Common Places, Part 4 · Chapter 11
The eleuenth Chapter. Whether it be lawfull in the Communion to vſe one onelyonly kinde.
In 1. Cor. 10.OVr aduerſaries endeuour by many Arguments to defend ye moſt ſhamefull mayming of this ſacrament which they hauehave brought in. The firſt reaſon of the aduerſaries.In déede they graunt that the Church while it was yet ignorāt, vſed both ye kinds, but afterward when it vnderſtoode that the one part might ſuffice, eſpecially the laitie (to preuent the error of ſome, which might thinke that the bodie of Chriſt in the ſacrament is giuen ſeuered from the bloud, and the bloud ſeuered from the bodie,) it decréed that onelyonly the Prieſts ſhoulde vſe both kindes in the Maſſe; and that to the people, onelyonly the one kinde ſhoulde be diſtributed. The 2. reaſon. The 3. reaſon.Further they ſaie, that it was authorized by the Councell of Conſtance. Moreouer they contriue the Commaundements of God into two principall points: Some of them they will hauehave to remaine perpetuallie firme and vnſhaken, ſo as they may neuer be violated, among which ſort they place the moralles. The others doubtleſſe, they appoint to be thoſe which concerne outward things: of which kind be the Ceremonies and ſacraments. And theſe they will not hauehave to be ſo neceſſarie, but that according to the place and time they maie be changed. The 4. reaſon.They maintaine alſo yt it was no wrong to the Chriſtiā people, that one kinde is taken from them. For the bodie of Chriſt (ſay they) is not giuen in the forme of bread without bloud: euen as in the cuppe alſo the bloud is not had without the bodie. They likewiſe alleadge, The 5. reaſon.that the libertie of Chriſt his Church, is far greater, than was the libertie of the Synagogue: & that therefore it is lawfull for the Church to change more things in our Ceremonies, than was permitted to the fathers of the olde Lawe. For we are not vnderunder the law as ſeruants, but as frée mē vnderunder grace. And they indeuour to ſhew that ſometimes the Church in manie rites altered euen in verie matter. Firſt of all they ſay, The 6. reaſon.that it dipped not them which be baptiſed, according as the Gréeke word foreign ſignifieth, but it onelie ſprinkled, or after a ſtrange manner waſhed. Neither is it to be doubted, but that thoſe which ſo be waſhed muſt be holden as baptized, Cyprian.ſéeing that Cyprian béeing demaunded whether they which were baptiſed in yéelding vp the ghoſt, ſhould be iudged as baptized (for they lay in the bed and being oppreſſed with the force of ſickeneſſe might neither be dipped, nor yet waſhed, but onelie ſprinkled, wherefore they ſhould ſeeme not to be baptized) that man of God aunſwereth, that they had perfect baptiſme.
The 7. reaſō2 They vaunt alſo that in baptiſme the wordes hauehave ſometime béene altered, ſéeing in the Actes of the Apoſtles the 8. Acts. 8. 16. & 10. 48.Chapter we reade: that baptiſme was giuen in the name of our Lord Ieſus Chriſt: when as notwithſtanding in the Goſpell, the Lorde commaunded his diſciples that they ſhould baptize in the name of the father, and of the Sonne, The 8. reaſōand of the holie ghoſt. Yea and they alleage that at this day the order preſcribed by Chriſt is peruerted. Matt. 28. ve. 19. & 20For he commanded that they ſhould firſt teach and then baptize. But wee deale otherwiſe, we firſt baptize infantes, afterward when they are growen, we teach thē. The 9. reaſōAnd againe they ſay that that which Chriſt did is not obſerued in our communion. For we receaue the ſacraments faſting, whereas he diſtributed them when he and his Apoſtles had ſupped. The 10. reaſon.We alſo chooſe vntounto our ſelues the morning, whereas hée made his ſupper in the euening. Neither doo we waſhe féete, whereas he firſt waſhed his diſciples féete, and commaunded that one ſhould waſh an others féete. The 11. reaſon.In like maner they alleage the commaundement of the Apoſtle, 1. Cor. 11. 4to wit, That a man ſhould not pray or propheſie with his head couered, nor yet a woman with her head bare. Which at this day is not ſo carefully & preciſelie obſerued. Alſo a decrée of the firſt Councell, The 12. reaſon. Acts. 15. 29which was held in time of the Apoſtles, namelie, that the Gentiles ſhould abſtaine from bloude and ſtrangled, The 13. reaſon.is aboliſhed. And theſe fellowes cauill that the caſe of the Apoſtles, with whom the Lord in his laſt ſupper communicated, is not like the caſe of the Chriſtian people. For they were ordained by Chriſt to be Préeſts: wherefore they ſay that iuſtlie and vponupon good cauſe there was ordained an other diſpoſition of the communion for the lay people. The 14. reaſon.They faine likewiſe, that Chriſt otherwhile diſtributed the Euchariſt vnderunder one kinde to his diſciples, eſpeciallie when he went with them vntounto ye towne of Emaus, where they are ſaid to hauehave knowen him in breaking of bread. Luk. 24. 35.Whereupon they argue that we offende in ſéeking to eſtabliſhe a doctrine & precept onelyonly by one action of Chriſt. Further they crie out that the conſent of the Catholike Church maketh for them, The 15. reaſon.and they alleage cauſes whereby they are led to miniſter onelie one kinde vntounto the laitie. The 16. reaſon.The firſt they ſay is, leaſt the wine ſhould be ſpilt, which might eaſilie happen, if it ſhould bée miniſtred to the whole multitude. The 17. reaſon.The other cauſe is, for that it were requiſit that as well wine as bread ſhoulde bee reſerued for the ſicke, and miniſtered vntounto them whenſoeuer they ſhould aſke it, which might not conueniently be doone, becauſe wine is ſo ſoone and eaſilie corrupted. The 18. reaſon.Beſides this they obiect that there be many which drinke no wine, who being able to receiue onelyonly one part, if both partes were of neceſſitie, they woulde thinke that neither they communicate rightly, neither that they hauehave the whole Sacrament. Laſtly, The 19. reaſon.they alleage the honour of the miniſterie: for they hauehave iudged it méete that more ſhoulde be attributed vntounto their Maſſing Prieſts than vntounto the general multitude. Neither would they that the communion of the laitie ſhould be of equall dignitie or eſtimation with the Maſſe. I hauehave wel-néere recited their Arguments which be of moſt force.
