[...] ence before God and you, to discouer certeine vanities of yours, that the ca­tholike church (once your mother) mis­liketh in you. And so much the rather, because god of his infinit goodnes hath called me backe againe from all suche lewde fansies, by the godly instruction of the learned: in the whiche I was ones so fully perswaded by euil bookes, that all that time I neither regarded God, nor good religion, nor any good conscience besides. And therfore tru­stynge to doo some good with suche as simplicitie without malice hath per­swaded to stay, consciens pricked me to giue the aduenture: nothyng doubting but that God will bring that to a good ende, the beginnynge whereof had no euill meanyng.

1. Cap. [...]gainst his refu­sall in the first Epi­stle to D [...] Cole.And to make mine entrie with you (maister Iewell) whiche are counted the greatest clarke on your side, I mer­uell not a litle why you, beyng reputed a man of such learnyng, vtterly refuse [Page 3]to proue the doctrine you teache. A. Alle­gyng very slender causes of your refu­sal: that serue the contrarie side, rather then yours. Your vocation to so highe a rome, the place where you taught, the honorable estate of the audience, which hard you, the doctrine you taught auctorised by the realme, as you alledge doo not vnburden you from the proufe of your doctrin, but rather bourden you more to proue the same: because your estate is now suche, that is bounde to rendre accompte of that you teach. Nor it is any dishonour to the realme, if you be able to certiūe that by learning, that they (as you say) haue passed by lawes, nor want of discretion at all in you, to teache them, that wold so gladly learn at your hande. For if a man may proue by conference of scriptures any article therin comprised, either in the letter, or by argument boulted foorth without a­nie dishonour to God, or blemish to him that taketh the matter in hande, (as a [Page]man in déede may) shall you counte the Realme dishonoured, or want of dis­crecion in your self, to proue suche doc­trine (as your selfe doo publishe) because it is auctorised by man, and by thassent of the Realme? whiche in time of your baptisme assented to the contrarie, as al other christian realmes did, without any contradiction at all, amongest the learned: whereas in this assente, as many learned clarkes, well knowen to the worlde, said nay, and more to, then hitherto hath sayd yea. And if the chief proufe of your doctrine be the assente of this realme, shall not other christian realmes, that teache quite contrarie vnto you, rest in doctrine auctorised by them, and al christian realmes besides? Here you ar driuen, if you rest so stout­ly vpon thassent of realmes, to confesse that the doctrine taught here is trew, because this realme hath auctorised it: and the doctrine in straunge realmes is [...]rew, beyng quite contrarie to yours, [Page 4]because by like reason the realmes ther hath auctorised it. You haue no refuge in this case, but to say, that this realme folowed the scripture in suche doctrine, as they aucthorised, and that other re­almes folowed not the scripture in au­ctorisinge the contrarie. I am wel con­tented with your answere. But where be the scriptures wherby the realme au­ctorised your doctrine? You may not say, it shall be greate dishonour to the realme, to haue such scripturs knowne, for want of discrecion in you, to vtter them: as you séeme to say in your let­ters. Let vs know suche scriptures, as your trust is most vppon, to proue your doctrine by, and we wil depart quietly. And as all wise men will counte it the office of a discrete man, either to stay such as stagger, or to perswade suche as verily thinke otherwise: So shall I not onely so thinke, but also if you giue me good cause why, yelde you greate thankes, and my poore seruice to. In [Page]your silence herein, if you haue ought to saie, you shall doo nothyng els but hide the candell vnder y ^e busshel: where as the order is to set it vpon the candel­sticke, to light all suche as are within the house. If you haue no scriptures to lay for you, then trouble our mother the holy catholike churche no longer. You stande in negatiues: you saye a­gainst priuate Masses and certaine o­ther, which as you pretende, cannot be proued. Haue wée not here good cause to maruell that you, whiche studdie so maruelous reformacion of all doctrine to the touche stone of scripture, will o­penly professe, bearyng suche a perso­nage in suche places of honour, suche doctrine as can neither bee proued by scripture, nor any other substancial re­cord: and all because it standeth in ne­gatiues? May not children in this sort deuise negatiues conteinyng false doc­trine, and when they are called vpon to proue it, B. say they are not bounde to [Page 5]proue their assercions, because they are [...]egatiues? This dare I be bolde to say: Agaynst his stay­inge vpon the nega­tiue. [...]f you had sentence, or halfe sentence, woorde, or halfe woord in the scriptures, [...]lde doctoures, generall counsels, or ex­ample of the primatiue churche against priuate Masses, al England had runge of it ere this day. But you haue none, as your silence importeth. It were ei­ther great folly to kéepe that secret, the whiche without any damage may doo good to many, or meruelous enuie to enclose that without gaine, which law and reason woulde haue to be commen. Quicquid dando non deficit (saieth sayncte Austin) Quamdiu habetur, & non datur: non dum habetur, quomodo habendum est. All that decay not by bestowynge, as long as they are had, and not bestowed they are not yet had, as they ought to be had. The lawes may in diuers spe­ciall factes, not restrained to time and place, teach perhappes, that a negatiue can not be proued. But to say that a [Page]negatiue in doctrine, as yours is, can not be proued vpon only consideracion that it is a negatiue, as your shifte is, that I am well assured no learned man hitherto euer taught: either in law; or in any other science besides. Ye the con­trarie rather appereth in Logicke: the whiche teacheth the generall groundes of all disputacions. Where wée haue in euerie figure, negatiue conclusions. And for other short kinde of argumen­tes, there are as many places dialecti­cal of the negatiues to destroy, as there are affirmatiues to builde on. So that shifte of descant can not serue your turne. Doeth not the scripture many times ioygne issue in the negatiue, and proue the same? Wée are not iustified by Moses law, and so the like. Doeth not the Apostels proue it at large? But for as much as you are not able to proue the negatiue, I will no further trouble you therwith. Yet when there is an affirmatiue imploied in the nega­tiue, [Page 6]as there is here, thoughe I dis­charge you of very gentilnes from the proufe of thone, order of schooles will driue you to proue the other: though it were in factes, muche more in doctrine.

Your negatiue was, 2. Cap. that there was no priuate Masse at all, in the prima­tiue churche: thus you say, and shewe no cause why. This terme priuate, A distictiō of priuate whiche you in this place first inuented, I meane Luthers schoole, may be taken concerning this matter diuers waies. One way, priuate is contrarie to com­mon, A. to many. And in this significa­cion, wée neuer saied that any Masse was priuate. For the catholike church euer taught, that the Masse is a com­mon or publique sacrifice, restrained to none so, but that the whole churche, or any liuely membre therof, had thereby great commoditée: and might, beyng prepared, and well disposed, bee parta­ker, not onely of the common Praier and Suffrages offered vp to God in the [Page]Masse, but also of the holy sacramente of Christes body and bloud therin con­secrated, and offered. Wée neuer yet prisoned vp the holy Sacrifice of the Masse, or the sacramente therin recei­ued, or the vse of ani of them, from any that disposed them selues godly. If you had harde vs preache that the Masse is onely auailable to the priest, or to prin­ces, or to vs of England, or to them of Italie, or to men, and not to women, or to such as are aliue, and not to suche as are dead, or to say that none ought to receiue the Sacrament, but the priest, you might haue charged vs that wée wente aboute to enclose that to some one sorte of priuate profit, that ought to remaine in common for all sortes of people. And in this wise wée neuer taught, that any Masse was priuate. But you haue the other significacion of this terme priuate. B. That is, the soole receiuynge of the Sacramente by the priest, imbarrynge none to communi­cate [Page 7]with him, yea rather reioysing, if any would be so wel disposed to receiue with him. And lamentynge, when he séeth the people so euill disposed, that none will order theim selues so, that they may worthely receiue with him. And yet not forsying theim to receiue, when they are not disposed, nor readie. And in this meanyng of priuate, the catholike churche doeth teache, that the priest may receiue the Sacramente at Masse alone, when none other is dis­posed to receiue with him. Now if you be able, wee require you to proue thaf­firmatiue included in your negatiue. Whiche is this. That euery priest or any other ought, when he receiueth the sacrament, to haue companie to receiue with him in the same time and place, vpon payne of Gods high indignation: and then wee will yelde vnto you. If you be able to proue neither the nega­tiue, nor the affirmatiue, storme not so sore against the doctrine of the catholik [Page]churche, the whiche falsehed many ti­mes assaulteth, and was neuer yet able to ouerthrow.

As you say, 3. Cap. there was no priuate Masse in the primatiue church, and say vntruly, so may you say and say truly, there was no christian kynge in the A­postles time. That all thynges shuld not be brought to the forme of the primatiue chur­che. There was no christian man that then counted any thinge his owne of suche thynges as he possessed: but all were common. There was then no doctrine taught, but it was confir­med by miracles. There was no wo­man that might come with open face to the churche. There was no Bisshop indewed with temporaltées. There was no distinction commonly of pari­shes. There was nothyng eaten that was mingled with bloud. There was no whole realmes turned to the fayth. There was no receuyng of the Sacra­ment, but after supper. There was no infant but was housled. And thus may wée rolle in a greate sorte suche, there [Page 8]was not truly, as you rolle in diuers of yours falsly. And will you I beséeche ye reforme al thynges to the very state of the primatiue churche now? Will you suppresse al christian kyngꝭ which were not in the Apostels time? A. Wyll you alter the state now, and make all thinges to be common? Wyll you dis­grace, all preachers that woorke not miracles? Wyl you inforce women to hoodwinke them selues in the churche? will you rayle against bisshoppes that kéepe any temporalties? Wyll ye set men at liberty to doo their duty at what churche they will? Wyll ye inhibit the folkes to eate bluddynges, or Pigions, or Capons, suche as are killed by stiffi­lyng? Will you inforce vs to be house­led after supper? Wyll you housell all babes and infantes againe? B. To call suche thynges to the state of the Apo­stels time, The pri­matiue churche, the state of infācie. and of the primatiue church againe, is nothyng els, but to enforce a taule man to come to his swadlynge [Page]clothes, and to crie alarme in his cradel again. I trust when you say there was no priuate Masse in the primatiue chur­che, not withstandinge you disalowe priuate Masse, yet you wil alowe Masse to bee in the primatiue churche: or els wisdome would haue sayed more gene­rally, there was no Masse at all, nor priuate, nor common. &c. And yet there is an open difference betwéen these two sentences: there was no priuate Masse at that time, and there ought to be no priuate Masse at any time. In the one, wée conceiue the vse of that age, not withstandynge the law of the churche euen then might stande indifferently to the contrarie, vpon circumstances and good consideracions. And in the other, wée precisely conceiue what the lawe doeth determine, either lawfull or vn­lawfull. The constant faith, C. the pure life, An argu­mente of the cōpa­rison of the times. the feruent charitée, the contempte of the worlde, that then florisshed so a­mongest such as professed Christ, might [Page 9]cause perhappes that no Masse was ce­librated, but that diuers christians, and specially lookyng for continuall perse­cucion, would be houseled there at, and be alwaies sure to haue their viaticū, as it is termed in the olde Cannons, that is to say, their v [...]age prouision. In that state of burnynge charitée, and of con­tempt of the worlde, and al the pleasu­res therof, some of the people, perhaps of their owne accorde, did alwaies wil­lyngly and gladly prepare theim selues at euery Masse to be housled with the priest: And will you now in the state of keycolde charitée, D. when the people are nothyng willyng to dispose theim selues to receiue their housill, E. plucke the priest from the aulter, whose office as to offer that dayly sacrifice for the people, vnlesse ther be that wil receiue? Will you imbarre him that is bounde to offer vp the dayly sacrifice of dutie, because they will not dispose theim sel­ues to receiue their housill? Who, as [Page]concernyng so often receiuyng, are not bounde, but stande at libertie. The church doth exhorte them to y ^e frequen­tacion of their housil, but geueth no cō ­maundement to binde them: as Christ saied, Si vis perfectus esse, vade, & vende omnia quae habes, & da pauperibus. If thou wilt be perfit, goe and sell all that thou hast, and geue it to the poore. Whiche imploieth the nature of a counsell, to exhorte men to y ^e highest degrée of chri­stianitie, consernyng the bestowyng of the goods of the worlde: and yet is no commaundement to binde any that are not so disposed. Euen so wée may exhort and counsell folkes to frequent the re­ceiuyng of their rightes without any commaundement to binde them. Now the ley men are at libertie, consernyng the frequentacion: the priest is bounde to the frequentacion. Is it then reason that he, that may choose whether he wil frequently receiue or no, should, when he is not disposed, cause him to offende [Page 10]the law of God, that is bounde therto? If you had any suche texte in the holy scripture to binde the priest neuer to say Masse without some to communi­cate, as this texte, Si vis perfectus esse, vade vende. Séemeth to commaund him that will be perfit, to sell all that he hath, and bestowe it vpon the poore. Lorde how woulde ye then triumphe: because you had then some coulour a­gaynst priuate Masse. F. And yet when the matter were well bulted, you shall neuer be able to proue any cōmaunde­ment therby against the soole receiuing of the Sacrament by the priest, but a counsell to exhorte him, if it might be, too the highest and most perfit estate. But to prescribe of necessitée that there ought, vpon paine of Gods indignacion to be a company to communicate with the priest at euery Masse, or els for­beare the celebracion of the holy sacri­fice, hauyng no title of any suche cou­lour in the holy scripture, I wyll not [Page]cal that by the name that I may iustly, but will temper the matter, and terme it an itchyng folly, to alter all thinges that are well setled alredie.

S. Chrisostome in his thirde homely vpon the epistle to y ^e Ephesians in his complainte there doeth so set foorth the matter, 4. Cap. as it is to be wished both what the people should doo, & what the priest may do. If the people wil not folow his exhortacions, than no man, I suppose without great impudēcie, wil any len­ger stand in y ^e denial therof. For as we may well & godly wisshe that al folkes were so wel agréed that al suites in the law might surseasse: A. A simili­tude that companie is not ne­cessarie and yet this godly wisshe when any contention shoulde chaunce, y ^t cannot otherwise be finished doth not inhibit but y ^e men may sew for their right. For y ^e highest or the perfi­test state doth not extinguishe y ^e meane or the lowe: Euen so all good men may wishe that al christian people were al­waies so deuoute and wel disposed, that [Page 11]they might with goddes fauour, receiue their housil daily. And yet were it in­iurie because al wil not, The priest of duetie bounde to sacrifice. to inhibite such as wolde. Or if none wolde, to imbarre the priest that is bounde to offer vp the daily sacrifice for him self & the people.

S. Chrisostom writeth thus: 5. Cap. In aliis quidem tēporibus quū puri frequenter sitis, A. non acceditis. In pascha vero sicet sit aliquid a vo­bis perpetratū acceditis, O consuetudinem, O presūptionē, sacrificiū frustra quotidianū offe­rimus. In cassum assistimus altari, nullus est qui cōmunicetur, hic non vt temere cōmunicemini dico, sed vt vos dignos reddatis. At other times saieth he although you be for the most parte in cleane lite you come not, but at Easter you come, thoughe you haue done somwhat amisse. Phie vpon that custome, phie vpon such presump­cion, the daily sacrifice is in vaine. Wée stand at thaulter for nought. There is none to be howslid. I speake not these thingꝭ because you shoulde receiue your housil rashly, but for thintēt you should [...] [Page]was nothyng auaylable, but because he looked that the people woulde dispose them selues to doo as they were exhor­ted. And that was vaine, because nullus est qui communicetur. There was none that woulde be howslid. And yet the priest did celebrate notwithstandynge. For it is saied, that he standeth at the Aulter, and what to doo but to celebrate the daily sacrifice. Can you call that a daily sacrifice that is not daily offered up? C. or that a daily sacrifice that is not celebrated but once in the yere, at Ea­ster? At the which time the people vsed to receiue: all other times they refrai­ned, Quia nullus est qui cōmunicetur. D. There is none to communicate. Is it not eui­dent by this complainte of S. Chriso­stom that the priest did his duetie, not withstanding ther was none to receiue with him? Or els if he were constrai­ned to refraine when none woulde re­ceiue with him, doeth it not appeare that then it foloweth that he did cele­brate [Page 13]but at Easter onely, for then he had companie, and at other times he lacked. Quia nullus est qui communicetur. And then how coulde it be calde Sacrifi­cium quotidianum. The daily sacrifice. Doubtles it coulde not. And therfore it is plaine that then the priest did his duetie in celebracion of the Masse, though none receiued with him. Haue wée not founde then that in Chrisosto­mes time there was priuate Masse, as you doo terme it? Why say you that in all other thinges wée holde contrary vnto you. Wée had some colour other in scriptures, or olde doctours. But in such doctrine as you made your entrie vpon, wherof this is one, you are assured wée had no colour at all to make any proofe in very déede. You here that Chriso­stome testifieth the vse of his time for priuat Masse plainely and flatly with­out colour at all. What colour I pray you haue you, either in scriptures, olde Doctours or counsels, against priuate [...] [Page]doo you minister it to the layties, where Christ gaue it only vnto the Apostels y ^t were priestes? You wil say y ^t wée haue no cōmaundement to exclude any state of mē. Why do you minister it to more or fewer, when christ ministred it only vnto twelue? And what answere haue you here, but to say as you said before, y ^t as place, sexe, time, day, degrée, state of people, secretnesse, are nothing apertei­nyng as necessarie to y ^e substance of the sacrament: so number is but an accident or a ornament rather to bewtifie y ^t de­uocion of christian people in receiuynge the sacrament, then thervnto appertei­nyng as necessarie vnto the substance. And thus may you perceiue that when you require the like dooyng to Christe herein in euery small poincte or title in vs, as in place, time, sexe, day, state of people, secretnesse, number, you de­ceiue your selues, and others. Takyng these thynges to be necessarie for the safegarde of the substance of the sacra­ment, [Page 15]the whiche are nothinge els but very accidentes: the alteracion wher­of doo lie in the discrecion of spirituall gouernours, without damage or hurte doone to the substance of the sacrament or the vse there of: and are to be comp­ted amongest suche thinges, as saincte Paule speaketh of, when he wrote. Cetera cum venero disponam. I wil set the other thynges in order, when I come.

But the greate matter you harpe on to haue companie together in one place to receiue at any time with the priest is because that in the vse of this sacramēt ther ought to be a cōmuniō. 7. Cay. And I pray you is not there a cōmunion among all christians in praier? A. For in our praier we say our father, not my father which arte in heauen, thy wil be doon in earth as it is in heauen, not in mée as it is in heauē, geue vs this day our daily bread, wée say not geue mée this day my daily bread, forgeue vs our trespasses, wée say not forgeue mée my trespasses. &c. [Page]Whereby wée know that wée commu­nicate in praier with all christendome beyng members of one misticall bodie of Christe. And will you inhibite mée to say my Pater noster when I am alone in my chaumber, voyde of companie to say with mée, or will you shutte vp al christendome in some narow roome, that thei may be togethers at one time to say the Lordes praier? Or will you graunte that there may be a Commu­nion in praier amongest all christians without any respecte to haue them to­gether at one time in any one place, and that there can be no communion in the vse of the Sacrament, vnlesse all the communicantes be together in one place and at one time? Haue you any scripture to leade you to say that the communion in the vse of the sacrament must of necessitée haue all the commu­nicantes in one place at one time closse vp, more then the cōmunion in praier? One of the articles of the Créede is, B. [Page 16] Credo sanctorum communionem. I beléeue the communion of sainctes. I beléeue wée haue communion in Baptisme, in penance, in confirmacion, in extreme vnction, in praier, in fastyng, in almes déedes. And must all they that practise any of these, be driuen to doo it, at one place, in one season, or els to haue no parte of such a communion as there is comprised in these holy sacramentes? Is this your doctrine? Wher haue you these in scripture? There is an olde doctour called Dionisius: that teacheth vs why it is called a communion. Not because it requireth vnitie and idemp­titée of time and place, in the communi­cantes: but because al christians therby beyng liuely members of one body first are brought to an vnitée with Christe their head, and then euery member with the misticall body: and then eue­rie member with other. So that in the workynge of this meruelous vnitée, number, time, and place are no princi­pall [Page]dooers, but foreners and very stran­gers in déede. And the place of Saincte Paule meaneth no lesse in the first to the Corinthes. Quoniā vnus panis & vnū corpus musti sumus, omnes quidē de vno pane & de vno casice participamus, wherby wée here y ^e christians are pertakers of one lofe, and yet there is no one particular place able to receiue thē, nor yet no one particular lofe able to serue thē. Sure­ly as touchinge your fancie to haue of necessitie the communicantes closed vp in one place, there to be serued at one e­special time, C. or els to be no partakers of the communion, it wil fal in processe of reasoning to so many follies: that we must know how large the place muste be and how longe you wil appoinct the time apperteining to one communion. And as for the place when the multi­tude of the communicantes are verie greate, whether may be a communion betwixt him that receiueth at the Aul­ter in our Lady chapell in Paules, and [Page 17]him that receiueth in the lowest place of the west ende of Paules church. It there may, why are they not partakers of one communion that receiue in twoo diuers churches in London not so farre distante the one from the other, as our Ladie chappel is from the west ende of Paules? And if they can not, let vs knowe why: and haue some scripture for proufe therof. If they may, why may not the communicantes be parta­kers of one communion in thrée chur­ches: and why not be partakers of one cōmunion in foure or fiue churches no further distant? If not, limit you then the furthest distance that a communion may be had in, and bringe in scriptu­res, doctours, or any counsels to proue the limitacion, and wée wil crie creake. And in like maner wée may reason for the appoinctmente of time. Appoincte you the longest time that a communion may be had, and shew some good eui­dence for your limitacion. And like­wise [Page]we wil crie creake. You driue men to these trifels that the worlde may know you hange in nifels.

Erasmus Roterodamus in his epistle that he wrote against false gospellers, 8. Cap. reporteth how they were wonte in the olde time in the primatiue churche, A. to deliuer euery one y ^e sacrament in their handes to beare home with them and receiue it when their deuocion serued. Obim (saieth he) corpus domini, dabatur in manu vt domi cum vellent sumerent qui acce­pissent. The Lordes body in olde time was deliuered into folkes handꝭ to the entente that they who hadde taken it might receiue it when they woulde. When diuers people tooke the Lordes body in their handes to receiue it at home in their seuerall houses when their deuocion serued them to receiue it, are any yet so vnwise to thinke that they that so receiued it were either in one place, cōsidering their houses wer [...] seuerall, or at any one time, conside­ringe [Page 18]the varietie of their deuocions, willes, purposes, and trade of life? Do you not se in these few wordes that the partakers of any one communion were not-wonte to be clogged to receiue it in any place or at any one especiall time? Do not you manifestly heare a reseruacion of the sacramente confessed here? And where as it was deliuered in their handes, as wine is not, vnder­stande you not thereby a communion vnder one kinde? But you will say it was but Erasmus reporte. But I say he reported it as he founde in auncient writers. And Erasmus pardie was wont to be a great man amongest you: and do you so litle estéeme him now? You haue ouerrun him (I graunte) as you haue doone Luther, that was once your God. B. Erasmus is not the first fa­ther of this reporte. But Tertulian him selfe whiche florisshed not long af­ter the Apostles time: in his seconde [...]ooke that he wrote to his wyfe, repor­teth [Page]no lesse. How that the christian wife kepte it close from hir husbande, beyng a Panime, that she receiued eue­rie mornynge secretly before meate. And if it so happed that he espied it, that he woulde thinke it were breade: and not that which christian men tooke it to be. Non sciet maritus quid secreto ante omnem cibum gustes. Et si sciuerit, panem non illum credit esse qui dicitur. Thy husbande shall not know what thou doest eat [...] secretly before thy meate. And if he do know it, he beléeueth that it is breade: and not he whome wée call it. Ponder these wordes well: and se whether it agréeth not with Erasmus reporte. When the christian wife did secretly receiue the holy sacrament, was there any company receiued with hir? Can a thyng done in companie, be secret? Or coulde she kéepe close from the Panime hir husbande that thyng that should be often practised in any open assemblie? Were not thinke you the panimes that [Page 19]at that time were the greater numbre, diligent to searche what the christians did? Séemeth it not in hir secret recei­uyng before all meates, that she reser­ued the sacrament at home, to receiue it when she woulde? And where Ter­tulian saieth, that if it chaunced that her husbande knew what she eate, he would thinke it to be bread, (makynge no mencion he woulde thinke it to bee wine) and not the very body of Christ, as the christians do confesse. Further­more séemeth not this woman to haue receiued it vnder one kinde? For hir husband that saw hir eate the fourme of bread, that was wonte to be first recei­ued, woulde soone haue perceiued when she dranke the fourme of wyne, that shoulde be immediately receiued after. To conclude, it appereth by these olde writers, that this woman receiued a­lone without any company to receiue with hir. And that she reserued the sa­crament with hir at home, to receiue at [...] [Page] mutabitur sacro sanctum corpus christi, sed virtus, benedictio & viuificatiua gratia magis in eo est. They are then madde that saie the misticall benediction or bles­sing leaueth from the sanctification, if any leauyng remaine of it till the next day. For the very holy body of Christe shall not be changed. But the power and vertue and the liuely quickenyng grace is continually abiding in it with­out company to receiue. Whē ye heare Chrisostome tell of the dayly sacrifice, when you heare the aunciente father Cirillus, call them madde, that denie the reseruacion, when yée heare him say plainly and flatly that there is no alteracion in the very holy body of Christe, though it be kept, and the ver­tue, and ful power of the consecracion, and the liuely quicknynge grace doeth continew stil in the holy porcions that are reserued: when S. Ciprian that holy martir maketh reporte of the holy sacrament reserued at home in the wo­mans [Page]coffer, to receiue when hir lust, when deuocion serued hir: and when he sheweth that God wrought the my­racle in the stiryng of the fier from it, because she thought to vse it vnreue­rently, to cause hir to forbeare. When Tertulian afore that agréeth with the same, and when Erasmus Rotero­dame, a man famous in his time, re­cordeth the matter as he had learned it of these holy fathers and other: that the people receiued it in their handes, receiued it at home, receiued it when e­uery man saw his time: Shal any man cōtinue so impudent to denie that euer people vsed the soole receiuyng without company, or deny the reseruacion? The Scripture saieth, In ore duorum vel trium. &c. Two or thrée witnesses are able to trie any matter: and especially such witnesses as these are, men of holy life, aunciente fathers of greate lear­nyng, called foorth to witnesse y ^e trueth from euery quarter of the worlde, some [Page]from Asia, some from Africa, some from Europa. &c. What say you to Satyrus, E. that hanged the hely sacrament aboute his necke in a stole, when he wente to the sea? What say you to the greate clarke S. Ambrose bisshop of Millayn, that praised him greatly for his so do­yng? Apered not there a reseruacion? And I trow vnder one kinde, vnlesse your brayne will serue you to enclose wine in a stole, as mine will not.

What say you by Syrapion, 9. Cap. who be­yng in dispaier of his life, sente for the priest to minister him the sacrament in the night season. But when the priest lay sicke in his bed, and coulde not goe him selfe, he tooke Syrapions ladde the Sacramente in his hande, and bad him moyste it, and so minister it into the mouthe of his sicke maister. The priest was sicke and coulde not rise. The lad came in the night time, the priest de­liuered the sacramente into his hande, he bad him moyste it, and géeue it to [Page 22]the sicke. A. And doeth not this proue bothe that the priest had reserued it, and the moystynge thereof that the sicke man tooke it vnder one kinde, and when he sent no more then woulde serue the sicke man, was not there the howselyng of one alone without com­panie? The twelfth Cannon of Nicene counsell prouideth for suche as are like to departe this life, to receiue the sa­crament or they departe. And if any suche that is in y ^e case howseled chaunce to recouer, then to be amongest the communicantes praier. The wordes be these De iis qui recedunt excorpore, anti­qua segis regusa obseruabitur etiā nunc. Ita ve si quis forte recedat ex corpore, necessario vi­tae suae viatico non defraudetur. Quod si des­peratus asiquis recepta communione superuix­erit: sit inter eos qui sola oratione communi­cant. Concernynge those that departe this life, the olde rule of the lawe shall be kept now also. So that any be like to departe this life he be not disceiued of [Page]his necessarie viage prouision for his life. If he that was in dispaier of life af­ter y ^t he receiued the cōmunion chaunce to recouer, let him be amongest them that do communicate by praiers onely. The holy auncient counsell of all the learned fathers at Nice, thought it conuenient that suche as were like to die, should be howseled before their de­partyng: And coulde this rule be vnui­olably kepte amongest so many casual­ties of sicknesse and sodeine infectiones and diuers other chaunces that fall at diuers and sundrie times bothe by day and night, B. vnlesse the holy sacramente were reserued? And vnlesse euery man receiued as necessitie serued alone with out company, when necessitie so requi­red? Some time the priest as Chriso­stome saieth in the celebracion of the dayly sacrifice receiueth without the people: and sometime the people with­out the priest: and some time one alone without any company at all, as wée [Page 23]haue at large shewed afore.

