A setting open of the subtile Sophistry of Thomas Watson Doctor of Divinity, which he used in his two Sermons made before Queen Mary, in the third and fift Fridays in Lent Anno. 1553. to prove the real presence of Christ's body and blood in the sacrament, and the Mass to be the sacrifice of the new Testament, written by Robert Crowley Clerk. MALACHI. ca 1. Pure incense is offered in every place, and an undefiled oblation is offered to my name: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of Hosts. Seen and allowed according to the Queen's majesties Injunctions. ¶ Imprinted at London by Henry Denham. universis SINGVLAtim nostrarum Academiarum Theologis Robertus Croleus, sacrae Theologiae studiosus. S. O. Aeternam. EQVIDEM VIRUM, christianae Religionis hostem non vulgarem, aggressus (viri gravissimi) quos mallem huius nostri certaminis judices constituere, quam vos: qui omni divinarum scripturarum cognitione praediti estis maximè? Vos inquam incliti huius regni lumina, utriusque nostrae Academiae theologos intigerrimos, christianaeque pietatis alumnos maximè pios. Vos igitur omnes invoco testes fidelissimos, nostraeque litis arbitros aequissimos, & in omni difficultate nostra, incorruptissimum vestrum judicium appello. Vos etenim scitis (vos inquam, qui sacra volumina, iam diu cum ingenti foenore trivistis) pugnam hanc nostram esse utilem, & christianae Reipublicae maximè necessariam. Agitur enim de praecipuis christianae Religionis dogmatibus: de praesentia scilicet Christi in Caena, & de iugi christianorum sacrificio. Realem, substantialem, & corporalem esse contendit ille: ego non nisi veram, spiritualem, & sacramentalem, probo. Ille scripturarum & antiquorum patrum testimonijs nititur: eisdem ego telis iugulum eius peto. Missam vocat ille Ecclesiae christianae sacrificium: ast ego glorificationem, nominis Dei, per christianorum obedientiam, illud esse assero. Uter rectius de his rebus sentiat, uter probabilius scribat: Vestrum iam esto judicium. Scio esse non paucos, qui me temerarium, audacem, petulantem, dixerint: quòd ego tam eruditulus homuncio, tantum virum, tamque omnium judicio eruditissimum, tam petulanter appetere sim ausus. Multos esse me multò doctiores, prudentiores, atque longè subtiliores, qui per quindecim iam integros annos, hanc provintiam suscipere noluerunt: quam ego, nulla doctrina, nulla prudentia, nulla solertia munitus, temere suscipere non vereor. Quibus sic responsum esse velim. Me, nec adversarij huius potentiam timere: neque imbecillitatem meam respicere. Tantum in nomine Dei Israelis, eius prelium ineo, eiusque hostem, populique eius convitiatorem blasphemum, superbumque provocatorem impeto: non dubitans quin sit futurum, ut ille aut palmam porrigat, aut truncus iaceat. Quòd multi magis docti, prudentes & solertes, hactenus cum isto congredi noluerunt, mea nihil refert: non enim metu magis quàm contemptu abstinuisse, mihi videri debeant, quamquam sint, qui mihi persuadere sunt conati, bonum esse crabronem non irritare, & rabiosum canem è somno exitare. Esto, sit crabro, sit canis rabidus, & leo rugiens: ego tricipitem illum Cerberum, diu divinae providentiae certitudini horribiliter oblatrantem, per biennium iam silere coegi: & quis est Rhilistaeus iste incircumcisus, ut meo calamo non prosternat eum Dominus exercituum? Arrogantiae meae ascribant qui velint, quod ego tam pusillus, hoc tantum facinus aggredior: si abstulerit Dominus opprobrium populi sui, nihil est quòd ego quaeram amplius. Ast vafer est & veterator callidus, & ad omnem fallaciam maximè instructus. Sit ita, Ego eius causam ago: qui versutos in versitia sua comprehendere potest & vult. Intrepidè igitur ego, incircumcisum hunc Philistaeum, in nomine Dei Israelis oppugno. Ipse enim est qui suae Religionis hostes universos, prosternet, conculcabit, conteret. Vos igitur adeste judices aequissimi (estis enim meo judicio dignissimi) faciteque ut vincenti palma porrigatur: & ut Deo optimo maximo, universa gloria tribuatur. valet. Et studiosi studiosis favete. Ex Aedibus meis in vico australis opificij juxta Londinum: quarto Iduum Septembris. Anno salutis nostrae. 1569. Vester Robertus Croleus. TO THOMAS WATSON Doctor of Divinity, Robert Crowley, Student of the same: wisheth as to himself, the holy Spirit of God to direct him in all Godly study. TWO THINGS CHIEFLY, moved me to take in hand, to answer your two Sermons, which you preached before Queen Marie, and caused to be set forth in print, in the year of our Lord. 1554. One is, for that the estimation that you have in the Pope's Church is such: that whatsoever is known to be of your doing, is of that sort thought to be so learnedly done, that none can be found amongst us, able to answer any part thereof. I therefore (much inferior to many of my mind in Religion) have enterprised to encounter with you: having now (by God's providence) a time of more leisure thereunto, than at any time since my return out of Germany I have had. wishing that you having the like leisure, might be licensed to reply to this answer as you are able: that by the travail of us two now being at leisure, the truth of the matters that you entreat of, might be made plain to such as would read our writings, and seek for knowledge by our labours. The other is the subtle handling of the matters that you entreat of: which may easily deceive the simple Reader, and astunnish the learned that hath not seen and weighed the places that you allege for your purpose. The subtlety whereof, I have set open in such sort: that none can be deceived by you, but such as be persuaded that it is unpossible for you to lie, or for me to write a truth. I know, we may both err: and therefore, I would wish that the readers of our writings should set aside all affections, & give credit to neither of both, further than they shall by our writings he made understand, that it is the truth that we teach. As touching your person, you are to me unknown, as I think, I am to you: but what mind you were of in religion, when you made these Sermons, I can not but know, by reading and considering of the same, as you also must needs know, what mind I am of, if you will in like manner read and consider this mine answer. According as jesus Christ hath taught, I do love both your soul and body: and do wish both to be saved, by the blood of that unspotted Lamb, that by his death and bloodshedding, hath paid a sufficient ransom for the sins of the whole world. The errors that you have taught, I do utterly abhor, as detestable and damnable: wishing you and all other to do the same. Embracing now at the last, the known truth: which hath been long time hid by ignorance, from the greatest number that bore the name of Christians, and is now by the knowledge of the holy word of God, made known, to as many as will know it, and be not wilful blind. Such truth as you have taught, I do willingly embrace: and do not any thing at all, mislike with any thing, for the Author's sake. But my misliking is, with the matter that is not to be liked. And when I do at any time seem to mislike with the Author, it is for that his words have no ground in the holy word of God, which is as the touchstone to try all men's writings by. Let us both prey for the spirit of Humility, that we may thereby be made meet to receive and retain the knowledge of the truth: which God will never give to the proud, and such as think themselves peerless, and therefore disdain the brotherly admonitions of such as in their sight are to simple, to be teachers of such as they be. The Lord jesus grant that spirit to as many as profess his name: that we may once be of one mind in the house of the Lord, to his glory, and the confusion of Satan. Amen. FINIS. To the Christian Readers. Having occasion oftentimes to be in place where such as are not yet persuaded that the Pope's Church can err, have been bold to utter their minds freely, affirming that the doctrine which the Protestants teach, is erroneous and false, especially concerning the presence of Christ in the Sacrament of his body and blood, and the sacrifice of the Mass: I have perceived, that the same have been chiefly persuaded & stayed by these two Sermons, made by Doctor Watson in the first year of Queen Mary's reign. I have therefore wished, that some man of like learning, would have published in print, an answer to those Sermons: that thereby such as have been deceived by the subtlety thereof, might by the plain and simple answer, be brought to the knowledge of the truth, which no doubt the greatest number of them would embrace, if they might once be brought to see it. Yea, I know some of them do hunger and thirst, to see what may be said to the contrary of that which they are yet persuaded in, by that which seemeth to them unanswerable. But whiles I thus wished with myself, many years are passed by: and I fear me, many souls have perished, being blinded by the subtlety of these Sermons. And hitherto, I can not understand that any man hath once purposed to answer them. Although therefore, I be of many the most unmeet, and of some most despised, accounted and reported to be none of the learned: yet rather than the proud Philistine should still blaspheme the God of Israel, and defy his whole army, no man being so hardy as to buckle with him, I have in the courage and confidence of despised David, taken in hand to fight the combat with him, and do not doubt by the help of David's God, either to cause him to yield, or to lie headless, despised and forsaken even of his own sort and followers. Some man will say (peradventure) that it is but a vain brag to make such a challenge, knowing that the adverse party may not without licence encounter with me: and if he shall obtain licence, yet shall not his doings be suffered to come to light, unless the same shall be liked by such as favour my cause. For my part, I wish that it were as free for him to reply to this mine answer and to publish the same, as it is for me to answer his Sermons: and I know that if he be able and willing to reply, he can neither lack liberty so to do, nor means to publish it when it is done. This objection therefore is but vain. But that you may have some understanding of that which I have done in this answer (dear Christians) and with better will read it thorough and weigh it: I will in few words declare the effect of my doing therein. First, I have faithfully reported the Sermons, as they are to be seen in his printed Copy: altering or changing no one syllable or letter, but such only as do manifestly appear to be faults escaped by the ignorance or negligence of the Printer. Secondly, I have weighed and considered the Authorities that he hath alleged with their circumstances: setting down the same in writing to be seen, that you may in the fear of God, weigh the same also, and judge whether he have applied them aright or not. And thirdly, I have answered, by the like, or greater Authority, all that he hath laboured to confirm by Authority: either of the scriptures or ancient fathers. The Lord jesus direct you all in the reading of these Sermons and answer: that you may understand and embrace the truth of the matters in controversy, & in life and conversation, glorify him that hath with his spirit of comfort caused me to go thorough with this answer: notwithstanding the manifold ways that Satan hath sought to cause me to cast it aside. Far you well. Yours in Christ Robert Crowley. ¶ The Table for the notes of the first Sermon, in order of letter. A. B. C. etc. A AMbrose overthroweth watsons foundation. Folio. 18. A rule to be followed in reading of fathers, Fol. 27. Against private Mass. Fol. 29. Austen expounded by himself. 33. Against whom Ireneus wrote. 54 A strange signification of Symbolum. 99 Ancient writers must be read with favour. 101. A note for universal signs. 118. An oration without a Nominative case. 141. An argument like watsons' argument. 160. A worthy promotion. 174. A homely shift. 177. Another is not the same. 182. A foul oversight in one that would be a Catholic Bishop. Ibidem. All things reckoned, more is lost then won. 207. B bernard was the flower of his tyme. 9 Bernard was deceived in some things. 12. By watson's doctrine no Infants can be saved. 72. C CYprians words in the same Epistle. 25. Chrysostom's and basiles judgement. 28. Chrysostom's meaning. 31. Cyprians meaning. 41. Cluniacensis a corrupter of scriptures. 42. Christ's purpose in speaking. 54. Contradiction in watsons words. Folio. 70. Christ's incarnation is the cause of our resurrection. 88 chrysostom is no man for Watson. 115. Christ's manhood can be but in one place. 116. Cyprians meaning was far other than watson's. 119. Christ must be in the mind before the sacrament. etc. 138. Crafty handling of the father's sayings. 139. Christ is no charmer. 176. chrysostom useth the figure Hyperbole. 189. D DEgrees of holiness. 177. Descant without good plain song. 187. E Equality of Bishops by Cyprians judgement. 26. Erasmus his judgement upon the third Tome. 29. Election in Christ maketh men worthy. etc. 69. Effects do spring out of efficient causes. 97. G GErson against Master watson. 47. God is the efficient cause of our resurrection. 109. H How we can offer Christ. 10. How that which lacketh in us is supplied. 12. How Christ is present in his sacraments. 19 How the bread is Christ's body. Fol. 66. I IReneus teacheth what sacrifice God delighteth in. 7. Isichius to much given to the Anagogical sense. 170. Isichius against Watson. 172. L Liars have no credit. 133. Look in the .24. division. 204. M MAster watson's decay of faith and good works. etc. 4. Medicines be not the efficient causes of health. 99 N NO Mass said for hire can be a sacrifice. 38. None can know God, but such as be members of Christ. 84. O ORigine against Master Watson. 16. Only Gods elect have commodity by Christ's. etc. 72. One of watson's shifts. 84. Origine maketh watson's conjecture to seem untrue. 160. P PEter Cluniacensis. 42. S Sir Thomas moors thanks. Fol. 1. T THe contrary of watson's words is true. 7. The fruits of the Mass. 8. To what use Watson would have Christ to serve. 11. The foundation of watson's Sermon. 14. The scripture overthroweth watson's foundation. 14. The scriptures and Doctors have shaken. etc. 19 The words that Watson citeth make nothing for him. 26. The three forms of Masses feigned. 29. The Church is offered in her own oblation. 38. The sacrament of the altar. 39 The circumstances must give the understanding. 49. The meaning of Christ. 62. The cause why children be baptized. 69. The scope of Saint Austin's doctrine. 77. The covenant of God is confirmed with an oath. etc. 80. To large a conclusion. 85. The sequel of watson's doctrine. Fol. 89. The use of Austin's time. 93. The cause of the resurrection. 94. The meaning of Athanasius. 101. The effect of the sacrament. 117. The cause why Watson would not cite. etc. 120. The accord of cyril and Watson. Fol. 123. The best armour for Christians. Fol. 133. The title of Doctor deceiveth many. 135. The right use of fasting. 137. The fruits of constancy. 152. The fruits of Popish doctrine. Fol. 153. Two loud lies one in another's neck. 166. The antiquity of Isichius. 172. The fruits of presumption. 176. The scope of the Epistle. 182. The manner of Church exercise in Chrysostom's time. 184. The purpose of Christ. 186. The end of Chrysostom's eloquence. 206. W WAtson counterfaiteth Saint Paul. 2. watson's words true in himself. 3. watson's Book wrong quoted. Fol. 5. Watson and Paul build not both upon one. etc. 13. watson's hearers were of three sorts. 13. watson's doctrine denieth Christ's manhood. 15. Watson leaveth out that should make against him. 29. Watson doth snatch a word. 31. Watson will none of this gloze. Fol. 33. Whereof Austen is full. 35. What the sacrifice of the new Testament is. 35. Watson belieth Cluniacensis. 42. Watson did not weigh Ireneus words. 53. Watson hath a bernard of his own. 58. watson's store is but small. 61. watson's voluntary grant. 64. watson's sophistry hath made him forget. etc. 65. Watson must be promoted. 65. Watson denieth Christ's words. Fol. 65. Watson hath lost five of the Pope's sacraments. 68 Watson is faulty in that which he reprehendeth in other. 75. Watson concludeth fond. 78. We teach not that the sacrament is but bare. etc. 81. Watson secketh vantage by translating. 82. Watson will not leave his old wont. 87. watson's conclusion differeth much from Cyrillus. 90. Watson is not able to answer his own objection. 92. Watson was foul overseen. 98. What manner men Ireneus had to do with. 103. Words that must be warily considered. 104. Watson is bold with Ireneus. Fol. 104. Watson hath a wrong opinion of us. 107. watson's old trick will not be left. Fol. 122. watson's sentence turned to himself. 129. Watson is saucy and malapert. Fol. 130. Watson hath produced a witness against. etc. 131. watson's common practice. 133. Watson might have spared this labour. 141. Watson forgetteth what he hath in hand. 143. Watson concludeth with a loud lie. 154. Watson against Rhenanus. 161. watson's conclusion followeth not. Fol. 162. Watson doth miss of his purpose. Fol. 168. watson's own chrysostom against Watson. 173. Watson going about to deface other. 174. Watson overthroweth that before he did build. 178. Watson can see nothing. 183. watson's Paradox. 184. Watson belieth three at once. 195. Watson can pretend shortness. Ibi. Watson can slip over some things. Folio. 203. The Table for the notes of the second Sermon, in order of Letter. A Antichristes' Church confirmeth as great. etc. 17. A pretty recantation. 28. Austen against Watson in the same place. etc. 54. An argument for Watson to answer. 88 An argument against the sacrifice of the Mass. 91. Ambrose openeth his own meaning. 94. A proof of that which Watson saith is not. etc. 104. A commemoration of any thing, is not that thing. 125. A use enforced by persecution. 165. B BLasphemous doctrine. 32. Both the institution and the prophesy. etc. 58. Bernardes' meaning made plain. Fol. 90. Both sin alike. 154. C COmmunion bread. 19 Christ is the perfection of the law. 38. Cyprians purpose in his Epistle. Fol. 67. Christ called an Advocate. 96. Cyprian speaketh not of the Mass. Fol. 106. Christ is not an instrument of salvation. 116. Change is no robbrie. 129. Chrysostom's words rightly applied of us. 178. D DEcrees made by Pope Innocent. 15. Devil Conjurers as good as Massing priests. 116. Doctor's dregs upon Doctor's dirt. 171. F Four lies affirmed in less than twenty lines. 184. G GOds word is the rule of the Church. 27. Gregory's books burned. 110. H HOw justly Wyckliffe was condemned. 16. How Christ hath been slain from the beginning. 91. I IGnatius his words not found. Fol. 18. Ignatius doth teach none other faith. etc. Ibidem. Isichius doth not agree with Watson. 51. jeroboams Priests as good jews, as the Popes. etc. 186. L Leavened bread commanded by Bishops of Rome. 20. Luke putteth both Paul and himself in the number of al. 174. M MAssing priests are not lawful ministers. 25. Many proofs against the Mass. 29. Many places, but none named. Fol. 43. Melchisedeches' blessing declared. Fol. 72. Mystical can not be real. 97. More Priests damned then saved. Fol. 118. Mass for the rot of cattle. 147. N NOne hath or can prove the necessity of mixing water with the wine. 22. No form of reasoning observed by Watson. 80. None can offer Christ but himself. Fol. 89. Not the masking Mass, but the holy communion. 106. Narrow seeking for matter. 161. Nothing more against Watson then this. 162. O OEcumenius belied in translating. 75. Oecumenius his meaning. Fol. 76 Oecumenius may have no credit. Fol. Ibidem. P POpe Leo his consideration. Fol. 20. Paul's doctrine not so gross as. etc. 39 Papistical liberty used by Watson. 49. Paul's words expounded. 82. Painters divinity. 92. Private Mass proved to be against the institution of Christ. 153. Popish shavelings most unworthy ministers. 156. Patched ware may not be allowed Fol. 179. S Six penny books. 28. Sacrifices are not means to take away sins. 37. Spiritual sacrifices. 98. Saint Austin's mind in plain words. 105. Shameful changing of words. Fol. 119. Solemn is not contrary to private. 152. T THe Church of Christ doth always condemn heresies. Fol. 17. The sacrament ministered in bread and cheese. 19 The Pope put to his choice. 21. Three Popes doings condemned. Fol. 22. The popish priests like the Messalians. 23. The Papists are Anthropomorphits. 26. The Pope and the hole Synod decree an heresy. 28. The means whereby Christ's merits are applied to us. 31. The best arguments of the Pope's divinity. etc. 42. The speakers meaning is the truth of the sentence. 44. The school Doctor's overthrow watson's assertion. 45. The value of watson's reason. Fol. 45. Theophilact seeketh shifts. etc. Fol. 53. The conclusion that Watson might with more honesty have made. Fol. 55. The mind of Paul in making mention of Melchisedech. 65. The duty of a good interpreter. Fol. 71. The order of Melchisedech declared. 73. The continual offering of Christ. Fol. 74. Theophilacts meaning. 81. The meaning of daniel's prophecy. 83. The special use of the passover. 91. The act of mediation. 97. The Mass doth diminish the glory of Christ. 104 The cup of salvation is tribulation. 108. Three reasons to prove Gregory's works counterfeit. 110. The way to apply Christ's passion. 111. Two untruths affirmed with one breath. 115. The meaning of Cyprian. 118. The sacrament of Christ's body and blood. etc. 121. The form of the popish Mass. Fol. 124. The Baker and his boy. 127. The Baker was not prentice in the University. 127. The use of distinctions. 130. The new Masters teach the old lesson. 155. The Papists vary about their consecration. 156. The sure stay that the popish consecration hath. etc. 156. The effect of the sacrament. 157. The sacrifice of the new Testament. 158. The Mass hath not the marriage garment. 158. To build up a cottage, and pull down a palace. 170. To what end saint Luke used copy of words. 173. The Mass alone is able to hold up the devils kingdom. 185. W WAtsons grace in the brag of antiquity. 13. Words cited not found. Fol. 13. Watson citeth words that prove the contrary. etc. 14. Waffer cakes called stertch. 21. Watson sucketh out the dregs of old writers. 24. Words of cyril not found. 25. Watson can speak truth. 30. watson's dark speaking. 33. Watson forgetteth his last sayings. Fol. 38. Watson dealeth not simply. 39 watson's obedient Catholics. 39 watson's pity. 42. Watson will make his new Masters laugh. 42. What Christ did at his last supper. Fol. 43. When Christ was given and his body broken. etc. 44. Watson hath overshot himself. Fol. 44. What is meant by the second Ram. Fol. 50. watson's fallace opened. 52. Watson had no leisure to look in the Greek. 55. What sacrifices the Church offereth. 60. Wherein Christ is like Melchisedech. 68 Watson near driven. 69. Watson maketh light of that which he is not able. etc. 69. Watson would have Austen teach false doctrine. 73. watson's Maior is not currant. etc. Fol. 79. Wherein the tables be compared. Fol. 79. Watson hath time enough to prove his arguments. 82. What sacrifice Antichrist may take away. 83. Words that remain sealed. 84. Watson confirmeth our allegation of scriptures. 88 watson's learning and wisdom showed. 89. Watson was deep in his Oblations. 89. Why Christ would eat Pasover. Fol. 92. Watson very nigh a dangerous error. 93. Was, and shall, have no place in god. Fol. 96. Watson will follow the most unlikely. 100 watson's gloze disproved. 107. watson's impudence. 108. Watson blinded with affection. Fol. 109. Watson would not see. etc. 110. Watson hideth the faults of the Mass. 116. What sacrifice the Apostles did offer. 130. Who they be that slander Watson. Fol. 145. What consecration is. 155. watson's purpose in speaking of circumstances. 162. We depend upon Christ's commandment. 163. watson's examples prove not his purpose. 166. What may justly be gathered of Eusebius. etc. 168. Watson understandeth not Chrysostom's manner of speaking. 179. Watson could not turn over the leaf. 181. FINIS. ¶ Here beginneth the first Sermon. The Title of watson's Sermons. Two notable Sermons, made the third and fift Fridays in Lent last passed, before the Queen's Highness, concerning the Real presence of Christ's body and blood in the blessed sacrament, and also the Mass, which is the sacrifice of the new Testament: by Thomas Watson Doctor of Divinity. I Have heard that in the days of King Henry the eight: there preached one before him, CROWLEY. whose Sermon the King liked not, because it was not to be liked. And therefore he willed Sir Thomas More than being Lord Chancellor: to give the Preacher thanks, worthy such a Sermon. He therefore being a man of a pleasant wit, spoke to the Preacher with a loud voice, that the King might hear, and said: Sir Thomas Moor's thanks. The King's Majesty thanketh you for your notable Sermon. Which when the King heard, he called Sir Thomas to him, and said: What mean you my Lord to give such thanks in our name? If it like you, quoth he, there be some things notable evil. Whether the Printer meant so of these two Sermons, I know not. But I trust that the Reader shall perceive, by the setting open of the subtlety thereof: that they were not notable good. Obsecro vos fratres, per misericordiam dei: WATSON. Division. 1. ut exhibeatis corpora vestra hostiam vivam, sanctam, deo placentem. etc. Roma. 12. Because your Printer hath not Englished your Latin text: CROWLEY. I will be so bold as to English it: that the English Reader (whom your subtlety may soon hurt) may understand your text, and weigh how good a ground it is, for you to build, that you would build upon it. I beseech you brethren (saith S. Paul) even for the mercy of God, make your bodies a sacrifice, living, holy, and acceptable unto God. etc. Roma. 12. WATSON. Division. 2. Philipians. 3. If S. Paul writing to the Philippians, the third chapter, was not ashamed to say, to write one thing divers times to you, is not pain or sloth to me, but profitable and necessary for you: much less ought I to be ashamed, for that I propound to you at this time, that lesson again which before I have twice entreated, seeing I intend (by God's grace) to speak nothing, but that I have learned either of S. Paul himself, or of such as I think was endued with the same spirit that S. Paul was. And this I do, not for lack of good matter: but for lack of better matter in my judgement & more necessary to be learned of us all at this present. For what is better, worthier, and more needful to be taught and learned of all sorts of men, in these evil days and corrupt time: then how to offer up ourselves to God, a living, holy and pleasing sacrifice, to overcome and repress our naughty will and affections? to mortify our earthly members and conversation? And so to banish sin, that it reign not in our mortal bodies? the largeness of which matter is so great, and doth extend itself in so many parts, causes, and circumstances: that although the whole matter do pertain and have respect to one end: yet the entreating of it being long, must needs be various, and for that reason can not be tedious, to him that loveth to learn to live well, and please almighty God. CROWLEY. Satan, transforming himself into the likeness of an Angel of light, is never the later an enemy still, according to the true Etymology of his name. Watson counterfeiteth S. Paul. Even so you (M. Watson) can not by counterfeiting S. Paul, cause us to believe, that you bear like good will to us, as he did to the Philippians. It is very true, that no matter can be more profitable to be entreated off in these evil days: than that which doth teach us to offer up ourselves to God, a living, holy and acceptable sacrifice to him. But if you entreated it no better, in your other two Sermons that you speak off, than you do in these: you might have been much better occupied in entreating of other matter, although the same had not been so various as this, and therefore more tedious to the hearers. The end of this my matter is, WATSON. Division. 3. to destroy the kingdom of sin, for which purpose, God's son was incarnate, to bring which thing to pass, in us was all the life, the example, the passion, the Resurrection of Christ, and all the doctrine and sacraments of Christ. Like as contrary, to erect and establish this kingdom of sin is all the travail and temptation of the devil, now fawning like a serpent, transforming himself into an angel of light, to entrap and seduce the simple and unware, now raging like a Lion, to overthrow the feeble and fearful. And not only is it his travail: but also it is the whole labour and practise, of all his children by imitation. As Infidels, jews, Heretics, Schismatics, false brethren, and counterfeit christians, both in living and learning, labouring night and day with all wit and will: to destroy the faith of Christ, the sacraments of Christ, and the sacrifice of Christ, as much as in them lieth. Which three be special means to destroy the kingdom of sin, which they with all their power set up and maintain. It is very true (as you say) that the end of our mortification, CROWLEY. the incarnation, life, suffering, resurrection, doctrine and sacraments of Christ: is to destroy the kingdom of sin. watson's words true in himself, & such other. And on the contrary, it is all true that you have written: understanding yourself and other of your sort, to be the Heretics, Schismatics, false brethren and counterfeit Christians that you speak off. The practice of the devil and his Ministers in this point, WATSON. Division. 4. I have partly touched, and by God's grace and your patience, shall now proceed further. I have opened the decay of faith, good works and penance, which be remedies against sin. One other remedy there is, that lieth in much decay, which will lie still, except good men (according to their bounden duties) put to their helping hands. I mean the sacrifice of the church, the sacrifice of the new testament, the sacrifice of our reconciliation, in the body and blood of our Lord jesus Christ, which he hath instituted in his last supper, and so as Ireneus saith, Novi testamenti, novam docuit oblationem: Ireneus. li. 4. cap. 32. quam Ecclesia ab Apostolis accipiens, in universo mundo offert deo: Christ confessing, the cup to be his blood, hath taught the new sacrifice of the new testament: which sacrifice, the Church receiving of the Apostles, doth offer to God throughout the whole world. CROWLEY. You say you have opened the decay of faith, good works and penance. I have neither heard nor seen in writing, what you have said of these decays. But me think I may guess that you do account it a decay of faith, when men can not believe, that whatsoever the Pope and his clerk shall teach, is true: of good works, when men wax weary of giving their lands and goods to the maintenance of Idolatry, Master watson's decay of faith, good works, and penance. and false worshipping of God: and of penance, when men can not be persuaded, that their own works can be any part of satisfaction for their own sins. If this be your opening of these decays: then have you done as well therein, as you do here in the decay of the fourth remedy, which you call the sacrifice of the Church. etc. For neither may the supper of the Lord be properly called the sacrifice of the Church, the sacrifice of the new Testament, nor the sacrifice of our reconciliation: more than to believe all that the Pope shall teach, may be called the faith in Christ, or to give lands or goods to the maintenance of Idolatry, may be called a good work, or the seeking to satisfy for sins, by our own works, may be called penance. And as for your words cited out of Ireneus, they are not so many as they should be, and therefore I will cite them as Ireneus wrote them, although it be something long, that the simple Reader be no longer deceived by your subtle handling of the Father's writings. And first I must tell you that your Printer hath quoted your book wrong. For it is in the .32. watson's book wrong quoted. Chapter of Ireneus his fourth book, and not in the .35. as your printed copy hath it. Thus saith Ireneus lib. 4. cap. 32. Hij sunt, inquit, Zacha. cap 8. sermons quos facietis. Loquimini veritatem unusquisque ad proximum suum, & judicium pacificum iudicate in portis vestros, & unusquisque malitiam fratris sui non recogitet in cord suo, & iurationem falsam ne dixeritis. Quoniam haec omnia odi, dicit Dominus omnipotens. Et david autem similiter. Quis est, Psalm. 34. inquit, homo, qui vult vitam, & amat dies videre bonos. Cohibe linguam tuam à malo, & labia tua ne loquantur dolum. Declina à malo & fac bonum, inquire pacem & sequere eam. Ex quibus omnibus manifestum est, quia non sacrificia & holocaustomata quaerebat ab eis Deus: sed fidem, & obedientiam, & justiciam, propter illorum salutem. Oseae. 6. Sicut in Osea Prophetae, docens eos Deus suam voluntatem, dicebat. Misericordiam volo quam sacrificium, & agnitionem Dei super holocaustomata. Math. 9 Sed & Dominus noster eadem monebat eos, dicens. Si enim cognovissetis, quid est, misericordiam volo quam sacrificium, nunquam c●ndemnaretis immerentes, testimonium quidem reddens Prophetis, quoniam veritatem predicabant, illos autem arguens sua culpa insipientes. Sed & suis Discipulis dans consilium primitias Deo offerre ex suis creaturis: non quasi indigenti, sed ut ipsi nec infructuosi, nec ingrati sint, eum qui ex creatura panis est, accipit & gratias egit dicens. Hoc est meum corpus. Et calicem similiter, Math. 26. qui est ex ea creatura quae est secundum nos, suum sanguinem confessus est, & novi testamenti novam docuit oblationem, quam Ecclesia ab Apostolis accipiens, in universo mundo offert Deo, ei qui alimenta nobis praestat primitias suorum munerum in novo testamento, de quo in .12. Prophetis Malachias sic praesignificavit. Malach. 1. Non est mihi voluntas in vobis dicit Dominus omnipotens, & sacrificium non accipiam de manibus vestris. Quoniam ab ortu solis usque ad occasum, nomen meum glorificatur inter gentes, & in omni loco incensum offertur nomini meo, & sacrificium purum. Quoniam magnum est nomen meum in gentibus, dicit Dominus omnipotens: manifestissime significans per haec, quoniam prior quidem populus cessabit offerre Deo: omni autem loco sacrificium offertur ei, & hoc purum, nomen autem eius glorificatur in gentibus. These be the words, saith he, that you must fulfil in deed. Let every one of you speak truth to his neighbour, and see that ye give quiet sentence in your gates, and let no man keep in memory the malice of his brother. And see that you take no false oath. For the Almighty Lord doth hate all these things. And in like manner David. What man is it, saith he, that is desirous of life, and loveth to see good days? Restrain thy tongue from evil, and thy lips that they speak no guile. Decline from evil and do good, seek after peace and follow the same. By all which words it is manifest, that God required of them neither sacrifice nor offerings. But faith and obedience, and righteousness, for their salvation. Even as in Oseas the Prophet also, God teaching them his will, said: I desire rather mercy than sacrifice, and acknowledging of God, more than offerings. And our Lord also did put them in remembrance of the same things when he said: truly if ye had known what this meaneth, I desire mercy rather than sacrifice: ye would never condemn those that deserve it not. Testifying with the Prophets, that it was the truth that they taught, and reprehending those that he spoke too, as men that by their own fault were without understanding. Also when he gave counsel to his Disciples, that they should offer unto God, first fruits out of his creatures: not as though he had need thereof, but that they should neither be unfruitful nor unthankful: he took the bread, which is of the Creature, and gave thanks, saying. This is my body. And in like manner, he confessed, that the Cup, which is of that creature that is among us, is his blood, and taught a new oblation of the new Testament, which the Church receiving of the Apostles, doth in all parts of the world offer unto God, even unto him that giveth the first fruits of his own gifts in the new Testament, to be our food, whereof in the twelve Prophets, Malachi doth foreshow in this sort. I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord almighty: and I will receive no sacrifice at your hands. For my name is glorified among the Gentiles, even from the rising of the sun to the going down of the same, and in every place is Incense and pure sacrifice offered unto my name. For my name is great among the Nations, saith the Lord almighty: declaring most manifestly by these words, that the first people shall cease to offer to God: but in every place is sacrifice offered unto him, yea, and that pure sacrifice, for his name is glorified among the Gentiles. Now (M. Watson) let the Christian Reader, weigh the words of Ireneus. And do you weigh them better than you did, when you used them to prove that the Lords supper is the sacrifice of the Church of Christ, and of our reconciliation. For Ireneus proveth that God delighteth in no outward sacrifices, but doth by them teach what sacrifice it is that he delighteth in. That is, faith, Ireneus teacheth what sacrifice God delighteth in. obedience, and justice, which he would have all men to offer, as a sacrifice of thanksgiving to God for their salvation. And when jesus Christ did institute his supper: he did thereby teach his disciples to offer that sacrifice (as ye may learn in S. Augustine his sermon De sacramentis fidelium, Citatur à Beda in Collect. ) and of the Apostles hath the church learned to offer the same in all parts of the world, which is Incense and pure sacrifice, and the glorifying of the name of God among all Nations. There is nothing so ancient, so profitable, WATSON. Division. 5. necessary and so wholesome as this sacrifice is, that hath been of some men, and that of late, so assaulted, reviled, rejected, blasphemed, oppressed, persecuted, and with such reproach and indignation banished & exiled, without cause or any good ground why they should so have done, but that they knew sin should decay, if that were used. And therefore intending to establish the Kingdom of sin, laboured with all violence to subvert this enemy and remedy against sin. Which as S. Cyprian doth say, Cyprianus ser. de coena domini. Ad totius hominis vitam salutemque proficit, simul medicamentum & holocaustum ad sanandas infirmitates, & purgandas iniquitates existens. Which doth profit to the life and salvation of the whole man, being both a medicine to heal infirmities, and a sacrifice to purge iniquities. Meaning (as I am sure you do) of the sacrifice of your Mass: CROWLEY. there is nothing more true, The contrary of watson's words most true. than the contrary of that praise that you give it. As for the ground and cause why we assault it, revile, reject, blaspheme, oppress and persecute it. etc. it is such, that you and all your sort, are not able justly to remove. Doth it not rob Christ of his glory, in that it is made a sacrifice propitiatory for sins? Doth it not rob the people of the comfort they should conceive by receiving that thing, which in your Mass they may but see and worship? Hath it not been the overthrow of many thousands, which being seduced by your false teaching, have called it their maker and redeemer, and have given unto it, the honour due to both? And where ye say that sin must decay where it is used, I pray you how decayed sin in the abbeys, where it was most used? The fruits of the Mass. Forsooth even as in Sodom, when Lot's doctrine was refused. What amendment of life wrought it in this Realm in Queen Mary's days? Forsooth even such as the golden Calves wrought in Israel in king jerobohams' time, and Baal's sacrifices in the days of king Ahab. You say, it is an enemy and remedy against sin, and you take record of Cyprian the holy Martyr and witness of Christ: but if he were living, he would give you little thank to take him to witness in so manifest an untruth. In deed Cyprian speaketh reverently and truly of the holy supper of the Lord: for it is both a remedy to heal our infirmities, and a brent offering to purge our iniquities. For (as S. Austen saith) carnal men must by the degrees and steps of sacraments be brought from those things that be seen with the bodily eyes, August. octogint. quest. 41. to those that be understanded by the mind. And so do sacraments cure our infirmities. And as the brent offerings, did preach to the offerers, that if they would have their iniquities purged by Christ, they must offer themselves wholly to God by obedience to his will: Even so doth this holy supper teach us to offer our souls and bodies in obedience to work his will, whose members we be. Thus doth it both cure our infirmities, and purge our iniquities, as Cyprian hath said in the place that you cite. WATSON. Division. 6 This little time that I have now, I intend (God willing) to bestow in this matter, to reduce into your remembrance the foundation and commodity of this sacrifice of the Church, and to repel such bolts, as the foolishness of some, and the malice of other, have shot against it, that knowing the necessity and goodness of it, we may follow the counsel of S. bernard which said, Discamus eius humilitatem, Bernardus homil. 3. super missus est. imitemur mansuetudinem, amplectamur dilectionem, communicemus passionibus, tavemur in sanguine eius: ipsum offeramus propitionem pro peccatis nostris, quoniam ad hoc ipse natus & datus est nobis. Ipsum occulis patris, ipsum offeramus & suis, quia & pater proprio filio suo non pepercit, sed pro nobis tradidit illum etc. Let us learn his humility, let us follow his meekness and gentleness, let us embrace his love, let us communicate his passions by suffering with him, let us be washed in his blood, let us offer him the propitiation, or a sacrifice propitiatory for our sins: for to this end was he borne and given to us: let us offer him to his father's eyes, let us offer him to his own eyes, for the father hath not spared his own son, but hath given him for us, and so forth. Your purpose is (you say) in this sermon to reduce into the remembrance of your Auditory, CROWLEY. the foundation and commodity of the Mass. (For that it is that you call the sacrifice of the Church) and to repel the bolts. etc. As foolish and malicious as you account them that have shot bolts at your Blackbird the Mass: yet have they bestowed them so wisely and charitably in the defence of the true Turtle Dove, the Church of jesus Christ, that you nor any of your sort, never yet hath been, or ever hereafter shall be, able to repel them, as you brag that you mind to do. As for your place of bernard: it might be answered with this common saying: Bernardus non vidit omnia. bernard saw not all things, for his antiquity is under five hundred years. So that it was a wonder that he saw any thing, the time wherein he lived being so overshadowed with the clouds of ignorance and superstition, and he himself also being a Monk by profession. Yet will I not so reject him, Bernard was the flower of his time. because he was the flower of his time, and seemeth by his writings to see more, than he durst well utter with his tongue or pen. And this sentence that you cite out of his Homily, serveth not so much for your purpose, as you seem to think that it doth. For what manner of speeches are these? Communicemus passionibus, lavemur in sanguine eius? Are they not Metaphors? For if we use these words in their proper signification, how is it possible for us to do the thing that bernard exhorteth us to do? Can we by any means suffer any part of that passion that Christ suffered in his own person? And is it possible for us to bathe our bodies in his blood? I think you be not so mad as once to think it. And why will you then snatch the next sentence, which is, Ipsum offeramus. etc. Let us offer him a sacrifice propitiatory for our sins, for to that end he was borne and given unto us, and urge that as a proper speech, where as it is manifest, that to speak properly, it cannot be true, that any either can or ever could, or ever shall be able to offer up Christ to his father, but he himself only. We therefore can offer Christ to his father none otherwise than we can bathe ourselves in his blood. That is, by believing the promise that God the father hath made therein, and by receiving the sacrament Baptism, Now we can offer Christ to his father. the seal of that promise on God's behalf, and of our faith on our behalf. So can not we otherwise offer Christ to his father: than by believing that he is that bread of life that came from heaven, and that gave himself for the life of the world, and by receiving that sacramental bread and wine, which he commanded to be received in remembrance of his death and passion. Thus I trust all indifferent men do see how you do wrest the words of bernard, to make them serve your purpose. WATSON. Division. 7. And also, as the same bernard more plainly writeth in an other place, saying thus. Pauperes sumus, parum dare possumus, attamen reconciliari possumus pro parvo illo, si volumus: totum quod dare possum, Bernar. Sermo. 1. De Epith. miserum corpus istud est, illud si dedero satis est: si quo minus, addo & corpus ipsius, nam illud de meo est, & meum est, paruulus enim natus est nobis, & filius datus est nobis, De te domine suppleo, quod minus habeo in me. O dulcissuma reconciliatio. We are poor and little can we give: yet for that little we may be reconciled to God if we wil All that I am able to give, is this wretched body of mine. If I give that, it is sufficient. If it be not: I add also Christ's body, for that is mine and of mine: for a little one is borne unto us, & the son is given unto us. O Lord, that lacketh in me, I supply of thee, O most sweetest reconciliation. See how S. bernard joineth the offering of our bodies and of Christ's body together. That if the oblation of our bodies be imperfect and suffice not: the oblation of Christ's body may fulfil and supply, that lacketh in us. And to what end? That we might be reconciled, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that it reign not in our bodies. And here the prayer was made. In many words immediately before these that you cite: CROWLEY. S. bernard proveth, that our salvation cometh of the merciful goodness of God only, and not of any thing that is in us. For to that end, he citeth the name Saviour: both out of the words spoken by the Angel Gabriel to the Virgin Marie, and also out of the Angels words to joseph, and to the shepherds, declaring also the cause thereof to be, for that he should save his people from their sins. To what use Watson would have Christ to serve. But you (M. Watson) would have bernard to teach, that Christ serveth for none other purpose, but to be offered in the Mass, to help out with that, that lacketh in our merits. For you say, see how saint bernard joineth the offering of our bodies and of Christ's body together. That if the oblation of our bodies be imperfect and suffice not: the oblation of Christ's body may fulfil and supply, that lacketh in us. If bernard had been of that mind: then might it not only have been truly said of him, Bernard saw not all things: but rather thus, Bernard was blind in every thing. For what is more manifest, both by the scriptures & judgement of ancient fathers: then that Christ alone is our Mediator and reconcilor to God his father? Did not the Angel say to joseph: he shall save his people from their sins? In the Latin, it is saluum faciet. Math. 1. He shall make them safe. And what is required to be done by his people towards their salvation: if he alone shall make them safe? Again Esay saith. Esay. 53. Livore eius sanati sumus. By his stripes, are we made whole. Et disciplina pacis nostrae, cecidit super illum. The correction that might purchase our peace: Oseas. 13. fell upon him. And Oseas saith. O Israel, perditio tua, tantum ex me auxillium tuum. O Israel, destruction is thine own: but thine help cometh of me alone. What can be more plainly spoken then this? And again john Baptist saith. john. 1. Ecce qui tollit peccata mundi Behold him that taketh away the sins of the world. And shall we now set him to serve but for a shift, that when we are not able to go thorough with our matters: then he must help out withal? Oh blind bernard if he were such a one as Watson would have him to be, But bernard was none such, Bernard was deceived in some things. was none such, although he were deceived in somethings according to the deep ignorance of the time he lived in. But in these words that you take hold of, he meaneth to teach, that for as much as there is not in us any ability at all to satisfy for sin: we must fly to that mean that God hath appointed, even jesus Christ, and offer him up, a sacrifice propitiatory for our sins, not by massing, but by believing the promise of God his father made in him: and so shall we supply that, that in us lacketh altogether, and not in part. For when we shall have done all that is given us in commandment to do: we must say that we are bondmen that can deserve nothing. Luc. 17. How should we then by offering up our bodies, satisfy for any part of our sins? When we offer our bodies therefore to God in obeying his holy will: How that which lacketh in us, is supplied. we do declare thereby, that we believe the promise of God made in his son Christ, which is all that he requireth of us, and in so doing, we supply by Christ, the thing that was utterly lacking in us. That is, the satisfaction for our sins. WATSON. Division. 8. Now entering to speak of the Sacrifice of the Church, I presuppose one thing, which is the foundation of the same to be most certainly and constantly beloved of all us that be here present: Here the prayer was made. which is, that in the most blessed sacrament of the Aultare, is present the true body and blood of our Saviour Christ, the price of our redemption, not in figure only, but in truth and very deed. Which the learned men call really, and essentially, that is to say, that thing, that substance, that was upon the Cross, is now verily present in the blessed Sacrament before we receive it: the cause of which real presence, is the omnipotent power & will of God, assisting the due administration of the priest, the which body & blood we christian men receive by the service of our bodies & senses, though not by the judgement of our senses, but only by the judgement of faith, because it is given, not in the outward form of the self same body and blood, as it was slain & shed upon the cross: but in the forms of our daily and special nutriments of bread & wine, and that for sundry weighty & necessary causes, foreseen by our saviour Christ. Now you begin to build, CROWLEY. and you presuppose the foundation to be already laid in the minds of all your hearers, which is (as you say) that in the most blessed sacrament of the Altar, the true body and blood of our Saviour Christ is present, not in figure only. etc. Surely this foundation is not that, whereon S. Paul, that wise and good builder did build, Watson and Paul build not both upon one foundation. than the which (as he saith) none can be laid, for christians to build upon. For Christ hath not taught that his Church should offer such a sacrifice as you do teach that your Sacrament is. Wherefore, although this foundation were laid in the hearts of all your hearers: yet were it not sure ground to build upon, because it is beside the Rock Christ. But I suppose, that your hearers were of three sorts. One sort I think, had your foundation hard rammed in their hearts, another sort could not receive any such rubbish into their hearts, watson's hearers were of three sorts. as you do use to ram into your false foundation, but having already received the Rock Christ, they cannot admit any other. But the third sort, are like bottomless quakemires, whereon no building can stand. And many of your hearers have since that time, when you made your Sermons: showed themselves to be such. Wherefore your supposition seemeth to me to be deceived. But to your purpose. The real and essential presence of Christ's body and blood in the Sacrament, is the foundation of that you mind to teach in this Sermon. The foundation of watson's sermon. If I can prove then, that they be not so present therein: then must you seek a new foundation to build upon. Which thing, by the help of God, I doubt not to do. First, by real and essential presence, you mean such a presence, that who so receiveth into his body, the visible Sacrament: must of necessity be confessed, to receive the body and blood of Christ also, even into his body. But that is not true. Ergo. etc. The Mayor of this argument is your own words, and the Minor must be proved by Scriptures and Doctors, which is easy enough to be done. First our Saviour Christ saith. Whatsoever entereth by the mouth, Math. 15. goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draft: Which thing, I think, you will not confess to be true of the body and blood of Christ. Ergo. etc. john. 6. Again Christ saith, he that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, doth dwell in me, and hath me dwelling in him: but not every one that receiveth the Sacrament, dwelleth in Christ, and hath Christ dwelling in him: Ergo. etc. Acts. 3. Again, Peter saith that heaven must hold him, until that time come wherein all things that the prophets have spoken, be fulfilled. The Scripture overthroweth. watson's foundation. Wherefore I conclude, that by the Scriptures it is manifest, that the body and blood of Christ are not received into the bodies of men by the receiving of the Sacrament thereof. And consequently that it is not really and essentially present in the Sacrament. But you are not wont to credit the Scriptures, unless you have the sayings of the Doctors to confirm the same, using their writings as a touchstone to try the Scriptures by, where as they themselves do desire to have their writing tried by the scriptures, refusing to have credit further than they shall be found consonant to the Scriptures. We might therefore say, that it is more than needeth, to go about to try the touchstone by that metal that should be tried by it. Nevertheless, to let them whose eyes ye have bleared, see how you have deceived their sight: I will not stick to cite some sayings out of such among the Doctors, as be most ancient and sound in opinion, whereby it may appear that they thought not as you have taught. Basilius Magnus, although not writing of this matter, Basilius De Spiritu sanct. Cap. 22. yet going about to prove the holy ghost to be God: saith thus. Angelus qui astitit Cornelio: non erat in eodem tempore etiam apud Philippum. Neque qui ab altari Zachariam alloquebatur: eodem tempore etiam in coelo propriam sedem ac stationem implebat. At vero Spiritus, simul in Abacuc & in Daniel in Babilonia operari creditus est, & in Cataracta cum Hieremia esse dictus est, & cum Ezechele in Chobar. The Angel that stood before Cornelius: was not at the same time with Philip also. Neither did he that from the Altar spoke unto Zachary: at the same time occupy his own place and order in heaven. But we believe that the holy ghost, did at one time work in Abacuc, and in Daniel being in Babylon. And it is said that he was with Hieremie in the dungeon, and with ezechiel in Chobar. basil thinketh this to be a sufficient reason to prove the holy ghost to be God. And so will all godly men confess. For no creature can occupy more places at one time, than one only. But you affirming Christ's body to be really present in the sacrament: do teach that it is present in a multitude of places at once. Ergo, watson's doctrine denieth the manhood of Christ. you affirm it to be God, and so do ye destroy the man's nature in Christ, in that ye confound it with the divine, contrary to that Catholic faith that you would seem to defend, wherein we confess with Athanasius, that God & man is but one Christ, not by confusion of substance, but by the unity of person. This basil is no new writer (as you know M. Watson) for he lived about .320. years after Christ's ascension. Origin also, somewhat more ancient, Origin in Math. 25. for he lived about 200, years after Christ, writing upon the .25. Chapter of Math: saith thus. Quod si semper omnibus suis est presence: quomodo introducunt cum Parabolae eius peregrinantem? Vide ut possumus solvere hoc modo quod quaeritur. Qui enim dicit Discipulis suis, ecce vobiscum sum usque ad consummationem saeculi: Et item, ubi fuerint duo vel tres congregati in nomine meo, ibi sum in medio eorum. etc. Et qui in medio etiam noscientium se consistit: unigenitus Dei est, Deus verbum, & sapicutia, & justitia, & veritas, qui non est corporeo ambitu circumclusus. Secundum hanc divinitatis suae naturam, non peregrinatur: sed peregrinatur secundum dispensationem corporis quod suscepit. Secundum quod, & turbatus est, & tristis factus est dicens. Nunc anima mea turbatur. Et iterum Tristis est anima mea usque ad mortem. Haec autem dicentes, non soluimus suscepti corporis hominem (cum sit scriptum apud johannem, Omnis spiritus qui soluit jesum, non est ex Deo) sed unicuique substantiae proprietatem reseruamus. If so be that he be always present with all them that be his: How do his Parables bring him in as one that is gone into a strange Country? Mark how we may answer the question that is now moved. Certes, he that saith to his Disciples, behold: I am with you to the end of the world, & also, where two or three shall be gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them etc. And he also which standeth in the midst of them that know him not: the same is the only begotten son of God, God the son, and the wisdom, that justice, and that truth, that is not closed in with bodily compass. According to the nature of this his divinity: he is not gone into a strange Country. But as touching his body which he hath received: he is gone into a strange Country. According to the which, he was troubled and made heavy when he said. Now is my soul troubled. And again. My soul is sorrowful, even unto death. When we speak thus: we do not lose in sunder the manhood of the body, which he hath received (because it is written in john, every spirit that dissolveth the saviour is not of God) but we do reserve to each substance, the property thereof. In these words of Origin, it is manifest, that he thought, the presence of Christ with his, Origin against Master Watson. to be understanded of his divine nature, & his absence from them of his man's nature. Whereupon I conclude, that Origin was not of your mind, in that you say that Christ's body is really & essentially present in the Sacrament. August ad Dardanum. Saint Austen also, who lived about .400. years after Christ's ascension, writeth thus unto Dardanus. Noli itaque dubitare, ibi nunc esse hominem Christum jesum, unde venturus est. Memoriterque recole & fideliter tene Christianam confessionem, quoniam resurrexit à mortuis, ascendit in coelum, sedet ad dexteram Patris, nec aliunde quam inde venturus est, ad vivos mortuosque iudicandos. Et sic venturus est (illa angelica voce testante) quemadmodum visus est ire in coelum, id est, in eadem carnis forma atque substantia, cui profecto immortalitatem dedit, naturam non abstulit. Secundum hanc formam putandus non est ubique diffusus. Cavendum est enim, ne ita divinitatem astruamus hominis: ut veritatem corporis auferamus. Doubt not therefore, but the man Christ jesus is there now: from whence he shall hereafter come. And see thou revolve in thy mind and keep faithfully, the Christian confession, which is, that he arose again from the dead, ascended into heaven, sitteth at the right hand of the father, and that he shall come from none other place but from thence, to judge both the quick and the dead. And as the voice of the Angel doth witness, he shall come even in such sort as he was seen go into heaven, that is in the same form and substance of flesh, unto which, no doubt he hath given immortality, but hath not taken away the nature. And according to this form, he is not to be thought to be spread abroad in all places. For we must beware, that we do not so set up the divinity of the man: that we take away the truth of the body. These words of Austen are plain enough. But to make them more plain, he addeth. Dominus jesus est ubique per id quod Deus: in coelo autem perid quod homo. The Lord jesus is every where in that he is God: but in that he is man, he is in heaven. Again, the same Austen, Tractatu in john. 30. writing upon saint john's gospel saith thus. Corpus Domini in quo resurrexit, in uno loco esse opertet: veritas cius ubique diffusa est. The body of the Lord, wherein that he arose, must be in one place: but his truth is spread abroad in every place. Much more might be cited out of Austen for this matter: but this may suffice to satisfy all reasonable men, concerning his judgement herein. Ambrose also, who was living in S. Austin's time, sayeth thus. Ascendists & Paulo, qui non contentus solus te sequi, nos quoque docuit quemadinodum te sequamur, & ubi te reperire possimus dicens. Ambrose in Lucam. lib. 10. cap. 24. Si ergo consurrexistis cum Christo. quae sursum sunt quaerite, ubi Christus est ad dexteram dei sedens. Et ne oculorum magis hoc quam animorum putaremus officium, addidit. Quae sursum sunt sapite non quae super terram, Ergo, non supra terram, nec in terra, nec secundum carnem te quarere debemus, si volumus invenire. Thou didst ascend in Paul's judgement also, who, not contented to follow thee alone, hath taught us also how we may follow thee, and where we may find thee, when he saith. If ye be risen together with Christ, seek those things that are above, where Christ is, sitting at the right hand of God. And lest we should think this rather to be the office of the eyes then of the minds: he addeth. Savour those things that are above, and not those things that are on earth. If we will find him therefore we must not seek him upon earth, neither in earth, nor after the manner of flesh. What words can be more plain than these, or more mighty to overthrow your foundation (M. Watson) doth not Ambrose say, Ambrose overthroweth watson's foundation. that if we will find Christ: we must seek him in heaven, where he is sitting at the right hand of God? Ergo, not in your bread and Wine in such sort as you teach. About the same time lived cyril also, that was Bishop of Alexandria. Cyrillus in job. lib. 6. cap. 14. The same writing upon john sayeth thus. Et si Christus corporis sui praesentiam hinc subduxit: maiestate tamen divinitatis semper adest, sicut ipse à discipulis abiturus pollicetur: Ecce, ego vobiscum sum omnibus diebus, usque ad consummationem saeculi. Although Christ have conveyed hence the presence of his body: yet is he alway present by the Majesty of his divinity, even as when he was departing from his Disciples he promised. Behold I am with you every day, even to the end of the world. Gregorius in homil. Pasch. Gregory also saith. Christus non est hic per praesentiam carnis: qui tamen nusquam deest per praesentiam maiestatis. Christ, saith he, is not here by the presence of his flesh: which notwithstanding is absent from no place, by the presence of his majesty. Ad Transimundum Regem. lib. 2. Fulgentius also, writeth thus. Christus unus, idemque homo localis ex homine, qui est Deus immensus ex patre. unus idemque secundum humanam substantiam, absens coelo, cum esset interra: & derelinquens terram cum ascer disset in coelum. Christ is but one, and the self same is placible man of man, which is of his father God that can not be measured. One and the same, as touching his human substance: was absent from heaven when he was on earth, and leaving the earth when he ascended into heaven. The last of these writers hitherto cited: lived within .500. years after Christ. And Beda, who lived about .730. years after Christ's ascension, writing upon these words Ecce ego vobiscum sum. etc. Beda in Math. cap. 28. Behold, I am with you. &c. saith thus. Ipse Deus & homo est, assumptus est humanitate, quam de terra susceperat: manet cum sanctus in terra divinitate, qua terram pariter implet & coelum. He that is both God and man, is in his humanity that he took of the earth, assumpted up: but in his divinity wherewith he filleth both heaven and earth, he doth remain with his Saints on earth. These testimonies of Scriptures and holy fathers may suffice, I suppose, to shake your foundation so, The Scriptures & Doctors have shaken watson's foundation. that no wise man will be bold to join with you in building thereon, unless it be such as you were when you made this Sermon, what you be now, I know not. But lest you should do, as commonly your sort use to do, that is to report that we teach that the Sacraments of Christ, are but bare and naked signs: I let you understand, that we confess, and are ready to confirm with our blood (if God so will) that jesus Christ is verily and in deed present, in the right and due administration and receiving of his Sacraments. And that the worthy receivers: do verily & in deed, How Christ is present in his Sacraments. receive jesus Christ himself. But that this is done substantially, and really, that is, in the manner of the receiving of a bodily substance or thing into men's bodies: that we deny, and trust we shall be able to fight against, even to the death. Our receiving of Christ therefore, is spiritual into the soul by faith: and into the body or by the senses, sacramentally, that is in such sort as by the receiving of Sacraments, we may receive the things signified by the same. In Baptism therefore, we do by believing the promise of God, made in Christ, receive him into our souls, to wash and purge the same of all sin: and the very senses of our bodies do understand the same, when we do by them consider the nature and use of the creature water, wherein our Saviour Christ hath instituted that holy Sacrament, which is to purge and cleanse from all filth, all those things that be washed therein. In like manner in the Lord's supper, when we believe the words of Christ written by Saint john, Ego sum panis ille qui de coelo descendi: qui edit de hoc pane vivet in aeternum, I am that bread which came down from heaven, john. 6. he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever: then do we by faith receive Christ into our souls, and the very senses of our bodies do perceive, and our common sense doth understand, that as the creatures, bread and wine, wherein this Sacrament is instituted, do strengthen and cheer men's hearts: even so the body and blood of our Lord and Saviour jesus Christ, do strengthen, comfort, and make cheerful the soul of man. And further, we do even sensibly perceive in Baptism, our burial with Christ, to the world and worldly delights: and our resurrection with him to newness of life. And in the lords supper, our knitting together into one body, whereof Christ is the head. According to that which Austen teacheth in that sermon that he entitleth. Of the sacraments of the faithful. We teach not therefore that they be vain & empty signs: August ad jaenuarium lib. 1. but we hold that they be most effectual in signification, as Austen writeth to januarius. Now, where as you say, that by the power of almighty God, assisting the due administration of the Priest, Christ is become present in the sacrament after your manner: we know no such due administration, as you mean of, I am sure. That is dashed full of crossings and trurning, doukyng and stare in Maskers apparel. But we know and acknowledge, that order of ministration, that Christ appointed, & the Apostles used, to be the due order of ministration. And the Gods almighty power doth assist that ministration, so that the worthy receivers, that is, such as be members of Christ's body: are spiritually & sacramentally partakers of Christ, and do receive into their souls whole Christ, both God and man, according as the holy scriptures, and holy Fathers do teach, without any transubstantiating or changing of the substances of the creatures, bread and wine. WATSON. Division. 9 For seeing the substance of our Sacrifice of the new Testament, is the very real and natural body of Christ, as may be proved by many Authorities. Cyprian. li. 2. Epist. 3. Saint Cyprian saith: In sacrificio quod Christus est, non nisi Christus sequendus est. In that Sacrifice that is Christ, no man is to be followed but Christ. Here he saith, that Christ is the Sacrifice that we offer to almighty God. Also Saint Basyl, writeth in his form of Mass: Basil. in Missa Tues qui offers, & offerris, & qui suscipis & impartis christ deus noster. O Christ our God, thou art he that both dost offer, and is offered, that both givest the offering and receiveth. Saint basil by this meaneth that the Sacrifice, which the Church offered to God, is Christ himself, who in that he is the head of his body the Church, is one offerer with the Church, and so is both offerer and offered, as basil saith. Likewise Saint Ambrose writing of the invention of the bodies of two glorious Martyrs Geruasius and Prothasius, & of the burying of them under the altar, saith thus: Amb. lib. 10. Epist. 85. Succedant victimae triumphales in locum, ubi Christus hostia est, sed ille super altare qui pro omnibus passus est, isti sub altari, qui illius redempti sunt passione. Let these triumphing Sacrifices (meaning the bodies of the Martyrs) go into the place where Christ is a Sacrifice. But Christ is a Sacrifice above the altar, who suffered for all men, these two under the altar, that were redeemed by his passion. Of this place I note my purpose, which is, that the Sacrifice of the Church and new Testament, is the very real body and blood of our Saviour Christ, which is also testified by chrysostom in his Homely he writeth of the praise of God in these words. Chrysost. hom. de Laude Dei. Vereamini mensam quaue desuper victima illa jacet Christus scilicet qui nostri causa occisus est Fear and reverence that table, above the which lieth that Sacrifice (that is to say Christ) which for our cause was slain. By which words chrysostom declareth his faith, that the Sacrifice of the Church is Christ, and also that Christ is not only in heaven, as some men damnably beareth you in hand, but is placed lying above the Fable of the aultare as the substance of our Sacrifice. And in an other Homely he writeth. Idem homil. De En●●●ijs. Mensa myst●rijs instructa est, & agnus dei pro te immolatur. The Table is furnished with mysteries, & the Lamb of God for thee is offered, teaching us that the holy mysteries wherewith the Table of our altar is furnished be the body and blood of Christ (that is to say) the Lamb of God, which is also then offered for us. August. lib 9 Confess. Ca 12. Saint Augustine is full of such sayings: as writing of his mother's death, how that he wept nothing for her all the time the Mass was said for her Soul, which he expresseth by these words. Cum offerretur pro ea sacrificium praecij nostri. When the Sacrifice of our price was offered for her. I leave out all the rest of the sentence contented to allege only this, that proveth the sacrifice, which is offered by the Priest for the dead to be our price, which is and can be nothing else, but the body and blood of Christ, which he gave upon the cross, as the price of our redemption. August. lib. Senten, prosp. But plainest of all he writeth in a Book entitled. Liber Sententiarum prosperi. Which Book is alleged of Gratian, in the decrees in these words. Hoc est quod dicimus, quod modis omnibus approbare contendimus sacrificium Ecclesiae duobus confici, duobus constare, visibili elementorum specie, & invisibili Domini nostri jesu Christi corpore & sanguine, & Sacramento, & re Sacramenti, id est, corpore Christi. This is that we say, that we labour to prove by all means that the Sacrifice of the Church is made and consisteth of two things, of the visible form of the elements and of the invisible body and blood of our Lord jesus Christ both that outward Sacrament and the thing or substance of the Sacrament, that is the body of Christ. These words need no declaring but pointing: and for that cause why should I tarry in this point any longer, seeing that our Books be full of such like authorities. Therefore as I began seeing the substance of our Sacrifice of the new Testament, is the very real and natural body of Christ, if this body be not present in the Sacrament as the enemies of Christ's Cross, and the destroyers of our faith falsely pretend: then be we christian men left altogether desolate without any Sacrifice private unto us, for both the Sacrifice of Christ upon the cross, and also the inward Sacrifice of man's heart be not private but common to us, and to all faithful men from the beginning of the world to the last end. All these words are to prove, CROWLEY. that we (whom you call the enemies of Christ's Cross and destroyers of your faith) do take away from the Church of Christ, that sacrifice, that they may and ought continually to offer to God: and leave them in worse case than were the jews or any other sect, except the mahometans, for they only are without a peculiar sacrifice to offer to their God. Your Argument, when the flowers of Rhetoric be taken from it: is in this form. Seeing that the substance of our sacrifice, is the very real and natural body of Christ, they that deny it to be in such sort present, do deny the Church to have any Sacrifice to offer to God: But the Protestants do deny it to be in such sorts present: Ergo, they deny the Church to have any sacrifice to offer to God. To prove the Mayor proposition of this Argument: Cyprian. lib. 2. Ep 3. you make a long parenthesis. And first you begin with the words of Cyprian. In sacrificio quod Christus est: non nisi Christus sequendus est. In that Sacrifice that is Christ: no man is to be followed but Christ. True it is, that in the third Epistle of his second Book: Saint Cyprian hath those words that you cite. But that he meant by those words to affirm, that Christ's real and natural body is present in the sacrament, I deny, and doubt not to be able to stand to that denial, against all that can be justly proved by the words of Cyprian, in that place or any other of his works. And lest you should think that of an obstinacy, I do without good ground deny that I am not able to answer: I will show you what moveth me to deny that which you affirm. First, the same Cyprian in the same Epistle saith thus. Admonitos autem nos scias, ut in Calais offerendo, dominica traditio servetur, neque aliud fiat a nobis, quam quod pro nobis Dominus prior fecit. Calix qui in commemorationem eius offertur: mixtus vino offeratur. Nam cum dicat Christus, Ego sum vitis vera, sanguis Christi non aqua est utique, sed vinum. Nec potest videri sanguis cius, quo redempti & vivificati sumus esse in Calais: quando vinum desit calici, quo Christi sanguis ostenditur, qui scripturarum omnium sacramento ac testimonio praedicatur. Ye may understand (saith Cyprian to Coecilius) that we are warned, that in the offering of the Cup, we observe the lords tradition, and that we do nothing therein, other than that which the Lord did for us before. That the Cup which is offered in remembrance of him, be offered being mixed with Wine. For when Christ saith, I am a very Vine, doubtless then the blood of Christ is not water, but Wine. Neither can it seem, that his blood wherewith we were redeemed and quickened, is in the Cup: when it wanteth Wine, whereby Christ's blood is set forth and showed, which is by the Sacrament and testimony of all the Scriptures preached abroad. Again, the fame Cyprian saith in the same Epistle. Lavabit in vino stolam suam, & in sanguine unae amictum suum. Quando autem sanguis vuae dicitur: quid aliud quam vinum dominici sanguinis ostenditur? He shall wash his rob in Wine, and his apparel in the blood of the Grape. And when mention is made of the blood of the Grape: what other things is showed, than the Wine of the Cup of the lords blood? And after a few words, the same Cyprian saith thus. Vini utique mentio est: & ideo ponitur, ut Domini sanguis vino intelligatur. Et quod in Calais dominico postea manifestatum est: prophetis annumiantibus praedicatur. Mention is made of the Wine (saith Cyprian) and for this cause is it done, that the lords blood might be understanded by the Wine. And that thing that was afterward manifestly showed in the Lord's Cup: was before preached when the Prophets showed forth the same. And in the same Epistle, after he hath spoken of the words of our Saviour Christ, written in the .26. chapter of Saint Math. Gospel: he saith. Qua in part invenimus, Calicem mixtum fuisse quem Dominus obtulit, & vinum fu sse quod sanguinem suum dixit. In which part (saith Cyprian, speaking of the Cup) we find that the cup, which the Lord offered, was mixed: and that the thing which he called his blood, was Wine. And again, after he hath spoken of the words of the Apostle, he saith. Miror satis unde hoc usurpatum sit: ut contra evangelicam & apostolicam disciplinam, quibusdam in locis, aqua offeratur in dominico chalice, quae sola Christi sanguinem non possit exprimere. I marvel much (saith Cyprian) how it cometh to pass, that contrary to the doctrine both of the gospel & of the Apostle: water is in certain places offered in the lords cup, which being but water alone, can not express the blood of Christ. These sayings of Cyprian, being written in the same Epistle that you cite: Cyprians words in the same Epistle that watson citeth: make against him. do cause me to deny that which you affirm. For he saith. The Wine of the cup of the lords blood is showed forth. The lords blood is understand by the Wine. And that it was Wine that he called his blood. And last of all, that water alone could not express the blood of Christ. No man that is not blinded by affection, will say, that Cyprian meant in that Epistle to teach, that Christ's real and natural body is present in the Sacrament, otherwise then spiritually and sacramentally. But I marvel much that you were so blind: when you read that Epistle: that you could not see these plain words of Cyprian, even in the last sentence of the Epistle. Religioni igitur nostrae congruit & timori, & ipsi loco atque officio sacerdotij nostri, frater charisme, in Dominico Calais miscendo & offerendo: custodire dominicae traditionis veritatem. Et quod prius apud quosdam videtur erratum, Domino monente corrigere. cum in claritate sua, & maiestate coelesti venire coeperit: inveniat nos tenere quod monuit, observare quod docuit, facere quod fecit. It agreeth (saith Cyprian) with our religion, fear, and place of priestly office (most dearly beloved brother) that in the mingling and offering up of the Lords Cup, we keep the truth of the lords tradition: and that we do by the warning that the Lord giveth, correct that thing wherein we see that other have heretofore erred. That when he shall begin to come in his own brightness and heavenly Majesty: he may find that we hold fast that whereof he gave us warning, observe that which he taught us, and do that which he did. Such words, as these, are not for you to look upon. For they will bid you leave of your masking garments in your ministration, and to set aside your hallowed cups, Vestments, Altars, and Superaltaries, with all your crossings, turnings and half turnings, with the rest of your Apish toys. For Christ neither taught nor used any of all those things. But when Cyprian saith. In sacrificio quod Christus est, non nisi Christus sequendus est: In that Sacrifice which is Christ, none must be followed but Christ: the first part of the sentence must serve your purpose, to prove, that the real and natural body and blood of Christ is the substance of the sacrifice of the church, and that the same is really and substantially present in the sacrament thereof: but the later part of the same sentence, must not put us in mind, to do in the ministration thereof, that which Christ did and commanded us to do. The words that Watson citeth, make nothing for him. Thus without shame you cite that for your purpose, which when it is taken whole together, maketh manifestly against you. Yea the very first part of that sentence, which you apply to your purpose, when it is well weighed, maketh nothing for you. For what is more common among the fathers, then to call the signs by the names of those things that they do signify? Chrysost. in Epist. ad Heb. homil. 17. And doth not chrysostom speaking of the same sacrament, say thus? Non aliud sacrificium, sicut pontifex, sed idipsum semper facinus: magis autem recordationem sacrificij operamur. We do not (saith chrysostom) make another sacrifice, as the high Priest doth, but alway one: yea, we do rather make a remembrance of a sacrifice. By these words of chrysostom it appeareth, that though the fathers used to call the sacrament of Christ's body a sacrifice: yet they understood it to be but the remembrance of that sacrifice that Christ offered on the cross once for all. I would not gladly diminish the authority of Cyprian or any other ancient writer: but I am sure, you yourself (M. Watson) will not build upon every sentence of Cyprian, as you do upon this: For than could you not set your holy father of Rome, so high above all the Bishops of christendom as you do. Cyprian. li. 4. Epist. 2. Look in the fourth book of his Epistles and the second Epistle, where you shall find these words. Ac si minus sufficiens Episcoporum in Africa numerus videbitur, etiam Romae super hac rescripsimus, Equality of Bishops by Cyprians judgement. ad Cornelium collegam nostrum, qui & ipse cum plurimis coepiscopis habito concilio etc. And if the number of Bishops in Africa (saith Cyprian) shall seem to small, I have written to Rome also concerning this matter, even to Cornelius our fellow in office, who also holding a counsel with many bishops joined with him. etc. This Cornelius, whom Cyprian calleth his fellow officer: was Bishop of Rome, when Cyprian wrote these words. Yet I think you will not gather hereof, that there was an equality betwixt them: unless you mind now at the last, to deny the supremacy of your holy father. And yet you may a great deal more justly gather that upon these words, then that which you would maintain, of the other. Yea I suppose that you and all your fellows, are not able to prove, that Cyprian meant not to teach an equality amongst all those Bishops that he speaketh of. But whatsoever he meant in this place or any other: it becometh us to follow the rule that he giveth, Cyprian lib. 2. Ep. 3. in understanding the words that he or any other ancient father hath left in writing. Si solus Christus audiendus est (saith Cyprian) non debemus attendere quid aliquis ante nos faciendum putaverit: sed quid qui ante omnes est, Christus prior fecerit. Neque enim hominis consuetudinem sequi oportet, sed Dei veritatem. A rule to be followed in the reading of Fathers. If Christ only be to be hearkened unto, we must not mark (saith Cyprian) what any man before us hath thought meet to be done: but what Christ, which was before all, hath done before us. Neither aught we to follow the custom of men, but the truth of God. This is a perfit rule, meet to be followed of all men in the reading of the ancient father's writings. Then come you to Basils' Mass where (as you say) are written these words. Tu es qui offers etc. O Christ our God, thou art he. etc. As for your manner of Englishing of Basils' words: I leave to you and your Printer to amend. In whom the fault is, I know not. It shall suffice that I answer your matter. First (with your leave M. Watson) you belie Saint Basils' form of Mass. For if that be his that was imprinted at Andwarp. Anno. 1562. out of an old Book of the Latin translation (as the Printer saith) then is there no such matter as this that you cite, in all S. Basils' form of Mass. But S. Chrysostom's Mass, translated by Leonhardus Thuscus, hath words in the same sense that these be that you father upon Basils' Mass. The words be these, Concede a me peccatore & indigno famulo tuo, offerri tibi haec sacramenta: tu enim es offerens & oblatus, suscipiens & distributus, Christus Deus noster. If I might be put in trust to translate these words into English: I would say thus. Grant that I being a sinner, & thine unworthy servant, may offer unto thee these sacraments: for thou being Christ our God, art he which art the offerer, and art offered, which art he that dost receive and art distributed. Thus much have I done for you (M. Watson) to help to save your credit, lest some of your friends should begin to mislike with you, for citing matter that is no where to be found. For though your father Chrysostom's words upon Basil, they can bear with you well enough. Yea though you do rack them a little to serve your purpose. Chrysostom's and Basils' judgement can not enforce us to grant master watson's conclusion. But this one thing I do much marvel at: that this Mass could never be found in Chrysostom's works, as they be set forth in tomes till now of late. But grant this to be the judgement of chrysostom and basil both: shall we therefore be enforced to grant that which you do thereof infer? I trow not. May not chrysostom offer the sacraments to Christ, but he must offer Christ himself to himself? I think it is no strange manner of speech, to say, that those which preach the word and minister the sacraments, do offer the word and sacraments to God. As may plainly appear, to as many as will with indifferent judgement, read that which is written Malachiae. 1. and Acts. 13. And who doubteth that Christ did once offer himself for our sins, and doth still offer himself to his Father (for with God nothing is passed) a Mediator and Advocate for us, 1. Epist. 2. as Saint john writeth. And why should not he therefore be called both the offerer and the thing offered, although he be not offered by the Priest in his Mass? Yea, and he receiveth at our hands our thanks giving, when we make our bodies, a living, holy, and acceptable sacrifice to God: and why may it not be said, that it is he that receiveth? And in taking our nature upon him, he gave himself to us, and we by faith are made partakers of him: and why should it not be said, that it is he that is distributed? But what needeth all this a do, in seeking a good meaning in those words that be of none authority at all. The three forms of Masses, feigned. If chrysostom or Basil, had written any such form of Mass: the same would have been found in their works, or followed of some Churches. But neither of both is: Ergo, it is plain that they never did write any such. And as for the fable of Saint James'S Mass: all men may deride both the folly of the invention of it, and of all such as esteem it as his. And yet I must by the way, Against private Mass. note the blindness of our Papists, which make so much of that, which overthroweth one of the chief points that they maintain so stoutly, that is their private Mass. For all these three forms of Masses, do appoint the distribution to be made to all that be present. Let us now see, what you have found in Saint Ambrose. Ambr. li. 10. Epist. 85. He saith. Let the triumphant sacrifices which were redeemed. etc. And of this do you note your purpose, that is, that the substance of the Sacrifice of the Church, is the very real body and blood of our saviour Christ. I will not trouble the reader with seeking any good meaning in these words which you father upon Ambrose. For as Erasmus doth well note in the beginning of the third tome of the works of Ambrose, wherein this Epistle is written: there is no cause why a man should think that Ambrose was the Author of any of the Sermons. Orations, or Epistles contained in that tome. The words of Erasmus be these. Tertius hic Tomus, Erasmus his judgement upon the third tome of Ambrose. exhibebit orationes, Epistolas & conciones ad Populum breves, quas supposititias esse nihil addubito Nihil enim in his Ambrosianae venae. etc. Thus saith Erasmus to the Reader. This third tome, shall exhibit unto thee, Orations, Epistles, and short Sermons made to the people, which I doubt not but they are falsely fathered upon Ambrose, for in them there is no whit of Ambrose's vain. Do you therefore conclude upon them what you will for your purpose, it will have no credit with wise men. But now let us see what you have found in chrysostom, in his Homily De Laude Dei. Watson leaveth out that should make against himself. Vereamini inquam vereamini. etc. Here you leave out these words Cuius omnes sumus participes. Whereof we all are partakers. What you mean by this may easily be conjectured, for these words that you have left out, do make manifestly for the distribution of the Sacrament, to as many as shall be present at the ministration thereof. But you might not suffer your hearers to understand somuch of the usage of the Church in Chrysostom's time: lest they should think the Pope's Church did wrong in maintaining the private Mass. In Epist. ad hehr. homil. 17. But what should you win by these words, if they were even so as you do cite them? doth not the same chrysostom, as I have cited his words before, plainly affirm, that they do in that Sacrifice rather make a remembrance of a Sacrifice, August ad Bonifacium Epist. 23. than a Sacrifice itself? And is it not a common thing among the fathers, to call the Sacraments by the names of those things whereof they be Sacraments? Your conclusion therefore cannot follow upon these premises. Chrysost. homili. De Encenijs. Again, chrysostom hath said (say you) that the table is furnished with mysteries. etc. And here also you leave out those words that should give light to the understanding of Chrysostom's his meaning. These words I speak (saith chrysostom) to those persons which do leave the communion and congregation of saints: and are occupied in the conventicles of vain talk, even at the very hour of the terrible and mystical table. O thou man, what dost thou? didst thou not make a promise to the Priest which said, lift up your minds and hearts, and thou saidest, we have them lifted up to the Lord? Art thou not ashamed and abashed? And even the same hour, thou art found a liar. O good God. The table is furnished with mysteries, and the Lamb of God is offered for thee, the Priest sorroweth for thee, the blood floweth from the table. The Seraphins are present, covering their faces with six wings, all the spiritual powers, do with the Priest, pray for thee, the spiritual fire cometh down from heaven, the blood in the cup, is for thy purification, drawn out of the undefiled side: and art thou not ashamed, abashed and confounded: neither dost thou make God merciful unto thee? Now (M. Watson) let us see how these words of chrysostom may seem to serve your purpose. chrysostom hath to do with those men, that leaving the communion and congregation of holy men, do in the time of the ministration of the mysteries of our salvation, give themselves to vain iangeling: and may he not use such figurative speeches, but his words must by and by, be snatched, Watson doth snatch a word for his purpose. to maintain the real presence of Christ in the Sacrament? If you will needs have chrysostom to use no figure in these words (the Lamb of God is offered for thee) then let him use no figure in the words that follow after immediately. The Priest sorroweth for thee, the spiritual blood floweth from the holy table. And the Seraphins stand there covering their faces with six wings. etc. Which thing if you will grant: then must every Priest in his Mass, be sorrowful for those that babble when he is at his Mass. And he must over topple his cup, that the spiritual blood may flow of from the holy table. etc. And the blood in the Chalice must be sucked out of the undefiled side. It is much to be marveled, that you (M. Watson) when you did read this place, did not perceive, what figure chrysostom useth here. But it is to be thought, that you saw it well enough, but would not be known of it, for you knew that your Auditory would not charge you with the matter: And as for us that were then beyond the Seas: you supposed that we should never come to try the matter with you by hand blows, and therefore you were the more bold, to pick out a few words out of the midst of Chrysostom's sayings, and apply them prettily to your purpose. As though chrysostom had meant by them to teach, that the real and natural body of Christ, Chrysostoms' meaning. is really and substantially offered by the Priest in his Mass. Where as Chrysostom's meaning was, to strike a reverent fear into the minds of his hearers, and to move them to have their minds and hearts lifted up to God: whilst the holy mysteries of the body and blood of Christ, should be in ministering and receiving. And that this was his meaning it doth plainly appear, in his words in the same place, when he saith. Didst thou not make promise to the Priest, which said, lift up your minds and hearts: and thou saidest, we have them lifted up to the Lord? And in the very same hour, thou art found a liar. But you have Saint Austen to take your part, both in his ix Book of Confessions, and also of the sentences of Prosper. Yea he is full of such sayings (say you) but you tell us not where, more than in these two places. I will desire the reader therefore, to think that this is but your brag, till you bring forth more store of that you say Austen hath in such plenty. But let us weigh these two places of Austen, & see how they may serve your purpose against us, and not against Austen himself in his other writings. First, for answer to that which you cite out of the ix book, and twelve Chapter of his Confessions: I refer the learned reader, to that which the same Austen writeth in the Chapter next following. And that such as have not Saint Austin's works may see his words: I will here set them in writing, as they are there to be read. August. li. 9 Confess. ca 13. Nanque illa, imminente die resolutionis suae, non congitavit suum corpus sumptuose contegi, aut condiri aromatibus, aut monumentum electum concupivit, aut curavit sepulchrum patrium. Non ista mandavit nobis: sed tantummodo memoriam sui ad altare tuum fieri desideravit, cui nullius diei praeteronissione seruierat, unde sciret dispensari victimam sanctam, qua deletum est chirographum quod erat contrarium nobis, qua triumphatus est hostis computans delicta nostra, & quaerens quid obijciat, & nihil inveniens in illo in quo vincimus. Quis ei refundet innocentem sanguinem? Quis ei restituet precium quo nos emit, ut nos auferat ei? Ad cuius precij nostri sacramentum: ligavit ancilla tua animam suam vinculo fidei. Saint Austen speaking of his mother Monica, saith thus unto God. When the day of her resolution was at hand: she had no mind to have her body sumteously buried, or to be embalmed with Spices, neither did she desire to have a fine or gorgeous tomb, or to be buried in her Country. She gave us no charge concerning these matters, but her only desire was, that she might be had in remembrance at thine altar, whereunto she had given herself in service every day continually, from which she knew, that the holy slain offering, whereby was blotted out the hand writing that was against us, was distributed: whereby that enemy that numbereth our sins, and seeketh what he may object against us, and findeth nothing in him in whom we overcome: is triumphed over. Who shall pour out innocent blood to him again? Who shall restore to him the price wherewith he bought us, that he may take us away from him? Unto the Sacrament of which price: thy handmaiden did tie her soul with the bond of faith. If you would have weighed this place well: you would not have cited the other for such purpose as you did. Yea, you would have passed it over (I trow) for it marreth a great part of your market. Saint Austen saith here, that his mother knew, that the holy slain sacrifice, was daily distributed at the altar. It is plain therefore by these words, that there was no private Mass then, but Communion, Austen expounded by himself. which thing maketh very evil for your purpose. And in the later end of those words, Saint Austen doth plainly declare, in what meaning he wrote those other words that you cite. For the thing that he spoke of before: he doth here call Precij nostri sacramentum. The sacrament of our price. As touching the place of Austen, in his book of the Sentences of Prosper: ye do well to confess that it was cited by Gratian. For it will be as hard for you to find it in Saint Austin's works, as to find burning fire in the bottom of the Sea, yea, or to find that meaning in any part of his works. It is an Austen of Gratian'S own making that wrote those words, and not Austen the Bishop of Hippo. But yet if you had read the gloss of that text: you would not I think, have made so great account of that place. For it saith thus. In tertia part, Watson will none of this gloss. quod coeleste sacramentum quod est in altari: improprie dicitur Corpus Christi, sicut Baptismus improprie dicitur fides. In the third part, that the heavenly sacrament that is on the altar, is improperly called the body of Christ: even as baptism is improperly called faith. If this gloss do not fight with the text: then doth not this place make so much for your purpose, as you would have it to seem to make for it. And because ye make mention of Prosper: let us see what he saith in his .339. sentence taken out of Austen. Prosper sentencia. 