3 Nowe on the contrarie part I will ſhewe our reaſons, Againſt the mangling of the Euchariſt.whereby ſhall be ſhewed how grieuouſly they offend in this mangling of the Lordes Supper. Firſt they depart from the inſtitution of Chriſt, and preach an other Goſpell than he himſelfe and his Apoſtles hauehave preached: And this doth excéedingly iarre from godlineſſe. This in diuinitie ought to bee a chiefe principle whereby all things muſt be reſolued: The Lorde ſaide: It is the word of the Lord that indureth for euer. From the which, 1. Pet. 1. 25.if we ſhoulde be called backe to mens fancies, ſince they often change, we ſhall hauehave nothing firme in religion, but we ſhall be driuen from certeinties to vncerteinties; and the authoritie of men ſhall be equall to the authoritie of God. The 2. reaſō Gal. 1. 8.VntoUnto the Galathians it is written: If wee or an Angell from heauen, ſhall preach otherwiſe, let him be accurſed. But and if that Paul wil neither hauehave Angels nor Apoſtles to bee heard, which affirme any thing contrarie to the decrées of the Goſpell, wee will nothing regard the boldneſſe and impudencie of corrupt men, which teach otherwiſe of the Sacraments than Chriſt taught. Paule in the 11. of the 1. to the Corinthians, teſtifieth, Verſe. 23.that he receiued of the Lorde that which he deliuered: And he out of doubt rehearſed both kindes. So as wee may thinke, that they which otherwiſe define, hauehave not receiued of the Lord, but rather of his aduerſarie: wherfore they muſt not be heard. The 3. reaſon. Gal. 3. 15.And vntounto the Galathians Paule hath, VntoUnto a Teſtament although it be mans, the ſame being cōfirmed, nothing is added or ordained beſides: howe much leſſe ſhould men be raſh in adding any thing to the Teſtament of Chriſt? Men which be fraile and weake, do only bequeath earthly things by their Teſtaments. But Chriſt which is God and omnipotent, hath bequeathed to his Church ſacraments which belong vntounto eternall life. Wherefore none ought at any time to hauehave bin ſo hardie as to inuert his Teſtament. Verſe. 1.In Deuteronomie the fourth Chapter, the Lord commandeth Iſrael That he ſhould heare his Law, The 4. reaſon.& ſpecially he mentioneth Chukim, which word ſignifieth Ceremonies, & he commaundeth that they ſhould neither adde nor take any thing from them: which commaundement of God, is of great force to beate downe our pride. For ſo proud are we, that wee would alwayes hauehave our owne deuiſes, not onelyonly to be in eſtimation, but alſo to be preferred aboue the wordes of the Lord: Verſe. 3 8. The 5. reaſōAnd in the Booke of Numbers the 15. Chapter it is written, That the children of Iſrael ſhould hauehave rybands of blew ſilke in the borders of their garments, that in ſeeing of them, they might call to remembrance the cōmaundements of God, that they might not doe yt which was pleaſing to their owne heart, or liking to their owne eyes. And vntounto the Romans, Rom. 1. 21.Paul grieuouſly reprooued it, that the Gentils were infatuated with their owne vaine diſputations, & that they would not worſhip God ſimplie as they knewe him by his creatures; The 6 reaſōwhereupon he ſayeth that they were giuen ouer vntounto wicked luſtes. And there is no doubt but that this mayming of the Supper of the Lorde, belongeth vntounto this kinde of vice. The 7. reaſōAnd moreouer to this inſtitution of the Lorde concerning the adminiſtration of the Sacrament, the vniuerſall Church, both in the moſt auncient and beſt times hath alwaies conſented.
The 8. reaſō4 Alſo the fathers hauehave greatlie feared to leaue the Lords order in this Sacrament. There is extant a Canon of Gelaſius, Gelaſius.which is in the Title De Conſecratione, distinct. 2. in the Chapter Comperimus, wherein certaine men are blamed, becauſe they hauing receiued the Lords bodie, abſtained from the cuppe of the bloud. Which he ſaith is ſuperſtitious. And he commaundeth them that either they ſhould receiue the whole Sacraments, or elſe be driuen from the whole. Alſo he ſaith it is ſacriledge that they ſhould in ſuch ſort bee diuided. This doe they indeuour to auoide, and to reſtraine it to maſſing Prieſtes while they conſecrate. For them (ſaie they) it is neceſſarie to receaue both kindes. Howbeit this they hauehave not out of the wordes of the Biſhop. Nay rather there is mention there of the participants, and of them which are to be driuen from the ſacraments: the which agrée fitlie vntounto them to whom they be diſtributed. Moreouer it is written in the decrée, that the iniurie is done not vntounto the oblation or ſacrifice, but vntounto the Sacrament. For he ſaith that a diuiſion of one and the ſelfeſame myſterie, cannot bee doone without great ſacriledge. Therefore ſéeing they diſtribute the communion vntounto the laitie vnderunder one kind, and make diuiſion of the Sacrament, they cannot denie but that they commit ſacriledge. Chryſoſt.Chryſoſtome in the 18. homilie vponupon the 2. Epiſtle to the Corinthians ſaith, that there be ſome things wherin a Prieſt differeth not from a laye man. I ſay in receiuing of ye dreadful myſteries, it is not with vsus as it was in the old law, where ſome parts of the ſacrifices were giuen vntounto the Prieſts, others went vntounto them that offered: but vntounto all vsus is ſet forth one and the ſelfeſame bodie of Chriſt, & the ſelfeſame cup.
5 Cyprian.Cyprian in his ſeconde Booke, and 3. Epiſtle earneſtly affirmeth that in this Sacrament of the Euchariſt, wee muſt by no meanes varie from the inſtitution of Chriſt. And there when hee intreateth at large of this matter, he ſetteth downe theſe ſpeciall pointes, namelie: That Chriſt in this matter muſt be heard: further that we ought not to regard what others hauehave doone before vsus, but what Chriſt did before all. Moreouer, he that doth not as he did, doth in vaine worſhip God with the commaundements and doctrines of men. And ſuch precepts of the Sacrament he maketh not light, but ſaith they be great. And the ſame Martyr in an Epiſtle to Pompeius againſt Stephen Biſhop of the Citie of Rome, writeth: Where any doubt is, we muſt alwais reſort to the Tradition of the Lord, to the Goſpell and the Apoſtles. The aduerſaries ſay, that Cyprian ſpeaketh not of this which we nowe intreate of. He diſputed againſt the heretiks called Aquarij, The Aquarij.who vſed not wine vntounto the cuppe of the Lord but water. This (ſay they) he reprooued, and not the taking away of a part of the Euchariſt from the laitie. I graunt it, but I ſay, that theſe men ſinne more gréeuouſly againſt the inſtitutiō of the Lord than did the Aquarij. Becauſe they although they put water in the ſtead of wine, yet did they not vtterly remooue the other part of the ſacrament. They vſed the ſelfſame wordes, which we ſpeake in deliuering of the Cup: onelyonly they did change the Element. But theſe men take awaie from the people both the whole Cup, and the wordes thereof. Further I graunt the diſputation of Cyprian to be particular, whereby he confuteth the Aquarij, but the Argument and reaſon which he vſeth is vniuerſall: namely that in the Sacrament of the Euchariſt wee muſt not flie from the inſtitution of the Lord. For this cauſe alſo we argue, that we as it were by handes doe receaue the ſame from him to the intent we may ſhewe, that it was not lawfull to take away the cup from the Communion. They hauehave alſo other ſubtill ſhifts, and they ſay, that Cyprian wrote theſe things onelie of them that offer, and that therefore the place ſerueth nothing vntounto Communion. But it is a wonder that theſe ſo wittie men perceiued not that they in times paſt and ſpeciallie in the time of Cyprian, had no oblation that differed from the Cōmunion. Priuate Maſſes.There was no place among them for priuate maſſes. Thoſe ſproong vp manie yeares after, to the greate hurt of Religion. Moreouer if the Epiſtle be read from the beginning, thou ſhalt heare Cyprian ſay, that theſe men depart from the inſtitution of Chriſt as wel by conſecrating the cuppe, as by diſtributing of it vntounto the people. Wherefore, the cauil is vtterlie confuted.
