The Subtle Sophistry of Watsons Sermons before Queen Mary, Sermon 1 (2 of 5)

The Subtle Sophistry of Watsons Sermons before Queen Mary · Sermon 1 (2 of 5)

p. 42Here it is manifeſt, that your Cluniacenſis, ſayth not that the Turkes onelyonly are without ſacrifice: for the Paganes & Turkes, are (euen by his playne wordes) two ſeuerall ſectes, and farre ynough a ſunder.

Cluniacenſis a corrupter of ſcripture.But what thoughe Cluniacenſis, and you did agrée in all poyntes? Are you of ſuch credit, that nought that you ſay maye be denied? A more manifeſt wreſter and corrupter of manifeſt ſcriptures, then Cluniacenſis was: did neuer ſet Pen to Paper, except you ſelfe (M. Watſon.)

Coloſſ. 1.Col 1He is not aſhamed to ſaye thus, grounding his wordes vponupon Saint Paule to the Coloſſians. Vbi eſt ſecundum Apoſtolum, miniſterium, quod abſconditum fuit a ſaeculis. &c. Where is, according to p. 43the ſaying of the Apoſtle, the miniſterie that hath bene hid ſince the beginning of generations, and is nowe opened to his ſaintes, vntounto whome God would make knowne the ryches of the glorie of this ſacrament among the Gentiles, which ſacrament is Chriſt, the hope of glorie? Where ſaint Paule hath ſayde Myſterium, the miſterie or hid ſecret: Cluniacenſis ſayth Miniſterium, y^e miniſterie. And where Paule ſayth Qui eſt Chriſtus: Cluniacenſis ſayth. Quod eſt Chriſtus, which ſacrament is Chriſt. For immediatly before he had ſayde Sacramentum, in place of Myſterium: The ſacrament, in place of the miſtery. And all this is to make men beléeue that ſaint Paule wryting to the Coloſſians, had taught them, that the ſacrament of Chriſtes body, is Chriſt himſelfe.

Much ſuch matter is manifeſt in your Cluniacenſis. I eſtéeme his aucthoritie therefore, euen as I eſtéeme youres. And ſo I doe eſtéeme thoſe notable wryters, which at this daye doe terme our Religion by the name of Mahumets ſect. For whatſoeuer they or you ſay or wryte: we are well able to proue that we hold, the true and catholike fayth, which was taught by the Apoſtles and Prophets, Ieſus Chriſt being the foundation thereof. With the Prophets we beleue the promiſe of God concerning the ſending of his ſonne in the ſimilitude of ſinfull fleſhe, that in the fleſhe he might ſatiſfie for the ſinnes of all his elected and choſen children. And with the Apoſtles we beleue that he is come, and hath by one ſacrifice once offered, ſatiſfied for al their ſinnes that be of that number. And that there remayneth no more ſacrifice for ſinne.Hebr. 10.Heb 10 And that the Church of Chriſt is bound continually to offer vntounto God, a ſacrifice of thanks, for this ſo great and frée redemption, by the ſacrifice of his owne onelyonly begotten ſonne. And that this ſacrifice of thankes, is our obedience in walking in thoſe good workes that God hath prepared for vsus to walke in. This is not to prepare a way for the Turkes to ouerunne all, as you ſay it is. But this is to be at defiaunce, both with Turke and Pope.

But for the auoyding of theſe abſurdities, WATSON. Diuiſion. 11.and for ſuche cauſes as I ſhal God wylling declare hereafter, I preſuppoſe this foundation of chriſtes body, to be really preſent in the p. 44bleſſed ſacrament, to be ſtedfaſtly beleeued of vsus all, vponupon the which I builde all that remayneth now to be ſayde. Which foundation although it hath beene vndermined of many men and many wayes, & therfore requireth a full and perfite treatiſe to be made of it alone: yet as I intende not to occupie all this time in that, ſo I maye not well ſo ſlenderly leaue it, that hath bene ſo much and often aſſaulted, but ſhall declare the ſumme of that moueth me to continue ſtill in that truth I was borne in, to keepe ſtill that fayth I was baptiſed in and put on Chriſt, which fayth ſeing it is vniuerſall, if I ſhould leaue it, I ſhould forſake Chriſt, and be an heretike, not folowing that forme of doctrine I receyued of my fathers, and they of theirs from the beginning, but choſing my ſelfe a newe waye and newe mayſters that pleaſe me, being ſo condemned by mine owne conſcience and iudgement, which is the very propertie and definition of an heretike.

CROWLEY.The obſurdities ye ſpeake of, we hauehave ſomething touched alreadie. The other cauſes that moue you, we minde by Gods help to ſaye ſomewhat to, when you ſhall declare them. But in the meane while, let vsus ſée the ſumme of that which moueth you to continue ſtill in that fayth you were baptiſed in. &c.

WATSON. Diuiſion. 12.There be three things that holde mee in this faith: the manifeſt and plaine ſcripture, the vniforme aucthorities of holy men, and the conſent of the vniuerſall Church. Theſe three be the argumentes, that a chriſten man may ſtick vntounto, and neuer be deceaued, ſpecially if they be knit and ioyned togither, concerning one matter but if they be ſeperate, then ſome of them be but weake ſtaffes to leane vntounto. As for example the ſcripture without the conſent of the church is a weapon as meete for an heretike, as for a catholike, for Arius, Neſtorius, and ſuch other Heretikes did alledge the ſcripture for their opinions, as the catholikes did, but their alledging was but the abuſing of the letter, which p. 45is indifferent to good and euill, and deprauing of the true ſenſe, which is onelyonly knowne by the tradition and conſent of the catholike church: ſo that the one without the other is not a direction, but a ſeduction to a ſimple man, bicauſe the very ſcripture in deede, is not the bare letter, as it lyeth to be taken of eueryevery man, but the true ſenſe, as it is delyuered by the vniuerſall conſent of chriſtes church.

Lykewiſe the writings and ſayings of the fathers, if they be but the minde of one man without the conſent of other, were he neuer ſo well learned and vertuous, otherwiſe yet his wrytings I ſay in that point be not a confirmation for an ignoraunt man to holde him in the truth, but a temptation to ſeduce him, and pull him from the truth.

The conſent of the Church is alwayes a ſure ſtaffe, the verie piller of truth, whether it bee in things expreſſed in the letter of the ſcripture, or in things deliuered vntounto vsus by tradition of the Apoſtles. He that holdeth him by this ſtaffe can not fall in faith, but ſtande in truth.

The thrée ſtaues that you ſaye you leane vntounto,CROWLEY. are very good ſtayes, & ſuch as a man may be bold to truſt vntounto, & eſpecially (as you hauehave wel ſaid) when they be knit and ioyned togither, concerning one matter. But if they be ſeuered: then ſome of them be but weake ſtaues to leane vntounto. Hitherto you hauehave ſaid very wel. But when amōgſt theſe thrée ſtaues, you make the conſent of y^e Church onelyonly to be the ſure ſtaffe, and the ſcriptures and ſayings of learned and godly fathers, without the conſent of the Church, to be but a ſeduction or tentation to ſeduce the ſimple and ignoraunt man: me thinketh you ſhewe your ſelfe to beaſtly blinde. Where was this ſure ſtaffe of yours, when all the Apoſtles were ſo farre from the hope of the reſurrection of their maiſter: that they could not beleue the report of them that had ſéene him after he was riſen againe?Marc. 16.Mark 16 Had this conſent of theirs in vnbeliefe bene a ſure ſtaye, for men to leane vntounto? And was the prophecie of Dauid, at that time a ſeduction or tentation,Pſalm. 16. Act. 2.Ps 16Acts 2 to ſeduce a ſimple ignoraunt man, bicauſe it was not ioyned with the conſent of the Church? p. 46Did Chriſt go about to ſeduce the Iewes: when hée bad them ſearch the ſcriptures?Iohn. 5.John 5 When all the Apoſtles had conſented, that none ſhould go in vntounto the heathen, to preache the Goſpell vntounto them,Act. 11.Acts 11 and Chriſt had ſayde, go and teache all Nations: where was then the ſure ſtaffe to leane to? What ſtaffe was it, that the worſhipfull of Berrhaea leaned vntounto, when they had heard Paule preach there?Act. 17.Acts 17 Was it the conſent of the Church? No, ſaint Luke ſayth, Scrutabantur ſcripturas. They ſearched the ſcriptures. That was then the ſure ſtaffe to leane to.

Saint Auſten woulde hauehave no credite, further then hys wordes might be confirmed,De Trinitat. libr. 3. by Scripture and ſounde reaſon. His wordes are theſe. Noli meis literis quaſi ſcripturis canonicis inſeruire, ſed in illis & quod non credebas eum inueneris incunctanter crede: in iſtis autem quod certum non habebas, niſi certum intellexeris, noli firmiter credere. Be thou not bound to my wrytings, as to the canonicall ſcriptures: but in the ſcriptures, beléeue without feare, whatſoeuer thou ſhalt finde therein, which thou didſt not beleue before: But in my wrytings, doe not firmely beléeue, that which thou waſt not ſure of before: vnleſſe thou mayſt certainly vnderſtand it. Doe not correct my wrytings by thine owne opinion or contention: but by that thou readeſt in holye Scripture, or vnſhaken reaſon. &c.

Contr. Petiliani. Epiſt. Cap. 12.Agayne, the ſame Auſten ſayth. Nemo mihi dicat, O quid dixit Donatus? Aut quid dixit Parmenianus? aut Pontius? aut quilibet illorum. Quia, ne Catholicis Epiſcopis conſentiendum eſt, ſicubi ſorte falluntur, vt contra canonicas ſcripturas aliquid ſentiant. Let no man ſay vntounto me, Oh, what hath Donatus ſaide? Or, what hath Parmenian ſayde? Or Pontius? Or any of thoſe men: For we maye not conſent to the Catholike Byſhops, if they be at any time deceyued, ſo that they holde anye thing contrarie to the canonicall Scriptures. Here it is manifeſt, that ſaint Auſten ſuppoſed the ſcriptures to be the ſure ſtaffe that we ſhould ſtay vponupon. And the conſent of the Byſhops or other learned men, to be but a weake ſtay, and ſuch as no man maye truſt to, when it is ſeuered from the other: contrarie to the opinion that you holde (M. Watſon.) And yet more playnely the ſame ſaint Auguſtine ſayth in an other p. 47place. Cedamus igitur, & conſentiamus autoritati ſcripturae ſanctae: Libr. De Peccat. merit. & Remiſſi. Cap. 22.quae neſcit falli, nec fallere. Let vsus therfore conſent to the aucthority of the holy ſcripture: which can neither be deceiued nor deceiue.

Gerſon alſo ſayth thus. Dicto autoris, autoritate, canonica munito: plus quam declarationi Papae credendum eſt. We muſt giuegive more credite to the ſaying of an Author,Gerſon againſt maiſter Watſon. y^t is confirmed with the aucthoritie of the canonicall ſcripture: then to the declaration of the Pope himſelfe. And agayne he ſayth. In ſacris litteris excellenter erudito, at que autoritatem catholicam proferenti: plus eſt credendum quam generali concilio. More credite is to be giuen to a man that is excellenly learned in the holy ſcriptures, and bringeth forth a catholike aucthoritie: then to the generall counſell.

All this conſidered, I thinke it better to leane to the ſtaffe of the ſcripture, with Auſten, Gerſon, and other auncient fathers: then with you and ſuch as you are, to truſt to that broken ſtaffe, that maye and often times hath deceyued, ſuch as hauehave ſtayed themſelues thereon.

I doe reuerence the wrytings and ſayings of Fathers,Chryſoſt. in Galat. 1.Gal 1 ſo doe I the conſent of the Church: but the worde of God aboue both: and neither of both, without it. For as Chryſoſtome ſaith, Paulus verò, etiam Angelis è coelo deſcendentibus, praeponit ſcripturas: id que valde congruenter. Siquidem Angeli, quamlibit magni: tamen ſerui ſunt ac miniſtri. Caeterū omnes ſcripturae, non à ſeruis, ſed ab vniuerſorum Domino Deo venerūt ad nos. Paule doth preferre the ſcriptures before the Aungels that come downe from heauen: and that verie orderly? For although the Aungels be great: yet are they ſeruaunts and miniſters. But all the ſcriptures are commen vntounto vsus: from him that is Lorde and God of all creatures.

