & mensae Demoniorum. I would not (sayeth saint Paule) that you should be made companions of Deuilles. You can not, or you may not drinke the Lordes cup, and the cup of the Deuils. You may not be partakers of the Lords table, and of the table of the Deuils. By which wordes it is manifest, that saint Paule did purpose to perswade the Corinthes, that such as would be christians, must withdrawe themselues from all Idola­trie, [Page 114] and kéepe the religion of Christ pure and vnspotted, with the mixture of any heathenish Gods seruice. But you (M. Watson) will make vs beléeue that saint Paule meaneth to teach, that our knitting togither into one body with Christ: is the effect of your sacrament of the aultar. For so you doe expound the words that you cite out of Paule. Nonne communicatio. &c. That is to say (say you) doth it not ioyne and knit vs in the vnitie of one bodye in Christ? Sauing that I doe know it to be your common custome, thus to handle both the scriptures, and the wrytings of the aunci­ent fathers: I would wonder that euer you could for shame make such interpretation of these wordes. But nothing may be wonde­red at, which custome hath made common.

Chrysost in 1. Cor. 10.But you haue Chrysostome, to take your part, you say, who noteth vpon this place, that Paule sayth not, it is the participa­tion, but the communion of one bodye. First I must note here, that you haue done, you wot not what. For you haue founde out for your maisters of the newe learning, that which some of your fort haue sayde, could not be founde in any part of the scripture: That is, that the sacrament of Christs body, is called a commu­nion. But let vs sée what Chrysostome hath sayde. For it were not wisedome to trust you when you cite his sentence without his wordes, as you doe here. His wordes therefore are these. Quare non dixit participatio? Quia amplius quiddam significare voluit, & mul­tam inter haec conuenientiam ostendere. Non enim participatione tantum & acceptione: sed vnitate communicamus. Quemadmodum enim corpus illud vnitum est Christo: ita nos per hunc panem vnione coniungimur. Why did he not call it a participation? Bicause he was wylling to sig­nifie a greater matter, and to shew that there is great agréement betwéene these things. For we doe not communicate in taking and receyuing onely: but in vnitie also. For euen as that body is vnited vnto Christ: euen so are we by this bread, ioyned togi­ther in vnion.

Now let the Reader compare these words of Chrysostome: with those that you haue vsed in your Sermon, as though they were Chrysostomes: And so shall he be able to iudge how fayth­fully you haue dealt therin. Chrysostome sayth that Paule doth [Page 115] not call it a participation, but a communion, bicause he would by that worde signifie a greater matter, then he could by the other, and shewe that the things vsed in the communion, doe verie much agrée with those that doe cōmunicate. As though he should haue sayde, it is a greater matter to communicate with Christ and christians: then only to be partaker of those creatures which be vsed in communicating. For such as doe communicate with Christ and christians, are become members of that body wherof Christ is the head, and doe receyue from Christ, spirituall lyfe, strength, and comfort, as naturall partes of a naturall body, doe receyue naturall lyfe, strength and comfort, from their naturall head. And such as doe communicate with Christians, are coupled togither in the felowship of members of one body, not onely with these christians that are nowe lyuing: but with those that haue bene before, and those that shall be after also. And the creatures bread and wine doe serue verie well to signifie this communion both with Christ and christians. And therefore Paule would vse the worde Communion, rather then participation. And that this is Chrysostomes meaning in that place, is playne by the wordes that folow and I haue set downe in wryting. Non enim participati­one. &c. For we doe not communicate. &c. Where, in the last sen­sence he sayth. Euen as that body (meaning the Church that com­municateth in vnitie) is vnited vnto Christ: so are we that be members of that body or Church, ioyned togither in vnion, by the vse of this sacramentall bread.

And here is another thing that maketh verie well for your purpose (M. Watson) Chrysostome sayth. Per hunc Panem. By this bread. The matter or substaunce that he speaketh of,Chrysostome is no man for Watson. doth he call bread: but you and your sort will none of that. Wherefore Chrysostome is no man for you.

But Cyrillus must helpe out with this matter.Cyrillus li. 12. Capit. 32. He sayth (say you) that Gods sonne going into euery man, as it were by deui­sion of himselfe: yet remaineth whole. &c. But hauing little cause to trust your report: I will cite his wordes as he wrote them. He sayth thus. In singulos enim partibiliter transiens vnigenitus, & animam at (que) corpus eorum per carnem suam sanctificans, impartibiliter at (que) integrè [Page 116] in omnibus est: cùm vnus vbi (que) sit, nullo modo diuisus. For, the onely begotten sonne passing into euerye one particularly, and sancti­fying both their soules and bodies through his owne fleshe, is af­ter an impartible maner wholy in euery one: seing that he being but one is in euery place, and is by no meanes deuided. If there were nothing else to be gathered of y^e circumstaunce of this place: the verie wordes are open ynough to declare the meaning of the writer, to be farre other then you would haue it séeme to be. For he sayth. Cùm vnus vbi (que) sit, nullo modo diuisus. Seing he being but one, is in euery place, and not deuided by any meanes. By which wordes it is manifest,Christes manhoode can be but in one place at once. that he speaketh there of the deuine nature of our Sauiour Christ, which is present in euery place, and ab­sent in none. But his bodily presence, neither is nor can be in ma­ny places at once, as S. Austen teacheth, wryting to Dardanus. But besides this, the words that go immediatly before doe shew, that Cyrill maketh this a mistical signification of that which was done by the souldiours at the passion of Christ, when they did cast lots for y^e coate of his that was without seame. And he sayth. Nam quatuor orbis partes ad salutem reductae, indumentum verbi, id est, carnem eius impartibiliter inter se partitisunt. In singulos enim. &c. For y^e foure partes of the worlde being brought to saluation, did after an in­partible maner deuide among themselues, the garment of the sonne of God, that is his fleshe. For the onely begotten sonne. &c. By which wordes it is playne, that Cyrill meaneth of that parta­king of the fleshe of Christ, which is amongst the faythfull by fayth. By which fayth we are made one misticall body in Christ, and be by him indued with one holye spirite, and be vnto him as dearely beloued, as his owne members, fleshe and bones.

Chrysost in 1. Cor. 10.And yet once agayne Chrysostome must helpe to expounde the wordes of Paule. His wordes be these (say you) Quid enim appello (inquit) communionem? &c. What meaneth saint Paule. &c. As for the fault that your printer hath made: I haue amended without any more to doe, as in many other places of your printed sermons I haue done: but your owne subtile dealing in the trans­lation, I may not passe ouer so. A man that had ment vprightly: would haue translated the wordes of Chrysostome thus. What [Page 117] doe I call communion, sayth Paule? We all are one and the selfe same body. And what is the bread? The body of Christ. And what are they made that doe receyue the body of Christ? Not many, but one body. Nowe, what helpeth this to prooue your purpose? That is, that our knitting togither into one body, is the effect of the sacrament. The Communion, that is to say, the ac­tion of the institution of Christ, in breaking of sacramentall bread: doth teach that we which be partakers thereof, be all one and the selfe same body, and bicause we be so, therefore we doe frequent and vse that action. We are not therefore made one body by this doing, but being so before, by fayth that worketh by loue: we doe by frequenting that mysterie, shewe our selues so to be. And the bread is the body of Christ. Not as you would haue vs beléeue that it is: but sacramentally.The effect of sacraments. And by the common rule of sacraments, it hath the name of that thing whereof it is a sacra­ment, and is called the body of Christ, & such as doe receyue this body of Christ, are made one body and not many. Not bicause they were not one body before they did receyue that sacrament: but bicause they be thereby made knowne to be one body. For if the receyuing of the sacrament should make them such: then should it folow, that as often as they receiue that sacrament: they should afreshe be made one body, which can be done but once. And that is, when (being elected in Christ from the beginning) they be in time moued by Gods holy spirite, to beléeue in hart and confesse with mouth, that Iesus Christ, the sonne of God, hath dyed for our sinnes, and is risen agayne for our righteousnesse, and re­ceyue, or doe consent to receyue, or be méete to receyue the sacra­ment of Initiation y^e God hath appointed, which was in the time of Moses law circumcision, and is now baptisme in water. Thus are we first made and shewed to be members all of one body: and by the vse of y^e other sacrament, oftentimes shewed to be the same.

The businesse that you make about the other wordes of saint Paule, that is to say. Vnus panis, vnum corpus. &c. One bread, one body. &c. might verie well haue bene spared. For when Saint Paule sayth, Omnes enim de vno pane participamus: We doe all take parte of one loafe of bread: he meaneth not to streatch the v­niuersall [Page 118] signe, All, to all the members of the vniuersall Church of Christ,A note for vniuersall signes. as you would beare vs in hande that he doth: but to all the members of euery particuler Church when they come togi­ther to communicate, and thereby to shew themselues mémbers of one body. And y^e this is his meaning may well appéere, by that he saith thus to the Corinthians. Videte Israel secundum carnem. &c. Consider Israell after the fleshe. Are not all they partakers of the aultar: that doe eate of the sacrifices? Paules purpose in these wordes: is to open his meaning in the other. It must néedes fol­low therefore, that he meaneth of particuler congregations, and not of the vniuersall Church: as you would fayne haue him to meane: you haue therefore made more a doe then néeded.

Let vs nowe sée, what helpe you finde at the hande of saint Cyprian. Cyprian De Caena Domi. He sayth. Aequa omnibus portio datur. &c. Equall porti­on is giuen to al. &c. According to your custome: you doe here also leaue out those words, y^e might giue light to the writers meaning. I will therefore set them in wryting as they stande in the Ser­mon that you cite. Iam nulla fit panis mutatio, vnus est panis caloris continui, status integri, qui semel oblatus Deo, in sapore dulcissimo, & can­dore purissimo perseuerat. Nec solos sacerdotes ad panis huius dignitatis le­uiticae, praerogatiua admittit, vniuersa Ecclesia ad has epulas inuitatur, aequa omnibus portio datur. &c. As you haue cyted. Nowe (sayth Cyprian) there is no chaunging of the bread, there is one loafe of bread, which hath in it a continuall heate, and is of sound state, which being once offered to God, doth still remayne in most plea­saunt or swéete taste and pure whytenesse. Neyther doth the pre­rogatiue of this leuiticall dignitie, admit priestes onely to eate of the loaues: the vniuersall Church is inuited or bidden to this feast. Equall or like portion is giuen to euery one. It is delyue­red whole, and being distributed, it is not torne in péeces. It is incorporated and not iniuried. It is receyued and not included. Dwelling among y^e weake, it is not made weake, neyther doth it disdaine the ministerie of the poore. A pure fayth, a sincere minde, doe delight this tenaunt. Neyther doth the narrownesse of oure poore house, offend or pincht in, the greatnesse of the vnmeasura­ble and almightie God.

If you had cyted all these words: Cyprians meaning would haue bene somewhat more playne, to such hearers as had not bene altogither blinded with affection to that doctrine that you la­boured to maintayne. It is manifest that Cyprian doth here speake of Christ, which is that bread which came from hea­uen, and was figured by the Manna that fell from heauen in the wyldernesse, and by the shewe breads, that were by the law ap­pointed to be set before the Arcke in the Tabernacle, and to bée chaunged euery day: whereof none might eate, but onely those Priestes that were of the leuiticall lyne. But this bread Iesus Christ being once offered, remayneth for euer. And all the whole Church of Christ, is called to come & féede vpon this bread. Eue­rie man that wyth pure fayth and sincere minde, commeth to féede vpon him: shall receyue him whole. And though he be by fayth eaten of all: yet is he not, neyther can he be consumed, nor torne in péeces. Yea, a little before those wordes that I haue writ­ten Cyprian sayth. Vna est domus Ecclesiae, in qua Agnus editur, nul­lus ei communicat, quem Israelitici nominis generositas non commendat. It is the onely house of the Church, wherein the Lambe is eaten: none is made partaker thereof, whome the nobilitie of the name of Israell doth not commend. By these wordes it is most euident that Cyprian ment to teache, that such as shall be partakers of Christ, must by election in Christ, be made méete thervnto, being commended by the nobilitie of the name of spirituall Israell, whereof the carnall Israell was a figure. And their Lambe, Manna, and shew bread:Cyprians meaning was farre other then was Watsons. a figure of that euerlasting bread which he speaketh of here. So farre of is he from confirming of that which you would prooue, that is, that our knitting togither in Christ, is the effect of the sacrament of the aultar, as you call it.

Yet one thing more I must néedes note in the words of Cy­prian. He sayth that all the whole Church is called to this banc­quet, and that equall portion is giuen to euery one. How agréeth this with your priuate Masses, and your withholding of the one halfe of the sacrament from the laye sort.

But nowe to Cyrill once agayne.Cyrillus de Trini. lib. 1. He must helpe you once more, to beare vs downe by strong hande, that our cowpling to­gither [Page 120] in Christ, is the effect of your sacrament of the aultar. His Latine is long (you say) and therefore you passe it ouer. But the Englishe is thus. We men, being all diuers in our owne proper substaunce. &c. Well, though the Latine were longer then it is; yet would I be bolde to trouble the reader with it: bicause it shall make manifest to all men that will read it, that it was not the de­sire to auoyde tediousnesse, that moued you to leaue out the La­tine, but a purpose to blinde the simple hearer or reader of your subtile Sermon. The words of Cyrill in Latine are thus. Dissecti enim quodammodo in subsistentiā propriam, hoc est singularem, iuxta quam hic quidem est Petrus, ille Thomas vel Matheus: eiusdem corporis facti su­mus in Christo, vna carne pasti, & vno spiritu sancto, ad vnitatem obsigna­ti. Et quandoquidem est indiuisibilis Christus (nullo enim modo diuisus est) vnum omnes sumus in ipso. We being after a certaine sort deui­ded, euery man into his owne proper (that is to say, his singuler) substaunce, whereby this man is Peter, and that man is Tho­mas or Mathewe: are made one body in Christ, being fed with one fleshe, and sealed vnto vnitie by one holy spirite. And bicause Christ can not be deuided (for he is by no meanes deuided) we are all one thing in him.

Nowe let the indifferent reader iudge, howe faythfully you haue handled this place of Cyrill. And as he shall finde you faith­ful herein: so let him giue credit to the rest of your doings. Cyrill hath sayde that we be all one thing in Christ, bicause Christ can not be deuided: & you say, that we be made all one body in Christ, bicause we bée fed with one fleshe. &c. And bicause Christes bo­dy is not able to be deuided. And you adde a conclusion, as though Cyrill had so concluded,The cause why Watson would not cite Cyrill in Latine. and you say: Therefore being of infinite power, and receyued of all our diuers bodies, maketh all vs one body with himselfe. No maruell though you would not cite the Latine: seing you were minded to swarue so farre from it in your Englishe. But vna carne pasti: Being fed with one fleshe, is the grounde that you builde vpon. As though Cyrill might not meane here, of that spirituall eating of Christs fleshe, that Christ himselfe spake of in the sixt of Iohn,Iohn. 6. where he sayth that the flesh (that is the fleshly meaning) doth profit nothing at all.

Yet once more must Chrysostome helpe to proue this effect. You say that he doth expresse this vnitie by a similitude of Dough or Leuen. &c. His words be these (you say) veniat tibi in mentem. &c. Chrysost in Math. ho. 83. You are so accustomed to belye the auncient wryters: that you can not both cite their wordes aright, and Englishe them truely, in any one place that I can yet méete withall. Chrysostome hath not spoken any one worde of Leuen in that place which you cite. Et nos in vnam cum illo massam reducimur. And we are brought into one lumpe of Dough with him, being one body of Christ and one fleshe. Here is no mention of Leuen, neyther of meale of many graines and water. Which you say Chrysostome maketh a si­militude of, to proue our vnitie in one body. And this is also to be noted. That when you are come to, Christi corpus vnum & vnae caro, one bodye of Christ and one fleshe: you passe ouer twice so much matter as you haue cited, and then in Englishe you go on with these wordes. For by this misterie. &c. as though there had bene no word at al betwixt. And to enure your selfe with your accustomed feates: you translate the wordes of the later sentence farre otherwise then they signifie in Latine. For where Chry­sostome doth in Latine say thus. Sed ipse studiosissime alit: But he himselfe doth most diligently and carefully nourishe them: you haue sayde thus: But he himselfe, most diligently and louingly, doth féede them with himselfe. Thus you doe, as one eyther past shame, or assured that no man should at any time examine your wordes, and charge you with your subtile dealing.

But nowe you haue wonne the victorie: let my maysters of the newe learning (say you) tell me. &c. Your maysters of the new learning as it pleaseth you to terme vs: néede not to vse eyther figuratyue spéeches or hyperbolies, to proue that these wordes of Chrysostome may be verified of bread and wine. For I am sure there is not one amongst vs, that is learned: but he will readily graunt, that Chrysostomes purpose in this place, was to set forth and commende vnto vs, the excéeding greatnesse of the loue of Christ towards his elected and chosen Church and congregation. Who, as saint Paule sayth, being in the maiestie of God: spa­red not to abase himselfe, and to take on him,Philip. 2. our base and mise­rable [Page 122] estate. And to this purpose hath Chrysostome sayde. Et nos in vnam cum illo massam reducimur And we are brought into one lumpe of Dough with him. And agayne. Singulis enim fidelibus per hoc mysterium se coniungit. He doth by this mysterie ioyne him­selfe to euery faythfull man and woman. And in conclusion he sayth thus. Hac etiam re tibi persuadens carnem illam tuam assumpsisse: tanta igitur charitate, at (que) honore affecti, non torpeamus. Perswading thée also by this thing, that he hath taken vpon him that verie flesh of thine. Beyng therefore so greatly beloued and honored, let vs not be sluggardes.

Nowe let my maysters that would be called of the olde lear­ning, tell me howe this place of Chrysostome can be rightly ap­plyed, to proue that our cowpling togither in Christ in the felow­ship of members of one body, is the effect of their sacrament of the aultar. Let them take the spéeche to be in what kinde they wyll, eyther playne, figuratiue, or hyperbolicall.

But you haue not yet done with Cyrill in this matter. He must nowe expresse by a similitude of two waxes melted & ming­led togither,Cyrill. li. 10. Capit. 13. & li. 4. capit. 17. this coniunction of vs with Christ. A man might aske you, what this maketh to the purpose. You must proue that our knitting togither into members of one body, is the effect of the sacrament of the aultar. But let vs weigh his wordes. He sayth thus. Quemadmodum si quis. &c. Lyke as if a man mingle. &c. You haue cyted the wordes of Cyrill verie truely, but you haue not coated the place aright. For in the .17. Chapter of the tenth Booke, are no such wordes to be founde, neyther is there any such matter handled there. But in the .13. Chapter of the same Booke, the wordes that you cite are founde. And in the .17. of the fourth are founde wordes to the same effect.Watsons olde tricke will not be left. But in the translating of these wordes. Communicationis corporis & sanguinis Christi: You vse one little péece of your common trick. For you say thus. By the communion and receyuing of the body and bloud of Christ, where as the true Englishe of the wordes is thus. By the communica­ting of the body & bloud of Christ, which communicating is in the faithful beléeuers of y^e promise of God made in Christ: though the same doe neuer receiue the sacrament of the body & bloud of christ.

If you would haue looked in the last Chapter of the ninth booke:Cyrill. li. 9. Capit. 45. you should haue séene what Cyrill meaneth by this worde Communicatio. His wordes be these. Non erat possibile, aliter corrup­tibilem secundum naturam hominem, mortem effugere, nisi primum adep­tus gratiam, rursus particeps Dei fieret, qui omnia per filium in spiritu vi­uificat. Carne ergo & sanguini communicauit, id est, qui secundum na­turam vita est, vnigenitus Dei Patris filius, homo factus est, mediator Dei at (que) hominum, vt scribitur. Natura Deo coniunctus, ex quo est, & homini­bus rursus, vt homo &c. It was not possible that man, which by na­ture is corruptible, should otherwise escape death, except ob­tayning the first grace, he might agayne be made partaker of God, that doth in the spirite quicken all things by his sonne. He hath therefore communicated himselfe to fleshe and bloud, that is to say, the onely begotten sonne of God the father, which is by nature lyfe, is become man the mediator of God and men, as it is written, being by nature ioyned to God, of whome he hath his being, and agayne vnto man, as he is man.

Thus it is manifest, howe euill fauouredly,The accorde of Cyrill and Watson. the meaning of the auncient wryters, doth agrée with your purpose in cyting them in your Sermons. Cyrill speaketh of the communion or felowship that man hath with Christ, by his incarnation: & you cite him to proue the ioyning of al christians into the felowship of one body, by receyuing the sacrament of the aultar, as you call it.

Nowe let vs sée what Hilarius hath sayde in this matter.Hilarius in Psalm. 6. His words (you say) are these. Per communionem sancti corporis. &c. By the communion of his holy body. You note in the margent of your printed booke, that this sentence of Hilarie, is written in his Commentarie vpon the sixt Psalme. When you can shewe vs that Commentarie, you shall haue the wordes that you cite aunswered. Saint Hierome saith that Hilarie wrote onely vpon the first and second Psalmes, the. .51. and so forth to the .62. and from the .118. to the last. And in his printed workes, we finde but eyght mo, whereof the sixt is none. Wherefore I must thinke that the great, learned and godly Byshop that you speake of: is your selfe or some other such as you are. But if it may be found in some other part of Hilarius works: what shal it make for your [Page 124] purpose, sith these wordes may haue a good sense, if we vnder­stand by the first Communion, that which we haue by the incar­nation of our Sauiour Christ, and by the later, that which we haue one with another. For by the communion that we haue with Christ, we be placed in that communion that we haue one with another. And so doe these wordes make nothing to proue, that our cowpling into one body in Christ, is the effect of the sa­crament of the aultar.

But nowe that your store is well spent: you vse your figure of Rhetoricke to blere the readers eye withall. In such playne matter as this, what néede I heape places, one aboue ano­ther? All the fathers are full of it. How full the fathers that you speake of be, of this so playne matter, doth (I trust) sufficient­ly appéere, in that which I haue alreadie written, in the aun­swere to that which you haue as yet alledged in the proufe of this matter.

Wherefore, seing you haue not as yet proued, neyther shall hereafter be able to proue, eyther by the wordes of the scripture, or of the auncient fathers, that our knitting togither into one bo­dy in Christ, is the effect of your sacrament of the aultar: it is no wickednesse nor blasphemie at all, to ascribe that effect to the effi­cient cause thereof, which is God the father, through his sonne Iesus Christ, and the holy ghost. But nowe let vs sée, what o­ther effectes you haue.

WATSON. Diuision. 26. Beside these effectes gathered out of the new Testament there be also other mentioned in the Psalmes. Whereof one is, that this sacrament is an armour and defence against the temptations of our ghostly enimie the Deuill, as it is written in the .22. Psal. 22. Chrysost. in Psal. 22. Euthymi in Psal. 22. Psalme. Parasti in conspectu meo mensam aduer­sus eos qui tribulant me. Thou hast prepared in my sight a Table against them that trouble me.

By this Table (sayth Chrysostome vpon this place) is vnderstanded that thing that is consecrated vpon the aul­tar of our Lorde: and Euthymius a Greeke Author sayth so also: Par hanc mensam intelligit altaris mensam, in qua caena mystica [Page 125] illa iacet: by this table he vnderstandeth the table of the aul­tar, vpon which lyeth the misticall supper of Christ, which doth arme and defend vs against the Deuill, which some­times craftily layeth in wayte for vs, sometimes fiercely and cruelly assaulteth vs, that be fed at Christes table.

Saint Cyprian teacheth vs the same lesson, saying: Quos excitamus & exhortamur ad praelium non inermes & nudos relin­quamus, sed protectione sanguinis & corporis Christi muniamus: Cyprianus. li. 1 Epist. 2. Those persons whom we prouoke and exhort to fight against their enimies (be it eyther the Deuils our ghostly enimies, or the Deuils limmes the persecutours of Christes church) let vs not leaue them naked and vnarmed, but let vs harnesse and defend them with the protection of Christes bodye and bloud.

And a little after he sayth: Cùm ad hoc fiat Eucharistia, vt possit accipientibus esse tutela, quos tutos esse contra aduersarium volumus, munimento dominicae saturitatis armemus. Seing this sacrament is ordeyned for this purpose, that it should bee a defence to the receyuers, let vs arme them with the shield and harnesse of our Lordes meat, whome we would should be safe against their aduersarie.

This is that foode, that maketh a man meete, Cyprian. li. 4. Epist. 6. Cyprian. li. 2. Epist. 3. and pre­pareth him to martirdome. This bloud of Christ is dron­ken daylie of vs, that we might in his quarel shed our bloud agayne: and as he wryteth in an other place: howe can we shed oure bloud for Christ, that bee ashamed to drinke Christes bloud?

This bloud being receyued of vs (as Chrysostome saith) driueth the Deuils away, Chrysost. in Ioan hom. 45. and doth allure the Aungels and the Lorde of Aungels vnto vs: for after the meat of oure Lorde receyued, he forsaketh vs, Chrysost ad Neophytos. and flyeth awaye swifter then any winde, and dare not approch neare, bicause all en­traunce for his temptations is shut vp. As saint Ambrose wryteth. Ambrose in Psalm. 118. Ser. 8. Cùm hospitium tuum aduersarius viderit occupatum coelestis fulgore praesentiae, intelligis locum tentamentis suis interclusum esse per Christum, fugiet ac recedet. &c. When thy aduersary shall see thy [Page 126] house and lodging (of body and soule) occupied with the brightnesse of Christs heauenly presence, perceyuing euery place to be shut vp from his temptations: he will flye and runne away.

Nazian in Iulianum orat. 2. Wherefore as Gregorie Nazianzene wryteth: Mensa hac praeparatur contra tribulantes me qua omnem passionum rebellionem scà [...]. This table is prepared of God against them that vexe and trouble me, by the which I quench and pacifie all rebellion of my naughtie affections.

Cyrillus li. 4. cap. 17. And as Cyrill sayth) Non mortem solum, sed etiam morbos om­nes depellit, sed at saeuientem membrorum legem, pietatem coroboat, per­turbationes animi extinguit, nec in quibus sumus peccatis considerat, aegro­tos curat, collisos redintegrat, at omninos casu erigit. It dryueth away not onely death, but also all sicknesse, it stilleth and paci­fieth the raging lawe of our members, it strengthneth deuo­tion, it quencheth the froward affections of the minde, and those small sinnes we be in, it regardeth not, it healeth the sicke, it restoreth the brused and from all falling it lyfteth vs vp.

O what wonderfull effectes be these, which by this bles­sed Sacrament be wrought in the worthy receyuer, against the Deuill and his temptations, against the fleshe and hir illusions, against the vicious affections of oure corrupt minde? What conscience had these men, our late teachers and pastors, destroyers of Christes flocke, to rob vs of this treasure, which is the cause of so great benefits, and in the place of that, to plant amongs vs a bare ceremony of bread and wine to put vs in remembraunce of Christ in heauen (as they sayde) which neyther by their owne nature, nor yet by any institution eyther of God or man, be able to bring to passe in vs these effectes I haue spoken of. What ment they that tooke awaye this armour of Christes fleshe and bloud from vs, but to leaue vs naked and vnarmed against the De­uill, that he should preuayle against vs in all temptations, and that the kingdome of sinne should be erected, and the kingdome of grace destroyed? and to teach that this blessed [Page 127] Sacrament is nothing else, but bread and wine, what is it else but to take awaye this armour and harnesse of Christes fleshe and bloud from vs. For bread be it neuer so much ap­pointed to signifie things absent, is not able to defend vs from the Deuill.

After you haue bustled about the effectes of your sacrament,CROWLEY. gathered out of the newe testament: you make no small adoe, a­bout one other effect, mentioned in the Psalme .22. Parasti in con­spectu meo. &c. Thou hast prepared in my sight. &c. This effect, you say, is, that this armour and defence. &c. And when this assertion of yours shall be well weighed: you shall be founde to holde, that this sacrament is the efficient cause, and the effect both. And so must it be both before and after it selfe. For euery efficient cause, must néedes be before the effect that procéedeth from it: and euery effect must néedes folow the efficient cause that is the worker of it.

But let vs sée howe handsomely you applie this péece of this Psalme. Saint Hierome sayth, that the Prophet meaneth by the table that he speaketh of here, the scripture, wherein is found meate méete for such as are past their infansie in Christ, and néede not any longer to be fed with milke. His wordes be these. Parasti in conspectu meo mensam. &c. Vt iam non lacte quasi paruulus alar, sed solido cibo: id est, vt spirituali dente ruminans scripturas sanctas, possim peruersis resistere. Thou hast prepared a table. &c.Hieronymus in Psalm. 22. That I should not nowe be nourished with milke like a little childe, but with sounde meate: that is, that cudding the holy scriptures with a spirituall tooth, I might be able to resist the froward. And agayne he sayth. Parasti in conspectu meo mensam, aduersus eos qui tribulant me. Mensa id est scriptura diuina. Sicut post laborem, in mensa inuenitur consolatio & refectio: sic & sancti per mensam, id est, per scripturam diuinam, habent consolationem & refectionem, id est, spem, fidem, & charitatem. Aduersus eos qui tribulant me. Persecutores Ecclesiae: qui sunt Demones, Iudaei, & haeretici. Contra istos omnes in scripturis sacris, inuenimus consolationem. Thou hast prepared a table in my presence: against those that trouble me. A table, that is, the holy scripture. Euen as after la­bour, there is found on the table, comfort and refection: so also, [Page 128] the holy men, haue by the meanes of the table, that is, the holy scripture, consolation and refection, that is to say, hope, fayth and charitie, against those that trouble me. The persecutors of the Church, which are Deuils, Iewes, and Heretickes. We doe in the holy scriptures, finde consolation and comfort, against al these,

Saint Austen sayth thus. Parasti in conspectu meo, mensam, vt iam non lacte alar paruulus: August in Psalm. 22. sed maiorem cibum sumam, firmatus aduer­sus eos qui tribulant me. Thou hast in my presence prepared a table, that I should not nowe be nourished with milke as a little childe: but that being made strong against them that trouble me, I may receyue greater meate.

Lyranus, a man of your owne sort, in many pointes: doth first expound this verse after the letter,Nicol. De Lyra in Psal. 22. saying thus. Parasti in con­spectu meo mensam, id est, Victum sufficientem. Aduersus eos. &c. Silicet Saul & eius complices. Thou hast prepared a table in my presence, against those. &c. That is to say, Saule and his complices. And morally he sayth it may be expounded thus: Parasti in conspectu meo mensam: id est, refectiuam consolationem. Aduersus eos qui tribulant me: id est, aduersus Demones tentationibus suis, & malos homines, iniurijs me tribulantes. In my presence, thou hast prepared a table: that is, a refreshing consolation. Against them that trouble me: that is a­gainst Deuils which trouble me with their temptations, and euill men with iniuries.

Thys man was a Iewe borne: and therefore, by all like­lyhoode, had séene as much of the Hebrue tongue, as any of his time. Which caused him, first to expound the Psalme after the letter, as the Prophet Dauid ment of himselfe, whome God did not suffer to lacke necessarie foode: no not in the time of his exile by the meanes of the cruelty of king Saule. And notwithstanding he liued within these thrée. C. yéeres last past (which was a time of all ignorance and blindnesse) yet could he not once dreame of such a meaning, as you would make the worlde beléeue, that the Pro­phet had when he wrote this Psalme.

Chrysost in Psalm. 22.But you haue founde Chrysostome a man of great learning and aucthority. Who writing vpon this part of this Psalme, saith thus. Parasti in conspectu meo mensam, aduersus cos. &c. Ista mensa, [Page 129] agnoscitur altaris Domini consecratio. Thou hast made ready a table. &c. This table is acknowledged to be the consecratiō of the Lords aultar. But you Englishe it thus. By this table is vnderstan­ded that thing, that is consecrated vpon the aultar of our Lorde. In which translation two things may be noted. First, that you vse the worde consecration so, that it may séeme that Chryso­stome ment of such breathing out of consecrating wordes, vpon bread and wine: as you doe vse in your popishe Masse. And the o­ther thing is, that you adde to Chrysostomes wordes, the Pro­nowne nostri. And where he sayth Domini, of the Lord: you would haue men thinke, that he sayth Domini nostri: of our Lorde. And this is the common maner of al your sort in these dayes (I meane Englishe Papistes) you can not abide that consecration, should be vnderstanded of any other thing, then that magicall maner of breathing out wordes vpon creatures. Nor that he which hath made all things, and therefore is Lorde of all: should be called the Lord, which doth signifie that he is not onely Lorde of one sort of people: but of all nations also, and of all creatures.

But what help may you haue by the words of Chrysostome? doth he not within a fewe lynes after, write thus? Et quia istam mensam praeparauit seruis & ancillis in conspectu eorum, vt quotidiè in similitudinem corporis & sanguinis Christi, panem & vinum secundum ordinem Melchisedech, nobis ostenderet in sacramento: ideo dicit: Parasti in conspectu meo mensam, aduersus eos qui tribulant me. And bicause he hath made readie for his men seruants and women seruants, this table in their presence, y^t in the sacramēt he might daily shew vnto vs bread and wine, to be a similitude or lykenesse of the body and bloud of Christ after the order of Melchesedech: he doth say, y^u hast prepared a table in my sight, against them that trouble me.

Nowe, if you will néedes vrge the wordes that you cite for your purpose (which notwithstanding, make nothing for you) I pray you be not displeased, if I vrge these wordes, which are very playne to proue, that in the sacrament are both bread and wine,Watsons sen­tence tur­ned against himselfe. and that the same is appointed to be a similitude of the bo­dy and bloud of Christ. And so shall your owne sentence be tur­ned to your selfe. Which is that it is great wickednesse, and [Page 130] playne blasphemie to ascribe this glorious effect to the néedie ele­ments of this worlde, as to bread and wine.

But nowe, I trowe you haue founde a wytnesse, that will not be so sone disproued. Euthymius, a Gréeke Author sayth so also. A man might aske you, why Chrysostome might not haue bene called a Gréeke author, as well as Euthymius. But your pur­pose was (as I suppose) to make the worlde beléeue that Euthy­mius, is as auncient as Chrysostome. And therefore you cou­ple them togither, presupposing that all the learned doe knowe, that Chrysostome wrote in Gréeke. But when the antiquitie of Euthymius shall be searched: he shall be founde yonger then Chrysostome by eyght hundred yeares. For the one lyued about the yeare of our Lorde foure hundred. And the other in the dayes of Alexius, Emperour of the East, about the yeare of our Lord. 1200. He is not yet foure hundred yeres olde. You did well there­fore to thrust him in betwixt Chrysostome and Cyprian: that he might at the first sight séeme as auncient as they.

But what hath he sayde? He sayth (saye you) Per hanc men­sam intelligit. &c. He vnderstandeth. &c. As though the Prophet Dauid had vnderstanded nothing else by this worde table: but the table of the aultar, wherevpon the mysticall supper doth lye. But surely (M. Watson) I can not wonder ynough at your sawcie malapartnesse,Watson is sawcie and malapart. which hath moued you to make your wyt­nesse, being a Gréeke, to speake that by your mouth and Pen in Englishe: which he himselfe would neuer write in Gréeke. You haue sayde in his name, that the mysticall supper doth arme and defend vs against the Deuill which sometimes craftily layeth in wayte for vs. &c. Al this you make Euthymius to speake in Eng­lishe more then he wrote in Gréeke. You might as well haue spa­red those wordes that were none of his, & haue cited all his words that he wrote vpon the verse of the Psalme. 22. Parasti. &c.

In the Latine translation, whereout you cite your sentence, speaking first in the person of the Prophet Dauid,Euthymi in Psal. 22. he sayth. Non solum vt praedixi, me beneficijs affecisti: sed & spiritualia etiam oblecta­menta donasti, quae per mensam hic significantur. Hanc autem in conspectu, inquit, inimicorum meorum parasti, vt videntes, dolore tabescerent: vel [Page 131] aduersus eos, hoc est, contra id quod cupiant. Illi enim merore me semper ac tristitia magis afficere student. Vel per mensam, futurorum bonorum frui­tionem intelligit, quam praeparauit Deus diligentibus se: vel altaris, men­sam, in qua caena mystica illa iacet, vel etiam virtutem moralem. As I haue sayde before (sayth Dauid) thou hast not onely endued me with benefites: but thou hast also rewarded me with spirituall pleasures, which are here signified by the table. And thys table (sayth he) hast thou prepared, in the presence of mine enimies, that when they sée it, they may be sorrowfull, and euen waste away with sorrowe. Or else agaynst them: that is contrarie to that which they doe desire or would wishe: For they doe alwayes en­deuour, rather to make me sorrowfull and heauie: Or else he doth vnderstand by the table, the fruition of those good things to come, which God hath prepared for them that loue him: or the table of the aultar, whereon that mysticall supper doth lye, or else he doth vnderstande by it morall vertue.

If it had pleased you to haue cyted all these wordes: your witnesse should haue appéered a farre more honest man then you. And some of your faithfull hearers (whose credite you would not by your curiositie séeme to mistrust) would surely haue sayde that you had produced a wytnesse against your selfe.Watson hath produced a wytnesse a­gainst him­selfe. For what one worde is there in all this (beside that little péece that you haue picked out) y^t can be wrested to haue any shewe to serue your pur­pose? And these words also, as they stand in the Authors writing: can no more serue your purpose then the rest. For how doth he vse them otherwise then to shewe that sense among y^e rest to be an A­nagogicall sense? And if we may be alowed, to alledge scriptures for our purposes in that sense, and let passe both the litterall and morall senses (as you doe here) then let vs as the common say­ing is: facere quidlibet ex quolibet, make what we lust of euerye thing, as commonly men of your sort vse to doe.

But nowe what doth Cyprian say to this matter? He doth teach vs the same lesson (say you) Quos excitamus. &c. Those per­sons. &c. You haue so disordred the wordes of Cyprian to frame them for your purpose: that they can not otherwise be brought in­to order agayne, then by cyting wholy togither, all that which [Page 132] you haue disordred, with the rest that you leaue out, as not ap­pertayning to your purpose. Cyprian hath sayde thus: Merito enim trahebatur dolentium paenitentia tempore longiore, vt infirmis, si qui essent, in exitu subueniretur. &c. The repentaunce of such as sorowed for their fall, was for good cause continued for longer time, that if any of them should fall sicke, we might succour them in their de­parting out of this lyfe: so long as we had tranquilitie and quiet, which would suffer vs to deferre the teares of the sorrowful long time, and at the last succour them in their infirmitie, when they should lye in dying. But nowe, peace is néedefull, not for them that be sick, but for such as be strong. And we must giue the com­munion, not to them that be at the point of death, but to them that lyue: that we doe not leaue those vnarmed and naked, whom we sturre vp & exhort to battle, but that we arme them with the protection of the bloud & body of Christ. And seing the Eucharist or thankesgyuing, is made for this purpose, that it may be a de­fence to such as receyue it, let vs arme with the defence of the Lords full féeding, such as we would wish should be safe against the enimie. For how doe we teach and prouoke them to shed their owne bloud in the confession of the name of Christ: if we doe de­nie to giue his bloud in them that must fight? Or howe doe we make them méete for the cup of martyrdome: if we doe not first admit them, in the Church to drinke the cup of the Lorde in the right of communion.

Here are Cyprians wordes, in such sort as he wrote them. And the occasion that he had to write thus: was the euill opinion, that Cornelius then Bishop of Rome, had conceyued of Cyprian and other Bishops, for that they had receyued to communion, such as had before fallen, in yéelding to the persecutours, by rea­son of the crueltie of torments vsed vpon them.

To this doth Cyprian and the other Byshops to the num­ber of .39. answere in this Epistle. Shewing (as is afore written) that it were not méete, that such as through frailtie haue fallen, and doe with bitter teares lament their fall: should when perse­cution is threatned and lyke to come, be driuen from the Lordes table, and not suffred to be partakers of that sacrament, that our [Page 133] Lorde Iesus hath instituted to be an outwarde assuraunce of that which he hath promised in his worde. For what reason were it, to perswade men to stande manfully to the profession of Christ, and warant them euerlasting lyfe, if they suffer losse of this lyfe for his sake: and yet denie to giue them the holye communion, which Christ hath instituted to be a seale of that promise?The best ar­mour for Christians. No armour can be so sure, and make a man so bolde and couragious against his enimie: as to be assured, that his quarell is such, that if he die therein, he shall not fayle to lyue and raigne in glorious tryumph for euer. Cyprian therefore, doth verie well in vsing these Metaphers: calling that sacrament that was ordeyned to be an assuraunce of this euerlasting triumph, by the names of protection, defence, and saufegarde.

But to make Cyprian to séeme whole vpon your side:Watsons common practise. you help the matter somewhat in translating his wordes, and thrusting in a fewe wordes of your owne (as you are wont to doe) to cause your hearers and readers to thinke, that no man is able to gaine say that, which you haue sayde.

Well, you haue yet one other place of Cyprian, but you spare the Latine, thinking it sufficient, to tell your hearers and readers, that Cyprian sayth so. For no man may thinke that you dare belie, so holy a man as he was:Lyers haue no credit. But bicause I haue taken you with lyes more then once: I dare not trust your report of Cy­prian, neyther will I suffer my readers to be deceyued by it.

First you say: This bloud of Christ is dronken daylie. &c. His wordes in Latine are these. Grauior nunc & ferocior pugna imminet, Cyprian li. 4. Epist. 6. ad quam fide incorrupta, & virtute robusta, parare se debent milites Christi, consyderantes idcirco se quotidiè Calicem sanguinis Christi bibere: vt possint & ipsi propter Christum, sanguinem fundere. A more gréeuous and cruell battle, is nowe at hande: vnto which, the Souldiours of Christ, ought with vncorrupt faith and sloute courage, to prepare themselues, considering that they doe daylie drinke the cup of Christs bloud, to the ende that they themselues might be able to shed their owne bloud for Christes cause.

In the other place that you cite, Cyprian sayth thus.Cyprian li. 2. Epist. 3. Quomodo autem possumus propter Christum sanguinem fundere: qui sanguinem [Page 134] Christi erubescimus bibere? How can we that be ashamed to drinke the bloud of Christ: be able to shed our bloud for Christes cause?

In the first of these two places, saint Cyprians wordes are playne ynough. For he sayth that the daylie receyuing of the cup of Christes bloud, was to make them able to shedde their owne bloud for Christes cause. That is, that being daylie put in re­membraunce of the shedding of Christes bloud for their sinnes, and assured of the crowne of martyrdome if theirs should be shed for his sake: they might be encouraged, strengthned, and made able, to stand to their professiō, euen to the shedding of their owne bloud for his sake, that spared not to giue his owne hart bloud for the redemption of their sinnes.

Ephes. 6.As for the armour that christian souldiours should buckle a­bout them, Cyprian appointeth none, but the same that saint Paule appointeth. And after he hath spoken therof, he sayth thus. Haec arma sumamus, his nos tutamentis spiritualibus & caelestibus muni­amus: vt in die nequissimo resistere Diaboli minis & repugnare possimus. Induamur loricam iustitiae. &c. Let vs take vnto vs this armour, let vs defend our selues with these spiritual and heauenly safegards: that in the most euill day we may be able to resist the threatnings of the Deuill, and fight against him. Let vs put vpon vs the breast plate of righteousnesse. &c.

This place of Cyprian therfore, can not be wrested to proue that the sacrament of the aultar, is any part of that armour that a christian must haue, to be able to stande against his enimies, eyther bodily or ghostly. But by the often receyuing of the sacra­ment worthily: the Christian hart is stirred vp, more carefully to couer himself with that armour that saint Paule hath prescribed, and to stande more manfully against all his mortall enimies.

Watson will not see.But I maruell that you could not sée, that in this place, saint Cyprian is playne against your priuate Masse, and communion in one kinde onely. But you lusted not to looke on that side.

In the other place, he inueigheth against such as would haue no wine in the ministration, but water onely. To those he sayth. Quomodo autem possumus. &c. Howe can we shed oure bloud for Christes cause: seing we be ashamed to drinke Christes bloud? [Page 135] He had sayde before in the same Epistle. Nam cùm dicat Christus, Ego sum vitis vera: sanguis Christi, non aqua est vti (que), sed vinum. Nec po­ [...]est videri sanguis eius. &c. For seing that Christ sayth, I am a Vine in déede: the bloud of Christ is not water, but wine. Neyther can it séeme that his bloud, wherewith we were redéemed and made [...]lyue, is in the cup: when there is no wine in the cup, wherby the bloud of Christ is resembled. &c. Conferring the places togither, we can not but sée, that Cyprian ment nothing lesse, then to proue your assertion, & that his words cannot be wrested to proue that the sacrament of the aultar, is an armour and defence against the temptations of our ghostly enimie the Deuill.

Yet once agayne Chrysostome must helpe in this matter.Chrysost. in Ioh. hom. 45. He hath sayde (say you) This bloud being receyued of vs. &c. In the place that you note in the margent, he sayth thus. Hic mysticus Languis Demones procul pellit. Angelos, & angelorum Dominum ad nos [...]llicit. This mysticall bloud, doth driue Deuils farre away: and it doth allure vnto vs, the Aungels, and the Lorde of Aungels. Yea he addeth thus much more. Daemones enim, cùm dominicum san­guinem in nobis vident: in fugam vertuntur. Angeli autem procurrunt. When the Deuils doe sée the Lordes bloud in vs: they runne a­way. And the Aungels doe with spéede, runne to vs from farre. Here I must tell you of your olde trick. Where Chrysostome sayth. This misticall bloud, driueth away Deuils. &c. you saye, This bloud being receyued of vs. &c. Chrysostome calleth it mysticall bloud, and he sayth that when the Deuils doe sée it in vs, that is to say, when they sée our whole man besprinckled and washed with it: they flie away. He sayth also, that when this bloud is poured out, it doth washe and make cleane the whole cir­cle of the earth. Yea, he sayth yet furder: That from the Lordes table, there issueth a Fountayne, that spreadeth out abroad spiri­tuall riuers, and that there be no barraine Willowes growning néere vnto that Fountayne: but Okes that reach vp to heauen, and doe alwayes bring forth seasonable and sound fruites.

A man would thinke that a Doctour of Diuinitie (that had read this homilie,The title of Doctor dis­ceyueth many. & were acquainted with such figures as Chry­sostome doth commonly vse, when he taketh in hande to set forth [Page 136] the excellencie of any thing, and to shew the excéeding greatnesse of the vertue that is in the thing that he taketh in hande) could not for shame pick out such a péece as you haue, to proue your purpose withall. Yea, a man might maruayle at your beastly blindnesse, that wil not let you sée, that this place of Chrysostome maketh manifestly, both against your priuate Masse, and against your Easter Housell (as you call it) vnder one kinde onely, which is not the bloud whereof Chrysostome speaketh here, but the bread, whereof he doth in this place make no mention.

The excéeding great vertue, that this bloud that Chrysostome speaketh of, hath: is such, that no man can be able, eyther with tongue or pen to declare it at the full. And therefore doth he vse so many Hyperbolicall spéeches, and calleth it mysticall bloud. And so many as be sprinckled with this bloud (that is, as many as be­ing elected in Christ, be called by the preaching of the Gospell, and doe obey the caller) may, when they fall into temptation, assure themselues, that the tempter will when he séeth them be sprinck­led and washed with this bloud: flie from them, as Chrysostome sayth here.

Chrysost. ad Neophytos.And as in the other place that you cite out of the same Chry­sostome, he sayth: when such one commeth out from the Lords feast, the enimie flyeth from him, more swiftly then any winde. And when that cruell enimie, shall sée the tongue of such one, em­brued with this bloud. That is, that no worde foundeth out of his mouth, but such as are to the setting forth of the glorie of him that shed this bloud: beleue me (sayth Chrysostome) he will not tarie. &c. And this place also maketh manifestly against your pri­uate Masse and halfe housell, and nothing at all for your purpose.

But here I must by the way tell you of your subtiltie, in ty­ing certaine wordes of your owne to the ende of that which you cite out of Chrysostome in such sort, that they may séeme to bée Chrysostomes wordes. And then you labour to confirme them by the wordes of Ambrose, who sayth thus. Cùm hospitium. &c. When thine aduersarie shal sée.Ambros. in Psal. 118. sermone. 8. &c. According to your olde maner of translating into Englishe: you thrust in (body and soule) of your owne, and so doe yée (euerye place) and would haue men [Page 137] thinke, that you meane well and truely. But let vs sée what may be sayde to these wordes of Ambrose. First I must let the Rea­der sée, a fewe wordes that go before those that you cite, so shall he be the better able to iudge whether you haue dealt vprightly in alledging them for your purpose, or no. He writeth thus. Suscipe ante Dominum Iesum tuae mentis hospitio. Vbi Corpus eius, ibi Christus: est. Cum hospitium tuum aduersarius viderat occupatum caelestis fulgore praesentiae, intelligens locum tentamentis suis interclusum esse per Christum fugiet ac recedet. Receyue before hande, the Lorde Iesus into the harbour of thy minde. Christ is there, where his body is. When the enimie shall perceyue that the brightnesse of the heauenly pre­sence, doth possesse thy lodging, and vnderstand that Christ hath enclosed the place from his temptations, he wyll flye and depart awaye.

Ambrose doth here teach vs to receyue Christ. First, spiritu­ally into our mindes by faith: and then sacramentally in the con­gregation. The scripture that gaue him occasion to wryte thus, is the sixt verse of the eyght part of the .118. Psalme, after the ac­compt of the .70. The wordes of the verse are these. At midnight did I arise to prayse thée. &c. By occasion of these wordes Am­brose doth earnestly exhort all Christians to giue themselues to meditation both night and daye: but specially at suche time as publike fasting should be appointed. The dayes were then trou­blesome, and christians were well most continually persecuted. Wherefore, they did often at the appointment of their Pastours,The right vse of fasting. abstayne from all maner of bodily sustenaunce, and from sléepe, and gaue themselues to prayer in the congregation, and did com­municate. So assuring, euen their senses, that though they should fall into the persecutors handes: yet should there no harme hap­pen vnto them. For they were surely cowpled vnto Christ, and one to another. So that though they should séeme to the worlde to perishe: yet they were in déede, deliuered from miserie, and re­ceyued into endlesse felicitie. And for this cause doth Ambrose call this sacrament Munimentum. A defence. For by it, we be tho­rowly certified of the forgiuenesse of our sinnes, and that we are reconciled and receyued into fauour with God againe.

This is not to teach, that after the receyuing of the sacramēt of the aultar (as you terme it) the Deuill can finde no way to en­ter into the receiuer: but that when we haue receyued Christ by faith, and doe declare the same by communicating with the rest of Christes members: then may we assure our selues, that there is no way for the enimie to enter. And therefore, he will flie away, and as saint Ambrose sayth, depart from vs. For Christ is in possession, and none is able to remoue him.

But I must still maruayle that you sée not, that all these whome ye alledge: doe fight against you for your priuate Mas­sing. And that this Ambrose doth giue you warning, that if you will be defended against the Deuill, and haue him shut out: you must first receiue Christ into the harbour of your minde,Christ must be in y^e minde before the sa­crament come in the mouth. which is by faith. For Ambrose knewe, that if Christ were not in posses­sion of the minde, before the sacrament came into the mouth: the receyuing should be to condempnation. And then it doth not shut out the Deuill: but make an open way for him to enter.

But nowe let vs sée what Nazianzen hath saide. You say, that his words be thus. Mensa haec. &c. This table, and so forth, as is afore. Bicause the reader shall not néede to séeke the wordes that you haue left out, in the workes of Gregorie (which are not in euery mans studie) I will write so much of his saying as may make his meaning knowne. And if any shall doubt of my faith­full dealing therein: let the same search the place and be satisfied. His wordes are these: Sanè, & vnguentum quoddam habeo, sed quo so­lum Reges & sacerdotes vtuntur, varium & preciosum, ac pro nobis eua­cuatum, magni vnguentarij opificio compositum. Vtinam mihi contingat vnguenti huius odorem bonum apponere Deo. Habeo & mensam, spiritalem illam & deuinam, quam mihi praeparauit Dominus contra tribulantes me. Vel in qua requiesco & delicijs fruor, & nequaquam propter sacietatem in­iuriam committo, sed & omnem passionum rebellionem sedo &c. I haue a little swéete oyntment also (but yet such as being of many oynt­ments mixed togither and costly, and drawne out for vs, it an­noynteth onely kings and priests) which was made by the work­manship of an excellent vnguentary. Would God it might be my lot to poure out vnto God, a swéete sauour of this oyntment. I [Page 139] haue also, this spirituall and heauenly table, which the Lorde hath prepared for me, ouer against them that trouble me, or in which I doe rest, and delight my selfe, and doe nothing of­fend by reason of sacietie or fulnesse, but I doe also suppresse all rebellion of affections.

Nowe let the learned reader iudge, how well you deserue to be credited another time when you cite any thing out of the aun­cient fathers. Gregorie hath sayde. Or in which I doe rest and delight my selfe, and doe nothing offend, by reason of sacietie or fulnesse. But you thought good, not to trouble your hearers with any of those wordes: least they should sée that Gregorie and you be of two mindes. You make your tale smooth and whole, as though you had not lept ouer any of Gregories words. For thus you say. This table is prepared of God, against them that vexe and trouble me,Crafty hand­ling of the fathers sayings. by which I quench and pacifie al rebellion of my naughtie affections. Who would thinke that there were any worde left out? So craftily can you handle the wordes of aunci­ent fathers, to make them séeme to serue your purpose.

But when the wordes of Gregorie, are considered wholy togither, and conferred with that which goeth before and folow­eth after: it shall appéete that Gregories meaning was to declare in what pointes, the acceptable exercise of Christian religion doth consist and stande. In purenesse of soule, and chéerefulnesse of minde: not in bodily mirth, gorgious apparell, eating and drink­ing and wantonnesse. Not in furnishing of houses and dores, with flowers, nor burning of lights, nor playing vpō Instruments. &c. For such was the order of the heathenish solemnitie. He would haue such Lamps as might light the whole bodye of Christes Church, and the whole worlde. And he sayth, that he meaneth the holy word of God therby. In comparison of this light, saith he: I estéeme not much of all those lightes that men vse in the solem­nization of their feastes. And then folow those words that I haue before written. And immediatly after those wordes, he sayth. I haue also a fielde (which the Lorde hath blessed) full of flowers, more flourishing and more durable, then any flowers that growe in the spring time. I meane (sayth he) the Priests, and swéete sa­uoring [Page 140] shepherds and teachers: and a people, thoughe it be but small in number, yet pure, chosen out, and picked. &c.

Now (M. Watson) how say you by your Nazianzen? will you haue him to allowe your priuate Masses with their effectes? your Tapers and Torchlight, your ringing & singing with blow­ing of Organs? Your masking, mumming, and dumbe Idole Priestes, that can doe nothing else but sing and say their seruice in an vnknowne tongue? &c. No, no, all wise men may sée, that he is of a farre other minde.

Nowe let vs sée what Cyrillus will saye to this matter. He sayth (say you) Non mortem solum. &c. Not onely death. &c. If I did not know your olde maner in falsifiyng the sayings of aunci­ent fathers: I could neuer maruayle ynough at your beastly blindnesse, in cyting this place for your purpose. You would haue Cyrill to beare you recorde, that the sacrament of the aultar, is an armour and defence, against the temptations of our ghostly enimie. &c. To make his words more plaine to the reader: I will let him sée in wryting a fewe of those wordes that go before, that which you cite. First, he speaketh in the person of him that doub­teth of hauing any commoditie, by the receyuing of the sacra­ment of Christes body and bloud: bicause saint Paule hath sayde, that whosoeuer shall eate the bread, and drinke the cup vnwor­thily, shall eate and drinke his owne condemnation. And I (saith such one) doe examine my selfe, and finde my selfe vnworthye. When therefore (sayth Cyrill) wilt thou (whosoeuer thou art that speakest these wordes) be worthy? When wilt thou offer thy selfe to Christ? For if thou be vnworthy bicause thou doest sinne, and thou leauest not of sinning (for who doth vnderstande his owne sinne, as sayth the Psalmist) then shalt thou be vtterly without any part of this sanctification. To this he aunswereth thus. Quare pias quaeso cogitationes suscipias, studiose sancte (que) vinas, & benedictione participes, quae (mihi crede) non mortem solum, verum etiam morbos omnes depellit. Sedat enim cum in nobis maneat Christus: seuien­tem membrorum nostrorum legem, pietatem corroborat, perturbationes ani­mi extinguit, nec in quibus sumus peccatis consyderat: sed aegrotos curat, collisos redintegrat, & sicut pastor bonus, qui animam suam pro omnibus [Page 141] posuit, ab omni nos erigit casu. I pray thée therefore take in hande godly cogitations. Sée that thou doe lyue studiously and holyly, and thou mayst be partaker of the benediction. Which (beleue me) doth not onely driue away death, but all sicknesses and dis­eases also. For when Christ dwelleth in vs he doth still the ra­ging law of our members, he doth confirme and strenthen godly deuotion, he quencheth y^e parturbations of the mind. Neither doth he cōsider the sinnes wherin we are: but he maketh whole such as be sicke, & them sound that be broken. And as a good shepherd that hath giuē his life for his shéepe: he doth lift vs vp, as oft as we fal.

If a man should aske Cyrill, what it is that driueth awaye death and diseases, he would say, the benediction or sanctification, that is Christ. For (as saint Paule sayth) he is our sanctification.1. Cor. 1. And that sinner that foloweth Cyrilles counsell, néedeth not to doubt of sanctification by Christ, and consequently, he néedeth not to feare to be partaker of that sacrament that was instituted to confirme and strengthen vs in the beliefe of our sanctification in him. And if a man should aske him, who it is that stylleth the ra­ging law of our members. &c. He would aunswere y^t it is Christ.

But if a man should bid you make your reason perfite, by putting to so many Verbes one Nominatiue case, at the least (for it is a verie vnperfite oration wherein there is no Nominatiue case, as Grammarians say) it is to be thought that you must say,An oration without a Nameyng case. that Sacramentum altaris, the sacrament of the aultar is the Nomi­natiue case to al those verbes. And then shal it appéere how Cyrill and you doe agrée, & how cleanly you haue conueyed your matter.

But nowe you conclude your treatise vpon this effect, with a maruellous exclamation: wondering first at the straunge ef­fectes that this sacrament hath brought forth, & then at the lardge conscience of your late teachers (destroyers of Christes flock, you say) which take away this armour, which was none other thing but to leaue you naked and vnarmed against the Deuill, that he might preuayle. &c.

All this labour you might haue spared:Watsō might haue spared this labour. if you would haue opened your eyes to sée the true meaning of those places of scrip­ture and auncient fathers that you cite for your purpose. For [Page 142] they neyther teach that these effectes doe spring out of the sacra­ment of the aultar: nor that your late teachers haue robbed you of any treasure. For they did but take from you such toyes as your father the Pope had deuised for you. Neyther did those teachers plant among you a bare Ceremonie: for they resto­red agayne the Sacrament of the bodye and bloud of Christ, which you and your sort, had so disguised with your ceremo­nies, that it could not be knowne for any sacrament of Christ. They taught not, that it is nothing else but bread and wine: but they taught, and we doe teach, that it is sacramentall bread and wine, and that being receyued by the member of Christ, it is the misticall body of Christ, and worketh in him as much as our sa­uiour Christ did ordeyne it to worke: That is, the certifying of his weake nature: that euerlasting life is purchased for him, by the death and bloud shedding of Christ: And that he is vnsepara­bly knit vnto Christ his head, and vnto the rest of Gods chosen children. And this is not the effect of bread and wine: But of him that worketh by his sacraments as by instruments. But nowe you haue one effect more, and so an ende of this matter.

WATSON. Diuision. 27 Well: one other effect I shall note vnto you, and make an ende of that matter.

This effect is written in the next verse of the same Psalme. Et calix tuus inebrians quám praeclarus est: Psal. 22. and thy Chalice or Cup that maketh vs dronke, howe goodly and excellent is it? There be two Cups, one worldly of wine, the other heauen­lye of Christes bloud: both make men dronken, but after diuers sortes, the one is sometimes, the instrument of sinne, the other at al times the instrument of grace, for as much as perteyneth to his owne nature.

Of this wryteth S. Cyprian. Sed quia ebrietas dominici calicis & sanguinis non est talis qualis est ebrietas vini secularis, Cyprian. li. 2. Epist. 3. cùm diceret spi­ritus sanctus in Psalmo. Calix tuus inebrians, addidit perquám optimus: quòd scilicet calix dominicus sic bibentes, inebriat, vt sobrios faciat, vt mentes ad spiritalem sapientiam redigat, vt à sapore isto seculari, ad im­tellectum Dei vnusquisque resipiscat. But bicause the dronkennesse [Page 143] of our Lords cup and bloud is not such, as the dronkennesse of worldly wine: when the holy ghost in the Psalme sayde. Thy cup that maketh men dronke, (he added) is very godly and excellent, bicause the cup of our Lorde doth so make the drinkers dronke, that it maketh them sober, that it bringeth their mindes to spirituall wisedome that euerye man may bring himselfe from this drowsinesse of the world to the vnderstanding and knowledge of God.

To this intent saint Ambrose wryteth in dyuers places, Ambros. in Psalm. 1. as vpon the first Psalme. At vero Dominus Iesus aquam de petra effu­dit, & omnes biberunt, and so forth. The place is long and for auoyding of tediousnesse, I shall faythfully rehearse it in Englishe. But our Lorde Iesus brought water out of the stone, and all dranke of it. They that dranke in figure, were satiate, they that dronke in truth were made dronke, the dronkennesse is good, which bringeth in mirth and not cō ­fusion, that dronkennesse is good, that stayeth in sobernesse the motions of the minde.

And he speaketh more playner in these words. Ambros. in Psal. 118. sermone. 15. Eate the meat of the Apostles preaching before, that thou mayst af­terward come to the meate of Christ, to the meate of oure Lordes body, to the deynties of the sacrament, to that cup wherewithall the affection of the faythfull is made dronke that it might conceyue gladnesse for remission of sinne, and put away the thoughts of this worlde, the feare of death and all troublesome carefulnesse, for by this dronkennesse that body doth not stumble and fall but riseth (to grace and glorie) the soule is not confounded, but is consecrate and made holy.

Yet one effect more, and then an ende of this matter.CROWLEY. The dronkennesse that the Prophet Dauid speaketh of in the .22. Psalme. &c. Here you séeme to haue forgotten your selfe.Watson for­getteth what he hath in hande. Your whole labour hitherto, hath bene to prooue, that the sacrament of the aultar worketh many excellent effects: and so you haue made it the efficient cause of those effects. But now, as one that remem­breth [Page 144] not what you haue in hande: you say that it is the instru­ment of grace. If you will abide by that, then I will not striue with you: for I am of the same minde that you are in that point, if you haue written as you thinck, when you say that it is the in­strument of grace. For euen as the worde of God is an instru­ment of grace: so are the sacraments also. But God, whose word and sacramentes they be: is the efficient cause that worketh by them, as by instruments.

But it séemeth by that which you cite out of Cyprian and Ambrose, to proue this effect that ye speake of: that it was but a slip of memorie, when you called it an instrument. I will ther­fore suppose that you be the same man that you were before: till I sée better lykelyhood of your sounde iudgement in this matter. Cyprian hath sayde (say you) Sed quia ebrietas. &c. Cyprian. li. 2. Epist. 3.

According to your custome, you leaue out those wordes that might make the writers meaning playne. Cyprian had sayd be­fore, that for as much as neyther the Apostle Paule, nor an An­gell from heauen, might declare or teache any otherwise, then Christ himselfe had once taught, and his Apostles had declared: he maruelled, that contrarie to the Euangelicall, and Apostolicall doctrine, there was in some places water offered in the Lordes cup, which coulde not of it selfe alone, expresse the bloud of the Lorde. The sacrament wherof the holy ghost doth not passe ouer in the Psalmes, making mention of the Lordes cup and saying: Thy cup, which doth make dronke, is excéeding good. And the cup that maketh men dronke, is surely mixed with wine: for water can not make any man dronken. And the Lordes cup doth make a man dronke, euen as Noe was made droken when he dranke wine, as it is written in Genesis. And then doe those wordes that you haue cyted, solow.

All indifferent readers maye perceyue by these wordes of Cyprian what his meaning was. Not to teach, that the spiritual dronkennesse, is the effect of the sacrament: but that the sacra­ment might not be ministred with water alone without wine. For vnlesse it haue in it, a naturall strength to make the drinkers dronken: it can not expresse, that is to say, it can not lyuely re­present [Page 145] the bloud of Christ, which being dronken of such as bée members of his body, in spirite by fayth, and sacramentally in the sacrament, according to his institution: doth make them dronken with that dronkennesse that saint Cyprian speaketh of here. And to make his meaning more playne, he addeth to the ende of those words that you haue cyted, these playne and manifest wordes. Et quemadmodum vino isto communi, mens soluitur, & anima relaxatur, & tristitia omnis exponitur: ita & potato sanguine Domini, & poculo salutari, exponatur memoria veteris hominis, & fiat obliuio conuersationis pristinae secularis: & moestum pectus & triste, quod prius peccatis angentibus prae­mebatur, diuinae indulgentiae laetitia resoluatur. Quod tunc demum po­test laetificare in Ecclesia Domini bibentem: si quod bibitur dominicam te­neat veritatem. And as by the drinking of this common wine, a mans minde is loosed, and his soule set at lardge from all cares, and all sorowfulnesse is sent out from the same: euen so, when the Lords bloud, and the cup of saluation is dronken, the remem­braunce of the olde man may be expelled, and the olde worldly conuersation forgotten, and the sorowful and pensiue hart, which was before oppressed with sorowe for sinne: may be resolued by the ioyfull gladnesse of forgiuenesse at Gods hande. Which cup may chéere him that drinketh it in the Church of the Lord, when the thing that is dronken, doth hold the truth of the Lorde.

By these wordes of Cyprian, it is manifest that he meaneth of such a dronkennesse as saint Austen doth,August. in Psalm. 22. wryting vpon the same verse of the .22. Psalme. Where he sayth thus. Et poculum tuum, obliuionem praestans priorum vanarum delectationum, quam praeclarum est. And thy cup, which doth make men forget their for­mer vayne pleasures: is very notable and excellent. And this is according to that which saint Paule wryteth to the Ephesians saying. Be ye not dronken with wine, wherein is excesse:Ephes. 5. but be yée filled with the holy ghost. &c.

To helpe you to proue this effect: you cite Ambrose vpon the first Psalme. And to auoyde tediousnesse, you will faithfully re­herse his words in Englishe. &c. It had bene well, if to auoyde te­diousnesse, you would haue left out all that you doe here cite out of Ambrose. Or else, that you had borowed a little more time with your Auditory: to make his meaning better knowne to them.

In the beginning of the matter that saint Ambrose doth handle in the place that you cite:Ambros. in Psal. 1. he sayth thus. Hoc primum bibe. Drinke this cup first. And shortly after he sayth thus. Prodest tibi cor habere contritum. Hoc primum bibe: vt sacrificium tuum accipiatur a Domino. Doceat te Apostolus quid sit, (hoc primum bibe:) hoc est tribulatio­nis poculum. It is profitable for thée to haue a contrite hart. Drinke this cup first, that the Lorde may accept thy sacrifice. Let the A­postle teach thée, what this saying (drinke this cup first) doth meane. It signifieth the cup of tribulation. And after a fewe wordes he sayth. Bibe primum, vt sitim mitiges: Bibe secundùm, vt sa­turitatem haureas. In veteri testamento compunctio, in nouo laeticia est. Drinke the first Testament, that thou mayst mitigate thy thirst: drinke the second, that thou mayst drinke to the full. In the olde Testament there is hartie sorowe for sinne, in the newe Testa­ment: ioy and gladnesse. And to auoyde tediousnesse, let me faith­fully rehearse in Englishe, the wordes that go immediatly before those wordes that you cite. Sée (sayth saint Ambrose) howe the Lorde hath on the hehalfe of his seruants: matched the disceites of the Deuill. He did with one morsell of meat disceyue one man: that he might in one, circumuent all. But Iesus hath redéemed all, with the meate of saluation: that in all, he might reforme him that had bene disceyued. The Deuill did inuent the golden Cup of Babilon, that such as should drinke thereof, might be more thirstie: and that bicause the drinke coulde not be pleasaunt, he might allure them with the price of the Golde. He began vnto them of his owne wine, wherevnto he sought to haue the helpe of the metall. But the Lorde Iesus did poure water out of the rock, and so forth, as you haue cited. And to the ende of those wordes that you cite: he addeth these. Neyther let it moue thée, that the Babilonion Cup is of Golde: for thou doest drinke the Cup of wisedome, which is more precious then is Gold or Siluer. Drink both the Cups therefore, both the olde and the new Teastament. For in eche of them thou doest drinke Christ. Drinke Christ: bi­cause he is the wine. Drinke Christ: bicause he is the rock, that vo­metted out the water. Drinke Christ: bicause he is the Fountaine of lyfe. Drinke Christ: bicause he is the riuer, the rushing wher­of [Page 147] doth make glad the Citie of God. Drinke Christ: bicause he is peace. Drinke Christ: bicause riuers of lyuing water doe flowe out of his belly. Drinke Christ: that thou mayst drinke the bloud wherewith thou wast redéemed. Drinke Christ, that thou mayst drinke his worde. &c.

Nowe (M. Watson) if you haue not dronke so déepe of the Babilonicall cup, that you be thereby fallen into the deadly slum­ber of Romishe obstinacie: you must néedes sée that Ambrose doth not in this place meane to maintaine your assertion: That is, that the spirituall dronkennesse, is the effect of the sacrament of the aultar. But here by the way I must put you in remem­braunce of citing such places as fight against your priuate Masses and halfe Housels.

But you haue yet another place,Ambros. in Psal. 118. Ser. 15. where Amborse speaketh more playnly, and sayth. Eate the meate of the Apostles preach­ing. &c. Ambrose wrote them thus in Latine. Dicit ad Discipulos, date illis vos manducare: ne deficiant in via. Habes apostolicum cibum: manduca illum, & non deficies. Illum ante manduca, vt postea venias ad cibum Christi, ad cibum corporis dominici, ad epulas sacramenti, ad illud poculum quo fidelium inebriatur affectus, vt laetitiam induat de remissione peccati, curas seculi huius, metum mortis, solicitudines (que) deponat. Hac ergo ebrietate, corpus non titubat, sed resurgit: animus non confunditur, sed consecratur. He sayth to his disciples. Doe ye giue them to eate, least they faint by the waye. Thou hast the meate that the Apo­stles gaue: eate that, and thou shalt not faint. Eate that meate first: that thou mayst afterward come to the meate of Christ, to the meate of the Lordes body, to the delicacies of the sacrament, to that cup wherby the affection of the faithfull is made dronken, that it may put on ioy for the remission of sinne, and laye off the cares of this worlde, the feare of death and troubles of minde. The body doth not stumble with this dronkennesse, but it ryseth againe, the minde is not confounded, but consecrated.

