A Reply to an Answer Made by Doctor Whitgift, Reply · Part 34
To the next ſection in the 97. 98. and in a peece of the. 99. pages.
I HaueHave ſpoken of thys bread before in generall / and if Maiſter Doctor dyd not diſagree wyth hym ſelfe / we are heere well agreed. For firſt he ſayth it ſkilleth not what bread we hauehave / and by and by he ſayth / that he wyſheth it were common bread / and aſſigneth a great cauſe which the booke of ſeruice lykewiſe aſſigneth / which is to auoyde ſuperſtition. And it is certaynely known by experience / that in dyuers places the ignoraunt people y• hauehave beene myſled in popery / hauehave knocked and kneeled vntounto it / and helde vp theyr handes / whileſt the myniſter hath geuen it / not thoſe only which hauehave receyued it / but thoſe which hauehave bene in the churche / and looked on. I ſpeake of that whiche I knowe / and hauehave ſene wyth my eyes. An other reaſon is alleaged by Mayſter Bucer / which is / that there being ſome thicker ſubſtance of breade / and ſuch as ſhould moue and ſtirre vp the taſt better / the conſyderation of the mynde which is conueyed by the ſenſes / might be alſo the more effectuall / and ſo the fruite of receyuing greater. By the way note that eyther Bucers cenſures vppon the booke of ſeruice be falſely aſcribed vntounto hym / or be corrupted / or elſe were not euen in hys owne tyme heere thought good / ſubſtantiall / and ſuffycient / when there is ſome cauſe by Acte of Parliament afterwarde found (I meane in the ſecond booke of kyng Edward) to miſlyke wafer cakes / and to chaunge them into common bread. How ſo euer it be / that circumſtance would be well marked / that it was one thyng to talke of a wafer cake in the vſe of the ſupper in kyng Edward dayes before they were iuſtly abolyſhed / & an other thyng now being reuoked after they were remoued.
Beſides that / we be called by the example of our ſauioure Chriſte to vſe in the ſupper vſuall and common bread / for what time our ſauioure Chriſt celebrated hys ſupper / there was no other breade to be gotten / but vnleauened breade / there being a ſtraight charge geuen by the lawe / that there ſhould be then no leauened bread. And it is not to be doubted / but that if there had bene then when he celebrated hys ſupper as at other times nothyng but leauened breade / he woulde not hauehave cauſed vnleauened bread to hauehave bene made for that purpoſe of celebrating hys ſupper. But thys is a groſſe ouerſyght of M. Doctor / both in thys ſection / and that whych goeth before / that he hathe not learned to make a difference betwene that whych is not ſincerely done / and that whych is not at all done. For in the former ſection he triumpheth vponupon the admonition / becauſe they conclude / that for as muche as there is no examination / therefore it is not rightly and ſincerely miniſtred. For ſayeth he / the examination of the communicants / is not of the ſubſtance of the ſacrament / and in thys ſection he ſayeth / that for as muche as it is not of the ſubſtance of the ſacrament / whether there be leauened or vnleauened bread / therfore it is not ſufficiently proued / that the ſacrament is not ſincerely miniſtred. But he ought to hauehave vnderſtanded / that if either the matter of the ſacrament as bread and wine / or the forme of it / whych is the inſtitution (whych thyngs are only ſubſtantiall partes) were wanting / that then there ſhould hauehave bene no ſacrament miniſtred at all / but they being retayned / and yet other things vſed / whych are not conuenient / the Sacrament is miniſtred / but not ſincerely. For example in the popiſhe baptiſme / there was the ſubſtance of baptiſme / but there being vſed ſpyttle and creame / and candels / and ſuch beggerly trumpery / it was not ſincerely miniſtred / therefore it is one thyng to miniſter ſincerely / and an other thyng to miniſter / ſo that that whych is of the ſubſtance ſhoulde be wanting. But of thys diſtinction I hauehave ſpokē in an other place / wherinto although M. doctor falleth in the next ſection / and in other places / yet thys ſhall be an anſwere for all.
The meaning of the Admonition in ſaying (their God of the altar) is plain enough / that it is vnderſtanded of the papiſts / but that M. Doctor doth ſet him ſelfe to draw the authors of it into hatred: and he can not be ignorant / that when a man ſpeaketh of thyngs whych are notoriouſly knowne / he often vſeth (the or that / or their) wythout naming the thyngs whych he ſpeaketh of.