Rejoinder to Bristows Reply, Part 2 · Book 1 · Chapter 6
CAP. VI.
A speciall errour of Caluine is confuted, who taught, This is Sander.my body, which is giuen for you, to be wordes of promise, in the way of preaching at Christes supper, whereas they are wordes of performance in the way of working.
The long babling, quarelling, and wrangling, that he vseth in this large Chapter, is grounded vponupon one poore Fulke.sophistication of Sander, in disioyning those thinges, that are to be conioyned & matched together. Namely, where Caluine saith, the saying of Christ to be wordes of promise: Sander presseth him to say, they be words of promise onelyonly, where he sayeth expressely, that they are also wordes of perfourmance, as Sander himselfe translateth his words: They are a liuely preaching, which may shew his efficacie in accomplishment of that it promiseth. Is not efficacie in accomplishment, which is al one with perfourmance, here ioyned with promise? To omit therefore his railing against Caluine, for singularitie, & against ye preachers of England, for following his fansie, &c. let vsus see, what mater he hath to bring against Caluins saying, yt those words are words of promise. First he cōfesseth, yt they are words of promise, fulfilling a promise made before, at Capernaū. Also they are words of promise, in respect of the death of Christ, which is promised in these words which is giuē for you, or, shalbe giuē for you, &c. but this saying. This is my body, is no more words of promise, then the saying: This is my welbeloued sonne, which are wordes of witnesse, of a thing present. Then he will teache the difference betweene a promise and a perfourmance: a promise (sayth he) beginneth the bargaine, the perfourmance endeth it. Let it be so, that should proue the wordes of Christ to be a promise, whereof the perfourmance followeth vponupon the conditions required.
In the institution of the supper, there is mention of a newe couenant. In euerie couenant there must be two parties at the least. Christ is one partie, but who is the other partie, will Master Sander saye? EueryEvery man, or eueryevery faithfull man onelyonly? The newe testament is a couenant of forgiuenesse of sinnes, but forgiuenesse of sinnes is not obteined of all men, but onelyonly of them that beleeue: therefore not all men, but only the faithfull are the other partie in this couenant. Wherefore, though the promise of eating of Christes body, euen as of forgiuenesse of sinnes, is offered by Christ generally to all men, yet the perfourmance is onelyonly vntounto the faithfull, which are the other partie of the couenant. Whereof it followeth, that the wicked men eat not the body of Christ, and so the words of Christ are wordes of promise, the perfourmance wherof was in them that did receiue faithfully, that which he offred. But the wordes of Christ (saith he) speake not of the time to come, but of the present time, ergo no promise. A sorie reason, by which he might proue, a thousand words of promise in the Scriptures, to be no wordes of promise, because they are spoken, not onelyonly in the present time, but also in the time past. And yet the wordes of Christe must hauehave relation vntounto the time to come. For Christ did not consecrate breade and wine into his body and bloud, but with purpose, that they should be eaten and drunken. And therefore hee biddeth them first eate & drinke, and then sayeth, This is my body, this is my bloud, that is to saye, In eating and drinking this bread and this cuppe, you shall eate and drinke my bodye and bloud: Therefore, in these wordes, This is my bodie: the couenant is not ended, as Sander sayeth, vntill that which is offred on the one partie, be accepted on the other partie. Where he affirmeth, that wordes of promise, consist in bare talke, he giueth a bare iudgement of the promises of God, which are effectuall in worke, although they bee vttered in wordes. And when hee sayeth, they hauehave no condition, or delaye annexed, it is vntrue, although it bee not necessarie, that eueryevery promise should hauehave a condition, for many promises are made absolutely. But Gods promises require the condition of faith, in them that shall obteine the performance of them, and so doeth this. And therefore the promise of spirituall communicating, (which Sander obiecteth) helpeth not Iudas, because he receiueth it not with faith. Sander asketh Caluine, whether the condition of faith, be written in the supper or no: If not, how dare Caluine supply it? Hath he not choked Caluine with this question, trowe you? But if Caluine can finde a couenant in the supper, he wil not seeke farre off, to finde faith, necessarily required in the receiuers thereof. But he hath two other reasons against ye promise, one of the worde, This; another