The meat that the Apostles did minister,Math. 28. Marc. 16. was the word and the sacraments. For this was their commissiō. Ite in mundum. &c. Go into all the worlde, and preach the Gospell to all creatures. &c. And saint Paule saith. Sic nos aestimet homo. &c. 1. Cor. 4. Let a man so estéeme [Page 148] vs, as the ministers of Christ, and Stewards of Gods mysteries. Wherefore Ambrose teaching vs to eate the Apostolicall meate first, y^t we may afterward come to the meate of Christ: can not meane of that meat that is receyued, either by the eares or by the mouth, but by faith into the hart and soule. Which is, as Am­brose sayth here, the delicacie of the sacrament, and the cup that maketh the affection of the faythfull dronken. &c. But sée you not, how this place also, fighteth against your priuate Masses & halfe communions? yea and against your maner of ministring sacra­ments, without the preaching of the worde before. But go for­warde with your matter.

WATSON. Diuision. 28 These scriptures, and these effectes brought out of the scriptures, and confirmed by many manifest authorities of the holy fathers, doe proue euidently to any man that hath but common wit and any sparkle of grace, and is not forsa­ken of almighty God, that the substaunce of this sacrament is neyther bread nor wine, but onely the body and bloud of our Lorde Iesus Christ, vnited to Gods sonne in vnitie of person, which is a sufficient cause, able to worke in the worthy receauer these heauenly and glorious effectes, which I haue spoken of already.

Whereby appeareth, what moueth me to continue still in that faith, which is so expresly taught in holy scripture: which scripture also draweth and pulleth me from the con­trarie false opinion.

Math. 7. In dyuers places it moueth me and all christen men to beware and take heede of false Prophets, that come in the apparell of sheepe, but within they be rauenous Wolfes: that in their mouths haue the worde of God, the truth, the Gospell and such gaye wordes, but the pitte and effect of their teaching is olde rotten heresies, confuted and condem­ned of all Christendome before, and not Gods worde, the name whereof they abuse to the maintenaunce of all vice, errour, beastly lyuing, adulterie, disobedience, sacrilege, and open conspiracie, to the subuersion of themselues, and [Page 149] of that state vnder which they liue.

The scripture cryeth, Nolite omni spiritui credere, 1. Iohn. 4. beleue not euery spirite, but trye and proue the spirites, if they be of God or no, for many false Prophets are abroad in the world. One way to trie them, is to marke the ende of their con­uersation, and the example and fruit of their liues, as saint Paule sayth. Quorum exitum conuersationis intuentes, Hebr. 1. eorum imita­mini fidem: folow their fayth, the ende of whose conuersati­on ye haue seene.

We haue seene, what is the ende of this newe teaching, carnall and detestable lyuing, conspiracie and treason.

The other fathers of whome we learned our faith, were men whome the corrupt worlde was not worthy to haue: these Authors of this new opinion were men, that were not worthy to haue and enioy the worlde: Pet. 28. of whom saint Peter writeth, Magistri mendaces, and so forth. Lying maisters that bring in sectes of perdicion, & denie that Lord that bought them (as they doe in this matter of the sacrament) bringing vpon them a speedie perdition: and many shall folow their wayes, through whome the way of truth shall be slaundered and blasphemed, and in couetousnesse by feyned words they shall make marchaundise of you, to whome iudgement cea­seth not, and their destruction sleepeth not.

We be also warned by saint Iohn of this matter, saying: 2. Iohn. 1. he that remaineth & abideth in the doctrine (that the Apo­stles taught) he hath the father and the sonne. If any come to you not bringing thys doctrine, doe not receyue him into your houses.

Here he doth teache vs to auoyde them, that professe any other doctrine then such as all faithfull men vniuersal­ly thorowout the world haue receyued and professe, which is not the doctrine, that the Sacramentaries preach.

Finally considering the promises of Christ to his church that he will be with them to the worldes ende, Math. 28. and that the holy ghost shall lead them into all truth, Iohn. 16. then may we iust­ly say, that if this our fayth be an errour, it hath preuailed [Page 150] vniuersally not one hundreth yeare, but two, three, foure, yea a thousand yeare, and more then that, euen to the as­cension of Christ, as appeareth by the testimonies of all ho­ly wryters, and then may we say Lorde if we be deceaued, thou hast deceaued vs, we haue beleeued thy worde, wee haue folowed the tradition of the vniuersall Church, we haue obeyed the determinations and teachings of those Bi­shops and Pastors, whome thou hast placed in the Church to staye vs in vnitie of fayth, that we be not caried awaye with euery winde of false doctrine. Therefore if we be de­ceyued it commeth of thee O Lord, our error is inuincible.

But good people, we are sure, God deceaueth no man, let vs all beware we doe not deceaue oure selues, as Saint Iames sayth.

CROWLEY.As touching the scriptures that you haue alledged, and the effectes that you haue affirmed, to be the effects of the sacrament: you are already sufficiently aunswered. And for the substaunce of the sacrament also. We teach not that the worthy receyuer, doth receyue none other thing but bread and wine: for we hold (as the scriptures & the auncient fathers haue taught) that the worthy re­ceiuer doth receiue after a spiritual maner, & sacramentally, very Christ, God and man, that bread of lyfe that came downe from heauen. But with S. Austen we teach, that the vnworthy recei­uer doth not receyue Panem Dominum: sed panem Domini contra Do­minum. August. in Iohn. Tract. 59. The bread which is the Lorde: but the bread of the Lord against the Lorde.

And where you cite certaine scriptures, that warne you and all christians to beware of false prophets. &c. you your selfe are one of those false Prophets. And the Prelates of your Antichristian and Babilonicall Church of Rome: are those rauening Woolfes that saint Paule did prophecie of,Act. 21. that should not spare the flock. The hauock that you made of Christes silly Lambes in Quéene Maries dayes,1. Iohn. 4. doth declare what you are. Saint Iohn doth very well warne vs, not to beléeue euery spirite: but to trie whether they be of God or not. And shall we thinke that your spirite is of [Page 151] God, which moueth you to set vp the Pope aboue al that is called God (that is aboue all Princes,2. Thes. 2. which in the scripture are called Gods) and to maintaine him in the temple of God (that is in the Church of Christ, boasting himselfe as though he were God? No surely, we can not thinke that your spirite is of God, for it is an arrogant spirite.

And as for the way that you haue found to trie spirites by: let it be considered. And if your spirite, may be by that triall founde to be of Christ: then will we credite you. But if oures be found so by the same: then why should not you credit vs. Mementote prae­positorum vestrorum (sayth saint Paule) qui vobis locuti sunt verbum Dei, quorum intuentes exitum conuersationis, imitamini fidem. Hebr. 13. Remem­ber those that are your gouernors, and haue spoken vnto you the worde of God: and considering the ende of their conuersation, yée doe imitate or folow their faith.

Chrysostome wryting vpon this place sayth thus. In hoc loco, etiam de adiutorio in fratres, eum existimo dicere: hoc enim est quod dicit. Qui vobis locuti sunt verbum Dei: Quorum contemplantes exitum conuer­sationis, imitamini fidem. Quid est contemplantes? Sepius animo versan­tes, & apud vosmetipsos examinantes, consyderantes, subtiliter discutien­tes inquit, exitum conuersationis. Hoc est perseuerantiam vs (que) in finem: quoniam finem bonum habuit eorum conuersatio. &c. In this place (saith Chrysostome) I suppose that he speaketh of the helpe that the brethren should haue at their handes. This is it that he meaneth when he sayth, which haue spoken the worde of God to you, the ende of whose conuersation when ye doe behold, you follow their fayth. What meaneth he when he sayth, when you doe beholde? He sayth as much as if he had sayde. When you doe tosse it and tumble it in your mindes, and doe examine it with your selues, considering and discussing it thorowly. The ende of their conuer­sation, that is, their perseueraunce to the ende: bicause their con­uersation had a good ende. &c.

It is manifest, that Chrysostome: doth vnderstande saint Paules purpose in this place to be, chiefely to put the Hebrues in remembraunce of their duties, towardes such as had preached the Gospel amongst them. Whose faith they did imitate: bicause [Page 152] they had séene their constancie in contynuall preaching of sounde doctrine,Another shift that Watson vseth. leading a lyfe according to the same. And here I must tell you, that you doe to much abuse Saint Paule, when you make the Englishe reader beléeue, that saint Paule speaketh in the Imparatiue Moode, commaunding the Hebrues to folow the fayth of those men, the ende of whose conuersation they had séene. For both in the Gréeke and Latine, it is the Indicatiue Moode. You doe folow. But graunt it be a marke whereby the soundnesse of fayth maye be knowne: What haue you wonne therby? Shall there not as many of the Popes Clergie be found inconstaunt in doctrine: as of the teachers of the newe learning (as you terme them)? I néede not to write any more of this mat­ter. The worlde séeth well ynough, both the constauncie and con­uersation of the most part of the teachers of your sort.

In déede (as Chrysostome saith héere) when men shal sée that the Preachers of any doctrine, doe perseuer and continue con­staunt in that doctrine, and doe leade a lyfe lyke vnto the doctrine: it moueth them that heare the doctrine, to waighe and consider, both the lyfe and the doctrine, and when they finde that both be sound,The fruit of constancy and good lyfe in Preachers. & without hypocrisie, to folow the faith of such preachers, as the Hebrues did folow the faith of them that had constauntly preached the worde amongst them, and led a lyfe according to the same. But if the doctrine, when it is weighed, be found dyuers and straunge, and the conuersation hypocriticall, full of will workes, besides, yea and contrarie to the commaundement of God: then the godly, wise, will leaue those hypocrits and their faith, and séeke for such as shall preach vnto them such doctrine as may be found perfite and sounde. And though the preachers of that doctrine doe in some pointes, shewe themselues to be men: yet will they not reiect the sounde doctrine, for the lack of sounde lyfe in the preacher.

But you bende these wordes of Paule another way: and you say that you haue séene the ende of this newe learning. It is (say you) carnall and detestable lyuing, conspiracie and treason. Me thinketh, I could gesse, where you learned to call the lyfe of those teachers that you name newe: carnall and beastly. For it was [Page 153] the maner of your olde mayster Stephane Gardiner: so to terme the lyfe of maried ministers. So beastly was he, and so beastly doe you séeme to be (for that is the carnall and beastly life that you meane, I am sure) as to accompt that thing beastly, which is the holy ordinaunce of God. Saint Paule, euen in the same chap­ter that you doe cite hath sayde. Honorabile est coniugium in omnibus, Hebr. 13. & thorus immaculatus. Mariage is honorable amongst al men: and the bed thereof vndefiled. It is to much therefore to call it beastly in ministers, for they be men also, and therefore their wedlock is honorable. As for your wyfelesse Priesthood, the world hath séene and perceyued well ynough, and as saint Paule wryteth to the Ephesians. Quae enim in occulto fiune ab ipsis, turpe est & dicere: Ephes. 5. It is a filthye thing, once to name those thinges that these men doe in secret.

As for your conspiracie and treason that you charge vs with: I referre to the iudgement of such as haue reade the Chronicles and histories of the practises of Popish Prelates. And I pray you (M. Watson) euen in the dayes that you haue lyued: who haue bene the conspirators and Traytors? Was Aske in Lyncolne shire, a scholer of the new teachers? did not he and his companie, trayterously conspire and rebell against their prince,The fruits of popishe doctrine. bicause their Pilgrimages and Abbayes were suppressed? And what say you to y^e Vicare of Loweth that sturred about the same matter? And in king Edwarde the sixt dayes: who were the Captaynes and leaders, in euery part of England almost, euen in one Sommer, but popishe priestes, and such as had bene taught by them? And what Countries in all Englande were more quiet at that time, then were those, where the gospell (which you call new learning) had bene most diligently and faithfully taught?

If you can name vs one, that being a teacher of the newe learning (as you terme it) hath rebelled against his prince: we can finde you a dosen of your Clearks for that one. And then are we in as good case being compared vnto you: as y^e Apostles were, being compared to the phariseis. For if one in euery twelfe of vs, should be founde to beare a trayterous hart towardes his prince, as among the twelue Apostles: there was founde one Iudas: yet [Page 154] should we alwayes haue a .xj. honest men for one knaue, where as amongst the Phariseis and you, there are to be found for euery honest man a .xj. false knaues at the least. And thus all men may sée the ende of that learning that you call olde.

Nowe, those fathers whome the worlde was not worthye to haue: were not the teachers that you learned your Popishe fayth of: but you learned of those fathers that were not worthy to haue the worlde. They were not fathers discended of the right line, but intruders and vsurpers, that most cruelly murdered the children of the right fathers.2. Petr. 2. And they are euen those lying may­sters, that saint Peter spake of in the place that you cite. &c.

And you and your sort, are euen the same that saint Iohn gyueth vs warning of in the place that you alledge? For you a­bide not in y^e doctrine that Christ and his Apostles did teach:2. Iohn. but contrarie to that doctrine, you make to your selfe an head and mayster vpon earth, and call him the most holy father, teaching his decrées and ordinaunces, as the doctrine that all Christs flock, must vnder paine of the losse both of body & soule imbrace & obey.

And here saint Iohn doth teache vs to auoyde you and your sort, which doe teach & professe another doctrine, then that which was by the Prophets and Apostles taught, to be beléeued and re­ceyued of all Gods elected and chosen children throughout the worlde. This doctrine is not the doctrine of the Papistes.

Watson con­cludeth with a lowde lye.But nowe you conclude with a lowde and shamelesse lye: Affirming that your learning (meaning the Pops learning) hath vniuersally preuayled, euer since the ascension of Christ. Bishop Iewell, in his aunswere to your friend maister Doctor Harding: hath most manifestly proued, that you stretch your lye to farre by sixe hundred yeres at the least. And how haue you folowed the worde of the Lorde God, to whome you turne your spéeche and say, if we be disceyued, thou hast disceyued vs: seing he sayth, drinke ye all of this, and you say, No. None shall drinke it but Priests onely. Make thée no grauen Image (sayth he) yes (say you) we will haue our Churches full. &c.

Wherefore if God haue disceyued you: it is not bicause you haue beléeued his worde: but bicause you haue loued lyes more [Page 155] then truth, and therefore God hath iustly giuen you ouer In effica­ciam erroris, euen to the force and strength of error,2. Thess. 2. as saint Paule wryteth. And so is your error a iust punishment for the credite that you gaue vnto lyes. And although God neyther doth nor can disceyue any man, in such sort as you doe meane: yet he sayth that in such meaning as I haue written,Ezech. 14. he doth disceyue such as you are, for the wickednesse of such people as you haue instructed.

Thus hauing spoken something of the scriptures, WATSON. Diuision. 29 as this short time would permit, there remayneth also the se­cond thing, which I sayde moued mee to continue in thys fayth, which is the authorities of auncient fathers that haue flourished in the preaching of Gods truth in all ages with authorities. I thinke verily in no age haue bene so curiously sought, so diligent founde out, and so substantially wayed, as in this our time.

And all this is bicause the oppugnation of the truth in this matter, hath extend it selfe not onely to the scriptures but also to the doctors, & to euery particle and title of the doctors, whose wrytings haue bene so scanned & tried, that if any thing could haue bene gathered & piked out of their books, eyther by liberal writing before this mistery came in contention, or by misconstruction of their words, or by de­prauatiō of their meaning, that could seme to make against our fayth herein it was not omitted of some, but stoutly alledged, amplified, inforced, and set forth to the vttermost that their wittes coulde conceaue, which if God hath not infatuat, leauing them to speake so, as neyther fayth nor reason could allow: lyke as they haue with their vanities seduced a great sort the more pittie, so they should haue vn­dermined and subuerted the fayth of a great many mo, that were doubting and falling but not cleane ouerthrowne, thankes be to almightie God.

Of these authorities, although with a little studie and lesse labour, I could at this time alledge a great number, yet cōsidering the shortnesse of the time, which is almost spent. [Page 156] I shall be content to picke out a fewe, which doe not onely declare the minde of the author, but also conteyne an ar­gument to proue and conuince the truth of our fayth, and such an argument, as neyther figuratiue speeche, nor de­prauation of the wordes or meaning can delude. And first I shall begin with the weakest, that is with the suspition of the Gentils. Tertullian in his Apologie teacheth, howe the Gentiles did accuse the Christen men for kylling of yong children, ertul. apol. Capit. 7. and eating of their fleshe, he sayth thus: Dicimur sceleratissimi de Sacramento infanticidij & pabulo inde. We are repor­ted and accused as most mischeuous and wicked men, for the sacrament of kylling of children and eating their fleshe, and drincking their bloud.

Historia Ec­clesiast. lib. 5. Capit. 3. Eusebius also in this historie of the Church, wryteth of one Attalus a martyr, who being roasted in an yron Cradell with fyre put vnderneath, when the sauour of his burnt fleshe came to the smelling of the people that looked on: he cryed with a lowde voyce to the people. Lo, this is to eate men which you doe, which fault ye make inquisition of, as secretly done of vs, which you commit openly in the mid daye.

By this accusation we may vnderstand, that our sacra­mentes and misteries in the beginning of the Church were kept very secret, both from the sight and knowledge of the Paganes that mocked and scorned them, and also of those that were Catechumini, learners of our fayth and not yet bap­tized, for many great causes which I shall not neede to re­hearse nowe. And yet for all the secret keping of them, be­ing so many Christen men and women as there was, they could not be kept so secret, but that some ynkeling of them came to the eares of those that were Infidels and vnchriste­ned, insomuch that where as in deede and verie truth by the rules of our religion, we did eate the fleshe of Iesus Christ our Lorde, and drinke hys bloud ministred vnto vs in the sacrament, the Gentiles as they were curious to know new things, so they came to knowledge of the rumour of our [Page 157] doings, & eyther by the bewraying of some false brethrē, or else by the simplicity of other, that of zeale without know­ledge would haue conuerted the vnfaythfull to our fayth, heard secretly, that wee christen men in our misteries did eate mans flesh and drinke mans bloud, which they for lack of faith, and further instruction began to compasse in their wittes, how it was possible so to doe, and therefore some of them blinded by their owne foolishe suspicion conceaued and published amongst other, as it was most likely vnto them, that we in our secret misterie, did kill yong children, eating their flesh, and drinking their bloud, and therevpon accused certayne before the Magistrates of thys heynous crime, which they coulde neuer trie out to be true, as they did accuse.

But for our purpose it appeareth plainly, that we would neuer haue kept our misteries so secret, if they had beene but ceremonies of eating of bread & wine, nor they would neuer haue accused vs of such beastly and vnnatural crimes being men of such reason, learning and equity, as they were, if there had not bene some truth in their accusation, which in deede was true for the substaunce of that they alledged, but not for the maner of the thing: for it was and is true, that we in our misteries eate fleshe and drinke bloud, but yet we doe not kill and murder yong children, and eate their flesh and drinke their bloud. And therfore I alledge the say­ings of Tertullian and Eusebius, the which is also in Ori­gen the sixt booke contra Celsum, to declare the accusation of the Gentils against vs, concerning the eating of fleshe, and drinking of bloud, which could neuer haue commed into their heads so to haue done, if there had not bene a truth in that matter, which they by their reason could neuer see o­therwise, then they alleged, which we by our faith do plain­ly see and know as it was ordeined by Christ our Lord. And for that cause Tertullian did cast in a vaine worde, saying: that we were accused of the sacrament of kylling of chil­dren, which worde (Sacrament) standeth there for no pur­pose, [Page 158] but to declare vnto vs, that this their accusation did rise for lack of the true and precise knowledge of our Sa­crament, which is true, concerning the eating of fleshe and drinking of bloud, but not true concerning the kylling and murdering of children.

CROWLEY.After you haue something spoken of the scriptures (how much to the purpose, let the readers of this aunswere iudge) you come to the second thing that you sayde did mooue you to continue in your Popishe fayth: That is, the Authorities of auncient fa­thers that haue flourished in all ages, in preaching of Gods truth. And to make your Auditorie to thinke that you meane to deale simply: you say that we haue omitted nothing, that eyther by misconsturing or deprauing might séeme to make against your fayth, but haue stoutly alledged, amplified, enforced, and set forth to the vttermost that our wyttes coulde conceyue. &c. But when the indifferent reader shall haue read ouer this aunswere, and weighed both your doings and mine in misconsturing, deprauing, stoute alledging, amplyfying and enforcing: I doubt not but he shall sée, and will say, that the doings that you charge vs withall, are your owne. And that whereas by the helpe of God we had brought some to the knowledge of your false dealing, so that they began to laye hande vpon the true fayth in Iesus Christ: you and your sort haue by subtile perswations, by imprisonment and by torments of fyre, driuen many of them, eyther to denie their fayth, or else to hide it, or flie their Countrie, and would (if you might haue contynued) haue banished the light of Christes glori­ous Gospell for euer. But the Almightie God be praysed for it: your power is nowe cut something shorter.

A fewe Authorities you say, you will picke out, which shall proue and conuince the truth of your fayth. And first you will begin with the weakest (as who should say, the Authorities that shall come in the rearewarde, are thunderbolts in comparison of the first.) But with little study and lesse labour: you could alledge a great number. &c.

Well you will beginne with Tertullian in his Apologie: [Page 159] where he sayth thus. Dicimur sceleratissimi &c. Apologet. 7. We are called most wicked. &c. And to his wordes you ioyne the wordes of Attalus, written by Eusebius. The wordes are otherwise in Latine, then you doe report them in Englishe. I will therefore, let the reader sée them in Latine, that the learned may iudge of both our doings. Attalus verò cum prunis subteriectis, in sella ferrea torreretur, cun (que) nidor adustae carnis, ad nares & ora inspectantis populi perferrebatur, Eccles. hist. lib. 5. ca. 3. voce magna exclamat ad plebem. Ecce, hoc est homines commedere quod vos facitis. Quid à nobis velut occultum inquiritis facinus, quod vos aperta luce committi­tis? Nos enim ne (que) commedimus homines, ne (que) aliud quid mali agimus. But when Attalus was rosted in an yron Cradell, with burning coales cast vnder it, and when the sauour of the burned fleshe, was brought to the nostrils and mouth of the people that stood loo­king on: he doth with a lowde voyce crie out vnto the people. Beholde, this that you doe is to eate men. Why doe ye searche for amongst vs, as for an horrible déede done in secret, that thing which you your selues doe commit in the open light. For we nei­ther eate men, nor doe any other euill thing.

Of these two places you gather a coniecture, that is, that for as much as, the christians were accused, as eaters of mans fleshe and drinkers of mans bloud: there must néedes be some oc­casion of that accusation. Which you can coniecture to be none o­ther, but the common opinion of the christians, concerning the substaunce that they receyued in the sacrament. Which though they kept as secretly as possibly they might: yet by one meane or other, it came to the eares of the enimies of Christen profession. Which for lack of fayth could not conceyue that maner of eating fleshe and drinking bloud that the christians vsed. And therfore they bruted abroad their owne foolishe coniecture: Which was, that christians did in their sacrifice kill a yong Infant, and dip there sacrificing bread in the bloud therof, and so eate it. But you after your maner of amplifying, doe say, that the christians were accused before certaine Magistrates, of this heynous crime of ea­ting the fleshe of yong children and drinking their bloud. Which you can finde neyther in Tertullian nor Eusebius. But so your tale hath a better shewe for your purpose: that you might [Page 160] conclude, that it could neuer haue come into the heades of the hea­then, thus to accuse the christians, if there had not bene a truth in the matter. And therefore you conclude that it is true that in those dayes the christians did, and we doe nowe, eate fleshe and drinke bloud in the sacrament, but not true concerning the kyl­ling and murdering of children. This you say is the weakest ar­gument that you will vse, to proue and conuince the truth of your fayth by.

If this argument be sufficient to proue and conuince that we doe eate the flesh and drinke the bloud of Christ, in the sacrament, after your sort: then let me make an argument to proue and con­uince, that in Tertullians dayes, christians did giue themselues to carnall copulation, eyther in common, or else at the least with their owne wyfes, immediatly after their feast of communion, euen in the same place where they had holden that feast. For Ter­tullian sayth immediatly after those wordes that you cite.An argumēt like Watsons. Et post conuiuium incesto, quòd euersores luminum canes, lenones silicet, tenebu­rum & libidinum impiarum inuerecundiam procurent. And it is sayde that after the feast, we go to incest, and that Dogs, that is to say, Bawds, which ouerthrow the lightes, doe procure vnshamefast­nesse of the darkenesse and wicked lustes. Thus they doe report of vs, sayth Tertullian. But this suspition coulde neuer haue come into their heades if there had not béene a truth in the mat­ter of carnall copulation, although not incestuously as they did maliciously brute abroad.

As well doth this argument proue and conuince this matter, as doth your argument proue that christians did in those dayes and doe nowe, eate fleshe and drinke bloud in the sacrament. I can not but maruaile what you meane in cyting Origine contra Cel­sum: sith you haue sayde before, that the accusers of the christians were men of great reason, learning and equitie. For Origine sayth in the place that you cite,Origine ma­keth Wat­sons coniec­ture to seeme vntrue. that for as much as these things be reported of christians, by such as be nothing acquainted with christian religion: they are adiudged to be vaine and falsely in­uented against the christians. What reason, learning, and equi­tie can there be, in men that will falsely inuent and spread abroad [Page 161] such abhominable and slaunderous reportes.

But Tertullian hath cast in a worde, that maketh vp the matter, whole on your side. For he sayth De sacramento insanticidij. For the sacrament of kylling of children. But let vs sée his words togither, as Beatus Rhenanus hath set them forth. Dicimur scele­ratissimi de sacramento infanticidij, & pabulo Iudae, & post conuiuium incesto, quòd euersores luminum canes, lenones silicet, tenebrarum & libi­dinum impiarum inuerecundiam procurent. We are reported to be the worst men of all, for the sacrament of murdering of children, and the foode of Iudas, and for incest after the feast, bicause Dogs, that is to say Bawds that ouerthrow the lightes, doe procure vn­shamefastnesse of darkenesse and wicked pleasures.

This word sacrament (you say) is a vayne worde, and stan­deth there, for no purpose, but to declare vnto vs, that their occa­sion did rise, for lack of the true and precise knowledge of oure sacrament.

If I might be so bolde, I would tell you, that your iudge­ment of Tertullians wryting is verie vaine and foolishe, in that you iudge him to haue cast in this worde sacrament, as seruing to none other purpose but as you imagine. For what is more pro­bable, then that the heathen did report of them that they had a mysterie or sacrament, which did consist in y^e murdering of yong children? And doth not Rhenanus, in the argument of this booke, say y^t it was obiected to the christians, that in their diuine seruice, they did kill a yong Infant, and imbrue with his bloud, the bread that they would eate. But this was false sayth he. But you saye it was true concerning the substaunce of the matter. Well,Watson a­gainst Rhe­nanus. I will leaue you to deale with Tertullian and Rhenanus, as you can in this matter.

But I maruaile much what you meane, in y^t you chaunge Iudae into Inde. You doe English it, eating their flesh, and drinking their blood. I think you haue not found it so in Tertulians works, in any impression that is now to be séene. I must néeds say then, y^t you de­praue, misconster, & enforce the wrytings of the auncient fathers, to serue your purpose. I can not sée, but you might as well haue suffered it to stand as it was Pabulo Iudae, as to make it Pabulo inde: [Page 162] sauing that then you might not haue translated it as you doe. But you must néedes haue sayde the foode of Iudas. And why might not the enimies obiect to the Christians these thrée crimes: The kylling of Infants. The féeding of Iudas And committing of incest? Why might they not imagine, that the Christians should at their méetings, haue one to counterfeyt Christ and another Iudas: the one dypping a sop, and the other receyuing the same at his hande? Or why might they not call the eating of that blou­dy bread, by the name of Iudas feast?

You say, that the Christians kept their mysteries so secret: that the enimies could haue no knowledge of the maner of their doings. But in the same Chapter Tertullian sayth thus. Ipsi etiam domesticis nostris quotidie obsi [...]emur, quotidie prodimur: in ipsis plurimum caetibus, & cōgregationibus nostris opprimimur. &c. We our selues also (sayth Tertullian) are euery day beset with our owne families, we are daylie betrayed, and verie often are we oppressed, euen in our verie assembles and congregations. And who did at any time come sodainely vpon vs, and finde a childe crying in such sort? Who did euer finde our mouthes bloudie, lyke Cyclopians and Cirenians, and did open the same to the iudge?

By this it is manifest that the Christians did not in those dayes, kéepe their mysteries so secret, as you would haue men thinke they did.Watsons conclusion foloweth not. Neither doth that folow that you would conclude, that is, that bicause the enimies to christian religion, did imagine that they did murder Infants, and embrue the bread that they should eate in their communion, with the bloud of those children: therefore it was true, that they did eate the fleshe and drinke the bloud of Christ in the sacrament, in such reall and carnall sort as you teache.

And yet afterward our mysteries as they came in more knowledge amongs the Gentiles, WATSON. Diuision. 30 so they came into more contempt: for when the multitude of Christian men were so increased, that they cared not who did looke vpon them in the time of their mysteries, being out of feare of any ex­ternall violence & persecution then the Gentils seing them [Page 163] knock, and kneele, and make adoration to the sacraments, not knowing them to be any thing else, but as their eyes, senses, and reason did iudge, that is to say, bread and wine as our sacramentaries doe nowe, being blinded nowe with heresie, as they before were with infidelitie: then I say, they sayde, that we did not worship and adore one God, as we pretended, but many Gods, as they were accustomed: for they sayde (as saint Augustine wryteth) that we did worship Ceres and Bacchus, the Gods of Corne and Wine, August con. sanst. libr. 20 Capit. 13. taking our sacraments to be nothing else, but bare bread and wine, as the Sacramentaries doe and not to be Christ our Lorde and God, his fleshe and his bloud, as all true faythfull men doe, which appeareth by the adoration of them: the which adorarion we learne that it was done to the sacraments from the beginning, as is proued by the testimonies of our eni­mies the Gentils, as saint Augustine reporteth. And also by their adoration we learne, that the things which they did adore, were not simple creatures, but Christes body and his bloud, vnited to the second person in Trinitie.

Saint Basill being asked, with what feare, perswasion, Basilius in reg. in terrog. 172. fayth, and affection we should come and communicate the body and bloud of Christ, aunswereth thus: Concerning the feare, we haue the saying of the Apostle. He that eateth and drinketh vnworthily, eateth & drinketh his iudgment and damnation.

What fayth we should haue, the words of our Lord doe teach, who sayde: This is my body which is giuen for you, doe this in my remembraunce. Hesichius li. 6. ca. 22. And Hesichius sayth like­wise: Sermo qui prolatus est in dominicum mysterium, ipse liberat nos ab ignorantia. The wordes of Christ, which were spoken vpon our Lordes mysterie, they deliuer vs from ignoraunce that is to saye, they teache vs, what fayth, what estimation wee should haue of them. Nowe except they be taken as they sound to euery man, although he be vnlearned and not in­structed in our fayth before, they could not teach vs, what fayth we should haue, concerning the sacraments, & there­fore [Page 64] in that they be wordes, wherevpon we must learne our fayth, which delyuer vs from ignoraunce, what the things be, that be deliuered, for that cause they must be taken as they sounde, that is to say, that the sacraments deliuered be the very body and bloud of Christ, that gaue them.

[...] [...]om. 17. in Math. Chrysostome sayth. Quod sacerdos de manu sua dat, non solum sanctificatum est: sed etiam sanctificatio est. That thing that the Priest doth giue out of his hande, is not onely a thing sanc­tified: but it is sanctification it selfe. Therefore our sacra­ment, must not onely be an holy thing, as they sayde, holy bread, holy wine: but it must bee the substaunce of holy­nesse, making all other things holy.

And here I thinke it worthy to be noted, and to be ope­ned somewhat vnto you, with what sophistrie and vnlear­ned folye they deluded the sanctification and consecration of this sacrament. Children at the Vniuersitie can tell, that it is a deceytfull way of reasoning, by a generall discription to exclude and driue away a special and singuler definition, as they did in this case. For they sayde, that the consecra­tion of the sacrament was no more, but an appointing of bread and wine to an holy vse, which vse they sayde was to signifie vnto vs Christes body that is in heauen: and there­fore some sayde, that the bread was consecrat, when the parishe Clarke did bring it to the Church, and set it vpon the table, and these were no small men, but our greatest Bishops God forgiue it them: other sayde it was not conse­crate, till the wordes of Christ were spoken, but yet they noted, that the Priest should not looke at the bread in the time of the pronouncing, for this ende belike, that they should not be disceyued, & that God should worke no more then it pleased them, that their doctrine might some waye bee true.

And therfore they sayde, euery man and woman might consecrate and speake the words as well as a Priest: but they neuer read what Arnobius sayth: Arniobus in Psalm. 139. Quid tam magnificum quam Sacramenta deuina conficere? & quid tam perniciosum, quam si ea is con­ficiat, [Page 165] qui nullum sacerdotij gradum accepit? What is so excellent, then to consecrate the sacraments of God? and what is so pernicious, then if he doe consecrate: that hath receyued no order and degree of Priesthood? And as they erred in the time and person, so they erred in the nature of the conse­cration, making this of the same sort that all other conse­crations be, receauing the generall discription, and denying the degrees and specialties of sanctification, which be ma­ny: for somethings be holy, not for any holynesse that is in them, but for that they be brought to the Church, and de­dicate to some holy vse, as is the temple of God, the ve­stures about the aultar, and other things vsed in Gods ser­uice, which things to steale and conuey is sacrilege, and a­mongst those things there be degrees of holynesse, as saint Augustine sayth: Quod accipiunt Catechumini, August, de peccat merit & remiss. libr. 2. ca. 26. quamuis non sit cor­pus Christi, sanctum est tamen, & sanctius quàm cibi quibus alimur. Holy bread which those that be learners receiue, although it be not the body of Christ, yet it is holy, and more holy then the meat, with which we are fed daylie, which also is sanctified by the worde and prayer.

There is also holynesse, a qualitie, a vertue, & gift of God, making him in whome it is, acceptable in the sight of God. The soule of man is likewise sanctified & holy, bicause it is that substaunce and subiect wherein holynesse consisteth and dwelleth, being a vessell created to Gods ymage, and prepared to receaue Gods gift of sanctification & holynesse.

And the body of a godly man is also sanctified & holy, bicause it is the member of Christ, the temple of the holy Ghost, and the house and tabernacle of the soule, repleni­shed with Gods grace and sanctification and for this reason we haue in reuerence and estimation the reliques & bodyes of holy martyrs and confessors, which being members of Christ, were also pleasing sacrifices to Almightie God, ey­ther for austeritie of life, or for suffering of vndeserued death, for the fayth or in the quarell of Iesus Christ oure Lorde.

The sacraments of Gods Church be iustly called holy, bicause they be the instruments, whereby God doth worke holynesse in the soule of man, and be as causes of the same, by Christes owne ordinaunce and institution. But aboue all other, thys sacrament of the aultar is holye, being as Chrysostome sayde, not onely a thing sanctified, but the verie sanctification it selfe. For in that it is the body of Christ by consecration, whervnto is annexed the Godhead by vnitie of person: it must needes be holynesse it selfe, not in qualitie, but in substaunce, seing whatsoeuer thing is in God, is also God, who for his simplicitie receyueth no qua­litie into himselfe, but is the author and principall cause of all good qualities and graces giuen vnto man. Wherefore, this place of Chrysostome that calleth it sanctification it selfe, can not be auoyded, by no figuratiue speeches, or such like cauillations.

CROWLEY.Here you begin with a lowde lye (by your leaue) for there was neuer time yet wherein true christen men, cared not who looked vpon them in the time of their mysteries:Two lowde lyes, one in anothers neck. but they did shut out from the place where they did communicate, all that were not thought méete to be partakers with them. And if you beléeue not me, looke in your Liturgies of Iames, Basill, and Chry­sostome. And then you clap another lye euen in the neck of the first, saying that the Christians made a knocking and knéeling, and adoration to the sacraments: and that, that was the thing that moued the Gentils to say, that we worship many Gods, and not one as we pretend. But to proue this to be no lye: you take saint Austen to wytnesse. Who in the place that you cite, sayth thus, speaking to Faustus the Maniche. Quomodo ergo comparas pa­nem & Calicem nostrum, & parem Religionem dicis, errorem longè à veri­tate discretum: peius desipiens quam nonnulli, qui nos propter Panem & Calicem: Cererem & liberum colere existimant. How doest thou ther­fore, compare our bread and cup, and sayest, that an errour, which differeth verie farre from the truth, is as good a religion as oures, being more fondly disceyued, then are certaine, which by [Page 167] reason of the bread and cup, doe suppose, that we doe worship Ce­res and Bacchus. And in the same Chapter, he sayth. Sicut enim à Cerere & libero, Paganorum dijs longè absumus, quamuis Panis & Ca­licis sacramentum, quod ita laudastis, vt in eo nobis pares esse volueritis, nostroritu amplectamur. &c For euen as we are verie farre from Ceres and Bacchus, Gods of y^e Paganes, although we doe after our maner embrace the sacrament of the bread and the cup, which you haue so highly commended, bicause you would therein be like vnto vs: euen so our fathers were farre ynough from y^e chaines of Saturne, although they did during the time of prophecie, ob­serue the calling or name of the Sabboth.

The same Gentils, which had sayde that the christians did worship Ceres and Bacchus, bicause they vsed bread and wine in their communion: had sayde also, that the people of the Iewes were appointed to be the people of Saturne, bicause they obser­ued the seuenth day of their wéeke for their Sabboth or rest, which day, the heathen did dedicate vnto Saturne. Saint Austen there­fore doth aunswere, that both the Iewes and the Christians, are farre ynough from seruing eyther Saturne, Ceres, or Bacchus: notwithstanding that the one of them obserued the seauenth day, and the other vsed bread and wine in their communion.

And a little afore in the same Chapter also, he vttereth his minde verie plainly, against the grosse opinion of the Manichies, which helde that they did in all maner of meates, wherwith they sustayned their bodies, eate Iesus Christ, euen as you holde, that you eate him in the sacrament, receyuing him into your bodies, by the ministerie of your mouthes.

Of this grosse eating of Christ, doth Austen write thus in that place. Vobis autem per fabulam vestram, in escis omnibus Christus ligatus apponitur: adhuc ligandus vestris visceribus, soluendus (que) ructatibus. Nam cum manducatis: Dei vestri defectione vos reficitis. Et cum digeritis: illius ref [...]ctione deficitis. Cum enim vos plenos reddit: resumptio vestra ipsum premit. &c. But if your fable be true: you haue Christ fast bound, set before you in euery meat that you eate, and must be bound a­gayne in your bowels, and vnbounde by your belkings. For when you doe eate, you doe refresh your selues by y^e consuming of [Page 168] your God, and when you loose the belly: you doe by his refresh­ing, faint or decay. For when he doth fill you ful: your receyuing of him againe doth oppresse him. Which thing might be accomp­ted for a déede of mercy, seing that he doth in you suffer something for you: except he did agayne leaue you emptie, that being deliue­red from you, he might escape.

You thought belyke, that no man would take the paines to waigh this place of Austen: and therefore you were bolde to cite his wordes to proue that, which none that is learned will denie: That is,Watson doth misse of his purpose. that the Gentils did suppose and say, that the christians did worship Ceres and Bacchus, bicause they vsed bread & wine in their sacrament. But your purpose was, so to cite his wordes that he might séeme to allowe that which you had sayde before, concerning the knocking and knéeling, and making of adoration to the sacrament as to Christ himselfe: which these verie wordes that I haue reported out of the same Chapter, doe flatly denie.

And where you say that adoration hath bene done to the sacra­ments euen from the beginning: you shall neuer be able to proue it, for the testimonie of the heathen that you stick vnto, is dispro­ued. Neyther shall you be able to proue, that we, whome you call sacramentaries: doe iudge the sacrament to be nothing else but bare bread and wine. But we confesse, that Christ is receyued of the worthy receyuer, although not carnally as you teach.

Yea, we say with Austen in that same place that you doe cite. Noster autem Panis & Calix non quilibet, quasi propter Christum in spicis & sarmentis ligatum, sicut illi desipiunt: sed certa consecratione, mysticus fit nobis, non nascitur. &c. Our bread and cup be not of the common sort, as in stéede of Christ bound togither in eares of corne and twigs, as they (that is, the Manichies) doe foolishly imagine: but by vndoubted consecration, it is made vnto vs, mysticall or sacramentall bread, it doth not growe such, wherefore that foode that is not so made, although it be bread and wine: it is a nourish­ment of refection, but not a sacrament of religion, otherwise then that we blesse and giue thankes to God in all his giftes, not one­ly spirituall, but corporall also.

Thus may all men sée, that no man can alledge better mat­ter [Page 169] for vs, then that which Austen hath written, euen in the place that you haue produced against vs. Such is your lucke in fra­ming of Arguments, to proue & conuince the truth of your faith.

But what hath Basill sayde to this matter? In the .172. Basil. magnus in Reg. Inter­rogat. 70. questi­on, you saye (by your note in the margine) but you should haue sayde .70. Saint Basill being asked. &c. But bicause you haue not dealt so faythfully in reporting writers mindes as ye might: I will write his wordes in Latine. Quali timore, vel fide, vel affectu, percipere debemus, corporis & sanguinis Christi gratiam Pater? Basilius. Timorem quidem docet nos Apostolus dicens. Qui manducat & bibit in­dignè: iudicium sibi manducat & bibit, non diiudicans corpus Domini. Fidem verò edocet nos sermo Domini dicentis: Hoc est corpus meum quod pro multis datur: hoc facite in meam commemorationem. Et iterum sermo Iohannis dicentis, quòd verbum caro factum est, & habitauit in nobis. The Monke moueth this question to S. Basill. Father (sayth he) with what feare, faith & affection, ought we to receiue y^e grace or frée gift of the body and bloud of Christ? Basill aunswereth. The Apostle doth teach vs with what feare we should receiue it, when he saith: Who so doth eate and drinke vnworthily, doth eate and drinke his owne condemnatiō, bicause he maketh no difference of the Lords body. And the words of y^e Lord when he sayth. This is my body which is giuē for many, do this in remembrance of me: do perfitly teach vs faith. And again the words of Iohn when he saith. The son of God is become flesh & hath dwelt amongst vs. &c.

First, I must tell you, that you haue enforced Basill to speake otherwise in Englishe thorowe your lippes: then eyther he wrote in Greeke: or his translatour, in Latine. For he spea­keth not of communicating the body & bloud of Christ: but of re­ceiuing the grace & frée gift of the body & bloud of Christ. Neither doth he say, which is giuen for you, but for many. I note this, to giue men occasion to consider, what silly shifts you séeke to haue a little aduantage. The fathers vsed sometimes to cal y^e sacraments Gratias, graces, or frée giftes of mercy. In this place therfore, S. Basill doth vse Gratiam, for Sacramentum. So that the question is in none other meaning thē thus. With what feare &c. must we re­ceiue the sacrament of the body & bloud of Christ? but this maketh nothing for your purpose, therfore you enforce him to say, w^t what [Page 170] feare. &c. should we come to communicate the body and bloud of Christ? As though Basill had affirmed the sacrament to be the bo­dy & bloud of Christ, in such sort as you affirme it to be. But these shiftes wil not serue you, so long as men may come to the sight of those authors workes that you doe so wrest for your purpose, and be able to waigh their wordes and gather their meaning aright.

Isychius. li. 6. Capit. 22. Isychius also sayth likewise (saye you) And you cite his wordes thus. Sermo qui prolatus est. &c. The words of Christ which were spoken. &c. whether the fault be in you or your Printer, I cannot tel: but in as many places as this writer is named in your Sermons, he is misnamed. For his name is not Hesichius, but Isychius. But to the matter.

Isychius expounding the .22. Chapter of Leuiticus, doth a­mongst other things declare what is ment by the eating of holye things by ignoraunce. And what is ment by the fift part, that Moses commaunded to be added to the holy thing eaten by igno­raunce, and giuen to the Priest into the sanctuarie, with the holy thing that was eaten by ignoraunce.

Of what antiquitie this Isychius was, and how worthy cre­dite his writings are. I finde none so good testimony, as in Io­hannes Tritemius, sometime Abbot of Spanheimens, who saith that he hath read this worke of his. He himselfe in the preface of his booke, sayth, that of necessitie the interpretation must be drawne to the Anagogicall sense. Whereby it is manifest, that his opinion was, that such places of the booke that he doth ex­pounde,Isychius to much giuen to the Ana­gogical sense. as had any difficultie in the litterall sense: must be so drawne to the Anagogicall sense, as though there were no lit­terall sense to be obserued in them. Which is contrarie to the rule of all good interpretours, whose care is alwayes to haue an espe­ciall regarde to the letter. Whereof this common saying sprin­geth. Maledicta glossa quae corrumpit textum. Curssed is the glosse, that doth corrupt the text. And that it may appéere that he is of that minde in déede: consider his wordes which are written not much before that which you doe cite, where he saith thus. Quomodo cius quod iam comedit & consumpsit, addere quis quintam potest: How is any man able, to adde the fift part of that thing, which he hath [Page 171] alreadie eaten and consumed? In these wordes, he showeth him selfe to be within the reach of that cursse that saint Hierome doth pronounce, vpon all them that say that God hath commaunded any thing to be done, which is not possible to be done. Yea he she­weth himselfe to be a man of very small discretion: that could not conceyue howe this commaundement might be fulfilled after the letter. For what is more playne then to say? He that eateth fiue apples of another mans: shall adde a fift part, and giue the same to him that ought the fiue apples that he hath eaten. Will anye wise man say, that it is not possible so to doe, bicause he hath alrea­die eaten and consumed the fiue apples? I thinke not. But euery wise man wil say: This man that hath eaten his neighbours fiue apples: must take so many of the same kinde and goodnesse that the other which he hath eaten were, and adde therevnto one of the same kinde and goodnesse also: and then giue those sixe apples to him that ought those that he hath eaten. And why may not Moses wordes be so vnderstanded, when he sayth. Addet quintam partem cum eo quod comedit? He shall adde the fift part, with that which he hath eaten? It may be that this Isychius of yours was some great Clearke: but surely, he hath not in this point shewed himselfe to be the wisest man.

As for the Anagogicall sense that he doth gather vpon this place: I doe not mislike. I suppose that it may well be sayde, that those men doe eate the holy things by ignoraunce, that doe receiue the misterie or sacrament of Christes body, not knowing the dig­nitie and vertue thereof. And where he sayth, that the fift part that must be added, is the wordes that Christ spake ouer the my­steries: I can not but allowe it to be a good Anagogicall sense. For that worde doth deliuer vs from ignoraunce, and maketh vs to vnderstande, that those creatures are not nowe to be vsed and considered, as when we take them for the sustentation of our bo­dies: but as mysteries, and therefore those wordes doe remoue vs from the carnall and earthy consideration of them, to that con­sideration of them that is heauenly.

Thus doe I lyke verie well with your Isychius for his Ana­goge. And whether he were the hearer of Cregorie Nazianzen [Page 172] or not: I force not. But to tell you playne what I thinke: I take him not to be so auncient,The anti­quitie of Isychius. but one that hath written since Glossa ordinaria was published. For, the verie same Anagoge is there, and yet not cited out of Isychius. And you know that, that Glos­ser, doth alwayes note the names of those auncient fathers that minister him any matter.

But the conclusion that you make vpon Isychius wordes: I vtterly mislike. And I suppose, that Isychius himselfe, if he were lyuing, could not lyke well with you, for abusing his worde to such a purpose. For in his preface, he sayth thus: Nec enim repre­hendere quis Anagogae interpretationes, Isychius against Wat­sons doings. nec intellectuum cōsyderationem, nec littera praesumat explanationem, ne (que) noster quispiam, ne (que) alienus. Let no man (eyther that is of our religion or other) presume to finde fault with Anagogicall interpretations, nor with the considera­tion of vnderstandings, nor the explanation of the letter. You de­serue no thanks of Isychius therfore, to conclude vpon his words, y^t the words which our sauiour christ spake when he delyuered the sacramentall bread and wine: must néedes be taken euen as they sound to euery vnlearned man, and that therfore the sacraments be the verie body and bloud of Christ that gaue them.

Nowe must we sée what Chrysostome hath sayde in this matter. In his .17. Homilie vpon Mathew, he saith thus (say you) Quod sacerdos &c. That thing that the Priest doth giue. &c. A man might maruell, what moued you to seke out such suspected wri­tings as this is: when ye boast to picke out a fewe arguments that can not be deluded, eyther by figuratiue speache, or depra­uation of words or meaning.

All learned men say, that they knowe not who wrote those Homilies wherout you cite those words. In dede Chrysostome did write .89. Homilies vpon Mathewe. But this .17. that you cite, is none of them. Neither are these nor any like words found in any of those .89. Homilies.

And besides this, those Homilies that you picke these words out of, haue in them some blasphemous doctrine. As that Christ is not equall with his father, and that the holy Ghost is but a mini­ster or seruant to Christ. Yea, and in the eleuenth of those Homi­lies, you shall finde that the Aucthor thereof is flat against you, [Page 173] For he saith thus. Si ergo haec vasa sanctificata, ad profanos vsus trans­ferre sic periculosum est, in quibus non est verum corpus Christi, Watsons owne Chry­sostome a­gainst Wat­son himselfe. sed my­sterium corporis Christi continetur: quanto magis vasa corporis nostri, quae sibi deus ad habitaculum preparauit, non debemus locum dare Diabolo, a­gendi in eis quod vult? If it be so daungerous a thing therefore, to translate to a prophane vse those vessels that be sanctified, wher­in the verie bodie of Christ is not, but the mysterie of Christes body is therein conteyned: how much more ought we not to giue the vessels of our bodye (which God hath prepared to be a dwel­ling for himselfe) to be a place for the Deuill to worke his will in.

Here you sée what luck you haue, when you aduaunce the authoritie of obscure matter, by cyting the same vnder the names of such as be famous. No man can speake more playnely against you, then this man doth in this place.

But what though he had not written this, but had written only of this matter, in such sort as you haue cyted his wordes, and were of as great authority as euer was Chrysostome: what had you wonne by his wordes, when they be taken whole togither? I will therefore adde those wordes that you leaue out: that the indifferent reader may iudge. Quoniam hoc non solum datur: quod vi­detur, sed etiam illud quod intelligitur. So that his words togither are thus much. That thing y^t the priest doth deliuer out of his hande, is not only sanctified, but it is sanctificatiō: bicause, not only that which is séene is delyuered, but y^e thing that is vnderstanded also.

We graunt, that the thing signified and vnderstanded by the sacrament, is delyuered by the minister, and receyued by the re­ceyuer that is a member of Christ: but not in such sort as you holde. Sacramentally and spiritually, the thing that is signified and vnderstanded is giuen and receyued, as I haue before de­clared. These words therfore, taken togither & rightly weighed, doe make nothing against vs, but rather with vs, notwithstan­ding that we neyther drawe them to the figuratiue maner of speaking, nor yet depraue the words or meaning of the writer.

But a perillous point of sophistrie, you thinke méete to be no­ted, and some what opened to your auditorie. Children at the vni­uersitie can tell: that to exclude a speciall and singuler definition, [Page 174] by a generall discription, is a deceitfull way of reasoning.

It is commonly séene that such as doe vse to digge pits for o­ther to fall into: doe fall into the same themselues first of al. Your purpose was, by preferring the knowledge of children in the vni­uersitie, before the knowledge of your betters in learning, which were Bishops in king Edwarde the sixt dayes:Watson going about to de­face other, is defaced him­selfe. vtterly to de­face those learned fathers, and to bring them out of credite, as men that knew not so much, as children in y^e vniuersity do knowe And so to extoll your owne knowledge aboue the starres. For you are none of the babes at the vniuersitie. But when your wordes shall be well weighed: they shall be found more babishe and foolishe, then commonly can be founde among the children at the vniuersitie.

A speciall and singuler definition (you say) is excluded by a generall description. A childe at the vniuersitie would aske you: what maner of definition that is, which you call speciall and sin­guler. And in whose Logick he might learne to know that defini­tion. The Logitians that hither to haue written: haue made no mention of any such definition. Boetius maketh mention of ma­ny sortes of definitions: but of this that you speake of, he maketh no mention at all. Commonly, the authors write but of foure sortes of definitions. One Essentiall, another Causall, the thirde Integrall, and the fourth Accidentall.

And besides this the children might aske you: howe speciall and singuler, may in Logicall matter, be both verified of one thing, in one and the same respect, and at one time, as you doe here vse them. Those therefore, whome (in derision) you call no small men, but your greatest Bishops: if they were nowe lyuing, would make the worlde sée, that for your good knowledge in Logick,A worthye promotion. y^t you shew in this Sermon: you might leaue the Di­uines Chayre, and set you downe amongst the babling Sophists agayne, till you had gotten you better skill in Logick.

The generall description of consecration, that those men did receyue, shall be found as good a definition of the same: as you or any of your sort shall be able to make. The consecration that those men receyued, is that benediction and decrée of Christ: [Page 175] wherby the visible signes are appointed to an holy vse. We speak not of your generall consecration, whereby the heathen and you Papistes, haue without any warant of the worde of God, yea, contrarie to Gods word, consecrated so many of Gods creatures to Idoles and Idole seruice: but we speake of consecration that Christ himselfe hath made & doth still make, as oft as his Church and congregation, doe take his creatures, and vse them accor­ding to his commaundement, to represent vnto their senses, those inuisible graces that he hath appointed those creatures to signifie to vs.

And this is no newe deuise: for Chrysostome in his .30. Ho­mily, which is of the treason of Iudas sayth thus.Chrisost. hom. .30. De proditione Iudae. Et nunc ille praesto est Christus, qui illam ornauit mensam, ipse ipsam quo (que) consecrat. Non enim homo est, qui proposita de consecratione mensae Domini, corpus Christi facit & sanguinem: sed ille qui crucifixus pro nobis est Christus. Sacerdotis ore verba proferuntur: sed Dei virtute consecrantur & gratia. Hoc est, ait, cor­pus meum, hoc verbo proposita consecrantur. Et sicut illa vox quae dicit, cre­scite & multiplicamini, & replete terram, semel quidem dicta est, sed omni tempori sentit effectum ad generationem operante natura: ita & vox illa, semel quidem dicta est sed per omnes mensas Ecclesiae vs (que) ad hodier­num diem, & vs (que) ad eius aduentum, praestat saccrificio firmitatem. The same Christ that did adourne and beautifie that table: is nowe present, and he doth consecrate the same also. For it is not a man that doth make those things that be set before vs of the consecrati­on of the Lords table, to be the body and bloud of Christ: but the same Christ which was crucified for vs. The wordes are pro­nounced by the mouth of the Priest: but the thinges are conse­crated by the power and grace of God. This is (sayth he) my body: by this worde are the things that be set before vs consecra­ted. And euen as that voyce which sayth, growe and be multi­plied, and replenishe the earth, was but once spoken, but yet doth at all times, by the worke of nature féele effect to generation: so that voyce also was but once spoken, and yet it giueth sure stay to the sacrifice, throughout all the tables of the Church, euen to this day and from henceforth till his comming.

Chrysostome doth here compare the wordes that Christ [Page 176] spake at the institution of his supper, to the words that God spake when he appointed man to be multiplied by generation: affir­ming that the same power that worketh still in the one, doth still worke in the other also.Christ is no charmer. Not to charme out the substaunce of bread, and to charme in the substaunce of Christ vnder the acci­dents of bread (as you teache) but that as by naturall order, the generation of mankinde is continued according to the first voyce: so the inuisible graces that were promised by the death and bloud shedding of our sauiour Christ, are by the sacramentall vse of those creatures according to his commaundement, continually preached to our senses, and by fayth receyued into our soules.

And where as you say, that some of vs haue sayde, that euery man and woman may consecrate: you must name them that haue so said, or cite the words y^t such haue written, else wil men say that you doe belye vs, & that you might well haue spared the wordes of Arnobius, which you do cite, affirming y^t we did neuer read them.

But whether we haue read the wordes of Arnobius or not: it may séeme that you did neuer vnderstand them. For if you had, you would not haue translated, so, and then: for so, and as, nor consecrate for conficere. But you would haue sayde: What is so excellent: as to go thorowe with the ministration of Gods sacra­ments? And what is so pernicious, as if the same be done, by that man that hath taken no degrée of priesthood?

The purpose of Arnobius in this place, is to proue, that the presumption to doe contrarie to Gods commaundement:The fruites of presump­tion. is it that maketh the actions of men, which otherwise are good, to be excéeding euill. For what (sayth he) is so holy a thing, as to re­ceiue the communion of Christ? And what is so wicked, as if one that is not baptised receiue y^e same. And what can be more perni­cious, then that a man that is not called to the office of ministrati­on: should take vpon him to minister the sacraments of Christ?

I thinke you be not able to proue, that any of vs hath eyther spoken or written to the contrarie of that which Arnobius tea­cheth in this place. You can not therefore iustly say, that we doe erre, eyther in the time or person. For we holde, that when the congregation of Christ assembled togither, doe by the mouth of [Page 177] their leafully called minister, giue thankes to God for the death and passion of his sonne Christ, and according to Christs holye institution, take bread and wine to deuide it amongst them in remembraunce of his death and passion: then is that consecration that Chrysostome speaketh of, wrought by Christ himselfe that first did institute this holy mysterie, and willed his Church to vse the same in his remembraunce till his comming againe.

As touching the holynesse of creatures:De Peccato­rum merit. & remis. libro. 2. Capit. 26. we say as Austen doth in the place that you doe cite: Non vnius modi est sāctificatio. &c. Sanctification, is after moe sortes then one. For I suppose that such as be yet but learners of christen religion: are after a certain peculiar maner sanctified, by the signe of Christ, & the prayer of the laying on of handes. And that thing which they doe receyue, although it be not the body of Christ: yet it is holy, & more holy, then is the meat that we are fed withall, bicause it is a sacrament: The same Apostle also hath sayde, that the verie meates where­with we are fed for the necessitie of the sustayning of thys lyfe: are sanctified by the worde of God and prayer, which we vse when we are about to refreshe our bodies.

Here, let the indifferent reader iudge, howe faythfully you haue handled this place of Austen. First, you leaue out the first part of the sentence, that might giue light to the vnderstanding of Austens meaning. And where Austen sheweth, that the thing that the learners of christian religion doe receyue, is holy, bicause it is a sacrament: you passe ouer that,A homely shift. with other wordes that might sounde somewhat against your purpose, and knit vp the matter with these wordes: which also is sanctified by the worde and prayer. And make your hearers thinke that your maner of dealing holy bread was vsed in saint Austens time: you translate this worde Quod. Holy bread.

Saint Austens meaning, is to declare, that as there is holy­nesse in creatures, by such meanes as God hath appointed for the sanctifying of his creatures: so is not their holynesse alyke, but one is more holy then another. The learners of Christen religion were holy:Degrees of holynesses. yet not so holy as were those that being fully instruc­ted, were baptised. So, the bread, which they receyued, in token [Page 178] of the loue that those which were alreadie baptised, did beare to­wardes them, was holy (for as saint Austen sayth, it was a sa­crament, that is, an holy signe) yet was it not so holy, as that sacramentall bread, which christians did according to Christes institution, deuide amongst them. And yet it was more holy then the common bread that is made holy when we praye before we take it for the sustinaunce of our bodies.

The other holynesses also that you speake of, we denie not. Neyther doe we denie that the sacraments of God be holy,Watson o­uerthroweth that before he did builde. bi­cause they be instruments. &c. But here I must note, that you doe in this place, ouerthrow, that which you haue so greatly laboured to builde. For you doe here make the sacraments, but as instru­mentall causes of holynesse: where as you haue before stoutly affirmed, that they be in déede: the efficient causes of wonderfull holy effectes.

But as one that had ouerslipt himselfe: you correct your selfe somewhat subtilly, affirming that aboue all, the sacrament of the aultar is holy. &c. Where fearing least you should not commend it ynough:August. ad Dardanum. you fall into that inconuenience, that S. Austen did warne Dardanus to shunne. Cauendum est enim. &c. We must take héede, that we doe not so affirme the Deuinitie of the man­hoode, that we take away the truth of the body. You saye that the sacrament of the aultar must néedes be holynesse it selfe: bi­cause the Godhead is by vnitie of person annexed to it. For (say you) whatsoeuer thing is in God: is God also. So that by this doctrine, the manhoode of Christ is so confounded with the God­head, that it is cleane consumed and become God, contrarie to that which the true Catholike Church doth confesse with Atha­nasius. 1. Timoth. 2. And we haue no man Christ to be our Mediator, as saint Paule writeth: and so consequently no saluation by Christ. This consequent must néedes folow vpon that which you teach in your sermon: and can not be auoyded by any figuratiue spéeche, or such like cauillations.

WATSON. Diuision. 31. The same Chrysostome in his Epistle to Innocentius Byshop of Rome wryteth of the maner of the persecution [Page 179] in his time, not vnlyke to this of ours. Chrysost. Epist. ad Innocenti­um. Nam & sanctuarium in­gressi sunt milites, quorum aliquos scimus nullis inatiatos mysterijs, & viderunt omnia quae intus erant: quin & sanctissimus Christi sanguis (sicut in tali tumultu contingit) in praedictorum militum vestes effusus est. The souldiers came violently into the holy place, of whom we knowe that some were not baptized, and there they saw all things that were within, and the most holy bloud of Christ (as chaunceth often in such a tumult) was shed vpon the garments of those souldiers.

Here I marke that he sayth not the figure or signe of Christs bloud, but the most holy bloud, an other inferiour creature can not be most holy. Also I marke that this most holy bloud was reserued there in the holy temple, and was not onely in Heauen to be receyued by fayth of the fayth­full, but also was in the temple and violently handeled of the vnfaythfull, being there contemned, abused, and spilt vpon their garmentes. Doth not this barbaricall violence, and externall situation of the most holy bloud of Christ, proue a reall presence of the same in the sacrament?

Gregory Nazianzene speaketh after the lyke maner, Nazianze. orat, ad Ari­anos. how that the Arians would not suffer the Catholikes to pray in their temples, but troubled them, & killed them & mingled Christes misticall bloud, with the bloud of the Catholike Priestes, which they slue and so forth: whereby we vnder­stande a reall presence of Christes bloud by that violence, that was shewed vnto it of the heretikes part, though Christ were there after that sort, that he could suffer no violence of his part.

We read in saint Hierome and in diuers other: Hieronimus ad hedibiam. Ipsa conui­ua & conuiuium, comedens & qui comeditur, that Christ is both the eater of the feast, and the feast it selfe, both the eater and the meat that is eaten. Whereby we vnderstande, that Christ giuing his body and his bloud to his disciples, did receaue the same himselfe before.

And as Chrysostome wryteth that least his Disciples should haue bene troubled and offended, hearing him say. Chrysost. in Math. hom. 83. [Page 180] This is my bloud, Euthymius in Mat. cap. 64. drinke ye all of this, as the Caparnaites were before, and so should abhorre to haue dronke of the same. Christ did first drinke of the same cup before them, that he might by his example induce his Disciples to drinke lykewise.

Hesichius in Leuit. li. 2. Cap. 8. And Hesechius sayth: Ipse dominus primus in caena mystica intelligibilem accepit sanguinem at (que) deinde calicem Apostolis dedit: Our Lord himselfe in the mysticall supper, first dranke his owne bloud, that was not sene, but vnderstanded, and then gaue the cup to his Apostles. By this fact of Christ we may learne that in the cup was verily and really Christes owne bloud, or if Christ did eate his bodye, and dranke his bloud but in figure, then he did eate and drinke it before after that maner in the Tipicall and Legall supper; and then how can this mistical supper be the truth, and the other the figure, if this be but a figure likewise? And then why should the Apo­stle be afrayde to doe that nowe, they were wont to doe al­waies before. It was no new thing, worthy the newe Testa­ment, to eate and drinke Christ in a figure: and therefore it is certaine, that Christ in his mysticall supper did not eate and drinke his body and bloud onely figuratiuely. And if ye will say, that he eate it and dranke it spiritually onely, then ye must say, that Christ did eate it by faith, for spiri­tual eating is beleuing. And if ye say, Christ did beleue, then it foloweth that Christ was not God. Who hath perfite knowledge of al things by sight, & not vnperfite knowledge by fayth, as wee haue, seing as through a Glasse in a darke rydle. And surely they harpe much vpon this string: for this heresie against the presence of Christ in the sacrament, is an high way, leading to the other heresie, that Christ is not God, as is proued by diuers wayes and arguments, into which pit diuers be falling by this meanes, if God doe not put vnder his hande to stay them betimes: for if they conti­nue long in this, they will fall into the other no remedie, whereof we haue alreadie seene experience.

Then if Christ did eate his body, and drinke his bloud [Page 181] in the mysticall supper, neyther figuratiuely, as he did in the Paschall lambe nor yet spiritually as we doe by fayth: then it is certaine, that he eate it only sacramentally, which is not onely in signe (as the sacramentaries expounde the worde) but in truth vnder a sacrament, whereof the sub­staunce is the reall and naturall body and bloud of Christ our Lorde.

After this sort wryteth Chrysostome of Dauid, saying thus: Non contigit Dauid gustare talem hostiam, Chrysost. hom. de Dauid & Saul. ne (que) particeps fuerat sanguinis dominici, sed legibus imperfectioribus educatus, neque tale quicquam exigentibus: tamen ad euangelicae philosophiae fastigium perue­nit animi moderatione. It neuer chaunced to Dauid to taste of such a sacrifice, nor he was nor receauer and partaker of our Lordes bloud, but being brought vp vnder lawes not so perfite, and requiring no such thing, yet by the moderati­on & temperaunce of his owne minde, he came to the hight of all Euangelicall Diuinitie.

Here is plaine that Dauid did neuer taste and receaue Christes bloud as we doe in the Gospell, and yet Dauid did receaue Christes bloud figuratiuely, being partaker of the sacrifices of the olde lawe which were figures of Christes bloud & also he did drinke of the same bloud spiritually as we doe, whose faith was as good or rather greater then oures. Therefore there remayneth one other way that we drink of it, which was not graunted vnto him, that is to say, verily and really in the sacrament.

To auoyde this place well they must haue mo solutions then they haue inuented yet, for neyther figuratiuely nor spiritually will serue, it were best for them to yeelde to the truth, and confesse that it is there really, the very same substaunce of his bloud, that was shedde vpon the crosse, though not in that forme, for the reliefe of our weake na­ture, which else could not sustaine it.

Here you haue heaped togither the sayings of certain writers,CROWLEY. to confirme that which you haue hitherto laboured to proue: and [Page 182] doe perswade your selfe, that you haue sufficiently proued. And first you beginne with Chrysostome. Another is not the same. The same Chrysostome say you. &c. Here I must put you in remembraunce of that which I haue sayd before, that the sentence which you cited before as out of Chrysostome was none of his. Wherefore you doe wrong to Iohn Chrysostome, to say that he is the same. But to the pur­pose. You say that you marke in this place of Chrysostome: that he sayth not the figure or signe of Christs bloud: but the most ho­ly bloud. And another inferiour creature can not be most ho­ly.A foule ouer­sight in one that would be a Catho­like Byshop. &c. Here I must tell you that you haue forgotten your duetie towardes your most holy father of Rome. &c. And vnaduisedly, you haue denied him that title, that all your brethren the papists, doe thinke him worthy to haue: notwithstanding he is but one of the inferiour creatures. And further I must tell you, that you séeme to haue forgotten that which you spake but a little before, affirming the sacrament to be God, and so no creature: but now when you doe couple it with another inferiour creature, your wordes doe import, that you doe accompt it among the inferi­our creatures.

But for the meaning of Chrysostomes words in that place: you will neyther consider the custome of the fathers (which was to call the sacraments by the names of those things wherof they be sacraments) neyther what it was that Chrysostome labored to bring to passe by this Epistle. His whole purpose was, so to stirre vp the detestation of the doings of those wicked men in the hart of Innocentius: that he might thereby be moued, to séeke by all possible meanes, to haue that horrible fact punished. Which may right well appéere by his wordes in the same Epistle, where he sayth thus.Ad Innocen­tium. Igitur Domini maximè venerandi, & pij, cum haecitase habere didiceritis: studium vestrum & magnam diligentiam adhibete, quò retrudatur haec quae in Ecclesias irrupit iniquitas. Therfore, my Lords most godly and worthy to be reuerenced, when you shall vnder­stande that these things be euen so: employ your study, and great diligence, that this inquitie that rusheth into the Churches, may be beaten back.The scope of the Epistle. Here is the scope of his whole Epistle. And to bring this to passe, he vseth as much Art as he is able, both in set­ting [Page 183] forth the horriblenesse of the fact, and also the daunger that was imminent if it should be suffered vnpunished, his owne in­nocencie, and the good opinion that he had in those men that he wrote vnto.

These thinges considered: no man that knoweth what Arte meaneth, will thinke that Chrysostomes wordes in this place doe giue you such vauntage against vs, as you would beare your Auditorie in hande that they doe.

You marke also the reseruation of the holy bloud in the holy temple. &c.Watson can see nothing that maketh against him. But you doe not marke that this horrible tumult was made in the time when the people were togither in the ministra­tion of the sacramentes. Which doth manifestly appéere by the wordes that are written a little before those that you cite. The wordes are these. Ipso magna Sabbato collecta manus militum, ad ves­peram diei in Ecclesias ingressa, clerum omnem qui nobiscum erat, vi eiecit, & armis gradum vndi (que) muniuit. Mulieres quo (que) quae per illud tempus se exuerant, vt baptizarentur: metu grauiorum insidiarum, nudae aufuge­runt. Ne (que) enim concedebatur, vt se velarent, sicut muliers honestas decet. Multae etiam acceptis vulneribus eijeiebantur, & sanguine implebantur, natatoria, & sancto cruore rubescebant fluenta. On the verie Sab­both day, a great armie of souldiours that were gathered togi­ther, entring into the Church at the euentide of the day, did by force driue out all the ministers that were with vs, and fortifie the steps with weapons on euery side. Women also, which had at that time stripped themselues to be baptised: did for feare of greater conspiracies, runne away naked. For they were not suf­fered to couer themselues, as it becommeth honest women to doe. Many also were wounded and driuen out, and the washe Pondes were filled with bloud, and the running ryuers were made red with holy bloud.