I allowe therefore, all your thrée ſtaues, and I lyke them all well, ſo long as they be faſt tyed togither. But if you doe once pluck them in ſunder, then I am well pleaſed, that you take to your ſelfe the two latter, and leaue me the firſt to ſtay vponupon.

Now concerning this matter of the preſence: WATSON. Diuiſion. 13.I am able by Gods helpe to ſhewe all theſe three thinges, ioyned and knit togither ſo, that we can not be deceyued in this point, p. 48except we will deceaue our ſelues as many wilfully doe.

The ſcripture by playne and manifeſt words, againſt the which hell gates ſhall neuer preuayle, doth teſtifie and confirme our fayth in many places, but ſpecially in the wordes of our ſauiour Chriſt himſelfe in his laſt ſupper, ſaying to his Diſciples: Math. 26.Matt 26Take, eate this is my bodye, which is giuen for you. This is my bloud of the newe Teſtament, which is ſhed for many, and for you in remiſsion of ſinnes: which moſt plaine ſcriptures many hauehave gone about to delude, & to reduce them to a baſe vnderſtanding by figuratiue ſpeeches, contending theſe words. This is my body. This is my bloud to be ſpoken figuratiuely, and not as the words purport: bicauſe other like ſayinges in the ſcripture be taken figuratiuely, as theſe: I am the waye, I am the dore. The ſtone is Chriſt and ſuch other, wherein they hauehave declared their deuiliſhe and deteſtable ſophiſtrie to their owne damnation and the ſubuerſion of a great many other.

They profeſſe themſelues to be learned men, but who heard euer tell of any ſuch kinde of learning, as to prooue one ſinguler by an other, as if one ſhould reaſon thus: Thomas is an honeſt man, ergo Iohn is an honeſt man: The Swan is whyte, ergo the Crow is white.

Which arguments be like this: I am the waye, is a figuratiue ſpeeche, ergo likewiſe. This is my body, is a figuratiue ſpeech. With ſuch fond folies & ſophiſmes is the truth aſſaulted againſt all good learning, and the rules of all true reaſoning. God open their eyes to ſee, and followe his heauenly wiſedome.

CROWLEY.For the matter of the preſence of Chriſt in the ſacrament: you hauehave manifeſt Scripture, as you ſaye, thys is my body, this is my bloud. &c. Which Scriptures ſome hauehave gone about to delude with fonde follies and ſophiſmes, ſuch as it pleaſeth your ſelfe to frame. I am ſure you did neuer reade in any of their writings that you ſpeake of, any argument ſo framed as you hauehave ſet forth in your Sermon. We doe know that one méere particuler p. 49cannot be proued by another. And therfore we vſe not to conclude, as you would make your Auditorie beléeue that we doe. We ſay that the ſcripture hath many ſuch ſpéeches, as this is my bodye, and this is my bloud, which are not proper ſpéeches, but figuratiue: wherefore it is not of neceſſitie required, that this is my body, and this is my bloud, ſhould be taken for proper ſpéeches.The circumſtances muſt giuegive the vnderſtanding. But if the circumſtaunces be ſuch, that by them, the ſpéeche can not be proper, but figuratiue: then is there no cauſe why, we maye not vnderſtande theſe places by the figure, as well as the other. I will therefore conſider your circumſtaunces, and then ſhape you a further aunſwere.

But if we will conſider the circumſtaunces of the text, WATSON. Diuiſion. 14who was the ſpeaker, for what intent, what time, and ſuch other: it ſhall plainely appeere that the literall ſenſe, as the wordes purport, is the true ſenſe, that the holy Ghoſt did principally intend. As for example. Firſt it appeareth euidently, the ſpeaker to be Ieſus Chriſt our Lord, Gods ſonne equall and omnipotent God with the father, and that theſe hys wordes be not wordes of a bare narration and teaching, but wordes whereby a ſacrament is inſtituted. And for that reaſon we muſt conſider that it is otherwiſe with Chriſt, then with vsus, for in man the worde is true, when the thing is true, whereof it is ſpoken: In God the thing is true when the worde is ſpoken of the thing. Mans worde declareth the thing to be as it is before, Gods worde maketh the thing to be, as it was not before.

In man the truth of his worde dependeth of the truth of the thing. Contrarie in God the truth of the thing dependeth vponupon the ſpeaking of the worde, as the pſalme ſayth: Ipſe dixit & facta ſunt. He ſpake the worde, Pſalm. 148.Ps 148and the things were made. And this thing the Deuill knewe well ynough, being ſure that if Ieſus were Chriſt and God, hee could with his worde both create newe thinges, and alſo chaunge the nature and ſubſtaunce of any thing: Math. 4.Matt 4and therfore ſayde vntounto him tempting him, whether he was Gods p. 50ſonne or no: if thou be Gods ſonne ſpeake the worde, that theſe ſtones maye be made bread. Whereby we maye learne that although in mans ſpeeche it is not true to ſaye, theſe ſtones be bread: yet if God ſhould ſay ſo, it ſhould be true the inferior nature of creatures gyuing place to the omnipotent power of God the Creator.

After which ſort Ireneus reaſoneth againſt thoſe heretikes, that denied Ieſus Chriſt to be Gods ſonne, vſing that moſt conſtantly beleeued truth of the ſacrament, that we holde nowe grounded vponupon Chriſtes wordes, for an argument to conuince Ieſus the ſpeaker to bee Gods ſonne. His words be theſe. Quomodo autem conſtabit eis eum panem in quo gratiae actae ſunt corpus eſſe domini ſui, Libr. 4. ca. 34.& calicem ſanguinis eius ſi non ipſum fabricatoris mundi filium dicant? Howe ſhall it bee certaine vntounto them, that that bread vponupon which thankes are giuen (that is to ſay the Euchariſticall bread) is the body of their Lord, and the Cup of his bloud, if they ſay not that he is the ſon of him that made the worlde? as though he ſhould reaſon thus: Theſe words which Ieſus ſpake of the bleſſed bread, ſaying: This is my body. This is the Cup of my bloud, be eyther true or falſe. If the ſpeaker of them be pure man and not God as they ſaye, then can they not be true: for mans worde chaungeth not the nature of things, as it is here. But if the wordes be true, as they certainely beleeue, then the ſpeaker of them muſt needes be Gods ſonne, of infinite power, able to make the things to be as he ſayth they be. And alſo in his .57. Ireneus lib. 4. Cap. 57.Chapiter the ſame fourth booke, he maketh the lyke argument in theſe words. Quomodo iuſtè Dominus ſi alterius patris existit huius conditionis quae eſt ſecundum nos, accipiens panem ſuum corpus confitebatur, & temperamentū calicis, ſui ſanguinem confirmauit. If our Lorde be a pure man, that nature and condition that wee be of, the ſonne of an other father then God: Howe did he iuſtly and truely taking bread into his hande, confeſſe and ſaye it to be his body, and confirme that mixture of wine and water, that was in the Chalice, to be his owne bloud?

p. 51By theſe two places of Ireneus that lyued within .150. yeares of Chriſt, we are taught not to flie to our figures of Grammer to make theſe wordes of Chriſt true, which indeede we muſt needes doe, or elſe ſay they be falſe, if Chriſt the ſpeaker be but onelyonly man and not God, but we bee taught by him to beleue them to be moſt true, and for that reaſon to beleue alſo, that Chriſt the ſpeaker is Gods ſon, by whoſe almightie power the things be chaunged & made as he ſpeaketh ſo that we may iuſtly, after the minde of Ireneus and dyuers other olde Authors, which were long to rehearſe nowe, conceaue this opinion of theſe men, that ſay theſe wordes of Chriſt cannot be true, except they be vnderſtanded by a figuratiue ſpeeche: that they eyther beleeue not themſelues that Chriſt is Gods ſonne, or elſe giuegive occaſion to other to reuiue that olde damnable Hereſey of Arius that denied Chriſts Godhead, the experience whereof we hauehave had of late dayes, of ſome that from Sacramētaries by neceſſarie conſequence of that Hereſey, became Arianes.

The firſt circumſtaunce that you conſider:CROWLEY. is the ſpeaker of theſe wordes. I am contented to beginne with the ſame. And alſo to agrée with you vponupon the equalitie of Chriſt with his heauenly father in all pointes, touching his diuine nature: wherefore, if you conceyue ſuch an opinion of me as you ſpeake of, bicauſe I ſay that theſe wordes. This is my body, is a figuratiue ſpéeche: you conceyue a wrong opinion. And I am ſure, I may ſafely ſay as much, for all thoſe that you ſpeake of.

But nowe let vsus ſée, howe honeſtly you hauehave behaued your ſelfe: in applying the words of Ireneus to your purpoſe.Libr. 4. ca. 34. He ſaith thus. Quomodo autem conſtabit &c. Firſt I muſt tell you, that euen as in the place that you did before cite out of Ireneus, you picked out a péece for your purpoſe, and left that which might make the Writers meaning playne: ſo you hauehave done here alſo. For in the ſame Chapiter, not twentie lynes before thoſe wordes that you cite: Ireneus ſayth thus. Igitur, non ſacrificiae ſanctificant hominem, non enim indiget ſacrificio Deus: ſed conſcientiae p. 52eius qui offert ſanctificat ſacrificium, pura exiſtens, & praeſtat acceptare Deum, quaſi ab amico. The ſacrifices doe not make the man that doth offer them, holye (for God hath no néede of Sacrifice) but the conſcience of him that offereth, being pure: doth make the ſacrifice holye, and cauſeth God to take it in good part, as at the hande of a friend.

And agayne he ſayth. Oportet enim nos oblationem Deo facere. &c. We muſt needes make an oblation to God: and be found thankfull to God our maker in all things. In pure iudgement, in faith without Hipocriſie, in firme hope, in feruent louelove, offering vp the firſt fruites of thoſe thinges which are his creatures. And the Church only may offer this pure oblation to hir maker, offering vntounto him, ſome part of his creature, with thankeſgyuing vntounto him. But the Iewes doe not now offer, for their handes be full of bloud: for they hauehave not receyued the worde, whereby offering is made to God. No more doe all the Synagogs of heretikes. And other which ſaye that there is another father, beſides him that is the maker: doe therefore when they offer to him, thoſe thinges that be of the ſame creation that we are: declare thereby, that he is deſirous of that which is not his owne, and coueteth after thoſe things that appertayne to other. And ſuch as doe ſaye, that the things which are of the ſame creation with vsus, be made by defect and ignoraunce and ſuffering: doe when they offer the fruites of ignoraunce and of ſuffering and defect, ſinne againſt their father, reuiling him rather then giuing him thankes.

After theſe wordes, doe thoſe wordes followe that you hauehave cited for your purpoſe. Quomodo autem conſtabit eis. &c. Howe ſhall it be certaine vntounto them, that, that bread, wherein thankes are giuen, is the body of their Lorde, and the Cup of his bloud, if they ſay not that he is the ſonne of him that is the maker of the world? Thus farre go the wordes that you cite. And where as you ſhut vp the matter with an interrogation, as though there were the whole of that which the Author doth there wryte of this matter: in as many Copies as I hauehave ſéene, the poynt there is but a comma, and the ſentence contynued with theſe wordes, id eſt, verbum eius, per quod lignum fructificat. &c. That is, his wordes, whereby p. 53the trée is made fruitfull, & the Fountaynes to flowe, that gyueth firſt the blade, then the eare, and then the full corne in the eare? And agayne, how doe they ſaye that the fleſhe which is nouriſhed with the body and bloud of the Lorde, doth come into corruption, and not receyue lyfe? Therefore eyther let them chaunge their minde, or abſtayne from offering the things that are ſpoken of before. As for our iudgement, it is agréeable to the Euchariſte or thankeſgyuing: and on the contrarie part, the Euchariſte, doth confirme our ſentence or iudgement. For we doe offer vntounto him the things that are his, and doe agréeably preach the communion and vnitie of the fleſhe and the ſpirite. For euen as the breade which is of the earth, taking the name of God, is not nowe common bread, but the Euchariſt (or ſacrament of thankeſgyuing) conſiſting of two things, one earthly and another heauenly: ſo our bodies alſo, being made partakers of the Euchariſte, are not nowe corruptible, for as much as they hauehave the hope of the reſurrection. &c.