of the worde, Is. This (saith he) sheweth where the thing is, that it pointeth vntounto. The body of Christ is promised, & also pointed vntounto. If the worde, This, be such a pointer, I praye you syr, where is that which is pointed vntounto, when hee saith of the cuppe: This is the newe testament in my bloud? Was that which seemed the cuppe, or that in the cupp the newe testament, which was pointed vntounto? If it were a sacrament or seale of the newe testament, confirmed in his bloud which was shed for vsus, then was the other a Sacrament or seale of the newe testament, confirmed in the breaking and giuing of his body for vsus. It angreth Sander, that Caluine should: say Christ saying, This is my body, speaketh not to the bread, but to his disciples, wherein he would make him so singular, that not onelyonly the Papistes, but also all Lutherans & Zwinglians, do confesse the wordes to be spoken to the bread, which is a shamefull lye, both of the Lutherans & of the Zwinglians, for none of them is so madde, to thinke that when he began to speake to his disciples, and saye: Take and eate, then he turned his tale from them, and spake to the breade, when he saide: This is my body, & then againe to his disciples, when he saide, which is giuen for you: For, if hee had spoken to the bread, hee would hauehave saide, thou art my body, and not, this is my body, which is of the thirde person. And to put all out of doubt, S. Mark saith, speaking of the cuppe, foreign, and he said vntounto them, This is my bloud. If he spake not to the wine, but to his disciples, when he said, this is my bloude, then surely hee spake not to the breade, but to his disciples, of the breade: when he said, This is my bodie. Marke this well, for although it bee but a small matter, yet it ouerthroweth the whole mysterie of Popish Consecration. The argument of this verbe, est, is, taketh for proofe, that which is in controuersie, namely, that it is put properlie, because it is indeede Christes bodie, when the wordes are spoken. But seeing by your owne diuinitie, it is not the bodie of Christ, before the laste syllable, vm, bee pronounced, howe coulde the Verbe est, bee taken properly: when neither before it was spoken, nor while it was in speaking, the bodie of Christ was made of breade? But Sander will knowe, by what Scriptures, Caluine proueth his lewde interpretation: As though Caluine affirmeth any thing, of this matter, which hee prooueth not plentifully by the scriptures, which are of the nature of Sacraments generally: and of this Sacrament especially, of the nature of the humanitie of Christ, & of manie tropicall speeches, vsed throughout the scriptures, which hee that wil, may read at large in his writings. In the meane time, let vsus see, how Sander doth confute his fond opinion by the word of God.
The first argumēt of confutation, is gathered of ye present tēps, vsed in these words: This is my body, which agreeth not with the nature of a promise, which is a prediction of a thing to come. I hauehave before answered this lewd argumēt: for al promises are not vttered in ye future temps: Esay saith, Puer natus est nobis, a child is born vntounto Esay. 9.vsus, when he was not borne, 500. yeares after. I hauehave shewed before, that the words, This is my bodie, hauehave relatiō to ye eating which followed after they were vttered. Caluine saith further, yt Christ speaketh not to ye bread, that it should be made his bodie: But he cōmaundeth his disciples to eate, & promiseth them ye cōmunicating of his bodie & bloud. Against this, Sander replieth, yt God said to his disciples, take, eate, which is a commandement, and no promise: He saith further, This is my body, that is, ye making of the meate, which must be eaten, & the shewing of it, but no promise. S. Paul saith, 1. Cor. 10. The bread which we breake, is it not the communicating of the body of Christ? Who dare say the cō trarie? But is the bread which we breake, an actual communicating of the bodie of Christ, before we eate it? No verily. Howe is then the bread that we break, a communicating of the bodie of Christ, before we eate it, but by promise of communicating to them, that shal eat it faithfully? And if these words, This is my bodie, be not words of promise, of cōmunicating his bodie, what other words of promise, can Sander shew in the institution? But nowe will Sander prooue at large, that Christ spake not to his disciples, when he saide, This is my bodie: but to the breade. Although I hauehave alreadie prooued, out of the words of S. Marke, that Christ spake to his disciples, so plainely, that Sanders eares may gloe on his heade for shame, to reade it: yet will I consider all his particular argumēts, by which he taketh vponupon him to prooue, that Christ spake to the breade.