An anſwere to the reaſons of the aduerſaries To the firſt.6 Now remaineth that we declare that the reaſons which they thinke to make for them, be of none effect. They ſaid that the Church in the firſt times vſed both kindes, while it was yet ignorant. I would to God that we were ſo inſtructed, as the Chriſtians were taught in the firſt times. Afterward (ſay they) it ſawe that the laie people may be content with one kinde. What I beſéech you ſawe our Popes, that the Apoſtles and prelates of the primitiue Church ſawe not, who were moſt plentifullie indued with the holy Ghoſt? What is it elſe that we ſée but méere darkeneſſe if it ſhall be compared to the moſt cleare knowledge of them? They adde: To the intent that the error of them ſhould be auoyded, who perhappes would think that the bodie of Chriſt is giuen a part from the bloud, as though the bodie ſhould ſit in heauen at the right hand of the father without bloud. Theſe be their monſtrous opinions. None of the heretickes euer deuiſed this kinde of error. But admit there had bin ſometime ſuch an hereſie: might it not otherwiſe be amended than by corrupting of the Sacrament of the Euchariſt? Vndoutedlie many pernitious opinions may ariſe as touching the other part of the Euchariſt which they hauehave made to remaine. And will they becauſe of thoſe thinges, take away this alſo?
To ye ſecond7 And that which they obiect as touching the Councell of Conſtance or Baſil, we paſſe not of it. Neither the Gréeke Church, nor ye whole Eaſt part obayed them: & not without a cauſe. For they decréed againſt the word of God. And oftentimes Councels doe erre, as it is euident of the Councels of Ariminum, Chalcedon, Epheſus the ſecond: and of the Councell of Africa that was vnderunder Cyprian, and many others. Yea and in the time of Chriſt, did not the Councell of the Prieſtes, and the Church of that time, ſhamefully erre, when it refuſed the doctrine of Chriſt, and condemned Chriſt himſelfe and the Apoſtles? Elſewhere I hauehave warned, that Councels hauehave not alwayes decreed that which was true: The greater part there had the ouerhād of the leſſer, and oftentimes the woorſer of the better. Here bragge they: Our Church hath the holy Ghoſt, and therefore it cannot erre. They vſe a fallacie of the Accident: For they that hauehave the holy Ghoſt, A falſe argument of the accidentdoe not all that they doe by him. Euen in lyke manner as a Maiſter builder in that he is a Maiſter builder, in building dooth not amiſſe: but becauſe it happeneth ſometime that he is occupied in other cogitations, and perhappes hath droonke ouermuch, therefore he otherwhile dooth amiſſe. Ioh. 14. 15. 16. Mat. 28. 20But the Church (ſay they) hath a promiſe of the holie Ghoſt, and that it ſhal not be forſaken at any time. I graunt: neither is this promiſe wanting, but is fulfilled: and there be verie manie alwayes in the Church which doe iudge rightlie. Euen as in the Iewiſh Church in moſt corrupt ſeaſons, were Simeon, Zacharias, Elizabeth, Iohn Baptiſt, Mary the virgin, and Ioſeph, Nathanael, and manie others which were partakers of this promiſe. Wherefore it followeth that trueth preuaileth and errors are diſcouered. Yet is it not gathered by ye power of this promiſe, that they alwayes define wel in Councels. Oftentimes they be troubled with affections, and oftentimes they grope in ye dark. How ſhould this be knowen of vsus? How ſhal we vnderſtand whether they hauehave decréed well or amiſſe? All thinges muſt be tryed by the touchſtone of the holy ſcriptures, there the trueth is found out. But let vsus procéede to confute other their Argumentes.
8 They ſaid that the preceptes of outward thinges and of ceremonies are not ſo firme, To ye third.as they cannot be changed by any meanes. Againſt this maketh Cyprian in the Epiſtle now alledged againſt the Aquarij: where he calleth the preceptes of this Sacrament, great preceptes. Matt. 5. 19.And Chriſt alſo ſaith that he ſhall be called the leaſt or none at all in the kingdome of heauen, which breaketh the leaſt of his commaundementes. Moreouer the places out of Deuteronomie the 4. and 12. Chapters, and out of the 15 of Numbers the which we alledged before, doe plainlie ſhew that it was not lawfull to change any thing in ceremonies: yet doe we graunt that there is ſome difference in the preceptes of GOD. A diſtinction of the precepts.For there be ſome of them from which we be neuer looſed, as be all thoſe which prohibit. Alſo that ſame ſūme, whereof the whole lawe and the Prophets depend: To louelove the Lorde GOD with all the heart, with all the ſtrength, and with all the ſoule, and our neighbour as our ſelues. But there be other precepts which we are not alwayes bound to execute, except it be when time, place, and reaſon require that they ſhould be doone. For the Hebrewes were not bound to doe their holie thinges eueryevery where and at all times, but at certaine dayes, and in the place which the Lord had choſen. And vppon the Sabbaoth day they could not alwayes be voyd of outward woorkes. Sometimes it behooued them to fight, as we reade in the bookes of the Machabies: neither might circumciſion be miniſtred before the 8. day. At this day alſo he that would deſire Baptiſme, Baptiſme imputed, where it cannot be had.and might not hauehave the libertie thereof, his deſire ſhould be imputed in ſtead of the woorke. Wherefore in theſe thinges, when the commaundement of the Lord is to be doone, it is not lawfull to change or inuert anie thing. And although thou be not alwayes bound to doe that which is commaunded, yet when thou doeſt it, it is not méete thou ſhould depart frō the order which GOD hath appointed. Deut. 10. 1.Nadab and Abihu would alter ſome thing about the holy ſeruice, and they were conſumed with fire. Oza dyed for his raſhneſſe. 2. Sam. 6. 6. 2. Paral. 26 ver. 16.And king Ozias when he would burne incenſe, which was not lawful, was ſtricken with leproſie. Why are they not mooued with the example of their pretie Sacrificers, who take very carefull héede in their Maſſe that they ſay not Maſſe without their Orarium, or as they terme them without their ſtole or maniple? And they iudge it to be a grieuous offence if they ſhal omit anie ſigne of the croſſe or anie the leaſt iot of this kinde: which neuertheleſſe be the inuentions of men, méere toyes and trifles. Why ſhould not we rather beware that we paſſe not ouer thoſe thinges which Chriſt himſelfe in his word commaunded? And among the Ethnickes there was very great care had in their ſacred ceremonies, leaſt the prieſt ſhould trippe or miſſe in a word, which if it happened, it was iudged to be no light offence. And hauehave our aduerſaries thought that Chriſtes order in the Sacramentes may ſo eaſilie be vndoone?