339. Qui discordat a Christo, nec carnem eius manducat, nec sanguinem bibit: etiam si tantae rei sacramentum, ad judicium suae praesumtionis, quotidie indifferenter accipiat. He that agreeth not with Christ, doth neither eat his flesh, nor drink his blood: although he do daily without regard, receive the sacrament of so great a thing, to the condemnation of his own presumption. In this one sentence is enough to satisfy, as many as would be satisfied of the opinion of Austen and Prosper. And that Austen is so far of from being full of such sayings as you do boast that he is: that he speaketh fully and plainly the contrary of that which you hold, in more places than one or two. August. De Civit. Dei. lib. 21. ca 25. First he saith thus. Qui manducat meam carnem & bibit meum sanguinem, in me manet & ego in eo. Ostendit quid sit, non sacramentotenus, sed revera corpus Christi manducare, & eius sanguinem bibere. Hoc est enim in Christo manner, ut in illo maneat & Christus. Sic enim hoc dixit, tanquam diceret. Qui non in me manet, & in quo ego non maneo: non se dicat, aut existimat, manducare corpus meum, aut bibere sanguinem meum. etc. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, doth dwell in me and I in him. He doth show what it is, not in sacrament only, but in deed to eat the flesh of Christ and drink his blood. That is, so to dwell in Christ: that Christ may dwell in him. For he spoke those words, even as though he should have said thus. Let not that man that dwelleth not in me, nor hath me dwelling in him: think that he doth eat my body or drink my blood. etc. Idem. In. joh. Tract. 26. And again upon the same words he saith. Hoc est ergo manducare illam escam, & illum bibere potum: in Christo manner, & illum in se manentem habere. Ac per hoc, qui non manet in Christo, & in quo non manet Christus: proculdubio, nec manducat spiritaliter carnem eius, nec bibit eius sanguinem: licet carnaliter & visibiliter, premat dentibus, sacramentum corporis & sanguinis Christi. Sed magis tantae rei sacramentum, adiudicium sibi manducat & bibit. etc. This is therefore to eat that meat and drink that drink: to dwell in Christ, and to have Christ dwelling in him. And by this, he that dwelleth not in Christ, and in whom Christ dwelleth not: without doubt he doth neither eat his flesh nor drink his blood, spiritually: although he do fleshly and visibly crush in his teeth, the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ: But he doth rather eat and drink the Sacrament of so great a thing, to his own condemnation. Again he saith. Si enim sacramenta, quandam similitudinem earum rerum, quarum sacramenta sunt, non haberent: omnino sacramenta non essent. Ex hac autem similitudine: Idem. Ad Bonifacium. Epist. 23. plerumque etiam ipsarum rerum nomina accipiunt. Sicut ergo, secundum quendam modum, sacramentum corporis Christi, corpus Christi est: sacramentum sanguinis Christi, sanguis Christi est: ita sacramentum fidei, fides est. etc. For if the sacraments, had not a certain similitude or likeness, of those things whereof they be Sacraments: they could not be Sacraments at all. And of this similitude, they do for the most part, take the names of those things whereof they be sacraments. Even as therefore, the sacrament of the body of Christ, is after a certain manner the body of Christ, & the sacrament of his blood, is his blood: so the sacrament of faith, is faith. etc. By these places, it is plain, Whereof Austen is full. that Saint Austen is not so full of such sayings as you cite out of his Confessions. &c: but rather that he is full of Sentences to the contrary of that which you would confirm by his words. Why should I tarry any longer therefore, in answering this point, seeing the ancient father's books be full of good matter, against your doctrine? I conclude therefore, that as you understand by substance: so is not Christ the substance of our sacrifice of the new Testament, neither is that our sacrifice, that you do boast so much of. But our sacrifice of the new Testament is, our faith in Christ, and our obedience to his word (as I have showed before) and this sacrifice is acceptable in Christ, & therefore, and in that sense, Christ is the substance of our Sacrifice, notwithstanding that he is not after your manner present in his sacrament. Neither is it any inconvenience, What the sacrifice of the new Testament is. that we have not any sacrifice, private to ourselves and not common to all the faithful that have been before us, and shall be after us. For we are all one Church, and saved by one sacrifice propitiatory, which Christ offered once for all: and why should not one sacrifice of thanks to God, be general to us all? unless you will have, that every age should have a sacrifice by itself. And furthermore, WATSON. Division. 10. seeing a Sacrifice is an outward protestation of our inward faith and devotion, if we christian men now have no sacrifice private unto us: then be we the most miserable men that ever were, being without any kind of religion. For take away our sacrifice, & take away our religion, Cyprianus. Sermo. De Caena. as S. Cyprian confuting the carnal thoughts of the Capernaits, that thought they should have eaten Christ's flesh either roasted or sod, and so should have consumed it to nothing: writeth thus. Cum illius personae caro si in frustra partiretur non omni humano generi posset sufficere, qua semel consumpta videretur religio interisse, cui nequaquàm ulterius victima superesset. Seeing that if the flesh of his person were divided into pieces, it could not suffice all mankind to eat upon, which flesh after it were once clean wasted and consumed, our religion might likewise seem to perish and be destroyed, which had no more any sacrifice remaining. Whereupon I conclude, that if we have not Christ's body and blood present in the sacrament for our external sacrifice, whereby we may mitigate and please almighty God, and obtain remission of sin and spiritual grace and gifts: then should we be no better than the Turks, seeing all nations from the beginning of the world, both Gentiles and jews have had one kind of outward Sacrifice, to declare and express their inward devotion and religion, either to the true God of heaven, or to such as they fantasied or feigned to be Gods saving only the Turks, (as Petrus Cluniacensis writeth) whereby it appeareth, that this sect that denieth and destroyeth the Mass, which is the Sacrifice of the Church, is verily the sect of mohammed, preparing a way for the Turk to overrun all Christendom, as he hath done a great piece already. For what could the Turk do more against our saith, if he did overcome us, beside our thraldom & tyrannical oppression, but as these men do now to take away our sacraments & sacrifice, & to leave us nothing but the bare name of Christ, & if there be any good man, that hath true religion in his heart, to compel him to keep it within him, that he shall not express it outwardly? and in very deed divers notable and godly writers at this day, call this heresy against the sacrifice of the Church which Luther first began and most maintained, by this name Secta Mahumetica, the sect of Mahomet. As in your former reason speaking of the substance of the sacrifice of the Church you have subtly concluded, CROWLEY. that we spoil the Church of Christ of her sacrifice, because we deny that Christ is really and substantially present in the sacrament of his body and blood: even so you go about now to conclude as subtly against us, by the definition of a sacrifice. You reason after this manner. Seeing a sacrifice is an outward protestation of our inward faith and devotion, without which there is no religion: those that do take away our sacrifice, do take away our Religion. But these heretics that do deny and destroy the Mass, do take away our sacrifice: Ergo, they spoil us of our Religion. Saint Austen doth define a sacrifice something otherwise. De Civitate Dei. lib. 10. Cap. 5. &. 6. He saith thus. Sacrificium ergo visibile, invisibilis sacrificij sacramentum, id est, sacrum signum est. A visible sacrifice therefore (saith saint Austen) is a sacrament that is to say, an holy sign of an invisible sacrifice. And again he saith. Quaecunque igitur in ministerio tabernaculi sive templis multis modis leguntur divinitus esse praecepta: ad dilectionem Dei & proximi referuntur. In his enim duobis praeceptis, ut scriptum est, tota lex pendet & Prophetae. All those things therefore, saith he, that in the ministery of the tabernacle or temple, are read to be commanded of God, after many sorts concerning sacrifices: are referred to signify the love of God and our neighbour. For in these two commandments, as it is written, the whole law and Prophets do depend. And in the same place he saith. Proind●, verum sacrificium est, omne opus quod agitur, ut sancta societate inhaereamus Deo: relatum silicet adidum finem boni, quo veraciter beati esse possimus. unde, & ipsa misericordia qua homini subvenitur, si propter Deum non fit, non est sacrificium. Wherefore (saith saint Austen) the right sacrifice is, every work that is wrought, to the end that we may with an holy society cleave unto God: being referred to that end of goodness, whereby we may be blessed in deed. Wherefore, even that mercy that is showed in succouring of a man, is no sacrifice, except it be done for God's cause. These words of Saint Austen, do make your definition scarce sufficient, and the conclusion of your Argument nothing good. By your definition, every such outward protestation of our inward faith and devotion, as is made in the Mass, may be a sacrifice: and so every Mass that is said or sung by a Priest, may be a sacrifice. But by saint Austin's definition, no Mass that is not said with relation to that end of goodness, No Mass said for hire, may be a sacrifice. whereby we may be happy in deed, is a true sacrifice: Ergo saint Austen and you conclude not both one thing. Yea by these words of saint Austen it is plain, that none of those Masses that be said in respect of hire or reward (as the most part of Masses be) may be accounted for sacrifices. But grant that all Priests were Angels, and would say their Masses being moved thereunto by devotion only: yet would not S. Austen allow their Masses for the sacrifice of the Church. For he saith in the aforenamed book. Cap. 5. Quoniam illud quod ab hominibus appelatur sacrificium, signum est veri sacrificij. That thing that men do call a sacrifice, is the sign of the true sacrifice. And that he meaneth this of that which you do call the Mass: is manifest by his words in the later end of the sixth Chapter of that book, where he saith thus. The Church is offered in her own oblation. Hoc est sacrificium christianorum, multi unum corpus sumus in Christo: quod etiam sacramento altaris fidelibus noto, frequent at Ecclesia, ubi ei demonstratur, quod in ea oblatione quam offered, ipsa offertur. This (saith Saint Austen, speaking of the offering up of ourselves a sacrifice to God) is the sacrifice of the Christians, we being many, are one body in Christ: which the congregation also doth frequent in the sacrament of the Altar, which is not unknown to the faithful: Where it is plainly showed unto her, that she herself is in that oblation offered. The meaning of this manner of speech that saint Austen useth here: was well known among Christians in his days. But in later times it hath grown out of knowledge, and therefore we had need now to say something of it: lest you and your sort should begin to triumph over us, and say, that now we have found a sacrament of the altar, which some of us have denied to be. I myself have denied, and do still deny, that there is any such sacrament of the altar, as the Pope's Church doth at this day frequent and use, wherein the Priest alone doth make a sacrifice for the quick and dead: but that there is such a sacrament of the altar, as saint Austen speaketh of here, that is, wherein Christians do offer up themselves to God, a sacrifice of thanksgiving, The Sacrament of the Altar. and do exercise the works of mercy towards them that stand in need, and therefore called it in the Greek tongue Eucharistia and Agape, thanksgiving, and love: I neither have done, nor do deny. And because the fathers knew, that this sacrifice could not be acceptable to God, except it were offered upon Christ, their Altar: they called the sacrament, whereby they used chiefly to show themselves to be nothing else but a sacrifice to be offered to God, the sacrament of the altar, meaning by that altar Christ, whereupon they offered themselves a Sacrifice acceptable unto God. But such a sacrament as the Papists do hang over their altar, and such an altar as they use to say Mass upon: we know not of, neither did the fathers know any such. And this may suffice for the disproof of your definition of a sacrifice. Now something must be said, concerning that place of Cyprian which you cite. In deed saint Cyprian doth in such words as you cite, reprove the gross opinion of the Capernaits: who supposed that our Saviour had spoken of the outward and fleshly eating of that body of his, which was present in their sight. And therefore he saith, Cum illius personae caro etc. as you have cited. But here (M. Watson) I must tell you, that you deal not faithfully in citing of the words of this father. For in the words next following, he saith thus. Sed in cogitationibus huiusmodi, Cyprian. Sermone. De Caena. caro & sanguis non prodest quicquam. etc. But in such manner of thoughts (saith Cyprian) flesh and blood do not help any thing at all. For as the master himself hath declared: these words are spirit and life, neither doth the fleshly sense, enter in unto the understanding of so great a deepness, except there come faith thereunto. The bread is meat, the blood is life, the flesh is substance, the body is the Church. A body, because of the agreeing of the members in one: bread, because of the congruence of the nourishment. Blood, because of the working of liveliness. Flesh, because of the property of the human nature, that he hath taken upon him. Christ doth sometime call this sacrament his own body, sometime his flesh and blood, sometimes bread, a portion of everlasting life, whereof he hath according to these visible things, given part to the corporal nature. This common food being changed into flesh and blood, doth procure life and increasing unto bodies, and therefore, the weakness of our faith, being helped by the accustomed effect of things, is by a sensible argument taught, that the effect of eternal life is in the visible sacraments, and that we are made one with Christ, not so much by a bodily passing into him, as by a spiritual. And again, in the same Sermon, he saith. Esus igitur carnis huius, quaedam aviditas est, & quoddam desiderium manendi in ipso. etc. The eating therefore of this flesh, is a certain greediness and desire to dwell in him, whereby we do so press and melt in ourselves the sweetness of love: that the taste of love that is poured into us, may cleave in the roof of our mouth and bowels, entering into and making moist all the corners, both of our souls and body. Drinking and eating, do appertain both to one reckoning. And as the bodily substance is nourished by them, and liveth and continueth in health: so the life of the spirit is nourished with this food, that doth properly belong thereto. And look what food is to the flesh: the same is faith to the soul. Look what thing meat is to the body: the same is the word to the spirit, with more excellent power performing everlastingly, the thing that fleshly nourishments do work temporally and finally. Hitherto Cyprian. If it had pleased you, to have weighed all these words of Cyprian: I think you could not for shame, have wrested his former words, to such purpose as you do, concluding that if we have not Christ's body and blood in the sacrament for our external sacrifice, whereby we may mitigate. etc. then we should be no better than Turks. etc. S. Cyprian himself, doth in these words that I have cited out of the same Sermon: expound his meaning in the former words cited by you, to be far other, then that which you gather and conclude upon them. In deed, if the Capernaits had devoured the body of Christ, and none could have been saved, but such as had been partakers of the same with them: a very small number should have been saved by him. And when that number had been dead: his religion must needs have been at an end, for they should have had no more sacrifice for sin, for as much as he which should be the alone sacrifice for sin, had been by them eaten up and consumed. When saint Cyprian therefore, had thus spoken of the gross opinion of the Capernaits: he doth immediately add these words. Sed in cogitationibus. etc. But in such manner of cogitations: flesh and blood do profit nothing at all. For as the master himself hath taught: these words are spirit and life. etc. And again, afterward he saith, Esus igitur carnis huius. etc. The eating of this flesh therefore, is a certain greediness and desire, to abide or dwell in him. etc. It is manifest therefore, that saint Cyprian meant not to teach, Cyprians meaning. that unless the body of Christ, be really and substantially present in the sacrament, the Church can have no sacrifice, and so consequently no religion: but his meaning was to teach, that it was not a fleshly: but a spiritual eating that he spoke of. And that by faith, the Church hath Christ her everlasting sacrifice for sin, not offered by the massing Priests every day: but offered by himself once for all, and yet still present with God as all things (both past and to come) are. For with God there is neither time past, nor to come: but all present. Other sacrifice to mitigate or please God: the Church neither hath nor needeth any. For Christ hath by that one sacrifice once offered, made perfit as many as be made holy, that is, Hebr. 10. as many as be sanctified by the holy spirit of adoption. And where as you compare us to the Turks, as having no peculiar sacrifice to offer: I must tell you, that you do belie your friend Cluniacensis, Watson belieth Cluniacensis. whose testimony you use to prove the Turks and us to be one sect. His words be these. Nam cum sint his nostris diebus, quatuor in mundo precipuae diversitates sectarum, hoc est chirstianorum, judaeorum Saracenorum, & Paganorum: si Christiani non sacrificant, iam nullus in mundo sacrificat. judaei enim more suo. etc. For where as at this day (saith Cluniacensis) there be in the world four chief diversities of sects: that is, Christians, jews, Saracens and Pagans: if the Christians do not sacrifice, there is none in the world that doth sacrifice. For the jews, according to their manner, beholding all things with Ox eyes, and like Asses bearing the burdens of God's law, without taking any fruit thereof: do sacrifice in no place, because they say, that jerusalem alone is the place where God must be honoured and worshipped in sacrifices. etc. And afterward speaking of the Pagans, Petrus Cluniacensis. he saith. Et cum slendi homines, ignominiosius alijs a Diabolo, his & multis modis nobis ignotis deludantur: sacrificia tamen, nec Creatori, nec creaturae exhibent. Sed quod innatus error docuit, absque omnium sacrificiorum notitia custodiunt. Where as these men, meet to be bywayled, are of the Devil, by these and many means that we know not deluded more shamefully than other: yet do they not give any sacrifice, either to the Creator, or to the creature. But being without the knowledge of all sacrifices: they do observe that thing, which natural error hath taught them. Here it is manifest, that your Cluniacensis, saith not that the Turks only are without sacrifice: for the Pagans & Turks, are (even by his plain words) two several sects, and far enough a sunder. Cluniacensis a corrupter of scripture. But what though Cluniacensis, and you did agree in all points? Are you of such credit, that nought that you say may be denied? A more manifest wrester and corrupter of manifest scriptures, then Cluniacensis was: did never set Pen to Paper, except you self (M. Watson.) Coloss. 1. He is not ashamed to say thus, grounding his words upon Saint Paul to the Colossians. Vbi est secundum Apostolum, ministerium, quod absconditum fuit a saeculis. etc. Where is, according to the saying of the Apostle, the ministery that hath been hid since the beginning of generations, and is now opened to his saints, unto whom God would make known the riches of the glory of this sacrament among the Gentiles, which sacrament is Christ, the hope of glory? Where saint Paul hath said Mysterium, the mystery or hid secret: Cluniacensis sayth Ministerium, the ministery. And where Paul saith Qui est Christus: Cluniacensis saith. Quod est Christus, which sacrament is Christ. For immediately before he had said Sacramentum, in place of Mysterium: The sacrament, in place of the mystery. And all this is to make men believe that saint Paul writing to the Colossians, had taught them, that the sacrament of Christ's body, is Christ himself. Much such matter is manifest in your Cluniacensis. I esteem his authority therefore, even as I esteem yours. And so I do esteem those notable writers, which at this day do term our Religion by the name of Mahumets sect. For whatsoever they or you say or write: we are well able to prove that we hold, the true and catholic faith, which was taught by the Apostles and Prophets, jesus Christ being the foundation thereof. With the Prophets we believe the promise of God concerning the sending of his son in the similitude of sinful flesh, that in the flesh he might satisfy for the sins of all his elected and chosen children. And with the Apostles we believe that he is come, and hath by one sacrifice once offered, satisfied for all their sins that be of that number. And that there remaineth no more sacrifice for sin. Hebr. 10. And that the Church of Christ is bound continually to offer unto God, a sacrifice of thanks, for this so great and free redemption, by the sacrifice of his own only begotten son. And that this sacrifice of thanks, is our obedience in walking in those good works that God hath prepared for us to walk in. This is not to prepare a way for the Turks to overunne all, as you say it is. But this is to be at defiance, both with Turk and Pope. But for the avoiding of these absurdities, WATSON. Division. 11. and for such causes as I shall God willing declare hereafter, I presuppose this foundation of Christ's body, to be really present in the blessed sacrament, to be steadfastly believed of us all, upon the which I build all that remaineth now to be said. Which foundation although it hath been undermined of many men and many ways, & therefore requireth a full and perfit treatise to be made of it alone: yet as I intend not to occupy all this time in that, so I may not well so slenderly leave it, that hath been so much and often assaulted, but shall declare the sum of that moveth me to continue still in that truth I was borne in, to keep still that faith I was baptized in and put on Christ, which faith seeing it is universal, if I should leave it, I should forsake Christ, and be an heretic, not following that form of doctrine I received of my fathers, and they of theirs from the beginning, but choosing myself a new way and new masters that please me, being so condemned by mine own conscience and judgement, which is the very property and definition of an heretic. CROWLEY. The absurdities ye speak of, we have something touched already. The other causes that move you, we mind by God's help to say somewhat to, when you shall declare them. But in the mean while, let us see the sum of that which moveth you to continue still in that faith you were baptized in. etc. WATSON. Division. 12. There be three things that hold me in this faith: the manifest and plain scripture, the uniform authorities of holy men, and the consent of the universal Church. These three be the arguments, that a christian man may stick unto, and never be deceived, specially if they be knit and joined together, concerning one matter but if they be separate, than some of them be but weak staffs to lean unto. As for example the scripture without the consent of the church is a weapon as meet for an heretic, as for a catholic, for Arius, Nestorius, and such other Heretics did allege the scripture for their opinions, as the catholics did, but their alleging was but the abusing of the letter, which is indifferent to good and evil, and depraving of the true sense, which is only known by the tradition and consent of the catholic church: so that the one without the other is not a direction, but a seduction to a simple man, because the very scripture in deed, is not the bare letter, as it lieth to be taken of every man, but the true sense, as it is delivered by the universal consent of Christ's church. Likewise the writings and sayings of the fathers, if they be but the mind of one man without the consent of other, were he never so well learned and virtuous, otherwise yet his writings I say in that point be not a confirmation for an ignorant man to hold him in the truth, but a temptation to seduce him, and pull him from the truth. The consent of the Church is always a sure staff, the very pillar of truth, whether it be in things expressed in the letter of the scripture, or in things delivered unto us by tradition of the Apostles. He that holdeth him by this staff can not fall in faith, but stand in truth. The three staves that you say you lean unto, CROWLEY. are very good stays, & such as a man may be bold to trust unto, & especially (as you have well said) when they be knit and joined together, concerning one matter. But if they be severed: then some of them be but weak staves to lean unto. Hitherto you have said very well. But when amongst these three staves, you make the consent of the Church only to be the sure staff, 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 ignorant man: me thinketh you show yourself to beastly blind. Where was this sure staff of yours, when all the Apostles were so far from the hope of the resurrection of their master: that they could not believe the report of them that had seen him after he was risen again? Marc. 16. Had this consent of theirs in unbelief been a sure stay, for men to lean unto? And was the prophecy of David, at that time a seduction or tentation, Psalm. 16. Act. 2. to seduce a simple ignorant man, because it was not joined with the consent of the Church? Did Christ go about to seduce the jews: when he bade them search the scriptures? john. 5. When all the Apostles had consented, that none should go in unto the heathen, to preach the Gospel unto them, Act. 11. and Christ had said, go and teach all Nations: where was then the sure staff to lean to? What staff was it, that the worshipful of Berrhaea leaned unto, when they had heard Paul preach there? Act. 17. Was it the consent of the Church? No, saint Luke saith, Scrutabantur scripturas. They searched the scriptures. That was then the sure staff to lean to. Saint Austen would have no credit, further than his words might be confirmed, De Trinitat. libr. 3. by Scripture and sound reason. His words are these. Noli meis literis quasi scripturis canonicis inseruire, sed in illis & quod non credebas eum inveneris incunctanter crede: in istis autem quod certum non habebas, nisi certum intellexeris, noli firmiter credere. Be thou not bound to my writings, as to the canonical scriptures: but in the scriptures, believe without fear, whatsoever thou shalt find therein, which thou didst not believe before: But in my writings, do not firmly believe, that which thou wast not sure of before: unless thou mayst certainly understand it. Do not correct my writings by thine own opinion or contention: but by that thou readest in holy Scripture, or unshaken reason. etc. Contr. Petiliani. Epist. Cap. 12. Again, the same Austen saith. Nemo mihi dicat, O quid dixit Donatus? Aut quid dixit Parmenianus? aut Pontius? aut quilibet illorum. Quia, ne Catholicis Episcopis consentiendum est, sicubi sort falluntur, ut contra canonicas scripturas aliquid sentiant. Let no man say unto me, Oh, what hath Donatus said? Or, what hath Parmenian said? Or Pontius? Or any of those men: For we may not consent to the Catholic Bishops, if they be at any time deceived, so that they hold any thing contrary to the canonical Scriptures. Here it is manifest, that saint Austen supposed the scriptures to be the sure staff that we should stay upon. And the consent of the Bishops or other learned men, to be but a weak stay, and such as no man may trust to, when it is severed from the other: contrary to the opinion that you hold (M. Watson.) And yet more plainly the same saint Augustine saith in an other place. Cedamus igitur, & consentiamus autoritati scripturae sanctae: Libr. De Peccat. merit. & Remissi. Cap. 22. quae nescit falli, nec fallere. Let us therefore consent to the authority of the holy scripture: which can neither be deceived nor deceive. Gerson also saith thus. Dicto autoris, autoritate, canonica munito: plus quam declarationi Papae credendum est. We must give more credit to the saying of an Author, Gerson against master Watson. that is confirmed with the authority of the canonical scripture: then to the declaration of the Pope himself. And again he saith. In sacris litteris excellenter erudito, atque autoritatem catholicam proferenti: plus est credendum quam generali concilio. More credit is to be given to a man that is excellenly learned in the holy scriptures, and bringeth forth a catholic authority: then to the general counsel. All this considered, I think it better to lean to the staff of the scripture, with Austen, Gerson, and other ancient fathers: then with you and such as you are, to trust to that broken staff, that may and often times hath deceived, such as have stayed themselves thereon. I do reverence the writings and sayings of Fathers, Chrysost. in Galat. 1. so do I the consent of the Church: but the word of God above both: and neither of both, without it. For as chrysostom saith, Paulus verò, etiam Angelis è coelo descendentibus, praeponit scripturas: idque valde congruenter. Siquidem Angeli, quamlibit magni: tamen servi sunt ac ministri. Caeterum omnes scripturae, non à servis, sed ab universorum Domino Deo venerunt ad nos. Paul doth prefer the scriptures before the Angels that come down from heaven: and that very orderly? For although the Angels be great: yet are they servants and ministers. But all the scriptures are comen unto us: from him that is Lord and God of all creatures. I allow therefore, all your three staves, and I like them all well, so long as they be fast tied together. But if you do once pluck them in sunder, than I am well pleased, that you take to yourself the two latter, and leave me the first to stay upon. Now concerning this matter of the presence: WATSON. Division. 13. I am able by God's help to show all these three things, joined and knit together so, that we can not be deceived in this point, except we will deceive ourselves as many wilfully do. The scripture by plain and manifest words, against the which hell gates shall never prevail, doth testify and confirm our faith in many places, but specially in the words of our saviour Christ himself in his last supper, saying to his Disciples: Math. 26. Take, eat this is my body, which is given for you. This is my blood of the new Testament, which is shed for many, and for you in remission of sins: which most plain scriptures many have gone about to delude, & to reduce them to a base understanding by figurative speeches, contending these words. This is my body. This is my blood to be spoken figuratively, and not as the words purport: because other like sayings in the scripture be taken figuratively, as these: I am the way, I am the door. The stone is Christ and such other, wherein they have declared their devilish and detestable sophistry to their own damnation and the subversion of a great many other. They profess themselves to be learned men, but who heard ever tell of any such kind of learning, as to prove one singular by an other, as if one should reason thus: Thomas is an honest man, ergo john is an honest man: The Swan is white, ergo the Crow is white. Which arguments be like this: I am the way, is a figurative speech, ergo likewise. This is my body, is a figurative speech. With such fond follies & sophisms is the truth assaulted against all good learning, and the rules of all true reasoning. God open their eyes to see, and follow his heavenly wisdom. CROWLEY. For the matter of the presence of Christ in the sacrament: you have manifest Scripture, as you say, this is my body, this is my blood. etc. Which Scriptures some have gone about to delude with fond follies and sophisms, such as it pleaseth yourself to frame. I am sure you did never read in any of their writings that you speak of, any argument so framed as you have set forth in your Sermon. We do know that one mere particular cannot be proved by another. And therefore we use not to conclude, as you would make your Auditory believe that we do. We say that the scripture hath many such speeches, as this is my body, and this is my blood, which are not proper speeches, but figurative: wherefore it is not of necessity required, that this is my body, and this is my blood, should be taken for proper speeches. The circumstances must give the understanding. But if the circumstances be such, that by them, the speech can not be proper, but figurative: then is there no cause why, we may not understand these places by the figure, as well as the other. I will therefore consider your circumstances, and then shape you a further answer. But if we will consider the circumstances of the text, WATSON. Division. 14 who was the speaker, for what intent, what time, and such other: it shall plainly appear that the literal sense, as the words purport, is the true sense, that the holy Ghost did principally intend. As for example. First it appeareth evidently, the speaker to be jesus Christ our Lord, God's son equal and omnipotent God with the father, and that these his words be not words of a bare narration and teaching, but words whereby a sacrament is instituted. And for that reason we must consider that it is otherwise with Christ, then with us, for in man the word is true, when the thing is true, whereof it is spoken: In God the thing is true when the word is spoken of the thing. Man's word declareth the thing to be as it is before, God's word maketh the thing to be, as it was not before. In man the truth of his word dependeth of the truth of the thing. Contrary in God the truth of the thing dependeth upon the speaking of the word, as the psalm saith: Ipse dixit & facta sunt. He spoke the word, Psalm. 148. and the things were made. And this thing the Devil knew well enough, being sure that if jesus were Christ and God, he could with his word both create new things, and also change the nature and substance of any thing: Math. 4. and therefore said unto him tempting him, whether he was God's son or no: if thou be God's son speak the word, that these stones may be made bread. Whereby we may learn that although in man's speech it is not true to say, these stones be bread: yet if God should say so, it should be true the inferior nature of creatures giving place to the omnipotent power of God the Creator. After which sort Ireneus reasoneth against those heretics, that denied jesus Christ to be God's son, using that most constantly believed truth of the sacrament, that we hold now grounded upon Christ's words, for an argument to convince jesus the speaker to be God's son. 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? How shall it be certain unto them, that that bread upon which thanks are given (that is to say the Eucharistical bread) is the body of their Lord, and the Cup of his blood, if they say not that he is the son of him that made the world? as though he should reason thus: These words which jesus spoke of the blessed bread, saying: This is my body. This is the Cup of my blood, be either true or false. If the speaker of them be pure man and not God as they say, then can they not be true: for man's word changeth not the nature of things, as it is here. But if the words be true, as they certainly believe, than the speaker of them must needs be God's son, of infinite power, able to make the things to be as he saith they be. And also in his .57. Ireneus lib. 4. Cap. 57 Chapter the same fourth book, he maketh the like argument in these words. Quomodo justè Dominus si alterius patris existit huius conditionis quae est secundum nos, accipiens panem suum corpus confitebatur, & temperamentum calicis, sui sanguinem confirmavit. If our Lord be a pure man, that nature and condition that we be of, the son of an other father than God: How did he justly and truly taking bread into his hand, confess and say it to be his body, and confirm that mixture of wine and water, that was in the Chalice, to be his own blood? By these two places of Ireneus that lived within .150. years of Christ, we are taught not to fly to our figures of Grammar to make these words of Christ true, which indeed we must needs do, or else say they be false, if Christ the speaker be but only man and not God, but we be taught by him to believe them to be most true, and for that reason to believe also, that Christ the speaker is God's son, by whose almighty power the things be changed & made as he speaketh so that we may justly, after the mind of Ireneus and divers other old Authors, which were long to rehearse now, conceive this opinion of these men, that say these words of Christ cannot be true, except they be understanded by a figurative speech: that they either believe not themselves that Christ is God's son, or else give occasion to other to revive that old damnable Heresey of Arius that denied Christ's Godhead, the experience whereof we have had of late days, of some that from Sacramentaries by necessary consequence of that Heresey, became Arianes. The first circumstance that you consider: CROWLEY. is the speaker of these words. I am contented to begin with the same. And also to agree with you upon the equality of Christ with his heavenly father in all points, touching his divine nature: wherefore, if you conceive such an opinion of me as you speak of, because I say that these words. This is my body, is a figurative speech: you conceive a wrong opinion. And I am sure, I may safely say as much, for all those that you speak of. But now let us see, how honestly you have behaved yourself: in applying the words of Ireneus to your purpose. Libr. 4. ca 34. He saith thus. Quomodo autem constabit etc. First I must tell you, that even as in the place that you did before cite out of Ireneus, you picked out a piece for your purpose, and left that which might make the Writers meaning plain: so you have done here also. For in the same Chapter, not twenty lines before those words that you cite: Ireneus saith thus. Igitur, non sacrificiae sanctificant hominem, non enim indiget sacrificio Deus: sed conscientiae eius qui offert sanctificat sacrificium, pura existens, & praestat acceptare Deum, quasi ab amico. The sacrifices do not make the man that doth offer them, holy (for God hath no need of Sacrifice) but the conscience of him that offereth, being pure: doth make the sacrifice holy, and causeth God to take it in good part, as at the hand of a friend. And again he saith. Oportet enim nos oblationem Deo facere. etc. We must needs make an oblation to God: and be found thankful to God our maker in all things. In pure judgement, in faith without Hypocrisy, in firm hope, in fervent love, offering up the first fruits of those things which are his creatures. And the Church only may offer this pure oblation to her maker, offering unto him, some part of his creature, with thanksgiving unto him. But the jews do not now offer, for their hands be full of blood: for they have not received the word, whereby offering is made to God. No more do all the Synagogs' of heretics. And other which say that there is another father, besides him that is the maker: do therefore when they offer to him, those things that be of the same creation that we are: declare thereby, that he is desirous of that which is not his own, and coveteth after those things that appertain to other. And such as do say, that the things which are of the same creation with us, be made by defect and ignorance and suffering: do when they offer the fruits of ignorance and of suffering and defect, sin against their father, reviling him rather then giving him thanks. After these words, do those words follow that you have cited for your purpose. Quomodo autem constabit eyes. etc. How shall it be certain unto them, that, that bread, wherein thanks are given, is the body of their Lord, and the Cup of his blood, if they say not that he is the son of him that is the maker of the world? Thus far go the words that you cite. And where as you shut up the matter with an interrogation, as though there were the whole of that which the Author doth there write of this matter: in as many Copies as I have seen, the point there is but a comma, and the sentence continued with these words, id est, verbum eius, per quod lignum fructificat. etc. That is, his words, whereby the tree is made fruitful, & the Fountains to flow, that giveth first the blade, than the ear, and then the full corn in the ear? And again, how do they say that the flesh which is nourished with the body and blood of the Lord, doth come into corruption, and not receive life? Therefore either let them change their mind, or abstain from offering the things that are spoken of before. As for our judgement, it is agreeable to the eucharist or thanksgiving: and on the contrary part, the eucharist, doth confirm our sentence or judgement. For we do offer unto him the things that are his, and do agreeably preach the communion and unity of the flesh and the spirit. For even as the bread which is of the earth, taking the name of God, is not now common bread, but the Eucharist (or sacrament of thanksgiving) consisting of two things, one earthly and another heavenly: so our bodies also, being made partakers of the eucharist, are not now corruptible, for as much as they have the hope of the resurrection. etc. And again in the end of the Chapter he saith. Sic & idio nos quoque offerre vult munus ad altar frequenter sine intermissione. Est ergo altare in caelis. etc. His will is also, that in such sort and therefore, we should oftentimes and continually offer a gift at the altar: The altar therefore is in heaven. For thither are all our prayers and oblations directed: and our temple, even as john saith in his revelations: And the Temple of God and tabernacle was set open. If you had weighed all these words of Ireneus together, Watson did not weight Ireneus words. being written in the same Chapter with those that you cite in your Sermon: I suppose you would not have thought his words so meet for your purpose. The sacrifice (saith he) is sanctified by the pure conscience of the offerer. We must be found thankful to our maker in all things: in pure judgement, in unfeigned faith, in steadfast hope, and in fervent love, offering to him the first fruits of those things that be his creatures. And the Church only may offer this oblation. The bread which is of the earth receiving the name of God, is not now common bread: but the Eucharist, consisting of two things the one earthly, and the other heavenly. He will have us to offer a gift upon the altar continually without ceasing. The altar therefore is in heaven. How do these words agree with the real presence of Christ in the sacrament? And how can these words suffer your Mass to be accounted the sacrifice of the Church? The whole purpose of Ireneus in that Chapter, is to show, that the works of love proceeding from an unfeigned faith, and a pure conscience: are that sacrifice that God regardeth. And in the use of the sacrament which he calleth the Eucharist or thanksgiving: this sacrifice so acceptable to God, is not only taught by sensible signs, but also exercised. And the altar whereon this sacrifice is offered, is Christ, which is in heaven. Against whom Ireneus did write. The words that you cite, were by Ireneus spoken against such as affirmed that God is not the maker of those creatures that we have the use of. Which affirmation if it were true: then Christ being the son of God (whom those men denied to be the maker of the world) had no power, to institute the sacrament of his body & blood in any of those creatures: for he should not then have been Lord over them. As touching the names, body and blood given to this sacrament, the reason thereof his declared before. Your reasons therefore that you make in Ireneus name, are not worth a Louse. To the same end tendeth the other place, which you cite out of the .57. Chapter of the same book. Wherefore, those two places of Ireneus, who lived within .150. years after Christ, do teach you to use the figure called Metaphora or translation, in the understanding of these words. This is my body, and this is my blood: notwithstanding that Christ the speaker is both God and man, Psalm. 148. and even he of whom David spoke, when he said Ipse dixit & facta sunt. He spoke the word and the things were made. For he spoke not those words as one that would by them create a new, or alter and change the substance of that which he had before created: Christ's purpose in speaking the words of his last supper. but his purpose was to institute a sacrament or visible sign of the exceeding great mercy that he should shortly show, in giving his body and blood, for the redemption of the sins of the world, and of that wonderful mystery of joining the faithful together into the fellowship of members of one body, and of the same to him their head. These words of Christ therefore are true in his meaning, notwithstanding aught that you can say: and yet to be understanded by the figure, and not as the words do purport. And yet are we that say so: far enough from the Arians heresy. The second circumstance I spoke of, WATSON. Division. 15. was to consider to what purpose and intent Christ spoke those words, and I said they were words not of a bare narration, teaching some doctrine, but the words of the institution of a sacrament of the new Testament. And then it followeth, that if they be the form of a sacrament as they be in deed: then must they needs be that instrument whereby Gods almighty 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 Baptism, these words. Ego Baptizo te, I baptize thee, and so forth, like as outwardly to the ears, of the hearer they signify a washing, so almighty God assisting the due pronouncing of them, doth inwardly work the grace of washing the soul of him, to whom the words be spoken, if their be no stop or impediment of his party. And likewise in penance as the words of the Priest saying: Ego absoluo te ab omnibus peccatis tuis in nomine Patris, & filii, & spiritus sancti. I absolve thee from all thy sins in the name of the father, and the son, and the holy Ghost, do signify forgiveness, so God doth inwardly forgive, if the party be truly penitent. Likewise in marriage that knot the man knitteth with the woman in taking her to his wife, and she him to her husband, God also inwardly doth knit the same, which man can not lose: and so forth of all other sacraments. Now to our purpose: The grace which is included in these words, this is my body, this is my blood, is not only accidental grace as in the other, but the body of Christ to be our sacrament, which is the substance of grace, the Author, Bernar. Sermone De Coena. Fountain, & Well of all grace, as S. Bernard saith. Dicitur Eucharistia per excellentiam. In hoc enim Sacramento non solum quaelibet gratia, sed ille à quo est omnis gratia sumitur. This sacrament is called Eucharistia, for some excellency above all other, for in this sacrament is received not only any other grace, but he of whom proceedeth all grace. Then it followeth, that where as the grace of this sacrament, which the words purport to the outward ears of all men, is the essential grace of Christ's body and blood to be there present, it followeth, I say that Christ by these words, as by a convenient instrument, worketh inwardly, in that he gave to his Disciples the real presence of his own body and blood, Emesenus. Oratione De corp. & sanguine Christi. as Eusebius Emesenus saith: Fide aestimandi non specie, nec exterioris censenda est visu, sed interioris hominis affectu. To be esteemed by faith, and not by the outward form, and not to be judged by the sight of the outward man, but by the affection of the inward man. CROWLEY. First you considered the person of him that spoke these words, This is my body: and now you consider his intent in speaking. His purpose was not (say you) by these words to show what the thing was that he spoke of: but to use the words as an instrument whereby the inward thing signified by the outward words is wrought. And to make this your opinion plain: you use the words in Baptism, in Penance, and the contract in marriage, for examples. Surely (M. Watson) this must needs appear a strange manner of doctrine, when it shall be weighed by them that do consider what the use of words is, and what the almighty power of God is. Learned men have always taught, that the use of words is to teach the hearers: and that they be instruments serving only to that use. None but Sorcerers will say that words are instruments to work wonders with. In deed, the Poet speaking of magical verses, saith thus. Carmina vel caelo, possunt deducere lunam. Verses are of such force that they are able to bring the Moon down from heaven. But we find not in the holy scripture, or in any Catholic Writer, that words have any other use, then to teach. Peradventure you will say, that the Prophet David will take your part, because he saith. Verbo Domini caeli firmati sunt: Psalm. 33. & spiritu oris eius omnis exercitus eorum. By the word of the Lord were the heavens established, and all the army thereof by the breath of his mouth. But saint Austen, and as many as I have seen, that do write upon that Psalm, do with one voice affirm, that the Prophet doth not there mean of such a formed word as you do here, neither of the breath that issueth out at the mouth in the uttering of such words: but of the son of God and the holy Ghost. So that his words are this much to say. In the son and the holy Ghost: hath the Lord, which is but one divine power, established the heavens. etc. The power of God is such, that at his word, beck, or twinkling of his eye: he is able to do what he will do. According to the words of the same prophet in another Psalm. Deus noster in caelo, omnia quaecunque voluit fecit in caelo & in terra. Our God is in heaven, Psal. 114. look what he would do, that hath he done, both in heaven and in earth. I conclude therefore, that it is the power of God, that worketh all in all. And that the word form is no instrument to work by, otherwise then in teaching. And therefore, your examples be evil favouredly applied. As for your bernard and your Emisenus, I need not much to esteem, sith (as it may seem) they be Doctors of your own making: and therefore I can not blame them, though they speak as you would have them speak. But it should have been much more for your honesty, being father of the act when they proceeded: to have instructed them so before hand, that they might have been able to speak congrue latin. I know not by what rule of Grammar, this can be justified to be congrue latin. Fide estimandi non specie, nec exterioris hominis censenda est visu. etc. Neither do I know by what figure it may be excused. But though your Emisenus had written as good latin as ever did Cicero: yet could I not much regard his judgement, for that I find that he was Signifer arianae factionis, Chronico. Hieronymi. the standard bearer of the Arian faction. Or if you have any other Emisenus to show: I suppose he will be found (when you shall show him) such one as Bishop jewel proveth Master Hardyngs Amphilochius to be. Your Bernardus also: must be such another. For that Bernardus that was Claraevallensis Abbas, was of another mind as it appeareth in his Sermon In caena Domini. His words be these. enim de usualibus sumamus exemplum: datur anulus absolutè propter anulum, & nulla est significatio: datur ad investiendum de haereditate aliqua, & signum est: ita ut iam dicere possit qui accipit: Anulus non valet quicquam, sed haereditas est quam quaerebam. In hunc itaque modum appropinquans passioni Dominus, de gratia sua investire curavit suos, ut i●usibilis gratia, signo aliquo visibili praestaretur. Ad haec instituta sunt omnia sacramenta, ad haec Eucharistiae participatio etc. That we may take an example from among those things that be usual: a King is delivered as a King without condition, and it hath no signification. And the same is given to invest in some inheritance, and so it is a sign: so that the party that receiveth it, may now say: The King, is a thing of no value: but the inheritance is the thing that I sought. After this sort the Lord therefore drawing near unto his passion, did of his own free mercy, provide to invest those that appartayned unto him, that the invisible grace, might by some visible sign be set forth and showed. For this purpose were all sacraments instituted. The participation of the Eucharist, was instituted for this purpose, and so was the washing of feet. To conclude, Baptism, which is the beginning of all sacraments, was instituted for this purpose, wherein we are planted together to the similitude or likeness of his death: wherefore, the three sold dipping, doth bear the figure of the three days space that must now be celebrated. This matter is far disagreeing to that which you cite out of your bernard. Watson hath a Bernard of his own. I conclude therefore that your bernard, is not the right bernard: but a counterfeit of your own making. Such a one as your Emisenus is. And therefore his Sermons are printed by themselves with this note before them: Proculdubio, non a nostro Bernardo editi fuerunt. Without doubt, they were never of our Bernard's setting out. Thirdly, we may consider, that these words, WATSON. Division. 16 be the performance of a former promise, where Christ (as it is written in the sixth Chapter of S. john) promised to give us the same flesh to eat, that he would give to the death, for the life of the world saying. Panis quem ego dabo, caro mea est, john. 6. quam ego dabo pro mundi vita. The bread which I shall give unto you, is my flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world. Which promise, we never read, that Christ (which is the very truth & can not lie) did ever at any time perform, but in his last supper, when he gave his body and blood to his Disciples: and to promise his flesh, and to give bare bread and not his flesh, is no performing, but a breaking of his promise, and a deluding of them to whom he made the promise. For as for the interpretation, which some men make of Christ's words, that he will give his flesh to us to be eaten spiritually by faith: is but a vain and feigned gloze for that text. And although Christ do so give it to be eaten by faith: yet we may not exclude one truth by another truth as Sophisters do. For Christ gave his flesh to us to be eaten spiritually by faith, ever from the beginning of the world, and also at that present, when he spoke those words, so that it were a very vain thing for Christ, to promise to give a thing which he ever before, and also at that present, and ever after continually doth give. But it was never so taken of any good ancient author which all with one consent do expound this text of saint john, of the giving of his flesh in his last supper under the form of bread, and therefore Cirillus writeth, Cirillus in john. li. 4. Capit. 14. that our saviour Christ did not expound and make plain the manner of the mystery, & the performance of this his promise, to them that asked the unfaithful question, How, without faith, but to his Disciples that believed him and asked no such question of him, he declared the manner of it in his last supper. Wherefore we may well conclude upon this circumstance that Christ's flesh is verily present in the sacrament to be given unto us, because he promised before, that he would give us the same flesh for our food, that he would give on the cross for our redemption. CROWLEY. The third circumstance (you say) that you consider, is a promise that our Saviour made when he said, the bread that I shall give is my flesh. etc. If I did not know your blindness, and shamelessness, in fathering upon the ancient Writers, such matter as they never meant to utter in their writings: I could not wonder enough at your beastly boldness, which driveth you to say, that all the good ancient Writers do with one consent, expound the words of saint john as you do. But after this great boast, you give us a taste of your small roast (as the common saying is) and you make Cyrillus to speak after your fantasy, in this sort. Our Saviour Christ did not expound. etc. But that the reader may see, how faithfully you deal with Cyrillus in this point: I will let him see the words as they be written in the place that you note in the margin. His words be these. Misericors certè & mitis Christus est: ut à rebus ipsis videre licet. Non enim aspere ad crudelitatem eorum respondit, nec vllo modo contendit: sed vivificantem huius mysterij cognitionem, iterum atque 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 atque iterum aperit, ut aeternae desyderio vitae, ad fidem compellantur, per quam etiaem, doceri facilius poterint. Esay. 7. Sic 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 enodavit, sed fide id quaerendum hortatur: sic credentibus discipulis, 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 explanavit: credentibus autem, etiam non quaerentibus exposuit. Undoubtedly (saith cyril) Christ is merciful and mild: as a man may perceive even by the very things themselves. For he did not shape a sharp answer to their cruelty, neither doth he by any means contend: but he doth endeavour more than once, to print in their minds the quickening knowledge of this mystery. But after what manner, he will give his own flesh to be eaten, he doth not declare: because they could not understand it. But how great good things they shall obtain, if they shall with faith eat it: he doth oftentimes declare, that by the desire of eternal life, they might be compelled to embrace faith, by the mean whereof, they might the more easily be taught. For thus hath Esay said. If ye will not believe: ye shall not understand. It behoved therefore, first to cast the roots of faith in the mind: and afterward to seek those things that man should seek. But those men did before they believed, out of season seek for those things. For this cause therefore, the Lord did not declare, how that thing might be done: but he doth encourage them to seek it by faith. In like manner unto his Disciples which believed: he gave the pieces of bread saying, take and eat, this is my body. The cup also he did in like manner bear about saying: drink ye all of this, this is the Cup of my blood, which shall be shed for many, for the remission of sins. Thou seest that he opened not the manner of the mystery, to them that sought it without faith: but to such as believed, he did expound it, before they asked any question. Now let the indifferent Reader judge how faithfully you have handled the words of cyril, and so he may have the less cause to credit you in your large affirmation, wherein you say, watson's store is but small. that all the good ancient Writers do with one consent, expound this place of john as you do. Whereas, when your store shall be sought: there shall not one that lived within .600. years after Christ, be found of your mind in this point. Wherefore, we may well conclude, that Christ's flesh is not in the sacrament in such sort as ye teach: and that Christ meant not by those words that you cite out of john, to promise, that he would give his body in such sort to be eaten, as ye have affirmed that he did. But that he meant to teach, that he himself is that heavenly food that the father giveth for the life of the world, The meaning of Christ in the 6. of john. and that he would give them none other food from heaven but only that which at the time appointed, he would yield up for the life of the world. And that not to be eaten after a fleshly sort, but after such a spiritual sort, as the fathers that lived afore he was incarnated, had and did eat it. Your exposition of saint john's words therefore, is but a vain and feigned gloss for that text. WATSON. Division. 17 The time also is to be considered, that he spoke these words the night before he suffered death, at which time, and the next day after, he ended and fulfilled all figures, saying on the cross, Consummatum est. All figures and shadows be ended and expired, which was no time then, to institute and begin new figures. Is it likely or probable, that our saviour Christ then entering into his Agony, and beginning his passion, accustoming commonly before to teach his Disciples in plain words, without Parables or figurative speeches: would then so lightly behave himself, as to delude his chosen and entirely beloved Disciples, in calling those things his body that is given for them, and his blood that is shed for them, which were neither his body nor his blood, but bare bread and wine? Or is there any religion in our christian faith, in nicknaming things, or calling them otherwise, than they be? If any man think himself able to answer that, because Christ said he was a Vine, he was a door, being neither Vine nor door: that man seemeth to me not substantially to way the words and speeches of scripture. For let him consider throughout all the scripture wheresoever he shall find, that Christ, spoke any thing of himself by words of our common speech (for the God head and the properties of the Godhead be ineffable, and cannot be expressed to our capacity, but by words and names of worldly and natural things here among us.) He shall always find that Christ was a better and more singular thing then the word did properly signify, that was attribute unto him, and to make this matter more plain by examples. Where Christ said, I am the way, he meant not, that he was the way that leadeth to the City, or to some other place but that he was a more excellent way. A way that leadeth to the father, to heaven, to everlasting life. When he said, he was the door, he meant not, john. 10. that he was the door of the sheepfold here in earth, but a far better door, the door of the Church, the spiritual sheepfold, by the which door whosoever entereth, shall be saved. Also calling himself a Vine, john. 15. he meant that he was the spiritual Vine, whereof all christian men be branches, and better than such a Vine as groweth in the fields. And likewise by that he calleth himself the light, we understand, that he was not the sensible light of this world but the heavenly light that neither by course is changed, nor by shadow is darkened. So that it may be observed for a rule, when Christ doth attribute the name of any sensible creature to himself, ever the understanding exceedeth and excelleth the word in dignity. And if this be true in all kind of teaching and doctrine shall we now in the high mysteries and sacraments of God come from the Hall to the Kitchen, from the better to the worst? that where Christ saith. This is my body, we shall understand it is bread a worse thing, than his body. This is my blood, that is to say, wine a worse thing than his blood. This be fond and false gloss, neither true, nor likely, nor yet tolerable. Wherefore leaving out a great many other circumstances, that would serve very well, Math. 26. to set forth the truth of this doctrine, I shall conclude thus, seeing saint matthew saith in plain terms, it is my body, it is my blood: Saint Mark saith it is my body: Mar. 14. Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 11. john. 9 Saint Luke saith it is my body: Saint Paul saith it is my body: Saint john saith it is my flesh, shall we now fifteen hundredth year after them, handle the matter so finely, and way the scripture so substantially, that we shall affirm the contradictory to be the true sense, saying this is not my body, this is not my blood, but a figure and a sign of my body and blood? These evident scriptures move me to continue still steadfast in that faith I was borne in, and not to be moved with vain words and reasons without probability, against all rule and form of true reasoning. CROWLEY. I would not have thought, that any man could have been able by Arguments to have persuaded you to grant so much, as you have here granted, of your own voluntary and willing accord. watson's voluntary grant. That is, that all figures and shadows are ended and expired, and that it was no time for Christ, at that time to institute new figures. I trust you will now be an enemy to all those figures and shadows, that the Pope hath brought into the Church of Christ. But me thinketh I hear you say, that you mean only to affirm that the time wherein Christ spoke these words, this is my body, was the time not meet, for the institution of figures and shadows. Well. If we shall have occasion hereafter, to charge you with these words: we will urge them with such force, that so slender an answer shall not serve you. But in the mean while you dalley with those figurative speeches that are used in the scriptures. I am the way, I am the door, I am the Vine, I am the light. A general rule may be (say you) observed: that when Christ speaketh of himself by the name of any creature, there must be a better thing understand, than the thing is, that such a name doth properly signify. And therefore we must in the matter of the sacrament, understand a better and more excellent thing, then is Bread and Wine. Me thinketh (M. Watson) you might have spared all this labour. For none of us hath or doth deny, that when Christ speaketh of himself, and giveth himself the name of any creature: we must understand a better thing, then is properly signified by that name. But what maketh this for your purpose? It seemeth to me, that either you yourself have forgotten your Logic: or else when you did set forth your Sermon in print, you thought that the world would never turn so, that any Logition might be bold in open writing to control your subtle sophistry. When I was Logitioner in Oxford: I learned, that in every Cathegoricall proposition, there be Tres termini. Subiectum, praedicatum, & Copula. Now the Subiectum, is that, whereof affirmation or negation is made: and Predicatum is that, which is affirmed or denied. And Copula is the verb Substantive, that in construction standeth betwixt them. You must not be offended with me, watson's sophistry hath made him forget his Logic. for that I talk with you of things so far under the profession of a Doctor of Divinity: for surely you seem to me to have forgotten all, seeing you shame not to say, that Christ speaketh here of himself, as in the other places that you cite for example. I am the Vine, and this is my body: have both one Subiectum, by your sophistry. If Christ had said I am bread, as in the sixth of john he said, I am that bread which came down from heaven: then your rule would have served. But sith he saith, this is my body: it is manifest, that he speaketh of the bread and saith that it is his body. Matthew, Mark, Luke, john, and Paul, be no more on your side then they be on ours. But rather their plain words do prove, that you for your reasoning without probability, and contrary to the rule of all true reasoning, Watson must be promoted. are meet to be promoted out of the Hall into the Kitchen, or rather from the Divinity School to the Logic lecture. For they all with one consent say, that our saviour Christ spoke not of himself, but of the bread affirming it to be his body and his flesh. Which we do not deny, affirming the contradictory (as you say that we do) but we do most constantly affirm that to be true which Christ both spoke and meant. That is, that in the sacrament, the bread is his body, Watson denieth Christ's words to be true. and the wine his blood. But you and your sort do deny his words to be true, & do affirm the contradictory: for you say there is neither bread nor wine remaining in the sacrament. So that when Christ took bread in his hand, and speaking of the bread said, this is my body: the bread was not his body (by your doctrine) but his body was there under the accidents of bread, and the substance of the bread (as some of you say) turned into the body of Christ: or as some other teach, the substance of the bread being conveyed away: the substance of Christ's body cometh in place under the accidents of that bread that was there. These be fond and false gloss, neither true nor likely, nor yet tolerable. But if you and your sort do not believe, and therefore can not understand, How the bread is Christ's body. how Christ's body and blood can be in the sacrament, unless the substance of bread and wine be done away, and will therefore ask the unfaithful question, how: then I must tell you, that even as all true Christians are the members of Christ, of his flesh and of his bones: so is the sacrament (received of such) his very body and his blood mystically. Ephesi. 5. But for your really, substantially, and corporally: we can no skill of, because we find them not in the holy Scriptures, neither yet in the ancient Orthodox Fathers. August. serm. ad Infants. Saint Austen in his Sermon Ad infants, cited by saint Beda, saith 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 body and members of Christ: the mystery of you, is set upon the lords table, ye receive the mystery of the Lord, you answer Amen, to that which you yourselves are. Again, the same saint Austen, writing against Adimantus: saith thus. Non dubitavit Dominus dicere, hoc est corpus meum, cum signum daret corporis sui. August. ad Adimantum Cap. 12. The Lord did not doubt to say, this is my body: when he gave the sign of his body. A sign it could not be, if it were not a thing that might signify. It is manifest therefore, both by the express words of the Scripture, and also by the judgement of saint Austen: that the thing that our saviour spoke of, when he said this is my body: was bread. And because he had appointed it to be a sacrament of his body: he gave it the name of that thing that it was a sacrament of. And sacramentally, or mystically, it was his body and blood that he spoke of. Moreover the nature of a sacrament doth move me very much to believe still, as I do. WATSON. Division. 18 For where as every sacrament of the new Testament is a visible form of an invisible grace, as saint Augustine saith, it can not be a sacrament of the new Testament, except it have a promise of some, such grace to be given, to the worthy receiver, as is signified by the outward form of the sacrament. As in baptism the water, which is the outward form signifieth the grace of salvation and remission of sins, which grace is both given to the worthy receiver, and is also promised in scripture to be given, by the mouth of Christ saying: Qui crediderit & baptizatus fuerit, saluus erit: Mar. 16. He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved. Even so the outward element of this sacrament, which is bread & wine, doth signify the grace of the unity of Christ's mystical body, that like as one bread is made of many grains, one wine is pressed out of many Grapes: so one mystical body of Christ is compact and united of the multitude of all Christian people, as saint Cyprian saith. Now if our sacrament be bread and wine, as they say then shall they find the promise of this grace, Cypri. li. 1. Epist. 6. or of some other in the Scriptures made to the receiver of bread and wine. And if there be no promise in all the scriptures made to the receiving of bread and wine, then be they no sacraments: john. 6. But if they will look in the sixth Chapter of saint john, they shall find this grace of the mystical unity promised, not to the receiving of bread and wine, but to the worthy receiving of Christ's body & blood: where Christ sayeth, he that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, he abideth in me, and I in him, and so is joined and incorporate into one mystical body with him. Our sacrament therefore that hath the promise annexed unto it, is not bread and wine be they never so much appointed to signify heavenly things (as they say) but the very body and blood of our Lord jesus Christ, the bread that came from heaven. CROWLEY. It is said, that there was once one so malicious, that when he perceived, that ask for himself what he would, he should receive it, but yet upon such condition, that another whom he hated, should receive double so much of the same: he being desirous to do the greatest mischief he could to the other, asked that one of his own eyes might be put out, for than he knew that the other should lose both his. This man's malice was but little in comparison of yours (M. Watson) for to have one of your neighbours eyes put out: you will not stick to put out both your own eyes yourself. You tell us that saint Austen saith (but you tell us not where) that every sacrament of the new testament, is a visible form of an invisible grace. And that it can not be a sacrament of the new testament, except it have a promise of some such grace to be given to the worthy receiver, as is signified by the outward form of the Sacrament. etc. Watson hath lost five of the Pope's seven sacraments. By this you have at one blow stricken of from the number of your holy father's sacraments, no more but five. For where will you find in all the Scripture: that either confirmation, order, matrimony, penance, or extreme unction, are such sacraments as you speak of? Or that they or any of them, have any such grace promised to the worthy receiver of them? Well. Thus you have dispossessed yourself of five sacraments, in hope to spoil us of one. But let us see whether we cannot keep our two sacraments still, and so disappoint you of your purpose. Baptism you do grant us, for you say water is the visible or outward form, and doth signify the grace of salvation, and remission of sins. Which grace is not only given to the worthy receiver: but also promised by Christ's own mouth, when he saith. Qui crediderit. etc. He that will believe and be baptized: shall be saved. But fearing lest you should mar all: you leave out the words that follow. Qui verò non crediderit: condemnabitur. But he that will not believe shall be damned. Where is now the grace of salvation and forgiveness of sins, that is promised to the outward baptizing or washing in water? Take away belief, and there is no forgiveness of sins at all. No not though you be baptized in water a thousand times. Belief must go before, and baptizing in water must follow after, as a seal or confirmation of the faith. And whosoever doth believe, will surely be baptized: according to the institution of him in whom he doth believe. The cause why children be baptized. And such as do believe that the promise of forgiveness of sins through Christ, doth appertain to them and to their seed: will not fail to beg baptism for their children also, that when they shall come to the years of discretion, they may be put in remembrance that they were dedicated to God, and that therefore they ought to lead a godly life, as it becometh such to do. And so many among these, as shall be found worthy, that is to say, elected in Christ before the beginning of the world: shall surely be saved, as our Saviour Christ hath promised. But such among them as were not elected in Christ from the beginning, shall not be saved: although they do believe after a sort, as judas and Simon Magus did, and be baptized too. For only Gods elect, are effectually baptized, and do effectually believe. Baptism therefore, is a visible or outward sign of an invisible 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 never faileth, but is ever more effectual. Election in Christ maketh men worthy forgiveness of sins. But in the other that are not elected: it is effectual in preaching lively the invisible grace, that is by Christ, but it can not make them partakers of that grace, because they be not worthy of it. That is, they be not elected in Christ: which election alone, is it that maketh men worthy. Thus have we one sacrament with your consent (M. Watson) now let us see whether we can keep another also, maugre your beard. But first let us try if there be not some contradiction in your words. First you say, that the outward element in this sacrament, is bread and wine, Cypri. li. 1. Epist. 6. and that it doth signify the grace of the unity of Christ's mystical body. etc. And this you confirm by the testimony of saint Cyprian. And afterward you say, that our sacrament that hath the promise annexed unto it: is not bread and wine, Contradiction in watson's words. but the very body and blood of our Lord jesus Christ, the bread that came from heaven. Now, if yea and nay, may be contrary: then is there contradiction in your words. But to the matter. There is no promise of grace, made in the scripture, to the worthy receiver 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 have said of baptism. For as I have 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 believer, which believing, will be baptized. Those therefore that did put to that part of the definition of a sacrament, did not mind thereby to show the difference between the sacraments of the old and new Testament: but to signify, that without faith in the promise made in Christ, it should not avail to receive any sacrament. Faith therefore is it, that hath the promise of grace annexed unto it. You have said, that if we would look in the sixth Chapter of saint john's Gospel, we should find, that the promise of the mystical unity that is amongst christians, is not made to the receiving of bread & wine: but to the worthy receiving of Christ's body and blood. We have looked there, and have found it even so. And we have found also, that the worthy receiving of the body and blood of Christ: is the receiving of it in faith. For Christ saith there. Amen amen dico vobis, qui credit in me, habet vitam aeternam. He that believeth in me, hath everlasting life. And again. Sicut misit me vivens Pater, & ego vivo propter patrem: & qui manducat me, & ipse vivet propter me. Even as the living father hath sent me, and I do live through the father: so he that eateth me, the same shall also live by the means of me. Tractatu. 26. S. Austen expounding this sixth Chapter of S. john's Gospel saith thus. Daturus ergo Dominus Spiritum sanctum, dixit se panem qui de coelo descendit, hortans ut credamus in eum credere enim in eum, hoc est manducare panem vivum. When the Lord therefore would give the holy Ghost, he called himself the bread that came down from heaven, exhorting us to believe in him. For, to believe in him, is to eat the living bread. And in the same treatise, speaking of the visible sacrament: he saith thus. Name & nos hody accepimus visibilem cibum: sed aliud est sacramentum, aliud est virtus sacramenti. For we also, have this day received visible food: but the sacrament is one thing, and the virtue and strength of the sacrament, is another thing. And again. Hic est ergo panis qui de coelo descendit: ut si quis manducaverit ex ipso, non moriatur. Sed quod pertinet ad vim sacramenti, non quod pertinet ad visibile sacramentum. Qui manducat intus, non foris: Qui manducat in cord, non qui premit dente. This is therefore the bread that came down from heaven: that if any man should eat thereof, the same might not die. But yet that which appertaineth to the virtue and force of the sacrament: not that which belongeth to the visible sacrament. He that eateth within, not without. He that eateth in his heart: not he that crusheth it with his teeth. And again he saith. Hoc est ergo manducare illam escam, & illum bibere potum: in Christo manner, & 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, sacramentum corporis & sanguinis Christi: sed magis tantae rei sacramentum, ad judicium sibi manducat & bibit. This is therefore to eat that meat and to drink that drink: for a man to dwell in Christ, and to have Christ dwelling in him. And by this means, he that dwelleth not in Christ, and in whom Christ dwelleth not: without doubt, he doth neither eat his flesh nor drink his blood spiritually: although he do fleshly and visibly crush with his teeth, the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, but he doth rather eat and drink the sacrament of so great a thing, to his own condemnation. Here appeareth plainly the judgement of saint Austen, concerning the outward and visible sacrament: and also touching the inward thing, signified by the outward sign. The outward sign is bread and wine: and the thing signified, is the body and blood of Christ. Of the first, may such be partakers as shall perish, because they be not elected in Christ: but of the other can none be partaker, but such as shall be saved and can not perish, because they be elected in Christ, before the beginning of the world. And therefore saint Austen saith afterward. Res verò ipsa cuius & sacramentum est: omni homini ad vitam, nulli ad exitium, quicu●que eius particeps fuerit. The thing itself whereof it is a sacrament, is life unto every man that shall be partaker thereof, whosoever he be, and destruction to none. Only Gods elect have commodity by Christ's sacraments. The promise therefore, can not be made, to the receiver of the outward and visible sacrament, who receiveth nothing but the visible and outward element: but the promise is made to the worthy receiver, that is to the elected and chosen of God, who receiveth both the outward and visible element, and the inward virtue that is signified thereby. And it is unto him life, because he dwelleth in Christ, and hath Christ dwelling in him. Yea he eateth Christ daily by faith, notwithstanding that he be sometime for a long season holden, from the use of the outward and visible sacraments. For God hath not so tied his grace to the outward sacraments: that he can not save without them. To conclude this matter, I would wish you (M. Watson) to look once again in the sixth Chapter of saint john's Gospel that you would have us to look in. You shall find therein (not many words after the promise that you do so greatly urge) these open and plain words. Amen amen dico vobis, nisi manducaveritis carnem filii hominis, & biberitis eius sanguinem: non habebitis vitam in vobis. Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood: you shall not have life in you. When you have read and weighed this place: let us have your judgement, whether our saviour Christ spoke there, of the receiving of your sacrament, which you say is not bread and wine, or of that manner of eating that I have spoken of before. If he spoke of your manner of eating, then can none have eternal life: but such only as do receive it so. And than what availeth the promise made to the washing in water, which you say is pronounced by Christ's own mouth? By watson's doctrine, no Infants can be saved. For notwithstanding they be so baptized: yet if they die before they can be communicants, they perish, notwithstanding the promise made to them that be baptized. It shall be best for you and us both therefore, to say with saint Austen. Hunc itaque cibum & potum societatem vult intelligi corporis & membrorum suorum, In johan. tract. 26. quod est sancta Ecclesia in praedestinatis & vocatis, & iustificatis, & glorificatis sanctis, & fidelibus suis. His will is, that this meat and drink should be understanded to be the society or fellowship of his body and members, which is the holy Church, which consisteth of his predestinated, called, justified, and glorified saints and faithful ones. To these is the promise of grace made and confirmed by sacraments. These believing the promise do worthily receive the sacraments. And these, being prevented by death, before they can come to the use of the outward and visible sacraments: shall have life everlasting, because they are elected in Christ before the beginning of creatures. Luther, and such as be of his sect, WATSON. Division. 19 as taking his dreams for the ground of their faith: were much pressed with this argument, deduced of the property of the sacrament: and saw plainly that it could not be a sacrament of the new Testament, except it had a promise annexed to the worthy using of it. And yet for all that, he would not condescend to say as the Church saith, that Res sacramenti, the thing of the sacrament signified and not contained, which is the unity of the mystical body, were that grace, which by Christ in S. john was promised to the worthy receiver of it: but went and sought about for another promise, and after much pooreing, at last he brought forth a promise (as he thought) meet and convenient, which is, the words of Christ, Quod pro vobis tradetur. Which shall be given for you. And in this point, 1. Cor. 11. he showed with what violence he handled other matters of our faith: that in this great matter, so much overshot himself. First, with what face could he call that a promise: which hath no appearance of any promise, but that the words in latin be spoken in the future tense, which in Greek be written in the present tense, both in S: Paul, and in Saint Luke. Quod pro vobis datur. Which is given for you. And if they were spoken in the future tense, as they were not: yet they be words, not promising a thing to be done, but declaring what shall be done. And further, if we should grant them to be words of a promise: yet they promise not the grace of the sacrament, which is to be given to the worthy receiver. For the passion of Christ, or the giving of Christ's body upon the cross, is not a grace given by the sacrament to the receiver: but it is that work that hath deserved grace to be given by the sacrament, for all our sacraments, take their virtue of the passion of Christ, & do not promise the passion of Christ. This may suffice for this short time, to show unto you the folly of these men, that neither wots nor care, what they affirm in these weighty matters. I could say more in it, but that I have more necessary matter behind to be said. Augst. in joh. tract. 15. In Psal. 138. Saint Austen in divers places, and other ancient Authors: have this doctrine in their books. Elatere Christi, fluxerunt duo sacramenta. Two sacraments did issue forth of Christ's side. And in those places, he teacheth us by comparing the creation of Eve, the wife of Adam the first man, and of the Church, the spouse of Christ, the second man. Like as God casting Adam into a sleep, took forth a bone out of his side, and thereof builded and created him a wife: even so, when Christ did sleep by death upon the cross, upon water and blood that came forth of his side, when it was opened with a spear, God did form and build the Church, the spouse of Christ, in that by water we be regenerated, by blood we be redeemed and nourished. Now concerning our purpose, if two sacraments came out of Christ's side, we are sure there came out no wine, except ye will say the wine of the true vine, which Christ shall never drink with us any more, but after a new sort in the glory and kingdom of his father. Therefore it must needs be, that our sacrament is Christ's blood, and not wine. CROWLEY. If you had told us, when and where Luther wrote or spoke that which you charge him with here: something might have been said to the matter, either in noting his fault, or yours, or both. But for as much as you do but say it: I will neither defend Luther's doing therein, nor condemn it: but pass it over, till ye tell where, when and by whom he was so pressed. But for your own dealing I must needs note, that you are very forgetful, sith ye do so straightly charge him, as with a great fault, for that, the like whereof is to be found, even in your own assertion concerning this matter. Watson is faulty in that which he reprehendeth in Luther. The fault that you find with Luther, is for that he allegeth a promise, made in words of the present time or tense (as you term it) And have you forgotten what tense Christ spoke in, when he said. 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 faulty in that thing wherewith he himself findeth fault. Well, if you will promise that you will do no more so: I could be content to wink at this fault. Advertising you to look better upon saint john's Gospel, where you shall find (as I have said before) that he which eateth Christ, shall live by the means of Christ. Here is a promise made to him that eateth Christ, not sacramentally only: but by faith. As appeareth by the words that Christ spoke before, saying, he that believeth in me, hath life everlasting. This may suffice for answer to that great fault that you find with Luther: till you tell us where and when he committed that fault. etc. As touching the doctrine that you say saint Austen and other ancient Authors, have in divers places: I know saint Austen hath the words: but the doctrine that you would confirm by the words, is not saint Austin's, but yours. You cite the fourth treatise of Austen upon john: but in that treatise is not one word that soundeth any thing that way. You therefore, or else your printer, have misreported the place. I suppose you would have noted the xu treatise, where saint Austen saith thus. Adam qui erat forma futuri: praebuit nobis magnum judicium sacramenti: Imo, August. in joh. tract. 