And agayne in the ende of the Chapter he ſayth. Sic & idio nos quo que offerre vult munus ad altare frequenter ſine intermiſsione. Eſt ergo altare in caelis. &c. His will is alſo, that in ſuch ſort and therefore, we ſhould oftentimes and contynually offer a gift at the aultar: The aultar therefore is in heauen. For thither are all oure prayers and oblations directed: and our temple, euen as Iohn ſayth in his reuelations: And the Temple of God and tabernacle was ſet open.

If you had weighed all theſe wordes of Ireneus togither,Watſon did not weight Ireneus wordes. being written in the ſame Chapter with thoſe that you cite in your Sermon: I ſuppoſe you would not hauehave thought his wordes ſo méete for your purpoſe. The ſacrifice (ſayth he) is ſanctified by the pure conſcience of the offerer. We muſt be founde thankefull to our maker in all things: in pure iudgement, in vnfayned fayth, in ſtedfaſt hope, and in feruent louelove, offring to him the firſt fruits of thoſe things that be his creatures. And the Church onelyonly may offer this oblation. The bread which is of the earth receyuing the name of God, is not now common bread: but the Euchariſt, conſiſting of two things the one earthly, and the other heauenly. He p. 54wyll hauehave vsus to offer a gift vponupon the aultar continually wythout ceaſing. The aultar therefore is in heauen.

How doe theſe words agrée with the reall preſence of Chriſt in the ſacrament? And howe can theſe wordes ſuffer your Maſſe to be accompted the ſacrifice of the Church? The whole purpoſe of Ireneus in that Chapiter, is to ſhewe, that the workes of louelove procéeding from an vnfayned fayth, and a pure conſcience: are that ſacrifice that God regardeth. And in the vſe of the ſacrament which he calleth the Euchariſt or thankeſgiuing: this ſacrifice ſo acceptable to God, is not onelyonly taught by ſenſible ſignes, but alſo exerciſed. And the aultar whereon this ſacrifice is offered, is Chriſt, which is in heauen.

Againſt whome Ireneus did write.The wordes that you cite, were by Ireneus ſpoken againſt ſuch as affirmed that God is not the maker of thoſe creatures that we hauehave the vſe of. Which affirmation if it were true: then Chriſt being the ſonne of God (whome thoſe men denied to be the maker of the worlde) had no power, to inſtitute the ſacrament of his body & bloud in any of thoſe creatures: for he ſhould not then hauehave béene Lorde ouer them.

As touching the names, body and bloud giuen to this ſacrament, the reaſon thereof his declared before. Your reaſons therfore that you make in Ireneus name, are not worth a Lowſe.

To the ſame ende tendeth the other place, which you cite out of the .57. Chapter of the ſame booke. Wherefore, thoſe two places of Ireneus, who liued within .150. yeres after Chriſt, doe teach you to vſe the figure called Metaphora or tranſlation, in the vnderſtanding of theſe wordes. This is my body, and this is my bloud: notwithſtanding that Chriſt the ſpeaker is both God and man,Pſalm. 148.Ps 148 and euen he of whom Dauid ſpake, when he ſayde Ipſe dixit & facta ſunt. He ſpake the worde and the things were made. For he ſpake not thoſe words as one that would by them creat a new, or alter and chaunge the ſubſtaunce of that which he had before created:Chriſts purpoſe in ſpeaking y^e wordes of his laſt ſupper. but his purpoſe was to inſtitute a ſacrament or viſible ſigne of the excéeding great merciemercy that he ſhould ſhortly ſhewe, in giuing his body and bloud, for the redemption of the ſinnes of the worlde, and of that wonderfull miſterie of ioyning the faythfull p. 55togither into the felowſhip of members of one body, and of the ſame to him their head. Theſe wordes of Chriſt therefore are true in his meaning, notwithſtanding ought that you can ſaye: and yet to be vnderſtanded by the figure, and not as the wordes doe purport. And yet are we that ſaye ſo: farre ynough from the Arians hereſie.

The ſecond circumſtance I ſpake of, WATSON. Diuiſion. 15.was to conſider to what purpoſe and intent Chriſt ſpake thoſe wordes, and I ſayde they were wordes not of a bare narration, teaching ſome doctrine, but the wordes of the inſtitution of a ſacrament of the new Teſtament. And then it followeth, that if they be the forme of a ſacrament as they be in dede: then muſt they needes be that inſtrument wherby Gods almightie power aſſiſting the due miniſtration of his Prieſt, worketh that grace inwardly, that the words purport outwardly. For ſo it is in all other ſacraments. In Baptiſme, theſe wordes. Ego Baptizo te, I baptiſe thee, and ſo forth, like as outwardly to the eares, of the hearer they ſignifie a waſhing, ſo almightie God aſſiſting the due pronouncing of them, doth inwardly woorke the grace of waſhing the ſoule of him, to whome the wordes be ſpoken, if their be no ſtop or impediment of his partie.

And lykewiſe in penaunce as the wordes of the Prieſt ſaying: Ego abſoluo te ab omnibus peccatis tuis in nomine Patris, & filij, & ſpiritus ſancti. I abſolue thee from al thy ſinnes in the name of the father, and the ſonne, and the holy Ghoſt, doe ſignifie forgiueneſſe, ſo God doth inwardly forgiue, if the partie be truely penitent.

Lykewiſe in marriage that knot the man knitteth with the woman in taking hir to his wyfe, and ſhe him to hir huſband, God alſo inwardly doth knit the ſame, which man can not looſe: and ſo foorth of all other ſacraments.

Nowe to oure purpoſe: The grace which is included in theſe wordes, this is my body, this is my bloud, is not only accidentall grace as in the other, but the body of Chriſt p. 56to be our ſacrament, which is the ſubſtaunce of grace, the Author, Bernar. Sermone De Coena.Fountayne, & Well of all grace, as S. Bernard ſayth. Dicitur Euchariſtia per excellentiā. In hoc enim Sacramēto non ſolum quaelibet gratia, ſed ille à quo eſt omnis gratia ſumitur. This ſacrament is called Euchariſtia, for ſome excellencie aboue all other, for in this ſacrament is receyued not onelyonly any other grace, but he of whome proceedeth all grace.

Then it followeth, that where as the grace of this ſacrament, which the wordes purport to the outward eares of all men, is the eſſentiall grace of Chriſtes body and bloud to be there preſent, it followeth, I ſaye that Chriſt by theſe wordes, as by a conuenient inſtrument, worketh inwardly, in that he gaue to his Diſciples the reall preſence of his owne body and bloud, Emeſenus. Oratione De corp. & ſanguine Chriſti.as Euſebius Emeſenus ſayth: Fide aeſtimandi non ſpecie, nec exterioris cenſenda eſt viſu, ſed interioris hominis affectu. To be eſteemed by fayth, and not by the outwarde forme, and not to be iudged by the ſight of the outwarde man, but by the affection of the inwarde man.

CROWLEY.Firſt you conſidered the perſon of him that ſpake theſe words, This is my body: and nowe you conſider his intent in ſpeaking. His purpoſe was not (ſaye you) by theſe words to ſhewe what the thing was that he ſpake of: but to vſe the words as an inſtrument whereby the inwarde thing ſignified by the outwarde wordes is wrought. And to make this your opinion playne: you vſe the wordes in Baptiſme, in Penaunce, and the contract in mariage, for examples.

Surely (M. Watſon) this muſt néedes appéere a ſtraunge maner of doctrine, when it ſhall be waighed by them that doe cō ſider what the vſe of wordes is, and what the almightie power of God is. Learned men hauehave alwayes taught, that the vſe of wordes is to teach the hearers: and that they be inſtruments ſeruing onelyonly to that vſe. None but Sorcerers wyll ſay that words are inſtrumentes to worke wonders with. In déede, the Poete ſpeaking of magicall verſes, ſayth thus. Carmina vel caelo, poſſunt deducere lunam. Verſes are of ſuch force that they are able to bring p. 57the Moone downe from heauē. But we finde not in the holy ſcripture, or in any Catholike Wryter, that wordes hauehave any other vſe, then to teache.

Peraduenture you will ſaye, that the Prophet Dauid will take your part, bicauſe he ſayth. Verbo Domini caeli firmati ſunt: Pſalme. 33.Ps 33& ſpiritu oris eius omnis exercitus eorum. By the worde of the Lorde were the heauens eſtabliſhed, and all the armie thereof by the breath of his mouth. But ſaint Auſten, and as many as I hauehave ſéene, y^t doe write vponupon that Pſalme, doe with one voyce affirme, that the Prophet doth not there meane of ſuch a formed worde as you doe here, neyther of the breath that iſſueth out at the mouth in the vttering of ſuch wordes: but of the ſonne of God and the holy Ghoſt. So that his wordes are this much to ſay. In the ſonne and the holy Ghoſt: hath the Lorde, which is but one diuine power, eſtabliſhed the heauens. &c.

The power of God is ſuch, that at his worde, beck, or twinckling of his eye: he is able to doe what he will doe. According to the wordes of the ſame prophet in another Pſalme. Deus noſter in caelo, omnia quaecun que voluit fecit in caelo & in terra. Our God is in heauen,Pſal. 114.Ps 114 looke what he would doe, that hath he done, both in heauen and in earth.

I conclude therefore, that it is the power of God, that worketh all in all. And that the worde formed is no inſtrument to worke by, otherwiſe then in teaching. And therefore, your examples be euill fauouredly applied.

As for your Bernarde and your Emiſenus, I néede not much to eſtéeme, ſith (as it maye ſéeme) they be Doctors of your owne making: and therfore I can not blame them, though they ſpeake as you would hauehave them ſpeake. But it ſhould hauehave bene much more for your honeſty, being father of y^e act when they procéeded: to hauehave inſtructed them ſo before hand, that they might hauehave béene able to ſpeake congrue latine. I know not by what rule of Grammer, this can be iuſtified to be congrue latine. Fide eſtimandi non ſpecie, nec exterioris hominis cenſenda eſt viſu. &c. Neyther doe I know by what figure it may be excuſed.

But though your Emiſenus had written as good latine as p. 58euer did Cicero: yet could I not much regarde his iudgemēt, for that I finde that he was Signifer arianae factionis, Chronico. Hieronymi.the ſtandard bearer of the Arian faction. Or if you hauehave any other Emiſenus to ſhewe: I ſuppoſe he will be founde (when you ſhall ſhewe him) ſuch one as Byſhop Iewell prooueth Mayſter Hardyngs Amphilochius to be.

Your Bernardus alſo: muſt be ſuch another. For that Bernardus that was Claraeuallenſis Abbas, was of another minde as it appéereth in his Sermon In caena Domini. His words be theſe. Vt enim de vſualibus ſumamus exemplum: datur anulus abſolutè propter anulum, & nulla eſt ſignificatio: datur ad inueſtiendum de haereditate aliqua, & ſignum eſt: ita vt iam dicere poſsit qui accipit: Anulus non valet quicquam, ſed haereditas eſt quam quaerebam. In hunc ita que modum appropinquans paſsioni Dominus, de gratia ſua inueſtire curauit ſuos, vt i…uſibilis gratia, ſigno aliquo viſibili praeſtaretur. Ad haec inſtituta ſunt omnia ſacramenta, ad haec Euchariſtiae participatio &c. That we may take an example from among thoſe things that be vſuall: a King is delyuered as a King without condition, and it hath no ſignification. And the ſame is giuen to inueſt in ſome enheritaunce, and ſo it is a ſigne: ſo that the partie that receyueth it, may now ſaye: The King, is a thing of no value: but the inheritance is the thing that I ſought. After this ſort the Lorde therefore drawing néere vntounto his paſſion, did of his owne frée mercy, prouide to inueſt thoſe that appartayned vntounto him, that the inuiſible grace, might by ſome viſible ſigne be ſet forth and ſhewed. For this purpoſe were all ſacraments inſtituted. The participation of the Euchariſt, was inſtituted for this purpoſe, and ſo was the waſhing of féete. To cō clude, Baptiſme, which is the beginning of all ſacraments, was inſtituted for this purpoſe, wherein we are planted togither to the ſimilitude or lykeneſſe of his death: wherefore, the thrée ſolde dipping, doth beare the figure of the thrée dayes ſpace that muſt now be celebrated.