The first reason, Christ speaketh somtimes to vnsensible creatures: as to the windes, ye figtree, and all creatures heere ye voyce of God, whē he speaketh to thē, so he speaketh heere, to the bread. If this consequent, did hange to the Antecedent by any necessity, I would grant it; otherwise I must denie it. Well, yet thus much is gained, that it is not absurde, that Christ should speake to the breade, being a senseles creature. yes verie absurd, that beginning to speake to men, he should sodenly make an apostrophe to bread, and without any transition, but euen with a relatiue, as sodenlie return to speak to men. And yt speaking to bread, he should vse no word of ye second persō, which he vseth, in speaking to the Winds, & to the Figtree.
The second reason beginneth thus: Caluine saith, Christ spake not to the bread I tell him, he spake to the breade, not as to a thing which shoulde carrie bread, but as to that which shoulde be chaunged into his bodie: For he called the bread his bodie. Is not this a magistrall, or doctorall kinde of reasoning? I tell him (quoth Sander) it is so: but how proueth he yt Christ spake to the bread, because he called it his bodie? Which if Caluine wil denie, hee hath it readie out of Tertullian, aduer. Marc. lib. 4. Panem corpus suum appellat: He calleth the bread his bodie. But we cannot call a thing, except we speake vntounto it. Therfore when Christ called the bread his bodie, he spake vntounto the breade, as if he had said vntounto the bread, be thou my bodie. Who woulde hauehave thought it? Sander cannot call a stone, a stone, but he speaketh to a stone: nor a shouell, a shouell, but hee speaketh to a shouell. And with Sander, it is all one, to say: This is a shouell, or a stone, and be thou a shouell, or a stone. Nay, he will say, with God, calling and making is all one, where he will make one thing of another. In deede that is another matter. If this will of God coulde be prooued, of the bread to make his naturall bodie, calling and making might be one, and yet it woulde not followe, that Christ intending to turne breade into his naturall bodie, by these wordes: This is my bodie, coulde not doe it, except hee spake to the bread.
But nowe let vsus see, howe hee proueth, that Christ made the breade, his naturall bodie. First, Ambrose writeth de iis qui myst. init. Cap. 9. Ante bene dictionem &c. Before the blessing of the heauenly wordes, it is named another kinde, after consecration, the bodie is signified. He himselfe nameth it his bloude. Before consecration, it is named another thing, after consecration it is called bloude. And thou sayest, Amen: that is, it is true. That which the mouth speaketh, let the inwarde minde confesse. That which the speech soundeth, let the affection feele. Out of these wordes, Sander saith, that it is euident, that Christ spake to the breade and wine; but by what reason, I cannot deuise: and that the making of them, is in deede so as they are called and signified, because the people answered, Amen. I graunt the breade and wine, are made sacraments, to signifie the bodie and bloude of Christe, and that is it, which the people confesse, if Ambrose expounde the words of Christ truely, when hee saith, that the bodie of Christ is signified after consecration by that which was called breade and wine before the words of blessing, and afterward is called the body and bloud of Christ. This 1. witnesse speaketh not so much against him, but Tertullian, his second witnesse speaketh much more. Acceptum panem & distributum discipulis, corpus suum illum fecit: Hoc est corpus meum, dicendo, id est, figura corporis mei. He made the breade which was taken, and distributed to the disciples, his bodie, saying: This is my bodie, that is to say, the figure of my bodie. Loe hee made the breade his bodie. Wee confesse, but howe his bodie? That is to say, a figure of his bodie: but beeing a figure stoppeth not the reall trueth of his bodie (saieth hee): no more then Christ, being a figure, printe or forme, of his fathers substance, which is yet also his substance in deede. What sayest thou, Sabellian heretike? Is not Christ a distinct hypostasis, from his father, because hee is Homousion of the same substance, and is not that proued, because hee is Character substantiae patris? And yet there is great difference in comparing the persons of the diuinitie, with the figures of Christ. Yea saieth Sander, There can bee no more grosse, more vile, more blasphemous opinion, then to thinke that Christ is a bare man: &c. Or that his figures are like the figures of the olde Lawe. And againe, looke what oddes is betweene God and man, so much beleeue thou to bee betweene his naming, or his figures of the newe Testament, and all other figures. Why Sander, were the namings in the old Testament of man, and not of GOD? Were the figures instituted of man, and not of God? Yea, were they not instituted of Christe himselfe? If they were instituted of God, howe followeth thy beastly conclusion, of the difference, or oddes of figures, and naming of the newe Testament, and figures, and namings of the olde Testament? The rocke was Christ, it was a figure and naming of the olde Testament, so named and instituted by Christ himselfe, why shoulde there be more transubstantiation of the breade, then of the rocke? except as thou wast euen nowe a Sabellian, so in this thou art a Marcionite, that beleeuest another GOD, and Christ of the newe Testament, then was of the old Testament.