15. Deus in illo praebuit. Name & dormiens meruit accipere uxorem, & de costa eius facta est ei uxor: quoniam 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 shadow or image of one to come: did give us a great token of a sacrament or hid secret. Yea rather, God did give it us in him. For in his sleep, he obtained a wife, and of his own rib there was made a wife for him. Because, that of Christ sleeping upon the cross, the Church should be made of his side, that is to say, of his side whilst he was sleeping. For the sacraments of the Church did flow out of his side, which was pierced with a spear, whilst he hanged on the cross. These words of saint Austen, have some show of that which you cite: but they are not the same words, neither can have the same sense that you would those words should have. As may well appear by the words that saint Austen addeth immediately after, saying. Sed quare hoc dicere volui fratres? Quid infirmitas Christi, nos facit fortes. etc. But wherefore would I speak this, saith saint Austen? Because the weakness of Christ doth make us strong. A great image was it, that did there proceed or go before. For God might have taken from the man, flesh, whereof he might have made the woman. And it seemeth that it might have as it were, agreed better. For the sex that was made, was the weaker, and the weakness should rather have been made of the flesh then of the bone. For in the flesh, the bones are the strong part. He did not take from man, flesh to make a woman of: but he did take a bone. And when a bone was taken out: a woman was made thereof, and flesh was filled up in the place where the bone was. God was able to have restored a bone for the bone that he took out, he was able to have taken out flesh to have made the woman, and not a rib: what did it therefore signify? The woman was made of a rib as being strong: and Adam is become flesh, as being weak. Christ and the Church. His infirmity is our strength. Thus far saint Austen. As many as will, may by these words understand, what Saint Austen meant by those words that go before, whereupon you would conclude, that the sacrament (which you term the sacrament of the altar) is not Wine, but blood. For in these words saint Austen showeth his meaning to be far otherwise. He doth in divers places of his writings use this manner of speaking: but in every of those places, he doth by plain words show himself, to mind nothing less than to teach, that the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, The scope of saint Austin's doctrine. is not bread and wine, but blood only. His meaning was (as it may be justly gathered of his words) to teach that our sacraments take their worthiness of none other thing, than the worthiness of the death and bloodshedding of our Saviour Christ, and that the infirmity of our nature in Christ, is become our strength in him. It seemeth to me a strange manner of reasoning that you use, when you say, that for as much as there came no wine out of Christ's side: therefore, our sacrament is not wine, but Christ's blood. If you will give me leave to reason after that sort: I will prove yet once again, that the Church hath but two sacraments. For saint Austen saith, that the sacraments of the Church did flow out of Christ's side, and you say, two sacraments did flow out of his side, that is to say, water and blood. Therefore I conclude, that the other five be no sacraments: for they flowed not out of Christ's side. Yea I will by this manner of reasoning, prove: that these two sacraments are not whole sacraments neither. For the word and flesh flowed not out of Christ's side: but without the word and flesh, these two sacraments, be not whole sacraments: Ergo, they be but maimed sacraments. Saint Austen saith. In johannem tract. 80. Detrahe verbum, & quid aqua, nisi aqua? Accedit verbum ad clementum: & fit sacramentum. Take away the word from the water: and what is the water other then water? The word cometh to the element: and so is it made a sacrament. And in the other sacrament, except you have two creatures, bread and wine, or (as you term them) flesh and blood: it can be no perfit sacrament. Yea and the word of faith is necessary here also. For as saint Austen saith in the same place. Hoc verbum fidei tantum valet in Ecclesia Dei● ut ipsum credentem, offerentem, benedicentem, tingentem, etiam tantillum mundet infantem etc. This word of faith is of such force in the Church of God: that by it he doth make clean the believer, the offerer, the blesser, yea and him that baptizeth the little infant, although it be not yet able to believe with the heart unto righteousness, and confess with the mouth to salvation. Watson concludeth fond. A fond manner of conclusion is it, that you gather therefore (M. Watson) of the flowing of water and blood out of Christ's side. For you do not only deny your holy father's five sacraments: but also maim the other two. Yea, you make the baptism that was ministered before the death of Christ, and the sacrament of Christ's body and blood that was ministered at his last supper: to be of none effect. And last of all, you affirm that part of the sacrament to be the whole sacrament: which you and your sort do withhold from all Christians that be not massing priests. WATSON. Division. 20 Beside these circumstances and arguments deduced upon the scripture, there be also other of no less strength than these, able to confirm any true christian man in the faith of the real presence of Christ's body and blood in the blessed sacrament. And these be the effects of the sacrament expressed in the scripture, which be so great, so glorious, so excellent and heavenly, that it were great blasphemy to ascribe the same to bread and wine, which be only the works and effects of almighty God, and of such creatures only, as God's son hath taken and united to himself in unity of person which be the body and blood of our Saviour Christ. The first effect is, that our Sacrament is the confirmation of the new testament, as saint Matthew and saint Mark also do write: Math. 26. Mar. 14. Hic est sanguis meus noni Testamenti, this is my blood of the new Testament, that is to say: which confirmeth the new Testament, as all holy writers do expound. Like as the blood of Calves did confirm the old Testament, Exod. 24. as the book of Exodus doth declare: so the blood of Christ our priest and sacrifice doth confirm the new Testament, which Testament because it is eternal and shall never have end, is confirmed by the eternal blood of the Lamb of God, that ever is received and never consumed, and not by any corruptible blood, or any other creature of less value and efficacy. In the old law, and also in saint Paul it is said. Exod. 24. Heb. 9 Hic est sanguis Testamenti, quod vobiscum pepigit Deus. This is the blood of the Testament that God hath covenant with you he saith not, This is the blood of the new Testament. But if these words (This is my blood of the new Testament) the Evangelist had meant, that it had been the figure of the blood of the new Testament, what had he said more than Moses said before: for the blood of Calves and Goats was the figure of this blood of Christ. And then were the jews and the old law of more dignity, than we christian men of the new law, because beside we both be but under figures (as these men say) yet their figure was of more estimation than ours is, being (as they say) but bare bread and wine: wherefore seeing these words of Christ (this is my blood) be the form of our sacrament, the effect whereof is the confirmation of the new Testament, it followeth well, that the cause must be of like or more dignity, and so by no means can be the material creature of wine, but must needs be the innocent and precious blood of our immaculate and undefiled Lamb of God jesus Christ. When you have after your manner, CROWLEY. passed thorough the circumstances of this text. Hoc est corpus meum. etc. You come to the effects of the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ: The first effect of our sacrament (say you) is to confirm the new Testament. etc. Much ado you make about the confirming of the two Testaments by blood: The old by the blood of Calves and Goats: and the new by the blood of Christ. If you had been so expert in the writings of the fathers, as you would seem to be: you would never have spent half this labour, about the confirmation of the two Testaments by blood. Affirming that all holy writers do expound these words of our saviour Christ (This is my blood of the new Testament) to signify, this blood doth confirm the new Testament. Me thinketh you might have done very well to have named some one of these holy writers. But for as much as you name none: I will not trouble the reader with any other expositions of those words: then that which may justly be gathered of the very scriptures. S. Paul writing to the hebrews, saith of the confirming of the old Testament or covenant that God made with Habraham: Hebr. 6. that it was confirmed with an oath, not with the blood of Calves and Goats. Abrahae namque promittens Deus. etc. For (saith saint Paul) when God made a promise to Habraham: because he had none greater than himself by whom he might swear: he swore by himself, saying. I will bless and multiply thee exceedingly. etc. As for the manner of speech that is used by Moses and the Evangelists, 1. Cor. 11. in the places that you do cite: is plainly expounded by saint Paul when he saith. Hic calix nowm testamentum est in meo sanguine. This Cup is the new Testament in my blood. And these words doth saint Paul write, not as his own, but as the words of the Lord jesus: spoken at his last supper, when he delivered the holy Cup to his Apostles. The covenant of God is confirmed with an oath, and not with blood. By this it is manifest, that the covenant which God made with Habraham, and all the faithful that should believe that covenant or promise: was confirmed with an oath, and not with the blood of Calves or Goats. But the blood of Christ, wherein that covenant was made: was prefigured by the blood of Calves and Goats, and is now kept in memory by the use of the lords Cup, as saint Paul teacheth in the same place, saying. Hoc facite, quociescunque biberitis, in meam commemorationem. Do this, as oft as ye shall drink in the remembrance of me. The difference that is between the old Testament and the new: is plainly showed by saint Austen, in his book against Adimantus. His words are these. Duorum testamentorum differentiam sic probamus: Contr. Adimant. cap. 17. ut in illo sint onera servorum, in isto gloria liberorum. In illo cognoscatur, prefiguratio possessionis nostrae: in isto teneatur ipsa possessio. On this wise do we prove the difference of the two Testaments: for that the burdens of bondmen are in the one, and the glory of free men in the other. In the old, the prefiguration of our possession is known: and in the new, the possession itself is enjoyed. We therefore, that be christian men of the new Testament, be not under figures, as were the jews: but we are in possession of the thing signified by the figures of the old Testament. And yet we may be bold to say, that we have the signs or figures of the body and blood of our saviour Christ, to put us in remembrance of that possession, and do not doubt to call the same by the name of the things signified, as saint Austen writeth against the same Adimantus. Non enim Dominus dubitavit dicere, hoc est corpus meum: cum signum daret corporis sui. Capit. 12. The Lord doubted not to say, this is my body: when he delivered the sign of his body. We hold therefore, that the confirmation of the old Testament, and of the new both: is the oath that God made unto Abraham, and his faithful seed. And that the thing promised, was prefigured by the figures of the old law. And that the same is plainly represented and set forth before our senses, by those figures that our Saviour hath instituted: not as a thing to come, but as a thing already had in possession, and not to be forgotten of such as have received it. We therefore are not under figures, as were the jews, before the shedding of Christ's blood: but we do use those figures that Christ himself hath instituted, to such purpose as he did institute them for. Neither do we say or think that they be but bare bread and wine: but we teach, that the worthy receiver is by them assured, even 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 receiveth into his soul whole Christ, We teach not that the sacrament is but bare bread and wine. even as he receiveth the sacramental bread and wine into his body. And to conclude, that he hath by Christ, everlasting life: even as our bodies have this temporal life by the means of bodily food, whereof the chief is bread and wine, the one serving to strengthen man's heart, and the other to make it cheerful and merry. I conclude therefore thus. The oath which God swore to Abraham, is the confirmation of the old and new Testament: Ergo, neither was the old confirmed by the blood of Calves and Goats, neither the new by the sacrament of Christ's blood. And so consequently, it is not any inconvenience at all, to hold that the substance of bread and wine doth still remain in the Sacrament. Yet one other thing I must needs note, that in all this ado, that you make about this effect of the sacrament: you speak not one word of the flesh of Christ, but altogether of his blood: These words, This is my blood, must be the form of our sacrament. etc. But in the next effect, I trust you will speak as much of the flesh as you have done now of the blood, and so make us a mends for all. WATSON. Division. 21. Lucae. 24. Another effect of this sacrament is taught us in S. Luke, the 24. Chapter of his Gospel. Where our Saviour Christ sat down with his two Disciples that went to Emaus, and taking bread, blessed it and broke it, and gave 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 book De consensu Euangelistarum, teacheth us to understand this place of the blessed bread, which is the sacrament of the altar: and saith the effect of it is to open our eyes, that we may know God. And Theophiloctus upon this place of saint Luke, writeth this. Insinuatur & aliud quiddam, nempe, quod oculi eorum qui benedictum panem assumunt, aperiuntur, ut agnoscant illum. Magnam enim & indicibilem vim habet caro Domini. By this scripture another thing is given us to understand, that the eyes of them which receive this blessed bread, be opened, that they might know him: for the flesh of our Lord, hath a great and unspeakable virtue. Here we may perceive 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 know God. And that the cause of that is, the flesh of Christ, which is our sacrament, and in no wise can be either bread or wine. CROWLEY. Watson seeketh vantage by translating. First, you English the words of saint Luke after your own manner, to make a show of the crossing that is used in the Popish Mass. Taking bread, he blessed it. etc. As though the blessing had been the making of the sign of the cross, upon or over the bread (for so the Popish Priests use to bless their bread and Cup in their Mass) but if it would have served for your purpose to have translated otherwise: you could have found occasion enough in the circumstance of the text, to have said thus. Taking bread, he gave thanks, broke it, and gave it to them. For it was his common manner, to give thanks to God, his heavenly father, at the beginning of every refection. And none did then use to bless, by making the sign of the cross (as your Papists do now) wherefore it is manifest that our Saviour Christ did not use it, either at that time or any other. How rightly you gather the meaning of saint Austen, in the place that you cite: shall appear by his own words in the same place, which are these. Pro merito quip 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 agnovisse arbitretur, si eius corporis particeps non est, id est Ecclesiae. Cuius unitatem in sacramento panis commendat Apostolus dicens. unus panis, unum corpus multi sumus: ut cum eis benedictum panem porrigeret, aperirentur oculi corum, & agnoscerent eum. Aperientur utique ad eius cognitionem, remoto silicet impedimento, quo tenebantur, ne eum agnoscerent. Neque 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 deserving of their mind, which was as yet ignorant, that it behoved Christ to die and rise again: their eyes did suffer some such thing, not being deceived by the truth, but they themselves not being able to perceive the truth, & supposing the thing to be otherwise then it was: lest any man should think that he knoweth Christ, not being partaker of his body, that is of his Church. The unity whereof the Apostle doth set forth in the sacrament of bread, saying, we being many, are but one bread and one body: that when he should give unto 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 not with their eyes shut up: but there was something in them, whereby they were kept from knowing that which they saw. Which thing is accustomed to come to pass by the means of some daseing or humour. Now let all indifferent reader's judge, whether S. Austin's purpose in this place, None can know God, but such as be members of Christ. be to teach us, that the opening of our eyes that we may know God, be the effect of the sacrament of the altar. Or whether his purpose be rather to teach, that none can know God, but such as be members of his body, that is, of the number of his Church, the unity whereof is set forth in the sacramental bread. And therefore the two Disciples, being members of that Church that is Christ's body: had the blindness of their understanding taken away, at the breaking of bread. And so they knew Christ, whom before they knew not. As for the words that you cite out of Theophilacte: do rather make against you then with you. For where your purpose is to prove (as you conclude) that the sacrament is neither bread nor wine: Theophilacte doth even in the same words that you cite call it the blessed bread. But this is to be noted, how craftily you can make one sentence of two, leaving out the Periodus or full point, One of watson's shifts. that in Theophilacts own works, standeth between illum and Magnam. And because you would not have your reader to look for any Periodus there: you make no point at all (in your printed Copy) nor any sign of pause. But the translator of the Author hath set it thus. agnoscant illum. Magnam enim & indicibilem vim habet caro Domini: Euanuit autem ab eyes: neque enim ad huc habebat corpus, quod multum corporali modo cum eis conversaretur, ut ex hoc illorum cresceret desyderium. etc. So that the whole might be englished thus. Another thing also is given us to understand: that is: that the eyes of them that do receive the blessed bread are opened, that they might know him. For the flesh of the Lord hath an unspeakable power. For it vanished out of their sight: neither had he still such a body, as might be much conversant with them after a bodily manner, that thereby their desire might increase. When these words be well weighed and considered together: they do rather teach us, that the power of Christ's flesh is unspeakable in vanishing out of the Disciples sight, then in opening their eyes. For he saith not, that the eyes of them that did receive his flesh, were opened that they might know him: but the eyes of them that did receive that bread, where over he gave thanks (which he calleth blessed bread) were opened to know him. How can you then prove by this place: that in the sacrament of Christ's body and blood, there is neither bread nor wine. Your conclusion therefore is to large, when you say, To large a conclusion. that thereby men may see, that the opening of our eyes to see God: is one of the effects of the sacrament that you talk of. And that in no wise the same may be either bread or wine. Christ saith, Beati mundo cord: quoniam ipsi Deum videbunt. Blessed are the clean in heart: for they shall see God. It is therefore the cleanness of the heart that worketh the effect that you speak of. And without that it can not be wrought. And many thousands there be that receive the sacrament of Christ's body without clean hearts: and therefore do not by the receiving of the sacrament, see or know God. But let us see your other effects. Another effect is, WATSON. Division. 22 the immortality of our bodies and souls, the resurrection of our flesh to everlasting life, to have life eternal dwelling in us. This effect is declared in the sixth of saint john. He that eateth me, shall live for me, joan. 6. he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life, and I shall raise him up in the last day. Upon this place Cyrillus saith: Ego enim dixit, id est corpus meum quod comedetur resuscitabo eum: Cyrillus. li. 4. Capit. 15. ego igitur inquit qui homo factus sum per meam carnem in novissimo die comedentes resuscitabo. Christ saith I (that is to say) my body which shall be eaten, shall raise him up, I that am made man by my flesh shall raise up them that eat it in the last day. Cyrillus in joan lib. 10. Capit 13. And in his tenth book he saith more plainly: Non potest aliter corruptibilis haec natura corporis ad incorruptibilitatem & vitam traduci, nisi naturalis vitae corpus ei coniungeretur. This corruptible nature of our bodies can not otherwise be brought to immortality and life, except the body of natural life be joined to it. By these Authorities we learn, that the effect of Christ's body in the sacrament, is the raising up of our bodies to eternal life. And also we learn, that the eating of Christ's body is not only spiritually by faith (as the sacramentaries say: but also corporally by the service of our bodies, when Christ's body in the sacrament is eaten and received of our bodies, as our spiritual food: and because it is of infinite power, it is not converted into the substance of our flesh, as other corruptible meats be, but it doth change and convert our flesh into his property, making it of mortal and dead, immortal and lively. As the same Cyrillus writeth in his fourth book: Recordare quamuis naturaliter aqua frigidior sit, cyril. lib. 4. Capit. 14. adventu tamen ignis frigiditatis suae oblita aestuat: Hoc sanè modo etiam nos, quamuis propter naturam carnis corruptibiles sumus participatione tamen vitae ab imbecillitate nostra revocati, ad proprietatem illius ad vitam reformamur. Oportuit enim certè, ut non solum anima per spiritum sanctum in beatam vitam ascenderet: verum etiam ut rude atque terrestre hoc corpus cognato sibi gustu, tactu & cibo ad immortalitatem reduceretur. The English is this. Remember how water although it be cold by nature, yet by reason of fire put to it, it forgetteth the cold, and waxeth hot: even so do we although we be corruptible by reason of the nature of our flesh, yet by participation of (Christ's flesh which is life) we are brought from our weakness, and reform to his propriety, that is to say, to life for it is necessary that not only our soul should ascend to an happy (and spiritual) life, by receiving the holy ghost, but also that this rude and earthly body should be reduced to immortality by tasting, touching, and corporal meat like to itself. This place is very plain declaring unto us, that like as ourselves are revived from the death of sin to the life of grace and glory by the receiving of God's spirit the holy Ghost in baptism: even so our bodies being corruptible by nature, and dead by reason of the general sentence of death, are restored again to life eternal and celestial, by the receiving of Christ's lively flesh into them, after the manner of meat in this sacrament of the altar And in his eleventh book he saith, cyril. li. 11. Capit. 27. that it is not possible for the corruptible nature of man to ascend to immortality: except the immortal nature of Christ do reform and promote it from mortality to life eternal by participation of his mortal flesh. In the proving of this effect of your sacrament: CROWLEY. you deal as faithfully as you have done in the rest. First, how faithfully do you deal, in citing the words of our saviour Christ, Watson will not leave his old wont. in the sixth of john, as meant of the sacramental eating of his flesh, whereas the circumstance of the text will not suffer any such sense? For if he should mean there, of the sacramental eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood: then could none be saved but such only as do so eat and drink the same. And contrariwise, none that do so eat and drink them, could perish. For he saith, he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood: hath everlasting life. It is manifest therefore that these words of Christ, be spoken of the spiritual eating and drinking of his flesh and blood, and not of a sacramental eating or drinking. For the sacrament was not then instituted neither did our Saviour Christ, go about to institute a sacrament of his body and blood at that time. But in citing the words of cyril, in the fifteen chapter of his fourth book: your faithful dealing is most manifest. If you had cited Cyrillus his words wholly as they stand in his book: they would have made to much against you. And therefore, when you had said. Ego enim dixit (id est corpus meum quod comedetur) resuscitabo eum: Christ said, I (that is to say, my body that shall be eaten) will raise him up: than you pass over the words that follow, which are these. Non enim alius ipse est quam caro sua. Non id dico quia natura non sit alius: sed quia post incarnationem, in duos dividi filios minime patitur. For he is not any other than the same which his flesh is. I speak not this because he is not another in nature: but because after his incarnation, he doth not suffer himself to be divided into two sons. All these words you do slyly pass over: because the meaning of Cyrillus in the other words, which you cite, is made plain by these. And then you cite the words that follow. Ego igitur etc. But you go not so far as you should. For Cyrillus saith this much more, in the words immediately following. Nempe impossibile omninò est, ne in territus & mors, ab eo qui naturaliter vita est superetur: propterea, quamuis mors, quae propter peccatum nostrum in naturam nostram insilijt, corpus humanum ad corruptionem impellat, tamen, quia filius Dei homo factus est, omnes profectò resurgemus. Non enim potest natura nostra vitae coniuncta non vivisicari. For it is utterly impossible, that destruction and death should not be overcome of him, which naturally is life: wherefore although death, which for our sins hath skipped into our nature, do drive man's body to corruption: yet because the son of God is made man, we shall all surely rise again. For it is not possible that our nature which is joined to life, Christ's incarnation is the cause of our resurrection. should not be quickened. Here it is manifest, that not the eating, and drinking of Christ's body and blood sacramentally, but the incarnation of Christ, is the cause of our resurrection as Cyrillus thinketh. But you have yet another place of Cyrillus, where he saith. Recordare. etc. You have a marvelous grace in leaving out that, which should make against your purpose. But this folly I do note in you, that you can not beware of citing matter for your purpose, which in the places that you cite, is beset with matter against you, as though you were assured that no man had those books but you, or that no man would take pains to weigh those places, or were able to espy your slights. Immediately before those words that you cite: Lucae. 7. Cyrillus hath said, upon these words, Adolescens, tihi dico, surge. Young man, I say unto thee, arise. Non ergo verbo solum semper (ut diximus) verum etiam tactu mortuos exitahat: ut ostenderet, corpus quoque suum vivificare posse. Quod si solo tactu suo corrupta redintegrantur: quomodo non vivemus, qui carnem illam & gustamus & manducamus? Reformabit enim omninò ad immortalitatem suam, participes sui. Nec velis Iudaice quomodo quaerere: sed recordare. etc. He did not therefore always (as we have said) raise up the dead with a word only, but with a touch also, to declare that his body also was able to give life. And if things corrupted be made sound again by touching alone: how should we, which do both taste and eat that flesh, be without life? For it will reform unto the immortality that is in itself: those that be partakers thereof. Neither be thou willing, after the manner of the jews, to inquire how: but remember. etc. as you have cited afore. Cyrillus doth here go about to prove, that there was power in the body of Christ, to make sound those corrupted things that he did but touch. And that therefore such as do taste and eat the flesh of that body, must needs be quickened thereby. But how doth this prove, that the sacrament of Christ's body and blood, being eaten: is the cause of resurrection and everlasting life to the eater? By your understanding of Cyrillus: The sequel of watson's doctrine. his doctrine must teach us, that if the Capernaits had laid hands on Christ and eaten him up every morsel, they had done very well and wisely: for so they should have been sure of everlasting life. But far was that learned father from so unlearned a meaning: as may well appear, even in the words that you cite. For in using the similitude of water made hot by fire: he showeth what life it is, that doth quicken us into everlasting life. Even that life, which is Christ God and man, which cometh unto us by faith, and maketh us forget our coldness of infidelity and lack of love, and doth heat us with most constant faith, made fruitful by love. And so we do profitably eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ, for we dwell in Christ, and have him dwelling in us. And yet more plainly doth Cyrillus open his own meaning in the words that follow immediately after the words that you cite. For he saith thus. Nec putet ex tarditate ment is suae judaeus, inaudita nobis excogitata esse mysteria: videbit enim si attentius quaerit, hoc ipsum a Mosis temporibus, per figuram semper factitatum fuisse. Quid enim maiores eorum ab ira Aegyptiorum liberavit, quando mors in primogenita Aegypti sevicbat? Nun omnibus palam est, quia divina institutione per docti, agni carnes manducaverunt, & posts & superliminaria sanguine perunxerunt, propterea mortem ab eis divertisse. etc. Neither let the jew through the dullness of his mind, think that we have sacraments devised for us, which have not been hard of before: for if he will look well, he shall see, that by a figure, the very same thing hath been done ever since the days of Moses. For what was it that did deliver their fathers from the wrath, when death did rage against the first borne of Egypt? Do not all men know, that they being thoroughly instructed of God, did eat the flesh of a Lamb, and did anoint the two side posts and the upper posts of their doors, with the blood of the same, and that therefore death turned away from them. And a little after, he saith. Et cuinis carnibus atque sanguine sanctificati (Deo ita volente) perniciem effugiebant. They being made holy by the flesh and blood of a Lamb, did (by the will of God) escape the destruction. I suppose that there is no man so mad, as to think, that these words of cyril should be taken in such sort and meaning, as you take those words that you cite. For than should Cyrillus be thought to ascribe the deliverance of the people from destruction, to the eating of the flesh of a Lamb, and the anointing of the door posts with the blood thereof. Which were to far from such christian knowledge, as appeared to be in the christian Bishop. watson's conclusion differeth much from Cyrillus mind. Wherefore, I may conclude, that you conclusion is very far from Cyrillus mind, when you say, that this place is very plain, declaring unto us, that like as ourselves (you should have said our souls) are revived from death. etc. For it is plain by that which I have cited out of the same Chapter of Cyrillus, that he meaneth to teach, that the receiving of the outward sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, is all one with the eating of the Passover Lamb in Egypt. Lib. 11. & Capit. 27. One other place you have found in Cyrillus. But by like your conscience told you that it serveth not so well for your purpose as you would wish, and therefore you do but teach cyril to speak after you in English (a tongue that he never understood) but if he were now living, Watson teacheth cyril to speak English. and should understand how you have handled him therein, he would (I doubt not) give you worthy thanks. And that other men of judgement and knowledge, may judge between cyril and you: I will cite his words in latin, as Trapezontius hath translated him out of Greek. Nexus igitur unionis nostrae ad Deum Patrem, Christus est, nobis quidem ut homo, Deo autem Patri, ut Deus naturaliter unitus. Non erat enim possibile, corruptioni subiectam hominis naturam, ad immortalitatem conscendere: nisi natura immortalis atque incommutabilis, ad eam descendisset, ac communione participationeque sui, a mortalitatis nostrae terminis, ad suum bonum reformatos, elevaret. Christ therefore saith (cyril) is the bond of our unity with God the father. Who is naturally united unto us, as a man, and unto God the father, as God. For it was not possible for man's nature being subject to corruption, to climb up to immortality: except the immortal and unchangeable nature, had descended unto it, and by the communion and participation of itself, lifted up from the bonds of our mortality, such as be reform or fashioned a new, according to the goodness of that nature. Now, let all men that have either learning or wit, judge how faithfully you deal with cyril, when you say, in his name. Except the immortal nature of Christ, do reform and promote it, from mortality to life eternal, by participation of his mortal flesh. For who seeth not, that cyril doth there speak of that immortal and unchangeable nature in Christ: which came down from the throne of majesty in heaven, to take our mortal nature upon him, that he might frame and fashion us like unto himself. And so exalt us above the bounds of our mortal nature. Which thing he did by receiving our nature unto himself, and giving his nature unto us. And so is he the bond, whereby we are fastened to God. But this is the manner of all your sort, in citing the sayings of the ancient fathers. Here perchance some men will stumble, WATSON. Division. 23 considering that we believe the bodies of young innocentes shall rise to everlasting life, which we know never received Christ's flesh in the sacrament. But their doubt in this point may soon be resolved, if they consider that scripture and the old fathers, speak after the ordinary working of God making no prejudice to the absolute power of God, who oftentimes giveth the proper grace of the sacraments before the outward receiving of the same. As for example. Without baptism in water and the holy Ghost, no man can enter into the kingdom of heaven, john. 3. as S. john writeth. Yet we read, that the thief on the right hand of Christ was saved and never baptized, and many converted suddenly to our faith were made martyrs before they could come to baptism in water. And saint Ambrose thinketh Valentinian the Emperor to be saved, which died in his journey before saint Ambrose which he sent for, could come unto him. And therefore though baptism be necessary, and the ordinary door to salvation, yet the proper grace of baptism is sometimes given by God's extraordinary and absolute power to such, as without contempt of the sacrament by their will and earnest desire receive the sacrament of baptism, though not in deed: even so they that be baptized, and have an earnest desire and longing to receive Christ's body and blood in the sacrament, and by some violence or impediment are letted to receive it in deed: or such children as by baptism have faith infused into their hearts, and are prevented by death before they can prove and try themselves, (which probation saint Paul seemeth to require before the receipt of Christ's body) having no contempt nor refusal of the same, 1. Cor. 11. but depart in the faith of Christ: These I say receive the grace of the sacrament, which is the immortality of their bodies and life eternal by Gods extraordinary working, without the receipt of the sacrament in deed. By this little ye may perceive, what may be further said to this objection, if the time and my principal matter would suffer me. CROWLEY. Watson is not able to answer his own objection. By making and answering of this objection: you would have it seem to all men, that this is all that any man can stumble at. And that this one stumbling stock being removed, the way is so plain and clear: that none can stumble, unless it be such as wilfully will stumble, in every plain way. But as you are not able to answer this objection to the satisfying of any that knoweth and will consider what the use of a sacrament is: so may there much more be objected, whereunto you and the rest of your mind, shall never be able to make such answer as may be allowed among those that have knowledge. It might be objected, that Adam and Eve, with all the holy men and women that were before this sacrament was instituted, and looked for the promise of God made in his son: shall rise again in the last day and have everlasting life. It might also be objected, that all, both good and bad: shall in that day rise again and live for ever, either in everlasting joy, or in everlasting torments, and wishing to die, death shall fly from them. I am sure you being a Doctor of divinity, do know this to be true: wherefore I shall not need to prove it. The words of Christ, john. 5. Marc. 9 in the fift of john and the ninth of Mark, may suffice for the proof of both. All that be in the graves. etc. And their worm dieth not, neither doth the fire go out. etc. But let us see how you have answered this objection. You say that this doubt may soon be resolved, if men will consider that the scripture and the old fathers do speak after the ordinary working of God, making no prejudice to the absolute power of God. But how have you proved that? I grant that the scripture and the fathers do so speak, & do make no prejudice to the absolute power of God. Shall we think therefore, that if the resurrection of our bodies and everlasting life, be one of the effects of the sacrament of Christ's body and blood: he must needs use his absolute power, in giving the resurrection of body & everlasting life, to as many as we will hold from the receiving of the sacrament? It appeareth, that in Aunstens' time, such as were of your mind, durst not be so bold, The use in saint Austin's time. as to presume upon the absolute power of God in this point: and therefore they ministered the sacrament of Christ's body to the Infants so soon as they were baptized, but we keep them from the receiving of it, till they be grown to discretion, and be sufficiently instructed in Christ, and do know how to examine themselves before they come to the lords table. And if they die in this mean while: shall we think that God must use his absolute power in raising their bodies, & giving them everlasting life? We might as well keep all our children from baptism, and say that God shall give them the proper grace of baptism, by his absolute power without the sacrament. And so should we be all one with the Anabaptists. But vain is all that you have affirmed, of this effect of your sacrament: cyril. li. 4. Cap. 15. and therefore the objection and the answer that you make, can not be other then vain. We hold with Cyrillus (whose words you have cited) that because the son of God is become man: all mankind shall in the last day arise out of the earth. All the offspring of the first Adam that sinned: shall be raised again by the second Adam that never sinned himself, neither was partaker of the sin of the first. The cause of the resurrection and immortality. The Infants therefore (whom you call Innocents) being of the offspring of the first Adam: shall be raised again by the second, whether they be partakers of any sacraments or not. For the resurrection and immortality cometh not by the receiving of sacraments: Rom. 6. but by the incarnation of the son of God. And everlasting life in joy and felicity is the free gift of God, thorough jesus Christ our Lord. And this free gift was given to all the elect and chosen children of God: even before the foundations of the world were laid. But the reprobates, which be not chosen in Christ, shall have by Christ (that hath taken man's nature upon him) the resurrection and immortality of their bodies: but because that they believe not in Christ, they shall have this immortality in those torments that their first father's sin did deserve. The receiving of sacraments can not make the reprobates partakers of endless felicity: neither can the lack of them be a cause, August. De catechiz. rudib. Quest. in Leu. 9.84. why Gods elect should not be partakers thereof. But they be the visible seals of heavenly things: and being received without those heavenly things whereof they be feales: they profit the receivers nothing at all, more than circumcision did Esau, and baptism Simon Magus. But when they do both concur: then do the outward and visible sacraments, confirm the faith, and comfort the weak and wavering conscience. These therefore be the effects of Christ's sacraments: and not such as you imagine. But let us see what you have more to say of this effect that you last spoke of. This effect is commonly taught of many ancient authors with one consent. For Ignatius one of the oldest calleth this sacrament M●dicamentum immortalitatis, Ignatius ad Ephesos. antidotum non moriendi, a medicine of immortality, a preservative against death. And the great general counsel at Nice, Concilium Nicenum de Eucharistia. writeth that they believed these sacraments of the body and blood of Christ to be Simbola resurrectionis nostrae, the pledges or causes of our resurrection. And Athanasius who was one of the chief men in that counsel, calleth it Conseruatorium ad immortalitatem vitae aeternae. Athanasius de peccato in spiritum sanctum. A conserve or a thing that preserveth our bodies to the immortality of eternal life. Ireneus that was a great deal older writing against the heretics, that denied the resurrection of the flesh, Ireneus lib. 4. Cap. 34. proveth it and confuteth them by the effect of this sacrament saying thus: Quomodò dicunt carnem in corruptionem devenare. quae á corpore & sanguine Domini alitur? By what reason do they say, that our flesh goeth wholly to corruption, seeing that it is nourished with the body and blood of our Lord? and in his fift book he saith: Quomodo carnem negant capacem esse donationis Dei, Ireneus lib. 5. quae est vita aeterna, quae sanguine & corpore Christi nutritur? How do they deny our flesh to be able to receive the gift of God, which is eternal life, which is nourished with the body and blood of Christ. The greatest argument that Ireneus could bring to prove the resurrection of our flesh to life eternal, was to allege the cause of that resurrection, which was the nourishing of our flesh with the lively flesh of Christ in the sacrament, not to this temporal life as other earthly meats do, but to eternal life, as only Christ's flesh doth, and this cause was believed and confessed of all men at that time, both Catholics and heretics. In so much that these heretics of our time, that deny this cause, that is to say, Christ's flesh to be really given in the sacrament, and eaten of our flesh: do give occasion, yea I am afraid, do give more than occasion, for us to think of them, that they deny also the resurrection of our flesh, which is the proper effect of it, although as yet, they dare not impudently burst out in plain words, though they express the same evidently to all men's eyes in their carnal and beastly lives. To prove this effect further, I could bring in many more authorities, Hilarius De Trinit. li. 8. as the saying of Hilarius. Haec vero vitae nostra causa est, quod in nobis carnalibus manentem per carnem Christum habemus. This is the very cause of our life, that we have Christ by his flesh dwelling in our flesh. But I will not in so plain a matter, through my curiosity seem to mistrust the credire of you, that be faithful men. Therefore to conclude, knowing the greatness and excellency of this effect, shall we ascribe it to so base creatures as be bread and wine, which be not able to work such an effect? God forbidden. CROWLEY. Many ancient authors (you say) do with one consent teach this effect. As Ignatius, the fathers of the Nicene counsel, Athanasius, Ireneus, and Hilarius, and many more you could bring in, but you will not by curiosity, seem to mistrust the credit of your auditory. Well, let us see what your ancient authors have said. First Ignatius, speaking of your Sacrament, hath said. Medicamentum immortalitatis. etc. A Medicine of immortality. etc. In his Epistle to the Ephesians, he saith thus. State fratres firmi in fide jesu Christi, & in eius charitate, in passione & Resurrectione, omnes in gratia nominatim congregemini in common, in una fide Dei Patris, & jesu Christi, unigeniti eius filii, primogeniti totius creaturae, secundum carnem ex genere David: praeunte & deducente vos paracleto, obedientes Episcopo, atque presbyterorum caetui, indiwlso animo: unum panem frangentes, quod est medicamentum immortalitatis, antidotus ne moriamini, sed vinatis in Deo, per jesum Christum: purgatio malorum expultrix. Brethren stand fast in the faith of jesus Christ, and in his love, his passion, and resurrection. Congregate yourselves together all into one place, in loving favour one towards another, in one faith of God the father, and of jesus Christ, his only begotten son, the first begotten of all creatures, of the lineage of David after the flesh: the holy ghost being your guide, and leading you thither. Obeying your Bishop and the whole company of elders, with one consent of mind: breaking one loaf of bread, which is a medicine of immortality, and a thing to preserve you that you should not die, but live in God thorough jesus Christ: and a purgation, that doth expel evils. This much hath Ignatius written in the place that you cite. And can any indifferent man gather of these words, that he meant here to teach, that our resurrection is the effect of the sacrament of Christ's body and blood? I think not. Yea I suppose, Effects do spring out of efficient causes. that none can gather that meaning of his words, but you, and such as you are, whom affection hath blinded. Do ye not know, that effects must spring out of efficient causes? And dare you say that the sacrament of Christ's body and blood: is the efficient cause of our immortality. If you have any shame left: you will not affirm it. For Saint Paul saith, 1. Thess. 4. 2. Cor. 4. that the efficient cause of our resurrection, is the same that raised up Christ from death to life. How can the sacrament of his body and blood be the efficient cause of our resurrection, and immortality then, as you think you have proved it to be? If Ignatius were now living: he would not, I am sure, commend you as he doth commend those Ephesians that he wrote unto. For he should find in you, the contrary of that he found in them, by the testimony of Onesimus their Bishop. Whereupon he writeth thus. Onesimus autem ipse, valde laudat vestram in Deo moderationem & dispensationem, quod omnes secundum veritatem vivatis: quodque in vobis nulla haeresis inhabitet: sed neque auditis quenquam, nisi solum lesum Christum, verum pastorem & magistrum, ac estis sicut Paulus ad vos scribebat, unum corpus & unus spiritus. etc. And Onesimus himself (saith Ignatius) doth greatly commend your moderation and disposition of things in God, for that you do all live according to the truth, and for that there is in you no heresy abiding, but you refuse even to hear any other then jesus Christ alone, which is the true Shepherd and teacher: and you are, even as Paul wrote unto you, one body and one spirit. etc. How far you and your sort be from the hearkening to Christ alone: may easily be seen of all that will consider, the multitude of traditions that you have brought into the Church of Christ, and do esteem them above the ordinance of God. Wherefore Ignatius might say unto you, as he writeth in the same Epistle. Similiter autem, & omnis homo, quisquis indicium a Deo accepit, punietur si imperitum pastorem secutus fuerit, & falsam opinionem ut veram exceperit. And in like manner every man, that hath received at God's hand ability to judge: shall be punished, if he shall follow an unskilful shepherd, and receive a false opinion as true. Thus you see, that when Ignatius is well considered, he will be found none of those ancient Authors, that do commonly teach this affect of the sacrament of Christ's body: but contrariwise, he will tell you that you shall be punished, for that you follow an unskilful shepherd, and accept a false opinion as though the same were true. And even in that place which you cite, his words are flat against your doings, and therefore you dissemble those words, and begin with the next. He hath written thus unum panem frangentes, quod est. etc. Breaking one loaf of bread, which is a medicine of immortality, and a preservative against death. Now tell me, how this breaking of one loaf of bread, doth or can agree with your private Mass that you call the sacrifice of the Church: and with your Popish Easter housel, when every one hath a mock loaf by himself. Ignatius would have the Ephesians to break (that is to be partakers of) one leaf of bread, and he saith that is a medicine of immortality, and a preservative against death. Watson was foul overseen. Why then. It is neither your private Mass, nor your Easter housel, that he speaketh of: but our communion. If I had been of your counsel before you made this Sermon: you should never have cited this place for shame. Well it is out now, and can not be called in again. But now let us see, what the fathers that were gathered together in the general counsel of Nice, Concilium Nicenum. have said to this matter. They have called this sacrament, Symbola Resurrectionis nostrae. The pledges or causes of our resurrection, say you. But I would feign know where you have read Symbolum in that signification. I believe you never read it in any of the eloquent Greeks or Latinistes. You were sure that you had Auditorium benevolum, A strange signification of Symbolum. and therefore you might be bold to say, that Symbolum signifieth a cause: and so translate Symbolum Resurrectionis, the cause of resurrection. But perhaps you have some secret Authors, wherein you read Simbolum, written with in, and not with y. And that Simbolum it is that you translate so: for your printer hath so printed it. Well I leave this translation of yours, to the judgement of such as be skilful in the Greek and Latin tongues. But to our purpose. You shall never be able to prove that Symbolum signifieth a cause: but a pledge it may signify. And what have the fathers of the Nicene counsel done for you then? Even as much as Ignatius hath done before. I will not stick to grant you both the sayings to be true. The sacrament of Christ's body and blood, Medicines be not the efficient causes of health. is a medicine of immortality, a preservative against death, a purgation to expel evils, & a pledge of our resurrection. Are medicines, preservatives, and purgations, the efficient causes of health? And how can this medicine, preservative and purgation, be the efficient cause of our resurrection & immortality? And is a pledge the efficient cause of the thing or deed that is promised when the pledge is given? For in that sense is Symbolum taken here. And unless you can prove that these be efficient causes: you shall never prove that our immortality and resurrection be the effects thereof. The like may be said to the Conseruatorium ad immortalitatem aeternae vitae. A conserve, or a thing that preserveth our bodies to the immortality of eternal life. But because it is your custom to cite matter in such sort, that the true meaning of the Author can not be perceived by the words that you cite: I will let the reader see all the words that Athanasius doth in that place write of that matter. Sed proptered ascensionis suae in caelum mentionem secit, Athanasius De p ccato in spiritum sanctum. ut eos a corporali intellectu abstraheret, ac deinde carnem suam de qua locutus erat, cibum è supernis, caelestem & spiritualem alimoniam, & ab ipso donandam intelligerent. Quae enim locutus sum vibis, inquit, spiritus est & vita. Quod perinde est acsi deceret. Corpus meum quod ostenditur & d●tur pro mundo: in cibum dabi●ur, ut sparitualiter unicuique, t●●buatur, & fiat singulis tutamen, praeseruatioque ad Resurrectionem vitae aeternae. Ita qu●que Samaritanam abstrahens Dominus a rebus sensibilibus: Deum esse spiritum pronuntiavit, ut deinceps illa, non corporalia, sed spiritualia de Deo cogitaret. But for this cause did he make mention of his ascension into heaven: that he might draw them away from the bodily understanding, and that they might afterward understand his flesh whereof he had spoken, to be food from above, heavenly and spiritual nourishment, and such as he must give. For (saith he) that which I have spoken unto you: is spirit and life. Which is as much as if he should say. My body, which is showed and given for the world: shall be given to be meat, that it may be spiritually given to every man, and that it may be to each man a defence and preservation, unto the resurrection of eternal life. In like manner also, drawing the Samaritish woman from sensible things: the Lord affirmed that God is a spirit, that from thence forth, she should not think of God as of corporal things, but as of things spiritual. Now let the indifferent reader judge, how faithfully you have used yourself, in alleging the saying of this ancient Father. His ground is, the words of Christ in the sixth of john. Where speaking of the eating of his body he saith. It is the spirit that doth give life: the flesh profiteth nothing at all. The words that I have spoken unto you are spirit and life. Which is (saith Athanasius) as much as if he should say. My body, which is showed and given for the world, shall be given to be food, that it may spiritually be given to every man, and that unto each man it may be made a defence and preservation to the resurrection of eternal life. And to make his meaning plain Athanasius saith: that Christ made mention of his ascension into heaven, that he might draw his hearers, from the bodily understanding. And further he saith, that our saviour talking with the Samaritish woman: did draw her from sensible things, affirming that God is a spirit, that so she might imagine no corporal thing to be in God, but all spiritual. I can not therefore but think, that such as will join with you in alleging this place to prove immortality and everlasting life to be the effect of the sacrament of Christ's body and blood: are by obstinate wilfulness blinded, as you do show yourself to be. For it is as manifest as the clear sun light: that his meaning was to disprove the gross opinion of all such as imagine, The meaning of Athanasius. that Christ should give his flesh to fill the bellies of men. And to teach, that such as will benefit by eating of his body, must eat the same spiritually and not carnally. And that when it is spiritually eaten: it is Tutamen praeseruatioque ad resurrectionem vitae aeternae: A defence and preservation, unto the resurrection of eternal life. But this is not to teach that it is the efficient cause of our immortality and resurrection, as you labour, by this & other places to prove. But now let us see what you have found in Ireneus, that was a great deal older than Athanasius. He hath said. Quomodo dicunt carnem. etc. By what reason do they say, that our flesh goeth wholly to corruption, seeing that it is nourished, with the body and blood of our Lord? This place of Ireneus is sufficiently opened before, in the answer to that which you have said of the first circumstance of the sacrament (which is, who it was that spoke these words. This is my body. etc.) and is plainly proved not to make any thing for your purpose, either there or here. Yet we have not said any thing to that other place which you cite out of the fift book of this Ireneus, where he saith. Ireneus. li. 5. Quomodo carnem negant capacem esse. etc. How do they deny. etc. I might put you in remembrance of that which Erasmus writeth concerning his judgement of the authority of this book: for I am sure you can tell that he hath written thus. Censura Eras. Roterodami. In hoc quinto libro, quum multa scripturarum loca diligenter explicentur: quaedam tamen insunt, quae nisi quis comode interpretetur, non satis congruere videntur cum bis dogmatibus, quae hoc tempore praescribit Ecclesia. Where as in this fift Book there be many places of Scripture diligently expounded: yet are there certain things in it, which unless a man do well interpret, do not seem to agree very well, with those doctrines that at this time the Church doth prescribe. Ancient writers must be read with favour. etc. And afterward he saith. Sed in huiusmodi multis, veteres illi cum candore, nonnunquam & cum venia legendi sunt etc. But in many such things, those ancient writers must be read with favour, and sometime with pardon also. But be it that Erasmus had not given us this warning: is there not warning enough given us, in the words of the place itself, to look well to the writers meaning? You do, according to your custom, cite those words only, which may at the first sight, make some show, of that you would prove by them. But according to my custom, I will let the reader see the whole circumstance, that he may be able to judge which of us both goeth most nigh to the meaning of the writer. His words be these. Vani autem omnimòdo, qui universam dispositionem Dei contemnunt, & carnis salutem negant, & regenerationem eius spernunt, dicentes non came capacem esse incorruptibilitatis. Sic autem, secundum haec videlicet, nec Dominus sanguine suo redemit nos, neque Calix Eucharistiae, communicatio sanguinis eius est, neque panis quem frangimus communicatio corporis eius est. Sanguis enim non est, nisi á venis & carnibus, & á reliqua quae est secundum hominem substantia, qua verè sactum verbum Dei, sanguine suo redemit nos. Quemadmodum & Apostolus eius ait. In quo habemus redemptionem per sanguinem eius, & remissionem peccatorum. Et quoniam membraeius sumus, & per creaturam nutrimur. Creaturam autem ipse nobis praestat, suum oriri faciens, & pluens quemadmodum vult, cum Calicem qui est creatura, suum corpus confirmavit, ex quo nostra auget corpora. Quando ergo & myxtus Calix, & factus panis, percipit verbum Dei: fit Eucharistia sanguinis & corporis Christi, ex quibus augetur & consistit carnis nostrae substantia. Quomodò carnem negant capacem esse donationis Dei, quae est vita aeterna, quae sanguine & corpore Christi nutritur, & membrum est eius, quemadmodum & Apostolus ait, in ea quae est ad Ephes. Epistola Quoniam membra sumus corporis eius: de carne eius, & de ossibus eius, non de spiritali aliquo & invisibili homine dicens haec (Spiritus enim neque ossa, neque carnes habet) sed de ea dispositione quae est secundum hominem, quae ex carnibus & neruis, & ossibus consistit, quae de Calais, qui est sanguis eius nutritur, & de pane, qui est corpus eius, augetur. Altogether vein are those men, which do contemn the whole order that God hath set, deny the salvation of the flesh, and despise the regeneration thereof, saying that it is not able to receive incorruptibility. For by this means, that is to say, if these sayings be true: neither hath the Lord redeemed us with his blood, neither is the cup of thanksgiving, the communion of his blood, nor the bread that we break, the communion of his body. For it is not blood, except it come from the veins and flesh and the other substance which is of man's nature. Wherein the son of God being borne in deed: hath with his own blood redeemed us. Even as his Apostle also saith: in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins through his blood. And because we are members of him, and be nourished by the creature. And he it is that giveth the creature unto us, causing his sun to arise, and raining in such sort as it pleaseth him, when he said for a surety, that the cup, which is a creature, is his body, whereby he doth give increase to our bodies. When the mixed Cup therefore, and the bread that is made, do receive the son of God: it is made the eucharist or thanksgiving of the blood and body of Christ, whereof the substance of our flesh is increased and doth consist. How do they deny that flesh is able to receive the gift of God, which is eternal life, sith the same is nourished with the blood and body of Christ, and is a member of him, as the Apostle saith in that Epistle which he wrote to the Ephesians. For we are members of his body, of his flesh and of his bones, not speaking these words of any spiritual or invisible man (for a spirit hath neither bones nor flesh) but of that disposition of parts, that is in man's nature, which doth consist of flesh, sinews and bones, which is nourished by the cup that is his blood, and increased by the bread that is his body. Now let the Reader judge, whether Ireneus may be understanded to mean in this place, as you by citing his words, What manner men Ireneus had to do with. would have him seem to mean. First, it is manifest by his words, that he had to do with such men as did utterly deny the resurrection of our bodies. And he proveth that their assertion is very vain, sith our bodies be nourished in this life, by the same creatures that our saviour Christ hath made the sacraments of his body and blood, which creatures we receive at his hand, for he causeth the sun to arise and to warm the earth, and he it is that giveth rain to moisten the earth, whereby the same bread and wine, that he hath assuredly said is his body and blood, do grow out of the earth, whereby he doth give our bodies increase. And to what purpose should he institute the sacrament of his body and blood in those creatures, if our nature, which he hath taken upon him, and is nourished by these creatures: should not by him be made incorruptible and immortal? How can they therefore (saith Ireneus) deny that flesh is able to receive the gift of God, which is eternal life: sith the same is nourished with that creature that is the blood and body of Christ, and is a member of him as the Apostle saith. etc. Which words must be warily considered, lest we should think that Ireneus doth deny, that the church of Christ is the spiritual or mystical body of Christ, affirming that the same is his very natural body, which he took of the substance of the Virgin Marie. Words that must be warily considered. But when these words be well weighed: it appeareth that Ireneus was earnestly bend to disprove not only the opinion of such as do deny our resurrection: but also their opinion that did affirm, that Christ took not man's nature upon him, but had a fantastical body: and therefore, he applied the words of Paul against that error, saying. Non de spirituali aliquo. etc. He spoke not those words to the Ephesians, of any spiritual or invisible man, but of the disposition of parts that is in man, which consisteth of flesh, sinews and bones. Understanding Saint Paul's words in that meaning that the words of Laban must be understand, when he said to jacob. Genes. 29. Os meum es & caro mea. Thou art my bone and my flesh. That is, thou art of the same lineage that I am, and descended out of the same loins. So Ireneus understandeth saint Paul's words in that place, to signify, that Christ and we, concerning his man's nature, be descended out of the loins of one man, that is the first man Adam. And so he concludeth, that for as much as our nature is nourished and increased by those creatures bread and Wine, wherein Christ hath instituted the sacrament of his body and blood, and doth therefore call the same creatures, by the names of those things that they be sacraments of: the same nature must needs be made incorruptible and immortal through him that hath received it to himself, and is himself incorruptible and immortal. Watson is to bold with Ireneus. Wherefore it seemeth to me (M. Watson) that you are to bold with Ireneus, when you affirm that his meaning is such as we find to be contrary to his plain and manifest words. For he saith that the blood and body of Christ that he speak of, is that whereby the substance of our flesh is increased & doth continue. But you do deny that. For you say that it nourisheth not our flesh as other earthly meats do, to this temporal life: but to eternal life. I would gladly know therefore what Ireneus may mean by the increasing of the substance of our flesh by this food. Well, this matter is plain enough to as many as will see. And so it is, that neither Catholics, nor heretics, did in the days of Ireneus, believe and confess, that the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, is the cause of the uncorruption of our bodies, and the eternal life of the same. And that we which do now deny our resurrection and everlasting life in an immortal state, to be the effect of the sacrament of Christ's body and blood: do not give thereby any just occasion, to be suspected of the error of them that do deny the resurrection of our flesh. And for that you charge us with beastliness of life: for my part, I refer the judgement to them that know us both. Let other answer for themselves. Well. For further proof of this effect, you could bring in many more Authors, as the saying of Hilarius. etc. Hilarius hath said thus, say you. Haec vero vitae nostrae causa est. etc. This is the very cause of our life: that we have Christ by his flesh dwelling in our flesh. First, I must tell you that you show yourself to impudent in translating the text that you cite out of Hilarius in this place. Hilarius de Trinitate. li. 8. Let the learned judge whether Hilarius have said, this is the very cause. etc. And again in the end of the sentence, dwelling in our flesh. The words in Latin for the first, are these. Haec vero vitae nostrae causa est. And for the other, the words be these. Quod in nobis carnalibus, manentem per carnem Christum habemus. If I should translate the whole sentence: I could not be bold to say otherwise then thus. Truly, this is the cause of our life: that we, which be carnal or fleshly, have Christ dwelling in us, by the means of the flesh. But this is a common thing with men of your sort, not only to allege Patches out of the fathers, in such sort that the true meaning cannot by the words that you cite be perceived: but also, to make them seem to serve your purpose, you will not stick to add somewhat in the translation that can not be found in their words, as in this place it doth most mafestly appear. Censura Erasmi. And how easy a thing it is for such as be disposed to apply the words of ancient writers contrary to their meaning, to use the words of this writer so: may well be seen by that which Erasmus hath written in his Epistle, set before this Author's works, where he saith. Plurimum sudoris compereram in emendando Hieronymo, sed plus in Hilario, cuius talis est sermonis Character, ut etiam si res per se dilucidas tractaret, tamen esset & intellectu difficilis, & depravatu facilis. I did find (saith Erasmus) much labour, in the correcting of Jerome: but more in the amending of Hilary. Whose manner of speech is such, that although he did entreat of things which were of themselves evident and plain: yet should he be hard to be understanded, and easy to be depraved. No marvel therefore, though you in this place, failing of the first, which is hard, have happened on the latter, which is easy. Affirming that Hilarius is one of those ancient fathers, that do teach, that the resurrection of our bodies and everlasting life: is the effect of the sacrament of Christ's body and blood. Yea, and in the self same Book, out of which you cite those words, the same Erasmus doth judge him to teach doctrine that is not sound. And therefore in the aforenamed Epistle he saith thus of him. Et quum alias, tum libro de Trinitate. 8. magna contentione defendit, nos quoque cum filio & patre, unum esse natura: non adoptione, neque consensu tantum. And both in other places, and chiefly in his eight book De Trinitate: he doth with great contention defend, that we also, are all one with the son and the father, by nature, not by adoption and consent only. And immediately after he saith thus. Rursus eius operis lib. 3. sed magis lib. 10. sic loquitur de Corpore Christi, ut sentire videatur, Mariam virginem, praeter concipiendi, gestandi, & pariendi ministerium, nihil addidisse de suo: cum orthodoxi credant, Christum ex opificio quidem spiritus, sed ex substantia virginei corporis conceptum. Quin & alia loca sunt, quae civilem & commodum requirant interpretem. Again in the third book of the same work, but rather in the tenth book: he doth so speak of the body of Christ, that he may seem to think, that besides the ministery of conceiving, bearing in her womb, and bringing forth into this life, the virgin Marie did add nothing of her own. Whereas, such as be of right belief, do believe, that Christ was conceived by the work of the holy ghost, but of the substance of the virgin's body. Other places also there be, which do require a courteous and gentle interpreter. I suppose you knew all this before: Watson hath a wrong opinion of us. but by like you thought that all such as be not of your mind, must needs be ignorant herein. Else you would have weighed hilaries words better, before you had cited them for your purpose. But let us see now how we can weigh them, and what doctrine will ensue upon the taking of them in such sense as you do. And if we find that some absurd doctrine will follow upon such a meaning as you gather of his words: why should we not call to memory the words of Erasmus in the Epistle above named, where he saith thus. Nemo quantumuis eruditus & oculatus, non labitur, non caecutit alicubi: videlicet ut omnes meminerint homines esse, & à nobis cum delectu, cum judicio, simulque cum venia legantur, ut homines. There is no man, be he never so well learned and circumspect, that doth not slip, and in some point show himself to lack sight: that no man should forget them to be men, and that we should read them with choice, with judgement, yea and with favour also, as men. But because you have (as you are wont) left out those words of Hilary, both immediately before and after, which might give more light to his meaning: I have thought good to city the words that you do, with somewhat of the circumstance. Thus he saith. Quod autem in nobis naturalis haec unitas sit, ipse ita testatus est: qui edit carnem meam. etc. And that this natural unity is in us: he himself doth in this sort testify. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, doth dwell in me and I in him. For no man shall be in him, but such as he himself shall be in: having received into himself the flesh of that man only, which hath taken upon him his flesh. The sacrament or mystery of this perfect unity, he had taught before, saying: even as the living father hath sent me, and I do live through the father, so he that cateth my flesh shall live through me. For every comparison is taken according to the form of understanding, that by the example that is proponed, we may understand the thing that is talked of. Truly this is the cause of our life: that we which be carnal or fleshly, have by the means of the flesh, Christ dwelling in us: which shall live through him, in such sort as he liveth thorough the father. If we therefore do naturally live through him, as touching the flesh, that is, having obtained the nature of his flesh: how should it be, but that sith he doth live by the means of the father, he must needs have the father in himself, naturally, as touching the spirit: And he doth live by the means of the father, seeing that his nativity hath not given him a strange and contrary nature, for as much as, that being that he hath, is of his father, and yet for all that, he is not by any unlikeliness incident to his nature, separated from him; seeing that through his nativity in the strength of nature, he hath his father in himself. We have made mention of these things, because the Heretics (which fain that the unity between the father and the son, is only the unity of will) have used the example of our unity with God, as though, when we be by service only and will of religion, knit unto the son, and by the son to the father: there were no propriety of natural communion granted unto us, by the sacrament of his body and blood: where as the mystery of the true and natural unity, is to be preached, both by the honour of the son of God, which is given unto us, and also by the son that is carnally abiding in us, being bodily, and inseparably joined together in him. In the latter part of these words Hilarius doth plainly show the cause that moved him to write after such sort as he doth in the former part of the same. The heretics (saith he) which feigned that the unity betwixt the father and the son, is only the unity of will. etc. By this it is manifest, that his purpose was to prove: that the example whereby the heretics would prove, that the unity that is betwixt Christ and his father, is but the unity of will: doth serve nothing for their purpose. For the unity that is betwixt Christ and us, and through Christ between God the father and us: is not only in will of religion and service, but natural and true. And in Christ, we are bodily and inseparably joined one to another, and do altogether live by the means of Christ, as Christ doth live by the means of his Father. And therefore he saith as you have cited. Haec verò vitae nostrae causa est. etc. Verily, this is the cause of our life. etc. Now (M. Watson) call to memory, the admonition that Erasmus giveth in his Epistle, concerning the manners of speeches that this author useth in his works, and touching the doctrine that he teacheth in this book, whereout you allege those words that we have now in hand: and then it shall appear to you (I trow) that you have not used Hilarius well, in bearing men in hand, that he is one of them that teach our resurrection and everlasting life, to be the effect of the sacrament of Christ's body and blood. For if shall be plain that he meaneth to teach, that as Christ and his father be one in nature: so Christ and we that do believe the promise that God hath made in him, and therefore be by love inseparably joined one to another, and do therefore oftentimes come together, and be partakers of one loaf and one cup, whereby this perfit unity that we have with God, and one with another, is plainly preached unto us, and even our very senses certified, that we are by faith inseparably joined unto Christ, as members to their head, and by love one to another, as members of one body amongst themselves. We must therefore in this point, use both judgement and favour in the reading of Hilarius. If you should therefore, go about by many such places as this, to prove this effect of the sacrament: you should in deed through your over much curiosity, seem to much to mistrust the credit of your so faithful an auditory. Wherefore you do well to conclude without any more to do. And as for the ascrybing of the effect that you have spoken of, to so base creatures as bread and wine: God is the efficient cause of our resurrection. you shall not need to fear, if ye will with us ascribe it to him, that is the efficient cause thereof, which is the divine majesty itself. But now let us see what other effects, this sacrament seemeth to you to bring forth. WATSON. Division. 25 1. Cor. 10. The principal effect of all is to make us one body with Christ, which is declared in saint Paul, in these words: Panis quem frangimus, nun communicatio corporis Christi est? The bread, which we break is it not the communion of Christ's body (that is to say,) doth it not join and knit us in the unity of one body of Christ? Chrysost. in Paul. 1. Cor. 10. Upon the which place of saint Paul chrysostom noteth, that he said not (it is the participation) but it is the communion of one body. Declaring thereby the highest and greatest conjunction that can be, saving the unity of person: for the bread which we break, that is to say, the natural body of Christ under the form of bread, which we break, and divide amongst us, not taking every man a sundry part, but every man taking the whole & the same: And as cyril saith, Cyrillus. li. 12. Capit. 32. God's son going into every man, as it were by division of himself, yet remaineth whole without any division in every man: this bread (I say) is the communion of Christ's body, that is to say, maketh us that be divers in our own substance to be all one mystical body in Christ, endued all with one holy spirit, whereby the influence of Christ's grace, that is our head, is derived and deduced unto us, that be members of his body, flesh of his flesh, and bones of his bones. Chrysost. in Paul. 1. Cor. 10. Thus doth chrysostom expound the words of S. Paul. Quid enim appellio (inquit) communicationem? idem ipsum corpus sumus: quidnam est panis? corpus Christi: quid autem fiunt qui accipiunt corpus Christi? non multa sed unum corpus. What meaneth saint Paul, when he saith (the communion) he meaneth that we be all one body: What meaneth he by this word (bread) the body of Christ. What are they made, that receive the body of Christ? they are not made many bodies, but one body. And therefore saint Paul saith by and by after unus panis unum corpus multi sumus, omnes enim de uno pane participamus. We that be many, are made one bread one body, for because all we do receive and eat of one bread. Here he telleth plain, why we that be many in number, are all made one bread, one mystical body, because (saith he) all we eat of one bread, which is one natural body. And this word (bread) here must needs be taken for Christ's natural body, and not for material bread (as the heretics say) for it can not be conceived, neither by reason, nor by faith, how that all we christian folks that live now, and have lived since Christ's time and shall live till doomsday, can eat all of one and the same bread, and eat also at sundry times all of the same one bread, being one bread in number and not one bread in kind (as some would make cavillation) seeing we be not fed Cum generibus & speciebus, with kinds of bread (as the Logitianes' say) but with singular bread: except we understand by this one bread the bread of life that came from heaven, the dread of Christ's natural body in the sacrament, which he promised to give unto us all, whereof (as saint Cyprian saith) Aequa omnibus portio datur, integer erogatur, distributus non dimembratur, Cyprian. De Caena. Domi. incorporatur non iniuriatur, and so forth, whereof equal portion is given to all this delivered whole, and being distributed, is not dismembered, and being incorporate into us, is not injuried, and being received, is not included, and dwelling with those that be weak, is not made weak. And the reason why all we should be made one body, that receive one body, is declared in cyril, Cyrillus de Trini. li. 1. the Latin is long, but the English is this: We men being all divers in our own proper substance, according to the which one man is Peter, an other is Thomas, an other Matthew: yet are we all made one body in Christ, because we be fed with one flesh, and are sealed in unity with one holy spirit: and because Christ's body is not able to be divided, therefore being of infinite power, and received of all our divers bodies, maketh all us one body with himself. Chrisost. in Math. hom. 83. Which unity of body saint chrysostom expresseth by a similitude of Doughty and Levine, that we are made one body, as meal of many grain and water, when it is kned, are made one Dough or Levine: his words be these. Veniat tibi in mentem, quo sis honore honoratus qua mensa fruaris: ea namque re nos alimur, quam angeli videntes tremunt, nec absque pavore propter fulgorem, qui inde resilit aspicere possunt, & nos in unam cum illo massam reducimur. Christi corpus unum & cara una. etc. Remember with what honour thou art honoured, of what table thou eatest for we are fed with that thing at which the Angels looking upon, do tremble and quake, and without great fear be not able to behold it for the brightness, that cometh from it, and we are brought into one heap of Levine with him, being one body of Christ, and one flesh, for by this mystery he joineth himself to all the faithful and those children, whom he hath brought forth, he doth not commit them to be nourished of an other, but he himself most diligently and lovingly doth feed them with himself. Let my masters of the new learning tell me, how that these words can be any ways applied and verified of bread and wine with all their figurative speeches and hyperboles. This conjunction also of us with Christ, cyril expresseth by a similitude of two waxes melted and mingled together. Cyrillus li. 10. Cap. 17. & libr. 4. ca 17. Quemadmodum si quis igne liquefactam ceram aliae cerae similiter liquefactae ita miscuerit, ut unum quid ex utrisque factum videatur: sic communicatione corporis & sanguinis Christi ipse in nobis est, & nos in ipso. etc. Like as if a man mingle one wax melted with an other wax melted, so that one whole thing of them both be seen to be made, even so by the communion and receiving of Christ's body and blood, he is in us and we in him, for otherwise the corruptible nature of our bodies could not be brought to incorruption, except the body of natural life were joined to it. Hilarius also, the great learned and godly Bishop saith: Per communionem sancti corporis, Hilarius in Psal. 6. in communionem deinceps sancti corporis collocamur. By the communion of his holy body, we are afterward placed and brought into the communion of his holy body. In such a plain matter as this is, what need I to heap places one above another, all the fathers be full of it. Wherefore seeing the effect of this sacrament is to be made one mystical body with Christ, flesh of his flesh, and bones of his bones, as saint Paul saith: Ephes. 5. Cyrillus. li. 10. Capit. 13. Hilarius de trini. li. 8. which union (as cyril saith) is not only by will, affection, faith, and charity, but also carnal and natural (as Hilary saith) by Christ's flesh mingled with our flesh by the way of meat: I can not see, but that it is great wickedness and plain blasphemy to ascribe this glorious effect to the needy elements of this world, as to bread and wine, but only to the body and blood of our saviour Christ, as to the only substance of the blessed sacrament of the altar. Now, CROWLEY. you are come to the principal and chief effect of your sacrament of the altar. Which you say, is to make us one body with Christ. This ye will prove first by the words of Paul to the Corinth's, which are these. Panis quem frangimus. etc. The bread which we break. etc. 1. Cor. 10. How far the meaning of Saint Paul in the place that you cite, doth differ from your meaning in citing his words: may easily appear to as many as will and are able to judge indifferently. I dare therefore say to such as shall read this answer, as saint Paul saith there, to the Corinthians. Vos ipsi iudicate quod dico. Be you yourselves judges of that which I speak. Saint Paul's purpose in that place, is to persuade the Corinth's: that they might in no case match christian religion with Idol service. For a little after those words that you cite, he saith. Nolo vos fieri socios Demoniorum. Non potestis Calicem Domini bibere, & Calicem Demoniorum. Non potestis mensae Domini participes esse, & mensae Demoniorum. I would not (sayeth saint Paul) that you should be made companions of devils. You can not, or you may not drink the lords cup, and the cup of the Devils. You may not be partakers of the Lords table, and of the table of the Devils. By which words it is manifest, that saint Paul did purpose to persuade the Corinth's, that such as would be christians, must withdraw themselves from all Idolatry, and keep the religion of Christ pure and unspotted, with the mixture of any heathenish God's service. But you (M. Watson) will make us believe that saint Paul meaneth to teach, that our knitting together into one body with Christ: is the effect of your sacrament of the altar. For so you do expound the words that you cite out of Paul. Nun communicatio. etc. That is to say (say you) doth it not join and knit us in the unity of one body in Christ? Saving that I do know it to be your common custom, thus to handle both the scriptures, and the writings of the ancient fathers: I would wonder that ever you could for shame make such interpretation of these words. But nothing may be wondered at, which custom hath made common. Chrysost in 1. Cor. 10. But you have chrysostom, to take your part, you say, who noteth upon this place, that Paul saith not, it is the participation, but the communion of one body. First I must note here, that you have done, you wots not what. For you have found out for your masters of the new learning, that which some of your fort have said, could not be found in any part of the scripture: That is, that the sacrament of Christ's body, is called a communion. But let us see what chrysostom hath said. For it were not wisdom to trust you when you cite his sentence without his words, as you do here. His words therefore are these. Quare non dixit participatio? Quia amplius quiddam significare voluit, & multam inter haec convenientiam ostendere. Non enim participatione tantum & acceptione: sed unitate communicamus. Quemadmodum enim corpus illud unitum est Christo: ita nos per hunc panem unione coniungimur. Why did he not call it a participation? Because he was willing to signify a greater matter, and to show that there is great agreement between these things. For we do not communicate in taking and receiving only: but in unity also. For even as that body is united unto Christ: even so are we by this bread, joined together in union. Now let the Reader compare these words of chrysostom: with those that you have used in your Sermon, as though they were Chrysostom's: And so shall he be able to judge how faithfully you have dealt therein. chrysostom saith that Paul doth not call it a participation, but a communion, because he would by that word signify a greater matter, than he could by the other, and show that the things used in the communion, do very much agree with those that do communicate. As though he should have said, it is a greater matter to communicate with Christ and christians: then only to be partaker of those creatures which be used in communicating. For such as do communicate with Christ and christians, are become members of that body whereof Christ is the head, and do receive from Christ, spiritual life, strength, and comfort, as natural parts of a natural body, do receive natural life, strength and comfort, from their natural head. And such as do communicate with Christians, are coupled together in the fellowship of members of one body, not only with these christians that are now living: but with those that have been before, and those that shall be after also. And the creatures bread and wine do serve very well to signify this communion both with Christ and christians. And therefore Paul would use the word Communion, rather than participation. And that this is Chrysostom's meaning in that place, is plain by the words that follow and I have set down in writing. Non enim participatione. etc. For we do not communicate. etc. Where, in the last sensence he saith. Even as that body (meaning the Church that communicateth in unity) is united unto Christ: so are we that be members of that body or Church, joined together in union, by the use of this sacramental bread. And here is another thing that maketh very well for your purpose (M. Watson) chrysostom saith. Per hunc Panem. By this bread. The matter or substance that he speaketh of, chrysostom is no man for Watson. doth he call bread: but you and your sort will none of that. Wherefore chrysostom is no man for you. But Cyrillus must help out with this matter. Cyrillus li. 12. Capit. 