This matter is farre diſagréeing to that which you cite out of your Bernarde. Watſon hath a Bernard of his owne.I conclude therefore that your Bernarde, is not the right Bernarde: but a counterfait of your owne making. Such a one as your Emiſenus is. And therefore his Sermons p. 59are printed by themſelues with this note before them: Proculdubio, non a noſtro Bernardo editi fuerunt. Without doubt, they were neuer of our Bernards ſetting out.

Thirdly, we maye conſider, that theſe wordes, WATSON. Diuiſion. 16be the performaunce of a former promiſe, where Chriſt (as it is written in the ſixt Chapiter of S. Iohn) promiſed to giuegive vsus the ſame fleſhe to eate, that he would giuegive to the death, for the lyfe of the worlde ſaying. Panis quem ego dabo, caro mea eſt, Iohn. 6.John 6quam ego dabo pro mundi vita. The bread which I ſhall giuegive vntounto you, is my fleſh, which I ſhall giuegive for the lyfe of the world.

Which promiſe, we neuer read, that Chriſt (which is the very truth & can not lye) did euer at any time performe, but in his laſt ſupper, when he gaue his bodye and bloud to his Diſciples: and to promiſe his fleſhe, and to giuegive bare bread and not his fleſhe, is no performing, but a breaking of his promiſe, and a deluding of them to whome he made the promiſe. For as for the interpretation, which ſome men make of Chriſtes words, that he will giuegive his fleſhe to vsus to be eaten ſpiritually by faith: is but a vaine and fained gloſe for that text.

And although Chriſt doe ſo giuegive it to be eaten by faith: yet we maye not exclude one truth by another truth as Sophiſters doe. For Chriſt gaue his fleſhe to vsus to be eaten ſpiritually by fayth, euer from the beginning of the worlde, and alſo at that preſent, when he ſpake thoſe words, ſo that it were a verye vaine thing for Chriſt, to promiſe to giuegive a thing which he euer before, and alſo at that preſent, and euer after contynually doth giuegive.

But it was neuer ſo taken of any good auncient aucthor which all with one conſent doe expounde this text of ſaint Iohn, of the giuing of his fleſhe in his laſt ſupper vnderunder the forme of breade, and therefore Cirillus wryteth, Cirillus in Iohn. li. 4. Capit. 14.that oure ſauiour Chriſt did not expounde and make plaine the maner of the miſtery, & the performaunce of this his promiſe, to them that aſked the vnfaythfull queſtion, Howe, without p. 60fayth, but to his Diſciples that beleeued him and aſked no ſuch queſtion of him, he declared the maner of it in his laſt ſupper.

Wherefore we maye well conclude vponupon this circumſtaunce that Chriſts fleſh is verily preſent in the ſacrament to be giuen vntounto vsus, bicauſe he promiſed before, that he would giuegive vsus the ſame fleſhe for our foode, that he would giuegive on the croſſe for our redemption.

CROWLEY.The thirde circumſtaunce (you ſaye) that you conſider, is a promiſe that our Sauiour made when he ſayde, the bread that I ſhall giuegive is my fleſhe. &c. If I did not knowe your blindneſſe, and ſhameleſneſſe, in fathering vponupon the auncient Writers, ſuch matter as they neuer ment to vtter in their wrytings: I coulde not wonder ynough at your beaſtly boldneſſe, which driueth you to ſaye, that all the good auncient Writers doe with one conſent, expound the wordes of ſaint Iohn as you doe.

But after this great boaſt, you giuegive vsus a taſte of your ſmall roſte (as the common ſaying is) and you make Cyrillus to ſpeake after your fantaſie, in this ſort. Our Sauiour Chriſt did not expounde. &c. But that the reader may ſée, how faythfully you deale with Cyrillus in this point: I will let him ſée the words as they be written in the place that you note in the margent. His wordes be theſe.

Miſericors certè & mitis Chriſtus eſt: vt à rebus ipſis videre licet. Non enim aſpere ad crudelitatem eorum reſpondit, nec vllo modo contendit: ſed viuificantem huius myſterij cognitionem, iterum at que iterum, in mentibus eorum imprimere ſtudebat. Et quomodo quidem carnem ſuam dabit ad manducandum non docet: quia intelligere illi non potuerunt. Quam magna verò bona, ſi cum fide manducabunt adipiſcentur, id iterum at que iterum aperit, vt aeternae deſyderio vitae, ad fidem compellantur, per quam etiaem, doceri facilius poterint. Eſay. 7.Isa 7Sic enim Eſaiaes dixit. Si enim inquit, non credideritis: nec intelligetis. Oportebat igitur fidei primum radices in amimo iacere: deinde illa quaerere, quae homini quaerenda ſunt. Illi verò antequam crederent, importunè quaerebant. Hac igitur de cauſa Dominus, quomodo id fieri poſsit, non enodauit, ſed fide id quaerendum hortatur: ſic credentibus p. 61diſcipulis, fragmenta panis dedit, dicens. Accipite & manducate, hoc eſt corpus meum. Calicem etiam ſimiliter circumtulit dicens. Bibite ex hoc omnes, hic eſt Calix ſanguinis mei, qui pro multis effundetur in remiſsionem peccatorum. Perſpicis, quia ſine fide quaerentibus myſterij modum nequaquam explanauit: credentibus autem, etiam non quaerentibus expoſuit. Vndoubtedly (ſayth Cyrill) Chriſt is mercifull and mylde: as a man maye perceyue euen by the verie things themſelues. For he did not ſhape a ſharpe aunſwere to their cruelty, neyther doth he by any meanes contende: but he doth indeuor more then once, to print in their mindes the quickning knowledge of this myſterie. But after what maner, he will giuegive his owne fleſhe to be eaten, he doth not declare: bicauſe they could not vnderſtande it. But howe great good things they ſhall obtayne, if they ſhall with faith eate it: he doth oftentimes declare, that by the deſire of eternall lyfe, they might be compelled to imbrace fayth, by the meane wherof, they might the more eaſily be taught. For thus hath Eſay ſayde. If ye will not beléeue: ye ſhall not vnderſtande. It behoued therefore, firſt to caſt the rootes of fayth in the minde: and afterwarde to ſéeke thoſe things that man ſhould ſéeke. But thoſe men did before they beléeued, out of ſeaſon ſeeke for thoſe things. For this cauſe therfore, the Lorde did not declare, how that thing might be done: but he doth encourage them to ſéeke it by fayth. In lyke maner vntounto his Diſciples which beléeued: he gaue the péeces of bread ſaying, take and eate, this is my bodye. The cup alſo he did in like maner beare about ſaying: drinke ye all of this, this is the Cup of my bloud, which ſhall be ſhed for many, for the remiſſion of ſinnes. Thou ſéeſt that he opened not the maner of the myſterie, to them that ſought it without fayth: but to ſuch as beléeued, he did expound it, before they aſked any queſtion.

Nowe let the indifferent Reader iudge howe faythfully you hauehave handled the wordes of Cyrill, and ſo he may hauehave the leſſe cauſe to credite you in your large affirmation, wherein you ſaye,Watſons ſtore is but ſmall. that all the good auncient Writers doe with one conſent, expound this place of Iohn as you doe. Whereas, when your ſtore ſhall be ſought: there ſhall not one that lyued within .600. yeres after Chriſt, be founde of your minde in thys point.

p. 62Wherfore, we may well conclude, that Chriſtes fleſhe is not in the ſacrament in ſuch ſort as ye teach: and that Chriſt ment not by thoſe wordes that you cite out of Iohn, to promiſe, that he would giuegive his bodye in ſuch ſort to be eaten, as ye hauehave affirmed that he did. But that he ment to teache, that he himſelfe is that heauenly foode that the father giueth for the lyfe of the world,The meaning of Chriſt in the 6. of Iohn. and that he would giuegive them none other foode from heauen but onelyonly that which at the time appointed, he would yéelde vp for the lyfe of the worlde. And that not to be eaten after a fleſhly ſort, but after ſuch a ſpirituall ſort, as the fathers that lyued afore he was incarnated, had and did eate it. Your expoſition of ſaint Iohns wordes therefore, is but a vayne and fayned gloſſe for that text.

WATSON. Diuiſion. 17The time alſo is to be conſidered, that he ſpake theſe wordes the night before hee ſuffered death, at which time, and the next day after, he ended and fulfilled al figures, ſaying on the croſſe, Conſummatum eſt. All figures and ſhadowes be ended and expired, which was no time then, to inſtitute and begin new figures. Is it lykely or probable, that our ſauiour Chriſt then entring into his Agony, and beginning his paſſion, accuſtoming commonly before to teach his Diſciples in playne wordes, without Parables or figuratiue ſpeeches: would then ſo lightly behaue himſelfe, as to delude his choſen and entirely beloued Diſciples, in calling thoſe things his bodye that is giuen for them, and his bloud that is ſhed for them, which were neither his body nor his bloud, but bare bread and wyne? Or is there any religion in oure chriſten fayth, in nicknaming thinges, or calling them otherwiſe, then they be?

If any man thinke himſelfe able to aunſwere that, bycauſe Chriſt ſayde he was a Vine, he was a dore, being neyther Vine nor dore: that man ſeemeth to mee not ſubſtantially to way the wordes and ſpeeches of ſcripture.

For let him conſider thorowout all the ſcripture wherſoeuer he ſhall finde, that Chriſt, ſpake any thing of himſelfe by wordes of our common ſpeeche (for the God head p. 63and the properties of the Godhead be ineffable, and cannot be expreſſed to our capacitie, but by wordes and names of wordly and naturall things here among vsus.) He ſhall alwaies finde that Chriſt was a better and more ſingular thing then the worde did properly ſignifie, that was attribute vntounto him, and to make this matter more playne by examples.

Where Chriſt ſayde, I am the waye, he ment not, that he was the way that leadeth to the Citie, or to ſome other place but that he was a more excellent waye. A way that leadeth to the father, to heauen, to euerlaſting lyfe.

When he ſayde, he was the dore, he ment not, Iohn. 10.John 10that he was the dore of the ſheepefold here in earth, but a farre better dore, the dore of the Church, the ſpirituall ſheepefold, by the which dore whoſoeuer entereth, ſhall be ſaued.

Alſo calling himſelfe a Vine, Iohn. 15.John 15hee ment that he was the ſpirituall Vine, whereof all chriſten men be braunches, and better then ſuch a Vine as groweth in the fieldes.

And lykewiſe by that he calleth himſelfe the light, we vnderſtand, that he was not the ſenſible light of this world but the heauenly light that neither by courſe is chaunged, nor by ſhadowe is darkened.

So that it maye be obſerued for a rule, when Chriſt doth attribute the name of any ſenſible creature to himſelfe, euer the vnderſtanding exceedeth and excelleth the worde in dignitie.

And if this be true in all kinde of teaching and doctrine ſhall we nowe in the highe myſteries and ſacraments of God come from the Hall to the Kitchin, from the better to the worſt? that where Chriſt ſayth. This is my bodye, we ſhall vnderſtande it is bread a worſe thing, then his body. This is my bloud, that is to ſay, wine a worſe thing then his bloud. This be fond and falſe gloſes, neyther true, nor lykely, nor yet tolerable.

Wherfore leauing out a great many other circumſtaunces, that would ſerue verye well, Math. 26.Matt 26to ſet foorth the truth of this doctrine, I ſhall conclude thus, ſeing ſaint Mathewe p. 64ſayth in plaine termes, it is my body, it is my bloud: Saint Marke ſayth it is my body: Mar. 14. Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 11. Iohn. 9.Mark 14Luke 221 Cor 11John 9Saint Luke ſayth it is my body: Saint Paule ſayth it is my bodye: Saint Iohn ſayth it is my fleſhe, ſhall we nowe fiftene hundreth yeare after them, handle the matter ſo finely, and waye the ſcripture ſo ſubſtantially, that we ſhall affirme the contradictory to be the true ſenſe, ſaying this is not my body, this is not my bloud, but a figure and a ſigne of my bodye and bloud? Theſe euident ſcriptures moue me to continue ſtill ſtedfaſt in that fayth I was borne in, and not to be moued with vaine words and reaſons without probabilitie, againſt all rule and forme of true reaſoning.