Augustine, speaking of the figures of the old Testament, and comparing them with the figures of the newe Testament, sayeth, Sacramenta illa fuerunt, in signis diuersa sunt, in re quae significatur paria sunt. Those were sacraments, they are diuerse in signes, but in the thinge which is signified, they are equall. in Ioan. 6. Tr. 26. Ouer, and beside this, examining Tertullian, let vsus aske him, what did Christ distribute to his disciples? Hee will answere panem, breade. Againe, howe made hee the breade his bodie? hee answereth, hee made it a figure of his bodie. Yea saieth Sander, the Sacrament is a figure of Christes bodie: because it sheweth his death vntill hee come.
But what is the sacrament with you Papistes? The naturall body of Christe. Then the naturall body of Christe, is a figure of the body of Christe: if this bee not shamelesse trifling, I report mee to you. Tertullian is a good expounder to interprete the name of Corpus, by figura Corporis, if Corpus bee taken properly. But to proceede. The next reason to proue that Christ spake to the breade, is this: The Sacrament is a sacrifice, ye acte which offereth it, and voweth it, perteineth as well to the thing offered, as vntounto God, to whom it is offered: as when a Lambe is offered, God in the Lambe is honoured, prayed vntounto, blessed, thanked, and praysed. I omitte these straunge phrases: God is prayed to, in a Lambe. &c. But speake plainely Sander, if thou darest: is the Lambe spoken vntounto, when it is saide, This is the Passeouer: This is the bloude of the couenant, which God hath made with you? For thou must not thinke, to reason with men in such sort, as boyes woulde not suffer thee to passe. The acte of sacrificing perteyneth to the thing offered: therefore the thing offered is spoken vntounto. But howe prouest thou, that this Sacrament is a sacrifice? Because, it is the remembrance of that great sacrifice, made by his death vponupon the crosse, It must also needes partake that nature, whereof it is a remembrance: and consequently, it must bee certainely beleeued, to bee a true sacrifice, as that of the crosse was. Who will grant, or how canst thou proue, the maior of this argument, EueryEvery remembrance must partake the nature of that, wherof it is a remembrance? Is the remembrance of a man, a man? or the remembrance of God, God? or to pose thee in thine owne popery, is the memory of a Masse, as you call it, a Masse? But that reason cannot proue, authority shall enforce. First Irenaeus lib. 5. ad Haereses saith, that when the bread broken and the mixed chalice percipis verbion dei, the eucharistie of the body & bloud of Christ is made. The bread (saith Sander) cannot take the word, which is not directed to it. Yes, as well as all creatures are sanctified by the word of God, spoken by God to men, and by praier directed to God by men, and not to ye creatures yt are eaten & dronken. The same Irenaeus, is cited lib. 4. Cap. 34. saying, Panis percipiens vocationem dei, bread receiuing the calling of God, is not now common bread, but the eucharistie consisting of two thinges, earthly and heauenly. If vocation be not here taken for inuocation, or calling vponupon God, as it is most like, yet at least, it is taken for the vertue of Gods word, which it may receiue, although the word be directed to men, and not to bread. But the earthly thing wherof the sacrament consisteth, (saith Sander) is the old forme of breade, as though accidents without the subiect and substance of earth, be earthly. Secondly the heauenly thing is the body of Christ: this is true, if he ment as Irenaeus meaneth, the body of Christ, the diuine vertue and efficacy of Christes body sacrificed, for our redemption. But as he vnderstandeth it, for the naturall body of Christ: like as it is monstrous to affirme that the form or shape of bread is an erthly matter: so is it hereticall and anabaptisticall, to say, that the naturall body of Christ is an heauenly matter or substance.