If you would haue considered these words: you might sone haue sene how that most holy bloud y^e Chrysostome speaketh of, might be spilt vpon the garments of the souldiours, and yet not reser­ued in the temple, for longer time then the action of Communi­on did last. For they vsed not in Chrysostomes church to make a mornings worke of it, as you doe vse your Easter day Masses: [Page 184] but they continued the whole day, in prayer, preaching, confessi­on of fayth by them that should be baptised,The maner of Church exercise in Chrysostoms time. in ministring of bap­tisme, and last of all in communicating al togither. But when you haue founde a worde or two that may seeme to serue your pur­pose: then haue you ynough: you lust to séeke no furder. No wise­man therefore will regarde your conclusion.

Nazianzen Oratione ad Arianos.Your place that you cite out of Nazianzen, woulde haue framed so euil fauouredly for your purpose if you had cited it ey­ther in Gréeke or Latine: that ye thought it best to teache him to speake Englishe: so were you able to cause him to speake as you would. But you shall not disceyue your hearers so. They shall heare him speake Latine, in such sort as Bilibaldus taught him. He sayth thus to the Arians. Quosnam orantes, & manus ad Deum tollentes obsedi? Quos Psalmos tubarum strepitu interturbaui? Quorum mysticum sanguinem, caeso miscui sanguini? Whome haue I besieged when they were in prayer, and lifting vp their handes to God? What Psalmes haue I troubled with the noyse of Trumpets? Whose mysticall bloud haue I mingled, with the bloud of the slayne? Now, let your friendes iudge, how friendly you haue taught Nazianzen to speake Englishe, and howe your conclusi­on doth folow vpon his wordes.

But let vs sée, what it is, that you read in Hierome and o­ther. It séemeth to me, that you haue read in those Authors: that which you vnderstand not. For who can beleue, that eyther Hie­rome or Chrysostome would maintaine or teach such a Paradox, Watsons Paradox. as you would by their words enforce vs to beléeue? That is, that Christ did eate his owne fleshe, and drinke his owne bloud. In the aunswere that S. Hierome made to the second question that Hedibia desired to be resolued in: he sayth thus. Nec Moses dedit nobis panem verum, sed Dominus Iesus: ipse conuiua & conuiuium: ipse comedens, & qui comeditur. Moses gaue vs not the true bread, but the Lorde Iesus: He is the Guest, and the feast also. It is he that doth eate and is eaten. But is here all that Hierome writeth in this aunswere? Doth he leaue the matter so doubtfull, being de­sired to make it plaine? I trow not. He saith that we doe drink the bloud of Christ, and y^t without Christ we can not drink it. And [Page 185] that we doe daylie in his sacrifices, treade out new red wine, out of the generation of the true vine, and the elected and chosen vine: and that thereof we doe drinke newe wine in the kingdome of his father, not in the oldnesse of the letter, but in the newenesse of the spirit, singing a new song, that none is able to sing, except such as be in the kingdome of the Church, which is the kingdome of the father. This bread did the Patriarck Iacob desire to eate, saying: If the Lorde God shall be with me, and shall giue me bread to eate, and apparell to couer me withall. And then he con­cludeth his aunswere with these wordes. Quotquot autem in Christo baptizamur: Christum induimus, & panem comedimus Angelorum, & audimus Dominum praedicantem, Meus cibus est, vt faciam voluntatem eius qui misit me Patris, vt impleam opus eius. Faciamus igitur volun­tatem eius qui misit nos Patris, & impleamus opus eius: & Christus no­biscum bibet in Regno Ecclesiae sanguinem suum. So many of vs as be baptised, haue put on Christ as a garment, and doe eate the foode of Aungels: and doe heare the Lorde preaching thus. My meat, is to doe the wil of that father that hath sent me, that I may fulfill his worke, let vs therfore doe the will of that father that hath sent vs: and let vs fulfill his worke, and Christ will drinke his owne bloud with vs in the kingdome of the Church.

Now, if you be not obstinate, you must néedes confesse, that Hierome meaneth nothing lesse then to teach that Christ did af­ter such sort as you holde: eate his owne fleshe and drinke his owne bloud. But that he did it, by doing the will of his father, and performing his worke.

And Chrysostome also (if you would vnderstand his mea­ning aright) would teache you another meaning of Christes do­ing, then that which you gather. His words be these.Chrysost. in Math. ho. 83. Hac de cau­sa desiderio desideraui. &c. For this cause haue I greatly desired to eate this passouer with you: that I might make you spirituall. He himselfe also did drinke of the same, least they hearing those wordes should say. What? doe we drinke bloud and eate fleshe? And should therfore be troubled in minde. For euen when he did before speake of those things: many were offended, euen for the wordes onely. Least the same thing therefore, should happen then also: he did it first himselfe: that he might enduce them to be [Page 186] partakers of the mysteries with a quiet minde. But what? Will you say, that the olde passouer was able to doe this also? No. For he sayde doe this: that he might leade them away from that. Furthermore, if this passouer doe worke remission of sinnes, as it doth in déede: then is the other vtterly of none effect. But euen as in the olde passouer, so in lyke maner here: he hath left vs a benefit by gathering togither the memorie of the mysteries, and therby bridling y^e mouths of the heretiks. For when they say, how doth it appéere that Christ was offred, and many other misteries: then we alledging these things do stop their mouths. For if Iesus did not die: whose pledge and signe, is this sacrifice? Thus you sée, what great care he had, that we should alwaies kepe in memory: that he died for vs. Thus far Chrysostome in the place y^t you cite.

Here it is manifest that Chrysostome goeth not about in this place, to teache that Christ did drinke his owne bloud: but that he did drinke of the Cup of the newe passouer (whiche he called his bloud, as the Lambe was called the passouer) that his Apostles might not haue occasion to thinke so grossely as you teache. That is, that he hadde turned the substaunce of the Wine into the substaunce of his bloud,The purpose of Christ in drinking be­fore his dis­ciples. and woulde giue it them to drinke, contrarie to the lawe, which did forbid them the eating of any thing in the bloud therof. But he did drinke therof before them: that they might thereby know, that it was not bloud but wine, which he would haue them to drinke in the remem­braunce of his death and bloud shedding, as the passouer was ea­ten in the remembraunce of the peoples deliueraunce in Egypt. And further to bring them from the obseruing of the old passouer, which was ended in him. And to arme them against those Here­tikes, that would deny that Christ died for the sinnes of the world. That this is Chrysostomes minde, doth plainely appéere in those wordes of his, that I haue before written: taken out of the same Chapter that you cite. As for his maner of speaking in calling the wine his bloud: I haue sufficiently written, in the former part of this aunswere.

It is playne therefore, that you doe open wrong to Chry­sostome, in that you would enforce him to help you to maintaine [Page 187] your straunge Paradox of Christes eating of his owne fleshe and drinking of his owne bloud, which I suppose neuer any learned or wise man, would maintaine as you doe.

As for the wordes that you cite out of Euthymius and Isy­chius, are sufficiently aunswered in this that I haue written for aunswere to that which you haue cited out of Chrysostome. For they both séeme to haue taken out of him, all that they write of this matter.

The descant that you make vpon this playne song, saying:Descant without good playne song. By this fact of Christ we may learne. &c. might well haue bene spared, till you had founde a better playne song to descant vpon. For hitherto you haue not proued that Christ did eate his owne flesh and drinke his owne bloud: eyther figuratiuely, spiritually, or really, which you call sacramentally.

And here I must note one pretie point of descant which you doe vse, when you say, that if we say that Christ did beleue: then it foloweth that he was not God. So that by this descant: ey­ther Christ must be no man, or else he must be an Infidell. You are so fearefull to fall into the heresie of them y^t denie Christ to be God: that you fal into the contrarie, denying him to be man. And so is the prouerbe verified in you. Incidit in Scyllam, qui vult vitare Caribdim. He that is desirous to escape the gulfe on the one side: falleth vpon the rocks on the other side. But how say you to the wordes of our sauiour Christ, written by saint Marke?Marc. 13. Hebr. 2. &. 4. De die au­tem illa vel hora, nemo scit, ne (que) Angeli in caelo ne (que) filius, nisi Pater. Of that day or houre, no man knoweth, neyther the Aungels in hea­uen, nor the sonne, but the father. Christ in his mans nature, must be lyke vnto vs in all pointes, sinne onely excepted.

But nowe, for the reall presence of Christ in the sacrament: you haue founde a place in Chrysostome, Chrysost. hom. de Saul & Dauid. that will not be well auoyded, eyther with figuratiuely or spiritually: and therefore you conclude that our best way were, to yéelde to that which you hold for truth. &c. But let vs consider the words of Chrysostome in that place. He saith thus. Non contigit Dauid. &c. It neuer chaun­ced to Dauid, to tast of such a sacrifice. &c. In déede Chrysostome hath written all those wordes that you report, and in such order as [Page 188] you doe write them, sauing that to blinde the hearer or reader, you put Dauid in the place of, Illi, least your hearers and readers should haue occasion to thinke, that there is somewhat going be­fore, vnto which, Illi, hath relation. Well, I will let the reader sée some of those wordes that go before, and some of those that fo­lowe: that euen your friendes may sée and iudge, howe great a cause you haue to thinke: that our best way were to yéelde.

After Chrysostome hath begun to paint out the toleraunce of Dauid: not only in forbearing to reuenge himselfe vpon king Saul, but also in séeking to doe him good: he beginneth to com­pare him with such as liue in the time of the newe testament, and doth preferre his tolleraunce before theirs, bicause he did not heare and see, that which they haue both heard and séene. And thus he sayth. Ne (que) enim paria sunt, sub vetere lege degentem, & nunc post illustratam Euangelij gratiam: talia condonare gratis. Non audierat Da­uid parabolam de decem milibus talentorum, ne (que) de centum denarijs. &c. The doings are not alyke, when one that lyued vnder the olde lawe, and one that lyueth nowe, after the grace of the Gospell is made manifest: doe fréely forgiue such wrongs. Dauid had not heard the parable of the ten thousande talents, nor of the hunde­red pense. He had not heard the prayer which sayth. Forgiue men their debts: euen as your Heauenly Father doth forgiue your debts. He had not séene Christ crucified, he had not séene that precious bloud poured out, neither had he heard the innume­rable sermons of the Lorde, concerning the restrayning of the lustes of the minde. It happened not vnto him to taste such a sa­crifice, neyther had he bene partaker of the Lordes bloud. But being brought vp vnder lawes that were not altogither per­fite, neyther did require any such thing: yet did he by the mode­ration of his minde, attayne to the highest point of Euangelicall Philosophie. But thou art oftentimes offended, at the remem­braunce of the iniuries that be past: but this man, although he might stande in feare of those things that were to come, knowing for certaintie that if he would saue his enimie, he should both be banished the Citie, and lead a poore and miserable lyfe: yet did he not leaue of to be carefull for him, but he did all things that might [Page 189] nourishe this so great an enimie. Who is able to tell vs of a grea­ter toleraunce or forbearing then this?

If figuratiuely, and spiritually, may not be admitted in these wordes of Chrysostome: then let vs knowe, howe it can be truely saide of him, that he in his time, they that were before him and after Christes ascention, and those that haue bene since, are now, and shal be to the worlds ende: haue séene or shal sée Christs bloud poured out, and him crucified. I am sure, you will not say, that all these vnder the new testament, haue séene or shal sée with their bodily eyes, Christ crucified, and his bloud poured out.

Well, then you must giue vs leaue to thinke, that Chry­sostome doth vse here, that same figure that saint Iohn doth vse in the beginning of his first Epistle. Where he sayth thus.Chrysostome vseth the fi­gure hyper­bole in extol­ling Dauids toleraunce. We declare vnto you, that thing that we haue séene with our eies. &c. And why may we not vnderstand Chrysostome to vse the same figure when he sayth: that Dauid had not bene partaker of the Lordes bloud? And that it had not happened him to taste of suche a sacrifice. &c.

There was none of the sacrifices of the olde lawe, that did paint out Christ crucified so playnely, and set him out so liuely to our senses, as this sacrament doth: wherefore Chrysostome might well and truely say (without any figure at all) that it had not hapned to Dauid, to taste of such a sacrifice. Neyther did the lawe and prophets before Christ, so plainely and fully teache that highest point of christian Philosophie, which Dauid attayned vnto, as doth the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles: Where­fore Chrysostome might well write as he doth, that Dauid had not heard. &c. And why might not Chrysostome say then, that Dauid was brought vp vnder lawes that were somewhat vn­perfite, in comparison of the lawe of the gospell: although there be in the lawe it selfe, no imperfection at all? The lawe was per­fite, to the ende that God did appoint it for. That was to bring men to the knowledge of their sinnes, and to driue them to Christ that was able to take away their sinnes. And why may not Chrysostome in this place (according to the common custome of the fathers) call the sacrament, by the name of that thing wher­of [Page 190] it is a sacrament?

But here once agayne, I must tell you, that the verie wordes that you cite: are flatly against your halfe communion. And that if Dauid had bene a popishe prince: he should neuer haue dron­ken the Lordes bloud, except he woulde haue bene a popishe Priest also.

WATSON. Diuision. 32. August. in Ioannem tract. 11. And further then this saint Augustine sayth: Si dixerimus Catechumino, credis in Christo respondit credo, & signat se cruce Christi, portat in fronte, & non erubescit de cruce domini sui: ecce credit in nomine eius. Interrogemus eum, manducas carnem filij hominis, & bibis sangui­nem filij hominis? nescit quid dicimus, quia Iesus non se credidit ei. If we shall say to one that learneth and professeth our faith being yet not baptized: doest thou beleeue in Christ? he aun­swereth, I beleue, and he doth signe himselfe with the crosse of Christ, he beareth it on his forehead, and is not ashamed of the crosse of his Lorde: Lo he beleueth in his name. But let vs aske him, doest thou eate the fleshe of the sonne of man, and drinke the bloud of the sonne of man he can not tell what we say, for Iesus hath not beleeued & committed himselfe to him. Beside other things that may be fruitful­ly gathered of this place for our erudition, I note but this one, that a man beleeuing in Christ, professing the fayth of Christ with his worde and worke, and for that cause eateth Christes fleshe and drinketh his bloud spiritually, yet he wote not what the eating of Christs flesh meaneth, whereof Christ spake in the sixt of S. Iohn. But we that be baptized and are admitted to our Lordes table: we know by our ex­perience, what it is to eate Christes fleshe and to drinke his bloud, for to vs Christ doth trust & giue himselfe, to the o­ther that beleue as wel as we, he doth not commit himselfe.

Whereby I conclude beside the spirituall eating of Christ by faith, there is also a reall eating of him in the sa­crament, by the seruice of our bodies, to the confirmation in grace and sanctification both of our bodies and soules.

And concerning the drinking of Christes bloud really, [Page 191] saint Cyprian writeth an other argument, which I thinke can not be auoyded by any figuratiue speeches, Cyprian, ser. de caena. he sayth thus: Noua est huius Sacramenti doctrina, & sc [...]olae euangelicae hoc pri­mum magistereum protulerunt, & doctore christo primum haec mundo in­uotuit disciplina, vt biberent sanguinem Christiani, cuius esum legis an­tiquae authoritas districtissimè imterdicit. Lex quippe esum sanguinis pro­hibit, Euangelium praecipit vt bibatur. &c. Origen also writeth this same thing verie plainely vpon Numeri. hom. 16. Origen in Numeros hom. 19. The Englishe is this of Cyprian. The doctrine of this sacrament is new & the Euangelicall schoole, taught this lesson first of all, this discipline was neuer known to the world before our master Christ, who was the first teacher of it, that christen men should drinke bloud, the eating of which bloud the autho­ritie of the olde law doth most straightly forbid: for the law forbiddeth the eating of bloud, the gospell commaundeth bloud to be droken. &c.

Nowe this is most certayne, that the law did neuer for­bid the drinking of Christes bloud figuratiuely, but did commaunde drinke offerings, which were figures of hys bloud, and the Iewes dranke of the water that came forth of the stone, which was a figure of the bloud that came foorth of Christes side, which bloud as Chrysostome saith is in our Chalice: Id est in calice quod fluxit è latere, Chrysost. in 1. Cor. hora. 24. & illius nos sumus partici­pes: the same thing is the Chalice, that flowed out of Christs side, and we are partakers of the same. Nor the law did ne­uer forbid the drinking of Christes bloud spiritually by fayth, but set foorth the fayth of Christ, being a schoole­maister, to Christ pointing to him, in whome they should beleeue and receaue all grace.

But to make short, the lawe forbad the externall and re­all drinking of bloud, which the gospell commaundeth say­ing, except ye eate the fleshe of the sonne of man, & drinke his bloud, ye shall not haue lyfe in you,Iohn. 6.and drinke ye all of this. This is my bloud of the newe Testament. Therefore it foloweth necessarily, that the drinking of this bloud is not figuratiuely, nor yet onely spiritually, but really by the ser­uice [Page 192] of our bodies, as Chrysostome sayth. Si vederit inimicus non postibus imposutum sanguinem typi sed fidelium ore lucentem sangui­nem veritatis Christi templi postibus dedicatum, Chrysost. ad Neophytos. multo magis se subtrahit. If our enimie the Deuill shall see not the bloud of the figu­ratiue Lambe sprinckled vpon the postes, but the bloud of Christ the truth shyning in the mouth of the faithful, much more he will runne away. There is a place of the prouerbs which as diuers authors doe expound, Prouerb. 23. maketh much for the reall presence of Christs body and bloud in the sacrament: the place is this after the Greeke, which these authors fo­lowed. Cùm sederis ad mensam potentis, sapienter intellige quae appo­nuntur, & mitte manum tuam, sciens quia talia te oportet praepare. When thou sittest at the table of a great man, vnderstand wisely what things are set before thee, and put to thy hand, know­ing that thou must prepare such like things againe. Saint Augustine vpon saint Iohn, August. in Ioh. tract. 47.48. and Chrysostome vpon the Psalme, and Hesechius and other mo, whose wordes it were to long to rehearse in Latine: doe expound thys place of the prouerbs thus. Who is this great man but Iesus Christ our Lorde Gods sonne: Chrysost. in Psalm. 22. Hesichius. li. 6 Capit. 22. and what is the Table of this great man but where is receyued his body & his bloud that hath giuen his life for vs? And what is to sit at the Table, but to come to it humbly and deuoutly? and what is to consider and vnderstand wisely, what things be set before thee, but discerne the body and bloud of Christ to be set there verily in truth, and to know the grace, vertue, & dignitie of them, and the daunger for the misvsing of them? and what is to put to thy hand, knowing that thou must prepare such like againe, but to eate of them knowing that christen men in the cause of Christ, and defence of the truth are bounden to shed their bloud, and spend their liues for their brethren as Christ hath done the same for vs before, the like as we haue receaued at Christes table his body and his bloud, so ought we to giue for our brethren our bodies and bloud.

This comparison of taking and giuing the like againe, auoydeth all the tryfling cauillations of these figuratiue [Page 193] speeches, that the simple peoples heads be combred withal. Here is no place for eating onely by fayth, for the martyrs did not onely beleue in Christ, but also in verie deede gaue their bodies and shed their bloud really for Christ.

I am wearie of telling you of your subtile dealing in cyting sentences out of the auncient fathers. Saint Austen in the .xj.CROWLEY. treatise vpon Iohn, sayth as you haue cyted: but the wordes which go before, and should open saint Austens meaning,August. in Ioh. tract. 11. you holde from your hearers and readers. He sayth thus. Ipsis ergo se credit Iesus, qui nati sunt denuò. Iesus therefore doth betake him­selfe to them that be borne a newe. And afterwarde he sayth. Qui ergo renati sunt, noctis fuerunt & diei sunt: tenebrae fuerunt, & lumen sunt. Iam credit se illis Iesus: & non nocte veniunt ad Iesum sicut Nico­demus, non in tenebris quaerunt diem. &c. Those therefore, that be borne anewe, did belong to the night, and doe now belong to the day: they were darkenesse, and are now light. Nowe Iesus doth betake himselfe to them, and they come not to Iesus in the night, as did Nicodemus, they doe not séeke the light in darkenesse. &c.

By these words it is playne, that Austen ment nothing lesse then to teach that which you gather of his words. Yea, & speaking of the same wordes that are written in the sixt of Iohn, he sayth. Dominus autem exposuit eis, & dixit. Spiritus est qui viuificat, caro autem non prodest quicquam: cum dixisset. Nisi quis manducauerit carnem me­am, & biberit sanguinem meum, non habebit in se vitam: ne carnaliter intelligerent. Spiritus est, inquit, qui viuificat, caro autem nihil prodest. Verba autem quae locutus sum vobis, spiritus & vita sunt. And the Lord declared vnto them and sayde. It is the spirite that gyueth lyfe: the flesh doth profite nothing at all: when he had sayde. Except a man doe eate my flesh and drinke my bloud, he shal not haue any lyfe in himselfe, least they should vnderstand him carnally, he said it is the spirite that quickneth, and the fleshe profiteth nothing. And the words that I haue spoken vnto you are spirit and life. &c.

How your conclusion of a reall eating of Christ in the sacra­ment, by the seruice of our bodies. &c. maye folowe vpon these words of Austen: I leaue to the iudgement of all that be learned, [Page 194] and not obstinately blinde in this matter.

Cyprian. Ser. De Caena.To that which you cite out of Cyprians Sermon De Caena Domini, and Origine vpon the booke of Numbers. I referre you for aunswere, to the wordes of the same Cyprian in the same Sermon, where he sayth thus. Dixerat sanc huius traditionis magister quod nisi manducaremus & biberemus cius sanguinem, non haberemus vi­tam in nobis: spirituali nos instruens documento, & aperiens ad rem ad [...] abditam intellecluin, vt sciremus quod mansio, nostra in ipso, sit manduca­tio, & potus quasi quaedam incorporatio, subiectis, obsequijs, voluntatibus iunctis, affectibus vnitis. The teacher of this tradition had sayde, that vnlesse we would eate him and drinke his bloud, we could haue no lyfe in vs: instructing vs by a spirituall document, and opening our vnderstanding to a thing that is so secretly hid, that we might know that our eating is our dwelling in him, and our drinking as it were a certaine ioyning into one body with him, by gyuing ouer our selues wholy to serue him, by ioyning our willes to his, and vniting our affections.

And to the wordes of Origine also in the same Homily that you cite,Origines in Num. ho. 16. and not many lynes after that which you point at; where he sayth thus. Bibere autem dicimur sanguinem Christi, non so­lùm sacramentorum ritu sed & cùm sermonem eius recipimus, in quibus vita consistit, sicut & ipse dicit. Verba quae locutus sum, spiritus, & vita est. It is saide that we drinke the bloud of Christ, not onely in the rite of the sacrament: but also when we receyue his wordes, in which lyfe doth consist, euen as he himselfe sayth: The words that I haue spoken, are spirite and lyfe.

Now, let your friendes iudge what you haue gayned: by that you haue cyted out of Cyprian and Origine. And for your sentence that you haue picked out of Chrysostome to helpe out with the matter.August ad Bonifacium. Epist. 23. I referre you for aunswere, to that which Au­sten hath written to Bonifacius, whose wordes I haue cyted in the ninth deuision of this aunswere.

But to make short, it appéereth by thys that I haue written, that the Gospell commaundeth no externall nor reall drinking of bloud: wherfore, it is no necessarie consequence, that in the sacra­ment of Christes bloud, his bloud is not figuratiuely, nor yet on­ly [Page 195] spiritually dronken, but really by the seruice of our bodies: al­though you doe beare vs in hande, that Chrysostome doth so affirme, both in his .24. Homily vpon the first to the Corinths, and also in his Homily to those y^t were lately graffed into Christ. For both in those places & many other Chrysostome doth giue that name to the sacrament, which is proper to the thing wher­of it is a Sacrament, according to Saint Austens saying to Bonifacius.

As touching the expounding of the wordes of Salomon, by Austen, Chrysostome and Isychius, Watson beli­eth three at once. I must néedes tell you that you belye them all three. For none of them doth say, as you would beare vs in hande that they doe say. Austen speaketh most of the matter, and sayth thus. Mensa potentis quae sit nostis, August. in Ioh. tract. 47. vbi est corpus & sanguis Christi: qui accedit ad talem mensam, praeparet talia. Et quid est praeparet talia? Quomodo ipse pro nobis animam suam posuit: sic & nos debemus, ad aedificandam plebem, ad asserendam fidem, animam pro fratribus ponere. You know what the table of the mighty man is, where the body and bloud of Christ is, he that commeth to such a table, must prepare the lyke thing. And what is it to prepare such lyke things? Euen as he gaue his lyfe for vs: so must we giue our lyues for our brethren, to edifie the people, and to de­fende the fayth.

Here is no mention made of the sitting at the table, discer­ning of the thing set before them, nor of the putting to of the hand. All that Austen hath sayde here,Epist. 23. is fully answered by that which he hath written to Bonifacius.

Chrysostome sayth thus. Sed veniunt ad mensam potentis, Chrysost. in Psalm. 22. consy­derantes ea quae apponuntur eis accipere cum timore & tremore: & tribu­lationes efficiuntur consolationes. But they come vnto the table of the mightie: considering those things that be set before them to re­ceyue with feare and trembling: & their tribulations are become consolations. This is farre from that which you report in his name. But you could not sée that which he writeth a little before,Watson can pretend shortnesse of time, When he will not say all y^t he should. where he sayth thus. Et quia istam mensam praeparauit seruis & ancillis in conspectu eorum. &c. And bicause he hath in the sight of them, pre­pared this table for his seruaunts and handmaydens. &c. As is a­fore [Page 196] in the answere to the .26. deuision of this sermon. If shortnesse of time would haue suffered you to rehearse, al those words: they would haue marred altogither: and therefore you did wisely to dissemble them.

As for the place that you cite out of Isychius, it is aunswered before, and néedeth not nowe to be aunswered any further. But here I must tell you, that this is no simple dealing, to vrge the in­terpretation of a fewe that felowed the Gréeke (as you say) both against the text in Hebrue: and the exposition that such as were learned in the Hebrue tongue, haue made vpon this place. Yea and that in so weightie a matter as thys is.

You knowe that Salomon was an Hebrue, and wrote his Prouerbs in Hebrue: and shall we leaue his wordes in Hebrue, and take that which we find in y^e Gréeke contrarie to, or differing from, that which is manifest & playne in the Hebrue? If Austen had had the vnderstanding of the Hebrue tongue: he would not haue done so. I mislike not the expounding of that text by the A­legorie: for the text may well beare it. But to Alegorize vpon a text, that differeth from the same text in the tongue that it was first written in by the Author thereof: can not but be misliked. And much more it is to be misliked,August libr. 12. Con­fess. Cap. 25. that any mans priuate iudgemēt vpon any part of scripture, should be made a sufficient ground to build our fayth vpon, as the same S. Austen hath said.

Saint Hierome, who vnderstood the Hebrue tongue: doth Alegorize farre otherwise vpon this place. And Lyranus (who was a Iewe borne) doth expound it after the letter. And the or­dinarie Glosse,Hierony. in Prouer. 23. foloweth saint Hierome, who vnderstandeth by the mightie man, the teacher of Gods worde: and by the things set before them, the worde of God. &c.

Fearing to be long therefore: you might well haue spared all this, and the applying of your comparison, of taking and gyuing the like agayne, with boasting that it auoydeth all the trifling ca­uillations of figuratiue spéeches. &c.

WATSON. Diuision. 33. I neede not stand longer in so playne a matter, although I could alledge much more out of all the auncient fathers, yea & more plainer then these I haue touched, if any can be [Page 197] playner. If I did but tell the bare names of the sacrament which the aucthors giue it. I should proue manifestly, that it were the very body and bloud of Christ, and not bread and wine. Ignatius calleth it Medicamentum immortalitatis, Ignatus ad Ephesios. anti­dotum non moriendi a medicine of immortalitie, a preseruatiue against death. Dionisius Ariopagita S. Paules Scholer cal­leth it hostia salutaris, the sacrifice of our saluation. Dionisius Hier. Eccle. Capit. 3. Iustinus Apolo. Origen in Luc. hom. 38. in Mat. bo. 5. Cyprianus de lapsis de caena. Iustinus martyr saith, it is caro & sanguis incarnati Iesu, the flesh & bloud of Iesus incarnate, which names be giuen to it of the scrip­ture and all other wryters. Origen calleth it Panis vitae dapes saluatoris, epulum incorruptum Dominus, the bread of lyfe, the deynties of our sauiour, the meate that is neuer corrupted, yea our Lord himself. Cyprian calleth it Sanctum domini the holy one of God gratia salutaris, the sauing grace, Cibus incon­sumptibilis, the meate that can neuer be consumed, Alimonia immortalitatis, the foode of immortalitie. Portio vitae aeternae, the portion of eternall life, Sacrificium perpes, holocaustum per manens, a continuall sacrifice, an offering alwaies remaining, Christus, yea he calleth it Christ. The great generall counsell at Nice calleth it Agnus Dei qui tollit peccatum mundi, Concilium Nicenum. the Lambe of God that taketh away the sinnes of the worlde.

Optatus an olde author giueth it diuers names, as in this sentence. Quid tam sacrilegium quam altaria dei frangere, radere, Optatus. li. 6. re­mouere in quibus vot a populi & membra Christi portata sunt, vnde à multis pignus salutis aeternae tutela fidei, & spes resurrectionis accepta est? What is more sacrilege, then to breake the aultars of God (as the Donatistes did) or to scrape them, or to remoue them, vp­on the which aultars the vowes of the people that is to say, the members of Christ are borne, from which aultars also the pledge of eternall saluation, the defence and buckler of faith, and the hope of resurrection be receaued.

Hilarius calleth it cibus dominicus, our Lordes meat, Hilarius. li. 8. Basilius in Missa. ver­bum caro, the worde made flesh. Saint Basill in his Masse cal­leth them sancta diuina, impolluta, immortalia, super celestia, & vi­uifica sacramenta. Holy sacraments, godly, pure, vndefiled, im­mortall, heauenly, and giuing life. What wittelesse and vn­godly [Page 198] man would giue these names to bread and wine? Saint Ambrose calleth it gratia dei, Ambrosius de obitu fratris. the grace of God, not an accidentall grace receaued of God into mans soule, but the verie reall sacrament he calleth the grace of God, the which his brother Satirus being vpon the sea, and his ship broken, seeking for none other ayde but onely the remedy of fayth and the defence of that sacrament, tooke this grace of God of the priestes, and caused it to be bound in a stole, which he tied about his neck, and so trusting in that committed him­selfe to the waters, by vertue wherof he escaped drowning, and afterward of a Catholike Bishop he receaued that same grace of God with his mouth.

Chrysost. 1. Cor. 10. Chrysostome O with what eloquence doth he vtter this matter: heare but this one place. Ipsa nam (que) mensa animae nostrae vis est, nerui mentis, fiduciae vinculum, fundamentum, spes salus lux, vita nostra. The verye table sayeth he (meaning the meat of the table) is the strength of our soule, the sinewes of our minde, the knot of our trust, the foundation, our hope, our helth, our light, and our lyfe. What names, what effectes bee these? and in an other Homely he calleth it Rex coeli, deus, Christus, Ad Ephe. Ser. 3. the king of heauen, God himselfe, Christ, which he sayth goth into vs by these gates and dores of our mouthes. Cyrillus calleth it sanctificatio viuifica, the very sanctification that giueth life. Cirillus. li. 4. Capit. 17. August. Epist. 163. And S. Augustine calleth it Pretium nostrum, the price of our redemption, which Iudas receaued. What should I trouble you any longer in so plaine a matter? Why should these holy fathers deceaue vs by calling this sacra­ment with so glorious & high names if they ment not so, but that it was but bread & wine? they lacked no grace that had so much grace as to shed their bloud for Christes fayth, they lacked no wytte nor eloquence to expresse what they meant. Thus did they with one consent, after one maner alwayes speake and write by whose playne preaching and wryting, the whole worlde of Christendome hath beene perswaded and established in this faith of the reall presence these fiftene hundred yres.

If they haue seduced vs meaning otherwise then they wrote, then may we iustly saye that they were not martyrs and confessors in deede, but verie Deuils, erring themselues, and bringing other also into errour.

But good people the truth is, they erred not, but taught vs as they beleued the very truth, confirming and testifying that faith with their bloud that they had taught with their mouth. And if there be anye errour, it is in vs, that for the vnlearned talking, and witlesse sophisticall reasoning of a fewe men, will headlings destroy our soules: forsaking and not contynuing in that faythe, whiche was taught by the mouth of Christ sealed with his bloud, testified by the bloud of martyrs, and hath preuayled from the beginning, against the which Hell gates can not preuayle. Nowe there remayneth something to bee saide concerning the thirde part which is the consent of the catholike Church in thys point: but I am sorie, the tyme is so past, that I can not nowe say any thing of it, in my next daye God wylling I shall touch it, and also proceede in the matter of the sacri­fice, which I hope to God to make so plaine, that it shall appere to them that will see and be not blinded forsaken of God, to be a thing most euident, most profitable to be vsed and frequented in Christs Church, and that such slaunders and blasphemers as be shot against it shall rebound (I hope) vppon their owne heades, that shot them to the glorie of almightie God, who by hys heauenly prouidence can so dispose the malice of a fewe, that it turne to the staye and commoditie of the whole, that the elect by such conflictes may be awaked from their slepe, may be more confirmed in all truth, and may be more vigilant and ware in learning and obseruing the lawe of God, to whom be all glorye and praise worlde without ende. Amen.

When you haue done all that you are able in wresting and wringing of scriptures and Doctors,CROWLEY. for the proufe of that thing which you say is so playne: then you bragge as though you could [Page 200] doe much more, were it not y^e the matter is so plaine of it self, that it should be but more then néedeth, to stand any longer in it. A good point of Rhetorick: & such as must néedes perswade such hearers as cannot be perswaded, that any of y^e Popes Clarkes can erre.

But you haue yet one point of Rhetorick which passeth all the rest. And therefore you haue kept it to the last place: that it may leaue the stinges and prickes of eloquence, in the mindes of your hearers. If you did but make rehearsall of the bare names, that the Authors giue to the sacrament: you should proue manifestly, that it were the verie body and bloud of Christ, and not bread and wine. And first you beginne with Ignatius, who calleth it the medicine of immortalitie.Ignatius ad Ephesios. &c. To this I haue alreadie aun­swered in the .24. Diuision of this Sermon: and therefore néede not to trouble the reader with further aunswere.

Dionisius Areopagita. Eras. contr. Parisienses.And Dionisius Areopagita calleth it the sacrifice of oure saluation. This must néedes perswade all your hearers. For this Dionisius was saint Paules Scholer, if a man may beléeue that which you tell vs. But Erasmus, and dyuers other learned, and of graue iudgement: do think that it could not be that Dionisius, that wrote the Ecclesiastical Hierarchie. But graunt it were euē he that is mencioned in y^e Actes: what should it help your purpose that he calleth the sacrament, the sacrifice of saluation? Hath not Saint Austen to Bonifacius, Epist. 23. tolde you the reason why such names are giuen to the sacraments? Yea, doth not the same Di­onisius in the same Chapter that you cite, call the same sacra­ment by these names: holy bread, and the Cup of blessing, holye signes, comfortable signes, signes whereby Christ is signified and receyued,Capit. 3. most holy signes, heauenly sacraments, holy my­steries. &c? And doth he not call the whole action of the mini­stration of the same, by the names of Communion or societie, Synaxis or gathering togither, and the holy supper: If that one name be of force, to make it the verie body and bloud of Christ: then let the other names be able to make it bread and wine. &c.

Apolog. 2. Iustinus Martyr also, sayth y^t it is the flesh of Iesus incarnate. I must tel you that you doe not report his words aright. He sayth thus, Iesu Christi, eius qui homo fastus est, & carnem & sanguinem esse [Page 201] accepimus. We haue heard, that it is the flesh & bloud of that Iesus Christ that became man. Not manye lynes before, he sayth. Postea quam & is qui praeest, gratias egit, & populus omnis benedixit: i [...] qui apud nos Diaconi dicuntur, dant vnicui (que) qui adsunt, percipiendum Panem, vinum & aquam, quae cum gratiarum actione consecrata sunt, & ad eos qui absunt perferunt. And after that he (which is the chiefe) hath giuen thankes, and all the whole people haue blessed: those that with vs are called Deacons, doe giue to euery one that is present, bread, wine, and water, which are by the thankes gy­uing consecrated, to be receyued, and doe carie of the same to those that be absent. I report me to your friends, whether Iusti­nus ment in this place to teache, or whither it may iustly be ga­thered of his words: that the sacrament that you speake of is nei­ther bread nor wine.

Origene is much beholden to you,In Math. homil. 25. for you teach him to giue moe names to the sacrament, then he hath written in his Homi­lies. You note in the margine the fift Homilie vpon Mathew, wherein he speaketh not one word of that sacrament. But by like you would haue noted the .25. Homilie, where he speaketh of it: but farre otherwise then you report, both in wordes and mea­ning. And vpon Luke, in the place that you note, he sayth thus. Nos si tantas Domini nostri opes, In Lucam homil. 38. tantam sermonis suppellectilem & abun­dantiam doctrinarum, non libenter amplectimur, si non comedimus pa­nem vitae, si non carnibus Christi vescimur, & cruore potamur, si contemni­mus dapes Saluatoris nostri: scire debemus quod habeat Deus & benigni­tatem & seueritatem. If we doe not wyllingly embrace so great riches of our Lorde, so great store of his worde, and abundaunce of doctrine, if we doe not eate the bread of lyfe, if we eate not the fleshe of Christ, nor drinke his bloud, if we despise the delicate dishes of our Sauiour: we ought to knowe, that God hath both louing mercy and seuere iustice. Whether these words doe proue that the sacrament is the very reall body and bloud of Christ, and neyther bread nor wine: let your holy father the Pope himselfe be iudge, if he be such a one as hath the vse of reason.

Howe the names that Cyprian gyueth to this sacrament, may proue your assertion: may well appeare, to all such as shall [Page 202] reade that which I haue before aunswered,Cyprian De Caena. Concilium Nicenum. to that which you haue cyted out of his Sermon De Caena.

The great generall counsell at Nice, doe call it, the Lambe of God. &c. So doe we, so farre forth as a sacrament may haue the name of that thing wherof it is a sacrament.

Optatus libro. 6. Optatus sayth. Quid tam sacrilegum. &c. What is more sacri­ledge. &c. Your olde slight must be vsed still. Such wordes as may open the meaning of the writer, must be slyly slipt ouer. He had to doe with Parmenian and the rest of the Donatists. And in the beginning of his sixt booke agaynst them, he wryteth thus. Indubitanter liquido demonstratum est: in diuinis sacramentis, quid nefa­rie feceritis. &c. Vndoubtedly, it is playnely set forth to be séene, what you haue wickedly wrought in the sacramentes of God. Nowe must we shewe those things, which you are not able to de­nie: that you haue done cruelly, and folishly. For what is so great sacriledge, as to breake, scrape, and set aside the aultars of God (vpō which you your selues also, did sometime offer) on which the vowes of the people, and the members of Christ are borne: where God almightie is called vpon, and whither the holy ghost being earnestly desired, doth descende or come downe: from whence many doe receiue the earnest of eternall lyfe, the safe­garde of faith, and the hope of resurrection. The aultars I say, vpon which our sauiour did commaund, not to laye the offerings of brotherhood, except the same be seasoned with peace. Laye downe sayth he, thine offering before the aultar, and go thy way back agayne. Agrée with thy brother, that the priest may offer for thée. For what other thing is the aultar: but the seat of the bo­dye and bloud of Christ? All these things hath your furie, eyther scraped, broken, or set aside. Thus farre Optatus, against the Donatists, amongst whome Parmenian was one of the chiefe.

Saint Austen wryting against the same Parmenian: saith, that the Donatists denied all that were not of their sect,Contra Epist. Parmen. li. 1. Capit. 3. to be of the Church of Christ. And therefore they accounted all the mi­nistratiō that was done by any other minister then their owne: to be filthy and abhominable. And where they might get the vp­per hande, they made spoyle of all those things, that serued for [Page 203] the ministration. For which doings Optatus doth in this place inueygh against them. And to cause their crueltie and folly to ap­péere the greater, in breaking, scraping, and remouing the com­munion tables (which he calleth aultars) he giueth names of great excellencie and dignitie, to those things that were mini­stred vpon those tables: calling the same, the body and bloud, and members of Christ, the earnest or pledge of euerlasting saluati­on, the safegarde of fayth, and the hope of resurrection. Yea, he sayth that God is inuocated and called vpon there: and that the holy ghost, being earnestly desired, doth descend and come downe thyther. But you slip ouer those wordes: because the maner of spéeche that the wryter vseth there, is by these wordes perceyued.Watson can slip ouer some words. For who knoweth not that the cōming downe of the holy ghost, must be vnderstanded to be spirituall: and therfore the maner of spéeche to be Hyperbolicall? He sayth also, that the vowes of the people be sustayned or borne vpon those tables: whereby he vn­derstandeth the prayers of the people, as may appéere by that which he wryteth in the same booke, where he sayth thus. Cur votae & desideria hominum, cum ipsis altaribus confregistis? Illic ad aures Dei ascendere populi solebat oratio. &c. Why haue you, with those aultars dashed in péeces, y^e prayers & peticions of men? The prayer of the people, was wonte there to ascend to y^e eares of God. Why haue you cut downe the way y^t the prayers should go vp by? And why haue ye labored with wicked hands: in maner to pul away y^e lad­der, y^t the praier should not haue away vp as it was wont to haue? And that it is y^e communion table which he calleth an aultar: it is plaine by y^e which he writeth in the same booke also, where he saith thus. Quis fidelium nescit, in peragendis mysterijs, ipsa ligna linteamine cooperiri. &c. What faithfull man is ignorant, that in the ministra­tion of the sacraments: the timber is couered with a linnen cloth?

When you haue weighed all this that Optatus hath writ­ten: you will not (I trow) make so great reconing of the names that he gyueth to the sacrament. Accompting them as sufficient reasons to proue, that the sacrament is the verie body and bloud of Christ, and not bread and wine.

Hilarius also, calleth it, Cibus Dominicus: Our Lords meat.Hilarius li. 8. Verbum caro, the worde made fleshe. I must néedes let the readers [Page 204] sée the wordes of Hilarie: as they stande written in his eyght booke De irinitate. And then let him iudge howe worthye credite you are, that shame not, to snatch such péeces to proue your pur­pose. He sayth thus: Eos nunc qui inter Patrem & filium, voluntatis ingerunt vnitatem: interrogo, vtrumne per naturae veritatem, bodie Christus in nobis sit, an per concordiam voluntatis? Si enim verè verbum caro fac­tum est, & nos verè verbum carnem cibo dominico sumimus: quomodo non naturaliter manere in nobis ixistimandus est, qui & naturam carnis nostrae iam inseparabilem sibi homo natus assumpsit, & naturam carnis suae, ad naturam aeternitatis, sub sacramento nobis communicandae carnis admis­cuit. Nowe, I doe demaunde of them that doe cast in, or heape vpon vs, the vnitie of wyll betwéene the father and the sonne: whether at this day, Christ be in vs, by nature in déede, or by a­gréement of wyll? For if the sonne of God be made fleshe in déede, and we doe in the Lordes meat, receyue the sonne of God incarnate in déede: how should he be thought not to dwell natu­rally in vs, which being borne a man, hath both taken vnto him­selfe the inseparable nature of our fleshe, and also hath myngled the nature of his fleshe, with the nature of eternitie, to be com­municated vnto vs vnder a sacrament.

If we shall vnderstand all these words of Hilarie, so grossely as you would haue vs to vnderstand those wordes that you cite: then shall Hilarie be found one of those, that affirme the two na­tures in Christ to be confounded, contrarie to that which all true christians doe with Athanasius confesse. For he saith, that Christ hath mingled the nature of his fleshe, with the eternitie, that is, with the deuine nature. We must therefore reade his wordes with fauour: as I haue noted in that which I haue written vpon those wordes that you cite out of him in the .24. deuision of this Sermon.Loke in the 24. deuision. Being earnestly bent against those heretikes that de­nied the naturall vnitie betwixt Christ and his father: he spea­keth a great deale to largely of the vnitie betwixt Christ and vs, calling that naturall also. But for the wordes that you cite: we confesse all that Hilarie sayth. That is, that we doe in déede re­ceyue in the Lords meate, verie Christ, the sonne of God incar­nate: But not in your grosse maner.

Basill in his Masse, calleth them, Sancta Diuina. &c. Basilius in Missa. Holy sa­craments, godly, pure, vndefiled, immortall, heauenly, and gy­uing lyfe. Of what authoritie this Masse of Basill is: I referre to the iudgement of the learned. It is not, neyther hath bene folowed in any Church, neyther is it found in his workes in the Gréeke. Wherefore it séemeth to mée, to be but a deuise thrust out in his name, by some one that was vnborne many yeres after Basill was dead. But let it be of as great authority as you would wishe it to be: shall his wordes that you cite, proue the sacrament to be the body and bloud of Christ, and neyther bread nor wine? He calleth it but an holy, godly, vndefiled, immortall, heauenly, and quickning sacrament. If you adde a minor proposition, and saye: but euery such sacrament is the reall, and naturall body of Christ: shall we be enforced to conclude, Ergo, this sacrament is the reall and naturall body and bloud of Christ, and not ey­ther bread or wine? I trow not. I dare referre this to the iudge­ment of them that vnderstande Art.

But is there nothing in that Masse that maketh against you? I trowe he sayth thus. Confidentes appropinquamus sancto altari tuo, & proponentes configuralia sancti corporis & sanguinis Christi tui: te ob­secramus, & te postulamus saencte sanctorum, beneplacita tua benigni­tate, venire spiritum sanctum tuum super nos, & super proposita munera ista, & benedicere ea & sanctificare. Presuming vpon thy mercies, we drawe nigh vnto thine aultar. And setting before thée, apt figures of the bodie and bloud of thy Christ: we doe praye and beséech thée (O thou holyest of all) that by thy good and mercifull pleasure, thy holye spirite may come vpon vs, and vpon these giftes, which are set before thée, and that he may blesse and sanc­tifie them.

All these wordes, would your Basill haue his high Priest to speake, after the wordes of consecration (as you terme them) wherby, as much as may be done in making the body and bloud of Christ, is done: and yet the holy ghost must come vpon those gifts, and blesse and sanctifie them yet more. When you haue weighed these wordes with the other, then tell me what you haue gayned towards your purpose. But when he commeth to the [Page 207] distribution,All thinges reconed, more is lost then won. he marreth all: for he sayth, that they doe all com­municate. And so, your owne Basill ouerthroweth your priuate Masse, which may so euill be spared in your holy fathers Church.

Ambrose calleth it Gratia Dei. The grace of God, not acci­dentall.Ambrose De obitu Fratris. &c. In mine aunswere to the ninth deuision of this Ser­mon, I haue noted of what authoritie Erasmus doth thinke those works to be, that are conteyned in the thirde Tome, where these wordes that you cite, should be. He sayth that he is out of doubt, that they be all counterfayted, and set forth in Ambrose name: for there is no whit of Ambrose vayne in them. Besides this, I meruaile that you are not ashamed when you haue reported a lie, to dubbe it with another of your owne, saying that Ambrose doth cal the sacrament by the name of the grace of God. Were it not for troubling the reader with to much of your folly: I would let him sée the whole fable in wryting, and referre the iudgement euen to your dearest friendes that haue not lost the vse of their reason.

Chrysost. in 1. Cor. 10.But to make vp the matter withall: you haue sought out one place of Chrysostome, which doth enforce you to crye out and say: Oh with what eloquence doth he vtter this matter. Heare but this one place. If a man should aske you what matter it is that Chrysostome doth with such eloquence vtter: you must say the reall presence of Christ bodie and bloud in the sacrament, and that the sacrament is neyther bread nor wine. But what one worde hath Chrysostome in that place to proue this? His words being taken wholy together, are these. Quemadmodum frigida ac­cessio periculosa est: ita nulla mysticae illius Caenae participatio, fames est & interitus. Ipsa nam (que) mensa animae nostrae vis est, nerui mentis, fiduciae vinculum, fundamentum, spes, salus, lux, vita nostra. Si hinc hoc sacrifi­cio muniti migrabimus: maxima cum fiducia sanctum ascendemus vesti­bulum, tanquam aureis quibusdam vestibus vndi (que) contecti. Et quid fu­tura commemoro? Nam dum in haec vita sumus: vt terra nobis caelum sit, facit hoc mysterium. Ascende igitur ad Caeli portas, & diligenter attende. Imo, non Caeli, sed Caeli Caelorum, & tunc quod dicimus intueberis. For euen as a colde comming to the Lordes table is perillous: so not to be partaker of the mysticall supper at all, is famishment and [Page 206] death. For the table is the strength of our soule, the sinewes of our minde, the bonde of our confidence or sure trust, our foun­dation, hope, health, light, and our lyfe. It we shall depart hence, being armed with this sacrifice: we shall with great boldnesse ascende vnto the holy entrie, as apparailed on euery side, wyth certaine garmentes of Golde. And why doe I speake of things to come? For euen whylst we be in this lyfe: this mysterie doth make the earth to be an heauen vnto vs. Go vp therefore to the gates of heauen: and marke diligently. Yea, not to the gates of heauen, but of the heauen of heauens: and then thou shalt behold those things that we speake of.

Here you may sée, what it is,The ende of Chryso­stomes Elo­quence. that Chrysostome mindeth to set forth by this elequence that he vseth. He that will beholde the things that he doth so highly extoll: must in spirite go vp to the gate of the heauen of heauens, euen into the thirde heauen in­to which saint Paule was rapt, in which he learned things that he could not vtter with his tongue. The Lordes supper, being rightly vsed of vs, doth lyuely set forth vnto vs (yea vnto oure senses,) the Lorde Iesus himselfe, which is the strength of oure soule, the sinewes of our mind. &c. This can we not liuely sée, vn­lesse we doe in spirit ascend, to the gate of y^e heauen of heauens. &c.

But when you will proue your purpose: then all that the fathers haue eyther written or spoken, to stirre vp their hearers or readers to heauenly contemplation: must néedes be playne spéeches, and applyed to prooue your grosse opinion of the reall presence of Christ in the sacrament: They must néedes say that they neyther vse figure, nor spirituall meaning.

And where Chrysostome doth in an other Homily call the sacrament by these names, Rex Caeli, Deus, In Epist. ad Ephes. ho. 3. Cyril. li. 4. Capit. 17. August. Epist. 163. Christus (as you say) The king of heauen, God, & Christ: you may thinke your selfe aunswered alreadie. And so may you for that which you doe here cite out of Cyrill and Austen.

But I maruayle much that you could not sée, what Chry­sostome wryteth against the staryng and gaseing presence of your good people at your Popishe Masse, wherein your priest doth eate and drinke vp all himselfe, and giueth none any part [Page 208] with him. Quisquis mysteriorum consors non est (sayth Chrysostome) impudens & improbus astat. Whosoeuer is not partaker of the my­steries: is as a shamelesse and wicked man, presente at the ministration.

But what should I trouble the reader any longer in so plaine a matter? The fathers haue not disceyued you by calling the sa­crament of Christ by so glorious and high names: but you haue disceyued your selfe, by drawing their figuratiue and Rhetoricall maner of spéeches, to playne and grammaticall maners of spea­king, and their spirituall meanings, to your carnall and fleshe­ly meaning.

And as you haue disceyued your selues: so you and your Po­pishe fathers haue laboured by the bragge of fiftene hundred yeres, to disceyue all the whole christen worlde. For which you shall one day drinke of the cup of Gods wrath, except ye repent before ye depart hense. Your, if, and your, but, will not serue you then. But as you say the errour is in your selfe, which woulde harken to the witlesse sophisticall reasoning of a fewe Popishe men, and so runne headlong to destroy your owne soules. Forsa­king, and not contynuing in that fayth that was taught by the mouth of Christ, sealed with his bloud, and testified by the bloud of Martyrs: and hath preuailed from the beginning, and shall continue to the ende, in the dispite of Antichrist and all his mem­bers and the whole power of hell.

As for that which remayneth concerning the thirde point that causeth you to contynue in your Popishe fayth, that is the consent of the Catholike Church (as you say) which to your great griefe you could not now for shortnesse of time, go thorow with: shall be answered in the aunswere to your other Sermon, if God wyll, I hope in such sort, that as many as be not wilfull blinde, shall sée the subtiltie of your sophistrie, and for euer after defie it, and your Popishe Masse also, which you boast to be so profitable to be frequented in the Church of Antichrist, to main­taine your multituds of ydle belyes, in cloysters and else where.

And I doubt not, but whatsoeuer you or any other, hath or shall shoote against the right vse of the Lordes supper, which is [Page 209] nowe in reformed Churches frequented: shall to the glorie of almightie God rebounde into your owne bosomes, to the staye of all such as God in prouidence, hath appointed to be saued by the preaching of his worde. That they neuer encline to your Po­perie, but walke warily in the truth of the christian religion, leading a christian lyfe: that in the ende thereof, they may with Christ triumph ouer Antichrist and all his Souldiours in endlesse felicitie. Which he graunt to his elect and chosen children: that in hys sonne Christ, knewe them, before they were. Amen.

AMONGES OTHER THINGES the last time I was admitted to speake in this place, WATSON. Diuision. 1. I brought forth this sentence of saint Bernard written in a Sermon De epithania Pau­peres sumus, parum dare possumus. &c. Bernardus Ser. de Epi­phania. The English is this. We be poore, little may we giue, yet for that little we may be reconciled if we will. All that euer I am able to giue is this wretched bodye of mine, if I giue that, it is sufficient, if not then I adde his body, for that is mine and of mine owne: for a little one is borne vnto vs, and the sonne is giuen to vs, O Lorde that lacketh in mee, I supply in thee, O most sweetest reconciliation.

Here I noted a great benefite of the oblation of Christes body, to consiste in supplying that lacketh in the oblation of our bodyes: that where as wee beyng exhorted of saint Paule to offer vp our bodies: a sacrifice to almightie God, and also doe vnderstande by other scriptures, that it is oure dueties so to doe: which maye bee done three wayes: By voluntarie suffering the death for Christes fayth, if case so require, by painefull and penall workes, as by abstinence and other corporall exercises, for the castigation and mor­tifying of the outwarde man, or else by the seruice of righ­teousnesse, in that we vse the members and parts of our bo­dye, as instruments of all vertue and godlynesse, considering agayne howe there is great imperfection in all our workes, and that the best of vs all commeth short of that marke, which is prefixed of God to serue him with all oure heart, wyth all our strength, and that eyther in the worke it selfe or in the intent, or in the cause or tyme, or in some other degree and circumstaunce: for this cause and considerati­on saint Bernard doth himselfe and moueth vs to ioyne the oblation of Christes body with oures, wherewithall we are [Page 2] sure God is well pleased, saying: This is my sonne, in whom I am well pleased, Marke. 7. by whose merites our oblation and o­ther workes doe please God, and not otherwise.

CROWLEY.This place of Bernard is aunswered, in the seuenth diuisi­on of the former Sermon, wherevnto I referre the indiffe­rent reader.

And therefore I purposed to make one sermon of the sacrifice of Christ, WATSON. Diuision. 2. not of that which he himselfe made vp­on the crosse for oure redemption, but of that which the Church his spouse maketh vpon the aultar, which purpose being also before promised, remaineth now to be fulfilled.

And entring the last time to speake of it, I laid this foun­dation, that is to say, the veritie of the blessed Sacrament, the bodye and bloud of our sauiour Christ to be verily and really present in it by the omnipotent power of almightie God, & the operation of his holy spirit assisting the due ad­ministration of the Priest, and so to bee there not onely as our meat, which God giueth vnto vs, to nourish vs in spiri­tuall lyfe, but also as our sacrifice which we giue and offer vnto God to please him and purge vs from such thinges as may destroy or hinder that spirituall lyfe, seing that Christ himselfe is the substaunce of the sacrifice of the new Testa­ment, as I haue partly shewed before, and beside him wee haue none, that is onely proper to vs Christen men.

This foundation of the reall presence I presupposed to haue bene beleued of vs all, and yet I did not so rawly leaue it, but declared vnto you such reasons, as moued me to con­tinue still in that fayth I was borne in, which were the eui­dent & playne scriptures of God, opened with the circum­stances of the places in suche wise, as the vaine cauillati­ons of the sacramentaries can not delude them, and also the effectes of this sacrament, which be so great and so wonder­full, that they can be ascribed to no other cause, but onely to almightie God, & to such creatures, as Gods sonne hath [Page 3] ioyned vnto him in vnitie of person, as be the body and bloud of our sauiour Christ. I alledged also the sayings of the holy fathers, not in such number as I would haue done but choosed out a fewe, which not onely declared the Au­thors fayth, but conteyned a necessarie argument to proue our common fayth in this matter.

For aunswere to your handling of those matters that you speake of here:CROWLEY. I referre the reader to the aunswere that I haue made to that Sermon.

Concerning the third point, WATSON. Diuision. 3. which is the consent of the catholike Church, neyther the time then suffred to speake as behoued, nor yet suffereth nowe, if I should performe my promise, as I intende God wylllng. And for that cause I shall but moue you to consider certaine things, whereby the consent may appeare.

First the possession of the Church, in this doctrine so many yeares in such quietnesse without contradiction, that no reason or yet iniunction, nor no new deuise that the De­uill or his dearlings can inuent to the contrary, eyther can or ought to remoue vs out of possession, except wee will wilfully loose our owne right and claime, seing that we that liue nowe vniuersally throughout all Christendome haue receaued this fayth of our fathers, and they of theirs, Cyprian. Ser. De Caena. and so foorth euen to the Apostles and our sauiour Christ him­selfe, by whose mouth this doctrine (as saint Cyprian sayth) was first taught to the world, that Christen men in the new lawe be commaunded to drinke bloud, which the Iewes in the olde law were forbid to doe.

And so from him and his Apostles it hath bene by suc­cession deduced and brought throughout all ages, euen to this our time, and beleued as Gods worde, which can not be chaunged, and not as mans worde, subiect to alteration, as probabilitie can perswade.

CROWLEY.The first of those certayne things that you moue your Au­ditorie to consider, whereby the consent of the Catholike Church may appeare: is prescription of tyme. To this I haue partly aunswered, in the aunswere to your former Sermon. And the Byshop of Sarisburie hath fully aunswered, in his aunswere to Doctor Harding. And here I aunswere in fewe wordes. That your possessiō hath bene forcible, your fathers fayth in this point, a false perswasion, beside the worde of God, and your clayme al­togither vniust, and therefore iustly withstanded by vs, to whom the right belongeth, as by good euidence of Gods holy worde and iudgement of sounde wryters, we both haue and shall proue, by Gods helpe.

WATSON. Diuision. 4 Secondly, this consent in this matter may appeare by that the holy fathers and pastors of Christes Church haue written of it, whome god hath placed and planted in hys Church for the buylding and vpholding of it in truth, that his flock be not seduced and caried about with euery blast of newe doctrine by the craftines of men, to the destructi­on of their soules. Of this I haue spoken something already.

CROWLEY.The indifferent reader, may easily perceyue in the aunswere that I haue made to your former Sermon: howe well those fa­thers and pastours that you speake of, doe maintaine that which you doe teache: Euen as those that fight against you with all the knowledge they haue. And whatsoeuer you haue alreadie spoken therein: is in the place where you haue spoken it, alreadie fully aunswered.

WATSON. Diuision. 5. Thirdly, we may knowe the consent of the Church by the determination of the generall counsels, where the pre­sidents of Gods Churches, & the rulers and learned priestes of Christendome, assembled in the name of our Lorde Ie­sus Christ representing the holy Church of God Militaunt, being led not with priuate affectiō but by Gods holy spirit to his glory, instaunt in prayer, feruent in deuotion, purely, [Page 5] diligently, and freely haue intreated and determined those things, that perteine to the faith of Christ, and the purging of his Church, to whose determination as to Gods ordi­naunces we are bound to obey. Wherein appeareth mani­festly the consent of the Church.

How the determination of the general counsels,CROWLEY. doth declare the consent of the Church, and how purely, diligently, and frée­ly, they intreated and determined those things that you speak of, in these generall counsels: shall playnely appéere to the indiffe­rent reader, in the aunswere that shall be made to all such sen­tences as you shall cite out of any generall counsell, in order as the same shall be cited.

The first generall counsell both for the calling, WATSON Diuision. 6. Concilium Nicenum. and al­so for the cause, was holden at Nice in Bithinia, by .318. By­shops in the time of Constantinus Magnus twelue hundred and thirtie yeares ago, where it was determined and publi­shed to the worlde in these wordes. Exaltata mente, fide conside­remus situm esse in sancta illa mensa agnum dei qui tollit peccatum mun­di, quià sacerdotibus sacrificatur sine cruoris effusione, & nos verè precio­sum illius corpus & sanguinem sumentis credere haec esse resurectionis nostrae symbola. &c. Let vs lift vp our mindes, vnderstanding and considering by fayth, that the Lambe of God which taketh away the sinnes of the world is situate and lyeth vp­on that holy table, which is offered of the pristes wythout the shedding of bloud, and that wee receauing verily his precious body and bloud, doe beleue them to be the pled­ges or causes of our resurrection.

This authority serueth me very well to declare the con­sent of the Church both in the matter of the reall presence, & also of the sacrifice, which we haue in hand. For the words be touched maruellously, euery one seruing to expresse the truth, and to auoyde all doubtes.

For first he biddeth vs, lyft vp our mindes, and consi­der by fayth, wylling vs not to sticke onely to our senses, [Page 6] thinking nothing else to be there, but what we see outward­ly, teaching vs that the iudgement of this matter pertey­neth not to our senses, but to our fayth onely, and as Eu­sebius Emesenus sayth. Verè vnica & perfecta hostia fide aestiman­da non specie nec exterioris censenda est visu hominis, Emesenus orat. de corpo­re Christi. sed interioris affectu. This hoost and sacrifice is verily one and perfite, to be estee­med by faith, and not by forme and appearaunce, to bee iudged not by the sight of the outward man, but with the affection and perswasion of the inwarde man: for to faith onely and not to senses apperteyneth the knowledge and iudgement of Gods mysteries and sacraments.

Then the counsell declareth what faith teacheth, that is to say, that the Lambe of God not material bread and wine nor the figure of the Lambe, but the Lambe that taketh a­way the sinne of the worlde, is placed lying vpon the holye table of the aultar, which externall situation proueth a real presence of Christ to be there before we receaue it, and not a phantasticall or an intellectuall receyuing of Christ by fayth in the tyme of the receauing onely, as these men contende.

Further it teacheth, that this Lambe of God is offred to almightie God by the Priestes, which is a distinte offe­ring from that Christ made vpon the crosse, for there he offered himselfe by shedding his bloud, which hee did but once, and neuer shall doe it agayne any more.

Here is he offred of the priests, not by shedding of bloud, but as the counsaile saith [...] not after a bloudy maner, which is not a newe kylling of Christ, but a solempne re­presentation of his death, as himselfe hath ordeyned.

After this it declareth the receauing of it saying, that we verily receaue hys precious body & bloud, which worde (verily) is as much as that we call (really) and declareth the vse of the sacrament in the receypt of it with the seruice of our mouth, Math. 19. as Christ commaunded saying: Take, eate which is a corporall eating, not a spirituall beleeuing.

And last of all it sheweth the effect of the sacrament, [Page 7] which is the resurrection of our bodies to eternall life, for because Christes body being the body of very lyfe, is ioy­ned to our bodies, as our foode: it bringeth our bodies that be dead by sentence of death to his propertie which is life, whereof in my last sermon I spake more at large.

O Lorde what harde hearts haue these men to doubt themselues, or to denie or to bring in question that mani­fest open truth in so highe and necessary a matter, which in most playne wordes hath bene taught of our sauiour Christ his Apostles and Euangelistes, and declared so to be vnder­stand by the holy ghost out of the mouthes of all these ho­lye fathers, whome the holy ghost did assemble and inspire with the spirit of truth, to the confusion of the great here­tike Arius, that troubled the worlde then, and also did in­spire their hartes to declare so plainely the misterie of thys blessed sacrament, which then was without all contention, beleued of al christen men, onely to preuent these heretikes that arise and spring vp nowe in these latter dayes, that the worlde may see, how they striue agaynst the knowne truth, their owne cōscience & the determination of the hole chur­ch, being enimies of God, breaking his peace, and deuiding themselues from the church, whose end is eternal confusiō.

Nowe are you come to the first generall counsell,CROWLEY. holden at Nice, in the Citie of Bithinia, vnder Constantinus Magnus. In the .24. deuision of your former Sermon: I haue sayde some thing to the later wordes of this sentence that you cite out of the great general counsell of Nice. And in the .33. deuision of the same sermon: I haue graunted as much, as the words y^t you cite there doe teach, when they be vnderstanded so, as y^e auncient fathers do vse y^t like maner of spéeches. But here I must tell you that in the olde allowed counsell of Nice: there is no part of that which you rite here found written. Wherfore, y^e authority therof: must néeds be so much the lesse. But graunt that the .318. Byshops, had in that counsell agréed and written, euen as you haue cited: must we therfore beleue, that Christ is in y^e sacrament in such sort as [Page 8] you teach, really and substantially. &c.

Saint Austen, in his Sermon Ad Infantes, which is cyted by Beda, Beda in 1. Cor. ca. 10. sayth thus. Vos estis in mensa, vos estis in Calice. You are vpon the table, you are in the Cup: shall we therefore saye, that saint Austen ment, that those persons that he spake vnto, were really, substantially and bodily, in the cup and on the table? I thinke you will not graunt it. And why will you by the wordes cyted out of the Nicene counsell, bind vs to beleue: that Christ is after such sort present in the sacrament?

As touching the maruellous touching (or couching) of the wordes (for so I suppose you spake) I can not but maruell, that you could not sée, howe euerye one of them, serueth to expresse the truth against that which you teach. First, they will vs to lift vp our mindes and to consider by fayth, not things that are here conuersaunt amongst vs, and may be conceyued by bodily sen­ses: but that are aboue, and can not be conceyued otherwise then by fayth. Then they tell vs, that the Lambe of God is set vpon the holy table (euen as saint Austen telleth his Auditorie, that they are set vpon the table) to teach vs, that the sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ, is not a bare and naked signe, but ef­fectuall to the worthye receyuer, that is to such as beyng mem­bers of Christ, are placed on the table and in the cup with Christ, in such sort as the Lambe of God is placed there, that is spiritu­ally and in a mysterie. And after the same sort, the same Lambe is sacrificed by the priestes: when by their ministerie, the mem­bers of Christ be made partakers of that holy mysterie, and doe euen sensibly féele the effect of that sacrifice,Hebr. 9.10. which that Lambe made of himselfe once for all, as saint Paule wryteth.

Thirdly, they declare, that we receyuing the precious body and bloud of Christ in déede: doe beléeue that it is the pledge of our resurrection. Which maner of receyuing, it pleaseth you to terme, a reall receyuing. As though the body of Christ coulde not be receyued by fayth verilye and in déede, vnlesse the same be after your reall maner.

But I must put you in mind, that you haue fowly forgotten your selfe, when you say that the offering that the priest maketh [Page 9] in his Masse, is a distinct offering from that which Christ made vpon the crosse: for you shall finde manye of your friendes of a contrarie minde, if ye search their bookes well. But you would séeme to make bloudy, and vnbloudy, the difference betwéene those two sacrifices. Here say you (that is in your Masse) he is offered of the priests, not by shedding of his bloud, but [...] that is, insacrificabíliter, after an vnsacrificable maner, which is not a newe kylling of Christ, but a solemne representation of his death, as himselfe hath ordeyned. Here the latter wordes doe confute the first. For if the maner of offring in the Masse, be such as can not be a sacrifice: howe can the Masse be a sacrifice? And if the Masse be but a solemne representatiō of the death of Christ: how can it be a sacrifice offered to almightie God?

Not the Popishe Masse, but the blessed supper of the Lorde, the holy communion of his body and bloud, is a lyuely represen­tation, of his death and passion. And as your Emesenus sayth in the wordes that you cite (for you haue taught him to speake con­grue latine nowe) vere vna & perfecta hostia &c. That sacrifice which is but one, and is perfite in déede: must not be estéemed by outwarde shewe, nor iudged by the sight of the outwarde man, but by fayth and the affection of the inwarde man. But eyther not vnderstanding your Emesenus his wordes, or else (after your olde custome) of purpose, you corrupt him in the translati­on. For you say. This hoste and sacrifice, is verily one and per­fite, as though Emesenus had poynted to your Masse sacrifice. Where as it is playne, that he meaneth of that sacrifice, that is represented by the holy communion of the body & bloud of Christ.

I may therefore vse the wordes of your owne exclamation a­gainst your selfe, and such as be of your minde. For whose harts can be imagined to be more hard then youres: which in so ma­nifest a matter as this, doe not onely, bring in question, the open and manifest truth, but also in alledging y^e words of fathers and counselles, applie them for your purpose, contrarye to their meaning? seing Christ hymselfe, hys Apostles and Euange­listes, the auncient fathers and counsels: haue in most playne wordes, taught the contrarie of that which you defende. It is [Page 10] manifest therefore, that you stryuing against the knowne truth, your owne consciences & the determination of the whole Church are enimies to God, breakers of his peace. And deuyding your selues from the Church, must néedes in the ende come to confu­sion euerlasting, vnlesse yée repent in tyme.

WATSON. Diuision. 7. Concilium Ephes. Epist. ad Nestor. Likewise the next generall counsell holden at Ephe­sus, in the tyme of Theodosius the Emperour, eleuenth hundred and twenty yeres ago, doth determine this truth lykewise in these wordes. Necessario igitur & hoc adijcimus. An­nunciantes enim sicut secundum carnem mortem vnigeniti filij Dei, id est, Iesu Christi & resurrectionem eius, & in caelis ascensionem pariter con­fitentes, incruentum celebramus in Ecclesijs sacrificij cultum, sic etiam ad misticas benedictiones accedimus, & sanctificamur participes sancti cor­poris & preciosi sanguinis Christi omnium nostrum redemptoris effecti, non vt communem carnem percipientes (quod absit) nec vt viri sanctificati & verbo coniuncti secundum dignitatis vnitatem, aut sicut diuinam possi­dentis habitationem, sed vere vinificatricem & ipsius verbi propriam factam. We adde this also necessarily: We shewing and de­claring the corporall death of Gods onely begotten sonne Iesus Christ, and likewise confessing his resurrection and ascention vnto heauen doe celebrate the vnbloudy oblati­on and sacrifice in our Churches, for so we come to the mi­sticall benedictions, and are sanctified being made partakers of the holy body and precious bloud of Christ, all our re­deemer not receauing it as common fleshe (God forbid) nor as the fleshe of an holy man, and ioyned to the worde of God by vnitie of dignitie, nor as the fleshe of him in whome God dwelleth, but as the fleshe onely proper to Gods sonne and verily giuing lyfe to the receauer.