In the bisshops and priestes absence, 10. Cay. the Deacons receiued alone, if they were disposed to receiue, as the foure­téenth Cannon of thauncient and olde counsel of Nyce hath taken order. The wordes be these. Peruenit ad sanctum con­silium ꝙ in locis quibusdam & ciuitatibus, presbiteris diaconi sacramenta porrigant. Hoc ne (que) regula, né (que) consuetudo tradit, vt ij, qui offerendi sacrificij potestatem non habent, hiis qui offerunt corpus christi porrigant. Sed & illud innotuit quod quidam diaconi etiam ante episcopū sacramēta sumant. Haec ergo omnia omputentur, & acciplant secundum ordinem post presbiteros ab episcopo ves a presbitero sacram communionem. Quod si non fuerit in presenti vel episcopus, vel presbiter, tuncipsi proferant & edant. It is reported to the holy counsell that in certaine places and cities the deacons deliuer the sa­crament to the priestes. Neither rule, neither custome taught this, that they that haue no aucthoritée to offer sacrifice [Page]should deliuer the body of christ to them that offer it. And an other thyng also came to our eares that there are certain deacons who receiue the sacrament be­fore the Bisshop. Wherfore let all such thinges be cut of, let them receiue the holy cōmunion orderly after the priestꝭ of the bishops or priest. And if the bis­shop or the priest be absent, let them sel­ues bryng it foorth and eate it: If the deacons, as it appereth by this Canon, that had no auctoritie to consecrate, and to offer the sacrifice of Christes body and bloud, might in the bishops or priestꝭ absens, fetch foorth the sacra­ment, and receiue it, can you denie but it was reserued? And that the same grace of Christes body remained in the holy sacrament after the consecracion in the bishoppes and priestes absence? Which coulde by no meanes be conse­crated, but by the bishoppes and prie­stes presence. A. I will not cauill with you vpon the terme aboue rehersed in [Page 24]the Cannon, concernyng the deacons, that they might in the bisshoppes and priestes absence, bryng forth the sacra­mente and eate it: whiche is proper to the forme of bread, and not to the forme of wine: and thereby declare that the deacons receiued it but in one kinde: Notwithstandynge I might as well stande therein and better to, then you stande vpon Accipite & manducate, & bi­bite ex hoc omnes, to driue the sacrament immediatly without any reseruacion to his vse, and that at euery communiō there must of necessitie be a company to receiue with the priest, and euery one of the lay people ought of necessitie to receiue the same in bothe kindes. B. I wil not I say vse no such daliance vpon the worde, eate in the Cannon as you vse in take eate and drinke al of this in the vse of the sacrament very sophistically. But let go all suche vauntage vpon ti­tles. I am contented to vse none other proufe, but suche, as al men that haue [Page]any discretion, do so euidently perceiue to be so good, that they are neuer able to finde any occasion in the worlde to con­trolle it. Such as I haue vsed before for the proufe of priuate masse, reseruacion the soole receiuynge or ministracion of the sacramente in certaine cases vnder one kinde, to haue ben vsed in the state of the primatiue churche.

Reade S. Cyprian in his fifte sermon De sapsis, 11. Cap. there shal you se that the dea­con gaue an Infante, that had receiued before parte of such meates as were sa­crifised vp to the Idoles, a porcion of Christes bloud out of the Chalis. And as soone as the infante receiued it, it was wonderfully vered, because it was meruelous dishonour to the bloud of Christe to be powred into the mouthe that was a litle before defiled with the Idoles sacrifice. And therby may you vnderstande that the infante receiued the sacrament of the Deacon vnder the forme of wine onely, and not vnder the [Page 25]forme of breade. For by that reason if the infante had receiued it vnder the forme of bread, before beyng parte of the sacrament as precious as the other, it should haue been vexed very sore, be­fore the cup had ben offered it. But the first vexacion that it had was when the Deacon gaue the sacrament in forme of wine. And therfore it is euident that the deacon gaue not the infant the sa­crament vnder the forme of bread. And was not this a communion vnder one kinde only? You haue harde now I sup­pose not a worde, or halfe worde, not one sentence, or half a sentence as your callyng was, but many, and full prou­ses against certaine of your assertions. And by these you haue good cause to di­strust all the rest of your doctrine.

Thus far my leasure serued me, 12. Cap. be­yng otherwise occupied with businesse though, to answer in the defence of my spirituall mother the catholike church. Not for because it was our parte, that [Page]are in possession, to render any reason for our right, wherein prescription of time out of minde is a sufficient barre: but partely, because I saw your impor­tunitie in callyng vpon them to strike, that you had bounde in recognisaunce of great sommes to be forfaited, if they had gone aboute to geue you any blow. So that you may perceiue well by this, that they are better armed, then you thought they were: when I, who am nothyng in comparison of the learned Doctours of this realme, beyng a man of no greate reading, A. but in stories, am yet able thus to say in so good a matter, that I trust you will here after leaue your importunitie of prouokyng so ma­ny learned men of this realme, to shew what euidence they haue for the truth. It had béen more reasonable, that you (that woulde dispossesse vs of the inte­rest wée haue in the trew doctrine, that the catholike church first taught vs, and hath recorded sufficiently in hir prac­tise [Page 26]these .xv.c. yeres and more, and in recordes of writers this .lr. hundred yeres and .lx. as your selfe do séeme to confesse) should shew sufficient causes, why wée ought to be dispossessed: rather then wée to lay for our selues prouses to kéepe possession. I meruell that you thinke it not hurt to your side, to grant that the hole practise of the church hath runne with vs this .ix. hundreth yeares and thrée score: where as, in possession of landes, quiet possession for the space of one hundreth yeres or two, putteth y ^e case out of all doubte. You hange vpon the state of the sire hundreth yeres, that were next after Christ, and you se how that the whole recorde of the state run­neth against you. Tertulian is against you: Ciprian is against you: Euse­bius is against you: Ambrose is against you: Cyrill is against you: The holy and aunciente counsell of Nyce is a­gainst you. And yet you will make the people to wéene, that all are with you [Page]of that state. C. I haue not brought in the emptie names, as Poticaries do vpon their bores, but haue shewed you what good drugges they haue. I haue not cast but from the walle any victayis in your assanite, to make a bragge in penurie, as many of your parte commonly vse to do, as though they had greate plen­tie of victailes, but haue brought you vnto the fight of suche prouision, as the holy auncient fathers of the primatiue thurche, suche as your selues do alowe, haue made for vs. But come vnto the practise of the churche, and recordes of she fathers, D. of the latter .ix. hundreth yeres. They crie so thicke and thrée­solde against you, that you are not a­ble to abide them. And therefore you were woonte to disgrace them art. By what aucthoritée, I pray you, woulde you haue them all discredited? It sa­north of a maruerlous arrogancie, to discredite them all. Can your doctrine creepe no other wayes into credit, vn­lesse [Page 27]you deface the practises of the churche, and the aucthoritée of the fa­thers, for the space of .ix. hundreth yeres and odde? Haue you no other meanes to get honor, but to dishonour so many auncient fathers, as haue written this latter .ix. hundred yeres? Know you not the scripture, Qui masedixerit patrives matri morte morietur. And what male­diction is there greater, then to blase, that our learned fathers (that liued so godly in praiers, fastyngs, almesdéedes continuall studie of doctrine, that hath their common agréementꝭ for the space of .ix. hundred yeres and more) disceiued Christes flocke, know not the right faieth, but trayned the people to the state of dampnation? And I pray you, if they were so many yeres disceiued, and yet giuen all the while to spiritual exercises, more then you, as it appereth by their workes, or any now a daies, what assurance can you make vs, that you do now know the truth? Beynge [Page]a man far vnderneth them in all pein­ [...]tes? and one that hath not continued here muche (as I here say) aboue fortie yeres, and not bestowed the fourthe parte of that time neither (as I here) in studie of the scriptures, or olde doctours? Shal you with .ix. or .x. yeres studie in the matters of doctrine thinke your selfe able to sit as a iudge, to con­troll all such doctours, and the doctrine, whiche they haue left in recorde for the space of .ix. hundred yeres? No man gaue you such aucthoritée: but your self. Luther, and Melancthon tooke vpon them to be reformers of religion in all poinctes. But if you marke them, they make no mattier of necessitée to com­municate the laytie with bothe kindes. They acknowledge that a general coū ­sell may take order in it, as a thynge indifferent. And hauyng no scripture for the prouse of the necessitée thereof. They confirme also the being of christꝭ body in a thousād places at once, mea­nyng [Page 28]therin as the catholskes meane.

If you had acquainted your self with Abraham and Isaac, 13. Cay. (that sayed that quaecun (que) promisit deus, potens est & facere: What so euer God promiseth, he is able to performe it. Or with the An­gell that saied vnto Mary in as greate a mattier as this is, Non est impossi­bile apud deum omne verbum. There is no worde vnpossible vnto God:) as well as you haue acquainted your selfe with Ismaell and Agar, that se no far­ther then the trade of common nature, or if you had marked, but the very rule of nature, how of an antecedent graū ­ted, all necessarie consequence doo by force of reason issew there hence, you woulde neuer put the mattier in que­stion. Wée finde in scripture that eur sauiour saied in the consecracion of the blessed sacrament, This is my bodie, that shall be desmered for you. And when the sence of this sentence is, as the catho­like churche teacheth, the very reall [Page]presens of Christes body to be in the blessed sacramente: vpon this sence, once setled, many labelles doo necessa­rily hange: not expressedly had in scrip­ture, but by drifte of reason out of the first veritie gathered. And so did saincte Chrisostome, S. Ambrose, S. Basill, and S. Bernard, when they vnderstode the sence of Christes wordes concer­ning the consecracion to be, as the holy catholike churche vnderstoode it. And not to haue powre in the parlour at Hierusalem onely, where the sacramēt was first instituted, but in all places, where the thinge was so practised, as Christ began it: Therunto they sawe they muste néedes confesse by drifte of argumente that Christes body is in diuers places at once: and of the re­mainders of the accidentes, you néede no other proufe, but your owne sensis, your iye, and your tastyng. And of the alteracion of the substance of breade, the fathers in diuers ages saw it so de­pende [Page 29]vpon the first veritie, that they haue omitted no varietée of termes, to expresse it and to brynge it into the knowledge of the worlde. They haue transmutation, transelementation, mutation, conuertion, faction, afteration, transsubstanciation, and diuers other such, that are not to be rehersed now. You haue taken vpō you to controll y ^t counsell of Constance alredie: but now you will controll the greate counsel of Lateran, where were so many learned clarkes, as there were neuer more gathered together. And the counsell of Valense, and the counsell of Rome, sub Nicolao, and the generall counsell of Florence, and the counsell of Basill. In the whiche all your er­rours, concernyng the holy sacrament, are ouerthrowen. Concernyng your doubte how Christes hodie is in diuers places at once, sithen you beléeue no counsel that hath determined that mat­tier, nor auncient fathers, Grekes us Latins, I will sende you to your great [Page]god Luther, in a littell booke that he wrote against the Swinglians, of the sence of the woordes of the supper of christe. They yet remayne vndefaced. There he answereth you at the ful: Or els to Brentius that great Cane, in the exposition of the article of thassention in the first of the Actes: where he en­terpreteth thereof at the full: thoughe very farre in diuers poinctes from the sence of the churche. Yet may he not suffer that blinde reason of yours to haue his force in no case. It is but a very fonde daliance to braule vpon the labelles, before you agrée vpon the o­riginall veritée. The trew sence of this littell sentence, This is my body that shal be desiuered for you, Is the roote and the originall of all suche labelles as wée teache, not mencioned in scripture ex­presly, but bulted out by drifte of argu­ment, as these are, [...] simili­tude for [...]uwrittē [...] [...]ee [...]. that offend you so sore. When the maister saieth to his seruaunt, make redie that I may dine: [Page 30]he speaketh nothynge in these wordes of scommynge of the potte, of cleans water for the potage, of the earbes to be chopped, of scaldynge and drawynge the Capons, of makyng after, of hew­yng of woodde, of laiyng the clothe, and other thynges necessarie belongyng to his dinner. And yet, if the seruaunt woulde leaue the potte vnscommed, herbes vngathered, make potage with stinkyng water, put the Capon vpon y ^e broche, fethers, guttes and all, because his maister made no expresse mencion of the particular orderyng of all these: I wéene no man woulde alow his wit or honestie. Because in his maisters first commaundement all suche neces­saries are imploied. And so wée answer you as your mother the catholike chur­che hath taught vs. Wée néede not to shew you of accidentes, remainynge without any subiecte, nor of Christes body being in diuers places at once, nor of the adoracion of the holy sacrament, [Page]nor of many other trifling doubtes you make: because all such doubtes are an­swered to the ful, in the oryginall veri­tie of Christes words, being in the na­ture of the veritée, necessarily imploied. As these are, agaynste the whiche you may kicke, till you be very: but it lieth not in you to alter the nature of Chri­stes owne wordes. If you had found in the scripture spoken by Christe concer­ninge the blessed sacrament. This is not my body, but the figure of my body, beyng absent in substance, and onely present to your imaginacions, by the sight of the bread. You might haue triumphed and blowed vp your horne lustely in euery pulpit, and made your auaunte, that you had bin able to controlle all christendome. But now the letter is very playne against you, and the sence of the letter also, as the fathers do recorde in all ages, and generall counsels to: As may appere by your owne mistrust for the space of the last .ix. hundred yeres and odde. I [Page 31]take God to iudge, I wrote not this for any malice to suche as are otherwise [...]ente. I pittie them rather, and dayly pray for them, that they may embrace the catholike faieth. But when I per­ceiued Goltas in his brauerie, hauynge truste in his bigge bones and stronge weapons, braggyng many times, as though there were none of the Israeli­tes hable to matche him: Notwith­standynge there are very many that coulde haue handled him better then I, beyng a man of small learnyng, trou­bled with much businesse: yet I thought it my dutie, for the honour of my mo­ther the catholike churche, to hurle out foure or fiue stones in Dauids sling against this champion: not to hurte him in the forhead, as Dauid did Go­lias, but to crushe in péeces certeine vntruethes that he taught. Wyshyng him as wel to doo as I woulde my self: And all my countrey men of Englande to be ware, least they fal into the sna­res [Page]and trappes that our ghostly ene­mie laieth abrode euery where: not onely to hurte their bodies, but to hurle downe bothe body and soule into the déepe dongeon of hell. The whiche I beséeche God moste hartely géeue all men grace to auoyde.

Amen.

❧The defence of the trueth.

WHere you reason againste my lorde of Salesburée, 1. Cap. for refusinge to bringe proufe of his doctrin because he was a Bishop, and at that time preached be­fore the Quéenes grace and hir counsel: You deale somewhat like with him, as you doo afterwarde with the Doctours that you doo alledge. For you first bring your owne sence vnto their wor­des, and so alledge them for your pur­pose, where as they meane nothynge lesse. So in the wordes of the firste epistle to Doctor Cole you applie your owne sence vnto them, and after rea­son against it, as though it were his meanyng. Whether this be to be compted a cauilling, rather then a con­futyng, I leaue to the iudgement of o­ther. [Page]He neuer sayde simply, A. that he should make no recknynge of his doc­trine, because he was a bishop. For he doeth the contrarie dayly aswell in his preachinge as otherwise. He neuer saide that the consent of the prince and realme was a sufficient proufe of doc­trine in christian religiō, as you would haue men thinke of him by your reaso­nyng against him. He sayd this, that, for so muche as he was called to the state of a bishop, and at that time vt­tered before the prince and hir counsell that doctrine, which was confirmed by the aucthoritée of the whole realme: he might séeme to doo vnaduisedly, I iuste cause of his refu­s [...]ll. if he shoulde make accompte therof to a subiecte, and especially suche a subiecte as alway hath professed him selfe to muslike it, and at that time, vnder pre­tence of learnyng, but in déede quarel­lyng, required a proufe therof. Were it good reason thinke you, that a magi­strate at the demaunde of euery subiect [Page 2]should bryng reason to proue any law publisshed by the prince to bee good, which the same subiecte would proteste to be an euill and vniust law, and ther­fore woulde not obey it? If that should be so, a gappe might be opened to eue­rie busie person to picke a quarell a­gainst the law. If that should be so, beside other inconueniences, he might séeme to submit the iudgement of the prince and realme to the mislikynge of one waywarde subiecte. Which coulde not be doone without greate impeache­ment to the princes aucthoritée, and wisedome of the whole state of the cō ­mon weale. That this was his mea­nyng, it may appere in those wordes, where he saith he might not doo it with out farther licence. Wherfore in this parte of his answere, knowyng with whome he had to doo, he respected his doctrine, as it was a law confirmed by the prince and states of the realme: and not as it might be a controuersie of re­ligion [Page]before the law publisshed. More ouer in that he is orderly called to the state of a bisshop (say you what you wil to the contrarie,) he is in possession of the trueth: And therefore it were not reason, that he should be requested first to shew his euidence and take vpon him the person of the plaintife: espe­cially towarde those men that make exception to his possession, and claime the right therof them selues. He ought not lightly to geue ouer to you in this poincte: he ought to acknowledge and stande in defence of that benefit, wher­by, through gods worde and aucthoritée of the prince, he is sette in open posses­sion of that, which you before vsurped. Séeyng then it is the plaintifes parte first to shew euidence, and he now (god be thanked) standeth with other as de­fendante: You doo disorderly and con­trarie to reason to will him to doo that, which by order your selfe shoulde first doo. He profered openly to geue ouer [Page 3]to you, if you coulde shew any reaso­nable euidence for your part out of the scriptures, doctours, or counsels: If you refuse it, all men will thinke, that either you haue no euidence at all to shew, or els that, whiche you haue, is suche, as you are well assured wyll not abide the triall. B. In like maner doo you mistake his restyng vpon the ne­gatiue. You write not against his mea­nyng, but against that your selfe con­ceiueth to be in his wordes. He sayde not absolutely no negatiue proposition coulde be proued, neither doeth D. Cole finde so muche faute with him for deni­yng that a negatiue might be proued (for him selfe had so saide before) but with this, that to gréeue his aduersarie he woulde stay vpon the negatiue, and put you of the contrarie parte to proue the affirmatiue. Whiche was vpon good reason donne at that time, to the ende, as I thinke, that he might presse vpon you somwhat narre, then other [Page]before had vsed to doo. The cause why hee might iustly rest vp­pon the negatiue. For whereas you haue vntruly borne the worlde in hande, and make your auaunte conti­nually, that the church hath taught as you doo these. xv. hundred yeres, that the holy scriptures, aunciente fathers & counsels doo make altogether for your doctrine & against ours: he both wisely and learnedly did sée, that there was no way so fitte either to driue you from this auaunte, or to declare it euidently to be false, as to rest vpon this true ne­gatiue, that you haue no sufficiente proufe out of the aucthoritées before re­hearsed. For therby he should either force you to shew what you haue, whi­che in effecte is nothynge, or els to confesse that the chiefe poinctes of your doctrine by him recited be, as they are in déede, cleane beside the worde of god and example of the primatiue churche: or, if you would not for shame confesse it, yet that all men in the ende might perceiue it is so, when that you neither [Page 4]woulde nor coulde bring any sufficient confirmation of the same, by the scrip­tures, olde fathers, auncient counsels, or alowed example of the church by the space of. vi. hundred yeres. I will de­clare the mattier by example of those thinges, that your self taketh in hande to proue. All the preachers of this time teache, that the right vse of the lordes supper is to be celebrated in maner of a communion or feast with companie, and that as well the laytée as clergy shoulde receiue vnder bothe kindes. This doctrine they say is accordyng to Gods worde and vse of the primatiue churche and not the contrarie. For proufe thereof they alledge out of the scripture the Euangelistes and saincte Paule, in whiche appereth euidently that company was, and bothe kindes were indifferently vsed, and no signi­ficacion at all of the contrarie. For the primatiue churche they bringe Justine, Dyonisius, Cyprian, Chrisostome and other [...] [Page]ther hée did of purpose seeke a shifte to cauille, or els in déede had nothinge to saye? Or if you doo thinke it reasonable, I will learne at your hande howe you coulde proue that negatiue by all your lawe or logike: I doo scante thinke you wyl say that a man may be orderly re­quired to proue suche mere negatiues. When a negatiue or what kinde of ne­gatiues may bée proved, I leaue to bée discussed in some other place, as a que­stion more mete for Sophisters in the paruise schoole at Oxforde, then for dy­uines in matters of weight and im­portance.

After your reasoninge againste the causes, 2. Cap. that, as you saye, were alleged not to proue the negatiue, An aun­swere to the distinction of priuate as it were to lay the ground of your controuersée for priuate masses, ye beginne with a distinction, that this terme priuate may be taken after dyuers sortes: Ey­ther as contrary to common to many for the commoditie therof, or els as sole [Page 6]receiuing by a priest aloue without any company. In the firste way, A. you saye ye neuer affirmed masse to be priuate, but to pertaine to the behalfe of all sta­tes and sortes of men, whatsoeuer they be. In déede I were to blame and very iniurious vnto you, if I woulde dente, that ye haue ben very bountifull in be­stowinge the benesite of your masse: and especially when money was brou­ghte in aboundantly. For then ye ap­plied it vnto highe, to low: to Princes, to priuate persons to absent, to present: to quicke, to deade to heauen, to hel, ye and to purgatory to: Ouer and beside that ye made it a sali [...]e for all sores and a remedy for all mis [...]heffes. Here were a large feeld for me to deseant vpon the diuers abuses, that you applied it vnto, contrary to Christes institution and ordinan [...]: but that any Christian hart may rather yerne and lamente to re­member: so vngodly prophanation of the holy Sacrament, then to séeke oc­casion [Page]pleasantly to daly in the reher­sall and deluding of the infinite vany­ties therof. The other signification of priuate in sole receiuing by the priest, not imbarringe any that is willynge and ready to be partaker with him, ye say the Catholike Church doth and al­way hath taught. And here vpon ma­kinge your proposition, ye require a profe of the affirmatiue included in the negatiue: that is, that euery priest or a­ny other ought, when he receiueth, to haue a company to receiue with hym. Why sir, is this the truste that you would séeme to haue in the trueth of your cause? is this the plaine and sound dealinge, that ye after professe to vse? is this the leauing of all shifts, where by ye may séeme to cauill, rather then staye vppon the chéefe profes of your matter? Who séeth not that euen in the very entrance, mistrustinge your qua­rel, ye seke a shiste as it were by policy to helpe that, whiche in the open féelde [Page 7]is not able to defende it selfe? This was no parte of the challinge (as you terme it). This is not that ye pretende so earnestly to proue. The matter is of priuate masses, and you make your issue in sole receiuing. Is there no dif­ference, thinke you, betwene sole recei­uinge and priuate masse: doeth euery one, that receiueth alone, say a priuate masse? Then may not only priestes say masse, but also by your owne authori­ties after brought in, lay men and wo­men also. And yet your reasoninge in the residew of your treatise is suche, as if it were a sufficiente profe of priuate masse to shew, that some men and wo­men in certaine cases receiued alone in the primatiue Church. But of your ar­gumentes afterwarde. In this place ye shall geue me leaue to finde that faute in you, that Tussy in the beginning of his offices layeth to Panetius: who, in­tending to write of dutie in behauiour, omitteth the definition of the same: [Page]where as euery reasonable discourse ought to procede of a viefe declaracion of that, whiche is in controuersée. If ye had this done, I doubte not but ye would rather haue plucked your pen from the paper, th [...] haue medled with the matter, that ye are now entred in­to. What priuat masse is. I will therefore thewe you oute of your owne aucthours, what I take your priuate masse to bée. B. It is a sacri­fice of the body and bloud of Christ vsed in the Churche in place of the Lordes Supper, by one prieste alone offered to God the father for the sinnes of quicke and deade: which, without any to par­ticipate with him, ha [...] may apply to the benefite of what persons and thinge [...] hée listeth. That it is a sacrifice of Christes body, that it is vsed in place of the Lordes Supper, that one may of­ferat for quicke and deade, that it is in the priestes power to apply it, all your sorte doe not only without resistance easely confesse, but without reason [Page 8]stoutly defende. Therefore I shall not néede to make any further prouse of the partes of this discripcion. I doo there­fore take priuate masse to be, not only as you and some other patrons of your cause of late yeares haue wrested it, sence the ministers of gods truth in this latter time haue driuen you to the best shiftes of interpretacion: but as it was commonly vsed in the worlde be­fore, and as it is set forth in your schole men to the great defacinge of Christes death and passion. And yet ye shall not thinke that wée of trueth can or ought to yelde to the best of your inter­pretacions that euer I could heare. Of this priuate masse that I haue now de­clared to you, the challenge, that ye take so greuousy, was made: And therein doo I also at this time ioigne issue with you, and say, that nether you nor any of your parte will euer be able to proue the same by the ho [...]y scrip­tures, auncient fathers, or alowed [Page]councels: yea and because you vrge the negatiue, that, with gods healpe, wée will abundantly proue the contrary. This will I doo quietly and calmely, without stormynge or tempestuous blustering either at you or at your doc­trine: as one moste glad to bringe you againe to that heauenly trueth of the gospel: whiche, vnder the blasphemous names of falshode and phantasée, you declare your selfe to haue forsaken.

In the residue of your discourse ye woulde séeme to take from vs the true and right rule to reforme the church of Christ, 3. Cap. that is, to proue that in doctri­nes and vse of the sacramentes al thin­ges should not be reduced to the patern of the Apostles time and the primatiue churche. Herein you doo as they are wonte, whose conscience doeth pricke them to haue done amisse. For suche alway draw backe and lurke out of the light: being lothe to come there, where they know that truth woulde be tried. [Page 9]Euen so you, fearyng to be founde fau­tie, woulde wryng vs from that rule, wherby all trueth in doctrine ought to be examined. To this purpose ye may séeme to bryng three reasons. One is a rowlyng in of a rable of suche exam­ples as no reasonable man woulde de­nie vnto you. The seconde is a resem­blyng of the primatiue church vnto an infant in the swadlynge cloutes: and this latter time to a tall man of perfit yeres and ripe age. The thirde is the comparison of the times and the feruēt charitée that then was, with the key-colde charitée that now is. As touching the first, I cannot choose but greately merueile at your maner of reasonyng: whiche indeuour to proue the contrary of that, that no man did euer affirme. Did ye euer here of any, A. that woulde haue all thinges without exception re­duced to that very forme of the worlde, that was in the primatiue churche? And yet your examples tendeth to the [...] [Page]rupted, either with false opinions de­praued, or with superstitious ceremo­nies defaced, is it not full time thinke you to call for redresse accordyng to the scripture and primatiue churche? So to doo wée haue good example in Christe him selfe, and in his apostle S. Paule. When Christe woulde purge the lawe from pharisaicall mitigations, and in­terpretacions, he had recourse to y ^e first fountaine & originall: Math. 5. saiynge, Dictum est veteribus. &c. Ego autem dico vobis. So he ruduced all to the first fountaine. In y ^e mattier of deuorsemēt he alledged not the Rabins and late writers of Iewes: but saied, Ab initio non fuit sic. Countyng what soeuer was added to the first or­dinance of the law to be a corruption of it. S. Paule mindyng to redresse the abuse of this sacramente of the lordes supper, euen in this poincte, that they tooke it in partes and not together, bryngeth the institution of Christ from the beginnyng and saieth: This haue st [Page 11]receiued of the Lorde. Wyllynge to alter nothyng therin. The like doeth S. Cy­prian epist. ad Cecisium, against Aquarios. Wee must not harken (saieth he) what other did before vs, but what Christe first did, that was before al. And here he speaketh of the same sacrament, and against them that abused if contrarie to the first foū ­dacion were they neuer so holy. This, Tertussian also taketh to be a sure rule a­gainst all heresies and abuses, who saith in this wise, This reason is of force against all heresies. That is true, that was first ordeined, & that is corrupted, that is af­ter done. And Cyprian in the same epistle before mencioned. Hereof (saith he) arise diuisions in the church, because wee seeke not to the head, nor haue recourse to the fountain, nor kepe the commaundementes of the hea­uenly maister. Therefore, seyng it is so good a rule in religion to resorte to the first institucion, wée also without any iust reproche may require to haue the sacramentes reformed, accordynge to the scripture and the primatiue church. [Page]But you thinke perhappꝭ, although for shame ye may not say it, that their suc­cessours in calder age of the churche, were of more wisedome and discretion, and know better what they had to doo, then the Apostles and olde fathers. Therto tendeth your similitude of bringyng a talle man againe to his swad­lyng cloutes: B therein resemblynge the primatiue churche to infancie, and this latter time to ripe age and discrecion.

