The Subtle Sophistry of Watsons Sermons before Queen Mary, Sermon 1 (5 of 5)

The Subtle Sophistry of Watsons Sermons before Queen Mary · Sermon 1 (5 of 5)

p. 168You thought belyke, that no man would take the paines to waigh this place of Auſten: and therefore you were bolde to cite his wordes to proue that, which none that is learned will denie: That is,Watſon doth miſſe of his purpoſe. that the Gentils did ſuppoſe and ſay, that the chriſtians did worſhip Ceres and Bacchus, bicauſe they vſed bread & wine in their ſacrament. But your purpoſe was, ſo to cite his wordes that he might ſéeme to allowe that which you had ſayde before, concerning the knocking and knéeling, and making of adoration to the ſacrament as to Chriſt himſelfe: which theſe verie wordes that I hauehave reported out of the ſame Chapter, doe flatly denie.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But as one that had ouerſlipt himſelfe: you correct your ſelfe ſomewhat ſubtilly, affirming that aboue all, the ſacrament of the aultar is holy. &c. Where fearing leaſt you ſhould not commend it ynough:Auguſt. ad Dardanum. you fall into that inconuenience, that S. Auſten did warne Dardanus to ſhunne. Cauendum eſt enim. &c. We muſt take héede, that we doe not ſo affirme the Deuinitie of the manhoode, that we take away the truth of the body. You ſaye that the ſacrament of the aultar muſt néedes be holyneſſe it ſelfe: bicauſe the Godhead is by vnitie of perſon annexed to it. For (ſay you) whatſoeuer thing is in God: is God alſo. So that by this doctrine, the manhoode of Chriſt is ſo confounded with the Godhead, that it is cleane conſumed and become God, contrarie to that which the true Catholike Church doth confeſſe with Athanaſius. 1. Timoth. 2.1 Tim 2And we hauehave no man Chriſt to be our Mediator, as ſaint Paule writeth: and ſo conſequently no ſaluation by Chriſt. This conſequent muſt néedes folow vponupon that which you teach in your ſermon: and can not be auoyded by any figuratiue ſpéeche, or ſuch like cauillations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chryſoſt. 1. Cor. 10.1 Cor 10Chryſoſtome O with what eloquence doth he vtter this matter: heare but this one place. Ipſa nam que menſa animae noſtrae vis eſt, nerui mentis, fiduciae vinculum, fundamentum, ſpes ſalus lux, vita noſtra. The verye table ſayeth he (meaning the meat of the table) is the ſtrength of our ſoule, the ſinewes of our minde, the knot of our truſt, the foundation, our hope, our helth, our light, and our lyfe. What names, what effectes bee theſe? and in an other Homely he calleth it Rex coeli, deus, Chriſtus, Ad Ephe. Ser. 3.the king of heauen, God himſelfe, Chriſt, which he ſayth goth into vsus by theſe gates and dores of our mouthes. Cyrillus calleth it ſanctificatio viuifica, the very ſanctification that giueth life. Cirillus. li. 4. Capit. 17. Auguſt. Epiſt. 163.And S. Auguſtine calleth it Pretium noſtrum, the price of our redemption, which Iudas receaued. What ſhould I trouble you any longer in ſo plaine a matter? Why ſhould theſe holy fathers deceaue vsus by calling this ſacrament with ſo glorious & high names if they ment not ſo, but that it was but bread & wine? they lacked no grace that had ſo much grace as to ſhed their bloud for Chriſtes fayth, they lacked no wytte nor eloquence to expreſſe what they meant. Thus did they with one conſent, after one maner alwayes ſpeake and write by whoſe playne preaching and wryting, the whole worlde of Chriſtendome hath beene perſwaded and eſtabliſhed in this faith of the reall preſence theſe fiftene hundred yres.

p. 199If they hauehave ſeduced vsus meaning otherwiſe then they wrote, then may we iuſtly ſaye that they were not martyrs and confeſſors in deede, but verie Deuils, erring themſelues, and bringing other alſo into errour.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

p. 205Baſill in his Maſſe, calleth them, Sancta Diuina. &c. Baſilius in Miſſa.Holy ſacraments, godly, pure, vndefiled, immortall, heauenly, and gyuing lyfe. Of what authoritie this Maſſe of Baſill is: I referre to the iudgement of the learned. It is not, neyther hath bene folowed in any Church, neyther is it found in his workes in the Gréeke. Wherefore it ſéemeth to mée, to be but a deuiſe thruſt out in his name, by ſome one that was vnborne many yeres after Baſill was dead. But let it be of as great authority as you would wiſhe it to be: ſhall his wordes that you cite, proue the ſacrament to be the body and bloud of Chriſt, and neyther bread nor wine? He calleth it but an holy, godly, vndefiled, immortall, heauenly, and quickning ſacrament. If you adde a minor propoſition, and ſaye: but eueryevery ſuch ſacrament is the reall, and naturall body of Chriſt: ſhall we be enforced to conclude, Ergo, this ſacrament is the reall and naturall body and bloud of Chriſt, and not eyther bread or wine? I trow not. I dare referre this to the iudgement of them that vnderſtande Art.

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

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

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

Chryſoſt. in 1. Cor. 10.1 Cor 10But to make vp the matter withall: you hauehave ſought out one place of Chryſoſtome, which doth enforce you to crye out and ſay: Oh with what eloquence doth he vtter this matter. Heare but this one place. If a man ſhould aſke you what matter it is that Chryſoſtome doth with ſuch eloquence vtter: you muſt ſay the reall preſence of Chriſt bodie and bloud in the ſacrament, and that the ſacrament is neyther bread nor wine. But what one worde hath Chryſoſtome in that place to proue this? His words being taken wholy together, are theſe. Quemadmodum frigida acceſsio periculoſa eſt: ita nulla myſticae illius Caenae participatio, fames eſt & interitus. Ipſa nam que menſa animae noſtrae vis eſt, nerui mentis, fiduciae vinculum, fundamentum, ſpes, ſalus, lux, vita noſtra. Si hinc hoc ſacrificio muniti migrabimus: maxima cum fiducia ſanctum aſcendemus veſtibulum, tanquam aureis quibuſdam veſtibus vndi que contecti. Et quid futura commemoro? Nam dum in haec vita ſumus: vt terra nobis caelum ſit, facit hoc myſterium. Aſcende igitur ad Caeli portas, & diligenter attende. Imo, non Caeli, ſed Caeli Caelorum, & tunc quod dicimus intueberis. For euen as a colde comming to the Lordes table is perillous: ſo not to be partaker of the myſticall ſupper at all, is famiſhment and p. 206death. For the table is the ſtrength of our ſoule, the ſinewes of our minde, the bonde of our confidence or ſure truſt, our foundation, hope, health, light, and our lyfe. It we ſhall depart hence, being armed with this ſacrifice: we ſhall with great boldneſſe aſcende vntounto the holy entrie, as apparailed on eueryevery ſide, wyth certaine garmentes of Golde. And why doe I ſpeake of things to come? For euen whylſt we be in this lyfe: this myſterie doth make the earth to be an heauen vntounto vsus. Go vp therefore to the gates of heauen: and marke diligently. Yea, not to the gates of heauen, but of the heauen of heauens: and then thou ſhalt behold thoſe things that we ſpeake of.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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