To the 4.9 They ſaid that as touching the olde lawe, we are indued with a greater libertie than were the Hebrewes, and therefore we are permitted to change ſomething in ceremonies which for them was not lawfull. But theſe men ought to know that Chriſtian libertie herein conſiſteth not, that we ſhould change the inſtitutions of Chriſt: but in that, that Chriſt hath reduced manie ceremonies into fewe, and inſtead of laborſome, hath giuen eaſie and plaine, and in the ſtead of obſcure ceremonies hath ſet downe thoſe which are moſt euident. Adde that we by the power of the ſpirit, are made willing and voluntarie doers, for we are not conſtrained by the lawe, but we doe willinglie thoſe thinges which religion perſwadeth. Wherefore they proue not what they would, but are rather driuen to the contrarie. For ſéeing we be ſo frée as we hauehave but a few ceremonies, and thoſe eaſie and gentle, it would be an intollerable thing, and woorthie to be condemned if we ſhould not performe them without corruption.
10 They ſay, To the 5.that the ceremonie is not for that cauſe polluted, neither the people defrauded, becauſe ſomuch is had vnderunder one kinde as vnderunder both. For with the bodie of Chriſt his bloud is alſo giuen, and that vnderunder our kinde, Of Concomitancie, a Papiſticall deuice, which may be engliſhed Ioint companying.which they ſay is doone by Concomitancie, for ſo they ſpeake. But theſe men ſhould hauehave weighed, that the communion of the bodie and bloud of Chriſt, is not in this Sacrament by the woorke of nature. For whatſoeuer of theſe thinges is deliuered vntounto vsus, is receaued by faith and is offered vntounto vsus by the words of Chriſtes promiſes. And in theſe outward thinges, God requireth chieflie an obedience. Signes and the outward actions of ceremonies, be fraile thinges: The word of God indureth for euer, therefore the nature of the Sacrament muſt be iudged by it. So much is giuen vntounto vsus, as God appointed to giuegive: of whoſe will we know nothing further than his ſayings diſcloſe vntounto vsus. But Chriſt appointed two partes of the Sacrament: by one of the which he ſayd that his bodie is communicated, and by the other his bloud, and of theſe he hath left vntounto vsus expreſſe wordes: wherefore we muſt rather giuegive credit vntounto him than vntounto the ſubtill ſayings of men. Thou telleſt me of I know not what Concomitancie: and doubtleſſe it is thine owne ſubtill poynt of reaſoning: I know that it ſo fareth with the bodie of Chriſt which is in heauen, as it is not without bloud. I doubt not but that theſe thinges be ioyned together in him. But how wilt thou prooue that they be ſignified when they be ioyned together in the Sacrament? On the one part, the faith of the communicants comprehendeth there the bodie of Chriſt nailed vppon the croſſe for our ſaluation, whereof we be ſpirituallie fedde. And the ſame faith on the other part layeth holde of his bloud ſhed for our ſaluation, and hereof wée bée ſpirituallie watred and hauehave droonke. About theſe myſteries of the death of Chriſt is the minde of the faithfull chiefelie occupied, while they communicate. Wherefore wee muſt not regard in what ſort the bodie of Chriſt is now in heauen. We followe the woordes of GOD, and perceaue it is not of neceſſitie that thoſe things which in their owne nature be ioyned together ſhould be communicated one with another. Things in their owne nature ioyned, may ſeuerally be communicated.The humane and diuine natures are ioyned together in the ſubiect of Chriſt, neither are they plucked one from an other. Yet wilt thou not ſay that whereſoeuer the diuine nature is, there alſo is the humane, vnleſſe thou wilt extend the bodie of Chriſt to an vnmeaſurable greatneſſe, the which is moſt ſtrange from the nature of man. The ſonne of God, in ſo much as he is God, is found euerie where, and filleth all places, the which his bodie doth not. Further in the holy Ghoſt all graces or giftes are ioyned together, yet for all that is not the gift of ſundrie tongues giuen to him vppon whomſoeuer the power of propheſying is beſtowed: or ſo likewiſe on the other part. Alſo ſeueritie and merciemercy, are moſt néerely ioyned together in God, and yet neuertheleſſe, when as one is made an inheritor of eternall life, he hath a proofe of the merciemercy and not of the ſeueritie of God. And the ſame might I affirme of many thinges, which being ioyned together in themſelues, yet are they communicated aſunder. But herein ſtandeth the effect of the anſwere, that this communication is no woorke of nature, and therefore is not giuen vntounto vsus by the conſtitution or diſpoſition of the thing which it hath in his owne nature, but by the will and pleaſure of the giuer, of whoſe will and counſell wée cannot decrée, further than is expreſſed by his owne words.
To ye ſixth.11 They ſayde moreouer that in Baptiſme there is much altered: Firſt becauſe Infants hauehave water powred vppon them, The cite of dipping in Baptiſme.and are not dipped in, as the Gréeke woord foreign ſignifieth. I know yt the Fathers, when it might be, in reſpect of age and health vſed dipping: the which was ſhadowed in the olde Teſtament when the Iſraelites paſſed through the ſea: yet is it not of neceſſitie, neither is there a commaundement extant for the ſame. When it is vſed it hath an excellent ſignification: becauſe when we are dipped in, we are ſignified to dy with Chriſt, and when we iſſue foorth, we are declared to hauehave riſen with him vntounto eternall life. Howbeit this ſignification as we ſay is not of neceſſitie. But that which concerneth the nature and naturall propertie of Baptiſme is a cleanſing from ſinnes: Wherefore in the Epiſtle to ye Epheſians, Ephe. 6. 26Chriſt is ſaid To hauehave cleanſed his Church by the waſhing away of water in the word: And we are pronounced to be baptiſed vntounto the remiſſion of ſinnes. And this cleanſing, whether we be dipped, or whether we be waſhed all about, or whether we be ſprinckled, or after what manner ſoeuer we be waſhed with waters, it is very fitlie ſhewed in Baptiſme. Neither dooth the Gréeke word foreign only ſignifie, to be dipped, but any manner of way to be ſprinckled. Moreouer the reaſon is not a like: To change the manner of waſhing, and to take it all wholy away: Becauſe in them which be ſprinckled or hauehave water powred vppon them, the element of Baptiſme, namelie water is kept and hath his ſignification. Neither doe we ſuperſtitiouſly contend after what ſort we are to drinke of the cuppe, eyther little or ſomewhat largelie. Neither through little pipes as ſometime it was doon, and as the Biſhop of Rome dooth at this day, or with our lippes put to the cup, or by bread dipped and made wet in the wine, as it is in the hiſtorie of Euſebius Caeſarienſis. As touching theſe things, ſo the part of the Sacrament remaine whole it ſufficeth. Howbeit I iudge that muſt be doone which commeth moſt néere to the inſtitution of Chriſt.