By this determination of this generall counsell, wee learne that in the mysticall benediction (by which worde is meant this blessed Sacrament) wee receaue Christes owne proper fleshe, and of it we receaue sanctification and lyfe, before the receypt whereof we celebrate the vnbloudy sa­crifice of the same in our Churches, declaring our Lordes [Page 11] death, resurrection, and ascention, and by this place wee plainely perceiue that the doings and wordes which be v­sed daylie in our Masse, were also vsed in the tyme of thys counsell much aboue a thousande yeares ago.

By the wordes of the Ephesian counsell,CROWLEY. you would not onely proue the reall presence in the sacrament: but also that the same Apishe toyes that be nowe vsed in the Popishe Masse, were then vsed, which was within .468. yeres after Christ. But the Popes owne hystories doe playnely declare: that the greatest number of those things, were not as then inuented.

But to frame the matter somewhat better to your purpose: you helpe it a little in wryting out the wordes. For in the place of Sacrificij seruitutem: you write, Sacrificij cultum. Supposing be­lyke that the base Epitheton of seruitude: would abate some­what, the high estimation that you would your Masse shoulde haue. Well, let that passe. It is no fault, in men of your sort. But let vs sée howe this place maye proue the reall presence of Christ in the sacrament.

The Authors of this Epistle, would bring Nestorius, then Byshop of Constantinople backe agayne from his errour: which was, that of the Virgin Marie, was borne onely the man­hood of Christ, and not Christ God and man. So that he deuided Christ into two persons: one diuine, and another humane. And to proue that the manhoode in Christ, is ioyned with the God­head in vnitie of person: these Byshops doe in this part of their Epistle, ioyne to the confession of their beliefe concerning the corporall death, resurrection, and ascention of our sauiour into heauen, the celebration of the remembraunce of his death, which they call Incruentam sacrificij seruitutem, the vnbloudy seruice of the sacrifice. And to make their meaning more playne: they say that they come to the misticall benediction, and be made holye, when they be made partakers of the holy body and precious bloud of Christ, the redéemer of all. Not receyuing the same as common fleshe, or as the fleshe of an holy man, or of a man that is ioyned to the sonne of God by the vnitie of dignitie, or that possesseth [Page 12] the heauenly habitation: but as fleshe that hath power to giue lyfe in déede, and is become the peculiar and proper fleshe of the sonne of God himselfe. For (say they) he that is lyfe, as beyng God, bycause he is vnited to his owne fleshe, hath declared the same to be of force to giue lyfe. &c. These wordes indifferently weighed, doe proue, that the manhood in Christ is ioyned to hys diuine nature, in vnitie of person: but that the same manhood is really present in the sacrament, and therein offered vp in sacri­fice, can not be proued by these wordes.

August. ser. De sacra­mentis fide­lium.Yea, these wordes doe verie well agrée with the doctrine of Saint Austen when he sayth thus. Qui non manet in Christo, & in quo Christus non manet: proculdubio, nec manducat eius carnem, ne (que) bibit eius sanguinem, etiamsi tantae rei sacramentum, iudicium sibi manducet & bibat. Who so abideth not in Christ, and in whome Christ a­bideth not: without doubt, he doth neyther eate his fleshe nor drinke his bloud, although he doe to his owne condemnation, eate and drinke the sacrament of so worthy a thing.

And agayne he sayth. Huius rei sacramentum, id est vnitatis corporis & sanguinis Christi, alicubi quotidiè, alicubi certis interuallis dierum, in Dominico praeparatur, & de mensa Domini sumitur, quibus­dam ad vitam, quibusdam ad exitium. Res vero ipsa cuius est sacramen­tum: est omni homini ad vitam, nulli ad exitium, quicun (que) eius particeps fuerit. The sacrament of this thing, that is, of the vnitie of the body and bloud of Christ, is in some places prepared euery day, in some place in certaine distance of dayes, in the Lordes daye: and is receyued at the Lordes table, to lyfe in some, and to de­struction in some other. But the thing it selfe whereof it is a sacrament, is lyfe to euery man that is partaker thereof, and destruction to none.

So the Fathers of the Ephesian councell, haue verie well confessed: that comming to the mysticall benediction, and being made partakers of the holy body and blessed bloud of Christ, they are sanctified and made holy, by that quickening fleshe of Christ, which being ioyned to his Godhead in vnitie of person, is of po­wer to giue euerlasting life, to as manye as shall be partakers thereof, by dwelling in Christ, as saint Austen hath taught.

I conclude therefore, that you haue alledged the wordes of the Ephesian Councell, contrarie to the true meaning of the Fa­thers that were gathered togither in that Counsell. And that it helpeth you nothing at all, that that Counsell was holden so long agoe.

This doctrine also was determined in the generall coun­sell holden at Constantinople in the time of Iustinian the Emperour the yeare of oure Lorde .552. WATSON. Diuision. 8. Concilium Constanti. in Trul. cap. 102. where be written these wordes. Omni sensibili creaturae supereminet is qui salutari pas­sione coelestem nactus dignitatem, edens & bibens Christum ad vitam aeternam perpetuo coniungitur, & anima & corpore diuinae participatione gratia sanctificatur, and so forth.

He farre excelleth euerye sensible creature, that by the passion of our sauiour obteyning heauenly dignitie, eating and drinking Christ, is continually ioyned to eternall lyfe, and is sanctified both in soule and body by participacion of the heauenly grace.

This place is notable declaring the dignitie of him that eateth Christ, and the effect of that eating to be euerlasting lyfe and sanctification, both of bodie and soule.

You haue a great grace in setting the visoure of antiquitie,CROWLEY. vpon matter nothing auncient.Watsons grace in the bragge of antiquitie. This matter must nedes be bol­stred oute with the bigge title of the counsell of Constantinople, holden in the time of Iustinian the Emperour. &c. And yet in that whole counsel (as the same hath bene of any antiquitie set forth in writing) there is not any one worde that may be wrested to such meaning as you alledge this place for. But in y^e mergine you note that you find it in the counsell holdē in Trullo, Capi. 102. I sup­pose that is as much as if you had sayde, that Ecchius, Pighi­us, Hosius, or some of the auncient Catholiks that liued about the yeare of our Lorde .1550: Wordes cited not found in the place noted. haue reported that this doctrine was agréed vpon in the fift general Counsel for the sentence that you cite is not to be found, either there or in the counsell holden in Trullo. But graunt y^t the fathers of the counsel had concluded in [Page 14] such words as you cite: what should it help your cause? you haue taken vpon you to proue: that Christ is really and substancially present in the sacrament. And to proue this, you say that the fa­thers of the Counsell haue determined, that who so hath by the suffering of Christ, obtayned the heauenly dignitie, and doth eate and drinke Christ: the same being more excellent then all sensible creatures, is continually ioyned to eternall lyfe, and is sanctified both in soule and bodie,Watson cy­teth wordes that proue the contrarie of his asser­tion. by the participation of the grace of God. Doe these wordes prooue your purpose? Or doe they not rather proue that no wicked man doeth eate and drinke Christ? for none can truely be sayde to excell all sensible creatures, and to be con­tinually ioyned to life eternall, and to be made holy both in soule and body: but such onely as be by Christ aduaunced to the hea­uenly dignitie, y^t is to say, be made members of Christ, children of God, and inheritours of the kingdome of heauen. But no wicked reprobate is such one: wherefore none such doth eate or drinke Christ in the sacrament. So well do your friendes in the councell holden in Trullo, helpe you to proue your purpose.

WATSON. Diuision. 9. Concilium Lateranense. Lykewise the generall counsell called Lateranense, holden at Rome the yeare of our Lord. 1215. determined this mat­ter in the same termes, that we expresse it now. Vna est fide­lium vniuersalis Ecclesia, extra quam nullus omnino saluatur, in qua idem ipse sacerdos & sacrificium Iesus Christus, cuius corpus & sanguis in Sa­cramento altaris sub speciebus panis & vini veraciter continentur, tran­substantiatis pane in corpus & vino in sanguinem potestate diuina. There is one vniuersall church of all faithfull people, without the which no man is saued at anye time, in the which Iesus Christ him selfe is both the priest and the sacrifice, whose bodye and bloude be truely conteyned in the sacrament of the aultar vnder the fourme of bread and wine the breade being transubstanciate into his body, and the wine into his bloude by the power of God.

This forme of doctrine after this sort, & in these termes hath bene taught, professed, and beleued throughout the whole catholike churche euer since that time, howsoeuer [Page 15] some Heretiks forsaking their faith, proceding from Gods omnipotent worde and the vnitie of his Church, and lea­ning to their sensuallitie and blinde reason against fayth haue repined and barked against the same. But I put no doubtes but by gods grace, if the time would suffer me: to make this matter of transubstantiation as plaine as the o­ther of the reall presence.

It semeth to me a straunge thing,CROWLEY. that you which bragge of vniforme consent of the Church fiftene hundred yeres before this daye, doe now produce witnesse that is not yet .400. yeres olde,Decrees made by Pope Inno­cent: doe not proue things done. 1200. yeres before his daies. and woulde haue the world to think, that bicause Pope Innocent the third hath decreed the transubstantiation of bread and wine, and the reall presence of Christes bodie and bloud in the sacra­ment: therefore it must néedes be beleued to be so nowe, and to haue bene so euer since the first institution of the sacrament. But in the aunsweres that I haue made to the matter of greater an­tiquitie produced by you, in your first sermon and in the former part of this your second sermon: it doth sufficiently appeare to the indifferent reader, that you neyther haue made playne the mat­ter of the reall presence, nor are like to make plaine the matter of transubstantiation, though you take as much time therto, as you haue now to liue.

I wil not stick to graunt you, that this counsell of Lateranense did determine this matter according as you haue saide: but what is that to the purpose you haue in hande? for in the dayes of the thirde Innocent: the Church of Rome was as farre from the sinceritie of christen religion, as it is now. And what doth that determination that they made of this matter, proue against vs: that stande in the defence of the sinceritie that was in the prima­tiue Church? I put no doubts therfore, but I shall be able to aun­swere all that you shall be able to saye for your transubstantiati­on. As I haue bene able to aunswere all that you haue produced for the matter of the reall presence.

The general counsel also of Constance, holdē of later daies, WATSON. Diuision. 10. [Page 16] the yeare of our Lorde. 1451. doth agree and testifie the same, Concilium constantiense. in that they condemned Iohn Wyclefe the heretike and all his errours against this blessed sacrament.

Thus haue I shewed you the consent of the Church by the determinations of the generall counsels. It shall not bee needefull to rehearse any particular and prouinciall coun­sels, which all in this doctrine agree with the other general.

CROWLEY.Your great antiquitie is well abated: when you fall from 1500. yeres, to lesse then 150. You were best to furnish out your number of wytnesses, with the generall counsels that haue bene holden since Constance, & the sayings of those auncient fathers that haue writtē within these hundred yeres. And then you may safely say that you shall not néede to make rehearsall of the par­ticuler and prouinciall counsels, which are all euen such as the tymes were wherein they were holden.

How iustly that counsell of Constance did condemne Wick­liefe and his doctrine:How iustlye Wyckliefe was con­demned. I referre to the iudgement of such as shal or haue read his workes, or that which Iohn For hath reported in his monuments of Martyrs.

WATSON. Diuision. 11. Furthermore, the consent of the Church appeareth by the condemnation of the heretikes of all ages, which holde any false opinion in anye point against the veritie and the institution of Christ, concerning this blessed sacrament.

The first heretike that euer we read of in this matter, and father to al the sacramentaries that liue now, was one in the time of Ignatius, by and by after the Apostles, whose name we know not, but what he and his sect that folowed him did Theodaretus in his thirde Dialogue maketh mention, say­ing that Ignatius (who lyued within one hundred yere of Christ) writeth in an Epistle Ad Smyrnenses in these wordes. Eucharistias & oblationes non admittunt, Theodoretus Dialogo. 3. Ignatius ad Smyrnenses. eoque non confiteantur Eu­charistiam esse carnem seruatoris nostri Iesu Christi, quae pro peccatis nostris passa est, & quam pater sua benignitate suscitauit.

They doe not allowe and admit our sacrament and of­ferings, [Page 17] because they doe not confesse the sacrament (called Eucharistia) to bee the fleshe of our Sauiour Iesus Christ, which fleshe suffred for our sinnes, and which the fathers goodnesse did raise from death againe.

By this we learne, what was the fayth in the primitiue Churche, both that the sacrament was the verye fleshe of Christ, which suffered for vs, and also that it was offred for vs by the priests, which things those heretikes denied then, as their scholers nowe springing vp vpon their ashes denie nowe, and that they were condemned as heretikes by the primitiue Church then, as these most worthily be condem­ned by the catholike Church nowe.

The consent of the Primatiue Church appéereth in the con­demning of heretikes,CROWLEY. that then brought in heresies and sowed scismes: and the consent of the same Church of Christ,The Church of Christ doth alwaye condemne heresies. hath euer since (as the Church of Antichrist would suffer it) shewed forth hir consent therein, and doth nowe more manifestly, then hereto­fore it could be suffered to doe.

But your Antichristian Church, although it haue for a fashiō (to get hir a good name) condemned some heresies, although not any such as you say: yet hath it brought in, receiued & confirmed,Antichrists Church con­firmeth as great here­sies as it doth con­demne. as many and as great as it hath condemned. As the supremacie & vniuersall power of hir heade the Pope, the power to pardon sinnes in this lyfe and after, the power to forbid meates and ma­riage, the sacrifice for sinne, the transubstanciation of bread and wine. &c.

And here I must tell you, that your friend Maister Doctor Harding, doth not agrée with you about the first founder and father of the sacramentarie heresie. You say, that it was one that sprong vp by and by after the Apostles: but your friend Har­ding sayth, that Beringarius, a thousand yere after, was the first that euer impugned the truth of the article of Christes reall na­turall and corporall presence in the sacrament. Well, agrée you two as you can: I will not séeke to set you at one in this point.

But as touching that you cite, Theodoretus, affirming that [Page 18] Ignatius did in his Epistle to the Christians in Smyrna, write of that namelesse man and his folowers:Ignatius his wordes not founde in his Epistle. I must let you vnder­stand, that in that Epistle which is extant in the Gréeke, written by Ignatius to the Smyrnians, there is no such sentence as The­odoretus doth note. And what shoulde it helpe your cause, if Ig­natius had written euen so? Or if there were some other Epi­stle of Ignatius to them, wherein those wordes might be found: should that proue your purpose? Ignatius hath sayde that those heretikes did not admit thankes giuings and oblations: because they confesse not that the Eucharist or thankes gyuing, is the fleshe of our sauiour Iesus Christ. &c. But we doe admit both the Eucharists and oblations, and doe confesse that the same is the fleshe of Christ. &c. Wherefore this place can proue nothing a­gainst vs. Againe, here is no mention of reall, naturall, and substantiall presence. &c. Therefore it maketh nothing for you.

But I doe much maruaile, that you could not sée a sentence that the same Theodoretus cyteth out of y^e same Epistle:Theodoretus Dialogo. 2. which is also found in y^e Epistle which is extant in Gréeke. The wordes of the sentence are these. Quando ad eos qui cum Petro erant accessit, dixit eis: accipite, palpate me, & videte quod non sum Demonium incor­poreum. Et protenus ipsum tetigerunt, & crediderunt. When he came vnto them that were with Peter, he sayde vnto them: take mée and féele me, and vnderstande that I am not a Deuill that hath not a bodie. And forthwith they touched him and beleued. Whe­ther these wordes of Ignatius, may stande with such a reall pre­sence of Christs body in the sacrament as you teach: I referre to the iudgement of as many as be learned, and not obstinate blind.

Ignatius doth teache none other fayth then we doe.Wherefore, I conclude: that the wordes of Ignatius doe not teach vs anye other fayth then that which we holde. Which is, that the sacrament is the verie body and bloud of Christ, which suffered for our sinnes, and rose againe for our iustification: but not after your reall, carnall, and grosse maner. Neyther doe the wordes of Ignatius giue vs occasion to thinke that Christes bo­die is, or can be so present in many places at once, and insensibly as you and your sort doe teache, and condemne other for denying the same.

And where as the due matter, WATSON. Diuision. 12 wherein this blessed Sa­crament is consecrated, ought to be vnleauened bread of wheate and wine mixed with water, according to the scrip­tures and the example of Christ: there were one sort of he­retikes called Artotoritae, (of whom speaketh Epiphanius con­tra Quintillianos) which were so called for that they vsed not in their sacrifices the necessary and due matter, Epiphanius contra quin­tillianos. but in their misteries did consecrate, and offer bread and Cheese.

An other sort of heretikes were called Fermentarij, be­cause they did consecrate in leauened bread,Consilium Basiliense.as our men of late did commaunde to be done, who were condemned by the generall counsell at Basill.

Other were called Aquarij, or Hydroparastae, for that they pretending sobrietie, Cyprian lib. 2. Epistola. 3. Chrysost. in Math. hom. 83. did consecrate in water onely without wine, against whome writ saint Cyprian, Chry­sostome, and other, who also were condemned by the gene­rall counsell of Constantinople. In trullo. cap. 32.

Other were called Armenij, who in their sacrifices con­secrated and offered wine onely wythout water, Theophilactus in Ioan. Capit. 19. againste whome writeth Theophilactus, all these held false opinion against the necessarie and due matter of the Sacrament.

Nowe you haue founde out certaine sortes of heretikes,CROWLEY. that erred about the due matter, wherin the blessed sacrament is con­secrated. The first be Artotoritae. The sacra­ment mini­stred in bread and cheese. These ministred with bread & chéese. Bilike they were Walshmen. I trust you will not charge vs with this errour. Another sort were called Fermentarij. &c. Of thys sort we must néeds be. For not long before you preached this Sermon. We commaunded that the sacrament should bée ministred in leauened bread. A man might maruayle, how you became so farre past shame: that you durst in so honorable an Auditorie, make so open a lye. The wordes of the law that was in king Edwardes dayes and is nowe, are these.Communion bread. To taks away the superstition that hath bene in that kinde of bread that hath bene vsed in the Masse: it shall suffise that the bread be such as is vsually eaten, so the same be of the finest wheate bread. Nowe, [Page 20] whether the finest wheate bread be alwayes leauened: I report me to the common Bakers, at whose handes, the bread that we minister with, is had.

But graunt we had commaunded the sacrament to be mini­stred in leauened bread: should we therfore be heretikes? What say you then to them that ministred in the time before Alexan­der the first,Leauened bread com­maunded by Byshops of Rome. had commaunded the ministration to be in vnleaue­ned bread, were all those men heretikes? And was Alexander himselfe an heretike, when he being Byshop of Rome: did com­maunde that the ministration should be in leauened breade? I thinke you will not graunt it. For then it should folowe that the head of your Church maye be an heretike. His purpose when he commaunded the vse of vnleauened bread, was not to teache that vnleauened bread is the due matter wherein the sacrament ought to be consecrated (as you teache) but as Platina wryteth. Quia hoc modo, purior ac potior haberetur. That by this meanes it might be accompted more pure, and of more value. It appeareth by the wordes of the same Platina in the same place: that he had before commaunded the ministration to be in leauened bread: for he sayth. Oblationem quo (que) ex azimo, non autem ex fermento, vt ante fieri mandauit: quia hoc modo. &c. The oblation also, he commaunded to be made of vnleauened bread, not of leauened bread, as he did before commaund: because by that meane. &c. His consideration in commaunding that the ministration shoulde be in leauened bread,Pope Leo his conside­ration. might be the same that moued Pope Leo and his compa­nie to doe the lyke (if Nicholaus de Orbellis haue not written a lye): that is to say, to blot out the opinion of a necessitie to fol­lowe the Iewes in that point, as the Ebionits had taught.

Dist. 11. quest. 1 Lib. sent. 4The same Nicholaus de Orbellis, a man of your owne sort: sayth thus. Quod de necessitate panis consecrabilis non est, ne (que) quod sit Azymus, nec quod sit fermentatus: quia non differunt specie. As tou­ching the bread that may be consecrated, it is not required of ne­cessitie, that it should be vnleauened, nor that it should be leaue­ned: for they doe not differ in spéece or kinde. And he cyteth An­selmus in his booke De Azymo, for his Author. Vnde tempore Leo­nis Papae. &c. Wherefore, in the time of Pope Leo: it was ordey­ned [Page 21] that the consecration should be in leauened bread: to extin­guishe and blot out the heresie of the Ebionits, which sayde that of necessitie the Christians must folow the custome of the Iewes.

Yea, and the same hath sayde in the same question:Waffer cakes called stertch by a Papist. that the stertch cake that you doe vse in your Masse, is no competent mat­ter, for this consecration. His wordes be these. Non sufficit autem ad hoc pasta: cum non sit cibus vsualis nec conueniens nutrimentum. Stertch or Paste, is not sufficient matter for this consecration: seing it is not vsuall sustenance, nor conuenient nourishment. I trust you will not condemne these men for heretiks, because they say that the sacramēt may be ministred in leauened bread: for one of them was a Pope, and the other holy men of the Popes fayth.

But the generall Counsell of Basill: hath condemned these men for heretikes. You will not, I trowe sticke to the decrées of that counsell: and allowe all that was done there­in. Eugenius then Pope:The pope put to his choyse. woulde not haue allowed that counsell, if he might haue had his owne choyse. But being put to an harde choyse: hée chose rather to confirme that coun­sell, then to be deposed of his Popedome. Your holye father the Pope, that sate in Peters Chayre when you preached thys ser­mon: would not haue thought well of you, if you shoulde haue tolde him that a generall counsell might condemne a Pope of he­resie or depose him. But by your saying: the generall counsell of Basill, hat condemned two or thrée Popes doings, for heresie. For as I haue sayde before: Pope Leo ordeyned that the sacra­ment should be ministred in leauened bread, and Pope Innocent the first vsed ministration in the same also. As appéereth by his wordes in his first Epistle to Dicentius Byshyp of Euglibine. Innocētius. 1. Epist. 1. Cap. 5. Concili. Tom. 1 Where he sayth thus. De fermento verò, quod die Dominico per titu­los mittimus: superfluè nos consulere voluisti, cum omnes Ecclesiae nostrae intra Ciuitatem sunt constitutae. Quarum presbyteri, quia Die ipse, propter plebem sibi creditam, nobiscum conuenire non possunt: idcirco fermentum à nobis confectum, per Accolythos accipiunt, vt se a nostra communione, maximè illa Die, non iudicent separatos. As touching the leauened bread, that we doe on the Sunday sende to euery Parishe: it is but in vayne that you wylled vs to consult, seing that all oure [Page 22] Churches are cituate within the Citie. The elders whereof be­cause they can not, that day, by the meanes of the people that is committed to their charge, come togither with vs: therfore they doe receyue by the inferiour ministers, the leauened bread that we haue consecrated, that they should not iudge themselues to be separated from our communion, especially in that day.

There popes doings con­demned by one generall counsell.Thus, if De Orbellis and you saye true: a generall coun­sell hath condemned thrée Popes, for heretikes, Alexander, Leo, and Innocent: but you are not able to proue this heresie, nor them heretikes in this point.

The thirde sorte of heretikes that you speake of, were called Aquarij, water drinkers. Against these did Cyprian and Chry­sostome wryte. &c. But what is thys to vs? we are no water drinkers.

But we are of that sorte that myngle no water with the Wine: against whome Theophilactus wrote. His wordes are these. Confundantur Armenij: qui non admiscent in mysterijs aquam vi­no. Non enim credunt (vt videtur) quod aqua ex latere egressa sit, quod ad­mirabilius, sed sanguis tantum. Confounded be the Armenians: which doe not in the mysteries, mingle water with the wine. For (as it séemeth) they beléeue not that water came forth of the side, which is more marueilous, but bloud onely.

It séemeth that Theophilact wysheth confusion to the Ar­menians, because that they in refusing to mixe water with wine, did séeme to denie the truth of the hystorie: but we are farre y­nough from that suspition. We beléeue that both bloud and wa­ter did issue out of Christes side. Neyther doe we denie, but that water may be mixed with the wine. But that the wine alone is not the due matter of the sacrament,None hath or can proue the necessitie of mixing water with the wine. because there is no water mixed with it: neyther hath Theophilact nor any other, hither­to sufficiently proued, neyther are you or any of your sort able (by scripture) to proue.

We reuerence the auncient fathers, and all other that of la­ter time haue written of matters of religion in the feare of God: but we haue not sworne to beléeue whatsoeuer they saye without profe by scriptures, neither do they desire credite, w^tout such profe.

There were other heretiks, Hist. trip. lib. 7. ca. 11. that denyed the effect of the Sacrament, as Messaliani, who (as it is written by Theodo­retus) sayde that the heauenly foode whereof oure Lorde spake, he that eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloud, shal liue euermore, did neyther profite nor hurt any man.

Nestorius also the pernicious heretike and Archeby­shop of Constantinople destroyed the vertue of the sacra­ment, Theophilactus Capit. 10. ad hebr. (as Theophilactus wryteth) for that hee graunting Christes verie fleshe to bee really and truely present in the sacrament, denied that fleshe being receyued into oure bo­dies, to be the proper fleshe of Gods sonne, and therefore to haue no vertue to giue life to oure mortall bodies, and this heresie was condemned by the generall counsell, hol­den at Ephesus.

As touching the denying of the effect of the sacrament:CROWLEY. I haue sufficiently spoken, in the aunswere to your former sermon. The Messalian heresie, we neuer held.August. De sacramentis fidelium. But with saint Austen we beléeue and teache, that who so is partaker of that meate that Christ spake of when he sayde, he that eateth my fleshe & drin­keth my bloud, lyueth for euer: can not but haue euerlasting life thereby. And that they which doe receyue the sacrament there­of vnworthily: doe eate and drinke their owne condemnation.

Theodoretus therefore, in accompting those men for here­tikes: hath done but as we would haue done, if we had bene in his dayes, and as we doe nowe in allowing that which he hath done therein. But in one point me thinketh that these men were very like you and your sort:The Popish Priestes like the Messa­lians. for they disalowed the labour of the handes as euill, and gaue themselues to ydlenesse and sléepe, and called the phantasies of their dreames, prophecies. Looke in your Legenda aurea, and other such bookes: and you shall sée that your sort are not farre vnlyke those Messalians.

The heresie of Nestorius is farre ynough from vs. For we confesse and teache: that Christ is both perfite God and perfite man. And that both those perfite natures:Theophilactus in .10. ad hebr. are knit togither in one Christ, vnseparably. How he destroyed y^e vertue of the sacra­ment: [Page 24] you say Theophilact doth tell vs. Speaking of the Ne­storians he sayth. Vteris hoc loco etiam aduersus Nestorianos. Nam illi, exiguum hominem estimantes Christum: sanguinem eius communem, id est prophanum censuerunt, ne (que) quicquam à reliquis habere discriminis. Thou mayest vse this place also, against the Nestorians. For they estéeming Christ to be but a man of smal reputation, suppo­sed his bloud to be common, that is to say prophane, not hauing in it any thing at all, whereby it differeth from the rest.

How iustly you doe of these wordes gather, that Nestorius did graunt, that the verie fleshe of Christ is really and truely in the sacrament. &c.Watson suc­keth out the dregs of olde wryters. I referre to the iudgement of all indifferent readers. But it is your maner, to suck out the dregges of euery writer that you meddle with. And if you can finde none such as you would: yet you wil so iumble togither some part of his cléere and wholesome lycour, that at the first sight it may séeme to be as filthy dregges, as is to be founde in any of the Popes vessels.

If you had not minded to make the world beléeue, that we be stuffed with all these heresies: you might haue spared a great deale of your labour in making mention of these condemned so long before, and not holden nor taught of vs, against whom you speake and wryte, neyther directly seruing to the purpose that you séeme to haue in hande.

WATSON. Diuision. 14 Epiphanius Anacepha­leosi. And where as this sacrament can not be consecrated, but by a Priest: there was an heretike called Zacheus, condem­ned (as Epiphanius wryteth) because he woulde pray with no man, but alone, and therefore without reuerence and authoritie, did handle the holy misteries, and being a laye man, did impudently order and vse them.

Also certaine heretikes called Anthropomorphitae, de­nied the reseruation of the sacrament saying, that Christes body remayned there no longer, then it was in receyuing. Of whome Cyrillus wryteth thus. Cyrillus ad Calosirium. Dicunt mysticam benedicti­onem, si ex ea remanserint in sequentem diem reliquiae, ad sanctificatio­nem inutilem esse: sed insaniunt haec dicentes, non enim mutatur Christus ne (que) sanctum eius corpus discedit, sed benedictionis virtus & vinifica [Page 25] gratia continuo manet in illis.

They say that the mysticall benediction (which as the sacrament) is not profitable to the sanctification of the re­ceauer, if there remayne any thing of the sacrament to the next day. But they be starke madde that say so, for Christ is not chaunged, nor yet his holy body doth not depart a­way but the vertue of the benediction, and the grace of gi­uing lyfe, doe continually abide and remayne in that that leaueth.

This heresie is newe reuiued agayne by Martyne Lu­ther and his sect, but it can not stande, being condemned of olde time, and now also by the Catholike Church.

You can not iustly charge vs with the doings of Zachaeus, CROWLEY. Massing pristes are not lawfull ministers of Christes sa­craments. of whome Epiphanius doth write: For we praye togither, and we receyue the sacraments ministred by none other, but such as are ministers lawfullye admitted, except anye such remayne a­mong vs without repentance, as haue bene Massing priests, and neuer desired to be other.

As for your Anthropomorphits: I thinke it straunge, that in an open Auditory, you durst affirme that Cyrill wrote against them or of them, seing that by the computation of time, it is ma­nifest that Cyrillus whose workes are extant, was dead .500. yeres before that heresie was regarded of many.

You note in the mergine of your booke, that Cyrill wrote of those heretikes to Calosirium. Wordes of Cyrill not found in his workes. If a man shoulde desire you to shewe that Epistle or booke of his, eyther in print or wryting: I thinke it would not easily be done.

But your friend Maister Harding sayth, that thys saying of Cyrill is cyted by Thomas Aquinas. Parte. 3.9.76. Capit. 11. A good ground to build vpon. Thomas Aquinas liued within these .400. yeres, & vnder­stoode no worde of the Gréeke (as Erasmus hath noted vpon the Epistle to the Romaines) and he cyting matter out of a Gréeke Author, which is not yet to be founde in Latine: must be of suf­ficient Authoritie, to cause all men to thinke, that as manye as deny the body of Christ to be really and substantially in the sacra­ment [Page 26] reserued in a Boxe, are heretikes, condemned by the fa­thers of olde time, and nowe also by the Catholike Church.

But let vs sée, howe well you and your friend Maister Har­ding doe agrée betwéene your selues, and with your Maister Thomas Aquinas, in reporting these wordes of Cyrill. Har­ding sayth. Non enim alius fit Christus: ne (que) sanctum eius corpus immu­tabitur. For Christ is not chaunged: neyther shall his holy body be chaunged. And you say. Non enim mutatur Christus: ne (que) sanctum eius corpus discedit. For Christ is not chaunged: neyther doth his holy body depart away.Parte. 3. quest. 76. But your Maister Thomas sayth. Non enim mutabitur sacramentum corporis Christi. The sacrament of the body of Christ shall not be chaunged.

By this may the learned iudge, what lykelyhood of truth there­is: in this that is fathered vpon Cyrillus. More might be noted: but I leaue it to the diligence of the indifferent readers.

But this maketh me much to muse, that you shame not to saye, that the Catholike Church (meaning thereby the popishe Church) doth nowe condemne the errour of the Anthropomor­phits: seing that in euery Church and Chappel, and in many o­ther places, is not onely suffered, but maintayned, the Image of God the father and the holye ghost, both set forth in the forme and fashion of a mortall man, as though the deuine nature had such partes and proporsions of a body, as Christ had in his man­hood and hath still. I vnderstand that the errour that the Anthro­pomorphits held, was that the Godhead is a bodily substaunce, and that man in his bodily shape, doth resemble the shape and fa­shion of that substaunce.

It had bene much for your honestie therefore (as I thinke) not to haue medled so much with this errour:The papists are Anthro­pomorphits. for we, whom you would haue men thinke to be defiled with it, are cleare from it, and you your selfe most filthily wadled in it.

WATSON. Diuision. 15 Manye moe heresies there bee condemned, concerning the sacrament, beside the heresie of Berrengarius, that twise did recant it in two prouinciall counsels. And at his death toke great penance for his damnable opinion, as the stories [Page 27] tell: and also beside the condemnation of Iohn Wyckliefe, in the generall counsell at Constaunce. But I will not hin­der my purpose with a long rehearsall of them.

These be sufficient to shewe the consent of the Church, by the condemnation of heretikes: he that would knowe moe arguments, to proue the consent in this or any other matter: let him reade a booke called Vincentius Lirinensis, con­tra prophanas haeresu vnouitates. He may bye it for lesse then sixe pense, and find there a great treasure of good learning. Now to our purpose of the sacrifice. Here the prayer was made.

The true Church of Christ whose rule is y^e word of God:CROWLEY. Gods worde is the rule of the Church. hath alwayes condemned all maner of heresies. But that is not the Church of Rome, which you would gladly cause men to thinke to be that catholike Church.

As for the heresie of Berrengarius: by the report of Lanfran­cus his greatest enimie, was this. Per consecrationem altaris, Lanfrancus De Eucharist. panis & vinum fiunt sacramentum Religionis: non vt desinant esse quae erant, &c. By the consecration of the aultar, the bread and wine, are made a sacrament of religion: not that they leaue to be the same that they were before, but that they be altred into another thing, and become that they were not before. As Ambrose wryteth. &c.

Here is a perillous heresie.Ambr. de sa. lib. 4. cap. 4. August. De Cate. & Epist. 23. De Consecr. Dist. 2. If Berrengarius be an heretike for wryting thus: then must Ambrose and Austen both be heretiks as well as he. For they wrote the same doctrine. But Berrenga­rius hath recanted his heresie in two prouincial counsels, & at his death tooke great penance for the same as stories do tel: when you shall shewe those histories, you shall sée what we can say to them. Thus we find y^e Berrengarius, was by Pope Nicholas y^e second enforced to recant in this wise. Consentio autem sanctae romanae Ec­clesiae, & apostolicae sedi: & ore & corde profiteor de sacramentis dominicae mensae, eandem fidem me tenere, quam Dominus & venerabilis Papa Ni­cholaus, & haec sancta Synodus autoritate euangelica & apostolica tenen­dam tradidit, mihi (que) firmauit. Silicet Panem & vinum quae in altare po­nuntur, post consecrationem, non solum sacramentum: sed etiam verum Corpus & sanguinem Domini nostri Iesu Christi esse, & sensualiter non so­lum [Page 28] sacramentum, sed in veritate, manibus sacerdotum tractari, frangi, fidelium dentibus atteri.

I doe consent (sayth Berrengarius) to the holy Church of Rome, and to the Apostolike seate: and with heart and mouth I doe professe, that I doe holde the same fayth concerning the sa­craments of the Lordes table, which my Lorde and reuerende Pope Nicholas, and this holy Synode, haue by the Authoritie of the Gospell and Apostles, taught to be holden, and haue assured me. That is to saye, that the bread and wine, which are set on the aultar, are not onely a sacrament after the consecration, but also the very body and bloud of our Lorde Iesus Christ: & that not onely the sacrament, but the body of Christ in déede, is sen­sibly handled and broken by the priestes handes, and grounds with the téeth of the faythfull.

The homely glose vpon the same place, doth so mislike with this recantation of Berrengarius or rather the decrée of the Sy­node:A pretie re­cantation. that he sayth thus. Nisi sane intelligas verba Berrengarij: in ma­iorem incides haeresim quam ille habuit. Except a man doe warsly vn­derstande the wordes of Berrengarius: he shall fall into a grea­ter heresie, then euer Berrengarius helde any.

The Pope and y^e whole Synode doe decree an heresie.By this it is manifest, euen by the writer of this glose: that Pope Nicholas, and the whole Synode at Rome, did decrée and teach to be holden, and enforce Berrengarius to confesse, a grea­ter heresie then euer he helde before. And howe doth this proue, the consent of your Popishe Church, in condemning of heresies?

For the condemnation of Wyckliefe, in the counsell of Constance, I referre the reader as before. And your owne Li­rinensis, will not take your part in this matter. For he was deade many hundred yeres before Berrengarius was borne.

But I am glad that you haue now found, that there may be great treasure of good learning in sixe penie bookes.Sixe penie bookes. I trust you will not now denie, but there may be some good learning in books of halfe the price.

WATSON. Diuision. 16 Against the blessed Masse, which is the sacrifice of the Church, many wordes of many men haue bene sayde, but [Page 29] sufficient reprofe of it hath not yet bene heard. Here the prayer was made.

Scriptures neuer one was yet alledged against it, sauing one out of the Epistle to the Hebrues, where saint Paule wryteth, Hebr. 9. that Christ entred into heauen by his owne bloud once, and afterward he sayth Christ was once offered vp to take awaye the sinnes of many: and all the argument con­sisteth in this worde (once) which I shall (God wylling) discusse hereafter.

But in very deede that same scripture that they bring a­gainst the Masse to no purpose, is the verye foundation of the Masse, wherevpon the Masse is builded and established, after what sort I shall declare as time will serue.

Howe sufficient proofes haue bene brought against the Masse:CROWLEY. shall easily appéere to as many as will reade, that which Byshop Iewell hath written for an aunswere to your friende Maister Harding. And some sufficient proofes may be séene in this that I haue aunswered to your two notable sermons.

One scripture onely you say, hath bene hitherto alledged a­gainst your Masse. Bylike you haue not séene Iohn Caluines Institutions: Where in the fourth booke and .xviij. Chapter, he alledgeth more then foure places of scripture against it. Thrée, out of the first Epistle to the Corinths,Manye proofes a­gainst the Masse. one out of Saint Iohns Gospell the .19. Chapter: and the same text that you take for the theme of your two Sermons. But what should we make reco­ning of a multitude of places: sith one alledged in the true mea­ning, is sufficient?

But you haue promised to proue, that one place which is al­ledged against your Masse: to be the foundation of the same. Which when you shall go about to doe: I wyll (God wylling) proue, that no such building can stand vpon such foundation.

Lyke as there is one God the father, WATSON. Diuision. 17 Ephes. 1. Hebr. 7.9. and 10. one Christ our re­deemer, one body and Church which is redeemed: so there is but one onely sacrifice, whereby we be redeemed, which was once and neuer but once made vpon the aultar of the [Page 30] Crosse for the sinnes of all men.

1. Iohn. 8. This sacrifice is propitiatorie, and a sufficient price, and raunsome of the whole world, as saint Iohn sayth, he is the propitiation for our sinnes, and not for our sinnes onely, but for the sinnes of the whole worlde, Iohn. 1. and in his Gospell he wryteth. Beholde the Lambe of God that taketh awaye the sinnes of the worlde.

The vertue of this sacrifice beganne, when God pro­mised that the seede of Adam should bruse and breake the Serpents head, Genes. 3. without the merit of this sacrifice there is no saluation, 2. Cor. 5. for God was in Christ reconcyling the world to himselfe.

This sacrifice is common to both the Testaments, wher­of both take their effect, whose vertue is extended from the beginning of the worlde to the last ende, Apoc. 13. for the Lambe was slaine from the beginning of the world, as saint Iohn sayth. It is also a bloudy and a passible sacrifice, extending to the death of him that offered himselfe, Galath. 3. and it was promised to the fathers, and performed in the fulnesse of time, the me­rites whereof receaue no augmentation, because it is per­fite, nor yet diminution, because it is eternall. And although this sacrifice be sufficient to saue all men, yet it is not effec­tuall to the saluation of all men: it is able to saue all, but yet all be not saued: for what doth it profite the Turkes, Saracenes, vnfaithfull Gentils, and counterfeyt christians? The fault is not in God, being mercifull to all his workes, who created vs without vs: but the fault is in our selues.

CROWLEY. Watson can speake truth.If all the rest of your two Sermons, had bene according to this péece: I would not haue misliked with you. For I confesse all this to be most true.

WATSON. Diuision. 18. Therefore that this sacrifice of Christ, as it is sufficient for all, so it may be effectuall and profitable for all.

God hath ordeyned certaine meanes, whereby wee may be made able to receaue the merite of it, and whereby the [Page 31] vertue of it is brought and applyed vnto vs in the new te­stament, after his passion, as it was to the fathers in the olde testament, before his passion. Of these meanes some be inwarde, some be outward: the inward be common to both the testaments, of which the first and principall is fayth, for without faith it is not possible to please God, and as saint Iohn sayth, he that beleeueth not, Hebr. 11. Iohn. 3. is nowe alreadye iudged: to hym therefore that is an Infidell Chryst hath dyed in vayne.

Charitie also is a meane, 1. Iohn. 3. 1. Iohn. 2. 1. Cor. 13. for he that loueth not remay­neth in death, he that hateth his brother, is in darkenesse, and walketh in darkenesse, and can not tell whether he go­eth: and if I haue all fayth, and haue no charitie, I am nothing.

He is not therfore partaker of Christs merites in the re­mission of sinne, that lacketh charitie. And so may we say of hope, without the which no man receaueth mercye at Christs hande.

It is true that you say:CROWLEY. The meanes whereby Christs me­rits are ap­plyed to vs. no man can be partaker of Christes merits, without faith, loue, and hope. And we say, that these thrée be so lyncked togither: that one of them can not be wythout the other. And that God is the giuer of these thrée meanes: whereby the merites of his sonne are made oures. And that these are the onely meane whereby the fathers before, and we since the death of Christ, be made partakers thereof.

Amongst the inwarde meanes there be other spirituall sacrifices, as the sacrifice of a contrite heart, WATSON. Diuision. 19. which God doth much regard, the sacrifice of our lips, Psal. 50. Osee. 14. Luc. 11. Math. 7. Hebr. 13. which is prayer and praise of God, whereby we attaine remission of sinne, hauing a plaine promise, that whatsoeuer we aske of God in the name of Christ, we shall obteyne it. And the sacri­fices of almose and beneuolence, which saint Paule woulde not haue vs to forget, because God is gotten and wonne by such sacrifices.

All these and other such like doe not fully deserue grace and remission of sinne, but be meanes, that the vertue and merite of Christes passion may be deriued and applyed vn­to vs, as he hath ordeyned.

CROWLEY.Here you shewe your selfe somewhat. You will not receyue the merites of Christ fréely: but you will by fayth, loue, hope, contrition, prayer, prayse and almose, deserue some part thereof. But Christ hath taught vs to say, that when we haue done all that we are commaunded to doe:Luc. 17. we shall say, that we are vn­profitable bond men, that is, such as can deserue nothing, more then bond slaues can deserue at the handes of their Lordes and Maisters,Blasphe­mous doc­trine. whose bond slaues they are. Your doctrine therefore in thys point is blasphemie. For you ascribe to mans merite, that which is to be ascribed to the mercy of God alone.

WATSON. Diuision. 20 There be also other outwarde meanes, as sacramentes and sacrifices. Of sacraments some be proper to the olde Testament, some proper to the newe, without the which ordinarily there is no remission of sinne, nor collation of grace.

As circumcision was to the fathers, so baptisme is to vs, without the which this bloudy sacrifice taketh not awaye original sinne, not because it can not, Gene. 17. Iohn. 3. Iohn. 6. Luc. 13. but because God hath so ordeyned. For as it is sayde in the olde Testament, whose fleshe is not circumcised, his soule shall be put away from the people: so it is sayde in the newe Testament, except a man be borne againe of the water and the holy ghost, he can not see the kingdome of God: and except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man, and drinke his bloud, ye shall not haue lyfe in you: and except yee doe penaunce, ye shall all lyke­wise perishe.

And so must we thinke of all other sacraments of both the testamentes, that they be meanes ordeyned of God to atteine the grace they signifie, which grace is fully purcha­sed and deserued by the passion of Christ, whereof onely [Page 33] they take their effect. For the olde sacraments haue their vertue and strength. Ex opere operando (as the schoole men say) that is to say, of the worke that is to be wrought vpon the Crosse by Christ, in whome onely they beleeued. The new sacraments haue their vertue Ex opere operato, of the worke of Christ that is already wrought vpon the crosse: and not of any worthynesse of the priest, the minister. By the merite of which worke vpon the crosse, they haue vertue and ef­ficacie appropried vnto them, to giue that grace they signi­fie, to such as worthyly receaue them, or at least, that haue no impediment, nor put no stop, but that the grace may be receyued.

It is true,CROWLEY. that there be some sacramentes proper to the olde Testament, and some proper to the newe: but the latter part of that sentence wherein you affirme this, is some thing obscure. You séeme to affirme, that there is no remission of sinne,Gene. 15. Luc. 23. Acts. 10. nor col­lation of grace, without the sacraments: which saying is most false. For Abraham had his sinnes forgiuen him, before he was circumcised: and so had the théefe that hanged on the crosse by Christ, without the sacrament baptisme. And Cornelius and his company, had receyued the gift of the holye ghost: before they were baptised.

But you saye, that ordinarily, there is no remission of sinnes, nor collation of grace: without sacramentes.Watsons dark spea­king. By which maner of speaking, you amaze the people: who can gather none other thing thereby, but that commonly God doth not forgiue sinnes, nor collate or bestowe his graces vpon any, before they doe re­ceyue the sacraments, that he hath instituted to signifie the same. Which is most false. For fayth, and the feare of God, are the be­ginning of all heauenly wisdome: & must néedes be had of euery one that shall receyue any sacrament,Hebr. 11. Mark. 16. before the receyuing ther­of can be any thing at all auayleable. For without fayth it is not possible to please God. And he that will not beléeue, shall be con­demned. To receyue a sacrament therefore without fayth: is to no purpose.

Sacraments, both of the olde and newe Testament were instituted, not to giue grace, but to confirme the grace alreadie giuen and receyued:Rom. 4. as appéereth playnely by that which saint Paule wryteth to the Romaines. Et signum accepit Circumcisionis, signaculum iustitiae fidei quae fuerat in praeputio. &c. And he receyued the signe of circumcision, the seale of the righteousnesse of fayth, which was in him before he was circumcised: that he might be the father of all that beléeue, among the vncircumcised, that the same might be reconed to them for righteousnesse also. &c.

By this it is manifest, that Gods ordinarie meane of forgi­uing sinnes and conferring grace: is by his holy spirit of adop­tion, whereby he doth regenerate his elected and chosen children, and not anye Sacramentes, eyther of the olde Testament or the newe.

As for the places that you cite for circumcision, baptisme, the sacrament of Christes body and penaunce: you might haue spared till you had founde a fitter place for them. For they serue nothing to proue that which you pretend to proue.

We knowe, that baptisme is the same to vs, that circumci­sion was to the fathers, and that as the vncircumcised might not be suffred to liue among the people of God: so such as refuse bap­tisme, cannot sée the kingdome of God. And that except we doe eate the fleshe of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud: we shall haue no lyfe in vs. And that except we repent: we shal all perish as the Galileans did. But what maketh this for the proofe of your purpose? Which is, that sacramentes be the ordinarie meanes to take away sinnes and conferre grace: sith the forgiuenesse of sinnes and grace, must be conferred before we can be méete to receyue the sacraments?

Howe truely you report the opinion of the Schoolemen, for Opus operandum and Opus operatum: I might referre to such as haue bene exercised in the wrytings of those Scholemen. But least you should thinke that it were but a shift so to doe: I will put you in remembraunce of some part of that which you haue read, if you be so good a Shoole man as you woulde séeme to bée.

Nicholaus de Orbellis sayeth thus. In sacramento autem propriè dicto, virtute operis operati confertur gratia, Libr. 4. Sent Dist. 1. q. 3. ita quod non requiri­tur bonus motus interior qui mereatur gratiam: sed tantummodo sufficit, quod recipiens non ponat obicem. I answere (sayth he) that in a sacra­ment that is properly so called, grace is conferred by the vertue of the worke wrought, so that the good inwarde motion which might deserue grace, is not required: but this onely is sufficient, that the receyuer of the sacrament do not put a barre in the way.

Agayne, the same Nicholas sayth. Baptismus generaliter inten­dit gratiam iam habitam: sed ita non est in Circumcisione. Vnde Abrahae iam iustificato, signaculum fuit, & ei nihil intus contulit. Quia gratia Abrahae iam attigerat, & transcenderat illum gradum ad quem determina­ta fuerat Circumcisio. Baptisme doth generally encrease the grace that is already had: but in circumcision, it is not so. Wherefore to Abraham that was already iustified, it was onely a seale: and did inwardly encrease him nothing at all. For Abrahams grace had attayned vnto, yea and passed the degrée, that circumcision was appointed to aspire vnto.

Thomas Aquinas sayth. In Baptismo confertur gratia ex vir­tute ipsius Baptismi quam habet in quantum est instrumentum passionis Christi iam perfectae: in Circumcisione verò, conferebatur gratia, Parte. 3. quest. 70. Art. 4. non ex virtute Circumcisionis: sed ex virtute passionis Christi, cuius signum erat Circumcisio. In baptisme, grace is conferred by the vertue of bap­tisme it selfe, in as much as it is the instrument of the passion of Christ alreadie perfected. But in circumcision, grace was con­ferred, not by the vertue of circumcision: but by the vertue of Christes passion, whereof circumcision was a signe.

Scotus sayth. In circumcisione, solum peccata dimittebantur: Cap. penult. nec gratia ibi dabatur. In circumcision, sinnes were forgiuen onely: grace was not therein giuen.

By these fewe places, it may appéere, that the Schoolemen be not all one with you, nor one of them with another, in thys matter of conferring of grace by sacraments Ex opere operato. Et, Ex opere operando, as you alone doe imagine, as I suppose.

I aduertise the indifferent reader therefore: to giue credite to neyther of you both, in this point: but to vse the sacraments of [Page 36] Christ, according to Christes institution, for the confirmation of their fayth in Christ. Ascribing to the mercie of God in Christ: all the remission of sinnes, that is by those sacraments signified.

WATSON. Diuision. 21 Beside the sacraments, there be sacrifices instituted of God: as meanes whereby the passion of Christ, the true sacrifice is signified, represented, and applied. As the Pas­chall Lambe, the continuall sacrifice for sinne, a sacrifice for giuing thankes, Exo. 12.19. Lc. 1.4.5.7. Leuit. 3. for the sinnes of the priest and of the people, for infirmitie & omission, for peace, for any bene­fite to be attayned, for chastitie and such other: which had strength, not by their owne nature, but by the vertue of Christes passion which they signified.

And as these were sacrifices proper to the olde Testa­ment: so Christ hath instituted, a newe externall sacrifice, proper to the new testament, by his passion abrogating the other, which were shadowes signifying, & stablishing this, which is the truth representing, for this intent that the ver­tue and sufficiency of his bloudy & sauing sacrifice, may be without iteration of it self cōtinually transferred vnto vs.

For seing there is but one God, authour of both the te­staments, one body, one faith of Christ to vs both, though they beleeued in Christ to come, wee in Christ alreadye commed: it foloweth consequently, that we of the newe testament, may not lack this meane of sacrifice, so necessa­rie and expedient for vs. For so should we (as I haue partly touched in my last sermon) be without al kinde of religion, hauing now no sacrifice remayning proper vnto our selues.

Lyke as to the vnperfite lawe there succeeded a perfite lawe, and to the figuratiue sacraments, there succeeded perfite and effectual working sacraments: euen so to the fi­guratiue and typicall sacrifices, there succedeth one true and perfite sacrifice of Christ, one in substaunce, but diuers in maner.

Lawe, sacrifice, priesthoode, and aultar be (as the Logi­tians say) relatiua, that is to say, one hanging and depen­ding [Page 37] vpon another, as saint Paule sayth, Translato sacerdotio necesse est, vt legis translatio fiat. If the priesthood be translate, Hebrae. then the lawe must needes be translate likewise.

And then like as if there be a father, there is a sonne, if there be a maister, there is a seruaunt: so if there be a newe lawe of the newe testament, there is also a priesthood, a sa­crifice, and an aultare properly belonging to the newe Testament.

A perfite and continuall lawe requireth a perfite sacri­fice of lyke continuaunce: the newe lawe of it should lack a priesthood and sacrifice priuate to it selfe, it should either be imperfite, or else vtterly destroyed.

For this cause our sauiour Christ in his last supper, did institute the sacrament of his bodye and bloud commen­ding vnto vs two seuerall vses of it, the one that should be receaued of vs, 1. Cor. 11. as our heauenly foode to nourishe vs in spi­ritual lyfe till we come to be perfite men in Christ, saying: take eate this is my body. The other vse, that it should bee offered in the remembraunce of his passion, the ministra­tion of which offering he hath committed to his Apostles, as to priestes of the new law, saying, doe this in my remem­braunce, for the which function they and their successors be specially priestes.

This is the doctrine of Christs catholike Church which I haue as yet but simply declared, not euidently prooued which is sufficient to perswade an obedient catholike man that foloweth the Church, but not sufficient to conuince an obstinate heretike, that denieth the Church, impugning the doctrine and determination of the Church.

The sacrifices that God ordeyned to be offered in the tune of the olde law,CROWLEY, Hebr. 10. Sacrifices are not meanes to take away sinnes. were shadowes and figures of good things then to come, and not the good things themselues (as saint Paule sayth) neyther could they by any meanes take away sinne, neyther had they any such strength by the vertue of Christes passion, as you doe imagine them to haue. And where you imagine, that as [Page 38] those sacrifices were proper to the olde lawe, so there must of ne­cessitie, be one sacrifice proper to the newe testament, seing there is but one God. &c. I haue sufficiently aunswered in mine aun­swere to the tenth deuision of your former Sermon, where you haue touched it as you say here.

And when you say, that to the vnperfect lawe, there succée­deth a perfect lawe. &c. it séemeth that you haue forgotten that which you sayde before in the .xx.Watson for­getteth hys last sayings. deuision of this Sermon, where you affirme, that the sacraments of the olde lawe did conferre grace, Ex opere operando, by y^e worke that was then to be wrought, and nowe you say that they were but figuratiue, and not effec­tuall working sacraments, and therfore such must succéede them.

When you shall proue that Moses his lawe and the sacra­ments thereof, be an vnperfect lawe and vnperfect sacraments: then will I allowe your similitude. But so long as you shall not be able to proue any imperfection in eyther of them: I wil reiect your similitude, as foolishe and vayne.

Galath. 3.I knowe that the lawe could bring nothing to perfection, be­cause it was not ordeyned to that ende to bring things to per­fection:Rom. 10. Christ is the perfection of the lawe. but (as saint Paule wryteth) to leade vnto Christ. And Christ is the perfection and end of the law. That is to say. Christ maketh those perfect: whome the lawe, with the sacraments and ceremonies thereof doe bring vnto him. And so that sacrifice that Christ offered once for all: is the ende and perfection of all the sa­crifices of the olde lawe, which is no more all one in substaunce with the sacrifices of the olde lawe that you speake of: then the shadowe of any bodye, is one in substaunce with the body it selfe.

Law, sacrifice, priesthood. &c. be relatiues, and as saint Paule sayth, when the priesthood is translated, the lawe must also be translated: But what maketh this to your purpose, to proue, that there must néedes be in the new lawe, such a sacrifice, priesthood, and altar, as you imagine? Is it not sufficient that we haue such a sacrifice,Rom. 12. 1. Peter. 2. Apoc. 6. priesthood, and altar, as Paule, Peter and Iohn speak of? Must we néedes haue such a priesthood, sacrifice and altar, as the Popes Antichristian Church hath deuised and maintaineth? You must proue it more substantially, before any that is eyther [Page 39] learned in the scriptures or godly wise, will beleue you.

A perfect and contynuall lawe, requireth a perfect and conti­nuall sacrifice, as you say: and shall not that reasonable seruing of God that saint Paule speaketh of in the place that you haue taken for your theme, be as perfect and contynuing a sacrifice,Rom. 12. Rom. 3. as the lawe of fayth, is a perfect and contynuall lawe? I thinke there is none that vnderstandeth what christian religion is: but the same will consent, to that which I haue saide hereof.

For this cause (say you) our sauiour Christ, did in his last sup­per institute. &c. you tell vs here, of two seuerall vses of the sa­crament of Christs body and bloud. One is, that it should be re­ceyued of vs. &c. This you confirme with a note in the mergine. 1. Cor. 11. It is true that Paule teacheth that doctrine there,Paules doc­trine not so grosse as Watsons. euen as he himselfe had learned of the Lorde: but not in such grosse maner as you doe teach in these two fine Sermons. He teacheth there, that our sauiour christ did ordain, that this holy sacrament should be receiued of christians: in the remembrance of his death & passion, & that being so receiued of vs, it is a foode y^t doth nourish vs in spiritual life. Otherwise, it is a cōdēnation to the receiuers.

As for the other vse, which you say is, to be offered in re­membraunce of Christes passion: you go about to proue, by doe this in my remembrance. And then (very well) you say, that you haue but simply declared it without euident proofe. It had bene good that you had delt simply, & not so subtilly, as to cite the words of Christ in such sort, that it might séeme,Watson dea­leth not simplie. that he had giuen com­maundement, that the sacrament of his body should be offered in sacrifice: where as it is manifest by the circumstaunce of the place, that he commaunded the sacrament to be receiued in the remembraunce of his death and passion.

But your onely assertion without proofe, is sufficient to per­swade an obedient Catholike. &c.Watsons o­bedient Ca­tholikes. You accompt for obedient Ca­tholikes, such onely as will captiuate all their senses, and beléeue all that you say and doe to be good and godly: and folow you whe­ther soeuer you leade them, though they sée plainely that you go before them into the bottomlesse pit of hell.

Wel, let vs sée nowe, how you can conuince by arguments, [Page 40] those that will not obediently say white is black, light darkenesse, and good euill: for such you call heretikes, that denie the Church, and impugne the doctrine and determination of the same.

WATSON. Diuision. 22 But to our purpose, that the oblation of Christes body and bloud in the Masse is the sacrifice of the Church, and proper to the new testament, I shall proue it you by the best arguments that we haue in our schole of diuinity, that is to say, first by the institution of our sauiour Christ, then by the prophecy of Malachy the prophet, thirdly by the figure of Melchisedech in the olde law, and this shall I doe not ex­pounding the scriptures after mine owne head, but as they haue bene taken from the beginning of the most auncient and Catholike fathers in all ages.

1. Cor. 11. This sacrifice was instituted by the commaundement of Christ, saying to his Apostles, do this in my remembrance.

Our new men laugh at vs where we say, that this com­maundement of Christ doth proue the oblation of the sa­crament. But we pittie them, that set so light by that they are bounden to beleue, and can not disprooue, seeming eui­dently not to regarde and way the fact of Christ, and their obedience to his commaundement.

When Christ sayde, doe this: by this worde (this) must needes be vnderstanded all that he did, concerning the in­stitution of this sacrament. Let vs now see what Christ did.

First he did cōsecrate his precious body & bloud by bles­sing the bread, saying, this is my body, this is my bloud, for if this consecration be not comprehended vnder this worde (Hoc, this) then haue we no commaundement nor authoritie to consecrate this sacrament, & so should we be vsurpers to doe that thing we haue no warrant to shewe for vs in holy scripture. But without doubt, this is so plaine, that we nede say no more of it, except we should vtterly denie this sa­crament, and the whole ministration of it, which (I think) no man doth.

Secondarily, Christ did offer, that he did consecrate [Page 41] which appeareth by these his wordes: This is my body, which is giuen for you. And although this oblation may be proued sufficiently otherwise, yet to my simple iudge­ment there seemeth to be no light argument in this worde (Datur is giuen): for seing the scripture sayth, it is giuen for vs, and not to vs, as Zwinglius and our great Archebishop his Disciple would haue it, we must needes vnderstande by (giuen for vs) offred for vs, so that in this place and many other to giue is to offer.

And although it be true, that Christ was giuen and offe­red for vs to the father, vpon the crosse the next day folow­ing, yet because the worde (Datur) is in Greeke in all the Euangelistes, where it is expressed in the present tense, and also euery sentence is true for the time it is pronounced, therefore me thinke I may certainely conclude, because Christ sayth, datur pro vobis, is giuen for you, that euen then in the supper time he offered his body for vs to his father.

Thirdly, Christ did deliuer to his disciples to be eaten and dronken, that he had before consecrated and offered, Math. 29. and this appeareth by his words. Take, eate, and drinke ye all of this. The first and the thirde which be the consecra­tion and receauing, be out of all controuersie confessed of all men.

The second which is the oblation, is of late brought in question, which I haue partly proued by the plaine words of scripture, as it seemeth to me, so that I may well reason thus: Christs action is our instruction (I except his wonder­full workes and miracles) specially when his commaunde­ment is ioyned vnto it. But Christ in his supper offred him­selfe verily and really vnder the formes of bread and wine after an impossible maner, and commaunded vs to doe the same, till his second comming: me thinke therefore, that the Masse we doe and ought to doe sacrifice, & offer Christ vnto his father, which oblation is the externall sacrifice of the Church, and proper to the new testament.

CROWLEY. The best ar­guments of the Popes diuinitie schoole.Nowe to your purpose. &c. you will proue by the best argu­ments in your diuinitie schole: that Christs body and bloud offe­red in the Masse, is the sacrifice of the Church. &c. And as it ap­péereth: the best arguments of your schoole, are these thrée. The institution of Christ, the prophecie of Malachie, and the figure of Melchisedech. Well, I trust the reader shall in that which foloweth, sée howe well you doe performe your promise.

Doe this in my remembraunce (sayth Christ) that is, offer vp this in my remembraunce (say you) and except you be decey­ued: Christ hath in these words, instituted the sacrifice of y^e Masse.

Your newe men you say, doe laugh at you. &c. And you doe pittie them. &c. Bilyke you haue a delight to be laughed at: for you haue in the wordes folowing, giuen more occasion to be laughed at, as shall appéere in this aunswere.

Watsons pittie. Luc. 23.Your pittie is much like that which was in the women of Ie­rusalem: when they wept to sée the miserable estate of Christ, which was condemned to die, being an Innocent.

Watson will make his newe may­sters laugh.When Christ sayde, doe this. &c. All that Christ did: must néedes be vnderstanded by this worde (this) and therefore you will sée what Christ did. First he consecrated his precious bodye and bloud. &c. Might not your new men thinke you, iustly laugh at you: when you alledge that for your purpose, that maketh most against you? doe this sayth Christ. What shall we doe? say you. Take bread saith Christ. And when you haue giuen thanks: breake it and distribute it, and eate it, for it is my bodye. Then take the cup, and when ye haue giuen thankes: drinke ye all of it, for it is my bloud of the new testament, which is shed for ma­nye for the remission of sinnes. Thus farre according as Ma­thewe wryteth.

What ground haue you in these wordes, for the institution of the Masse? He doth not say, prepare you ministring garments of a straunge fashion. Neyther doth he bid you make those gar­ments holye. He speaketh no word of your halowed aultare, Su­peraltare, Cup, or Corporasse cloth. He maketh no mention of your thinne stertch cake, nor of myxing water with your wine. He hath no worde of your manifolde crossings, turnings, and [Page 43] halfe turnings, with the rest of the Apishe toyes whereof your Masse doth consist. But he tooke bread and wine,What Christ did at his last supper. such as the pre­sent occasion did offer. And he gaue thankes to his heauenly fa­ther: and did presently distribute the same to those Disciples of his that were then present, commaunding them all to eate and drinke thereof in the remembraunce of his death and passion, as often as they should thinke it méete by a sacrament to celebrate the remembrance thereof. Assuring them that in so doing, they should be partakers of his body and bloud, to the nourishing of their soules and bodies to euerlasting lyfe.

Here is a playne institution of the holye communion of the body and bloud of our sauiour Iesus Christ: but for your tran­substantiating consecration that you vse in your Masse, here is no warrant at all. By your owne iudgement therefore, your Antichristian Clarkes are but vsurpers, hauing no warrant in the worde of God, to shewe for your doings in this point. The matter therfore is not so playne on your side: as you would haue men thinke it to be.

The lyke foundation you haue founde to builde your oblati­on vpon. Christ hath sayd: Which is giuen for you. And to your simple iudgement: there séemeth no little argument, in this word Datur, is giuen. &c. And therfore you conclude: that Christ did at his last supper, euen in the supper time, offer his body for vs to his father.

Mathew, and Marke, make no mention of this Datur, Mat. 26. Mar. 14. that you builde vpon. Bilyke therefore, it is not so great a matter as you would make of it. For if the church can haue no sacrifice but that which is builded vpon Datur, it is to be thought that Mathew and Marke knewe nothing of the Church sacrifice.

But in Luke you finde Quod pro vobis datur, which is giuen for you, not to you, as Zwynglius and Cranmer his Scholer, would haue it. You conclude therefore, that giuen for vs, must néedes signifie, offred for vs. So that in this place and many o­ther (but you name not one) to giue, is to offer.Many pla­ces but none named. And because all the Euangelistes haue it in the Gréeke expressed in the present tense. &c. you thinke you may certainely conclude, because Christ [Page 44] sayth Datur pro vobis, is giuen for you: that euen then in the sup­per time, he offered his body for vs to his father.

First, I must say vnto you, that when you shall shewe vs, those places, wherein, to giue is to offer: then we will weigh them, and if we shall finde that true which you affirme here, we will say as you say, that Christ did in his last supper offer vp his body to his father. Till that time, you must pardon vs.

1. Cor. 11.Saint Paule sayth. Quod pro vobis frangitur, which is broken for you. It were straunge if we should say, that broken doth signi­fie offered, in this place and many other, and be not able to shew any one place where it is so vsed. And it is manifest by y^e histories of the Gospel: that Christs body was not broken vpon the crosse. For it was prophecied, that there should no bone of him be brokē.

And although this be expressed in the present tense, and euery sentence is true for the time it is pronounced:The spea­kers mea­ning, is the truth of the sentence spoken. yet may you not conclude as you doe certainly and say, that Christ offred his body in his supper. For the truth of the sentence, is in that mea­ning that doth by other partes of scripture, appéere to be the mea­ning of the speaker.

Christes body was giuen for vs, when he became man that he might dye for vs, when he was giuen ouer into the power of his enimies which sought his lyfe, when he went vp to Ierusa­lem, declaring before hande to his Disciples, that he must there be crucified: and when Iudas had bargayned with the highe priests, to deliuer him to them.

When Christ was giuen and his body broken for vs.And when our Sauiour christ was cruelly dealt with by the Iewes in any condition: then was his body broken for vs. Thus are these sentences true for the time they were pronounced: and yet, neyther doth giuen signifie offred, nor broken signifie, torne in péeces.

Thirdly (you say) christ did deliuer to his Disciples to be ea­ten and dronken:Watson hath ouershot himselfe to farre. that which he had before consecrated and offe­red. Here you haue ouershot your selfe, a great deale to farre. For if Christ had offered and consecrated before he gaue to hys Disciples: we may aske what he offered, and with what wordes he consecrated. If he did consecrate with these wordes, this is [Page 45] my body: this is my bloud: then could he offer to his father none other thing but bread and wine, before he had giuen the same to his Disciples. For he spake not those wordes, tyll he had both bro­ken the bread and delyuered it and the wine to his Disciples. If consent of the Euangelistes, both in the Gréeke and Latine doe giue vauntage as in Datur, giuen, you would faine it should: then must it of force giue vauntage here, for none of them doth place the words otherwise. And you your selfe haue affirmed before: that with those wordes Christ did consecrate.

Yea, though you woulde denie it, and affirme that Christ did consecrate by his almightie power, vsing some other wordes of blessing. Yet your schoole men will not suffer you.Parte. 3. quest. 75. Art. 7. For Tho­mas Aquinas sayth. Dicendum est, quod haec conuersio, sicut dictum est, perficitur per verba Christi, quae à sacerdote proferuntur: ita quod vlti­mum instans prolationis ver borum, est primum instans in quo est in sacra­mento corpus Christi. We must say, that this conuersion, as it is sayde, is finished by the wordes of Christ, pronounced by the priest: so that the last instant of the pronouncing of the wordes, is the first instant wherin the body of Christ is in the sacrament.

Nicholaus de Orbellis, Richardus, Scotus, and the rest:The schoole Doctors o­uerthrowe Watsons assertion. be all of the same minde in this matter. Wherfore me thinketh, I may certainely conclude, euen vpon your owne wordes, that if Christ offered to his father, before he brake and gaue to hys Disciples: he offered none other thing but bread and wine, and therefore not his body and bloud.

Now, let vs sée, what reason it is, that you thinke you may well make for the proofe of this sacrifice in the Masse.The value of Watsons reason. Christes action, is our instruction. But Christ did this, and commaunded vs so to doe. Ergo in the Masse, we doe and ought to doe sacri­fice. &c. Your Maior and Minor, are proued both false: Ergo, your conclusion, is not worth a couple of Walnuts.

And for further proufe that Christ offered himselfe in his last supper: WATSON. Diuision. 23 I shall alledge vnto you the authoritie of the Church, and the consent of the fathers in this point, which ought to suffise any christen man.

Ireneus. li. 4. Ireneus wryteth in his fourth booke, that Christ taking the creature of bread and gyuing thankes sayde. This is my body, and likewise confessing the cup to be of his bloud. Noui testamenti nouam docuit oblationem, quam Ecclesia ab Apostolis accipiens in vniuerso mundo offert deo, de quo in duodecim Prophetis Ma­lachias sic praesignificauit, Non est mihi voluntas in vobis. &c. He taught the newe oblation of the newe testament, which oblation the Church receauing of the Apostles, doth offer to God throughout the whole worlde, whereof Malachy one of the twelue prophets did prophecie. I haue no will and plea­sure in you. &c.

What can be more playne then that Christ in his last supper in the ministration of the blessed sacrament did teache his Apostles the newe oblation of the newe Testa­ment, and his Apostles taught the Church the same that they receaued, and the Church doth contynually vse to of­fer the same to God in euery place?

This authoritie the wordes being so manifest, and the author so auncient and substantiall, can not be auoyded with all their cauillations.

Saint Cyprian also the blessed Martyr wryteth thus. Si Christus summus sacerdos sacrificium Deo patri ipse primus obtulit, Ciprian. li. 2. epist. 3. & hoc fieri in sui cōmemorationem praecepit, vti (que) ille sacerdos vice Christi verè fungitur, qui id quod Christus fecit imitatur. If Christ the high priest did first himselfe offer a sacrifice to God his father, and commaunded the same to be done in his remembrance verily that priest doth truely occupy the office of Christ, that by imitation doth the same thing that Christ did.

This holy Martir teacheth vs, that Christ did first of­fer himselfe to his father in his supper, and also commaun­ded vs to doe the same. Why should any man doubt of that, that in the beginning of the Church the holy Martyrs did, and taught without all doubt.