CROWLEY.I would not hauehave thought, that any man could hauehave bene able by Arguments to hauehave perſwaded you to graunt ſo much, as you hauehave here graunted, of your owne voluntary and willing accorde.Watſons voluntarie graunt. That is, that all figures and ſhadowes are ended and expired, and that it was no time for Chriſt, at that time to inſtitute newe figures. I truſt you will nowe be an enimie to all thoſe figures and ſhadowes, that the Pope hath brought into y^e Church of Chriſt. But me thinketh I heare you ſay, that you meane only to affirme that the time wherein Chriſt ſpake theſe words, this is my body, was the time not méete, for the inſtitution of figures and ſhadowes. Well. If we ſhall hauehave occaſion hereafter, to charge you with theſe words: we will vrge them with ſuch force, that ſo ſlender an aunſwere ſhall not ſerue you.

But in the meane while you dalley with thoſe figuratiue ſpéeches that are vſed in the ſcriptures. I am the way, I am the dore, I am the Vine, I am the lyght. A generall rule may be (ſay you) obſerued: that when Chriſt ſpeaketh of himſelfe by the name of anye creature, there muſt be a better thing vnderſtande, then the thing is, that ſuch a name doth properly ſignifie. And therefore we muſt in the matter of the ſacrament, vnderſtand a better and more excellent thing, then is Bread and Wine.

Me thinketh (M. Watſon) you might hauehave ſpared all this labour. For none of vsus hath or doth denie, that when Chriſt ſpeaketh p. 65of himſelfe, and gyueth himſelfe the name of any creature: we muſt vnderſtande a better thing, then is properly ſignified by that name. But what maketh this for your purpoſe? It ſéemeth to me, that eyther you your ſelfe hauehave forgotten your Logick: or elſe when you did ſet forth your Sermon in print, you thought that the worlde would neuer turne ſo, that any Logition might be bolde in open wryting to controule your ſubtile ſophiſtrie.

When I was Logitioner in Oxford: I learned, that in eueryevery Cathegoricall propoſition, there be Tres termini. Subiectum, praedicatum, & Copula. Nowe the Subiectum, is that, whereof affirmation or negation is made: and Predicatum is that, which is affirmed or denied. And Copula is the verbe Subſtantiue, that in conſtruction ſtandeth betwixt them.

You muſt not be offended with me,Watſons ſophiſtrie hath made him forget his Logick. for that I talke with you of things ſo farre vnderunder the profeſſion of a Doctour of Diuinitie: for ſurely you ſéeme to me to hauehave forgotten all, ſeing you ſhame not to ſaye, that Chriſt ſpeaketh here of himſelfe, as in the other places that you cite for example. I am the Vine, and this is my body: hauehave both one Subiectum, by your ſophiſtry. If Chriſt had ſayde I am bread, as in the ſixt of Iohn he ſayde, I am that bread which came downe from heauen: then your rule would hauehave ſerued. But ſith he ſayth, this is my bodye: it is manifeſt, that he ſpeaketh of the bread and ſayth that it is his body.

Mathew, Marke, Luke, Iohn, and Paule, be no more on your ſide then they be on oures. But rather their playne words doe prooue, that you for your reaſoning without probabilitie, and contrarie to the rule of all true reaſoning,Watſon muſt be promoted. are méete to be promoted out of the Hall into the Kitchin, or rather from the Diuinitie Schoole to the Logick lecture. For they all with one conſent ſay, that our ſauiour Chriſt ſpake not of himſelfe, but of the bread affirming it to be his body and his fleſhe. Which we doe not denie, affirming the contradictorie (as you ſay that we doe) but we doe moſt conſtauntly affirme that to be true which Chriſt both ſpake and ment. That is, that in the ſacrament, y^e bread is his body,Watſon denieth Chriſts words to be true. and the wine his bloud. But you and your ſort do denie his words to be true, & do affirme the contradictory: for you ſay there is neither bread nor wine remayning in the ſacramēt. So that when Chriſt p. 66tooke bread in his hande, and ſpeaking of the bread ſayde, this is my body: the bread was not his body (by your doctrine) but his body was there vnderunder the accidents of bread, and the ſubſtaunce of the bread (as ſome of you ſaye) turned into the body of Chriſt: or as ſome other teache, the ſubſtaunce of the bread being conueighed away: the ſubſtaunce of Chriſts body commeth in place vnderunder the accidents of that bread that was there. Theſe be fond and falſe gloſes, neyther true nor lykely, nor yet tollerable. But if you and your ſort doe not beléeue, and therefore can not vnderſtande,Howe the bread is Chriſtes body. how Chriſtes body and bloud can be in the ſacrament, vnleſſe the ſubſtaunce of bread and wine be done awaye, and will therefore aſke the vnfaythfull queſtion, howe: then I muſt tell you, that euen as all true Chriſtians are the members of Chriſt, of his fleſh and of his bones: ſo is the ſacrament (receiued of ſuch) his verie body and his bloud myſticallie.Epheſi. 5. But for your really, ſubſtancially, and corporally: we can no ſkill of, bicauſe we finde them not in the holy Scriptures, neyther yet in the auncient Orthodox Fathers.

Auguſt. ſerm. ad Infantes.Saint Auſten in his Sermon Ad infantes, cited by ſaint Beda, ſayth thus. Si ergo vos eſtis corpus Chriſti & membra, myſterium veſtrum in menſa Domini poſitum eſt, myſterium Domini accipitis, ad id quod eſtis, amen, reſpondetis. If you therefore, be the bodye and members of Chriſt: the myſterie of you, is ſet vponupon the Lordes table, yée receiue the myſterie of the Lord, you anſwere Amen, to that which you your ſelues are.

Agayne, the ſame ſaint Auſten, wryting againſt Adimantus: ſayth thus. Non dubitauit Dominus dicere, hoc eſt corpus meum, cum ſignum daret corporis ſui. Auguſt. ad Adimantum Cap. 12.The Lorde did not doubt to ſay, this is my body: when he gaue the ſigne of his body. A ſigne it could not be, if it were not a thing that might ſignifie.

It is manifeſt therefore, both by the expreſſe wordes of the Scripture, and alſo by the iudgement of ſaint Auſten: that the thing that our ſauiour ſpake of, when he ſayde this is my bodye: was bread. And bicauſe he had appointed it to be a ſacrament of his bodye: he gaue it the name of that thing that it was a ſacrament of. And ſacramentally, or myſtically, it was his body and p. 67bloud that he ſpake of.

Moreouer the nature of a ſacrament doth moue me verie much to beleeue ſtill, as I doe. WATSON. Diuiſion. 18For where as eueryevery ſacrament of the newe Teſtament is a viſible forme of an inuiſible grace, as ſaint Auguſtine ſayth, it can not be a ſacramēt of the newe Teſtament, except it hauehave a promiſe of ſome, ſuch grace to be giuen, to the worthye receyuer, as is ſignified by the outward forme of the ſacrament. As in baptiſme the water, which is the outwarde forme ſignifieth the grace of ſaluation and remiſsion of ſinnes, which grace is both giuen to the worthy receyuer, and is alſo promiſed in ſcripture to be giuen, by the mouth of Chriſt ſaying: Qui crediderit & baptizatus fuerit, ſaluus erit: Mar. 16.Mark 16He that beleeueth and is baptiſed, ſhall be ſaued.

Euen ſo the outward element of this ſacrament, which is bread & wine, doth ſignifie the grace of the vnitie of Chriſts miſticall bodye, that lyke as one bread is made of manye graynes, one wine is preſſed out of many Grapes: ſo one miſticall body of Chriſt is compact and vnited of the multitude of all Chriſten people, as ſaint Cyprian ſayth.

Nowe if our ſacrament be bread and wine, as they ſay then ſhal they finde the promiſe of this grace, Cypri. li. 1. Epiſt. 6.or of ſome other in the Scriptures made to the receyuer of bread and wine. And if there be no promiſe in all the ſcriptures made to the receyuing of bread and wine, then be they no ſacraments: Iohn. 6.John 6But if they will looke in the ſixt Chapiter of ſaint Iohn, they ſhall finde this grace of the myſticall vnitie promiſed, not to the receauing of breade and wine, but to the worthy receauing of Chriſtes body & bloud: where Chriſt ſayeth, he that eateth my fleſhe, and drinketh my bloud, he abydeth in me, and I in him, and ſo is ioyned and incorporate into one miſticall body with him.

Our ſacrament therfore that hath the promiſe annexed vntounto it, is not bread and wine be they neuer ſo much appointed to ſignifie heauenly things (as they ſay) but the very p. 68body and bloud of oure Lorde Ieſus Chriſt, the bread that came from heauen.

CROWLEY.It is ſayde, that there was once one ſo malicious, that when he perceyued, that aſking for himſelfe what he would, he ſhould receyue it, but yet vponupon ſuch condition, that another whome he hated, ſhould receyue double ſo much of the ſame: he being deſirous to doe the greateſt miſchiefe he could to the other, aſked that one of his owne eyes might be put out, for then he knewe that the other ſhould looſe both his.

This mans malice was but little in compariſon of yours (M. Watſon) for to hauehave one of your neyghbors eyes put out: you will not ſtick to put out both your owne eyes your ſelfe. You tell vsus that ſaint Auſten ſayth (but you tell vsus not where) that eueryevery ſacrament of the newe teſtament, is a viſible forme of an inuiſible grace. And that it can not be a ſacrament of the newe teſtament, except it hauehave a promiſe of ſome ſuch grace to be giuen to the worthye receyuer, as is ſignified by the outwarde forme of the Sacrament. &c.

Watſon hath loſt fiue of the Popes ſeauen ſacraments.By this you hauehave at one blowe ſtriken of from the number of your holy fathers ſacraments, no moe but fiue. For where wyll you finde in all the Scripture: that eyther confirmation, order, matrimonie, penaunce, or extreme vnction, are ſuch ſacraments as you ſpeake of? Or that they or anye of them, hauehave anye ſuch grace promiſed to the worthy receyuer of them?

Well. Thus you hauehave diſpoſſeſſed your ſelfe of fiue ſacraments, in hope to ſpoile vsus of one. But let vsus ſée whether we cānot kéepe our two ſacraments ſtill, and ſo diſappoint you of your purpoſe. Baptiſme you doe graunt vsus, for you ſay water is y^e viſible or outwarde forme, and doth ſignifie the grace of ſaluation, and remiſſion of ſinnes. Which grace is not only giuen to the worthy receyuer: but alſo promiſed by Chriſtes owne mouth, when he ſayth. Qui crediderit. &c. He that will beléeue and be baptiſed: ſhall be ſaued. But fearing leaſt you ſhould marre all: you leaue out the wordes that folowe. Qui verò non crediderit: condemnabitur. But he that will not beléeue ſhall be damned. Where is now the p. 69grace of ſaluation and forgiueneſſe of ſinnes, that is promiſed to the outwarde baptiſing or waſhing in water? Take awaye beliefe, and there is no forgiueneſſe of ſinnes at all. No not though you be baptiſed in water a thouſand times. Beliefe muſt goe before, and baptiſing in water muſt folow after, as a ſeale or confirmation of the fayth. And whoſoeuer doth beléeue, will ſurely be baptiſed: according to the inſtitution of him in whome he doth beléeue.The cauſe why children be baptiſed. And ſuch as doe beléeue that the promiſe of forgiueneſſe of ſinnes through Chriſt, doth apperteyne to them and to their ſéede: will not fayle to begge baptiſme for their children alſo, that when they ſhall come to the yéeres of diſcretion, they may be put in remembraunce that they were dedicated to God, and that therefore they ought to lead a godly lyfe, as it becommeth ſuch to doe. And ſo many among theſe, as ſhall be founde worthy, that is to ſaye, elected in Chriſt before the beginning of the worlde: ſhall ſurely be ſaued, as our Sauiour Chriſt hath promiſed. But ſuch among them as were not elected in Chriſt from the beginning, ſhall not be ſaued: although they doe beléeue after a ſort, as Iudas and Simon Magus did, and be baptiſed too. For onelyonly Gods elect, are effectually baptiſed, and doe effectually beléeue.