That the primatiue churche was not of the state of infancie.This is not your onely similitude: It is muche in the mouthes: of suche as mainteine your doctrine. But, I assure you, it was neuer inuented without the spirite of Antichriste: nor cannot be maintened without blasphemy against Christe, and singular reproche of his Apostles and their successours. If that time were the state of infancie in the churche, when Christ him selfe instruc­ted, when his Apostles taught, when the holy fathers gouerned nexte their time: then wee muste néedes recken [Page 12]Christ, the Apostles, the fathers, to be infantes in religion, to be babes in go­uernement of the churche, not to be a­ble so well to se what was conueniente in the vse of the sacramente, as their posteritee were. Can any christian mans hearte fall into that cogitacion without feare of Gods wrath and dis­pleasure? And yet that must needes fo­low vpon this defence of your doctrine. I pray you, when hath a man best dis­crecion to rule him selfe? Will yée not say, when he is most indued with the vse of reason and wisedome? When had the churche of God such aboundant wisedome and knowledge of his hea­uenly misteries? When was it indued with so plentifull graces of the holy ghost, as it was in time of the Apostles and first fathers? Did it not appere in their pure life, in their feruent zeale, in their miraculous workyng? And will you then to defende your ceremonies affirme that time to be the state of in­fancie [Page]in the churche? Doo you not re­member, that immediatly after ye at­tribute to the primatiue church passing feruent charitée, with excéedyng holy­nesse of life, & contempte of the world? To this latter time keycolde charitée, slacke deuocion, loue of the worlde, and contempte of vertue? Whereof I pray you commeth this? Not because in the firste time they were stronge in godly­nes, abundante in liuely spirite and grace of God? and wée now féeble and fainte to all vertuous doinge, lackinge wisedome, and as it were dotinge for age? For what other cause was yonge age of children called infancie, then for that it had not the vse of the tonge, nor coulde not speake? But the primatiue Church coulde speake, and continually declare the good will of God and his great benefites to his people. S. Paule spake with a loude voice and a stronge spirite: Woe be to me, if I preache not the gospell. The same was the voice of all [Page 13]the olde fathers and godly men in the beginning. They were occupied in no­thinge but either in teaching and con­firminge trueth, or in reprouinge and defacinge falshode and heresée: but af­ter. 600. yeres the prelates of the chur­che wel nere cleane loste their voyces. Wealth of the worlde, honour and ry­ches had stopped their mouthes in such sorte, that within few yeres it came to passe, that it was a rare mattier, and almoste a reproche, to see a bishoppe in the pulpite, and heare him speake to the people. Wherefore ye can not so aprely resemble the primatiue churche to infancie, as ye may this latter time to dotinge olde age: wherin they that should doo nothinge but preache the worde of God and teache the people, haue either cleane loste the vse of their speache throughe infancie and igno­rance, or els bable they wot not what, through dotage and folly: That ye may not thinke mée to speake of sto­make [Page]more then trueth, reade the histo­ries of this latter time, rede those that write particularly of the Bishoppes of Rome, sée howe many bée praised for preachinge to the people and for tea­chinge the worde of god, either by spea­kinge or writinge. So that they may not only séeme for age to haue loste the strength of their voice, but as it were with a paulsie to haue loste the vse of their handes, onles it weare in wry­tinge of decrées or fingringe of pence. In that ye attribute vnto the prima­tiue Churche so good deuotion, C. An aun­swere to the comparison of this time, with the primatiue churche. so ear­nest zeale, so feruente charitée, and there by that they came dayly to the receiuing of the Sacrament: it is most true that ye say. But you must againe consider, that the often frequenting of the Lordes Supper, by grace therein conferred, did bothe bréede and increase that same liuely faith and feruent cha­ritée, that in mutuall loue and con­tempte of the worlde so flourishingly [Page 14]did shewe it selfe in them. So that their earnest zeale dyd not so muche cause them to come often to the Lordes Supper, as the often frequenting ther­of did increase their so greate zeale and charitée. For by that meanes it was alwayes freshe in their memory, not only by hearinge, but also by féeling in them selfe, that they were all members of one body, all the children of one fa­ther, all deliuered oute of bondage by one raunsome, all fed with one foode, and norished at one table. And there­for that it was as méete and necessary for them to imbrace one another, as for one limme of the body to healpe ano­ther: for one brother to loue another: one deliuered oute of thraldome to re­ioyce with the other: One housholde companion to tender the good estate of the other. Therfore that kaycolde cha­ritée, that you say, and truly say, doeth reigne in these dayes, may not more iustly bée attributed to any one thinge, [Page]then to your priuate masse. Colde charitie is not so muche cause of priuate masse, as priuate masse is of colde charitie. For there by the common vse and frequenta­tion of the holy Sacramente of vnitée, loue, and concorde, hath bene taken from amonge the people of God beinge perswaded by you, that it was suffici­ent for them to bée present in the chur­che, when one of you alone dyd saye a priuate masse. You laye the cause of priuate masse vpon the keicolde chari­tée of the people: (and perhappes the first occasion came therof in déede) but your scaulding hotte and firebourning charitée may bee more iustly charged with the continuance thereof. And therfore the people of God may wor­thely crie out vpon the chiefe maisters and mainteiners of it: for all the mis­chiefe and diueleshnes either in naugh­tiues of life, or corruption of doctrine, that the Churche hath ben drowned in this certaine hundred yeres, may séeme to be drawen in firste by that occasion. Hasten you (saith signatiue) to the sacrament [Page 15]of thankes geninge and to the glory of god. For when that is continually frequented, all the powers of the deuil are expelled. Then muste it of necessitée be, that the slacke vse of the same doth bringe in weake­nes of faith, coldnesse of charitée, con­tempte of vertue, loue of the worlde, and the hole heape of those things that the deuill moste desireth and chiefely sheweth his power in. Therefore, not without a cause, that perpetual enemy of mankinde quickely did séeke occasion euen in. S. Paules time to corrupt the right vse of this Sacrament, and bring them to faccions in receiuinge of it. He did wel sée of how greate force it was to mainteine concorde, loue, and chari­tée: which is, as it weare, the very cog­nisance of a Christian man. For that cause hee indeueringe, as hee doeth al­way traiterously to traine away the seruauntes of God: firste alway by the abuse of this Sacramente of vnitie, he, as it weare, cutteth of the cogni­sance [Page]from their liueries: that, not be­inge knowen whose Souldiours they are, he may the sooner conueigh them into his campe, and there put on his badge of hatred, malice, & dissencion. Your faute therfore in furtheryng his indeuour cannot be excused: But is to be taken of Christian people as very gréeuous and heinous. An obiec­tion. But ye wil say, that the priest doeth not imbarre any that will communicate: that he wolde reioyse to se them dispose them selues vnto it: that they doo lament to se the contrarie. The aun­swere. These be faire wordes with­out any sounde trueth at all. I assure you sir, if the matter were so indéede vnfeinedly, & not you by force of truth against you driuen to séeke that inter­pretacion for a shifte, your soole recei­uyng had ben muche more tollerable. But when I pray you did any of you vse in priuate masses to cal for the peo­ple? to reproue their slacknes? to shew them the daunger of beyng priesente [Page 16]and not receiuyng? to tell them of the greate commoditées that commeth by the vse of it? When did any of you stande at the aulter as Chrisostom did, and crie for the people to be partakers: declaryng to them, that, in being pre­sent at this heauenly feast as gasers and no receiuers, they did runne into the indignation and displeasure of god: euen as they, whiche, beyng bidde of a prince to a feast, and commynge into the house where tables be laied and furnisshed with meate, will stande loo­kyng on and eate none of it, muste of necessitée greatly displease that prince, whose prouision and furniture they doo so disgrace. When (I say) did any of you folowe his example, whom vn­iustly ye brynge for defence of your er­rour? Is not the whole maner of your Masse contrarie to this? Doo you not turne from the people? Doo you not whisper softly to your selfe? Doo you not vse a strange language, that nei­ther [Page]the people, neither the priestes sometime doo vnderstande? Do you not perswade them, that they may haue the benefit of it, though they receiue not the sacrament? Chrisostome proueth and other doctours witnesseth, that those, that be present and not receiue, doo wickedly and impudently: and you teache that, beyng presente and not receiuynge, they doo holily and godly. If this be not to teache contrarie to the fathers and to the primatiue church I can not tell what may be contrarie. To conclude therfore, if the people be slacke and not wel disposed to frequen­tyng of the sacramente, the faute is in you. And you, whose duitie it was to warne and instructe them, shall make accompte for their decay and perishing in their negligence. But the effecte of your argument, wherein ye alledge the colde charitée of the people, there by to driue vs necessarely to graunte sole re­ceiuinge, tendeth to this ende: if their [Page 17]deuotion be so little, as they wyll not with callinge and exhortation dispole theim selfe to receiue, wheather their wée will (as your phrase is) pull the prieste from the aulter. Firste, ac­knowlage and amende that saute of your masse, wherin appereth neither callinge and exhortacion, nor gesture and language sitte for that purpose. Then, I say it weare better not only to plucke him from the aulter, but also to caste him out of the Churche to, rather then hee should vnder that pretence both him selfe continually alter the in­stitution of Christe, and also cause the people being present, by Chrisostomes witnes, to renne into gods displeasure. Moreouer this keycolde charitée, that ye say the peoples heartes be frosen with, doth it stretche vnto priestes or no? Is their deuotion any hotter? sure­ly their bourninge zeale, that of late time they haue vsed, proueth, and their hole behauiour to the worlde witnes­seth, [Page]that right deuotion and true cha­ritée is euen as little amonge your massinge priestes, as among the igno­rante people. How happeneth then, that they doo so offen frequent the Sa­crament in these daies? There were neuer halfe so many Masses (though ye take Masse for the cōmunion) as there is in this time. Ye shall neuer reade in the primatiue churche that they had more then one celebracion in a day: on­lesse the churche were so littell, that it would not receiue the communicants. (As Leo in a certaine epistle mencio­neth.) But in your churches ye haue sometime. xx. or. xxx. and yet not twoo communicantes at any of them. Yée must then confesse either a greate and horrible abuse of the sacrament: or els that your priestes deuocion nowe is muche mor then in y ^t primatiue church. But ye obiecte that priestes are boun­den of duitie to the daily frequentacion of it, [...]. and the people lefte frée. That [Page 18]woulde I faine learne at your hande, and se some good proufe of the scripture for the same. But I answer that you, whiche say wee haue no colour of scrip­ture for that wee herein defende, haue lesse then a light shadow to hide your false assercion in: and that in this ye speake cleane beside the worde of god. Christes institucion was generall, and his commaundement therin stretcheth as well to the people as to the priestes. Take, cafe, drinke you all of this, doo this in remembrance of me, bindeth the people as wel as the priestes. That ye may not replie, that all whiche were presente were priestes, because they weare apo­stles, and so applie the sacrament vnto priestes of necessitee, and to the people vpon free pleasure: Vnderstande you that S. Paule, a good interpretour of Christes minde, applieth the same to the whole congregacion of Corinth: where, it is certaine, were both mini­sters and common people. As for the [Page]duitie of ministracion, whereby per­happes ye thinke priestes more boun­den: Ye shoulde not attribute more to the priest ministrynge, then to Christe ministring. But Christ tooke the bread, gaue thankes, brake it, gaue it to them present, willed them therin to remem­ber his death. Then the priest in his ministracion muste doo as Christe did, and no otherwise: that is to take, geue thankes, breake & geue vnto the people. But why should he breake it, or howe should he distribute it, if there be none presente to receiue it. So that hereon I conclude the priest is not bounde to minister, if there be none to receiue.

If wee had no scripture at all to proue that the priest should not receiue with­out company: If ye did geue vs the o­uerthrow in that: yet coulde ye not tri­umphe therin, as though ye had wonne the filde. It weare but the shiftinge backe of one winge of the battayle, whiche ye might ouerthrow, and yet [Page 19]misse of your purpose. Our contention is for priuate masse, and your purpose is to proue your vse of priuate masse to be good: of which sole receiuinge is but one parte: and yet haue not sufficiently concluded that neither. For it folo­weth not to say, the prieste in case of necessitie, when none wil receiue, may take the Sacrament alone: Therefore he may doo it without necessitie, when hee may haue other to communicate with him. Doo you neuer receiue alone in your mane, but ye hee dryuen for lacke of other? How happeneth then, that in one churche ye shal haue at [...]one time. vii. or. viij. massing in sundry cor­ners, where they might communicate all together: as the maner was of the ministers in the primatiue churche? Is it of necessitie or a purposed alterynge of Christes institution, when that ye turne it from a Communion and Sup­per, to a worke that one man may doo to the benefite of many: and there by [Page]haue made it a marchandise to bie and fell for your owne gaine? What colour or shadowe haue you for this in the Scripture? Surely, weare my mode­ration muche more then yours is, I coulde not chuse but terme this, not an itchinge foly, but an impudent wilful­nes, so plainely to goo againste the ex­presse and apointed forme of the sacra­mente. F. Because ye vrge so earnestly to haue dew profe againste sole recei­uinge by the prieste, if the people will not communicate: I will shewe you some reasons. But before Ienter into that, I must warne you once agayne, that, if our reasons weare not so well able to proue necessitée: yet coulde you not conclude your purpose, for that your priuate masse is nothinge lesse then necessitée. In necessitée many thin­ges may be graunted, that otherwyse are not tollerable. The thiefe, that Christe at his death witnessed should be with him in Paradise, was neuer [Page 20]baptised: beinge excluded by necessitie. The auncient histories make menciou of diuers martirs, that died before they weare baptised, beinge excluded by ne­cessitee. And yet is this sentence neues the lesse true: Baptisme is necessarie to a christian man. Likewise if wes should graunte your case of necessitee, yet is this sentence alway true: The supper of the Lorde in the ordinary vse of it ought of necessitie to haue com­municants to be partakers of it. But ye shall heare the foundacion of our proffes againste sole receiuinge by the priest in place of ministery: and they shall not bee gaily garnished with co­lours and amplifications, to make theim appere more goodly then they be, but plainly and nakedly set for the, that euen the meanest may see what force and strength they haue. For I write not this so muche to you, whom I know not, as to an number partely of vnlearned persons, partly yonge [Page]men lea [...]ed, but not much conuersant in the scriptures, to whose hand, these your writinges beinge brought hathe boone greater face of proffe, then any man meanly conuersante in the con­trouersées of this time: can acknow­ledge to be in them. Our proufe is this. In the celebration of this Sacramente of the: Prouffes againste priuate masse, out of the scripture. Lordes Supper wee ought to doo that only and nothing els, that Christ the aucthour of it did in his institution. But in Christes institution appeareth neither sole receiuinge, nor ministring vnder one kinde: Therfore in celebra­tion of this Sacrament neither sole re­coun [...]ge nor minystringe vnder one kinde ought to bee vsed. The maior is Saincte Ciprian proued at large and much staied vpon in his Epistle, ad ce­ [...]isium de sacramento sanguinis, in the be­ginninge wherof he seemeth to signifie that by inspiracion hee was admony­shed of God, to aduertise men only to doo us Christe did in the institution of [Page 21]his Sacrament. I thought if (saith hee) both godsy and necessary to write, if any man continew in this errour (he meaneth vsing water only in the Sacrament in stede of wine) that he, seing the fighte, doe veturne to the roote and beginninge of the lordes ordi­nance and institution. And thinke not that I doe this vpon my owne phantasie or any hu­mayne iudgement. &c. but when one is char­ged by the inspiration and commanndmente of god, it is necessary for a faithful seruant to obey: beyng hofden excused with all men, be­cause he taketh nothinge vpon hym arrogant­ly, that is compessed to feare the displeasure of god, if he doe not as he is bidde. Doe you know therefore that we be admonished, that in offeringe the sacrament of the lorde bloud his owne institution should be kepte and no o­ther thinge bee done, then that the lorde dyd first for vs him selfe? No man can make any exception to this proposition, on­lesse he wyll cleane weaken Cyprians reason againste those abusers of the Sacrament. And then shal we haue no ground to stay vpon, but euery glose or interpretation vpon humayne preten­ses shalbe admitted. This assertion of [Page]Cyprian is confirmed by Ambrose vp­pon the first to the Corinthes. There hee saith, that they receiue the Sacra­ment vnworthely whiche celebrate o­therwise then the Lorde deliuered it. For he (saith Ambrose) cannot bee deuouie, which presumeth to doe it otherwise then the aucth our hathe taughte. Yea and addeth that we shall make an accompte howe we haue vsed it. For the proofe of the Minor, let vs consider the historie ther­of as it is set out in the Euangelistes. In the celebration of the Sacramente vsed by Christe there appereth two partes: the mattier and the forme: The mattier is bread & the body of Christe; wine and the bloud of Christ, of which, hee that altereth or taketh away any, doth alter and maime christes institu­tion, as appereth by Ciprian. The forme of ministringe the Sacramente must be taken out of Christes doinges. At that time it was taken, blessed with thankes geuinge, broken, distributed, [Page 22]eaten, dronken, charge geuen to re­member Christe and his death. Ther­fore hee that altereth or taketh away any of these things maimeth the forme of christes institution, and breaketh Ciprians rule. Moreouer the force of these wordes, Gaue to them present, doth binde to a company: because it signifi­eth a bestowinge of the death of christe not to one but to many. Therefore in Luke he geueth an expresse commaund­mente of distributinge, as hee doeth of eating, and drinking: saying, Take you this and deuide it amonge you. But howe can he deuyde it, it there bee not a com­pany to receiue it: onlesse we should, to the deludinge of Christes ordeinance, make suche a phantasticall breakynge and deuiding, as you doo in your masse. For therin by Sergius decrée ye breake it into thrée partes: thone of which ye let fall into the wine, which there so­ked signisieth the body of Christ raysed from death, and sittinge in the glory: [Page]The other drie parte, that the pryeste eateth, signifieth the body of Christ be­inge vpon the earth. The thirde parte, which is wonte to tary on the aulter to the ende of masse, signifieth the deade in the Sepulchers vntill the daye of iudgement. O great vanities where­with God punisheth the rashnes of fo­lishe men folowynge their owne phan­tasies, and leauing his holy word. But to returne to the proofe of the mattier. I wyll folow Cipryans example, and confirme the maner of Christes insti­tution by the testimony of. S. Paul. In him I finde two argumentes. One is in these wordes, Vnus panis vnum corpus musti sumus. Nam omnes de eodem pant participamus. Which wordes the holy fa­thers interpreting, cal the Lordes holy supper a Sacramente of vnitée. Be­cause that as the breade consisteth of many graines, and the wine made of many grapes, so wée, that bee parta­kers of that one loffe and one cuppe, [Page 23]should be knit together in loue and cha­ritée, as the members and partes of one mistical body. Wherfore Chrisostome noteth that it is not sayde, this eateth of one breade, and hee of another: but all be partakers of one breade: and ad­deth why we be one loffe and one body. Because of the common participacion that we haue of the sacrament. This significa­cion is cleane taken away by priuate masse: the vse wherof may séeme rather to be a Sacrament of separation and dispension, as after shall more appere. The seconde argumente out of Sainct Paul is, where to the Corinthꝭ he re­prehendeth the abuse of the lords Sup­per brought in by dissension and facti­ons, that weare amonge them. Wher­by it came to passe, that one company would not tary for another to commu­nicate, but one sort would receiue with out another. Against this abuse hee al­legeth the institution of Christ signifi­enge the same to be against such recei­uinge [Page]in partes, and therfore exhorteth them to tary vntill the congregation came together, that they might receiue according to Christꝭ institution. That this was. S. Paules minde, it appea­reth by his first proposition and reason, and by the conclusion that he addeth in the ende. When ye come together (saieth he) ye can not eate the Lorde supper, wher firste it is to be noted that to the cele­bracion of the sacrament they resorted together, and were not priuately in sundry corners. He addeth the reason why they coulde not at their méetinges celebrate the Lordes supper. Because euery man is occupied in eatynge his owne supper. Herein Paule blameth them, not onely for immoderate féedynge of their owne meate, but also for the dis­ordered vsyng of the Lordes supper in partes: where as they should be toge­ther, as Christ and his Apostles were. This he declareth more plainly in that conclusion, that he inferreth vpon the [Page 24]rehersall of christes wordes in ordering the sacrament. For he saieth. Therfore my bretherne, when ye come together to eate the Lordes supper, do you tarie one for an o­ther. What can more plainely declare that S. Paule tooke the right vse of the sacrament to be a common receiuynge together, and not a seuerall vse by one man alone. As if he had said: In chri­stes supper ye se the maister together with the disciples, the table and the meate common to all, not so muche as Iudas the traitour excluded, one lofe and one cuppe discributed amonge the whole companie. Therfore when yee come together ye must imitate the con­corde and equalitie, that he then vsed. If he thought it an abuse in the Corin­thes to receiue in partes, he woulde counte it a farre greater abuse for .x. or xii. to receiue eache of them seuerally in one church, at one time, as though they were of diuers religions, or membres of diuers misticall bodies. If the Corin­thes [Page]in receiuyng by partes were bla­med of Paule, for that they séemed one to contemne an other: may not pristes be as iustly blamed, because they séeme in their priuate Masse to disdeine and contempne the people? I wil now ther­fore conclude with Cyprians wordes. If so be both it be ordeined by christe, and the same confirmed by the Apostle, that wee should do in this sacrament as our Lord did: wee finde that wee steepe not that is com­maunded, if we do otherwise then Christ did. Séeyng then Christe vsed company in ordeinyng the sacramente of that holy feast and supper: Priestes also ought to haue company in ministring the same. For the aucthoritée of the primatiue churche to confirme that this is y ^e right vse of the sacramente, Proufes againste priuate masse, out of the fa­thers. I will in this place bringe in onely twoo witnesses: which shall not speake of this mattier lightly or by the way: but of very pur­pose declare the maner that then was vsed amonge the people of God, alowed and confirmed by godly and holy fa­thers. [Page 25]In so much that if any other ma­ner had ben then vsed, they coulde not haue omitted the same: especially sée­yng they professed to declare y ^t maner of christians therin. Iustine the mar­tir in his Apologie descriueth it thus.

After prayer wee safute eache other with a kiffe: then breade and the cuppe mixed with water is brought to the chief brother, which after he hath taken geuing praise and than­kes vnto the father of all in the name of the sunne and holy ghost, for a space he continu­eth in thankes geuynge. After praiers and thankes geuyng, the whole company saieth Amen. When the ministers geuynge of thankes, and the peoples well wisshynge is finisshed: those whiche wee call deacons gene parie of the breade and cuppe, ouer whi­che thankes is geuen, vnto euery one that is present, yea and suffer the same to be caried to them that be absent. This nourishment we call Eucharistiam, the sacrament of thankes geuing. A litle after he declareth the same thyng agayne. On sunday (saith he) com­panies of the towne and countrey come toge­ther. Where lessons of the prophetes and A­postles be redde. When the clarke ceaseth, the minister exhorteth and allureth them to [Page]the imitation of so holy thinges. Afier, we all arise and pray. Then (as I said) bread and wyne mixed with water is brought foorth, and the chiefe minister so muche ae he can praieth, and geueth thankes, the people syn­gyng Amen. Then the thynges consecrated are distributed to al present, and be sent by the Deacons to those that be absent. The same forme and maner of celebracion of the sacrament with very little difference is witnessed by Dionisius: who in Ec­clesiastica Hierarchia after he hath descri­ued a few other circumstances, and no­ted that only they taried in the churche whiche weare méete for the sighte and communion of the deuine and holy sa­crament addeth this. After hee hathe she, wen the gifts of those diuine workes he hoth commeth to the communion of the same hym selfe, and also allureth other. When the dy­nine communion is bothe taken and geuen, it endeth in holy thankes geuinge. Woulde a man desire any plainer testimony of the vse of the Lordes supper in the pri­matiue Churche? Doth not all thynges agre with the institution of christe and [Page 26]example of the Apostle? Is here any coniecture either of the laitée receiuing vnder one kinde? or of sole receiuynge by the priest? or of sacrifienge the body and bloud of Christe for quicke & dead? Is here any worde or ceremony that signifieth suche vse to haue bene at that time? Yet (as I sayd) these men write not of this mattier by the way, but of purpose vndertake to shew the maner of the churche in their daies. And wyll you yet continew to affirnie that wee haue no colour or title in the scripture and fathers for the reproffe of your pri­uate masse. But ye wil vrge, after your maner, to haue an expresse sentence, that forbiddeth the priest to receiue without company. I answere Christes institucion, the example of the apostels, the common vse of the fathers was o­ther wayes: therfore the prieste should not communicate without other. Ye haue no expresse commaundmente that forbiddeth you to baptisme in the name [Page]of the father only, but that christes in­stitution was otherwise. Wyl ye ther­fore say that ye may withoute offence baptise in the name of the father only? If christes institution in baptisme be a sufficient forbidding of the contrary to be vsed: why should not his wordes and mauer vsed in the supper forbidde you to doe the contrary? Ciprian (as I haue sayde) taketh it for a full prohibition of the contrary: and if you wil not, ye must of necessitie weaken his reasoninge a­gainst those that he writeth: which dyd bringe euen as good reasons and as holy considerations for their parte, as ye be able to deuise any for yours. Now that I haue in this manner-layed the foundacion of our proofes, I wil procede to examine the residew of your argu­mentes againste vs.