Hesichius. lib. 2. cap. 8. Hesichius also that florished in the time of Gratian the Emperour wryteth thus. Prius figuratam ouem coenans cum Apo­stolis, postea suum obtulit sacrificium, & deinde sicut ouem semetipsum [Page 47] occidit. Christ in his supper did first eate the figuratiue lambe with his Apostles, then he offered his owne sacrifice, and af­ter that he kylled himselfe lyke a lambe.

By this saying that Christ kylled himselfe, is ment, that Christ voluntarily did offer himselfe to the death, suffring the Iewes to kill him whome he might haue withstanded: but to our purpose. It is plaine that beside the bloudy ob­lation vpon the crosse, and also beside the figuratiue ob­lation of himselfe in the paschall lambe, he also did offer himselfe mistically in the celebration of the sacrament, which is the very point that we go about to prooue, and is manifestly proued by this auncient author.

Damascen sayeth: In noctè in qua seipsum obtulit, Damascenus. li. 4. Cap. 14. testamentum nouum disposuit. In that night when he offered hymselfe, he did ordeyne and institute the newe Testament. Marke that he sayth, he offered himselfe in the night, the oblation vp­on the crosse was in the midde day, which is a distinct offe­ring from that in the night. And Theophilactus sayeth: Tunc immolauit se ipsum ex quo tradidit discipulis corpus suum. Theophilactus in Math. Cap 28. It is manifest that then he offered himselfe, when he deliuered to his disciples his body: teaching vs, that Christ in his mi­sticall supper offered himselfe to his father. To this saint Augustine beareth witnesse, wryting thus. Vnde ipse dominus etiam quos mundauit à lepra, ad eadem sacramenta misit, August. de baptismo. li. 3. cap. 19. vt offerrent pro se sacrificium Sacerdotibus, quia nondum eis successerat sacrificium quod ipse post in ecclesia voluit celebrari pro omnibus illis: For which cause our Lorde himselfe sent them whome he had made cleane from their lepre to the same sacraments (of the olde Testa­ment) that they should offer to the priestes a sacrifice for themselues, bicause as yet that sacrifice did not succeede to them, which Christ would haue celebrate in his Church in stede of all them. Way these wordes well, and ye shall per­ceaue, that they can not be vnderstand of the sacrifice of Christ vpon the crosse, which was but once offered, and can not be continually celebrate and vsed of the Church, nor yet of the sacrifice of thankesgyuing, which succedeth not [Page 48] the other, but was before and with the other: and therfore they proue playnely, that thys one sacrifice of the new Te­stament that succedeth the multitude of the olde sacrifices, is onely the sacrifice of Christs body and bloud in the bles­sed Masse which he hath ordeyned to be daylie frequented in his Church to the worldes ende.

Dionisius Ariopagita. Specul. cap. 3. What should I alledge moe authors? Will ye yet heare one of the eldest, I meane Dionisius Areopagita S. Paules scholer, and Byshop of Athens, he wryteth thus: Quocirca reuerenter simul & expontificali officio post sacras diuinorum operum lau­des quòd hostiam salutarem (quae supra ipsum est) litet, se excusat, ad ip­sum primo decenter exclamans, tu dixisti, hoc facite in meam commemora­tionem. Wherefore the Byshop reuerently and according to his pastorall office, after the praise and commendation of Gods workes and benefites, he doth excuse himselfe, that he doth take vpon him to offer that sacrifice of our sauiour which is farre aboue his degree and dignitie, crying first vn­to him decently.

Lord thou diddest commaunde, saying: Doe this in my remembraunce. If there were no more but this one autho­ritie, it were sufficient to proue, that the priest doth offer the body of Christ, which is the sacrifice of our sauiour in the Masse, and that hee offereth it by the expresse com­maundement of Christ, saying. Doe this in my remem­braunce, and that he offereth that thing, which is farre ex­ceeding his degree, which can be nothing else, but the bo­dy of Christ.

Therefore leauing for shortnesse of time all other au­thorities, which with little labour I could bring in for this purpose, me thinke I may well conclude, that the oblati­on of Christes body and bloud in the Masse is the very sa­crifice of the Church, both by the institution of Christ de­clared by his expresse commaundement, which we are all bounden to obey, and also by his owne example in offering himselfe vnder the formes of bread and wine, which wee priests are bounden to folow, as the scripture which I haue [Page 49] alledged, doth euidently proue, the true sense whereof is as is recyted not priuate, proceeding from mine owne braine, but catholike, confirmed by the consent of the Church, able to proue & conuince any one man, that hath nothing to say to the contrary but his bare nay.

To proue that Christ offered himselfe in his last supper:CROWLEY. Ireneus. lib. 4. Capit. 32. ye alledge matter out of the auncient fathers. And first out of Ire­neus. For aunswere wherevnto I referre the reader, to that aunswere that I haue made to the same text, cyted in the fourth diuision of your former Sermon.

And for aunswere to that which you cite out of Cyprian, I referre the reader to that which I haue aunswered to matter that you haue in the ninth diuision of that Sermon,Cyprian. lib. 2 Epist. 3. cyted out of the same Epistle.

Isychius by the report of Iohn Tritemius, Isychius. lib. 2 Capit. 8. flourished in the dayes of the princes Arcadius and Honorius: somewhat after the dayes of the Emperour Gratian, in whose time you say, he flourished. But your care is, to cause him to séeme as auncient as may be. But if you had read him thorow, and weighed him well: you would neuer haue cited him for your purpose. For he doth in many places make manifestly against you.

In the place that you doe nowe cite:Papisticall libertie vsed by Watson. you doe vse your olde slight. That is, you leaue out, that which goeth before, and that which foloweth, and should shewe the meaning of the wryter: And bicause Secundò, séemeth not to giue you that auauntage, that you desire to haue: you are bolde to thrust Deinde, in place thereof, saying thus. Et deinde sicut ouem. &c. Where the Au­thor hath, Et secundo. &c.

But that the reader may be able to iudge of the Authors mea­ning: I will let him sée those wordes that you haue so slylie slip­ped ouer. His wordes be these. Nihil autem ad perfectum duxit lex: subintroductio autem maioris spei quae data est, in hac nos spe constituit. Veruntamen, sacrificium hoc, eam quae dicta est maior Spes, per quam semper propinquamus ad seruiendum Deo, innuit. Cur autem Aries se­cundus, hic nunc Aries nominatur? Quia videlicet, prius figuratam ouem [Page 50] cum Apostolis caenans Dominus: postea suum obtulit sacrificium, & se­cundo sicut ouem ipse semetipsum occidit, quod demonstrant sequentia. Posuerunt (que) Aaron & filij eius manus suas super caput eius. Quem cum immolasset Moses. Necessariè simul cum Aaron filij eius, super Caput Arietis manus imponunt: quia communem caenam festiuitatis paschalis, cum suis Christus discipulis celebrauit. &c. The lawe hath brought nothing to perfection, but y^e secret bringing in of a greater hope, which is giuen vs: hath set vs in this hope. But this sacrifice doth note vnto vs, that hope, which is called the greater hope, where­by we do alwaies approch to serue God. And why is this Ramme nowe named the second Ramme? Forsooth, bicause the Lorde supping with his Apostles: did first offer the figuratiue Lambe, and afterwarde he did offer his owne sacrifice, and did secondari­ly kill himselfe euen as a shéepe, which thing, the wordes that fol­lowe doe declare. And Aaron and his sonnes, did put their hands vpon the head of that Ramme. Which when Moses had offered: the sonnes of Aaron did of necessity set their hands vpon the head of the Ramme with Aaron, bicause Christ did celebrate a com­mon supper of the feast of Easter with his Disciples. &c.

Now let the reader consider how faithfully you handle this place of Isychius. He expounding the eyght Chapter of Leui­ticus, What is ment by the second Ram. doth (when he commeth to those words. Obtulit & Arietem secundum. &c.) declare that that second Ramme, did signifie our Sauiour Christ. Who after he had with his disciples, celebrated a common supper of the solemnization of the passouer, eating with them the figuratiue Lambe: did, as it were, kyll and offer vp himselfe vpon the crosse, bicause he gaue himselfe into the handes of his enimies that fastined him to the crosse, which Isy­chius calleth our sauiour Christes owne sacrifice. And you (M. Watson) will néedes haue vs thinke, that our Sauiour did af­ter the offering and eating of the passouer, offer his owne sacri­fice in bread and wine, and afterward offer himselfe on the crosse, and that Isychius meaneth so to teach in the words that you cite. And to cause the words, the better to séeme to serue for your pur­pose: you doe in the place of the Aduerbe Secundo, vse Deinde: which all wise and learned men doe know to be but homely dea­ling. [Page 51] But that Isychius was not of your minde concerning the sacrifice of the Church: the reader may well sée,Isychius li. 1. Capit. 1. by that which he wryteth in his first booke and first Chapter. His wordes be these. Quia sacrificia Deus à nobis pro nostra salute vult, non ipse ea opus habens: satis nos Paulus commonefacit. Ait enim. Obsècro ita (que) vos fra­tres, per misericor diam Dei, vt exhibeatis corpora vestra hostiam viuam, sanctam, Deo placentem, racionabile obsequium vestrum. Ergo placens sa­crificium Deo, corporum nostrorum mortificatio est: simul enim in eo lu­cramur, & quod à peccato abstineamus, & quod virtutes acquirimus. Paule doth sufficiently certifie vs, that God hauing no néede thereof: will haue sacrifices of vs, for the health we haue recey­ued. For he sayth. I beseech you therefore brethren, euen by the mercie of God: that you would giue your bodyes, a sacrifice, quick, holy, and acceptable to God, which is your reasonable ser­uing of God. The mortification of our bodies therefore: is the sacrifice that pleaseth God. For we doe therein, both winne that we may abstaine from sinne, and also that we obtaine vertues.

By these wordes it is most manifest,Isychius doth not a­gree with Watson. that Isychius vnder­stood not that place that you haue taken for your theme, as you do shewe your selfe to vnderstand it. And that therefore he was not of such minde in the other place that you cite out of him for your purpose: as you would faine haue men thinke that he was. He knewe no mo sacrifices of Christ but one, which was offered on the Crosse once for al, wherof the Passouer lambe was a figure, and our sacrament is a remembraunce. And the mortification of our bodies, is the sacrifice of thankesgiuing, that God doth conti­nually require at our handes.

As for your Damascenus, although Iohn Tritemius, Tritem. de Eccles. scrip. Damasc. li. 4. Capit. 14. would faine haue him séeme more auncient: yet Iohn Patriar­cha Hierosolomitanus, writing his life, sayth that he liued in the dayes of Leo Isaurius, which was .720. yeares after Christ. His authoritie therefore, can not be so waightie, that it might enforce vs to graunt, that all that he writeth is true, though he dissent both from the writinges of other more auncient fathers, and scriptures also. As in that Chapter out of which you cite his wordes, and in many other places of his writings, he doth most [Page 52] manifestly.

But let vs sée howe honestly you applie his wordes that you cite. Marke, say you, that he saith, he offered himselfe in the night. &c. I would gladly be short in these your vnhansome handlings of that which you cite for your purpose: but I can not suffer the Reader to lacke those wordes that do giue light to that which you do so subtilly cite. Damascenus sayth thus. Cibus vero ipse panis vi­tae, Dominus noster Iesus Christus, qui ex Coelo discendit. Nam suscepturus voluntariam pro nobis mortem, in nocte in qua seipsum obtulit: testamen­tum nouum disposuit sanctis Discipulis & Apostolis, & per ipsos, omnibus alijs in seipsum credentibus. &c. Certes, that foode which is the bread of life, is our Lorde Iesus Christ, which came downe from hea­uen. For when he would for our sakes, take vpon him a volun­tarie death. He did in the night wherein he offered himselfe, dis­pose to his holy Disciples and Apostles, and by them to all other that beleue in him, a newe testament.

Watsons fal­lace opened.He offered himselfe in the night, say you, but the oblation on the Crosse was in the mid day: Ergo, they be distinct oblations. All that doe vnderstand what Logicke meaneth, do know wher­in the fallace of this Argument is, he offered himselfe to death, and he offered himselfe in death. Howe the first can be called a sa­crifice, I would gladly learne: otherwise then the obedience of a Christen man to do the will of God, may be called a sacrifice. But that will not serue your purpose here. For you must haue thys first offering to be a Massing sacrifice propiciatorie: both for the quicke and the deade. Whether Damascenus can iustly be ta­ken to meane so here: I referre to the iudgement of the indiffe­rent Reader.

But this I must tell you, that in the same place, he fighteth agaynst your opinion of Datur, it is giuen, for he sayth Frangetur, it shall be broken. Wherby it is manifest, that he meaneth there, of the sacrifice that was made on the Crosse, and not of a sacrifice then presently offred: as you would haue vs think that he ment.

Theophilact. in Mat. 28. Theophilactus, a writer of like antiquitie and integritie of iudgement with Damascenus, hath sayd (say you) Tunc immola­uit. &c. The Reader shall sée the wordes that go before, and then [Page 53] let him iudge, howe these serue your purpose. He sayth thus. Pos­sum tibi & aliam causam dicere, quomodo tres dies & tres noctes nume­rentur. Attende igitur. Quinta vespera fecit Dominus Coenam, & Disci­pulis dixit Accipite, commedite, hoc est enim corpus meum. Et ita quia po­testatem habebat ponere animam: manifestum quòd tunc immolauit seip­sum, ex quo tradidit corpus suum. I am able to shewe thée another reason also: how the thrée dayes and thrée nightes may be num­bred. The Lord made his supper the fift day at éeuen, and he sayd to his Disciples: take, eate, this is my bodie. And so because he had power to leaue his life: it is manifest that he did then offer himselfe, euen from that time wherein he gaue his body to hys Disciples.

Bicause (sayth he) our Sauiour had power to leaue his life at his pleasure: it is manifest that euen then he offered himselfe, when (say you) he deliuered to his disciples his bodie: but, to say as Theophilactus writeth, euen then, from that time wherein he gaue his bodie. &c.

To proue that Christ had bene thrée dayes and thrée nights in the graue, when he arose from death:Theophilact. seketh shiftes where none nedeth. Theophilactus vseth this shift, affirming that Christes death began at his supper, so that by this mans iudgement, he was but a deade man, when he stoode & answered before Pilate and the rest. One other such shift he vsed before in the same Chapter, saying that the darcknesse that happened by the Eclips that was at the time when Christ gaue vp the ghost, must be taken for a night: and the time that was betwéene that darknesse and the naturall night, for a day. But other more auncient then he, and of better credite: haue af­firmed and well proued, that by the figure Synecdoche (wherby the part is named for the whole) the prophecie may be well vn­derstanded to be fulfilled. Which figure is verye much vsed of the Prophets.

Wherefore, I may conclude, that Theophilact goeth a­bout to teache vs that thing that other men haue taught vs be­fore his time, in better order then he doth: and that you woulde make vs beleue that he teacheth vs that, which he neuer ment to teache.

But mysdoubting the credite of Theophilact: you bring in Austen for a witnesse, of that which you saye Theophilact hath taught. His wordes be these. Vnde ipse Dominus. &c. For which cause our Lord himselfe. &c. I néede not to trouble the rea­der with manye wordes, in prouing that you haue done great wrong to Saint Austen: in that you bring him in as a witnesse of your false doctrine. I will onely adde to that which you haue cited out of him: those fiue wordes that doe immediately folowe the same. By which fiue wordes: the Reader may easily vnder­stand, howe well ye do apply saint Austens wordes to your pur­pose.Austen a­gainst Wat­son in the same place that he cyteth. The fiue words be these. Quia illis omnibus ipse prenunciabatur. Bicause that by all those sacrifices: he himselfe was shewed or spoken of before. Yea, the learned reader, that wil read that place of saint Austen, shall easily perceyue: that it maketh manifestly agaynst you. For as the sacrifices of the olde testament, were not the sacrifices of the Scribes and Phariseis, but Gods, although abused by them: so are not the sacramentes of Christ your sacra­ments, though you haue abused them, but they are Christes, and therefore we do, according to saint Austens doctrine, take them to vs in such sort as Christ did institute them, leauing to you all those fond ceremonies that you haue inuented, to furnishe oute Christes sacraments after your fashion. Which when you haue clouted togither, you call your blessed Masse. Which, not Christ, but Antichrist: hath ordeyned to bée dayly frequented in hys Church, so long as God will suffer it so to be.

Dionisius Areopagita. Cap. 3. Specul.But Dionisius Areopagita, was Paules scholer. &c. He sayth thus Quocirca reuerenter simul. &c. For the authoritie that this Dionisius is of: I haue sayd something in the aunswere to 33. diuision of your former Sermon. It forceth not much what his opinion is in this matter: although you woulde haue vs to thinke, that his authoritie alone is ynough. But let vs sée howe you handle him in citing his wordes for your purpose. You folow not the Greke: but that rude and corrupt translation, that goeth abroade vnder no name. I must therefore trouble the Reader with the Gréeke text: enterpreting the same after the true sig­nification and vse of the wordes. Dionisius hath sayde thus in [Page 55] Gréeke. [...]. Which in Latine is thus.Watson had no leasure to looke in the Greeke. Quocirca reuerēter simul & sacerdotaliter, post sacros Hymnos de admirabilibus dei operibus: pro sacrificio pro ipsis se excusat, prius ad eum piè exclamans. Tu dixisti, hoc facite in meam reminiscentiam. In Englishe it is thus. Wherefore he (that is to say, the chiefe Minister) doth both re­uerendly and priestly, after the holye Hymnes concerning the merueilous works of God, excuse himselfe for the sacrifice that is offered for them, first crying out vnto him after a godly maner. Thou hast sayd, do this in the remembrance of me.

The Translatour that you folow, knewe not bylyke, that [...] being ioyned with the Genitiue case, doth not signifie super, or supra, aboue, but Pro, for: neyther coulde he put difference be­twene [...] and [...]: the one being the Accusatiue case sin­guler, and the other, the genitiue case plurall. And therefore he translateth super ipsum: in stede of pro ipsis. Aboue him, in stede of for them. And you folowing his folly: doe conclude. That the thing that is aboue the degrée of the priest: must nedes be the bo­die of Christ. Thus you sée how one folly bringeth in another.

As you did therfore, for shortnesse of time, leaue al other autho­rities: so it might haue béene more for your honestie, to haue left this also, and to haue concluded with S. Paule to the Hebrues. Per ipsum ergo offeramus hostiam laudis semper Deo, Hebr. 13. The conclu­sion that Watsō might with more honestie haue made. id est fructum labio­rum confitentium nomini eius. Beneficentiae autem & cōmunicationis, no­lite obliuisci, talibus enim hostijs, conciliatur Deus. Through him ther­fore, let vs alwayes offer vnto God, the sacrifice of prayse: that is the fruite of lips that do prayse his name. Forget not louing li­beralitie, and the making other partakers of the giftes you haue receyued, for with such sacrifices is God pleased.

But shamelesly, you boast, that you haue proued both by the institution of Christ, and the consent of the Church: that the Masse is the very sacrifice of the Church, where as the Reader may by that which I haue aunswered, easily perceyue, that you haue both the institution of Christ, the consent of the auncient [Page 56] Church, and all good reason agaynst you, and nothing for you, but the bare assertion of your selfe and such as you be.

WATSON Diuision. 24 Beside the institution which were sufficient for thys matter, seing in the doctrine of faith, the proofe dependeth vpon the weight of one place, and not vpon the number of many: yet I shall alledge vnto you the prophecie of Mala­chy, where it is prophecied before, that God would refuse and reiect the sacrifices of the Iewes, and that hee would call vnto his grace and mercy the Gentiles, in whose church there should be one pure and cleane sacrifice, succeeding all the other, and offered in euery place, which can be none o­ther but this one pure sacrifice of Christes bodye in the Masse. Malachias. 1. The place is this. Non est mihi voluntas in vobis, & munus non suscipiam de manu vestra: ab ortu enim solis vs (que) ad occasum magnum est nomen meum in gentibus, & in omni loco sacrificabitur & offeretur nomini meo oblatio munda. I haue no will and pleasure in you, and I will receaue no offering or rewarde of your hande. For from the rysing of the Sunne to the setting, my name is great amongs the Gentiles, and in euery place there shall be sacrifice done, and a pure and cleane oblation shal be of­fered to my name.

This place is very plaine for the detesting of the Iewes, the reiecting of their sacrifices, for the vocation of the Gentiles, and for the pure and one singular sacrifice, that amongst them shall be offered to almightie God in euery place in steede of the other. This must needes be the sacri­fice of the Masse, or else let them that say nay, shew of what other that place is ment. And in very deede some haue be­stowed all their wit and learning, writhing and racking this place to make it serue to some other sacrifice beside the Masse, but it will not bee, the truth hath euer preuayled. Some haue drawne it to the spirituall inwarde sacrifices of good mens hearts: but in the vnderstanding they be ouer­throwne, for the place speaketh precisely of one sacrifice, and the other spirituall sacrifices be many, and so many as [Page 57] there be harts of good men to offer them. And yet speaketh also of one pure and cleane sacrifice, but all the righteous­nesse of man is vnperfite, vnpure, vncleane, and compared to a filthy cloth of a sick woman, and it speaketh of such one pure sacrifice as should succede and follow in the place of the other sacrifices of the Iewes, which God reiecteth and abrogateth.

But the inwarde spirituall sacrifices of good men haue bene offered and vsed before the lawe, in the lawe, and af­ter the lawe, from the time of Adam till the worldes ende. Wherfore it is not possible, that this place should be direct­ly and only vnderstanded of the spirituall sacrifices. There be other also that wrest it, and would haue it meane onely of the bloudy sacrifice of Christ vpon the crosse. But that can not be, the wordes be so plaine to the contrary. For al­though that be one and pure sacrifice, yet it was not offred in euery place, as Malachy sayth it shall, and also it was of­fered onely among the Iewes vpon the mount of Caluarie, where the prophet sayth, this sacrifice he speaketh of, shall be offered in euery place among the Gentiles.

Therefore to conclude, this is a playne prophecie, de­claring the will of God to haue all the sacrifices of the Iewes to cease, and in the Church of his newe people the Gentiles to haue this one pure sacrifice of Christs body and bloud in the Masse to be frequented in euery place, where­with he is well pleased and contented.

And in this sense Ireneus taketh it, Ireneus. lib. 4. Capit. 32. whose wordes in Latine I alledged a little before, that Christ confessing the cup to be of his bloud, did teach the newe oblation of the newe testament, which the Church receyuing of the Apo­stles, offered to God throughout the worlde, of the which Malachie one of the twelue prophetes did speake before. I haue no will nor pleasure in you, and so forth. As I haue re­cyted before, manifestly declaring that the olde people should cease to offer to God, and that the newe people shall offer vnto him one pure sacrifice in euery place.

Chrysostome also sayth. Et in omni loco sacrificium offeretur nomini meo, Chrysost. in Psalm. 95. & sacrificium purum. Vide, quàm luculenter, quam (que) dilu­cide, mysticam interpretatus est mensam, quae est incruenta hostia. And in euery place a sacrifice shall be offered to my name, and that a pure sacrifice. See howe euidently and how plainly he doth interpret the misticall table, which is the vnbloudy sacrifice. I neede not to open this place any more, being so plaine as it is.

August. contr. Iudaeos. Saint Augusten writing against the Iewes sayth thus. Ape­rite oculos tandem aliquando, & videte ab oriente sole vs (que) ad occidentem, non in vno loco, vt vobis fuit constitutum, sed in omni loco offerri sacrifici­um Christianorum: non cuilibet Deo, sed ei qui ista praedixit, Deo Israel. O­pen your eyes at last you Iewes, and see from the rysing of the sunne to the setting not in one place as it was ordeyned amongs you, but in euery place to be offered the sacrifice of christen men, not to euery God, but to him that pro­phecied these before the God of Israell.

The lyke sayings he hath wryting vpon the .106. Psalme, and in his booke Contra Aduersarium legis. li. Capit. 20. which I omit, least I should be tedious to you, and to curious in so plaine a matter.

CROWLEY. Both the in­stitution and the prophecie make against Watson.Besides the institution, which maketh agaynst you: you do now alledge the prophecie of Malachie: which maketh no­thing for you. So handsomly do you handle your selfe, in prouing that you entende.

In mine aunswere to the fourth diuision of your former Sermon: I haue sufficiently opened the meaning, both of Ma­lachie and Ireneus. I néede not therefore in this place to write any further aunswere. What men they be that haue bestowed all their wit and learning, in writhing and racking this place of Malachie, to make it serue to some other sacrifice beside y^e Masse: you do not tell vs here. Wherefore, I néede not to spende anye time in examining their doyngs therein.

Hierome in Malach. 1.Saint Hierome was no wryther nor racker, I am sure: and yet he expounding this place of Malachie sayth thus. Et nequa­quam [Page 59] taurorum, hircorum (que) sanguinem: sed thymiama, hoc est, sanctorum orationes Domino offerendas. &c. Not the bloud of Bulles and Goa­tes, but swéete odours, that is the prayers of holy men, shall be of­fered to the Lord. &c.

But Chrysost. wordes vpon the Psalme. 95. Chrysost. in Psalm. 95. are so plaine that they néede no more opening, say you. Sée, sayth he, howe plainely Malachie the Prophet, doth interpret the misticall Ta­ble, which is the vnbloudie sacrifice. Well, the reader shall sée the wordes that folow immediately in the same place. Thymiama verò purum, appellat sacras preces, quae post hostiam offeruntur. Hic enim suffitus Deum refocillat. Non is qui à terrenis radicibus sumitur: sed qui a puro corde exhalatur. And he calleth the holy prayers that are offered after the sacrifice, pure incense. For this swéete perfume is a re­freshing to God. Not that which is taken from the rootes that grow in the earth: but that which is breathed out of a pure hart.

In mine aunswere to the ninth diuision of your former ser­mon: I haue noted out of this same Chrysostome, in his .17. Chrysost. in Epist. ad Heb. ho. 17. Ho­mily vpon the Epistle to the Hebrues, that the fathers vsed to cal the sacrament of the bodie of Christ a sacrifice, and yet they vn­derstood it to be but a remembraunce of that sacrifice that Christ offered on the Crosse once for all.

Of which sacrifice, that same Chrysostome wryteth in this same Homily that you cite vpon the .95. Psalme, saying. Om­nino magnus erat & modo carens, numerus sacrificiorum in lege: quae om­nia, noua gratia superueniens, vno complectitur sacrificio, vnam ac veram statuens hostiam. The number of sacrifices in the lawe was verie great, and without measure: which the grace that is come vpon vs, doth comprehend all in one sacrifice, appoynting but one true sacrifice. That this is spoken of that one sacrifice, that Christ did offer on the Crosse once for all: is plaine by that which doth im­mediately folowe. For he sayth. Habemus autem & nos in nobis ip­sis, varias immolationes. &c. And we also haue in our selues, sundrie offerings, which do not procéede according to the lawe: but are such as be séemeth for the Euangelicall grace. Wilt thou knowe these sacrifices which the Church hath, when the Euangelicall sacrifice doth without bloud, without smoke, without Altare and [Page 60] other ceremonies ascende vp vnto God, and what the pure and vndefiled sacrifice is? Hearken to the holy scripture, which doth plainly expounde vnto thée, this difference and varietie. The first sacrifice therefore, is that which I haue spoken of before, that spi­rituall and misticall sacrifice, whereof Paule sayth thus. Be yée folowers of God, as dearely beloued children, and walke in loue, euen as Christ hath loued vs. &c.

What sacrifi­ces y^e church offereth to God.And after this he maketh a short rehersall of all those sacri­fices, that the Church of Christ hath to offer to God, and he sayth thus. Habes igitur primum sacrificium illud salutare donum, secundum Martyrium, tertium deprecationis, quartum iubilationis, quintum iusti­ciae, sextum elemosinae, septimum laudis, octauum compunctionis, nonum humilitatis, decimum praedicationis. Thou hast therefore the first sa­crifice, which is that healthfull sacrifice, the second martyrdome, the thirde of prayer, the fourth of reioysing after victorie, the fift of righteousnesse, the sixt of almose, the seuenth of prayse, the eight of inward sorrow for sinne, the ninth of humilitie, the tenth of preaching.

By this it is manifest, that when Chrysostome speaketh of one sacrifice that comprehendeth all the sacrifices of the olde lawe: he meaneth that one sacrifice that Christ did offer in his owne person once for all. And when he speaketh of those sacri­fices that the Church hath to offer to God: he meaneth of such as be offered without bloud, without smoke, without Altare, and without other ceremonies. He meaneth therefore nothing lesse, then to maintaine your massing sacrifice.

August. cont. Iudeos.The wordes that you cite out of Austen contra Iudaos: make nothing for you. For he speaketh there of that sacrifice: that I haue here declared Chrysostome to speake of. As doth right wel appéere by that which foloweth in the same booke. For he sayth. Accedite ad eum qui ante oculos vestros glorificatur, ambulando non labo­rabitis: ibi enim acceditis, vbi creditis. Come vnto him that is glori­fied in your presence, it shall not be painefull for you to walke, for you do come vnto him euen there, where ye doe beleue. And againe he sayth. Come let vs walke in the light of the Lorde: be­cause his name is great among the Gentiles. And in the place [Page 61] that you say you omit, least ye should be tedious. &c. S. Austen sayth thus. Incensum enim, quod grece thymiama, August con [...] aduers. legis. lib. 11. cap. 20. sicut exposuit Iohan­nes in Apocalipsi, orationes sunt sanctorum. &c. For the incense, which in Gréeke is called Thymiama, as saint Iohn doth expound it in his Reuelations: are the prayers of the Saintes. Least I therefore should be tedious, and to curious in so plaine a matter: I omitte much that might be brought against your assertion: both out of Austen in the places that you haue here cited, and other of his workes, and also out of the rest of the fathers.

Ye haue heard the thing proued by the Gospell, by the Prophet, WATSON Diuision. 25. nowe heare the proofe of the figure taken out of the lawe. The Psalme sayth. Tues sacerdos in aeternum, secundum ordinem Melchisedech. Psal. 109. Thou art (meaning Christ) a priest after the order of Melchisedech.

Melchesedech was a priest of the most highest God, as appeareth both by his wordes and factes, in that he blessed Abraham, and also receyued tythes of him, whose oblati­on was breade and wine, which he offered to God meeting with Abraham comming from the spoyle of the kings. Gene. 14.

As for such fond cauillations, as some make for that the booke sayth, non obtulit, sed protulit, I let passe, as thinges nothing furthering their purpose, nor yet hindring ours.

This is plaine by saint Paule, that euery Bishop and Priest is ordeyned to offer sacrifice. Hebr. 8. If Christ our sauiour be a Priest, and that after the order of Melchisedech, as the Psalme, and saint Paule do witnesse, Psal. 109. then it must nedes fo­low, that Christ had some thing to offer, which is nothing but himselfe, and to no creature but to God, which he was himselfe, seing euery sacrifice is that honour that is due on­ly to God And that he offered himselfe after the order of Melchisedech, which must be vnder the formes of breade and wine. For that was the order and maner of Melchese­dech. Which kinde of offering he neuer made, except it were in his last supper, and for that cause and reason we may conclude that Christ in his supper did offer himselfe to his [Page 62] father for vs, not by shedding of his bloud by death, which was the order and maner of Aarons offering, but without shedding of his bloud vnder the fourmes of bread and wine which was the order of Melchisedech.

And that this is not my priuate collection, but the minde of all the auncient fathers, I shall with your paci­ence recite their sentences.

Cyprian li. 2. Epist. 3. Saint Ciprian sayth, Qui magis Sacerdos Dei summi, quam do­minus noster Iesus Christus qui sacrificium deo patri obtulit, & obtulit hoc idem quod, Melchisedech, id est, panem & vinum, suum scilicii corpus & sanguinem. Who is more the Priest of the highest GOD then our Lord Iesus Christ who offered a sacrifice to God the father, and offered the same that Melchisedech did, that is to say, bread and wine, that is to say his body and bloud.

And a little after he sayth: Qui est plenitudo veritatem prae­figuratae imaginis adimpleuit. Christ which is the fulnesse fulfil­led the truth of this image that was figurate before.

By these places of Ciprian we learne, that Melchisedech and his offering were figures of Christ, and his offering in his supper, and like as Melchisedech offered breade and wine, so Christ being the truth offered his bodie and bloud vnder the formes of bread and wine. And least anye man should be offended with that Cyprian sayth, hoc idem quod Melchisedech, the same that Melchisedech. Heare what saint Hierom sayth more plainely. Quomodo Melchisedech obtulit pa­nem & vinum, sic & tu offeres corpus tuum & sanguinem, verum panem & verū vinum. Hiero. in Psal. 109. Like as Melchisedech offered bread and wine: so thou shalt offer thy body and bloud, the true bread, and the true wine.

The other was the figuratiue breade and wine, this is the true breade and wine, the truth of that figure, not the same in substance, but the same in mysterie.

Paula Epist. ad Marcellā. The same saint Hierome among his Epistles hath an Epistle of the godly matrone Paula ad Marcellam. wherein be these wordes. Recurre ad Genesim & Melchisedech Regem Salem. Huius principem inuenies ciuitatis, qui iam tunc in tipo Christi panem & [Page 63] vinum obtulit, & misterium Christianum in saluatoris sanguine & cor­pore dedicauit. Returne (sayth Paula) to the booke of Genesis and to Melchisedech the king of Salem, and thou shalt find the prince of that Citie, which euen then in the figure of Christ offered bread and wine, and did dedicate the mistery or sacrament of the Christians in the bloud and bodye of our sauiour.

Marke in this most manifest place the oblation of the figure, which is breade and wine, and the oblation of the truth, which is the misterie of vs Christen men, the bodie and bloud of our sauiour Christ.

And it is to be noted, what is ment by this word (order) which saint Hierome expoundeth thus. Hiero. questio in Genesim. Mysterium nostrum in verbo ordinis significauit, nequaquam per Aaron irrationabilibus victi­mis immolandis, sed oblato pane & vino .i. corpore & sanguine domini Iesu. By this worde (order) he did signifie and expresse our mi­sterie, not by offering of vnreasonable and brute beastes as Aaron did, but by the oblation of bread and wine, that is to say, the bodie and bloud of our Lord Iesus.

After this fathers minde, order is taken for the maner of offering, not by shedding of bloud, but vnbloudily, as we offer Christes bodie and bloud in our mistery. For Chri­stes offering, concerning the substaunce of it was but one, but concerning the order and maner it was diuerse, vp­pon the crosse after the order of Aaron, in the supper after the order of Melchisedech. For so saint Augustine sayth: August. in Psalm. 33. Coram regno patris sui, id est, Iudaeorum mutauit vultum suum, quia e­rat ibi sacrificium secundum ordinem Aaron, & postea ipse de corpore & sanguine suo instituit sacrificium secundū ordinem Melchisedech Before the kingdome of his Father, that is to say the Iewes, hee chaunged his countenance, for there he was a sacrifice after the order of Aaron, & afterward he did institute the sacri­fice of his bodie and bloud, after the order of Melchisedech.

Marke the diuersitie and distinction of these two of­ferings of Christ, not in substaunce but in order, that is to say, the maner: and that Christ did institute the sacrifice of [Page 64] his bodie and bloud to bee offered of vs after the order of Melchisedech, which thing he expresseth more plainely in an other booke expounding a place of Ecclesiastes. Non est bonum homini nisi quod manducabit & bibet, August. De Ciuitate Dei. li. 17. Cap. 20. saying thus. Quid cre­dibilius dicere intelligitur, quam quod ad participiationem mensae huius pertinet, quam & sacerdos ipse mediator noui Testamenti exlabit secun­dum ordinem Melchisedech de corpore & sanguine suo? Id enim sacrifici­um successit omnibus illis sacrificijs veteris testamenti quae immolabantur in vmbra futuri. What is more credible we should thinke he ment by those wordes, then that pertayneth to the parti­cipation of this table, which Christ himselfe a priest and mediatour of the newe Testament doth exhibet after the order of Melchisedech of his bodie and bloud? For that sa­crifice did succede all the other sacrifices of the olde Testa­ment, which were offered in the shadowe of this to come.

What can be playner then this to shewe the figure of our mystery to be abrogated, and the truth which is our sa­crifice in the bodie and bloud of Christ in fourme of bread and wine to succeede.

Oecumenius in Epist. ad Hebreos. But to ende this matter, heare one place playnest of all which Oecumenius hath vpon this place of Saint Paule. Tu es sacerdos in aeternum &c. in these wordes. Significat sermo, quod non solum Christus obtulit incruentam hostiam (si quidem suū ipsius cor­pus obtulit) verum etiam qui ab ipso fungentur sacerdotio, quorum Deus pontifex esse dignatus est sine sanguinis effusione offerent. Nam hoc signifi­cat (in aeternum.) Neque enim de ea quae semel à deo facta est oblàtio, & hostia dixissit inaeternum, sed respiciens ad presentes sacrificos, per quos medios Christus sacrificat & sacrificatur, qui etiam in mystica coena mo­dum illis tradidit huiusmodi sacrificij. The worde meaneth, that not onely Christ offered an vnbloudy sacrifice, for he offe­red his owne bodie, but also that they which vnder hym vse the function of a priest (whose Bishop he doth vouch­safe to be) shall offer without shedding of bloud. For that signifieth the worde (euermore.) For concerning that ob­lation and sacrifice, which was once made of God, he would neuer say (euermore.) But hauing an eye to those priestes, [Page 65] that be now, by whose mediation Christ doth sacrifice and is sacrificed, who also in his mysticall supper did by tradi­tion teach them the maner of such a sacrifice.

This authoritie if it were any thing doubtfull, I would stand in it to open such poyntes, as were conteyned therin but being so manifest as it is, it nedeth no more, but to de­sire the hearer or reader to wey it, and he shall see this mat­ter we go about to proue, fully resolued both by the insti­tution of Christ in his last supper, and also by the figure of Melchisedech in the olde lawe. This aucthorities although there bee manye mo, yet I thinke them sufficient, and I thinke thereby the matter sufficiently proued.

Neyther by the Gospell, nor by the prophet haue ye proued,CROWLEY. the thing that you tooke in hande to prooue: no more doth that which you would haue your Auditorie harken to here, proue the figure taken out of the olde lawe, in such sort as you affirme it.

Saint Paule, writing to the Hebrues:Hebr. 7. goeth about to diswade them from the vayne confidence they had in the sacrifices and ceremonies of Moses lawe, and to perswade them to put their trust in that one only sacrifice that Christ had made, offring him­selfe once for all. And least they should reiect his doctrine as ha­uing no ground in the holy scriptures: he putteth them in minde of Melchisedech, who was a figure of Christ. And of his priest­hood: which was also a figure of Christes priesthood. First, he was a figure of Christ (sayth saint Paule) in that he was called Melchisedech, which is by interpretation,The minde of Paule in making men­tion of Mel­chisedech. the king of righte­ousnesse, and the king of Salem, which is, the king of peace. And in that he was a priest of the most high God, and hath neyther be­ginning nor ende of dayes noted in the holy hystories: his priest­hood séemed to be an euerlasting priesthood. And therefore (sayth saint Paule) he is lykened to the sonne of God that is euerla­sting, and hath an euerlasting priesthood, and is alwayes able to saue them that seeke saluation at his hande, bicause he lyueth euer to make intercession for vs.

This is the minde of saint Paule, as may easily appéere, to [Page 66] as many as will with indifferent mindes read that which he hath written in the seuenth Chapter of his Epistle to the Hebrues. But contrary to this meaning, doe you most wylfully gather: that Melchisedech was a figure of Christ and of his priesthood, in that he vsed to offer to God, a sacrifice of bread and wine. This you suck out of your owne fingers, and out of the dugs of such dreaming Doctors as you your selfe are: although you would séeme to haue learned al that you speake, in the schoole of Cyprian Austen, Hierome, and such other auncient and learned fathers.

Cyprian li. 2. Epist. 3. Cyprian sayth, Qui magis Sacerdos Dei summi &c. Here doth Cyprian affirme that Paule hath written to the Hebrues, con­cerning Christs priesthood and sacrifice. If Melchisedech were a priest of the most high God, bicause he offered sacrifice to God: why should not Christ be a priest of the same high God, seing he hath offered sacrifice to the same high God also? And if Melchi­sedech did offer bread and wine:Iohn. 6. Christ did the same, for he of­fred his owne body and bloud, which is lyuely bread and wine, the foode that féedeth into euerlasting lyfe. When this place is well weighed: what aduantage can you haue by it, to prooue that Christ offered himselfe to his heauenly father, in the bread and wine of his last supper? The reader may sée more of this, in that which I haue aunswered to the ninth and tenth diuisions of your former Sermon.

As touching the vnderstanding of the wordes a little after, where Cyprian sayth. Qui est plenitudo. &c: I referre the reader to the wordes that folow a little after them. Where Cyprian vseth the wordes of wisedome spoken by Salomon,Prouerb. 9. in this wyse. Qui est insipiens declinet ad me & indigentibus sensu dixit. Venite & edite de meis panibus, & bibete vinum quod miscui vobis. Vinum mixtum declarat, id est Calicem Domini aqua & vino mixtum, prophetica voce de­nunciat, vt appareat in passione dominica id esse gestum, quod fuerat prae­dictum. Wisedome (sayth Salomon) sent forth hir seruauntes, saying. Let him that is foolishe, turne in vnto me. And to such as lack vnderstanding she sayde. Come and eate of my bread, and drinke the wine that I haue mixed for you. Shée declareth (sayth Cyprian) that the wine is mixed. That is to say, shée doth with [Page 67] the voyce of prophecie declare, that the Lordes cup is mixed with water and wine: that it might appéere that in the Lordes passi­on, that thing was done in déede, which had bene told of before.

By these words of Cyprian, it appéereth plainely: that the cause why he woulde haue water mixed with the wine in the ce­lebration of the Lordes supper, was to shewe that the prophecie which Salomon vttered in the person of wisedome, was fulfilled in the passion of Christ, when water and bloud did issue out of his side. And also to imitate the example of Christ: who (as Cy­prian supposeth) did not drinke wine without the mixture of wa­ter. His whole purpose therfore in this Epistle,Cyprians purpose in his Epistle to his bro­ther. being to disproue the doing of those which vsed to minister with water without wine: he sought for many figures in the olde Testament, which might séeme to be prophecies of Christes ministration in his last supper. And he applyeth them to proue: that water alone could not serue to signifie that which Christ would haue to be signified by it. And (as in such case it may easily happen) when he findeth a figure, wherein mention is made of such mixture: he imagi­neth that Christ mixed water with the wine, and he conceyueth in his minde, that the wine must signifie Christ, and the water, the people. And so he maketh as great a matter of the omitting of the water, as he did before, of the leauing out of the wine. Not remembring, that he had at the first applied to his purpose, Noes drinking of wine, and Mechisedechs bringing forth of bread and wine: where there is no mention at all, of water mixed wyth the wine.

But as I haue written in mine aunswere to the .24. diuision of your former Sermon: let vs not forget the wordes of Eras­mus, in the Epistle that he wrote before the workes of Hilarius: Erasmus in Epistola ad Lectorem Hilarij. which are these. Nemo, quantumuis eruditus & oculatus. &c. There is no man be he neuer so well learned and circumspect, that doth not slip, and in some point shewe himselfe to lack sight, that no man should forget them to be men: and that we should read them with choise, with iudgement, yea and with fauour also, as men. Wordes worthy to be printed in memorie, and practised in the reading of all mennes wrytings.

Nowe, fearing least some man should mistake the wordes of Cyprian when he sayth.Hiero. in Psal. 109. Hoc idom quod Melchisedech: you cite the interpretation that saint Hierome maketh vpon the psalme .109. to proue that Christ offering his owne body and bloud in his last supper, did offer the same thing that Melchisedech did, not in substaunce, but in misterie. I wyll let the reader sée, what Hie­rome hath written: immediatly before and after the words that you cite. First he sayth thus. Superfluum est nos de isto versiculo velle interpretari: cum sanctus Apostolus ad Hebreos plenissime disputauit. Ipse enim ait. Iste est Melchisedech, sine patre, sine matre, sine generatione. Et interpretatur ibi diligentissimè: quare sine Patre. &c. It is a thing superfluous, for vs to go about to make an interpretation of this verse, seing that the holy Apostle hath in his Epistle to the He­brues, reasoned this matter at the full. For he sayth. This (that is to say Christ) is Melchisedech: Wherein Christ is like Melchise­dech. without father, without mo­ther, and without generation. And he doth there most diligently enterprete: wherefore he is without father, without mother, and without generation. And all ecclesiasticall persons doe say. That Christ is sayde to be without father in that he is man, and without mother, in that he is God. Let vs therefore interprete this onely: thou art a priest for euer after the order of Melchise­dech. Let vs onely declare this thing. Wherfore he hath said: after y^e order. According to the order, is as much as to say. Thou shalt not be a priest according to the Iewish sacrifices: but thou shalt be a priest after the order of Melchisedech. And then fol­low those words that you haue cyted. Quomodo enim. &c. And im­mediatly after those wordes he sayth. Iste Melchisedech, ista myste­ria quae habemus dedit nobis. &c. This Melchisedech, hath giuen vs these mysteries that we haue. It is he that sayde. He that ea­teth my flesh and drinketh my bloud. He hath giuen vs his sacra­ment: after the order of Melchisedech.

No indifferent reader can iudge, that saint Hierome mea­neth here to teach, that Christ did at his last supper, offer his body and bloud, vnder the formes of bread and wine, as you affirme. But as Melchisedech did offer bread and wine, so Christ should offer vpon the crosse, hys owne body and bloud (which is the true [Page 69] bread and true wine) and giue vs a sacrament, to be frequented in the remembraunce thereof.

But in that Epistle, that Paula and Eustochium wrote vn­to Marcella: You haue found a most manifest place.Paula & Eu­stoch. ad Marcellam. Recurre ad Genesim, & Melchisedech (say they) &c. Here I must tell you, that where you doe in the Englishe make Melchisedech, the Datiue case, and in the Latine, put the point Periodus, after Salem: you shew your selfe not to vnderstand the grammaticall sense, which is thus. Returne to the booke Genesis, and thou shalt finde, that Melchisedech king of Salem, was Prince of thys Citie, which euen then. &c.

Men of your sort, are very néere driuen:Watson is neere driuen. when they alledge womens wordes or wrytings, for proofe of matters so diuine, as is that which in this Sermon you treate of. But graunt it were Saint Hierome himselfe, that wrote that Epistle: might not Melchisedech offer bread and wine in a figure of Christ, and de­dicate the mysterie of Christians: but it must néedes folow, that Christ did at his last supper, offer his owne body and bloud vnder the formes of bread and wine, as you doe affirme? I thinke none that is learned in Logick will graunt that argument.

But (as you haue slightly touched before) the booke hath not Obtulit, but Protulit. He brought forth bread and wine.Watson ma­keth light of that which he is not a­ble to waigh. As lightly as you let passe, the reasons that men make against your opini­on, by the vauntage that the text gyueth being Protulit, and not Obtulit: neyther you nor any of your sort, shall euer be able to aunswere, otherwise then by calling them fond cauillations, as you doe.

In the Latine, these two Verbes are sometime vsed, both in one signification: but Profero, is neuer found in that signification, that you and such other doe vse Offero, when you speake of Mel­chisedechs comming forth to méete Abraham, and offering him bread and wine, to refreshe himselfe and his companie withall.

The Hebrue interpretors, who doe best know the significa­tion of the wordes of that tongue, wherein that hystory was first written: doe teach that it was the maner in those dayes, for such as remayned at home in peace, to come forth against them that [Page 70] returned from battayle with victorie, bringing with them bread and wine, to refreshe the wearie Souldiours withall, and so re­ceyue them friendly.

Antiquit. li. 1 Capit. 18. Iosephus, a Iewe borne, and so well learned in the Iewes lawes, and histories, that he was able to write a continuall histo­rie of the antiquitie, lawes and ceremonies of the Iewes, and of their warres: doth when he commeth to this part of the historie, write thus. Suscipit (que) cum rex Melchisedech, quod significat rex iustus, & erat vti (que), & sine dubio talis: ita vt propter hanc causam, etiam Dei sa­cerdos esset Solimorum, quam Ciuitatem postea Hierosalymam vocauerūt. Ministrauit autem iste Melchisedech, Abraham exercitui xenia, & mul­tam abundantiam rerum oportunarum simul exhibuit: & super epulas eum collaudare caepit, & benedicere deum, qui ei subdiderat mimicos. A­braham verò dante ei etiam decimas spoliorum, munus accepit. And hée was receyued of king Melchisedech, which signifieth a righte­ous king, and verily and without all doubt he was such a one: so that for that cause he was also Gods priest in the Citie Solyma, which Citie men did afterwarde call Hierosolyma. And this Melchisedech did minister gifts to the armie of Abraham: and he did also giue them great abundaunce of things néedefull. And as they were at meat: he began to prayse him, and to blesse God, which had subdued his enimies to him. And when Abraham gaue him the tythes of the spoyle: he receyued the gift.

Hiero. ad Euagrium. Iohn. 3.Saint Hierome in his Epistle ad Euagrium, doth proue that the Citie Salem, whereof Melchisedech was king: was not that which was afterward called Hierusalem, but that Sa­lem that is mencioned in the Gospell, where Iohn baptized bi­cause there was plentie of water there. He doeth therefore dis­proue, not onely Iosephus, but also all Christen writers: for that they suppose Melchisedech to haue béene king of that Citie, which was called Hierusalem after his dayes, but in his dayes Salem.

He alloweth the iudgement of those which doe suppose that Melchisedech was the first sonne of Noe, and that he liued after Abrahams death .35. yeares at the least (which is easie to be seene by the supputation of the yeares from the byrth of Sem, to the [Page 71] death of Abraham, which is .565. yeares, and the whole tyme of Sems life, is .600. yeares) but fayling somewhat in the supputa­tion, he sayth that Sem liued after Abraham .40. yeares.

He alloweth also the opinion of Iosephus and other, which thinke that Melchisedech brought forth bread and wine, to re­freshe Abraham and his seruauntes, in their returne from the slaughter of the kinges. Yea, and for this matter that you make so light of, he citeth the Hebrue text: translating the Hebrue verbe Hotzi, Protulit, not obtulit, thereby making his iudge­ment of that place manifest.

If you can proue that Hierome or any other wryter, haue in this place vsed obtulit in any other sense, then protulit is here vsed in the plaine text: I must be bolde to vse Hieroms owne wordes against himselfe and the rest. In his Commentarie vpon Math he sayth: Hoc quia de scripturis non habet authoritatem, In Math. 23. eadem facilitate contemnitur, qua probatur. Because this thing hath none authoritie of the scripture: it is as easily contemned, as alowed. And in his Apologie of his bookes against Iouinian he sayeth.Apolog. lib. aduers. Ioui. Commentatoris officium est, non quid ipse velit, sed quid sentiat ille quem interpretatur exponere. Alioqui, si contraria dixerit: non tam interpres erit, quam aduersarius, eius quem nititur explanare. Certe, vbicun (que) scripturas non interpretor & libere de meo sensu loquor: The dutie of a good inter­preter. arguat me cui li­bet, durum quid dixisse contra nuptias. It is the duetie of one that doth comment vpon the wrytings of other, to expound, not what he himselfe lusteth: but what the meaning of him is, whome he doth enterpret. Otherwise, if he shall say contrarie: he shall ra­ther be an aduersarie, then an interpretour of him whome he would explane.

Truely, whensoeuer I doe not interpret the scriptures, but doe fréely vtter mine owne meaning: let him that lusteth repre­hend me, as one y^t hath vttred some hard saying against mariage.

Yet one other place you cite out of Hierome, Hiero. quest. in Genesim. to vnderprop your Popishe priesthood withall. Mysterium nostrum. &c. By thys worde (order) he did signifie. &c. If you had bene disposed to deale plainely, you would haue ioyned the former part of the Oration with the latter: and not haue picked out the latter to serue your [Page 72] purpose: leauing out the first.

Melchise­dechs blessing declared.Saint Hierome sayth that the Apostle saint Paule, in his E­pistle to the Hebrues, making mention of Melchisedechs being without father and mother: doth referre it vnto Christ, and by Christ, to the Church of the Gentiles. For (sayth he) the glorie of euery head, is referred to the members, bicause one that was not circumcised, did blesse Abraham that was circumcised: and in Abraham he blessed Leui, and by Leui, he blessed Aaron of whome the priesthood did afterwarde come. Whereof he would haue vs gather, that the priesthood of that Church that was not circumcised: did blesse the circumcised priesthood of the Syna­goge. And then folow the wordes that you should haue cyted. Quod autem ait, Tu es sacerdos in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchi­sedech: Mysterium nostrum in verbo ordinis significatur. &c: as you haue cyted. Our mysterie is signified (sayth saint Hierome) but you tell not vpon what occasion he sayde so. Where as the Apostle sayth (sayde saint Hierome) thou art a priest after the order of Melchisedech: our mysterie is signified in the worde, order. Not by Aaron in offering vp sacrifices of vnreasonable beastes: but by bread and wine that was offered, that is the bodye and bloud of the Lorde Iesus. Thus farre saint Hierome.

You must néedes graunt, that our mysterie, is our coupling togither into members of one body in Christ, wherof saint Paule speaketh to the Ephesians. When he sayth. Mysterium hoc mag­num est, Ephes. 5. ego autem dico in Christo & Ecclesia. This mysterie is great sayth Saint Paule: but I speake it of Christ and the congre­gation. Of the same speaketh saint Austen in his Sermon Ad Infantes. Where he sayth thus. Vos estis corpus Christi & membra: Si ergo vos estis corpus Christi & membra: mysterium vestrum in mensa Domini positum est, Citatur à Beda in collect. mysterium Domini accipitis. Ad id quod estis, amen respondetis. &c. You are the body and members of Christ. If you therefore be the body and members of Christ: your mysterie is set vpon the Lordes table, you receyue the Lordes mysterie. To the thing that you your selues are, you aunswere Amen. And in aunswering you doe subscribe.

This mysterie was not signified by Aarons sacrifices (sayth [Page 73] saint Hierome): but by the bread and wine, that Melchisedech brought forth to refreshe Abraham and his Souldiours withall.1. Cor. 10. August. in Ioh. Tract. 26. Which bread and wine was the body and bloud of the Lord Ie­sus: euen as the Manna that fell from heauen, and the water that issued out of the rock were the same.

Your application of this place of Hierome, might well haue bene spared therfore: if you had dealt plainly with your auditory. For it is now manifest to the reader: that saint Hierome ment nothing lesse, then to teache that Christ offered himselfe once at two times, and after two orders:The order of Melchise­dech declared but he buyldeth vpon saint Paules wordes, who sayth that Christ was not a priest to offer after Aarons order, but after the order of Melchisedech, an e­ternall and euerlasting sacrifice.

Now must Austen help you to patch out this matter.August. in Psal. 33. & De Ciuit. Dei li. 17. cap. 20. Vpon the tytle of .33. Psalme, he sayth thus. Coram Regno Patris sui. &c. And vpon this sentence of Ecclesiastes, Non est bonum homini. &c: he sayth thus. Quid credibilius dicere. &c.

If saint Austen should in these two places teach, as in your application, you doe beare your Auditorie in hande that he doth teache:Watson would haue Austen teach false doctrine. then were his doctrine most false and contrarie to the Euangelicall hystorie. For where as the Gospell sayth, that Christ did institute the sacrament of his body and bloud, the night before he suffered: saint Austen must say (if you apply his words aright) that he did first suffer, and then institute the sacrament of his body and bloud afterward.

But I will not for your pleasure conceyue such an opinion of Austen: for I know he was farre from that shamefull errour and open falshood. He taught truely, that in the time of the olde lawe among the people of the Iewes: Christ was a sacrifice af­ter the order of Aaron, for by euery bloudy sacrifice, was the death of Christ plainely set forth, to as many as had eyes to looke, and se thorow the shadow of the law. But after al those sacrifices that were offered, in the shadow of a thing to come: he prepared a sacrifice after the order of Melchisedech, that is euerlasting, and that of his owne body and bloud, which is the foode that fée­deth into euerlasting lyfe.

And that this is saint Austens meaning: is playne by that which in the booke that you cite, De Ciuitate Dei, he addeth to the wordes that you cite. His words be these. Propter quod etiam vocem illam in psalmo tricesimo & nono, eiusdem mediatoris per Prophetam lo­quentis, agnoscimus sacrificium & oblationem noluisti, corpus autem per­fecisti mihi, quia pro illis omnibus sacrificijs & oblationibus, corpus eius of­fertur, & participantibus ministratur. Wherfore (sayth saint Austen) We doe acknowledge that voyce of the same Meditatour, speak­ing by the Prophet in the Psalme .39. in this wyse: thou hast not desired sacrifice and oblation, but thou hast made me a perfite bo­dye, for his body is offered in stede of all those sacrifices and obla­tions, and is ministred to such as be partakers thereof.

The conti­nual offering of Christ.This sacrifice, bicause it is eternall after the order of Mel­chisedech, is still presently offered by the Meaditor Christ: who is both the priest and sacrifice, and continually ministred, to them that be partakers thereof by faith, by that spiritual maner of mi­nistration, whereby spirituall lyfe, is ministred from the head Christ to his members the Church.

But nowe, to ende this matter: your Auditorie must heare one place more, which is playnest of all. Oecumenius hath said, Significat sermo. &c. If I might vse such libertie in cyting places, as you doe in this: I could easily finde plaine places ynough to proue whatsoeuer I lusted to take in hande. Where the author hath sayde Significat sermo, quod licet Christus non obtulerit carentem sanguine hostiam (siquidem suum ipsius corpus obtulit) attamen qui ab ipso fungentur sacerdotio. &c. The signification of this saying is: that although Christ did not offer a sacrifice without bloud (for he offered his owne body) yet shall those that shall after him execute the office of priesthood (whose high priest God doth vouchsafe to be) offer without bloud. For that is signified by this saying. For euer. &c.

These be the wordes of Oecumenius: as Hentenius hath translated them out of the Gréeke. But you had promised your Auditorie a playner place then this was beyng thus translated. For this is playne against all that you haue done before, in proo­uing that our Sauiour Christ did offer himselfe without bloud. [Page 75] For this felow being thus translated, sayth: Although Christ did not offer a sacrifice without bloud. &c.

Well therefore, to make the place plaine in déede, you haue amended the translation, I trowe, and you haue sayde: Significat sermo, quod non solum Christus obtulit incruentam hostiam (siquidem su­um ipsius corpus obtulit) verum etiam qui ab ipso. &c. The word mea­neth, that not onely Christ offered an vnbloudy sacrifice (for he offered his owne body) but also they that shall vnder him vse the function of a priest (whose Byshop he doth vouchsafe to be) shall offer without shedding of bloud. Well, eyther you,Oecumenius belyed in translating. or your friend Hentenius haue belyed the Gréeke. For here is playne contra­diction. The one sayth. Hath not offred: and the other sayth, hath offered. Wherfore, it must néedes folow, that the one hath made a lye. And peraduenture if the Gréeke might be séene and well viewed: you might be founde false harlots both (for Hentenius was a Louanist. &c.) For who so readeth the rest that Oecume­nius hath collected out of other wryters that were before his time, and patched togither into one commentarie vpon the Epi­stle to the Hebrues: he shall haue but little occasion to thinke that Oecumenius could be of such minde concerning the meaning of these wordes, Tu es sacerdos in aeternum, thou art a priest for euer: as in this place that you cite, he sheweth himselfe to be, when he sayth, Christ could not be sayde to be a priest for euer, but in re­spect of those sacrifycing priestes that are now, by whose meanes he doth still offer and is offred. For vpon the tenth Chapter and these wordes, Singulis annis, he sayth thus. An ne nos semper offeri­mus hostias sanguine carentes? sed vnius eiusdem (que) mortis Christi memo­riam facimus, & vnum Christi corpus, semper edimus. Doe we alwaies offer sacrifices that haue no bloud? But we doe make a memori­all of that one and the selfe same death of Christ, and doe alway eate one body of Christ. And vpon the worde Perpetuò, he sayth: Quum vna perpetuò sufficiat. Seing y^t one sacrifice may suffice for euer. And vpon these wordes. In certitudine fidei, In the certainty of fayth: he sayth thus. Quoniam autem nihil est post haec visibile: ne (que) templum, id enim est caelum, ne (que) Pontifex, is est Christus, ne (que) victima, haec corpus est ipsius: necessaria in posterum est fides. Verum quia contingit [Page 76] credere simul & haesitare, ait. In certitudine fidei. Hoc est, vt certisimus de his. Oecumenius his meaning made plaine. Bicause that hence forth there is nothing visible, neither temple, for that is heauen, neyther high priest, for that is Christ, neyther sacrifice, for that is his bodye: fayth is from this tyme forward necessarie. But bicause it doth happen, that a man doth at one time, both beleue and doubt: he sayth in the certaintie of fayth, that is that we may be certaine of these things.

Many such sayings as this are in that Commentarie: where­fore, corrupting of the Author in translating may be suspected: as well on the behalfe of Hentenius, as you, although your do­ing doe more appéere then his. But graunt that Oecumenius haue written in Gréeke: euen as you haue reported him in La­tine. Is he knowne to be of such antiquitie and authoritie in the Church: that his glose must be of more authoritie & credit, then the playne wordes of the text? Saint Paule sayth. Iam non est oblatio pro peccatis. There is nowe no oblation for sinnes. Seing Christ hath by one oblation made perfite, such as be sanctified: what néedeth there any more offering for sinne? For the cause of the continuaunce of the offering, was the imperfection of the offe­rings, which could neuer take away sinne, but alway put the of­ferers in minde of one that was to come, who should be able by one oblation once offered, fully to take away the sinnes of the whole worlde.Oecumenius may haue no credite a­gainst saint Paule.

Your Oecumenius therefore, being a great many of hun­dred yeres after saint Paule (as may iustly be gathered, by that he wrote after so many of the Gréeke wryters as he nameth in his booke) should nowe be credited in that which he wryteth con­trarie to saint Paule, if that should be beleued as taught by him, which you would so fayne maintaine by his wordes.

Your false dealings therfore, being so playne as it is: I néede not to stand vpon the opening of it any more, but onely to desire the reader to waight the matter, and he shall sée, that the matter that you go about to proue: is not resolued at all, either by the in­stitution of Christ, or by the figure of Melchisedech. You must therefore alledge other Scriptures and authorities: before your matter can be sufficiently proued.

Other Scriptures there be though not so plaine, WATSON Diuision. 2 [...] yet they conteyne an argument to proue the same as this of Saint Paule. Non potestis participes esse mensae domini & mensae demo­niorum. 1. Cor. 10. Ye can not bee partakers of our Lordes table and the table of deuils. The worde (table) here is taken for the meate of the table. For men be not partakers of the materi­all borde, but of the meate that is ministred vpon the bord. Now the table of deuils is taken for that meat that is offe­red to Idols in which diuels did reigne, and therefore that meat was called in Greeke. Idolothyton, meat offered to Idols. Now this is certain by al good learning that in euery cōpa­rison there must nedes be a proportion & similitude, wher­in the things compared must agree, then whereas these two tables be compared in offering and eating, it must needes folow, that if the table of deuils be a verie sacrifice made to deuils in dede, the table of our Lorde likewise must bee a sacrifice, offered to our Lorde in deede. And if our Lordes table be a very sacrifice made to him by vs, then haue wee our purpose proued and confessed.

The like argument may be made of the worde (aultare) in saint Paule. Habemus altare de quo edere non habent potestatem, Hebr. 13. qui tabernaculo de seruiunt. We haue an aultare, of which they may not eate that serue the tabernacle.

If aultare and sacrifice be so annexed togither, that the one cannot bee without the other, then when saint Paule sayeth, wee haue an aultare, speaking also of the eating of that aultare, he must nedes meane the sacrifice made vpon the aultare: so that our sacrament before we eate it, is also a sacrifice.

For so doth Theophilactus take this place. Theophilact. ad Heb. Capit. 13. Et nos inquit obseruationem habemus, haudtamen in esculentes hisce, sed in ara siue in hostia illa incruenta & corpore vitam clargiente. And we also haue an obseruation, yet not in these common meates, but in our aultare or vnbloudye sacrifice, whiche giueth life to our bodyes.

Here we may see, that he meaneth by the aultare the [Page 78] vnbloudie sacrifice of Christes bodie, which being eaten of vs corporally in the sacrament giueth life to our bodyes.

Moreouer if tyme would serue me, I could make an ar­gument of Daniels prophecie of the cōming of Antichrist bicause he sayth,Dani. 12.that in that tyme the continuall sacrifice shall be by Antichrist taken away, per tempus, tempora, & dimi­dium temporis, by the space of three yeres and an halfe as ma­ny take it.

Whether this shall bee done all Christendome ouer at one time, or in euery particular region at diuers tymes, it is not certainely knowen to vs, and therfore I will not cer­teynly determine it. But this is certaine, that Antichrist can not take away the sacrifice of Christ vpon the crosse, which was but once made, and shall neuer be iterate nor frustrate. Nor he can not take away the inward spirituall sacrifice of mans heart, which then shal florish most of al in the elect. For why should they then flie to the mountaines, (as the booke saith) but that for the vehemencie of the per­secution, they might more feruently doe spirituall sacrifice to almightie God.

Therefore it foloweth that the sacrifice of Christen men is such an one, as may be taken away by Antichrist, which in my iudgement can be nothing else, but the sacrifice of the Masse, or else let them tell what other sacrifice it is be­side the Masse.

Ye se nowe, what Scriptures I haue brought to proue the oblation of Christes bodie in the Masse to be the sacri­fice of the Church and newe Testament, which hath beene assaulted many wayes of many men. But to the oppugnati­on of it they neuer yet to this houre alledged any one direct scripture nor doctor, nor good reason. They haue gone a­bout it, and by tyranny in some places they haue preuailed for a tyme, but alwayes truth the daughter of tyme hath ouercommed.

For lack of plaine scriptures,CROWLEY you alledge such as you say doe containe argumentes to prooue the popishe Masse to be a sacri­fice. &c. And first you begin with saint Paule, where he sayth: Non potestis. &c. The Argument that you finde in this scripture,1. Cor. 10. is thus. If the table of deuils be a sacrifice made to deuils in dede: then must the table of the Lord be a sacrifice offered to the Lorde in déede. But the table of the deuils is so: Ergo, the Lordes table must néedes be so. And so is your purpose proued and confessed.

If you were in the diuinitie schoole, and should in disputati­on be put to proue the maior proposition of this Argument:Watsons maior is not currant in the scholes. it woulde not slip away so smoothly as it did when you spake it in your sermon. For it would be made plaine to you that you build this reason vpon a false supposition. For where you suppose the table of Deuils, and the table of the Lorde to be compared in of­fering and eating: it would be proued to you by the sayings of auncient wryters, that the comparison is in the societie of the eaters, with them at whose tables they eate.

Theophilactus whose iudgement you should trust in this place (for you make him you onely stay,Theophi. in 1. Cor. 10. in that which you cite out of saint Paule to the Hebrues) vpon these wordes of Paule. Nolo autem vos participes fieri Demoniorum, I woulde not that you should be made partakers of y^e deuils: sayth thus. Si enim mysticam mēsam participantes, Christo communicant, ei (que) vniuntur: Daemonum men­sam participantes, Daemonibus haud dubiè communicant. If they that be partakers of the mysticall table, do communicate with Christ and be ioyned into one with him: without doubt such as be par­takers of the table of Deuils, do communicate with deuils. And vpon the words that you cite, he sayth. Ex solis nominibus probat, non esse comedenda Idolis immolata. He doth by the names alone, proue that we should not eate those things that be offered to Idolles.

Here it is manifest,Wherein the tables be compared that Theophilactus vnderstandeth saint Paule to make comparison betwéene the table of Deuils, and the Lordes table: in the societie of the partakers, with them at whose tables they be partakers. As they which be partakers at the Lordes table, do shewe themselues thereby to be ioyned to the Lorde in societie and vnitie: so they that be partakers at the [Page 80] Idols table, doe shew themselues to be in societie and vnitie with the Idols.

Chrysostome, wryting vpon the same place: is of the same minde. And so are Ambrose and Hierome. And to be short. As many as haue written vpon this place: doe vnderstande saint Paule to meane of the societie and vnitie, that the eaters haue with them, at whose table they do eate. And the argument that saint Paule vseth, is à Contrarijs, of the contraries. And therfore some of the interpreters do compare the spéech that he vseth here to that which our sauiour Christ vseth in the sermon that hée made in the mount.Math. 6. Non potestis Deo seruire, & Mammoni. You can not serue God and Mammon. The argument therefore, that you would haue vs thinke to be conteyned in this scripture: is verie farre from the meaning of the place that you say it is con­teyned in.

No forme of reasoning ob­serued by Watson.But what néede I to spend any time in disprouing the parts of this Argument: séeing it is but a méere Cauillation, folowing no right forme of Argumentation. For this is an infallible rule in Logicke (as you knowe I am sure) that of méere particulers, there can no necessarie consequence folow. But the antecedents in this argument are méere particulers: Ergo, the conclusion can not necessarily folow thereof.

The like argument, you say, may be made, of the worde al­tare in saint Paule to the Hebrues, where he sayth, Habemus al­tare. Hebr. 13. &c. We haue an altare. &c. The argument that you say is conteyned in this place of scripture, is thus. If altare and sacri­fice can not be the one without the other, then saint Paule spea­king of eating the altare, must néedes meane, the eating of the sacrifice made on the altare. But altare and sacrifices are so an­nexed togither. &c. Ergo, Saint Paule speaking of the eating of the altare, must néedes meane. &c. This argument is like the o­ther, and therefore must be denied by the same rule. And so shall not this argument proue, that our Sacrament is a sacrifice be­fore it is eaten.

Theophilact. in Epist. adBut Theophilact. say you, doth so take this place. For he sayth. Et nos inquit. &c. And we (sayth saint Paule) haue an ob­seruation. [Page 81] &c.Heb. 13. Either you felow some corrupted copie of Theo­philacts Commentarie: or else you haue of purpose corrupted the place your selfe. For Iohannes Lonicerus, folowing an aun­cient Gréeke copie: hath trāslated it thus. Nos inquit, obseruationem habemus, verum haud eam quae sit in huiusmodi cibis, sed super altari, si­ue impoluta & immaculata hostia viuisici corporis. We (sayth Saint Paule) haue an obseruation, but not that which is in such maner of meates, but vpon the altare, or the vndefiled and vnspotted sa­crifice of the bodie that quickneth or giueth life. Here is no word that may signifie vnbloudie sacrifice. Neither is there any place in this saying to conteyne an argument, to proue that the sacra­ment is a sacrifice before it is receyued. Neither doth Theophi­lactus take this place in any such meaning. But he vnderstan­deth saint Paule to meane of the Communion of the bodie and bloud of Christ, when he sayth. Habemus altare. &c. We haue an altare. &c. Which Communion Theophilact. calleth,Theophilactu meaning made plaine. the vnde­filed and vnspotted sacrifice of the quickning bodie: folowing the custome, that then was common among the fathers. That was to call the sacramentes by the names of those thinges whereof they were sacraments. This obseruation haue we that be Chri­stians, whereof the ministers of the Tabernacle (that is to say, such as beleue not in Christ, though they be Iewes) can not bée partakers. Yea though they should be partakers of the outward obseruation: yet could they not haue any part of that quickning bodie that Theophilact. speaketh of, because they remaine in in­credulitie or vnbeliefe, as he sayth afterwards in the same Chap­ter, where he speaketh of the sacrifice of thankesgiuing for the bloud of Christ.