Baptiſme therefore, is a viſible or outwarde ſigne of an inuiſible grace, which grace is by the promiſe of Chriſt, ſo annexed to the outward miniſtration of the viſible element water: that in Gods elect it neuer fayleth, but is euer more effectuall.Election in Chriſt maketh men worthy forgiueneſſe of ſinnes. But in the other that are not elected: it is effectuall in preaching lyuely the inuiſible grace, that is by Chriſt, but it can not make them partakers of that grace, bicauſe they be not worthy of it. That is, they be not elected in Chriſt: which election alone, is it that maketh men worthy.

Thus hauehave we one ſacrament with your conſent (M. Watſon) nowe let vsus ſée whether we can kéepe another alſo, maugre your beard. But firſt let vsus trie if there be not ſome contradiction in your wordes. Firſt you ſay, that the outwarde element in this ſacrament, is bread and wine,Cypri. li. 1. Epiſt. 6. and that it doth ſignifie the grace of the vnitie of Chriſts myſticall body. &c. And this you confirme by the teſtimonie of ſaint Cyprian. And afterwarde you ſaye, that p. 70our ſacrament that hath the promiſe annexed vntounto it: is not bread and wine,Contradiction in Watſons words. but the very body and bloud of our Lord Ieſus Chriſt, the bread that came from heauen. Nowe, if yea and naye, may be contrarie: then is there contradiction in your wordes. But to the matter. There is no promiſe of grace, made in the ſcripture, to the worthy receyuer of bread and wine: Wherefore, it is manifeſt, that bread and wine can be no ſacrament. The ſame reaſon might be made againſt that which you hauehave ſaide of baptiſme. For as I hauehave declared before: there is no promiſe of grace made in the ſcriptures, to the waſhing in water alone: but the promiſe is made to the beléeuer, which beléeuing, will be baptiſed. Thoſe therefore that did put to that part of the definition of a ſacrament, did not minde thereby to ſhewe the difference betwéene the ſacraments of the olde and new Teſtament: but to ſignifie, that without faith in the promiſe made in Chriſt, it ſhould not auayle to receyue any ſacrament. Faith therefore is it, that hath the promiſe of grace annexed vntounto it.

You hauehave ſayde, that if we would looke in the ſixt Chapter of ſaint Iohns Goſpell, we ſhould finde, that the promiſe of the myſticall vnitie that is amongſt chriſtians, is not made to the receyuing of bread & wine: but to the worthy receyuing of Chriſts body and bloud. We hauehave looked there, and hauehave found it euen ſo. And we hauehave founde alſo, that the worthy receyuing of the bodye and bloud of Chriſt: is the receyuing of it in fayth. For Chriſt ſayth there. Amen amen dico vobis, qui credit in me, habet vitam aeternam. He that beléeueth in me, hath euerlaſting lyfe. And againe. Sicut miſit me viuens Pater, & ego viuo propter patrem: & qui manducat me, & ipſe viuet propter me. Euen as the lyuing father hath ſent me, and I doe lyue through the father: ſo he that eateth me, the ſame ſhall alſo liue by the meanes of me.

Tractatu. 26.S. Auſten expounding this ſixt Chapter of S. Iohns Goſpell ſayth thus. Daturus ergo Dominus Spiritum ſanctum, dixit ſe panem qui de coelo deſcendit, hortans vt credamus in eum credere enim in eum, hoc eſt manducare panem viuum. When the Lorde therfore would giuegive the holye Ghoſt, he called himſelfe the bread that came downe from heauen, exhorting vsus to beléeue in him. For, to beléeue in him, is p. 71to eate the lyuing bread. And in the ſame treatiſe, ſpeaking of the viſible ſacrament: he ſayth thus. Nam & nos hodie accepimus viſibilem cibum: ſed aliud eſt ſacramentum, aliud eſt virtus ſacramenti. For we alſo, hauehave this day receiued viſible foode: but the ſacrament is one thing, and the vertue and ſtrength of the ſacrament, is another thing. And againe. Hic eſt ergo panis qui de coelo deſcendit: vt ſi quis manducauerit ex ipſo, non moriatur. Sed quod pertinet ad vim ſacramenti, non quod pertinet ad viſibile ſacramentum. Qui manducat intus, non foris: Qui manducat in corde, non qui premit dente. This is therefore the bread that came downe from heauen: that if any man ſhould eate thereof, the ſame might not die. But yet that which appertayneth to the vertue and force of the ſacrament: not that which belongeth to the viſible ſacrament. He that eateth within, not without. He that eateth in his hart: not he that cruſheth it with his téeth. And agayne he ſayth. Hoc eſt ergo manducare illam eſcam, & illum bibere potum: in Chriſto manere, & illum manentem in ſe habere. Ac per hoc qui non manet in Chriſto, & in quo non manet Chriſtus: proculdubiò, nec manducat ſpiritaliter carnem eius, nec bibit eius ſanguinem, licet carnaliter & viſibiliter premat dentibus, ſacramentū corporis & ſanguinis Chriſti: ſed magis tantae rei ſacramentum, ad iudicium ſibi manducat & bibit. This is therfore to eate that meate and to drinke that drinke: for a man to dwell in Chriſt, and to hauehave Chriſt dwelling in him. And by this meanes, he that dwelleth not in Chriſt, and in whome Chriſt dwelleth not: without doubt, he doth neyther eate his fleſh nor drinke his bloud ſpiritually: although he doe fleſhly and viſibly cruſhe with his téeth, the ſacrament of the body and bloud of Chriſt, but he doth rather eate and drinke the ſacrament of ſo great a thing, to his owne condemnation.

Here appéereth playnely the iudgement of ſaint Auſten, concerning the outwarde and viſible ſacrament: and alſo touching the inward thing, ſignified by the outward ſigne. The outwarde ſigne is bread and wine: and the thing ſignified, is the body and bloud of Chriſt. Of the firſt, may ſuch be partakers as ſhall periſhe, bicauſe they be not elected in Chriſt: but of the other can none be partaker, but ſuch as ſhall be ſaued and can not periſhe, bicauſe they be elected in Chriſt, before y^e beginning of the world. p. 72And therefore ſaint Auſten ſayth afterwarde. Res verò ipſa cuius & ſacramentum eſt: omni homini ad vitam, nulli ad exitium, quicu… que eius particeps fuerit. The thing it ſelfe whereof it is a ſacrament, is life vntounto eueryevery man that ſhall be partaker thereof, whoſoeuer he be, and deſtruction to none.

OnelyOnly Gods elect hauehave cōmoditie by Chriſtes ſacraments.The promiſe therefore, can not be made, to the receiuer of the outwarde and viſible ſacrament, who receyueth nothing but the viſible and outwarde element: but the promiſe is made to the worthy receyuer, that is to the elected and choſen of God, who receyueth both the outward and viſible element, and the inward vertue that is ſignified thereby. And it is vntounto him life, bicauſe he dwelleth in Chriſt, and hath Chriſt dwelling in him. Yea he eateth Chriſt daylie by faith, notwithſtanding that he be ſometime for a long ſeaſon holden, from the vſe of the outward and viſible ſacraments. For God hath not ſo tyed his grace to the outwarde ſacraments: that he can not ſaue without them.

To conclude this matter, I would wiſhe you (M. Watſon) to looke once againe in the ſixt Chapter of ſaint Iohns Goſpell that you would hauehave vsus to looke in. You ſhall finde therein (not many words after the promiſe that you doe ſo greatly vrge) theſe open and playne wordes. Amen amen dico vobis, niſi manducaueritis carnem filij hominis, & biberitis eius ſanguinem: non habebitis vitam in vobis. Verily, verily, I ſaye vntounto you, except ye eate the fleſhe of the ſonne of man, and drinke his bloud: you ſhall not hauehave lyfe in you. When you hauehave read and weighed this place: let vsus hauehave your iudgement, whether our ſauiour Chriſt ſpake there, of the receyuing of your ſacrament, which you ſaye is not bread and wine, or of that maner of eating that I hauehave ſpoken of before. If he ſpake of your maner of eating, then can none hauehave eternall lyfe: but ſuch onelyonly as doe receyue it ſo. And then what auayleth the promiſe made to the waſhing in water, which you ſaye is pronounced by Chriſts owne mouth?By Watſons doctrine, no Infants can be ſaued. For notwithſtanding they be ſo baptiſed: yet if they die before they can be communicants, they periſhe, nothwithſtanding the promiſe made to them that be baptiſed.

It ſhall be beſt for you and vsus both therefore, to ſaye with p. 73ſaint Auſten. Hunc ita que cibum & potum ſocietatem vult intelligi corporis & membrorum ſuorum, In Iohā. tract. 26.quod eſt ſancta Eccleſia in praedeſtinatis & vocatis, & iuſtificatis, & glorificatis ſanctis, & fidelibus ſuis. His wyll is, that this meat and drinke ſhould be vnderſtanded to be the ſocietie or felowſhip of his body and members, which is the holye Church, which conſiſteth of his predeſtinated, called, iuſtified, and glorified ſaints and faithfull ones. To theſe is the promiſe of grace made and confirmed by ſacraments. Theſe beléeuing the promiſe doe worthily receyue the ſacraments. And theſe, being preuented by death, before they can come to the vſe of the outward and viſible ſacraments: ſhall hauehave lyfe euerlaſting, bicauſe they are elected in Chriſt before the beginning of creatures.

Luther, and ſuch as be of his ſect, WATSON. Diuiſion. 19as taking his dreames for the ground of their fayth: were much preſſed with this argument, deduced of the propertie of the ſacrament: and ſawe playnely that it could not be a ſacrament of the newe Teſtament, except it had a promiſe annexed to the worthy vſing of it. And yet for all that, he would not condiſcend to ſay as the Church ſayth, that Res ſacramenti, the thing of the ſacrament ſignified and not conteyned, which is the vnitie of the myſticall body, were that grace, which by Chriſt in S. Iohn was promiſed to the worthy receyuer of it: but went and ſought about for another promiſe, and after much pooreyng, at laſt he brought forth a promiſe (as he thought) meete and conuenient, which is, the wordes of Chriſt, Quod pro vobis tradetur. Which ſhall be giuen for you. And in thys point, 1. Cor. 11.1 Cor 11he ſhewed with what violence he handled other matters of our fayth: that in this great matter, ſo much ouerſhot himſelfe.

Firſt, with what face could he call that a promiſe: which hath no apparaunce of anye promiſe, but that the wordes in latine be ſpoken in the future tenſe, which in Greeke be written in the preſent tenſe, both in S: Paule, and in Saint Luke. Quod pro vobis datur. Which is giuen for you. And if they were ſpoken in the future tenſe, as they were not: yet p. 74they be wordes, not promiſing a thing to be done, but declaring what ſhall be done.

And further, if we ſhould graunt them to be wordes of a promiſe: yet they promiſe not the grace of the ſacrament, which is to be giuen to the worthy receyuer. For the pasſion of Chriſt, or the gyuing of Chriſts body vponupon the croſſe, is not a grace giuen by the ſacrament to the receiuer: but it is that worke that hath deſerued grace to bee giuen by the ſacrament, for all our ſacraments, take their vertue of the pasſion of Chriſt, & doe not promiſe the pasſion of Chriſt.

This may ſuffiſe for this ſhort time, to ſhewe vntounto you the folly of theſe men, that neyther wot nor care, what they affirme in theſe weightie matters. I could ſaye more in it, but that I hauehave more neceſſarie matter behinde to be ſayd.

Augſt. in Ioh. tract. 15. In Pſal. 138.Ps 138Saint Auſten in dyuers places, and other auncient Authors: hauehave this doctrine in their bookes. Elatere Chriſti, fluxerunt duo ſacramenta. Two ſacraments did iſſue forth of Chriſts ſide. And in thoſe places, he teacheth vsus by comparing the creation of Eue, the wyfe of Adam the firſt man, and of the Church, the ſpouſe of Chriſt, the ſecond man. Lyke as God caſting Adam into a ſleepe, tooke forth a bone out of hys ſide, and thereof builded and created him a wyfe: euen ſo, when Chriſt did ſleepe by death vponupon the croſſe, vponupon water and bloud that came forth of his ſide, when it was opened with a ſpeare, God did forme and builde the Church, the ſpouſe of Chriſt, in that by water we be regenerated, by bloud we be redeemed and nouriſhed.