In recityng the aucthoritie of Chri­sostome you brynge in a similitude or comparison, 4. Cap. which of how small force they be in prouyng, your learnyng can [Page 27]not be so little, but that ye must néedes know. A. Euen as (say you) it is to be wis­shed that al contencion and strife were cleane banisshed, and yet men are not to be forbidden to sue for their righte when they be iniured: so is it to be wis­shed that people were so deuoute, as they woulde dayly receiue their howsill (for so ye terme it.) And yet is not the priest to be letted to receiue, when the people wil not dispose them selues vn­to it. Beside that ye conclude here only the case of necessitie (whiche healpeth the common vse of your priuate Masse very little.) Ye make your comparison betweene thynges very vnlike and of nature diuers: that is, between possible and vnpossible, and lawful & vnlawful. That all cotencion should be banisshed from amonge men in this worlde is a thing vnpossible, & a perfection not to be looked for in this fraile life. But in a christian congregacion to haue some of the people or ministers to cōmunicate [Page]orderly with the chiefe minister cele­bratynge is a thynge so possible, as bothe the space of many hundred yeres it was continually vsed in the churche, and may at this day with good exam­ple and instruction of the ministers be brought to passe, although not euery day, yet very often times. Moreouer to sue for ones right is not only a thing suffered, but of it selfe lawful and good: and wée haue therof example and auc­thoritée in gods worde. But for the priest to minister the lordes supper a­lone, is a thyng neither tollerable nor lawfull, but contrarie to the forme that Christ him self vsed, neither haue wée either aucthoritée or example in the scripture as a sufficient warrant to al­ter that forme that he vsed and apoinc­ted. Therfore your comparison is fau­tie on bothe partes: and especially for that ye séeme to gather therby, that it is no more necessarie for company to receiue with the priest, then it is to [Page 28]haue all contencion banisshed from christian men: whiche, as I haue sayd, in the frailtée of this woride is vnpos­sible. If suche similitudes should be a­lowed, a man might breake all gods commaundementes, and yet proue him self not to do amisse. Is not this a ioyly reason thinke you? As it is to be wis­shed that all variance and strife were cleane abandoned from amonge chri­stian men, and yet are not they to be forbidden to sue for their right, which be iniured of other: so it is to be wis­shed that all vnmaried priestes did liue chaste: but if they can not, the bisshop must not forbid them to haue a [...]coosen of theirs to kéepe their house, with whom, Si non caste, tamen caute. This comparison is as rightly applied as yours is, and yet, how well it proueth. I will make your selfe iudge. All your drifte in this parte is, by alledgyng the corruption of the worlde and slacknesse of deuocion, to signifie, that the people [Page]can not bee brought to communicate with the priest: and therfore of neces­sitie that he may receiue alone. But, be the world neuer so corrupte, I thinke it as vnpossible, to haue a priest to cele­brate deuoutly euery day: as it is to haue some of the people often times to communicate with the priest. Wher­fore I may as effectually conclude, vpō the corruption of this time, that prie­stes can not bee brought deuoutly to Masse euery day: as ye doo, that the peo­ple can not dispose them selfe, in this colde charitie, godly to frequent the sa­crament. And then were ye best to re­straine your dayly massynge priestes, and apoincte them, either to once, or at least to fewer times in the yere: as ye haue taken order for the people gene­rally to receiue only at Caster. B But the prieste (say you) is bounde to offer vp the dayly sacrifice for himselfe and for the people. This is the roote of all the abuses of the Lordes supper, that ye [Page 29]haue brought into the churche of christ. This is it, wherwith ye doo pitifully deface the death and passion of Christ, makinge your selues, for your glories sake, as it were means of reconciliaci­on betwene god and his people. This is it, that hathe discouraged christian people from the often vse and frequen­tacion of the Sacramente. For hereby ye signifie, that, of necessitie, it apper­teineth only to the priest, and (as you wrote before) the people to be lefte free to come as seldome as they wyl. This ye take for the grounde of your reason in this place: and yet within few lines haue twise rehersed it withoute any proofe at all. But in déede ye muste of necessitée leaue y ^t vnproued: that ye be not in any wise able to proue. For, sure I am, that neither the institucion of Christ maketh mencion of any oblation or sacrifice to be done by the minister, sauinge only the sacrifice of thankes geuing: for yet the scripture apointeth [Page]any bounden duty for the priest more to vse the sacrament then other godly and wel disposed christian men. What sig­nificacion haue you in the wordes that christ vsed in ordeining the sacrament, or in the maner of his doynge, that hee then offered him selfe to his father? He did that the next day after him self vpon the crosse, as S. Paule saieth, perfectly once for euer: neither doeth he graunt his priuilege of the euerlasting priesthodde to any, but to him selfe. Therfore when your priestes take vp­pon them his office to offer sacrifice propitiatorie: they goe beyonde theyr commission, and take more vpon them then their dutie, not without iuste re­prehension of arrogancie and presump­tion. Christes institution (as the euan­gelistes & S. Paule setteth it foorth) is a teaching that hee gaue to vs his bles­sed body and bloud: and not that wee should offer it vp to god the father. He sayde, Take, eate, doo this in remembrance [Page 30]of mee, he said not, geue, offer, and sacri­fice for your sinnes. A sacrifice is a thinge geuen to God: the sacramente was a thinge geuen to vs. Nothinge therfore can be of nature more contra­ry then your sacrifice, and christes sa­cramente. Wherfore it must néedes bee that ye sucked this erroure oute of the phrases and fashions of speakynge, that the olde fathers vsed, peruertinge the same to a farre worse sence, then euer they ment it. For wh [...] causes th [...] Lordes supper is called of the De [...] ­tours a sacrifice. 1. This thinge more e­uidently to declare, it behoueth to con­sider, that the fathers vpon dyuers oc­casions vsed to call the Sacrament, by the name of an oblation or sacrifice. First, Csemens, Asexander, Teriussian, Jraenens and other make mencion of a certaine oblation or offering that Chri­sten people commonly vsed, when they came together to celebrate the Lordes Supper. In this they offered vp bread, wyne, and victuals abundantly, not only to serue the communion (as wee [Page]had a shadow of late yeres in the holy lofe): but also that of the ouerplus ther­of aswell the ministers might haue their findinge, as poore people also be refreshed. Hereof partely it came to passe, (the erample beinge taken firste of the common people) that the admy­nistracion of the Sacramente, of this offeringe, was called an oblation. As in Jraeneus sib. 4 cap. 32. He taught vs a new oblacion of the new testamente: whiche, the church takinge of the apostels, offereth vp to god in all the worlde. But in other places after, as in y ^t. 34. cap. he expoundeth him selfe and signifieth that he speaketh not of the offeringe of the Sacrament con­secrated, but of the breade and wine of­fered: partely, to the vse of the supper: partely, to the findinge of the poore. Vt behoneth vs (saith hee) to offer to god the first fruites of his creatures. And againe a lyttle after. We must make offeringe vp to god and in all thinges be found thankfull to god our maker, offeringe vp to him the firste fruites of his creatures, in pure mynde, in [Page 31]faith without hipocrisie, in firme hope, in fer­uent loue. And this pure offeringe the church only offereth to our maker, geuinge to hym parte of his creatures with thankes geuyng. Instine also, in his Apology, affirmeth: that, after the communion, all that would offered to the behalfe of poore people, fatherlesse children, and sicke persons. An other occasion that the doctours vsed those termes of sacrifi­enge and offeringe was, that in cele­bration of the Sacramente, they had prayer for all states, and thankes ge­uing to god for all his benefites: which the doctours in infinite places affirme to be the true and only sacrifice of the new testament. Csemens Asexan. Strom. 7. sib. Of god reioiseth to be honoured, when a [...] by nature he nedeth nothing: not withoute good cause we honour him with prayers, and send vp to him that most excessent and holy sacrifice. And after in processe of writing he geueth the same name to the reading and study of a godly man. Wherby it may appeare (as Sainct Augustine also [Page]signifieth) that the fathers called euery good and godly action a sacrifice, weare it priuate or common. And therefore their successours, by lyttle and little bente the same name vnto the action and celebration of the Sacramente: wherin most solemly prayer and than­kes geuinge were offered. So wryteth Jraeneus sib. 4. cap. 34. We offer to him not as one that nedeth, but geuing thanks for his benefites to vs. And againe. He wyll haue vs to offer our gift to the aulier often times: our anlter is in heauen. For thether our prai­ere and offeringes be directed. To this a­greeth Eusebius de demonstr. Euang. sib. 1. We offer (saith he) to the most high god a sa­crifice of praiser we offer a ful, swete, and ho­ly sacrifice, after a new sort, according to the new testament. And that ye may not ob­iecte, that in this place he speakech not of the sacrament: It foloweth in this wise. net my prayer be made as intense in thy fight. Therfore we do sacrifice and burne incense to him: sometime, celebrating the, re­membrance of that great sacrifice, accordinge to the misteries instituted by him selfe, bothe [Page 32]geuing thankes to god for our saluation, and offering holy hymnes and prayers vnto him: some time, consecrating and bequethinge our selues holly to him both in body and mynde. Here he speaketh of the sacrament and maketh no mencion of any sacrifice propitiatory, but only of the sacrifice of remembrance by prayer and thankes geuinge, and of the offeringe vp of our selues to god: which is the offerynge of Christes mistical body, that, sainct Au­gustine speaketh of in dyuers places: Of whose testimonies ye are wonte to bringe some for the confirmation of your sacrifice. As that hee hath, De ciui­tate dei. The sacrifice (saith he) that we of­fer is Christes body. But immediately he declareth, that hee ment his misticall body, that is, the vnitie of the faithfull congregation. For he addeth. which wee offer not to marti [...]s, because they be the same body them selfe. How the bishop or chiefe minister offereth vp the people in the communion, hee sheweth in his. 59. E­rist [...]e a [...] Pausinū Another cause, 3. that the [Page]holy fathers call y ^e sacrament an obla­cion or sacrifice is, because, according to christes ordinance, we celebrate the re­membraunce of his death and passion: which was the onely, true, and perfit sacrifice. And so may ye perceiue, that Eusebius did take it in the place before recited. For he saieth, we sacrifice, cele­bratinge the remembrance of that greate sa­crifice. &c. Chrisoston [...]e likewise Hom. 17 ad Ebreos. After he hath in many wor­des declared, that there is no more but one sacrifice once offered by Christe for euer, he addeth this. Doe not we then of­fer euery day? yes verely we offer, but doing it in remembrance of his death. And againe, That we doe is done to the remembrance of that was done Before. Sainct Augustine also de fide ad petrum, declareth the same very plainly. Belene stedfastly (saieth he) and in no wapee doubte, that the only begot­ten of God, beyng made flesh for vs, did of­fer him selfe a sactifice to God as a sweete sauour. To whom with the father and holy ghost in the olde testament beastes were offe­red: and to whom now, together with the [Page 33]father and holy ghost, with whom he hath one diuinitie, the churche ceaseth not to offer the sacrifice of breade and wine. (He saieth not of the body and bloud of Christ.) For in those carnall sacrifices there was the fi­gure of the fleshe of Christ: which. &c. but in this our sacrifice, there is a thankes geuinge and remembrance of the body and blond of Christ, that hee gaue and shed for v [...]. Here he saith not, there is an offering of the body & bloud for our sinnes, whiche he would not haue omitted, if the churche had taught so in his time. For some of these causes before rehersed, the fathers vsed to cal the Lordꝭ supper a sacrifice: not meanyng, as you doo, y ^t it was a sacrifice propitiatorie to be offered of y ^e priestes for them selfe & for the people. This your facion of speakyng ye séeme to take of the maner of y ^e Iewisse prie­stes: which had an offeryng for them & the people. As though Christ had left to vs a like sacrifice, as they had, dayly to be repeted: where as S. Paule in his whole Epistle to the Ebrues reaso­neth [Page]against it: and proueth the con­trarie, that Christe did it perfitly once for euer, in suche sorte, that it néedeth not to be reiterated. But perhappes ye will obiecte S. Cyprian, where he speakynge of the dead saieth. We offer sacrifice for them. But it is euident he of­fered there for Martiers: whiche, he was throughly perswaded, were in heauen, and néeded no offerynge for their sinnes. Likewise Ambrose men­cioneth, that he offered for Valentiniā the good Emperour: of whom (in the oracion made at his buriall) he witnes­seth that he doubted not of his salua­cion, but beléeued, by the witnesse of Angels, that he was caried to heauen. Therfore their offeryng for the deade was no more, but, as I mencioned be­fore, the sacrifice of prayse and thankes geuynge to God for them. This thyng the Greeke Cannon declareth more plainely: where it is mencioned, that they offered for the Patriarkes, Pro­phetes, [Page 34]Apostles, ye and for the blessed virgin Mary the mother of God. For whose sinnes, it can not be, that they offered: whiche, by the testimony and faith of the whole church, be with God in heauen. This thynge is well des­criued by Chrisostom vpon the. 8. cap. of Math. Therfore (saith he) the priest standing at the auster, when the sacrifice is proposed, commaundeth vs to offer thankes to God for the whole world, for them that be abset, for those that were before vs, and for those that shall come after vs. The same Chriso­stome also calleth this their offerynge, Rationalem cultum, whiche yee can not interprete a propitiatorie sacrifice, but a reasonable worshippyng of God by praier and thankes geuyng for his ho­ly sainctes: by the whiche he hath buil­ded his churche, and whiche nowe remaine as membres and partes of his misticall body: whervnto we also, by the celebration of the sacrament, be ioygned, and so, as it were, kniffe in v­nitée with them. This was their offe­ryng [Page]for the dead, and not a practise to pull soules out of Purgatorie for mar­chandise and money, as ye haue vsed in your priuate Masses a great numbre of yeres, to the great defasing of the death and passion of Christe. Wherfore your Masse can not iustly be called the Lordꝭ supper, but a peruertyng of the insti­tution and ordināce, cleane to an other purpose and ende, then he willed to be kepte amonge his people. For the Lordes supper (as I sayde before) is a gifte of God to vs: whiche wée muste receiue with thankes geuyng. Your sacrifice is a price to be paied to God, and of him to be taken as a satisfactiō. The Lordes supper is a remembrance of one perfit sacrifice: wherby we were once sufficiently purged from sinne, and continually are reuiued by y ^e same. Your sacrifice is a dayly offeryng vp of Christe for our sinnes: as thoughe it had not ben perfitely doone at the first. The Lordes supper is to be distributed [Page 35]in the common assembly of his people, to teache vs the communion whereby wes all be knitte together in Christe Iesu. The vse of your sacrifice in pri­uate Masse séemeth, by the priestes se [...]le receiuyng, to be a testimony of sepera­cion, and a meane to bryng the com­munitée out of christian mens mindes. For, after they once beléeued, that prie­stes must sacrifice for them: they be­gan to leaue the communion, and fre­quentation of the sacramēt, as a thing either not apperteinyng, or very little apperteining to them, but especially to priestes. And, by that meanes, the way was made to your common vse of pri­uate Masse. So muche difference there­fore as is betwéene to géeue, and to re­ceiue: to remember one perfit sacrifice, and dayly to reiterate a sacrifice: to ce­lebrate in common as a testimony of vnitie, to créepe in corners or by chap­pels as a signe of seperation: so muche difference is there betwéene the sacra­ment [Page]by Christe apoincted, and the sa­crifice of the Masse by you deuised. This haue I spoken more largely of this mattier, then either I purposed, or you gaue me occasion by any proofe brought for the confirmation of your sacrifice. First, because this is an other great a­buse in your priuate Masse, that yes take vpon you to defende. Secondly, that I might declare the grounde of your reason to be very weake, where ye affirme the priest to bee bounde of duitie to sacrifice for him selfe and for the people. Thirdly, that I might an­swere more aptly to Chrisostomes auc­thoritie, which nexte is to be examined.

The place of Chrisostome, 5. Cap. that you alledge, is otherwise in him, then you recite it. A. For he saieth: Frustra habetur quotidiana oblatio, Frustra stamus ad altare: nemo est, qui simul participet. In vayne we haue our dayly offeryng: in vayne we stande at thanlter: there is no man to communicate with vs. As touching those wordes that [Page 36]ye moste beate vpon, An aun­swere to Chrisostō There is no man to communicate, by them to proue, that they receiued only at Easter, and, at other times, there were none at all to com­municate with the ministers: I wyll shew you out of Chrisostome him selfe, that they must of necessitie haue an o­ther sence: and that in those wordes he vseth that figure of aggrauatinge, that he commonly vseth in all places. For euen in the same place, D. not many lines before the wordes that ye recite, he de­clareth that a number vsed to receiue at certaine other times. C. I se many (saith hee) rashly, not passyng how, and more of a custome then lawfully and of good conside­ration, to be partakers of christes body. Yf the holy time of lent were at hand (say they) if the day of Epiphanie were come: hauinge no regarde what he is, that is partaker of the misteries. But the time of cumming to it, the Epiphanie, the holy season of Lente doth not make them worthy that come: but the sin­ceritie and putitie of minde. Doo ye not here perceiue, that many vsed ordinarely to come to the Communion at the Epi­phanie, [Page]and in lent, as well as he men­cioned before at Easter? howe can ye then gather by Chrisostome that there was no company to receiue but only at Easter? but what if I declare oute of Chrisostome, that some vsed to receiue oftener times? wyll not your collection vppon this place, that ye séeme to tri­umphe vpon, appere to be of very smal force. Hom. 17. ad Hebreos. Many (saieth he) take of this sacrifice once in the whole yere, some twise, some oftener times. Here­by it is moste euident, that Chrisostom had other to communicate with him at diuers other times beside Easter. The maner was (I graunte) that some of custome addicted theim selues to cer­tayne dayes. And in some places the bishops or sinodes apointed men to re­ceiue, once, twise, thrise or fower times in the yere (as Augustine witnesseth). Concilium Eliberinum apoynteth to com­municate thrise in the yere. But these prescripte times were ordeined onely [Page 37]for them, that vsed seldome to come to the sacrament, that at the leaste, they should receiue at those times, if they would knowlage them selues to bée of the church. Notwithstandinge they did not only leane frée to other to frequent the sacrament, but earnestly calleth them to it at euery assembly of the peo­ple. As Ambrose greuously blameth the custome of many in the Easte partes, that vsed to come but once in the yere: and saith, that hée, whiche is not méete to receiue euery day, wyll not be méete to receiue once a yeare. Therfore as in the primatiue church very many in dy­uers places vsed to be partakers of the sacrament, but ones, twise, or thrise, in the yere: so it is euident, that dyuers o­ther better disposed dyd receiue with the byshop and ministers at sundry o­ther times. That forte, because they were not so many as they should haue hene, and as Chrisostome wished for to haue in his church, to exaggerate their [Page]slacknes, hee saieth, There is none to bée partaker with be. Meaninge that they were very fewe and seldome in com­parison of that their duitie was. But if ye wyll stand vppon these few silla­bles, Nemo est, to proue that somtime the minister receiued alone: I answer, all be it this place did proue, that none of the common people would commu­nicate, whose slacknes, he there repro­ueth: yet ye cannot by this testimony declare, that none of the ministers or the clergie receiued with hym heynge byshop there. For the maner was not then, as you doo vse it now, that euery prieste receiued particularly at an aul­ter by him selfe: but all the mynisters and clergy did communicate together with the byshop or chiefe minister that celebrated. This to proue true, al­though I coulde bringe in many exam­ples and testimonies, yet I wil content my selfe with one, that your selfe put­teth me in minde of, in recitinge after­warde [Page 38]the .14. cannon of Nicene coun­sell: for therein order is taken by that holy counsell, that the deacons should not minister to the byshop and priests, nor receiue before them, but after in order as it séemed more conuenient. Loke for further declaration of this, in examininge the cannon that ye after­warde alledge. Wherefore this your place of Chrisostome doth not suffici­ently iustifie sole receiuinge by one mi­nister, as ye would haue it seeme to do, for proufe of your priuate masse. But if I should flatly deny, that the myni­ster receiued, when none of the people were partakers, how coulde you proue it by this place? Ye wyl say, because he calleth it, Quotidianam oblationem, and the people, as appeareth, did not euery day communicate. I answere, hee na­med it Oblationem, either for that it was done in the remembraunce of Christes sacrifice, or for the offeringe vp of the breade and wine to the celebration of [Page]the Lordes supper: he called it Quotidi­anam, to the inmitacion of the sacrifice of the olde lawe: not because it was e­uery day done withoute intermission, but for that it was oftentimes celebra­ted: that is, so often as the people as­sembled together to the church or com­mon place of prayer: as hee him selfe witnesseth vpon the. 8. chapiter of Ma­thew. At which times he alwaies had, either some of the people, or the resi­dew of the mynisters and clergie to communicate with him: as the maner of that time was. But ye wil here dal­ly vpon the proper signification of this worde, B Quotidianum, euery day without intermission, euery day daily sacrifice, euery day masse, euery day at the aul­ter. Then must you geue mee leaue as extremely to vrge these two sillables Frustra, in vaine is oure oblation, in vaine is our sacrificing, to no profite or commoditie is our masse, in vayne wée stande at the aulter, because it is done [Page 39]without company to receiue with vs. And surely, if a man rightly consider this place, he may iustly meruaile, why ye would alledge it for priuate masse. For in déede there is no thinge, that hathe any colour for it, but only the wreasted argument, that you wrynge out of the sound of these wordes, Quoti­diana obsatio, and Nemo est qui parbicipet: by the tone parte gatheringe, that the people then vsed to receiue only at Ea­ster, as they doo now: by the tother, that the priest receiued euery day, and there vpon conclude your sole receiuinge. Which your collection of how small ef­fecte it is, any man may perceiue, if hee consider these twoo thingꝭ before decla­red. First, that at that time all the mi­nisters receiued together, as it shall be afterward more plainly proued by your owne testimonies. Secondly, y ^e I haue euidently shewed oute of Chrisostome him selfe, that many vsed to receiue at diuers other times of the yeare beside [Page]Easter. For in déede hee doth not there blame the generall maner of all with­out exception, but of a number, that ad­dicted theim selfe either to Easter, or some other times, whether they were meete, or vnméete: And at other com­mon seasons would not frequent the sacramente, though they were more mete to receiue. But these were not al (as I sayd) but a number of the com­mon people: and y ^e residew of the bet­ter disposed were so few, as oftentimes when the lessons of scripture weare redde, when prayers and thankes ge­uing were made, when bread and wine were (as the maner was) offered vp for the communion: (whiche were the first partes of celebration as appe­reth in Iustine) then he was compelled either to suffer the ministers and cler­gie to receiure alone: or els for lacke of communicantꝭ to leaue of the residew of the ministration. And that is it, that be complaineth of, and saith is done in [Page 40]vaine: because it was vnperfitly done. For the preparinge to communion, the prayers and thankes geuinge for that purpose, the offeringe vp of breade and wine, the callinge of the people to it, may séeme to be in vayns, when none dyd come to participate with the my­nisters. Wherfore Chrisostome in this place doth not only nothinge confirme priuate masse, but also maketh very muche againste it: and declareth, that hée toke the righte and trew vse of the Lordes supper to bée, when the people were together partakers of the same. For if he had taken it as you doo, for an offeringe vp of the body of Christe for him selfe and the people, Or if hee had at suche tymes receiued alone, and thought it wel done, hee neither coulde nor would haue sayd: Frustra babetur quotidiana obsa­tio, in vaine we haue our dayly offering, ge­uing no other reason why it was vain, but because the people at suche tymes dyd not receiue. Therfore it appeareth [Page]by those wordes, both how necessary hee estemed the peoples communion, and also that hee toke not Oblationē for a propitiatorie sacrifice, as you doo. For then he could not haue sayde frustra habe­tur. To this purpose it maketh, that the same Chrisostome in the same place so earnestly calleth the people to it: as he saith to them: Whosoeuer is not partaker of the misteries, doth impudently and wickedly to stande there. And in the. 17. Hom. vpon the epistle to the hebrewes, he signifi­eth, that the maner then was, that a deacon stode in a place higher then o­ther, and with a signe of his handes and a lowde voice called the people to the communion. This was not only at Easter, but at other times also. By this earnest maner of calling, therfore it may appere how muche this doctour toke it to be of the substance of the Sa­crament, that a number should be par­takers of it: and how farre diuers hys maner was from the fasshion of your [Page 41]priuate masse. Now then your amply­fied cōclusion, wherin ye clayme Chri­sostome to be wholy with you, sheweth it selfe to be very vaine. And wée may now, as iustly say as wée did before, that ye haue no proofe out of the aunci­ent fathers, for that ye doo herein so earnestly defende: And that wée haue right good testimonies both out of the scripture and out of the Doctours a­gainst it. For ye muste not vse to grounde doctrines vpon the coniecture of a few sillables in one sentence: but compare the same with diuers other places, as well of the same doctour, as of other, and al together with the com­mon vse and maner of that time: and therby gather a perfit conclusion. If you will skanne and stay vpon euery worde or clause in the Doctours, as you doo of the holy scriptures, and not consider them by conference with them selfe and other: you may easely erecte infinite new doctrines, that hitherto [Page]were neuer hearde of in the churche.

The reason, 6. Cap. that you bring in, groū ­ded (as you say) vpon our principall, is euen of as muche force, as the other before mencioned. A. That is not eui­dently determined in scripture (say you) ought to stande as indifferente: but the necessitie of cōpanie to receiue with the priest is no where determi­ned: ergo it ought to remaine indiffe­rent. Your seconde proposition is not true. For I say, and partly before haue proued, that it is determined in Chri­stes institucion. In Luke he saith, Ac­cipite hoc & diuidite inter vos. But how can it be taken at the ministers handes and deuided or distributed amonge thē, vnlesse there be a companie. I se no sufficient warrant, that ye can brynge vs for the discharge of this commaūde­mente. If ye wyll say Diuidite is no commaundement, but a counsell, that may be vndoone, and yet the substance of the sacrament remaine: then bylike [Page 42]ye will say, Late, drinke, is no com­maundement: nor yet, do this in remem­brance of me. But all be indifferent coū ­sels that may bee altered (as you after say) by spirituall gouernours. So that your spiritual gouernours may by this meanes cleane alter Christes instituti­on: and leauinge out eatinge, drinking, di­stributinge, doinge in remembrance of Chri­stes death, (as they haue done) deuise a a new fashion of their owne braynes more fitte for the churche to vse, then that order which Christ hath lefte. But as he taketh away the right vse of the sacramente, that taketh away from it, eatynge, drinkynge, and doynge in re­membrance. &c. So I say that hee ta­keth away the same, that leaueth out distributynge. Whiche because it can not be without companie, I conclude the Sacramente can not bee vsed in the celebration without companie.

Cyprian teacheth you, that Christes institution should be of more authori­tie [Page]with you, than, so lightly, to change it at your owne pleasure. Only Christ (saieth he) is to be hearde in the order of this sacrament. And we must not in any wise departe from the preceptes of the Gospell. The Apostle also more constantly and stoutly declareth in an other place, that the disciples ought to obserue and doo the same thynges, that their maister taught and dyd before them: saying in this wise. If ei­ther I or an angell from heauen teach you o­therwise then I haue taught you before, ac­cursed be he. Seyng therfore, neither the a­postle him selfe, nor an Angell from heauen can tell vs or teache vs otherwise, then that Christe hath once taught vs already, and the Apostle declared to vs: I meruayle how this came in vse to doo contrary to that whiche Christe dyd. And what I pray you can be more contrarie, then, when Christe had them drinke, to take away the cup: and, whan Christe bad them distribute amonge them, and S. Paule willed one to tarrie for an other, vntill they came together: yet contrarie to this (as you doo) to minister and receiue a­lone. [Page 43]Therfore I say with Cyprian, that in alteryng the sacrament, either by soole receiuyng or géeuing vnder one kinde, ye worship God in vayne with mens tradicions. The mattier that Cyprian wrote against (that is) vsinge of water alone in the Sacramente in stéede of wyne, might perhappes, in case of necessitie, be graunted to some, that of nature coulde not abide wyne. Neuerthelesse the necessitie of a few is not to be drawen to a general example in the common vse of the Lordes sup­per. Euen so it may be graunted that in cases of necessitie one may receiue a­lone: and yet that is not to be taken for a common maner and fashion in the churche, when the sacrament is ce­lebrated, as you vsed in the priuate Masse. That many circumstancies of place, person, and time, B. may be altered or taken away for good considerations, without impeachement to the right vse of the sacramentes, wée graunte you: [Page]but that company in receiuyng is one of those circūstances, that wée can not graunte: as well for the reasons be­fore declared, as also that wée haue no aucthoritée or example of the Apostles or primatiue churche, that wée may so doo, as wée haue in all other thynges that you recite with moe wordes then néedeth. Wée dare minister in other places then Iurie, because wée se in scripture, that the Apostles did so.

Wée minister to women and lay men: because S. Paule applieth Christes in­stitucion to the whole congregacion of Corinth: where were both lay men & women. We celebrate vpon any day indifferently, because the Apostles did so, Actum. 20. vno die sabbatorum. Wée minister to fewer or moe then twelue, by the example of the Apostles in .20. of the Actes, and of Paule in .10. and .11. to the Corinthꝭ. Wée receiue in the mornyng, both because time is a thyng indifferent in this sacrament, and also [Page 44]for that wée haue plaine examples in the primatiue churche, without case of necessitie or extraordinarie chaunses. Christe sayd not doo it after supper, as he sayde, Deuide it amonge you. He did it after supper him self: because he wolde institute the Sacramente of the new law, in place of the sacrament of tholde law, that at the same supper he had ce­lebrated. Neither is it so muche of the substance of the sacrament to be doone after suppper, as it is to be celebrated with companie: because of the signifi­cacion of vnitie and charitie amonge christian men receiuynge together.

Whiche is one cheefe poincte in this sacrament of the Lordes supper. The very proporcion and likenesse of that ceremonie of the olde lawe, in place whereof the Lordes supper is ordeined, may teache vs the right vse of it. The Passeouer was a solempne eatynge of the Pascale lambe together in remem­brance of Godes great benefite of their [Page]deliuerance and passyng of his plague from them. This ceremony they coulde not solempnice alone: but if they had not companie of their owne house, they shoulde take of their neighbours. Euen in like maner Christ, hauyng finisshed at his laste supper the celebracion of that ceremonie of the Passeouer, ordei­ned for his, euen a lyke sacramente, a supper, a feast, wherin they, beyng to­gether, might celebrate the remem­brance of their redemption, by his body and bloud géeuen and shed for them. And euen as the Iewes in solempni­singe their sacrament had a communi­tie of the remembrance of that bene­fite, when their cōpanies were in sun­dry howses seperate, and yet might not one alone eate the pascall lambe in his owne house, for that god had ordei­ned it to be done with company: so all the churches in the worlde haue com­munitie in the sacrament, bee they ne­uer so farre a sunder: and yet can not [Page 45]any one alone minister it in one church withoute company to celebrate with him, because Christes institution was otherwise. Wil ye say here, that com­pany to eate vp the pascal lambe was not of the substance of the sacramente, but an ornament to commend it or set it forth, and might be altered by spiry­tual gouernours? Although the Iewes weare very bolde in altering many ce­remonies, yet wée reade not, that euer they durst aulter this chiefe sacrament: as you take vpon you to alter, change and take away, by your spirituall go­uernours, all the partes of the Lordes Supper: as I wyl declare to you in or­der by the doctrine of this your defense of pryuate masse. The sacrament, as it is in vse, hath two partes, the mat­tier, and the forme: the mattier is bread and the body, wine and the bloud of Christ. The forme of ministration is, that the minister should take the mat­tier, and with the wordes of the gospel [Page]geue it to them present, as Christ dyd. This forme (say you) may be altered by your spiritual gouernours. For some­time the prieste may receiue alone with out the people, sometime the people without the priest: somtime both toge­ther. So that no certaine forme of mi­nistration is nedefull (as you say) in this sacrament to be kepte. The mat­tier also, ye signifie, may bee altered at your pleasure. For, to receiue the sacra­ment of the bloud, is not of the sub­stance of Christes institution. For, if it weare, the churche could not alter it, as you doo commonly in ministringe to the people, and as you coniecture by Tertus. and Ciprian, that they dyd in the prymatiue church. Likewyse the sacra­ment of the body is not so muche of the substance, but that vpon considerations the church may commonly omitte it, and minister the wine only. For so you séeme togather by the history of the chylde, in Ciprian, to whiche the prieste [Page 46]gaue only wine, as you say. So that the sacrament of the lordes supper, by your doctrine, either hath no parte, that is of the substance of it, but consisteth only of mutable accidences: or els your chur­che is of such power, that it may cleane alter and take away Christes institu­tion. For if you haue considerations, for which ye may commonly leaue out the wine, and vse bread only: and other considerations, for which ye may omit breade, and vse wine only: when bothe those considerations come together, then may you take away bothe breade and wine, and defraude the people of the whole sacrament, or in stede of that may point them another. What is this but, with exceding arrogancie, to make your spiritual gouernours omnipotent in alteringe and transposinge the sa­cramentes by Christ ordeyned? Howe much more comely weare it for you re­uoking your errour: to say with Cipri­an. If we wil walke in the sight of Christe, [Page](in the order of his sacramentes) we must not swarue or departe from his preceptes and in­structions: geuinge thankes for that hee, in­structinge vs what we ought to doe hereaf­ter, doth pardon vs for that offence, which by simplicitie we haue before committed.