Here the Reader maye sée that Theophilact. doeth in this place meane nothing lesse, then such an vnbloudy sacrifice as you speake of. But rather he may be vnderstanded to meane of such an vnbloudie sacrifice as saint Austen speaketh of, when he saith thus. Tunc enim ordinem legittimum consecrationis altaris cum gaudio celebramus: quando altaria cordis vel corporis nostri, munda & pura, August ser. de tempore. in conspectu diuinae maiestatis offerrimus. Then doe we with ioy cele­brate the lefull order of the consecration of the altare: when we [Page 82] do in the presence of God, offer the altare of our owne heart and bodie, cleane and pure.

Chrysostome also wryting vppon the same place: maye séeme to meane of the same sacrifice. He writeth thus. Num enim & nos inquit, Paules wordes ex­pounded by Chrysostōe. illa non custodimus? Custodimus enim & vehementius: ne (que) ipsis sacerdotibus ex his quicquam dantes. Do not we (sayth saint Paule) obserue these things. Truely we doe obserue them, and that more earnestly, neither doe we giue any part therof to the priestes. Of what other sacrifice can this be spoken, then those that be offered vpon the altars of our owne bodyes and hearts, that is, meditations and workes of obedience to God. Whereof we giue no part to our selues that be the priestes and offerers: but altogither to him that we offer this sacrifice to, according to the order of offering that sacrifice, the bloud whereof the highe Priest offered for sinne, whereof the Priestes had no part for their fée, but all the whole was burnt with fire. For it is God alone that worketh in vs both the good will,Phil. 2. and the performance thereof: and therefore, the whole prayse is to be ascribed to him, and no part to be giuen to vs.

So farre off are these auncient fathers, from maintayning your carnall opinion, of the corporall eating of Christes bodie in the sacrament thereof. But if time would haue serued you, you could haue made an argument of Daniels prophecie. &c. Well, as time would suffer, you bungle vp a reason: and thus you say. Antichrist can not take away the sacrifice that Christ offered on the Crosse, nor the inward sacrifice of mans heart: wherefore it is the Masse that is the continuall sacrifice,Watson hath time ynough to proue his arguments. and must be taken a­way by Antichrist. I denie your argument. Graunting you as much time for the proufe thereof, with the other two that go be­fore: as you your selfe will take.

And because you would haue vs tell you, what other sacri­fice besides the Masse, it is that Antichrist may take away: I wil tell you what sacrifice it is in my iudgement, and then let the in­different reader be iudge betwixt my iudgement and yours.

In my iudgement, the contynuall sacrifice that Antichrist may take away from the Church of Christ: is that which saint [Page 83] Paule speaketh of when he sayth.Hebr. 12. What sacri­fice Anti­christ may take away. Per ipsum igitur offerrimus sacri­ficium laudis semper Deo: hoc est fructum labiorum confitentium nomen eius. Through him therefore, we doe alwayes offer vnto God, a sacrifice of praise: that is, the fruit of those lips, that doe confesse his name. This sacrifice, hath Antichrist of Rome taken away from the vniuersall Church of Christ in taking vpon himselfe the title of vniuersall head of the same Church, which tytle is due to Christ onely, and in taking vpon him the authoritie and po­wer, to remitte and pardon sinnes, which power belongeth to God onely. The fruite of those lips that confesse his name is ta­ken away: when none may without perill of death, confesse that Christ onely is the vniuersall head of his Church: and that God onely, in his sonne Christ and for his sake, doth fréely forgiue and pardon sinnes. Thus you haue my iudgement of a sacrifice con­tynuall, that may be taken away by Antichrist: and yet is not your Popishe Masse.

The thrée yeres and halfe also, may well be applyed to the times, wherin the power of Rome hath taken away this sacrifice by cruell persecution: so that very few or none in all the knowne worlde, durst offer this sacrifice to God. Now let the indifferent reader be iudge betwéene your iudgement & mine, in this matter of a continuall sacrifice, that may be taken away by Antichrist.

But that Daniell ment there to prophecy, that Antichrist shal take away the continuall sacrifice: the text will not suffer me to thinke. For he sayth thus. A tempore oblationis iugis sacrificij, The mea­ning of Da­niels pro­phecie. & po­sitae abominationis desolationis: dies mille ducenti non aginta. From the time of the taking away of the contynuall sacrifice, and setting vp of the abhomination of desolation, are a thousand, two hunde­reth, foure score and ten dayes. Which is the time, two times, and halfe a time that he spake of before.

The continuall sacrifice of the temple, was fully ended and taken away by Christes one oblation of hymselfe:2. Thess. 2. and the abho­mination of desolation, is set vp in the Church of Christ, the man of sinne boasting himselfe to be God, as doth the Antichrist of Rome, which setteth vp himselfe aboue all that is called God, that is aboue all Princes and earthly Potentates. The space [Page 84] therefore betwéene the ending of the ceremoniall sacrifices, and Christes comming to iudgement: may be a time, two times, and halfe a time. That is, a long time, twise so long a time, to the fer­uent desire that Gods elect haue to sée the ende: and but halfe a tyme, that is to say, a verie short time in comparison of that euer­lasting time, wherein they shall raigne with Christ in glorie incomparable.

Words that remayne sealed.This my iudgement I submit to the iudgement of the godly learned: til that time be ended, during which (as the Angell tolde Daniell) those wordes of his must remaine sealed.

Thus much haue I written, to let the reader sée, what scrip­tures you haue brought to prooue the oblation of Christes body in the Masse, to be the sacrifice of the Church and newe testament. Which as you say, many haue assaulted and oppugned with such direct scriptures & Doctours and good reasons, that it is by them expugned, and can not be by you propugned. Not by tyrannicall power, but by simple and plaine preaching of the Gospell: these men haue preuayled in many places, for a time. And Truth the daughter of Time: hath neuer suffered hir selfe to be altogither ouercome by Popishe tyranny.

WATSON Diuision. 27 Heb. 9. &. 10. Some scriptures they abuse, what they be, ye shal heare. They alledge saint Paule to the Hebrues. Semel oblatus est ad multorum exhaurienda peccata. Christ was once offered to take a­way the sinnes of many. Vnica oblatione cōsumauit inaeternum sanc­tificatos. With one oblation he hath perfited for euermore al that be sanctified. These be the scriptures they alledge a­gainst the Masse, and they say Christes oblation is perfite, no man can offer Christ but himselfe, which hee did but once, and neuer but once, as though we should say, that Christ was crucified twise or often times.

To this obiection of theirs, wee aunswere that Christ was neuer offred to the death for our redemption but once, and yet otherwise was he offered many times, both of him­selfe and of his creatures.

Daniell. 7. We reade in the prophet Daniell, that Aungels offered [Page 85] him in the sight of his father. Luc. 3. Bernard. Ser. 3. de pu­rificatione. And also the blessed Virgin his mother offered him at hir purification, of which offe­ring saint Bernard sayth, Ista oblatio fratres satis delicata videtur, vbi tantum sistitur domino, redimitur auibus & illico reportatur. Thys oblation brethren is very delicate, where he is onely pre­sented to our Lorde, redeemed with birdes, and by and by brought home againe.

And therefore we aunswere them, that their argument is of no strength, to confute one truth by another, when both may be true, as to reason, Christ was but once offered vpon the crosse, Ergo he was not offered in the sacrament. And we tell them, that they doe not consider how Christ is offred three wayes of himselfe, and also three wayes of man.

First he offred himselfe vpon the crosse really and cor­porally as I say as sayth, Oblatus est quia voluit. Isay. 50. This is manifest ynough. And here their exclamations of ones ones hath very good place.

Secondly he offered himselfe figuratiuely in the pas­chall lambe. For the scripture sayth, the lambe was slaine from the beginning of the worlde, Apo 13. and the fathers in the olde lawe in all their sacrifices did offer Christ not in sub­staunce, but in figure, and so Christ offering the paschall lambe at his supper, offered him selfe in figure.

Thirdly Christ offreth himselfe in heauen really and so contynually, as the same Chapiter which they bring against the Masse doth testifie. Non in manifacta sancta Iesus introiuit, ex­emplaria verorum, Heb. 9. sed in ipsum coelum vt appareat nunc vultui Dei pro nobis. Iesus entred not into a temple made with mans hand a figure of the truth, but into heauen, that he might appeare nowe to the countenaunce of God for vs.

What is this appearing in the sight of God for vs, but an offering of himselfe for vs to pacifie the anger of God with vs, to represent his woundes and all that he suffered for vs, that we might be reconciled to God by him?

This is the true and perpetuall oblation of Christ in comparison of this in heauen, the bloudy oblation vpon [Page 86] the crosse is but an Image, as S. Ambrose sayth: Hic vmbra, hic imago, Ambrose offi. lib. 1. Capit. 48. illic veritas, vmbra in lege, imago in Euangelio, veritas in coe­lestibus: antè agnus offerebatur, vitulus: nunc Christus offertur sed offertur quasi homo quasi recipiens passionem, & offert se ipse quasi Sacerdos vt pec­cata nostra dimittat, hic in imagine, ibi in veritate, vbi apud patrem pro nobis quasi aduocatus interuenit.

Here (in this worlde) there is a shadowe, here there is an ymage, there (in heauen) is truth, the shadowe in the law, the ymage in the Gospell, the truth in heauen. Before a Lambe and Calfe were offered, now Christ is offered, but he is offered as man and receauing passion, and he offereth himselfe as being a priest to take our sinnes awaye, here in ymage, there in truth, where with the father as an aduocate he maketh intercession for vs.

The same thing he wryteth also vpon the .38. Psalme. So that it is very plaine without al controuersie, that Christ doth offer himselfe now most perfitely in heauen for vs, be­ing our aduocate to the father face to face, & as saint Iohn sayth. 1. Iohn. 2. Ipse est propitiatio pro peccatis nostris, he is a sacrifice propi­tiatorie for our sinnes, he sayth not he was, but is, and after the most perfitest maner that can be, in respect whereof the very true and reall oblation for our redemption vpon the crosse, is an ymage.

So that by this we see by the plaine scripture, that Christ offered himselfe three wayes, besides the oblation of him­self in his supper, which is the point we he about to declare.

And euen so is he offered of man three wayes likewise. First figuratiuely, in the oblation of the olde testament.

When Abraham being about to offer his owne deare sonne, and by Gods prouision offred in his stede a Ramme, and when Melchisedech offered bread and wine, and the Iewes the pascall lambe and their burnt offerings: what did they offer but Christ in figure, whose passion those offe­rings did signifie? Which offerings did of themselfe worke nothing inwardly, and therefore were called Iustitia carnis, the righteousnesse of the fleshe, but by them they did pro­test [Page 87] their sinne, and declared their fayth, of whome they looked to haue remission.

Secondly, we offer Christ mistically in our daylie sacri­fice of the Masse, where Christ is by his omnipotent power presented to vs in the sacrament, and of vs againe repre­sented to his and our father, and his passion renewed, not by suffering of death againe, but after an vnbloudy ma­ner, not for this ende, that we should therby deserue remis­sion of our sinnes, but that by our fayth, deuotion, and this representation of his passion we most humbly pray al­mightie God to applie vnto vs by Christ that remission, which was purchased and deserued by his passion before.

The hoste of these two sacrifices vpon the crosse and vp­on the aultar, is all one in substaunce, but the maner is dy­uers, and the ende is dyuers, that by this meanes (as Christ himselfe hath instituted) we might celebrate & make com­memoration of his passion. This is onely the sacrifice of the priest by publicke ministration, but verily and in affection it is the sacrifice of the whole Church, which euerye mem­ber of the Church doth vse and frequent, no man doth impugne it, but he that professeth open warre against the Church.

Thirdly Christ is offered by man spiritually onely by the meditation of our minde, when we thinke and remem­ber his passion, and in our deuout prayer beseech God to showe vs mercy for it.

Thus euery christen man and woman, in all places and times vppon the aultar his owne heart, ought to offer Christ to the father, after which sort of spirituall oblation we be all both men and women, priestes and kings, being as saint Peter sayth. Sacerdotium sanctum,1. Peter. 2.offerentes spirituales hostias acceptabiles Deo per Iesum Christum. An holy priesthood offering spirituall sacrifices, acceptable to God by Iesus Christ.

Now considering these three wayes, shall it be a good ar­gument, to inculcate one way and to reiect the rest? To alledge one member of a deuision, to the reiection of the [Page 88] other? This is the peculiar maner of the heretikes the eni­mies of Christ, as they did in the matter of the sacrament, by the spirituall eating of Christ to confute and reiect the reall and corporall eating of Christs body in the sacrament.

Such shiftes and fonde arguments they haue to seduce the vnlearned withall, which when they bee espyed and detected they appeare as they be Deuillishe and pernycious Sophistrie.

CROWLEY.Whereas you go about to perswade your hearers, that we abuse the wordes of saint Paule to the Hebrues: your answere that you make to our obiection, doth affirme that we do vse those scriptures aright.Hebrues. .9. Watson con­firmeth our allegation of y^e scriptures. For to what ende hath any of vs alleged them, other then to proue, that Christ was but once offered for the re­demption of mans sinnes: and that therfore he is not offered for sinnes in your popishe Masse.

These be the scriptures (say you) that they alledge agaynst the Masse: as though those scriptures were of no weight in com­parison of those that you haue to alledge for the Masse. Or else that they were wrested so farre out of square: that all the world might sée, that they make nothing for the purpose. But that the reader may sée, that these scriptures, so alledged as they be by vs against the Masse, be of some force to proue that which we would proue by them: I will vpon these scriptures and your answere, forme this reason or argument.An argumēt for watson to aunswere. Whatsoeuer action is but once done, is not done often or euery day. But Christ is but once of­fered for sinne. Ergo, he is not offered often or euerye day for sinne. Disproue this argument if you can.

You would make your hearers beleue, that we go about to confute one truth by another. But I trust to cause the reader to sée: that you confirme one lye by another. We graunt that it is true, that Christ was offered but once for sinne: and that that once must néedes be by shedding of his bloud.Rom. 6. Hebr. 9. For as saint Paule fayth. Stipendium peccati mors. The rewarde of sinne is death. He therefore that should take away sinne must die. And without the effusion of bloud, there is no forgiuenesse of sinnes. Therefore [Page 89] Christ that should purchase forgiuenesse of sinnes: must néedes haue his bloud shed, according to the figures of the olde lawe, which did all preach the shedding of the bloud of him that should purge vs, and make vs cleane from sinne.

We do not by the affirming of this truth: denie any other truth. But if there be any that will say, that Christ is offered for sinne any oftner then once, or any otherwyse then by death and the shedding of his bloud: then doe we alledge this truth (grounded vpon the scriptures, and confessed by you) agaynst that falsehoode affirmed by such as say that Christ is offered for sinne oftner then once, or any otherwise then by death, and the shedding of his bloud.

If you can finde any imperfection in Christes one oblation once offered: then blame vs, for that we say it is perfite.None can offer Christ but himselfe And if you can finde any man or other creature, that is able to offer Christ for sinne: then blame vs, for that we say, that none can offer him for sinne but himselfe.

But you haue found in Daniell the Prophet:Daniel. 7. Lucae. 2. that the aun­gels offered Christ to his father. And in Luke, that his mother of­fered him at hir purification. You should haue alleged Hieroms exposition of Daniels words,watsons learning and wisedome shewed. as you haue done Bernarde for the other: and then men might haue taken you for such one, as you by alledging this place, for this purpose, do shew your selfe to be. That is neyther learned nor wise. Saint Hierome sayth thus. Totum quod dicitur, oblatum eum omnipotenti Deo, & accepisse potestatem, & honorem & regnum: iuxta illud Apostoli accipiendum est. Qui cum in forma dei esset. &c. All that which is sayde, that he was offered to the almightie God, and that he receyued power and honour, and a kingdome:Philip. 2. must be taken according to the saying of the Apo­stle. Which beyng in the forme of God: he thought it no robbery to be equall with God. &c.

What shamelesse beast would saye, that Daniell sawe the Angels offer Christ in sacrifice to his father:watson was deepe in his oblations. because the text sayth. Et in conspectu eius obtulerunt eum. And they presented hym before him. But you were so farre in your oblations: that you could not remember that Offero hath any other signification, then [Page 90] to offer sacrifice. Those thousandes therefore, that Daniell sawe attending vpon the auncient iudge, must néedes make a sacrifice of Christ: because they presented him before that iudge.

And the virgine Mary bicause she presented hir sonne Iesus in the temple, according to y^e law of Moses: she must néedes be sayd to offer him in sacrifice.Leuit. 12. The lawe did not require that the first begotten sonne should be offred in sacrifice: but that there should be a sacrifice offered for him. The virgine Marie therefore com­ming to the temple to do for hir first borne sonne according to the law: did offer that offering that the law did require. The Euan­gelist saint Luke, who wryteth the Hystorye, sayth that they brought Iesus to Ierusalem, vt sisterent eum Domino, to set him be­fore the Lord, or to make him appeare before the Lorde.

Bernard. Sermone. 3. De purificae.If Bernarde and you can proue that Sisto, doth signifie to of­fer in sacrifice: then will I graunt you, that Christ was offered by his mother as a sacrifice. But Bernarde himselfe doth in the same place that you cite, expound his owne meaning better then you will vnderstand him, when he sayth. Offer filium tuum virgo sa­crata, & benedictum fructum ventris tui domino repraesenta. Offer thy sonne (O holy virgine) and shewe forth vnto the Lorde, the bles­sed fruit of thy wombe. Here it appeareth, that in this place Ber­nard doth by offering vnderstand representing, or shewing forth. Yea,Bernards meaning made plaine by his owne wordes. the very words that you cite, do declare Bernards meaning to be other then you would haue it séeme to be. For he sayth. Tan­tum sistitur Domino. He is onely set forth or represented to the lord.

And therfore we aunswere you, that our arguments are to strong for you to confute, by telling vs that Christ is offered thrée wayes of himselfe, and thrée wayes of man. For we know that he was neuer offered for sinne, mo wayes then one. But let vs see how you proue these six maners of offering Christ. First he offered himselfe vpon the Crosse, you say (and that truly) and you proue it by the saying of Esay.Esay. 53. Oblatus est, quia voluit. He was of­fered because he was willing so to be. In the same Chapter is a place which some of vs haue alleaged against the sacrifice of your Masse: and I thinke will not be easily aunswered of you. Which is this. Liuore eius sanati sumus. By his stripes or bruses, are we [Page 91] made hole. Out of which wordes I reason thus. Whatsoeuer wound is thorowly cured and made hole:An argum [...] agaynst th [...] sacrifice of the Masse néedeth no further playstering. But the wound that sinne gaue vs, is thorowly hea­led by that once offering of himselfe that Esay speaketh of: Ergo it is superfluous to haue any other sacrifice to cure that wound. &c

Secondly, Christ offered himselfe in figure, when he offe­red the Pascall Lambe. And this you proue by the .xiij. of saint Iohns Reuelations.Apoc. 13. The Lambe that was slaine from the be­ginning of the worlde. Here is no abusing of Scriptures: when the text hath relation to a thing done two thousand yeares before the Pascall lambe and other sacrifices were instituted, is restrai­ned to proue, that the thing that it hath relation to, was done by that Pascall Lambe and other sacrifices, instituted by the lawe that was ordeyned so many yeares after.

When promise was made to the first man, that the séede of the woman should breake the serpents heade,How Chri [...] hath bene slaine from the begin­ning. and that promise was beleued of them to whome it was made: then was the Lambe Christ slaine vnto them that beleued the promise, and so hath hée bene to as many as haue hitherto beleued that promise. And the memorie of this promise hath bene kept, by the Pascall Lambe and other sacrifices: and the maner of the fulfilling of it, plainly paynted out, to such as could consider them with a spirituall eye. But the offering of the Pascall Lambe and other sacrifices, was not instituted, that the offerers might thereby offer vp Christ fi­guratiuely: but to kéepe in memory, the promise, and to set forth before their senses, the maner of y^e fulfilling of the promise, when the time of fulfilling the same should come.

The Pascall also, had one speciall vse: which was to kéepe in minde, the wonderfull deliueraunce that God wrought in E­gypt, as it appeareth in Exodi. Where it is written thus. Cum dixerint filij vestri: quae est ista Religio? Dicetis eis. Exod. 12. The speciall vse of the Passouer. Victima transitus do­mini est: quando transiuit super domos filiorum Israel in Egipto, percutiens Egiptios, & domos nostras liberans. When your children shall saye, what is this Religion? you shall say vnto them. It is the sacri­fice or slaine offering, of the Lordes passing by: when in Egypt he passed ouer the houses of the children of Israell, and slue the [Page 92] Egyptians, and deliuered our houses.

August. de Verbis Apo­stoli. sermo. 6.And saint Austen sheweth a nother vse of the olde Paschall: which is to signifie the death of Christ, by slaying of the Lambe, and our emendement of life, by the eating of it with vnleauened bread. His wordes be these. Celebrabatur Pascha in veteri populo, sicut nostis, occisione Agni cum Azymis: vbi occisio ouis, Christum significat, Azyma autem, nouam vitam. Hoc est, sine vetustate fermenti. The Pas­ouer was in the olde people, celebrated, as you know, in the kil­ling of a Lambe with vnleauened breade: where the killing of the shéepe, doth signifie Christ, and the vnleauened bread, a newe lyfe, that is without the oldnesse of leauen. And a little after he saith. Venit verum Pascha, immolatur Christus, transitum facit à morte ad vitam. Trāsitus enim interpretatur hebraice Pascha. The true Passouer is come, Christ is offered vp, he passeth from death to life. For Paschal in the Hebrue, is interpreted, passing by, or passing ouer.

Here is no worde of the offering of Christ figuratiuely in the olde Paschall: but when Christ passed from death to life, then he was offered, sayth saint Austen. Wherfore I conclude. That Christ did not offer himselfe figuratiuely in the olde Paschall, neyther did the fathers of the olde lawe, offer him in their sacri­fices. But as all the faythfull fathers that beléeued the promise, did offer passouer and other sacrifices, thereby to shewe their due obedience to the lawe of God,Why Christ would eate Passouer. by which those things were com­maunded to be done, trusting y^t when the time should be fulfilled, God would performe his promise: so did Christ obserue al y^e points of the law, absolutely, that being frée from the cursse of the lawe, he might delyuer from that cursse, those that were vnder it.

Thirdly, Christ offereth himselfe in heauen, really, and so continually: as the same Chapiter that we bring against the Masse doth testifie (say you) Non in manufacta. &c. Iesus entred not into a temple made with handes. &c. It séemeth that you haue learned some painters diuinitie:Painters diuinitie. where you haue séene Christ re­presenting his woundes to God his father, to mooue him to haue compassion vpō vs, for whose cause he hath suffred those wounds.

That which you gather of this place of saint Paule: doth shewe you to be very nigh a daungerous errour, if you be not al­ready [Page 93] fallen into it. That is the errour of the Anthropomor­phits, which supposed God to be as a man:Watson v [...] nigh a da [...] gerous e [...] not onely in bodily shape, but also in humane affections. As though a thing once done coulde not be present with him, both before and after it is done for euer: but must be stil presented before him to mooue his affecti­ons by the sight therof, which otherwise would forget it, as a man doth. How you can auoid this, I can not sée: affirming (as you do) that Christ is entered into heauen, to offer himselfe for vs. &c.

We haue learned, both by the scriptures, and also by the auncient wryters: that there is with God neyther time to come, nor time past, but all present. The woundes of Christ were pre­sent in his sight before Adam was made: and so are they nowe and shall be for euer. Christ néedeth not therefore, perpetually to stande representing hys woundes,Ephesi. 1. that we might be reconciled by him: for as many as shal be reconciled to God by Christ, were before the foundations of the worlde were layd, reconciled to him in Christ, and doe and shall remaine reconciled for euer.

God had appointed a time, wherein Christ should worke the worke of our reconciliation, which time is now past with vs, but still present with him: and he hath also appointed a time wherein we that be by him reconcyled, shall enioy the fruit of that recon­ciliation, that is euerlasting glorie in his kingdome, which with vs is yet to come, but with him it is already present. In y^e meane season,Hebr. 10. Christ hauing offered one oblation for sinne (as Saint Paule sayth) doth for euer sit at the right hande of God: from thenceforth tarying tyll his enimies be made his footestoole. For by one oblation he hath made persite for euer: those that be sanc­tified. That is, those which be made holy by the spirit of adoption:Rom. 8. whereby they cry vnto God, Abba father.

But you haue founde saint Ambrose, Ambro. li. 1. Officio. Ca. 48 & in Psal. 38. in two places of hys workes, to be of your minde: and to accompt the sacrifice that Christ made vpon the crosse, to be but an ymage of a sacrifice, in comparison of that which he maketh perpetually in heauen. If Ambrose were nowe lyuing, and did knowe of your doing: he could not thinke well of you, that would make him a maintay­ner of your fond opinion, of Christes perpetuall offering of him­selfe, drawing his wordes so farre from his meaning.

By occasion of the wordes of the Prophet Dauid, where he sayth.Psalm. 38. Notum fac mihi Domine. &c. Lorde, let me know mine ende, and what the number of my dayes is, that I may know what it is that I lack: saint Ambrose doth note, that the ende which the Prophet doth desire to know, is that day wherein euery one shall rise out of the earth in his order, wherein our perfection doth begin. Here therefore (sayth Ambrose) that is in this mortall state: there is a let or impediment, there is infirmitie, euen in such as be perfite, but there (that is in the lyfe to come) there is full perfection. Therefore, he desireth to knowe, what dayes of eternall lyfe, are yet remayning, not what dayes be past. That he may know what he himselfe lacketh, what the lande of promise is, which bringeth forth contynuall fruites, what maner dwel­lings, the first, second, and thirde dwelling are wyth the father, wherein euery man doth rest according to his worthynesse. We therefore (sayth he) must desire those things wherein perfection is, wherein the truth is. Hic vmbra, hic Imago, illic veritas. &c. Here is the shadow, here is the ymage, there is the truth. And so forth, as you haue cyted. But to the ende of those wordes that you re­hearse:Ambrose o­peneth his owne mea­ning. he addeth a sentence that doth make his meaning more playne. Hic ergo in imagine ambulamus, in imagine videmus: illic facie ad faciem, vbi plena perfectio, quia perfectio omnis in veritate. Here therefore (sayth Ambrose) we walke in an ymage, we sée in an Image: then we shall sée face to face, where there is full per­fection, bicause all perfection is in truth.

Who would thinke that any man of learning, coulde be so blynded, as to vnderstand these wordes of Ambrose as you doe? His whole purpose is to declare, that in this mortall state: there can be no perfection in any thing. But the most perfite things that be here: are but as ymages are in comparison of those things whereof they be ymages. Yea, the mediation of Christ betwixt God and man: was not without imperfection, in the ymage and outwarde shewe thereof. For he suffered (sayth Ambrose) as a man, and as one worthyly condemned to die. And he offered himselfe as a priest doth offer sacrifice: to release vs of our sinnes. Here (that is, in the mortall state) he walked in an ymage. But [Page 95] there (that is in the immortall state) he walketh in the truth. That is, a verie Aduocate, without any outward shew or ymage of one that should not be able to bring to passe that which he hath taken in hande: that is the restoring of man to the fauour of God agayne.

According to this meaning doth Ambrose wryte vpon the Psalme that you name. Ascende ergo in coelum: Ambrose i [...] Psalm. 38. & videbis illa quo­rum vmbra hic erat, vel Imago. &c. Clime vp into heauen therefore (O thou man) and thou shalt sée those things, the shadowe or ymage whereof was here. Thou shalt sée, not in part, nor in a darke spéeche: but in perfection. Not vnder a couering: but in the light. Thou shalt sée that priest, which is a priest in déede, euerla­sting and continuall: whose ymages thou didst sée here, Peter, Paule, Iohn, Iames, Mathew, Thomas. Thou shalt see him a perfite man now, not in an ymage, but in power.

And to put all men out of doubt, that Ambrose meaneth not to maintaine your madde assertion, of a perpetual oblation made by Christ in such sort as you imagine. I will let the reader sée what he wryteth vpon the same place to the Hebrues that you do alledge. Si semel oblatus non sufficeret: &c. Hebr. 9. If he had not bene able by being once offered, to take away the sinnes of all that beléeue in him: he must haue suffered oftentimes, since the beginning of the worlde. For the auoyding whereof: he did once suffer in the ende of the worlde, to consume vtterly, the sinnes of many. And why of many and not of all? Because all doe not beléeue. &c. Here it is manifest, that Ambrose supposed that the sinnes of all the faithfull, were cleane consumed, by that one oblation that Christ offered once for all.

So that it is playne without all controuersie: that Ambrose minded not to teache that Christ doth continually offer himselfe a sacrifice to his father for vs: but that the mortall state in thys worlde, is in comparison of the immortall state in heauen, but euen as an ymage is, in comparison of the thing that it doth re­present. As for the place that you cite out of saint Iohns Epistle: is aunswered by that which you your selfe haue sayde of the first way of Christs offering of himselfe. For you say that y^t was done [Page 96] really, and corporally: and that our exclamations of once, once, haue very good place there. I am sure you do not thinke, that this most perfite maner of offring that you speak of here (wherof you say the first was but an ymage) should be other then real & corpo­ral. And then how serueth our exclamatiō of once, once, in y^e first: vnlesse it doe vtterly exclude this last, y^t you doe so greatly extoll?

I know, that saint Iohn hath sayde Aduocatum habemus apud Patrem, Iesum Christum iustum: & ipse est propitiatio pro peccatis nostris. We haue an Aduocate with the father, which is Iesus Christ the righteous: & he is the propitiatorie sacrifice for our sinnes. He sayth not, he was (say you) but he is. I thinke the Diuines of your owne sort:was and shall haue no place in God. doe lament to sée you take holde of so slender a stay as this, to kéepe you from falling. For what Diuine know­eth not: that was, and shall, haue no place in Gods doings, when men will speake properly of him and his doings? God in himselfe is alwayes that, which with vs, and in our maner of spéeche, he is sayde to haue bene, or shall be. It would haue done well, if you could haue cyted but one wryter, eyther auncient or newe: that vnderstandeth this place as you doe. But because there is none to be cyted: you slip it ouer, with, so by this. &c. But that the reader may sée how worthy of credite you be: I wil let him sée the iudge­ment of the auncient Grecians, gathered by one that you haue in these Sermons cyted for your purpose more then once. Oecu­menius vpon this place sayth thus. Aduocatmm verò dicit eum: qui Patrem pro nobis precatur siue flectit. Humano autem modo, & dispen­satione quadam haec dicta sunt: quemadmodum & illud, Filius nihil potest facere à se ipso. Haec enim dicit: ne Deo aduersari videatur. Nam quod etiam filius haberet potestatem remittendi peccata: ostenderat in Paralytico. Sed & discipulis dando vt peccata dimitterent: Iohn. 5. Math. 9. Iohn. 20. ostendit, quod sua po­testate hoc tribueret. Verum, vt diximus, aut dispensatoriè hoc dicit nunc Apostolus: aut ostendens eandem filij cum patre naturam, eandem (que) poten­tiam. Et quòd quicquid faceret vna trium sanctarum personarum: com­mune esset & reliquis. He calleth him an Aduocate: which doth en­treate the father for vs,Christ called an Aduocate by dispensa­tion. or cause him to relent. But these wordes are spoken after the maner of men, and by a certaine dispensati­on: euen as is this. The sonne can doe nothing of himself: These [Page 97] wordes he speaketh: least he should séeme to be against God. For he had already shewed in the man that was sick of a palsey: that the sonne also, had power to forgiue sinnes. Also in gyuing hys Disciples power to forgiue sinnes: he shewed that he did by his owne power graunt that. But as I haue sayde, the Apostle doth speake this nowe, eyther by dispensation: or else to shewe that the nature and power of the sonne, is all one and the same with the father. And that whatsoeuer thing one of the thrée holy per­sons should doe: the same should be common to the rest.

By this we may see: that you haue wrested the plaine scrip­tures, to proue the thrée folde offering of Christ, beside the obla­tion of himself in his supper, which is the point that you go about to declare. We deny not that Christ is our aduocate, and sacrifice propitiatorie for our sinnes: but we confesse, that he is, hath bene, and shall be so for euer,The act of mediation once done. extending the vertue & force of his death and bloudshedding, to all the faythfull that eyther haue béene, or shall be, betwéene the first man and the last. But the action of oblation, is but one and once done vpon the crosse, when he sayd Consummatum est. It is finished.

As for the thrée wayes that you say Christ is offered by man: are not worth the weighing. Figuratiuely (you saye) Christ is offered in the oblation of the olde Testament. Here, was, would haue serued better then, is. And yet he was not then offered: as I haue shewed in that which I haue aunswered to the seconde way of Christes offering himselfe.

In your Masse, you say, you offer him mystically. I might conclude, that therefore you do not offer him, really and corporal­ly: and so set you against your selfe. For you haue sayd oftenti­mes in these your two sermons: that you receiue and offer christ in your Masse, really, corporally, and naturally. But you wil vn­derstand by mystically, as you doe by sacramentally: and saye that mystically, is verily, and really. For you haue learned of Gracians glose to say: Statuimus: id est. Abrogamus. We decrée,Distinction, Mysticall can not be reall. &c. that is, we do abrogate: you may giue to wordes what significa­tion you lust. But such as be learned in the tongues, doe knowe that mysticall, can not signifie, reall, naturall and corporall.

A number of things (you say) are done in your Masse. That [Page 98] is to say, Christ is by his omnipotent power presented to you: and of you, to his and your father. His passion is renewed: and the remission that was purchased and deserued thereby, humbly prayed for to God, that the same may be applyed vnto you by Christ. &c. Because all this is but your bare assertion without proofe, either by authoritie or reason: It shall suffice that I aun­swere as saint Hierome doth in like case.Hiero. in Mat. 23. Hoc quia de scripturis. &c Because this thing hath none authoritie of the scripture: it is as easily contemned as allowed.

But here I must tell you, that in one point, you discent from many of your sort: which say that the massing priest doth by his masse apply the passion of Christ to them that he sayth Masse for. And you do but ioyne it with your fayth and deuotion in making humble prayer to God, that it would please him to applye to you the remission that Christ hath deserued by his passion.

1. Peter. 2.To proue the third way that men offer Christ, which is (say you) by the meditation of the minde. &c. You alledge the saying of Peter. Sacerdotium Sanctum. &c. How well these wordes of Pe­ter do serue to proue your offering of Christ onely by meditation of minde: shal easily appeare to such as will reade the rest of that Chapter.Spirituall sacrifices. They shall finde that the spirituall sacrifices that Pe­ter speaketh of there: are a godly and honest lyfe, full of good workes, and not such idle meditations as you ymagine.

Now, séeing that you haue deuided the offering vp of Christ into so many members, and haue proued but one: shall it not be a good argument to inculcate one & reiect the rest? This is the pe­culiar maner of y^e Papists, the professed enimies of Christ, euen as they doe in teaching the reall and corporall eating of Christes bodie in the sacrament: so in this matter of the sacrificeing and offering of Christ, to imagine a multitude of members, where in déede there is but one. And by such subtile shiftes: they do seduce the vnlearned. But when they be espyed and detected: they ap­peare (as these of yours do) euen as they be: deuilish and perni­cious Sophistrie.

WATSON. Furthermore, if any man as yet doth stand in doubt [Page 99] whether men lawfully offer Christ to the father or no: Diuision. 28 let him call to remembraunce what I haue sayde before out of Dionisius Areopagita, Dionisius Areopa. spe­culat. cap. 3. where the Bishop (as he sayth) doth excuse himselfe that he offereth the host of our saluation, alledging that Christ did so commaund to be done, saying, do this in my remembrance.

Let him also remember the saying of the counsell at Nece. Concilium Nicenum. That the Lambe of God that taketh away the sinnes of the worlde, is offered of the Priestes, not after a bloudy maner.

Saint Augustine sayth. Per hoc sacrificium (in sorma serui) & sacerdos est, ipse offerens, ipse & oblatio, cuius rei sacramentum, August. de ciuit libro. 10. Capit. 20. quotidia­num esse voluit ecclesiae sacrificium, cum ipsius corporis ipse sic caput, & ip­sius capitis ipsa sit corpus, tam ipsa per ipsum quam ipse per ipsam suetus offerri. By this sacrifice (in the forme of a seruaunt) Christ is a priest, being himselfe both the offerer and the oblation, of which oblation hee woulde the daylye sacrifice of the Church should be a sacrament, and seeyng he is the heade of that body, and the Church is the body of that head, aswell the Church by Christ, as Christ by the Church is accusto­med to be offered.

A notable place resoluing diuerse doubtes, declaring that the dayly sacrifice of the Church which is the Masse, is a sacrament of Christes passion representing the same, and further that Christ offering himselfe vpon the Crosse, did also in himselfe offer his misticall bodie the Church, and thirdly that the church Christs body doth not only once or twise, but is accustomed to offer Christ hir head to God in hir dayly sacrifice.

Heare yet a place of Saint Augustine as plaine as this. Heberi in victimis pecorum prophetiam celebrabant futurae victimae quam Christus obtulit vnde iam Christiani peracti eiusdem sacrificij, August. con­tra. Faustum lib. 20. cap. 18. memoriam celebrant, sacro sancta oblatione & perticipatione corporis & sanguinis Christi. The Iewes in their sacrifices of beastes, did celebrate the prophecie of the sacrifice to come which Christ offred. The Christen men nowe doe celebrate the memorie of the [Page 100] same sacrifice of Christ that is past by the most holy obla­tion and perticipation of Christes body and bloud.

Marke howe that he sayeth christen men celebrate the memory of Christes passion, wherewithall? euen by the of­feryng of the same body that suffered passion. I nede saye no more for this poynt, that men doe and did vse from the beginning, to offer Christ to the father.

CROWLEY. August. de Ciuitate Dei. Lib. 10 cap. 20.The wordes that you cite out of Dionisius, and the Coun­cell at Nice: are sufficiently answered in the places where you alledged them. Concerning the place that you cite out of Austen: you know how much those bookes De Ciuitate Dei, haue bene cor­rupted, and what great trauaile and paynes Lodouicus Viues tooke in conferring of diuers copies, that thereby he might (as much as it was possible) set forth the worke of Austen in such sort as he wrote it. Vpon these wordes Cum ipsius corporis, ipse sit caput: he noteth, that in the bookes that he found in Colene and Bruges, it is written thus. Quae cum ipsius capitis corpus sit: se ipsam per ipsum dicit offerre. Which Church being the bodie of that head: sayth that she doth through him offer vp hir selfe. And in another Copie also, he found it euen so: sauing y^t in the place of dicit, it was writ­ten discit, so that the sentence is thus. Which Church being the body of that head:Watson will folow the most vnlikely doth learne by him to offer vp hir selfe. What­soeuer you thinke of this diuersitie of readings: I thinke that all the learned and wise that be trauayled in Austens workes, will think either of these readings, to be more like to be Austens, then that which you folow. And then hath Austen sayd thus. By this (being in the forme of a seruaunt) he is a priest, he himselfe offe­ring, and beyng the oblation. The sacrament whereof, he would haue the dayly sacrifice of the Church to be. Which being the bo­die of that heade: doth say that she offereth vp hir selfe through him. Or learneth by him to offer vp hir selfe.

Nowe, what do these wordes of Austen make for your pur­pose? That is to proue that the Masse is y^e sacrifice of the Church, and that Christ is offered therein. That Christ offered himselfe no man doubteth: and so he was both Priest and sacrifice. And [Page 101] that the Church hath learned of him to offer hir selfe. Or sayth, that she doth through him offer hir selfe: no man will denie. And that this dayly sacrifice of the Church, wherein she offereth hir selfe, is a sacrament of Christes offering of himselfe: euery man will graunt. For as Christ offered himselfe: so doth the Church offer hir selfe, being both priest and sacrifice.

Here is your notable place, that resolueth so many doubtes. It were best for you, first to be out of doubt of the reading: and to be sure, that this which you folowe is not agaynst that which the same Austen wryteth in other places of his workes,August. lib. 3. de Trinitate. and a­gaynst the holy scriptures. For in such case Austen desireth no credite.

The other matter that you alledge out of Austen, may ea­sily be graunted, and yet your conclusion neuer the latter denied.August. cont. Faust. Li. 20. Capit. 18. August. ad Bonif. Epi. 23. Chrysost. ad Heb. homi. 17. For who will not confesse that Christians doe celebrate the re­membraunce of Christes sacrifice: when they be partakers of the holy Communion of his bodie and bloud? And who will de­nie, that the fathers vsed to call that holy sacrament by the name of sacrifice or oblation, because it is the sacrament and remem­braunce of that sacrifice that Christ offered once for all. I néede not therefore to say any more of this poynt. For it is manyfest: that men neyther do, did, nor coulde at any tyme, offer Christ to his father. He onely was found worthy to offer a sacrifice to take away sinne. And because no man can offer a greater sacrifice then himselfe: our sauiour Christ hath offered himselfe once for all, and remayneth a Priest for euer. So that his one sacrifice en­dureth for euer: being in it selfe infinite, and shall neuer be con­sumed. But as saint Augustine sayth. Tibi hodie Christus est, De verbis do­mini secund. Lucam. ser. 28. tibi quotidiè resurgit. Thou hast Christ this daye: he ariseth for thée euery day.

They say the sacrifice of the Masse diminisheth and ta­keth away the glorie of Christ, they say so, but proue it not. WATSON Diuision. 29

But in very dede, nothing doth more set forth the glo­rie of Christ, and his true honor. The honor of God is con­sidered two wayes, inwardly by fayth, outwardly by exter­tall [Page 102] adoration. Latria which in English signifieth the honor that is due onely to God, and to no creature, is the worke of fayth, and sacrifice is a kinde (Latria) of godly honour as saint Austen sayth: Ad hunc cultum latriae pertinet oblatio sacrifi­cij. August. con­tra. Faustum. lib. 20. cap. 21. &c. To this godly honour called Latria, the oblation of sacrifice doth pertayne, and for that cause it is called Idola­trie if any sacrifice be done to Idols, and therefore we doe sacrifice neyther to martyr nor yet to an aungell, but one­ly to God.

Fayth ought to be vnfayned and liuely and then it is true honour. For hee that erreth in fayth, or fayneth to haue fayth, doeth not exhibit honour and reuerence due to God.

Againe, he that hath true fayth, but yet dead for lacke of charitie, he giueth reuerence to god, but not perfite, and therefore not pleasaunt to God, because he honoureth god with his vnderstanding but not with his affection.

He that hath true and liuely fayth, honoreth and wor­shippeth God in spirite and truth.

The externall and outwarde honour procedeth from the inwarde honour, and is the protestation, practise and vse of it, the worke of fayth outwardlye declared. And whereas sacrifice is the speciall and chiefest adoration that can be, therefore this sacrifice of Christes owne bodye and bloud in the Masse beyng institute of Christ by his owne expresse commaundement (as I haue shewed alreadie) doth not onely not diminishe the glory of God, but is the verye highest honour of God that man can giue.

They say it is a derogation of the passion of Christ, but it is not so good people, for the sacrifice of the Masse doth ascribe altogither to Christ, for it is the passion of Christ.

Vnderstand well what I say and iudge not till ye heare what I meane.

Cypri. lib. 2. Epist. 3. Saint Cyprian sayth. Passio domini sacrificium est quod offeri­mus. That sacrifice: which we offer is the passion of Christ. A straunge saying, but yet saint Augustine declareth more [Page 103] plainly what is ment by it, in these wordes. August. lib. sententiarum prosperi. Vocatur ipsa immo­latio carnis quae sacerdotis manibus fit, Christi passio mors crucifixio, non rei veritate, sed significante, mysterio. The oblation of Christs flesh which is made in the handes of the priest, is called Christes passion, death & crucifying, not by the truth of the thing, but by the mystery signifying. As though he should say it is called Christes passion, not for that Christ in very deede suffereth passion againe, but for that in mysterye, it renu­eth, representeth, and signifieth his passion againe.

For while that we haue no worthy thing of our selues nor in our selues to render to God for all his benefites, and as the Psalme sayth: Psal. 115. Quid retribuam Domino pro omnibus quae re­tribuit mihi. What shall I giue to God againe, for all that hee hath giuen to me? We may do euen as the Psalme doth an­swere. Calicem salutaris accipiam & nomen domini inuocabo. I shall take the cup of our sauiour and call vpon the name of our Lord. I shal take his passion representing to God the father the worke of our redemption, that we thereby being parta­kers of his bloudie sacrifice once made vpon the crosse, and now by this our commemoration renued againe may be re­plenished with the fruite of his passion and death. For saint Augustine sayth: Ex ipsis reliquijs cogitationis, id est, August. in Psalm. 75. ex ipsa memo­ria quotidiè sic nobis immolatur, quasi quotidiè nos mouet, qui prima sua gratia nos innouauit. Of the leauings of our cogitation, that is to say, of this very memory and commemoration, Christ is so dayly offered of vs, as he doth make vs newe men day­ly, which by his first grace (in baptisme) did once make vs newe.

See how we offer Christ dayly in commemoration and what benefite of innouation we receyue thereby.

Chrisostome also sayth: Chrisost. in Math. hom. 7. Non aquam de hoc nobis sonte largi­tur, sed sanguinem viuum qui quan (que) ad mortis dominicae testimonium sumitur nobis tamen causa sit vitae. Christ out of this fountaine (of the Chalice) giueth vnto vs not water, but liuely bloud, which although it be receyued for the testimonie of Chry­stes death, yet to vs it is made a cause of lyfe.

Is not this to haue fruite of Christes passion applied vnto vs, when wee receyue life by receyuing of that which is offered in commemoration of Christes death.

Saint Gregorie sayth. Quoties ei hostiam suae passionis offerri­mus, Gregorius homil. 37. toties nobis ad absolutionem nostram passionem illius reparamus. As often as we offer to him the host of sacrifice of his passion, so often we renewe and repaire his passion to vs for our ab­solution and perfection. Gregor. li. 1. Dialog. lib 4. Capit. 58. And in another place he saith. Haec victima singulariter ab aeterno interitu animam saluat, quae illam nobis mortem vnigeniti per mysterium reparat. This sacrifice doth singu­larlye saue the soule from eternall destruction, which by mysterie renueth vnto vs the death of Gods only begotten sonne. By these authorities ye see, that the sacrifice of the Masse doth nothing derogate from the passion of Christ but most of all doeth exalt it, repayring and renuing it for vs in the sight of the father, that we therby may be renued in grace, and receyue life, perfection, and saluation.

CROWLEY. The Masse doth diminishe Christes glorie.You saye, that we prooue not that the Masse doth diminishe the glorie of the passion of Christ. You shall haue a short and a plaine proofe: and leysure ynough to disproue it. Christes glory is to haue conquered death, hell, and damnation, alone in his owne person, as it was prophecied by the Prophets. Torcular calcaui so­lus, Esay. 63. & de Gentibus non est quisquam mecum. I alone haue troden the wine presse: and there is not one of the people with me. And ano­ther Prophet sayth. Perdidisti te, Israell: tantummodo in me auxilium tuum. Osea. 13. Thou hast cast away thy selfe, O Israell: in me alone is thy helpe. And againe the same Prophet sayth. Ero Mors tua, O Mors, morsus tuus, inferne. O death, I will be thy death: O hell, I will be thy sting. But the sacrifice of the Masse will not suffer that. Ergo, &c.

A proofe of that which Watson sayth is not prouedBut least you shoulde picke a quarrell to the forme of mine argument: I will frame it in figure and moode. Whatsoeuer is thought to be an helpe to Christ, in the conquering of death, hell, and damnation, doth diminishe the glorie of Christ. But the sa­crifice of the Masse is thought to be an helpe. &c. Ergo, the sacri­fice [Page 105] of the Masse doth diminish the glorie of Christ. The maior proposition is proued by the scriptures aboue mentioned. The minor is proued by your owne doctrine, in the beginning, mid­dle, and ende of both these sermons of yours. Ergo, the conclusion must necessarily folow.

Now that I haue proued that which (you say) was not before proued: let vs sée whether we can disproue your two assertions. First you say, that nothing doth more set forth the glorie of Christ and his true honor: than doth the Masse. If you can not disproue that argument that I haue made for the proofe of that which we haue sayde: then is this that you haue sayde, sufficiently dispro­ued by that argument. But you haue founde saint Austen to be of your minde, when he sayth. Ad hunc cultum &c. Contra. Fau­stum. lib. 20. cap. 21. To thys god­ly honour. &c. In the matter that foloweth in the same Chapter, saint Austen doth make his owne meaning more playne then it can appéere by these onely wordes that you cite. He sayth thus. Sacrificium laudis glorificabit me, & illic via est, vbi ostendam illi salu­tare meum. Huius sacrificij caro & sanguis, ante aduentum Christi, per victimas similitudinum promittebatur: in passione Christi per ipsam ve­ritatem reddebatur, post ascensum Christi, per sacramentum memoriae cele­bratur. The sacrifice of praise shall glorifie me: and there is the way where I wyll shewe my sauing health vnto him. The flesh and bloud of this sacrifice, was before the comming of Christ,Saint Au­stens minde in plaine wordes. promised by sacrifices of similitudes. In the passion of Christ: it was performed by the truth thereof in déede. And after the ascen­tion of Christ it is celebrated by a sacrament of remembraunce. And agayne he sayth. Non ergo illi Patres nostri, &c. Those our fa­thers therefore, did not onely leaue the ymages of the heathen, but they neyther offring any thing to the earth, nor to any earth­lye thing, neyther to the sea, neyther to the heauen: did offer sa­crifices to one God, the creator of all thinges, euen such as he would should be offered vnto him. Promising by the similitude of those sacrifices: that sacrifice, by which through the forgiuenesse of sinnes, he hath reconciled vs to himselfe, in Christ Iesu oure Lorde. To the faithfull that are made the body of that head, doth Paule speake saying, I beséech you brethren, euen for the mercie [Page 106] of God, make your bodies, a liuing, holy, and acceptable sacrifice.

These words well weighed togither with those that you haue alledged: will make Saint Austens minde be knowne to differ farre from yours. It is not your masking mumming Masse, that he calleth the sacrament of remembraunce,Not the mas­king Masse, but the holy communion. whereby the sacri­fice of praise is celebrated among the christians: but it is the holy communion of Christes body and bloud. This he calleth the out­warde worke of fayth, to this he ioyneth the consecrating and de­dicating of the hole man to the seruice of God: which he calleth (as saint Paule doth) the lyuing, holy, and acceptable sacrifice. Your Masse therefore, not being the institution of Christ (as I haue already declared), nor yet hauing any ground in the com­maundement or worde of God: doth not onely diminishe the glo­rie of Christ, but is the greatest dishonor that man can do to God.

Your other assertion is, that the Masse doth ascribe altogither to Christ:Cypri. lib. 2. Epist. 3. and therefore is no derogation of the passion of Christ at all. And this you prooue first by the words of Cyprian where he sayth. Passio Domini. &c. I will let the reader sée the hole sen­tence that Cyprian writeth in that place: for this that you cite, is but a Parenthesis that may be left out, & yet the sentence remayne perfite. His words be these. Et quia passionis eius mentionem, in sacri­ficijs omnibus facimus (Passio est enim Domini sacrificium quod offerimus) nihil aliud quam quod ille fecit facere debemus. And because we do in al our sacrifices, make mention of his passion (for y^e sacrifice that we offer is his passion) we ought to do no other thing then he himself did. Now let the reader take this sentence hole togither: & iudge whether Cyprian do speak here of your Masse, or of our commu­nion. If you will haue him to speake of your Masse: you must re­forme your Canon. You must blot out al your crossings, & the rest of your Rubricks: for Christ did vse none of al those things. Nei­ther had he disguised & halowed apparell, holy cup, holy cloth, nor holy aultar.Cyprian speaketh not of y^e Masse. It is playne therefore, that Cyprian meaneth not of your Masse, but of our communion: which he calleth the passion of Christ, because it is celebrated in the remembraunce thereof: As I haue in the former part of this aunswere often proued it to be the maner of the fathers: to cal the sacraments by the names [Page 107] of those things that they signifie. Now the reader doth (I doubt not) vnderstand what you haue sayde: and will iudge vprightly.

Well, you make this saying of Cyprian a straunge saying: and yet saint Austen doth declare the matter more plainely in these wordes. Vocatur ipsa immolatio. &c. In the ninth deuision of your former sermon: you alledge matter out of the same Austen that this is cyted out of. And in mine aunswere in that place: I haue shewed that it was not Austen the Byshop of Hippo, but some Austen of Gratians making.

But let vs sée what Gratian hath sayde.De Consecra­tio. Distinct. 2. Sicut ergo caelestis pa­nis qui Christi caro est, suo modo vocatur Corpus Christi: cum reuera sit sacramentum corporis Christi, illius videlicet, quod visibile, quod palpabile, mortale in cruce positum est vocatur (que) ipsa immolatio carnis, quae sacerdo­tis manibus fit: Christi passio, mors, crucifixio, non rei veritate, sed signi­ficante mysterio. Sic sacramentum fidei, quod Baptismus intelligitur, fides est. Therefore, euen as the heauenly bread, which is the fleshe of Christ, is after his sort called the body of Christ: where as it is in déede the sacrament of Christs body, that is, of that body which being visible, palpable, and mortall, was set vpon the crosse. That offering also that is made by the handes of the priest, is called Christes passion, his death, & his crucifying: not according to the truth of the thing, but according to the signifying mystery. So the sacrament of fayth which is vnderstande to be baptisme, is faith.

You make a glose vpon the wordes of Gratian, Watsons glose dispro­ued by the commō glose. but not agrée­ing with that glose that is published in print with the text. That glose sayth. Non rei veritate, sed significante mysterio, vt sit sensus: vo­catur Christi corpus, id est, significatur. Not according to the truth of the thing, but after the mysterie that signifieth, that the meaning might be thus: It is called the body of Christ, that is, the body of Christ is signified thereby. I am sory that your luck is no better: but still to alledge matter against your selfe.

But now I trowe you haue found a péece of a Psalme that will pay home. Quid retribuam Domino. &c. Psal. 115. What shall I render vnto the Lorde. &c. You haue founde a marueilous mysterie in this péece of this Psalme: such as neither Austen, nor Hierome, nor any other that hath written vpon that Psalme, coulde finde. [Page 108] They al agrée, that this cup of saluation, is that cup of sorrow and sufferaunce,The cup of saluation is tribulation. that our sauiour speaketh of when he sayth: Potestis, bibere Calicem quem ego bibiturus sum? Can ye drinke that cup that I must drinke of? But you haue found that he ment of the Cha­lice that the priest sayth Masse withall. Bylike, you would with better will sup of that cup twise: then once to syp of the other.

Psalme. 75.But vpon another Psalme, the same saint Austen hath said. Ex ipsis reliquijs cogitationis. &c. Of the leauings of our cogitation: that is to say, of this verie memorie, and commemoration. &c. A man would think that standing before your Prince in so solemne assemble: you would haue bene well ware that the matter that you alledged out of the auncient wryters, had bene applyed ac­cording to their meaning. But you shame not oftentimes, to ap­ply their wordes cleane contrarie to that they ment:Watsons im­pudencie. as you doe in this place the wordes of Austen, whereof I will make the reader iudge by letting him sée the hole sentence, wherof you cite but one part for your purpose. Austen hath written thus. Cum autem non obliuiscimur munus saluatoris: nonne quitidiè nobis Christus immolatur? Et semel pro nobis Christus immolatus est. Cum credidimus, tunc nobis fuit cogitatio: modo autem reliquiae cogitationis sunt, qua me­minimus quis ad nos venerit, & quid nobis donauerit. Ex ipsis reliquijs cogitationis, id est, ex ipsa memoria, quotidiè nobis sic immolatur, quasi quotidiè nos innouet, qui prima gratia sua nos innouauit. &c. And when we doe not forget the gift of our sauiour: is not Christ daylie of­fered for vs? And Christ was once offered for vs when we bele­ued, then had we a cogitation: and now we haue remnaunts of that cogitation, whereby we doe remember who it was that came vnto vs, and what he gaue vs. By these remnaunts of the cogitation, that is by the very remembraunce, he that with his first grace did renewe vs: is daylie offered for vs in such sort, as though he did daylie renew vs: The Lord hath alreadie renewed vs in baptisme, and we are become new men, reioycing in hope, that we may be pacient in trouble: yet ought it not to depart out of our memorie, what was done for vs. &c. Here is not one word of that commemoration, that you would haue all men thinke that saint Austen ment of, when he sayde. Ex ipsa memoria. Of [Page 109] the verie memorie: which commemoration, you vnderstand to be your blessed Masse.Watson blin­ded with af­fection. But who so is not blinded with affectiō (as you shewe your selfe to be) and readeth the hole circumstaunce of the matter: must néeds confesse that saint Austen in this place speaketh neyther of your Masse, nor of our Communion, but all togither of the kéeping in minde and confessing of that which we were by nature, and not forgetting of that which we be made through Christ.

Chrysostome speaketh of the Lordes cup and sayth.Chrysostom in Math. Homil. 7. Non à­quam de hoc nobis fonte. &c. Christ out of this Fountayne. &c. The reader shal sée somewhat more of Chrysostomes alegorie. From this table (sayth Chrysostome, speaking of the communion ta­ble) there springeth a Fountayne of spirituall commodities, and thou leauing this table, doest forthwith runne to the water, and doest beholde women swymming, and the very marke of their sexe set out to the eyes of all that be present: that thou mayest be­holde this thing (I say) thou leauest Chryst sitting by the Foun­tayne of heauenly giftes. For euen now also, he doth sit vpon the Fountaine: not speaking to one Samaritish woman, but to the hole Citie. For euen nowe also, there is none that attendeth vp­on him: sauing that some be present with their bodies, but with­out doubt, some other, not so much as with their bodyes. Yet for all that he departeth not: but he taryeth still, and requireth drink of vs, not water, but sanctimonie, or holynesse of lyfe. For Christ doth giue holy things to them that be holy. He doth not giue vs water out of this Fountayne, but lyuing bloud: which though it be receyued to testifie the Lordes death, yet it is made vn­to vs, a cause of lyfe. But thou doest leaue the Fountayne of this bloud, and the cup that is to be had in reuerence: and wyth spéede thou renuest to that deuillish Fountayne, that thou mayest sée an Harlot swim, and suffer shipwrack of thine owne soule. &c. Thus farre Chrysostome.

You should proue that the Masse is no derogation to the pas­sion of Christ: but you haue concluded that we receyue lyfe, by receyuing of that which is offered in the Masse. If this be no de­rogation to Christes passion: then is there no derogation of it at [Page 110] all, in any thing that can be done. For what other thing is the fruite of Christes death, but our euerlasting lyfe? You had for­gotten your selfe bylike, when you alledged thys place: for if Chrysostome ment so grossely as you vnderstand him, he did set vp the Masse as much to the derogation of Christes passion, as possibly he could.Watson wold not see Chri­sostomes meaning. But Chrysostome had another meaning: then you woulde sée when you read his wordes. He teacheth the chri­stians of Antioche: that those holy things that Christ giueth to them that be holy, are made vnto them instrumentall causes of euerlasting lyfe, yea, euen that mysticall bloud that is receyued to be a testimonie of the death of him that is Lorde of lyfe. Thys meaning might you haue séene in the wordes of Chrysostome, if affection had not blinded you.

But I marueile where you found in Chrysostomes words, offered in commemoration: for euen in the Latine text that you your selfe cite, it is Sumitur, is receyued. But you might at that time, say what you would: to the aduauncement of that Idole of Rome, and all Romishe Idolatrie.

To those two places of Gregory that you alledge: I must aunswere as I haue learned of saint Hierome. Hiero. in Math. 23. Hoc quia de scrip­turis. &c. Because this thing hath none authority of the scripture: it is as easily contemned, as allowed. And least you should think, that not being able otherwise to aunswere, I doe reiect the autho­ritie of so auncient and godly a father: I will shewe you the rea­sons that mooue me to thinke, y^t these workes that are extant vn­der the name of Gregorius Magnus, were neuer of his writing.

Gregories bookes bur­ned.First, Sabinianus that succéeded him next in the Papacie: caused all his bookes to be burned. And it is not to be thought, that there were many copies in so short tyme, when there was no way to encrease them but by hande wryting. Another thing is: the fond fables that in those workes are vsed, in the probation of weightie assertions, and no proufe made, eyther by scriptures, or authoritie of such as had before his dayes written of those mat­ters,Three rea­sons to proue Gregories workes coū ­terfaite. but bare assertions, contrarie to the scriptures and fathers that had bene before him. And last of all, the straunge maner of finding out the copie of his morral exposition of the history of Iob: [Page 111] which is to ridiculous to haue any credite with such as haue any knowledge in christian religion, and haue séene the hystories that make report of the liues and doings of those that had béene By­shops of Rome, before the time of the finding out of that booke.

These authorities therefore doe not proue, that the Masse is no derogation to the passion of Christ: but rather the contrarie. For if all these authorities that you haue alledged, were as good as you make them, and were so ment by the authors, as you haue applied them: what other thing should they teach but y^t the Masse is a derogation to the passion of Christ? For what greater de­rogation can there be to Christs passion: then to make it a matter of so small power, that it could not of it selfe be effectuall to any, vnlesse it be applyed by the mediation of some sacrificeing priest? And that it must néedes be effectuall to such as it shall by such me­diation be applyed vnto, eyther in this lyfe or after.

Wée haue learned, both by the scriptures and auncient fathers, that the passion of Christ is of effect to take away the sinnes of the whole world:The way to apply Chri­stes passion. and that it doth take away the sinnes of all that repent and beléeue the Gospell. And that there is none other way to apply the passion of Christ to any, but only the faith of those to whome it is applyed.

Furthermore they say we make our owne workes (mea­ning the Masse) a sauiour beside Christ, WATSON Diuision. 30 which is nothing so, but by this sacrifice of the Masse, we declare, that we be­leue there is no sauiour but onely Christ.

For what doe we in the Masse? We confesse our sinnes, our vnworthinesse, our vnkindnes, our manifold transgre­sions of his eternal law, we graunt that we be not able to sa­tisfie for the least offence we haue done, therfore we run to his passion, which after this sort as he hath ordayned, we re­new and represent. We besech our most mercifull father, to looke vpon Christes merites, and to pardon our offences, to loke vpon Christes passion, and to releue our affection.

We knowledge that whatsoeuer we haue done is vn­perfite and vnpure, and as it is our worke, doth more offend [Page 112] his maiestie then please him, therefore we offer vnto hym his welbeloued sonne Iesus, in whome we knowe he is well pleased, most humbly praying him to accept him, for vs in whome onely we trust, accompting him all our righteous­nesse, by whome onely we conceiue hope of saluation. And therefore in the ende of the canon of the Masse we say thus. Non aestimator meriti sed veniae quaesumus largitor admitte per Christum dominum nostrum. O Lord we besech thee to admit vs into the companie of thy saintes, not waying our merites, but graū ­ting vs pardon by Christ our Lord.

Also whatsoeuer thing we lacke, all plagues, all misfor­tunes, all aduersitie both ghostly and temporall, we require to be released of them, not through our worthinesse, but for the merites of Christes passion.

Consider all this good people, and see whether in this doing we make our workes a newe sauiour beside Christ or no? Wee beleue also that our prayer is of more efficacye and strength in the presence of Christ in the time of the sacrifice, then at any other tyme. For so sayth saint Cypri­an. Cyprian de coena. In huius corporis presentia non superuacue mendicant lachrimae veni­am, nec vnquam patitur contriti cordis holocaustum repulsam. In the presence of this bodie, the teares of a man doth not begge forgiuenesse in vaine, nor the sacrifice of a contrite heart doth neuer suffer repulse. And as Chrisostome sayth. In illa hora dum mors illa perficitur, Chrysost. in Act. hom. 3. & horrendū sacrificium, quasi sodente rege, quaecū (que) volueris perficies. In that houre whiles that christs death is celebrate and his fearefull sacrifice euen as the king were sitting vpon his mercy seat whatsoeuer thou wilt thou shalt bring to passe. Chrysost. ad Philip. hom. 3. Stante siquidem vniuerso populo, manus in coelum ex­tendente, caetu item sacerdotali, verendo (que) posito sacrifitio, quomodo deum non placaremus pro istis orantes? For when all the people standeth holding vp their handes to heauen, and the companie of the priestes likewise, and the fearefull and honourable sa­crifice is vpon the aultare, how shall not we mittigate God praying for them? And therfore specially then in the Masse time, we pray for the whole Church, for al princes and high [Page 113] powers, for all Bishops and pastors, for our selues our frien­des, and all that be present, for peace, for plenty, for al that we haue nede vpon, as Chrysostome wryteth: Chrysost. in Act. Hom. 21 In manibus est hostia, adsunt Angelij, adsunt Arcangeli, adest filius dei, cum tanta hor­rore astent omnes, astent illi clamentes omnibus silentibus, putas temere haec fieri? ergo & alia temer & quae pro ecclesia pro sacerdotibus offeruntur, & quae pro plenitudine acubertate absit. The host of our sacrifice is in the priestes handes, the aungels be present, the archangels be present, the sonne of God is present. When all men stand with such trembling, when the aungels stand crying, the o­ther holding their peace, doest thou thinke these things are done in vaine? Then the other also be done in vaine, both that be offered for the Church, for the priestes, and also for plentie and aboundaunce: God forbid.

One notable place of Chrysostome I thinke yet expe­dient to rehearse vnto you concerning this matter. Chrysost. de in com. dei natu. hom. 3. Vt homi­nes ramos olearum gerentes mouere reges consueuerent, eo (que) arboris genere misericordiam commemorant & humanitatem: sic angeli tunc proramis oleaginis corpus domini ipsum protendentes, rogant pro genere humano, qua­si dicant, pro his domine rogamus quos tu adeo dilexisti, vt pro corum salu­te mortem obires animam cruce efflares, pro his supplicamus pro quibus ip­se tuum largitus es sanguinem, pro his oramus pro quibus corpus hoc im­molasti. Like as men bearing braunches of Oliue trees, are wont to moue kinges to compassion, and with that kinde of tree do put them in remembraunce of mercy and pittie: euen so the aungels then (in the sacrifice time) in steade of Oliue braunches, holding foorth the bodie of Christ pray for mankinde, as saying thus: Lorde we praye for them whom thou hast so loued, that for their saluation thou hast suffered death and spent thy lyfe vpon the crosse, we make supplication for them for whom thou hast giuē thy bloud, for them we pray for whome thou hast offered this same very bodie.

Now considering this felowship with aungels, this hu­militie of man, this pacifying of God, this efficacie of prayer for the sacrifice sake, this knowledging of our vn­worthinesse, [Page 114] this our onely trust in the passion of Christ: can any man iustly burthen vs that we make our workes a newe sauiour beside Christ. Furthermore, beside praying for those things we lacke, we also by this sacrifice giue thā ­kes for our redemption, for the hope of our health and sal­uation, and for all Gods gifts, not onely in our wordes, but also in dede? the verie oblation it selfe is a reall giuing of thankes to God, as Chrysostome sayth. Quod erat apud eum om­nibus preciosius, vnigenitum pro nobis filium dedit, & cum essemus ini­mici, Chrysost. in Mat. ho. 26. nec dedit solum, sed & nostram mensam fecit illum, omnia faciens ipse pro nobis, & donando videlicet & gratiarum actores ipsa donorum suo­rum vbertate faciendo. &c. That thing that was with him most precious of all, his onely sonne hee hath giuen for vs, euen when wee were hys enemies, and not onely hath giuen him for vs, but also hath made him our table, doyng him­selfe all things for vs, both rewarding vs, and also with the plentie of his giftes making vs giuers of thankes, and be­cause man in many thinges is vnthankfull to God, he in al thinges taketh vpon him our person, and supplyeth that we ought to do, and euen by the very nature, of the sacri­fice which is his bodie, stirreth vs to continuall giuing of thankes for all his benefites, so that our sacrifice, beyng Christes bodie, is both a singuler gift of God, and also is a reall giuing of thankes for all his other giftes.

By this it euidently appeareth that nothing doth more exercise our fayth in the knowledge of our selues and god, nothing doth more encrease our charitie and hope in the mercie of God, then the Masse. Where as (Iob was wont to do for his children) the Church of God our mother, being careful for al hir children least any of them by negligence, infirmitie, or wilfulnesse, haue offended, dayly prayeth and maketh sacrifice for them, and by that most acceptable sa­crifie of hir husbandes bodie and bloud, doth mittigate al­mightie god, doth multiply & distributeth vnitie. Nothing more setteth forth the benefite of Christ, because in thys sacrifice of the Masse, wee protest to haue all thinges by [Page 115] Christ, redemption, remission, sanctification, and saluatiō, and do aske & begge of God all goodnesse by Christ know­ledging that wee haue nothing to set against the wrath of God, but the passion of Christ, which after this maner, by thys solemne representation as Christ hath instituted we dayly renue, that it might bee continually celebrate by mystery that once was offered for our raunsome, that be­cause the effect of mans redemption ceaseth not, but is to euery one in his time applied by continuall succession, so also that the sacrifice of this redemption should neuer cease but be alwayes to all men present in grace, and alwayes liue in perpetuall memorie.