12 And wheras they added, To the 7. A change in the forme of baptiſme Acts. 8. 16. & 10. 48.that ye words which are vſed at Baptiſme were inuerted, becauſe we finde in the Actes of the Apoſtles, that ſome were Baptiſed in the name of Ieſus Chriſt, there be many which graunt vntounto it. Becauſe (ſay they) in the name of Ieſus Chriſt, the names of the thrée diuine perſons are comprehended: Of the Father, (I ſay) of the Sonne, and of the holy Ghoſt. And that Irenaeus very plainelie teſtifieth in the 4. booke againſt the Valentinians. Irenaeus.VnderUnder the name (ſaith he) of Chriſt are the thrée perſons vnderſtood. Becauſe that word ſignifieth annointed, wherein is ſhewed both the annointer, and he that is annointed, and alſo the oyntment. He that is annointed is the Sonne, the annointer is the Father, the annointment is the holy Ghoſt: whereby appeareth, that in the ſame alteration nothing was taken away, whereas theſe men tooke away almoſt the whole halfe of the Sacrament. Howbeit I ſtand not to this aunſwere: becauſe our aduerſaries cauill that euen in the Communion of either kinde the whole is ſignified. Wherefore I ſay that by that place of the Actes of the Apoſtles In the name of Ieſus Chriſt, is meant, by the guiding, A place in the Acts of baptizing in ye name of Chriſt expounded.commaundement, will and inſtitution of Chriſt. Wherefore by theſe wordes rather it is knowen that the Apoſtles did altogether kéepe the forme preſcribed by Chriſt. Otherwiſe they would not hauehave baptiſed in the name of Chriſt, dooing otherwiſe than he had commaunded. Neither are we to thinke that the Apoſtles who ſpread abroad religion with ſo great godlyneſſe and indeuour, reiected the forme of Baptiſing deliuered by Chriſt. Neither muſt we paſſe it ouer that the Schoolemen (as we reade in Thomas,) when they agrée that the forme of baptiſing was in a manner changed by the Apoſtles, write that this was doone for a time by the diſpenſation of the holy Ghoſt, to the inten… the name of Chriſt might be made the more famous, and that therefore a perpetual lawe ſhould not be drawen from thence. The which theſe men that hauehave taken away the cup of ye Communion from the layitie, hauehave not obſerued, ſéeing they will hauehave their decrée to be perpetual, and not for a time. Beſides this, the Apoſtles condemned not for heretickes thoſe which baptiſed after the vſuall and appointed forme. But they hauehave not onelyonly condemned for heretickes the layemen when they hauehave receaued both partes of ye ſacrament, but they alſo deliuer them to ye fire. Neither is this doctrine to be ſuffered, yt it is put in mens authority to inuert either the matter or ye wordes of ye Sacraments as theſe men hauehave moſt impudentlie doone: who not onelie hauehave taken away the cup from the common people, but alſo the wordes ſpoken thereat, the which be very comfortable, and doe more largelie and ſignificantlie expreſſe the myſteries of our ſaluation than doe the wordes which be vttered, as touching the bread, where it is onelie ſaid: This is my bodie, Mat. 26. 26which ſhall be giuen for you: But at the cuppe it is ſaid: Ibid. 27.This cuppe is the newe Teſtament in my bloud which ſhall be ſhed for you and for many vntounto the remiſſion of ſinnes. Weigh how manie expoſitors thou haſt here of the promiſe which was ſet down in the other part.
To the 8. Baptiſme of Infants. Mat. 28. 1913 They affirme moreouer that we hauehave inuerted the order in Baptiſme, becauſe we baptiſe infants before we teach thē. Whereas Chriſt deliuered them firſt to be taught, and afterward to be baptiſed. I maruell that theſe men deſcend hither as though they would hold with the Anabaptiſtes, to the intent they may be againſt vsus, and doe not conſider that the ſaying of Chriſt is generallie to be vnderſtood, as touching the Gentils, and not particularlie. Verilie it is true that in the propagation of Chriſtianity they were firſt to beginne with doctrine. For when as a Citie, a Prouince, or a kingdome ſhould be woonne vntounto Chriſt, it behooueth to vſe preaching before we come to Baptiſme: which when they hauehave beléeued, thoſe of ripe age not onelie are baptiſed themſelues, but they alſo offer their young children to be baptiſed. Wherefore that which was ſo commaunded by Chriſt in general, they will drawe vntounto ye particular Baptiſme of young children. In Gréeke it is ſaid foreign, yt is, to make diſciples and to gather them vntounto Chriſt: which in them of ripe yeares is doone both by doctrine and baptiſme, but in young children by Baptiſme, ſéeing they are not yet capable of doctrine. The very which order is ſéene in Circumciſion. As touching Abrahā being of perfect age, Doctrine went for moſt, afterward followed the ſacrament: in his ſonne Iſaac it came otherwiſe to paſſe. And abſolutelie it is true that in the Church Doctrine dooth goe before the Sacramentes, as euerie man may perceiue. Neither (as we taught before,) doe they rightlie gather, when as by an order of the wordes, they wil gather an order of the thinges: For we hauehave it in Marke as concerning Iohn, Marke. 1. 4That he baptiſed and preached the baptiſme of repentance: when as yet there is no doubt but that he preached before he baptiſed.
14 And as touching the time of the Lords Supper, To the ….we confeſſe that the Church might order the ſame as it thought good, ſéeing there is no commaundement had thereof. There be commaundements as touching this Sacrament: Take and eate ye, Mat 26. 26 Ibid. 27. 1. Cor. 11. 24. Ib. ver. 28.Take and drinke ye all of it: Doe this in remembrance of mee: Let a man examine himſelfe, and other ſuch ſayings. No mentiō is there of time, of place, of garment, or other ſuch like circumſtances. Chriſt firſt ate the Paſſouer, becauſe hee would inſtitute the newe things after the olde. Neither is it commaunded vsus either to kill or eate the Paſſouer before the Communion. Why the Supper is celebrated in the morning. Cyprian.And the cauſes why the Euchariſt is diſtributed in the morning, are gathered out of Cyprian. The firſt is, becauſe it is more eaſie at that houre to hauehave the holy aſſembly. For in the day time there happen many affaires whereby m…n be ledde away from the ſeruice of God. Further at that time, men be well aduiſed, and wee hauehave a minde more fit and attentiue to receiue excellent things. Thirdly he addeth, that the ſame morning tyde is a monument of the reſurrection of Chriſt, which doeth not a little further the inſtitution of this Sacrament. Neuertheleſſe wee muſt note that the ancient fathers in the time of faſting, (becauſe they did not eate meate till night) had the Communion at euening tyde: for all the whole faſting day they ſpent their time in Sermons, Hymnes, and other godly exerciſes. Towards night the Supper of the Lord was miniſtred, the Sacrament was receyued. Afterward they returned home to the refreſhing of their bodies. Albeit in the time of Auguſtine in many Churches, The Euchariſt celebrated vponupon Mandie Thurſday at night in Auguſtines time.as he himſelfe reporteth, that vponupon the Thurſday before Eaſter, to the intent the Act of Chriſt might be repreſented the better, the Euchariſt was giuen to the faithfull at night and after Supper. But I finde this cuſtome to bee aboliſhed by the 6. Synode, which at Conſtantinople was held in Trullo. Whoſe Canons are extant in Gréeke, wherein there is plaine mention made of this cuſtome to be among the Churches of Aphrica. But to returne whence we hauehave digreſſed. So the integritie of Sacramentes be retained, as touching the time & other ſuch like circumſtances, we ſhoulde not be verie carefull ſéeing of thoſe things there is nothing cōmanded. Chriſt when he was baptized was thirtie yéeres of age. Would it not be a great follie at this day, if we would baptize only ſuch as be 30. yéeres olde?