32. He saith (say you) that God's son going into every man, as it were by division of himself: yet remaineth whole. etc. But having little cause to trust your report: I will cite his words as he wrote them. He saith thus. In singulos enim partibiliter transiens unigenitus, & animam atque corpus eorum per carnem suam sanctificans, impartibiliter atque integrè in omnibus est: cùm unus ubique sit, nullo modo divisus. For, the only begotten son passing into every one particularly, and sanctifying both their souls and bodies through his own flesh, is after an impartible manner wholly in every one: seeing that he being but one is in every place, and is by no means divided. If there were nothing else to be gathered of the circumstance of this place: the very words are open enough to declare the meaning of the writer, to be far other than you would have it seem to be. For he saith. Cùm unus ubique sit, nullo modo divisus. he being but one, is in every place, and not divided by any means. By which words it is manifest, Christ's manhood can be but in one place at once. that he speaketh there of the divine nature of our Saviour Christ, which is present in every place, and absent in none. But his bodily presence, neither is nor can be in many places at once, as S. Austen teacheth, writing to Dardanus. But besides this, the words that go immediately before do show, that cyril maketh this a mystical signification of that which was done by the soldiers at the passion of Christ, when they did cast lots for the coat of his that was without seam. And he saith. Nam quatuor orbis partes ad salutem reductae, indumentum verbi, id est, carnem eius impartibiliter inter se partitisunt. In singulos enim. etc. For the four parts of the world being brought to salvation, did after an inpartible manner divide among themselves, the garment of the son of God, that is his flesh. For the only begotten son. etc. By which words it is plain, that cyril meaneth of that partaking of the flesh of Christ, which is amongst the faithful by faith. By which faith we are made one mystical body in Christ, and be by him endued with one holy spirit, and be unto him as dearly beloved, as his own members, flesh and bones. Chrysost in 1. Cor. 10. And yet once again chrysostom must help to expound the words of Paul. His words be these (say you) Quid enim appello (inquit) communionem? etc. What meaneth saint Paul. etc. As for the fault that your printer hath made: I have amended without any more to do, as in many other places of your printed sermons I have done: but your own subtle dealing in the translation, I may not pass over so. A man that had meant uprightly: would have translated the words of chrysostom thus. What do I call communion, saith Paul? We all are one and the self same body. And what is the bread? The body of Christ. And what are they made that do receive the body of Christ? Not many, but one body. Now, what helpeth this to prove your purpose? That is, that our knitting together into one body, is the effect of the sacrament. The Communion, that is to say, the action of the institution of Christ, in breaking of sacramental bread: doth teach that we which be partakers thereof, be all one and the self same body, and because we be so, therefore we do frequent and use that action. We are not therefore made one body by this doing, but being so before, by faith that worketh by love: we do by frequenting that mystery, show ourselves so to be. And the bread is the body of Christ. Not as you would have us believe that it is: but sacramentally. The effect of sacraments. And by the common rule of sacraments, it hath the name of that thing whereof it is a sacrament, and is called the body of Christ, & such as do receive this body of Christ, are made one body and not many. Not because they were not one body before they did receive that sacrament: but because they be thereby made known to be one body. For if the receiving of the sacrament should make them such: then should it follow, that as often as they receive that sacrament: they should afresh be made one body, which can be done but once. And that is, when (being elected in Christ from the beginning) they be in time moved by God's holy spirit, to believe in heart and confess with mouth, that jesus Christ, the son of God, hath died for our sins, and is risen again for our righteousness, and receive, or do consent to receive, or be meet to receive the sacrament of Initiation the God hath appointed, which was in the time of Moses law circumcision, and is now baptism in water. Thus are we first made and showed to be members all of one body: and by the use of the other sacrament, oftentimes showed to be the same. The business that you make about the other words of saint Paul, that is to say. unus panis, unum corpus. etc. One bread, one body. etc. might very well have been spared. For when Saint Paul saith, Omnes enim de uno pane participamus: We do all take part of one loaf of bread: he meaneth not to stretch the universal sign, All, to all the members of the universal Church of Christ, A note for universal signs. as you would bear us in hand that he doth: but to all the members of every particular Church when they come together to communicate, and thereby to show themselves mémbers of one body. And the this is his meaning may well appear, by that he saith thus to the Corinthians. Videte Israel secundum carnem. etc. Consider Israel after the flesh. Are not all they partakers of the altar: that do eat of the sacrifices? Paul's purpose in these words: is to open his meaning in the other. It must needs follow therefore, that he meaneth of particular congregations, and not of the universal Church: as you would fain have him to mean: you have therefore made more a do then needed. Let us now see, what help you find at the hand of saint Cyprian. Cyprian De Caena Domi. He saith. Aequa omnibus portio datur. etc. Equal portion is given to al. etc. According to your custom: you do here also leave out those words, the might give light to the writer's meaning. I will therefore set them in writing as they stand in the Sermon that you cite. jam nulla fit panis mutatio, unus est panis caloris continui, status integri, qui semel oblatus Deo, in sapore dulcissimo, & candore purissimo perseverat. Nec solos sacerdotes ad panis huius dignitatis leviticae, praerogativa admittit, universa Ecclesia ad has epulas invitatur, aequa omnibus portio datur. etc. As you have cited. Now (saith Cyprian) there is no changing of the bread, there is one loaf of bread, which hath in it a continual heat, and is of sound state, which being once offered to God, doth still remain in most pleasant or sweet taste and pure whiteness. Neither doth the prerogative of this levitical dignity, admit priests only to eat of the loaves: the universal Church is invited or bidden to this feast. Equal or like portion is given to every one. It is delivered whole, and being distributed, it is not torn in pieces. It is incorporated and not injuried. It is received and not included. Dwelling among the weak, it is not made weak, neither doth it disdain the ministery of the poor. A pure faith, a sincere mind, do delight this tenant. Neither doth the narrowness of our poor house, offend or pinched in, the greatness of the unmeasurable and almighty God. If you had cited all these words: Cyprians meaning would have been somewhat more plain, to such hearers as had not been altogether blinded with affection to that doctrine that you laboured to maintain. It is manifest that Cyprian doth here speak of Christ, which is that bread which came from heaven, and was figured by the Manna that fell from heaven in the wilderness, and by the show breads, that were by the law appointed to be set before the ark in the Tabernacle, and to be changed every day: whereof none might eat, but only those Priests that were of the levitical line. But this bread jesus Christ being once offered, remaineth for ever. And all the whole Church of Christ, is called to come & feed upon this bread. Every man that with pure faith and sincere mind, cometh to feed upon him: shall receive him whole. And though he be by faith eaten of all: yet is he not, neither can he be consumed, nor torn in pieces. Yea, a little before those words that I have written Cyprian saith. una est domus Ecclesiae, in qua Agnus editur, nullus ei communicate, quem Israelitici nominis generositas non commendat. It is the only house of the Church, wherein the Lamb is eaten: none is made partaker thereof, whom the nobility of the name of Israel doth not commend. By these words it is most evident that Cyprian meant to teach, that such as shall be partakers of Christ, must by election in Christ, be made meet thereunto, being commended by the nobility of the name of spiritual Israel, whereof the carnal Israel was a figure. And their Lamb, Manna, and show bread: Cyprians meaning was far other than was watson's. a figure of that everlasting bread which he speaketh of here. So far of is he from confirming of that which you would prove, that is, that our knitting together in Christ, is the effect of the sacrament of the altar, as you call it. Yet one thing more I must needs note in the words of Cyprian. He saith that all the whole Church is called to this bancquet, and that equal portion is given to every one. How agreeth this with your private Masses, and your withholding of the one half of the sacrament from the lay sort. But now to cyril once again. Cyrillus de Trini. lib. 1. He must help you once more, to bear us down by strong hand, that our cowpling together in Christ, is the effect of your sacrament of the altar. His Latin is long (you say) and therefore you pass it over. But the English is thus. We men, being all divers in our own proper substance. etc. Well, though the Latin were longer than it is; yet would I be bold to trouble the reader with it: because it shall make manifest to all men that will read it, that it was not the desire to avoid tediousness, that moved you to leave out the Latin, but a purpose to blind the simple hearer or reader of your subtle Sermon. The words of cyril in Latin are thus. Dissecti enim quodammodo in subsistentian propriam, hoc est singularem, juxta quam hic quidem est Petrus, ille Thomas vel Matheus: eiusdem corporis facti sumus in Christo, una carne pasti, & uno spiritu sancto, ad unitatem obsignati. Et quandoquidem est indivisibilis Christus (nullo enim modo divisus est) unum omnes sumus in ipso. We being after a certain sort divided, every man into his own proper (that is to say, his singular) substance, whereby this man is Peter, and that man is Thomas or matthew: are made one body in Christ, being fed with one flesh, and sealed unto unity by one holy spirit. And because Christ can not be divided (for he is by no means divided) we are all one thing in him. Now let the indifferent reader judge, how faithfully you have handled this place of cyril. And as he shall find you faithful herein: so let him give credit to the rest of your doings. cyril hath said that we be all one thing in Christ, because Christ can not be divided: & you say, that we be made all one body in Christ, because we be fed with one flesh. etc. And because Christ's body is not able to be divided. And you add a conclusion, as though cyril had so concluded, The cause why Watson would not cite cyril in Latin. and you say: Therefore being of infinite power, and received of all our divers bodies, maketh all us one body with himself. No marvel though you would not cite the Latin: seeing you were minded to serve so far from it in your English. But una carne pasti: Being fed with one flesh, is the ground that you build upon. As though cyril might not mean here, of that spiritual eating of Christ's flesh, that Christ himself spoke of in the sixth of john, john. 6. where he saith that the flesh (that is the fleshly meaning) doth profit nothing at all. Yet once more must chrysostom help to prove this effect. You say that he doth express this unity by a similitude of Doughty or leaven. etc. His words be these (you say) veniat tibi in mentem. etc. Chrysost in Math. ho. 83. You are so accustomed to belie the ancient writers: that you can not both cite their words aright, and English them truly, in any one place that I can yet meet withal. chrysostom hath not spoken any one word of leaven in that place which you cite. Et nos in unam cum illo massam reducimur. And we are brought into one lump of Dough with him, being one body of Christ and one flesh. Here is no mention of leaven, neither of meal of many grains and water. Which you say chrysostom maketh a similitude of, to prove our unity in one body. And this is also to be noted. That when you are come to, Christi corpus unum & unae caro, one body of Christ and one flesh: you pass over twice so much matter as you have cited, and then in English you go on with these words. For by this mystery. etc. as though there had been no word at all betwixt. And to enure yourself with your accustomed feats: you translate the words of the later sentence far otherwise then they signify in Latin. For where chrysostom doth in Latin say thus. Sed ipse studiosissime alit: But he himself doth most diligently and carefully nourish them: you have said thus: But he himself, most diligently and lovingly, doth feed them with himself. Thus you do, as one either past shame, or assured that no man should at any time examine your words, and charge you with your subtle dealing. But now you have won the victory: let my masters of the new learning (say you) tell me. etc. Your masters of the new learning as it pleaseth you to term us: need not to use either figurative speeches or hyperboles, to prove that these words of chrysostom may be verified of bread and wine. For I am sure there is not one amongst us, that is learned: but he will readily grant, that Chrysostom's purpose in this place, was to set forth and commend unto us, the exceeding greatness of the love of Christ towards his elected and chosen Church and congregation. Who, as saint Paul saith, being in the majesty of God: spared not to abase himself, and to take on him, Philip. 2. our base and miserable estate. And to this purpose hath chrysostom said. Et nos in unam cum illo massam reducimur And we are brought into one lump of Dough with him. And again. Singulis enim fidelibus per hoc mysterium se coniungit. He doth by this mystery join himself to every faithful man and woman. And in conclusion he saith thus. Hac etiam re tibi persuadens carnem illam tuam assumpsisse: tanta igitur charitate, atque honore affecti, non torpeamus. Persuading thee also by this thing, that he hath taken upon him that very flesh of thine. Being therefore so greatly beloved and honoured, let us not be sluggards. Now let my masters that would be called of the old learning, tell me how this place of chrysostom can be rightly applied, to prove that our cowpling together in Christ in the fellowship of members of one body, is the effect of their sacrament of the altar. Let them take the speech to be in what kind they will, either plain, figurative, or hyperbolical. But you have not yet done with cyril in this matter. He must now express by a similitude of two waxes melted & mingled together, cyril. li. 10. Capit. 13. & li. 4. capit. 17. this conjunction of us with Christ. A man might ask you, what this maketh to the purpose. You must prove that our knitting together into members of one body, is the effect of the sacrament of the altar. But let us weigh his words. He saith thus. Quemadmodum si quis. etc. Like as if a man mingle. etc. You have cited the words of cyril very truly, but you have not coated the place aright. For in the .17. Chapter of the tenth Book, are no such words to be found, neither is there any such matter handled there. But in the .13. Chapter of the same Book, the words that you cite are found. And in the .17. of the fourth are found words to the same effect. watson's old trick will not be left. But in the translating of these words. Communicationis corporis & sanguinis Christi: You use one little piece of your common trick. For you say thus. By the communion and receiving of the body and blood of Christ, where as the true English of the words is thus. By the communicating of the body & blood of Christ, which communicating is in the faithful believers of the promise of God made in Christ: though the same do never receive the sacrament of the body & blood of christ. If you would have looked in the last Chapter of the ninth book: cyril. li. 9 Capit. 45. you should have seen what cyril meaneth by this word Communicatio. His words be these. Non erat possibile, aliter corruptibilem secundum naturam hominem, mortem effugere, nisi primum adeptus gratiam, rursus particeps Dei fieret, qui omnia per filium in spiritu vivificat. Carne ergo & sanguini communicavit, id est, qui secundum naturam vita est, unigenitus Dei Patris filius, homo factus est, mediator Dei atque hominum, ut scribitur. Natura Deo coniunctus, ex quo est, & hominibus rursus, ut homo etc. It was not possible that man, which by nature is corruptible, should otherwise escape death, except obtaining the first grace, he might again be made partaker of God, that doth in the spirit quicken all things by his son. He hath therefore communicated himself to flesh and blood, that is to say, the only begotten son of God the father, which is by nature life, is become man the mediator of God and men, as it is written, being by nature joined to God, of whom he hath his being, and again unto man, as he is man. Thus it is manifest, how evil favouredly, The accord of cyril and Watson. the meaning of the ancient writers, doth agree with your purpose in citing them in your Sermons. cyril speaketh of the communion or fellowship that man hath with Christ, by his incarnation: & you cite him to prove the joining of all christians into the fellowship of one body, by receiving the sacrament of the altar, as you call it. Now let us see what Hilarius hath said in this matter. Hilarius in Psalm. 6. His words (you say) are these. Per communionem sancti corporis. etc. By the communion of his holy body. You note in the margin of your printed book, that this sentence of Hilary, is written in his Commentary upon the sixth Psalm. When you can show us that Commentary, you shall have the words that you cite answered. Saint Jerome saith that Hilary wrote only upon the first and second Psalms, the. .51. and so forth to the .62. and from the .118. to the last. And in his printed works, we find but eight more, whereof the sixth is none. Wherefore I must think that the great, learned and godly Bishop that you speak of: is yourself or some other such as you are. But if it may be found in some other part of Hilarius works: what shall it make for your purpose, sith these words may have a good sense, if we understand by the first Communion, that which we have by the incarnation of our Saviour Christ, and by the later, that which we have one with another. For by the communion that we have with Christ, we be placed in that communion that we have one with another. And so do these words make nothing to prove, that our cowpling into one body in Christ, is the effect of the sacrament of the altar. But now that your store is well spent: you use your figure of Rhetoric to blear the reader's eye withal. In such plain matter as this, what need I heap places, one above another? All the fathers are full of it. How full the fathers that you speak of be, of this so plain matter, doth (I trust) sufficiently appear, in that which I have already written, in the answer to that which you have as yet alleged in the proof of this matter. Wherefore, seeing you have not as yet proved, neither shall hereafter be able to prove, either by the words of the scripture, or of the ancient fathers, that our knitting together into one body in Christ, is the effect of your sacrament of the altar: it is no wickedness nor blasphemy at all, to ascribe that effect to the efficient cause thereof, which is God the father, through his son jesus Christ, and the holy ghost. But now let us see, what other effects you have. WATSON. Division. 26. Beside these effects gathered out of the new Testament there be also other mentioned in the Psalms. Whereof one is, that this sacrament is an armour and defence against the temptations of our ghostly enemy the Devil, as it is written in the .22. Psal. 22. Chrysost. in Psal. 22. Euthymi in Psal. 22. Psalm. Parasti in conspectu meo mensam adversus eos qui tribulant me. Thou hast prepared in my sight a Table against them that trouble me. By this Table (saith chrysostom upon this place) is understanded that thing that is consecrated upon the altar of our Lord: and Euthymius a Greek Author saith so also: Par hanc mensam intelligit altaris mensam, in qua caena mystica illa jacet: by this table he understandeth the table of the altar, upon which lieth the mystical supper of Christ, which doth arm and defend us against the Devil, which sometimes craftily layeth in wait for us, sometimes fiercely and cruelly assaulteth us, that be fed at Christ's table. Saint Cyprian teacheth us the same lesson, saying: Quos excitamus & exhortamur ad praelium non inermes & nudos relinquamus, sed protectione sanguinis & corporis Christi muniamus: Cyprianus. li. 1 Epist. 2. Those persons whom we provoke and exhort to fight against their enemies (be it either the Devils our ghostly enemies, or the devils limbs the persecutors of Christ's church) let us not leave them naked and unarmed, but let us harness and defend them with the protection of Christ's body and blood. And a little after he saith: Cùm ad hoc fiat Eucharistia, ut possit accipientibus esse tutela, quos tutos esse contra adversarium volumus, munimento dominicae saturitatis armemus. Seeing this sacrament is ordained for this purpose, that it should be a defence to the receivers, let us arm them with the shield and harness of our lords meat, whom we would should be safe against their adversary. This is that food, that maketh a man meet, Cyprian. li. 4. Epist. 6. Cyprian. li. 2. Epist. 3. and prepareth him to martyrdom. This blood of Christ is drunken daily of us, that we might in his quarrel shed our blood again: and as he writeth in an other place: how can we shed our blood for Christ, that be ashamed to drink Christ's blood? This blood being received of us (as chrysostom saith) driveth the Devils away, Chrysost. in joan hom. 45. and doth allure the Angels and the Lord of Angels unto us: for after the meat of our Lord received, he forsaketh us, Chrysost ad Neophytos. and flieth away swifter than any wind, and dare not approach near, because all entrance for his temptations is shut up. As saint Ambrose writeth. Ambrose in Psalm. 118. Ser. 8. Cùm hospitium tuum adversarius viderit occupatum coelestis fulgore praesentiae, intelligis locum tentamentis suis interclusum esse per Christum, fugiet ac recedet. etc. When thy adversary shall see thy house and lodging (of body and soul) occupied with the brightness of Christ's heavenly presence, perceiving every place to be shut up from his temptations: he will fly and run away. Nazian in julianum orat. 2. Wherefore as Gregory Nazianzene writeth: Mensa hac praeparatur contra tribulantes me qua omnem passionum rebellionem scà●. This table is prepared of God against them that vex and trouble me, by the which I quench and pacify all rebellion of my naughty affections. Cyrillus li. 4. cap. 17. And as cyril saith) Non mortem solum, sed etiam morbos omnes depellit, sed at saevientem membrorum legem, pietatem coroboat, perturbationes animi extinguit, nec in quibus sumus peccatis considerate, aegrotos curate, collisos redintegrat, at omninos casu erigit. It driveth away not only death, but also all sickness, it stilleth and pacifieth the raging law of our members, it strengtheneth devotion, it quencheth the froward affections of the mind, and those small sins we be in, it regardeth not, it healeth the sick, it restoreth the bruised and from all falling it lifteth us up. O what wonderful effects be these, which by this blessed Sacrament be wrought in the worthy receiver, against the Devil and his temptations, against the flesh and her illusions, against the vicious affections of our corrupt mind? What conscience had these men, our late teachers and pastors, destroyers of Christ's flock, to rob us of this treasure, which is the cause of so great benefits, and in the place of that, to plant amongs us a bare ceremony of bread and wine to put us in remembrance of Christ in heaven (as they said) which neither by their own nature, nor yet by any institution either of God or man, be able to bring to pass in us these effects I have spoken of. What meant they that took away this armour of Christ's flesh and blood from us, but to leave us naked and unarmed against the Devil, that he should prevail against us in all temptations, and that the kingdom of sin should be erected, and the kingdom of grace destroyed? and to teach that this blessed Sacrament is nothing else, but bread and wine, what is it else but to take away this armour and harness of Christ's flesh and blood from us. For bread be it never so much appointed to signify things absent, is not able to defend us from the Devil. After you have bustled about the effects of your sacrament, CROWLEY. gathered out of the new testament: you make no small ado, about one other effect, mentioned in the Psalm .22. Parasti in conspectu meo. etc. Thou hast prepared in my sight. etc. This effect, you say, is, that this armour and defence. etc. And when this assertion of yours shall be well weighed: you shall be found to hold, that this sacrament is the efficient cause, and the effect both. And so must it be both before and after itself. For every efficient cause, must needs be before the effect that proceedeth from it: and every effect must needs follow the efficient cause that is the worker of it. But let us see how handsomely you apply this piece of this Psalm. Saint Jerome saith, that the Prophet meaneth by the table that he speaketh of here, the scripture, wherein is found meat meet for such as are past their infancy in Christ, and need not any longer to be fed with milk. His words be these. Parasti in conspectu meo mensam. etc. iam non lact quasi paruulus alar, sed solido cibo: id est, ut spirituali dente ruminans scripturas sanctas, possim perversis resistere. Thou hast prepared a table. etc. Hieronymus in Psalm. 22. That I should not now be nourished with milk like a little child, but with sound meat: that is, that cudding the holy scriptures with a spiritual tooth, I might be able to resist the froward. And again he saith. Parasti in conspectu meo mensam, adversus eos qui tribulant me. Mensa id est scriptura divina. Sicut post laborem, in mensa invenitur consolatio & refectio: sic & sancti per mensam, id est, per scripturam divinam, habent consolationem & refectionem, id est, spem, fidem, & charitatem. Aduersus eos qui tribulant me. Persecutores Ecclesiae: qui sunt Demons, judaei, & haeretici. Contra istos omnes in scriptures sacris, invenimus consolationem. Thou hast prepared a table in my presence: against those that trouble me. A table, that is, the holy scripture. Even as after labour, there is found on the table, comfort and refection: so also, the holy men, have by the means of the table, that is, the holy scripture, consolation and refection, that is to say, hope, faith and charity, against those that trouble me. The persecutors of the Church, which are Devils, jews, and Heretics. We do in the holy scriptures, find consolation and comfort, against all these, Saint Austen saith thus. Parasti in conspectu meo, mensam, ut iam non lact alar paruulus: August in Psalm. 22. sed maiorem cibum sumam, firmatus adversus eos qui tribulant me. Thou hast in my presence prepared a table, that I should not now be nourished with milk as a little child: but that being made strong against them that trouble me, I may receive greater meat. Lyranus, a man of your own sort, in many points: doth first expound this verse after the letter, Nicol. De Lyra in Psal. 22. saying thus. Parasti in conspectu meo mensam, id est, Victum sufficientem. Aduersus eos. etc. Silicet Saul & eius complices. Thou hast prepared a table in my presence, against those. etc. That is to say, Saul and his complices. And morally he saith it may be expounded thus: Parasti in conspectu meo mensam: id est, refectivam consolationem. Aduersus eos qui tribulant me: id est, adversus Demones tentationibus suis, & malos homines, iniurijs me tribulantes. In my presence, thou hast prepared a table: that is, a refreshing consolation. Against them that trouble me: that is against Devils which trouble me with their temptations, and evil men with injuries. This man was a jew borne: and therefore, by all likelihood, had seen as much of the Hebrew tongue, as any of his time. Which caused him, first to expound the Psalm after the letter, as the Prophet David meant of himself, whom God did not suffer to lack necessary food: no not in the time of his exile by the means of the cruelty of king Saul. And notwithstanding he lived within these three. C. years last passed (which was a time of all ignorance and blindness) yet could he not once dream of such a meaning, as you would make the world believe, that the Prophet had when he wrote this Psalm. Chrysost in Psalm. 22. But you have found chrysostom a man of great learning and authority. Who writing upon this part of this Psalm, saith thus. Parasti in conspectu meo mensam, adversus cos. etc. Ista mensa, agnoscitur altaris Domini consecratio. Thou hast made ready a table. etc. This table is acknowledged to be the consecration of the Lords altar. But you English it thus. By this table is understanded that thing, that is consecrated upon the altar of our Lord. In which translation two things may be noted. First, that you use the word consecration so, that it may seem that chrysostom meant of such breathing out of consecrating words, upon bread and wine: as you do use in your popish Mass. And the other thing is, that you add to Chrysostom's words, the pronoun nostri. And where he saith Domini, of the Lord: you would have men think, that he saith Domini nostri: of our Lord. And this is the common manner of all your sort in these days (I mean English Papists) you can not abide that consecration, should be understanded of any other thing, than that magical manner of breathing out words upon creatures. Nor that he which hath made all things, and therefore is Lord of all: should be called the Lord, which doth signify that he is not only Lord of one sort of people: but of all nations also, and of all creatures. But what help may you have by the words of chrysostom? doth he not within a few lines after, writ thus? Et quia istam mensam praeparavit servis & ancillis in conspectu eorum, ut quotidiè in similitudinem corporis & sanguinis Christi, panem & vinum secundum ordinem Melchisedech, nobis ostenderet in sacramento: ideo dicit: Parasti in conspectu meo mensam, adversus eos qui tribulant me. And because he hath made ready for his men servants and women servants, this table in their presence, that in the sacrament he might daily show unto us bread and wine, to be a similitude or likeness of the body and blood of Christ after the order of Melchesedech: he doth say, thou hast prepared a table in my sight, against them that trouble me. Now, if you will needs urge the words that you cite for your purpose (which notwithstanding, make nothing for you) I pray you be not displeased, if I urge these words, which are very plain to prove, that in the sacrament are both bread and wine, watson's sentence turned against himself. and that the same is appointed to be a similitude of the body and blood of Christ. And so shall your own sentence be turned to yourself. Which is that it is great wickedness, and plain blasphemy to ascribe this glorious effect to the needy elements of this world, as to bread and wine. But now, I trow you have found a witness, that will not be so soon disproved. Euthymius, a Greek Author saith so also. A man might ask you, why chrysostom might not have been called a Greek author, as well as Euthymius. But your purpose was (as I suppose) to make the world believe that Euthymius, is as ancient as chrysostom. And therefore you couple them together, presupposing that all the learned do know, that chrysostom wrote in Greek. But when the antiquity of Euthymius shall be searched: he shall be found younger than chrysostom by eight hundred years. For the one lived about the year of our Lord four hundred. And the other in the days of Alexius, Emperor of the East, about the year of our Lord. 1200. He is not yet four hundred years old. You did well therefore to thrust him in betwixt chrysostom and Cyprian: that he might at the first sight seem as ancient as they. But what hath he said? He saith (say you) Per hanc mensam intelligit. etc. He understandeth. etc. As though the Prophet David had understanded nothing else by this word table: but the table of the altar, whereupon the mystical supper doth lie. But surely (M. Watson) I can not wonder enough at your saucy malapartness, Watson is saucy and malapert. which hath moved you to make your witness, being a Greek, to speak that by your mouth and Pen in English: which he himself would never write in Greek. You have said in his name, that the mystical supper doth arm and defend us against the Devil which sometimes craftily layeth in wait for us. etc. All this you make Euthymius to speak in English more then he wrote in Greek. You might as well have spared those words that were none of his, & have cited all his words that he wrote upon the verse of the Psalm. 22. Parasti. etc. In the Latin translation, whereout you cite your sentence, speaking first in the person of the Prophet David, Euthymi in Psal. 22. he saith. Non solum ut praedixi, me beneficijs affecisti: sed & spiritualia etiam oblectamenta donasti, quae per mensam hic significantur. Hanc autem in conspectu, inquit, inimicorum meorum parasti, ut videntes, dolore tabescerent: vel adversus eos, hoc est, contra id quod cupiant. Illi enim merore me semper ac tristitia magis afficere student. Vel per mensam, futurorum bonorum fruitionem intelligit, quam praeparavit Deus diligentibus se: vel altaris, mensam, in qua caena mystica illa jacet, vel etiam virtutem moralem. As I have said before (saith David) thou hast not only endued me with benefits: but thou hast also rewarded me with spiritual pleasures, which are here signified by the table. And this table (saith he) hast thou prepared, in the presence of mine enemies, that when they see it, they may be sorrowful, and even waste away with sorrow. Or else against them: that is contrary to that which they do desire or would wish: For they do always endeavour, rather to make me sorrowful and heavy: Or else he doth understand by the table, the fruition of those good things to come, which God hath prepared for them that love him: or the table of the altar, whereon that mystical supper doth lie, or else he doth understand by it moral virtue. If it had pleased you to have cited all these words: your witness should have appeared a far more honest man than you. And some of your faithful hearers (whose credit you would not by your curiosity seem to mistrust) would surely have said that you had produced a witness against yourself. Watson hath produced a witness against himself. For what one word is there in all this (beside that little piece that you have picked out) that can be wrested to have any show to serve your purpose? And these words also, as they stand in the Author's writing: can no more serve your purpose then the rest. For how doth he use them otherwise then to show that sense among the rest to be an Anagogical sense? And if we may be allowed, to allege scriptures for our purposes in that sense, and let pass both the literal and moral senses (as you do here) then let us as the common saying is: facere quidlibet ex quolibet, make what we lust of every thing, as commonly men of your sort use to do. But now what doth Cyprian say to this matter? He doth teach us the same lesson (say you) Quos excitamus. etc. Those persons. etc. You have so disordered the words of Cyprian to frame them for your purpose: that they can not otherwise be brought into order again, then by citing wholly together, all that which you have disordered, with the rest that you leave out, as not appertaining to your purpose. Cyprian hath said thus: Merito enim trahebatur dolentium paenitentia tempore longiore, ut infirmis, si qui essent, in exitu subveniretur. etc. The repentance of such as sorrowed for their fall, was for good cause continued for longer time, that if any of them should fall sick, we might secure them in their departing out of this life: so long as we had tranquillity and quiet, which would suffer us to defer the tears of the sorrowful long time, and at the last secure them in their infirmity, when they should lie in dying. But now, peace is needful, not for them that be sick, but for such as be strong. And we must give the communion, not to them that be at the point of death, but to them that live: that we do not leave those unarmed and naked, whom we stir up & exhort to battle, but that we arm them with the protection of the blood & body of Christ. And seeing the Eucharist or thanksgiving, is made for this purpose, that it may be a defence to such as receive it, let us arm with the defence of the Lords full feeding, such as we would wish should be safe against the enemy. For how do we teach and provoke them to shed their own blood in the confession of the name of Christ: if we do deny to give his blood in them that must fight? Or how do we make them meet for the cup of martyrdom: if we do not first admit them, in the Church to drink the cup of the Lord in the right of communion. Here are Cyprians words, in such sort as he wrote them. And the occasion that he had to write thus: was the evil opinion, that Cornelius then Bishop of Rome, had conceived of Cyprian and other Bishops, for that they had received to communion, such as had before fallen, in yielding to the persecutors, by reason of the cruelty of torments used upon them. To this doth Cyprian and the other Bishops to the number of .39. answer in this Epistle. Showing (as is afore written) that it were not meet, that such as through frailty have fallen, and do with bitter tears lament their fall: should when persecution is threatened and like to come, be driven from the lords table, and not suffered to be partakers of that sacrament, that our Lord jesus hath instituted to be an outward assurance of that which he hath promised in his word. For what reason were it, to persuade men to stand manfully to the profession of Christ, and warrant them everlasting life, if they suffer loss of this life for his sake: and yet deny to give them the holy communion, which Christ hath instituted to be a seal of that promise? The best armour for Christians. No armour can be so sure, and make a man so bold and courageous against his enemy: as to be assured, that his quarrel is such, that if he die therein, he shall not fail to live and reign in glorious triumph for ever. Cyprian therefore, doth very well in using these Metaphers: calling that sacrament that was ordained to be an assurance of this everlasting triumph, by the names of protection, defence, and safeguard. But to make Cyprian to seem whole upon your side: watson's common practice. you help the matter somewhat in translating his words, and thrusting in a few words of your own (as you are wont to do) to cause your hearers and readers to think, that no man is able to gain say that, which you have said. Well, you have yet one other place of Cyprian, but you spare the Latin, thinking it sufficient, to tell your hearers and readers, that Cyprian saith so. For no man may think that you dare bely, so holy a man as he was: Liars have no credit. But because I have taken you with lies more than once: I dare not trust your report of Cyprian, neither will I suffer my readers to be deceived by it. First you say: This blood of Christ is drunken daily. etc. His words in Latin are these. Gravior nunc & ferocior pugna imminet, Cyprian li. 4. Epist. 6. ad quam fide incorrupta, & virtute robusta, parare se debent milites Christi, consyderantes idcirco se quotidiè Calicem sanguinis Christi bibere: ut possint & ipsi propter Christum, sanguinem fundere. A more grievous and cruel battle, is now at hand: unto which, the Soldiers of Christ, aught with uncorrupt faith and sloute courage, to prepare themselves, considering that they do daily drink the cup of Christ's blood, to the end that they themselves might be able to shed their own blood for Christ's cause. In the other place that you cite, Cyprian saith thus. Cyprian li. 2. Epist. 3. Quomodo autem possumus propter Christum sanguinem fundere: qui sanguinem Christi erubescimus bibere? How can we that be ashamed to drink the blood of Christ: be able to shed our blood for Christ's cause? In the first of these two places, saint Cyprians words are plain enough. For he saith that the daily receiving of the cup of Christ's blood, was to make them able to shed their own blood for Christ's cause. That is, that being daily put in remembrance of the shedding of Christ's blood for their sins, and assured of the crown of martyrdom if theirs should be shed for his sake: they might be encouraged, strengthened, and made able, to stand to their profession, even to the shedding of their own blood for his sake, that spared not to give his own heart blood for the redemption of their sins. Ephes. 6. As for the armour that christian soldiers should buckle about them, Cyprian appointeth none, but the same that saint Paul appointeth. And after he hath spoken thereof, he saith thus. Haec arma sumamus, his nos tutamentis spiritualibus & caelestibus muniamus: ut in die nequissimo resistere Diaboli minis & repugnare possimus. Induamur loricam justitiae. etc. Let us take unto us this armour, let us defend ourselves with these spiritual and heavenly safeguards: that in the most evil day we may be able to resist the threatenings of the Devil, and fight against him. Let us put upon us the breast plate of righteousness. etc. This place of Cyprian therefore, can not be wrested to prove that the sacrament of the altar, is any part of that armour that a christian must have, to be able to stand against his enemies, either bodily or ghostly. But by the often receiving of the sacrament worthily: the Christian heart is stirred up, more carefully to cover himself with that armour that saint Paul hath prescribed, and to stand more manfully against all his mortal enemies. Watson will not see. But I marvel that you could not see, that in this place, saint Cyprian is plain against your private Mass, and communion in one kind only. But you lusted not to look on that side. In the other place, he inveigheth against such as would have no wine in the ministration, but water only. To those he saith. Quomodo autem possumus. etc. How can we shed our blood for Christ's cause: seeing we be ashamed to drink Christ's blood? He had said before in the same Epistle. Nam cùm dicat Christus, Ego sum vitis vera: sanguis Christi, non aqua est utique, sed vinum. Nec po●est videri sanguis eius. etc. For seeing that Christ saith, I am a Vine in deed: the blood of Christ is not water, but wine. Neither can it seem that his blood, wherewith we were redeemed and made clyve, is in the cup: when there is no wine in the cup, whereby the blood of Christ is resembled. etc. Conferring the places together, we can not but see, that Cyprian meant nothing less, then to prove your assertion, & that his words cannot be wrested to prove that the sacrament of the altar, is an armour and defence against the temptations of our ghostly enemy the Devil. Yet once again chrysostom must help in this matter. Chrysost. in joh. hom. 45. He hath said (say you) This blood being received of us. etc. In the place that you note in the margin, he saith thus. Hic mysticus Languis Demones procul pellit. Angelos, & angelorum Dominum ad nos ●llicit. This mystical blood, doth drive Devils far away: and it doth allure unto us, the Angels, and the Lord of Angels. Yea he addeth thus much more. Daemons enim, cùm dominicum sanguinem in nobis vident: in fugam vertuntur. Angeli autem procurrunt. When the Devils do see the lords blood in us: they run away. And the Angels do with speed, run to us from far. Here I must tell you of your old trick. Where chrysostom saith. This mystical blood, driveth away Devils. etc. you say, This blood being received of us. etc. chrysostom calleth it mystical blood, and he saith that when the Devils do see it in us, that is to say, when they see our whole man besprinkled and washed with it: they fly away. He saith also, that when this blood is poured out, it doth wash and make clean the whole circle of the earth. Yea, he saith yet further: That from the lords table, there issueth a Fountain, that spreadeth out abroad spiritual rivers, and that there be no barren Willows groaning near unto that Fountain: but Okes that reach up to heaven, and do always bring forth seasonable and sound fruits. A man would think that a Doctor of Divinity (that had read this homily, The title of Doctor deceiveth many. & were acquainted with such figures as chrysostom doth commonly use, when he taketh in hand to set forth the excellency of any thing, and to show the exceeding greatness of the virtue that is in the thing that he taketh in hand) could not for shame pick out such a piece as you have, to prove your purpose withal. Yea, a man might marvel at your beastly blindness, that will not let you see, that this place of chrysostom maketh manifestly, both against your private Mass, and against your Easter housel (as you call it) under one kind only, which is not the blood whereof chrysostom speaketh here, but the bread, whereof he doth in this place make no mention. The exceeding great virtue, that this blood that chrysostom speaketh of, hath: is such, that no man can be able, either with tongue or pen to declare it at the full. And therefore doth he use so many Hyperbolical speeches, and calleth it mystical blood. And so many as be sprinkled with this blood (that is, as many as being elected in Christ, be called by the preaching of the Gospel, and do obey the caller) may, when they fall into temptation, assure themselves, that the tempter will when he seeth them be sprinkled and washed with this blood: fly from them, as chrysostom saith here. Chrysost. ad Neophytos. And as in the other place that you cite out of the same chrysostom, he saith: when such one cometh out from the Lords feast, the enemy flieth from him, more swiftly than any wind. And when that cruel enemy, shall see the tongue of such one, imbrued with this blood. That is, that no word foundeth out of his mouth, but such as are to the setting forth of the glory of him that shed this blood: believe me (saith chrysostom) he will not tarry. etc. And this place also maketh manifestly against your private Mass and half housel, and nothing at all for your purpose. But here I must by the way tell you of your subtlety, in tying certain words of your own to the end of that which you cite out of chrysostom in such sort, that they may seem to be Chrysostom's words. And then you labour to confirm them by the words of Ambrose, who saith thus. Cùm hospitium. etc. When thine adversary shall see. Ambros. in Psal. 118. sermone. 8. etc. According to your old manner of translating into English: you thrust in (body and soul) of your own, and so do ye (every place) and would have men think, that you mean well and truly. But let us see what may be said to these words of Ambrose. First I must let the Reader see, a few words that go before those that you cite, so shall he be the better able to judge whether you have dealt uprightly in alleging them for your purpose, or no. He writeth thus. Suscipe ante Dominum jesum tuae mentis hospitio. Vbi Corpus eius, ibi Christus: est. Cum hospitium tuum adversarius viderat occupatum caelestis fulgore praesentiae, intelligens locum tentamentis suis interclusum esse per Christum fugiet ac recedet. receive before hand, the Lord jesus into the harbour of thy mind. Christ is there, where his body is. When the enemy shall perceive that the brightness of the heavenly presence, doth possess thy lodging, and understand that Christ hath enclosed the place from his temptations, he will fly and departed away. Ambrose doth here teach us to receive Christ. First, spiritually into our minds by faith: and then sacramentally in the congregation. The scripture that gave him occasion to write thus, is the sixth verse of the eight part of the .118. Psalm, after the account of the .70. The words of the verse are these. At midnight did I arise to praise thee. etc. By occasion of these words Ambrose doth earnestly exhort all Christians to give themselves to meditation both night and day: but specially at such time as public fasting should be appointed. The days were then troublesome, and christians were well most continually persecuted. Wherefore, they did often at the appointment of their Pastors, The right use of fasting. abstain from all manner of bodily sustenance, and from sleep, and gave themselves to prayer in the congregation, and did communicate. So assuring, even their senses, that though they should fall into the persecutors hands: yet should there no harm happen unto them. For they were surely coupled unto Christ, and one to another. So that though they should seem to the world to perish: yet they were in deed, delivered from misery, and received into endless felicity. And for this cause doth Ambrose call this sacrament Munimentum. A defence. For by it, we be thoroughly certified of the forgiveness of our sins, and that we are reconciled and received into favour with God again. This is not to teach, that after the receiving of the sacrament of the altar (as you term it) the Devil can find no way to enter into the receiver: but that when we have received Christ by faith, and do declare the same by communicating with the rest of Christ's members: then may we assure ourselves, that there is no way for the enemy to enter. And therefore, he will fly away, and as saint Ambrose saith, depart from us. For Christ is in possession, and none is able to remove him. But I must still marvel that you see not, that all these whom ye allege: do fight against you for your private Massing. And that this Ambrose doth give you warning, that if you will be defended against the Devil, and have him shut out: you must first receive Christ into the harbour of your mind, Christ must be in the mind before the sacrament come in the mouth. which is by faith. For Ambrose knew, that if Christ were not in possession of the mind, before the sacrament came into the mouth: the receiving should be to condemnation. And then it doth not shut out the Devil: but make an open way for him to enter. But now let us see what Nazianzen hath said. You say, that his words be thus. Mensa haec. etc. This table, and so forth, as is afore. Because the reader shall not need to seek the words that you have left out, in the works of Gregory (which are not in every man's study) I will write so much of his saying as may make his meaning known. And if any shall doubt of my faithful dealing therein: let the same search the place and be satisfied. His words are these: Sanè, & unguentum quoddam habeo, sed quo solum Reges & sacerdotes utuntur, varium & preciosum, ac pro nobis evacuatum, magni unguentarij opificio compositum. utinam mihi contingat unguenti huius odorem bonum apponere Deo. Habeo & mensam, spiritalem illam & devinam, quam mihi praeparavit Dominus contra tribulantes me. Vel in qua requiesco & delicijs fruor, & nequaquam propter sacietatem iniuriam committo, sed & omnem passionum rebellionem sedo etc. I have a little sweet ointment also (but yet such as being of many ointments mixed together and costly, and drawn out for us, it anointeth only kings and priests) which was made by the workmanship of an excellent unguentary. Would God it might be my lot to pour out unto God, a sweet savour of this ointment. I have also, this spiritual and heavenly table, which the Lord hath prepared for me, over against them that trouble me, or in which I do rest, and delight myself, and do nothing offend by reason of satiety or fullness, but I do also suppress all rebellion of affections. Now let the learned reader judge, how well you deserve to be credited another time when you cite any thing out of the ancient fathers. Gregory hath said. Or in which I do rest and delight myself, and do nothing offend, by reason of satiety or fullness. But you thought good, not to trouble your hearers with any of those words: lest they should see that Gregory and you be of two minds. You make your tale smooth and whole, as though you had not leapt over any of Gregory's words. For thus you say. This table is prepared of God, against them that vex and trouble me, Crafty handling of the father's sayings. by which I quench and pacify all rebellion of my naughty affections. Who would think that there were any word left out? So craftily can you handle the words of ancient fathers, to make them seem to serve your purpose. But when the words of Gregory, are considered wholly together, and conferred with that which goeth before and followeth after: it shall appéete that Gregory's meaning was to declare in what points, the acceptable exercise of Christian religion doth consist and stand. In pureness of soul, and cheerfulness of mind: not in bodily mirth, gorgeous apparel, eating and drinking and wantonness. Not in furnishing of houses and doors, with flowers, nor burning of lights, nor playing upon Instruments. etc. For such was the order of the heathenish solemnity. He would have such Lamps as might light the whole body of Christ's Church, and the whole world. And he saith, that he meaneth the holy word of God thereby. In comparison of this light, saith he: I esteem not much of all those lights that men use in the solemnisation of their feasts. And then follow those words that I have before written. And immediately after those words, he saith. I have also a field (which the Lord hath blessed) full of flowers, more flourishing and more durable, than any flowers that grow in the spring time. I mean (saith he) the Priests, and sweet savouring shepherds and teachers: and a people, though it be but small in number, yet pure, chosen out, and picked. etc. Now (M. Watson) how say you by your Nazianzen? will you have him to allow your private Masses with their effects? your Tapers and Torchlight, your ringing & singing with blowing of Organs? Your masking, mumming, and dumb Idol Priests, that can do nothing else but sing and say their service in an unknown tongue? etc. No, no, all wise men may see, that he is of a far other mind. Now let us see what Cyrillus will say to this matter. He saith (say you) Non mortem solum. etc. Not only death. etc. If I did not know your old manner in falsifying the sayings of ancient fathers: I could never marvel enough at your beastly blindness, in citing this place for your purpose. You would have cyril to bear you record, that the sacrament of the altar, is an armour and defence, against the temptations of our ghostly enemy. etc. To make his words more plain to the reader: I will let him see in writing a few of those words that go before, that which you cite. First, he speaketh in the person of him that doubteth of having any commodity, by the receiving of the sacrament of Christ's body and blood: because saint Paul hath said, that whosoever shall eat the bread, and drink the cup unworthily, shall eat and drink his own condemnation. And I (saith such one) do examine myself, and find myself unworthy. When therefore (saith cyril) wilt thou (whosoever thou art that speakest these words) be worthy? When wilt thou offer thyself to Christ? For if thou be unworthy because thou dost sin, and thou leavest not of sinning (for who doth understand his own sin, as saith the Psalmist) then shalt thou be utterly without any part of this sanctification. To this he answereth thus. Quare pias quaeso cogitationes suscipias, studiose sancteque vinas, & benedictione participes, quae (mihi crede) non mortem solum, verum etiam morbos omnes depellit. Sedat enim cum in nobis maneat Christus: sevientem membrorum nostrorum legem, pietatem corroborat, perturbationes animi extinguit, nec in quibus sumus peccatis consyderat: sed aegrotos curate, collisos redintegrat, & sicut pastor bonus, qui animam suam pro omnibus posuit, ab omni nos erigit casu. I pray thee therefore take in hand godly cogitations. See that thou do live studiously and holily, and thou mayst be partaker of the benediction. Which (believe me) doth not only drive away death, but all sicknesses and diseases also. For when Christ dwelleth in us he doth still the raging law of our members, he doth confirm and strengthen godly devotion, he quencheth the parturbations of the mind. Neither doth he consider the sins wherein we are: but he maketh whole such as be sick, & them sound that be broken. And as a good shepherd that hath given his life for his sheep: he doth lift us up, as oft as we fall. If a man should ask cyril, what it is that driveth away death and diseases, he would say, the benediction or sanctification, that is Christ. For (as saint Paul saith) he is our sanctification. 1. Cor. 1. And that sinner that followeth cyril's counsel, needeth not to doubt of sanctification by Christ, and consequently, he needeth not to fear to be partaker of that sacrament that was instituted to confirm and strengthen us in the belief of our sanctification in him. And if a man should ask him, who it is that stilleth the raging law of our members. etc. He would answer that it is Christ. But if a man should bid you make your reason perfit, by putting to so many Verbs one Nominative case, at the least (for it is a very unperfit oration wherein there is no Nominative case, as Grammarians say) it is to be thought that you must say, An oration without a Nameing case. that Sacramentum altaris, the sacrament of the altar is the Nominative case to all those verbs. And then shall it appear how cyril and you do agree, & how cleanly you have conveyed your matter. But now you conclude your treatise upon this effect, with a marvelous exclamation: wondering first at the strange effects that this sacrament hath brought forth, & then at the large conscience of your late teachers (destroyers of Christ's flock, you say) which take away this armour, which was none other thing but to leave you naked and unarmed against the Devil, that he might prevail. etc. All this labour you might have spared: Watson might have spared this labour. if you would have opened your eyes to see the true meaning of those places of scripture and ancient fathers that you cite for your purpose. For they neither teach that these effects do spring out of the sacrament of the altar: nor that your late teachers have rob you of any treasure. For they did but take from you such toys as your father the Pope had devised for you. Neither did those teachers plant among you a bare Ceremony: for they restored again the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, which you and your sort, had so disguised with your ceremonies, that it could not be known for any sacrament of Christ. They taught not, that it is nothing else but bread and wine: but they taught, and we do teach, that it is sacramental bread and wine, and that being received by the member of Christ, it is the mystical body of Christ, and worketh in him as much as our saviour Christ did ordain it to work: That is, the certifying of his weak nature: that everlasting life is purchased for him, by the death and blood shedding of Christ: And that he is unseparably knit unto Christ his head, and unto the rest of God's chosen children. And this is not the effect of bread and wine: But of him that worketh by his sacraments as by instruments. But now you have one effect more, and so an end of this matter. WATSON. Division. 27 Well: one other effect I shall note unto you, and make an end of that matter. This effect is written in the next verse of the same Psalm. Et calix tuus inebrians quám praeclarus est: Psal. 22. and thy Chalice or Cup that maketh us drunk, how goodly and excellent is it? There be two Cups, one worldly of wine, the other heavenly of Christ's blood: both make men drunken, but after divers sorts, the one is sometimes, the instrument of sin, the other at all times the instrument of grace, for as much as pertaineth to his own nature. Of this writeth S. Cyprian. Sed quia ebrietas dominici calicis & sanguinis non est talis qualis est ebrietas vini secularis, Cyprian. li. 2. Epist. 3. cùm diceret spiritus sanctus in Psalmo. Calix tuus inebrians, addidit perquám optimus: quòd scilicet calix dominicus sic bibentes, inebriat, ut sobrios faciat, ut mentes ad spiritalem sapientiam redigat, ut à sapore isto seculari, ad imtellectum Dei unusquisque resipiscat. But because the drunkenness of our Lord's cup and blood is not such, as the drunkenness of worldly wine: when the holy ghost in the Psalm said. Thy cup that maketh men drunk, (he added) is very godly and excellent, because the cup of our Lord doth so make the drinkers drunk, that it maketh them sober, that it bringeth their minds to spiritual wisdom that every man may bring himself from this drowsiness of the world to the understanding and knowledge of God. To this intent saint Ambrose writeth in divers places, Ambros. in Psalm. 1. as upon the first Psalm. At vero Dominus jesus aquam de petra effudit, & omnes biberunt, and so forth. The place is long and for avoiding of tediousness, I shall faithfully rehearse it in English. But our Lord jesus brought water out of the stone, and all drank of it. They that drank in figure, were satiate, they that drunk in truth were made drunk, the drunkenness is good, which bringeth in mirth and not confusion, that drunkenness is good, that stayeth in soberness the motions of the mind. And he speaketh more plainer in these words. Ambros. in Psal. 118. sermone. 15. Eat the meat of the Apostles preaching before, that thou mayst afterward come to the meat of Christ, to the meat of our lords body, to the dainties of the sacrament, to that cup wherewithal the affection of the faithful is made drunk that it might conceive gladness for remission of sin, and put away the thoughts of this world, the fear of death and all troublesome carefulness, for by this drunkenness that body doth not stumble and fall but riseth (to grace and glory) the soul is not confounded, but is consecrate and made holy. Yet one effect more, and then an end of this matter. CROWLEY. The drunkenness that the Prophet David speaketh of in the .22. Psalm. etc. Here you seem to have forgotten yourself. Watson forgetteth what he hath in hand. Your whole labour hitherto, hath been to prove, that the sacrament of the altar worketh many excellent effects: and so you have made it the efficient cause of those effects. But now, as one that remembreth not what you have in hand: you say that it is the instrument of grace. If you will abide by that, than I will not strive with you: for I am of the same mind that you are in that point, if you have written as you think, when you say that it is the instrument of grace. For even as the word of God is an instrument of grace: so are the sacraments also. But God, whose word and sacraments they be: is the efficient cause that worketh by them, as by instruments. But it seemeth by that which you cite out of Cyprian and Ambrose, to prove this effect that ye speak of: that it was but a slip of memory, when you called it an instrument. I will therefore suppose that you be the same man that you were before: till I see better likelihood of your sound judgement in this matter. Cyprian hath said (say you) Sed quia ebrietas. etc. Cyprian. li. 2. Epist. 3. According to your custom, you leave out those words that might make the writers meaning plain. Cyprian had said before, that for as much as neither the Apostle Paul, nor an Angel from heaven, might declare or teach any otherwise, than Christ himself had once taught, and his Apostles had declared: he marveled, that contrary to the evangelical, and Apostolical doctrine, there was in some places water offered in the lords cup, which could not of itself alone, express the blood of the Lord. The sacrament whereof the holy ghost doth not pass over in the Psalms, making mention of the lords cup and saying: Thy cup, which doth make drunk, is exceeding good. And the cup that maketh men drunk, is surely mixed with wine: for water can not make any man drunken. And the lords cup doth make a man drunk, even as Noah was made droken when he drank wine, as it is written in Genesis. And then do those words that you have cited, solow. All indifferent readers may perceive by these words of Cyprian what his meaning was. Not to teach, that the spiritual drunkenness, is the effect of the sacrament: but that the sacrament might not be ministered with water alone without wine. For unless it have in it, a natural strength to make the drinkers drunken: it can not express, that is to say, it can not lively represent the blood of Christ, which being drunken of such as be members of his body, in spirit by faith, and sacramentally in the sacrament, according to his institution: doth make them drunken with that drunkenness that saint Cyprian speaketh of here. And to make his meaning more plain, he addeth to the end of those words that you have cited, these plain and manifest words. Et quemadmodum vino isto communi, mens soluitur, & anima relaxatur, & tristitia omnis exponitur: ita & potato sanguine Domini, & poculo salutari, exponatur memoria veteris hominis, & fiat oblivio conversationis pristinae secularis: & moestum pectus & triste, quod prius peccatis angentibus praemebatur, divinae indulgentiae laetitia resoluatur. Quod tunc demum potest laetificare in Ecclesia Domini bibentem: si quod bibitur dominicam teneat veritatem. And as by the drinking of this common wine, a man's mind is loosed, and his soul set at large from all cares, and all sorrowfulness is sent out from the same: even so, when the Lords blood, and the cup of salvation is drunken, the remembrance of the old man may be expelled, and the old worldly conversation forgotten, and the sorrowful and pensive heart, which was before oppressed with sorrow for sin: may be resolved by the joyful gladness of forgiveness at God's hand. Which cup may cheer him that drinketh it in the Church of the Lord, when the thing that is drunken, doth hold the truth of the Lord. By these words of Cyprian, it is manifest that he meaneth of such a drunkenness as saint Austen doth, August. in Psalm. 22. writing upon the same verse of the .22. Psalm. Where he saith thus. Et poculum tuum, oblivionem praestans priorum vanarum delectationum, quam praeclarum est. And thy cup, which doth make men forget their former vain pleasures: is very notable and excellent. And this is according to that which saint Paul writeth to the Ephesians saying. Be ye not drunken with wine, wherein is excess: Ephes. 5. but be ye filled with the holy ghost. etc. To help you to prove this effect: you cite Ambrose upon the first Psalm. And to avoid tediousness, you will faithfully rehearse his words in English. etc. It had been well, if to avoid tediousness, you would have left out all that you do here cite out of Ambrose. Or else, that you had borrowed a little more time with your Auditory: to make his meaning better known to them. In the beginning of the matter that saint Ambrose doth handle in the place that you cite: Ambros. in Psal. 1. he saith thus. Hoc primum bibe. Drink this cup first. And shortly after he saith thus. Prodest tibi cor habere contritum. Hoc primum bibe: ut sacrificium tuum accipiatur a Domino. Doceat te Apostolus quid sit, (hoc primum bibe:) hoc est tribulationis poculum. It is profitable for thee to have a contrite heart. Drink this cup first, that the Lord may accept thy sacrifice. Let the Apostle teach thee, what this saying (drink this cup first) doth mean. It signifieth the cup of tribulation. And after a few words he saith. Bibe primum, ut sitim mitiges: Bibe secundùm, ut saturitatem haureas. In veteri testamento compunctio, in novo laeticia est. Drink the first Testament, that thou mayst mitigate thy thirst: drink the second, that thou mayst drink to the full. In the old Testament there is hearty sorrow for sin, in the new Testament: joy and gladness. And to avoid tediousness, let me faithfully rehearse in English, the words that go immediately before those words that you cite. See (saith saint Ambrose) how the Lord hath on the hehalfe of his servants: matched the deceits of the Devil. He did with one morsel of meat deceive one man: that he might in one, cirumvent all. But jesus hath redeemed all, with the meat of salvation: that in all, he might reform him that had been deceived. The Devil did invent the golden Cup of Babylon, that such as should drink thereof, might be more thirsty: and that because the drink could not be pleasant, he might allure them with the price of the Gold. He began unto them of his own wine, whereunto he sought to have the help of the metal. But the Lord jesus did pour water out of the rock, and so forth, as you have cited. And to the end of those words that you cite: he addeth these. Neither let it move thee, that the Babylonian Cup is of Gold: for thou dost drink the Cup of wisdom, which is more precious than is Gold or Silver. Drink both the Cups therefore, both the old and the new Teastament. For in each of them thou dost drink Christ. Drink Christ: because he is the wine. Drink Christ: because he is the rock, that vometted out the water. Drink Christ: because he is the Fountain of life. Drink Christ: because he is the river, the rushing whereof doth make glad the City of God. Drink Christ: because he is peace. Drink Christ: because rivers of living water do flow out of his belly. Drink Christ: that thou mayst drink the blood wherewith thou wast redeemed. Drink Christ, that thou mayst drink his word. etc. Now (M. Watson) if you have not drunk so deep of the Babylonical cup, that you be thereby fallen into the deadly slumber of romish obstinacy: you must needs see that Ambrose doth not in this place mean to maintain your assertion: That is, that the spiritual drunkenness, is the effect of the sacrament of the altar. But here by the way I must put you in remembrance of citing such places as fight against your private Masses and half Housels. But you have yet another place, Ambros. in Psal. 118. Ser. 15. where Amborse speaketh more plainly, and saith. Eat the meat of the Apostles preaching. etc. Ambrose wrote them thus in Latin. Dicit ad Discipulos, date illis vos manducare: ne deficiant in via. Habes apostolicum cibum: manduca illum, & non deficies. Illum ante manduca, ut postea venias ad cibum Christi, ad cibum corporis dominici, ad epulas sacramenti, ad illud poculum quo fidelium inebriatur affectus, ut laetitiam induat de remissione peccati, curas seculi huius, metum mortis, solicitudinesque deponat. Hac ergo ebrietate, corpus non titubat, sed resurgit: animus non confunditur, sed consecratur. He saith to his disciples. Do ye give them to eat, lest they faint by the way. Thou hast the meat that the Apostles gave: eat that, and thou shalt not faint. Eat that meat first: that thou mayst afterward come to the meat of Christ, to the meat of the lords body, to the delicacies of the sacrament, to that cup whereby the affection of the faithful is made drunken, that it may put on joy for the remission of sin, and lay off the cares of this world, the fear of death and troubles of mind. The body doth not stumble with this drunkenness, but it riseth again, the mind is not confounded, but consecrated. The meat that the Apostles did minister, Math. 28. Marc. 16. was the word and the sacraments. For this was their commission. Ite in mundum. etc. Go into all the world, and preach the Gospel to all creatures. etc. And saint Paul saith. Sic nos aestimet homo. etc. 1. Cor. 4. Let a man so esteem us, as the ministers of Christ, and Stewards of God's mysteries. Wherefore Ambrose teaching us to eat the Apostolical meat first, that we may afterward come to the meat of Christ: can not mean of that meat that is received, either by the ears or by the mouth, but by faith into the heart and soul. Which is, as Ambrose saith here, the delicacy of the sacrament, and the cup that maketh the affection of the faithful drunken. etc. But see you not, how this place also, fighteth against your private Masses & half communions? yea and against your manner of ministering sacraments, without the preaching of the word before. But go forward with your matter. WATSON. Division. 28 These scriptures, and these effects brought out of the scriptures, and confirmed by many manifest authorities of the holy fathers, do prove evidently to any man that hath but common wit and any sparkle of grace, and is not forsaken of almighty God, that the substance of this sacrament is neither bread nor wine, but only the body and blood of our Lord jesus Christ, united to God's son in unity of person, which is a sufficient cause, able to work in the worthy receiver these heavenly and glorious effects, which I have spoken of already. Whereby appeareth, what moveth me to continue still in that faith, which is so expressly taught in holy scripture: which scripture also draweth and pulleth me from the contrary false opinion. Math. 7. In divers places it moveth me and all christian men to beware and take heed of false Prophets, that come in the apparel of sheep, but within they be ravenous Wolves: that in their mouths have the word of God, the truth, the Gospel and such gay words, but the pit and effect of their teaching is old rotten heresies, confuted and condemned of all Christendom before, and not God's word, the name whereof they abuse to the maintenance of all vice, error, beastly living, adultery, disobedience, sacrilege, and open conspiracy, to the subversion of themselves, and of that state under which they live. The scripture crieth, Nolite omni spiritui credere, 1. john. 4. believe not every spirit, but try and prove the spirits, if they be of God or no, for many false Prophets are abroad in the world. One way to try them, is to mark the end of their conversation, and the example and fruit of their lives, as saint Paul saith. Quorum exitum conversationis intuentes, Hebr. 1. eorum imitamini fidem: follow their faith, the end of whose conversation ye have seen. We have seen, what is the end of this new teaching, carnal and detestable living, conspiracy and treason. The other fathers of whom we learned our faith, were men whom the corrupt world was not worthy to have: these Authors of this new opinion were men, that were not worthy to have and enjoy the world: Pet. 28. of whom saint Peter writeth, Magistri mendaces, and so forth. Lying masters that bring in sects of perdition, & deny that Lord that bought them (as they do in this matter of the sacrament) bringing upon them a speedy perdition: and many shall follow their ways, through whom the way of truth shall be slandered and blasphemed, and in covetousness by feigned words they shall make merchandise of you, to whom judgement ceaseth not, and their destruction sleepeth not. We be also warned by saint john of this matter, saying: 2. john. 1. he that remaineth & abideth in the doctrine (that the Apostles taught) he hath the father and the son. If any come to you not bringing this doctrine, do not receive him into your houses. Here he doth teach us to avoid them, that profess any other doctrine than such as all faithful men universally throughout the world have received and profess, which is not the doctrine, that the Sacramentaries preach. Finally considering the promises of Christ to his church that he will be with them to the worlds end, Math. 28. and that the holy ghost shall lead them into all truth, john. 16. then may we justly say, that if this our faith be an error, it hath prevailed universally not one hundredth year, but two, three, four, yea a thousand year, and more than that, even to the ascension of Christ, as appeareth by the testimonies of all holy writers, and then may we say Lord if we be deceived, thou hast deceived us, we have believed thy word, we have followed the tradition of the universal Church, we have obeyed the determinations and teachings of those Bishops and Pastors, whom thou hast placed in the Church to stay us in unity of faith, that we be not carried away with every wind of false doctrine. Therefore if we be deceived it cometh of thee O Lord, our error is invincible. But good people, we are sure, God deceiveth no man, let us all beware we do not deceive ourselves, as Saint james saith. CROWLEY. As touching the scriptures that you have alleged, and the effects that you have affirmed, to be the effects of the sacrament: you are already sufficiently answered. And for the substance of the sacrament also. We teach not that the worthy receiver, doth receive none other thing but bread and wine: for we hold (as the scriptures & the ancient fathers have taught) that the worthy receiver doth receive after a spiritual manner, & sacramentally, very Christ, God and man, that bread of life that came down from heaven. But with S. Austen we teach, that the unworthy receiver doth not receive Panem Dominum: sed panem Domini contra Dominum. August. in john. Tract. 59 The bread which is the Lord: but the bread of the Lord against the Lord. And where you cite certain scriptures, that warn you and all christians to beware of false prophets. etc. you yourself are one of those false Prophets. And the Prelates of your Antichristian and babylonical Church of Rome: are those ravening wolves that saint Paul did prophecy of, Act. 21. that should not spare the flock. The havoc that you made of Christ's silly Lambs in Queen Mary's days, 1. john. 4. doth declare what you are. Saint john doth very well warn us, not to believe every spirit: but to try whether they be of God or not. And shall we think that your spirit is of God, which moveth you to set up the Pope above all that is called God (that is above all Princes, 2. Thes. 2. which in the scripture are called Gods) and to maintain him in the temple of God (that is in the Church of Christ, boasting himself as though he were God? No surely, we can not think that your spirit is of God, for it is an arrogant spirit. And as for the way that you have found to try spirits by: let it be considered. And if your spirit, may be by that trial found to be of Christ: then will we credit you. But if ours be found so by the same: then why should not you credit us. Mementote praepositorum vestrorum (saith saint Paul) qui vobis locuti sunt verbum Dei, quorum intuentes exitum conversationis, imitamini fidem. Hebr. 13. Remember those that are your governors, and have spoken unto you the word of God: and considering the end of their conversation, ye do imitate or follow their faith. chrysostom writing upon this place saith thus. In hoc loco, etiam de adiutorio in fratres, eum existimo dicere: hoc enim est quod dicit. Qui vobis locuti sunt verbum Dei: Quorum contemplantes exitum conversationis, imitamini fidem. Quid est contemplantes? Sepius animo versantes, & apud vosmetipsos examinantes, consyderantes, subtiliter discutientes inquit, exitum conversationis. Hoc est perseverantiam usque in finem: quoniam finem bonum habuit eorum conversatio. etc. In this place (saith chrysostom) I suppose that he speaketh of the help that the brethren should have at their hands. This is it that he meaneth when he saith, which have spoken the word of God to you, the end of whose conversation when ye do behold, you follow their faith. What meaneth he when he saith, when you do behold? He saith as much as if he had said. When you do toss it and tumble it in your minds, and do examine it with yourselves, considering and discussing it thoroughly. The end of their conversation, that is, their perseverance to the end: because their conversation had a good end. etc. It is manifest, that chrysostom: doth understand saint Paul's purpose in this place to be, chiefly to put the hebrews in remembrance of their duties, towards such as had preached the Gospel amongst them. Whose faith they did imitate: because they had seen their constancy in continual preaching of sound doctrine, Another shift that Watson useth. leading a life according to the same. And here I must tell you, that you do to much abuse Saint Paul, when you make the English reader believe, that saint Paul speaketh in the Imperative Mood, commanding the hebrews to follow the faith of those men, the end of whose conversation they had seen. For both in the Greek and Latin, it is the Indicative Mood. You do follow. But grant it be a mark whereby the soundness of faith may be known: What have you won thereby? Shall there not as many of the Pope's Clergy be found inconstant in doctrine: as of the teachers of the new learning (as you term them)? I need not to write any more of this matter. The world seeth well enough, both the constancy and conversation of the most part of the teachers of your sort. In deed (as chrysostom saith here) when men shall see that the Preachers of any doctrine, do persever and continue constant in that doctrine, and do lead a life like unto the doctrine: it moveth them that hear the doctrine, to weigh and consider, both the life and the doctrine, and when they find that both be sound, The fruit of constancy and good life in Preachers. & without hypocrisy, to follow the faith of such preachers, as the hebrews did follow the faith of them that had constantly preached the word amongst them, and led a life according to the same. But if the doctrine, when it is weighed, be found divers and strange, and the conversation hypocritical, full of will works, beside, yea and contrary to the commandment of God: then the godly, wise, will leave those hypocrites and their faith, and seek for such as shall preach unto them such doctrine as may be found perfit and sound. And though the preachers of that doctrine do in some points, show themselves to be men: yet will they not reject the sound doctrine, for the lack of sound life in the preacher. But you bend these words of Paul another way: and you say that you have seen the end of this new learning. It is (say you) carnal and detestable living, conspiracy and treason. Me thinketh, I could guess, where you learned to call the life of those teachers that you name new: carnal and beastly. For it was the manner of your old master Stephano Gardiner: so to term the life of married ministers. So beastly was he, and so beastly do you seem to be (for that is the carnal and beastly life that you mean, I am sure) as to account that thing beastly, which is the holy ordinance of God. Saint Paul, even in the same chapter that you do cite hath said. Honorabile est coniugium in omnibus, Hebr. 13. & thorus immaculatus. Marriage is honourable amongst all men: and the bed thereof undefiled. It is to much therefore to call it beastly in ministers, for they be men also, and therefore their wedlock is honourable. As for your wyfelesse Priesthood, the world hath seen and perceived well enough, and as saint Paul writeth to the Ephesians. Quae enim in occulto fiune ab ipsis, turpe est & dicere: Ephes. 5. It is a filthy thing, once to name those things that these men do in secret. As for your conspiracy and treason that you charge us with: I refer to the judgement of such as have read the Chronicles and histories of the practices of Popish Prelates. And I pray you (M. Watson) even in the days that you have lived: who have been the conspirators and Traitors? Was Ask in Lyncolne shire, a scholar of the new teachers? did not he and his company, traitorously conspire and rebel against their prince, The fruits of popish doctrine. because their Pilgrimages and abbeys were suppressed? And what say you to the Vicar of Loweth that stirred about the same matter? And in king Edward the sixth days: who were the Captains and leaders, in every part of England almost, even in one Summer, but popish priests, and such as had been taught by them? And what Countries in all England were more quiet at that time, then were those, where the gospel (which you call new learning) had been most diligently and faithfully taught? If you can name us one, that being a teacher of the new learning (as you term it) hath rebelled against his prince: we can find you a dozen of your Clerks for that one. And then are we in as good case being compared unto you: as the Apostles were, being compared to the Pharisees. For if one in every twelve of us, should be found to bear a traitorous heart towards his prince, as among the twelve Apostles: there was found one judas: yet should we always have a xj honest men for one knave, where as amongst the Phariseis and you, there are to be found for every honest man a xj false knaves at the least. And thus all men may see the end of that learning that you call old. Now, those fathers whom the world was not worthy to have: were not the teachers that you learned your Popish faith of: but you learned of those fathers that were not worthy to have the world. They were not fathers descended of the right line, but intruders and usurpers, that most cruelly murdered the children of the right fathers. 2. Petr. 2. And they are even those lying masters, that saint Peter spoke of in the place that you cite. etc. And you and your sort, are even the same that saint john giveth us warning of in the place that you allege? For you abide not in the doctrine that Christ and his Apostles did teach: 2. john. but contrary to that doctrine, you make to yourself an head and master upon earth, and call him the most holy father, teaching his decrees and ordinances, as the doctrine that all Christ's flock, must under pain of the loss both of body & soul embrace & obey. And here saint john doth teach us to avoid you and your sort, which do teach & profess another doctrine, then that which was by the Prophets and Apostles taught, to be believed and received of all Gods elected and chosen children throughout the world. This doctrine is not the doctrine of the Papists. Watson concludeth with a loud lie. But now you conclude with a loud and shameless lie: Affirming that your learning (meaning the Pops learning) hath universally prevailed, ever since the ascension of Christ. Bishop jewel, in his answer to your friend master Doctor Harding: hath most manifestly proved, that you stretch your lie to far by six hundred years at the least. And how have you followed the word of the Lord God, to whom you turn your speech and say, if we be deceived, thou hast deceived us: seeing he saith, drink ye all of this, and you say, No. None shall drink it but Priests only. Make thee no graven Image (saith he) yes (say you) we will have our Churches full. etc. Wherefore if God have deceived you: it is not because you have believed his word: but because you have loved lies more than truth, and therefore God hath justly given you over In efficaciam erroris, even to the force and strength of error, 2. Thess. 2. as saint Paul writeth. And so is your error a just punishment for the credit that you gave unto lies. And although God neither doth nor can deceive any man, in such sort as you do mean: yet he saith that in such meaning as I have written, Ezech. 14. he doth deceive such as you are, for the wickedness of such people as you have instructed. Thus having spoken something of the scriptures, WATSON. Division. 29 as this short time would permit, there remaineth also the second thing, which I said moved me to continue in this faith, which is the authorities of ancient fathers that have flourished in the preaching of God's truth in all ages with authorities. I think verily in no age have been so curiously sought, so diligent found out, and so substantially weighed, as in this our time. And all this is because the oppugnation of the truth in this matter, hath extend itself not only to the scriptures but also to the doctors, & to every particle and title of the doctors, whose writings have been so scanned & tried, that if any thing could have been gathered & piked out of their books, either by liberal writing before this mystery came in contention, or by misconstruction of their words, or by depravation of their meaning, that could seem to make against our faith herein it was not omitted of some, but stoutly alleged, amplified, enforced, and set forth to the uttermost that their wits could conceive, which if God hath not infatuat, leaving them to speak so, as neither faith nor reason could allow: like as they have with their vanities seduced a great sort the more pity, so they should have undermined and subverted the faith of a great many more, that were doubting and falling but not clean overthrown, thanks be to almighty God. Of these authorities, although with a little study and less labour, I could at this time allege a great number, yet considering the shortness of the time, which is almost spent. I shall be content to pick out a few, which do not only declare the mind of the author, but also contain an argument to prove and convince the truth of our faith, and such an argument, as neither figurative speech, nor depravation of the words or meaning can delude. And first I shall begin with the weakest, that is with the suspicion of the Gentiles. Tertullian in his Apology teacheth, how the Gentiles did accuse the Christian men for killing of young children, ertul. apol. Capit. 7. and eating of their flesh, he saith thus: Dicimur sceleratissimi de Sacramento infanticidij & pabulo inde. We are reported and accused as most mischievous and wicked men, for the sacrament of killing of children and eating their flesh, and drinking their blood. Historia Ecclesiast. lib. 5. Capit. 3. Eusebius also in this history of the Church, writeth of one Attalus a martyr, who being roasted in an iron cradle with fire put underneath, when the savour of his flesh came to the smelling of the people that looked on: he cried with a loud voice to the people. Lo, this is to eat men which you do, which fault ye make inquisition of, as secretly done of us, which you commit openly in the mid day. By this accusation we may understand, that our sacraments and mysteries in the beginning of the Church were kept very secret, both from the sight and knowledge of the Pagans that mocked and scorned them, and also of those that were Catechumini, learners of our faith and not yet baptised, for many great causes which I shall not need to rehearse now. And yet for all the secret keeping of them, being so many Christian men and women as there was, they could not be kept so secret, but that some ynkeling of them came to the ears of those that were Infidels and unchristened, insomuch that where as in deed and very truth by the rules of our religion, we did eat the flesh of jesus Christ our Lord, and drink his blood ministered unto us in the sacrament, the Gentiles as they were curious to know new things, so they came to knowledge of the rumour of our doings, & either by the bewraying of some false brethren, or else by the simplicity of other, that of zeal without knowledge would have converted the unfaithful to our faith, heard secretly, that we christian men in our mysteries did eat man's flesh and drink man's blood, which they for lack of faith, and further instruction began to compass in their wits, how it was possible so to do, and therefore some of them blinded by their own foolish suspicion conceived and published amongst other, as it was most likely unto them, that we in our secret mystery, did kill young children, eating their flesh, and drinking their blood, and thereupon accused certain before the Magistrates of this heinous crime, which they could never try out to be true, as they did accuse. But for our purpose it appeareth plainly, that we would never have kept our mysteries so secret, if they had been but ceremonies of eating of bread & wine, nor they would never have accused us of such beastly and unnatural crimes being men of such reason, learning and equity, as they were, if there had not been some truth in their accusation, which in deed was true for the substance of that they alleged, but not for the manner of the thing: for it was and is true, that we in our mysteries eat flesh and drink blood, but yet we do not kill and murder young children, and eat their flesh and drink their blood. And therefore I allege the sayings of Tertullian and Eusebius, the which is also in Origen the sixth book contra Celsum, to declare the accusation of the Gentiles against us, concerning the eating of flesh, and drinking of blood, which could never have commed into their heads so to have done, if there had not been a truth in that matter, which they by their reason could never see otherwise, than they alleged, which we by our faith do plainly see and know as it was ordained by Christ our Lord. And for that cause Tertullian did cast in a vain word, saying: that we were accused of the sacrament of killing of children, which word (Sacrament) standeth there for no purpose, but to declare unto us, that this their accusation did rise for lack of the true and precise knowledge of our Sacrament, which is true, concerning the eating of flesh and drinking of blood, but not true concerning the killing and murdering of children. CROWLEY. After you have something spoken of the scriptures (how much to the purpose, let the readers of this answer judge) you come to the second thing that you said did move you to continue in your Popish faith: That is, the Authorities of ancient fathers that have flourished in all ages, in preaching of God's truth. And to make your Auditory to think that you mean to deal simply: you say that we have omitted nothing, that either by misconsturing or depraving might seem to make against your faith, but have stoutly alleged, amplified, enforced, and set forth to the uttermost that our wits could conceive. etc. But when the indifferent reader shall have read over this answer, and weighed both your doings and mine in misconsturing, depraving, stout alleging, amplifying and enforcing: I doubt not but he shall see, and will say, that the doings that you charge us withal, are your own. And that whereas by the help of God we had brought some to the knowledge of your false dealing, so that they began to lay hand upon the true faith in jesus Christ: you and your sort have by subtle persuasions, by imprisonment and by torments of fire, driven many of them, either to deny their faith, or else to hide it, or fly their Country, and would (if you might have continued) have banished the light of Christ's glorious Gospel for ever. But the Almighty God be praised for it: your power is now cut something shorter. A few Authorities you say, you will pick out, which shall prove and convince the truth of your faith. And first you will begin with the weakest (as who should say, the Authorities that shall come in the rearward, are thunderbolts in comparison of the first.) But with little study and less labour: you could allege a great number. etc. Well you will begin with Tertullian in his Apology: where he saith thus. Dicimur sceleratissimi etc. Apologet. 