Nowe concerning our purpoſe, if two ſacraments came out of Chriſtes ſide, we are ſure there came out no wine, except ye will ſay the wine of the true vine, which Chriſt ſhal neuer drinke with vsus any more, but after a newe ſort in the glorie and kingdome of his father. Therfore it muſt needes be, that our ſacrament is Chriſts bloud, and not wine.

CROWLEY.If you had tolde vsus, when and where Luther wrote or ſpake that which you charge him with here: ſomething might hauehave p. 75béene ſayde to the matter, eyther in noting his fault, or yours, or both. But for as much as you doe but ſaye it: I wyll neyther defende Luthers doing therein, nor condemne it: but paſſe it ouer, tyll ye tell where, when and by whome he was ſo preſſed. But for your owne dealing I muſt néedes note, that you are verie forgetfull, ſith yée doe ſo ſtraightly charge him, as with a great fault, for that, the lyke whereof is to be found, euen in your owne aſſertion concerning this matter.Watſon is faultie in that which he reprehendeth in Luther. The fault that you finde with Luther, is for that he alledgeth a promiſe, made in wordes of the preſent time or tenſe (as you terme it) And hauehave you forgotten what tenſe Chriſt ſpake in, when he ſaide. Qui manducat meam carnem & bibit meum ſanguinem: in me manet, & ego in eo? Men ſay, it is a great fault, for a man to be found faultie in y^t thing wherewith he himſelfe findeth fault. Well, if you will promiſe that you will doe no more ſo: I could be content to winke at this fault. Aduertiſing you to looke better vponupon ſaint Iohns Goſpell, where you ſhall finde (as I hauehave ſayde before) that he which eateth Chriſt, ſhall liue by the meanes of Chriſt. Here is a promiſe made to him that eateth Chriſt, not ſacramentally onelyonly: but by fayth. As appéereth by the wordes that Chriſt ſpake before, ſaying, he that beléeueth in me, hath lyfe euerlaſting. This may ſuffiſe for aunſwere to that great fault that you finde with Luther: till you tell vsus where and when he committed that fault. &c.

As touching the doctrine that you ſay ſaint Auſten and other auncient Authors, hauehave in dyuers places: I know ſaint Auſten hath the wordes: but the doctrine that you would confirme by the wordes, is not ſaint Auſtens, but yours. You cite the fourth treatiſe of Auſten vponupon Iohn: but in that treatiſe is not one worde that ſoundeth any thing that waye. You therefore, or elſe your printer, hauehave miſreported the place. I ſuppoſe you would hauehave noted the .xv. treatiſe, where ſaint Auſten ſayth thus. Adam qui erat forma futuri: praebuit nobis magnum iudicium ſacramenti: Imo, Auguſt. in Ioh. tract. 15.Deus in illo praebuit. Nam & dormiens meruit accipere vxorem, & de coſta eius facta eſt ei vxor: quoniā de Chriſto in cruce dormiente, futura erat Eccleſia de latere eius de latere ſilicet dormientis. Quia de latere in cruce pendentis, laucea percuſſo: ſacramenta Eccleſiae profluxerunt. Adam, which was the p. 76ſhadow or ymage of one to come: did giuegive vsus a great tokē of a ſacrament or hid ſecret. Yea rather, God did giuegive it vsus in him. For in his ſléepe, he obtayned a wyfe, and of his owne ribbe there was made a wyfe for him. Bicauſe, that of Chriſt ſléeping vponupon the croſſe, the Church ſhould be made of his ſide, that is to ſaye, of his ſide whilſt he was ſléeping. For the ſacraments of the Church did flowe out of his ſide, which was pearſed with a ſpeare, whilſt he hanged on the croſſe.

Theſe wordes of ſaint Auſten, hauehave ſome ſhewe of that which you cite: but they are not the ſame wordes, neyther can hauehave the ſame ſenſe that you would thoſe wordes ſhould hauehave. As may well appéere by the wordes that ſaint Auſten addeth immediatly after, ſaying. Sed quare hoc dicere volui fratres? Quid infirmitas Chriſti, nos facit fortes. &c. But wherefore would I ſpeake this, ſayth ſaint Auſten? Bicauſe the weakeneſſe of Chriſt doth make vsus ſtrong. A great ymage was it, that did there proceede or go before. For God might hauehave taken from the man, fleſhe, whereof he might hauehave made the womā. And it ſéemeth that it might hauehave as it were, agréed better. For the ſex that was made, was the weaker, and the weakeneſſe ſhould rather hauehave bene made of the fleſhe then of the bone. For in the fleſhe, the bones are the ſtrong part. He did not take from man, fleſhe to make a woman of: but he did take a bone. And when a bone was taken out: a woman was made therof, and fleſh was filled vp in the place where the bone was. God was able to hauehave reſtored a bone for the bone that he tooke out, he was able to hauehave taken out fleſh to hauehave made the woman, and not a ribbe: what did it therefore ſignifie? The woman was made of a ribbe as being ſtrong: and Adam is become fleſhe, as being weake. Chriſt and the Church. His infirmitie is our ſtrength. Thus farre ſaint Auſten.

As many as wyll, may by theſe wordes vnderſtande, what Saint Auſten ment by thoſe wordes that go before, wherevpon you would conclude, that the ſacrament (which you terme the ſacrament of the aultar) is not Wine, but bloud. For in theſe wordes ſaint Auſten ſheweth his meaning to be farre otherwiſe. He doth in diuers places of his wrytings vſe this maner p. 77of ſpeaking: but in euerye of thoſe places, hée doth by playne wordes ſhewe himſelfe, to minde nothing leſſe then to teache, that the ſacrament of the body and bloud of Chriſt,The ſcope of ſaint Auſtens doctrine. is not bread and wine, but bloud onelyonly. His meaning was (as it maye be iuſtly gathered of his wordes) to teach that our ſacramentes take their worthyneſſe of none other thing, then the worthyneſſe of the death and bloudſheding of our Sauiour Chriſt, and that the infirmitie of oure nature in Chriſt, is become our ſtrength in him.

It ſéemeth to me a ſtraunge maner of reaſoning that you vſe, when you ſaye, that for as much as there came no wine out of Chriſts ſide: therefore, our ſacrament is not wine, but Chriſtes bloud. If you will giuegive me leaue to reaſon after that ſort: I will proue yet once againe, that the Church hath but two ſacraments. For ſaint Auſten ſayth, that the ſacraments of the Church did flowe out of Chriſtes ſide, and you ſay, two ſacraments did flowe out of his ſide, that is to ſaye, water and bloud. Therefore I conclude, that the other fiue be no ſacramentes: for they flowed not out of Chriſtes ſide.

Yea I will by this maner of reaſoning, proue: that theſe two ſacraments are not whole ſacraments neyther. For the word and fleſhe flowed not out of Chriſtes ſide: but without the worde and fleſhe, theſe two ſacraments, be not whole ſacraments: Ergo, they be but maymed ſacraments. Saint Auſten ſayth.In Iohannem tract. 80. Detrahe verbum, & quid aqua, niſi aqua? Accedit verbum ad clementum: & fit ſacramentum. Take away the worde from the water: and what is the water other then water? The word commeth to the element: and ſo is it made a ſacrament. And in the other ſacrament, except you hauehave two creatures, bread and wine, or (as you terme them) fleſh and bloud: it can be no perfite ſacrament. Yea and the word of fayth is neceſſarie here alſo. For as ſaint Auſten ſayth in the ſame place. Hoc verbum fidei tantum valet in Eccleſia Dei… vt ipſum credentem, offerentem, benedicentem, tingentem, etiam tantillum mundet infantem &c. This worde of fayth is of ſuch force in the Church of God: that by it he doth make cleane the beléeuer, the offerer, the bleſſer, yea and him that baptiſeth the little infant, although it be p. 78not yet able to beléeue with the hart vntounto righteouſneſſe, and confeſſe with the mouth to ſaluation.

Watſon concludeth fondly.A fond maner of concluſion is it, that you gather therfore (M. Watſon) of the flowing of water and bloud out of Chriſtes ſide. For you doe not onelyonly denie your holy fathers fiue ſacraments: but alſo mayme the other two. Yea, you make the baptiſme that was miniſtred before the death of Chriſt, and the ſacrament of Chriſts body and bloud that was miniſtred at his laſt ſupper: to be of none effect. And laſt of all, you affirme that part of the ſacrament to be the whole ſacrament: which you and your ſort doe withholde from all Chriſtians that be not maſſing prieſtes.

WATSON. Diuiſion. 20Beſide theſe circumſtaunces and arguments deduced vppon the ſcripture, there be alſo other of no leſſe ſtrength then theſe, able to confirme anye true chriſten man in the faith of the reall preſence of Chriſtes body and bloud in the bleſſed ſacrament.

And theſe be the effectes of the ſacrament expreſſed in the ſcripture, which be ſo great, ſo glorious, ſo excellent and heauenly, that it were great blaſphemie to aſcribe the ſame to bread and wine, which be onelyonly the workes and effectes of almightie God, and of ſuch creatures onelyonly, as Gods ſon hath taken and vnited to himſelf in vnitie of perſon which be the body and bloud of our Sauiour Chriſt.

The firſt effect is, that our Sacrament is the confirmation of the newe teſtament, as ſaint Mathew and ſaint Marke alſo doe write: Math. 26. Mar. 14.Matt 26Mark 14Hic eſt ſanguis meus noni Testamenti, this is my bloud of the newe Teſtament, that is to ſay: which confirmeth the new Teſtament, as all holy wryters doe expound. Lyke as the bloud of Calues did confirme the olde Teſtament, Exod. 24.Exod 24as the booke of Exodus doth declare: ſo the bloud of Chriſt our prieſt and ſacrifice doth confirme the newe Teſtament, which Teſtament bicauſe it is eternall and ſhall neuer hauehave ende, is confirmed by the eternall bloud of the Lambe of God, that euer is receyued and neuer conſumed, and not by any corruptible bloud, or any other creature of p. 79leſſe value and efficacie.

In the olde lawe, and alſo in ſaint Paule it is ſayde. Exod. 24. Heb. 9.Exod 24Heb 9Hic eſt ſanguis Teſtamenti, quod vobiſcum pepigit Deus. This is the bloud of the Teſtament that God hath couenaunt with you he ſayth not, This is the bloud of the newe Teſtament. But if theſe wordes (This is my bloud of the newe Teſtament) the Euangeliſt had ment, that it had beene the figure of the bloud of the newe Teſtament, what had he ſayde more then Moyſes ſayde before: for the bloud of Calues and Goates was the figure of this bloud of Chriſt. And then were the Iewes and the olde lawe of more dignity, then we Chriſten men of the newe lawe, bicauſe beſide we both be but vnderunder figures (as theſe men ſaye) yet their figure was of more eſtimation then oures is, being (as they ſaye) but bare bread and wine: wherfore ſeing theſe words of Chriſt (this is my bloud) be the forme of our ſacramēt, the effect wherof is the confirmation of the new Teſtament, it foloweth well, that the cauſe muſt be of like or more dignity, and ſo by no meanes can be the materiall creature of wine, but muſt needes be the innocent and precious bloud of our immaculate and vndefiled Lambe of God Ieſus Chriſt.

When you hauehave after your maner,CROWLEY. paſſed thorow the circumſtaunces of this text. Hoc eſt corpus meum. &c. You come to y^e effects of the ſacrament of the body and bloud of Chriſt: The firſt effect of our ſacrament (ſay you) is to confirme the new Teſtament. &c.

Much adoe you make about the confirming of the two Teſtaments by bloud: The olde by the bloud of Calues and Goates: and the newe by the bloud of Chriſt. If you had bene ſo expert in the wrytings of the fathers, as you would ſéeme to be: you would neuer hauehave ſpent halfe this labour, about the confirmation of the two Teſtaments by bloud. Affirming that all holy wryters doe expounde theſe wordes of our ſauiour Chriſt (This is my bloud of the newe Teſtament) to ſignifie, this bloud doth confirme the newe Teſtament. Me thinketh you might hauehave done very well to hauehave named ſome one of theſe holy wryters. But for as much as p. 80you name none: I will not trouble the reader with any other expoſitions of thoſe wordes: then that which may iuſtly be gathered of the verie ſcriptures.