To the 10. The waſhing of féet15 Of the waſhing of féete which is now omitted, we ſay, that therein is a double ſignification to be conſidered: One as touching remiſſion of ſinnes, and cleanſing the filth of the minde, the which is giuen vntounto vsus by Chriſt. Thereof the Lorde ſaid vntounto Peter: If I ſhall not waſhe thee, Ioh. 13. 8.thou ſhalt hauehave no part with mee. And he that is waſhed hath no neede but that his feete be waſhed. And about this ſignification S. Bernard dealeth verie much. Furthermore that waſhing was a ſigne of charitie and ſubmiſſion of the minde, which we ought to vſe though we bée noble & of great honour. Wherefore Chriſt ſaid thereof: Ib. ver. 13.Ye call mee Maiſter and Lord, and yee ſay well, for ſo I am: but if that I a Lord and Maiſter, hauehave waſhed your feete, ye alſo muſt one waſh an others feete. By which commaundement he meant, that no mā for any honors ſake of this world ſhould ceaſe from doing his duetie vntounto his neighbour, euen as touching thoſe things which ſéeme to be but vile, becauſe Chriſt himſelfe would doe them. The waſhing of féete was common and vſuall among the Iewes. For in the hotte regions as Iewrie is, when men iourney by foote, their bodies are verie much wearied with heate. Wherefore vntounto men wearied and full of duſt, the waſhing of féete bringeth no ſmall refreſhing: eſpecially ſéeing in thoſe Regions, men goe not ſo well ſhod as they doe with vsus. Otherwiſe howe could Chriſt hauehave bin waſhed of the woman that was a ſinner, Iohn. 12. 3.and be wyped with her haire, and be annointed when he ſhould ſitte downe at the Table, vnleſſe he had his féete eyther bare or elſe ſo as they might eaſily be vncouered? And that the waſhing of féete in the Scriptures doeth repreſent the meaneſt ſeruices towardes our neighbours, Abigail teſtified, who, when Dauid meant to take her for his wife, anſwered: 1. Sa. 25. 41Thy hādmaiden wil be readie, who ſhall waſh the feete of my Lord: as if ſhe had ſaid: I doe not thinke my ſelfe worthy of ſo great an honour: I will rather be ready to do the meaneſt ſeruices vntounto thy ſeruants. And Paul in the firſt Epiſtle vntounto Timothy, 1. Tim. 5. 10.whē he ſpeaketh of a widowe to be choſen of ye Church, requireth ſuch a one as ſhal aboūd in good works, & hath waſhed the féete of the Saints. Where there is no doubt but by the waſhing of féete, Paule requireth that ſhe hauehave exerciſed her ſelfe in doing of ſeruices and commodities to the men of God. And Chriſt while he ſaieth in the Goſpell: When ye faſt, Matt. 6. 16.I would not hauehave you to be ſad as the Hypocrites, but commaundeth the contrarie: Thou when thou doſt faſt, annoint thy head, &c. By which place it is not to be gathered that in faſtings we ſhoulde anoynt heads, but becauſe in Siria or Arabia ſurnamed the happie, the vſe of Oyntments was common, when men would ſhew themſelues to be mery, (yea they were in a maner daily annointed, except they had bin in ſome ſadnes) therfore Chriſt meant, that when we are in hand with priuate faſtings, we muſt not intermit the cuſtome of outward worſhipping, as though by faſtings we woulde winne the fauour of the people. But we among whom is not that vſe of oyntmentes are not bound in faſtings to doe that which Chriſt ſaide. The verie which thing thou maieſt vnderſtand about the waſhing of féet, which our aduerſaries obiected. That can not be called a Sacrament, (although by the element, it may ſignifie no common thing, and it hath a commandement ioyned therewith,) becauſe there be giuen no particular words, which ſhould come to the element to make it a ſacrament, and by which the promiſe of ſome ſingular gift or grace to be obtained is declared vntounto vsus. Furthermore, neither Chriſt nor yet the Apoſtles decréed, that they which were to Cōmunicate ſhould waſhe one anothers féete. Auguſtine.And Auguſtine in the 119. Epiſtle vntounto Ianuarius writeth, that ſome Churches remooued this Ceremonie, leaſt it ſhoulde be eſtéemed for a part of the Sacrament, or elſe for Baptiſme: the verie which notwithſtanding ſome Churches retained.