7. We are called most wicked. etc. And to his words you join the words of Attalus, written by Eusebius. The words are otherwise in Latin, than you do report them in English. I will therefore, let the reader see them in Latin, that the learned may judge of both our doings. Attalus verò cum prunis subteriectis, in sella ferrea torreretur, cunque nidor adustae carnis, ad nares & ora inspectantis populi perferrebatur, Eccles. hist. lib. 5. ca 3. voce magna exclamat ad plebem. Ecce, hoc est homines commedere quod vos facitis. Quid à nobis velut occultum inquiritis facinus, quod vos aperta luce committitis? Nos enim neque commedimus homines, neque aliud quid mali agimus. But when Attalus was roasted in an iron cradle, with burning coals cast under it, and when the savour of the burned flesh, was brought to the nostrils and mouth of the people that stood looking on: he doth with a loud voice cry out unto the people. Behold, this that you do is to eat men. Why do ye search for amongst us, as for an horrible deed done in secret, that thing which you yourselves do commit in the open light. For we neither eat men, nor do any other evil thing. Of these two places you gather a conjecture, that is, that for as much as, the christians were accused, as eaters of man's flesh and drinkers of man's blood: there must needs be some occasion of that accusation. Which you can conjecture to be none other, but the common opinion of the christians, concerning the substance that they received in the sacrament. Which though they kept as secretly as possibly they might: yet by one mean or other, it came to the ears of the enemies of Christian profession. Which for lack of faith could not conceive that manner of eating flesh and drinking blood that the christians used. And therefore they bruited abroad their own foolish conjecture: Which was, that christians did in their sacrifice kill a young Infant, and dip there sacrificing bread in the blood thereof, and so eat it. But you after your manner of amplifying, do say, that the christians were accused before certain Magistrates, of this heinous crime of eating the flesh of young children and drinking their blood. Which you can find neither in Tertullian nor Eusebius. But so your tale hath a better show for your purpose: that you might conclude, that it could never have come into the heads of the heathen, thus to accuse the christians, if there had not been a truth in the matter. And therefore you conclude that it is true that in those days the christians did, and we do now, eat flesh and drink blood in the sacrament, but not true concerning the killing and murdering of children. This you say is the weakest argument that you will use, to prove and convince the truth of your faith by. If this argument be sufficient to prove and convince that we do eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ, in the sacrament, after your sort: then let me make an argument to prove and convince, that in Tertullian'S days, christians did give themselves to carnal copulation, either in common, or else at the least with their own wife's, immediately after their feast of communion, even in the same place where they had holden that feast. For Tertullian saith immediately after those words that you cite. An argument like watson's. Et post conuivium incesto, quòd eversores luminum canes, lenones silicet, teneburum & libidinum impiarum inverecundiam procurent. And it is said that after the feast, we go to incest, and that Dogs, that is to say, Bawds, which overthrow the lights, do procure unshamefastness of the darkness and wicked lusts. Thus they do report of us, saith Tertullian. But this suspicion could never have come into their heads if there had not been a truth in the matter of carnal copulation, although not incestuously as they did maliciously brute abroad. As well doth this argument prove and convince this matter, as doth your argument prove that christians did in those days and do now, eat flesh and drink blood in the sacrament. I can not but marvel what you mean in citing Origine contra Celsum: sith you have said before, that the accusers of the christians were men of great reason, learning and equity. For Origine saith in the place that you cite, Origine maketh watson's conjecture to seem untrue. that for as much as these things be reported of christians, by such as be nothing acquainted with christian religion: they are adjudged to be vain and falsely invented against the christians. What reason, learning, and equity can there be, in men that will falsely invent and spread abroad such abominable and slanderous reports. But Tertullian hath cast in a word, that maketh up the matter, whole on your side. For he saith De sacramento insanticidij. For the sacrament of killing of children. But let us see his words together, as Beatus Rhenanus hath set them forth. Dicimur sceleratissimi de sacramento infanticidij, & pabulo judae, & post conuivium incesto, quòd eversores luminum canes, lenones silicet, tenebrarum & libidinum impiarum inverecundiam procurent. We are reported to be the worst men of all, for the sacrament of murdering of children, and the food of judas, and for incest after the feast, because Dogs, that is to say Bawds that overthrow the lights, do procure unshamefastness of darkness and wicked pleasures. This word sacrament (you say) is a vain word, and standeth there, for no purpose, but to declare unto us, that their occasion did rise, for lack of the true and precise knowledge of our sacrament. If I might be so bold, I would tell you, that your judgement of Tertullian'S writing is very vain and foolish, in that you judge him to have cast in this word sacrament, as serving to none other purpose but as you imagine. For what is more probable, then that the heathen did report of them that they had a mystery or sacrament, which did consist in the murdering of young children? And doth not Rhenanus, in the argument of this book, say that it was objected to the christians, that in their divine service, they did kill a young Infant, and imbrue with his blood, the bread that they would eat. But this was false saith he. But you say it was true concerning the substance of the matter. Well, Watson against Rhenanus. I will leave you to deal with Tertullian and Rhenanus, as you can in this matter. But I marvel much what you mean, in that you change judae into Ind. You do English it, eating their flesh, and drinking their blood. I think you have not found it so in Tertulians works, in any impression that is now to be seen. I must needs say then, that you deprave, misconstrue, & enforce the writings of the ancient fathers, to serve your purpose. I can not see, but you might as well have suffered it to stand as it was Pabulo judae, as to make it Pabulo inde: saving that then you might not have translated it as you do. But you must needs have said the food of judas. And why might not the enemies object to the Christians these three crimes: The killing of Infants. The feeding of judas And committing of incest? Why might they not imagine, that the Christians should at their meetings, have one to counterfeit Christ and another judas: the one dypping a sop, and the other receiving the same at his hand? Or why might they not call the eating of that bloody bread, by the name of judas feast? You say, that the Christians kept their mysteries so secret: that the enemies could have no knowledge of the manner of their doings. But in the same Chapter Tertullian saith thus. Ipsi etiam domesticis nostris quotidie obsi●emur, quotidie prodimur: in ipsis plurimum caetibus, & congregationibus nostris opprimimur. etc. We ourselves also (saith Tertullian) are every day beset with our own families, we are daily betrayed, and very often are we oppressed, even in our very assembles and congregations. And who did at any time come suddenly upon us, and find a child crying in such sort? Who did ever find our mouths bloody, like Cyclopians and Cirenians, and did open the same to the judge? By this it is manifest that the Christians did not in those days, keep their mysteries so secret, as you would have men think they did. watson's conclusion followeth not. Neither doth that follow that you would conclude, that is, that because the enemies to christian religion, did imagine that they did murder Infants, and imbrue the bread that they should eat in their communion, with the blood of those children: therefore it was true, that they did eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ in the sacrament, in such real and carnal sort as you teach. And yet afterward our mysteries as they came in more knowledge amongs the Gentiles, WATSON. Division. 30 so they came into more contempt: for when the multitude of Christian men were so increased, that they cared not who did look upon them in the time of their mysteries, being out of fear of any external violence & persecution then the Gentiles seeing them knock, and kneel, and make adoration to the sacraments, not knowing them to be any thing else, but as their eyes, senses, and reason did judge, that is to say, bread and wine as our sacramentaries do now, being blinded now with heresy, as they before were with infidelity: then I say, they said, that we did not worship and adore one God, as we pretended, but many Gods, as they were accustomed: for they said (as saint Augustine writeth) that we did worship Ceres and Bacchus, the Gods of Corn and Wine, August con. sanst. libr. 20 Capit. 13. taking our sacraments to be nothing else, but bare bread and wine, as the Sacramentaries do and not to be Christ our Lord and God, his flesh and his blood, as all true faithful men do, which appeareth by the adoration of them: the which adorarion we learn that it was done to the sacraments from the beginning, as is proved by the testimonies of our enemies the Gentiles, as saint Augustine reporteth. And also by their adoration we learn, that the things which they did adore, were not simple creatures, but Christ's body and his blood, united to the second person in Trinity. Saint basil being asked, with what fear, persuasion, Basilius in reg. in terrog. 172. faith, and affection we should come and communicate the body and blood of Christ, answereth thus: Concerning the fear, we have the saying of the Apostle. He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth & drinketh his judgement and damnation. What faith we should have, the words of our Lord do teach, who said: This is my body which is given for you, do this in my remembrance. Hesichius li. 6. ca 22. And Hesichius saith likewise: Sermo qui prolatus est in dominicum mysterium, ipse liberat nos ab ignorantia. The words of Christ, which were spoken upon our lords mystery, they deliver us from ignorance that is to say, they teach us, what faith, what estimation we should have of them. Now except they be taken as they sound to every man, although he be unlearned and not instructed in our faith before, they could not teach us, what faith we should have, concerning the sacraments, & therefore in that they be words, whereupon we must learn our faith, which deliver us from ignorance, what the things be, that be delivered, for that cause they must be taken as they sound, that is to say, that the sacraments delivered be the very body and blood of Christ, that gave them. 〈◊〉 ●om. 17. in Math. chrysostom saith. Quod sacerdos de manu sua dat, non solum sanctificatum est: sed etiam sanctificatio est. That thing that the Priest doth give out of his hand, is not only a thing sanctified: but it is sanctification itself. Therefore our sacrament, must not only be an holy thing, as they said, holy bread, holy wine: but it must be the substance of holiness, making all other things holy. And here I think it worthy to be noted, and to be opened somewhat unto you, with what sophistry and unlearned folly they deluded the sanctification and consecration of this sacrament. Children at the University can tell, that it is a deceitful way of reasoning, by a general description to exclude and drive away a special and singular definition, as they did in this case. For they said, that the consecration of the sacrament was no more, but an appointing of bread and wine to an holy use, which use they said was to signify unto us Christ's body that is in heaven: and therefore some said, that the bread was consecrate, when the parish Clarke did bring it to the Church, and set it upon the table, and these were no small men, but our greatest Bishops God forgive it them: other said it was not consecrate, till the words of Christ were spoken, but yet they noted, that the Priest should not look at the bread in the time of the pronouncing, for this end belike, that they should not be deceived, & that God should work no more than it pleased them, that their doctrine might some way be true. And therefore they said, every man and woman might consecrate and speak the words as well as a Priest: but they never read what Arnobius saith: Arniobus in Psalm. 139. Quid tam magnificum quam Sacramenta devina conficere? & quid tam perniciosum, quam si ea is conficiat, qui nullum sacerdotij gradum accepit? What is so excellent, then to consecrate the sacraments of God? and what is so pernicious, then if he do consecrate: that hath received no order and degree of Priesthood? And as they erred in the time and person, so they erred in the nature of the consecration, making this of the same sort that all other consecrations be, receiving the general description, and denying the degrees and specialties of sanctification, which be many: for somethings be holy, not for any holiness that is in them, but for that they be brought to the Church, and dedicate to some holy use, as is the temple of God, the vestures about the altar, and other things used in God's service, which things to steal and convey is sacrilege, and amongst those things there be degrees of holiness, as saint Augustine saith: Quod accipiunt Catechumini, August, de peccat merit & remiss. libr. 2. ca 26. quamuis non sit corpus Christi, sanctum est tamen, & sanctius quàm cibi quibus alimur. Holy bread which those that be learners receive, although it be not the body of Christ, yet it is holy, and more holy than the meat, with which we are fed daily, which also is sanctified by the word and prayer. There is also holiness, a quality, a virtue, & gift of God, making him in whom it is, acceptable in the sight of God. The soul of man is likewise sanctified & holy, because it is that substance and subject wherein holiness consisteth and dwelleth, being a vessel created to God's image, and prepared to receive God's gift of sanctification & holiness. And the body of a godly man is also sanctified & holy, because it is the member of Christ, the temple of the holy Ghost, and the house and tabernacle of the soul, replenished with God's grace and sanctification and for this reason we have in reverence and estimation the relics & bodies of holy martyrs and confessors, which being members of Christ, were also pleasing sacrifices to Almighty God, either for austerity of life, or for suffering of undeserved death, for the faith or in the quarrel of jesus Christ our Lord. The sacraments of God's Church be justly called holy, because they be the instruments, whereby God doth work holiness in the soul of man, and be as causes of the same, by Christ's own ordinance and institution. But above all other, this sacrament of the altar is holy, being as chrysostom said, not only a thing sanctified, but the very sanctification itself. For in that it is the body of Christ by consecration, whereunto is annexed the Godhead by unity of person: it must needs be holiness itself, not in quality, but in substance, seeing whatsoever thing is in God, is also God, who for his simplicity receiveth no quality into himself, but is the author and principal cause of all good qualities and graces given unto man. Wherefore, this place of chrysostom that calleth it sanctification itself, can not be avoided, by no figurative speeches, or such like cavillations. CROWLEY. Here you begin with a loud lie (by your leave) for there was never time yet wherein true christian men, cared not who looked upon them in the time of their mysteries: Two loud lies, one in another's neck. but they did shut out from the place where they did communicate, all that were not thought meet to be partakers with them. And if you believe not me, look in your Liturgies of james, basil, and chrysostom. And then you clap another lie even in the neck of the first, saying that the Christians made a knocking and kneeling, and adoration to the sacraments: and that, that was the thing that moved the Gentiles to say, that we worship many Gods, and not one as we pretend. But to prove this to be no lie: you take saint Austen to witness. Who in the place that you cite, saith thus, speaking to Faustus the Maniche. Quomodo ergo comparas panem & Calicem nostrum, & parem Religionem dicis, errorem longè à veritate discretum: peius desipiens quam nonnulli, qui nos propter Panem & Calicem: Cererem & liberum colere existimant. How dost thou therefore, compare our bread and cup, and sayest, that an error, which differeth very far from the truth, is as good a religion as ours, being more fond deceived, then are certain, which by reason of the bread and cup, do suppose, that we do worship Ceres and Bacchus. And in the same Chapter, he saith. Sicut enim à Cerere & libero, Paganorum dijs longè absumus, quamuis Panis & Calicis sacramentum, quod ita laudastis, ut in eo nobis pares esse volueritis, nostroritu amplectamur. etc. For even as we are very far from Ceres and Bacchus, Gods of the Pagans, although we do after our manner embrace the sacrament of the bread and the cup, which you have so highly commended, because you would therein be like unto us: even so our fathers were far enough from the chains of Saturn, although they did during the time of prophecy, observe the calling or name of the Sabbath. The same Gentiles, which had said that the christians did worship Ceres and Bacchus, because they used bread and wine in their communion: had said also, that the people of the jews were appointed to be the people of Saturn, because they observed the seventh day of their week for their Sabbath or rest, which day, the heathen did dedicated unto Saturn. Saint Austen therefore doth answer, that both the jews and the Christians, are far enough from serving either Saturn, Ceres, or Bacchus: notwithstanding that the one of them observed the seventh day, and the other used bread and wine in their communion. And a little afore in the same Chapter also, he uttereth his mind very plainly, against the gross opinion of the manichees, which held that they did in all manner of meats, wherewith they sustained their bodies, eat jesus Christ, even as you hold, that you eat him in the sacrament, receiving him into your bodies, by the ministery of your mouths. Of this gross eating of Christ, doth Austen write thus in that place. Vobis autem per fabulam vestram, in escis omnibus Christus ligatus apponitur: adhuc ligandus vestris visceribus, soluendusque ructatibus. Nam cum manducatis: Dei vestri defectione vos reficitis. Et cum digeritis: illius ref●ctione deficitis. Cum enim vos plenos reddit: resumptio vestra ipsum premit. etc. But if your fable be true: you have Christ fast bound, set before you in every meat that you eat, and must be bound again in your bowels, and unbound by your belchings. For when you do eat, you do refresh yourselves by the consuming of your God, and when you lose the belly: you do by his refreshing, faint or decay. For when he doth fill you full: your receiving of him again doth oppress him. Which thing might be accounted for a deed of mercy, seeing that he doth in you suffer something for you: except he did again leave you empty, that being delivered from you, he might escape. You thought belike, that no man would take the pains to weigh this place of Austen: and therefore you were bold to cite his words to prove that, which none that is learned will deny: That is, Watson doth miss of his purpose. that the Gentiles did suppose and say, that the christians did worship Ceres and Bacchus, because they used bread & wine in their sacrament. But your purpose was, so to cite his words that he might seem to allow that which you had said before, concerning the knocking and kneeling, and making of adoration to the sacrament as to Christ himself: which these very words that I have reported out of the same Chapter, do flatly deny. And where you say that adoration hath been done to the sacraments even from the beginning: you shall never be able to prove it, for the testimony of the heathen that you stick unto, is disproved. Neither shall you be able to prove, that we, whom you call sacramentaries: do judge the sacrament to be nothing else but bare bread and wine. But we confess, that Christ is received of the worthy receiver, although not carnally as you teach. Yea, we say with Austen in that same place that you do cite. Noster autem Panis & Calix non quilibet, quasi propter Christum in spicis & sarmentis ligatum, sicut illi desipiunt: sed certa consecratione, mysticus fit nobis, non nascitur. etc. Our bread and cup be not of the common sort, as in steed of Christ bound together in ears of corn and twigs, as they (that is, the manichees) do foolishly imagine: but by undoubted consecration, it is made unto us, mystical or sacramental bread, it doth not grow such, wherefore that food that is not so made, although it be bread and wine: it is a nourishment of refection, but not a sacrament of religion, otherwise then that we bless and give thanks to God in all his gifts, not only spiritual, but corporal also. Thus may all men see, that no man can allege better matter for us, then that which Austen hath written, even in the place that you have produced against us. Such is your luck in framing of Arguments, to prove & convince the truth of your faith. But what hath basil said to this matter? In the .172. Basil. magnus in Reg. Interrogat. 70. question, you say (by your note in the margin) but you should have said .70. Saint basil being asked. etc. But because you have not dealt so faithfully in reporting writers minds as ye might: I will write his words in Latin. Quali timore, vel fide, vel affectu, percipere debemus, corporis & sanguinis Christi gratiam Pater? Basilius. Timorem quidem docet nos Apostolus dicens. Qui manducat & bibit indignè: judicium sibi manducat & bibit, non diiudicans corpus Domini. Fidem verò edocet nos sermo Domini dicentis: Hoc est corpus meum quod pro multis datur: hoc facite in meam commemorationem. Et iterum sermo johannis dicentis, quòd verbum caro factum est, & habitavit in nobis. The Monk moveth this question to S. basil. Father (saith he) with what fear, faith & affection, ought we to receive the grace or free gift of the body and blood of Christ? basil answereth. The Apostle doth teach us with what fear we should receive it, when he saith: Who so doth eat and drink unworthily, doth eat and drink his own condemnation, because he maketh no difference of the Lords body. And the words of the Lord when he saith. This is my body which is given for many, do this in remembrance of me: do perfectly teach us faith. And again the words of john when he saith. The son of God is become flesh & hath dwelled amongst us. etc. First, I must tell you, that you have enforced basil to speak otherwise in English thorough your lips: then either he wrote in Greek: or his translator, in Latin. For he speaketh not of communicating the body & blood of Christ: but of receiving the grace & free gift of the body & blood of Christ. Neither doth he say, which is given for you, but for many. I note this, to give men occasion to consider, what silly shifts you seek to have a little advantage. The fathers used sometimes to call the sacraments Gratias, graces, or free gifts of mercy. In this place therefore, S. basil doth use Gratiam, for Sacramentum. So that the question is in none other meaning than thus. With what fear etc. must we receive the sacrament of the body & blood of Christ? but this maketh nothing for your purpose, therefore you enforce him to say, with what fear. etc. should we come to communicate the body and blood of Christ? As though basil had affirmed the sacrament to be the body & blood of Christ, in such sort as you affirm it to be. But these shifts will not serve you, so long as men may come to the sight of those author's works that you do so wrest for your purpose, and be able to weigh their words and gather their meaning aright. Isychius. li. 6. Capit. 22. Isychius also saith likewise (say you) And you cite his words thus. Sermo qui prolatus est. etc. The words of Christ which were spoken. etc. whether the fault be in you or your Printer, I cannot tell: but in as many places as this writer is named in your Sermons, he is misnamed. For his name is not Hesichius, but Isychius. But to the matter. Isychius expounding the .22. Chapter of Leviticus, doth amongst other things declare what is meant by the eating of holy things by ignorance. And what is meant by the fift part, that Moses commanded to be added to the holy thing eaten by ignorance, and given to the Priest into the sanctuary, with the holy thing that was eaten by ignorance. Of what antiquity this Isychius was, and how worthy credit his writings are. I find none so good testimony, as in johannes Tritemius, sometime Abbot of Spanheimens, who saith that he hath read this work of his. He himself in the preface of his book, saith, that of necessity the interpretation must be drawn to the Anagogical sense. Whereby it is manifest, that his opinion was, that such places of the book that he doth expound, Isychius to much given to the Anagogical sense. as had any difficulty in the literal sense: must be so drawn to the Anagogical sense, as though there were no literal sense to be observed in them. Which is contrary to the rule of all good interpreters, whose care is always to have an especial regard to the letter. Whereof this common saying springeth. Maledicta glossa quae corrumpit textum. Cursed is the gloss, that doth corrupt the text. And that it may appear that he is of that mind in deed: consider his words which are written not much before that which you do cite, where he saith thus. Quomodo cius quod iam comedit & consumpsit, addere quis quintam potest: How is any man able, to add the fift part of that thing, which he hath already eaten and consumed? In these words, he showeth himself to be within the reach of that curse that saint Jerome doth pronounce, upon all them that say that God hath commanded any thing to be done, which is not possible to be done. Yea he showeth himself to be a man of very small discretion: that could not conceive how this commandment might be fulfilled after the letter. For what is more plain then to say? He that eateth five apples of another man's: shall add a fift part, and give the same to him that ought the five apples that he hath eaten. Will any wise man say, that it is not possible so to do, because he hath already eaten and consumed the five apples? I think not. But every wise man will say: This man that hath eaten his neighbours five apples: must take so many of the same kind and goodness that the other which he hath eaten were, and add thereunto one of the same kind and goodness also: and then give those six apples to him that ought those that he hath eaten. And why may not Moses words be so understanded, when he saith. Addet quintam partem cum eo quod comedit? He shall add the fift part, with that which he hath eaten? It may be that this Isychius of yours was some great Clerk: but surely, he hath not in this point showed himself to be the wisest man. As for the Anagogical sense that he doth gather upon this place: I do not mislike. I suppose that it may well be said, that those men do eat the holy things by ignorance, that do receive the mystery or sacrament of Christ's body, not knowing the dignity and virtue thereof. And where he saith, that the fift part that must be added, is the words that Christ spoke over the mysteries: I can not but allow it to be a good Anagogical sense. For that word doth deliver us from ignorance, and maketh us to understand, that those creatures are not now to be used and considered, as when we take them for the sustentation of our bodies: but as mysteries, and therefore those words do remove us from the carnal and earthy consideration of them, to that consideration of them that is heavenly. Thus do I like very well with your Isychius for his Anagoge. And whether he were the hearer of Cregorie Nazianzen or not: I force not. But to tell you plain what I think: I take him not to be so ancient, The antiquity of Isychius. but one that hath written since Glossa ordinaria was published. For, the very same Anagoge is there, and yet not cited out of Isychius. And you know that, that Glosser, doth always note the names of those ancient fathers that minister him any matter. But the conclusion that you make upon Isychius words: I utterly mislike. And I suppose, that Isychius himself, if he were living, could not like well with you, for abusing his word to such a purpose. For in his preface, he saith thus: Nec enim reprehendere quis Anagogae interpretationes, Isychius against watson's doings. nec intellectuum consyderationem, nec littera praesumat explanationem, neque noster quispiam, neque alienus. Let no man (either that is of our religion or other) presume to find fault with Anagogical interpretations, nor with the consideration of understandings, nor the explanation of the letter. You deserve no thanks of Isychius therefore, to conclude upon his words, that the words which our saviour christ spoke when he delivered the sacramental bread and wine: must needs be taken even as they sound to every unlearned man, and that therefore the sacraments be the very body and blood of Christ that gave them. Now must we see what chrysostom hath said in this matter. In his .17. Homily upon Matthew, he saith thus (say you) Quod sacerdos etc. That thing that the Priest doth give. etc. A man might marvel, what moved you to seek out such suspected writings as this is: when ye boast to pick out a few arguments that can not be deluded, either by figurative speech, or depravation of words or meaning. All learned men say, that they know not who wrote those Homilies whereout you cite those words. In deed chrysostom did write .89. Homilies upon matthew. But this .17. that you cite, is none of them. Neither are these nor any like words found in any of those .89. Homilies. And besides this, those Homilies that you pick these words out of, have in them some blasphemous doctrine. As that Christ is not equal with his father, and that the holy Ghost is but a minister or servant to Christ. Yea, and in the eleventh of those Homilies, you shall find that the Author thereof is flat against you, For he saith thus. Si ergo haec vasa sanctificata, ad profanos usus transferre sic periculosum est, in quibus non est verum corpus Christi, watson's own chrysostom against Watson himself. sed mysterium corporis Christi continetur: quanto magis vasa corporis nostri, quae sibi deus ad habitaculum preparavit, non debemus locum dare Diabolo, agendi in eyes quod vult? If it be so dangerous a thing therefore, to translate to a profane use those vessels that be sanctified, wherein the very body of Christ is not, but the mystery of Christ's body is therein contained: how much more ought we not to give the vessels of our body (which God hath prepared to be a dwelling for himself) to be a place for the Devil to work his will in. Here you see what luck you have, when you advance the authority of obscure matter, by citing the same under the names of such as be famous. No man can speak more plainly against you, than this man doth in this place. But what though he had not written this, but had written only of this matter, in such sort as you have cited his words, and were of as great authority as ever was chrysostom: what had you won by his words, when they be taken whole together? I will therefore add those words that you leave out: that the indifferent reader may judge. Quoniam hoc non solum datur: quod videtur, sed etiam illud quod intelligitur. So that his words together are thus much. That thing that the priest doth deliver out of his hand, is not only sanctified, but it is sanctification: because, not only that which is seen is delivered, but the thing that is understanded also. We grant, that the thing signified and understanded by the sacrament, is delivered by the minister, and received by the receiver that is a member of Christ: but not in such sort as you hold. Sacramentally and spiritually, the thing that is signified and understanded is given and received, as I have before declared. These words therefore, taken together & rightly weighed, do make nothing against us, but rather with us, notwithstanding that we neither draw them to the figurative manner of speaking, nor yet deprave the words or meaning of the writer. But a perilous point of sophistry, you think meet to be noted, and some what opened to your auditory. Children at the university can tell: that to exclude a special and singular definition, by a general description, is a deceitful way of reasoning. It is commonly seen that such as do use to dig pits for other to fall into: do fall into the same themselves first of al. Your purpose was, by preferring the knowledge of children in the university, before the knowledge of your betters in learning, which were Bishops in king Edward the sixth days: Watson going about to deface other, is defaced himself. utterly to deface those learned fathers, and to bring them out of credit, as men that knew not so much, as children in the university do know And so to extol your own knowledge above the stars. For you are none of the babes at the university. But when your words shall be well weighed: they shall be found more babish and foolish, then commonly can be found among the children at the university. A special and singular definition (you say) is excluded by a general description. A child at the university would ask you: what manner of definition that is, which you call special and singular. And in whose Logic he might learn to know that definition. The Logicians that hither to have written: have made no mention of any such definition. Boetius maketh mention of many sorts of definitions: but of this that you speak of, he maketh no mention at all. Commonly, the authors writ but of four sorts of definitions. One Essential, another Causal, the third integral, and the fourth Accidental. And besides this the children might ask you: how special and singular, may in Logical matter, be both verified of one thing, in one and the same respect, and at one time, as you do here use them. Those therefore, whom (in derision) you call no small men, but your greatest Bishops: if they were now living, would make the world see, that for your good knowledge in Logic, A worthy promotion. that you show in this Sermon: you might leave the Divines Chair, and set you down amongst the babbling Sophists again, till you had gotten you better skill in Logic. The general description of consecration, that those men did receive, shall be found as good a definition of the same: as you or any of your sort shall be able to make. The consecration that those men received, is that benediction and decree of Christ: whereby the visible signs are appointed to an holy use. We speak not of your general consecration, whereby the heathen and you Papists, have without any warrant of the word of God, yea, contrary to God's word, consecrated so many of God's creatures to Idols and Idol service: but we speak of consecration that Christ himself hath made & doth still make, as oft as his Church and congregation, do take his creatures, and use them according to his commandment, to represent unto their senses, those invisible graces that he hath appointed those creatures to signify to us. And this is no new devise: for chrysostom in his .30. Homily, which is of the treason of judas saith thus. Chrisost. hom. .30. De proditione judae. Et nunc ille praesto est Christus, qui illam ornavit mensam, ipse ipsam quoque consecrat. Non enim homo est, qui proposita de consecratione mensae Domini, corpus Christi facit & sanguinem: sed ille qui crucifixus pro nobis est Christus. Sacerdotis ore verba proferuntur: sed Dei virtute consecrantur & gratia. Hoc est, ait, corpus meum, hoc verbo proposita consecrantur. Et sicut illa vox quae dicit, crescite & multiplicamini, & replete terram, semel quidem dicta est, sed omni tempori sentit effectum ad generationem operant natura: ita & vox illa, semel quidem dicta est sed per omnes mensas Ecclesiae usque ad hodiernum diem, & usque ad eius adventum, praestat saccrificio firmitatem. The same Christ that did adorn and beautify that table: is now present, and he doth consecrate the same also. For it is not a man that doth make those things that be set before us of the consecration of the Lords table, to be the body and blood of Christ: but the same Christ which was crucified for us. The words are pronounced by the mouth of the Priest: but the things are consecrated by the power and grace of God. This is (saith he) my body: by this word are the things that be set before us consecrated. And even as that voice which saith, grow and be multiplied, and replenish the earth, was but once spoken, but yet doth at all times, by the work of nature feel effect to generation: so that voice also was but once spoken, and yet it giveth sure stay to the sacrifice, throughout all the tables of the Church, even to this day and from henceforth till his coming. chrysostom doth here compare the words that Christ spoke at the institution of his supper, to the words that God spoke when he appointed man to be multiplied by generation: affirming that the same power that worketh still in the one, doth still work in the other also. Christ is no charmer. Not to charm out the substance of bread, and to charm in the substance of Christ under the accidents of bread (as you teach) but that as by natural order, the generation of mankind is continued according to the first voice: so the invisible graces that were promised by the death and blood shedding of our saviour Christ, are by the sacramental use of those creatures according to his commandment, continually preached to our senses, and by faith received into our souls. And where as you say, that some of us have said, that every man and woman may consecrate: you must name them that have so said, or cite the words that such have written, else will men say that you do belie us, & that you might well have spared the words of Arnobius, which you do cite, affirming that we did never read them. But whether we have read the words of Arnobius or not: it may seem that you did never understand them. For if you had, you would not have translated, so, and then: for so, and as, nor consecrate for conficere. But you would have said: What is so excellent: as to go thorough with the ministration of God's sacraments? And what is so pernicious, as if the same be done, by that man that hath taken no degree of priesthood? The purpose of Arnobius in this place, is to prove, that the presumption to do contrary to God's commandment: The fruits of presumption. is it that maketh the actions of men, which otherwise are good, to be exceeding evil. For what (saith he) is so holy a thing, as to receive the communion of Christ? And what is so wicked, as if one that is not baptized receive the same. And what can be more pernicious, then that a man that is not called to the office of ministration: should take upon him to minister the sacraments of Christ? I think you be not able to prove, that any of us hath either spoken or written to the contrary of that which Arnobius teacheth in this place. You can not therefore justly say, that we do err, either in the time or person. For we hold, that when the congregation of Christ assembled together, do by the mouth of their leafully called minister, give thanks to God for the death and passion of his son Christ, and according to Christ's holy institution, take bread and wine to divide it amongst them in remembrance of his death and passion: then is that consecration that chrysostom speaketh of, wrought by Christ himself that first did institute this holy mystery, and willed his Church to use the same in his remembrance till his coming again. As touching the holiness of creatures: De Peccatorum merit. & remis. libro. 2. Capit. 26. we say as Austen doth in the place that you do cite: Non unius modi est sanctificatio. etc. Sanctification, is after more sorts than one. For I suppose that such as be yet but learners of christian religion: are after a certain peculiar manner sanctified, by the sign of Christ, & the prayer of the laying on of hands. And that thing which they do receive, although it be not the body of Christ: yet it is holy, & more holy, then is the meat that we are fed withal, because it is a sacrament: The same Apostle also hath said, that the very meats wherewith we are fed for the necessity of the sustaining of this life: are sanctified by the word of God and prayer, which we use when we are about to refresh our bodies. Here, let the indifferent reader judge, how faithfully you have handled this place of Austen. First, you leave out the first part of the sentence, that might give light to the understanding of Austin's meaning. And where Austen showeth, that the thing that the learners of christian religion do receive, is holy, because it is a sacrament: you pass over that, A homely shift. with other words that might sound somewhat against your purpose, and knit up the matter with these words: which also is sanctified by the word and prayer. And make your hearers think that your manner of dealing holy bread was used in saint Austin's time: you translate this word Quod. Holy bread. Saint Austin's meaning, is to declare, that as there is holiness in creatures, by such means as God hath appointed for the sanctifying of his creatures: so is not their holiness alike, but one is more holy than another. The learners of Christian religion were holy: Degrees of holynesses. yet not so holy as were those that being fully instructed, were baptized. So, the bread, which they received, in token of the love that those which were already baptized, did bear towards them, was holy (for as saint Austen saith, it was a sacrament, that is, an holy sign) yet was it not so holy, as that sacramental bread, which christians did according to Christ's institution, divide amongst them. And yet it was more holy than the common bread that is made holy when we pray before we take it for the sustenance of our bodies. The other holynesses also that you speak of, we deny not. Neither do we deny that the sacraments of God be holy, Watson overthroweth that before he did build. because they be instruments. etc. But here I must note, that you do in this place, overthrow, that which you have so greatly laboured to build. For you do here make the sacraments, but as instrumental causes of holiness: where as you have before stoutly affirmed, that they be in deed: the efficient causes of wonderful holy effects. But as one that had overslipped himself: you correct yourself somewhat subtly, affirming that above all, the sacrament of the altar is holy. etc. Where fearing lest you should not commend it enough: August. ad Dardanum. you fall into that inconvenience, that S. Austen did warn Dardanus to shun. Cavendum est enim. etc. We must take heed, that we do not so affirm the divinity of the manhood, that we take away the truth of the body. You say that the sacrament of the altar must needs be holiness itself: because the Godhead is by unity of person annexed to it. For (say you) whatsoever thing is in God: is God also. So that by this doctrine, the manhood of Christ is so confounded with the Godhead, that it is clean consumed and become God, contrary to that which the true Catholic Church doth confess with Athanasius. 1. Timoth. 2. And we have no man Christ to be our Mediator, as saint Paul writeth: and so consequently no salvation by Christ. This consequent must needs follow upon that which you teach in your sermon: and can not be avoided by any figurative speech, or such like cavillations. WATSON. Division. 31. The same chrysostom in his Epistle to Innocentius Bishop of Rome writeth of the manner of the persecution in his time, not unlike to this of ours. Chrysost. Epist. ad Innocentium. Name & sanctuarium ingressi sunt milites, quorum aliquos scimus nullis inatiatos mysterijs, & viderunt omnia quae intus erant: quin & sanctissimus Christi sanguis (sicut in tali tumultu contingit) in praedictorum militum vestes effusus est. The soldiers came violently into the holy place, of whom we know that some were not baptised, and there they saw all things that were within, and the most holy blood of Christ (as chanceth often in such a tumult) was shed upon the garments of those soldiers. Here I mark that he saith not the figure or sign of Christ's blood, but the most holy blood, an other inferior creature can not be most holy. Also I mark that this most holy blood was reserved there in the holy temple, and was not only in Heaven to be received by faith of the faithful, but also was in the temple and violently handled of the unfaithful, being there contemned, abused, and spilled upon their garments. Doth not this barbarical violence, and external situation of the most holy blood of Christ, prove a real presence of the same in the sacrament? Gregory Nazianzene speaketh after the like manner, Nazianze. orat, ad Arianos. how that the Arians would not suffer the Catholics to pray in their temples, but troubled them, & killed them & mingled Christ's mystical blood, with the blood of the Catholic Priests, which they slew and so forth: whereby we understand a real presence of Christ's blood by that violence, that was showed unto it of the heretics part, though Christ were there after that sort, that he could suffer no violence of his part. We read in saint Jerome and in divers other: Hieronimus ad hedibiam. Ipsa conviva & conuivium, comedens & qui comeditur, that Christ is both the eater of the feast, and the feast itself, both the eater and the meat that is eaten. Whereby we understand, that Christ giving his body and his blood to his disciples, did receive the same himself before. And as chrysostom writeth that least his Disciples should have been troubled and offended, hearing him say. Chrysost. in Math. hom. 83. This is my blood, Euthymius in Mat. cap. 64. drink ye all of this, as the Caparnaites were before, and so should abhor to have drunk of the same. Christ did first drink of the same cup before them, that he might by his example induce his Disciples to drink likewise. Hesichius in levit. li. 2. Cap. 8. And Hesechius saith: Ipse dominus primus in caena mystica intelligibilem accepit sanguinem atque deinde calicem Apostolis dedit: Our Lord himself in the mystical supper, first drank his own blood, that was not seen, but understanded, and then gave the cup to his Apostles. By this fact of Christ we may learn that in the cup was verily and really Christ's own blood, or if Christ did eat his body, and drank his blood but in figure, than he did eat and drink it before after that manner in the tipical and Legal supper; and then how can this mystical supper be the truth, and the other the figure, if this be but a figure likewise? And then why should the Apostle be afraid to do that now, they were wont to do always before. It was no new thing, worthy the new Testament, to eat and drink Christ in a figure: and therefore it is certain, that Christ in his mystical supper did not eat and drink his body and blood only figuratively. And if ye will say, that he eat it and drank it spiritually only, than ye must say, that Christ did eat it by faith, for spiritual eating is believing. And if ye say, Christ did believe, than it followeth that Christ was not God. Who hath perfit knowledge of all things by sight, & not unperfit knowledge by faith, as we have, seeing as through a Glass in a dark riddle. And surely they harp much upon this string: for this heresy against the presence of Christ in the sacrament, is an high way, leading to the other heresy, that Christ is not God, as is proved by divers ways and arguments, into which pit divers be falling by this means, if God do not put under his hand to stay them betimes: for if they continue long in this, they will fall into the other no remedy, whereof we have already seen experience. Then if Christ did eat his body, and drink his blood in the mystical supper, neither figuratively, as he did in the paschal lamb nor yet spiritually as we do by faith: than it is certain, that he eat it only sacramentally, which is not only in sign (as the sacramentaries expound the word) but in truth under a sacrament, whereof the substance is the real and natural body and blood of Christ our Lord. After this sort writeth chrysostom of David, saying thus: Non contigit david gustare talem hostiam, Chrysost. hom. de David & Saul. neque particeps fuerat sanguinis dominici, sed legibus imperfectioribus educatus, neque tale quicquam exigentibus: tamen ad evangelicae philosophiae fastigium pervenit animi moderatione. It never chanced to David to taste of such a sacrifice, nor he was nor receiver and partaker of our lords blood, but being brought up under laws not so perfit, and requiring no such thing, yet by the moderation & temperance of his own mind, he came to the height of all evangelical Divinity. Here is plain that David did never taste and receive Christ's blood as we do in the Gospel, and yet David did receive Christ's blood figuratively, being partaker of the sacrifices of the old law which were figures of Christ's blood & also he did drink of the same blood spiritually as we do, whose faith was as good or rather greater than ours. Therefore there remaineth one other way that we drink of it, which was not granted unto him, that is to say, verily and really in the sacrament. To avoid this place well they must have more solutions than they have invented yet, for neither figuratively nor spiritually will serve, it were best for them to yield to the truth, and confess that it is there really, the very same substance of his blood, that was shed upon the cross, though not in that form, for the relief of our weak nature, which else could not sustain it. Here you have heaped together the sayings of certain writers, CROWLEY. to confirm that which you have hitherto laboured to prove: and do persuade yourself, that you have sufficiently proved. And first you begin with chrysostom. Another is not the same. The same chrysostom say you. etc. Here I must put you in remembrance of that which I have said before, that the sentence which you cited before as out of chrysostom was none of his. Wherefore you do wrong to john chrysostom, to say that he is the same. But to the purpose. You say that you mark in this place of chrysostom: that he saith not the figure or sign of Christ's blood: but the most holy blood. And another inferior creature can not be most holy. A foul oversight in one that would be a Catholic Bishop. etc. Here I must tell you that you have forgotten your duty towards your most holy father of Rome. etc. And unadvisedly, you have denied him that title, that all your brethren the papists, do think him worthy to have: notwithstanding he is but one of the inferior creatures. And further I must tell you, that you seem to have forgotten that which you spoke but a little before, affirming the sacrament to be God, and so no creature: but now when you do couple it with another inferior creature, your words do import, that you do account it among the inferior creatures. But for the meaning of Chrysostom's words in that place: you will neither consider the custom of the fathers (which was to call the sacraments by the names of those things whereof they be sacraments) neither what it was that chrysostom laboured to bring to pass by this Epistle. His whole purpose was, so to stir up the detestation of the doings of those wicked men in the heart of Innocentius: that he might thereby be moved, to seek by all possible means, to have that horrible fact punished. Which may right well appear by his words in the same Epistle, where he saith thus. Ad Innocentium. Igitur Domini maximè venerandi, & pij, cum haecitase habere didiceritis: studium vestrum & magnam diligentiam adhibete, quò retrudatur haec quae in Ecclesias irrupit iniquitas. Therefore, my Lords most godly and worthy to be reverenced, when you shall understand that these things be even so: employ your study, and great diligence, that this iniquity that rusheth into the Churches, may be beaten back. The scope of the Epistle. Here is the scope of his whole Epistle. And to bring this to pass, he useth as much Art as he is able, both in setting forth the horribleness of the fact, and also the danger that was imminent if it should be suffered unpunished, his own innocency, and the good opinion that he had in those men that he wrote unto. These things considered: no man that knoweth what Art meaneth, will think that Chrysostom's words in this place do give you such vantage against us, as you would bear your Auditory in hand that they do. You mark also the reservation of the holy blood in the holy temple. etc. Watson can see nothing that maketh against him. But you do not mark that this horrible tumult was made in the time when the people were together in the ministration of the sacraments. Which doth manifestly appear by the words that are written a little before those that you cite. The words are these. Ipso magna Sabbato collecta manus militum, ad vesperam diei in Ecclesias ingressa, clerum omnem qui nobiscum erat, vi eiecit, & armis gradum undique munivit. Mulieres quoque quae per illud tempus se exuerant, ut baptizarentur: metu graviorum insidiarum, nudae aufugerunt. Neque enim concedebatur, ut se velarent, sicut muliers honestas decet. Multae etiam acceptis vulneribus eijeiebantur, & sanguine implebantur, natatoria, & sancto cruore rubescebant fluenta. On the very Sabbath day, a great army of soldiers that were gathered together, entering into the Church at the eventide of the day, did by force drive out all the ministers that were with us, and fortify the steps with weapons on every side. Women also, which had at that time stripped themselves to be baptized: did for fear of greater conspiracies, run away naked. For they were not suffered to cover themselves, as it becometh honest women to do. Many also were wounded and driven out, and the wash Ponds were filled with blood, and the running rivers were made red with holy blood. If you would have considered these words: you might soon have seen how that most holy blood the chrysostom speaketh of, might be spilled upon the garments of the soldiers, and yet not reserved in the temple, for longer time than the action of Communion did last. For they used not in Chrysostom's church to make a morning's work of it, as you do use your Easter day Masses: but they continued the whole day, in prayer, preaching, confession of faith by them that should be baptized, The manner of Church exercise in Chrysostoms' time. in ministering of baptism, and last of all in communicating all together. But when you have found a word or two that may seem to serve your purpose: then have you enough: you lust to seek no further. No wiseman therefore will regard your conclusion. Nazianzen Oratione ad Arianos. Your place that you cite out of Nazianzen, would have framed so evil favouredly for your purpose if you had cited it either in Greek or Latin: that ye thought it best to teach him to speak English: so were you able to cause him to speak as you would. But you shall not deceive your hearers so. They shall hear him speak Latin, in such sort as Bilibaldus taught him. He saith thus to the Arians. Quosnam orantes, & manus ad Deum tollentes obsedi? Quos Psalmos tubarum strepitu interturbavi? Quorum mysticum sanguinem, caeso miscui sanguini? Whom have I besieged when they were in prayer, and lifting up their hands to God? What Psalms have I troubled with the noise of Trumpets? Whose mystical blood have I mingled, with the blood of the slain? Now, let your friends judge, how friendly you have taught Nazianzen to speak English, and how your conclusion doth follow upon his words. But let us see, what it is, that you read in Jerome and other. It seemeth to me, that you have read in those Authors: that which you understand not. For who can believe, that either Jerome or chrysostom would maintain or teach such a Paradox, watson's Paradox. as you would by their words enforce us to believe? That is, that Christ did eat his own flesh, and drink his own blood. In the answer that S. Jerome made to the second question that Hedibia desired to be resolved in: he saith thus. Nec Moses dedit nobis panem verum, sed Dominus jesus: ipse conviva & conuivium: ipse comedens, & qui comeditur. Moses gave us not the true bread, but the Lord jesus: He is the Guest, and the feast also. It is he that doth eat and is eaten. But is here all that Jerome writeth in this answer? Doth he leave the matter so doubtful, being desired to make it plain? I trow not. He saith that we do drink the blood of Christ, and that without Christ we can not drink it. And that we do daily in his sacrifices, tread out new red wine, out of the generation of the true vine, and the elected and chosen vine: and that thereof we do drink new wine in the kingdom of his father, not in the oldness of the letter, but in the newness of the spirit, singing a new song, that none is able to sing, except such as be in the kingdom of the Church, which is the kingdom of the father. This bread did the patriarch jacob desire to eat, saying: If the Lord God shall be with me, and shall give me bread to eat, and apparel to cover me withal. And then he concludeth his answer with these words. Quotquot autem in Christo baptizamur: Christum induimus, & panem comedimus Angelorum, & audimus Dominum praedicantem, Meus cibus est, ut faciam voluntatem eius qui misit me Patris, ut impleam opus eius. Faciamus igitur voluntatem eius qui misit nos Patris, & impleamus opus eius: & Christus nobiscum bibet in Regno Ecclesiae sanguinem suum. So many of us as be baptized, have put on Christ as a garment, and do eat the food of Angels: and do hear the Lord preaching thus. My meat, is to do the will of that father that hath sent me, that I may fulfil his work, let us therefore do the will of that father that hath sent us: and let us fulfil his work, and Christ will drink his own blood with us in the kingdom of the Church. Now, if you be not obstinate, you must needs confess, that Jerome meaneth nothing less than to teach that Christ did after such sort as you hold: eat his own flesh and drink his own blood. But that he did it, by doing the will of his father, and performing his work. And chrysostom also (if you would understand his meaning aright) would teach you another meaning of Christ's doing, then that which you gather. His words be these. Chrysost. in Math. ho. 83. Hac de causa desiderio desideravi. etc. For this cause have I greatly desired to eat this passouer with you: that I might make you spiritual. He himself also did drink of the same, lest they hearing those words should say. What? do we drink blood and eat flesh? And should therefore be troubled in mind. For even when he did before speak of those things: many were offended, even for the words only. Lest the same thing therefore, should happen then also: he did it first himself: that he might induce them to be partakers of the mysteries with a quiet mind. But what? Will you say, that the old passouer was able to do this also? No. For he said do this: that he might lead them away from that. Furthermore, if this passouer do work remission of sins, as it doth in deed: then is the other utterly of none effect. But even as in the old passouer, so in like manner here: he hath left us a benefit by gathering together the memory of the mysteries, and thereby bridling the mouths of the heretics. For when they say, how doth it appear that Christ was offered, and many other mysteries: then we alleging these things do stop their mouths. For if jesus did not die: whose pledge and sign, is this sacrifice? Thus you see, what great care he had, that we should always keep in memory: that he died for us. Thus far chrysostom in the place that you cite. Here it is manifest that chrysostom goeth not about in this place, to teach that Christ did drink his own blood: but that he did drink of the Cup of the new passouer (which he called his blood, as the Lamb was called the passouer) that his Apostles might not have occasion to think so grossly as you teach. That is, that he had turned the substance of the Wine into the substance of his blood, The purpose of Christ in drinking before his disciples. and would give it them to drink, contrary to the law, which did forbid them the eating of any thing in the blood thereof. But he did drink thereof before them: that they might thereby know, that it was not blood but wine, which he would have them to drink in the remembrance of his death and blood shedding, as the passouer was eaten in the remembrance of the people's deliverance in Egypt. And further to bring them from the observing of the old passouer, which was ended in him. And to arm them against those Heretics, that would deny that Christ died for the sins of the world. That this is Chrysostom's mind, doth plainly appear in those words of his, that I have before written: taken out of the same Chapter that you cite. As for his manner of speaking in calling the wine his blood: I have sufficiently written, in the former part of this answer. It is plain therefore, that you do open wrong to chrysostom, in that you would enforce him to help you to maintain your strange Paradox of Christ's eating of his own flesh and drinking of his own blood, which I suppose never any learned or wise man, would maintain as you do. As for the words that you cite out of Euthymius and Isychius, are sufficiently answered in this that I have written for answer to that which you have cited out of chrysostom. For they both seem to have taken out of him, all that they writ of this matter. The descant that you make upon this plain song, saying: Descant without good plain song. By this fact of Christ we may learn. etc. might well have been spared, till you had found a better plain song to descant upon. For hitherto you have not proved that Christ did eat his own flesh and drink his own blood: either figuratively, spiritually, or really, which you call sacramentally. And here I must note one pretty point of descant which you do use, when you say, that if we say that Christ did believe: than it followeth that he was not God. So that by this descant: either Christ must be no man, or else he must be an Infidel. You are so fearful to fall into the heresy of them that deny Christ to be God: that you fall into the contrary, denying him to be man. And so is the proverb verified in you. Incidit in Scyllam, qui vult vitare Caribdim. He that is desirous to escape the gulf on the one side: falleth upon the rocks on the other side. But how say you to the words of our saviour Christ, written by saint Mark? Marc. 13. Hebr. 2. &. 4. De die autem illa vel hora, nemo scit, neque Angeli in caelo neque filius, nisi Pater. Of that day or hour, no man knoweth, neither the Angels in heaven, nor the son, but the father. Christ in his man's nature, must be like unto us in all points, sin only excepted. But now, for the real presence of Christ in the sacrament: you have found a place in chrysostom, Chrysost. hom. de Saul & David. that will not be well avoided, either with figuratively or spiritually: and therefore you conclude that our best way were, to yield to that which you hold for truth. etc. But let us consider the words of chrysostom in that place. He saith thus. Non contigit David. etc. It never chanced to David, to taste of such a sacrifice. etc. In deed chrysostom hath written all those words that you report, and in such order as you do write them, saving that to blind the hearer or reader, you put David in the place of, Illi, lest your hearers and readers should have occasion to think, that there is somewhat going before, unto which, Illi, hath relation. Well, I will let the reader see some of those words that go before, and some of those that follow: that even your friends may see and judge, how great a cause you have to think: that our best way were to yield. After chrysostom hath begun to paint out the toleraunce of David: not only in forbearing to revenge himself upon king Saul, but also in seeking to do him good: he beginneth to compare him with such as live in the time of the new testament, and doth prefer his tolerance before theirs, because he did not hear and see, that which they have both heard and seen. And thus he saith. Neque enim paria sunt, sub vetere lege degentem, & nunc post illustratam evangelii gratiam: talia condonare gratis. Non audierat david parabolam de decem milibus talentorum, neque de centum denarijs. etc. The doings are not alike, when one that lived under the old law, and one that liveth now, after the grace of the Gospel is made manifest: do freely forgive such wrongs. David had not heard the parable of the ten thousand talents, nor of the hundred pennies. He had not heard the prayer which saith. Forgive men their debts: even as your Heavenly Father doth forgive your debts. He had not seen Christ crucified, he had not seen that precious blood poured out, neither had he heard the innumerable sermons of the Lord, concerning the restraining of the lusts of the mind. It happened not unto him to taste such a sacrifice, neither had he been partaker of the lords blood. But being brought up under laws that were not altogether perfit, neither did require any such thing: yet did he by the moderation of his mind, attain to the highest point of evangelical Philosophy. But thou art oftentimes offended, at the remembrance of the injuries that be past: but this man, although he might stand in fear of those things that were to come, knowing for certainty that if he would save his enemy, he should both be banished the City, and lead a poor and miserable life: yet did he not leave of to be careful for him, but he did all things that might nourish this so great an enemy. Who is able to tell us of a greater toleraunce or forbearing then this? If figuratively, and spiritually, may not be admitted in these words of chrysostom: then let us know, how it can be truly said of him, that he in his time, they that were before him and after Christ's ascension, and those that have been since, are now, and shall be to the world's end: have seen or shall see Christ's blood poured out, and him crucified. I am sure, you will not say, that all these under the new testament, have seen or shall see with their bodily eyes, Christ crucified, and his blood poured out. Well, than you must give us leave to think, that chrysostom doth use here, that same figure that saint john doth use in the beginning of his first Epistle. Where he saith thus. chrysostom useth the figure hyperbole in extolling David's toleraunce. We declare unto you, that thing that we have seen with our eyes. etc. And why may we not understand chrysostom to use the same figure when he saith: that David had not been partaker of the lords blood? And that it had not happened him to taste of such a sacrifice. etc. There was none of the sacrifices of the old law, that did paint out Christ crucified so plainly, and set him out so lively to our senses, as this sacrament doth: wherefore chrysostom might well and truly say (without any figure at all) that it had not happened to David, to taste of such a sacrifice. Neither did the law and prophets before Christ, so plainly and fully teach that highest point of christian Philosophy, which David attained unto, as doth the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles: Wherefore chrysostom might well write as he doth, that David had not heard. etc. And why might not chrysostom say then, that David was brought up under laws that were somewhat unperfit, in comparison of the law of the gospel: although there be in the law itself, no imperfection at all? The law was perfit, to the end that God did appoint it for. That was to bring men to the knowledge of their sins, and to drive them to Christ that was able to take away their sins. And why may not chrysostom in this place (according to the common custom of the fathers) call the sacrament, by the name of that thing whereof it is a sacrament? But here once again, I must tell you, that the very words that you cite: are flatly against your half communion. And that if David had been a popish prince: he should never have drunken the lords blood, except he would have been a popish Priest also. WATSON. Division. 32. August. in joannem tract. 11. And further than this saint Augustine saith: Si dixerimus Catechumino, credis in Christo respondit credo, & signat se cruce Christi, portat in front, & non erubescit de cruce domini sui: ecce credit in nomine eius. Interrogemus eum, manducas carnem filii hominis, & bibis sanguinem filii hominis? nescit quid dicimus, quia jesus non se credidit ei. If we shall say to one that learneth and professeth our faith being yet not baptised: dost thou believe in Christ? he answereth, I believe, and he doth sign himself with the cross of Christ, he beareth it on his forehead, and is not ashamed of the cross of his Lord: Lo he believeth in his name. But let us ask him, dost thou eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink the blood of the son of man he can not tell what we say, for jesus hath not believed & committed himself to him. Beside other things that may be fruitfully gathered of this place for our erudition, I note but this one, that a man believing in Christ, professing the faith of Christ with his word and work, and for that cause eateth Christ's flesh and drinketh his blood spiritually, yet he wot not what the eating of Christ's flesh meaneth, whereof Christ spoke in the sixth of S. john. But we that be baptised and are admitted to our lords table: we know by our experience, what it is to eat Christ's flesh and to drink his blood, for to us Christ doth trust & give himself, to the other that believe as well as we, he doth not commit himself. Whereby I conclude beside the spiritual eating of Christ by faith, there is also a real eating of him in the sacrament, by the service of our bodies, to the confirmation in grace and sanctification both of our bodies and souls. And concerning the drinking of Christ's blood really, saint Cyprian writeth an other argument, which I think can not be avoided by any figurative speeches, Cyprian, ser. de caena. he saith thus: Nova est huius Sacramenti doctrina, & sc●olae evangelicae hoc primum magistereum protulerunt, & doctore christo primum haec mundo invotuit disciplina, ut biberent sanguinem Christiani, cuius esum legis antiquae authoritas districtissimè imterdicit. Lex quip esum sanguinis prohibit, evangelium praecipit ut bibatur. etc. Origen also writeth this same thing very plainly upon Numeri. hom. 16. Origen in Numeros hom. 19 The English is this of Cyprian. The doctrine of this sacrament is new & the evangelical school, taught this lesson first of all, this discipline was never known to the world before our master Christ, who was the first teacher of it, that christian men should drink blood, the eating of which blood the authority of the old law doth most straightly forbid: for the law forbiddeth the eating of blood, the gospel commandeth blood to be droken. etc. Now this is most certain, that the law did never forbid the drinking of Christ's blood figuratively, but did command drink offerings, which were figures of his blood, and the jews drank of the water that came forth of the stone, which was a figure of the blood that came forth of Christ's side, which blood as chrysostom saith is in our Chalice: Id est in chalice quod fluxit è latere, Chrysost. in 1. Cor. hora. 24. & illius nos sumus participes: the same thing is the Chalice, that flowed out of Christ's side, and we are partakers of the same. Nor the law did never forbid the drinking of Christ's blood spiritually by faith, but set forth the faith of Christ, being a schoolmaster, to Christ pointing to him, in whom they should believe and receive all grace. But to make short, the law forbade the external and real drinking of blood, which the gospel commandeth saying, except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, & drink his blood, ye shall not have life in you, john. 6. and drink ye all of this. This is my blood of the new Testament. Therefore it followeth necessarily, that the drinking of this blood is not figuratively, nor yet only spiritually, but really by the service of our bodies, as chrysostom saith. Si vederit inimicus non postibus imposutum sanguinem typi sed fidelium ore lucentem sanguinem veritatis Christi templi postibus dedicatum, Chrysost. ad Neophytos. multo magis se subtrahit. If our enemy the Devil shall see not the blood of the figurative Lamb sprinkled upon the posts, but the blood of Christ the truth shining in the mouth of the faithful, much more he will run away. There is a place of the proverbs which as divers authors do expound, Proverb. 23. maketh much for the real presence of Christ's body and blood in the sacrament: the place is this after the Greek, which these authors followed. Cùm sederis ad mensam potentis, sapienter intellige quae apponuntur, & mitte manum tuam, sciens quia talia te oportet praepare. When thou sittest at the table of a great man, understand wisely what things are set before thee, and put to thy hand, knowing that thou must prepare such like things again. Saint Augustine upon saint john, August. in joh. tract. 47.48. and chrysostom upon the Psalm, and Hesechius and other more, whose words it were to long to rehearse in Latin: do expound this place of the proverbs thus. Who is this great man but jesus Christ our Lord God's son: Chrysost. in Psalm. 22. Hesichius. li. 6 Capit. 22. and what is the Table of this great man but where is received his body & his blood that hath given his life for us? And what is to sit at the Table, but to come to it humbly and devoutly? and what is to consider and understand wisely, what things be set before thee, but discern the body and blood of Christ to be set there verily in truth, and to know the grace, virtue, & dignity of them, and the danger for the misusing of them? and what is to put to thy hand, knowing that thou must prepare such like again, but to eat of them knowing that christian men in the cause of Christ, and defence of the truth are bounden to shed their blood, and spend their lives for their brethren as Christ hath done the same for us before, the like as we have received at Christ's table his body and his blood, so ought we to give for our brethren our bodies and blood. This comparison of taking and giving the like again, avoideth all the trifling cavillations of these figurative speeches, that the simple people's heads be cumbered withal. Here is no place for eating only by faith, for the martyrs did not only believe in Christ, but also in very deed gave their bodies and shed their blood really for Christ. I am weary of telling you of your subtle dealing in citing sentences out of the ancient fathers. Saint Austen in the xj CROWLEY. treatise upon john, saith as you have cited: but the words which go before, and should open saint Austin's meaning, August. in joh. tract. 11. you hold from your hearers and readers. He saith thus. Ipsis ergo se credit jesus, qui nati sunt denuò. jesus therefore doth betake himself to them that be borne a new. And afterward he saith. Qui ergo renati sunt, noctis fuerunt & diei sunt: tenebrae fuerunt, & lumen sunt. jam credit se illis jesus: & non nocte veniunt ad jesum sicut Nicodemus, non in tenebris quaerunt diem. etc. Those therefore, that be borne anew, did belong to the night, and do now belong to the day: they were darkness, and are now light. Now jesus doth betake himself to them, and they come not to jesus in the night, as did Nicodemus, they do not seek the light in darkness. etc. By these words it is plain, that Austen meant nothing less than to teach that which you gather of his words. Yea, & speaking of the same words that are written in the sixth of john, he saith. Dominus autem exposuit eyes, & dixit. Spiritus est qui vivificat, caro autem non prodest quicquam: cum dixisset. Nisi quis manducaverit carnem meam, & biberit sanguinem meum, non habebit in se vitam: ne carnaliter intelligerent. Spiritus est, inquit, qui vivificat, caro autem nihil prodest. Verba autem quae locutus sum vobis, spiritus & vita sunt. And the Lord declared unto them and said. It is the spirit that giveth life: the flesh doth profit nothing at all: when he had said. Except a man do eat my flesh and drink my blood, he shall not have any life in himself, lest they should understand him carnally, he said it is the spirit that quickeneth, and the flesh profiteth nothing. And the words that I have spoken unto you are spirit and life. etc. How your conclusion of a real eating of Christ in the sacrament, by the service of our bodies. etc. may follow upon these words of Austen: I leave to the judgement of all that be learned, and not obstinately blind in this matter. Cyprian. Ser. De Caena. To that which you cite out of Cyprians Sermon De Caena Domini, and Origine upon the book of Numbers. I refer you for answer, to the words of the same Cyprian in the same Sermon, where he saith thus. Dixerat sanc huius traditionis magister quod nisi manducaremus & biberemus cius sanguinem, non haberemus vitam in nobis: spirituali nos instruens documento, & aperiens ad rem ad●● abditam intellecluin, ut sciremus quod mansio, nostra in ipso, sit manducatio, & potus quasi quaedam incorporatio, subiectis, obsequijs, voluntatibus iunctis, affectibus unitis. The teacher of this tradition had said, that unless we would eat him and drink his blood, we could have no life in us: instructing us by a spiritual document, and opening our understanding to a thing that is so secretly hid, that we might know that our eating is our dwelling in him, and our drinking as it were a certain joining into one body with him, by giving over ourselves wholly to serve him, by joining our wills to his, and uniting our affections. And to the words of Origine also in the same Homily that you cite, Origines in Num. ho. 16. and not many lines after that which you point at; where he saith thus. Bibere autem dicimur sanguinem Christi, non solùm sacramentorum ritu sed & cùm sermonem eius recipimus, in quibus vita consistit, sicut & ipse dicit. Verba quae locutus sum, spiritus, & vita est. It is said that we drink the blood of Christ, not only in the rite of the sacrament: but also when we receive his words, in which life doth consist, even as he himself saith: The words that I have spoken, are spirit and life. Now, let your friends judge what you have gained: by that you have cited out of Cyprian and Origine. And for your sentence that you have picked out of chrysostom to help out with the matter. August ad Bonifacium. Epist. 23. I refer you for answer, to that which Austen hath written to Bonifacius, whose words I have cited in the ninth division of this answer. But to make short, it appeareth by this that I have written, that the Gospel commandeth no external nor real drinking of blood: wherefore, it is no necessary consequence, that in the sacrament of Christ's blood, his blood is not figuratively, nor yet only spiritually drunken, but really by the service of our bodies: although you do bear us in hand, that chrysostom doth so affirm, both in his .24. Homily upon the first to the Corinth's, and also in his Homily to those that were lately graffed into Christ. For both in those places & many other chrysostom doth give that name to the sacrament, which is proper to the thing whereof it is a Sacrament, according to Saint Austin's saying to Bonifacius. As touching the expounding of the words of Solomon, by Austen, chrysostom and Isychius, Watson belieth three at once. I must needs tell you that you belie them all three. For none of them doth say, as you would bear us in hand that they do say. Austen speaketh most of the matter, and saith thus. Mensa potentis quae sit nostis, August. in joh. tract. 47. ubi est corpus & sanguis Christi: qui accedit ad talem mensam, praeparet talia. Et quid est praeparet talia? Quomodo ipse pro nobis animam suam posuit: sic & nos debemus, ad aedificandam plebem, ad asserendam fidem, animam pro fratribus ponere. You know what the table of the mighty man is, where the body and blood of Christ is, he that cometh to such a table, must prepare the like thing. And what is it to prepare such like things? Even as he gave his life for us: so must we give our lives for our brethren, to edify the people, and to defend the faith. Here is no mention made of the sitting at the table, discerning of the thing set before them, nor of the putting to of the hand. All that Austen hath said here, Epist. 23. is fully answered by that which he hath written to Bonifacius. chrysostom saith thus. Sed veniunt ad mensam potentis, Chrysost. in Psalm. 22. consyderantes ea quae apponuntur eis accipere cum timore & tremore: & tribulationes efficiuntur consolationes. But they come unto the table of the mighty: considering those things that be set before them to receive with fear and trembling: & their tribulations are become consolations. This is far from that which you report in his name. But you could not see that which he writeth a little before, Watson can pretend shortness of time, When he will not say all that he should. where he saith thus. Et quia istam mensam praeparavit servis & ancillis in conspectu eorum. etc. And because he hath in the sight of them, prepared this table for his servants and handmaidens. etc. As is afore in the answer to the .26. division of this sermon. If shortness of time would have suffered you to rehearse, all those words: they would have marred altogether: and therefore you did wisely to dissemble them. As for the place that you cite out of Isychius, it is answered before, and needeth not now to be answered any further. But here I must tell you, that this is no simple dealing, to urge the interpretation of a few that felowed the Greek (as you say) both against the text in Hebrew: and the exposition that such as were learned in the Hebrew tongue, have made upon this place. Yea and that in so weighty a matter as this is. You know that Solomon was an Hebrew, and wrote his Proverbs in Hebrew: and shall we leave his words in Hebrew, and take that which we find in the Greek contrary to, or differing from, that which is manifest & plain in the Hebrew? If Austen had had the understanding of the Hebrew tongue: he would not have done so. I mislike not the expounding of that text by the Alegorie: for the text may well bear it. But to Alegorize upon a text, that differeth from the same text in the tongue that it was first written in by the Author thereof: can not but be misliked. And much more it is to be misliked, August libr. 12. Confess. Cap. 25. that any man's private judgement upon any part of scripture, should be made a sufficient ground to build our faith upon, as the same S. Austen hath said. Saint Jerome, who understood the Hebrew tongue: doth Alegorize far otherwise upon this place. And Lyranus (who was a jew borne) doth expound it after the letter. And the ordinary Gloss, Hierony. in prover. 23. followeth saint Jerome, who understandeth by the mighty man, the teacher of God's word: and by the things set before them, the word of God. etc. Fearing to be long therefore: you might well have spared all this, and the applying of your comparison, of taking and giving the like again, with boasting that it avoideth all the trifling cavillations of figurative speeches. etc. WATSON. Division. 33. I need not stand longer in so plain a matter, although I could allege much more out of all the ancient fathers, yea & more plainer than these I have touched, if any can be plainer. If I did but tell the bare names of the sacrament which the authors give it. I should prove manifestly, that it were the very body and blood of Christ, and not bread and wine. Ignatius calleth it Medicamentum immortalitatis, Ignatus ad Ephesios. antidotum non moriendi a medicine of immortality, a preservative against death. Dionysius Ariopagita S. Paul's Scholar calleth it hostia salutaris, the sacrifice of our salvation. Dionysius Hier. Eccle. Capit. 3. justinus apollo. Origen in Luc. hom. 38. in Mat. bo. 5. Cyprianus de lapsis de caena. justinus martyr saith, it is caro & sanguis incarnati jesu, the flesh & blood of jesus incarnate, which names be given to it of the scripture and all other writers. Origen calleth it Panis vitae dapes salvatoris, epulum incorruptum Dominus, the bread of life, the dainties of our saviour, the meat that is never corrupted, yea our Lord himself. Cyprian calleth it Sanctum domini the holy one of God gratia salutaris, the saving grace, Cibus inconsumptibilis, the meat that can never be consumed, Alimonia immortalitatis, the food of immortality. Portio vitae aeternae, the portion of eternal life, Sacrificium perpes, holocaustum per manens, a continual sacrifice, an offering always remaining, Christus, yea he calleth it Christ. The great general counsel at Nice calleth it Agnus Dei qui tollit peccatum mundi, Concilium Nicenum. the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world. Optatus an old author giveth it divers names, as in this sentence. Quid tam sacrilegium quam altaria dei frangere, radere, Optatus. li. 6. removere in quibus vota populi & membra Christi portata sunt, unde à multis pignus salutis aeternae tutela fidei, & spes resurrectionis accepta est? What is more sacrilege, then to break the altars of God (as the Donatists did) or to scrape them, or to remove them, upon the which altars the vows of the people that is to say, the members of Christ are borne, from which altars also the pledge of eternal salvation, the defence and buckler of faith, and the hope of resurrection be received. Hilarius calleth it cibus dominicus, our lords meat, Hilarius. li. 8. Basilius in Missa. verbum caro, the word made flesh. Saint basil in his Mass calleth them sancta divina, impolluta, immortalia, super celestia, & vivifica sacramenta. Holy sacraments, godly, pure, undefiled, immortal, heavenly, and giving life. What wittelesse and ungodly man would give these names to bread and wine? Saint Ambrose calleth it gratia dei, Ambrose de obitu fratris. the grace of God, not an accidental grace received of God into man's soul, but the very real sacrament he calleth the grace of God, the which his brother Satirus being upon the sea, and his ship broken, seeking for none other aid but only the remedy of faith and the defence of that sacrament, took this grace of God of the priests, and caused it to be bound in a stole, which he tied about his neck, and so trusting in that committed himself to the waters, by virtue whereof he escaped drowning, and afterward of a Catholic Bishop he received that same grace of God with his mouth. Chrysost. 1. Cor. 10. chrysostom O with what eloquence doth he utter this matter: hear but this one place. Ipsa namque mensa animae nostrae vis est, nerui mentis, fiduciae vinculum, fundamentum, spes salus lux, vita nostra. The very table sayeth he (meaning the meat of the table) is the strength of our soul, the sinews of our mind, the knot of our trust, the foundation, our hope, our health, our light, and our life. What names, what effects be these? and in an other Homely he calleth it Rex coeli, deus, Christus, Ad Ephe. Ser. 3. the king of heaven, God himself, Christ, which he saith goth into us by these gates and doors of our mouths. Cyrillus calleth it sanctificatio vivifica, the very sanctification that giveth life. Cirillus. li. 4. Capit. 17. August. Epist. 163. And S. Augustine calleth it Pretium nostrum, the price of our redemption, which judas received. What should I trouble you any longer in so plain a matter? Why should these holy fathers deceive us by calling this sacrament with so glorious & high names if they meant not so, but that it was but bread & wine? they lacked no grace that had so much grace as to shed their blood for Christ's faith, they lacked no wit nor eloquence to express what they meant. Thus did they with one consent, after one manner always speak and write by whose plain preaching and writing, the whole world of Christendom hath been persuaded and established in this faith of the real presence these fifteen hundred years. If they have seduced us meaning otherwise then they wrote, then may we justly say that they were not martyrs and confessors in deed, but very Devils, erring themselves, and bringing other also into error. But good people the truth is, they erred not, but taught us as they believed the very truth, confirming and testifying that faith with their blood that they had taught with their mouth. And if there be any error, it is in us, that for the unlearned talking, and witless sophistical reasoning of a few men, will headlings destroy our souls: forsaking and not continuing in that faith, which was taught by the mouth of Christ sealed with his blood, testified by the blood of martyrs, and hath prevailed from the beginning, against the which Hell gates can not prevail. Now there remaineth something to be said concerning the third part which is the consent of the catholic Church in this point: but I am sorry, the time is so past, that I can not now say any thing of it, in my next day God willing I shall touch it, and also proceed in the matter of the sacrifice, which I hope to God to make so plain, that it shall appear to them that will see and be not blinded forsaken of God, to be a thing most evident, most profitable to be used and frequented in Christ's Church, and that such slanders and blasphemers as be shot against it shall rebound (I hope) upon their own heads, that shot them to the glory of almighty God, who by his heavenly providence can so dispose the malice of a few, that it turn to the stay and commodity of the whole, that the elect by such conflicts may be awaked from their sleep, may be more confirmed in all truth, and may be more vigilant and aware in learning and observing the law of God, to whom be all glory and praise world without end. Amen. When you have done all that you are able in wresting and wring of scriptures and Doctors, CROWLEY. for the proof of that thing which you say is so plain: than you brag as though you could do much more, were it not the the matter is so plain of itself, that it should be but more than needeth, to stand any longer in it. A good point of Rhetoric: & such as must needs persuade such hearers as cannot be persuaded, that any of the Pope's Clerks can err. But you have yet one point of Rhetoric which passeth all the rest. And therefore you have kept it to the last place: that it may leave the stings and pricks of eloquence, in the minds of your hearers. If you did but make rehearsal of the bare names, that the Authors give to the sacrament: you should prove manifestly, that it were the very body and blood of Christ, and not bread and wine. And first you begin with Ignatius, who calleth it the medicine of immortality. Ignatius ad Ephesios'. etc. To this I have already answered in the .24. Division of this Sermon: and therefore need not to trouble the reader with further answer. Dionysius Areopagita. Eras. contr. Parisienses. And Dionysius Areopagita calleth it the sacrifice of our salvation. This must needs persuade all your hearers. For this Dionysius was saint Paul's Scholar, if a man may believe that which you tell us. But Erasmus, and divers other learned, and of grave judgement: do think that it could not be that Dionysius, that wrote the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy. But grant it were even he that is mentioned in the Acts: what should it help your purpose that he calleth the sacrament, the sacrifice of salvation? Hath not Saint Austen to Bonifacius, Epist. 23. told you the reason why such names are given to the sacraments? Yea, doth not the same Dionysius in the same Chapter that you cite, call the same sacrament by these names: holy bread, and the Cup of blessing, holy signs, comfortable signs, signs whereby Christ is signified and received, Capit. 3. most holy signs, heavenly sacraments, holy mysteries. & c? And doth he not call the whole action of the ministration of the same, by the names of Communion or society, Synaxis or gathering together, and the holy supper: If that one name be of force, to make it the very body and blood of Christ: then let the other names be able to make it bread and wine. etc. Apolog. 2. justinus Martyr also, saith that it is the flesh of jesus incarnate. I must tell you that you do not report his words aright. He saith thus, jesu Christi, eius qui homo fastus est, & carnem & sanguinem esse accepimus. We have heard, that it is the flesh & blood of that jesus Christ that became man. Not many lines before, he saith. Postea quam & is qui praeest, gratias egit, & populus omnis benedixit: i● qui apud nos Diaconi dicuntur, daunt unicuique qui adsunt, percipiendum Panem, vinum & aquam, quae cum gratiarum actione consecrata sunt, & ad eos qui absunt perferunt. And after that he (which is the chief) hath given thanks, and all the whole people have blessed: those that with us are called Deacons, do give to every one that is present, bread, wine, and water, which are by the thanks giving consecrated, to be received, and do carry of the same to those that be absent. I report me to your friends, whether justinus meant in this place to teach, or whither it may justly be gathered of his words: that the sacrament that you speak of is neither bread nor wine. Origene is much beholden to you, In Math. homil. 25. for you teach him to give more names to the sacrament, than he hath written in his Homilies. You note in the margin the fift Homily upon Matthew, wherein he speaketh not one word of that sacrament. But by like you would have noted the .25. Homily, where he speaketh of it: but far otherwise than you report, both in words and meaning. And upon Luke, in the place that you note, he saith thus. Nos si tantas Domini nostri opes, In Lucam homil. 38. tantam sermonis suppellectilem & abundantiam doctrinarum, non libenter amplectimur, si non comedimus panem vitae, si non carnibus Christi vescimur, & cruore potamur, si contemnimus dapes salvatoris nostri: scire debemus quod habeat Deus & benignitatem & severitatem. If we do not willingly embrace so great riches of our Lord, so great store of his word, and abundance of doctrine, if we do not eat the bread of life, if we eat not the flesh of Christ, nor drink his blood, if we despise the delicate dishes of our Saviour: we ought to know, that God hath both loving mercy and severe justice. Whether these words do prove that the sacrament is the very real body and blood of Christ, and neither bread nor wine: let your holy father the Pope himself be judge, if he be such a one as hath the use of reason. How the names that Cyprian giveth to this sacrament, may prove your assertion: may well appear, to all such as shall read that which I have before answered, Cyprian De Caena. Concilium Nicenum. to that which you have cited out of his Sermon De Caena. The great general counsel at Nice, do call it, the Lamb of God. etc. So do we, so far forth as a sacrament may have the name of that thing whereof it is a sacrament. Optatus libro. 6. Optatus saith. Quid tam sacrilegum. etc. What is more sacrilege. etc. Your old slight must be used still. Such words as may open the meaning of the writer, must be slily slipped over. He had to do with Parmenian and the rest of the Donatists. And in the beginning of his sixth book against them, he writeth thus. Indubitanter liquido demonstratum est: in divinis sacramentis, quid nefarie feceritis. etc. Undoubtedly, it is plainly set forth to be seen, what you have wickedly wrought in the sacraments of God. Now must we show those things, which you are not able to deny: that you have done cruelly, and foolishly. For what is so great sacrilege, as to break, scrape, and set aside the altars of God (upon which you yourselves also, did sometime offer) on which the vows of the people, and the members of Christ are borne: where God almighty is called upon, and whither the holy ghost being earnestly desired, doth descend or come down: from whence many do receive the earnest of eternal life, the safeguard of faith, and the hope of resurrection. The altars I say, upon which our saviour did command, not to lay the offerings of brotherhood, except the same be seasoned with peace. Say down saith he, thine offering before the altar, and go thy way back again. Agree with thy brother, that the priest may offer for thee. For what other thing is the altar: but the seat of the body and blood of Christ? All these things hath your fury, either scraped, broken, or set aside. Thus far Optatus, against the Donatists, amongst whom Parmenian was one of the chief. Saint Austen writing against the same Parmenian: saith, that the Donatists denied all that were not of their sect, Contra Epist. Parmen. li. 1. Capit. 