Where you indeuour to proue, 7. Cap. that there may be communion in the sacra­ment, although it be receiued alone: in thone part you make your comparison (as you haue done before) betwene thinges of nature very dyuers: that is, betwene praier, and the lordes supper. In the tother, where ye confirme gene­rall communion betweene all sainctes, you proue that no man denieth. There man be communion in the benefite of prayer (say you) though one doe pray a­lone: A. therfore in the Lordes supper, al­so. Who séeth not, that prayer and the Lords supper in the vse of them be no­thinge like? That praier is a common action, which, done of one alone, maye stretch to the benefite and commoditée of many, we haue aucthority in y ^e scrip­ture, [Page 47]and example in Christe him selfe: but that the Lordes supper is suche a commō action, we neither haue autho­ritie, nor example in gods worde. By as good a reason wée may proue, that a man may baptise him selfe withoute a minister, because one may pray alone without one to guyde him in the forme of his prayer: Or that ones baptisme may profite another, that is not bapti­sed: as a mans prayer may profite him that prayeth not. But you must consi­der that there is greate difference be­twene the nature of sacrament, and o­ther common good workes. The sacra­ments haue an external forme by christ apointed in the administratiō of them: which wée may not alter. In other good workes and godly exercises it is not so. And yet you recken them vp together, as though they weare in all poyntes like. As praier, baptisme; penance, con­firmation, fastinge, almes déedes. &c. Another mans pra [...]r or almes d [...]de [Page]may profite you, I graunt, and procure gods grace for you. May an other mans baptisme therfore receiue you into the church? or an other mans penance sa­tisfy for your sinnes? I thinke you wyl scant affirme it, although ye be ready to affirme straunge thinges. No more therfore can your receiuinge profite a­nother, that receiueth not. Christe taught vs, and his holy worde com­maundeth vs, to pray on for another. But he neuer saide receiue the commu­nion, or bée baptised one for another. To confirme your purpose, you bringe an article of our crede: B. that is, I [...]eseue the communion of saincted. By this you proue that there is a communion of all good thinges betwene them that are in place and time farre distante: whiche wée deny not. But to vnderstande how lytle this communion of saintes doeth serue your purpose of sole receiuing: it behoueth to consider what communion is. It is called of the Grekes, [...], [Page 48]and may be defined to be a societie of a company or multitude, whiche, by cer­taine lawes and couenantes, are all partakers of one thinge. As amonge Marchantes, that vpon certaine condi­cions occupy iointly, and are partakers of like gaine and damage. So all Chri­stian men haue a certaine societie or coniunction: whiche consisteth in this, that they are all partakers of one sal­uation, and all members of one misti­cal body, the head wherof is christ Iesu. The lawes & couenantes, wherby wée be all thus knit and ioigned together, are the word of God, & the sacramentꝭ vsed according to Christes institucion. Therefore all churches of the worlde haue the same worde of God, and the same sacramentes: & by them through faith are graffed into one and the same body of Christe, thoughe they be thou­sandes of miles a sunder. By the word of God our faith is instructed: By bap­tisme wée be receiued first into the soci­etie [Page]of christian communion, and made members of the misticall body. By the Lordes supper wée haue from time to time, heauenly foode ministred vnto vs, and, as it were, liuely spirite from the head of this body Iesu Christe. He therfore, that is baptised in India, hath the same baptisme that wee haue: and, beyng graffed into the same body, hath communion with vs in baptisme. Likewise they, that receiue the Lordes supper, be fedde with the same feede of the body and bloud of Christe, that wée be: and so haue communion with vs in that sacrament, though in place they be farre of. This is the communion be­twéene christian men: and this wée most reddely graunte. But will you conclude here vpon, that there is lyke communion of the benefite of soole re­ceiuyng in priuate Masse, as there is of praier, when a man praieth alone? Then must ye say the same of baptisme also. As for example, that our baptisme [Page 49]here may benefite some, that are in Fraunce, and receiue them into the churche: like as our praier here may obteine the healpe and grace of God for them, that be there. Which were great folly to affirme. In déed wée haue com­munion in baptisme: but euery mans owne baptisme bringeth him the grace of that sacrament. And in lyke maner is it in the Lordes supper. Wée haue all communion therein: and yet euery mans owne receiuyng doth profit him. You will say perhaps, you doo not in­ferre this vpon the argument of gene­rall communion, but onely that they, whiche be in diuers places, may com­municate. Wel sir I graunte you that, but yet, ye should haue inferred the o­ther poincte, if ye woulde orderly proue that ye began. That is, to be lyke cō ­munion in the Lordes supper of one a­lone receiued, as there is in praier, when one man in place alone praieth [...]r a multitude. The multitude, that [Page]praieth not, may haue benefit by one mans praier. But proue you by Gods worde, that one man receiuyng or mi­nistringe the Lordes supper alone, doth benefit those that receiue not, or that it is suche a thyng as may be doone of no for many. And surely, it standeth you vpon, substācially to proue that pointe, or els your priuate Masse will fall to the grounde, and bee of no estimacion. For if people shall vnderstande, that your sole receiuinge in your Masse doth not only nothing profite them, that be present: but (as Chrisostome witnesseth) bringeth them in gods displeasure, if they receiue not them selfe: thinke you that the gayne and aduantage thereof wyll bée so great, as hath bene before? Assure your selfe it wyl not. But what doo you inferre vpon this proofe of com­munion betweene them that are in place farre distante: forsoth in effecte, this. That if there may be communion betwene those that are not together in [Page 50]one place: then a priest, sayinge Masse in our Lady chappel in Paules at sixe a clocke in the morning, doth commu­nicate with him, that doth the like in Iesus Churche at .ix. of the clocke the next day: although in place and tyme they bee seperate. Sir I deny your ar­gument, & say that neither thone nor thother doth communicate with any Christian man, because neither of both receiueth accordinge to Christes insti­tution. I confesse there is communyon betwene them, that receiue in sundry places according to the order by Christ apoynted, as there is likewise in bap­tisme. But, if they alter the sacrament, they doo not cummunicate. I sayd a lit­tle before, that in the passe ouer all the companies of the Iewes in sundry houses did communicate, and yet one might not eate vp the lambe alone, be­cause god had taken an other order. Likewise all societées of Christian men communicate together in the Lordes [Page]supper: and yet should not one celebrate it alone, seinge Christes example she­weth, and the Apostles interpretation declareth, that in ministringe of it, there shousd bee also a particuler com­munion (as I may terme it) betwene the members of one congregation. Wherfore the grauntinge of commu­nitie betweene all christian men in vse of the sacrament, doth make nothinge against this, that Christ ordeined it to be receiued as a feast with company: to thende it might more liuely represent, both the general giuing and bestowing of his body to death for many, and also the vnitie and concorde, that ought to be betwéene Christian men, recei­uing together of one lose and one cup. For this purpose, as S. Augustine signifieth, he vsed those externall ele­mentes of breade and wine: to declare, that, as the bread of many graines is brought into one lofe, and the iuice of many [...] apes is made wine in one cup: [Page 51]so the multitude of a christian congre­gacion, receiuyng together the Lordes supper, are made mēbers of one body, knit together in like faith and charitie, and hauyng like hope of saluacion. The like effecte is doone in baytisme (as S. Augustine witnesseth In sermone ad infantes) and wée be graffed into Christ and made partakers of his body and bloud. But he wold haue it more liuely represented and set foorthe in this sa­crament of communion: as well for the multitude, as for the apte signifi­cation of the externall elementes. More ouer the ecclesiastical histories declare, when Chrisostome was banisshed, muche against the peoples heartes, that diuers of them woulde not com­municate with his successour, but had their assembles and receiued the sacra­ment in an other place by them selues, so that diuers of them by the Empe­rours thretnynges coulde not be con­streined to communicate with him, [Page]that was bisshop after him. This their dooyng was to no purpose, if diuersitie of time and place doo not declare a se­peracion betwéen them, that be of one congregacion. The whole vse of ex­communication in the primatiue chur­che doth so sufficiently proue this, as no reasonable man néedeth greatly to doubte it. The effecte wherof, this your deuise may séeme to take away. For what other thyng is excommunication (as touchyng the externall acte) then a debarryng of the partie to receiue with other of the same congregacion, and therby to note him not to be of that mi­sticall body. But after your deuise, a priest, that is excommunicated of the bisshop, may say Masse in his chamber, and affirme that he will communicate with him, whether he will or no. Be­cause distinction of place maketh no­thyng to the purpose. Because wée ne­cessarily require a numbre together, you presse vpon the mattier very ear­nestly, [Page 52]and thinke, by your dalliyng fo­ly, to driue vs to many folies. For, you curiously require a mesure of place, a prescription of time, and a certaine number of persons: as it were therby to portray vnto you a perfit plat of a christian communion (for so it pleaseth you to dally in this weightie mattier.) I answer that wée se in the Euange­listes and S. Paule, that Christe tooke breade and gaue with it his body: that he tooke wine also and gaue with it his bloud: that he did it in cōuenient place and time: that he had a company with him to receiue, and willed them to di­stribute amonge them. Therfore (with S. Cyprian) wée compte his example in these thynges necessarie, and not to be altered. As for the kinde of breade or wine, the fashion or quantitie of place, the conueniencie of time, the in­creasing or deminisshynge of the num­ber or company, wee recken amonge those thinges that may be altered (as [Page]you say) by spiritual gouernours. But to apointe a geometricall measure of place, a prescripte proportion of tyme, or one certaine number, that may serue for all churches, times, and ages, is far aboue our reache. And therfore I leaue it to be deuised of suche profound and curious braines, as you and yours haue. Which, beside the worde of god, and contrary to his workynge in his creatures, can compryse accidences without subiectes, and bodies withoute fashion, quātity or measure, with other suche highe misteries, whiche neither scripture, nor any necessitie of reason doth teache. For in déede our wittes are so simple as, in gods misteries, we can sée no more, then his holy word leadeth vs vnto.

Nexte is, that you burden vs with Erasmus aucthoritie, 8. Cap. and chalenge vs, that wée wyll not beléeue his reporte. Sir it séemeth very straunge to mée, that you, whiche haue so muche hated [Page 53]Erasmus, A. as ye haue often chased him out of grammer schooles, and dryuen him into the fire, should now in your néede take helpe and succour at hys hand. Answere to Eras­mus, Tertullian, Cyprian, and Ciril. Truly wée doo now esteme Eras­mus, as wee haue alwayes, for a man of excellent learning, and a singular in­strument prouided of god to begin the reformacion of his church in this latter time: and yet thinke wee not all his o­pinions to be true. For you, I thinke, doo esteme Tertullian and Origen and that right worthely. And yet if ye wyl graunt all, that they write, to be true: I wyl proue you an heritke. Notwith­standinge we deny not that, whyche Erasmus saieth in this mattier, and knew whens he had his assertion, be­fore you tolde vs. How little it serueth your purpose I wyll shew hereafter. You confirme Erasmus opinion with that Tertullian wryteth in his. 2. boke Ad vxorem, of the Paynimes wife that was Christened, and euery day priuely [Page]receiued the sacrament at home in her house. And also with the history that Ciprian rehearseth of the woman, that vnreuerently opened the cheste, where in shee kepte the Lordes body. To this also ye adde Cirilles aucthority for re­seruation. Out of these places you sucke not onely soole receauinge, but also mynistringe vnder one kinde, re­seruation, yea, and reall presence al­so. Of soole receiuing. Firste, for soole receiuinge, it behoueth to consider, that in the time of Tertullian, B. Ciprian, and all that age, the church was in much trouble, vexa­cion, and persecution: so that they could not haue their ecclesiasticall assembles and congregations for common praier and ministracion of the sacramentꝭ so conueniently, as afterwarde in time of peace. For euery Paynime, especially if his wyfe, childe, or seruaunt, were tourned to Christianitie, was ready and sought occasion to bewray them, and bringe them in trouble (as it may [Page 54]appere by the same booke of Tertullian that you alledge). Therfore they were oftentimes compelled of necessitie to send the sacrament to such as were ab­sent, and either durst not or might not conueniently come: as ye may perceiue by Iustine the Martir that the fashion was in his time. Hereof it came, that dyuers receiued alone in their houses. But nor these places, nor any other, that you be able to alledge, can proue, that there were ministers or priestes priuately celebratinge with other stan­dinge bie, that receiued not. That, whiche these persons receiued at home, was parte of that was distributed in the common celebration where compa­ny were: and, vppon case of necessitée, sent by the ministers to them beinge absent. But you should bringe such pla­ces, as might proue, that the common minister, in place of the lordes supper, dyd celebrate and receiue alone, other beinge present and not partaking. For [Page]suche a sole receiuinge is your pryuate Masse, that you pretende to striue for. Now therefore let vs sée, how aptely your argument, gathered vppon these places, doeth conclude your purpose. Women and lay men somtime, in case of necessitie, priuately receiued at home parte of that, which was sent from the common celebration: therfore common ministers, as often as they liste, oute of necessitie may consecrate, and receiue alone in the common place of prayer, when the people is present, and doth not communicate. I thinke your selfe may easely se, of what force this col­lection is. That may be graunted to a lay person receiuinge, that may not to a pryest ministringe: that sometime in necessitie, whiche may not alwayes at pleasure: that at home where none is, that may not in the church where ma­ny be. Wherfore these testimonies are but weake groundes to builde pryuate Masse vppon. You wyll perchance ob­iecte, [Page 55]that such receiuing in houses was vsed, when the churche was in quiet, and without persecutiō. I graunt you, (as the maner is) that facions, brought in by necessitie or some greate conside­ration, be oftentimes kept and folowed with abuse, when neither necessitie doth constraine it, nor good considera­cion can mainteine it: and so was it in this matter. Hierome against Iouini­an mencioneth, that in his time some vsed to receiue in their houses: but he earnestly inueigheth against that ma­ner. Why (saith he) doe they not come into the church? he Christ sometime abrode in the common place, somtime at home in the house? &c. In Socrates the. 2. boke, we reade, that Sinodus Gangrensis condemned Eustathium for that, contrary to the ecclesiastical rules, he graunted licence to cōmunicate at home. So that here­by it may apeare, that a custome, that, in necessitie, to some persons, is eyther tollerable, or pius error: is at another [Page]time, and to other persons vntollera­ble and Impia prophanatio. If you dily­gently examine that maner of recea­uinge in theyr houses at that tyme, which ye thinke to make with you, you shal wel perceiue it not a lytle to make against you. When they did celebrate (as Iustine before rehearsed doth wit­nesse) they dyd not only distribute to them, that were presente, but, by the deatons, sent it to such, as could not be present. Did they not in this point de­clare a necessitée of partakinge, if it were possible at euery ministratiō? In so muche that when their place would not receiue all, or other necessary cause did let them to come to the common place of prayer: yet, that they might be partakers of the Lordes supper, they sent it to them where they were. How well doth this fashion agree with your priuate masse? Wherin ye neither cal, nor proffer, nor send to the people: but so doo it all alone in sight of the hole [Page 56]congregacion, as though it weare a thinge, that nothing appertained vnto them. Now then you may euidently se, that none of these aucthorities, hether­to alleged, doth prove directly your Masse: that is a sole receiuinge in the celebration of the sacrament. But how necessary that time of the churche dyd thinke it to bee, that the people should bee partakers with the prieste, that Epistle signitieth, that you attribute to Anacletus: where it is this wrytten. Peracta consecratione omnes communicent, qui noluerit ecclesiasticis carere liminibus. Sic enim apostoli statuerunt, & sancta Romana tenet ecclesia. After consecration (saith hee) let all be partakers, which wil not be excom­municate. For so the Apostles decreed, and the holy churche of rome obserued. The same wordes by some are attributed to Calixte. Doo you not heare excom­munication threatned to all, that doo not communicate? Doo you not heare that the Apostles decreed it, and the [Page]holy church of Rome obserued it? And wil you yet stand so stubburnly in your assertion, that there was priuate masse in the primatiue church? Wil you haue better witnesses of that time then Iu­stine, then Dionisius, then Anacletus, then Calixte, then the other holy fa­thers before mencioned? would Am­brose haue blamed the people for not resortinge to the sacramente dayly? Would Chrisostome haue saide, that they, which be present and not receiue, doo wickedly and impudently? Would they haue commonly vsed (as Iustine saith) to send to those that could not be present, if Christes institution and the maner of the prymatiue churche had ben such, that the minister might cele­brate alone without callinge or offe­ringe, and people without offence bee present and not communicate, as you of longe time haue vsed it? Surely say what you wyll, and alledge as ofte as you liste the aucthoritée of your holy [Page 57]mother the churche of Rome so many hundred yeres: I thinke very few, that haue feare of god and care of their sal­uation, wyl geue credite vnto you. Es­pecially seinge you can bringe no bet­ter testimonies for your purpose, then in this defence you haue vsed.

Agaynst cōmunion vnder one kinde.An other poincte, that you picke out of these aucthorities of Tertul. and Cyprian, is for ministrynge vnder one kinde: wherein wée haue the institucion of Christe expresly against you, as wée had in the other. For in the Euange­listes and S. Paule wée se testified, that Christ tooke breade and gaue with it his body: and afterwarde tooke the cuppe and gaue with it his bloud, and willed them to obserue & vse the same. Here you muste of necessitie flée to your [...]lde place of refuge: that is, that, to receiue vnder bothe kindes; is not of the substance of the sacrament, but such a thynge as may be altered by spiritu­all gouernours. For Christes bodie [Page](say you) is not without his bloud, & therfore he, that receiueth his body vn­der forme of breade, receiueth his bloud also, Per concomitantiam. Therfore you say the people is not defrauded of that Christes will was, that they shoulde receiue, yea and, for good consideraci­ons & honorable to the bloud of Christ, they receiue it more conuenient then vnder bothes kindes. O profounde and déepe sette reason, wherin you séeme to make your selfe wiser than Christe him selfe, that ordeined the sa­crament. While you will séeme with your gay gloses to glorifie the bloud of Christe, you cleane take away the right forme and maner of his sacramente. These are the vanities wherwith God iustly doeth punish you for your rashe­nesse in leauyng his worde and folow­yng y ^e phantasies of your owne braine. But it should haue béen your obedience to Goddes worde to consider, that the communion of Christꝭ body and bloud [Page 58]is not the worke of nature in this Sa­crament. For, what so euer is here ge­uen in these thynges, is to be taken by faith: and is offered to vs in the wor­des of Christes promisses. So much is geuen vs as God appoincted to giue. Of whose will and pleasure wée know no more, then his wordes declare vnto vs. But Christ (as I saied) tooke twoo partes of the sacrament: in one of the whiche he saied wée shoulde be parta­kers of his body: in the tother of his bloud, and lefte his prescripte and ap­poincted wordes, as well for the tone as for the tother. Wherfore wée must more trust him than mans subtill de­uise. You alledge a perpetuall societie of the body and bloud, whiche ye call Concomitantiam. It is your owne deuise and not Christes promisse in his sacra­ment. In Christes naturall body, that is in heauen, I know his flesh is not without his bloud. But in the sacra­mente, whiche is no naturall worke, [Page]how will you assure me, that the flesh and bloud is ioinctly signified and ge­uen to mee vnder one parte onely: se­yng Christ himself, who knew, as wel as you, the ioincte condicion of his flesh and bloud, did notwithstandyng, in twoo sundrie external thinges, geue the communion of them to his disciples. Therefore the faieth of the communi­cantes in the tone parte receiueth the body of Christe, trustynge to Christes promisses: The same faith in the other parte receiueth the bloud, beléeuyng al­so our sauiours wordes therin. It hath respecte to Christes wordes and pro­misses, it looketh not how the body and bloud is in Christe naturally. What grounde shal our faith haue if we leaue the worde of God? Oh ye will say our holy mother the churche hath so ordei­ned it. Yea, but I say to you, that, if your mother the churche of Rome be the folde of Christe, and if the shéepe therof be his shéepe, they will heare his [Page 59]voyce and obey his worde. If they doo not, alledge the name as ofte as ye wyll, I will say you be shéepe of an o­ther folde and not of his. For he saith, Oues meae vocem meam audiunt. He saith not they heare them selfe & their owne deuises, but they heare my voyce. Remember what Cyprian saith. Only Christe is to be hearde in this. And wee must not looke what other did before vs, but what Christe did before all other. When we doubt, we must haue recourse to the order ta­ken by Christe and by the Apostles in their wrytinge. But ye will say the churche hath aucthoritie to alter diuers thinges especially beyng indifferent, and not of the substance of the sacramente. Yea but Cyprian saith the preceptes of this sacrament bee Grandia & magna. And if he be called least in the kingdome of god, that altereth one of the least commaundementes, what shalbe sayd of him, that taketh awaye these great and weightie commaundementes. Ciprian wrate against those that were called Aquarij, water drinkers: which [Page]vsed only water in stede of wine in the ministration of the sacrament. But they offended not so much as you doe. For they altered only the licour, and that vppon holy considerations. They kepte the wordes and promysses of Christe. But you take away the one parte cleane, and leaue out the wordes and moste comfortable promysses of Christes bloud to bee shed for vs. If then Cyprian were so earnest againste those vsers of water in stéede of wyne, how muche more earnest woulde hee haue ben againste this maner, if it had ben common in his time? Here, those places that you recite may séeme to helpe you, and to make againste vs. For, where Tertullian speaketh of the Paynimes wife, hee mencioneth bread only. And whē Ciprian reporteth that the woman kept the lordes body in her coffer, it may séeme to be vnder one kinde. These are but coniectures, and the same very vncertaine. For often­times [Page 60]in the doctours, where one kinde is mencioned, both are vnderstanded, as after shal more appere. But to make this more probable: you alledge after­warde oute of Ambrose the hystorie of Satyrus his brother, that hanged the sa­crament aboute his necke in a stole (as you call it,) when, in a shipwarke, he leaped into the sea: whiche must néedꝭ be informe of bread onely, because nei­ther our brayne nor yours can deuyse, which way wyne can be in such an in­strument inclosed. Surely if wée had not knowen before, that you had no­thing in the aunciente fathers directly to mainteine your maymynge of Chri­stes sacrament: this your coniectural gatherynges and surmisinge reasons woulde most euidently declare it to be true. Woulde a man thinke that any, hauyng the feare of God, woulde in so weightie mattiers, either grounde his owne conscience, or séeke to confirme others by suche féeble proofes and ar­gumentes? [Page]Is not this a stronge rea­son thinke you? Satyrus S. Ambrose brother, in extreame danger of ship­wrake, purposing to leape into the sea, tooke of one, that was in the ship, only the sacramente of the Lordes body, and tied it aboute his necke: therfore in the primatiue churche in ministration of the sacramente they gaue onely one kinde vnto the laytie. Though it had ben here mencioned that Satyrus had, in this extremitée, receiued one kinde a­lone: it had bene no argument to proue, that it might orderly bee vsed in the churche. But (as Ambrose signifieth) this Satyrus at that time was, but, as I might say, a nouice in Christian reli­gion, not so farre instructed in the faith that hee was as then admitted to the communion of the Lordes supper. And therfore hee had not the sacramente a­boute him selfe, but tooke it of other christian men, that were there. Which whether they were ministers or other, [Page 61]the place maketh no mencion: but that it calleth them, Initiatos. That is, such as in the congregation were admitted to the communion. Neither is there a­ny thinge to the contrary, but that the same persons, whiche had the sacra­ment of our Lordes body, had also a­boute them the sacrament of the bloud, either in some conuenient vessel, or els after some other fashion, as dyuers of simplicitie vppon a zeale at that tyme vsed. That is either by sokinge the sa­cramente of the body in the wyne, or els by moystinge a linnen-cloth in the sacrament of the bloud, and so carying it with them. For, euen as I signified before, that persecution and trouble of the churche at the beginninge draue some to receiue at home in their houses: in like maner the same troublous time, and other cases of necessitie with fer­uencie of zeale, caused men to seke o­ther shifts also, and to doo those things by simplicitie vpon zeale at a time, that [Page]in the common vse of the sacramentes they coulde not doo accordinge to the worde of god. Therfore as some lear­ned and holy mē for the time did winke and beare with suche thinges: so after­warde other euen as holy and pro­foundly learned did mislike and reproue the same. As for example, when men did trauaile any daungerous iourney, and for zeale and deuotion would haue the sacrament with them: because they could not conueniently cary wine with them, that they might go as nighe to Christes institution as might be, they would soke the sacrament of our Lordꝭ body in the bloud. Some other would moyste a linnen cloth in the sacrament of bloud (as I said before) and kepe it to moyste with water when they would receiue. Some, that either of nature could not, or for religion would not drinke wine, at other times vsed only water. Some vppon other consideraci­ons vsed milke for wine in the sacra­ment. [Page 62]Some were perswaded that in such cases men might vse one kynde. Wherfore to sicke men or children they would vse wine alone. But the parti­cular cases of a few, ought not to be ta­ken for a general rule of the holy chur­che. Neither those thinges, which some did (as Ciprian termeth it) vppon sim­plicitie by sufferance, should be brought as testimonies, what the church either then did, or ought nowe commonly to doo. For a man may well doubte whe­ther these shiftes, that men in necessitie did vse beside the institution of Christ, were acceptable to god or no, although dyuers of them might séeme to procede of a feruent zeale, and to bee done of good and godly men. It appereth in Cy­prian, that many of them, that vsed wa­ter for wine, were godly men: and yet by zeale and simplicitie did erre. Ther­fore hee saith of them in this manner. If any of our predicessours either by igno­rance or simplicitie did not obserue and kepe that, whiche the lorde by his example and in­struction [Page]did teach vs to doe: by gode mercy his simplicitie may be pardoned. But we can­not be forgeuen, which be instructed & admo­nyshed by the lorde to doe as he dyd. &c. The godly and holy fathers dyd beare in many poyntes with the zeale and sim­plicitie of a number, in that tyme. Wherfore those examples cannot bee brought iustly to proue the common maner vsed in the primatiue churche, which by manifest testimonies I wyll a lytle after declare to haue be farre o­therwyse in the same times, that these thinges were done. That the same thinges, before rehearsed, were not ge­nerally allowed, it may appeare by this, that, when the church was setled, they did forbid those things, and bound them, so nigh as might bee, to Christes institution. Hereof ye haue example in Iulius his decrées. 1. Hom. Conc. Wher all the fashions before recited are ex­pressely forbidden. Wee heare (saith he) that some led with schismaticall ambition, in the diuine misteries doe consecrate milke for [Page 63]wine: some serue to the people the sacrament of the body moysted in the bloud, as a perfite communion: other offer in the sacramente of the lordes cuppe, the iuice of grapes squised: some diepe a linnen cloth in the wine, and kepe all the yere. Therefore (saith he) henceforth it shat not be lawful for any in their sacrifice to offer any other thinge, but only the cuppe mixed with water and wine. Gelasius also af­ter him euen as flatly forbad receiuing vnder one kinde: sayinge. We finde that some takinge a portion of the fordes body re­fuse the cuppe: whiche, because I know not of what superstition they doe it, either let them take the whole sacramēt, or be kept from the whole. For the diuision of this mistery can­not be without great sacrilege. Here you sée that Gelasius doth count it and cal it sa­crilege to receiue vnder one kinde: and your sorte contrary to this, affirme it to be Herisie, if a man say the people should receiue vnder both kindes of bread and wyne. If you would rightly haue proued your ministringe to the laytie in one kynde: you shold not haue brought coniectures vppon suche rare [Page]chaunses, as may séeme for the tyme to be borne with, rather then alowed: but you should haue shewed some playne and euident examples, that it was in the primatiue church commonly vsed in celebration of the sacrament. But that you were neuer able to doo, and so was it said in the protestation, that you call the challenge. For herein the whole number of the fathers be against you. And that you may not iustly say, that wee bragge of our empty boxes, that haue the name only, and no stuffe in them: I wyll rechearse and shewe you some of y ^e mattier, which shalbe direct­ly applied to that maladie and disease, that you haue brought to the right vse of the lordes holy sacrament. You hard before rehearsed oute of Iustine decla­ringe the maner of the church of Rome in his time, that both bread and wyne were geuen to companies of the towne and contrey, and the same also sente vnto those, that were absent. Here is [Page 64]manifestly declared, that such as were absent, and receiued at home in theyr houses, had both kindes sent vnto them, contrary to your coniecture vpon Ter­tullian, where (you say) one kinde only is mencioned and therefore receiued. Tertullian and Iustine were both of the church of Rome, B. and were not in time farre a sunder. Therfore it is like one maner was vsed in bothe theyr ages. The fleash (saith Tertullian him selfe) is fed with the body and bloud, that the soule may be filled of god. He saith not only the bo­dy, wherein the bloud also may be vn­derstanded: but hee addeth seperately the Bloud. Declaringe the maner of Christes sacrament ministred in two sundry partes. Cyprian also speakinge not only of priestes, but of other laye men, that were like to abide persecuti­on and martirdome for Christ, saith in this wise. How doe wee teach and prouoke them to shedde their bloud in confession of Christ, if wee deny them his bloud. or bowe make we them meete for the cuppe of mar­tirdome, [Page]if wee do not first by communion ad­mitte them to drinke the cuppe of the lorde? Is not this a playne testimony, C. what maner of mynistracion was vsed in Cyprians time? And wyll you then, vpon a surmise, gather the contrary? If ye rede this father in all places, where he speaketh of the sacrament: you shall finde nothinge more common, then, Bibi sanguinem Christi. How wisie thou (saith Ambrose to Theodosius the Empe­rour) with those hands receiue the holy body of our lord? how wilte thou be so bolde, with thy mouth to be partaker of the lords bloud. This Emperour was a laye man: E. ney­ther is it likely, that he receiued any o­therwayes, then the other people did at that time. And shall wee thinke by a vayne coniecture of the history of Sati­rus, that the custome of that time was otherwise, because your mocking head could not deuise how to cary wyne in a stole? and yet they of that time (as ye may perceiue by dipping a linnen cloth in the sacrament of the bloud) had de­uysed [Page 65]which way it might be done. But to our purpose. Withoute confusion and doubt (saith Gregory Nazienzene) eate his body and drinke his bloud, if thou haue any desire of life in thee. And yet hee speaketh to the people, Oratione. 4. in sanctum pascha. Hilariꝰ also. li. 8. de trinitate. These thinges (saith hee) beinge eaten and dronke make that wee be in Christ and Christe in vs. Basile de baptismo, vpon these wordes. As often as ye shall eate. &c. What profit haue those wordes (saith he)? That we easing and drinking may be perpetually mindeful of him that died for vs: and so may bee instructed in the sight of god and his Christ, of necessitie to kepe the doctrine deliuered by his Apostles. Here, beside the mencion both of eating and drinkinge, he addeth, of necessitie to kepe this doctrine of the lordes supper: whiche you in many poyntes, without pricke of conscience take vppon you to aulter. Prystes (saith. S. Hieronime vpon Sophon) whiche make the sacrament and dy­stribute the bloud of the lord vnto the people. This man was priest in Rome in Am­broses time: and yet he signifieth, that [Page]the maner then was to mynister the bloud to the people. E. And shall the history of Satyrus, nothing perteining to the mattier, perswade vs the contrary? What can be more plaine and expresly against you, then that Chrisostom hath Hom. 18. in poster. ad corinth? There he saieth, that in this sacramente the priestes parte, is not better then the peoples. For it is not (saith he) as it was in the olde law, where the priestes had parte and the people parte: neither coulde the peo­ple be partaker of that was the priestes. But now it is not so, for one body and one cuppe is indifferently offered to all. And it is no­table that he saieth. All be like worthy to be partakers, neither doth the inferiour differ any thing at all frō the priest in that matter. Why doo you then (so plainly againste Chrisostome) make difference of digni­tie betwéene the priest and the people? Is not this, which Chrisostom speaketh agaynst, one of the chiefest reasons, that you haue for the geuynge of one kynde to the people? But S. Paule to Timothie and Titus, declareth other [Page 66]causes that shoulde make the order of ministerie honorable: & not to defraude the people of one parte of y ^e sacrament. Cyprian againe, in the same sermon De lapsis, that you afterward aledge, and the same Hystorie, sheweth, that all the companie of lay men and wo­men tooke the sacrament of the Lordes cuppe and dronke of it in order, one af­ter an other. But I feare I shal séeme to moste men to commit muche foly, in that I stande so longe with aucthori­ties to proue that thinge, whiche of it selfe is most manyfest: that is, that in the primatiue churche the only maner, in the common celebracion of the sa­crament, was, that all receiued vnder bothe kindes of breade and wyne. Se­ynge therefore Iustine saieth, that on sundaies breade and wine consecrated were distributed to companies of the towne and countrey, seynge Gelasius calleth it sacrilege to deuide the sacra­ment; seynge Cyprian counselleth that [Page]lay men should be admitted to the com­munion of the Lordes cuppe, and by an Hystorie sheweth that in his time they vsed it: seynge Chrisostome affirmeth no difference to be betweene the priest and y ^e people in vse of this sacramente: seyng all the residue of the fathers of al countreyes and all ages of the prima­tiue churche agrée to the same, were it not more then willfull blindenesse not to se, that holy men at that time in ce­lebracion of the sacramente ministred both partes to the people, accordyng to Christes institucion and the doctrine of S. Paule to the Corinth? Were it not almoste desperate stubburnesse to per­swade the contrarie to ignorant peo­ple, and by libelles priuily spred to de­teine the vnlearned in errour? But it stoode you vpon to say somewhat, least you shoulde séeme to haue nothynge to say. And yet in very déede it had been better for the confirmacion of your doc­trine to haue sayd nothyng. For then [Page 67]perhaps such, as of simplicitie depende vpon your aucthorities, woulde haue thought, that you had had farre better prouision for your defence in so weigh­tie mattiers. Which now, seyng your selender and féeble groundes, will be­ginne, I doubte not, as they haue the feare of God, to mistrust your dealyng, and more diligently examine the resi­due of your doctrine. It is not good for them any lenger to walke on other mens féete, nor to be guided by other mens eyes, but them selfe to se what way they go: least their guides, either by ignorance or wilfulnesse, leade them into the pitte of continuall errour.