S. Paule wryting to the Hebrues, ſayth of the confirming of the olde Teſtament or couenaunt that God made with Habraham: Hebr. 6.Heb 6that it was confirmed with an othe, not with the bloud of Calues and Goats. Abrahae nam que promittens Deus. &c. For (ſaith ſaint Paule) when God made a promiſe to Habraham: bicauſe he had none greater then himſelfe by whome he might ſweare: he ſwore by himſelfe, ſaying. I will bleſſe and multiplie thée excéedingly. &c.

As for the maner of ſpéeche that is vſed by Moſes and the Euangeliſts,1. Cor. 11.1 Cor 11 in the places that you doe cite: is playnely expounded by ſaint Paule when he ſayth. Hic calix nouum teſtamentum eſt in meo ſanguine. This Cup is the newe Teſtament in my bloud. And theſe wordes doth ſaint Paule wryte, not as his owne, but as the wordes of the Lorde Ieſus: ſpoken at his laſt ſupper, when he deliuered the holy Cup to his Apoſtles.

The couenaunt of God is confirmed with an othe, and not with bloud.By this it is manifeſt, that the couenaunt which God made with Habraham, and all the faythfull that ſhould beléeue that couenaunt or promiſe: was confirmed with an othe, and not with the bloud of Calues or Goates. But the bloud of Chriſt, wherein that couenant was made: was prefigured by the bloud of Calues and Goats, and is nowe kept in memorie by the vſe of the Lordes Cup, as ſaint Paule teacheth in the ſame place, ſaying. Hoc facite, quocieſcun que biberitis, in meam commemorationem. Doe this, as oft as ye ſhall drinke in the remembraunce of me.

The difference that is betwéene the olde Teſtament and the newe: is playnely ſhewed by ſaint Auſten, in his booke againſt Adimantus. His wordes are theſe. Duorum teſtamentorum differentiam ſic probamus: Contr. Adimant. cap. 17.vt in illo ſint onera ſeruorum, in iſto gloria liberorum. In illo cognoſcatur, prefiguratio poſſeſsionis noſtrae: in iſto teneatur ipſa poſſeſsio. On this wiſe doe we proue the difference of the two Teſtamentes: for that the burdens of bondmen are in the one, and the glorie of frée men in the other. In the olde, the prefiguration of our poſſeſſion is knowne: and in the newe, the poſſeſſion p. 81it ſelfe is enioyed. We therefore, that be chriſten men of the new Teſtament, be not vnderunder figures, as were the Iewes: but we are in poſſeſſion of the thing ſignified by the figures of the olde Teſtament. And yet we may be bolde to ſaye, that we hauehave the ſignes or figures of the body and bloud of our ſauiour Chriſt, to put vsus in remembraunce of that poſſeſſion, and doe not doubt to call the ſame by the name of the things ſignified, as ſaint Auſten wryteth againſt the ſame Adimantus. Non enim Dominus dubitauit dicere, hoc eſt corpus meum: cum ſignum daret corporis ſui. Capit. 12.The Lord doubted not to ſay, this is my body: when he delyuered the ſigne of his body.

We holde therefore, that the confirmation of the olde Teſtament, and of the newe both: is the othe that God made vntounto Abraham, and his faythfull ſéede. And that the thing promiſed, was prefigured by the figures of the olde law. And that the ſame is playnely repreſented and ſet forth before our ſenſes, by thoſe figures that our Sauiour hath inſtituted: not as a thing to come, but as a thing alreadie had in poſſeſſion, and not to be forgotten of ſuch as hauehave receyued it. We therefore are not vnderunder figures, as were the Iewes, before the ſhedding of Chriſts bloud: but we doe vſe thoſe figures that Chriſt himſelfe hath inſtituted, to ſuch purpoſe as he did inſtitute them for. Neyther doe we ſay or thinke that they be but bare bread and wine: but we teach, that the worthy receyuer is by them aſſured, euen as it were ſenſibly, that he is made one with Chriſt and Chriſt with him, that he dwelleth in Chriſt and Chriſt in him, that he receiueth into his ſoule whole Chriſt,We teach not that the ſacrament is but bare bread and wine. euen as he receyueth the ſacramentall bread and wine into his body. And to conclude, that he hath by Chriſt, euerlaſting lyfe: euen as our bodies hauehave this temporall lyfe by the meanes of bodyly foode, whereof the chiefe is bread and wine, the one ſeruing to ſtrengthen mans hart, and the other to make it chéerefull and merie.

I conclude therefore thus. The othe which God ſwore to Abraham, is the confirmation of the olde and newe Teſtament: Ergo, neyther was the olde confirmed by the bloud of Calues and Goates, neyther the new by the ſacrament of Chriſtes bloud. p. 82And ſo conſequently, it is not any inconuenience at all, to holde that the ſubſtaunce of bread and wine doth ſtill remayne in the Sacrament.

Yet one other thing I muſt néedes note, that in all this adoe, that you make about this effect of the ſacrament: you ſpeake not one worde of the fleſhe of Chriſt, but altogither of his bloud: Theſe wordes, This is my bloud, muſt be the forme of our ſacrament. &c. But in the next effect, I truſt you will ſpeake as much of the fleſhe as you hauehave done nowe of the bloud, and ſo make vsus a mendes for all.

WATSON. Diuiſion. 21. Lucae. 24.Another effect of this ſacrament is taught vsus in S. Luke, the 24. Chapter of his Goſpell. Where our Sauiour Chriſt ſate downe with his two Diſciples that went to Emaus, and taking bread, bleſſed it and brake it, and gaue it to them. And then their eyes were opened, Auguſt. de conſenſu Euangeleſtarum. libr. 3. ca. 25. Theophiloct. in Lucam. cap. 24.and they knew him. Saint Auſten in his booke De conſenſu Euangeliſtarum, teacheth vsus to vnderſtande this place of the bleſſed bread, which is the ſacrament of the aultar: and ſayth the effect of it is to open our eies, that we may knowe God. And Theophiloctus vponupon this place of ſaint Luke, wryteth this. Inſinuatur & aliud quiddam, nempe, quod oculi eorum qui benedictum panem aſſumunt, aperiuntur, vt agnoſcant illum. Magnam enim & indicibilem vim habet caro Domini. By this ſcripture another thing is giuen vsus to vnderſtande, that the eyes of them which receyue this bleſſed bread, be opened, that they might knowe him: for the fleſhe of our Lorde, hath a great and vnſpeakable vertue. Here we maye perceyue both by the ſcripture, and alſo by the holy Doctors and fathers: that the effect of this ſacrament, is the opening of our eyes to knowe God. And that the cauſe of that is, the fleſhe of Chriſt, which is our ſacrament, and in no wiſe can be eyther bread or wine.

CROWLEY. Watſō ſeketh vauntage by tranſlating.Firſt, you Engliſhe the wordes of ſaint Luke after your owne maner, to make a ſhewe of the croſſing that is vſed in the Popiſhe Maſſe. Taking bread, he bleſſed it. &c. As though the bleſſing p. 83had bene the making of the ſigne of the croſſe, vponupon or ouer the bread (for ſo the Popiſhe Prieſtes vſe to bleſſe their bread and Cup in their Maſſe) but if it would hauehave ſerued for your purpoſe to hauehave tranſlated otherwiſe: you coulde hauehave founde occaſion enough in the circumſtaunce of the text, to hauehave ſayde thus. Taking bread, he gaue thankes, brake it, and gaue it to them. For it was his common maner, to giuegive thankes to God, his heauenly father, at the beginning of eueryevery refection. And none did then vſe to bleſſe, by making the ſigne of the croſſe (as your Papiſtes doe nowe) wherefore it is manifeſt that our Sauiour Chriſt did not vſe it, eyther at that time or any other.

Howe rightly you gather the meaning of ſaint Auſten, in the place that you cite: ſhall appéere by his owne wordes in the ſame place, which are theſe. Pro merito quippe mentis corum ad huc ignorantis quod oportebat Chriſtum mori & reſurgere ſimele quiddam eorum oculi paſsi ſunt: non veritate fallente, ſed ipſis veritatem percipere non valentibus, & aliud quam res eſt opinantibus: ne quiſquam ſe Chriſtum agnouiſſe arbitretur, ſi eius corporis particeps non eſt, id eſt Eccleſiae. Cuius vnitatem in ſacramento panis commendat Apoſtolus dicens. Vnus panis, vnum corpus multi ſumus: vt cum eis benedictum panem porrigeret, aperirentur oculi corum, & agnoſcerent eum. Aperientur vti que ad eius cognitionem, remoto ſilicet impedimento, quo tenebantur, ne eum agnoſcerent. Ne que enim clauſis oculis ambulabant: ſed incrat aliquid, quo non ſinebantur agnoſcere quod videbant, quod ſilicet & caligo vel aliquis humor efficere ſolet. For according to the deſeruing of their minde, which was as yet ignoraunt, that it behoued Chriſt to die and riſe againe: their eyes did ſuffer ſome ſuch thing, not being deceyued by the truth, but they themſelues not being able to perceyue the truth, & ſuppoſing the thing to be otherwiſe then it was: leaſt any man ſhould thinke that he knoweth Chriſt, not being partaker of his body, that is of his Church. The vnitie whereof the Apoſtle doth ſet forth in the ſacrament of bread, ſaying, we being manye, are but one bread and one bodye: that when he ſhould giuegive vntounto them the bleſſed bread, their eyes might be opened and they know him. That they might be opened to know him: the let whereby they were holden that they ſhould not know him being taken away. For they walked p. 84not with their eyes ſhut vp: but there was ſomething in them, whereby they were kept from knowing that which they ſawe. Which thing is accuſtomed to come to paſſe by the meanes of ſome daſeing or humor.

Now let all indifferent readers iudge, whether S. Auſtens purpoſe in this place,None can knowe God, but ſuch as be members of Chriſt. be to teach vsus, that the opening of our eyes that we maye know God, be the effect of the ſacrament of the altar. Or whether his purpoſe be rather to teache, that none can knowe God, but ſuch as be members of his body, that is, of the number of his Church, the vnitie whereof is ſet forth in the ſacramentall bread. And therefore the two Diſciples, being members of that Church that is Chriſtes body: had the blindneſſe of their vnderſtanding taken away, at the breaking of bread. And ſo they knewe Chriſt, whome before they knewe not.

As for the wordes that you cite out of Theophilacte: doe rather make againſt you then with you. For where your purpoſe is to proue (as you conclude) that the ſacrament is neyther bread nor wine: Theophilacte doth euen in the ſame wordes that you cite call it the bleſſed bread. But this is to be noted, how craftily you can make one ſentence of two, leauing out the Periodus or full point,One of Watſons ſhiftes. that in Theophilacts owne workes, ſtandeth betwene illum and Magnam. And bicauſe you would not hauehave your reader to looke for any Periodus there: you make no point at all (in your printed Copie) nor any ſigne of pawſe. But the tranſlator of the Author hath ſet it thus. Vt agnoſcant illum. Magnam enim & indicibilem vim habet caro Domini: Euanuit autem ab eis: ne que enim ad huc habebat corpus, quod multum corporali modo cum eis conuerſaretur, vt ex hoc illorum creſceret deſyderium. &c. So that the whole might be engliſhed thus. Another thing alſo is giuen vsus to vnderſtande: that is: that the eyes of them that doe receyue the bleſſed bread are opened, that they might know him. For the fleſhe of the Lord hath an vnſpeakable power. For it vaniſhed out of their ſight: neither had he ſtil ſuch a body, as might be much conuerſant with them after a bodily maner, y^t thereby their deſire might encreaſe.

When theſe wordes be well weighed and conſidered togither: they doe rather teache vsus, that the power of Chriſts fleſhe p. 85is vnſpeakable in vaniſhing out of the Diſciples ſight, then in opening their eyes. For he ſayth not, that the eyes of them that did receyue his fleſhe, were opened that they might knowe him: but the eyes of them that did receyue that bread, where ouer he gaue thankes (which he calleth bleſſed bread) were opened to knowe him. Howe can you then prooue by this place: that in the ſacrament of Chriſtes bodye and bloud, there is neyther bread nor wine.