The second authority is, Iustinus in Apol. 2. Cibū qui per verbum precationis, &c. Wee hauehave learned that the foode which is consecrated by the worde of praier, which wee tooke of him, to be the fleshe and bloud of Iesus Christ. He yeldeth the wordes of Iustinus, who interlaceth this Parenthefis next to the worde, Foode, foreign, of which foode our bloude, and flesh by transmutation, are nourished: which confuteth transubstantiation, and carnall eating. But to the matter in question. This worde of prayer (saith Sander) can bee none other, but, This is my bodie: as though Christ hath not taught vsus to frame our prayers, but by that saying. But see the conclusion that will followe, admitting these wordes, This is my bodie, to bee wordes of prayer: Then are they not wordes of performance: for prayer and performance differ as much as promise, and performance. Againe, when Sander saieth, they are not wordes of preaching, because they are wordes of prayer: for preaching is directed principally to the people, and prayer onelyonly to GOD. Marke the conclusion. If they bee wordes of prayer, and wordes of prayer bee directed onelyonly to God: then are they not directed to the bread.
The like may be gathered of that hee saieth, that they bee wordes of sacrifice, which were Idolatrie, to direct to any but to God: and therefore chargeth Caluine with horrible Idolatrie, for directing them to the people, not remembring that it is as great Idolatrie, to directe them to the breade, if they were wordes of sacrifice. But they are directed finallie to GOD (saieth hee) as though wordes of preaching, were not finallie directed to GOD: and by the way of sacrificing, they appertaine to the breade, as though wordes of sacrificing appertaine not to the people, for whome the sacrifice is offered, as much and more, then to the thing that is sacrificed. For what is a sacrifice of an Oxe, or a Calfe (of which hee taketh similitudes) but a figuratiue preaching? Hath any man so greate leasure to confute such insensible arguments?
But Hierom ad Euag. tom. 2. sayeth, that at the praiers of Priestes, the bodie and bloud of Christe is made. Doubtlesse at none other prayers (saieth Sander) then wherein they saye, with minde of sacrificing ouer breade, This is my bodie: &c. seeing his argument is nothing else, but doubtlesse, wee may not doubt vppon it. A straunge prayer, wherein nothing is asked, and hee that prayeth, speaketh not in his owne person, but in the person of another. But August. saith in Psal. 39. The performance of things promised, hath taken away ye promising words, I wil giuegive, is a word of promise; I hauehave giuen, is a word of performance. The Euāgelists testifie, yt Christ hath giuen, therfore his words are not wordes of promise. I answere, The Euangelistes testifie, that Christ gaue bread, which he brake, and gaue vntounto his disciples, promising the communicating of his body, to them that did eat it faithfully, in saying, this is my body which is broken for you: the condition of faithfull receiuing, required in all Gods couenantes, must needes be included in this, although in eueryevery place where mention therof is made, it be not expressed.
From this matter, he returneth to the former talke of sacrifice. These wordes (saith he) fulfill the act of sacrifice, and therfore they are called of Iustinus Martyr foreign the worde of prayer, or vowe. It is false that he saith that Iustine calleth these words, This is my body, wordes of praier, or vow: for he saith, the food to be foreign, that for which thankes is giuen by worde of praier: yet Augustine saith Ep. 59. Vouentur, &c. Al things are vowed which are offered to God, specially the oblation of the holy altar. And againe, Orationes. &c. We take praiers to be saied, when that which is on the Lords table, is blessed and sanctified and broken to be distributed. This blessing and sanctifiing (saith Sander) is made by praier, that praier is vowing to God of bread and wine: let all this be granted, what followeth? The word of vowing, is to say ouer it, This is my body. That is the matter in controuersie, which with Sander, is alwaies a good argument, but yet remaineth to be proued. But now we must see ye difference betwen Caluine & the old fathers. Augustine calleth the Sacrament an oblation. Irenaeus li. 4. Ca. 32. witnesseth that Christ hauing taken bread and giuen thankes, said. This is my body, and confessed the chalice to be his bloud, and taught a new oblation of the new testament, which also he prooueth out of Malachie the Prophet. Caluine will hauehave no working vponupon the breade, but onelyonly in the mindes of the hearers, and neither praier, nor vowe, nor sacrifice, in these wordes. Neither hath Sander prooued, that in these wordes, is either praier, vow, or sacrifice. Neuerthelesse, Caluine acknowledgeth, the celebration of the supper to be such an oblation