Of reser­uacion.The third poincte, that you gather out of these testimonies, is reseruacion of the sacrament: which to deny (say you) is extreame impudencie. I thinke you haue not mette with any, whiche haue flatly denied; that in the primatiue churche diuers vsed reseruacion. But it foloweth not therevpon, but that a [Page]man may deny without any impuden­cie at all, either, that wée haue any te­stimonie in the worde of God to iusti­fie it, or, that all the holy fathers did approue it. Or if ye wyll say the con­trarie, I wyll not doubte to make the crime of impudencie, that you charge vs withal, to rebounde vpon your self. But you will say, you haue witnesse that it was vsed, and that of good men, whiche is sufficient. Indéede it is suffi­cient to shew, that it was then vsed: but it is not sufficient to proue, that it must therfore be alwayes vsed: or, that all did well at that time in vsing of it. Oh ye will say, this is your olde ma­ner, so longe as the fathers make with you, you wil admit them: if they séeme to be any thynge agaynst you, ye will reiecte their aucthoritie. What authoritie is to be attributed to the doc­tours. Because, you cōmonly take holde here, and, through this odious reporte, often vse to stirre mens stomackes agaynst vs: before I answere your reseruacion, I will pro­test [Page 68]what aucthoritie wée attribute vn­to the olde fathers. This will I doo not with my owne wordes, but S. Augu­stines in his epistle to Hierome. I con­fesse that I haue learned to attribute this re­uerēce and honour only to the canonical scrip­tures, to beleeue stedfastly without contro­uersie all, that is written in them. As for o­ther I so reade them, that, be they neuer so excellent in great holynes and learnyng: I do not therfore counte it true. because they were of that opinion: but because they coulde per­swade me, either by scripture or good reason, that it was not against the truth. Here you may obiecte that men, of such learning, holinesse, and deuocion, woulde neuer haue written any suche thynge, if they had not thought it to be agréeable with Gods worde. Ye sir, I thinke they as good men, were so perswaded: but that they did leaue in writyng many thyn­ges, not onely beside the worde of God, but also against it, I thynke it is not vnknowen to you. And that other also may know it, and therby holde vs ex­cused [Page]when wée doo not in all poinctes agrée vnto them, I will recite some proufes therof. Clemens Alexand. with Iustine and diuers other taught, that Angels fell from their estate for the carnall loue of earthly women.

Whiche doctrine, I thinke, you wil not say riseth of true interpretacion of the scripture. The same Clement, Strom. 2. &. 6. writeth, that mens soules are transformed into Angels, and first learne a thousande yeres of other An­gels: afterwarde teaching other new transformed Angels, at the length be­come Archangels. Whiche can not be soundly taken out of the scriptures.

Iustine, Lactantius, Iraeneus and other wrote, that good men, after the resur­rection, shoulde liue a thousande yeres in all ioye before Christe shoulde come to iudgement. And yet is that but a misunderstandynge of the scripture.

Tertullian séemeth to attribute a bodi­ly substance to God and in diuers pla­ces, [Page 69] De trinitate, speaketh dangerously of Christe: for whiche, and like thin­ges, many would haue had his workes counted Apócrypha. Therfore he doth not alwaies agrée with scripture. Cy­prian would haue Heretikes to be re­baptised, and speaketh so dangerously of them that are fallen from the faith, that he might séeme to geue some occa­sion to Nouatians heresie. What shall we say of Origine, in whom be founde so many perilous doctrines, as both I, in this place, am loth to rehearse them, and in the primatiue churche diuers greate learned men woulde haue had his bookes burned for the same. I coulde say the like of diuers other, but that I feare some will maliciously gather, that I rehearse these thynges of pur­pose, so muche as in me lieth, to deface the aucthoritie of the holy fathers.

Which, God is my witnesse, I meane not: but onely to signifie, that, when wee measure their doctrine by Goddes [Page]wordes, or teache not in all poinctes as they did, wée be not so muche to be bla­med as that men should counte vs, as you doo, to controlle the doctours, and as it were to set them to schoole. For if God hath suffered them to erre in so weightie mattiers as is before menci­oned: (although for good cause I haue omitted the greatest) it may be also, that they haue taught amisse in some other lighter thinges, and therfore are to be reade with iudgement, as Augu­stine counselleth bothe in himselfe and in other. Nothwithstandynge wée doo greatly estéeme the fathers: not only as holy mē indued with singuler grace of God: but also as right good witnes­ses and strong defendours of the chiefe articles of our faith, at that time, when Sathan indeuoured, partely by cruel­tie of persecution, partely by infinite numbers of Heresies to deface and ex­tinguishe the same. Therefore who doth not muche honour them, & (when [Page 70]trueth constreineth) with reuerence go from their opinion, is scantly worthie the name of a christian mā. Neuerthe­lesse, I think not y ^e contrary but, if they had séene, what abuses and superstici­ons woulde haue folowed vpon diuers thynges, that they either taught, or for the state of that time winked at and suffered: vndoubtedly they woulde ei­ther haue recanted those thinges, as Augustine did many, or els would haue made a more perfit interpretacion of their mindes. Before the Pelagians Herisie beganne to be spredde, S, Au­gustine so wrote of frée will, as he sée­med not to himselfe afterwarde, suffi­ciently and as the trueth required, to expresse the mere grace of God. Ther­fore, vpon occasion of that Herisie, he writeth more perfitly of that and of predestination, then either the other doctours do, or, then it is to be thought, that himselfe would haue done, if that occasion had not been. So doubtelesse [Page]both he and many other woulde haue doone of diuers thinges now in contro­uersie: if at that time they had been brought in question. This much by the way haue I spoken of my opinion in the doctours, so muche as I can, to eschew the malicious reporte, that your sorte is moste readie to spreade of vs in this mattier. Now I wyll returne to reseruation. Of reser­uacion. Wee denie not (as I sayd) that some, in that time, did vse it, as it appereth by your witnes of Ciril As touchinge whose wordes by you in this place recited, D. I haue this muche to say: that, as I know the same place is alleaged of dyuers other, and therfore I wyl not plainely deny it: so, because that worke of Ciril is not er­tante, I haue good cause to suspecte it. And so muche the more, for that diuers of your sorte haue alleaged oute of the same doctour in his worke Thesaurus, certaine wordes for the supremicie of the Byshop of Rome, whiche are not [Page 71]there to be found. This vniust fathe­ryng of your owne late deuised phan­tasies, vpon the auncient doctours and writers of the churche, may cause vs iustly to suspecte the residue of your do­yng. But be it so, that those are Cirils owne wordes indéede. Wée haue for that one suspected place a number of sounde testimonies, that all did not a­low reseruacion, nor thinke it accor­dyng to the worde of God. Origine vpon the .v. chap. of Leuiticus. The Lord (saith he) deferred not the breade, that he gaue to his disciples: saying, take and eate: neither commaunded it to be kepte vntill the morow. The residue of his wordes, vpō the same place, be suche, as he séemeth thervpon to gather an argument, that it should not be reserued. Hee, that wrote the sermon De caena domini in Cyprian, saieth plainely of the sacra­ment, Recipitur non includitur. At is re­ceiued, it is not inclosed or Butte vp. Isychius vpon Leuiticum, at large declareth how that in his time, if the ministers [Page]and people were not able to eate vp so muche as was consecrated, the restdue was bourned, and cōsumed by fier, that it might not be kepte vntill the nexte day. Therfore you may not force vpon vs to receiue reseruacion as a thyng ei­ther grounded in scripture or generally alowed by the primatiue churche.

What will you say to your seconde. E­pistle of Clement bysshoppe of Rome. Ret so many holy loues (saith he) he offered vpon the aulter, as may be sufficiently for the people. If so be any shall remaine, let them not be kepte vntil the morow, but, with feare and tremblyng, let the ministers eate it vp.

This was a Bisshoppe of Rome, this was Peters successour, this was (as you say) head of the churche: and yet you heare his appoin [...]mente and order taken erpressely against reseruation. If ye will not beléene vs, why doo you not beléeue your owne? Will you say, with your testimonie of Ciril, that O­rigine was madde, that Isychius was madde? Or if ye be not afrayde to say [Page 72]it of them: Will you say that Clement was madde also? Well sir, if ye wyll proue vs impudent or madde for not re­ceiuynge reseruacion: I truste you se, that wée shal haue company in our im­pudencie and madnesse. But Clementꝭ Epistle presseth you harde in soole re­ceiuynge and priuate Passe also, and signifieth that all the ministers recei­ued together with the people. For, in the wordes before rehearsed, he spea­keth of the Passe that was vsed, when that Epistle was made: and yet it wil­leth you to prepare for the people. Why doo you not folow his aucthoritie in these poinetes? You will say, as you sayd in the beginning, if the people be absente, and, when the sacramente is prepared, either will not or can not come to receiue, Clement then sayeth not that the priest consecratyng should forbeare, because thother bidden guests will not come. The churche (you will say) did alway professe a communion, [...] [Page]proue, oute of the same history, that it were no abuse, to haue boyes and chyl­dren to minister the sacramente com­monly: because, in that extremitie, Si­rapions boye delyuered him the sacra­ment, which the pryest sent. Surely in this your maner of defendynge priuate Passe, wherein you shew your selfe to be able to bringe nothing for the main­teinance therof, but only extraordyna­ry chanses in extremitie and necessitie, you doo much bewray the euyl vse of it: and manifestly declare, yea and as it weare protestée, that in déede it is euel and without all aucthoritie or example of the primatiue churche, if you bee not bryuen to it by necessitie and lacke of communicants. You wyll reply per­happes and say, by these examples it may appeare that company in recey­ninge is not of necessitie, or if it had ben they would not haue vsed the contrary. Yes sir, necessitie and extremitie may cause some kinde of gods commaunde­ments [Page]at times to be omitted, and yet out of necessitie the same commaunde­mentes ought necessarely to bee obser­ued and kepte. The Iewes were com­maunded on the Sabboth day to doo no bodely or toylinge worke. Neuerthe­lesse sometimes we rede, that, by neces­sitie of there enemies constreined, they kept warre and fought on the Sabboth day. Yet can you not say but that com­maundement was necessary. I sayd the like before of baptisme: and the same must I say in the lordes supper: that a case of necessitie may perhappes for a time, alter some necessary parte of it: and yet not bee taken for any generall rule. Therfore if ye wyll receiue alone in your Passe, or minister vnder one kinde: you must neuer doo it but in ex­tremitie: otherwyse your proufes helpe you nothinge at all. Yea but in the hi­story of Sirapion but one kinde is men­cioned, and reseruation manifestly ap­peareth in that it was so ready to bee [...] [Page]boye to soke the sacramente consecra­ted in a licour not consecrated: And es­pecially if he were of your opinion in transsubstantiacion. This may you se by your owne place, that in reseruation they vsed often to kepe bothe kyndes: Which might wel stand with the ma­ner of that time, wherin they did euery day communicare: so that the wine al­so might well tary vntil the next day.

The .xiiii. cānon of Nicene councel in no sence doth prouce sole receiuinge, 10. Cap. Answer to the .xiiii. Cannon of Nicene cousell. as you would haue it séeme to doo. It a­pointeth who should minister, and in what order they should receiue: firste the byshop, then the priestes, after the deacons, and so forthe other that dyd communicate. This order takē by that holy counsaile maketh so plainly a­gainste the manner of your pryuate Masse, as I assure you, I meruaile, that you coulde for shame alledge it. Who seeth not by this testimony that all the ministers vsed commonly to re­ceiue [Page 77]together with the byshop beynge present? Here was not my lorde at the high aulter, and the residew of hys chaplaines and priestes in sundry cha­pels celebrating by them selfe: but all receiued together deacons and all: that it might appere to bee a heauenly feast or supper, and not a worke or sacritice to be done of one to the behoufe and be­nefite of a number, that stande by and loke on. The councel speaketh not here in this poynte of any extraordinary chaunce, as it doeth in that parte that you alledge, but of the common ordy­nary maner which by the aucthority of the same councell was apointed to bee vsed in the church. It we had lacked te­stimonyes for the trueth againste pry­uate Masse: wée had bene muche behol­dinge to you, for puttinge vs in mind [...] of this place. I thinke, such as fauour your assertion, wyl smally thanke you for bringing in this councel. But than­ked be god, that you are driuen so much [...] [Page]and better to, you may proue, out of the same place, that priestes also receiued but only the body and not the bloud: be­cause: it saith, Corpus christi porri­gant, and mencioneth not, Sanguinem The like you shall reade in many pla­ces of the olde fathers, where one part only is mencioned when they speake of the priestes receiuinge. And yet bothe are vnderstanded. If you wil vpon this gather, that deacons vsed but one kind: I wil inferre vpon the same place, that priestes also vsed the like maner. But a reasonable man wyll easely conceiue that in speakinge of one parte, both is vnderstanded. For in the actes of the Apostles the whole celebration of the sacrament is termed breakinge of breade: wherby we must not gather that Apo­stes vsed only bread in ministration of the lordes supper. I meruaile why you make suche courtesy to recite this for a proufe of one kinde then vsed, seynge the best of your collections for this mat­ter [Page 79]be euen of the same sorte. Is not your coniecture out of Tertullian, Cy­prian, Ambrose, euen in the same ma­ner gathered? For that they séeme to mencion but the one parte onely? And yet you make such a bragge vpon them as you count all such to lacke discretion as wil not by and by without contra­diction yelde vnto them, and acknow­ledge them vnuincible. In déede it stan­deth you vpon, seinge your proufes are of them selfe so sclender, somewhat to helpe them with stoute wordes: that men may bee almost afrayde to doubte of them. You obiecte to vs that we dal­ley, B. when wee presse you with the wor­des of Christes institution: Accipite, manducate, bibite, diuidite: and yet you wyl vrge the words of the fathers, as though euery sillable in them were in like maner to be scanned as the wor­des of the bible, written wholly by the inspiration of the holy ghost. But in déede you declare of what aucthoritie [Page]you coumpt Christes wordes, that estéeme it a dalleinge to repete often his commaundementes. Did Cyprian thinke you, dally, when, in one Epi­stle, to Cecilius, hee doth well néene .xx. times repete and beate vpon this: that the sacrament is to hee ministred in no other maner then Christe him selfe did vse it? Did hée dally when hee pressed vpon the matter in this wise? If in that sacrifice, that is Christe him selfe, none but Christ is to hee folowed: then must wee obey and do that Christ did, and willed to be done. When as he in his gospel faith, if you do that I hyd you, then I call you not seruanies but fuendes. And that Christ is only to be heard, his father wytnesseth from heauen sayinge. This is my deare beloued sonne, hym you must heare. Wherfore if onely Christ is to be heard, we must not gene eare what other dyd before, but what Christ did before all. Ney­ther must wee folow mens custome but gode trueth: semge he saith by his prophet, in vaine they worship me teachinge mens tradicions and doctrines. And againe, the lorde sayth in the gospell, you reiec [...]e my commaund mente for your owne tradition. And in another [Page 80]place, he, that breaketh one of these least com­maundements and so teacheth, shall be called feast in the kingdome of god. If then it be not leeful to alter one of the leaste commaunde­ments: how much lesse may we alter so great and weightie commaundements, as these are, so nigh touchinge the sacrament of the lordes passion and our redemption: or to tourue them to any other purpose, by mans tradition, then the lorde ordeined them. These are not my sayinges, but worde by worde as they lie in that holy father: and wyl you say that hée cauilleth or dalieth, when hée this vrgeth Christes institution to bée kepte: and would haue nothinge therin to be altered for any cause, that man coulde deuise? The matter, that hee wrate againste, was of no more effecte, then these are of sole receiuinge and ministring one parte of the sacrament: and yet is he so earnest, as you sée, with a greate number of wordes mo to the same purpose. Thinke you not, they could haue brought for the vse of wa­ter only the examples of holy men, and also goodly considerations in appe­rance? [...] [Page]ful and negligent, as we neither knew the place, nor would séeke to examine it: Or lastly, that of purpose you dyd a­buse the simplicitie and ignorance of them, that you conueighed your wry­tinge vnto: which commonly beleue all that you say without examination: and therfore doo you alledge for your selfe, that maketh expresse [...]y againste you, if y ^e place be red: which in Cyprian is in this wise. The childe beinge among the ho­ly company, was not able to abide our suffr [...] ­ges and prayers: but the ignorāt soule in the simple and younge yeares, sometime with we­pinge and cryinge did sterile: sometime wyth trouble and anguyshe of minde tossed hether and thether: and as it were by a tourmentour constreininge it, by such meanes as it coulde, dyd confesse the gilte of the facte, (meaninge the eatinge of the Idolle offeringe) And, when the residew of the celebration was en­ded, the dearon began to offer the cuppe to them, that were present: and after other had receiued and the childes course was come: the babe, as if we are by institucion of god, tour­ned away the face, held the mouth and lippes together, and refused the cuppe. Yet the dea­con [Page 82]continued, and, although the infant stry­ued againste it, poured some of the sacrament of the lordes bloud into her mouth. Then fo­lowed ye [...]ing and vomiting. &c. Here were gathered together with Cyprian, not priestes only but lay men, women, and Children also: and you sée the cuppe of oure Lordes bloud was offered to all, and all drancke in order withoute exception. Neyther is heare any thinge, that by coniecture can leade a man to thinke otherwyse, but that this was the common maner then vsed. How than can you gather by the extra­ordinarie chaunce, whiche you recited before out of the same Tertullian and Cyprian, that the laytie then vsed to receiue the one kinde of breade onely: whereas this place, brought by your selfe, sheweth, that, in celebracion, they vsed the cuppe also. The childe you say in this hystorie receiued but wine only, and so one kinde. That you make pro­bable, because the childe, that had receiued the Idoll offeryng, was not [...] [Page]them to say that whiche they neuer ment. In like maner you doo a litle af­ter in Luther and Melancthon, saying that they compte it a thing indifferent to communicate the laye people vnder one kinde: and that a generall counsel may take order in it as a thynge of no necessitie. Sir it had been plaine and sounde dealing, that you shuld haue re­cited some place wher they had so said: but that ye were not able to doo. For any man that hath ben conuersante in their workes, may right well iudge that it is not so. I wil not trouble you with looking on many places. There is a little treatise of Melancthons intitu­led De vsuintegri sacramēti: in which ye shall finde diuers argumentes con­cludyng the necessitie of bothe kindes, and that they sinne and greuously of­fende, that doo restraine the people from one parte of the sacrament. But I perceiue this is your cōmon fashion, to make Doctours & writers to speake [Page 84]whatsoeuer you woulde haue them to speake.

Now sir, 12. Cap. if ye haue no better prou­fes and testimonies oute of the holy scriptures and olde fathers, then these whiche ye haue in this your Apologie alledged: I assure you, the challenge, that before was made, may iustly be a­gaine repeted. And, A. it may be sayde to you, that you haue out of the scripture nor sillable nor tittle: out of the aunci­ent doctours nor sentence nor halfe sentence, that doeth directly proue eyther your priuate masse or communion vn­der one kinde to the laitie. For all, that here you haue vttered, be nothinge but wrythed coniectures vpon cases extra­ordinary, and shiftes of extremitie, to proue a continual or general rule to bée obserued in the church of Christe, con­trary to the example and order by hym selfe apointed: Wherefore there is no cause, that you should so confidently conclude, as though you had profound­ly [...] [Page]ben faire clokes for them to holde their peace, where as in déede they haue in these poinctes or litle or nothing to say for them selfe. And surely, if I had ben of your sorte, I would haue wyshed, that you also had ben bounde in recog­nisance, if that would haue stayed you from wrytinge. For both your reasons and aucthorities by you vttered, though they séeme to your selfe neuer so strōg, doth rather bewray your parte, the [...] pithely defend it. But if you and yours had neuer so greate store of armour, prouision and furniture, as to the ter­rour of men, you would pretende to haue: yet ye shold neuer be able to beare downe the manifest trueth, so euident­ly apperinge in the wordes of Christes institution, nor the wytnesses of the primatiue churche agreinge with the same. Answere to the ar­gumente of multi­tude, con­tinuance of time. &c▪ Therefore the thunderinge in of the aucthoritie of the holy catholike church, the prescription of .xv C. yeres, the consent of moste parte of Christen­dome, [Page 86]the holines and learninge of so many godly fathers, as hath béen these ix. C. yeres, the age and sclender lear­ninge of those that stande against you, doth nothinge at all either feare vs or moue vs to suspect that doctrine, which, by Christes aucthoritie and witnesse of the Apostles, wée know to be trewe. We haue ben accustomed of longe time to those vaine voices. Wée sée they all be either manifestly false, or at the least of small effecte. These are the mystes, which you haue alway cast before the eies of the simple and ignorant, as it were to blinde and amase them: to the ende, that either they may not sée the trueth; when it is brought to them: or, if they sée it, to make them suspecte it, when they heare that .xv. C. yeares the more parte of the worlde haue bene of contrary opinion. But this is euident­ly false, that you say. For .600. yere af­ter Christe & more, these doctrines were neuer heard of in the church, much lesse [...] [Page]vnder one kinde, prohibicion of mariage in priestes, purgatory, the su­premacie of Rome, nor a number moe of your errours. Yea and at this daye thinke and doo contrary to you in those thinges. And wyll you then so falsely beare men in hand that the whole chur­che was always of your opinion? But be it so, that the moste part of christen­dome .ix. C. yeres hathe taught as you doo. Is that a sufficient argument to re­iecte a doctrine euident by the worde of god? May not all christianitie be cleane defaced, if such argumentꝭ of continu­ance of time and multitude of persons should be rules to gouerne mens con­science? Might not the gentiles haue alledged the like againste the Apostles and their successours? Might not they haue saide, and saide more truly then you, that the worshipping of their gods had continued, not hundreds, but thou­sande of yeares? that the whole worlde helde with them? that the wise and pro­found [Page 88]learned Philosophers defended their doctrine? that the Apostles were but new heretikes. Ideotes and vnlearned persons? that their doctrine came from the dotinge people of the Iewes? that the gods declared their dysplea­sure and indignations against the new teachinge of Christ, with seditions, tu­multes, warres, plagues, dearthes, tempestious weatheringes, and suche like? Might not the Israelites haue coū ­ted greate folly in the house of Iuda, that they would swarue from theim in worshippinge of god: seinge they were tenne partes to one? Might not the priestes in the olde lawe, yea dyd they not alledge against the prophetes, con­tinuance of time and multitude of doc­tours, priestes and Rabins? Were they not hundredes to one poore Micheas? Did they not the like in Christes time? Did they not beate vpon the longe con­tinuance of Moyses law: whiche, they saide, he came to destroy? Did they not [...] [Page]none can forsake the guidinge and in­struction of our holy mother the church, without manifest perill of their owne soules, and such as they doo leade from the church. In déede this accusation is greuous, and may not lightly be passed of mée, although you staie not longe vpon it. This is that you feare mens consciences withall. This is it that in déede maketh many to stagger in recei­ninge the trueth: when they heare you continually beate vppon the name of your holy mother the churche, and in wordes claime that to you, whiche ve­rely and in déede is not in you. For all be not the sonnes of Abraham, that bragge and auante that they came of Abrahams stocke: All be not the people of god, that say, they bee the people of god: All be not Israelites, that discen­ded of Israel: All be not Christian men in déede, that name them selfe Christi­ans. I will therfore in few wordes de­clare what the church is, and howe we [Page 90]may, if we take not good héede, be de­ceiued by the name of the churche, ta­kinge the church of Antichrist, for the true and right churche of Christe.