Act. 15. 29. To the 11.16 There was alſo oppoſed vntounto vsus a decrée of the Apoſtles, wherein they ordained, that the Gentils which were conuerted vntounto Chriſt, ſhould abſtaine from bloud and from that which is Strangled. Which ſéeing it is aboliſhed, they ſay it is lawfull ſometimes to decline ſomewhat from the Scriptures. Howbeit we muſt marke in this place, what is the end and meaning of that decrée. It was pronounced, becauſe of the diſſenſion riſen in the Church. For they which were conuerted from Iudaiſme, thought that the Gentiles for obtayning of ſaluation, ſhould be compelled to retaine Moſes lawes, and ſhould kéepe the old Ceremonies. But Paule and Barnabas taught otherwiſe, according to whoſe minde the Apoſtles decréede. Yet did they not by their conſtitution prohibite, but that men conuerted from the Gentiles vntounto Chriſt, might kéepe ſomewhat of the Ceremonies of Moſes, ſo that they ſhould not thinke thoſe to be neceſſarie vntounto ſaluation. Howbeit to the intent they might not be gréeuous or troubleſome vntounto them which were conuerted out of Iudaiſme, who liued then very friendly with them, they gaue that commaundement: and it ſéemed to helpe ſomewhat to the quietneſſe of the beléeuers. So that the Apoſtles for no other cauſe did decrée that the Gentiles ſhould abſtaine from theſe things: ſéeing they would not, that the Iewes which were conuerted ſhoulde bée ſtraight way offended, of whom the Church in that firſt time did chéefelie conſiſt. Wherefore they commaunded not theſe things, in that they belonged vntounto the lawe, or vntounto Moſes, but according as they perceiued them to further the peace and tranquillitie of the Church, that the faithfull might growe vp together among themſelues in a greater agréement. Wherupon ſéeing afterward this cauſe was taken away (for ſo much as Hieruſalem béeing deſtroyed, and the rites of Moſes vtterlie ſubuerted, this difference was not betwéene the Iewes and the Gentiles) therefore that decrée might be taken away. Howbeit it was kept a long while, euen vntounto the times of Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen: and Caeſarienſis maketh mention thereof, in the hiſtorie of Attalus and Blandin. Theſe Ceremonies might after a ſort bee retained at the beginning, vntill the preaching of the Goſpel did take better roote, and that all men might plainelie vnderſtand that the rites of Moſes were aboliſhed. AuguſtineAuguſtine againſt Fauſtus the 2. booke and 13. Chapter, maketh plaine mētion of this matter, and ſaith, that vntill both the walles of the Church & Synagogue were wel growen together, ſo as the difference ſhould no more appeare, ſomewhat ought to be yéelded to the infirmitie of the Iewes. And it ſéemeth that ſpeciallie yt was to bee done in thoſe things, which belonged not to ſacrifices, but vntounto daylie foode. For ye Iewes could not ſtraightway be well content with the dyet of the Ethnickes. 1. Cor. 11. 4 To the 12.Afterwarde they obiected the Apoſtolicall tradition, whereby a man is commaunded to propheſie and praie bareheaded, & the woman with her head couered: which preceptes they ſay, Men commaunded to propheſie bare headedare not throughlie kept. Héere we anſwere, that it is not our part to bee inquiſitiue what is kept, or what is not kept. This commaundement we know is extant: and they that kéepe it not, let themſelues ſée to it. I hauehave not ſéene anie miniſter praying openlie, but that his heade hath béene vncouered. In the verie which habite, I ſée them to be at Sermons, eſpeciallie while they recite the wordes of the holie Scripture.
17 Our Aduerſaries alſo argued that Chriſt gaue the ſacramēt to his Apoſtles, To the 13.the conſideration of whom was not alike, ſéeing they were made prieſtes: therefore they affirmed that this example of Chriſt was not to be extended vntounto the people. But certainlie as touching the Préeſthood of the Apoſtles we know nothing, neither is there any one ſyllable extant in the holie Scriptures that the Apoſtles were Prieſtes. The Scripture vſeth not theſe wordes. But goe too: Let them vnderſtand, By Prieſts, the Miniſters of the Church: Let them tel vsus why they giuegive not to their Maſſing Prieſts, if they Maſſe not when they come to Communicate, but one part of the Sacrament as vntounto the laity, ſéeing Chriſt gaue both vntounto the Apoſtles, and no leſſe diſtributed vntounto them, than hée receiued for himſelfe. Further if Chriſt (as they will) gaue the Euchariſt onelyonly vntounto the prieſts, how dare they be ſo hardy as to giuegive a part of the Euchariſt vntounto the laytie and common ſort, ſéeing Chriſt (as they ſay) did not communicate with them? Adde that in the ſupper with Chriſt were no women preſent, vnleſſe they will, that they were Prieſtes. Why then doe they diſtribute the Sacrament vntounto them, ſeeing Chriſt gaue it onelyonly vntounto men? But they which ſpeake ſo ſubtillie of the ſupper which Chriſt himſelfe had with his Apoſtles, what anſwere (I beſéech you) will they make vntounto Paule, 1. Cor. 10. 11.who writing to the whole Church of Corinth, and not to the Miniſters of the Church onelie, commaundeth that both kindes ſhoulde bée giuen. And yet they ſay, that in the Canons, decrées, and Eccleſiaſticall hiſtories, there is mention made of the Communion of the laitie. Communion of the Laitie.I denie not but it is ſo: howbeit they are farre deceiued which thinke that the Communion of the laytie doth onelyonly ſignifie a participation of one part onelie, for euen then both the kindes was giuen. But it was called the communion of the laytie, becauſe the Miniſters of the Church, béeing once put frō their function by reaſon of ſome offence, did no more communicate in the cleargie or among the Miniſters, but were mingled with the companie of the laye men.
To the 14.18 They ſaide that they hauehave the conſent of the Church, wherein they impudentlie challenge to themſelues that which is ours: ſéeing the Churches of Gréece, the whole Eaſt part, and the vniuerſall antiquitie holde with vsus. For the foule mangling of the Sacrament of the Euchariſt is but latelie ſprung vp. Among the latter men Thomas Aquinas ſaith, Thomas Aquinas.that euen now in his time the ſame began to be practiſed in ſome Churches, which he writeth in the 3. part, Quaeſt. 80. Artic. 12. Doubtleſſe the importunitie of the Aduerſaries is woonderfull. When wée flie vntounto the Scriptures, they crie out that they bee darke, and they appeale to the fathers, whom they ſay are on their ſide: they flie vntounto the antiquitie of times, whereby they would ſhift off all the teſtimonies of the Scriptures. But how vncertaine they bée in their opinions, we eaſilie ſee in this diſputation, ſéeing the Scripture is plaine: all the fathers make with vsus, and the whole antiquity agréeth with the Scriptures. Wherfore the indeuour that they hauehave to bee contrarie ariſeth onelie héereof, that they bée ſworne & wholie addicted to the lawes of the Pope: in compariſon whereof they weigh not a haire neither of the truth of the fathers, nor yet of antiquitie.
To the 15.19 And wheras they alleaged, that Chriſt ſometime adminiſtred onelyonly the one part of the Sacrament, Luk. 24. 35.becauſe they reade in Luke, that the Diſciples knew him by breaking of bread, it is trifling. For howe it may appeare for a certaintie, that the breaking of bread there ſignifieth the holie communion, they hauehave not béene able to ſhewe, ſéeth that worde alſo is often in the holy Scriptures applyed to common meate. And that thoſe Diſciples in taking of common meate, could know Chriſt, it is no maruell: For ſéeing he had peculiar thanks giuings, and particular prayers as we beléeue he had, he might eaſilie be perceiued. Further admit it were ſo, that Chriſt offered them onelie one part of the Sacrament, is it therefore lawefull for vsus to doe the ſame? He did not by that fact abrogate his generall cōmandement, which he gaue in the Supper, and that is confirmed by the writings of the Euangeliſts and of Paul. Gen. 22. 1.God once commaunded Abraham that he ſhould ſacrifice his ſonne, yet did he not thereby plucke away any thing from his generall precept, Thou ſhalt not kill. Exo. 20. 13.Hee alſo commaunded the Iſraelites, Exod. 11. 2that they ſhould carie away the ſtuffe of the Egyptians: and yet neuertheleſſe he would that commandement, Thou ſhalt not ſteale, to be inuiolate. Exo. 20. 15Laſtly where it is named: The breaking of bread, we may by the figure Synecdoche vnderſtand the whole Supper, euen as it was firſt declared. And they are to be laughed at when they accuſe vsus to doe abſurdly, which of one action of Chriſt, which he had with his Apoſtles, would gather a generall precept: ſéeing that action of Chriſt was not ordinarie, but it had a precept ioyned therewith, the which was afterwarde confirmed by Paul. Moreouer we deale as wée ſhoulde, when we hauehave recourſe to the head and to the verie inſtitution of the Sacrament.