Two vntruthes you affirme with one breath. One is, that in making your Masse a sacrifice for sinne:CROWLEY. Two vn­truthes af­firmed with one breath. you doe not make a sauiour of your owne workes. And the other is: that by the sa­crifice of the Masse, you declare that you beleue there is no saui­our but only Christ. And going about to make the matter plaine that it is no vntruth that you affirme: you make it appeare more plaine, that it is most false that you haue sayd. You say that you do renue and represent the passion of Christ, and that you of­fer Christ to his father: and what is this but to make your owne doyngs a saluation to your selfe. Was not the worke that the priestes of the olde lawe wrought in offering sacrifice for sinne, accounted the purging of those sinnes that they offered them for? And why shall not your worke in offering Christ to his father: be accounted the purging of your sinne, and so consequētly, your sauiour? And can it be true that you beleue there is no sauiour but onely Christ: when as mistrusting the sufficiencie of Chri­stes worke once wrought in offering vp himselfe for the sinnes of the worlde: you will take vpon you to offer him to his father? For though you say that Christ hath ordeyned, that you should in such sort, renue and represent his passion: yet you are not able to proue it. Wherefore I say, you take it vpon you without com­mission so to doe. It is he, of whom it is sayd. Ipse saluum faciet po­pulum suum à peccatis eorum. Math. 1. He shall saue his people from their [Page 116] sinnes.Christ is not an instrumēt of saluation, but saluation it selfe. It is not sayde, he shall be an instrument of saluation: whereby other may saue themselues from their sinnes. If Christ had not bene the priest that offered, as well as the sacrifice that was offered: we could haue had no commoditie by his sacrifice. The worke of offering Christ to his father, must néedes be the worke of sauing Christes people from their sinnes therefore: and so consequently your worke in the Masse being the offering vp of Christ, must be a worke of sauing of Christes people from their sinnes. But your worke in the Masse is not Christes worke in of­fering himself: Ergo, you make another sauiour besides Christ.

But least you should saye that mine argument concludeth not: I will forme you a Syllogismus according to the rules of Logick. Whosoeuer doth take vpon him to worke the worke of saluation, doth make himselfe a sauiour. But you doe take vpon you to worke the worke of saluation: Ergo, you make your selues sauiours: The maior proposition, is a common knowne truth: allowed of all men. The minor is prooued thus. Whosoeuer ta­keth vpon him to offer Christ to his father, taketh vpon him to worke the worke of saluation. But you doe so: Ergo, you take vpon you to worke the worke of saluation. And how doe you then declare your selues to beléeue, that there is no Sauiour but one­ly Christ.

Many good things you doe in your Masse. You confesse your sinnes. &c. And last of all, you desire to be admitted into the felow­ship of all saintes:Watson hy­deth y^e faults of the Masse. not by your owne deseruing, but by the for­giuenesse of your sinnes. All this is well. But you speake no­thing of your presumption in taking vpon you to offer sacrifice to God, for the sinne both of your selues and other. Pro quibus tibi of­ferrimus vel qui tibi offerunt, hoc sacrificium laudis, pro se suis (que) omnibus, pro redemptione animarum suarum. &c. Remember (say you) thy ser­uauntes and thine handmaydens. &c: for whom we doe offer vn­to thée, or which doe offer vnto thée, for themselues and for all theirs this sacrifice of prayse,Deuill Con­iurers, as good as Massing Priestes. for the redemption of their soules. The Deuill coniurers can say as much for themselues, as you doe here. They can say: what doe we in our coniurations? We fast, we pray, we confesse our sinnes: and we doe all that we doe, [Page 117] in the name of God, the father, the sonne, and the holye ghost. And yet is their doing abhominable:Actes. 19. because they presume to doe that which God neuer wylled man to doe. And they abuse the blessed name of God in making it a meane, to call vp and binde Deuils, to doe as they would haue them do, as the seauen sonnes of Sceua did abuse the name of Iesus in their coniurations.

Although you therefore, doe in many things well: yet in this one thing, of making the sacrament a sacrifice for the re­demption of the soules of Gods people, you doe so presumpteously abuse, both the sacrament of Christ and the name of God, that your hole doing beside is made abhominable, as the doing of the Deuill coniurers is. When the good people therefore, shall con­sider this: they will (I doubt not) iudge that you make your owne worke in offering Christ to his father, a sauiour, and ther­fore another sauiour beside Christ.

You beleue (you say) that your prayer is of more efficacie and strength in the presence of Christ in the time of the sacrifice. &c. And here you take Cyprian to wytnesse, when he sayth: In huius corporis presentia. &c. And Chrysostome in fiue seuerall places: How good a foundation these places are to builde your fayth vp­on: the reader shall (I trust) easily perceyue.Cyprian De Caena. What Cyprians meaning was in that sermon: may well be séene in that which I haue written in the aunswere to the tenth, fiftenth, & thirtie two deuisions of your former Sermon. As touching those words that you cite here: I must tel you that you haue not forgotten your old maner of adding somewhat for your purpose. Cyprian hath said: In huius presentia. In his presence (meaning the presence of God of whome he had spoken before.) And you are so bolde as to say: In huius Corporis presentia, In the presence of this body. &c. Cyprian had sayd before. It were better for a man to haue a milstone fast­ned to his necke, and to be cast into the déepe sea: then with an vncleane conscience to receyue a sop at the Lordes hand. Which doth euen vnto this day create his most true and holy body, and doth sanctifie, and blesse and deuide it, to such as doe in godly sort receyue it. And then folow the wordes that you alledge. In hys presence, teares doe not begge pardon in vaine: neyther doth the [Page 118] sacrifice of a contrite hart, at any time suffer repulse. So that Cy­prians meaning is:The mea­ning of Cy­prian. that y^e sacrifice of a contrite hart, is alwaies accepted in the sight of God. And although we be alwayes in the sight of God: yet when we come togither to communicate, accor­ding to Christes institution, we doe present our selues in the sight of the Lorde, as the Israelites did, when they came to offer sacri­fice before the Arcke of the couenaunt of the Lorde.

That thys is the meaning of Cyprian in thys place: doth appéere by his wordes that folow immediatly after. Quoties te in conspectu Domini video. &c. As often as I doe sée thée, sighing in the sight of the Lorde: I doe not doubt but the holy ghost doth breath vpon thée. And when I doe behold thée wéeping: then I doe per­ceyue him pardoning thy sinnes. If thou doe defile the temple of the holy ghost, if thou defile and make filthy Gods sanctuarie that is within thée, if thou doe communicate of the cup of Deuilles, with the cup of Christ: it is a contumely and not a religion, an iniurie, not a deuotion. It is Idole seruice and horible abhomi­nation: to be wylling to serue Baall and Christ togither. Stand back with thine Idole chapels, thou that gapest after gaines, and folowest rewards. &c. I referre it to the iudgement of all indiffe­rent readers: whether these wordes may maintayne your Po­pishe Masse or not. Is not your Masse such a money matter: that it is growne into a Prouerb? No penie, no Pater noster. Such places doe you pick to maintaine your Masse.

But in Chrysostome you haue found other maner places. In his third Homily vpon the Acts (you say) he hath these words. In illa hora. &c. In y^e houre. &c. In that hole Homily, is not one word that maye be wrested to that sense: but thus I finde it written there.Chrisost. in Act. hom. 3. Non arbitror inter sacerdotes multos esse qui saluifiant, sed multò plures qui pereant. I doe not suppose, that there be many among the priestes that can be saued: but verie many moe that must perish. And least any man should thinke that he had spoken these words rashely: he sayth before. Non temerè dico: sed vt affectus sum ac sen­tio. I speake not this rashely: but euen as I am affected and doe thinke.Mo priestes damned than saued. It should séeme by these wordes: that Chrysostome did not thinke, that prayers made at the Masse time should be so ef­fectuall, [Page 119] as you boast of. For if they were: moe priests should be saued then perishe. For who should so soone be partakers of those prayers: as they that make them?

But in the .21. Homily vpon that booke:Chrysost. in Act. hom. 21. you finde other ma­ner wordes. For there he sayeth. In manibus est hostia, adsunt Angeli. &c. The host of our sacrifice is in the priestes handes, the Aungels be present. &c. And peraduenture the wordes that you sayde are in the thirde Homily: doe folow in this place. For he sayth thus. Quid putas pro martyribus offerri, quod vocantur in illa hora, licet martyres sint? Etiam pro martyribus magnus honor nominari Domino praesente, dum mors illa perficitur & horrendum sacrificium, & ineffabilia sacramenta. Nam quasi sedente Rege, quaecun (que) voluerit perficit, vt au­tem surrexerit, quaecun (que) dicit, frustra dicit: ita & tunc, quandiu posita fuerint mysteria, omnibus honor maximus in memoria haberi. What do­est thou thinke is offered for the Martyrs, in that they are named in that houre, notwithstanding they be Martyrs? Yea, it is a great honor for the Martyrs to be named in the presence of the Lorde, whiles that death and the horrible sacrifice, and the vn­speakable sacraments are performed. For euen as when y^e king sitteth in iudgement, he finisheth whatsoeuer matters he lusteth, but so soone as he is risen, whatsoeuer he sayth is in vayne: euen so is it then also, so long as the mysteries shall be set forth, it is the greatest honor to euery man, to be had in memorie.

If these were the words that you ment of before:Shamefull chaunging of wordes. then haue you shamefully chaunged some of them. For where find you. Quaecun (que) volueris perficies? Whatsoeuer y^u wilt thou shalt bring to passe. The words would not otherwise serue your purpose so wel: and ther­fore you must haue liberty to chaunge y^e third person into the se­cond, & leaue out the rest y^t should declare the wryters meaning.

But what néede I to trouble the reader with any moe words about the meaning of thys wryter: seing Erasmus (the transla­tour) doth in his short Epistle set before the translation, giue all wise men to vnderstande, that the worke was neuer of Chry­sostomes wrytings, but of some one that lyke an Ape went a­bout to counterfait Chrysostomes doings.

To the place that you cite out of the thirde Homily vpon the [Page 120] Epistle to the Philippians:Hiero in Math. 23. I must aunswere with Hierome. Hoc quia de scripturis. &c. Because this hath none authoritie of the scriptures: it is as easily reiected, as allowed. And the rather to be reiected: because that in all Chrysostomes workes, where he had by the text greater occasion to vtter such doctrine, there is none such founde. But in this, and certaine other places, where he had none, or verie small occasion, to speake any thing of the state of the dead: he playeth (or some other in his name) the Pur­gatorie Proctor, euen as though he had bene a Purgatory Chap­layne, or soule Masse priest.

Chrisost. de incomprehens. Dei natura. homil. 3.Fourthly, Chrysostome hath sayde. Vt homines ramos olea­rum gerentes. &c. Like as men bearing branches of Oliue trées. &c. He séemeth to haue marked but a little the maner of Chryso­stomes teaching: that vnderstandeth his wordes in this place, as you séeme to doe. He findeth great fault with his Auditorie, because they vsed to depart out of the Church immediatly after his sermons were ended: and did not tarie to be partakers of the holy communion of the body and bloud of Christ, and the com­mon prayers y^t were made in the ministration therof. And as his maner was: he laboureth to moue their affections, and to that ende, he vseth those maner of spéeches that you alledge. But what maketh this for your Masse? Wherein such as be present are not partakers of the mysteries, nor yet doe vnderstande the wordes (much lesse the sentences) of the prayers that are made?

This place may serue verye well, to proue that the prayer that is made by the Minister and the hole congregation in the time of the ministration of the holy communion: is most effectu­all, and euen as much as if all the Aungels in heauen did, as Chrysostome would haue his hearers imagine that they doe.

As for that which you alledge out of the twentie sixt Homily vpon Mathew:Chrysost in Mat ho. 26. could haue no colour of proouing your purpose: were it not that you helpe it a little in Englishing the Latine of that which foloweth those wordes that you cite in Latine. Bea­ring your hearers and readers in hand, that Chrysostome hath said, that Christ, euen by the very nature of the sacrifice, which is his bodie, doth stirre vs vp to continuall giuing of thanks: where [Page 121] as Chrysostome maketh no mention at all of Christes bodie in that place,The sacra­ment of chri­stes body and bloud called our table. but of a kinde of sacrifice whereby God doth stirre vs vp to continuall thankesgiuing, which is the same that before he hath sayde is made our Table. That is the sacrament of his bo­die and bloud: wherein that sonne of God that was giuen for vs is liuely represented by visible signes, and we moued thereby to be continually thankfull to God, for the lyfe that our soules haue by his death.

By this it doth euidently appeare, that nothing doth more exercise our fayth in the knowledge of God and our selues, no­thing doeth more increase our charitie and hope in the mercy of God: then doth the right vse of the holy Communion. And al­though Iob in offering sacrifice for his sonnes, did shewe himselfe thereby, a louing and carefull father: yet can not we acknow­ledge that strumpet to be our mother, that will make a sacrifice of hir husbands heart bloud. For Gods wrath can not be mitti­gated with any such sacrifice. But we are the children of that mother: that acknowledgeth hir selfe and all hir Children, to be alreadie washed, and made pure and cleane by the bloud of hir husband, which he in his owne person offered, to make both hir and all hir children cleane thereby. And there is nothing that doth more set forth the benefite of Christ: then doth the right vse of the sacrament of this death and bloud shedding. For in it wée protest, that we haue all thinges by Christ: and so forth as you haue sayde of the Masse. Which is a méere mans inuention, and no ordinaunce of God.

The other obiections I will but shortly touch, for they be of no strength or authoritie, one is this. WATSON Diuision. 31. There is no mention nor no one worde of any oblation in the supper, Ergo Christ made no oblation there a goodly reason. So there is no mention made neyther of Christes owne mouth nor of any the Euangelistes concerning the oblation of the Paschall lambe, yet we knowe most certainely by the olde Testament that the Paschall Lambe was neuer eaten, but it was offered before, which we are sure Christ did obserue lit­terally, [Page 122] till the truth of that figure were established. And al­so what is more sure then that Christ offred himselfe vpon the crosse, and yet neyther Christes owne wordes, nor any of the foure Euangelistes wryting the story of the passion, make any mention in playne and expresse termes of obla­tion or offering.

Though we know it by other scripture sufficiently. But their collection is all false, they should haue concluded thus, Ergo if there any oblation, it is reall and not vocalle, and so it is in deede, Luc. 22. and therefore Christ sayde: Hoc facite, doe this, as ye see mee doe. But in the forme of our Masse, there be expresse wordes of offering, for the rude and igno­raunt, and for the euidence of the truth. Vnde & memores nos domini. &c. Wherefore we thy seruauntes, and people be­ing mindfull of thy sonne Christ our Lorde, of his blessed passion, resurrection and glorious ascention, doe offer to thy most excellent maiestie of thy rewardes and giftes, this pure sacrifice, thys holy and vndefiled sacrifice, the holye bread of euerlasting life, & the cup of perpetuall saluation.

There be also other wordes of oblation folowing these words, saint Basill hath them, Chrysostome, saint Ambrose, the generall counsell holden at Ephesus, the latest of these was a thousand three hundred yeres ago, that it might ap­pere that it is not newly brought in, as they would slaunder it, but the most auncient thing in all the Masse. They reason also thus. It is a commemoration, ergo no sacrifice, as who saye the paschall Lambe being the figure of this, was not both a commemoration and a sacrifice, for the Lambe was instituted to be offered for a memorie of the delyueraunce of the Iewes from the sworde of the Aungell that smote the first begotten of the Egiptians, and therefore the Iewes kept this worde of offering the Lambe, for a statute for them and their children for euermore. Euen so this Lambe of God that lyeth vpon the table of our aultar is a sacrifice offered of vs in commemoration of our delyueraunce from the Deuill by the death of Christ. In the olde Testament [Page 123] the first Lambe offered before their deliuery, & the Lambe which was offered euery yeare after in memory of the same deliuery, were verye reall Lambes in deede of one nature and condition: euen so the Lambe of God being Christ, which Christ himselfe offered in his supper, there institu­ting before his death, what we should contynually doe af­ter his death, and that Lambe of God, which we offer now in memorie of our deliueraunce, be very reall Lambes of God in deede, and yet not dyuers in number as the other were, but all one in number, nature, condition and dignitie.

As Chrysostome sayth: Chrysost. ad Hebreos ho. 17. we offer daylie in commemora­tion of his death, and the sacrifice is one, not many. Nor we doe not offer one Lambe now, to morow another, but alwayes the very same, or else because it is offered in many places, is there many Christs? No forsooth, but one Christ euery where, here full Christ, and there full christ, one bo­dy, And so foorth.

You frame our argument after your owne fashion:CROWLEY. and so are you the better able to answere it. We reason thus. What­soeuer Christ would haue vs do or beleue: is in some part of the scripture so mentioned, that we may plainly perceyue, that it is his wyll that we should doe or beleue the same. But there is no such mention in any part of the holy scripture, whereby we may perceyue that it is Gods will that we should beleue that Christ offered himselfe in his last supper, or that he did then institute a sacrifice wherein we should dayly offer him. Ergo, Christ hath not instituted any such sacrifice as you speake of.

As for the like reasons that you would make of the Paschal Lambe, and Christ offering himselfe vpon the Crosse, might bée well accepted of some of your Auditorie that were of your mind, and therefore blinded by affection. But as many of your rea­ders as knowe the scriptures, must néedes say that you might with more honesty, haue kept them still in your bosome. For who knoweth not, that Christ himselfe hath sayd. Non veni soluere le­gem, sed adimplere. Et qui soluerit vnum ex mandatis istis minimis: mi­nimus [Page 124] vocabitur in Regno coelorum. I came not to breake the lawe, but to fulfil it.Math. 5. Iohn. 14. Iohn. 8. Rom. 5. Hebr. 9. And he that shall breake one of the least of these cō ­maundements: shall be called the least in the kingdome of hea­uen. And againe. Beholde the prince of this world commeth: and in me he hath nothing at all. And againe. Which of you can ac­cuse me of sinne? And againe. As by the sinne of one, condemna­tion came vpon all: so by the righteousnesse of one came the righ­teousnesse of life. And againe. He offered himselfe vnto God without spot. &c.

The conclusion that you would haue vs make, doth verye well. For by that conclusion you confesse, that Christs offering of himselfe in his supper was a visible Action: and that he com­maunded his disciples to do as they sawe him doe. Then, eyther he made thrée crosses vpon the cup and bread togither,The forme of the Po­pish Masse. and again, thrée crosses vppon them both togither, and one crosse vpon the bread, and one vpon the cup, and then one vpon the bread brea­thing out fiue wordes vpon it, and then one vpon the cup, lifting vp and laying downe. &c. or else the Masse that you haue in the popishe Church, is not that which Christ did then institute.

You haue graunted now, that in Christes institution, there is no word of offering: but in your forme of Masse (you say) you haue expresse wordes of offering. We would faine know then, where you had those wordes. You say that Basil, Chrysostome, Ambrose, and the generall counsaile at Ephesus, had them: and the latest of these was .1300. Diuisione. 9. Cyprian. li. 2. Epistol. 3. yeares ago. But the Chronicles will pull you backe an hundred yeares and more. But what if all these had it: doeth this proue that Christ had it? In your other sermon you coulde cite a rule out of Cyprian that was nighe hand .200. yeares before the eldest of the foure that you named nowe: wherein he sayth. In sacrificio quod Christus est: non nisi Chri­stus sequēdus est. In that sacrifice which is Christ: none but Christ is to be folowed. If you can not proue therefore that Christ vsed those toyes that you do vse in your Masse: you ought not, by Cy­prians rule, to vse them, though neuer so many haue vsed them before you. And if it can not be proued by scripture, that Christ made a sacrifice of himself in his supper: you may not make a sa­crifice [Page 125] of him in your Masse. &c.

But it is sufficient for your purpose, that you haue proued, that it is not so newly brought in, as we woulde slaunder, but it is the most auncient thing in the Masse. Well, graunt it be so. Yet is neither that nor your Masse so auncient as you woulde make it: nor so auncient that we may take it for Christes insti­tution. And all these that you haue named doe speake of a Com­munion, and not of a Masse, and do cal it a sacrifice, for such cause as I haue often declared in this aunswere.

To our other reason you say, that it is both a commemora­tion and a sacrifice: as the Paschall Lambe was. Our Argu­ment is in this forme.A comme­moration of any thing, is not that thing. Whatsoeuer is the commemoration of a thing: is not, neyther can be the thing it selfe whereof it is a cō ­memoration. But the sacrament is a commemoration of christes sacrifice: Ergo, it is not, neither can be the sacrifice it selfe. Your example therefore that you make of the Paschall Lambe: tou­cheth not our reason. For it was not a Commemoration of it selfe, neyther was it the thing it selfe, whereof it was a Com­memoration.

As for your similitude that you take of the Lambs of the olde lawe: is not woorth a button. For it foloweth not, that because those Lambes were very reall Lambes in déede: therefore, as oft as the sacrament of Christes bodie and bloud is ministred, it must néedes be the real Lambe of god in déede, and the same that Christ himselfe is. I am sure all the Logique you haue can not proue this a good Argument.

That Christ offered himselfe in his last supper, you haue not yet proued: much lesse haue you proued, that he did then institute any sacrifice, wherein we should continually offer him. What Chrysostome meaneth by offering and sacrifice in that place that you cite doth plainely appeare by his owne wordes in the same Homily. Non aliud sacrificium sicut pontifex, Chrysostome ad haebraeos homil. 17. sed idipsum semper facimus: magis autem recordationem sacrificij operamur. We doe not make another sacrifice, as did the high priest, but we do alwayes make the verie same: yea rather we do worke the remembrance of a sacrifice. Thus hath Chrysostome made his owne meaning [Page 126] so plaine: that it helpeth your purpose nothing at all.

WATSON. Diuision. 32. The lyke argument they make against the reall pre­sence. It is a signe, ergo not the thing whereof it is a signe. The foolishnesse of this reason euery Baker can tell, who setteth one loafe vpon his stall to signifie there is bread to sell within his house. Which lofe is both a signe of bread to be sold, & also is very bread to be sold it self of the same ba­king the other is. Euē so the body of Christ in the sacramēt is Christs very body in dede, and also a signe of the same bo­dy, as saint Augustine sayth. Carne & sanguine vtroque inuisibili, spirituali, August. li. Sent. prosp. intelligibili, signatur visibile Domini nostri Iesu Christi corpus & palpabile, plenum gratia omnium virtutum & diuina maiestate. By the fleshe and bloud of our Lorde Iesus Christ both being (in the sacrament) inuisible, spirituall, and intelligible, is signified the visible body of Christ, and palpable, full of the grace of all vertues, and of the godly maiestie. And euen so likewise verye Christ is offered in the mistery in signe and commemoration of himselfe offred vpon the crosse, as saint Augustine sayth. Christiani iam paracti sacrificij memoriam celebrant sacro sancta oblatione & participatione corporis & sanguinis Christi. August. cont. Faust. lib. 20. Capit. 18. Christen men nowe doe celebrate a memorie of Christes sa­crifice already past by the most holy oblation and partici­pation of Christes body and bloud. The like saying hath saint Gregory and diuers Authors which I omit to rehearse, Gregor. ho. 22. because the time is past.

CROWLEY.Euery Baker can tell the foolishnesse of the reason that we make, when we say: It is a signe, Ergo, not the thing whereof it is a signe (say you.) And I say, that euery Bakers boy can tell that he is but a deceytfull Sophister: that will when he hath bought the lofe that stood on the stall for a signe, say that he hath bought all the bread in the Bakehouse, whereof that lofe was a signe. If that reason be foolishe: then is not your reason wyse, that will proue by that similitude, that Christ the lambe of God, & al those Lambes of God that all the priests of the popes Church, [Page 127] eyther haue or shall offer in their Masses, are but all one in num­ber, nature, condition, & dignitie.The Baker and his boy. Let the baker and his boy ther­fore, discusse the folly of these two reasons: and doe you consider better our reasons, when we say, that the signe is not that thing whereof it is a signe. For the saying is saint Austens, and ther­fore not to be reiected,Austust. in Iohn. tract. 26. vnlesse you can disprooue it by better au­thoritie then the iudgement of the Baker. Saint Austen sayth. Nam & nos hodiè accepimus visibilem cibum: sed aliud est sacramentum, aliud est virtus sacramenti. For euen this day, we haue receyued vi­sible foode: but the sacrament is one thing, and the vertue of the sacrament is another thing. Againe, the same Austen sayth. Om­nis doctrina, vel rerum est, vel signorum: sed res per signa discuntur. De doctrina Christ. li. 1. Capit. 1. All doctrine is either of things, or of the signes of things: but things are learned by signes. By this it appeareth that Austens iudge­ment was not, that a signe coulde be the same thing whereof it is a signe.

But what néede I to trouble the reader with so many wor­des about this matter: so many as do know what the Art of rea­soning meaneth (euen the children at the vniuersitie) can tell, that Relatiues are called [...], that is referred to somewhat: be­cause they be alwayes referred to another thing then they are themselues. As a father, is a father, in respect of that sonne whom he hath begotten: and can not be that sonne whose father he is. Euen so, a signe, is called a signe, in respect of that thing where­of it is a signe: and can not be that selfe thing that is signified by it. The Baker therefore, that taught you to say,The Baker was not prē ­tise in the Vniuersitie. that the lofe vp­on the stall, is the same bread that is to be solde, whereof it is a signe: hath not bene brought vp in any Bakers house in the vni­uersitie, for if he had, he would neuer haue deceyued you so.

But that both Bakers and Bruers, and all other that haue the vse of reason, may iudge of the foolishnesse of our reason: I will let the Reader sée it in wryting. It is thus. Whatsoeuer thinges, be such as they are called, by hauing relation to other things then they be themselues: can not be those things where­vnto they haue relation. But euery thing that is called a signe, is so by the relation that it hath to the thing that it signifieth: Er­go, [Page 128] no signes can be the same things that they do signifie. Wher­of our conclusion foloweth: which is, y^t the sacrament of Christes bodie and bloud, being a signe therof, can not be the thing it selfe. Now aske your Baker what he can say to this reason.

The place that you alledge out of Austen: is aunswered in the .29. August. lib. Sent. Prosp. Contr. Faust. li. 20 cap. 18. diuision of this sermon: and in the .28. diuision of the same sermon, is aunswered the other place that you alledge out of the same Austen also.

To Gregorie and the reast: you shall looke for aunswere, when you cite their wordes that we may weigh them.

They say, that neyther the Apostles nor none in their time did offer Christs body in sacrifice. WATSON Diuision. 33. And yet I haue she­wed you before, that Dionisius Areopagita saint Paules Disciple (of whome mention is made in the .17. chapiter of the Actes of the Apostles) did offer the sacrifice of Christes body, alledging Christes commaundement for his warrant.

Ireneus that lyued within fiftie yere of saint Iohn the Euangelist and Policarpus Scholer doth make mention of this offering saying. Ireneus. li. 4. cap. 34. Ecclesiae oblatio quam Dominus docuit offerri in vniuerso mundo, purum sacrificium reputatum est apud Deum, & ac­ceptum est ei. The oblation of the church which our Lorde taught to be offered in the whole worlde, is reputed of God a pure sacrifice and acceptable to him.

And in the same chapter confuting them that denied the immortalitie of the fleshe, by this reason that our fleshe, was nourished with Christes fleshe to eternall lyfe, conclu­deth thus. Aut sententiam mutent, aut abstineant offerendo quae prae­dicta sunt, eyther let them chaunge their opinion, or else absteine from offering the same body and bloud of Christ we spake of.

Also the generall counsell of Constantinople sayth, that saint Iames did write the forme of a Masse, Concil. Const. in trul. cap. 32 I omit the Latine, the wordes in Englishe be thus faithfully translate. Saint Iames brother to Christ our God according to the fleshe, to whome the church of Hierusalem was first com­mitted, [Page 129] and Basilius which was Byshop of Caesarea, whose fame is knowne throughout the worlde, which deliuered in wryting the mysticall celebration of the sacrifices, haue de­clared that the cup in our holy ministery ought to be of water and wine mingled.

And the holy fathers that were assembled at Carthage, haue thus left in wryting, that in the sacrifices nothing else be offered, but the body and bloud of our Lorde, as oure Lord himself hath ordeyned and so foorth. I neuer read saint Iames his booke my selfe, nor I thinke, it be not nowe to be had, but I tell you so much as I knowe, that saint Iames did write the forme of a Masse, as saint Basill did (which we haue in Greeke nowe). If this great and learned generall counsell doth truely report, as I beleeue doth. Let no man therefore beleue them that say, the Apostles did not sacri­fice themselues, nor none in their time except they can proue the negatiue, which they shall neuer doe.

To that which you haue alledged out of Dionisius, CROWLEY. I haue an­swered in the last diuision of your former sermon, and in the .23. diuision of this sermon. And the matter that you doe here alledge out of Ireneus, is sufficiently aunswered in the fourth, the four­tenth and twentie foure diuisions, of your former sermon. Wher­fore I néede not here to make any further aunswere.

Where you finde the Latine that you doe so faythfullye translate into Englishe: I can not tell.De Consecra. Dist. 1. But I suppose it wyll be hard for you to finde it in the counsell holden in Trullo: as you note in the Margine. In Gratian I finde it thus cyted out of the sixt Synode. Iacobus frater Domini secundum carnem, cui primum cre­dita est Hierosolimitana Ecclesia, & Basilius Caesariensis Episcopus, cuius charitas per totum orbem refulsit: in scripturis addiderunt nobis missae ce­lebrationem. Which is in Englishe as you haue translated: sauing that for (whose loue) you say, whose fame, and adde mysticall, where as in the Latine there is no word that may so signifie.Chaunge is no robbery. And turning the Verbe (haue giuen in wryting) into the Participle of the same Verbe: you adde to the end, haue declared that y^e cup. &c.

Of this forme of Masse (as you terme it) and of the other that you name: I haue noted somewhat in mine aunswere to the ninth diuision of your former sermon. And where as you say that you had not as then read it, nor did thinke that it was to be had: I haue read it, and haue it to shewe. And amongst other things I note: that he maketh prayer for such as then lyued in monaste­ries. The forger of this péece of worke did not remember how early dayes it was in saint Iames his time: and therfore he sup­posed Monasteries had bene builded then. It forceth not greatly what is found in those counterfaited Masses. And for my part I wyll looke for no credite of those that wyll beléeue that Iames would pray for them that dwelt in Monasteries, so long before any Monasteries were builded, let that great learned councell report what they lust. And if I shall say, that neyther the Apo­stles nor any in their time did offer sacrifice to God: then let no man credite me, except I be able to prooue the negatiue, which I confesse I shall neuer be able to doe.What sacri­fice the Apo­stles did of­fer to God. For they did continually of­fer to God, that acceptable sacrifice that God requireth of Chri­stians: which is their hole bodies and soules in his seruice. But that they offered Christ to his father (as you imagine) that no wise man will beleue, till you be able by scripture to prooue that affirmatiue: which you shall neuer be able to do.

WATSON. Diuision. 34 There be other some, that will graunt the sacrifice, but denie that it is propitiatory for the sinnes of the quick and the dead. And therefore they disalow the last sentence of the Masse. Where the priest sayth, graunt good Lord, that this sacrifice which I haue offered to thy diuine maiestie, be propitiable or a meane to obteyne mercy, to me, and to all, for whome I haue offered it. And surely these be most foolish of all, for if it be a sacrifice it must needes be a pro­pitiatory sacrifice taking (propitiatorie) as it ought to be taken, not confounding the meaning of it by sophistrie, but vnderstanding the diuerse acception of the word: but these men dally, and seduce the people with Amphibologies and doubtfull sayings.

Distinctions they admit none nor can not abide to haue the matter opened, & with a confuse generall saying slaun­der the Church.

This is their priuate sophistry, and yet they call other men sophisters, that detect and open their collusions, that diuide the sentence, that men might see, how it is true, and how it is false. For example. They cry out of this, that we say, the Masse is a sacrifice propitiatory. By the word (Masse) may be vnderstanded two things, the thing it selfe that is offered, and the act of the priest in offering of it. If ye take it for the thing offered, which is the bodye of Christ, who can iustly denie but that the body of Christ is a sacrifice propitiatorie, seing saint Iohn sayth, he is the propitiation for our sinnes, euer was and euer shall be, and neuer cease so to be, till our sinnes be ended, Oecumenius in cap. 3. ad Romanos. and death the last enimie be ouercomed in vs his misticall bodye? and as Oecumenius sayth: Caro Christi est propiatorium nostrarum iniquitatum. The flesh of Christ is the propitiation for our iniquities.

But if by the worde (Masse) be vnderstanded the act of the priest, and the vse of the sacrament (as they would haue it) then it is not propitiatory in that degree of propitiation as Christes body is, but after an other sort. And therefore I must diuide the worde (propitiatory) which is taken two wayes also. First for that that worthily deserueth mercy at Gods hande, and so the act the priest in offering, is not pro­pitiatorie, of it selfe deseruing mercy, as Christ doth.

Next for that prouoketh God to giue mercye and re­mission, already deserued by Christ. And so the oblation of the priest is propitiatory, moouing and prouoking God to apply his mercy vnto vs.

So praier is a sacrifice for sinnes, as S. Iames saith. Iacob. 5. Oratio fidei saluabit infirmum, & si in peccatis sit, remittentur ei. The Prayer of faith shall saue the sick, and if he be in sinne, they shal be re­mitted vnto him. And christ taught vs to pray thus, forgiue vs our trespases, as we forgiue them that trespase against vs. Math. 6.7. [Page 132] And also promised to giue vs, that we aske in Christs name.

Then ye see, that prayer being a sacrifice is a prouoca­tion of God, & a meane to atteyne remission of our sinnes, and therefore may be well called propitiatorie.

So is a contrite hart a sacrifice propitiatory and almose, as appeared by the storie of the Niniuites and of Daniell. Psalme. 50. For all good workes that we doe, both fasting, prayer, al­mose, forgiuing of my neighbour is done for this ende, to mittigate Gods anger against our sinnes, and to prouoke him to haue mercy of vs for Christes merites.

Euen so the Masse (taking it for the act of the priest) is a sacrifice propitiatory for sinne. Which I shal proue vn­to you by the holy fathers, Origen wryteth thus. Si referan­tur haec ad mysterij magnitudinem, Origen. in Le. hom. 13. inuenies commemorationem istam ha­bere ingentem repropiationis effectum. Si redeas ad illum panem propitiati­onis, quem proposuit Deus propitiationem per fidem in sanguine eius: & si respicias ad illam commemorationem de qua dicit dominus hoc facite in meam commemorationem, inuenies quod ista est commemoratio sola quae propitium faciat Deum. If these be referred to the greatnesse of our misterie, thou shalt find that this commemoration hath a great effect of propitiation. If ye returne to that bread of propritiation, which God hath set for a propitiation by fayth in his bloud: and if ye looke to that commemorati­on, of which our Lorde sayde. Doe this in commemorati­on of me: thou shalt finde, that this is the onely comme­moration that maketh God mercifull. Cyprian. Ser. de coena.

Doth not saint Cyprian call the sacrament hol aucastum ad purgandas iniquitates, a sacrifice to purge iniquitie? in what re­spect is it called so, but for that it is offered, to that ende? And so is it called a medicine to heale infirmities, for thys respect that it is receaued to thys ende.

Augu. ser. 11. de sanctis. Saint Augustine sayth likewise. Nemo melius praeter martyres meruit tibi requiescere vbi & hostia christus est & sacerdos scilicet, vt pro­pitiationem de oblatione hostiae consequantur. No man hath deserued better then the Martyrs, to rest (and be buried) there, where Christ is both the host and the priest (that is to say vnder [Page 133] the aultare,) for this ende that they might attayne propi­tiation by the oblation of the hoste. Marke the purpose I bring in this for, which is to atteine propitiation by the ob­lation of the sacrifice: and as he sayth in an other booke. Sacrificium illud mirabile & coeleste quod tu instituisti & offerri praece­pisti in cōmemorationē tuae charitatis mortis scilicet & passionis, August. in Manuale, Cap. 11. pro salute nostra pro quotidiana fragilitatis nostrae reparatione. That maruellous & heauenly sacrifice, which thou hast instituted and com­maunded to be offered in remembrance of thy charitie, that is to say, of thy death and passion, for our health and salua­tion, for the dayly reparation of our fraile weakenesse.

Doth he not here shewe the ende of the oblation, to saue vs, and to repayre our frayltie. Saint Hierome writeth. Si laicis imperatur, vt propter orationem abstineant ab vxoribus, Hierony. in Cap. 1. ad Titum. quid de episcopo sentiendū est, qui quotidie pro suis populi (que) peccatis illibatas deo ob­laturus est victimas. If it be commaunded to the lay men, that for prayers cause they should absteyne from their wyues, what should we thinke of a Byshop that must offer daylie pure sacrifices for his owne sinnes and the peoples.

Of this place though I might prooue you the chast lyfe of a Byshop: yet I bring it in now onely to showe, that the office of a Byshop is to offer daylie pure sacrifice for hys owne sinnes and the peoples sinnes, as saint Basill sayth in the booke of his Masse.

Da domine vt pro nostris peccatis & populi ignorantij acceptum sit sacrificium nostrum. Graunt O Lorde that for our sinne, Basilius in Missa. and the ignoraunce of the people our sacrifice may be accepted of thee.

Thus ye perceaue, that I haue shewed you, and proued that the oblation of the priest in the Masse is a sacrifice pro­pitiatorie for the sinnes of them that be aliue, that is to say, moouing and prouoking God to pardon the sinnes of the priest and of the people.

A little is to be sayde, concerning them that be departed and then an ende of that matter. Tertull. eo­rum millit.

Tertullian sayth, Oblationes pro defunctis pro natalitijs annua [Page 134] die facimus. We make euery yere oblations for the dead, and for the birth dayes of Martyrs, which be the dayes they suf­fered their martyrdome.

Athanasius sayth. Intelligimus animas peccatorum participare aliqua beneficentia abexangui immolatione. Athanasius ad antiochiū quest. 34. We vnderstande, that the soules of sinners, doe receyue some benefite of the vn­bloudy oblation and of almose, done for them, as he onely hath ordeyned and commaunded, that hath power both of quick and dead. Our God.

Ambros. de obitis Valen. And saint Ambrose exhorteth the people to pray for the soule of Valentinian the Emperour, for whome he did offer the sacrifice of Christes body. Chrysostome sayth.

Non frustra sancitum est ab apostolis, vt in celebratione venerando­rum mysteriorum memoria fiat eorum, Chrysost. ho. 3. ad philip­penses. qui hinc discesserunt: noucrunt illis multum hinc emolumenti fieri. &c.

It was not in vaine ordeyned of the Apostles, that in the celebration of the honorable misteries, there should me­mory be made of them that were departed hence. For they knewe much profite, much commoditie to come to them thereby.

Chrysost. hom. 41. in 1. Cor. 15. And in an other Homily he sayth in this maner in Eng­lishe. A sinner is departed surely it becommeth vs to bee glad that his sinnes be stopped and not increased, and to la­bour as much as we can to release him not with weping, but with prayer, In Act. ho. 21. supplications, almose and sacrifices. For that was not ordeyned in vaine, nor we doe not in vayne in our holy misteries celebrate the memory of the dead, and make intercession for them to the Lambe that lyeth there, which taketh away the sinnes of the worlde, but that some com­fort may thereby come to them. Is not this very playne? and that it is not a thing newe inuented, but a doctrine taught and vsed in the Church euer since Christ, and ordey­ned so to be done by the Apostles themselues.

August. con. li. 4. cap. 12. Saint Augustine sayth in his booke of confessions, that the sacrifice of our price, which is Christes owne naturall body was offered for his mothers soule after she was dead.

And he sayth also. De cura pro mortuis. ca. 1. In Machabeorum libris legimus oblatum pro mortuis sacraficium. Sed & si nunquàm in scripturis veteribus omnino le­geretur, non parua hac consuetudine claret authoritas vbi in praecibus Sacerdotis quae Domino Deo ad eius altare funduntur, locum suum habet etiam commendatio mortuorum, In the Bookes of the Machabes we read, that there was sacrifice offred for the dead. But al­though in the olde scriptures there were no such thing read, yet there appereth no small authoritie in this custome, that amongs the prayers of the priest, which are made to our Lorde God at his aultar, the commendation and prayer for the dead hath also his place.

Marke well that he sayth, it was an olde custome, in the Church for priests in their Masse to pray for the dead, in his time which is aboue .1130. yere ago. And that the custome of the Church in this point is of sufficient authoritie to proue this matter, though there were no scripture for it at al, and yet he himselfe alledgeth the booke of Machabes for it, the place is knowne well ynough.

He teacheth vs the same thing wryting vppon saint Iohn. August. in Ioan. Tract. 84. Ideo ad ipsam mensam non sic cos commemoramus quemadmodum alios qui in pace requiescunt vt etiam pro eis oremus, sed magis vt orent ipsi pro nobis vt eorum vestigijs inhereamus. &c. talia enim suis fratribus ex­hibuerunt, qualia de Domini mensa acceperunt.

Therefore at the very table (of the aultare) we doe not so remember (the martyrs) as we doe other, other that rest in peace that we pray for them. But rather that they should pray for vs, that we might folow their footesteps. For they haue giuē such things for their brethren, as they haue recei­ued from our Lords table. Here is both prayer to saints, and for the dead in the Masse. Thus ye see how Christes body is offered for the dead, after what maner it auayleth them.

Saint Augustine also teacheth saying thus. When the sacrifices eyther of the aultare, or of any almose be offered for the deade that were baptised: for the verye good men, August. Euchirid. Cap. 109. they bee gyuing of thankes, for not verye euill men, they bee propitiations, for verye euill men, although [Page 136] they be no reliefe of the dead, yet they be certaine comforts of them that be aliue. And to them they profite, they pro­fite to this ende, eyther that they should haue full remission or at least that they should haue more tolerable damnation.

In this authoritie is expressed the plaine worde of pro­pitiatory, how that the sacrifice of the aultar is a propitia­tion for such soules, as be not very euill or very good to­warde that teyning of full remission, or of more tolerable damnation.

If I should recite as much as I coulde bring in for this point at large: it is not one or two houres that would suf­fice to the rehearsall of the places.

By this little I haue sayde, ye may perceaue, after what sort it is true, that the Masse is a sacrifice propitiatorie for sinne, both for the quick and the dead.

CROWLEY.When you shall shewe the names and wordes of them that graunt the Masse to be a sacrifice, and yet denie it to be pro­pitiatorie for sinnes: then will I eyther condemne their folly, or your false report. These men (you say) doe disalow the last sen­tence of your Masse. &c: so do I, with the rest that hath bene de­uised by men,The vse of Distinctions and hath no ground in Gods worde. Distinctions I can well away with, when they tende to the opening of thinges doubtfully spoken of in the scripture: but not when they tende to the maintenaunce of mans doctrine, contrarie to the worde of God. This Sophistrie therefore is none of mine: wherefore, I may be bolde to call him a Sophister, that vseth distinctions, to cause things that are false, to séeme true, as you doe in this place vse two distinctions. The Masse may be taken for the thing offe­red in the Masse (which is the bodie of Christ) say you: and for the act of the priest and vse of the sacrament. Both the wayes it is propiciatorie: but the one way it deserueth mercie, and the o­ther way it doth but prouoke God to applie his mercie. These distinctions of the Masse and propitiation, tend not to the opening of any thing doubtfullye spoken of in the Scriptures, but to the maintenaunce of a doctrine of your owne, contrary to the scrip­tures: [Page 137] wherefore I can not allowe them. The scripture sayth, that as Moses did lift vp the serpent in the Wildernesse,Iohn. 3. so the sonne of man must be lifted vp: that all that beleue in him should not perishe, but haue euerlasting life. Here is none other thing mentioned whereby Christes merites shoulde be applied vnto men, but onely fayth. And saint Austen sayth thus. Holocaustum dominicae passionis, August. in Expos. incho. ad Rom. eo tempore offert vnusquis (que) pro peccatis suis quo erus­dem passionis fide dedicatur. Then doth euery man offer the sacri­fice of Christes passion for himselfe: when he is dedicated in the fayth of Christes passion.

It is true therefore, that Oecumenius hath sayd. Caro Chri­sti est propitiatorium nostrarum iniquitatum. In caput. 3. ad Rom. The fleshe of Christ is the propitiation for our iniquities. And the onely way to applye this propitiation to vs: is by beleuing the promise that God hath made therein. As appeareth by the wordes of saint Paule, in that place where Oecumenius had occasion to write those wordes. Where saint Paule sayth thus. Iustificantur autem gratis, per gratiam ipsius, per redemptionem quae est in Christo Iesu: Rom. 3. quem proposuit Deus pro­pitiatorem, perfidem in sanguine ipsius. And they are fréely made righ­teous, by his frée mercie, through the redemption which is in Christ Iesu: whome God hath set to be a propitiatour, through fayth in his bloud.

Your distinction therefore, that tendeth to a nother media­tion or propitiation then this: is not to be alowed amongest them that be of Christes schoole. Yea, the Clarkes of the Popes schoole, out of whose bookes you learned your Popery: will not allowe your declaration that you make vpon the seconde partes of these your distinctions.

Angelus sayth, that the Masse is auaileable to whome so e­uer it please the priest to applie it by his intention.In summa Angel. in Missam. And that the Masse is nothing else, but the applying of the merite of Christes passion, yea, and that Respectu operis operati. In respect of the work wrought by the priest in saying Masse: though you by your So­phistrie would make men beleue, that Opus operatum, is that work which Christ hath alreadie wrought vpon the Crosse. Biel, Hol­cot Dunse, and the reast of that flock, be of the same mind: where­fore, [Page 138] if they were liuing, they would not suffer you to passe with such a declaration of your destinction, as you make here. For you will haue the Masse (as it is the Act of the priest) to be pro­pitiatorie none otherwise, then is the prayer of the faythfull, the contrition of the penitent, the almose of the merciful, and the for­giuenesse of the charitable, which is, as you say (but not truely) to mittigate Gods anger against our sinnes: and to prouoke him to haue mercie vpon vs for Christes merites. And this you offer to proue by the holy fathers.

Origen. in Leuit. ho. 13. Origen hath sayd thus (say you) Si referantur haec. &c. If these wordes be referred to the greatnesse of our mysterie. &c. Here you haue thrust in the Pronowne ours, and haue sayde of our mysterie: because you would haue your hearers and readers to thinke that Origen ment of your Masse, which you cal the grea­test mysterie of your religion. Where as in déede, he meaneth of the misterie of the .xij. loaues: y^t were continually vpon the table in the tabernacle before the Arke of the couenant. And he calleth our sauiour Christ, which is the bread that came from heauen: the greatnesse of that mystery. But you leaue out that péece, least the writers minde should appere. Craftily you créepe away with the sentence thus. Si redeas ad illum panem propitiationis. &c. Euen as it were poynting with the finger, at your little rounde wafer. But Origen hath written thus. Si redeas ad illum panem, qui de coelo des­cendit, & dat huic mundo vitam, illum panem propositionis. &c. If thou returne to that breade which came downe from heauen, and gi­ueth life to this worlde, that bread of proposition, whom God hath set to be a propisiation, through fayth in his bloud. &c.

Cypri. ser. De Caena.And doth not Cyprian call the Sacrament Holocaustum. &c? Of this place of Cyprian, I haue sayde ynough to satisfie the reasonable reader, in the aunswere to the fift diuision of your for­mer Sermon.

Concerning the two places that you alledge out of Austen: I wil trouble the reader with nothing, more then the iudgement of Erasmus, concerning the two bookes that you alledge them out of.Tomo. 10. Pagina. 2. Of the first, he sayth thus. Quae sine controuersia sunt Au­gustini: primo posuimus loco. Impudentissimum figmentum sermonum ad [Page 139] fratres in eremo agentes: in suum angulum reiecimus, de quo suo loco non nihil dicemus. Insunt & coeteris, multa parum referentia phrasim & eru­ditionem Augustini: quorum aliquot notauimus. Those works which are vndoubtedlye Austens owne: we haue placed in the first place. That most vnshamefast lye, of the sermons to the brethren that liued in wildernesse: we haue cast into a corner meate for them, whereof we will in their place speake somewhat. In the rest there be many things that do verie little resemble the phrase and learning of Austen, whereof we haue noted some. And of the other booke he saith thus. Liber qui sequitur, ex superioribus libellis, magna ex parte sarcinaetus est, per quempiam, nec eruditione, Tomo. 9. in fronte illius Libr. nec eloquen­tia preditum: proinde, non video, cur admodum lectu dignus videatur. Ca­pite. 17. ponit in potestate hominis, vt promereatur Regnum coelorum: quam sententiam vbi (que) detestatur Augustinus. Quanquam idem. Capite. 22. di­cit diuersum. The booke that foloweth is for the most part patched togither out of the little bookes that go before, by some man that had neyther learning nor eloquence: wherfore, I do not sée why it should séeme verie worthie to be read. In the .17. Chap. he doth put it in the power of man, to deserue the kingdome of heauen. Which sentence, Austen doth in all places detest. And yet the same wryter doth in the .22. Chapter, say the contrary. Such for­ged matter is méete for the proufe of the propiciation of your Masse, for the sinnes both of the quicke and the dead.

You haue mistaken the place that you alledge out of Hie­rome. For vpon the first Chapter to Titus: Hiero. in Cap. 1. ad Titum. he wryteth not one worde that may be wrested to such a meaning, as those wordes haue that you cite. But he hath wordes there to the contrary of that, whereof (you say) you might proue the chast life of a bishop.

Of what authoritie the Masse of Basill is,Basilius in Missa. I haue noted in mine aunswere to the ninth diuision of your former sermon, and néede not now to trouble the reader any more with that matter. and thus we can not sée by that light that you haue hitherto gi­uen vs: that the Masse is a sacrifice propiciatorie, for the sinnes of them that be aliue.

Nowe a little you haue to say, concerning them that be de­parted: and then an ende of that matter. Tertulian sayth (say [Page 140] you) Oblationes pro defunctis. &c. We make euery yeare oblati­ons for the dead.De corona Militis. &c. I will set downe in wryting the sentence that goeth before, and that which foloweth immediatly after: that the indifferent Reader may weigh altogither, and iudge of the wryters meaning. Eucharistiae sacramentum, & in tempore victus, & omnibus mandatum à domino: etiam antilucanis coetibus, nec de alio­rum manibus, quam praesidentium sumimus. Oblationes pro defunctis, pro natalitijs, annua die facimus. Die dominico, ieiunium nefas ducimus, vel geniculis adorare. We do receyue the sacrament of thankesgiuing, both in the time of repast or féeding, and at all times that the lord hath commaunded, yea and in our comming togither before day: not at the hand of any other, then of such as be in authoritie. We do in the yerely day make oblation for the deade, for theyr birth dayes. We thinke it wickednesse to fast on the Lordes day, or to bowe the knées.

This oblation might be, the receyuing of the Communion togither: in that yerely day wherein they vsed to solemnize a re­membrance of those that had giuen their liues for Christes cause. Which the fathers might well cal an oblation: because they vsed at such méetinges, to offer of their goods to the reliefe of the poore, and themselues to suffer for Christ, as they whose memoriall they celebrated, had done before. But how like you the custome of that time, which was to refraine knéeling on the sunday, as a wickednesse? And howe like you that he calleth the sacrifice that you speake of: the sacrament of thankesgiuing? Here is no worde of propitiation for sinnes. Wherefore this little that you had to say out of Tertulian, is as much as neuer a whit.

Athanasius sayth Intelligimus animas peccatorum. &c. We vn­derstand,Athanasius ad Antioch. Principem. Quest. 34. that the soules of sinners. &c. Howe farre vnlike it is, that Athanasius Archbishop of Alexandria, should be Authour of these questions and aunsweres: may easily appere to as many as will with iudgement read them, and consider the time where­in he liued, and the matter conteyned in the aunsweres. First it is to be considered: that he liued about .330. yeares after Christ. Then that he was of the Gréeke Church: and therefore wrote as a Gretian: these things kept in memorie, and the matter con­teyned [Page 141] in some of the aunsweres considered: it will appere that some Athanasius of a later tyme was Authour of these questi­ons and aunsweres.

In the second aunswere, he sayth, that in his tyme, the feast of the Epiphanie of our Lorde, was called the feast of the thrée kings: where as Ambrose, who liued an hundred yeares after him, and being bishop of Millaine (whether the bones of those thrée, if hystories be true, were first brought out of Persia) doth make no mention of any such feast, notwithstanding that in ex­pounding of Lukes Gospell, he doth speake of their comming out of the East to séeke Christ.

In the aunswere to the thirde question: he alleageth mat­ter out of Epiphanius, who was not so auncient as he himselfe was (if he were the right Athanasius) and he giueth him titles of great authoritie, acknowledging him to be a father of him and other of his tyme, and a worker of myracles.

In the aunswere to the .14. question, he sayth, that men wor­thie to be beleued, that were spirite coniurers, had tolde him, that they had séene the Deuill in his owne likenesse: and that he had tolde them, that there is no sentence in all the scripture that is more terrible to him, then the beginning of the .67. Psalme. Ex­urgat deus. &c. Let God arise, and his enimies shall be scattered abroade.

And the reasons, that (in the aunswere that you alledge) he sheweth, whereby we doe vnderstande, that sinners soules haue some benefite, by thinges done for them after they be departed: are not such as should mooue so wise and learned men as Atha­nasius was. One is, the vsage and custome of doing things for them: which (sayth he) if it were no commotitie to them, would not be continued. The other is the nature of wine, which (as hée sayth) being fast closed in a vessell, will when it féeleth the odour or sauour of the vine that beginneth to budde in the field: budde with the vine, and begin to flourishe a freshe. Euen so (sayth he) we vnderstand. &c.

Thus the indifferent reader may sée, that I do not without iust cause reiect this authoritie that you alledge in the name of [Page 142] Athanasius.

For aunswere to that which you report of saint Ambrose, exhorting the people to pray for Valentinian the Emperour.Ambros. De obit. valent. In Philip. 1. Cor. 15. & in Act. &c. I referre you and the readers, to that which I haue written in mine aunswere to the ninth diuision of your former sermon.

And for aunswere to that which you cyte out of Chryso­stome, I referre you to that which I haue for aunswered to the 30. diuision of this sermon. And for aunswere to that which you alledge out of saint Austens Confessions:Libro. Con. 9. Capit. 12. I referre you to that which I haue written for aunswere, to the .9. diuision of your for­mer sermon also.

De Cura pro mortuis. cap. 1. In Iob. Tract. 84. Euchirid. Cap. 109.To the other thrée places that you alledge out of Austen: I must aunswere thus. It appeareth by these thrée, and certaine o­ther places of saint Austens workes: that he supposed, that prai­ers made, and almose déedes done, for such as departed this lyfe in the fayth of Christ, and felowship of the members of his body: might be propitiatorie for them, in such sort as you haue sayde that your Masse is, when it is taken for the worke of the priest. And that the reason that perswaded him so to thinke, was the cu­stome of the Church in his dayes: which was to make mention of the dead in their prayers, when according to Christes institu­tion, they did celebrate the holye Communion of the bodie and bloud of Christ.

But shall this be a sufficient warrant for vs: to thinke and to teache that the Masse, which (as it is vsed in the Popes church) is but an heape of dumble ceremonies, is a sacrifice propiciatorie, for the sinnes both of the quicke and the dead? The same Austen willeth vs not to stand vpon his warrandice: but to be sure that we haue the scripture for our discharge. For he knewe himselfe to be a man: and that as a man he might erre. In his thirde booke De trinitate, In Prooemio li. 3. de Trinit. he sayth thus. Noli meis litteris quasi scripturis canonicis enseruire, sed in illis & quod non credebas cum inueneris incunctanter cre­de: in istis autem, quod certum non habebas, nisi certum intellexeris, noli firmiter retenere. Be not bound to my wrytings, as to the Cano­nicall scriptures, but when thou shalt finde in them that which thou diddest not beleue before, beleue it without any staying or [Page 143] staggering: but when thou shalt finde that in my wrytings, that thou didst not surely know before, do not firmely holde it, vnlesse thou mayst vnderstand it.

Againe in one of those bookes that you alledge, he sayth.Euchiridio. Capit. 4. Quae autem nec corporeo sensu experti sumus, nec mente assequi valuimus aut valemus: eis sine vlla dubitatione credenda sunt testibus, à quibus ea quae diuina vocari iam meruit scriptura, confecta est. But those thinges which we neither haue proued by bodily sense, nor haue béene or are able to attaine vnto by reason: must without any doubting be beleued, for those witnesses, of whom that scripture that is nowe worthily called diuine, was perfectly made.

And in another place he sayth.De Peccato­rum merit. li. 1. Capit. 22. Cedamus igitur & consentiamus authoritati scripturae sanctae: quae nescit falli, nec fallere. Let vs there­fore giue place and consent to the authoritie of the holy scripture: which neyther can be disceyued nor disceyue.

Ambrose also hath sayd. Nos noua omnia quae Christus non do­cuit, iure damnamus: quia fidelibus via Christus est. Ambros. de Virginibus. Si igitur Christus non docuit, quod docemus: etiam nos id detestabile iudicamus. We doe worthily condemne al new things, which christ hath not taught: for to the faythfull, Christ is the way. If Christ therefore haue not taught that which we teach: euen we our selues doe iudge it detestable.

These sentences and such like (whereof there be many in the auncient fathers wrytings) do cause me not to consent to that which Austen wryteth in those places that you alledge, and cer­taine other of his workes. Although the same be nothing to proue that which you would proue by his authoritie.

He maketh the oblation, whereof he speaketh there, of no greater worthinesse, then the almose that is giuen to the poore, and the prayers made for the dead: wherefore, he can not meane there of such a sacrifice as you make your Masse when you say it is Christ himselfe: There is great oddes, betwéene Christ him­selfe, offering himselfe to his father, and a loafe of bread, giuen to an hungrie man. It is manifest therefore, that he vnderstandeth that oblation that he speaketh of, to be but a meane to mooue God to applie the merites of his sonne, to such as whiles they liued [Page 144] here, did by repentaunce and fayth, make themselues méete to be partakers of mercie. For so he teacheth in plaine wordes, in the same place that you cite, saying. Sed eis haec prosunt, que cum viue­rent, vt haec sibi postea prodessè possent meruerunt. But these things are profitable to such persons, as whilst they liued here, deserued that these things might afterward be profitable to them.

Yea, if all be Austens that goeth in his name: there is no propiciation to be had for capitall sinnes, after this life. His wor­des be these.Sermone. 41. de sanct. Non capitalia: sed minuta paccata purgantur. Not the capitall, or damnable sinnes are purged: but the small sinnes. Such as the Italians call Peccadulians, little pretie sinnes. Yea, and those little sinnes (sayth he) if the fardell of them be great: will weigh you downe and drowne you.

And to giue men occasion to thinke, that he had no great de­uotion, to this doctrine of helping the soules departed: he writeth thus,Lucae. 16. August. in Psalm. 48. by the occasion of the historie or parable of the rich man and Lazarus. Ventri suo seruiunt homines: non spiritibus suorum. Ad spi­ritus mortuorum suorum, non peruenit: nisi quod secum viui fecerunt. Men sayth he, (meaning such as offer sacrifice for the deade) doe not serue the spirites of their friends: but their owne bellies. To the spirites of their friends departed, there commeth nothing: more then y^t which they did whilst they liued here with them. Here you may sée, how little help you haue by saint Austens words: when they be better weighed, then you would weigh them, whē you did vse them. And when his wordes in other partes of his workes, be weighed also. Yea, you may sée by this place of Austen: that your purgatory priests, which are hyred to sing for soules, doe not serue the soules that they sing for, but their owne bellies. And therefore the cost that is bestowed that way: is but cast away.

The scripture, that neyther is deceyued nor doth deceyue: hath told vs, that we shall all stand before the iudgement seate of Christ:2. Cor. 5. Eccles. 14. and receyue according to those works that we haue done in our owne bodies, whether the same be good or badde. And the scripture hath willed vs to worke righteousnesse before we de­part hence: for in the graue, there can no foode be founde.

I conclude therefore, that though you could spend .22. houres, [Page 145] in rehearsing of the places that you could bring in for this poynt: yet should they not all be woorth a poynt, because the scripture is against them. So that wée may sée that it is most vntrue, that the Masse is a sacrifice propiciatorie, for the sinnes of the quicke and the dead. And that it is most true, that there is none other propiciation for mans sinne: but that onely, that was once for al wrought by Christ in his owne person vpon the Crosse. And that the same is still, and shall be for euer, effectuall to all that beleue the promise that God made therein.

Some thinke it a great blasphemy, that we should saye, the priest applyeth the effect of Christes passion, WATSON Diuision. 35. to whome he lysteth, or for whome he maketh his oblation. Good people beleue them not, they slaunder vs in this, for we say not so, nor doe not apply the merites and effect of Christes passion, to whome we list, we doe but apply our prayer and our intent of oblation, beseeching almightie God to apply the effect of his sonnes passion, which is his grace & remissiō of sinne to them, for whom we pray. Only God applyeth to vs remission of sinne, we but pray for it, and by the com­memoration of his sonnes passion prouoke him to apply so that all that we doe, is but by peticion and intercession, not by authoritie as God doth.

You denie not, that it is blasphemie to saye,CROWLEY. that the priest doth in his Masse, applie the effect of Christes passion, to whome he lusteth: for you say you are slaundered by them that so say. I will therefore let you vnderstand who they be,Who they be that slaunder watson and his felowes. that haue in open writing, set out to be séene of all men, slaundered you most of all: that knowing them, you may giue warning to your good people, that they giue no credite to them. Scotus, Biel, Angelus, Vin­centius, and Holcot: haue in open writing sayde, that the force and effect of the sacrifice, is distributed and applied, not onely by God but by the priest also. It shall be best for you therefore, to haue them cited to appéere in the Arches, or in some Consistorie, to aunswere to the slaunder: for I am sure you shall haue your [Page 146] cause heard with fauour.

WATSON. Diuision. 36 They say, we make oblation for messeled swine, for sick horses, for murren of cattell, and thus wyth these vile and odious wordes they go about to bring the Masse in hatred with the simple people, that can not tell nor iudge, what it is, saying wee haue certaine peculiar Masses for all those things in our Masse booke.

The matter of this accusation is true, but not the ma­ner. For there be not in our bokes peculiar Masses for these thinges, but in certayne Masses there be some peculiar pra­yers for these and such like things, and that by good reason.

For in the presence of Christes body, when our prayers be most effectuall, then wee pray for the atteyning of all goodnesse of soule and body, and the outward felicitie of this worlde is as expedient for vs, according to the wyll of God, and also we pray for the turning away of all euils of body and soule, and worldly goodes, alwayes referring our selues to his wyll, as he our father thinketh meete for vs.

Chrisost. de Sacerdotio Libro. 6. Chrysostome telleth, how the priest in his Masse pray­eth for the whole worlde, for the whole Citie, for the sinnes of all men both quick and dead, for the ceassing of warre, for the pacyfying of sedition, for peace, and the prosperous estate of things, for the auoyding of all euilles that hang o­ouer vs. For the fruites of the earth and of the sea, and such other.

De Ciuitate dei. li. 22. Capit. 8. Saint Augustine in his booke De ciuitate dei, telleth a sto­ry of a Gentleman called Hesperius, who hauing an house and groundes about it in the Countrey, where his seruants and beastes were much vexed with euill spirites, for reme­dy thereof came to saint Augustines house, and he being absent, desired his priestes, that one of them woulde go to the place, and pray, that this calamitie might cease. One of them went, and offered there the sacrifice of Christes body, praying as much as he could, that the vexation by the euil spirites might cease, and by and by through the mercie of [Page 147] God it ceased.

Is not thys as much, yea and more to, then we do now? Let not vs therfore feare their vile and slaunderous words, nor let not vs cease to doe well, because they speake euill. We may not cease to doe as the holy saintes haue done, be­cause the members of the Deuill rayle against vs, as though we did nought.

You graunt the accusation to be good in matter:CROWLEY. whereof I conclude, that you make oblation for mesaled swine. &c. But the maner you denie: which I must eyther proue,Masse for the rotte of cattell. or else confesse that you be slaundered. In your Masse which is intituled, Pro peste ani­malium. For the morayne or rotte of Cattell: you haue two prai­ers, the one to be said amongst the secret prayers before the con­secration, and the other after you haue receyued your host. In the first you desire of God, that the offering vp of the present sa­crifice, may helpe you, and mightily deliuer you from all errors, and rid you from the incursion of all destruction, that the Cattell also, which serue for your vse, may by his power, be deliuered. And in the second you say. O Lord we besech thée by these things that we haue receyued: doe thou taking pitie and compassion, driue away from thy faythfull ones, all errours, and the pernici­ousnesse of the violent destruction of raging diseases in cattell. That such as for their owne merite, thou doest scourge being out of the way: thou mayste cherish by the compassion, béeing corrected or amended.

If the leaprosie of swine, the manifolde diseases of horses, the morian and rot of shéepe and other cattell, be of the number of those raging diseases: then do you in that Masse, make an obla­tion for measeled swine. &c. For what is your Masse?Sūma ange­lica in Miss. Angelus of Italie sayth, that it is nothing else, but the applying of the me­rite of Christes passion. And that it is auailable, to whom soeuer it pleaseth the priest to applie it by his intention. Nowe let the wise iudge, what the priestes intent is or should of right be, when for hyre or friendship he sayth Masse, to cause such diseases to cease among cattell.

But this me thinketh is straunge, y^t you say that you make your prayer in the presence of Christes bodie: vnderstanding the same to be the sacrament. For when you make your first prayer, Christes bodie is not yet come into your sacrament: and when you make the latter, the sacrament and all is in your belly.

Chrysost. de Sacerdotio. libr. 6.But Chrysostome telleth you: how the priest in his Masse prayeth for the whole world. He telleth in déede, that in the mini­stration of the holy communion, and in al his other publike pray­ers: he prayeth for those thinges that you speake of. But what maketh this for the proufe of that which you haue in hand? which is: that in your Masse for the moraine of cattell, you do not make an oblation for measeled swine. &c.

As for that Chrysostome saith, that the priests office is to pray for the sinnes of the quicke and the deade: I referre the Reader for aunswere, to that which I haue aunswered to the .30. diuision of this sermon, where you alledge his thirde Homilie vpon the Epistle to the Philippians.

Saint Austen also telleth a storie of a Gentleman. &c. In mine aunswere to the .28. August. de Ciuitate Dei. li. 22. ca. 8. diuision of this sermon: I haue giuen the reader occasion to consider the corruption that is found in this worke of saint Austens, by the conference of many copies, wher­of some containe a sound doctrine according to the scriptures, and some cleane contrary. Which I doubt not should easily appéere in the Chapter that you alledge: if the first copie, or some true copie thereof were to be had. Lodouicus Viues, in his Com­mentary vpō this Chapter, saith thus. In hoc Capite, non dubium est, quin multa sint addita velut declarandi gratia, Lodouicus Viues. ab ijs, qui omnia magno­rum authorum scripta, spurcis suis manibus contaminabant: quorum alia resecabo, alia more meo, contentus ero velut digito indicasse. There is no doubt, but that in this Chapter there be many things added (as it were to declare and make the matter more plaine) by such as with their filthie fistes, haue defiled all the writings of great au­thors: whereof I will cut of some, and some other I will be con­tented, after my maner, as it were, to haue poynted at with the finger.

This may suffice the indifferent reader, and giue him occa­sion [Page 149] to thinke: that this fable which you alledge for your purpose, was neuer written by saint Austen. You haue no good ground therefore, in this place to say, that you do as the holy saints haue done, when you say Masse for measeled swine, and sicke horses: neyther to say that we which do say that you do naught therein, are members of the deuill.

Now a little of priuate Masse, and then make an ende. WATSON Diuision. 37 Many there be, that can well away with the Masse, but not with priuate Masses.

These men be deceaued in their owne ymagination: for there is no Masse priuate, but euery Masse is publike. It is called in Greeeke [...], a publike ministery.

Saint Thomas calleth it sometimes a priuate Masse, but not in that respect, as it is contrary to publike, but as it is contrary to solempne.

Euery Masse is publike, concerning the matter and ministerie, but not solemne concerning the place and other rites and circumstaunces.

Therfore these men speake against that they know not what. They haue a newe vnderstanding of priuate.

They call it a priuate Masse when the priest receyueth the sacrament alone. And thys they say is agaynst the insti­tution of Christ.

They say so sine fine, and neuer make an ende, but they neuer proue it. I shall shew you that it is not against the in­stitution of Christ.

The institution of Christ concerning this sacrament contayneth three things which he himselfe did, and by his commaundement gaue authority to the Church to doe the same. The consecration, the oblation, and the participatiō. To the due consecration foure things be required, the mat­ter, forme, minister, and intent.

The necessary matter is bread of wheate, which is due as it ought to be, if it be pure, sweete and vnleauened.

But our newe maisters that crye out so fast of Christes [Page 150] institution, did ordeyn it should be ministred in vnleauened bread, but in common bread, and the worse the better with them, some sayde horsebread was to good. Well there was more vilany shewed herein, than I wil expresse at this time.

And for the other kinde, whereas the due matter is wine mixed with water, they notwithstanding the institution and example of our sauiour Christ, commaunded no water to be put in, raysing vp again the pernicious rotten and ex­tincted heresies which Fermentarij and Armeni did maintaine. The forme of the sacrament is the wordes of our Sauiour Christ, saying. This is my body. This is my bloud, duely and perfitly pronounced vpon the bread and wine.

Our newe maisters that still cry vpon the institution of Christ, some sayde it was a sacrament or euer the words were spoken, as soone as it was brought to the Church for the vse of the communion, some would haue the wordes sayde, but as one should read a lesson or tell a tale, not di­rected to the bread and wine, but that the Minister should looke away from the bread and wine in the time of the pro­nouncing. Fearing belike the wordes should haue more strength than they would they should haue.

And thus howsoeuer now they pretend a zeale to main­taine the institution of Christ, then they vtterly destroy­ed the institution of Christ, eyther denying or defrau­ding the necessary consecration of the sacrament.

The minister ought onely to be a priest duely consecra­ted & ordred after the rite of the catholike Church, whose ministration God onely doth assist. These men did not on­ly maintaine that it was lawfull, but also did appoint and permit mere lay men to minister, yea and lay women some­times, as some sayde without any lawfull vocation or or­dering at all, Arnobius in Psal. 139. not regarding what Arnobius writeth. Quid tam magnificum quàm sacramenta dei conficere? & quid tam perniciosum quàm si is ea conficiat qui nulum sacerdotij gradum accipit. What is so excellent than to consecrate the sacraments of God? and what is so pernicious, than if he consecrate them, that hath [Page 151] receyued no degree of priesthood? The intent also to doe that the Church doth without mocking, dissimulation or contrarye purpose is required. For although the priest in the consecration may haue his thoughtes distract to some other thing, and so lack attention, which is a great negli­gence in the worke of God, and deadly sinne to the mini­ster: yet if he lacke intention not intending to doe that God commaundeth and the Church doth: there is no con­secration nor no sacrament at all. And for this point what intention shall we thinke these men had of late that vtter­ly denied to consecrate or receyue Christes body & bloud vnder the formes of bread and wine, but onely to receyue the creatures of bread and wine, and thereby to be parta­kers of Christes body and bloud? For in the booke of their last communion, these were the wordes of the inuocation. Good Lord graunt vs that we receauing these thy creatures of bread and wine according to thy sonnes institution, may be partakers of his body and bloud.