3. to be of the Church of Christ. And therefore they accounted all the ministration that was done by any other minister then their own: to be filthy and abominable. And where they might get the upper hand, they made spoil of all those things, that served for the ministration. For which doings Optatus doth in this place inveigh against them. And to cause their cruelty and folly to appear the greater, in breaking, scraping, and removing the communion tables (which he calleth altars) he giveth names of great excellency and dignity, to those things that were ministered upon those tables: calling the same, the body and blood, and members of Christ, the earnest or pledge of everlasting salvation, the safeguard of faith, and the hope of resurrection. Yea, he saith that God is invocated and called upon there: and that the holy ghost, being earnestly desired, doth descend and come down thither. But you slip over those words: because the manner of speech that the writer useth there, is by these words perceived. Watson can slip over some words. For who knoweth not that the coming down of the holy ghost, must be understanded to be spiritual: and therefore the manner of speech to be Hyperbolical? He saith also, that the vows of the people be sustained or borne upon those tables: whereby he understandeth the prayers of the people, as may appear by that which he writeth in the same book, where he saith thus. Cur votae & desideria hominum, cum ipsis altaribus confregistis? Illic ad aures Dei ascendere populi solebat oratio. etc. Why have you, with those altars dashed in pieces, the prayers & petitions of men? The prayer of the people, was wont there to ascend to the ears of God. Why have you cut down the way that the prayers should go up by? And why have ye laboured with wicked hands: in manner to pull away the ladder, that the prayer should not have away up as it was wont to have? And that it is the communion table which he calleth an altar: it is plain by the which he writeth in the same book also, where he saith thus. Quis fidelium nescit, in peragendis mysterijs, ipsa ligna linteamine cooperiri. etc. What faithful man is ignorant, that in the ministration of the sacraments: the timber is covered with a linen cloth? When you have weighed all this that Optatus hath written: you will not (I trow) make so great reckoning of the names that he giveth to the sacrament. Accounting them as sufficient reasons to prove, that the sacrament is the very body and blood of Christ, and not bread and wine. Hilarius also, calleth it, Cibus Dominicus: Our Lord's meat. Hilarius li. 8. Verbum caro, the word made flesh. I must needs let the readers see the words of Hilary: as they stand written in his eight book De irinitate. And then let him judge how worthy credit you are, that shame not, to snatch such pieces to prove your purpose. He saith thus: Eos nunc qui inter Patrem & filium, voluntatis ingerunt unitatem: interrogo, utrumne per naturae veritatem, body Christus in nobis sit, an per concordiam voluntatis? Si enim verè verbum caro factum est, & nos verè verbum carnem cibo dominico sumimus: quomodo non naturaliter manner in nobis ixistimandus est, qui & naturam carnis nostrae iam inseparabilem sibi homo natus assumpsit, & naturam carnis suae, ad naturam aeternitatis, sub sacramento nobis communicandae carnis admiscuit. Now, I do demand of them that do cast in, or heap upon us, the unity of will between the father and the son: whether at this day, Christ be in us, by nature in deed, or by agreement of will? For if the son of God be made flesh in deed, and we do in the lords meat, receive the son of God incarnate in deed: how should he be thought not to dwell naturally in us, which being borne a man, hath both taken unto himself the inseparable nature of our flesh, and also hath mingled the nature of his flesh, with the nature of eternity, to be communicated unto us under a sacrament. If we shall understand all these words of Hilary, so grossly as you would have us to understand those words that you cite: then shall Hilary be found one of those, that affirm the two natures in Christ to be confounded, contrary to that which all true christians do with Athanasius confess. For he saith, that Christ hath mingled the nature of his flesh, with the eternity, that is, with the divine nature. We must therefore read his words with favour: as I have noted in that which I have written upon those words that you cite out of him in the .24. division of this Sermon. Look in the 24. division. Being earnestly bend against those heretics that denied the natural unity betwixt Christ and his father: he speaketh a great deal to largely of the unity betwixt Christ and us, calling that natural also. But for the words that you cite: we confess all that Hilary saith. That is, that we do in deed receive in the Lord's meat, very Christ, the son of God incarnate: But not in your gross manner. basil in his Mass, calleth them, Sancta Divina. etc. Basilius in Missa. Holy sacraments, godly, pure, undefiled, immortal, heavenly, and giving life. Of what authority this Mass of basil is: I refer to the judgement of the learned. It is not, neither hath been followed in any Church, neither is it found in his works in the Greek. Wherefore it seemeth to me, to be but a devise thrust out in his name, by some one that was unborn many years after basil was dead. But let it be of as great authority as you would wish it to be: shall his words that you cite, prove the sacrament to be the body and blood of Christ, and neither bread nor wine? He calleth it but an holy, godly, undefiled, immortal, heavenly, and quickening sacrament. If you add a minor proposition, and say: but every such sacrament is the real, and natural body of Christ: shall we be enforced to conclude, Ergo, this sacrament is the real and natural body and blood of Christ, and not either bread or wine? I trow not. I dare refer this to the judgement of them that understand Art. But is there nothing in that Mass that maketh against you? I trow he saith thus. Confidentes appropinquamus sancto altari tuo, & proponentes configuralia sancti corporis & sanguinis Christi tui: te obsecramus, & te postulamus saencte sanctorum, beneplacita tua benignitate, venire spiritum sanctum tuum super nos, & super proposita munera ista, & benedicere ea & sanctificare. Presuming upon thy mercies, we draw nigh unto thine altar. And setting before thee, apt figures of the body and blood of thy Christ: we do pray and beseech thee (O thou holiest of all) that by thy good and merciful pleasure, thy holy spirit may come upon us, and upon these gifts, which are set before thee, and that he may bless and sanctify them. All these words, would your basil have his high Priest to speak, after the words of consecration (as you term them) whereby, as much as may be done in making the body and blood of Christ, is done: and yet the holy ghost must come upon those gifts, and bless and sanctify them yet more. When you have weighed these words with the other, then tell me what you have gained towards your purpose. But when he cometh to the distribution, All things reckoned, more is lost then won. he marreth all: for he saith, that they do all communicate. And so, your own basil overthroweth your private Mass, which may so evil be spared in your holy father's Church. Ambrose calleth it Gratia Dei. The grace of God, not accidental. Ambrose De obitu Fratris. etc. In mine answer to the ninth division of this Sermon, I have noted of what authority Erasmus doth think those works to be, that are contained in the third Tome, where these words that you cite, should be. He saith that he is out of doubt, that they be all counterfeited, and set forth in Ambrose name: for there is no whit of Ambrose vain in them. Besides this, I marvel that you are not ashamed when you have reported a lie, to dub it with another of your own, saying that Ambrose doth call the sacrament by the name of the grace of God. Were it not for troubling the reader with to much of your folly: I would let him see the whole fable in writing, and refer the judgement even to your dearest friends that have not lost the use of their reason. Chrysost. in 1. Cor. 10. But to make up the matter withal: you have sought out one place of chrysostom, which doth enforce you to cry out and say: Oh with what eloquence doth he utter this matter. Hear but this one place. If a man should ask you what matter it is that chrysostom doth with such eloquence utter: you must say the real presence of Christ body and blood in the sacrament, and that the sacrament is neither bread nor wine. But what one word hath chrysostom in that place to prove this? His words being taken wholly together, are these. Quemadmodum frigida accessio periculosa est: ita nulla mysticae illius Caenae participatio, fames est & interitus. Ipsa namque mensa animae nostrae vis est, nerui mentis, fiduciae vinculum, fundamentum, spes, salus, lux, vita nostra. Si hinc hoc sacrificio muniti migrabimus: maxima cum fiducia sanctum ascendemus vestibulum, tanquam aureis quibusdam vestibus undique contecti. Et quid futura commemoro? Nam dum in haec vita sumus: ut terra nobis caelum sit, facit hoc mysterium. Ascend igitur ad Caeli portas, & diligenter attend. Imo, non Caeli, sed Caeli Caelorum, & tunc quod dicimus intueberis. For even as a cold coming to the lords table is perilous: so not to be partaker of the mystical supper at all, is famishment and death. For the table is the strength of our soul, the sinews of our mind, the bond of our confidence or sure trust, our foundation, hope, health, light, and our life. It we shall departed hence, being armed with this sacrifice: we shall with great boldness ascend unto the holy entry, as appareled on every side, with certain garments of Gold. And why do I speak of things to come? For even whilst we be in this life: this mystery doth make the earth to be an heaven unto us. Go up therefore to the gates of heaven: and mark diligently. Yea, not to the gates of heaven, but of the heaven of heavens: and then thou shalt behold those things that we speak of. Here you may see, what it is, The end of Chrysostom's Eloquence. that chrysostom mindeth to set forth by this elequence that he useth. He that will behold the things that he doth so highly extol: must in spirit go up to the gate of the heaven of heavens, even into the third heaven into which saint Paul was rapt, in which he learned things that he could not utter with his tongue. The lords supper, being rightly used of us, doth lively set forth unto us (yea unto our senses,) the Lord jesus himself, which is the strength of our soul, the sinews of our mind. etc. This can we not lively see, unless we do in spirit ascend, to the gate of the heaven of heavens. etc. But when you will prove your purpose: then all that the fathers have either written or spoken, to stir up their hearers or readers to heavenly contemplation: must needs be plain speeches, and applied to prove your gross opinion of the real presence of Christ in the sacrament: They must needs say that they neither use figure, nor spiritual meaning. And where chrysostom doth in an other Homily call the sacrament by these names, Rex Caeli, Deus, In Epist. ad Ephes. ho. 3. Cyril. li. 4. Capit. 17. August. Epist. 163. Christus (as you say) The king of heaven, God, & Christ: you may think yourself answered already. And so may you for that which you do here cite out of cyril and Austen. But I marvel much that you could not see, what chrysostom writeth against the staring and gaseing presence of your good people at your Popish Mass, wherein your priest doth eat and drink up all himself, and giveth none any part with him. Quisquis mysteriorum consors non est (saith chrysostom) impudens & improbus astat. Whosoever is not partaker of the mysteries: is as a shameless and wicked man, present at the ministration. But what should I trouble the reader any longer in so plain a matter? The fathers have not deceived you by calling the sacrament of Christ by so glorious and high names: but you have deceived yourself, by drawing their figurative and Rhetorical manner of speeches, to plain and grammatical manners of speaking, and their spiritual meanings, to your carnal and fleshly meaning. And as you have deceived yourselves: so you and your Popish fathers have laboured by the brag of fifteen hundred years, to deceive all the whole christian world. For which you shall one day drink of the cup of God's wrath, except ye repent before ye depart hence. Your, if, and your, but, will not serve you then. But as you say the error is in yourself, which would hearken to the witless sophistical reasoning of a few Popish men, and so run headlong to destroy your own souls. Forsaking, and not continuing in that faith that was taught by the mouth of Christ, sealed with his blood, and testified by the blood of Martyrs: and hath prevailed from the beginning, and shall continue to the end, in the despite of Antichrist and all his members and the whole power of hell. As for that which remaineth concerning the third point that causeth you to continue in your Popish faith, that is the consent of the Catholic Church (as you say) which to your great grief you could not now for shortness of time, go thorough with: shall be answered in the answer to your other Sermon, if God will, I hope in such sort, that as many as be not wilful blind, shall see the subtlety of your sophistry, and for ever after defy it, and your Popish Mass also, which you boast to be so profitable to be frequented in the Church of Antichrist, to maintain your multitudes of idle belies, in cloisters and else where. And I doubt not, but whatsoever you or any other, hath or shall shoot against the right use of the lords supper, which is now in reformed Churches frequented: shall to the glory of almighty God rebound into your own bosoms, to the stay of all such as God in providence, hath appointed to be saved by the preaching of his word. That they never incline to your Popery, but walk warily in the truth of the christian religion, leading a christian life: that in the end thereof, they may with Christ triumph over Antichrist and all his Soldiers in endless felicity. Which he grant to his elect and chosen children: that in his son Christ, knew them, before they were. Amen. ¶ The second Sermon. Obsecro vos fratres per misericordiam Dei, ut exhibeatis corpora vestra hostiam sanctam. etc. Rom. 12. amongs OTHER THINGS the last time I was admitted to speak in this place, WATSON. Division. 1. I brought forth this sentence of saint Bernard written in a Sermon De epithania Pauperes sumus, parum dare possumus. etc. Bernardus Ser. de Epiphania. The English is this. We be poor, little may we give, yet for that little we may be reconciled if we will. All that ever I am able to give is this wretched body of mine, if I give that, it is sufficient, if not then I add his body, for that is mine and of mine own: for a little one is borne unto us, and the son is given to us, O Lord that lacketh in me, I supply in thee, O most sweetest reconciliation. Here I noted a great benefit of the oblation of Christ's body, to consist in supplying that lacketh in the oblation of our bodies: that where as we being exhorted of saint Paul to offer up our bodies: a sacrifice to almighty God, and also do understand by other scriptures, that it is our duties so to do: which may be done three ways: By voluntary suffering the death for Christ's faith, if case so require, by painful and penal works, as by abstinence and other corporal exercises, for the castigation and mortifying of the outward man, or else by the service of righteousness, in that we use the members and parts of our body, as instruments of all virtue and godliness, considering again how there is great imperfection in all our works, and that the best of us all cometh short of that mark, which is prefixed of God to serve him with all our heart, with all our strength, and that either in the work itself or in the intent, or in the cause or time, or in some other degree and circumstance: for this cause and consideration saint Bernard doth himself and moveth us to join the oblation of Christ's body with ours, wherewithal we are sure God is well pleased, saying: This is my son, in whom I am well pleased, Mark. 7. by whose merits our oblation and other works do please God, and not otherwise. CROWLEY. This place of Bernard is answered, in the seventh division of the former Sermon, whereunto I refer the indifferent reader. And therefore I purposed to make one sermon of the sacrifice of Christ, WATSON. Division. 2. not of that which he himself made upon the cross for our redemption, but of that which the Church his spouse maketh upon the altar, which purpose being also before promised, remaineth now to be fulfilled. And entering the last time to speak of it, I laid this foundation, that is to say, the verity of the blessed Sacrament, the body and blood of our saviour Christ to be verily and really present in it by the omnipotent power of almighty God, & the operation of his holy spirit assisting the due administration of the Priest, and so to be there not only as our meat, which God giveth unto us, to nourish us in spiritual life, but also as our sacrifice which we give and offer unto God to please him and purge us from such things as may destroy or hinder that spiritual life, seeing that Christ himself is the substance of the sacrifice of the new Testament, as I have partly showed before, and beside him we have none, that is only proper to us Christian men. This foundation of the real presence I presupposed to have been believed of us all, and yet I did not so rawly leave it, but declared unto you such reasons, as moved me to continue still in that faith I was borne in, which were the evident & plain scriptures of God, opened with the circumstances of the places in such wise, as the vain cavillations of the sacramentaries can not delude them, and also the effects of this sacrament, which be so great and so wonderful, that they can be ascribed to no other cause, but only to almighty God, & to such creatures, as God's son hath joined unto him in unity of person, as be the body and blood of our saviour Christ. I alleged also the sayings of the holy fathers, not in such number as I would have done but choosed out a few, which not only declared the Author's faith, but contained a necessary argument to prove our common faith in this matter. For answer to your handling of those matters that you speak of here: CROWLEY. I refer the reader to the answer that I have made to that Sermon. Concerning the third point, WATSON. Division. 3. which is the consent of the catholic Church, neither the time then suffered to speak as behoved, nor yet suffereth now, if I should perform my promise, as I intend God wylllng. And for that cause I shall but move you to consider certain things, whereby the consent may appear. First the possession of the Church, in this doctrine so many years in such quietness without contradiction, that no reason or yet injunction, nor no new devise that the Devil or his darlings can invent to the contrary, either can or aught to remove us out of possession, except we will wilfully lose our own right and claim, seeing that we that live now universally throughout all Christendom have received this faith of our fathers, and they of theirs, Cyprian. Ser. De Caena. and so forth even to the Apostles and our saviour Christ himself, by whose mouth this doctrine (as saint Cyprian saith) was first taught to the world, that Christian men in the new law be commanded to drink blood, which the jews in the old law were forbid to do. And so from him and his Apostles it hath been by succession deduced and brought throughout all ages, even to this our time, and believed as God's word, which can not be changed, and not as man's word, subject to alteration, as probability can persuade. CROWLEY. The first of those certain things that you move your Auditory to consider, whereby the consent of the Catholic Church may appear: is prescription of tyme. To this I have partly answered, in the answer to your former Sermon. And the Bishop of Sarisburie hath fully answered, in his answer to Doctor Harding. And here I answer in few words. That your possession hath been forcible, your father's faith in this point, a false persuasion, beside the word of God, and your claim altogether unjust, and therefore justly withstanded by us, to whom the right belongeth, as by good evidence of God's holy word and judgement of sound writers, we both have and shall prove, by God's help. WATSON. Division. 4 Secondly, this consent in this matter may appear by that the holy fathers and pastors of Christ's Church have written of it, whom god hath placed and planted in his Church for the building and upholding of it in truth, that his flock be not seduced and carried about with every blast of new doctrine by the craftiness of men, to the destruction of their souls. Of this I have spoken something already. CROWLEY. The indifferent reader, may easily perceive in the answer that I have made to your former Sermon: how well those fathers and pastors that you speak of, do maintain that which you do teach: Even as those that fight against you with all the knowledge they have. And whatsoever you have already spoken therein: is in the place where you have spoken it, already fully answered. WATSON. Division. 5. Thirdly, we may know the consent of the Church by the determination of the general counsels, where the precedents of God's Churches, & the rulers and learned priests of Christendom, assembled in the name of our Lord jesus Christ representing the holy Church of God militant, being led not with private affection but by Gods holy spirit to his glory, instant in prayer, fervent in devotion, purely, diligently, and freely have entreated and determined those things, that pertain to the faith of Christ, and the purging of his Church, to whose determination as to God's ordinances we are bound to obey. Wherein appeareth manifestly the consent of the Church. How the determination of the general counsels, CROWLEY. doth declare the consent of the Church, and how purely, diligently, and freely, they entreated and determined those things that you speak of, in these general counsels: shall plainly appear to the indifferent reader, in the answer that shall be made to all such sentences as you shall cite out of any general counsel, in order as the same shall be cited. The first general counsel both for the calling, WATSON Division. 6. Concilium Nicenum. and also for the cause, was holden at Nice in Bithynia, by .318. Bishops in the time of Constantinus Magnus twelve hundred and thirty years ago, where it was determined and published to the world in these words. Exaltata mente, fide consideremus situm esse in sancta illa mensa agnum dei qui tollit peccatum mundi, quià sacerdotibus sacrificatur sine cruoris effusione, & nos verè preciosum illius corpus & sanguinem sumentis credere haec esse resurectionis nostrae symbola. etc. Let us lift up our minds, understanding and considering by faith, that the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world is situate and lieth upon that holy table, which is offered of the priests without the shedding of blood, and that we receiving verily his precious body and blood, do believe them to be the pledges or causes of our resurrection. This authority serveth me very well to declare the consent of the Church both in the matter of the real presence, & also of the sacrifice, which we have in hand. For the words be touched marvelously, every one serving to express the truth, and to avoid all doubts. For first he biddeth us, life up our minds, and consider by faith, willing us not to stick only to our senses, thinking nothing else to be there, but what we see outwardly, teaching us that the judgement of this matter pertaineth not to our senses, but to our faith only, and as Eusebius Emesenus saith. Verè unica & perfecta hostia fide aestimanda non specie nec exterioris censenda est visu hominis, Emesenus orat. de corpore Christi. sed interioris affectu. This host and sacrifice is verily one and perfit, to be esteemed by faith, and not by form and appearance, to be judged not by the sight of the outward man, but with the affection and persuasion of the inward man: for to faith only and not to senses appertaineth the knowledge and judgement of God's mysteries and sacraments. Then the counsel declareth what faith teacheth, that is to say, that the Lamb of God not material bread and wine nor the figure of the Lamb, but the Lamb that taketh away the sin of the world, is placed lying upon the holy table of the altar, which external situation proveth a real presence of Christ to be there before we receive it, and not a fantastical or an intellectual receiving of Christ by faith in the time of the receiving only, as these men contend. Further it teacheth, that this Lamb of God is offered to almighty God by the Priests, which is a distinte offering from that Christ made upon the cross, for there he offered himself by shedding his blood, which he did but once, and never shall do it again any more. Here is he offered of the priests, not by shedding of blood, but as the counsel saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not after a bloody manner, which is not a new killing of Christ, but a solemn representation of his death, as himself hath ordained. After this it declareth the receiving of it saying, that we verily receive his precious body & blood, which word (verily) is as much as that we call (really) and declareth the use of the sacrament in the receipt of it with the service of our mouth, Math. 19 as Christ commanded saying: Take, eat which is a corporal eating, not a spiritual believing. And last of all it showeth the effect of the sacrament, which is the resurrection of our bodies to eternal life, for because Christ's body being the body of very life, is joined to our bodies, as our food: it bringeth our bodies that be dead by sentence of death to his property which is life, whereof in my last sermon I spoke more at large. O Lord what hard hearts have these men to doubt themselves, or to deny or to bring in question that manifest open truth in so high and necessary a matter, which in most plain words hath been taught of our saviour Christ his Apostles and Evangelists, and declared so to be understand by the holy ghost out of the mouths of all these holy fathers, whom the holy ghost did assemble and inspire with the spirit of truth, to the confusion of the great heretic Arius, that troubled the world then, and also did inspire their hearts to declare so plainly the mystery of this blessed sacrament, which then was without all contention, believed of all christian men, only to prevent these heretics that arise and spring up now in these latter days, that the world may see, how they strive against the known truth, their own conscience & the determination of the hole church, being enemies of God, breaking his peace, and dividing themselves from the church, whose end is eternal confusion. Now are you come to the first general counsel, CROWLEY. holden at Nice, in the City of Bithynia, under Constantinus Magnus. In the .24. division of your former Sermon: I have said some thing to the later words of this sentence that you cite out of the great general counsel of Nice. And in the .33. division of the same sermon: I have granted as much, as the words that you cite there do teach, when they be understanded so, as the ancient fathers do use that like manner of speeches. But here I must tell you that in the old allowed counsel of Nice: there is no part of that which you rite here found written. Wherefore, the authority thereof: must needs be so much the less. But grant that the .318. Bishops, had in that counsel agreed and written, even as you have cited: must we therefore believe, that Christ is in the sacrament in such sort as you teach, really and substantially. etc. Saint Austen, in his Sermon Ad Infants, which is cited by Beda, Beda in 1. Cor. ca 10. saith thus. Vos estis in mensa, vos estis in Calais. You are upon the table, you are in the Cup: shall we therefore say, that saint Austen meant, that those persons that he spoke unto, were really, substantially and bodily, in the cup and on the table? I think you will not grant it. And why will you by the words cited out of the Nicene counsel, bind us to believe: that Christ is after such sort present in the sacrament? As touching the marvelous touching (or couching) of the words (for so I suppose you spoke) I can not but marvel, that you could not see, how every one of them, serveth to express the truth against that which you teach. First, they will us to lift up our minds and to consider by faith, not things that are here conversant amongst us, and may be conceived by bodily senses: but that are above, and can not be conceived otherwise then by faith. Then they tell us, that the Lamb of God is set upon the holy table (even as saint Austen telleth his Auditory, that they are set upon the table) to teach us, that the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, is not a bare and naked sign, but effectual to the worthy receiver, that is to such as being members of Christ, are placed on the table and in the cup with Christ, in such sort as the Lamb of God is placed there, that is spiritually and in a mystery. And after the same sort, the same Lamb is sacrificed by the priests: when by their ministery, the members of Christ be made partakers of that holy mystery, and do even sensibly feel the effect of that sacrifice, Hebr. 9.10. which that Lamb made of himself once for all, as saint Paul writeth. Thirdly, they declare, that we receiving the precious body and blood of Christ in deed: do believe that it is the pledge of our resurrection. Which manner of receiving, it pleaseth you to term, a real receiving. As though the body of Christ could not be received by faith verily and in deed, unless the same be after your real manner. But I must put you in mind, that you have foully forgotten yourself, when you say that the offering that the priest maketh in his Mass, is a distinct offering from that which Christ made upon the cross: for you shall find many of your friends of a contrary mind, if ye search their books well. But you would seem to make bloody, and unbloody, the difference between those two sacrifices. Here say you (that is in your Mass) he is offered of the priests, not by shedding of his blood, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is, insacrificabíliter, after an unsacrificable manner, which is not a new killing of Christ, but a solemn representation of his death, as himself hath ordained. Here the latter words do confute the first. For if the manner of offering in the Mass, be such as can not be a sacrifice: how can the Mass be a sacrifice? And if the Mass be but a solemn representation of the death of Christ: how can it be a sacrifice offered to almighty God? Not the Popish Mass, but the blessed supper of the Lord, the holy communion of his body and blood, is a lively representation, of his death and passion. And as your Emesenus saith in the words that you cite (for you have taught him to speak congrue latin now) vere una & perfecta hostia etc. That sacrifice which is but one, and is perfit in deed: must not be esteemed by outward show, nor judged by the sight of the outward man, but by faith and the affection of the inward man. But either not understanding your Emesenus his words, or else (after your old custom) of purpose, you corrupt him in the translation. For you say. This host and sacrifice, is verily one and perfit, as though Emesenus had pointed to your Mass sacrifice. Where as it is plain, that he meaneth of that sacrifice, that is represented by the holy communion of the body & blood of Christ. I may therefore use the words of your own exclamation against yourself, and such as be of your mind. For whose hearts can be imagined to be more hard than yours: which in so manifest a matter as this, do not only, bring in question, the open and manifest truth, but also in alleging the words of fathers and counsels, apply them for your purpose, contrary to their meaning? seeing Christ himself, his Apostles and Evangelists, the ancient fathers and counsels: have in most plain words, taught the contrary of that which you defend. It is manifest therefore, that you striving against the known truth, your own consciences & the determination of the whole Church are enemies to God, breakers of his peace. And dividing yourselves from the Church, must needs in the end come to confusion everlasting, unless ye repent in tyme. WATSON. Division. 7. Concilium Ephes. Epist. ad Nestor. Likewise the next general counsel holden at Ephesus, in the time of Theodosius the Emperor, eleventh hundred and twenty years ago, doth determine this truth likewise in these words. Necessario igitur & hoc adijcimus. Annunciantes enim sicut secundum carnem mortem unigeniti filii Dei, id est, jesu Christi & resurrectionem eius, & in caelis ascensionem pariter confitentes, incruentum celebramus in Ecclesijs sacrificij cultum, sic etiam ad misticas benedictiones accedimus, & sanctificamur participes sancti corporis & preciosi sanguinis Christi omnium nostrum redemptoris effecti, non ut communem carnem percipientes (quod absit) nec ut viri sanctificati & verbo coniuncti secundum dignitatis unitatem, aut sicut divinam possidentis habitationem, sed vere vinificatricem & ipsius verbi propriam factam. We add this also necessarily: We showing and declaring the corporal death of Gods only begotten son jesus Christ, and likewise confessing his resurrection and ascension unto heaven do celebrate the unbloody oblation and sacrifice in our Churches, for so we come to the mystical benedictions, and are sanctified being made partakers of the holy body and precious blood of Christ, all our redeemer not receiving it as common flesh (God forbidden) nor as the flesh of an holy man, and joined to the word of God by unity of dignity, nor as the flesh of him in whom God dwelleth, but as the flesh only proper to God's son and verily giving life to the receiver. By this determination of this general counsel, we learn that in the mystical benediction (by which word is meant this blessed Sacrament) we receive Christ's own proper flesh, and of it we receive sanctification and life, before the receipt whereof we celebrate the unbloody sacrifice of the same in our Churches, declaring our lords death, resurrection, and ascension, and by this place we plainly perceive that the doings and words which be used daily in our Mass, were also used in the time of this counsel much above a thousand years ago. By the words of the Ephesian counsel, CROWLEY. you would not only prove the real presence in the sacrament: but also that the same Apish toys that be now used in the Popish Mass, were then used, which was within .468. years after Christ. But the Pope's own histories do plainly declare: that the greatest number of those things, were not as then invented. But to frame the matter somewhat better to your purpose: you help it a little in writing out the words. For in the place of Sacrificij servitutem: you writ, Sacrificij cultum. Supposing belike that the base Epitheton of servitude: would abate somewhat, the high estimation that you would your Mass should have. Well, let that pass. It is no fault, in men of your sort. But let us see how this place may prove the real presence of Christ in the sacrament. The Authors of this Epistle, would bring Nestorius, than Bishop of Constantinople back again from his error: which was, that of the Virgin Marie, was borne only the manhood of Christ, and not Christ God and man. So that he divided Christ into two persons: one divine, and another human. And to prove that the manhood in Christ, is joined with the Godhead in unity of person: these Bishops do in this part of their Epistle, join to the confession of their belief concerning the corporal death, resurrection, and ascension of our saviour into heaven, the celebration of the remembrance of his death, which they call Incruentam sacrificij servitutem, the unbloody service of the sacrifice. And to make their meaning more plain: they say that they come to the mystical benediction, and be made holy, when they be made partakers of the holy body and precious blood of Christ, the redeemer of all. Not receiving the same as common flesh, or as the flesh of an holy man, or of a man that is joined to the son of God by the unity of dignity, or that possesseth the heavenly habitation: but as flesh that hath power to give life in deed, and is become the peculiar and proper flesh of the son of God himself. For (say they) he that is life, as being God, because he is united to his own flesh, hath declared the same to be of force to give life. etc. These words indifferently weighed, do prove, that the manhood in Christ is joined to his divine nature, in unity of person: but that the same manhood is really present in the sacrament, and therein offered up in sacrifice, can not be proved by these words. August. ser. De sacramentis fidelium. Yea, these words do very well agree with the doctrine of Saint Austen when he saith thus. Qui non manet in Christo, & in quo Christus non manet: proculdubio, nec manducat eius carnem, neque bibit eius sanguinem, etiamsi tantae rei sacramentum, judicium sibi manducet & bibat. Who so abideth not in Christ, and in whom Christ abideth not: without doubt, he doth neither eat his flesh nor drink his blood, although he do to his own condemnation, eat and drink the sacrament of so worthy a thing. And again he saith. Huius rei sacramentum, id est unitatis corporis & sanguinis Christi, alicubi quotidiè, alicubi certis interuallis dierum, in Dominico praeparatur, & de mensa Domini sumitur, quibusdam ad vitam, quibusdam ad exitium. Res vero ipsa cuius est sacramentum: est omni homini ad vitam, nulli ad exitium, quicunque eius particeps fuerit. The sacrament of this thing, that is, of the unity of the body and blood of Christ, is in some places prepared every day, in some place in certain distance of days, in the lords day: and is received at the lords table, to life in some, and to destruction in some other. But the thing itself whereof it is a sacrament, is life to every man that is partaker thereof, and destruction to none. So the Fathers of the Ephesian council, have very well confessed: that coming to the mystical benediction, and being made partakers of the holy body and blessed blood of Christ, they are sanctified and made holy, by that quickening flesh of Christ, which being joined to his Godhead in unity of person, is of power to give everlasting life, to as many as shall be partakers thereof, by dwelling in Christ, as saint Austen hath taught. I conclude therefore, that you have alleged the words of the Ephesian Council, contrary to the true meaning of the Fathers that were gathered together in that Counsel. And that it helpeth you nothing at all, that that Counsel was holden so long ago. This doctrine also was determined in the general counsel holden at Constantinople in the time of justinian the Emperor the year of our Lord .552. WATSON. Division. 8. Concilium Constanti. in Trul. cap. 102. where be written these words. Omni sensibili creaturae supereminet is qui salutari passione coelestem nactus dignitatem, edens & bibens Christum ad vitam aeternam perpetuo coniungitur, & anima & corpore divinae participatione gratia sanctificatur, and so forth. He far excelleth every sensible creature, that by the passion of our saviour obtaining heavenly dignity, eating and drinking Christ, is continually joined to eternal life, and is sanctified both in soul and body by participation of the heavenly grace. This place is notable declaring the dignity of him that eateth Christ, and the effect of that eating to be everlasting life and sanctification, both of body and soul. You have a great grace in setting the visoure of antiquity, CROWLEY. upon matter nothing ancient. watson's grace in the brag of antiquity. This matter must needs be bolstered out with the big title of the counsel of Constantinople, holden in the time of justinian the Emperor. etc. And yet in that whole counsel (as the same hath been of any antiquity set forth in writing) there is not any one word that may be wrested to such meaning as you allege this place for. But in the mergine you note that you find it in the counsel held in Trullo, Capi. 102. I suppose that is as much as if you had said, that Ecchius, Pighius, Hosius, or some of the ancient catholics that lived about the year of our Lord .1550: Words cited not found in the place noted. have reported that this doctrine was agreed upon in the fift general Counsel for the sentence that you cite is not to be found, either there or in the counsel holden in Trullo. But grant that the fathers of the counsel had concluded in such words as you cite: what should it help your cause? you have taken upon you to prove: that Christ is really and substantially present in the sacrament. And to prove this, you say that the fathers of the Counsel have determined, that who so hath by the suffering of Christ, obtained the heavenly dignity, and doth eat and drink Christ: the same being more excellent than all sensible creatures, is continually joined to eternal life, and is sanctified both in soul and body, Watson citeth words that prove the contrary of his assertion. by the participation of the grace of God. Do these words prove your purpose? Or do they not rather prove that no wicked man doth eat and drink Christ? for none can truly be said to excel all sensible creatures, and to be continually joined to life eternal, and to be made holy both in soul and body: but such only as be by Christ advanced to the heavenly dignity, that is to say, be made members of Christ, children of God, and inheritors of the kingdom of heaven. But no wicked reprobate is such one: wherefore none such doth eat or drink Christ in the sacrament. So well do your friends in the council holden in Trullo, help you to prove your purpose. WATSON. Division. 9 Concilium Lateranense. Likewise the general counsel called Lateranense, holden at Rome the year of our Lord. 1215. determined this matter in the same terms, that we express it now. una est fidelium universalis Ecclesia, extra quam nullus omnino saluatur, in qua idem ipse sacerdos & sacrificium jesus Christus, cuius corpus & sanguis in Sacramento altaris sub speciebus panis & vini veraciter continentur, transubstantiatis pane in corpus & vino in sanguinem potestate divina. There is one universal church of all faithful people, without the which no man is saved at any time, in the which jesus Christ himself is both the priest and the sacrifice, whose body and blood be truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the form of bread and wine the bread being transubstanciate into his body, and the wine into his blood by the power of God. This form of doctrine after this sort, & in these terms hath been taught, professed, and believed throughout the whole catholic church ever since that time, howsoever some Heretics forsaking their faith, proceeding from God's omnipotent word and the unity of his Church, and leaning to their sensuality and blind reason against faith have repined and barked against the same. But I put no doubts but by god's grace, if the time would suffer me: to make this matter of transubstantiation as plain as the other of the real presence. It seemeth to me a strange thing, CROWLEY. that you which brag of uniform consent of the Church fifteen hundred years before this day, do now produce witness that is not yet .400. years old, Decrees made by Pope Innocent: do not prove things done. 1200. years before his days. and would have the world to think, that because Pope Innocent the third hath decreed the transubstantiation of bread and wine, and the real presence of Christ's body and blood in the sacrament: therefore it must needs be believed to be so now, and to have been so ever since the first institution of the sacrament. But in the answers that I have made to the matter of greater antiquity produced by you, in your first sermon and in the former part of this your second sermon: it doth sufficiently appear to the indifferent reader, that you neither have made plain the matter of the real presence, nor are like to make plain the matter of transubstantiation, though you take as much time thereto, as you have now to live. I will not stick to grant you, that this counsel of Lateranense did determine this matter according as you have said: but what is that to the purpose you have in hand? for in the days of the third Innocent: the Church of Rome was as far from the sincerity of christian religion, as it is now. And what doth that determination that they made of this matter, prove against us: that stand in the defence of the sincerity that was in the primative Church? I put no doubts therefore, but I shall be able to answer all that you shall be able to say for your transubstantiation. As I have been able to answer all that you have produced for the matter of the real presence. The general counsel also of Constance, held of later days, WATSON. Division. 10. the year of our Lord. 1451. doth agree and testify the same, Concilium constantiense. in that they condemned john Wyclefe the heretic and all his errors against this blessed sacrament. Thus have I showed you the consent of the Church by the determinations of the general counsels. It shall not be needful to rehearse any particular and provincial counsels, which all in this doctrine agree with the other general. CROWLEY. Your great antiquity is well abated: when you fall from 1500. years, to less than 150. You were best to furnish out your number of witnesses, with the general counsels that have been holden since Constance, & the sayings of those ancient fathers that have written within these hundred years. And then you may safely say that you shall not need to make rehearsal of the particular and provincial counsels, which are all even such as the times were wherein they were holden. How justly that counsel of Constance did condemn Wickliefe and his doctrine: How justly Wyckliefe was condemned. I refer to the judgement of such as shall or have read his works, or that which john For hath reported in his monuments of Martyrs. WATSON. Division. 11. Furthermore, the consent of the Church appeareth by the condemnation of the heretics of all ages, which hold any false opinion in any point against the verity and the institution of Christ, concerning this blessed sacrament. The first heretic that ever we read of in this matter, and father to all the sacramentaries that live now, was one in the time of Ignatius, by and by after the Apostles, whose name we know not, but what he and his sect that followed him did Theodaretus in his third Dialogue maketh mention, saying that Ignatius (who lived within one hundred year of Christ) writeth in an Epistle Ad Smyrnenses in these words. Eucharistias & oblationes non admittunt, Theodoretus Dialogo. 3. Ignatius ad Smyrnenses. eoque non confiteantur Eucharistiam esse carnem seruatoris nostri jesu Christi, quae pro peccatis nostris passa est, & quam pater sua benignitate suscitavit. They do not allow and admit our sacrament and offerings, because they do not confess the sacrament (called Eucharistia) to be the flesh of our Saviour jesus Christ, which flesh suffered for our sins, and which the father's goodness did raise from death again. By this we learn, what was the faith in the primitive Church, both that the sacrament was the very flesh of Christ, which suffered for us, and also that it was offered for us by the priests, which things those heretics denied then, as their scholars now springing up upon their ashes deny now, and that they were condemned as heretics by the primitive Church then, as these most worthily be condemned by the catholic Church now. The consent of the primative Church appeareth in the condemning of heretics, CROWLEY. that then brought in heresies and sowed schisms: and the consent of the same Church of Christ, The Church of Christ doth alway condemn heresies. hath ever since (as the Church of Antichrist would suffer it) showed forth her consent therein, and doth now more manifestly, then heretofore it could be suffered to do. But your Antichristian Church, although it have for a fashion (to get her a good name) condemned some heresies, although not any such as you say: yet hath it brought in, received & confirmed, Antichrists Church confirmeth as great heresies as it doth condemn. as many and as great as it hath condemned. As the supremacy & universal power of her head the Pope, the power to pardon sins in this life and after, the power to forbid meats and marriage, the sacrifice for sin, the transubstantiation of bread and wine. etc. And here I must tell you, that your friend Master Doctor Harding, doth not agree with you about the first founder and father of the sacramentary heresy. You say, that it was one that sprung up by and by after the Apostles: but your friend Harding saith, that Beringarius, a thousand year after, was the first that ever impugned the truth of the article of Christ's real natural and corporal presence in the sacrament. Well, agree you two as you can: I will not seek to set you at one in this point. But as touching that you cite, Theodoretus, affirming that Ignatius did in his Epistle to the Christians in Smyrna, writ of that nameless man and his followers: Ignatius his words not found in his Epistle. I must let you understand, that in that Epistle which is extant in the Greek, written by Ignatius to the Smyrnians, there is no such sentence as Theodoretus doth note. And what should it help your cause, if Ignatius had written even so? Or if there were some other Epistle of Ignatius to them, wherein those words might be found: should that prove your purpose? Ignatius hath said that those heretics did not admit thanks givings and oblations: because they confess not that the Eucharist or thanks giving, is the flesh of our saviour jesus Christ. etc. But we do admit both the Eucharists and oblations, and do confess that the same is the flesh of Christ. etc. Wherefore this place can prove nothing against us. Again, here is no mention of real, natural, and substantial presence. etc. Therefore it maketh nothing for you. But I do much marvel, that you could not see a sentence that the same Theodoretus citeth out of the same Epistle: Theodoretus Dialogo. 2. which is also found in the Epistle which is extant in Greek. The words of the sentence are these. Quando ad eos qui cum Petro erant accessit, dixit eyes: accipite, palpate me, & videte quod non sum Demonium incorporeum. Et protenus ipsum tetigerunt, & crediderunt. When he came unto them that were with Peter, he said unto them: take me and feel me, and understand that I am not a Devil that hath not a body. And forthwith they touched him and believed. Whether these words of Ignatius, may stand with such a real presence of Christ's body in the sacrament as you teach: I refer to the judgement of as many as be learned, and not obstinate blind. Ignatius doth teach none other faith than we do. Wherefore, I conclude: that the words of Ignatius do not teach us any other faith then that which we hold. Which is, that the sacrament is the very body and blood of Christ, which suffered for our sins, and rose again for our justification: but not after your real, carnal, and gross manner. Neither do the words of Ignatius give us occasion to think that Christ's body is, or can be so present in many places at once, and insensibly as you and your sort do teach, and condemn other for denying the same. And where as the due matter, WATSON. Division. 12 wherein this blessed Sacrament is consecrated, aught to be unleavened bread of wheat and wine mixed with water, according to the scriptures and the example of Christ: there were one sort of heretics called Artotoritae, (of whom speaketh Epiphanius contra Quintillianos) which were so called for that they used not in their sacrifices the necessary and due matter, Epiphanius contra quintillianos. but in their mysteries did consecrate, and offer bread and Cheese. another sort of heretics were called Fermentarij, because they did consecrate in leavened bread, Consilium Basiliense. as our men of late did command to be done, who were condemned by the general counsel at basil. Other were called Aquarij, or Hydroparastae, for that they pretending sobriety, Cyprian lib. 2. Epistola. 3. Chrysost. in Math. hom. 83. did consecrate in water only without wine, against whom writ saint Cyprian, chrysostom, and other, who also were condemned by the general counsel of Constantinople. In trullo. cap. 32. Other were called Armenij, who in their sacrifices consecrated and offered wine only without water, Theophilactus in joan. Capit. 19 against whom writeth Theophilactus, all these held false opinion against the necessary and due matter of the Sacrament. Now you have found out certain sorts of heretics, CROWLEY. that erred about the due matter, wherein the blessed sacrament is consecrated. The first be Artotoritae. The sacrament ministered in bread and cheese. These ministered with bread & cheese. belike they were Walshmen. I trust you will not charge us with this error. Another sort were called Fermentarij. etc. Of this sort we must needs be. For not long before you preached this Sermon. We commanded that the sacrament should be ministered in leavened bread. A man might marvel, how you became so far past shame: that you durst in so honourable an Auditory, make so open a lie. The words of the law that was in king Edward's days and is now, are these. Communion bread. To takes away the superstition that hath been in that kind of bread that hath been used in the Mass: it shall suffice that the bread be such as is usually eaten, so the same be of the finest wheat bread. Now, whether the finest wheat bread be always leavened: I report me to the common Bakers, at whose hands, the bread that we minister with, is had. But grant we had commanded the sacrament to be ministered in leavened bread: should we therefore be heretics? What say you then to them that ministered in the time before Alexander the first, Leavened bread commanded by Bishops of Rome. had commanded the ministration to be in unleavened bread, were all those men heretics? And was Alexander himself an heretic, when he being Bishop of Rome: did command that the ministration should be in leavened bread? I think you will not grant it. For than it should follow that the head of your Church may be an heretic. His purpose when he commanded the use of unleavened bread, was not to teach that unleavened bread is the due matter wherein the sacrament ought to be consecrated (as you teach) but as Platina writeth. Quia hoc modo, purior ac potior haberetur. That by this means it might be accounted more pure, and of more value. It appeareth by the words of the same Platina in the same place: that he had before commanded the ministration to be in leavened bread: for he saith. Oblationem quoque ex azimo, non autem ex fermento, ut ante fieri mandavit: quia hoc modo. etc. The oblation also, he commanded to be made of unleavened bread, not of leavened bread, as he did before command: because by that mean. etc. His consideration in commanding that the ministration should be in leavened bread, Pope Leo his consideration. might be the same that moved Pope Leo and his company to do the like (if Nicholaus de Orbellis have not written a lie): that is to say, to blot out the opinion of a necessity to follow the jews in that point, as the Ebionits' had taught. Dist. 11. quest. 1 Lib. sent. 4 The same Nicholaus de Orbellis, a man of your own sort: saith thus. Quod de necessitate panis consecrabilis non est, neque quod sit Azymus, nec quod sit fermentatus: quia non differunt specie. As touching the bread that may be consecrated, it is not required of necessity, that it should be unleavened, nor that it should be leavened: for they do not differ in spéece or kind. And he citeth Anselmus in his book De Azymo, for his Author. unde tempore Leonis Papae. etc. Wherefore, in the time of Pope Leo: it was ordained that the consecration should be in leavened bread: to extinguish and blot out the heresy of the Ebionits', which said that of necessity the Christians must follow the custom of the jews. Yea, and the same hath said in the same question: Waffer cakes called stertch by a Papist. that the stertch cake that you do use in your Mass, is no competent matter, for this consecration. His words be these. Non sufficit autem ad hoc pasta: cum non sit cibus usualis nec conveniens nutrimentum. Stertch or Paste, is not sufficient matter for this consecration: seeing it is not usual sustenance, nor convenient nourishment. I trust you will not condemn these men for heretics, because they say that the sacrament may be ministered in leavened bread: for one of them was a Pope, and the other holy men of the Pope's faith. But the general Counsel of basil: hath condemned these men for heretics. You will not, I trow stick to the decrees of that counsel: and allow all that was done therein. Eugenius then Pope: The pope put to his choice. would not have allowed that counsel, if he might have had his own choice. But being put to an hard choice: he chose rather to confirm that counsel, then to be deposed of his Popedom. Your holy father the Pope, that sat in Peter's Chair when you preached this sermon: would not have thought well of you, if you should have told him that a general counsel might condemn a Pope of heresy or depose him. But by your saying: the general counsel of basil, hat condemned two or three Pope's doings, for heresy. For as I have said before: Pope Leo ordained that the sacrament should be ministered in leavened bread, and Pope Innocent the first used ministration in the same also. As appeareth by his words in his first Epistle to Dicentius Byshyp of Euglibine. Innocentius. 1. Epist. 1. Cap. 5. Concili. Tom. 1 Where he saith thus. De fermento verò, quod die Dominico per titulos mittimus: superfluè nos consulere voluisti, cum omnes Ecclesiae nostrae intra Civitatem sunt constitutae. Quarum presbyteri, quia Die ipse, propter plebem sibi creditam, nobiscum convenire non possunt: idcirco fermentum à nobis confectum, per Accolythos accipiunt, ut se a nostra communione, maximè illa Die, non iudicent separatos. As touching the leavened bread, that we do on the Sunday send to every Parish: it is but in vain that you willed us to consult, seeing that all our Churches are cituate within the City. The elders whereof because they can not, that day, by the means of the people that is committed to their charge, come together with us: therefore they do receive by the inferior ministers, the leavened bread that we have consecrated, that they should not judge themselves to be separated from our communion, especially in that day. There pope's doings condemned by one general counsel. Thus, if De Orbellis and you say true: a general counsel hath condemned three Popes, for heretics, Alexander, Leo, and Innocent: but you are not able to prove this heresy, nor them heretics in this point. The third sort of heretics that you speak of, were called Aquarij, water drinkers. Against these did Cyprian and chrysostom write. etc. But what is this to us? we are no water drinkers. But we are of that sort that mingle no water with the Wine: against whom Theophilactus wrote. His words are these. Confundantur Armenij: qui non admiscent in mysterijs aquam vino. Non enim credunt (ut videtur) quod aqua ex latere egressa sit, quod admirabilius, sed sanguis tantum. Confounded be the Armenians: which do not in the mysteries, mingle water with the wine. For (as it seemeth) they believe not that water came forth of the side, which is more marvelous, but blood only. It seemeth that Theophilact wisheth confusion to the Armenians, because that they in refusing to mix water with wine, did seem to deny the truth of the history: but we are far enough from that suspicion. We believe that both blood and water did issue out of Christ's side. Neither do we deny, but that water may be mixed with the wine. But that the wine alone is not the due matter of the sacrament, None hath or can prove the necessity of mixing water with the wine. because there is no water mixed with it: neither hath Theophilact nor any other, hitherto sufficiently proved, neither are you or any of your sort able (by scripture) to prove. We reverence the ancient fathers, and all other that of later time have written of matters of religion in the fear of God: but we have not sworn to believe whatsoever they say without proof by scriptures, neither do they desire credit, without such proof. There were other heretics, Hist. trip. lib. 7. ca 11. that denied the effect of the Sacrament, as Messaliani, who (as it is written by Theodoretus) said that the heavenly food whereof our Lord spoke, he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, shall live evermore, did neither profit nor hurt any man. Nestorius also the pernicious heretic and archbishop of Constantinople destroyed the virtue of the sacrament, Theophilactus Capit. 10. ad hebr. (as Theophilactus writeth) for that he granting Christ's very flesh to be really and truly present in the sacrament, denied that flesh being received into our bodies, to be the proper flesh of God's son, and therefore to have no virtue to give life to our mortal bodies, and this heresy was condemned by the general counsel, holden at Ephesus. As touching the denying of the effect of the sacrament: CROWLEY. I have sufficiently spoken, in the answer to your former sermon. The Messalian heresy, we never held. August. De sacramentis fidelium. But with saint Austen we believe and teach, that who so is partaker of that meat that Christ spoke of when he said, he that eateth my flesh & drinketh my blood, liveth for ever: can not but have everlasting life thereby. And that they which do receive the sacrament thereof unworthily: do eat and drink their own condemnation. Theodoretus therefore, in accounting those men for heretics: hath done but as we would have done, if we had been in his days, and as we do now in allowing that which he hath done therein. But in one point me thinketh that these men were very like you and your sort: The Popish Priests like the Messalians. for they disallowed the labour of the hands as evil, and gave themselves to idleness and sleep, and called the fantasies of their dreams, prophecies. Look in your Legenda aurea, and other such books: and you shall see that your sort are not far unlike those Messalians. The heresy of Nestorius is far enough from us. For we confess and teach: that Christ is both perfit God and perfit man. And that both those perfit natures: Theophilactus in .10. ad hebr. are knit together in one Christ, unseparably. How he destroyed the virtue of the sacrament: you say Theophilact doth tell us. Speaking of the Nestorians he saith. Vteris hoc loco etiam adversus Nestorianos. Nam illi, exiguum hominem estimantes Christum: sanguinem eius communem, id est prophanum censuerunt, neque quicquam à reliquis habere discriminis. Thou mayest use this place also, against the Nestorians. For they esteeming Christ to be but a man of small reputation, supposed his blood to be common, that is to say profane, not having in it any thing at all, whereby it differeth from the rest. How justly you do of these words gather, that Nestorius did grant, that the very flesh of Christ is really and truly in the sacrament. etc. Watson sucketh out the dregs of old writers. I refer to the judgement of all indifferent readers. But it is your manner, to suck out the dregs of every writer that you meddle with. And if you can find none such as you would: yet you will so jumble together some part of his clear and wholesome liquor, that at the first sight it may seem to be as filthy dregs, as is to be found in any of the Pope's vessels. If you had not minded to make the world believe, that we be stuffed with all these heresies: you might have spared a great deal of your labour in making mention of these condemned so long before, and not holden nor taught of us, against whom you speak and write, neither directly serving to the purpose that you seem to have in hand. WATSON. Division. 14 Epiphanius Anacephaleosi. And where as this sacrament can not be consecrated, but by a Priest: there was an heretic called Zacheus, condemned (as Epiphanius writeth) because he would pray with no man, but alone, and therefore without reverence and authority, did handle the holy mysteries, and being a lay man, did impudently order and use them. Also certain heretics called Anthropomorphitae, denied the reservation of the sacrament saying, that Christ's body remained there no longer, than it was in receiving. Of whom Cyrillus writeth thus. Cyrillus ad Calosirium. Dicunt mysticam benedictionem, si ex ea remanserint in sequentem diem reliquiae, ad sanctificationem inutilem esse: sed insaniunt haec dicentes, non enim mutatur Christus neque sanctum eius corpus discedit, sed benedictionis virtus & vinifica gratia continuo manet in illis. They say that the mystical benediction (which as the sacrament) is not profitable to the sanctification of the receiver, if there remain any thing of the sacrament to the next day. But they be stark mad that say so, for Christ is not changed, nor yet his holy body doth not departed away but the virtue of the benediction, and the grace of giving life, do continually abide and remain in that that leaveth. This heresy is new revived again by Martyne Luther and his sect, but it can not stand, being condemned of old time, and now also by the Catholic Church. You can not justly charge us with the doings of Zachaeus, CROWLEY. Massing pristes are not lawful ministers of Christ's sacraments. of whom Epiphanius doth write: For we pray together, and we receive the sacraments ministered by none other, but such as are ministers lawfully admitted, except any such remain among us without repentance, as have been Massing priests, and never desired to be other. As for your Anthropomorphits: I think it strange, that in an open Auditory, you durst affirm that cyril wrote against them or of them, seeing that by the computation of time, it is manifest that Cyrillus whose works are extant, was dead .500. years before that heresy was regarded of many. You note in the mergine of your book, that cyril wrote of those heretics to Calosirium. Words of cyril not found in his works. If a man should desire you to show that Epistle or book of his, either in print or writing: I think it would not easily be done. But your friend Master Harding saith, that this saying of cyril is cited by Thomas Aquinas. part. 3.9.76. Capit. 11. A good ground to build upon. Thomas Aquinas lived within these .400. years, & understood no word of the Greek (as Erasmus hath noted upon the Epistle to the Romans) and he citing matter out of a Greek Author, which is not yet to be found in Latin: must be of sufficient Authority, to cause all men to think, that as many as deny the body of Christ to be really and substantially in the sacrament reserved in a Box, are heretics, condemned by the fathers of old time, and now also by the Catholic Church. But let us see, how well you and your friend Master Harding do agree between yourselves, and with your Master Thomas Aquinas, in reporting these words of cyril. Harding saith. Non enim alius fit Christus: neque sanctum eius corpus immutabitur. For Christ is not changed: neither shall his holy body be changed. And you say. Non enim mutatur Christus: neque sanctum eius corpus discedit. For Christ is not changed: neither doth his holy body departed away. part. 3. quest. 76. But your Master Thomas saith. Non enim mutabitur sacramentum corporis Christi. The sacrament of the body of Christ shall not be changed. By this may the learned judge, what likelihood of truth thereiss: in this that is fathered upon Cyrillus. More might be noted: but I leave it to the diligence of the indifferent readers. But this maketh me much to muse, that you shame not to say, that the Catholic Church (meaning thereby the popish Church) doth now condemn the error of the Anthropomorphits: seeing that in every Church and Chappel, and in many other places, is not only suffered, but maintained, the Image of God the father and the holy ghost, both set forth in the form and fashion of a mortal man, as though the divine nature had such parts and proporsions of a body, as Christ had in his manhood and hath still. I understand that the error that the Anthropomorphits held, was that the Godhead is a bodily substance, and that man in his bodily shape, doth resemble the shape and fashion of that substance. It had been much for your honesty therefore (as I think) not to have meddled so much with this error: The papists are Anthropomorphits. for we, whom you would have men think to be defiled with it, are clear from it, and you yourself most filthily wadled in it. WATSON. Division. 15 Many more heresies there be condemned, concerning the sacrament, beside the heresy of Berrengarius, that twice did recant it in two provincial counsels. And at his death took great penance for his damnable opinion, as the stories tell: and also beside the condemnation of john Wyckliefe, in the general counsel at constance. But I will not hinder my purpose with a long rehearsal of them. These be sufficient to show the consent of the Church, by the condemnation of heretics: he that would know more arguments, to prove the consent in this or any other matter: let him read a book called Vincentius Lirinensis, contra prophanas haeresu unovitates. He may buy it for less than six pennies, and find there a great treasure of good learning. Now to our purpose of the sacrifice. Here the prayer was made. The true Church of Christ whose rule is the word of God: CROWLEY. God's word is the rule of the Church. hath always condemned all manner of heresies. But that is not the Church of Rome, which you would gladly cause men to think to be that catholic Church. As for the heresy of Berrengarius: by the report of Lanfrancus his greatest enemy, was this. Per consecrationem altaris, Lanfrancus De Eucharist. panis & vinum fiunt sacramentum Religionis: non ut desinant esse quae erant, etc. By the consecration of the altar, the bread and wine, are made a sacrament of religion: not that they leave to be the same that they were before, but that they be altered into another thing, and become that they were not before. As Ambrose writeth. etc. Here is a perilous heresy. Ambr. de sa. lib. 4. cap. 4. August. De Cate. & Epist. 23. De Consecr. Dist. 2. If Berrengarius be an heretic for writing thus: then must Ambrose and Austen both be heretics as well as he. For they wrote the same doctrine. But Berrengarius hath recanted his heresy in two provincial counsels, & at his death took great penance for the same as stories do tell: when you shall show those histories, you shall see what we can say to them. Thus we find the Berrengarius, was by Pope Nicholas the second enforced to recant in this wise. Consentio autem sanctae romanae Ecclesiae, & apostolicae sedi: & over & cord profiteor de sacramentis dominicae mensae, eandem fidem me tenere, quam Dominus & venerabilis Papa Nicholaus, & haec sancta Synodus autoritate evangelica & apostolica tenendam tradidit, mihique firmavit. Silicet Panem & vinum quae in altar ponuntur, post consecrationem, non solum sacramentum: sed etiam verum Corpus & sanguinem Domini nostri jesu Christi esse, & sensualiter non solum sacramentum, sed in veritate, manibus sacerdotum tractari, frangi, fidelium dentibus atteri. I do consent (saith Berrengarius) to the holy Church of Rome, and to the Apostolic seat: and with heart and mouth I do profess, that I do hold the same faith concerning the sacraments of the lords table, which my Lord and reverend Pope Nicholas, and this holy Synod, have by the Authority of the Gospel and Apostles, taught to be holden, and have assured me. That is to say, that the bread and wine, which are set on the altar, are not only a sacrament after the consecration, but also the very body and blood of our Lord jesus Christ: & that not only the sacrament, but the body of Christ in deed, is sensibly handled and broken by the priests hands, and grounds with the teeth of the faithful. The homely gloze upon the same place, doth so mislike with this recantation of Berrengarius or rather the decree of the Synod: A pretty recantation. that he saith thus. Nisi sane intelligas verba Berrengarij: in maiorem incides haeresim quam ille habuit. Except a man do warsly understand the words of Berrengarius: he shall fall into a greater heresy, than ever Berrengarius held any. The Pope and the whole Synod do decree an heresy. By this it is manifest, even by the writer of this gloze: that Pope Nicholas, and the whole Synod at Rome, did decree and teach to be holden, and enforce Berrengarius to confess, a greater heresy than ever he held before. And how doth this prove, the consent of your Popish Church, in condemning of heresies? For the condemnation of Wyckliefe, in the counsel of Constance, I refer the reader as before. And your own Lirinensis, will not take your part in this matter. For he was dead many hundred years before Berrengarius was borne. But I am glad that you have now found, that there may be great treasure of good learning in six penny books. Six penny books. I trust you will not now deny, but there may be some good learning in books of half the price. WATSON. Division. 16 Against the blessed Mass, which is the sacrifice of the Church, many words of many men have been said, but sufficient reproof of it hath not yet been heard. Here the prayer was made. Scriptures never one was yet alleged against it, saving one out of the Epistle to the hebrews, where saint Paul writeth, Hebr. 9 that Christ entered into heaven by his own blood once, and afterward he saith Christ was once offered up to take away the sins of many: and all the argument consisteth in this word (once) which I shall (God willing) discuss hereafter. But in very deed that same scripture that they bring against the Mass to no purpose, is the very foundation of the Mass, whereupon the Mass is builded and established, after what sort I shall declare as time will serve. How sufficient proofs have been brought against the Mass: CROWLEY. shall easily appear to as many as will read, that which Bishop jewel hath written for an answer to your friend Master Harding. And some sufficient proofs may be seen in this that I have answered to your two notable sermons. One scripture only you say, hath been hitherto alleged against your Mass. belike you have not seen john Caluines Institutions: Where in the fourth book and xviij Chapter, he allegeth more than four places of scripture against it. Three, out of the first Epistle to the Corinth's, Many proofs against the Mass. one out of Saint john's Gospel the .19. Chapter: and the same text that you take for the theme of your two Sermons. But what should we make reckoning of a multitude of places: sith one alleged in the true meaning, is sufficient? But you have promised to prove, that one place which is alleged against your Mass: to be the foundation of the same. Which when you shall go about to do: I will (God willing) prove, that no such building can stand upon such foundation. Like as there is one God the father, WATSON. Division. 17 Ephes. 1. Hebr. 7.9. and 10. one Christ our redeemer, one body and Church which is redeemed: so there is but one only sacrifice, whereby we be redeemed, which was once and never but once made upon the altar of the Cross for the sins of all men. 1. john. 8. This sacrifice is propitiatory, and a sufficient price, and ransom of the whole world, as saint john saith, he is the propitiation for our sins, and not for our sins only, but for the sins of the whole world, john. 1. and in his Gospel he writeth. Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world. The virtue of this sacrifice began, when God promised that the seed of Adam should bruise and break the Serpent's head, Genes. 3. without the merit of this sacrifice there is no salvation, 2. Cor. 5. for God was in Christ reconcyling the world to himself. This sacrifice is common to both the Testaments, whereof both take their effect, whose virtue is extended from the beginning of the world to the last end, Apoc. 13. for the Lamb was slain from the beginning of the world, as saint john saith. It is also a bloody and a passable sacrifice, extending to the death of him that offered himself, Galath. 3. and it was promised to the fathers, and performed in the fullness of time, the merits whereof receive no augmentation, because it is perfit, nor yet diminution, because it is eternal. And although this sacrifice be sufficient to save all men, yet it is not effectual to the salvation of all men: it is able to save all, but yet all be not saved: for what doth it profit the Turks, Saracenes, unfaithful Gentiles, and counterfeit christians? The fault is not in God, being merciful to all his works, who created us without us: but the fault is in ourselves. CROWLEY. Watson can speak truth. If all the rest of your two Sermons, had been according to this piece: I would not have misliked with you. For I confess all this to be most true. WATSON. Division. 18. Therefore that this sacrifice of Christ, as it is sufficient for all, so it may be effectual and profitable for all. God hath ordained certain means, whereby we may be made able to receive the merit of it, and whereby the virtue of it is brought and applied unto us in the new testament, after his passion, as it was to the fathers in the old testament, before his passion. Of these means some be inward, some be outward: the inward be common to both the testaments, of which the first and principal is faith, for without faith it is not possible to please God, and as saint john saith, he that believeth not, Hebr. 11. john. 3. is now already judged: to him therefore that is an Infidel christ hath died in vain. Charity also is a mean, 1. john. 3. 1. john. 2. 1. Cor. 13. for he that loveth not remaineth in death, he that hateth his brother, is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and can not tell whether he goeth: and if I have all faith, and have no charity, I am nothing. He is not therefore partaker of Christ's merits in the remission of sin, that lacketh charity. And so may we say of hope, without the which no man receiveth mercy at Christ's hand. It is true that you say: CROWLEY. The means whereby Christ's merits are applied to us. no man can be partaker of Christ's merits, without faith, love, and hope. And we say, that these three be so linked together: that one of them can not be without the other. And that God is the giver of these three means: whereby the merits of his son are made ours. And that these are the only mean whereby the fathers before, and we since the death of Christ, be made partakers thereof. Amongst the inward means there be other spiritual sacrifices, as the sacrifice of a contrite heart, WATSON. Division. 19 which God doth much regard, the sacrifice of our lips, Psal. 50. Osee. 14. Luc. 11. Math. 7. Hebr. 13. which is prayer and praise of God, whereby we attain remission of sin, having a plain promise, that whatsoever we ask of God in the name of Christ, we shall obtain it. And the sacrifices of almose and benevolence, which saint Paul would not have us to forget, because God is gotten and won by such sacrifices. All these and other such like do not fully deserve grace and remission of sin, but be means, that the virtue and merit of Christ's passion may be derived and applied unto us, as he hath ordained. CROWLEY. Here you show yourself somewhat. You will not receive the merits of Christ freely: but you will by faith, love, hope, contrition, prayer, praise and almose, deserve some part thereof. But Christ hath taught us to say, that when we have done all that we are commanded to do: Luc. 17. we shall say, that we are unprofitable bond men, that is, such as can deserve nothing, more than bond slaves can deserve at the hands of their Lords and Masters, Blasphemous doctrine. whose bond slaves they are. Your doctrine therefore in this point is blasphemy. For you ascribe to man's merit, that which is to be ascribed to the mercy of God alone. WATSON. Division. 20 There be also other outward means, as sacraments and sacrifices. Of sacraments some be proper to the old Testament, some proper to the new, without the which ordinarily there is no remission of sin, nor collation of grace. As circumcision was to the fathers, so baptism is to us, without the which this bloody sacrifice taketh not away original sin, not because it can not, Gene. 17. john. 3. john. 6. Luc. 13. but because God hath so ordained. For as it is said in the old Testament, whose flesh is not circumcised, his soul shall be put away from the people: so it is said in the new Testament, except a man be borne again of the water and the holy ghost, he can not see the kingdom of God: and except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, ye shall not have life in you: and except ye do penance, ye shall all likewise perish. And so must we think of all other sacraments of both the testaments, that they be means ordained of God to attain the grace they signify, which grace is fully purchased and deserved by the passion of Christ, whereof only they take their effect. For the old sacraments have their virtue and strength. Ex opere operando (as the school men say) that is to say, of the work that is to be wrought upon the Cross by Christ, in whom only they believed. The new sacraments have their virtue Ex opere operato, of the work of Christ that is already wrought upon the cross: and not of any worthiness of the priest, the minister. By the merit of which work upon the cross, they have virtue and efficacy appropried unto them, to give that grace they signify, to such as worthily receive them, or at least, that have no impediment, nor put no stop, but that the grace may be received. It is true, CROWLEY. that there be some sacraments proper to the old Testament, and some proper to the new: but the latter part of that sentence wherein you affirm this, is some thing obscure. You seem to affirm, that there is no remission of sin, Gene. 15. Luc. 23. Acts. 10. nor collation of grace, without the sacraments: which saying is most false. For Abraham had his sins forgiven him, before he was circumcised: and so had the thief that hanged on the cross by Christ, without the sacrament baptism. And Cornelius and his company, had received the gift of the holy ghost: before they were baptized. But you say, that ordinarily, there is no remission of sins, nor collation of grace: without sacraments. watson's dark speaking. By which manner of speaking, you amaze the people: who can gather none other thing thereby, but that commonly God doth not forgive sins, nor collate or bestow his graces upon any, before they do receive the sacraments, that he hath instituted to signify the same. Which is most false. For faith, and the fear of God, are the beginning of all heavenly wisdom: & must needs be had of every one that shall receive any sacrament, Hebr. 11. Mark. 16. before the receiving thereof can be any thing at all available. For without faith it is not possible to please God. And he that will not believe, shall be condemned. To receive a sacrament therefore without faith: is to no purpose. Sacraments, both of the old and new Testament were instituted, not to give grace, but to confirm the grace already given and received: Rom. 4. as appeareth plainly by that which saint Paul writeth to the Romans. Et signum accepit Circumcisionis, signaculum justitiae fidei quae fuerat in praeputio. etc. And he received the sign of circumcision, the seal of the righteousness of faith, which was in him before he was circumcised: that he might be the father of all that believe, among the uncircumcised, that the same might be reckoned to them for righteousness also. etc. By this it is manifest, that God's ordinary mean of forgiving sins and conferring grace: is by his holy spirit of adoption, whereby he doth regenerate his elected and chosen children, and not any Sacraments, either of the old Testament or the new. As for the places that you cite for circumcision, baptism, the sacrament of Christ's body and penance: you might have spared till you had found a fit place for them. For they serve nothing to prove that which you pretend to prove. We know, that baptism is the same to us, that circumcision was to the fathers, and that as the uncircumcised might not be suffered to live among the people of God: so such as refuse baptism, cannot see the kingdom of God. And that except we do eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood: we shall have no life in us. And that except we repent: we shall all perish as the Galileans did. But what maketh this for the proof of your purpose? Which is, that sacraments be the ordinary means to take away sins and confer grace: sith the forgiveness of sins and grace, must be conferred before we can be meet to receive the sacraments? How truly you report the opinion of the Schoolmen, for Opus operandum and Opus operatum: I might refer to such as have been exercised in the writings of those Schoolmen. But lest you should think that it were but a shift so to do: I will put you in remembrance of some part of that which you have read, if you be so good a Shoole man as you would seem to be. Nicholaus de Orbellis sayeth thus. In sacramento autem propriè dicto, virtute operis operati confertur gratia, Libr. 4. Sent Dist. 1. q. 3. ita quod non requiritur bonus motus interior qui mereatur gratiam: sed tantummodo sufficit, quod recipiens non ponat obicem. I answer (saith he) that in a sacrament that is properly so called, grace is conferred by the virtue of the work wrought, so that the good inward motion which might deserve grace, is not required: but this only is sufficient, that the receiver of the sacrament do not put a bar in the way. Again, the same Nicholas saith. Baptismus generaliter intendit gratiam iam habitam: sed ita non est in Circumcisione. unde Abrahae iam iustificato, signaculum fuit, & ei nihil intus contulit. Quia gratia Abrahae iam attigerat, & transcenderat illum gradum ad quem determinata fuerat Circumcisio. Baptism doth generally increase the grace that is already had: but in circumcision, it is not so. Wherefore to Abraham that was already justified, it was only a seal: and did inwardly increase him nothing at all. For Abraham's grace had attained unto, yea and passed the degree, that circumcision was appointed to aspire unto. Thomas Aquinas saith. In Baptismo confertur gratia ex virtute ipsius Baptismi quam habet in quantum est instrumentum passionis Christi iam perfectae: in Circumcisione verò, conferebatur gratia, part. 3. quest. 70. Art. 4. non ex virtute Circumcisionis: sed ex virtute passionis Christi, cuius signum erat Circumcisio. In baptism, grace is conferred by the virtue of baptism itself, in as much as it is the instrument of the passion of Christ already perfected. But in circumcision, grace was conferred, not by the virtue of circumcision: but by the virtue of Christ's passion, whereof circumcision was a sign. Scotus saith. In circumcisione, solum peccata dimittebantur: Cap. penult. nec gratia ibi dabatur. In circumcision, sins were forgiven only: grace was not therein given. By these few places, it may appear, that the Schoolmen be not all one with you, nor one of them with another, in this matter of conferring of grace by sacraments Ex opere operato. Et, Ex opere operando, as you alone do imagine, as I suppose. I advertise the indifferent reader therefore: to give credit to neither of you both, in this point: but to use the sacraments of Christ, according to Christ's institution, for the confirmation of their faith in Christ. Ascribing to the mercy of God in Christ: all the remission of sins, that is by those sacraments signified. WATSON. Division. 21 Beside the sacraments, there be sacrifices instituted of God: as means whereby the passion of Christ, the true sacrifice is signified, represented, and applied. As the paschal Lamb, the continual sacrifice for sin, a sacrifice for giving thanks, Exo. 12.19. Lc. 1.4.5.7. levit. 3. for the sins of the priest and of the people, for infirmity & omission, for peace, for any benefit to be attained, for chastity and such other: which had strength, not by their own nature, but by the virtue of Christ's passion which they signified. And as these were sacrifices proper to the old Testament: so Christ hath instituted, a new external sacrifice, proper to the new testament, by his passion abrogating the other, which were shadows signifying, & stablishing this, which is the truth representing, for this intent that the virtue and sufficiency of his bloody & saving sacrifice, may be without iteration of itself continually transferred unto us. For seeing there is but one God, author of both the testaments, one body, one faith of Christ to us both, though they believed in Christ to come, we in Christ already commed: it followeth consequently, that we of the new testament, may not lack this mean of sacrifice, so necessary and expedient for us. For so should we (as I have partly touched in my last sermon) be without all kind of religion, having now no sacrifice remaining proper unto ourselves. Like as to the unperfit law there succeeded a perfit law, and to the figurative sacraments, there succeeded perfit and effectual working sacraments: even so to the figurative and typical sacrifices, there succeedeth one true and perfit sacrifice of Christ, one in substance, but divers in manner. Law, sacrifice, priesthood, and altar be (as the Logicians say) relativa, that is to say, one hanging and depending upon another, as saint Paul saith, Translato sacerdotio necesse est, ut legis translatio fiat. If the priesthood be translate, Hebrae. than the law must needs be translate likewise. And then like as if there be a father, there is a son, if there be a master, there is a servant: so if there be a new law of the new testament, there is also a priesthood, a sacrifice, and an aultare properly belonging to the new Testament. A perfit and continual law requireth a perfit sacrifice of like continuance: the new law of it should lack a priesthood and sacrifice private to itself, it should either be imperfect, or else utterly destroyed. For this cause our saviour Christ in his last supper, did institute the sacrament of his body and blood commending unto us two several uses of it, the one that should be received of us, 1. Cor. 11. as our heavenly food to nourish us in spiritual life till we come to be perfit men in Christ, saying: take eat this is my body. The other use, that it should be offered in the remembrance of his passion, the ministration of which offering he hath committed to his Apostles, as to priests of the new law, saying, do this in my remembrance, for the which function they and their successors be specially priests. This is the doctrine of Christ's catholic Church which I have as yet but simply declared, not evidently proved which is sufficient to persuade an obedient catholic man that followeth the Church, but not sufficient to convince an obstinate heretic, that denieth the Church, impugning the doctrine and determination of the Church. The sacrifices that God ordained to be offered in the tune of the old law, CROWLEY, Hebr. 10. Sacrifices are not means to take away sins. were shadows and figures of good things then to come, and not the good things themselves (as saint Paul saith) neither could they by any means take away sin, neither had they any such strength by the virtue of Christ's passion, as you do imagine them to have. And where you imagine, that as those sacrifices were proper to the old law, so there must of necessity, be one sacrifice proper to the new testament, seeing there is but one God. etc. I have sufficiently answered in mine answer to the tenth division of your former Sermon, where you have touched it as you say here. And when you say, that to the unperfect law, there succeedeth a perfect law. etc. it seemeth that you have forgotten that which you said before in the twenty Watson forgetteth his last sayings. division of this Sermon, where you affirm, that the sacraments of the old law did confer grace, Ex opere operando, by the work that was then to be wrought, and now you say that they were but figurative, and not effectual working sacraments, and therefore such must succeed them. When you shall prove that Moses his law and the sacraments thereof, be an unperfect law and unperfect sacraments: then will I allow your similitude. But so long as you shall not be able to prove any imperfection in either of them: I will reject your similitude, as foolish and vain. Galath. 3. I know that the law could bring nothing to perfection, because it was not ordained to that end to bring things to perfection: Rom. 10. Christ is the perfection of the law. but (as saint Paul writeth) to lead unto Christ. And Christ is the perfection and end of the law. That is to say. Christ maketh those perfect: whom the law, with the sacraments and ceremonies thereof do bring unto him. And so that sacrifice that Christ offered once for all: is the end and perfection of all the sacrifices of the old law, which is no more all one in substance with the sacrifices of the old law that you speak of: then the shadow of any body, is one in substance with the body itself. Law, sacrifice, priesthood. etc. be relatives, and as saint Paul saith, when the priesthood is translated, the law must also be translated: But what maketh this to your purpose, to prove, that there must needs be in the new law, such a sacrifice, priesthood, and altar, as you imagine? Is it not sufficient that we have such a sacrifice, Rom. 12. 