20 Now let vsus ſpeake of the cauſes, To the 16.by which they pretend that the Church was led to make a decrée for the mutilation of this Sacrament. The firſt was, leaſt the cuppe ſhould be ſpilt. Here we maruell excéedinglie at Irenaeus, Baſil, Ambroſe, Nazianzene, and Auguſtine, béeing verie prudent Fathers, who ſawe not theſe daungers in the Euchariſt: or if they ſawe them, as likelie it is, thou muſt acknowledge that they made no ſuch account of them, as they in reſpect of them violated the Sacraments, the which neuertheleſſe, they adminiſtred very often: For of priuate Maſſes there was then no vſe. They euermore communicated in the myſteries with others, and the people ranne together to the Sacraments much more often than at this day they do. They were not ſo greatly troubled if any part of the holy drinke had fallen vponupon the ground. A young mayd in Cyprians time did vomit vp the ſame. Their chiefe care was that it might be diſtributed vntounto them that were worthie: But our men now are not carefull to driue away dogges and ſwine, by which aſſuredly is doone a greater iniurie vntounto the bloud of Chriſt, than if the ſame ſhould be ſpilt vponupon the ground, Wherefore we counſell that the godly miniſters ſhould take verie diligent heede that they ſhed not the holie cup. But if it ſhall happen by chaunce, they may be ſorie for it, yet the matter muſt not be ſo exaggerated as it were an horrible and deteſtable crime. AuguſtineAuguſtine, as it is in the firſt queſtion in the Chapter Interrogo vos, A queſtion whether the bodie of Chriſt or this world … the more woorthie.calleth into doubt, whether the bodie of Chriſt be more worthie than his worde. To ſome of the ruder ſort it might ſeeme to be a blaſphemous queſtion, yet is it diſputed of by Auguſtine, and he attributed as much to the word and ſaying of Chriſt as he did vntounto the ſacrament: and he plainly ſaieth, that the word of Chriſt is no leſſe than the bodie of Chriſt. Whereupon he concludeth: that as we are carefull that a part of the ſacrament ſhould not fall vponupon the ground, euen ſo no leſſe heede muſt be taken, as well by the miniſters of the word, as by the hearers thereof, that nothing be pronounced in vaine out of the words of God. And neuertheleſſe, becauſe it is a perillous thing, that any of the wordes of God ſhould by negligence ſlip away from him that pronounceth or from them that be hearers, therefore the godly Sermons are not remooued from the people.
To the 17.21 And as to that, which they ſpeake of corruption which might eaſilie happen, if wine conſecrated vntounto the ſicke ſhould be kept, we ſaie that no man driueth them into theſe extremities, vnleſſe it be their own ſuperſtitions. Who conſtraineth them to kéepe the Sacrament of the Euchariſt? Who commaunded them this thing? It behooueth ſay they to giuegive vntounto the ſicke. That the Euchariſt muſt be giuen to the ſicke.I graunt: but the myſteries ſhould alſo be celebrated before the ſicke perſons. They cauill that the ſick cannot alwayes ſtay and abide the long rites of ceremonies. But let them conſider that this verie thing ariſeth of their own ſuperſtition, and not from the commaundement of Chriſt. That which Chriſt commaunded may be drawen into foure wordes. Gregorie.Gregorie teſtifieth in his Epiſtle that the Apoſtles vſed onelie the prayer of the Lord. But our men earneſtlie affirme that the Sacrament of the Euchariſt ſhould be wrought onelie in their Maſſe and not otherwiſe. So as they themſelues are the cauſe of theſe impedimentes, and therefore they muſt not be aſcribed to the inſtitution of Chriſt.
To the 18.22 As touching the abſtainers from wine, and them which in reſpect of ſickneſſe cannot receaue wine, Touching the abſteiners.we may readilie aunſwere thrée wayes. For there be ſome which ſay: When there is this neceſſitie, againſt which no law is of force, let onelyonly one part of the Sacrament be giuen vntounto men: but thereby is not prooued, that as touching others which are able, the Sacrament ſhould be diminiſhed by the decrée or doctrine of men: becauſe it is a raſh part, of a particular thing, to bring in a generall rule. It ſéemeth to be God which bringeth that man into neceſſitie, neither dooth that man willinglie pollute the Sacrament of the Lord. It may otherwiſe be aunſwered, That any kinde of drinke may be vſed in ye Euchariſt.that ſuch drinke muſt be giuen vntounto theſe men as they can away withall, the perfection of the Sacrament and the reciting of the Lordes wordes being preſerued. But if one wil ſay, that Chriſt did not ſo inſtitute, they that thus iudge, doe aunſwere, that Chriſt vſed that drinke which might be abidden, and which was méete for the receauers, from whoſe inſtitution they ſay that they depart not, when they deliuer eueryevery one to drinke, that which he is able to abide. For this ſéemeth rather to yéelde to the infirmitie of a brother, than to violate the Sacrament. But whatſoeuer may be thought of theſe anſweres the which I will not vtterlie condemne, to the third I willinglie agrée, becauſe it ſéemes to me to be ſure and perfect enough: to wit, that if a man cannot receaue the Sacrament, as it was inſtituted by Chriſt, let him abſtaine, for if he deſire it and beléeue, no commoditie or benefit ſhall in that reſpect be wanting vntounto him: euen as vntounto him that deſireth Baptiſme, if he hauehave not ye libertie thereunto, it is imputed, as if he had receaued the ſame. Neither ought we by reaſon of theſe verie ſeldome chances to diſmember the ſacrament of Chriſt. Laſtlie they are boulde to affirme that by this meanes an honour is doone to the Miniſterie. To the 19.VntoUnto whom we anſwere, that héerein conſiſteth not the honour of the Eccleſiaſticall Miniſtery, that he which diſtributeth the ſacrament ſhould hauehave a double portion or the greater péece of bread, when as the people onelie receiueth one kinde and vſeth a leſſe péece of bread. Paule very ſufficiently in the firſt epiſtle to Timothie, and alſo vntounto Titus hath deſcribed excellent properties of Miniſters, 1. Tim. 3. 2. Titus. 1. 2.by which they ſhould commend their honor. And againe vntounto Timothie he wrote, that the elders are worthie of double honor when they gouerne well, 1. Tim. 5. 17.and do labour in the word of God. And of this matter I thinke there is ſufficientlie ſpoken at this time.