as the fathers vnderunder stoode, namely a sacrifice of thankesgiuing, and not of attonement for sinnes. For thus writeth Irenaeus: Noui testamenti docuit oblationem quam ecclesia ab Apostolis accipiens, in vniuerso mundo offert deo, ei qui alimenta nobis praestat primitias suorum munerum, &c. He taught the oblation of the newe testament, which the Church receiuing from the Apostles, offereth to God through out the whole worlde, euen to him which giueth foode vntounto vsus, the first fruites of his giftes. Here is no oblation of the body and bloud of Christ, but thanksgiuing vntounto God for his benifites. And what the sacrifice foreshewed by Malachie was, he expoundeth out of S. Iohn, in the Apocalipse, the praiers of the saintes. Cap. 35. Also Cap. 34. expounding what is that pure sacrifice foreshewed by Malachie, and taught by Christ, he saith: Oportet enim nos oblationem deo facere, & in omnibus gratos inueniri fabricatori deo, in sententia pura, & fide sine hypocrisi, in spe firma, in dilectione feruenti, primitias earum quae sunt eius creaturarum offerentes: & hanc oblationem Ecclesia solapuram offert fabricatori, offerens ei cum gratiarum actione ex creatura eius. For we must make this oblation to God, and in all things be found thankefull to God our maker in a pure mynd, and faith without hypocrisie, in stedfast hope and feruent louelove, offering the first fruites of those creatures which are his: and this pure oblation, the Church a lone offereth to her maker, offering to him of his owne creature, with thanksgiuing. Thus writteth Irenaeus of the sacrifice of the Church, which cannot stand with the Popish sacrifice, of Christes naturall body and bloud.
And whatsoeuer Gregory Nyss. Chrysostome, or Ambrose write, of changing the bread, consecrating of the things set forth, working of Christes words, hath none other meaning, but of the spirituall changing, consecrating, and working of God, in the worthy receiuers of this sacrament, as in more proper places, shall be shewed out of eueryevery one of them.
The next argument to prooue that Christe spake to the bread, is of the custom of the East Church, in which, the people answered Amen, when the words of consecration were pronounced alowde, which he proueth out of Ambrose. The same appeareth in Augustine sermone ad insants, which proueth, that it was the custome of the Latine Church in those daies, to pronounce the words openlv: for Ambrose and Augustine were both of the West or Latine Church, and therefore the fecret whispering of the Popish Church, is prooued to be but new, in comparison, belike inuented since transubstantiation came to towne, and therefore that custome prooueth nothing worth the answering, howsoeuer Sander prefer it before the custome of the elder Church. To the which I answer, that Amen may be said, as well to wordes of promise, and more properly, then to wordes of performance. For Amen, doth not only affirm a thing to be so, but also wisheth that it may be so.
But now, there is another ancient custome, witnessed by Irenaeus out of Euseb. lib. 5. Cap. 24. who reproouing Victor bishop of Rome, for excōmenicating the Churches of Asia, dissenting from him in the celebration of Easter, affirmeth that Soter, Anicetus, Pius, Higinus, Telesphorus, and Xystus, vsed solemnely to sende the Eucharisty to those preists, who came out of those quarters, where Easter was kept otherwise then it was it Rome. Ergo (saith he) the sacrament is a corporall reall thing, which may be preserued, caried, sent vp and down, and so at last receiued. And so consequently, the wordes in question, are words of performance, and not of promise. Although the consequence is not sure, yet the foundation of this whole argument is nought. For Irenaeus sayeth not, that the Sacrament was preserued, carryed, sent vp and downe, but that it was sent solemnly vntounto strangers, not into forreine countries, but to such as came to Rome, neither doeth hee saye, that it was sent vntounto their lodginges or Innes, but for any thing that he sayeth, it was sent vntounto them, beeing present at the time of distribution and celebration of the supper: for he sayeth before: Nunquam tamen ob hoc repulsi sunt ab Ecclcsiae societate, aut venientes ab illis paribus non sunt suscepti. Yet were they neuer for this repulsed from the societie of the Church, or comming from those partes, were not receiued. And afterwarde hee sheweth, that Anicetus did giuegive place vntounto Polycarpus, permitting him to minister the Communion, as one whome he honoured. So that no reseruation, nor sending vp and downe, is heereof prooued, other then sending the communion by the Deacons, about the Church, as their custome was. But Iustinus sayth expressely, that it was sent vntounto them which were absent, by the Deacons, which had no power to consecrate, and therefore Caluine reprooueth that custome for an abuse.