Was there euer heard of any such institution? Looke throughout al the scripture and shew me where, euer Christ did institute, that by eating of bread and wine, men should be partakers of his body and bloud. And if it can not bee shewed, as I am sure it can not: then it was a playne forged lye bearing men in hande that Christ instituted that he ne­uer thought, wherby appeareth that they had not this in­tention which is required to the due consecration: and also that they in words pretending to haue a zeale to maintaine Christes institution in their deedes shewed themselues eni­mies and aduersaries to the same.

Goyng about to proue that we haue a new vnderstanding of priuate: you vtter your owne straunge vnderstanding therof.CROWLEY. I thinke it shall be hard for you to find one good author: that doth vse it as you vnderstand it. You say saint Thomas doth vse it so: but you tel vs not where. But though saint Thomas do vse it so: yet must we know him to be a more approued Latinist, before we [Page 152] folow him, and make him our authour in so waightie a matter as this. Cicero, and other approued authours doe vse it, as con­trarie to publike and common,Solemne is not contrary to priuate. but neuer as contrarie to solemne as you say saint Thomas doth. Solennis is properly that, which is vsed but once euery yeare: and that at a time certaine and accu­stomed. The contrarie to that, must néedes be the thing that is neuer so vsed: but oftener or seldomer, as occasion is offred. You say we speake agaynst that, we knowe not what, and we are de­ceyued in our owne imagination: but we can proue that you are deceyued by your foolishe imitation. Your barbarous babling lawiers, haue vsed a worde of their owne making, in such sort as you would vse Solennis, making it contrary to Priuus: and they say, solempnizare matrimoniū, for celebrare matrimonium. To celebrate mariage, or to make an open contract of mariage, in the open face of the Church. The imitation of these eloquent Latinists: hath deceyued both you and saint Thomas, if he wryte as you report of him.

As for your Gréeke worde, you might full well haue spared, vnlesse it had made more for your purpose: for nothing is more contrarie to that which is done by one alone, and to himselfe, then [...], is. For you your selfe say it is a publike ministerie: which can not be your Masse, when the priest ministreth to none but to himself, though he do it in the presence of ten thousand, and at the high altare in saint Peters Church at Rome, and on saint Peters day. It may be sayde, that it is openly done, and so is se­cretly the contrary: but it cannot be truely sayd to be publikely done, because it is done but by one, and to himselfe alone. Yea, though there were a small number that did communicate with the priest, in the presence of a great number that were not parta­kers with them: yet shoulde it not be publike, because it is not common to as many as it should be common vnto. So farre of is your Gréeke worde: from proouing your priuate Masse to bée publike.

Who they be that can well away with your Masse, but not with your priuate Masse you tell vs not: but I tell you, that I haue sayd, and doe say, Sine fine, without ceasing, that your pri­uate [Page 153] Masse is against Christes institution. Yea, I doe not onely say it, but I will proue it also, euen by your owne wordes concer­ning those thrée things that you say the sacrament conteyneth,Priuate Masse pro­ued to be a­gainst the in­stitution of Christ. as it is the institution of Christ. I reason thus. Whatsoeuer Masse hath not all these thrée things, is against the institution of Christ. But your priuate Masse lacketh one of them, that is Participati­on: Ergo, it is against the institution of Christ. The participati­on of prayers, oblation, and merites, will not serue here. There must be participation of that which is consecrated, that is, the bread and wine. But that is not in your priuate Masse, Ergo, &c. Say not now that we neuer proue, that your priuate Masse is a­gainst Christes institution.

Thus going about to proue your negatiue: you haue mini­stred matter to proue our affirmatiue. Well you procéede to the foure things that are required in the due consecration. The first, is necessarie matter, &c. We say as you doe, that the necessarye matter is breade, made of such graine as is vsuall in the place, which commonly is wheate: and wine made of Grapes. But that the bread must of necessitie be vnleauened, & the wine mixed with water: we do in plaine wordes denie. And yet do wée not rayse vp againe any rotten Heresie at all. For we make no ne­cessitie either of the one or of the other.

A doctor of your owne, hath taught vs:Nicholaus de Orbellis 4. Sent. Dest. 11. quest. 1. that it must be vsu­all breade, and conuenient nourishment. His wordes be these. Non sufficit autem ad hoc pasta, cum non sit cibus vsualis, nec conueniens nutrimentum. Paste, or starch, is not sufficient matter for this con­uersion or turning of substaunce: because it is not vsuall bread, nor conuenient nourishment. In mine aunswere to the .12. diui­sion of this sermon: is to be séene more of this matter.

And your saint Thomas hath told vs thus. Non est autem de ne­cessitate sacramenti, quòd sit Azymus, vel fermentatus: Parte. 3. q. 74. Art. 4. Ibid. Art. 7. quia in vnoquo (que) confici potest. It is not of necessitie of the sacrament, that the bread should eyther be vnleauened or leauened: because it may be done in eyther. And for the water he sayth also. Dicendum quod admix­tio aquae ad viuum non est de necessitate sacramenti. We must saye, that the mingling of the water with the wine: is not of the ne­cessitie [Page 154] of the sacrament.

And saint Thomas sayth, that saint Gregorie maketh the matter plaine,Gregorius in Regest. for the libertie that we teach in this matter. For he sayth thus. Romana Ecclesia offert azymos panes: propterea quòd do­minus, sine vlla commixtione suscepit carnem. Sed certae Ecclesiae offerunt fermentatum: pro eo quod verbum patris indutum est carne, sicut fermen­tum miscetur farinae. Vnde, sicut peccat presbiter in Ecclesia latinorum, celebrans de pane sermentato: ita peccaret presbiter Grecus in Ecclesia Gre­corū, celebrans de Azymo pane, quasi peruertens Ecclesiae suaeritum. The Church of Rome doth offer vnleauened loaues of bread: because the Lord hath receyued flesh, without any myxture or mingling. But certaine Churches doe offer leauened bread: because the worde of the father (that is the sonne of God) hath taken vpon him, fleshe, euen as leauen is mingled with meale. Wherefore, euen as that priest, that in the Latine Church doth celebrate with leauened bread doth sinne:Both sinne a like. so y^e priest that in the Gréeke Church doth celebrate with vnleauened bread, doth sinne also, as peruer­ting the custome of his Church.

It is to be wondred at, that you will teach a doctrine so con­trarie to Gods Vicare on earth: and make so great a matter, of that which he setteth so light. Bylike you had not séene this be­fore you made your sermon. To such as haue sayde, that some of vs haue sayd, that horsebread is to good: I say, that vnlesse they let the world knowe who they be that so haue sayd, they are shame­lesse and slaunderous lyers. And vnlesse you vtter that villanie, that you know hath béene shewed herein: you shall (by my con­fent) be ioyned with the other.

August. in Ioh. Tract. 80. De verbis Domini se­cund. Ioh. ser. 38.The forme of the sacrament we know to be the worde: as saint Austen sayth, speaking of baptisme. Accedit verbum ad ele­mentum & fit sacramentum. The worde commeth to the element: and so it is made a sacrament. And as the same Austen sayth in another place. Est forma omnium rerum. The worde of God is the forme of all things. But the due and perfite pronouncing of the worde vpon the bread and wine that you speake of: doth sauour to much of magicke, for vs to vse or receyue. Wée knowe that Christ spake those words that you reherse: but that he did breath [Page 155] them out vpon bread and wine, or commaunde that they shoulde be breathed out by his ministers, sub vna prolatione, vnder one pro­nunciation, without pausing or staying, as your Canon doth pre­scribe: neyther do we know, neyther can you proue. The vse of wordes, is to teach (as I haue noted in mine answere to the .15. di­uision of your former sermon) & not to worke woonders, as sorce­rers do. Christ therfore, in pronoūcing those words, ment to teach his Disciples by them: that the bread which he had broken and gi­uen vnto them, was his bodie, and the wine his bloud, in such sort, as they did well knowe signes to be the things signified by them.

Saint Austen therefore, is bolde to say thus.August. ad Dardanum. Capit. 12. Non dubitauit Dominus dicere, hoc est corpus meum: cum signum daret corporis sui. The Lorde did not doubt to say, this is my body: when he gaue the signe of his body. It was no rare thing with them, to heare the signe called by the name of the thing signified:Exod. 12. for the Lambe that they had euen then eaten, was called the passing by of the Lorde, because it did signifie, that the Lorde passed by the first borne of his owne people, and smote the Egyptians.

Your newe maisters therefore,The newe maysters teach the old lesson. doe teache you but the olde lesson: if they tell you that the wordes be not pronounced wyth purpose to chaunge the substaunce of the creatures, by the ver­tue of them, but to teach the hearers, that Christ hath ordeyned a liuely and effectuall sacrament, to represent vnto the worthy receyuers, their vnitie in him their head, and that euerlasting lyfe that they receyue from him, as members from their head.

And you are but an euill scholer, that so slaunderously re­port of your newe maisters: in whose wrytings and examples it doth appéere, that they teache and vse that consecration, that Christ vsed and taught. We (for I take my selfe for one of your newe maisters) doe take bread, giue thanks to God, breake and deuide the bread amongst vs, and eate it. In lyke maner we take the cup of wine, giue thanks, & drinke all of it. And this we doe in the remembrance of Christ, as he hath taught vs to do.What conse­cration is. Thus doe we consecrate: not by turning the substaunce of the creatures, but the vse. Other consecration, the vniuersall Church hath not yet agréed vpon. Yea, your owne schoole Doctours, are yet at va­riance [Page 156] about it. Some say: that Christ consecrated with some other wordes, before he sayde this is my body. Some other say: that he spake those words secretly first, and consecrated by them: and afterwarde vsed them to declare what he had made of the breade and wine. And some thinke: that the consecration is wrought by the prayers that go before. And they that holde, that it is wrought by the pronouncing of these words,The papistes varie about their conse­cration. doe not agrée. Some say, Hoc, this: is it that worketh all. Some say, Est, is: And some say, vin. The first sillable, the Verbe copulatiue, or the last sillable.

There is no such disagréeing founde in your newe maisters wrytings or examples. Wherfore, you are worthy to come out of a good schoole, that can cary such vntrue reports out of the schoole: and if euer you come in againe to be well whipt, for belying your maisters. For we doe not vnder pretence of maynteyning the institution of Christ, destroy, denie, or defraude it: but in a true zeale, we abolishe all superstition brought in by man, and vse that consecration onely, that Christ vsed, and taught to be vsed of hys.

The minister we allowe not, vnlesse he be called and admit­ted, according to the worde of God. If any be vnworthy that be admitted or suffered in the ministerie: the fault is not in the order that your new maisters professe to folow,Popishe shauelings most vnwor­thy ministers but in the officers that haue the execution of the order. And if it were in mine hand: I would ridde the Church of a greater number of your shaue­lings, which are most vnworthy, though you thinke none wor­thy but such. As for the saying of Arnobius, we regarde it as well as you doe: as may be séene by that which I haue written in mine aunswere to the .30. diuision of your former Sermon.

The fourth thing that you say is required in your due con­secration, is the intent of your minister: which must be to doe as the Church doth,The sure stay that the Popish con­secration hath to leane to. without mocking, dissimulation, or contrarie purpose. And where this is not: there is no consecration at all. You haue brought your matter to a good point now, your conse­cration may not be doubted of: for it hangeth vpon the priests in­tent. If he intend not to do as y^e Church doth, but to huddle vp his [Page 157] Masse for his hyer: then they that gaped for Gods body, haue caught but a Waffer cake, as lyght as a Butter flie. And they that gaue him money, to offer Christ for their friendes depar­ted: haue lost both labour and cost, for Christ came not into hys clowches to be offered. And whatsoeuer thing else, should haue bene wrought by that Masse, is cleane disappointed: sauing only that the priest hath his money, and the peoples folly is fed. A more vncertaine thing can there not be: then when all hangeth vpon that which no man can know, but he only that is the doer. Wise men therefore, will séeke a more sure stay to leane too, then your consecration can be: seing it hath not a better and more certaine foundation, then the most vncertaine intent of the priest.

What intent we had or haue: God doth knowe, and shall iudge. Our doings doe declare: that we intend to vse the sacra­ments of Christ, according to hys holye institution,The effect of this sa­crament. in remem­braunce of his death and passion. And by them to call to memory what we are by Christ, & what we must continue to the end, and what we shall haue in the ende. And being such as by receyuing those holy mysteries together, we séeme to be: we are by them assured: that Christ dwelleth in vs, and we in him. And that as the creatures bread and wine, doe by the mouth enter into our bodies to be the foode thereof: so doe the flesh and bloud of Christ by fayth enter into our soules, to be the sustinaunce of them, whereby both body and soule shall lyue for euer in ioy.

And in our last booke of Communion: our inuocation is some thing more large then you haue reported it. For we saye thus. Heare vs, O mercyfull father, we besech thée. And graunt that we receyuing these thy creatures of bread and wine, accor­ding to thy sonne our sauiour Christes holye institution, in re­membraunce of his death and passion: may be partakers of his most blessed body and bloud. &c. If you would haue considered this inuocation better: you should not haue néeded to haue wylled your auditorie, to looke throughout the scriptures, to finde where Christ did institute, that by eating of bread and wine, men should be partakers of his bodie and bloud. For the wordes of our inuo­cation are: that we doing that which Iesus Christ did will to be [Page 158] done, for such purpose as he did appoynt it to be do ne: may bée partakers of the thing in déede, that is represented by that which is done. Not by the outwarde act that we do: but by the inwarde fayth that mooueth vs to doe it, being commaunded by him in whom we beleue.

The institution of this doing, is declared immediately after the inuocation that you speake of:1. Cor. 11. and was written by S. Paule to the Corinthes. Wherefore, we do not beare men in hand that Christ did institute that which he neuer thought: neither doe our déedes shewe, that we be enimies to his institution.

And as they vsed themselues in consecration: so they did in the oblation, WATSON. Diuision. 38 which they did not corrupt as the o­ther, but vtterly tooke away, denying any such thing to be, as I haue proued it is, in so much that in all their newe communion, they could not scarcely abide the name or worde of oblation, but pulled it out of the booke, so much did they fauour the institution of Christ which they nowe pretende.

CROWLEY.As in mine answere to your proufes, I haue sufficiently dis­proued the same: so shall I here in fewe wordes, disproue your slaunderous report. In our Communion booke, we desire oure heauenly father, mercifully to accept our sacrifice of prayse and thankesgiuing. And we say, that we doe offer and present vnto him, our selues, our soules and bodies: to be a reasonable, holy, and liuely sacrifice vnto him.The sacrifice of the newe testament. And is this, to put the name or worde of oblation out of our booke? The auncient fathers say, that this is the sacrifice of the newe testament: as I haue briefly noted in mine aunswere to the fourth diuision of your former Sermon.

Nowe when they haue taken away the due matter, as sweete vnleauened bread, WATSON. Diuision. 39 the mixture of the Chalice, and peruerted the forme by leauing out the principall verbe (est) in the words of Christ, as it was in the last booke in the first [Page 159] printing, how it came in againe I can not tell, and neglected the due ordring of the minister, suffring them to vsurpe the office of a priest that neuer receaued that authority, neither of God nor man, and in that they did (which was very bad) neuer intended to do as the Church doth, & wholy did ab­rogate as much as lay in them the oblation of Christs body in remembrance of his passion, & at length would haue no­thing to remaine, but a bare cōmunion, what face haue they to cry vpon christs institution, institution, which they haue in so many pointes broken and violated as I haue shewed? & yet that they would haue is no part of Christs institutiō. For the vse of the sacrament is that it should be receaued and eaten, Concilium tolet anum prim. ca. 14. Conci. Cesar. aug. ca. 3. and therefore in dyuers councels it was decreed that whosoeuer tooke the sacrament at the priestes hande and did not eate it, for the which end Christ did ordeyne it, was holden accursed and excommunicate. Thus farre ex­tendeth the institution of Christ concerning this point, be­cause he sayde Accipite, manducate & bibite. Take, eate, drinke, and also that all should eate and drinke of it, that coulde proue themselues (after saint Paules admonition.)

But such thinges as pertaine to the ceremonie of the eating, as how many in one place togither, what time, place maner, order, and such like, be thinges pertayning to the ordinaunce and direction of the Church, and not to the in­stitution of Christ, as necessary vpon paine of damnation to be obserued of euery christen man.

For else if all the rites that Christ vsed at hys supper were of necessitie and pertayning to his institution: then there must needes be thirtene together at the communion and neyther moe nor fewer.

And it must be celebrate after supper, and in the night, after the washing of the feete, and in a Parler or Chamber, and all that receaue must be priests and no women. For all these things were obserued of Christ and his Apostles at his last supper.

But for our instruction to declare that they be not fixed [Page 160] by the instituted of Christ, but left to the disposition of the Church, the Church hath taken an other order in these things, wylling that all shall communicate that be worthy and disposed. So that the number whether there be many or fewe, or but one in one place that receyue, maketh not the ministration of the priest for that thing vnlawfull.

And it hath ordered that it shall be celebrate in the mor­ning, and receyued fasting before all other meates, and in the Church except necessitie otherwise require. And ther­fore saint Augustine taught Ianuarius after this sort. August. Epist. 118. Ideo sal­uator non praecepit, quo deinceps ordine sumeretur, vt apostolis per quos dispositurus erat ecclesiam seruaret hunc locum. Therefore our Saui­our did not commaund by what order it should be recey­ued after him, but reserued that matter to the Apostles by whome he would order and dispose his Church.

By this wee may conceyue that the receyuing of the sa­crament is Christes institution, but the maner, number, & other rytes of the receyuing be not determined by Christes institution, but ordered at the Churches disposition.

Yet say they, Christ did not receyue it alone, but did communicate with his twelue Apostles, whose example we ought to folow. To this I say, that we be not bounden to folow this example for the number, but for the substance. That it should bee receaued of vs, is Christes example ne­cessarie, but of howe many, of twelue onely, of moe, of fewer, or of one, is not by Christes example fixed and determyned.

Christ ministring the mistical supper of necessitie, & that neuer but once, for this ende by his deede to institute the thing, and to teach his disciples what they should do conti­nually afterward in cōmemoration of his death, must needs haue ministred it to mo then himself, because in that doing he gaue them authoritie to doe the same, and so made them priestes. But we ministring it not for that intent to insti­tute the sacrament, and to make priestes, but to receyue the spirituall fruite that commeth to vs thereby, are not boun­den [Page 161] to obserue that number, but shall doe well if we receaue it eyther with other or alone.

You haue falsely charged vs with taking awaye the due matter. &c.CROWLEY. And as for the leauing out of the principall verbe (Est) Let him be charged withall that did it.Narow sec­king for matters to charge vs with. It is like that you haue little to charge vs with, when you seeke out the printers faultes, and lay them to our charge: and yet confesse in plaine wordes that the fault is corrected. If I would haue delt to with you: I might haue done it many tymes in these your sermons, as may well appeare to the learned that will reade them as you set them out in print. Our ministers be ordered and admitted, with impo­sition or laying on of handes and prayer: and as many ceremo­nies beside, as may tende to edification. And that which we do in the ministration of the worde and sacraments: shall neuer bée iustly disproued by any of your sort, to be other then the instituti­on of Christ. Our intent in doing that we doe, is to imitate the Church of Christ: and not the Church of Antichrist, which is the Church of Rome. Wee offer that oblation: which both by the scriptures and fathers, is accepted for the sacrifice of the newe testament. And our Communion (which it pleaseth you to terme bare) shall on the mariage day be interteyned of the Bridegro­mes father:The Masse hath not the marige gar­ment. when your Masse shall be turned out for lacke of a mariage garment. We haue no cause therfore to be abashed still to crie vpon Christes institution: which you haue and doe still, in so many poynts violate and breake as appereth by that which I haue answered to that which you haue shewed, proouing that which we haue, to be the institution of Christ.

And where as you go about to render a reason, and make a proufe, that the Communion that we haue is not the institution of Christ, saying that the vse of the sacrament is, that it shoulde be receyued. &c. I marueil if you did not blushe when you spake it. For if that be the vse of the sacrament (as it is in déede) howe dare you reserue it, and hange it ouer your altar, sometime, till it be so vinewed and mowled, that you must nedes burne it? how dare you carie it about your stréetes in procession? And how dare [Page 162] you fetch it out in tempests: to scare the deuill withall? Yea, how dare you put it in a purse and hange it about your necke, to pre­serue you from perilles?

And I pray you, what mooued you to vse this reason against vs:Nothing more against Watson then this is. seing that you know that we do neuer minister it, but when we haue occasion presently to distribute it, so that we neuer re­serue it for any maner of purpose? There is nothing that maketh more against your doynges: then that which in this place you alledge against vs. Take, eate, drinke. &c.

And where you say that the ceremonies and rites that be vsed about the ministration of the sacrament, doe not appertaine to the institution of Christ, we say so to: and that therefore the Church ought not to make a matter of necessitie of them, but leaue them to the discretion of euery particuler congregation, to vse or leaue them, as they shall sée that they doe tend to theyr edi­fication or not.

Watsons purpose in speaking of circūstances.Much a doe you make about circumstaunces of the eating, and the number of them that shall eate, the tyme, place. &c: but all is to make some shewe of a libertie left to the Church, to or­daine that one alone may in the presence of a multitude, cele­brate that sacrament, and receyue it alone, as commonly your Massing priestes do. But it will not be. For not onely the exam­ple of Christ in his last supper is to the contrary, but his words in the institution also: which wordes we must hearken vnto, and not those circumstaunces which are not within the compasse of doe this in remembraunce of me. He tooke breade, gaue thankes, brake it (that is, he deuided it amongst them) and sayd, take, eate, this is my bodie: and in like maner the cup, saying, drinke ye all of this, do this in remembraunce of me.

If any of them had béene so dull of vnderstanding, as you shewe your selfe to be: and woulde haue mooued this néedelesse question, what shall we doe in remembraunce of thée? Woulde he not haue sayd, take breade, giue thankes, deuide it amongest you, and eate it: for it is my bodie? And in like maner, take a cup of wine, giue thankes, and drinke all of it: for it is my bloud? And what libertie is here left to the Church to ordaine that the [Page 163] priest alone, may do this to himselfe in the presence of a multitude that should be partakers with him, as the Apostles were wyth Christ?

The place that you cite out of Austen, is wrested too farre out of tune. For in that place he speaketh onely of the time of ministration and receyuing. Whether before meats or after: as appeareth by the wordes that folow immediatly after. Nam si hoc ille. &c. For if he had tolde his disciples this, that this sacrament should alwayes be receyued after meates: I beleue that no man would haue altered that custome. So farre of is saint Austen, from confirming the priuate receyuing of your priest. Wherfore you gather more of his wordes then he ment. But this vaun­tage you haue giuen vs by the wordes of your collection: that we may be bolde to saye, that in your Masse there is nothing of Christes institution, more then the receyuing of the sacrament. The rest is ordered by the Church. But you woulde faine re­straine your saying to the number of receyuers: and therefore you say, and other rites of the receyuing.

You imagine,We depende vpon christes commaun­dement. that we depende altogither vpon the example of Christ, in communicating with the twelue: but I haue tolde you before, that we depende not onely vpon his example in do­ing, but also, and chiefely, vpon his wordes in commaunding. Which wordes are, that not only twelue and no mo: but as ma­ny as be christians and will be present at the action, should be par­takers of the mysteries. And that the action should be celebrated by the Congregation, that desire to be partakers thereof in the remembraunce of Christes death and passion, and not otherwise.

The necessitie that you say draue Christ to minister to mee then to himselfe: either fighteth holye agaynst your purpose, or else one part of it agaynst another. It was necessarie (say you) that by his déede he should institute the thing: and teach his dis­ciples, what they should do afterwarde in the commemoration of his death. How this can agrée with your purpose, and with the rest that you write there: let the discrete reader iudge. And how well you doe, when you receyue and minister this sacrament to your selfe alone.

Saint Hierome sayth. Dominicae coena, omnibus debet esse com­munis: quia ille omnibus discipulis suis qui aderant, aequaliter tradidit sacramenta. Hierom. in 1. Corin. ca. 11. The Lordes supper ought to be common to all: be­cause he did equally deliuer the sacramentes, to all his disciples that were present. I thinke that all wise men will iudge, that saint Hierome was not of your mind in this poynt: for he sayth the Lordes supper ought to be common. &c. not after your fanta­sticall imagination, but by actuall distribution of the sacrament.

Wee reade euen from the beginning of the Church: that lay men and women did receiue it alone. WATSON. Diuision. 40 And is there any religion, that a lay man may do it: but not a Priest? Tertulian declareth the difficultie for a Christen wife to obserue hir religion without offence that hath an infidel to hir husband, Tertulianus ad vxorem. among other thinges sayth thus. Non sciet mari­tus quid secreto ante omnem cibum gustes? & si sciuerit, panem non illum credit esse qui dicitur. Will not thy husband know what thou doest eate secretly before all other meates? And if he doe knowe, he beleueth it is breade, and not him whome it is called. Of this place we gather the maner of the Church in that time, shortly after Christ, that the people receiuing the Sacrament at the priestes hand in the Church, did cary it home with them, and kept it secretly and deuoutly at home with themselues, and euery morning as their deuoti­on serued them, did receyue a part of it by themselues, and that secretly, least the Infidels amonges whome they dwelt should get knowledge of our mysteries. And thus of this place of Tertulian, like as we maye learne, that the Sacra­ment is not bread, as the Infidels beleue, if they chaunce to see it: but Christ as it is called, as the faithfull onely know, to be so, so we learne also that men and women were wont to receyue it alone without any other companie assembled with them, which is sufficient for our purpose at this tyme. Saint Cyprian telleth of a woman in these wordes. Cyprian de lapsis. Cùm quae­dam arcam suam in qua domini sāctum fuit manibus indignus tentasset aperire, igne inde surgente deterrita est, ne auderet attingere. When a [Page 165] certaine woman went about to open hir chest, wherein was the holy one of God with vnworthie handes, she was afraid for the fire that rose from thence, that she durst not touch it. By this place appeareth the like maner of keeping it at home to receyue it alone at their pleasure.

And Eusebius in his storie telleth that the maner was to send the sacrament to Bishops straungers, Eusebius histor. eccles. lib. 5. ca. 24. that chaunced to come thither for this ende, to knowe whether they were Catholike and of their fayth or no, which they knewe, if they would receyue the sacrament which they had conse­crate. Lib 6. ca. 34. And also he telleth of one that lay in exstreme perill of death, who had committed ydolatrie before, and sent to the priest for the Sacrament, whereby might bee reconci­led to the Church before he dyed, the priest was also sicke and could not come, but sent it by the sicke mans seruaunt and so forth. Here it is plaine, that lay men receyued it a­lone without the priest. And what great religion is there now newe found out, that the priest may not likewise re­ceyue it alone, if the people be not worthie nor disposed at all tymes to communicate with him.

I leaue out a great number of places that make for the reseruation of the sacrament, which all make for this pur­pose, if I would spende any tyme herein to declare it.

Tertulian, Cyprian, and Eusebius, CROWLEY. must beare vs downe with strong hand, that sole receyuing of the sacrament, hath bene vsed of lay men and women, euen from the beginning of the church: and yet none of them wrote within .200. yeres of Christs assention. In the time of persecution, when christians looked eue­ry houre to be apprehended and tormented for Christes cause: they vsed to come togither when they might with any quietnesse,A vse infor­ced by per­secution. and did pray togither and communicate. And not knowing whe­ther euer they should méete agayne in such sort: they vsed to take some part of the holy misteries home with them, reseruing the same in reuerend maner, that they might by the receyuing ther­of, renewe in their memorie, the thing that the holye mysteries [Page 166] doe plainely preache vnto vs, which is our lincking togither into the felowship of members of one body, and our euerlasting lyfe through Christ.

This doing of theires, as it doth declare a distrust in their owne strength, so it is not to be mislyked: but as it doth declare to great a trust in the outwarde mysteries of Christ, so it can not be of the godly wise, well lyked.

When the Israelites sawe their owne inhabilitie to stande before their enimies,1 Regum. 4. they sent for the Arcke of God, that by the presence thereof, they might be encouraged and made able to o­uercome them: but when they had it amongst them, they were ouerthrowne with a greater slaughter than before, and the Arcke of God (wherein they trusted) caried away from them by their enimies.De Lapsis Sermone. 5. And as it appeareth by that which you cite out of Cy­prian, God was not pleased with that womans doing. In token whereof fyre flashed out of hir Chest, when she hauing denyed Christ before for feare of torments: went about to strengthen hir fayth agayne, by receyuing that which she had reserued for such purpose.

But what shall these two examples make for your purpose: which is to proue, that priests may say Masse in secret Oratories and open Churches,Watsons ex­amples proue not his pur­pose. receyuing all themselues, and yet obserue the institution of Christ, which (by your owne confession) is, that there should be participation in it? The women did not celebrate the Lordes supper, neyther had they any to celebrate it for them: neyther doth it séeme, that it was thought leafull then to haue a chaplayne of ease (as in the Popes church, euery man that will may) but they reserued some part of that which was ministred in an open congregation, and presently distributed ac­cording to Christes institution. The examples therefore, can by no meanes proue your purpose.

But yet once agayne, I must put you in remembraunce of your olde condicion. Tertulians wordes in Latine, would not serue your turne, except they were Englished after your fashion. Et si sciuerit panem, non illum credit esse qui dicitur. And if he shall know that it is bread (that thou eatest) he doth not beléeue that [Page 167] it is that bread y^t it is sayd to be, that is to say, misticall bread. But you must not haue illum ioyned with Panem: but with Christum. And, for (that bread) you say (him) I leaue the iudgement of your dealing herein, to the godly learned: who both can and wil weigh the wordes of Tertulian, as they stande written in his booke, and conferre them with those words that folow, wherin his meaning is made most manifest and plaine.

And in translating the wordes of Cyprian, Sermone. 5. De lapsis. you helpe the matter a little: For where he sayth, In qua domini sanctum fuit, wherein the holy thing of the Lorde was: you say. Wherin was the holy one of God. Which must néedes be vnderstanded of Christes owne person: Whereas it is manifest by Cyprians wordes in Latine, that he meaneth there of the sacrament of his body. This shift you haue shamelessly vsed in these two Ser­mons verie often.

The Historie of Eusebius, Eusebius hist. Eccles. li. 5. Cap. 24. maketh not so much for your pri­uate Massing as against your pompous prelacie of Rome. Irene­us a Bishop in Fraunce, wryting to Victor then Byshop of Rome: calleth him and those that had bene before him Bishops of Rome, by the name of priestes, and gyueth them none other ty­tle of honour. This maketh very euill for the Popes supremacie. But that is besides your purpose nowe. The Byshops of Rome before Victor, did vse solemnly to send the sacrament to Bishops of those Churches, that did not obserue Easter and Lent fast, as the Church of Rome did. And so they did communicate togither: though they were not in one place togither. What maketh this to proue that a priest may say a priuate Masse: and delyuer no part of the sacrament to other? To signifie, that they breake not the bond of vnitie, though they dissented about the time of Easter and Lent fast: they did, when they communicated, reserue some part of the sacrament. And by messengers worthy of credit: they sent the same to those Byshops, y^t in those trifling matters were not of their minde. Shall this prooue, that the priest which sayth Masse at Rome, and sosseth vp all himselfe (for so slouenly doe some of them vse to receyue their consecration) doth communi­cate with the rest that in like maner do say Masse in other places. [Page 168] I trowe thys historie (when it is well weighed) wyll teache the contrarie.

What néeded those Byshops of Rome to send part of the sa­crament to those other:What maye iustly be ga­thered of this history. if they had communicated with them be­fore in priuate Massing? Your assertion is ouerthrowne by your owne allegation: Because they being farre a sunder, could not otherwise communicate: they did send part of the communion, from the one to the other. This is all that can be iustly gathered of the hystorie: although we graunt that it was the sacrament that he speaketh of.

Tomo. 2. operū. August.But it maye be thought rather, that it was common bread, which they vsed to send: which they that receyued it might after­warde vse in Communion. For Paulinus (a Byshop of the La­tine Church) doth in thrée seuerall Epistles, make mention of loaues of bread, which he sent to saint Austen and other: in token of amitie and vnitie. In the later ende of an Epistle written to saint Austen, Epist. 31. he sayth thus. Panem vnum, quem vnitatis indicio, mi­simus charitati tuae: rogamus accipiendo benedicas. I beséech you, that you will take and blesse that one loafe of bread, which I haue set you in token of vnitie.

And in another Epistle, which he and Therasia togither, wrote vnto Alipius, Epist. 35. a Byshop also: he wryteth thus. Panem vnum sanctitati tuae, vnitatis gratia misimus: in quo etiam Trinitatis so­liditas continetur. Hunc panem Eulogiam esse, tu facies dignatione su­mendi. For vnities sake, we haue sent vnto your holynesse one loafe of bread: wherein the soundnesse of the Trinitie is contay­ned. By vouchsafeing to receyue this loafe: you shall make it to be a blessing. Because Alipius, Therasia, and he, were thrée that were soundly setled togither in vnitie of religion: he saith that in that one loafe, was conteyned the soundnesse of that Trinitie, or number of thrée.

And in another Epistle, which he wrote to Romanianus: he sayth thus.Epist. 36. Ne vacuum fraternae humanitatis officium videretur, de buccelato christianae expeditionis, in cuius procinctu quotidie ad frugalita­tis annonam militamus: panes quin (que), tibi pariter & filio nostre Licentio misimus. Non enim potuimus à bendictione secernere: quem cupimus ea­dem [Page 169] nobis gratia penitus annectere. Least my duetie in writing, might séeme voyde of brotherly humanitie, out of the Bisket that the christians haue in a readynesse, in the prouyding whereof, I doe daylie labour to prouide necessary victual: I haue sent to you and my sonne Licentius togither, fiue loaues of bread. For I could not seperate him in the blessing: whome I doe desire thorowly to knit vnto me in fauour.

These sayings of Paulinus, may giue vs occasion to thinke, that the vsage of the Byshops in those dayes: was rather to send common bread from one to another, then bread alreadie conse­crated. And in this last saying of Paulinus, it is manifest and plaine: that the bread was such as was prouided to serue at néede, or in warres, for it was Bisket, that is twise baked, and without leauen or salt: because it should not vinewe or mowell in short time. Well, I leaue the iudgement of this, to the godly wise.

The example of Serapion, Euseb. li. 6. Capit. 34. may serue you somewhat to proue the reseruation of the sacrament: in such consideration as was then to be had, of such as Serapion was. He had fallen, by committing Idolatry, for feare of tormēts. He or any such might not (by the order of that Church wherein he lyued) be restored to communion agayne, before extreme perill of death by sicknesse: no not though they sought it long time with teares. Least such therefore, should lack the comfortable consolation of the sacra­ment, in such extremitie: some part of the sacrament was reser­ued to be giuen them in such case. Shall thys prooue, that your Massing priestes doe communicate, when they delyuer no part of the sacrament to any other, but consume the whole themselues? I thinke no wise man will thinke it.

This hystorie might well haue bene left amongst that great number of other that you say make for this purpose: for it doth make more against the highest matter of all, then for that which you alledge it for. What opinion thinke you, had that priest of the sacrament: when he would delyuer it to Serapion his boy, & bid him dip it, and giue it to the olde man? Did he thinke that it was the very reall body and bloud of Christ, and that there remayned in it neyther bread nor wine? The Cautiles of your Masse doe [Page 170] not allowe such handling of your sacrifice. The stuffe that you bring to builde vp one part of your buylding withall:To builde vp a cottage, you pull downe a palace. doth cast downe the greatest bewtie of the hole. Reseruation in some case, is by this hystorie proued: and adoration vtterly denied. And priestly prerogatiue, is shrewdly shaken also. For Serapion hys boy, was neyther priest nor Deacon: and yet he is put in trust to carie and minister the sacrament.

WATSON. Diuision. 41 Well some will say, here be doctors vpon doctor of sen­tences of authors ynough. But what scripture haue you, that the priest did or may take it alone? shewe mee that, and then will I yeelde vnto you.

I shall bee content to alledge Scripture, as it see­meth to me, let euery man wey it as he thinketh good, to me it is plaine inough for this purpose, and although there were no scripture, yet in this matter which is but a ceremo­nie, concerning the number of the receyuers, the custome and vse of Christs Church, is a sufficient rule for a christen man to stay himselfe by.

The scripture is written in the .27. Chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, where saint Paule comforting all the com­panie, Actes. 27. that were with him in the ship, who then were in ex­treeme daunger of drowning, promising them all their ly­ues, and exhorting them to take meate, that had fasted fourtene dayes before receyued the sacrament before them all alone, as I take it. The wordes be these. Et cùm haec dixisset, sumens panem gratias egit d [...]o in conspectu omnium, & cum fregisset, coe­pit manducare. Anime qui [...]res autem facti omnes, & ipsi sumpserunt ci­bum. And when he had said thus taking bread he gaue than­kes to God in the sight of them al, and when he had broken it, he began to eate, and they all being much comforted, tooke meate also. Chrysostome expoundeth this place of the sacrament, Chrysost. in Math. hom. 17. where he hath this saying, that it is not one­ly a thing sanctified, but sanctification it selfe. Here is no mention that he gaue it to any other, and if it had beene a thing necessarie of the institution of christ, belike he would [Page 171] haue expressed it. Well though it be not expressed in wor­des (say they) yet it is not a necessary argument to conclude that no man receyued it with him. I graunt it is not a good argument, but yet this is the common maner of their rea­soning, it is not expressed in scripture, ergo it is not to bee beleued. But I can say more for this place, for the scripture calleth, that saint Paule eate ( [...]) whiche is a woorde whereby the Sacrament is commonly expressed, and that all the other did eate ( [...]) which signifieth com­mon meates, and the scripture sayeth (omnes) all the other tooke their meat, amonges whome there were manye infi­dels, and it saith afterward, saciati cibo that they were saciate and full with meat. But the blessed Sacrament, non est cibus satietatis, Concilium Nicenum. sed sanctimoniae (as Concilium Nicenum) sayth is not meat of sacietie, but of sanctimonie. Therefore where it sayth that saint Paule did eate the bread, which is the sacrament and that all the other did fill them with their common meate. I may conclude, that saint Paule did receyue alone, whereby is proued our purpose of the priuate Masse as they terme it. O Lorde howe would they haue glorified, if they had such a like place agaynst vs?

You perswade your selfe,CROWLEY. Doctors dregs vpon Doctors dirt. that all men maruell at the mul­titude of Doctors and sentences of Authors, that you haue alled­ged for your purpose: and therefore you ymagine that some men will say: here be doctors vpon doctors. &c. What other men will say I know not: but this I do say. Here are the dregges of the doctors, vpon the dirt of the doctors, & shamelesse sayings ynough: but not one scripture or sentence of any sound Authour, to proue that the priest may celebrate the Lords supper (which you cal the Masse) and minister to himselfe alone. Yea, I do not onely say it, but I haue also proued it in this aunswere alreadie, and will also proue it (by Gods helpe) in aunswering that which remayneth.

One scripture you say you haue, which séemeth to you plain enough: and yet you thinke it not néedefull to alledge any scrip­ture, because the custome of the Church is a sufficient rule for [Page 172] such a matter. But I haue proued before, that the common par­ticipation is of the institution of Christ: and therefore can not be ruled by the custome of the Church. But let vs sée your scripture.

Act. 27.Saint Luke wryteth, that after a long and daungerous storme on the sea, and fourtéene dayes continuall fasting, by the meanes thereof: Saint Paule exhorted them that were in the Ship with him to take meate. And in the presence of them all, he tooke breade and gaue thankes to God, and when he had bro­ken it he began to eate. &c. Of this you gather that saint Paule did there, and then say Masse, and receyue the sacrament alone. And least it should séeme that this is but your owne ymaginati­on: you say that Chrysostome doth expound this place of the sa­crament, euen in that place where he sayth that the sacrament is not onely a thing sanctified, but sanctification it selfe.

Of what authoritie those Homilies be whereof this that you alledge here is the seuententh: I haue sufficiently noted in mine aunswere to the .13. diuision of your former sermon. So that the Chrysostome that wrote them: may be as well credited as your selfe. But let vs sée how faythfully, and friendly you handle him. He hath sayd thus. Et Paulus nauigans, non solum benedixit panem: sed de manu sua porrexit Lucae, Chrysost. in. Math. ho. 17. opere imper­fecto. & caeteris discipulis suis. And Paule when he sayled, did not onely blesse the bread: but he did reach it from his hande, to Luke, and to his other Disciples. You say, that all the rest did eate common meate, and were satisfied: and Paule alone receyued the sacrament. Not so sayth your wytnesse: for he gaue part to Luke and the rest of his Disciples. It appéereth that you read that Homily in poste haste.

But how doth Chrysostome expound that place in that ho­milie that he maketh vpon that Chapter,Chrysost. in. Act. ho. 53. where the wordes be written? He sayth thus. Vt autem panem accepit: gratias egit Deo. Vide quòd ille gratias agit, propter ea quae facta sunt: non solum illos con­firmauit, sed etiam alacres facit. As soone as he had taken bread: he gaue thankes to God. Sée, in that he giueth thankes for those things that were done: he did not onely confirme them, but he doth also make them cherefull.

Your friend Nicholaus de Lyra sayth: that they which [Page 173] were in the ship with Paule, were comforted by his worde and by his example.Nicholaus. de Lyra. Act. 27. Because he did in wordes encourage them to take meate: and taking meate first himselfe, he did encourage them to doe the lyke. And the glose vpon the text sayth. Vt alijs esset exemplo. Iuxta morem solitum in comedendo, & pro salute nauigantium. That he might be an example to other to giue thankes to God when they take meate. And according to his wonted custome, and for that they which sayled with him were preserued from drowning.

But you doe sée more in this text,To what ende saint Luke vsed Copie of words. then euer did man before you. The two Gréeke words that be vsed haue a maruellous my­sterie. Men thought that saint Luke that wrote the hystorie, had ment nothing else but to auoyde Tautologie: but you haue espi­ed that he ment to teach vs, that saint Paule said a priuate Masse. For [...] is a worde, whereby the sacrament is commonly ex­pressed. You durst not say, it is a word that signifieth bread: least your hearers should haue thought that saint Luke calleth the sa­crament bread. And you haue laboured no one thing more in these two sermons: then to proue that it is no bread. And thys worde (Omnes) all: sée, how the mysterie beginneth to muster. All the other did eate [...] common meate. Here is a playne Masse: and not one that receyueth any part with the priest. Yea, and this is proued by the playne words of the scripture. O Lord, how would we glorie and tryumph: if we had such a like place a­gaynst you?

I can not tell which of the two is most to be maruayled at: your wylfull ignoraunce, or your impudent arrogancie. A man would thinke, that (you being a Doctor of diuinitie) could not be ignoraunt, of the Concords of Grammer. If a man should aske you what part in spéech Omnes is: you would answere I am sure, that it is a Nowne Adiectyue. And when you séeke for the Sub­stantiue to it: you shall find, that it is Nos, we. For in the Gréeke, the sentence is thus. [...]. Omnes autē ani­maequiores facti. Or as Erasmus hath translated it. Porro animis iam recreatis omnium. When all our minds were refreshed. [...]. Et illi vnà sumebant cibum. Or as Erasmus [Page 174] doth translate it. Sumpserunt & ipsi cibum. They did also eate with vs. Or, they also did take meat.

Luke put­teth both Paule and himselfe in the number of all.It must néedes be wylfull ignoraunce, that will not suffer you to sée: that when saint Luke sayth (Omnes) all, he putteth both saint Paule and himselfe in the number. And when he sayth (Et ipsi) and they also: he ioyneth the rest to Paule and himselfe. So that the meaning can be none other: but that as Paule and he had begoon to do, so the rest did also, being encouraged by their example. And here it is plaine: that Luke had begoon to eate with Paule, before the rest did beginne to eate.

If you will néedes haue this place therefore, to be vnder­standed of the sacrament (as no learned man else wyll, except it be your Chrysostome) yet shal it be a communion and not a pri­uate Masse as you would haue it. O Lorde, how would you glory and tryumph ouer vs, pore students of diuinitie: if you myght but once take vs with such ignoraunt and arrogant handling of a péece of scripture? You say, that our common maner of rea­soning is thus. It is not expressed in the scripture: Ergo, it is not to be beléeued.Hiero. in Math. 23. I would haue you once learne to tell the truth, and shame the Deuill. We reason thus. It can not be proued by the scriptures: Ergo, we are not bound to beleue it. And saint Hie­rome hath taught so to reason as I haue told you more then once.

WATSON Diuisiō. 42. Chrysost. ho. 61 ad poul. Antiochi­num. 1. Some bring in a place of Chrysostome, where he saith, frustra sacrificium quotidianum frustra stamus ad altare, nullus qui com­municet. Our daylie sacrifice is in vaine, we stande at the aul­tare in vaine, no man commeth to communicate.

O Lord how they abuse this place of Chrysostome, that he sayth to rebuke the negligence of the people that com­meth not, they alledge it to finde fault at the diligence of the priest that commeth. Is it reason, that the priest whose lyfe is wholy dedicate to the seruice of God, and to pray for the people, should sinne deadly, if he did ioyne himselfe more and more to Christ by receyuing daylie the spirituall foode of his body and bloud, because the people that com­monly occupie their life in the affayres of the world be not [Page 175] worthy, or not disposed daylie to receaue with the priest?

The very place it selfe of Chrysostome telleth, that the priestes did celebrate the sacrifice daylie, whether the peo­ple came or no, which they would neuer haue done, if it had bene deadly sinne so to doe. Therefore it is plaine, that they did sacrifice, they did stand at the aultare, and cryed, but al in vaine, sancta sanctis. Holy things to holy men. Cum ti­more & charitate dei accedite. Come vp to receiue with the feare of God and charitie, and yet no man came. Therefore all this his homely was to reproue the slacknesse of the people, that deceaued the expectation of the priest.

I put the case (as I haue seene it chaunce) that when the priest had consecrate, and one or two were commed vp to the aultar, and kneeled downe to communicate with the priest after the priest had receiued, they both departed and went away, not receauing eyther of contempt, or for that some sodaine disease or passion came vpon them that they could not receaue: is God so vnmercifull as to condemne the priest for the casualtie of an other man which lyeth not in his power to auoyde? Our saluation were a very tickle thing if one man should cōmit deadly sinne against his will intending to serue god, & so be condemned for the chaunce of an other man which he could not stop or amend, & was no cause of it. Yea but (say they) Chrysostome sayth. Non es hostia dignus nec cōmunione, igitur nec oratione. If a man make his ex­cuse, that he is not worthy the sacrifice, nor to cōmunicate, then is he not worthy to be present there at the prayer. He saith so in dede. But what is this, to that the priest should not receiue al one? nothing at al. And yet it serueth vs to declare that Chrysostome intended nothing else, but to reproue the negligence of them, that stoode in the place of the worthy receiuers and would not come to receaue. We must consider in the Greeke Church, howe there was certaine degrees of the placing of the people, the priests stood at the aultar, the Clarkes within the Chauncell, the worthye receauers, in a distinct place beside the priestes, the penitents in a lower [Page 176] place, the Catechumine which were men, learning oure faith, and not yet christened sate lowest of all, but they were put out of the Church, when the sermon and teaching was done, and were not suffered to be present at the mysteries. Nowe the lack that men doe not vnderstand the distinction of these seuerall places maketh them to take Chrysostome wrong. For in deede he that is in the higher place of the communicants, and being there thinketh himselfe for his vncleane life not worthy to communicate, and so decea­ueth the expectation of the priest that prepareth for him: is likewise not worthy to communicate in onely prayer, as being in that place, & yet hath most neede of all to commu­nicate in praier, because praier is an humilytie of the mind and a cause and degree to make a man worthy to communi­cate in the sacrament. And therefore by Chrysostome he is not forbid to communicate in praier, but not in that place, but lower among thr penitents. For so Chrysostome sayth by and by after. Quotquot estis in poenitentia omnes orate. All you that be penitents, occupie your selues in prayer. And it was a decree of the whole catholike Church, that certaine men which were not suffered to communicate in the sacramēt, should during their penaunce communicate onely in pray­er. Concilium Nicenum. Cap. 12. These be the wordes of the generall counsell at Nice in Englishe. Concerning them that had committed ydolatry and were in penaunce not yet reconciled, and nowe be de­parting out of their bodies, let the olde Canon be obserued, that he that is departing, be not defrauded of the necessary vytayle of lyfe, but if any such after he haue receaued the communion doe recouer and amende, let them remaine a­mong them that communicate onely in prayer. Wee may see by this, that the meaning of Chrysostome is, as I haue declared. Other make an argument of the worde Communio, that the sacrament is called a communion, because many receaued it. But this argument is vnlearned, proceeding of ignoraunce. For it is so called, not for that many commu­nicate together in one place, but for the effect of the sacra­ment, [Page 177] because it maketh many diuers men one mistical bo­dy of Christ. So doth Chrysostome expound it, Dionisius Areopa. Ec­cleshies var. Capit. 3. writing vpō the .10. Chapter to the Corinthians. And also Dionisius Are­opagita sayth. Vndemerito sacerdotalis sacro sancto prudentia ex rerum effectu proprium illi verum (que) (communicationis) cognomen inuenit. Ther­fore the holy wisedome the priests hath worthely inuented to this sacrament a proper and true name of communion for the effect of it, because it gathereth our lyues that be diuided a sunder many wayes, into the one state, whereby we are ioyned to God and among our selues in one bodye, and so forth.

And in very deede we doe not communicate alone. For considering Gods Church is but one house, as Cyprian sayth. Vna est domus ecclesiae, in qua agnus editur. Cyprian de cena. There is one house of the Church, wherein the Lambe is eaten: whoso­euer doth eate this Lambe worthely, doth communicate with all christen men in euery place and Countrie that be in this house and doe the lyke.

If the priest receyue one part of the sacrament in the Church, and afterward cary the rest two or three miles to a sick man, doth he not communicate with another? & yet that other is not together with him in one place, standing at his elbow. Euen so the priest that sayth Masse alone, doth communicate with all them that celebrate in other Chur­ches, or in other realmes.

We alledge not the place of Chrysostome, CROWLEY. to rebuke the diligence of the priest, in comming to doe that which is his office to doe: but for that his doing in priuate Massing, is one of the greatest causes of the peoples negligence in not comming to be partakers of the mysteries with him.

Chrysostome sayth. Sacrificium frustra quotidianum. Chrysost. ad popul. An­tiochenum. hom. 61. Incassum assistimus altari, nullus qui communicetur. In vayne is the sacrifice for euery day. In vayne are we ready at the aultar, there is none that would be made partaker. He had sayde immediatly before. Multam video rerum inaequalitatem. In alijs quidem temporibus, cum [Page 178] puri frequenter sitis, non acceditis: in Pascha verò, licet sit aliquid à vobis patratum, acceditis. O consuetudinem, ò praesumpsionem, sacrificium frustra quotidianum. &c. I sée great inequalitie of things. At other tymes, though you be often pure and cleane, yet you come not to communicate: but at Easter you come, though you haue com­mitted some offence. Oh custome. Oh presumption. It is in vaine to haue the sacrifice daylie. In vayne are we ready at the aultar: for there is none that would be made partaker.

If the priestes priuate Massing were of such effect, as you would beare vs in hande that it is: how could the lack of commu­nicants cause it to be in vayne at any time? How could the priest be in a readynesse at the aultar in vayne: Thys place of Chry­sostome therefore,Chryso­stomes wor­des rightly applied of vs. is manifestly against your priuate Massing, as a thing that serueth to no purpose, neyther turneth y^e Church to any commoditie. And we doe not abuse this place, in that we alledge it, to blame your Massing priest therby, which is so vaine­ly occupied: and yet perswadeth the people, that if they be pre­sent and worship and pray as he doth in an vnknowne tongue, they shall haue as much spirituall benefite, as if they were par­takers of the sacrament with him. But all is in vayne, sayth Chrysostome.

Your priest being holy dedicated, to such seruice of God as is the Masse: doth not by y^e seruice daylie more and more ioyne him­selfe to Christ, but to Antichrist. For his exercise is of Antichrists deuising, to the defaceing, and displaceing of Christs institution.

The very place of Chrysostome telleth not y^t the priests did celebrate the sacrifice daylie: but y^t it had bene in vaine so to doe, for lacke of such as would communicate. But if you will néedes enforce vs to allow your conclusion, wherein you say that it is plaine, y^t they did sacrifice. &c. I pray you let it be knowne to the world, in what order they did sacrifice. If they vsed that Liturgie, y^t is set forth in Chrysostomes name: they must néeds haue com­pany to communicate with them, for it is a communion, and not a priuate Masse, and therfore could not be executed by one alone, but by many, which must all (by that order) be partakers, and afterward call the people to be partakers, with these words. Cum [Page 179] Dei timore accedite. With the feare of God, come hither.

Such patches you pull out of that Liturgie and mingle them with your matter, as though Chrysostome had written them in hys Homilies. And then you put a case not worth the debating:Patched ware may not be allowed. For we speak not of two or thrée communicants, but of as many as be instructed in Christ, and ought of duetie to resort to one par­ticuler congregation, and be not for their vngodlye lyfe excom­municated.

And when we apply these words of Chrysostome. Non es hostia dignus vel cōmunione: igitur nec oratione. Thou art not worthy of the sacrifice or communion: therefore neyther of the prayer: we doe not take Chrysostome otherwise then he ment, because we vn­derstande not the distinction. &c. But in applying the wordes that folow: you shewe your selfe, not to vnderstande Chrysostomes maner of speaking. Adstantem audis praeconem at (que) dicentem: Watson vn­derstandeth not Chry­sostomes ma­ner of spea­king. quot­quot estis. &c. Thou hearest the Beadle that is present, making proclamation and saying. As many of you as be penitents: pray euerye one of you. And whosoeuer be not partakers: are peni­tents. These wordes he speaketh as imagining, that he which would be present and not communicate: would séeke to iustifie his disorderly and shamelesse doing, by the wordes of the Bea­dle, spoken to the penitents, in the time when the hole Church prayeth for them, before the ministration of the sacrament. But he aunswereth him in fewe wordes saying. Quid stas si es in paeni­tentia? Why taryest thou, if thou be a penitent? Agayne, he ima­gineth another obiection and sayth. Sumere non debes: qui nam (que) non communicat, est ex paenitentibus. Thou wilt say (saith Chrysostome) thou oughtest not to receyue: for he that doth not communicate, is of the penitents. But Chrysostome doth answere him sharp­ly and sayth. Cur ita (que) dicit: abite, qui non potestis orare? Tu verò stas impudens. Why then doth the Beadle say: you that may not pray, get you hence. But thou being without shame, doest stand still.

Thus it is manifest, that we take Chrysostome right: and that you vnderstand him not. Although you would séeme to haue slept vpon Chrysostomes graue: and to haue séene in a dreame, the seuerall places that were in his Church. The Clarkes in the [Page 180] Chauncell. &c.

I knowe that prayer is a meane to make a man worthy to communicate: and therefore, neyther Chrysostome nor I, will forbid any to pray. But if any will shamelessely be present, when the communion of Christes body and bloud is in ministring, and will not be partaker, but alledge his owne vnworthynesse: we will tell him (and that truely) that he is not worthy to call God his father, among the children of God in common prayer, if he be not worthy to be partaker of the ghostly foode that God hath pre­pared for his children.

The counsell of Nice hath not decréed, that such as recouer after they haue in extremitie of sicknesse receyued the Commu­nion of the bodye and bloude of Christ,Concilium Nicenum. Capit. 12. shall afterwarde com­municate in prayer, at the time of the ministration of the holye communion: wherefore their decrée doth not make Chryso­stomes wordes to sounde, as you vnderstande and haue decla­red them.

For that other argument that you say is vnlearned, & pro­céedeth of ignoraunce: you séeke a lewde and vnlearned solution, procéeding of wylfull blindnesse.

That which you cite out of Chrysostome and Cyprian, I haue sufficiently aunswered in mine aunswere to the .25. diuision of your former Sermon.Chrysost. in 1. Cor. ho. 24. Cyprian. De Caena. Where the reader may sée, what wyl­full blindnesse it is: that enforceth you to go about to disproue the reason that we make of the Etymologie of the worde Commu­nion, by that which Chrysostome and Cyprian haue written.

And in applying the place of Dionisius, you deale as you did in the .23. diuision of this sermon: folowing that corrupt transla­tion that beareth no name. It shall be hard for you (I thinke) to finde, in any good Author, [...] vsed in that signification, that you doe here vse it. Dionisius hath sayde. [...]. Ex veritati factorum. Of the truth of the doings. So that this place is playne against your purpose, when it is truely translated out of the Gréeke. Because in y^e vse of this sacrament, there is a common receyuing: Dionisius sayth, that the sacred wisedome of the priestes hath giuen it a name, according to the [Page 181] truth of the doings in the vse of it, and haue called it communion.

But when you take paines to note this place of Dionisius for your purpose:Watson could not turne ouer the leafe. I maruayle that you coulde not turne ouer the leafe, and looke vpon this saying of the same Dionisius. Post haec extra Delubrum Catechumini fiunt, & cum ipsis Energumeni, & hi quo (que) qui in paenitentia sunt: manent autem intus, soli qui diuino spectaculo, & communione sunt digni. After those things (that is, after the psalmes be song and the scriptures read) they that be learners of the chri­sten religion, are put out of the temple, and with them, they that are vexed with Deuils, and they also that be penitents: and they onely doe tarie within, which are worthy of the heauenly sight and communion. By these words of Dionisius, is made plaine: how well you vnderstood the wordes of Chrysostome, that you declared before, and how well the other words of Dionisius, doe serue for your purpose.

This argument of communion was neuer heard of in the worlde before Martyne Luther, WATSON. Diuision. 43 who was the first father of it, and the first man that euer wrote against priuate Masses as he calleth them.

And where learned Luther that lesson? euen of the deuill not because all euill commeth by the suggestion of the de­euill, but I meane that Luther had a vision of the deuill and saw him with his corporall eye being waking of whome he learned all that he hath pestilently spoken against the holy Masse. And least men should say I lied vpon Luther, here in his owne boke. Ex crete iudico, serue nequam. We may iudge him by his owne mouth and his owne hande writing.

The tytle of his boke is of priuate Masse. I shall read you a peece of it that the truth of my saying maye appeere. These be his very woordes.

I shal make confession before al you reuerende and holy fathers, geue me I pray you a good absolution. It chaun­ced me once about midnight sodainely to awake, than the Deuill Sathan began with me this disputation. Heare (said he) Doctor Luther, very well learned, thou knowest thou [Page 182] hast saide priuate Masses .xv. yeres almost daylie. What if such priuate Masses be horrible ydolatry? what if there were not present the body and bloud of Christ, but thou haddest honored onely bread and wine, and haddest caused other to honor it? to whome I aunswered, I am an an­noynted priest, and haue receyued vnction and consecrati­on of a Byshop, & haue done all these things by commaun­dement and obedience of mine elders. Why should not I consecrate, when I haue pronounced the wordes of Christ and haue said Masse in earnest? this thou knowest. All thys saide he is true, but the Turkes and Gentiles doe likewise all things in their temples of obedience and in earnest.

The priestes of Hieroboam did all they did of a certain zeale and intent against the true priestes in Hierusalem.

What if they ordering and consecrating were false, as the priestes of the Turkes and Samaritanes were false and their seruice of God false and wicked? First (said he) thou knowest thou haddest than no knowledge of Christ, nor true faith, and for fayth thou wast no better than a Turke.

For the Turke and all the Deuils also beleeue the story of Christ, that he was borne, crucified, and dead. &c. But the Turke and we damned spirites doe not trust to hys mer­cie, nor haue not him for a mediator and sauiour, but feare him as a cruell iudge.

Such a faith and no other haddest thou, when thou re­ceauest vnction of the Byshop and all other both they that did annoynt, & were annoynted, thought so and no other­wise of Christ. Therfore ye fled from Christ as a cruell iudge to blessed Mary & the saints, they were mediators betwene you and Christ, thus was Christ robbed of his glory, thys neyther thou nor no other Papist can denie. I would reade more of this booke but for troubling you. He that list to knowe what may bee sayde against priuate Masse, let him learne here of the Deuill ynough.

For here is all that hath yet beene sayde of any other, and more to. The Deuils derlings were ashamed to say halfe [Page 183] so much as their father Sathan, least they should be called blasphemous lyers as he is.

But by this booke, Luthers owne confession set forth in print by himselfe to the worlde ye may know that the De­uill was the first that euer barked against the sacrifice of the church, which is the Masse, knowing that his kingdome of sinne and iniquitie coulde not stande, if this sacrifice most aduersarie to it, were not defaced and destroyed.

But what colour had Luther to publishe this, shall wee thinke he was so madde as to father that vpon the Deuill, that he would haue perswaded for truth to the worlde? I shall tell you shortly his fonde deuise in this point, as it fo­loweth fiue or sixe leaues hereafter.

He sayth he knoweth the Deuill is a lyer, but (he sayth) his lyes be craftie, he vseth to alledge a truth which can not be denyed, and with that to colour his lye which he per­swadeth.

And therefore (sayth he) the Deuill lyeth not when he accuseth, as that I had committed horrible ydolatrye in saying priuate Masses: but the lye is when he did afterward tempt him to dispaire of Gods mercy. But sayth Luther I will not dispaire as Iudas dyd, but amend that I haue done amisse and neuer say priuate Masse againe. O what a cloke of mischiefe is this, & all grounded of lyes and falshood. He sayth the Deuill lyeth not when he accuseth. If that be true then he sayde true when he sayde that Luther being a prea­cher many yeares, neuer had true fayth in Christ till he fell from the Masse, nor neuer trusted in Christes mercy, nor neuer toke him for a sauiour but a cruell iudge. Of this the Deuill did accuse him, whether he was a lyer herein or no iudge you.

Also in his accusation he sayde the body and bloud of Christ were not present in the sacrament, when such an­nointed priestes did consecrate, and that they honored one­ly bread and wine, with many other damnable lyes and he­resies, which whoso shall read the booke, may finde in great [Page 184] plenty, and yet by Luthers principle, the deuill neuer ly­eth when he accuseth.

Foure falsehoodes you affirme, in lesse then twentie lynes togither of your printed Copie,CROWLEY. Foure lyes affirmed in lesse then twentie lines togither. in this part to conclude withall. And so manyfest falsehoodes: that scarcely any one of your Au­ditorie could be so ignorant, but that the same must perceyue that you lyed falsely, the communion, by your owne confession in this Sermon, more then once: was heard of and vsed euen from the Apostles tyme. For Dionisius Areopagita, was saint Paules scholer: & you say that he speaketh of it in his Hierarchie, more then once. The action that you call Massing, and we priuate Massing: was written against by many before it was brought into the Church, and by some after it was in vse, many yeres before Luther was borne, as by Barthram, Husse, Wycklife, and Berrengarius. And although it haue pleased Pigghius and such other, to blowe abroad this slaunderous lye, to the discredi­ting of all Luthers doctrine, as much as in them lyeth, and you also to dubbe their lye in the presence of your Prince, who could be contented to heare whatsoeuer euill might be reported of that man and such as he was: yet there is none that will examine the booke that you speake of, but the same shall be inforced to say, that it can not iustly be gathered thereof, that Luther did eyther sée the Deuill with his bodyly eyes, or heare him with his bodily eares. But such is the priuiledge of the Popes Prelates, when they haue the sworde on their side: they may vse all vntruth in perswading the people (but especially princes) to thinke that all is lyes that the enimies of Antichrists religion, haue eyther spo­ken or written.

You are bolde therfore, to lashe out these thrée lyes before your Prince, and to make vp the matter with the fourth: affirming that he learned of the Deuill all that he hath spoken against your holy Masse. And when you thinke that you haue gotten your selfe some credit in this matter by reading a péece of Luthers booke, and leauing of before you come to that wherein his mea­ning is made plaine: you conclude that hereby it may be known, [Page 185] that the Deuil was the first that barked against the Masse, as a­gainst the greatest aduersarie of his kingdome, which could not stande vnlesse that aduersarie were defaced and destroyed.

The diligent reader of this mine aunswere, may easily sée: howe the Masse hath defaced and destroyed the kingdome of the Deuill, in those places where it hath bene most vsed, and in those persons that haue most frequented it. Yea, they that will but en­quire of the lyfe and conuersation of them that at this day be Massemongers: shall soone sée, how great an enimie the Masse is to the Deuils kingdome.

Yea though there were none other euill in them,The Masse alone is able to holde vp the Deuils kingdome. then onely that they say and heare Masse (which is ydolatry): yet were this one euill sufficient of it selfe, to holde vp the kingdome of the De­uill. But admit that y^e Masse were no ydolatry: yet it is alwaies accompanied with a multitude of grosse ydolatries. As the inuo­cation of creatures, the opinion of meryting by mens owne workes, the representing of God to the bodily eye, by an Image made lyke a man, the bowing of the knées, and burning of Wax and Incense before the Images of creatures, trust & confidence in the holynesse of creatures, made holy by men, and such lyke. Thus is the Masse the greatest aduersarie that the Deuils king­dome hath.

But least some of your Auditorie should take paynes to read Luthers booke, and so perceyue, that you haue not sayde truely of him: you thinke to preuent that matter, by speaking a fewe wordes of that part of the booke, that openeth the meaning of the hole, and knitting vp your tale with this exclamation. O what a cloke of mischiefe is this, and all grounded vpon lyes and false­hood. He sayth the Deuill lyeth not when he accuseth. &c. And if this saying of Luther be true: then there will folow a number of as great inconueniences, as vpon the wordes of Dauid, when he sayth, Omnis homo mendax. Euery man is a lyar.Psam.. 115. If Luther were in this lyfe: he would not sticke to graunt all that you conclude vpon that proposition that you call his principle. For which of the two may be thought better, the fayth of a Turke, or of a Massemonger? Seing the one denieth Christ in wordes, deny­ing [Page 186] him to be his sauiour: and the other in déedes, in séeking sal­uation by other meanes then by Christ, which is to denie him. And wherein shall Hieroboams priestes be found worse then the Popes Massing priestes? If you wil read the prophecie of Oseas, and vnderstande it: you shall finde that they had as good a colour of obseruing Moses his lawe, as the Popes priestes haue of kée­ping Christs institution. And so of the reast, that you doe name damnable heresies. &c.

Now because the time is farre past, shortly to conclude, I shall most humbly beseech you to consider and regarde the saluation of your soules, WATSON Diuisiō. 44 for the which Christes Gods sonne hath shed his precious bloud which saluation can not bee atteyned without knowledge and confession of Gods truth reueled to his holy Church, and by her to euery mem­ber of her, and childe of God, whose sentence and determi­nation is sure and certaine, as proceeding from the piller of truth and the spirite of God, by whome we be taught and assured in Gods owne worde, that in the blessed sacrament of the aultar, by the power of the holy ghost working with Gods word, is veryly and really present the body and bloud of our sauiour Christ, vnder the formes of bread and wine, which is by Christes owne commaundement and example offered to almightie God in sacrifice, in commemora­tion of Christes passion and death, whereby the members of the Church in whose fayth it is offered, both they that be aliue, and departed, perceaue plentuous and abundaunt grace and mercy, and in all their necessities, and calami­ties reliefe and succour.

Our most mercifull father graunt vs to persist stedfast and constant in the true Catholike fayth and confession of this most blessed Sacrament and sacrifice, & with pure de­uotion as he hath ordeyned to vse and frequent this holye mysterie of vnitie and reconciliation, that we may thereby remaine in him and he in vs for euermore. To whome be all glory and praise without ende. Amen.

To make a short conclusion:CROWLEY. I will ioyne wyth you in ma­king humble request to the readers of these your sermons, and mine aunswere: that they will haue an earnest regard to the sal­uation of their owne soules, for which Iesus Christ, the only be­gottē sonne of God, hath fréely shed his most precious hart bloud. Which saluation can not be attayned vnto, without the know­ledge and confession of Gods truth, which he hath by his worde reuealed to his Church, and doth daylie, by the faythfull and dili­gent ministerie thereof, reueale it to euery member thereof and child of God. Which Church is, and euer hath bene the pyller of truth,In. 1. Timo. Capit. 3 wherein onely the truth is séene and doth playnely appéere to the worlde, as saint Hierome hath sayde: and hath hir foun­dation vpon truth, which is hir onely stay and piller to leane vn­to, as Chrysostome hath written. Which truth being the deter­mination of God, before the beginning, this piller of truth, doth still cleaue vnto: neuer séeking to determine otherwise, then God hath by his sonne Christ, determined & taught. In whose worde we are assured, that at his last supper with his holy Apostles, he did institute a most comfortable sacrament of hys owne body and bloud: to be frequented and vsed in his Church in the remem­braunce of his death and passion, till his comming agayne in our nature, to iudge both the quick and the dead. In which sacrament is lyuely represented vnto vs (yea euen vnto our senses): that vnity that he hath and doth by his almighty power make betwixt himself and vs, and amongst our selues one with another, which vnitie, the nature of the bread and wine (wherein this sacra­ment is instituted) doth plainely expresse and signifie. In vsing whereof, his Church doth not onely call to memorie, the benifits that she hath receyued by him: but also shewe hir selfe thankfull, in offring hir selfe a sacrifice of a swéete sauour vnto God, by rea­dy good wyll to glorifie him both by lyfe and by death: as the ho­ly saintes that be departed thys lyfe, did whilste they lyued here, assuring themselues of his contynuall presence, to comfort, help, and succour them, in all the necessities and calamities of thys lyfe, and after thys lyfe of euerlasting ioye and felicitie, in euer­lasting lyfe through him. Which they haue alreadie attayned [Page 188] vnto in part, being delyuered from the burden of the fleshe: and we shall in the ende of this lyfe attayne vnto in lyke maner, if we contynue faythfull to the ende as they did. And when the day of the generall resurrection shall come: we with them, and they with vs, shall through Christ receyue our owne bodyes agayne, incorruptible, immortall, glorious and spirituall, euen such as his blessed body is nowe in the throne of maiestie, to reigne wyth him in his fathers kingdome for euermore.

Our most mercifull and louing father, graunt vs to conty­nue stedfast and constant in the true Catholike fayth, and con­fession of our hope of forgiuenesse of all our sinnes, by that one onely sacrifice that Christ Iesus made, in offering hymselfe on the Crosse once for all, as by his holy worde and sacraments, he doth daylie teache vs to doe. And that we may so frequent and vse this holy misterie of vnitie and reconciliation: that we may daylie more and more be assured thereby of his dwelling in vs, and our abyding in him. To whome be all prayse, honour, and glory, for euer. Amen.