First, how necessarie indéede it is for a christian man to beléeue the faieth of the holy church, it may by this appere, that to be borne to euerlastyng life and saluacion, to be made the sonne of God and heire of the kyngdom of heauen, of necessitie wée must be conceiued in the wombe of the churche of Christe, and, as it were, fostred vp in hir lappe. For she is the mother of all those, that are the true children of God: And in hir custodie Christe hath lefte the treasure of his grace, by hir ministery to be be­stowed amonge his people. Therfore if wée couitte to haue entrance into the kyngdome of God, and be partakers of the graces and promisses of Christe, I confesse wée must remaine in the faith of his holy churche. But what is this churche, or how may it be knowen? [...]

What the churche is and whe­ther it may erre.Forsooth the scripture speaketh of the churche of Christe twoo waies. Some­time as it is indéede before God, & not knowen alway to mans iudgemente. Into this church none be receiued, but onely the children of grace and adop­tion, and the very members of Christe by sanctifiyng of the holy ghost. This church doth not comprehend only holy men and sainctes liuyng on the earth, but all the electe from the beginnynge of the worlde. This churche is the pil­ler of truth, that neuer continueth in errour. This churche is neuer forsa­ken of the spirite of God. This is the holy communion of sainctꝭ that in our Créede wée professe and acknowledge. But this church, as after shall appere, doth not alwaies flowrish in sight of the worlde. Sometime the churche is taken for the vniuersal multitude of al those, whiche, beyng dispersed through the worlde, acknowledge one Christe, and, beyng through baptisme admitted [Page 91]into the same, by the vse of the Lordes supper openly professe the vnitie ther­of in doctrine and charitie. Sometime the churche is taken for the multitude of those that beare rule in the churche. This churche is resembled to a nette, whiche caste into the sea, bringeth vp both good and badde. It is resembled to a feilde, that hath not only pure corne, but also Cockle, Darnell, and other wéedes. And as wée often se, that good corne in some groundꝭ is so choked vp, and ouer runne with wédes, as the good graine may hardly be deserned, for that the wéedꝭ beare the chief rule: Euen so in this churche the euill and corrupted doth sometime beare downe the better sorte, that a man can hard­ly iudge, whiche be the true members of the churche, whiche are not. This churche therfore, for the most number, may be misled, and in many thinges stray out of the way. This church may erre, and not continually abide in pure [Page]and vncorrupte worshippyng of God, as I wil now with good prouse farther declare vnto you. God hath had this his externall churche from the begin­nyng of the worlde, instructed by his holy worde, instructed by his Patriar­ [...]es and Prophetes, instructed by hi [...] apoincted law and ceremonies: and so continued till the commyng of his d [...] forme Iesus Christe. This churche he called his spouse, his tabernacle, his priuie garden, his loued citie, his electe and chosen vineyard. But did it alway continue in florishyng estate? Did it alway in like maner retaine the truth of Gods morde, that it was taught in the beginnyng? Did it alway cherish and mainteine suche ministers, as God sent from time to time into it, to re­dresse and reforme his law accordyng to his holy will? In what state was this churche in Nous time, when .viii. onely were saued? In what state was it, when y ^e .x. Tribes forsooke the right [Page 92]worshippyng of God, and leste onely the Tribe of Iuda? In what state was it afterwarde, when y ^e same one Tribe of Iuda vnder diuers kinges sell to I­dolatrie? In what state was it, when Elias pitifully complained, that he onely was lefte, and all other were de­parted from God? Where was the en­ternall face of the church at that times In what state was it when Esaias, Ie­remie, Ezechiel, and al the Prophetes of God were persecuted & put to death. I pray you was not Iurie then called the people of God? Had they not at that time the lawe of God? Did not they vse his ceremonies? Did not they bragge and make their auaunte that they coulde not erre? that the trueth coulde not departe from the mouthe of their priestes and doctours? that they had the temple of God, the temple of God? Yes certainely they had euen then the law of God. They had euen then the sacramentes and ceremonies by God [Page]appointed: or els the Prophet? would neuer haue vsed their temple or com­pante of their praiers and ceremonies. Yet how miserably the law of God and his sacramentꝭ were corrupted among them, it appereth by that Esay sayeth: The siluer of the people of God is iourned into drosse. How they interteined the messengers, that God sente to reforme his law, it is euidente in this, that all the Prophetes were slayne amonge them. This externall churche then did erre, this externall churche refused the trueth of Gods law. This externall churche did persecute the Prophetes. And yet did not the Prophetes thinke, that they coulde caste them out of his true churche, or make them not true members of his people, to whiche the promisses were made. Neither did the Prophetes for that cause cease to call for a redresse of the pure law and cere­monies of God, and worshipyng him accordyng to his holy worde. They did [Page 93]not refraine to tel euen those, that faib they were the chosen people of god, the electe vineyarde of God, the citie and habitacion of God, that they had forta­ken the law of God, that they folowed their owne deuises, that they worship­ped God in vayne with their owist tradicions. And therfore that he would not acknowledge them any more for his people: that he woulde sette his vineyarde open to spoile: that he would bringe his owne citie into thraldome and captiuitie. After the captiuitie of Babilon, when the same churche was restored, and his people taught by ad­versitie to reforme the law, and receiue againe the right worshippinge of god apointed in his worde it continued of many yeares, but that it was agayné corrupted horribly, and led farre out of the way, to lowinge againe their owne phantasies. For when Christ him selfe came, for whose cause God had so pre­serued that people, they sayd, that they [Page]had Moyses lawe, that they were the séede of Abraham, that they were the chosen people and true churche of God: that he wente aboute to take away the lawe and destroy the temple, and for that cause did they put him to death. In like maner did they vse y ^e Apostles▪ They reproued their doctrine as vaine and phantasticall: they caste them out of their Synagoges as Schismatikes and Heretikes. Yea and, when they did this, they had in face of the worlde those thynges, wherin the churche is compted to consiste. They had doctrine out of the law of God. They has the ministerie of the same by their Priestꝭ and Doctours. They had the sacrament of circumsicion as the couenant, wher­by they were admitted as the people of God. They had the other ceremonies▪ wherin they were practised to the con­firmation of the same. They had the counsels wherby the condēpned Christ, wherin they condempned the Apostles [Page 94]and refused their doctrine. They bl [...] ­med their predicessours, for that they had [...]illed the Prophetes: and yet they persecuted Christe and his Apostels. Shal we thinke therfore, that the Apo­stles were not of the church? or rather shal we indge, that them, which haue the gouernemente of the law and sarr [...] ­mentes; and to the world haue the fac [...] and name of the churche, may so fowly er [...]e, as they may refuse the true doc­trine of gods lawe, and persecute the ministors and setters forth of the same [...] There lacked not gods promisses a­monge the Iewes. There lacked not succession of bishops and [...]istes. There lacked not opinion of great holinesse and austeritie of life. There lacked [...]t great s [...]il and knowledge of the law of god: And yet is it moste euident that they erred: that they refused the trueth, that vnder the name and gay shewe of the church, in very déede they persecu­ted the church. Why shal we not thinke [Page]that the like maybee in this time? Yea why should wee not surely perswade our selues, by the course of gods be­inges, and by the testimonies of holy scripture, that the like is now in this [...]urtime. Our sauiour Chirst and hys Aposties haue left warning abundant­ly, that it would hee so in his churche [...] and especially towarde the ende of the [...]h [...]lde. Christe him selfe prophesied that desolacion should stand in the ho­ly place that is, in the churche. Sain [...] Paule witnesseth that Antichrist shold sit in the temple of god, that is, in the church. Where it is also signified, not that he should be an abiecte in the chur­che but a power auantinge him self [...] aboue the name of god. Peter sai [...]th; that in the church should bee maisters and teachers of lies. Paule affirmeth for suretie, that, in the latter dayes, suche shall come, as shall geue eate to doctrine of the dyuel, for bidding to ma­ry and eate suche meates, as god had [Page 95]created to bée taken with thanken ge­uinge. These thinges were prophecied to come, not amonge Turkes and Sa­rasens, not amonge Infidels and Pa­ganes, but in the temple of god, in the church of god, in the societie of them that did professe Christ. We haue ther­fore great cause to marke the working of god, by the example of the old church amonge the Iewes. Wee see that the Prophetes were firste vered by those, that bare the name of the churche, and shold haue most gladly receiued them. We sée that in Christes time and the Apostles, not the Gentils first refused the comfortable tidinges of the gospel, but they that called them selfe the peo­ple of god, and had amonge them the custodie of his lawe and ceremonies. Euen in like maner we haue to thinke that he wyll doo in this time, seinge [...]ée hath of the same forewarned vs. For euen as the olde lawe and religion of the Iewes was a shadow and paterne [Page]of the true relygion brought in by Christ so the state and maner of that church may well resemble the state of Christes church in the latter time: As the olde church therefore to warde the [...]ndedid forsake this lawe and right vse of gods ceremonies, and, beinge denyeded in sundry sectes, deuised new wor­shippinges accordinge to theyr d [...] phantasies: in so muche that, for the mainterāce therof, they refused Christ and his Apostlꝭ So in like maner and wée iustly thinke, that the church, after Christ towarde the ende of the world, shall departe from the trueth of Gods worde, & right ministration of his sa­cramentꝭ, cleautinge to theyr owne in­ter pretacions? & beinge deuided in sun­dry sectes of religion, for the defence of the saine, shal refuse and cast out of the church such, as god will sende so renew the trueth of his holy word and gospel. Wherfore it ought to comfort and con­firme vs, and cause vs to thinke, that [Page 96]wée be in déede in the churche, rather then to feare vs: seinge they, that in the pompe and glorious face of the worlde séeme to haue the gouernmente of the churche, doth refuse vs and take vs to bee none of the church. For suche they were alwaies, that from the be­ginnynge refused and oppressed the trueth: Such they were, that vexed the Prophetes: Such they were, that re­fused Christ: Such they were, that per­secuted his Apostels. Here perhappes some curious conscience wil be pricked, and thinke it is not likely, that god of his great mercy would suffer his chur­che and so great a number of people to erre so many hundred yeares. But wée must beware how by oure reason of likelihodde, wée enter into gods iudge­ment and vnscrutable prouidence. We must thinke of him, as the courte of his doinge [...] sheweth vs, Wée must thinke of him, as his holy worde teacheth vs. Wée must not thinke of him, as oure [Page]so [...]de reason wyll leade vs. Is it not merueilous, thinke you, and to oure iudgement vnscrutable, that thousands of yeres hee suffered all the nation [...] of the earth to bee [...]selled in: Pola [...]y, and opened his knowledge to only one little people of the Iewes? Is it not merue [...]lous, that, of .xij. partes of that one people, he suffered .x. and a halse to forsake him at one time: yea & that one parte, that remained, not a fold tymes cleane to geue ouel: the trus worshyp­pinge of god: so that in those dayes he might scante séente to haue any true church vpon the whole face of y ^t earth. Be not these thinges beyonde the likelyhoddes of mans féeble reason? Nay [...]e not say with S. Paule, O vnscru­ [...]sse and Botomlesse deepenes of his diu [...]e iudgemente, and leaue to séeke what is likely in his ddinges? The Iewes were his chosen people, from whiche the sa­usour of the world [...] should rise▪ They had among them his law a [...] ceremo­nies, [Page 97]his aboundant promisses and sa­cramentes. They had his tabernacle, out of the which he, as presente, spake vnto them. If then the depenes of gods iudgement were suche towarde them, that hee suffered them so ofte and so longe to go astraie: and sence Christes time most miserably. 1560. yeres hath scattered them vpon the earth: may [...] not feare the like also amonge vs in this latter time? Doth not S. Paule put vs in feare, that, if god did breake away the naturall braunches of the Oliue, he would also, if cause were ge­uen, cut of those, that were but grassed on beside nature: Doth not Christe in the gospell forewarne vs, that in the latter dayes should bée suche mischiefe and blindnes in the churche: that euen the electe should be in daunger to be se­duced? And shall we then hope at that time to seacute;e the true churche in so tri­umphant glory of the world, as it shal make euen the greatest Emperours [Page]and Princes of the earth in worlde, might & power subiect vnto it? Truly that agreeth not with Christes pre­phecie, nor the warninges of the Apo­stels, wherein they tel vs of the greate daunger, that shal happen in the chur­che, towarde the ende of the worlde▪ That it may not be thought to be my euely phantasie that the aduersarie of Christe shall in the latter daies sit in the churche, and beare the face of reli­gion: Heare you what Hylarie sayth; Conrra Auxentiu [...]n. In whose time the Arrians, by the furtherance of the Emperour, and a number of Bishops, tooke on them the name of the Catholi­kes, and persecuted the true christian churche. Ye do ill (saith he) to be infout with walles: ye do ill to worship the churche of God in gay honfes and buildinges: ye do ill to bryng the name of peace vnder them. Vs it not certaine that Antichrist shall sit in them & Mountaines, woddes, marrice [...], pri­son [...], denne [...] are more safe for me. For in those the Prophetes, either vosuntarely aby­dinge, or cast thether by violence, did prophe­sie [Page 98]by the spirite of god. How could a man more plainely declare that the true churche both then was and after shuld be vexed and persecuted by those, that, in sight and power of external gouern­ment, were taken for the church. At is notable also that Augustine hath Deciuit. dei. lib. 20. speaking of Anti­christe, Rectius putant etiam latine dici si­cut in graeco est: non in templo, sed in tē ­plum dei sedeat, [...]nq ipse sit templum dei, quod est ecclesia. Some thinke it were bet­ter spoken in Latine as it is in the Gre [...]e, as to say, that A [...]ithriste sho [...]th sit, not in th [...] temple of God, but as the temple of God: a [...] thoughe himselfe were the temple of God▪ which is the churche. What Bernarde dyd thinke of the churche in his time aboue 400. yeares agoe, it appereth in viuers places. There is no sounde parte now (faith he) in the clergie: it remaineth therfore that the man of sinne be reuealed. And in an o­ther place. All my friendes vt now become my foes, all my mainteinere [...]e now become aduetsari [...] ▪ The [...] of Christe [...]o seruice so Antichrist. If I should [...]eite out of authour [...], and Histories al such testi­monies [Page]as serueth to this purpose, I shoulde be a greate deale longer then this place requireth. I will therfore at this time omitte them. Seting therfore it doeth euidently appere; that in the latter time they shall beare the name of the churche, whiche in déede be not the right churche? wée must booke dili­gently that wée gene not ouer to euery power that wil claime the name of the churche, but consider, whither the true marke of the holy churche be amonge them. What is the true marke of Christes churche. Christe the true pastour, noting whiche were his shéepe, faseth, [...] sheepe will here my voyce. And as by his worde and voyce he calleth them into his folde, so by his sacramentes there he marketh them. The right churche therfore as the folde of Christe hath the true worde of God and vse of his sa­cramentes accordyng to the same, for the due markes therof. So much then, as the worde of God and vse of the sa­cramentes be corrupted amonge ady [Page 99]people, or congregacion, so farre shall that company be from the shate of the true and perfit churche of Christe.

Therfore it is easie to iudge what is to be thought of them that leaue y ^e worde of God, and worship him well nere al­together with their owne deuised phā ­tasies. That the scripture, which is the voyce and worde of God, is the true triall of the church, wée haue good au­thoritie in the auncient fathers. S. Au­gustine contra Petilianū. cap. 2. The controuersie is betweene ve [...] the Donatiste [...] (saith he) where the churche is. Therefore what shall wee dot? shall wee seeke if in our owne wordes, or in the wordes of out forde Iesus Christe the head therof? & thinke wee ought rather to seeke it in his wordes, that is trueth, and best knoweth hie body. Therfore they be not to be compted the churche; that with their owne wordes will san they he the churche: but they whose doctrine [...]réeth with the worde of Christe that is head of the churche. In like maner hath Chrisostome in Mat. [Page]cap. 14. wherfore (saith he) in this th [...] off chaif [...]ou [...] men ought to resorte to the se [...] ture [...], [...]ecause in this time since theresie is come into the churches, there can be no other proufe of true christianitie, nor any other re­fuge for christian men desyryng to know the tune faith, but onely the holy for ipture [...]: for before it was she wed by many meanes which was the churche of Christe, which was gen­tilitie. But now to them that will knowe, whiche is the right churche of Christe, there is no meanes but only by the scriptures. S. Augustine hath the like in many wor­des in the. 16. cap. contra epistolam Periliani, whiche I let passe here for breuiries sake. The place beginneth in this wise, Vtrum Donatistae eccle­siam teneant, non nisi diuinatu scriptura­rum canonicis libris ostendant. Quianee nos, ppterea dicimus nobis credere opor­tere quod in ecclesia Christ sumus. &c. Wherfore a Christian conscience, that in this daungerous time wyll walke safely, must take the word of god to be his only state: must [...]ake the holy scrip­ture to be as well the rule whereby his shall measure the true paterne of the [Page 100]church, as the very touchstone wherby he must trie al the doctrine of the same. For god in time paste spoke by his prophetes many and sundry waies, but last of all by his dere sonne. Whose doctrine, how perfite it was, the woman of Samaria witnesseth say­inge. When Messias commeth he shall tel [...] all thinges. And the same Messias hym selfe saieth I haue made knowen to you all that I haue heard of my father. And there­fore sendinge his Apostles hee saith. Teach them to obserue all that I haue com­maunded. As if he had sayd, ye shall de­clare vnto the gentils not whatsoeuer shal seeme good to your selfe, but those thinges that I haue commaunded you. Those thinges therfore are to be hard, those thinges we must stay vppon: In those we must séeke our saluation and life. What soeuer is not agreinge with them, must be cast of and compted of no forse. So saieth Origine. Wee must nedes cal the holy scriptures to witnes. In Hie­rem. Hom. 1. For our senses and declaracions withoute those witnesses haue no credite. So saith Hierom. That hath not aucthoritie in the scripture, in [Page]euen as lighily contenmed, as it is spoken, And againe in psal. 86. Consider what hee saith. Which were in it, not which be in it. So that, except the Apostles, whatsoeuer should be spoken afterwarde, let it bee cutte of: let it not haue authoritie. Therfore be one neuer so holy after the Apostlee, bee hee neuer so elo­quent, he hath not authority. Because the lord wyll make his declaracion in the writinge of people and princes that were in it. In that place Hierome at large declareth that the doctrine of god must bee proued by such wrytinges as were in the churche vntil the Apostles time, and those that after folowed to bee of no sufficient au­thority, were they neuer so holy. Let vs stay therefore vpon the canonical scrip­tures and holy worde of god. For (saith S. Cyprian) Hereof arise schismes, because we sel [...]e not to the head, nor haue recourse to the springe, nor kepe the commaundementes of the heauenly maister. Let he aske Peter (saith Ambrose) let vs aske Paule if we wyl finde out the trueth And Christ him selfe biddeth vs searche the scriptures and not presume of our owne spirite vppon vn­written verities beside the worde, of [Page 101]god. What credite is to bee geuen to those that so speake, Chrisostome tea­cheth vs. As Christ (saith he) when hee vn­derstode that they sayde commonly of hym that hee was a deceiuour, to purge him selfe of that suspicion witnessed that hee spake not of him selfe, because he spake out of the lawe and prophetes: euen so if any man sayinge that he hath the holy ghost speaketh of hym selfe and not out of the gospele, wee must not beleue him, For as Christ said the holy ghost shall not speake of him selfe, but shall declare vnto you those thinges that it hathe hearde. That is those thinges, that I haue spoken, he shal confirme. These wordes of Chri­sostome cleane ouerthroweth y ^e ground of all your vnwriten verities beside the worde of god, much more such doctrines as be expresly against the same, as is your sole receiuinge and communion vnder one kind. Wherfore neither your multitude of sundry nacions, and great learned clerkes, neither the continu­ance of .ix. C. yeres (if it were so,) ney­ther the name of your holy mother the churche, which you so often repete, can [Page]bee any sure proufe of your doctrines without the expresse testimonies of the scripture to witnes the same. For the holy ghoste, whiche you assure your churche of, doth not speake of himselfe (saith Chrisostom) but confirmeth that Christe spake before. After that you haue at your pleasure in sundry partes of your treatise charged him that you write against with folly, rashnes, ar­rogancie, and impudency, euen in those pointes that the same crimes may bee more iustly retourned to your selfe and yours: in this place also you indeuour to debase and imminishe his estimati­on, extenuatinge his age, continuance in study of holy scripture and maner of life, in comparison of your late holy fathers, which you doo greatly extolle. Such is your shiftes, when the matter will not healpe it selfe, to transferre your talke to the persons, & by scorneful disdeining of other to procure your self aucthoritie. What your opinion is of [Page 102]him, your writing declareth: but they, whiche haue bene of longer and better acquaintance with him then you are, doo right well know, and in his behalfe doo protest, that .xx. yeres sence he was able fully to haue answered stronger argumentꝭ for these matters, then any that you haue brought at this time. But whatsoeuer hee is to you, god bee praised in him, he so liueth, as the most malicious of your parte cannot iustly blame him: and his learnings is suche, as, when the matter shalbe tried, I doubt not, but it wil fal out, that he w ^t his .xl. yeres age, and such other, whom in like maner you disdaine, shal shewe more true diuinitie, then a many of your hoare heades and greate reading clerkes, as you thinke: whose aucthori­tie and name alone ye iudge sufficient to beare downe whatsoeuer shall bee brought against them.

Towarde the ende you shewe your opinion of reall presence of Christes 13. Cap. Of reall presence. [Page]body in the sacramente, and in that parte blame vs, as though we had more acquainted our selfe with Ismael and Agar (as you say) then with Abraham and Isaac: thereby signif [...]yng that we misdoubted the almightie power of god in bringinge that to passe, whiche he promiseth or speaketh in the institu­tion of his sacramentes. But I muste néedes iudge this to bee in you, eyther ignorant blindnes, or hatefull malice. Blindnes, if you doo not vnderstande and sée; that in this controuersie wée stay not vpon gods omnipotency: ma­lice, if you know it and vpbrayde vs with the contrary. We graunt as frée­ly as you with Abraham and Isaac; That god is able to performe whatsoeuer he both promise. Wee graunt as freely as you with the Angell, Th [...] no worde it [...] to god. We graunte as fréely as you with Dauid, That god hath done whatsoeuer his [...] We graūt with the holy fathers, that [...] greate and [Page 103]merueilous mutation and change is made in this sacrament by the power of gode worde. Wee detest euen as muche as you all such, as sée no more but common bread or a bare signe in this holy supper: nei­ther can wee thinke well of you, when you doo so falsely charge us with that assertion. But how can you shew, that it was gods holy wil to haue so many miracles wrought, as you without ne­cessitie doo make in this sacramente? Yea and of such sorte as be contrary to the maner of all those miracles, that the holy scrinture mencioneth to bee wrought by his diuine power. Moyses turned his rodde into a serpent: but all that were presente sawe that it was a serpent. He made water miraculously to come out of the rocke: but al the chil­dren of Israell saw and tasted of the water. Christe tourned water into wine: but all the company dranke and felte it to be wine. The same is to bee saide of all the residew of merueylous [Page]workes. And when gods power had miraculously tourned these thinges, that, into the whiche they were tour­ned, reserued and kepte that nature, that was agreable to suche a thinge. The serpent had the very nature of a serpent: the water was of such nature, as it behoued water to be: the wins lost not the right nature of wins. Other­wise it may séeme rather a iudglinge then miraculous workinge. You neuer reade in all the course of the scripture, that gods power tourned the substance of any thinge, and left the qualitées of the other thinge that it was before: sauing onely in this case that you ima­gine it. God is able to turne darkenes into light, and light into darkenes but it were madnes to require at gods al­mightie power to make lighte, and not to haue a shininge, that is, to make lighte, to be light and not to be light all at ones: or to make light & darkenes all one. This were nothing but to peruert [Page 104]the order of gods wisedome. Doo you not this in the sacramente, when you apoint the body of Christ to be without quantitée, proportion and figure, or to be in a thousand places at ones: which is proper only to his diuinitie? Is not this to take away the nature of a body from his body, and in déede to affirme it to be no body? And yet wee say not, but that god is able to worke that also, if it be his pleasure. But we say it was not gods wil and pleasure in ordeining the sacrament to haue it so. For ney­ther is there any necessitie, that should constraine him to it: nor doth his word teach vs, that ouer hee did the like. Oh ye wyll say we muste beleue Christes wordes, This is my body, which be of as great power now, as they were in the parlour at Hierusalent, to make the very body of Christe really and carna­ly present: and so the Catholike church (say you) doth teache vs. Wherefore vpon this veritie once setled, diuers o­ther [Page]thinges must of necessitie followe by drifte of reason, although they bee not expressely mencioned in scripture: as the adoration of the sacrament, the turninge of the substance of bread and wine, the beinge of Christes body in many places at on [...]. &c. In déede in such is the vanitie of mans reason in gods holy misteries. For when it is once departed from the true sence of gods worde, it draweth in, as it were by linkes, a number of other absudi­ties: none of which can haue any profft in scripture, seing the first roote of them came not out of the true sence of scrip­ture. Euen so, when you had deuised and geuen to Christes wordes another sence, then the meaninge of them doth importe, no maruel, if the same reason doo leade you to a multitude of other doctrines, not only beside the worde of god, but expressely against it. Whether that interprefacion, that you make up­pon these wordes, doo more agrée with [Page 105]the scripture and grounde of our faith, then that which we teach: any indiffe­rent man, that is not contentiously bente to the one parte or to the tother, may easely discerne. Your sence is, when Christ saith. This is my body, that the naturall substance of the breade, which Christ toke, was turned into the naturall substance of the very body, that Christ dyed in: notwithstandinge that the colour, taste, forme, and po­wer to nor [...]she; that were before in the substance of bread, doth still remanyn [...] ▪ And yet under those qualities and acci­dences of bread; is really conteined the natural body of Christ, hauing neither bignes, nor any proportion or sensible qualitie rightly apperteininge to such a body. To expresse this your meaning, you vse to say, that the bread is trans­substantiate into the body of Christ. In what tonge or language was it euer séeue: In what authour was it euer redde that Sun [...], es, fui, the verbe sub­stantiue [Page]might be iuterpreted by trans­substantiare? Or if the proprietie of the worde wil not in any wise admit that sence: what one sentence or clause haue you in all the course of the bible, that vnder the like wordes can receiue the like interpretacion: Or what prouses can you bringe by conference of other places of the scripture, that these [...] des in this place ought of necessitie in this maner to be interpreted. If ney­ther the proprietie of the tounge can beare the sence, nor you can bring any examples or prouses out of the word [...] of god, where vpon men in so weightis a matter may stay their consciences is it not extreame crueltie in you, vnder payne of damnasion to compel them to beleue it? Here you will burden vs with the aucthoritie of the holy catholike churche: which, as you say, hath alway receiued & alowed that interpretacion. Vnto this I answer, that the catholike churche of Christe neuer generally re­ceiued [Page 106]the meanynge of any sentence, but that they gathered the same, either by examples of y ^e like, or els by groun­ded reasons, taken out of the scripture, declared, that of necessitie it must be so vnderstanded. This rule was appoin­ted to the churche by Christe and his Apostles: who in their doubtes willed men, Serutari scripturas, to searche the scriptures. Therfore when the churche decreed against the Arrians and other Heretikes, that in this sentence, In principio erat verbum, the woorde was in the beginnynge, that Verbum was to be taken for the person of the sonne of God: Or when they decréed, that the sonne was eiusdem substantie cum patre, of the same substance with the father: they stayed not onely vpon their owne consente and aucthoritie: but brought a greate number of prouses out of the scripture, that it must of necessitie be so taken: as it appereth in Cyrill and other of the holy fathers. Now then if [Page]this, that you defend, be the iudgement of the catholike church it hath vndoub­tedly good proffe in the scripture: or if you can bringe for it no such testimony oute of the worde of god, it is euydent that you doo wrongfully father this in­terpretatiō vpon y ^e holy catholike chur­che, and vnder the couert of that name you doo promote & set forth your owne errour. And this much for your opiniō. On the tother parte, when wée inter­prete Christes wordes: wée say it is a figuratiue spéeche, and suche as the ho­ly ghost often vseth in the institucion of sacramentes and ceremonies, or in the deseriuyng of other misteries. The figure is named Metonymia: when the name of the thynge is geuen vnto the signe. When these wordes there­fore be laied vnto vs, This is my body, wée say it is moste true. But mistical­ly, sacramentally, figuratiuely, not re­ally and accordyng to the naturall sub­stance. For this interpretacion wée [Page 107]haue a number of examples out of the canonicall scriptures. God, speakynge of circumsicion, saieth: This is my coue­nante. And yet was circumsicion not the couenante indéede, but the signe & testimonie, wherby they were assured to be the people of God and partakers of his promisses. The Paschale lambe is called the Passeouer: and yet was it but a testimony and remembrāce of the greate benefite of God, in passyng his plague from them. This is the victorie, saieth S. Paule, that ouercome the world, euen your faith: And yet is not our faith the victorie it selfe, but the instrument or meanes wherby the victorie is got­ten. In like maner diuers other places: As, I am a vyne: God is a consumyng fier: The seuen kine be seuen yeres: And that S. Paule hath to the Corinthes. Petracrat Christus: The rocke was Christe. And yet was not the rocke Christe himselfe really: onlesse ye will take it, as hee there doeth indéede, for the spirituall [Page]rocke. For that spirituall rocke was Christe himself verely and indéede, not only in a misterie or signification. So in the Lordes supper, if you take bread for spirituall bread, as Christe doth in the .vi. of Iohn: I will say with you, that it is really and essentially the ve­rie true body of Christe it selfe, and not onely mistically. If wée had not these many examples with a greate number mee in the holy scripture to iustifie our maner of interpretacion: yet the very wordes, whiche the spirit of God by singuler prouidence hath vsed in the Euangelist and S. Paule, doeth mani­festly leade vs vnto this sence, rather then to that you haue deuised. For in y ^e seconde parte of the sacrament, where Math. and Marke say: This is my bloud of the new Testament. That, Luke and Paule vtter in this maner: This is the new Testament in my bloud. Whiche can not be otherwise vnderstande, but that this sacramēt is a testimonie or pledge of his laste will and gifte of our salua­cion [Page 108]confirmed by his moste precious bloud. Wherfore if you say neuer so of­ten times with Math. and Marke, This is my body: This is my bloud: wee wyll repete as often with Luke and Paule, who were led with the same spirit, This is the new Testament in my body and bloud.