But for as much as Iustinus maketh mention before of the collation of almes, which was also blessed, and that he affirmeth, that the Deacous carried it, is not vnlike, but that this carriage might be of bread and wine, which was then offered in greate quantitie, to the reliefe of such poore, as beeing letted by sicknesse or imprisonment, coulde not be present, at the holy assemblies. Or if you will needes vnderstande, that which was sent to be the sacrament, although the Deacons might not consecrate, yet might they declare the vertue and force of the consecration, and the vse of the Sacrament, vntounto such as they did carie it, from the congregation, with which, those that vponupon necessarie cause were absent, were present in spirite, & might communicate more tollerably, then they which among ye Papists, when thei hauehave no let, refuse to cōmunicate wt the priest, and after in sicknesse receiue their masse cake, communicating with none at all. Neuerthelesse, it cannot be denyed, but such carrying of the sacrament, if it were vsed in the eldest Church, was an abuse, because it hath none allowance in the holy Scriptures of Christes institution, but a commaundement to the contrarie: for these wordes, Take and eate, bee wordes of commaunding: therefore keeping and sending, which are contrarie to these, cannot be defended, howsoeuer they might be excused. Wherefore, it is without reason, that Caluine is charged with intollerable pride, for finding fault with the primitiue Church, and bringing no reason of his reprouing. For Caluine opposeth the commaundement of Christ, the end of the institution, which he worthily calleth the trueth, against any custome, of any man, how good soeuer he were. Cyprian sayeth, wee must not regarde what any man hath done before vsus, but what Christ, which is before all, hath done and commanded to be done. lib. 2 Ep. 3. The custome of ministring with water, was ancient, and vsed in the primitiue Church, by some (as it should seeme by Cyprian) otherwise godly men. But he concludeth against it, Neque hominis consuetudinem sequi oportet, sed Dei veritatem; Neither must we followe the custome of man, but the trueth of God. It is therefore a fault, to keepe the sacramentall bread and wine, or to sende it about, because Christ hath neither done nor commanded it to be done, but the contrarie, to be eaten and dronken. This reason of Cyprian is Caluins reason, of whose writinges, Sander willeth all men to take heede: and yet he sayeth, they shall finde in them neither learning nor honestie. If there be no learning in them, there is no great danger of hurt by reading of them. I marueile, what that is, which you Papistes call learning: for if it be knowledge of sciences, of tongues, of auncient writinges, of things past, of things present, weight in reasoning, eloquence in vttering, power in reprouing, or whatsoeuer was in olde time accounted for learning, I trust al indifferent men will confesse, that great steppes therof may be found in Caluins writing. But if learning be nothing else with Papists, but that which they fantasie thēselues to knowe, there is none learned but Papistes. Whereas Sander threatneth vponupon the defence of Caluins supposed error, taken in hand by any of his scholers, to discouer more of the ignorance of their arrogant Master, if hee can hauehave so much leisure from his traiterous practises in Ireland, which he hath lately taken in hand, vnderunder the seruice of his diuelish blasphemous & antichristian master, the Pope, I wish him not to spare: not doubting, but as I hauehave so discouered his proude, and yet blockish ignorance, in this Chapter, in such sort as his friendes will blush to read it, although he be past shame himselfe: so in any matter, wherein the Church of England doth cō sent with Caluins writing, I shalbe able by Gods helpe, so to defende the trueth, that all his much babling, trifling, quarrelling, controlling, lying, railing, shal turne to his owne confusion, and the reproche of the Baby lonicall strompet, which he laboureth, both with penne and sworde, tongue and hand, both like an heretike & a traitor, to protest and maintaine against the church of God.