1. Peter. 2. Apoc. 6. priesthood, and altar, as Paul, Peter and john speak of? Must we needs have such a priesthood, sacrifice and altar, as the Pope's Antichristian Church hath devised and maintaineth? You must prove it more substantially, before any that is either learned in the scriptures or godly wise, will believe you. A perfect and continual law, requireth a perfect and continual sacrifice, as you say: and shall not that reasonable serving of God that saint Paul speaketh of in the place that you have taken for your theme, be as perfect and continuing a sacrifice, Rom. 12. Rom. 3. as the law of faith, is a perfect and continual law? I think there is none that understandeth what christian religion is: but the same will consent, to that which I have said hereof. For this cause (say you) our saviour Christ, did in his last supper institute. etc. you tell us here, of two several uses of the sacrament of Christ's body and blood. One is, that it should be received of us. etc. This you confirm with a note in the mergine. 1. Cor. 11. It is true that Paul teacheth that doctrine there, Paul's doctrine not so gross as watson's. even as he himself had learned of the Lord: but not in such gross manner as you do teach in these two fine Sermons. He teacheth there, that our saviour christ did ordain, that this holy sacrament should be received of christians: in the remembrance of his death & passion, & that being so received of us, it is a food that doth nourish us in spiritual life. Otherwise, it is a condennation to the receivers. As for the other use, which you say is, to be offered in remembrance of Christ's passion: you go about to prove, by do this in my remembrance. And then (very well) you say, that you have but simply declared it without evident proof. It had been good that you had dealt simply, & not so subtly, as to cite the words of Christ in such sort, that it might seem, Watson dealeth not simply. that he had given commandment, that the sacrament of his body should be offered in sacrifice: where as it is manifest by the circumstance of the place, that he commanded the sacrament to be received in the remembrance of his death and passion. But your only assertion without proof, is sufficient to persuade an obedient Catholic. etc. watson's obedient Catholics. You account for obedient Catholics, such only as will captivate all their senses, and believe all that you say and do to be good and godly: and follow you whether soever you lead them, though they see plainly that you go before them into the bottomless pit of hell. Well, let us see now, how you can convince by arguments, those that will not obediently say white is black, light darkness, and good evil: for such you call heretics, that deny the Church, and impugn the doctrine and determination of the same. WATSON. Division. 22 But to our purpose, that the oblation of Christ's body and blood in the Mass is the sacrifice of the Church, and proper to the new testament, I shall prove it you by the best arguments that we have in our school of divinity, that is to say, first by the institution of our saviour Christ, then by the prophecy of Malachy the prophet, thirdly by the figure of Melchisedech in the old law, and this shall I do not expounding the scriptures after mine own head, but as they have been taken from the beginning of the most ancient and Catholic fathers in all ages. 1. Cor. 11. This sacrifice was instituted by the commandment of Christ, saying to his Apostles, do this in my remembrance. Our new men laugh at us where we say, that this commandment of Christ doth prove the oblation of the sacrament. But we pity them, that set so light by that they are bounden to believe, and can not disprove, seeming evidently not to regard and way the fact of Christ, and their obedience to his commandment. When Christ said, do this: by this word (this) must needs be understanded all that he did, concerning the institution of this sacrament. Let us now see what Christ did. First he did consecrated his precious body & blood by blessing the bread, saying, this is my body, this is my blood, for if this consecration be not comprehended under this word (Hoc, this) then have we no commandment nor authority to consecrate this sacrament, & so should we be usurpers to do that thing we have no warrant to show for us in holy scripture. But without doubt, this is so plain, that we need say no more of it, except we should utterly deny this sacrament, and the whole ministration of it, which (I think) no man doth. Secondarily, Christ did offer, that he did consecrate which appeareth by these his words: This is my body, which is given for you. And although this oblation may be proved sufficiently otherwise, yet to my simple judgement there seemeth to be no light argument in this word (Datur is given): for seeing the scripture saith, it is given for us, and not to us, as Zwinglius and our great archbishop his Disciple would have it, we must needs understand by (given for us) offered for us, so that in this place and many other to give is to offer. And although it be true, that Christ was given and offered for us to the father, upon the cross the next day following, yet because the word (Datur) is in Greek in all the Evangelists, where it is expressed in the present tense, and also every sentence is true for the time it is pronounced, therefore me think I may certainly conclude, because Christ saith, datur pro vobis, is given for you, that even then in the supper time he offered his body for us to his father. Thirdly, Christ did deliver to his disciples to be eaten and drunken, that he had before consecrated and offered, Math. 29. and this appeareth by his words. Take, eat, and drink ye all of this. The first and the third which be the consecration and receiving, be out of all controversy confessed of all men. The second which is the oblation, is of late brought in question, which I have partly proved by the plain words of scripture, as it seemeth to me, so that I may well reason thus: Christ's action is our instruction (I except his wonderful works and miracles) specially when his commandment is joined unto it. But Christ in his supper offered himself verily and really under the forms of bread and wine after an impossible manner, and commanded us to do the same, till his second coming: me think therefore, that the Mass we do and aught to do sacrifice, & offer Christ unto his father, which oblation is the external sacrifice of the Church, and proper to the new testament. CROWLEY. The best arguments of the Pope's divinity school. Now to your purpose. etc. you will prove by the best arguments in your divinity school: that Christ's body and blood offered in the Mass, is the sacrifice of the Church. etc. And as it appeareth: the best arguments of your school, are these three. The institution of Christ, the prophecy of Malachi, and the figure of Melchisedech. Well, I trust the reader shall in that which followeth, see how well you do perform your promise. Do this in my remembrance (saith Christ) that is, offer up this in my remembrance (say you) and except you be deceived: Christ hath in these words, instituted the sacrifice of the Mass. Your new men you say, do laugh at you. etc. And you do pity them. etc. Bilyke you have a delight to be laughed at: for you have in the words following, given more occasion to be laughed at, as shall appear in this answer. watson's pity. Luc. 23. Your pity is much like that which was in the women of jerusalem: when they wept to see the miserable estate of Christ, which was condemned to die, being an Innocent. Watson will make his new masters laugh. When Christ said, do this. etc. All that Christ did: must needs be understanded by this word (this) and therefore you will see what Christ did. First he consecrated his precious body and blood. etc. Might not your new men think you, justly laugh at you: when you allege that for your purpose, that maketh most against you? do this saith Christ. What shall we do? say you. Take bread saith Christ. And when you have given thanks: break it and distribute it, and eat it, for it is my body. Then take the cup, and when ye have given thanks: drink ye all of it, for it is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. Thus far according as matthew writeth. What ground have you in these words, for the institution of the Mass? He doth not say, prepare you ministering garments of a strange fashion. Neither doth he bid you make those garments holy. He speaketh no word of your hallowed aultare, Superaltare, Cup, or Corporasse cloth. He maketh no mention of your thin stertch cake, nor of myxing water with your wine. He hath no word of your manifold crossings, turnings, and half turnings, with the rest of the Apish toys whereof your Mass doth consist. But he took bread and wine, What Christ did at his last supper. such as the present occasion did offer. And he gave thanks to his heavenly father: and did presently distribute the same to those Disciples of his that were then present, commanding them all to eat and drink thereof in the remembrance of his death and passion, as often as they should think it meet by a sacrament to celebrate the remembrance thereof. Assuring them that in so doing, they should be partakers of his body and blood, to the nourishing of their souls and bodies to everlasting life. Here is a plain institution of the holy communion of the body and blood of our saviour jesus Christ: but for your transubstantiating consecration that you use in your Mass, here is no warrant at all. By your own judgement therefore, your Antichristian Clerks are but usurpers, having no warrant in the word of God, to show for your doings in this point. The matter therefore is not so plain on your side: as you would have men think it to be. The like foundation you have found to build your oblation upon. Christ hath said: Which is given for you. And to your simple judgement: there seemeth no little argument, in this word Datur, is given. etc. And therefore you conclude: that Christ did at his last supper, even in the supper time, offer his body for us to his father. Matthew, and Mark, make no mention of this Datur, Mat. 26. Mar. 14. that you build upon. Bilyke therefore, it is not so great a matter as you would make of it. For if the church can have no sacrifice but that which is builded upon Datur, it is to be thought that Matthew and Mark knew nothing of the Church sacrifice. But in Luke you find Quod pro vobis datur, which is given for you, not to you, as Zwynglius and Cranmer his Scholar, would have it. You conclude therefore, that given for us, must needs signify, offered for us. So that in this place and many other (but you name not one) to give, is to offer. Many places but none named. And because all the Evangelists have it in the Greek expressed in the present tense. etc. you think you may certainly conclude, because Christ saith Datur pro vobis, is given for you: that even then in the supper time, he offered his body for us to his father. First, I must say unto you, that when you shall show us, those places, wherein, to give is to offer: then we will weigh them, and if we shall find that true which you affirm here, we will say as you say, that Christ did in his last supper offer up his body to his father. Till that time, you must pardon us. 1. Cor. 11. Saint Paul saith. Quod pro vobis frangitur, which is broken for you. It were strange if we should say, that broken doth signify offered, in this place and many other, and be not able to show any one place where it is so used. And it is manifest by the histories of the Gospel: that Christ's body was not broken upon the cross. For it was prophesied, that there should no bone of him be broken. And although this be expressed in the present tense, and every sentence is true for the time it is pronounced: The speakers meaning, is the truth of the sentence spoken. yet may you not conclude as you do certainly and say, that Christ offered his body in his supper. For the truth of the sentence, is in that meaning that doth by other parts of scripture, appear to be the meaning of the speaker. Christ's body was given for us, when he became man that he might die for us, when he was given over into the power of his enemies which sought his life, when he went up to jerusalem, declaring before hand to his Disciples, that he must there be crucified: and when judas had bargained with the high priests, to deliver him to them. When Christ was given and his body broken for us. And when our Saviour christ was cruelly dealt with by the jews in any condition: then was his body broken for us. Thus are these sentences true for the time they were pronounced: and yet, neither doth given signify offered, nor broken signify, torn in pieces. Thirdly (you say) christ did deliver to his Disciples to be eaten and drunken: Watson hath overshot himself to far. that which he had before consecrated and offered. Here you have overshot yourself, a great deal to far. For if Christ had offered and consecrated before he gave to his Disciples: we may ask what he offered, and with what words he consecrated. If he did consecrate with these words, this is my body: this is my blood: then could he offer to his father none other thing but bread and wine, before he had given the same to his Disciples. For he spoke not those words, till he had both broken the bread and delivered it and the wine to his Disciples. If consent of the Evangelists, both in the Greek and Latin do give vantage as in Datur, given, you would feign it should: then must it of force give vantage here, for none of them doth place the words otherwise. And you yourself have affirmed before: that with those words Christ did consecrate. Yea, though you would deny it, and affirm that Christ did consecrate by his almighty power, using some other words of blessing. Yet your school men will not suffer you. part. 3. quest. 75. Art. 7. For Thomas Aquinas saith. Dicendum est, quod haec conversio, sicut dictum est, perficitur per verba Christi, quae à sacerdote proferuntur: ita quod ultimum instans prolationis ver borum, est primum instans in quo est in sacramento corpus Christi. We must say, that this conversion, as it is said, is finished by the words of Christ, pronounced by the priest: so that the last instant of the pronouncing of the words, is the first instant wherein the body of Christ is in the sacrament. Nicholaus de Orbellis, Richardus, Scotus, and the rest: The school Doctor's overthrow watson's assertion. be all of the same mind in this matter. Wherefore me thinketh, I may certainly conclude, even upon your own words, that if Christ offered to his father, before he broke and gave to his Disciples: he offered none other thing but bread and wine, and therefore not his body and blood. Now, let us see, what reason it is, that you think you may well make for the proof of this sacrifice in the Mass. The value of watson's reason. Christ's action, is our instruction. But Christ did this, and commanded us so to do. Ergo in the Mass, we do and aught to do sacrifice. etc. Your Mayor and Minor, are proved both false: Ergo, your conclusion, is not worth a couple of Walnuts. And for further proof that Christ offered himself in his last supper: WATSON. Division. 23 I shall allege unto you the authority of the Church, and the consent of the fathers in this point, which ought to suffice any christian man. Ireneus. li. 4. Ireneus writeth in his fourth book, that Christ taking the creature of bread and giving thanks said. This is my body, and likewise confessing the cup to be of his blood. Novi testamenti novam docuit oblationem, quam Ecclesia ab Apostolis accipiens in universo mundo offert deo, de quo in duodecim Prophetis Malachias sic praesignificavit, Non est mihi voluntas in vobis. etc. He taught the new oblation of the new testament, which oblation the Church receiving of the Apostles, doth offer to God throughout the whole world, whereof Malachy one of the twelve prophets did prophecy. I have no will and pleasure in you. etc. What can be more plain than that Christ in his last supper in the ministration of the blessed sacrament did teach his Apostles the new oblation of the new Testament, and his Apostles taught the Church the same that they received, and the Church doth continually use to offer the same to God in every place? This authority the words being so manifest, and the author so ancient and substantial, can not be avoided with all their cavillations. Saint Cyprian also the blessed Martyr writeth thus. Si Christus summus sacerdos sacrificium Deo patri ipse primus obtulit, Cyprian. li. 2. epist. 3. & hoc fieri in sui commemorationem praecepit, utique ille sacerdos vice Christi verè fungitur, qui id quod Christus fecit imitatur. If Christ the high priest did first himself offer a sacrifice to God his father, and commanded the same to be done in his remembrance verily that priest doth truly occupy the office of Christ, that by imitation doth the same thing that Christ did. This holy Martyr teacheth us, that Christ did first offer himself to his father in his supper, and also commanded us to do the same. Why should any man doubt of that, that in the beginning of the Church the holy Martyrs did, and taught without all doubt. Hesichius. lib. 2. cap. 8. Hesichius also that flourished in the time of Gratian the Emperor writeth thus. Prius figuratam ovem coenans cum Apostolis, postea suum obtulit sacrificium, & deinde sicut ovem semetipsum occidit. Christ in his supper did first eat the figurative lamb with his Apostles, than he offered his own sacrifice, and after that he killed himself like a lamb. By this saying that Christ killed himself, is meant, that Christ voluntarily did offer himself to the death, suffering the jews to kill him whom he might have withstanded: but to our purpose. It is plain that beside the bloody oblation upon the cross, and also beside the figurative oblation of himself in the paschal lamb, he also did offer himself mystically in the celebration of the sacrament, which is the very point that we go about to prove, and is manifestly proved by this ancient author. Damascen sayeth: In noctè in qua seipsum obtulit, Damascenus. li. 4. Cap. 14. testamentum nowm disposuit. In that night when he offered himself, he did ordain and institute the new Testament. Mark that he saith, he offered himself in the night, the oblation upon the cross was in the mid day, which is a distinct offering from that in the night. And Theophilactus sayeth: Tunc immolavit se ipsum ex quo tradidit discipulis corpus suum. Theophilactus in Math. Cap 28. It is manifest that then he offered himself, when he delivered to his disciples his body: teaching us, that Christ in his mystical supper offered himself to his father. To this saint Augustine beareth witness, writing thus. unde ipse dominus etiam quos mundavit à lepra, ad eadem sacramenta misit, August. de baptismo. li. 3. cap. 19 ut offerrent pro se sacrificium Sacerdotibus, quia nondum eis successerat sacrificium quod ipse post in ecclesia voluit celebrari pro omnibus illis: For which cause our Lord himself sent them whom he had made clean from their leper to the same sacraments (of the old Testament) that they should offer to the priests a sacrifice for themselves, because as yet that sacrifice did not succeed to them, which Christ would have celebrated in his Church in stead of all them. Way these words well, and ye shall perceive, that they can not be understand of the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross, which was but once offered, and can not be continually celebrate and used of the Church, nor yet of the sacrifice of thanksgiving, which succeedeth not the other, but was before and with the other: and therefore they prove plainly, that this one sacrifice of the new Testament that succeedeth the multitude of the old sacrifices, is only the sacrifice of Christ's body and blood in the blessed Mass which he hath ordained to be daily frequented in his Church to the worlds end. Dionysius Ariopagita. Specul. cap. 3. What should I allege more authors? Will ye yet hear one of the eldest, I mean Dionysius Areopagita S. Paul's scholar, and Bishop of Athens, he writeth thus: Quocirca reverenter simul & expontificali officio post sacras divinorum operum laudes quòd hostiam salutarem (quae supra ipsum est) litet, se excusat, ad ipsum primo decenter exclamans, tu dixisti, hoc facite in meam commemorationem. Wherefore the Bishop reverently and according to his pastoral office, after the praise and commendation of God's works and benefits, he doth excuse himself, that he doth take upon him to offer that sacrifice of our saviour which is far above his degree and dignity, crying first unto him decently. Lord thou didst command, saying: Do this in my remembrance. If there were no more but this one authority, it were sufficient to prove, that the priest doth offer the body of Christ, which is the sacrifice of our saviour in the Mass, and that he offereth it by the express commandment of Christ, saying. Do this in my remembrance, and that he offereth that thing, which is far exceeding his degree, which can be nothing else, but the body of Christ. Therefore leaving for shortness of time all other authorities, which with little labour I could bring in for this purpose, me think I may well conclude, that the oblation of Christ's body and blood in the Mass is the very sacrifice of the Church, both by the institution of Christ declared by his express commandment, which we are all bounden to obey, and also by his own example in offering himself under the forms of bread and wine, which we priests are bounden to follow, as the scripture which I have alleged, doth evidently prove, the true sense whereof is as is recited not private, proceeding from mine own brain, but catholic, confirmed by the consent of the Church, able to prove & convince any one man, that hath nothing to say to the contrary but his bare nay. To prove that Christ offered himself in his last supper: CROWLEY. Ireneus. lib. 4. Capit. 32. ye allege matter out of the ancient fathers. And first out of Ireneus. For answer whereunto I refer the reader, to that answer that I have made to the same text, cited in the fourth division of your former Sermon. And for answer to that which you cite out of Cyprian, I refer the reader to that which I have answered to matter that you have in the ninth division of that Sermon, Cyprian. lib. 2 Epist. 3. cited out of the same Epistle. Isychius by the report of john Tritemius, Isychius. lib. 2 Capit. 8. flourished in the days of the princes Arcadius and Honorius: somewhat after the days of the Emperor Gratian, in whose time you say, he flourished. But your care is, to cause him to seem as ancient as may be. But if you had read him thorough, and weighed him well: you would never have cited him for your purpose. For he doth in many places make manifestly against you. In the place that you do now cite: Papistical liberty used by Watson. you do use your old slight. That is, you leave out, that which goeth before, and that which followeth, and should show the meaning of the writer: And because Secundò, seemeth not to give you that advantage, that you desire to have: you are bold to thrust Deinde, in place thereof, saying thus. Et deinde sicut ovem. etc. Where the Author hath, Et secundo. etc. But that the reader may be able to judge of the Author's meaning: I will let him see those words that you have so slyly slipped over. His words be these. Nihil autem ad perfectum duxit lex: subintroductio autem maioris spei quae data est, in hac nos spe constituit. Veruntamen, sacrificium hoc, eam quae dicta est maior Spes, per quam semper propinquamus ad seruiendum Deo, innuit. Cur autem Aries secundus, hic nunc Aries nominatur? Quia videlicet, prius figuratam ovem cum Apostolis caenans Dominus: postea suum obtulit sacrificium, & secundo sicut ovem ipse semetipsum occidit, quod demonstrant sequentia. Posueruntque Aaron & filii eius manus suas super caput eius. Quem cum immolasset Moses. Necessariè simul cum Aaron filii eius, super Caput Arietis manus imponunt: quia communem caenam festivitatis paschalis, cum suis Christus discipulis celebravit. etc. The law hath brought nothing to perfection, but the secret bringing in of a greater hope, which is given us: hath set us in this hope. But this sacrifice doth note unto us, that hope, which is called the greater hope, whereby we do always approach to serve God. And why is this Ram now named the second Ram? Forsooth, because the Lord supping with his Apostles: did first offer the figurative Lamb, and afterward he did offer his own sacrifice, and did secondarily kill himself even as a sheep, which thing, the words that follow do declare. And Aaron and his sons, did put their hands upon the head of that Ram. Which when Moses had offered: the sons of Aaron did of necessity set their hands upon the head of the Ram with Aaron, because Christ did celebrate a common supper of the feast of Easter with his Disciples. etc. Now let the reader consider how faithfully you handle this place of Isychius. He expounding the eight Chapter of Leviticus, What is meant by the second Ram. doth (when he cometh to those words. Obtulit & Arietem secundum. etc.) declare that that second Ram, did signify our Saviour Christ. Who after he had with his disciples, celebrated a common supper of the solemnisation of the passouer, eating with them the figurative Lamb: did, as it were, kill and offer up himself upon the cross, because he gave himself into the hands of his enemies that fastined him to the cross, which Isychius calleth our saviour Christ's own sacrifice. And you (M. Watson) will needs have us think, that our Saviour did after the offering and eating of the passouer, offer his own sacrifice in bread and wine, and afterward offer himself on the cross, and that Isychius meaneth so to teach in the words that you cite. And to cause the words, the better to seem to serve for your purpose: you do in the place of the adverb Secundo, use Deinde: which all wise and learned men do know to be but homely dealing. But that Isychius was not of your mind concerning the sacrifice of the Church: the reader may well see, Isychius li. 1. Capit. 1. by that which he writeth in his first book and first Chapter. His words be these. Quia sacrificia Deus à nobis pro nostra salute vult, non ipse ea opus habens: satis nos Paulus commonefacit. Ait enim. Obsècro itaque vos fratres, per misericor diam Dei, ut exhibeatis corpora vestra hostiam vivam, sanctam, Deo placentem, racionabile obsequium vestrum. Ergo placens sacrificium Deo, corporum nostrorum mortificatio est: simul enim in eo lucramur, & quod à peccato abstineamus, & quod virtutes acquirimus. Paul doth sufficiently certify us, that God having no need thereof: will have sacrifices of us, for the health we have received. For he saith. I beseech you therefore brethren, even by the mercy of God: that you would give your bodies, a sacrifice, quick, holy, and acceptable to God, which is your reasonable serving of God. The mortification of our bodies therefore: is the sacrifice that pleaseth God. For we do therein, both win that we may abstain from sin, and also that we obtain virtues. By these words it is most manifest, Isychius doth not agree with Watson. that Isychius understood not that place that you have taken for your theme, as you do show yourself to understand it. And that therefore he was not of such mind in the other place that you cite out of him for your purpose: as you would feign have men think that he was. He knew no more sacrifices of Christ but one, which was offered on the Cross once for all, whereof the Passover lamb was a figure, and our sacrament is a remembrance. And the mortification of our bodies, is the sacrifice of thanksgiving, that God doth continually require at our hands. As for your Damascenus, although john Tritemius, Tritem. de Eccles. scrip. Damasc. li. 4. Capit. 14. would feign have him seem more ancient: yet john Patriarcha Hierosolomitanus, writing his life, saith that he lived in the days of Leo Isaurius, which was .720. years after Christ. His authority therefore, can not be so weighty, that it might enforce us to grant, that all that he writeth is true, though he descent both from the writings of other more ancient fathers, and scriptures also. As in that Chapter out of which you cite his words, and in many other places of his writings, he doth most manifestly. But let us see how honestly you apply his words that you cite. Mark, say you, that he saith, he offered himself in the night. etc. I would gladly be short in these your unhandsome handlings of that which you cite for your purpose: but I can not suffer the Reader to lack those words that do give light to that which you do so subtly cite. Damascenus saith thus. Cibus vero ipse panis vitae, Dominus noster jesus Christus, qui ex Coelo discendit. Nam suscepturus voluntariam pro nobis mortem, in nocte in qua seipsum obtulit: testamentum nowm disposuit sanctis Discipulis & Apostolis, & per ipsos, omnibus alijs in seipsum credentibus. etc. Certes, that food which is the bread of life, is our Lord jesus Christ, which came down from heaven. For when he would for our sakes, take upon him a voluntary death. He did in the night wherein he offered himself, dispose to his holy Disciples and Apostles, and by them to all other that believe in him, a new testament. watson's fallace opened. He offered himself in the night, say you, but the oblation on the Cross was in the mid day: Ergo, they be distinct oblations. All that do understand what Logic meaneth, do know wherein the fallace of this Argument is, he offered himself to death, and he offered himself in death. How the first can be called a sacrifice, I would gladly learn: otherwise then the obedience of a Christian man to do the will of God, may be called a sacrifice. But that will not serve your purpose here. For you must have this first offering to be a Massing sacrifice propitiatory: both for the quick and the dead. Whether Damascenus can justly be taken to mean so here: I refer to the judgement of the indifferent Reader. But this I must tell you, that in the same place, he fighteth against your opinion of Datur, it is given, for he saith Frangetur, it shall be broken. Whereby it is manifest, that he meaneth there, of the sacrifice that was made on the Cross, and not of a sacrifice then presently offered: as you would have us think that he meant. Theophilact. in Mat. 28. Theophilactus, a writer of like antiquity and integrity of judgement with Damascenus, hath said (say you) Tunc immolavit. etc. The Reader shall see the words that go before, and then let him judge, how these serve your purpose. He saith thus. Possum tibi & aliam causam dicere, quomodo tres dies & tres noctes numerentur. Attend igitur. Quinta vespera fecit Dominus Coenam, & Discipulis dixit Accipite, commedite, hoc est enim corpus meum. Et ita quia potestatem habebat ponere animam: manifestum quòd tunc immolavit seipsum, ex quo tradidit corpus suum. I am able to show thee another reason also: how the three days and three nights may be numbered. The Lord made his supper the fift day at éeuen, and he said to his Disciples: take, eat, this is my body. And so because he had power to leave his life: it is manifest that he did then offer himself, even from that time wherein he gave his body to his Disciples. Because (saith he) our Saviour had power to leave his life at his pleasure: it is manifest that even than he offered himself, when (say you) he delivered to his disciples his body: but, to say as Theophilactus writeth, even then, from that time wherein he gave his body. etc. To prove that Christ had been three days and three nights in the grave, when he arose from death: Theophilact. seeketh shifts where none needeth. Theophilactus useth this shift, affirming that Christ's death began at his supper, so that by this man's judgement, he was but a dead man, when he stood & answered before Pilate and the rest. One other such shift he used before in the same Chapter, saying that the darkness that happened by the Eclipse that was at the time when Christ gave up the ghost, must be taken for a night: and the time that was between that darkness and the natural night, for a day. But other more ancient than he, and of better credit: have affirmed and well proved, that by the figure Synecdoche (whereby the part is named for the whole) the prophecy may be well understanded to be fulfilled. Which figure is very much used of the Prophets. Wherefore, I may conclude, that Theophilact goeth about to teach us that thing that other men have taught us before his time, in better order than he doth: and that you would make us believe that he teacheth us that, which he never meant to teach. But mysdoubting the credit of Theophilact: you bring in Austen for a witness, of that which you say Theophilact hath taught. His words be these. unde ipse Dominus. etc. For which cause our Lord himself. etc. I need not to trouble the reader with many words, in proving that you have done great wrong to Saint Austen: in that you bring him in as a witness of your false doctrine. I will only add to that which you have cited out of him: those five words that do immediately follow the same. By which five words: the Reader may easily understand, how well ye do apply saint Austin's words to your purpose. Austen against Watson in the same place that he citeth. The five words be these. Quia illis omnibus ipse prenunciabatur. Because that by all those sacrifices: he himself was showed or spoken of before. Yea, the learned reader, that will read that place of saint Austen, shall easily perceive: that it maketh manifestly against you. For as the sacrifices of the old testament, were not the sacrifices of the Scribes and Phariseis, but Gods, although abused by them: so are not the sacraments of Christ your sacraments, though you have abused them, but they are Christ's, and therefore we do, according to saint Austin's doctrine, take them to us in such sort as Christ did institute them, leaving to you all those fond ceremonies that you have invented, to furnish out Christ's sacraments after your fashion. Which when you have clouted together, you call your blessed Mass. Which, not Christ, but Antichrist: hath ordained to be daily frequented in his Church, so long as God will suffer it so to be. Dionysius Areopagita. Cap. 3. Specul. But Dionysius Areopagita, was Paul's scholar. etc. He saith thus Quocirca reverenter simul. etc. For the authority that this Dionysius is of: I have said something in the answer to 33. division of your former Sermon. It forceth not much what his opinion is in this matter: although you would have us to think, that his authority alone is enough. But let us see how you handle him in citing his words for your purpose. You follow not the Greek: but that rude and corrupt translation, that goeth abroad under no name. I must therefore trouble the Reader with the Greek text: enterpreting the same after the true signification and use of the words. Dionysius hath said thus in Greek. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Which in Latin is thus. Watson had no leisure to look in the Greek. Quocirca reuerenter simul & sacerdotaliter, post sacros Hymnos de admirabilibus dei operibus: pro sacrificio pro ipsis se excusat, prius ad eum piè exclamans. Tu dixisti, hoc facite in meam reminiscentiam. In English it is thus. Wherefore he (that is to say, the chief Minister) doth both reverendly and priestly, after the holy Hymns concerning the marvelous works of God, excuse himself for the sacrifice that is offered for them, first crying out unto him after a godly manner. Thou hast said, do this in the remembrance of me. The Translator that you follow, knew not bylyke, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being joined with the Genitive case, doth not signify supper, or supra, above, but Pro, for: neither could he put difference between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: the one being the Accusative case singular, and the other, the genitive case plural. And therefore he translateth super ipsum: in stead of pro ipsis. Above him, in stead of for them. And you following his folly: do conclude. That the thing that is above the degree of the priest: must needs be the body of Christ. Thus you see how one folly bringeth in another. As you did therefore, for shortness of time, leave all other authorities: so it might have been more for your honesty, to have left this also, and to have concluded with S. Paul to the hebrews. Per ipsum ergo offeramus hostiam laudis semper Deo, Hebr. 13. The conclusion that Watson might with more honesty have made. id est fructum labiorum confitentium nomini eius. Beneficentiae autem & communicationis, nolite oblivisci, talibus enim hostijs, conciliatur Deus. Through him therefore, let us always offer unto God, the sacrifice of praise: that is the fruit of lips that do praise his name. Forget not loving liberality, and the making other partakers of the gifts you have received, for with such sacrifices is God pleased. But shamelessly, you boast, that you have proved both by the institution of Christ, and the consent of the Church: that the Mass is the very sacrifice of the Church, where as the Reader may by that which I have answered, easily perceive, that you have both the institution of Christ, the consent of the ancient Church, and all good reason against you, and nothing for you, but the bare assertion of yourself and such as you be. WATSON Division. 24 Beside the institution which were sufficient for this matter, seeing in the doctrine of faith, the proof dependeth upon the weight of one place, and not upon the number of many: yet I shall allege unto you the prophecy of Malachy, where it is prophesied before, that God would refuse and reject the sacrifices of the jews, and that he would call unto his grace and mercy the Gentiles, in whose church there should be one pure and clean sacrifice, succeeding all the other, and offered in every place, which can be none other but this one pure sacrifice of Christ's body in the Mass. Malachias. 1. The place is this. Non est mihi voluntas in vobis, & munus non suscipiam de manu vestra: ab ortu enim solis usque ad occasum magnum est nomen meum in gentibus, & in omni loco sacrificabitur & offeretur nomini meo oblatio munda. I have no will and pleasure in you, and I will receive no offering or reward of your hand. For from the rising of the Sun to the setting, my name is great amongs the Gentiles, and in every place there shall be sacrifice done, and a pure and clean oblation shall be offered to my name. This place is very plain for the detesting of the jews, the rejecting of their sacrifices, for the vocation of the Gentiles, and for the pure and one singular sacrifice, that amongst them shall be offered to almighty God in every place in steed of the other. This must needs be the sacrifice of the Mass, or else let them that say nay, show of what other that place is meant. And in very deed some have bestowed all their wit and learning, writhing and racking this place to make it serve to some other sacrifice beside the Mass, but it will not be, the truth hath ever prevailed. Some have drawn it to the spiritual inward sacrifices of good men's hearts: but in the understanding they be overthrown, for the place speaketh precisely of one sacrifice, and the other spiritual sacrifices be many, and so many as there be hearts of good men to offer them. And yet speaketh also of one pure and clean sacrifice, but all the righteousness of man is unperfit, unpure, unclean, and compared to a filthy cloth of a sick woman, and it speaketh of such one pure sacrifice as should succeed and follow in the place of the other sacrifices of the jews, which God rejecteth and abrogateth. But the inward spiritual sacrifices of good men have been offered and used before the law, in the law, and after the law, from the time of Adam till the worlds end. Wherefore it is not possible, that this place should be directly and only understanded of the spiritual sacrifices. There be other also that wrist it, and would have it mean only of the bloody sacrifice of Christ upon the cross. But that can not be, the words be so plain to the contrary. For although that be one and pure sacrifice, yet it was not offered in every place, as Malachy saith it shall, and also it was offered only among the jews upon the mount of calvary, where the prophet saith, this sacrifice he speaketh of, shall be offered in every place among the Gentiles. Therefore to conclude, this is a plain prophecy, declaring the will of God to have all the sacrifices of the jews to cease, and in the Church of his new people the Gentiles to have this one pure sacrifice of Christ's body and blood in the Mass to be frequented in every place, wherewith he is well pleased and contented. And in this sense Ireneus taketh it, Ireneus. lib. 4. Capit. 32. whose words in Latin I alleged a little before, that Christ confessing the cup to be of his blood, did teach the new oblation of the new testament, which the Church receiving of the Apostles, offered to God throughout the world, of the which Malachi one of the twelve prophets did speak before. I have no will nor pleasure in you, and so forth. As I have recited before, manifestly declaring that the old people should cease to offer to God, and that the new people shall offer unto him one pure sacrifice in every place. chrysostom also saith. Et in omni loco sacrificium offeretur nomini meo, Chrysost. in Psalm. 95. & sacrificium purum. Vide, quàm luculenter, quamque dilucide, mysticam interpretatus est mensam, quae est incruenta hostia. And in every place a sacrifice shall be offered to my name, and that a pure sacrifice. See how evidently and how plainly he doth interpret the mystical table, which is the unbloody sacrifice. I need not to open this place any more, being so plain as it is. August. contr. judaeos. Saint Augusten writing against the jews saith thus. Aperite oculos tandem aliquando, & videte ab oriente sole usque ad occidentem, non in uno loco, ut vobis fuit constitutum, sed in omni loco offerri sacrificium Christianorum: non cuilibet Deo, sed ei qui ista praedixit, Deo Israel. Open your eyes at last you jews, and see from the rising of the sun to the setting not in one place as it was ordained amongs you, but in every place to be offered the sacrifice of christian men, not to every God, but to him that prophesied these before the God of Israel. The like sayings he hath writing upon the .106. Psalm, and in his book Contra Aduersarium legis. li. Capit. 20. which I omit, lest I should be tedious to you, and to curious in so plain a matter. CROWLEY. Both the institution and the prophecy make against Watson. Besides the institution, which maketh against you: you do now allege the prophecy of Malachi: which maketh nothing for you. So handsomely do you handle yourself, in proving that you intend. In mine answer to the fourth division of your former Sermon: I have sufficiently opened the meaning, both of Malachi and Ireneus. I need not therefore in this place to write any further answer. What men they be that have bestowed all their wit and learning, in writhing and racking this place of Malachi, to make it serve to some other sacrifice beside the Mass: you do not tell us here. Wherefore, I need not to spend any time in examining their doings therein. Jerome in Malach. 1. Saint Jerome was no wryther nor racker, I am sure: and yet he expounding this place of Malachi saith thus. Et nequaquam taurorum, hircorumque sanguinem: sed thymiama, hoc est, sanctorum orationes Domino offerendas. etc. Not the blood of Bulls and Goats, but sweet odours, that is the prayers of holy men, shall be offered to the Lord. etc. But Chrysost. words upon the Psalm. 95. Chrysost. in Psalm. 95. are so plain that they need no more opening, say you. See, saith he, how plainly Malachi the Prophet, doth interpret the mystical Table, which is the unbloody sacrifice. Well, the reader shall see the words that follow immediately in the same place. Thymiama verò purum, appellat sacras preces, quae post hostiam offeruntur. Hic enim suffitus Deum refocillat. Non is qui à terrenis radicibus sumitur: sed qui a puro cord exhalatur. And he calleth the holy prayers that are offered after the sacrifice, pure incense. For this sweet perfume is a refreshing to God. Not that which is taken from the roots that grow in the earth: but that which is breathed out of a pure heart. In mine answer to the ninth division of your former sermon: I have noted out of this same chrysostom, in his .17. Chrysost. in Epist. ad Heb. ho. 17. Homily upon the Epistle to the hebrews, that the fathers used to call the sacrament of the body of Christ a sacrifice, and yet they understood it to be but a remembrance of that sacrifice that Christ offered on the Cross once for all. Of which sacrifice, that same chrysostom writeth in this same Homily that you cite upon the .95. Psalm, saying. Omnino magnus erat & modo carens, numerus sacrificiorum in lege: quae omnia, nova gratia superueniens, uno complectitur sacrificio, unam ac veram statuens hostiam. The number of sacrifices in the law was very great, and without measure: which the grace that is come upon us, doth comprehend all in one sacrifice, appointing but one true sacrifice. That this is spoken of that one sacrifice, that Christ did offer on the Cross once for all: is plain by that which doth immediately follow. For he saith. Habemus autem & nos in nobis ipsis, varias immolationes. etc. And we also have in ourselves, sundry offerings, which do not proceed according to the law: but are such as be seemeth for the evangelical grace. Wilt thou know these sacrifices which the Church hath, when the evangelical sacrifice doth without blood, without smoke, without Altar and other ceremonies ascend up unto God, and what the pure and undefiled sacrifice is? Hearken to the holy scripture, which doth plainly expound unto thee, this difference and variety. The first sacrifice therefore, is that which I have spoken of before, that spiritual and mystical sacrifice, whereof Paul saith thus. Be ye followers of God, as dearly beloved children, and walk in love, even as Christ hath loved us. etc. What sacrifices the church offereth to God. And after this he maketh a short rehearsal of all those sacrifices, that the Church of Christ hath to offer to God, and he saith thus. Habes igitur primum sacrificium illud salutare donum, secundum Martyrium, tertium deprecationis, quartum iubilationis, quintum justiciae, sextum elemosinae, septimum laudis, octawm compunctionis, nonum humilitatis, decimum praedicationis. Thou hast therefore the first sacrifice, which is that healthful sacrifice, the second martyrdom, the third of prayer, the fourth of rejoicing after victory, the fift of righteousness, the sixth of almose, the seventh of praise, the eight of inward sorrow for sin, the ninth of humility, the tenth of preaching. By this it is manifest, that when chrysostom speaketh of one sacrifice that comprehendeth all the sacrifices of the old law: he meaneth that one sacrifice that Christ did offer in his own person once for all. And when he speaketh of those sacrifices that the Church hath to offer to God: he meaneth of such as be offered without blood, without smoke, without Altar, and without other ceremonies. He meaneth therefore nothing less, then to maintain your massing sacrifice. August. count judeos. The words that you cite out of Austen contra judaos: make nothing for you. For he speaketh there of that sacrifice: that I have here declared chrysostom to speak of. As doth right well appear by that which followeth in the same book. For he saith. Accedite ad eum qui ante oculos vestros glorificatur, ambulando non laborabitis: ibi enim acceditis, ubi creditis. Come unto him that is glorified in your presence, it shall not be painful for you to walk, for you do come unto him even there, where ye do believe. And again he saith. Come let us walk in the light of the Lord: because his name is great among the Gentiles. And in the place that you say you omit, lest ye should be tedious. etc. S. Austen saith thus. Incensum enim, quod grece thymiama, August con● adverse. legis. lib. 11. cap. 20. sicut exposuit johannes in Apocalipsi, orationes sunt sanctorum. etc. For the incense, which in Greek is called Thymiama, as saint john doth expound it in his Revelations: are the prayers of the Saints. Lest I therefore should be tedious, and to curious in so plain a matter: I omit much that might be brought against your assertion: both out of Austen in the places that you have here cited, and other of his works, and also out of the rest of the fathers. Ye have heard the thing proved by the Gospel, by the Prophet, WATSON Division. 25. now hear the proof of the figure taken out of the law. The Psalm saith. Tues sacerdos in aeternum, secundum ordinem Melchisedech. Psal. 109. Thou art (meaning Christ) a priest after the order of Melchisedech. Melchesedech was a priest of the most highest God, as appeareth both by his words and facts, in that he blessed Abraham, and also received tithes of him, whose oblation was bread and wine, which he offered to God meeting with Abraham coming from the spoil of the kings. Gene. 14. As for such fond cavillations, as some make for that the book saith, non obtulit, sed protulit, I let pass, as things nothing furthering their purpose, nor yet hindering ours. This is plain by saint Paul, that every Bishop and Priest is ordained to offer sacrifice. Hebr. 8. If Christ our saviour be a Priest, and that after the order of Melchisedech, as the Psalm, and saint Paul do witness, Psal. 109. than it must needs follow, that Christ had some thing to offer, which is nothing but himself, and to no creature but to God, which he was himself, seeing every sacrifice is that honour that is due only to God And that he offered himself after the order of Melchisedech, which must be under the forms of bread and wine. For that was the order and manner of Melchesedech. Which kind of offering he never made, except it were in his last supper, and for that cause and reason we may conclude that Christ in his supper did offer himself to his father for us, not by shedding of his blood by death, which was the order and manner of Aaron's offering, but without shedding of his blood under the forms of bread and wine which was the order of Melchisedech. And that this is not my private collection, but the mind of all the ancient fathers, I shall with your patience recite their sentences. Cyprian li. 2. Epist. 3. Saint Cyprian saith, Qui magis Sacerdos Dei summi, quam dominus noster jesus Christus qui sacrificium deo patri obtulit, & obtulit hoc idem quod, Melchisedech, id est, panem & vinum, suum scilicii corpus & sanguinem. Who is more the Priest of the highest GOD then our Lord jesus Christ who offered a sacrifice to God the father, and offered the same that Melchisedech did, that is to say, bread and wine, that is to say his body and blood. And a little after he saith: Qui est plenitudo veritatem praefiguratae imaginis adimplevit. Christ which is the fullness fulfilled the truth of this image that was figurate before. By these places of Cyprian we learn, that Melchisedech and his offering were figures of Christ, and his offering in his supper, and like as Melchisedech offered bread and wine, so Christ being the truth offered his body and blood under the forms of bread and wine. And lest any man should be offended with that Cyprian saith, hoc idem quod Melchisedech, the same that Melchisedech. Hear what saint Hierom saith more plainly. Quomodo Melchisedech obtulit panem & vinum, sic & tu offeres corpus tuum & sanguinem, verum panem & verum vinum. Hiero. in Psal. 109. Like as Melchisedech offered bread and wine: so thou shalt offer thy body and blood, the true bread, and the true wine. The other was the figurative bread and wine, this is the true bread and wine, the truth of that figure, not the same in substance, but the same in mystery. Paula Epist. ad Marcellam. The same saint Jerome among his Epistles hath an Epistle of the godly matron Paula ad Marcellam. wherein be these words. Recurre ad Genesim & Melchisedech Regem Salem. Huius principem invenies civitatis, qui iam tunc in tipo Christi panem & vinum obtulit, & misterium Christianum in salvatoris sanguine & corpore dedicavit. Return (saith Paula) to the book of Genesis and to Melchisedech the king of Salem, and thou shalt find the prince of that City, which even then in the figure of Christ offered bread and wine, and did dedicate the mystery or sacrament of the Christians in the blood and body of our saviour. Mark in this most manifest place the oblation of the figure, which is bread and wine, and the oblation of the truth, which is the mystery of us Christian men, the body and blood of our saviour Christ. And it is to be noted, what is meant by this word (order) which saint Jerome expoundeth thus. Hiero. questio in Genesim. Mysterium nostrum in verbo ordinis significavit, nequaquam per Aaron irrationabilibus victimis immolandis, sed oblato pane & vino i corpore & sanguine domini jesu. By this word (order) he did signify and express our mystery, not by offering of unreasonable and brute beasts as Aaron did, but by the oblation of bread and wine, that is to say, the body and blood of our Lord jesus. After this father's mind, order is taken for the manner of offering, not by shedding of blood, but unbloodily, as we offer Christ's body and blood in our mystery. For Christ's offering, concerning the substance of it was but one, but concerning the order and manner it was diverse, upon the cross after the order of Aaron, in the supper after the order of Melchisedech. For so saint Augustine saith: August. in Psalm. 33. Coram regno patris sui, id est, judaeorum mutavit vultum suum, quia erat ibi sacrificium secundum ordinem Aaron, & postea ipse de corpore & sanguine suo instituit sacrificium secundum ordinem Melchisedech Before the kingdom of his Father, that is to say the jews, he changed his countenance, for there he was a sacrifice after the order of Aaron, & afterward he did institute the sacrifice of his body and blood, after the order of Melchisedech. Mark the diversity and distinction of these two offerings of Christ, not in substance but in order, that is to say, the manner: and that Christ did institute the sacrifice of his body and blood to be offered of us after the order of Melchisedech, which thing he expresseth more plainly in an other book expounding a place of Ecclesiastes. Non est bonum homini nisi quod manducabit & bibet, August. De Civitate Dei. li. 17. Cap. 20. saying thus. Quid credibilius dicere intelligitur, quam quod ad participiationem mensae huius pertinet, quam & sacerdos ipse mediator novi Testamenti exlabit secundum ordinem Melchisedech de corpore & sanguine suo? Id enim sacrificium successit omnibus illis sacrificijs veteris testamenti quae immolabantur in umbra futuri. What is more credible we should think he meant by those words, then that pertaineth to the participation of this table, which Christ himself a priest and mediator of the new Testament doth exhibet after the order of Melchisedech of his body and blood? For that sacrifice did succeed all the other sacrifices of the old Testament, which were offered in the shadow of this to come. What can be plainer than this to show the figure of our mystery to be abrogated, and the truth which is our sacrifice in the body and blood of Christ in form of bread and wine to succeed. Oecumenius in Epist. ad Hebreos. But to end this matter, hear one place plainest of all which Oecumenius hath upon this place of Saint Paul. Tu es sacerdos in aeternum etc. in these words. Significat sermo, quod non solum Christus obtulit incruentam hostiam (si quidem suum ipsius corpus obtulit) verum etiam qui ab ipso fungentur sacerdotio, quorum Deus pontifex esse dignatus est sine sanguinis effusione offerent. Nam hoc significat (in aeternum.) Neque enim de ea quae semel à deo facta est oblàtio, & hostia dixissit inaeternum, sed respiciens ad presentes sacrificos, per quos medios Christus sacrificat & sacrificatur, qui etiam in mystica coena modum illis tradidit huiusmodi sacrificij. The word meaneth, that not only Christ offered an unbloody sacrifice, for he offered his own body, but also that they which under him use the function of a priest (whose Bishop he doth vouchsafe to be) shall offer without shedding of blood. For that signifieth the word (evermore.) For concerning that oblation and sacrifice, which was once made of God, he would never say (evermore.) But having an eye to those priests, that be now, by whose mediation Christ doth sacrifice and is sacrificed, who also in his mystical supper did by tradition teach them the manner of such a sacrifice. This authority if it were any thing doubtful, I would stand in it to open such points, as were contained therein but being so manifest as it is, it needeth no more, but to desire the hearer or reader to weigh it, and he shall see this matter we go about to prove, fully resolved both by the institution of Christ in his last supper, and also by the figure of Melchisedech in the old law. This authorities although there be many more, yet I think them sufficient, and I think thereby the matter sufficiently proved. Neither by the Gospel, nor by the prophet have ye proved, CROWLEY. the thing that you took in hand to prove: no more doth that which you would have your Auditory hearken to here, prove the figure taken out of the old law, in such sort as you affirm it. Saint Paul, writing to the hebrews: Hebr. 7. goeth about to dissuade them from the vain confidence they had in the sacrifices and ceremonies of Moses law, and to persuade them to put their trust in that one only sacrifice that Christ had made, offering himself once for all. And lest they should reject his doctrine as having no ground in the holy scriptures: he putteth them in mind of Melchisedech, who was a figure of Christ. And of his priesthood: which was also a figure of Christ's priesthood. First, he was a figure of Christ (saith saint Paul) in that he was called Melchisedech, which is by interpretation, The mind of Paul in making mention of Melchisedech. the king of righteousness, and the king of Salem, which is, the king of peace. And in that he was a priest of the most high God, and hath neither beginning nor end of days noted in the holy histories: his priesthood seemed to be an everlasting priesthood. And therefore (saith saint Paul) he is likened to the son of God that is everlasting, and hath an everlasting priesthood, and is always able to save them that seek salvation at his hand, because he liveth ever to make intercession for us. This is the mind of saint Paul, as may easily appear, to as many as will with indifferent minds read that which he hath written in the seventh Chapter of his Epistle to the hebrews. But contrary to this meaning, do you most wilfully gather: that Melchisedech was a figure of Christ and of his priesthood, in that he used to offer to God, a sacrifice of bread and wine. This you suck out of your own fingers, and out of the dugs of such dreaming Doctors as you yourself are: although you would seem to have learned all that you speak, in the school of Cyprian Austen, Jerome, and such other ancient and learned fathers. Cyprian li. 2. Epist. 3. Cyprian saith, Qui magis Sacerdos Dei summi etc. Here doth Cyprian affirm that Paul hath written to the hebrews, concerning Christ's priesthood and sacrifice. If Melchisedech were a priest of the most high God, because he offered sacrifice to God: why should not Christ be a priest of the same high God, seeing he hath offered sacrifice to the same high God also? And if Melchisedech did offer bread and wine: john. 6. Christ did the same, for he offered his own body and blood, which is lively bread and wine, the food that feedeth into everlasting life. When this place is well weighed: what advantage can you have by it, to prove that Christ offered himself to his heavenly father, in the bread and wine of his last supper? The reader may see more of this, in that which I have answered to the ninth and tenth divisions of your former Sermon. As touching the understanding of the words a little after, where Cyprian saith. Qui est plenitudo. etc.: I refer the reader to the words that follow a little after them. Where Cyprian useth the words of wisdom spoken by Solomon, Proverb. 9 in this wise. Qui est insipiens declinet ad me & indigentibus sensu dixit. Venite & edite de meis panibus, & bibete vinum quod miscui vobis. Vinum mixtum declarat, id est Calicem Domini aqua & vino mixtum, prophetica voce denunciat, ut appareat in passione dominica id esse gestum, quod fuerat praedictum. Wisdom (saith Solomon) sent forth her servants, saying. Let him that is foolish, turn in unto me. And to such as lack understanding she said. Come and eat of my bread, and drink the wine that I have mixed for you. She declareth (saith Cyprian) that the wine is mixed. That is to say, she doth with the voice of prophecy declare, that the lords cup is mixed with water and wine: that it might appear that in the lords passion, that thing was done in deed, which had been told of before. By these words of Cyprian, it appeareth plainly: that the cause why he would have water mixed with the wine in the celebration of the lords supper, was to show that the prophecy which Solomon uttered in the person of wisdom, was fulfilled in the passion of Christ, when water and blood did issue out of his side. And also to imitate the example of Christ: who (as Cyprian supposeth) did not drink wine without the mixture of water. His whole purpose therefore in this Epistle, Cyprians purpose in his Epistle to his brother. being to disprove the doing of those which used to minister with water without wine: he sought for many figures in the old Testament, which might seem to be prophecies of Christ's ministration in his last supper. And he applieth them to prove: that water alone could not serve to signify that which Christ would have to be signified by it. And (as in such case it may easily happen) when he findeth a figure, wherein mention is made of such mixture: he imagineth that Christ mixed water with the wine, and he conceiveth in his mind, that the wine must signify Christ, and the water, the people. And so he maketh as great a matter of the omitting of the water, as he did before, of the leaving out of the wine. Not remembering, that he had at the first applied to his purpose, noah's drinking of wine, and Mechisedeches bringing forth of bread and wine: where there is no mention at all, of water mixed with the wine. But as I have written in mine answer to the .24. division of your former Sermon: let us not forget the words of Erasmus, in the Epistle that he wrote before the works of Hilarius: Erasmus in Epistola ad Lectorem Hilarij. which are these. Nemo, quantumuis eruditus & oculatus. etc. There is no man be he never so well learned and circumspect, that doth not slip, and in some point show himself to lack sight, that no man should forget them to be men: and that we should read them with choice, with judgement, yea and with favour also, as men. Words worthy to be printed in memory, and practised in the reading of all men's writings. Now, fearing lest some man should mistake the words of Cyprian when he saith. Hiero. in Psal. 109. Hoc idom quod Melchisedech: you cite the interpretation that saint Jerome maketh upon the psalm .109. to prove that Christ offering his own body and blood in his last supper, did offer the same thing that Melchisedech did, not in substance, but in mystery. I will let the reader see, what Jerome hath written: immediately before and after the words that you cite. First he saith thus. Superfluum est nos de isto versiculo velle interpretari: cum sanctus Apostolus ad Hebreos plenissime disputavit. Ipse enim ait. Iste est Melchisedech, sine patre, sine matre, sine generatione. Et interpretatur ibi diligentissimè: quare sine Patre. etc. It is a thing superfluous, for us to go about to make an interpretation of this verse, seeing that the holy Apostle hath in his Epistle to the hebrews, reasoned this matter at the full. For he saith. This (that is to say Christ) is Melchisedech: Wherein Christ is like Melchisedech. without father, without mother, and without generation. And he doth there most diligently interpret: wherefore he is without father, without mother, and without generation. And all ecclesiastical persons do say. That Christ is said to be without father in that he is man, and without mother, in that he is God. Let us therefore interpret this only: thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedech. Let us only declare this thing. Wherefore he hath said: after the order. According to the order, is as much as to say. Thou shalt not be a priest according to the jewish sacrifices: but thou shalt be a priest after the order of Melchisedech. And then follow those words that you have cited. Quomodo enim. etc. And immediately after those words he saith. Iste Melchisedech, ista mysteria quae habemus dedit nobis. etc. This Melchisedech, hath given us these mysteries that we have. It is he that said. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood. He hath given us his sacrament: after the order of Melchisedech. No indifferent reader can judge, that saint Jerome meaneth here to teach, that Christ did at his last supper, offer his body and blood, under the forms of bread and wine, as you affirm. But as Melchisedech did offer bread and wine, so Christ should offer upon the cross, his own body and blood (which is the true bread and true wine) and give us a sacrament, to be frequented in the remembrance thereof. But in that Epistle, that Paula and Eustochium wrote unto Marcelia: You have found a most manifest place. Paula & Eustoch. ad Marcellam. Recurre ad Genesim, & Melchisedech (say they) etc. Here I must tell you, that where you do in the English make Melchisedech, the Dative case, and in the Latin, put the point Periodus, after Salem: you show yourself not to understand the grammatical sense, which is thus. Return to the book Genesis, and thou shalt find, that Melchisedech king of Salem, was Prince of this City, which even then. etc. Men of your sort, are very near driven: Watson is near driven. when they allege women's words or writings, for proof of matters so divine, as is that which in this Sermon you treat of. But grant it were Saint Jerome himself, that wrote that Epistle: might not Melchisedech offer bread and wine in a figure of Christ, and dedicate the mystery of Christians: but it must needs follow, that Christ did at his last supper, offer his own body and blood under the forms of bread and wine, as you do affirm? I think none that is learned in Logic will grant that argument. But (as you have slightly touched before) the book hath not Obtulit, but Protulit. He brought forth bread and wine. Watson maketh light of that which he is not able to weigh. As lightly as you let pass, the reasons that men make against your opinion, by the vantage that the text giveth being Protulit, and not Obtulit: neither you nor any of your sort, shall ever be able to answer, otherwise then by calling them fond cavillations, as you do. In the Latin, these two Verbs are sometime used, both in one signification: but Profero, is never found in that signification, that you and such other do use Offero, when you speak of Melchisedechs coming forth to meet Abraham, and offering him bread and wine, to refresh himself and his company withal. The Hebrew interpreters, who do best know the signification of the words of that tongue, wherein that history was first written: do teach that it was the manner in those days, for such as remained at home in peace, to come forth against them that returned from battle with victory, bringing with them bread and wine, to refresh the weary Soldiers withal, and so receive them friendly. Antiquit. li. 1 Capit. 18. josephus, a jew borne, and so well learned in the jews laws, and histories, that he was able to write a continual history of the antiquity, laws and ceremonies of the jews, and of their wars: doth when he cometh to this part of the history, writ thus. Suscipitque cum rex Melchisedech, quod significat rex justus, & erat utique, & sine dubio talis: ita ut propter hanc causam, etiam Dei sacerdos esset Solimorum, quam Civitatem postea Hierosalymam vocaverunt. Ministravit autem iste Melchisedech, Abraham exercitui xenia, & multam abundantiam rerum oportunarum simul exhibuit: & super epulas eum collaudare caepit, & benedicere deum, qui ei subdiderat mimicos. Abraham verò dante ei etiam decimas spoliorum, munus accepit. And he was received of king Melchisedech, which signifieth a righteous king, and verily and without all doubt he was such a one: so that for that cause he was also God's priest in the City Solyma, which City men did afterward call Hierosolyma. And this Melchisedech did minister gifts to the army of Abraham: and he did also give them great abundance of things needful. And as they were at meat: he began to praise him, and to bless God, which had subdued his enemies to him. And when Abraham gave him the tithes of the spoil: he received the gift. Hiero. ad Euagrium. john. 3. Saint Jerome in his Epistle ad Euagrium, doth prove that the City Salem, whereof Melchisedech was king: was not that which was afterward called Jerusalem, but that Salem that is mentioned in the Gospel, where john baptised because there was plenty of water there. He doth therefore disprove, not only josephus, but also all Christian writers: for that they suppose Melchisedech to have been king of that City, which was called Jerusalem after his days, but in his days Salem. He alloweth the judgement of those which do suppose that Melchisedech was the first son of Noah, and that he lived after Abraham's death .35. years at the least (which is easy to be seen by the supputation of the years from the birth of Sem, to the death of Abraham, which is .565. years, and the whole time of Sems' life, is .600. years) but failing somewhat in the supputation, he saith that Sem lived after Abraham .40. years. He alloweth also the opinion of josephus and other, which think that Melchisedech brought forth bread and wine, to refresh Abraham and his servants, in their return from the slaughter of the kings. Yea, and for this matter that you make so light of, he citeth the Hebrew text: translating the Hebrew verb Hotzi, Protulit, not obtulit, thereby making his judgement of that place manifest. If you can prove that Jerome or any other writer, have in this place used obtulit in any other sense, then protulit is here used in the plain text: I must be bold to use Hieroms' own words against himself and the rest. In his Commentary upon Math he saith: Hoc quia de scripturis non habet authoritatem, In Math. 23. eadem facilitate contemnitur, qua probatur. Because this thing hath none authority of the scripture: it is as easily contemned, as allowed. And in his Apology of his books against jovinian he sayeth. Apolog. lib. advers. iovi. Commentatoris officium est, non quid ipse velit, sed quid sentiat ille quem interpretatur exponere. Alioqui, si contraria dixerit: non tam interpres erit, quam adversarius, eius quem nititur explanare. , ubicunque scripturas non interpreter & libere de meo sensu loquor: The duty of a good interpreter. arguat me cui libet, durum quid dixisse contra nuptias. It is the duty of one that doth comment upon the writings of other, to expound, not what he himself lusteth: but what the meaning of him is, whom he doth interpret. Otherwise, if he shall say contrary: he shall rather be an adversary, than an interpreter of him whom he would explain. Truly, whensoever I do not interpret the scriptures, but do freely utter mine own meaning: let him that lusteth reprehend me, as one that hath uttered some hard saying against marriage. Yet one other place you cite out of Jerome, Hiero. quest. in Genesim. to underprop your Popish priesthood withal. Mysterium nostrum. etc. By this word (order) he did signify. etc. If you had been disposed to deal plainly, you would have joined the former part of the Oration with the latter: and not have picked out the latter to serve your purpose: leaving out the first. Melchisedechs blessing declared. Saint Jerome saith that the Apostle saint Paul, in his Epistle to the hebrews, making mention of Melchisedechs being without father and mother: doth refer it unto Christ, and by Christ, to the Church of the Gentiles. For (saith he) the glory of every head, is referred to the members, because one that was not circumcised, did bless Abraham that was circumcised: and in Abraham he blessed Levi, and by Levi, he blessed Aaron of whom the priesthood did afterward come. Whereof he would have us gather, that the priesthood of that Church that was not circumcised: did bless the circumcised priesthood of the synagogue. And then follow the words that you should have cited. Quod autem ait, Tu es sacerdos in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchisedech: Mysterium nostrum in verbo ordinis significatur. &c: as you have cited. Our mystery is signified (saith saint Jerome) but you tell not upon what occasion he said so. Where as the Apostle saith (said saint Jerome) thou art a priest after the order of Melchisedech: our mystery is signified in the word, order. Not by Aaron in offering up sacrifices of unreasonable beasts: but by bread and wine that was offered, that is the body and blood of the Lord jesus. Thus far saint Jerome. You must needs grant, that our mystery, is our coupling together into members of one body in Christ, whereof saint Paul speaketh to the Ephesians. When he saith. Mysterium hoc magnum est, Ephes. 5. ego autem dico in Christo & Ecclesia. This mystery is great saith Saint Paul: but I speak it of Christ and the congregation. Of the same speaketh saint Austen in his Sermon Ad Infants. Where he saith thus. Vos estis corpus Christi & membra: Si ergo vos estis corpus Christi & membra: mysterium vestrum in mensa Domini positum est, Citatur à Beda in collect. mysterium Domini accipitis. Ad id quod estis, amen respondetis. etc. You are the body and members of Christ. If you therefore be the body and members of Christ: your mystery is set upon the lords table, you receive the lords mystery. To the thing that you yourselves are, you answer Amen. And in answering you do subscribe. This mystery was not signified by Aaron's sacrifices (saith saint Jerome): but by the bread and wine, that Melchisedech brought forth to refresh Abraham and his Soldiers withal. 1. Cor. 10. August. in joh. Tract. 26. Which bread and wine was the body and blood of the Lord jesus: even as the Manna that fell from heaven, and the water that issued out of the rock were the same. Your application of this place of Jerome, might well have been spared therefore: if you had dealt plainly with your auditory. For it is now manifest to the reader: that saint Jerome meant nothing less, then to teach that Christ offered himself once at two times, and after two orders: The order of Melchisedech declared but he buildeth upon saint Paul's words, who saith that Christ was not a priest to offer after Aaron's order, but after the order of Melchisedech, an eternal and everlasting sacrifice. Now must Austen help you to patch out this matter. August. in Psal. 33. & De Civit. Dei li. 17. cap. 20. Upon the title of .33. Psalm, he saith thus. Coram Regno Patris sui. etc. And upon this sentence of Ecclesiastes, Non est bonum homini. etc.: he saith thus. Quid credibilius dicere. etc. If saint Austen should in these two places teach, as in your application, you do bear your Auditory in hand that he doth teach: Watson would have Austen teach false doctrine. then were his doctrine most false and contrary to the evangelical history. For where as the Gospel saith, that Christ did institute the sacrament of his body and blood, the night before he suffered: saint Austen must say (if you apply his words aright) that he did first suffer, and then institute the sacrament of his body and blood afterward. But I will not for your pleasure conceive such an opinion of Austen: for I know he was far from that shameful error and open falsehood. He taught truly, that in the time of the old law among the people of the jews: Christ was a sacrifice after the order of Aaron, for by every bloody sacrifice, was the death of Christ plainly set forth, to as many as had eyes to look, and see thorough the shadow of the law. But after all those sacrifices that were offered, in the shadow of a thing to come: he prepared a sacrifice after the order of Melchisedech, that is everlasting, and that of his own body and blood, which is the food that feedeth into everlasting life. And that this is saint Austin's meaning: is plain by that which in the book that you cite, De Civitate Dei, he addeth to the words that you cite. His words be these. Propter quod etiam vocem illam in psalmo tricesimo & nono, eiusdem mediatoris per Prophetam loquentis, agnoscimus sacrificium & oblationem noluisti, corpus autem perfecisti mihi, quia pro illis omnibus sacrificijs & oblationibus, corpus eius offertur, & participantibus ministratur. Wherefore (saith saint Austen) We do acknowledge that voice of the same Meditatour, speaking by the Prophet in the Psalm .39. in this wise: thou hast not desired sacrifice and oblation, but thou hast made me a perfit body, for his body is offered in stead of all those sacrifices and oblations, and is ministered to such as be partakers thereof. The continual offering of Christ. This sacrifice, because it is eternal after the order of Melchisedech, is still presently offered by the Meaditor Christ: who is both the priest and sacrifice, and continually ministered, to them that be partakers thereof by faith, by that spiritual manner of ministration, whereby spiritual life, is ministered from the head Christ to his members the Church. But now, to end this matter: your Auditory must hear one place more, which is plainest of all. Oecumenius hath said, Significat sermo. etc. If I might use such liberty in citing places, as you do in this: I could easily find plain places enough to prove whatsoever I lusted to take in hand. Where the author hath said Significat sermo, quod licet Christus non obtulerit carentem sanguine hostiam (siquidem suum ipsius corpus obtulit) attamen qui ab ipso fungentur sacerdotio. etc. The signification of this saying is: that although Christ did not offer a sacrifice without blood (for he offered his own body) yet shall those that shall after him execute the office of priesthood (whose high priest God doth vouchsafe to be) offer without blood. For that is signified by this saying. For ever. etc. These be the words of Oecumenius: as Hentenius hath translated them out of the Greek. But you had promised your Auditory a plainer place than this was being thus translated. For this is plain against all that you have done before, in proving that our Saviour Christ did offer himself without blood. For this fellow being thus translated, saith: Although Christ did not offer a sacrifice without blood. etc. Well therefore, to make the place plain in deed, you have amended the translation, I trow, and you have said: Significat sermo, quod non solum Christus obtulit incruentam hostiam (siquidem suum ipsius corpus obtulit) verum etiam qui ab ipso. etc. The word meaneth, that not only Christ offered an unbloody sacrifice (for he offered his own body) but also they that shall under him use the function of a priest (whose Bishop he doth vouchsafe to be) shall offer without shedding of blood. Well, either you, Oecumenius belied in translating. or your friend Hentenius have belied the Greek. For here is plain contradiction. The one saith. Hath not offered: and the other saith, hath offered. Wherefore, it must needs follow, that the one hath made a lie. And peradventure if the Greek might be seen and well viewed: you might be found false harlots both (for Hentenius was a Lovanist. etc.) For who so readeth the rest that Oecumenius hath collected out of other writers that were before his time, and patched together into one commentary upon the Epistle to the hebrews: he shall have but little occasion to think that Oecumenius could be of such mind concerning the meaning of these words, Tu es sacerdos in aeternum, thou art a priest for ever: as in this place that you cite, he showeth himself to be, when he saith, Christ could not be said to be a priest for ever, but in respect of those sacrificing priests that are now, by whose means he doth still offer and is offered. For upon the tenth Chapter and these words, Singulis annis, he saith thus. An ne nos semper offerimus hostias sanguine carentes? sed unius eiusdemque mortis Christi memoriam facimus, & unum Christi corpus, semper edimus. Do we always offer sacrifices that have no blood? But we do make a memorial of that one and the self same death of Christ, and do always eat one body of Christ. And upon the word Perpetuò, he saith: Quum una perpetuò sufficiat. Seeing that one sacrifice may suffice for ever. And upon these words. In certitudine fidei, In the certainty of faith: he saith thus. Quoniam autem nihil est post haec visibile: neque templum, id enim est caelum, neque Pontifex, is est Christus, neque victima, haec corpus est ipsius: necessaria in posterum est fides. Verum quia contingit credere simul & haesitare, ait. In certitudine fidei. Hoc est, ut certisimus de his. Oecumenius his meaning made plain. Because that hence forth there is nothing visible, neither temple, for that is heaven, neither high priest, for that is Christ, neither sacrifice, for that is his body: faith is from this time forward necessary. But because it doth happen, that a man doth at one time, both believe and doubt: he saith in the certainty of faith, that is that we may be certain of these things. Many such sayings as this are in that Commentary: wherefore, corrupting of the Author in translating may be suspected: as well on the behalf of Hentenius, as you, although your doing do more appear then his. But grant that Oecumenius have written in Greek: even as you have reported him in Latin. Is he known to be of such antiquity and authority in the Church: that his gloze must be of more authority & credit, than the plain words of the text? Saint Paul saith. jam non est oblatio pro peccatis. There is now no oblation for sins. Christ hath by one oblation made perfit, such as be sanctified: what needeth there any more offering for sin? For the cause of the continuance of the offering, was the imperfection of the offerings, which could never take away sin, but always put the offerers in mind of one that was to come, who should be able by one oblation once offered, fully to take away the sins of the whole world. Oecumenius may have no credit against saint Paul. Your Oecumenius therefore, being a great many of hundred years after saint Paul (as may justly be gathered, by that he wrote after so many of the Greek writers as he nameth in his book) should now be credited in that which he writeth contrary to saint Paul, if that should be believed as taught by him, which you would so fain maintain by his words. Your false dealings therefore, being so plain as it is: I need not to stand upon the opening of it any more, but only to desire the reader to weight the matter, and he shall see, that the matter that you go about to prove: is not resolved at all, either by the institution of Christ, or by the figure of Melchisedech. You must therefore allege other Scriptures and authorities: before your matter can be sufficiently proved. Other Scriptures there be though not so plain, WATSON Division. 2● yet they contain an argument to prove the same as this of Saint Paul. Non potestis participes esse mensae domini & mensae demoniorum. 1. Cor. 10. Ye can not be partakers of our lords table and the table of devils. The word (table) here is taken for the meat of the table. For men be not partakers of the material board, but of the meat that is ministered upon the board. Now the table of devils is taken for that meat that is offered to Idols in which devils did reign, and therefore that meat was called in Greek. Idolothyton, meat offered to Idols. Now this is certain by all good learning that in every comparison there must needs be a proportion & similitude, wherein the things compared must agree, then whereas these two tables be compared in offering and eating, it must needs follow, that if the table of devils be a very sacrifice made to devils in deed, the table of our Lord likewise must be a sacrifice, offered to our Lord in deed. And if our lords table be a very sacrifice made to him by us, then have we our purpose proved and confessed. The like argument may be made of the word (aultare) in saint Paul. Habemus altare de quo edere non habent potestatem, Hebr. 13. qui tabernaculo de serviunt. We have an aultare, of which they may not eat that serve the tabernacle. If aultare and sacrifice be so annexed together, that the one cannot be without the other, then when saint Paul sayeth, we have an aultare, speaking also of the eating of that aultare, he must needs mean the sacrifice made upon the aultare: so that our sacrament before we eat it, is also a sacrifice. For so doth Theophilactus take this place. Theophilact. ad Heb. Capit. 13. Et nos inquit obseruationem habemus, haudtamen in esculentes hisce, sed in ara sive in hostia illa incruenta & corpore vitam clargiente. And we also have an observation, yet not in these common meats, but in our aultare or unbloody sacrifice, which giveth life to our bodies. Here we may see, that he meaneth by the aultare the unbloody sacrifice of Christ's body, which being eaten of us corporally in the sacrament giveth life to our bodies. Moreover if time would serve me, I could make an argument of daniel's prophecy of the coming of Antichrist because he saith, Dani. 12. that in that time the continual sacrifice shall be by Antichrist taken away, per tempus, tempora, & dimidium temporis, by the space of three years and an half as many take it. Whether this shall be done all Christendom over at one time, or in every particular region at divers times, it is not certainly known to us, and therefore I will not certainly determine it. But this is certain, that Antichrist can not take away the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross, which was but once made, and shall never be iterate nor frustrate. Nor he can not take away the inward spiritual sacrifice of man's heart, which then shall flourish most of all in the elect. For why should they then fly to the mountains, (as the book saith) but that for the vehemency of the persecution, they might more fervently do spiritual sacrifice to almighty God. Therefore it followeth that the sacrifice of Christian men is such an one, as may be taken away by Antichrist, which in my judgement can be nothing else, but the sacrifice of the Mass, or else let them tell what other sacrifice it is beside the Mass. Ye see now, what Scriptures I have brought to prove the oblation of Christ's body in the Mass to be the sacrifice of the Church and new Testament, which hath been assaulted many ways of many men. But to the oppugnation of it they never yet to this hour alleged any one direct scripture nor doctor, nor good reason. They have gone about it, and by tyranny in some places they have prevailed for a time, but always truth the daughter of time hath overcomed. For lack of plain scriptures, CROWLEY you allege such as you say do contain arguments to prove the popish Mass to be a sacrifice. etc. And first you begin with saint Paul, where he saith: Non potestis. etc. The Argument that you find in this scripture, 1. Cor. 10. is thus. If the table of devils be a sacrifice made to devils in deed: then must the table of the Lord be a sacrifice offered to the Lord in deed. But the table of the devils is so: Ergo, the lords table must needs be so. And so is your purpose proved and confessed. If you were in the divinity school, and should in disputation be put to prove the mayor proposition of this Argument: watson's mayor is not currant in the schools. it would not slip away so smoothly as it did when you spoke it in your sermon. For it would be made plain to you that you build this reason upon a false supposition. For where you suppose the table of Devils, and the table of the Lord to be compared in offering and eating: it would be proved to you by the sayings of ancient writers, that the comparison is in the society of the eaters, with them at whose tables they eat. Theophilactus whose judgement you should trust in this place (for you make him you only stay, Theophi. in 1. Cor. 10. in that which you cite out of saint Paul to the hebrews) upon these words of Paul. Nolo autem vos participes fieri Demoniorum, I would not that you should be made partakers of the devils: saith thus. Si enim mysticam mensam participantes, Christo communicant, eique uniuntur: Daemonum mensam participantes, Daemonibus haud dubiè communicant. If they that be partakers of the mystical table, do communicate with Christ and be joined into one with him: without doubt such as be partakers of the table of Devils, do communicate with devils. And upon the words that you cite, he saith. Ex solis nominibus probat, non esse comedenda Idolis immolata. He doth by the names alone, prove that we should not eat those things that be offered to Idols. Here it is manifest, Wherein the tables be compared that Theophilactus understandeth saint Paul to make comparison between the table of Devils, and the lords table: in the society of the partakers, with them at whose tables they be partakers. As they which be partakers at the lords table, do show themselves thereby to be joined to the Lord in society and unity: so they that be partakers at the Idols table, do show themselves to be in society and unity with the Idols. chrysostom, writing upon the same place: is of the same mind. And so are Ambrose and Jerome. And to be short. As many as have written upon this place: do understand saint Paul to mean of the society and unity, that the eaters have with them, at whose table they do eat. And the argument that saint Paul useth, is à Contrarijs, of the contraries. And therefore some of the interpreters do compare the speech that he useth here to that which our saviour Christ useth in the sermon that he made in the mount. Math. 6. Non potestis Deo servire, & Mammoni. You can not serve God and Mammon. The argument therefore, that you would have us think to be contained in this scripture: is very far from the meaning of the place that you say it is contained in. No form of reasoning observed by Watson. But what need I to spend any time in disproving the parts of this Argument: seeing it is but a mere Cavillation, following no right form of Argumentation. For this is an infallible rule in Logic (as you know I am sure) that of mere particulars, there can no necessary consequence follow. But the antecedents in this argument are mere particulars: Ergo, the conclusion can not necessarily follow thereof. The like argument, you say, may be made, of the word altar in saint Paul to the hebrews, where he saith, Habemus altar. Hebr. 13. etc. We have an altar. etc. The argument that you say is contained in this place of scripture, is thus. If altar and sacrifice can not be the one without the other, than saint Paul speaking of eating the altar, must needs mean, the eating of the sacrifice made on the altar. But altar and sacrifices are so annexed together. etc. Ergo, Saint Paul speaking of the eating of the altar, must needs mean. etc. This argument is like the other, and therefore must be denied by the same rule. And so shall not this argument prove, that our Sacrament is a sacrifice before it is eaten. Theophilact. in Epist. ad But Theophilact. say you, doth so take this place. For he saith. Et nos inquit. etc. And we (saith saint Paul) have an observation. etc. Heb. 13. Either you fellow some corrupted copy of Theophilacts' Commentary: or else you have of purpose corrupted the place yourself. For johannes Lonicerus, following an ancient Greek copy: hath translated it thus. Nos inquit, obseruationem habemus, verum haud eam quae sit in huiusmodi cibis, sed super altari, sive impoluta & immaculata hostia vivisici corporis. We (saith Saint Paul) have an observation, but not that which is in such manner of meats, but upon the altar, or the undefiled and unspotted sacrifice of the body that quickeneth or giveth life. Here is no word that may signify unbloody sacrifice. Neither is there any place in this saying to contain an argument, to prove that the sacrament is a sacrifice before it is received. Neither doth Theophilactus take this place in any such meaning. But he understandeth saint Paul to mean of the Communion of the body and blood of Christ, when he saith. Habemus altar. etc. We have an altar. etc. Which Communion Theophilact. calleth, Theophilactu meaning made plain. the undefiled and unspotted sacrifice of the quickening body: following the custom, that then was common among the fathers. That was to call the sacraments by the names of those things whereof they were sacraments. This observation have we that be Christians, whereof the ministers of the Tabernacle (that is to say, such as believe not in Christ, though they be jews) can not be partakers. Yea though they should be partakers of the outward observation: yet could they not have any part of that quickening body that Theophilact. speaketh of, because they remain in incredulity or unbelief, as he saith afterwards in the same Chapter, where he speaketh of the sacrifice of thanksgiving for the blood of Christ. Here the Reader may see that Theophilact. doth in this place mean nothing less, than such an unbloody sacrifice as you speak of. But rather he may be understanded to mean of such an unbloody sacrifice as saint Austen speaketh of, when he saith thus. Tunc enim ordinem legittimum consecrationis altaris cum gaudio celebramus: quando altaria cordis vel corporis nostri, munda & pura, August ser. de tempore. in conspectu divinae maiestatis offerrimus. Then do we with joy celebrate the leeful order of the consecration of the altar: when we do in the presence of God, offer the altar of our own heart and body, clean and pure. chrysostom also writing upon the same place: may seem to mean of the same sacrifice. He writeth thus. Num enim & nos inquit, Paul's words expounded by Chrysostom. illa non custodimus? Custodimus enim & vehementius: neque ipsis sacerdotibus ex his quicquam dantes. Do not we (saith saint Paul) observe these things. Truly we do observe them, and that more earnestly, neither do we give any part thereof to the priests. Of what other sacrifice can this be spoken, than those that be offered upon the altars of our own bodies and hearts, that is, meditations and works of obedience to God. Whereof we give no part to ourselves that be the priests and offerers: but altogether to him that we offer this sacrifice to, according to the order of offering that sacrifice, the blood whereof the high Priest offered for sin, whereof the Priests had no part for their fee, but all the whole was burnt with fire. For it is God alone that worketh in us both the good will, Phil. 2. and the performance thereof: and therefore, the whole praise is to be ascribed to him, and no part to be given to us. So far off are these ancient fathers, from maintaining your carnal opinion, of the corporal eating of Christ's body in the sacrament thereof. But if time would have served you, you could have made an argument of daniel's prophecy. etc. Well, as time would suffer, you bungle up a reason: and thus you say. Antichrist can not take away the sacrifice that Christ offered on the Cross, nor the inward sacrifice of man's heart: wherefore it is the Mass that is the continual sacrifice, Watson hath time enough to prove his arguments. and must be taken away by Antichrist. I deny your argument. Granting you as much time for the proof thereof, with the other two that go before: as you yourself will take. And because you would have us tell you, what other sacrifice besides the Mass, it is that Antichrist may take away: I will tell you what sacrifice it is in my judgement, and then let the indifferent reader be judge betwixt my judgement and yours. In my judgement, the continual sacrifice that Antichrist may take away from the Church of Christ: is that which saint Paul speaketh of when he saith. Hebr. 12. What sacrifice Antichrist may take away. Per ipsum igitur offerrimus sacrificium laudis semper Deo: hoc est fructum labiorum confitentium nomen eius. Through him therefore, we do always offer unto God, a sacrifice of praise: that is, the fruit of those lips, that do confess his name. This sacrifice, hath Antichrist of Rome taken away from the universal Church of Christ in taking upon himself the title of universal head of the same Church, which title is due to Christ only, and in taking upon him the authority and power, to remit and pardon sins, which power belongeth to God only. The fruit of those lips that confess his name is taken away: when none may without peril of death, confess that Christ only is the universal head of his Church: and that God only, in his son Christ and for his sake, doth freely forgive and pardon sins. Thus you have my judgement of a sacrifice continual, that may be taken away by Antichrist: and yet is not your Popish Mass. The three years and half also, may well be applied to the times, wherein the power of Rome hath taken away this sacrifice by cruel persecution: so that very few or none in all the known world, durst offer this sacrifice to God. Now let the indifferent reader be judge between your judgement & mine, in this matter of a continual sacrifice, that may be taken away by Antichrist. But that Daniel meant there to prophecy, that Antichrist shall take away the continual sacrifice: the text will not suffer me to think. For he saith thus. A tempore oblationis iugis sacrificij, The meaning of daniel's prophecy. & positae abominationis desolationis: dies mill ducenti non aginta. From the time of the taking away of the continual sacrifice, and setting up of the abomination of desolation, are a thousand, two hundredth, four score and ten days. Which is the time, two times, and half a time that he spoke of before. The continual sacrifice of the temple, was fully ended and taken away by Christ's one oblation of himself: 2. Thess. 