This interpretacion and meanyng of Christes wordes, which wée gather by conference with other places of holy scripture, is confirmed also by the con­sent of the aunciente fathers in many places. Whose testimonies I wil recite more copiously: partely, because you séeme to signifie, that they altogether make for you in this mattier: partely, that all men may se how vniustly your sorte doo terme vs Figuratores, because wée interprete that sentence by a fi­gure, wheras it is not our deuise, but the exposicion of all the aunciente fa­thers of the primatiue churche. First I will beginne with Augustine contra Adimantum cap. 12. There it appereth that Adimantus vsed Moyses wordes, [Page]Sanguis est anima, trumake this sonde ar­gument. [...]loud is the [...]oule, saith Moyses, [...] flesh and bloud (saith Paule) shall not possesse the kyndome of God. Therefore the soule shal not possesse the kyngdome of God. Augu [...]tnes answer to that argument is; that this sentence Sanguis est anima, must be vnder standed figuratiuely, and not litterally, as he in that argument tooke it. To proue that, he vseth these wordes of Christe, Hoc est corrusmeum. Saiyng in this wise. Possum interpre [...] illud praeceptum in signo positum esse. Nō enim dubitauit dominus dicere, hoc est corpus meum, cum daret signum corporis sui. I may (saieth Austine) interzete that precept to consiste in a signe or figure. For the lorde bonbted not to say, This is my body, when he gaue the signe of his body. As if he had saied, in a farre greater mattier then this, that is, in institutinge the sacramēt of his death and our redemp­tion, the lorde doubted: not to vse a fi­gure, and to say, this is my body, when be gaue the signe of his body. Therfore this sentence, [...]loud is the soule, man so­ner [Page 109]be interpreted figuratiuely. So that the meaninge of it is, that bloud is the signe of the soule or life, and not the very soule in déede. The same Augu­stine in his exposition vpon the thirds psalme. Iudam (inquit) adhibuit ad conui­uium, in quo corporis & sanguinis sui fi­guram discipulis suis commendauit. Hee admitted Iudas to that feast, wherin he commended to his disciples the figure of his Bo­dy and bloud. The same exposition Ter­tullian maketh moste euidently in hys forth booke againste Martion. Panem (inquit) acceptum & distributum discipu­lis corpus suum illum fecit: Hoc est corpus meum dicendo: Hoc est, figura corporis mei. Christe (saith Tertullian) made that bread, that he toke in his handes, and gaue to his disciples, his body sayinge, this is my bo­die: that is to say, the signe of my body.

What can bee playner then this expo­sition of this auncient father, if men did not study rather to mainteine par­tes, then to confirme trueth. His pur­pose was there to proue against Mar­tion that Christ had a true body in deds [Page]because in the sacrament hee ordeyned the signe or figure of his body, and ther­fore afterward he addeth. Figura autem non esset, nisi veritatis esset corpus. That should not be a figure of his Body, onles hee had a very true body in deede. Augustine a­gaine in. 23. Epistle to Bonifacius. Si (inquit) sacramenta similitudinem quan­dam earum rerum, quarum sunt sacramen­ta, non haberent, omnino sacramenta non essent. Ex hac autem similitudine plerum (que) rerum ipsarum nomina sortiuntur. Sicut ergo secundum quendam modum sacra­mentum corporis Christi corpus Christi est: & sacramentum sanguinis Christi san­guis Christi est, ita sacramentum fidei, si­des est, And a littell after. Sicut de ipso Baptismo Apostolus, Consepulti (inquit) sumus Christo per baptismum in mortem. Non ait, sepulturam significamus, sed pror sus (inquit) consepulti sumus. Sacramentum ergo tantae rei, non nisi eiusdem rei voca­bulo nuncupauit. If sacramentes had not a certaine similitude of those thinges, where of they be sacraments, they should not be sacra­ments at all. And for this similitude or like­nes they commonly haue the names of the thinges them selfe. Therefore as the sacra­ment of Christes body after a certaine fashion [Page 110]is Christes body: and the sacramente of hys bloud is his bloud: so the sacrament of faith is faith. &c. As the Apostle speaketh of Bap­tisme: We bee buried (saith he) in death to Christ by baptisme. He faith not, we signifie burial, but plainely, we be buried. Therefore he doth nothinge els but terme the sacrament of so great a thing, by the name of the thinge it selfe. Sainct Augustines meaninge is to declare to Bonifacius, that Bap­tisme might bee called by the name of faith, and that therefore the Infante baptised might be truly affirmed to be­leue, or to haue faith, because it had Baptisme the sacrament of faith. This he proueth by comparison with the sa­crament of Christes body and bloud: Which, for a similitude or likenes, hée saieth is called the body and bloud of Christ, & that after a certaine fashion: adding, that Baptisme in like manner is faith. And yet no man wyl be so vn­wise to say, that Baptisme is faith in déede really. Wherfore the like is to be iudged of the sacramente of the Lordes [Page]body, wherby. S. Augustine proueth it.

This also is diligently to be noted that Augustine saith, all sacraments gene­rally be vttered by name of the thinges them selfe, because of a certaine simili­tude or likenes: & therfore Paule saith not we signifie our buryall, but wée be buried: callinge the sacrament by the name of y ^t thing, as Austine saith. A­gaine, in Libro sententiarum prosperi, as it is recited in the decrées De consecrati­one distine. 2. cap. Hoc est. The same fa­ther hath these words. Coelestis panis, qui est caro Christi, suo modo nom inatur cor­pus Christi: cum reuera sit sacramentum corporis Christi. Vocatur (que) ipsa immola­tio carnis, quae sacerdotis manibus fit, Christi passio, mors, crucifixio, non rei ve­ritate sed significante misterio. The hea­uenly bread, which is the flesh of Christ, after a fashion is named the body of Christ: where as in dede it is but the sacrament of his body. And the offeringe of the fleash, which is done with the priestes hands, is called the passion, the death, the crucifiynge of Christ, not in ve­ritie of the thinge, but in a signifiynge mistery. The glose in expounding these words of [Page 111]Augustine, saith, this. Caeleste sacramen­tum, quod vere repraesentat Christi carnem dicitur corpus Christi, sed improprie: vnde dicitur: suo modo: &, non rei veritate, sed significante misterio. Vt sit sensus: vocatur corpus Christi, id est, significat. It is called the body of Christ, (saith he) that is to say, it signifieth the body of Christ. To this I wil adde Chrisostome, Operis imperfecti Ho­mil. 11. Si, inquit, vasa sanctificata transferre ad priuatos vsus peceatum est, in quibus non est verum corpus Christi, sed misteri­um corporis Christi continetur, quanto magis vasa corporis nostri. &c. If (saieth hee) it be sinne to transferre holy vessels vnto priuate vses, in whiche is not the true body of Christ, but y ^t mistery of his body is conteined: how muche lesse should wee. &c. What can more plainly declare y ^e figuratiue sence of those wordꝭ of christ, hoc est corpus meū then that Chrisostome saieth, in whiche vessels is not the very body, but the mistery of it. For if those wordes were litterally to bee vnderstanded (as you say) then should the holy vessels that conteyne the sacramentes haue in them, not only the mistery of Christes body and bloud, [Page]but his very body really in dede. Which Chrisostome denieth. In the. 83. Homil. vpon Mathew the same doctour saith. Si mortuus Iesus non est, cuius simbolum aut signum hoc sacrificium est. If Christ be not deade: of whom is this sacrifice a figure and signe? And vpon the. 22. psalm. Vt quoti­die in similitudinem corporis & sanguinis Christi, panem & vinum secundum ordi­nem Melchisedech nobis ostenderet in sa­cramento. That hee might dayly shew vs in the sacrament bread and wine accordynge to the order of Melchisedech, as the similitude of his body and bloud. As before hee vsed Symbolum, signum, misterium: so he hath here, Similitudinem. Likewise. Dionisius de ecclesiastica Hierarchia: cap. 3. Per vene­rabilia signa Christus signatur & sumitur. By those reuerent signes Christe is signified and receiued. Ambrose also, De hijs qui im­ciantur misterijs. cap. 9. Ipse clamat domi­nus Iesus, Hoc est corpus meum. Ante be­nedictionem verborū caelestium alia spe­cies nominatur, Post consecrationem cor­pus Christi significatur. Our Lorde Iesus crieth, this is my body. Before the blessing of the heauenly wordes one kinde is named: af­ter consecratione Christes body is signified, In the. 4. boke also, De sacramentis. cap▪ 8 [Page 112]The same Ambrose saith. Fac nobis hanc oblationem ascriptam, rationabilē, accep­tabilem, quod est figura corporis & san­guinis domini nostri Iesu Christi. Make to vs this offering alowable, reasonable, accep­table, whiche is the figure of the body and bloud of our lord Iesus Christ. Here he ac­knowlegeth the sacrament to bee a fi­gure. In the. 6. boke De sacramētis. cap. 1. He hath these wordes also. Ideo in simili­tudinem quidem accipis sacramentum, sed verae naturae gratiam virtutem (que) assequeris Therefore thou receiuest the sacrament as a similitude, but thou atteinest the grace and vertue of the true nature in dede. This sen­tence of Ambrose conteineth our whole doctrine of the sacramente of Christes body and bloud: whiche is, that it is a figure or signe of his body: and yet not a bare or naked figure, but suche a one, as there by we atteine in déede the full grace and benefite of his body: that suf­fred for vs and was crucified vpon the crosse, and haue our soules fed and no­rished with the same to euerlastinge lyfe. Origine vppon Mathew saieth. [Page] Panis sanctificatus iuxta id, quod habet materiale, in ventrem abit, & in sesessum encitur. &c. The sanctified bread (saith he) according to that it hath material, passeth in­to the bealy, and is auoyded oute of the body. But accordinge to the prayer, that commeth to it, it is profitable: makinge that the minde vnderstandeth and hathe regarde to that is profitable. Neither is it the matter of the breade, but the word spoken ouer it, that pro­fiteth him, which receiueth it not vnworthely. And thus much haue I spoken of the typicall and figuratiue body. Much also may be sayd of the liuely worde it selfe, whiche was made fleash and very meat in deede: whiche meate, he that eateth shal surely liue for euer: whiche no yll man canne eate. &c. Here note you, firste, that Origine saieth that the mattier of the consecrated breade of the sacrament passeth into the bealy and is auoyded out, expresly against [...] your interpretacion of Christes wor­des, wherby ye say the breade is trans­substantiate, and no mattier of it left [...] but onely accidencies. Secondly that he calleth the sacrament, Typicum & symbolicum corpus, the typicall and figu­ratiue [Page 113]body. Thirdely that he affirmeth constantly, that no ill man can eate the very flesh of the seconde person in Trinitie. And yet that is one of the necessarie labels that your sorte doeth teache to depende vpon your wronge­full interpretacion of Christes wordꝭ. Wherfore Origine with this one sen­tence teareth of diuers of your coun­terfaited Labels, that you stitche to Christes testamentes by drifte of rea­son, without the warrant of his holy worde. More ouer Austine de doctri­na Christ. lib. 3. cap. 9. After he hath declared, that in the new Testamente God hath lefte vnto his people but few sacramentes and ceremontes, and the same to be vnderstande not carnally & seruilely accordyng to the letter: and there for example hath mencioned bap­tisme and the celebracion of the Lordes body and bloud: in the ende he addeth these wordes. In whiche (saith he) as, is folow the letter, and to take the sygure for [Page]those thynges, that are signified by them, in a poincie of seruile infirmitie: so, to interprete the signes euill, is the poincie of wandrynge erron [...]. As he counteth it a fonde and wicked errour not to interprete the sigkes well and accordynge to Gods worde: so, by a streight litteral sence, to take the signes for the thynges sig­nified, he esteemeth a seruile infirmi­tie. What can be more plainly spoken against that interpretacion that you make vpon these woordes of Christe: wherby you doo binde vs to a seruile & litterall sence of this worde, Js, and in suche forte take the signes of this sa­cramente for the thinges signified, as you affirme breade and wine (whiche S. Augustine and the other Doctours call the externall signes) cleane to be tourned into the body & bloud of Christ.

The same Augustine contra Adimā ­rum Manich. The Lorde faieth, this is my bobie, when he gaue the signe of his body. Also vpon the. 98. psal. he speaketh in this maner. Ye shall not eate that body, [Page 114]that you se, not ye shal not drinke that bloud, that they shall shedde. It is a misterie, that I tell you, whiche shal reliue you, if you vnder­stande it spiritually. Wyll you not yet vn­derstand, from whence our men recei­ued this interpretacion? will you not yet perceiue, that wée sucked not it out of our owne singers, but were led vnto it by the testimonies of holy scriptures and teachyng of these aucient fathers? Will you not cease vniustly to bourden vs, that wée cauill and dally vpon ti­tles and sillables: whereas your self in this sentence woulde driue vs to suche an vnderstandyng of this one sillable, Js, as the like is not in y ^e whole Bible? But ye will aledge for your selfe, as you signifie in you writyng, that Am­brose, Cyprian, Chrisostome, and o­ther auncient fathers haue in this case vsed the termes of transmutacion, al­teration, conuersion, transelementa­tion. &c. Wherby they haue plainly de­clared theyr meaninge to bee as yours is: and that no bread there remayneth, [Page]but only the substance of Christes bo­dy. True it is in déede, that those holy fathers vsed such wordes, not for that they were of your opinion, but only to thend they might more reuerently, as méete was, and more liuely expresse the dignitie and effect of that heauenly mistery: wherin Iesu Christ, by his vn­fallible promisse, vnfeinedly geueth to the faith of his people the very fruition of his body and bloud, with the hole be­nefite of his precious death and passi­on: and, by the workinge of the holy ghost, merueilously ioyneth vs in one body together with him. Is not this thinke you a merueilous change and to mans estimation a miraculous worke: when by the power of the holy ghost & worde of god, of commen breade and wine, such as we daily féede our bodies with, is made the dredful and reuerent sacramentes and mysteries of Iesus Christ: wherby (as I saide) he doth, not by a bare signe only, but verely and in [Page 115]déede, endow is faithfull people, and make them partakers of his body and bloud? Yea and that in such sorte, that euen as truly as the bread doth norishe our body: and euen as truly as the wine doeth comforte our spiritꝭ: so truly and vnfeinedly doeth the heauenly foode of his body and bloud toren and shed for vs, by fait h in time of that holy sup­per, no ryshe, strengthen, and comforte our soule: and, by the wonderfull wor­kinge of his spirite, make our bodies al­so apte to resurrection. Truly when I earnestly consider the effecte of this sa­crament, as it must néedes be by the trueth of Christes promises, I confesse I am not able with wordes to vtter so muche, as in my minde I doo conceiue, and together withal eschew the absur­ditie of your reall presence and trans­substantion. Wherfore I merueile not if those holy fathers fearinge no suche inconueniences, but lokinge rather pi­thely to expresse the thinge, dyd vse [Page]those earnest wordes and manners of speakinge: and yet mente not as you now of their wordes doo gather. All though no similitude can sufficiently declare the thinge: I wyll, for the sim­plar forte, so muche as I can, indeuour by a comparison to set for the, that I do conceiue. If a temporal prince, for cer­taine causes mouinge him, would geue you a thousand pound land by the yere, and for that purpose had caused the wrytinges to be made: The same wry­tinge, vntill it bee confirmed by the prince, is nothinge but common parch­ment and inke framed into letters by some inferiour mans hand, neither doth it bring any effect: but when the prince hath once added to his seale, & confir­med y ^e graunt, it is no more called par­chement or common writing, but the kinges letters patents. And now hath that reuerence, that all to whom they be shewed, doo veile there bonetes, as bringinge with it some parte of the [Page 116]princes maiesty. Such a change is now made in those trifelinge thinges, that before no man estemed. You also, to whom this lande should bee geuen, would not thinke this writinge com­mon parchement blotted with inke, but the perfite déede of your prince: wherby you were assuredly possessed of the fore­said lands. Moreouer, when the prince, at the deliuery of the same, should say: sir, here is a thousand pound land that I geue fréely to you and to your heires. I thinke you would not be so fonde to thinke, either that the Prince doeth mocke you: because you sée not the lāds presently, or els to conceiue with your selfe, that you haue the landes really inclosed within the compasse of your writing. For the kinges aucthoritie, in y ^e writyng, geueth you as ful possession of the landes, as though you helde thē, if it were possible, in your hande. And you in this case might iustly saye to your friende, shewing your letters pa­tents: [Page]Lo, here is a thousande pounde lande, that my prince hath geuen me. If then there bee so greate a change made in framyng the couenant & déede of an earthly prince: If his seale doo bryng such force & effecte to his gifte and letters patentes: How much more merueilous change, alteraciō, or trans­mutacion muste wée thinke it to bee: when the base creatures of breade and wine be consecrated into the sacrament of the euerlastyng couenante and testa­ment of Iesu Christ: wherin he geueth vs, not earthly vanities, but the preci­ous foode of his body and bloude, remis­sion of sinnes, and the heritage of his heauenly kingdome? how muche more of effecte must this sacrament be, that is sealed with the promisse and wordes of our sauiour Christ: who is truth it selfe, and cannot deceiue any, that trus­teth in him? Wherefore, to expresse this change of the externall elementes into so heauenly misteries: to shewe [Page 117]the effecte of this sacrament: to with­drawe the ignorant mindes of the peo­ple from the prophane cogitacion of a bare signe in this mattier, the aunci­ent fathers had good cause to vse suche wordes. And yet therein doo they no­thyng at all defende your miraculous workes, that you deuise to be made in the Lordes supper. As for the simili­tude, wherewith you woulde declare the necessitie of your Labels, depen­ding vpon the first founded absurditie, it is both of as smal force as other, that you before vsed: and you handle it with more sluttish eloquence, then is méete for suche a mattier as this is. For the drawyng of the Capons, the scumming of the potte, the stinkyng water, the hewyng of wodde, the puttyng on the broche with guttes, garbage and al. &c. Be phrases and termes more méete for the kitchinne, then for the Diuinitee schoole, and such as your self, I thinke, woulde not haue vsed, if your mockyng [Page]spirite had not so rauisshed you, as you wist not what you did. If wée had re­sembled your Labels, whiche you cutte out by drift of reason, vnto so base mat­tiers: you woulde haue sayd that wée had rayled, and done otherwise then it became vs. But sens your selfe doth so take them, wée must thinke, that God oftentimes moueth his aduersaries to vtter trueth against them selues. But if the same maister, that you imagine to commaunde his seruaunte to make readie, that hee may dine, did meane onely that he should set vpon the table suche colde meate, as was in the house, because he saw no cause or necessitie of greater prouision: And the seruaunte, vpon his owne foolish head, would mis­take his maisters commaundement, & conceyuing that he woulde haue great straungers, did kill his Capons, Chic­kens, and other prouision aboute his house, and busied himselfe, with more labour then thanke, to make them rea­die: [Page 118]Doo you not thinke, I pray you, that he might iustly be compted an vn­profitable seruaunt and worthy by cor­rection to bee taught more witte, for that he putteth his maister to greater chargies, and himselfe to more paines then the mattier required: if he had rightly vnderstanded his maisters will and commaundemente? Euen so sir those thynges, that you say foloweth by force of reason and argument vpon the first sentence, do folow indéede on­ly vpon that sence, that your selfe doth imagine mistakyng your maisters wil and pleasure, and not vpon that mea­nyng that Christe himselfe would haue his wordes to be taken in. For all that he woulde haue done may be sufficient­ly done without the working of so ma­nie miracles, as you in this case would driue his omnipotencie vnto. Where­fore wée are not so muche to be blamed for mistrustynge the almightie power of God, whiche wée confesse to be in all [Page]thynges, that his pleasure is to haue it shewen, as you are for presuming vpō the same to haue miracles wrought be­side his will and without necessitie.

For by the meanes of your manifolde miracles without the expresse woorde of God, whervpon mens faith in suche mattiers shoulde bee grounded, you make that sacrament a torment to trie mens weake and féeble consciences: which Christe ordeined to be a comfor­table and spirituall féeding, to increase and strengthen the consciences of chri­stian people. This haue I thought good to answere your defence of priuate Masse: and, as a champion not méete to matche with any greate clerke, yet in suche sorte as I coulde, to resist your assaute, that you make vpon the fore­sayde protestacion, not as good Dauid valiantly assauted Goliath in defence of his Prince and countrey: but as a­morous Paris traiterously shotte at A­chilles in y ^e behalfe of his loue Helena. [Page 119]For neither is it Goliath that you fight against in his brauerie, as you say, braggynge agaynst the people of God, but rather Achilles manfully re­uengynge the inceste committed with the spouse of Christe, which with your amorous cuppꝭ you haue allured from him: nor yet doo you come stoutely as Dauid did in the name of the liuynge God, before the face of both the armies to hurle your stones, but priuely out of a corner shoote your arrowes agaynst him as Paris against Achilles. You were afrayde perhappes, if he had séene you, that, with shame enough, he wold haue wronge your bowe and arrowes out of your hande: but truly I thynke hee woulde not haue so doone, but ra­ther, knowyng that in this quarell he coulde not be wounded, he would haue suffered you to shoote your in, and with his naked hande receiuing your blount arrowes, in suche forte woulde haue picked them at your face, as for shame [Page]either you should haue runne out of the place, or at the least submitted your self & yelded to the truth, y ^t you protest your self to haue forsaken. Wherfore as you haue the feare of God, as you haue care of your soules health, I most earnestly exhorte you, to leaue studie of contenciō: and w ^t a single harte diligently to pon­der the reasons on bothe partes as the weight of the mattier requireth. Con­sider, as the holy father Cyprian coun­saileth, of what authoritie Christꝭ insti­tucion ought to be: that wée should not be so bolde to alter any parte of those weightie & greate preceptes y ^t so nighly touche the sacramente of our saluacion. Consider y ^t neither Christꝭ ordinaunce, nor the testimony of S. Paule maketh any signification of soole receiuyng, or ministrynge vnder one kinde, but all contrarywise. Consider that Iustine, Dyonisius, Cyprian, the holy counsel of Nice, withal other the auncient fa­thers testifie the common maner of the [Page 120]primatiue churche to haue ben in forme of a communion & that in both kindes. Consider that Chrisostome & other so earnestly call the people beyng present vnto it, as they affirme them to doo im­pudently y ^t do refraine. Consider that y ^e maner of the primatiue church was, as Dyonisius witnesseth, y ^t none did re­maine in y ^e church, but those only that woulde communicate. Consider y ^e Ana­cletus, Sixtus, the cannons of y ^e Apo­stles & Antioch counsell threatned ex­communicacion & punishment to such, as, being present at consecration & rea­dyng of the lessons of scripture, woulde not receiue. Consider I say, and vnfei­nedly weigh these thynges with your selfe, and ye cannot choose but se that the aucthoritie of Gods worde and con­sente of the primatiue churche maketh wholy with vs in these mattiers. And on the contrarie parte you shall per­ceiue that you haue no coullor in the scripture for priuate Masse: that you [Page]are fayne to séeke defence in the chur­ches aucthoritie beside Gods word: that your reasons be grounded on false principles and suche as haue no proufe at all. That your aucthorities out of the doctours be either abuses of the prima­tiue churche, or such extraordinarie ca­ses of necessitie, contrarie to the cōmon maner, as they can not be rules to shew either what was then orderly done, or what now ought of right to be done. Be not these gaye reasons thynke you to builde mens consciences vpon? Priuate Masse is nothyng but soole receiuyng in case of necessitie: therfore it is lawfull. The Priest may ce­lebrate alone in thassemble of y ^e people, because diuers in necessitie and extre­mitie receiued alone in their priuate houses. The priest may receiue alone when the people will not, because he is bounde to offer, and the people is lefte frée. The priest may do it when he wil, because he may doo it in necessitie when [Page 104]the people will not. The minister may receiue alone, for companie is but an ornamente and not of the substance of the sacramente. The Doctours in di­uers places name one kinde. Therfore one kinde only was receiued of the peo­ple. How will you be able to proue that priuate Masse is nothyng but soole receiuyng in necessitie? How wyll you be able to proue, that it is al one thing for the minister in the congregacion, and a laye man at home in peril to re­ceiue alone? How will you proue that the priest is bounde to the frequentyng of the sacramente, and the people leste frée? How will you proue, that com­panie is but an accident or ornamente to the sacramente, or that one kinde onely was receiued, because one kinde onely was named? And yet these ar­gumentes muste be good, or els those prouses and testimonies that you wold haue to séeme vnuincible, shall indéede be of no force. Oh sir, for the loue of [Page]God, weigh the mattier more indiffe­rently. Do not dissemble that you must néedes know. If you will haue your doctrine tried by the balance of y ^e scrip­ture and primatiue churche, adde more weight to your side of the balance, or els confesse that your parte is the ligh­ter. Let not the vayne sounde of the holy churches name, where the thynge is not, leade you to be enemie to that doctrine, whiche you se to haue more force in the worde of God. Remember that the true churche is ruled and gui­ded onely by Christes worde and doc­trine. If you abyde (sayth he) in my worde, then be you my true disciples. Christe is the good shepparde, and the churche is the folde of his right shéepe. Christe is the wise maister: and the churche is the companie of his diligente scholars.

Christe is the bridegrome, & the church is his derely beloued spouse. The true churche therfore will not go rangynge what way she lusteth, she will not [Page 122]learne of hir owne braine, she will not folowe hir owne phantasie. They be wilde Goates, they be not tame shéepe, that when the shepardes voyce calleth one way, will runne headlonge an o­ther way. They be selfwill moichers, they be not diligent scholers, that lea­uyng their maisters teachyng will fo­low their owne interpretacions. She is a frowarde and presumptuous wo­man, she is not an obedient wife, that will make light of hir husbandes com­maundementes, and thinke she may alter them at hir pleasure. The true shéepe of Christe therfore, the diligent scholars, the obediente spouse, that is, the right and true churche will harken onely to hir good shepardes voyce, will folow hir maisters preceptes, will obey hir housbandes commaundementes.

How then can you excuse your selfe by your holy mother the churche, if you teache otherwise then Christe hath taught? and make suche interpreta­cions [Page]of your owne head as haue no grounde in his holy woorde. You doo vnder that name mainteine your owne errour, ye folow not the churches auc­thoritie. If you will harken to Chri­stes churche, to the Apostles churche, to the olde fathers churche, neither Christe, nor the Apostles, nor the fa­thers teache you any suche thyng. And so ye séeme your selfe in a sorte to con­fesse, or els ye woulde neuer striue so muche for vnwritten verities, and au­thoritie of the churche in doctrines be­side Gods worde. You needed no suche helpes if your teachyng had iust proufe in the scripture and auncient fathers, as indeede it hath not. This haue I framed my answere vnto you in suche sorte, as I truste the indifferent reader may iudge, that my minde and purpose is, rather directly and playnly to con­sute y ^e summe of your vntrue doctrine, thou, as you do, to séeke shiftes by ca­uelynge to discredit my aduersarie. For [Page 121]if I should haue scanned euery sillable, worde or sentence, that in this writing hath passed you, and indeuoured cap­ciously to haue taken aduantage at e­uerie trifle, (as your sorte is wonte to deale with vs for faute of better mat­tier) bothe I shoulde haue fallen into that faute, that I proteste my selfe to mislyke in you, and my answere would haue growen to suche a length, as it might iustly haue weried the reader.

I haue therfore medled onely with the principall poinctes of this your Apolo­gie, whiche may séeme to be of chiefe force in those matters that you touche: And of purpose haue let passe many small trifles, wherin bothe you might iustly haue béen reproued, and some men, I know, will thinke meete and worthy to be answered. I wyll now ende, and cease any further to exhorte you to a more diligent examinyng and discussyng of the residue of your doctri­nes: [Page]trustynge that your owne con­science, hauynge now more feare of God, then you say you had before, wyll driue you to the same. Whiche I pray God may be, if not by this occasion, yet by some other, when his holy wyll shall be.