2. and the abomination of desolation, is set up in the Church of Christ, the man of sin boasting himself to be God, as doth the Antichrist of Rome, which setteth up himself above all that is called God, that is above all Princes and earthly Potentates. The space therefore between the ending of the ceremonial sacrifices, and Christ's coming to judgement: may be a time, two times, and half a time. That is, a long time, twice so long a time, to the fervent desire that Gods elect have to see the end: and but half a time, that is to say, a very short time in comparison of that everlasting time, wherein they shall reign with Christ in glory incomparable. Words that remain sealed. This my judgement I submit to the judgement of the godly learned: till that time be ended, during which (as the Angel told Daniel) those words of his must remain sealed. Thus much have I written, to let the reader see, what scriptures you have brought to prove the oblation of Christ's body in the Mass, to be the sacrifice of the Church and new testament. Which as you say, many have assaulted and oppugned with such direct scriptures & Doctors and good reasons, that it is by them expugned, and can not be by you propugned. Not by tyrannical power, but by simple and plain preaching of the Gospel: these men have prevailed in many places, for a time. And Truth the daughter of Time: hath never suffered herself to be altogether overcome by Popish tyranny. WATSON Division. 27 Heb. 9 &. 10. Some scriptures they abuse, what they be, ye shall hear. They allege saint Paul to the hebrews. Semel oblatus est ad multorum exhaurienda peccata. Christ was once offered to take away the sins of many. unica oblatione consumavit inaeternum sanctificatos. With one oblation he hath perfected for evermore all that be sanctified. These be the scriptures they allege against the Mass, and they say Christ's oblation is perfit, no man can offer Christ but himself, which he did but once, and never but once, as though we should say, that Christ was crucified twice or often times. To this objection of theirs, we answer that Christ was never offered to the death for our redemption but once, and yet otherwise was he offered many times, both of himself and of his creatures. Daniel. 7. We read in the prophet Daniel, that Angels offered him in the sight of his father. Luc. 3. Bernard. Ser. 3. de purificatione. And also the blessed Virgin his mother offered him at her purification, of which offering saint Bernard saith, Ista oblatio fratres satis delicata videtur, ubi tantum sistitur domino, redimitur avibus & illico reportatur. This oblation brethren is very delicate, where he is only presented to our Lord, redeemed with birds, and by and by brought home again. And therefore we answer them, that their argument is of no strength, to confute one truth by another, when both may be true, as to reason, Christ was but once offered upon the cross, Ergo he was not offered in the sacrament. And we tell them, that they do not consider how Christ is offered three ways of himself, and also three ways of man. First he offered himself upon the cross really and corporally as I say as saith, Oblatus est quia voluit. isaiah. 50. This is manifest enough. And here their exclamations of one's ones hath very good place. Secondly he offered himself figuratively in the paschal lamb. For the scripture saith, the lamb was slain from the beginning of the world, Apo 13. and the fathers in the old law in all their sacrifices did offer Christ not in substance, but in figure, and so Christ offering the paschal lamb at his supper, offered himself in figure. Thirdly Christ offereth himself in heaven really and so continually, as the same Chapter which they bring against the Mass doth testify. Non in manifacta sancta jesus introivit, exemplaria verorum, Heb. 9 sed in ipsum coelum ut appareat nunc vultui Dei pro nobis. jesus entered not into a temple made with man's hand a figure of the truth, but into heaven, that he might appear now to the countenance of God for us. What is this appearing in the sight of God for us, but an offering of himself for us to pacify the anger of God with us, to represent his wounds and all that he suffered for us, that we might be reconciled to God by him? This is the true and perpetual oblation of Christ in comparison of this in heaven, the bloody oblation upon the cross is but an Image, as S. Ambrose saith: Hic umbra, hic imago, Ambrose offi. lib. 1. Capit. 48. illic veritas, umbra in lege, imago in evangelio, veritas in coelestibus: antè agnus offerebatur, vitulus: nunc Christus offertur sed offertur quasi homo quasi recipiens passionem, & offered se ipse quasi Sacerdos ut peccata nostra dimittat, hic in imagine, ibi in veritate, ubi apud patrem pro nobis quasi advocatus interuenit. Here (in this world) there is a shadow, here there is an image, there (in heaven) is truth, the shadow in the law, the image in the Gospel, the truth in heaven. Before a Lamb and Calf were offered, now Christ is offered, but he is offered as man and receiving passion, and he offereth himself as being a priest to take our sins away, here in image, there in truth, where with the father as an advocate he maketh intercession for us. The same thing he writeth also upon the .38. Psalm. So that it is very plain without all controversy, that Christ doth offer himself now most perfitly in heaven for us, being our advocate to the father face to face, & as saint john saith. 1. john. 2. Ipse est propitiatio pro peccatis nostris, he is a sacrifice propitiatory for our sins, he saith not he was, but is, and after the most perfitest manner that can be, in respect whereof the very true and real oblation for our redemption upon the cross, is an image. So that by this we see by the plain scripture, that Christ offered himself three ways, besides the oblation of himself in his supper, which is the point we he about to declare. And even so is he offered of man three ways likewise. First figuratively, in the oblation of the old testament. When Abraham being about to offer his own dear son, and by God's provision offered in his stead a Ram, and when Melchisedech offered bread and wine, and the jews the paschal lamb and their offerings: what did they offer but Christ in figure, whose passion those offerings did signify? Which offerings did of themself work nothing inwardly, and therefore were called justitia carnis, the righteousness of the flesh, but by them they did protest their sin, and declared their faith, of whom they looked to have remission. Secondly, we offer Christ mystically in our daily sacrifice of the Mass, where Christ is by his omnipotent power presented to us in the sacrament, and of us again represented to his and our father, and his passion renewed, not by suffering of death again, but after an unbloody manner, not for this end, that we should thereby deserve remission of our sins, but that by our faith, devotion, and this representation of his passion we most humbly pray almighty God to apply unto us by Christ that remission, which was purchased and deserved by his passion before. The host of these two sacrifices upon the cross and upon the altar, is all one in substance, but the manner is divers, and the end is divers, that by this means (as Christ himself hath instituted) we might celebrate & make commemoration of his passion. This is only the sacrifice of the priest by public ministration, but verily and in affection it is the sacrifice of the whole Church, which every member of the Church doth use and frequent, no man doth impugn it, but he that professeth open war against the Church. Thirdly Christ is offered by man spiritually only by the meditation of our mind, when we think and remember his passion, and in our devout prayer beseech God to show us mercy for it. Thus every christian man and woman, in all places and times upon the altar his own heart, aught to offer Christ to the father, after which sort of spiritual oblation we be all both men and women, priests and kings, being as saint Peter saith. Sacerdotium sanctum, 1. Peter. 2. offerentes spirituales hostias acceptabiles Deo per jesum Christum. An holy priesthood offering spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by jesus Christ. Now considering these three ways, shall it be a good argument, to inculcate one way and to reject the rest? To allege one member of a division, to the rejection of the other? This is the peculiar manner of the heretics the enemies of Christ, as they did in the matter of the sacrament, by the spiritual eating of Christ to confute and reject the real and corporal eating of Christ's body in the sacrament. Such shifts and fond arguments they have to seduce the unlearned withal, which when they be espied and detected they appear as they be devilish and pernicious Sophistry. CROWLEY. Whereas you go about to persuade your hearers, that we abuse the words of saint Paul to the hebrews: your answer that you make to our objection, doth affirm that we do use those scriptures aright. hebrews. .9. Watson confirmeth our allegation of the scriptures. For to what end hath any of us alleged them, other then to prove, that Christ was but once offered for the redemption of man's sins: and that therefore he is not offered for sins in your popish Mass. These be the scriptures (say you) that they allege against the Mass: as though those scriptures were of no weight in comparison of those that you have to allege for the Mass. Or else that they were wrested so far out of square: that all the world might see, that they make nothing for the purpose. But that the reader may see, that these scriptures, so alleged as they be by us against the Mass, be of some force to prove that which we would prove by them: I will upon these scriptures and your answer, form this reason or argument. An argument for watson to answer. Whatsoever action is but once done, is not done often or every day. But Christ is but once offered for sin. Ergo, he is not offered often or every day for sin. Disprove this argument if you can. You would make your hearers believe, that we go about to confute one truth by another. But I trust to cause the reader to see: that you confirm one lie by another. We grant that it is true, that Christ was offered but once for sin: and that that once must needs be by shedding of his blood. Rom. 6. Hebr. 9 For as saint Paul faith. Stipendium peccati mors. The reward of sin is death. He therefore that should take away sin must die. And without the effusion of blood, there is no forgiveness of sins. Therefore Christ that should purchase forgiveness of sins: must needs have his blood shed, according to the figures of the old law, which did all preach the shedding of the blood of him that should purge us, and make us clean from sin. We do not by the affirming of this truth: deny any other truth. But if there be any that will say, that Christ is offered for sin any oftener than once, or any otherwise then by death and the shedding of his blood: then do we allege this truth (grounded upon the scriptures, and confessed by you) against that falsehood affirmed by such as say that Christ is offered for sin oftener than once, or any otherwise then by death, and the shedding of his blood. If you can find any imperfection in Christ's one oblation once offered: then blame us, for that we say it is perfit. None can offer Christ but himself And if you can find any man or other creature, that is able to offer Christ for sin: then blame us, for that we say, that none can offer him for sin but himself. But you have found in Daniel the Prophet: Daniel. 7. Lucae. 2. that the angels offered Christ to his father. And in Luke, that his mother offered him at her purification. You should have alleged Hieroms' exposition of daniel's words, watsons' learning and wisdom showed. as you have done bernard for the other: and then men might have taken you for such one, as you by alleging this place, for this purpose, do show yourself to be. That is neither learned nor wise. Saint Jerome saith thus. Totum quod dicitur, oblatum eum omnipotenti Deo, & accepisse potestatem, & honorem & regnum: juxta illud Apostoli accipiendum est. Qui cum in forma dei esset. etc. All that which is said, that he was offered to the almighty God, and that he received power and honour, and a kingdom: Philip. 2. must be taken according to the saying of the Apostle. Which being in the form of God: he thought it no robbery to be equal with God. etc. What shameless beast would say, that Daniel saw the Angels offer Christ in sacrifice to his father: watson was deep in his oblations. because the text saith. Et in conspectu eius obtulerunt eum. And they presented him before him. But you were so far in your oblations: that you could not remember that Offero hath any other signification, then to offer sacrifice. Those thousands therefore, that Daniel saw attending upon the ancient judge, must needs make a sacrifice of Christ: because they presented him before that judge. And the virgin Mary because she presented her son jesus in the temple, according to the law of Moses: she must needs be said to offer him in sacrifice. levit. 12. The law did not require that the first begotten son should be offered in sacrifice: but that there should be a sacrifice offered for him. The virgin Marie therefore coming to the temple to do for her first borne son according to the law: did offer that offering that the law did require. The Evangelist saint Luke, who writeth the History, saith that they brought jesus to jerusalem, ut sisterent eum Domino, to set him before the Lord, or to make him appear before the Lord. Bernard. Sermone. 3. De purificae. If bernard and you can prove that Sisto, doth signify to offer in sacrifice: then will I grant you, that Christ was offered by his mother as a sacrifice. But bernard himself doth in the same place that you cite, expound his own meaning better than you will understand him, when he saith. Offer filium tuum virgo sacrata, & benedictum fructum ventris tui domino repraesenta. Offer thy son (O holy virgin) and show forth unto the Lord, the blessed fruit of thy womb. Here it appeareth, that in this place Bernard doth by offering understand representing, or showing forth. Yea, Bernard's meaning made plain by his own words. the very words that you cite, do declare Bernard's meaning to be other than you would have it seem to be. For he saith. Tantum sistitur Domino. He is only set forth or represented to the lord. And therefore we answer you, that our arguments are to strong for you to confute, by telling us that Christ is offered three ways of himself, and three ways of man. For we know that he was never offered for sin, more ways than one. But let us see how you prove these six manners of offering Christ. First he offered himself upon the Cross, you say (and that truly) and you prove it by the saying of Esay. Esay. 53. Oblatus est, quia voluit. He was offered because he was willing so to be. In the same Chapter is a place which some of us have alleged against the sacrifice of your Mass: and I think will not be easily answered of you. Which is this. Livore eius sanati sumus. By his stripes or bruises, are we made hole. Out of which words I reason thus. Whatsoever wound is thoroughly cured and made hole: An argum● against th● sacrifice of the Mass needeth no further plastering. But the wound that sin gave us, is thoroughly healed by that once offering of himself that Esay speaketh of: Ergo it is superfluous to have any other sacrifice to cure that wound. etc. Secondly, Christ offered himself in figure, when he offered the paschal Lamb. And this you prove by the xiij of saint john's Revelations. Apoc. 13. The Lamb that was slain from the beginning of the world. Here is no abusing of Scriptures: when the text hath relation to a thing done two thousand years before the paschal lamb and other sacrifices were instituted, is restrained to prove, that the thing that it hath relation to, was done by that paschal Lamb and other sacrifices, instituted by the law that was ordained so many years after. When promise was made to the first man, that the seed of the woman should break the serpent's head, How Chri●● hath been slain from the beginning. and that promise was believed of them to whom it was made: then was the Lamb Christ slain unto them that believed the promise, and so hath he been to as many as have hitherto believed that promise. And the memory of this promise hath been kept, by the paschal Lamb and other sacrifices: and the manner of the fulfilling of it, plainly painted out, to such as could consider them with a spiritual eye. But the offering of the paschal Lamb and other sacrifices, was not instituted, that the offerers might thereby offer up Christ figuratively: but to keep in memory, the promise, and to set forth before their senses, the manner of the fulfilling of the promise, when the time of fulfilling the same should come. The paschal also, had one special use: which was to keep in mind, the wonderful deliverance that God wrought in Egypt, as it appeareth in Exodi. Where it is written thus. Cum dixerint filii vestri: quae est ista Religio? Dicetis eyes. Exod. 12. The special use of the Passover. Victima transitus domini est: quando transivit super domos filiorum Israel in Egipto, percutiens Egiptios, & domos nostras liberans. When your children shall say, what is this Religion? you shall say unto them. It is the sacrifice or slain offering, of the Lords passing by: when in Egypt he passed over the houses of the children of Israel, and slew the Egyptians, and delivered our houses. August. de Verbis Apostoli. sermo. 6. And saint Austen showeth another use of the old paschal: which is to signify the death of Christ, by slaying of the Lamb, and our emendement of life, by the eating of it with unleavened bread. His words be these. Celebrabatur Pascha in veteri populo, sicut nostis, occisione Agni cum Azymis: ubi occisio ovis, Christum significat, Azyma autem, novam vitam. Hoc est, sine vetustate fermenti. The Pasover was in the old people, celebrated, as you know, in the kill of a Lamb with unleavened bread: where the kill of the sheep, doth signify Christ, and the unleavened bread, a new life, that is without the oldness of leaven. And a little after he saith. Venit verum Pascha, immolatur Christus, transitum facit à morte ad vitam. Transitus enim interpretatur hebraice Pascha. The true Passover is come, Christ is offered up, he passeth from death to life. For Paschal in the Hebrew, is interpreted, passing by, or passing over. Here is no word of the offering of Christ figuratively in the old paschal: but when Christ passed from death to life, than he was offered, saith saint Austen. Wherefore I conclude. That Christ did not offer himself figuratively in the old paschal, neither did the fathers of the old law, offer him in their sacrifices. But as all the faithful fathers that believed the promise, did offer passouer and other sacrifices, thereby to show their due obedience to the law of God, Why Christ would eat Passover. by which those things were commanded to be done, trusting that when the time should be fulfilled, God would perform his promise: so did Christ observe all the points of the law, absolutely, that being free from the curse of the law, he might deliver from that curse, those that were under it. Thirdly, Christ offereth himself in heaven, really, and so continually: as the same Chapter that we bring against the Mass doth testify (say you) Non in manufacta. etc. jesus entered not into a temple made with hands. etc. It seemeth that you have learned some painter's divinity: Painter's divinity. where you have seen Christ representing his wounds to God his father, to move him to have compassion upon us, for whose cause he hath suffered those wounds. That which you gather of this place of saint Paul: doth show you to be very nigh a dangerous error, if you be not already fallen into it. That is the error of the Anthropomorphits, which supposed God to be as a man: Watson v● nigh a dangerous e● not only in bodily shape, but also in human affections. As though a thing once done could not be present with him, both before and after it is done for ever: but must be still presented before him to move his affections by the sight thereof, which otherwise would forget it, as a man doth. How you can avoid this, I can not see: affirming (as you do) that Christ is entered into heaven, to offer himself for us. etc. We have learned, both by the scriptures, and also by the ancient writers: that there is with God neither time to come, nor time past, but all present. The wounds of Christ were present in his sight before Adam was made: and so are they now and shall be for ever. Christ needeth not therefore, perpetually to stand representing his wounds, Ephesi. 1. that we might be reconciled by him: for as many as shall be reconciled to God by Christ, were before the foundations of the world were laid, reconciled to him in Christ, and do and shall remain reconciled for ever. God had appointed a time, wherein Christ should work the work of our reconciliation, which time is now past with us, but still present with him: and he hath also appointed a time wherein we that be by him reconciled, shall enjoy the fruit of that reconciliation, that is everlasting glory in his kingdom, which with us is yet to come, but with him it is already present. In the mean season, Hebr. 10. Christ having offered one oblation for sin (as Saint Paul saith) doth for ever sit at the right hand of God: from thenceforth tarrying till his enemies be made his footstool. For by one oblation he hath made perfect for ever: those that be sanctified. That is, those which be made holy by the spirit of adoption: Rom. 8. whereby they cry unto God, Abba father. But you have found saint Ambrose, Ambro. li. 1. Officio. Ca 48 & in Psal. 38. in two places of his works, to be of your mind: and to account the sacrifice that Christ made upon the cross, to be but an image of a sacrifice, in comparison of that which he maketh perpetually in heaven. If Ambrose were now living, and did know of your doing: he could not think well of you, that would make him a maintainer of your fond opinion, of Christ's perpetual offering of himself, drawing his words so far from his meaning. By occasion of the words of the Prophet David, where he saith. Psalm. 38. Notum fac mihi Domine. etc. Lord, let me know mine end, and what the number of my days is, that I may know what it is that I lack: saint Ambrose doth note, that the end which the Prophet doth desire to know, is that day wherein every one shall rise out of the earth in his order, wherein our perfection doth begin. Here therefore (saith Ambrose) that is in this mortal state: there is a let or impediment, there is infirmity, even in such as be perfit, but there (that is in the life to come) there is full perfection. Therefore, he desireth to know, what days of eternal life, are yet remaining, not what days be past. That he may know what he himself lacketh, what the land of promise is, which bringeth forth continual fruits, what manner dwellings, the first, second, and third dwelling are with the father, wherein every man doth rest according to his worthiness. We therefore (saith he) must desire those things wherein perfection is, wherein the truth is. Hic umbra, hic Imago, illic veritas. etc. Here is the shadow, here is the image, there is the truth. And so forth, as you have cited. But to the end of those words that you rehearse: Ambrose openeth his own meaning. he addeth a sentence that doth make his meaning more plain. Hic ergo in imagine ambulamus, in imagine videmus: illic facie ad faciem, ubi plena perfectio, quia perfectio omnis in veritate. Here therefore (saith Ambrose) we walk in an image, we see in an Image: then we shall see face to face, where there is full perfection, because all perfection is in truth. Who would think that any man of learning, could be so blinded, as to understand these words of Ambrose as you do? His whole purpose is to declare, that in this mortal state: there can be no perfection in any thing. But the most perfit things that be here: are but as images are in comparison of those things whereof they be images. Yea, the mediation of Christ betwixt God and man: was not without imperfection, in the image and outward show thereof. For he suffered (saith Ambrose) as a man, and as one worthily condemned to die. And he offered himself as a priest doth offer sacrifice: to release us of our sins. Here (that is, in the mortal state) he walked in an image. But there (that is in the immortal state) he walketh in the truth. That is, a very Advocate, without any outward show or image of one that should not be able to bring to pass that which he hath taken in hand: that is the restoring of man to the favour of God again. According to this meaning doth Ambrose write upon the Psalm that you name. Ascend ergo in coelum: Ambrose i● Psalm. 38. & videbis illa quorum umbra hic erat, vel Imago. etc. Climb up into heaven therefore (O thou man) and thou shalt see those things, the shadow or image whereof was here. Thou shalt see, not in part, nor in a dark speech: but in perfection. Not under a covering: but in the light. Thou shalt see that priest, which is a priest in deed, everlasting and continual: whose images thou didst see here, Peter, Paul, john, james, Matthew, Thomas. Thou shalt see him a perfit man now, not in an image, but in power. And to put all men out of doubt, that Ambrose meaneth not to maintain your mad assertion, of a perpetual oblation made by Christ in such sort as you imagine. I will let the reader see what he writeth upon the same place to the hebrews that you do allege. Si semel oblatus non sufficeret: etc. Hebr. 9 If he had not been able by being once offered, to take away the sins of all that believe in him: he must have suffered oftentimes, since the beginning of the world. For the avoiding whereof: he did once suffer in the end of the world, to consume utterly, the sins of many. And why of many and not of all? Because all do not believe. etc. Here it is manifest, that Ambrose supposed that the sins of all the faithful, were clean consumed, by that one oblation that Christ offered once for all. So that it is plain without all controversy: that Ambrose minded not to teach that Christ doth continually offer himself a sacrifice to his father for us: but that the mortal state in this world, is in comparison of the immortal state in heaven, but even as an image is, in comparison of the thing that it doth represent. As for the place that you cite out of saint john's Epistle: is answered by that which you yourself have said of the first way of Christ's offering of himself. For you say that that was done really, and corporally: and that our exclamations of once, once, have very good place there. I am sure you do not think, that this most perfit manner of offering that you speak of here (whereof you say the first was but an image) should be other then real & corporal. And then how serveth our exclamation of once, once, in the first: unless it do utterly exclude this last, that you do so greatly extol? I know, that saint john hath said Aduocatum habemus apud Patrem, jesum Christum justum: & ipse est propitiatio pro peccatis nostris. We have an Advocate with the father, which is jesus Christ the righteous: & he is the propitiatory sacrifice for our sins. He saith not, he was (say you) but he is. I think the Divines of your own sort: was and shall have no place in God. do lament to see you take hold of so slender a stay as this, to keep you from falling. For what Divine knoweth not: that was, and shall, have no place in God's doings, when men will speak properly of him and his doings? God in himself is always that, which with us, and in our manner of speech, he is said to have been, or shall be. It would have done well, if you could have cited but one writer, either ancient or new: that understandeth this place as you do. But because there is none to be cited: you slip it over, with, so by this. etc. But that the reader may see how worthy of credit you be: I will let him see the judgement of the ancient Grecians, gathered by one that you have in these Sermons cited for your purpose more than once. Oecumenius upon this place saith thus. Aduocatmm verò dicit eum: qui Patrem pro nobis precatur sive flectit. Humano autem modo, & dispensatione quadam haec dicta sunt: quemadmodum & illud, Filius nihil potest facere à se ipso. Haec enim dicit: ne Deo adversari videatur. Nam quod etiam filius haberet potestatem remittendi peccata: ostenderat in Paralytico. Sed & discipulis dando ut peccata dimitterent: john. 5. Math. 9 john. 20. ostendit, quod sua potestate hoc tribueret. Verum, ut diximus, aut dispensatoriè hoc dicit nunc Apostolus: aut ostendens eandem filii cum patre naturam, eandemque potentiam. Et quòd quicquid faceret una trium sanctarum personarum: common esset & reliquis. He calleth him an Advocate: which doth entreat the father for us, Christ called an Advocate by dispensation. or cause him to relent. But these words are spoken after the manner of men, and by a certain dispensation: even as is this. The son can do nothing of himself: These words he speaketh: lest he should seem to be against God. For he had already showed in the man that was sick of a palsy: that the son also, had power to forgive sins. Also in giving his Disciples power to forgive sins: he showed that he did by his own power grant that. But as I have said, the Apostle doth speak this now, either by dispensation: or else to show that the nature and power of the son, is all one and the same with the father. And that whatsoever thing one of the three holy persons should do: the same should be common to the rest. By this we may see: that you have wrested the plain scriptures, to prove the three fold offering of Christ, beside the oblation of himself in his supper, which is the point that you go about to declare. We deny not that Christ is our advocate, and sacrifice propitiatory for our sins: but we confess, that he is, hath been, and shall be so for ever, The act of mediation once done. extending the virtue & force of his death and bloodshedding, to all the faithful that either have been, or shall be, between the first man and the last. But the action of oblation, is but one and once done upon the cross, when he said Consummatum est. It is finished. As for the three ways that you say Christ is offered by man: are not worth the weighing. Figuratively (you say) Christ is offered in the oblation of the old Testament. Here, was, would have served better then, is. And yet he was not then offered: as I have showed in that which I have answered to the second way of Christ's offering himself. In your Mass, you say, you offer him mystically. I might conclude, that therefore you do not offer him, really and corporally: and so set you against yourself. For you have said oftentimes in these your two sermons: that you receive and offer christ in your Mass, really, corporally, and naturally. But you will understand by mystically, as you do by sacramentally: and say that mystically, is verily, and really. For you have learned of grecians gloze to say: Statuimus: id est. Abrogamus. We decree, Distinction, Mystical can not be real. etc. that is, we do abrogate: you may give to words what signification you lust. But such as be learned in the tongues, do know that mystical, can not signify, real, natural and corporal. A number of things (you say) are done in your Mass. That is to say, Christ is by his omnipotent power presented to you: and of you, to his and your father. His passion is renewed: and the remission that was purchased and deserved thereby, humbly prayed for to God, that the same may be applied unto you by Christ. etc. Because all this is but your bare assertion without proof, either by authority or reason: It shall suffice that I answer as saint Jerome doth in like case. Hiero. in Mat. 23. Hoc quia de scriptures. etc. Because this thing hath none authority of the scripture: it is as easily contemned as allowed. But here I must tell you, that in one point, you descent from many of your sort: which say that the massing priest doth by his mass apply the passion of Christ to them that he saith Mass for. And you do but join it with your faith and devotion in making humble prayer to God, that it would please him to apply to you the remission that Christ hath deserved by his passion. 1. Peter. 2. To prove the third way that men offer Christ, which is (say you) by the meditation of the mind. etc. You allege the saying of Peter. Sacerdotium Sanctum. etc. How well these words of Peter do serve to prove your offering of Christ only by meditation of mind: shall easily appear to such as will read the rest of that Chapter. Spiritual sacrifices. They shall find that the spiritual sacrifices that Peter speaketh of there: are a godly and honest life, full of good works, and not such idle meditations as you imagine. Now, seeing that you have divided the offering up of Christ into so many members, and have proved but one: shall it not be a good argument to inculcate one & reject the rest? This is the peculiar manner of the Papists, the professed enemies of Christ, even as they do in teaching the real and corporal eating of Christ's body in the sacrament: so in this matter of the sacrificeing and offering of Christ, to imagine a multitude of members, where in deed there is but one. And by such subtle shifts: they do seduce the unlearned. But when they be espied and detected: they appear (as these of yours do) even as they be: devilish and pernicious Sophistry. WATSON. Furthermore, if any man as yet doth stand in doubt whether men lawfully offer Christ to the father or no: Division. 28 let him call to remembrance what I have said before out of Dionysius Areopagita, Dionysius Areopa. speculat. cap. 3. where the Bishop (as he saith) doth excuse himself that he offereth the host of our salvation, alleging that Christ did so command to be done, saying, do this in my remembrance. Let him also remember the saying of the counsel at Niece. Concilium Nicenum. That the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world, is offered of the Priests, not after a bloody manner. Saint Augustine saith. Per hoc sacrificium (in sorma servi) & sacerdos est, ipse offerens, ipse & oblatio, cuius rei sacramentum, August. de civit libro. 10. Capit. 20. quotidianum esse voluit ecclesiae sacrificium, cum ipsius corporis ipse sic caput, & ipsius capitis ipsa sit corpus, tam ipsa per ipsum quam ipse per ipsam suetus offerri. By this sacrifice (in the form of a servant) Christ is a priest, being himself both the offerer and the oblation, of which oblation he would the daily sacrifice of the Church should be a sacrament, and seeing he is the head of that body, and the Church is the body of that head, aswell the Church by Christ, as Christ by the Church is accustomed to be offered. A notable place resolving diverse doubts, declaring that the daily sacrifice of the Church which is the Mass, is a sacrament of Christ's passion representing the same, and further that Christ offering himself upon the Cross, did also in himself offer his mystical body the Church, and thirdly that the church Christ's body doth not only once or twice, but is accustomed to offer Christ her head to God in her daily sacrifice. Hear yet a place of Saint Augustine as plain as this. Heberi in victimis pecorum prophetiam celebrabant futurae victimae quam Christus obtulit unde iam Christiani peracti eiusdem sacrificij, August. contra. Faustum lib. 20. cap. 18. memoriam celebrant, sacro sancta oblatione & perticipatione corporis & sanguinis Christi. The jews in their sacrifices of beasts, did celebrate the prophecy of the sacrifice to come which Christ offered. The Christian men now do celebrate the memory of the same sacrifice of Christ that is passed by the most holy oblation and participation of Christ's body and blood. Mark how that he sayeth christian men celebrate the memory of Christ's passion, wherewithal? even by the offering of the same body that suffered passion. I need say no more for this point, that men do and did use from the beginning, to offer Christ to the father. CROWLEY. August. de Civitate Dei. Lib. 10 cap. 20. The words that you cite out of Dionysius, and the Council at Nice: are sufficiently answered in the places where you alleged them. Concerning the place that you cite out of Austen: you know how much those books De Civitate Dei, have been corrupted, and what great travail and pains Lodovicus vives took in conferring of divers copies, that thereby he might (as much as it was possible) set forth the work of Austen in such sort as he wrote it. Upon these words Cum ipsius corporis, ipse sit caput: he noteth, that in the books that he found in Colene and Bruges, it is written thus. Quae cum ipsius capitis corpus sit: se ipsam per ipsum dicit offer. Which Church being the body of that head: saith that she doth through him offer up herself. And in another Copy also, he found it even so: saving that in the place of dicit, it was written discit, so that the sentence is thus. Which Church being the body of that head: Watson will follow the most unlikely doth learn by him to offer up herself. Whatsoever you think of this diversity of readings: I think that all the learned and wise that be travailed in Austin's works, will think either of these readings, to be more like to be Austin's, then that which you follow. And then hath Austen said thus. By this (being in the form of a servant) he is a priest, he himself offering, and being the oblation. The sacrament whereof, he would have the daily sacrifice of the Church to be. Which being the body of that head: doth say that she offereth up herself through him. Or learneth by him to offer up herself. Now, what do these words of Austen make for your purpose? That is to prove that the Mass is the sacrifice of the Church, and that Christ is offered therein. That Christ offered himself no man doubteth: and so he was both Priest and sacrifice. And that the Church hath learned of him to offer herself. Or saith, that she doth through him offer herself: no man will deny. And that this daily sacrifice of the Church, wherein she offereth herself, is a sacrament of Christ's offering of himself: every man will grant. For as Christ offered himself: so doth the Church offer herself, being both priest and sacrifice. Here is your notable place, that resolveth so many doubts. It were best for you, first to be out of doubt of the reading: and to be sure, that this which you follow is not against that which the same Austen writeth in other places of his works, August. lib. 3. de Trinitate. and against the holy scriptures. For in such case Austen desireth no credit. The other matter that you allege out of Austen, may easily be granted, and yet your conclusion never the latter denied. August. count Faust. Li. 20. Capit. 18. August. ad Bonif. Epi. 23. Chrysost. ad Heb. homi. 17. For who will not confess that Christians do celebrate the remembrance of Christ's sacrifice: when they be partakers of the holy Communion of his body and blood? And who will deny, that the fathers used to call that holy sacrament by the name of sacrifice or oblation, because it is the sacrament and remembrance of that sacrifice that Christ offered once for all. I need not therefore to say any more of this point. For it is manifest: that men neither do, did, nor could at any time, offer Christ to his father. He only was found worthy to offer a sacrifice to take away sin. And because no man can offer a greater sacrifice than himself: our saviour Christ hath offered himself once for all, and remaineth a Priest for ever. So that his one sacrifice endureth for ever: being in itself infinite, and shall never be consumed. But as saint Augustine saith. Tibi hody Christus est, De verbis domini secund. Lucam. ser. 28. tibi quotidiè resurgit. Thou hast Christ this day: he ariseth for thee every day. They say the sacrifice of the Mass diminisheth and taketh away the glory of Christ, they say so, but prove it not. WATSON Division. 29 But in very deed, nothing doth more set forth the glory of Christ, and his true honour. The honour of God is considered two ways, inwardly by faith, outwardly by extertall adoration. Latria which in English signifieth the honour that is due only to God, and to no creature, is the work of faith, and sacrifice is a kind (Latria) of godly honour as saint Austen saith: Ad hunc cultum latriae pertinet oblatio sacrificij. August. contra. Faustum. lib. 20. cap. 21. etc. To this godly honour called Latria, the oblation of sacrifice doth pertain, and for that cause it is called Idolatry if any sacrifice be done to Idols, and therefore we do sacrifice neither to martyr nor yet to an angel, but only to God. Faith ought to be unfeigned and lively and then it is true honour. For he that erreth in faith, or feigneth to have faith, doth not exhibit honour and reverence due to God. Again, he that hath true faith, but yet dead for lack of charity, he giveth reverence to god, but not perfit, and therefore not pleasant to God, because he honoureth god with his understanding but not with his affection. He that hath true and lively faith, honoureth and worshippeth God in spirit and truth. The external and outward honour proceedeth from the inward honour, and is the protestation, practice and use of it, the work of faith outwardly declared. And whereas sacrifice is the special and chiefest adoration that can be, therefore this sacrifice of Christ's own body and blood in the Mass being institute of Christ by his own express commandment (as I have showed already) doth not only not diminish the glory of God, but is the very highest honour of God that man can give. They say it is a derogation of the passion of Christ, but it is not so good people, for the sacrifice of the Mass doth ascribe altogether to Christ, for it is the passion of Christ. Understand well what I say and judge not till ye hear what I mean. Cypri. lib. 2. Epist. 3. Saint Cyprian saith. Passio domini sacrificium est quod offerimus. That sacrifice: which we offer is the passion of Christ. A strange saying, but yet saint Augustine declareth more plainly what is meant by it, in these words. August. lib. sententiarum prosperi. Vocatur ipsa immolatio carnis quae sacerdotis manibus fit, Christi passio mors crucifixio, non rei veritate, sed significant, mysterio. The oblation of Christ's flesh which is made in the hands of the priest, is called Christ's passion, death & crucifying, not by the truth of the thing, but by the mystery signifying. As though he should say it is called Christ's passion, not for that Christ in very deed suffereth passion again, but for that in mystery, it reneweth, representeth, and signifieth his passion again. For while that we have no worthy thing of ourselves nor in ourselves to render to God for all his benefits, and as the Psalm saith: Psal. 115. Quid retribuam Domino pro omnibus quae retribuit mihi. What shall I give to God again, for all that he hath given to me? We may do even as the Psalm doth answer. Calicem salutaris accipiam & nomen domini invocabo. I shall take the cup of our saviour and call upon the name of our Lord. I shall take his passion representing to God the father the work of our redemption, that we thereby being partakers of his bloody sacrifice once made upon the cross, and now by this our commemoration renewed again may be replenished with the fruit of his passion and death. For saint Augustine saith: Ex ipsis reliquijs cogitationis, id est, August. in Psalm. 75. ex ipsa memoria quotidiè sic nobis immolatur, quasi quotidiè nos movet, qui prima sua gratia nos innovauit. Of the leavings of our cogitation, that is to say, of this very memory and commemoration, Christ is so daily offered of us, as he doth make us new men daily, which by his first grace (in baptism) did once make us new. See how we offer Christ daily in commemoration and what benefit of innovation we receive thereby. chrysostom also saith: Chrisost. in Math. hom. 7. Non aquam de hoc nobis sonte largitur, sed sanguinem vivum qui quanque ad mortis dominicae testimonium sumitur nobis tamen causa sit vitae. Christ out of this fountain (of the Chalice) giveth unto us not water, but lively blood, which although it be received for the testimony of Christ'S death, yet to us it is made a cause of life. Is not this to have fruit of Christ's passion applied unto us, when we receive life by receiving of that which is offered in commemoration of Christ's death. Saint Gregory saith. Quoties ei hostiam suae passionis offerrimus, Gregorius homil. 37. toties nobis ad absolutionem nostram passionem illius reparamus. As often as we offer to him the host of sacrifice of his passion, so often we renew and repair his passion to us for our absolution and perfection. Gregor. li. 1. Dialog. lib 4. Capit. 58. And in another place he saith. Haec victima singulariter ab aeterno interitu animam saluat, quae illam nobis mortem unigeniti per mysterium reparat. This sacrifice doth singularly save the soul from eternal destruction, which by mystery reneweth unto us the death of Gods only begotten son. By these authorities ye see, that the sacrifice of the Mass doth nothing derogate from the passion of Christ but most of all doth exalt it, repairing and renewing it for us in the sight of the father, that we thereby may be renewed in grace, and receive life, perfection, and salvation. CROWLEY. The Mass doth diminish Christ's glory. You say, that we prove not that the Mass doth diminish the glory of the passion of Christ. You shall have a short and a plain proof: and leisure enough to disprove it. Christ's glory is to have conquered death, hell, and damnation, alone in his own person, as it was prophesied by the Prophets. Torcular calcavi solus, Esay. 63. & de Gentibus non est quisquam mecum. I alone have trodden the wine press: and there is not one of the people with me. And another Prophet saith. Perdidisti te, Israel: tantummodo in me auxilium tuum. Osea. 13. Thou hast cast away thyself, O Israel: in me alone is thy help. And again the same Prophet saith. Ero Mors tua, O Mors, morsus tuus, inferne. O death, I will be thy death: O hell, I will be thy sting. But the sacrifice of the Mass will not suffer that. Ergo, etc. A proof of that which Watson saith is not proved But lest you should pick a quarrel to the form of mine argument: I will frame it in figure and mood. Whatsoever is thought to be an help to Christ, in the conquering of death, hell, and damnation, doth diminish the glory of Christ. But the sacrifice of the Mass is thought to be an help. etc. Ergo, the sacrifice of the Mass doth diminish the glory of Christ. The mayor proposition is proved by the scriptures above mentioned. The minor is proved by your own doctrine, in the beginning, middle, and end of both these sermons of yours. Ergo, the conclusion must necessarily follow. Now that I have proved that which (you say) was not before proved: let us see whether we can disprove your two assertions. First you say, that nothing doth more set forth the glory of Christ and his true honour: than doth the Mass. If you can not disprove that argument that I have made for the proof of that which we have said: then is this that you have said, sufficiently disproved by that argument. But you have found saint Austen to be of your mind, when he saith. Ad hunc cultum etc. Contra. Faustum. lib. 20. cap. 21. To this godly honour. etc. In the matter that followeth in the same Chapter, saint Austen doth make his own meaning more plain than it can appear by these only words that you cite. He saith thus. Sacrificium laudis glorificabit me, & illic via est, ubi ostendam illi salutare meum. Huius sacrificij caro & sanguis, ante adventum Christi, per victimas similitudinum promittebatur: in passione Christi per ipsam veritatem reddebatur, post ascensum Christi, per sacramentum memoriae celebratur. The sacrifice of praise shall glorify me: and there is the way where I will show my saving health unto him. The flesh and blood of this sacrifice, was before the coming of Christ, Saint Austin's mind in plain words. promised by sacrifices of similitudes. In the passion of Christ: it was performed by the truth thereof in deed. And after the ascension of Christ it is celebrated by a sacrament of remembrance. And again he saith. Non ergo illi Patres nostri, etc. Those our fathers therefore, did not only leave the images of the heathen, but they neither offering any thing to the earth, nor to any earthly thing, neither to the sea, neither to the heaven: did offer sacrifices to one God, the creator of all things, even such as he would should be offered unto him. Promising by the similitude of those sacrifices: that sacrifice, by which through the forgiveness of sins, he hath reconciled us to himself, in Christ jesus our Lord. To the faithful that are made the body of that head, doth Paul speak saying, I beseech you brethren, even for the mercy of God, make your bodies, a living, holy, and acceptable sacrifice. These words well weighed together with those that you have alleged: will make Saint Austin's mind be known to differ far from yours. It is not your masking mumming Mass, that he calleth the sacrament of remembrance, Not the masking Mass, but the holy communion. whereby the sacrifice of praise is celebrated among the christians: but it is the holy communion of Christ's body and blood. This he calleth the outward work of faith, to this he joineth the consecrating and dedicating of the hole man to the service of God: which he calleth (as saint Paul doth) the living, holy, and acceptable sacrifice. Your Mass therefore, not being the institution of Christ (as I have already declared), nor yet having any ground in the commandment or word of God: doth not only diminish the glory of Christ, but is the greatest dishonour that man can do to God. Your other assertion is, that the Mass doth ascribe altogether to Christ: Cypri. lib. 2. Epist. 3. and therefore is no derogation of the passion of Christ at all. And this you prove first by the words of Cyprian where he saith. Passio Domini. etc. I will let the reader see the hole sentence that Cyprian writeth in that place: for this that you cite, is but a Parenthesis that may be left out, & yet the sentence remain perfit. His words be these. Et quia passionis eius mentionem, in sacrificijs omnibus facimus (Passio est enim Domini sacrificium quod offerimus) nihil aliud quam quod ille fecit facere debemus. And because we do in all our sacrifices, make mention of his passion (for the sacrifice that we offer is his passion) we ought to do no other thing than he himself did. Now let the reader take this sentence hole together: & judge whether Cyprian do speak here of your Mass, or of our communion. If you will have him to speak of your Mass: you must reform your Canon. You must blot out all your crossings, & the rest of your Rubrics: for Christ did use none of all those things. Neither had he disguised & hallowed apparel, holy cup, holy cloth, nor holy altar. Cyprian speaketh not of the Mass. It is plain therefore, that Cyprian meaneth not of your Mass, but of our communion: which he calleth the passion of Christ, because it is celebrated in the remembrance thereof: As I have in the former part of this answer often proved it to be the manner of the fathers: to call the sacraments by the names of those things that they signify. Now the reader doth (I doubt not) understand what you have said: and will judge uprightly. Well, you make this saying of Cyprian a strange saying: and yet saint Austen doth declare the matter more plainly in these words. Vocatur ipsa immolatio. etc. In the ninth division of your former sermon: you allege matter out of the same Austen that this is cited out of. And in mine answer in that place: I have showed that it was not Austen the Bishop of Hippo, but some Austen of Gratian'S making. But let us see what Gratian hath said. De Consecratio. Distinct. 2. Sicut ergo caelestis panis qui Christi caro est, suo modo vocatur Corpus Christi: cum revera sit sacramentum corporis Christi, illius videlicet, quod visibile, quod palpabile, mortale in cruce positum est vocaturque ipsa immolatio carnis, quae sacerdotis manibus fit: Christi passio, mors, crucifixio, non rei veritate, sed significant mysterio. Sic sacramentum fidei, quod Baptismus intelligitur, fides est. Therefore, even as the heavenly bread, which is the flesh of Christ, is after his sort called the body of Christ: where as it is in deed the sacrament of Christ's body, that is, of that body which being visible, palpable, and mortal, was set upon the cross. That offering also that is made by the hands of the priest, is called Christ's passion, his death, & his crucifying: not according to the truth of the thing, but according to the signifying mystery. So the sacrament of faith which is understand to be baptism, is faith. You make a gloze upon the words of Gratian, watson's gloze disproved by the common gloze. but not agreeing with that gloze that is published in print with the text. That gloze saith. Non rei veritate, sed significant mysterio, ut sit sensus: vocatur Christi corpus, id est, significatur. Not according to the truth of the thing, but after the mystery that signifieth, that the meaning might be thus: It is called the body of Christ, that is, the body of Christ is signified thereby. I am sorry that your luck is no better: but still to allege matter against yourself. But now I trow you have found a piece of a Psalm that will pay home. Quid retribuam Domino. etc. Psal. 115. What shall I render unto the Lord. etc. You have found a marvelous mystery in this piece of this Psalm: such as neither Austen, nor Jerome, nor any other that hath written upon that Psalm, could find. They all agree, that this cup of salvation, is that cup of sorrow and sufferance, The cup of salvation is tribulation. that our saviour speaketh of when he saith: Potestis, bibere Calicem quem ego bibiturus sum? Can ye drink that cup that I must drink of? But you have found that he meant of the Chalice that the priest saith Mass withal. belike, you would with better will sup of that cup twice: then once to syp of the other. Psalm. 75. But upon another Psalm, the same saint Austen hath said. Ex ipsis reliquijs cogitationis. etc. Of the leavings of our cogitation: that is to say, of this very memory, and commemoration. etc. A man would think that standing before your Prince in so solemn assemble: you would have been well aware that the matter that you alleged out of the ancient writers, had been applied according to their meaning. But you shame not oftentimes, to apply their words clean contrary to that they meant: watson's impudency. as you do in this place the words of Austen, whereof I will make the reader judge by letting him see the hole sentence, whereof you cite but one part for your purpose. Austen hath written thus. Cum autem non obliviscimur munus salvatoris: nun quitidiè nobis Christus immolatur? Et semel pro nobis Christus immolatus est. Cum credidimus, tunc nobis fuit cogitatio: modo autem reliquiae cogitationis sunt, qua meminimus quis ad nos venerit, & quid nobis donaverit. Ex ipsis reliquijs cogitationis, id est, ex ipsa memoria, quotidiè nobis sic immolatur, quasi quotidiè nos innovet, qui prima gratia sua nos innovauit. etc. And when we do not forget the gift of our saviour: is not Christ daily offered for us? And Christ was once offered for us when we believed, then had we a cogitation: and now we have remnants of that cogitation, whereby we do remember who it was that came unto us, and what he gave us. By these remnants of the cogitation, that is by the very remembrance, he that with his first grace did renew us: is daily offered for us in such sort, as though he did daily renew us: The Lord hath already renewed us in baptism, and we are become new men, rejoicing in hope, that we may be patient in trouble: yet ought it not to departed out of our memory, what was done for us. etc. Here is not one word of that commemoration, that you would have all men think that saint Austen meant of, when he said. Ex ipsa memoria. Of the very memory: which commemoration, you understand to be your blessed Mass. Watson blinded with affection. But who so is not blinded with affection (as you show yourself to be) and readeth the hole circumstance of the matter: must needs confess that saint Austen in this place speaketh neither of your Mass, nor of our Communion, but all together of the keeping in mind and confessing of that which we were by nature, and not forgetting of that which we be made through Christ. chrysostom speaketh of the lords cup and saith. Chrysostom in Math. Homil. 7. Non àquam de hoc nobis font. etc. Christ out of this Fountain. etc. The reader shall see somewhat more of Chrysostom's alegorie. From this table (saith chrysostom, speaking of the communion table) there springeth a Fountain of spiritual commodities, and thou leaving this table, dost forthwith run to the water, and dost behold women swimming, and the very mark of their sex set out to the eyes of all that be present: that thou mayest behold this thing (I say) thou leavest christ sitting by the Fountain of heavenly gifts. For even now also, he doth sit upon the Fountain: not speaking to one Samaritish woman, but to the hole City. For even now also, there is none that attendeth upon him: saving that some be present with their bodies, but without doubt, some other, not so much as with their bodies. Yet for all that he departeth not: but he tarrieth still, and requireth drink of us, not water, but sanctimony, or holiness of life. For Christ doth give holy things to them that be holy. He doth not give us water out of this Fountain, but living blood: which though it be received to testify the lords death, yet it is made unto us, a cause of life. But thou dost leave the Fountain of this blood, and the cup that is to be had in reverence: and with speed thou renewest to that devilish Fountain, that thou mayest see an Harlot swim, and suffer shipwreck of thine own soul. etc. Thus far chrysostom. You should prove that the Mass is no derogation to the passion of Christ: but you have concluded that we receive life, by receiving of that which is offered in the Mass. If this be no derogation to Christ's passion: then is there no derogation of it at all, in any thing that can be done. For what other thing is the fruit of Christ's death, but our everlasting life? You had forgotten yourself belike, when you alleged this place: for if chrysostom meant so grossly as you understand him, he did set up the Mass as much to the derogation of Christ's passion, as possibly he could. Watson would not see Chrisostomes' meaning. But chrysostom had another meaning: than you would see when you read his words. He teacheth the christians of Antioch: that those holy things that Christ giveth to them that be holy, are made unto them instrumental causes of everlasting life, yea, even that mystical blood that is received to be a testimony of the death of him that is Lord of life. This meaning might you have seen in the words of chrysostom, if affection had not blinded you. But I marvel where you found in Chrysostom's words, offered in commemoration: for even in the Latin text that you yourself cite, it is Sumitur, is received. But you might at that time, say what you would: to the advancement of that Idol of Rome, and all romish Idolatry. To those two places of Gregory that you allege: I must answer as I have learned of saint Jerome. Hiero. in Math. 23. Hoc quia de scriptures. etc. Because this thing hath none authority of the scripture: it is as easily contemned, as allowed. And lest you should think, that not being able otherwise to answer, I do reject the authority of so ancient and godly a father: I will show you the reasons that move me to think, that these works that are extant under the name of Gregorius Magnus, were never of his writing. Gregory's books burned. First, Sabinianus that succeeded him next in the Papacy: caused all his books to be burned. And it is not to be thought, that there were many copies in so short time, when there was no way to increase them but by hand writing. Another thing is: the fond fables that in those works are used, in the probation of weighty assertions, and no proof made, either by scriptures, or authority of such as had before his days written of those matters, Three reasons to prove Gregory's works counterfeit. but bare assertions, contrary to the scriptures and fathers that had been before him. And last of all, the strange manner of finding out the copy of his moral exposition of the history of job: which is to ridiculous to have any credit with such as have any knowledge in christian religion, and have seen the histories that make report of the lives and doings of those that had been Bishops of Rome, before the time of the finding out of that book. These authorities therefore do not prove, that the Mass is no derogation to the passion of Christ: but rather the contrary. For if all these authorities that you have alleged, were as good as you make them, and were so meant by the authors, as you have applied them: what other thing should they teach but that the Mass is a derogation to the passion of Christ? For what greater derogation can there be to Christ's passion: then to make it a matter of so small power, that it could not of itself be effectual to any, unless it be applied by the mediation of some sacrificeing priest? And that it must needs be effectual to such as it shall by such mediation be applied unto, either in this life or after. We have learned, both by the scriptures and ancient fathers, that the passion of Christ is of effect to take away the sins of the whole world: The way to apply Christ's passion. and that it doth take away the sins of all that repent and believe the Gospel. And that there is none other way to apply the passion of Christ to any, but only the faith of those to whom it is applied. Furthermore they say we make our own works (meaning the Mass) a saviour beside Christ, WATSON Division. 30 which is nothing so, but by this sacrifice of the Mass, we declare, that we believe there is no saviour but only Christ. For what do we in the Mass? We confess our sins, our unworthiness, our unkindness, our manifold transgresions of his eternal law, we grant that we be not able to satisfy for the least offence we have done, therefore we run to his passion, which after this sort as he hath ordained, we renew and represent. We beseech our most merciful father, to look upon Christ's merits, and to pardon our offences, to look upon Christ's passion, and to relieve our affection. We knowledge that whatsoever we have done is unperfit and unpure, and as it is our work, doth more offend his majesty then please him, therefore we offer unto him his well-beloved son jesus, in whom we know he is well pleased, most humbly praying him to accept him, for us in whom only we trust, accounting him all our righteousness, by whom only we conceive hope of salvation. And therefore in the end of the canon of the Mass we say thus. Non aestimator meriti sed veniae quaesumus largitor admit per Christum dominum nostrum. O Lord we beseech thee to admit us into the company of thy saints, not weighing our merits, but granting us pardon by Christ our Lord. Also whatsoever thing we lack, all plagues, all misfortunes, all adversity both ghostly and temporal, we require to be released of them, not through our worthiness, but for the merits of Christ's passion. Consider all this good people, and see whether in this doing we make our works a new saviour beside Christ or no? We believe also that our prayer is of more efficacy and strength in the presence of Christ in the time of the sacrifice, then at any other tyme. For so saith saint Cyprian. Cyprian de coena. In huius corporis presentia non superuacue mendicant lachrimae veniam, nec unquam patitur contriti cordis holocaustum repulsam. In the presence of this body, the tears of a man doth not beg forgiveness in vain, nor the sacrifice of a contrite heart doth never suffer repulse. And as chrysostom saith. In illa hora dum mors illa perficitur, Chrysost. in Act. hom. 3. & horrendum sacrificium, quasi sodente rege, quaecumque volveris perficies. In that hour whiles that Christ's death is celebrate and his fearful sacrifice even as the king were sitting upon his mercy seat whatsoever thou wilt thou shalt bring to pass. Chrysost. ad Philip. hom. 3. Stante siquidem universo populo, manus in coelum extendente, caetu item sacerdotali, verendoque posito sacrifitio, quomodo deum non placaremus pro istis orantes? For when all the people standeth holding up their hands to heaven, and the company of the priests likewise, and the fearful and honourable sacrifice is upon the aultare, how shall not we mitigate God praying for them? And therefore specially then in the Mass time, we pray for the whole Church, for all princes and high powers, for all Bishops and pastors, for ourselves our friends, and all that be present, for peace, for plenty, for all that we have need upon, as chrysostom writeth: Chrysost. in Act. Hom. 21 In manibus est hostia, adsunt Angelij, adsunt Arcangeli, adest filius dei, cum tanta horrore astent omnes, astent illi clamentes omnibus silentibus, putas temere haec fieri? ergo & alia temer & quae pro ecclesia pro sacerdotibus offeruntur, & quae pro plenitudine acubertate absit. The host of our sacrifice is in the priests hands, the angels be present, the archangel's be present, the son of God is present. When all men stand with such trembling, when the angels stand crying, the other holding their peace, dost thou think these things are done in vain? Then the other also be done in vain, both that be offered for the Church, for the priests, and also for plenty and abundance: God forbidden. One notable place of chrysostom I think yet expedient to rehearse unto you concerning this matter. Chrysost. de in come. dei natu. hom. 3. homines ramos olearum gerentes movere reges consueverent, eoque arboris genere misericordiam commemorant & humanitatem: sic angeli tunc proramis oleaginis corpus domini ipsum protendentes, rogant pro genere humano, quasi dicant, pro his domine rogamus quos tu adeo dilexisti, ut pro corum salute mortem obires animam cruce efflares, pro his supplicamus pro quibus ipse tuum largitus es sanguinem, pro his oramus pro quibus corpus hoc immolasti. Like as men bearing branches of Olive trees, are wont to move kings to compassion, and with that kind of tree do put them in remembrance of mercy and pity: even so the angels then (in the sacrifice time) in stead of Olive branches, holding forth the body of Christ pray for mankind, as saying thus: Lord we pray for them whom thou hast so loved, that for their salvation thou hast suffered death and spent thy life upon the cross, we make supplication for them for whom thou hast given thy blood, for them we pray for whom thou hast offered this same very body. Now considering this fellowship with angels, this humility of man, this pacifying of God, this efficacy of prayer for the sacrifice sake, this knowledging of our unworthiness, this our only trust in the passion of Christ: can any man justly burden us that we make our works a new saviour beside Christ. Furthermore, beside praying for those things we lack, we also by this sacrifice give thanks for our redemption, for the hope of our health and salvation, and for all God's gifts, not only in our words, but also in deed? the very oblation itself is a real giving of thanks to God, as chrysostom saith. Quod erat apud eum omnibus preciosius, unigenitum pro nobis filium dedit, & cum essemus inimici, Chrysost. in Mat. ho. 26. nec dedit solum, sed & nostram mensam fecit illum, omnia faciens ipse pro nobis, & donando videlicet & gratiarum actores ipsa donorum suorum ubertate faciendo. etc. That thing that was with him most precious of all, his only son he hath given for us, even when we were his enemies, and not only hath given him for us, but also hath made him our table, doing himself all things for us, both rewarding us, and also with the plenty of his gifts making us givers of thanks, and because man in many things is unthankful to God, he in all things taketh upon him our person, and supplieth that we ought to do, and even by the very nature, of the sacrifice which is his body, stirreth us to continual giving of thanks for all his benefits, so that our sacrifice, being Christ's body, is both a singular gift of God, and also is a real giving of thanks for all his other gifts. By this it evidently appeareth that nothing doth more exercise our faith in the knowledge of ourselves and god, nothing doth more increase our charity and hope in the mercy of God, than the Mass. Where as (job was wont to do for his children) the Church of God our mother, being careful for all her children lest any of them by negligence, infirmity, or wilfulness, have offended, daily prayeth and maketh sacrifice for them, and by that most acceptable sacrify of her husbands body and blood, doth mitigate almighty god, doth multiply & distributeth unity. Nothing more setteth forth the benefit of Christ, because in this sacrifice of the Mass, we protest to have all things by Christ, redemption, remission, sanctification, and salvation, and do ask & beg of God all goodness by Christ knowledging that we have nothing to set against the wrath of God, but the passion of Christ, which after this manner, by this solemn representation as Christ hath instituted we daily renew, that it might be continually celebrate by mystery that once was offered for our ransom, that because the effect of man's redemption ceaseth not, but is to every one in his time applied by continual succession, so also that the sacrifice of this redemption should never cease but be always to all men present in grace, and always live in perpetual memory. Two untruths you affirm with one breath. One is, that in making your Mass a sacrifice for sin: CROWLEY. Two untruths affirmed with one breath. you do not make a saviour of your own works. And the other is: that by the sacrifice of the Mass, you declare that you believe there is no saviour but only Christ. And going about to make the matter plain that it is no untruth that you affirm: you make it appear more plain, that it is most false that you have said. You say that you do renew and represent the passion of Christ, and that you offer Christ to his father: and what is this but to make your own doings a salvation to yourself. Was not the work that the priests of the old law wrought in offering sacrifice for sin, accounted the purging of those sins that they offered them for? And why shall not your work in offering Christ to his father: be accounted the purging of your sin, and so consequently, your saviour? And can it be true that you believe there is no saviour but only Christ: when as mistrusting the sufficiency of Christ's work once wrought in offering up himself for the sins of the world: you will take upon you to offer him to his father? For though you say that Christ hath ordained, that you should in such sort, renew and represent his passion: yet you are not able to prove it. Wherefore I say, you take it upon you without commission so to do. It is he, of whom it is said. Ipse saluum faciet populum suum à peccatis eorum. Math. 1. He shall save his people from their sins. Christ is not an instrument of salvation, but salvation itself. It is not said, he shall be an instrument of salvation: whereby other may save themselves from their sins. If Christ had not been the priest that offered, as well as the sacrifice that was offered: we could have had no commodity by his sacrifice. The work of offering Christ to his father, must needs be the work of saving Christ's people from their sins therefore: and so consequently your work in the Mass being the offering up of Christ, must be a work of saving of Christ's people from their sins. But your work in the Mass is not Christ's work in offering himself: Ergo, you make another saviour besides Christ. But lest you should say that mine argument concludeth not: I will form you a Syllogismus according to the rules of Logic. Whosoever doth take upon him to work the work of salvation, doth make himself a saviour. But you do take upon you to work the work of salvation: Ergo, you make yourselves saviours: The mayor proposition, is a common known truth: allowed of all men. The minor is proved thus. Whosoever taketh upon him to offer Christ to his father, taketh upon him to work the work of salvation. But you do so: Ergo, you take upon you to work the work of salvation. And how do you then declare yourselves to believe, that there is no Saviour but only Christ. Many good things you do in your Mass. You confess your sins. etc. And last of all, you desire to be admitted into the fellowship of all saints: Watson hideth the faults of the Mass. not by your own deserving, but by the forgiveness of your sins. All this is well. But you speak nothing of your presumption in taking upon you to offer sacrifice to God, for the sin both of yourselves and other. Pro quibus tibi offerrimus vel qui tibi offerunt, hoc sacrificium laudis, pro se suisque omnibus, pro redemptione animarum suarum. etc. Remember (say you) thy servants and thine handmaidens. &c: for whom we do offer unto thee, or which do offer unto thee, for themselves and for all theirs this sacrifice of praise, Devil Conjurers, as good as Massing Priests. for the redemption of their souls. The Devil conjurers can say as much for themselves, as you do here. They can say: what do we in our conjurations? We fast, we pray, we confess our sins: and we do all that we do, in the name of God, the father, the son, and the holy ghost. And yet is their doing abominable: Acts. 19 because they presume to do that which God never willed man to do. And they abuse the blessed name of God in making it a mean, to call up and bind Devils, to do as they would have them do, as the seven sons of Sceva did abuse the name of jesus in their conjurations. Although you therefore, do in many things well: yet in this one thing, of making the sacrament a sacrifice for the redemption of the souls of God's people, you do so presumptuously abuse, both the sacrament of Christ and the name of God, that your hole doing beside is made abominable, as the doing of the Devil conjurers is. When the good people therefore, shall consider this: they will (I doubt not) judge that you make your own work in offering Christ to his father, a saviour, and therefore another saviour beside Christ. You believe (you say) that your prayer is of more efficacy and strength in the presence of Christ in the time of the sacrifice. etc. And here you take Cyprian to witness, when he saith: In huius corporis presentia. etc. And chrysostom in five several places: How good a foundation these places are to build your faith upon: the reader shall (I trust) easily perceive. Cyprian De Caena. What Cyprians meaning was in that sermon: may well be seen in that which I have written in the answer to the tenth, fifteenth, & thirty two divisions of your former Sermon. As touching those words that you cite here: I must tell you that you have not forgotten your old manner of adding somewhat for your purpose. Cyprian hath said: In huius presentia. In his presence (meaning the presence of God of whom he had spoken before.) And you are so bold as to say: In huius Corporis presentia, In the presence of this body. etc. Cyprian had said before. It were better for a man to have a millstone fastened to his neck, and to be cast into the deep sea: then with an unclean conscience to receive a sop at the lords hand. Which doth even unto this day create his most true and holy body, and doth sanctify, and bless and divide it, to such as do in godly sort receive it. And then follow the words that you allege. In his presence, tears do not beg pardon in vain: neither doth the sacrifice of a contrite heart, at any time suffer repulse. So that Cyprians meaning is: The meaning of Cyprian. that the sacrifice of a contrite heart, is always accepted in the sight of God. And although we be always in the sight of God: yet when we come together to communicate, according to Christ's institution, we do present ourselves in the sight of the Lord, as the Israelites did, when they came to offer sacrifice before the ark of the covenant of the Lord. That this is the meaning of Cyprian in this place: doth appear by his words that follow immediately after. Quoties te in conspectu Domini video. etc. As often as I do see thee, sighing in the sight of the Lord: I do not doubt but the holy ghost doth breath upon thee. And when I do behold thee weeping: then I do perceive him pardoning thy sins. If thou do defile the temple of the holy ghost, if thou defile and make filthy God's sanctuary that is within thee, if thou do communicate of the cup of devils, with the cup of Christ: it is a contumely and not a religion, an injury, not a devotion. It is Idol service and horrible abomination: to be willing to serve Baal and Christ together. Stand back with thine Idol chapels, thou that gapest after gains, and folowest rewards. etc. I refer it to the judgement of all indifferent readers: whether these words may maintain your Popish Mass or not. Is not your Mass such a money matter: that it is grown into a Proverb? No penny, no Pater noster. Such places do you pick to maintain your Mass. But in chrysostom you have found other manner places. In his third Homily upon the Acts (you say) he hath these words. In illa hora. etc. In the hour. etc. In that hole Homily, is not one word that may be wrested to that sense: but thus I find it written there. Chrisost. in Act. hom. 3. Non arbitror inter sacerdotes multos esse qui saluifiant, sed multò plures qui pereant. I do not suppose, that there be many among the priests that can be saved: but very many more that must perish. And lest any man should think that he had spoken these words rashly: he saith before. Non temerè dico: sed ut affectus sum ac sentio. I speak not this rashly: but even as I am affected and do think. more priests damned than saved. It should seem by these words: that chrysostom did not think, that prayers made at the Mass time should be so effectual, as you boast of. For if they were: more priests should be saved then perish. For who should so soon be partakers of those prayers: as they that make them? But in the .21. Homily upon that book: Chrysost. in Act. hom. 21. you find other manner words. For there he sayeth. In manibus est hostia, adsunt Angeli. etc. The host of our sacrifice is in the priests hands, the Angels be present. etc. And peradventure the words that you said are in the third Homily: do follow in this place. For he saith thus. Quid putas pro martyribus offerri, quod vocantur in illa hora, licet martyres sint? Etiam pro martyribus magnus honor nominari Domino present, dum mors illa perficitur & horrendum sacrificium, & ineffabilia sacramenta. Nam quasi sedente Rege, quaecunque volverit perficit, ut autem surrexerit, quaecunque dicit, frustra dicit: ita & tunc, quandiu posita fuerint mysteria, omnibus honor maximus in memoria haberi. What dost thou think is offered for the Martyrs, in that they are named in that hour, notwithstanding they be Martyrs? Yea, it is a great honour for the Martyrs to be named in the presence of the Lord, whiles that death and the horrible sacrifice, and the unspeakable sacraments are performed. For even as when the king sitteth in judgement, he finisheth whatsoever matters he lusteth, but so soon as he is risen, whatsoever he saith is in vain: even so is it then also, so long as the mysteries shall be set forth, it is the greatest honour to every man, to be had in memory. If these were the words that you meant of before: Shameful changing of words. then have you shamefully changed some of them. For where find you. Quaecunque volveris perficies? Whatsoever thou wilt thou shalt bring to pass. The words would not otherwise serve your purpose so well: and therefore you must have liberty to change the third person into the second, & leave out the rest that should declare the writers meaning. But what need I to trouble the reader with any more words about the meaning of this writer: seeing Erasmus (the translator) doth in his short Epistle set before the translation, give all wise men to understand, that the work was never of Chrysostom's writings, but of some one that like an Ape went about to counterfeit Chrysostom's doings. To the place that you cite out of the third Homily upon the Epistle to the Philippians: Hiero in Math. 23. I must answer with Jerome. Hoc quia de scriptures. etc. Because this hath none authority of the scriptures: it is as easily rejected, as allowed. And the rather to be rejected: because that in all Chrysostom's works, where he had by the text greater occasion to utter such doctrine, there is none such found. But in this, and certain other places, where he had none, or very small occasion, to speak any thing of the state of the dead: he playeth (or some other in his name) the Purgatory Proctor, even as though he had been a Purgatory chaplain, or soul Mass priest. Chrisost. de incomprehens. Dei natura. homil. 3. Fourthly, chrysostom hath said. homines ramos olearum gerentes. etc. Like as men bearing branches of Olive trees. etc. He seemeth to have marked but a little the manner of Chrysostom's teaching: that understandeth his words in this place, as you seem to do. He findeth great fault with his Auditory, because they used to departed out of the Church immediately after his sermons were ended: and did not tarry to be partakers of the holy communion of the body and blood of Christ, and the common prayers that were made in the ministration thereof. And as his manner was: he laboureth to move their affections, and to that end, he useth those manner of speeches that you allege. But what maketh this for your Mass? Wherein such as be present are not partakers of the mysteries, nor yet do understand the words (much less the sentences) of the prayers that are made? This place may serve very well, to prove that the prayer that is made by the Minister and the hole congregation in the time of the ministration of the holy communion: is most effectual, and even as much as if all the Angels in heaven did, as chrysostom would have his hearers imagine that they do. As for that which you allege out of the twenty sixth Homily upon Matthew: Chrysost in Mat ho. 26. could have no colour of proving your purpose: were it not that you help it a little in Englishing the Latin of that which followeth those words that you cite in Latin. Bearing your hearers and readers in hand, that chrysostom hath said, that Christ, even by the very nature of the sacrifice, which is his body, doth stir us up to continual giving of thanks: where as chrysostom maketh no mention at all of Christ's body in that place, The sacrament of Christ's body and blood called our table. but of a kind of sacrifice whereby God doth stir us up to continual thanksgiving, which is the same that before he hath said is made our Table. That is the sacrament of his body and blood: wherein that son of God that was given for us is lively represented by visible signs, and we moved thereby to be continually thankful to God, for the life that our souls have by his death. By this it doth evidently appear, that nothing doth more exercise our faith in the knowledge of God and ourselves, nothing doth more increase our charity and hope in the mercy of God: then doth the right use of the holy Communion. And although job in offering sacrifice for his sons, did show himself thereby, a loving and careful father: yet can not we acknowledge that strumpet to be our mother, that will make a sacrifice of her husband's heart blood. For God's wrath can not be mitigated with any such sacrifice. But we are the children of that mother: that acknowledgeth herself and all her Children, to be already washed, and made pure and clean by the blood of her husband, which he in his own person offered, to make both her and all her children clean thereby. And there is nothing that doth more set forth the benefit of Christ: then doth the right use of the sacrament of this death and blood shedding. For in it we protest, that we have all things by Christ: and so forth as you have said of the Mass. Which is a mere man's invention, and no ordinance of God. The other objections I will but shortly touch, for they be of no strength or authority, one is this. WATSON Division. 31. There is no mention nor no one word of any oblation in the supper, Ergo Christ made no oblation there a goodly reason. So there is no mention made neither of Christ's own mouth nor of any the Evangelists concerning the oblation of the paschal lamb, yet we know most certainly by the old Testament that the paschal Lamb was never eaten, but it was offered before, which we are sure Christ did observe literally, till the truth of that figure were established. And also what is more sure than that Christ offered himself upon the cross, and yet neither Christ's own words, nor any of the four Evangelists writing the story of the passion, make any mention in plain and express terms of oblation or offering. Though we know it by other scripture sufficiently. But their collection is all false, they should have concluded thus, Ergo if there any oblation, it is real and not vocalle, and so it is in deed, Luc. 22. and therefore Christ said: Hoc facite, do this, as ye see me do. But in the form of our Mass, there be express words of offering, for the rude and ignorant, and for the evidence of the truth. unde & memores nos domini. etc. Wherefore we thy servants, and people being mindful of thy son Christ our Lord, of his blessed passion, resurrection and glorious ascension, do offer to thy most excellent majesty of thy rewards and gifts, this pure sacrifice, this holy and undefiled sacrifice, the holy bread of everlasting life, & the cup of perpetual salvation. There be also other words of oblation following these words, saint basil hath them, chrysostom, saint Ambrose, the general counsel holden at Ephesus, the latest of these was a thousand three hundred years ago, that it might appear that it is not newly brought in, as they would slander it, but the most ancient thing in all the Mass. They reason also thus. It is a commemoration, ergo no sacrifice, as who say the paschal Lamb being the figure of this, was not both a commemoration and a sacrifice, for the Lamb was instituted to be offered for a memory of the deliverance of the jews from the sword of the Angel that smote the first begotten of the Egyptians, and therefore the jews kept this word of offering the Lamb, for a statute for them and their children for evermore. Even so this Lamb of God that lieth upon the table of our altar is a sacrifice offered of us in commemoration of our deliverance from the Devil by the death of Christ. In the old Testament the first Lamb offered before their delivery, & the Lamb which was offered every year after in memory of the same delivery, were very real Lambs in deed of one nature and condition: even so the Lamb of God being Christ, which Christ himself offered in his supper, there instituting before his death, what we should continually do after his death, and that Lamb of God, which we offer now in memory of our deliverance, be very real Lambs of God in deed, and yet not divers in number as the other were, but all one in number, nature, condition and dignity. As chrysostom saith: Chrysost. ad Hebreos ho. 17. we offer daily in commemoration of his death, and the sacrifice is one, not many. Nor we do not offer one Lamb now, to morrow another, but always the very same, or else because it is offered in many places, is there many Christ's? No forsooth, but one Christ every where, here full Christ, and there full christ, one body, And so forth. You frame our argument after your own fashion: CROWLEY. and so are you the better able to answer it. We reason thus. Whatsoever Christ would have us do or believe: is in some part of the scripture so mentioned, that we may plainly perceive, that it is his will that we should do or believe the same. But there is no such mention in any part of the holy scripture, whereby we may perceive that it is God's will that we should believe that Christ offered himself in his last supper, or that he did then institute a sacrifice wherein we should daily offer him. Ergo, Christ hath not instituted any such sacrifice as you speak of. As for the like reasons that you would make of the Paschal Lamb, and Christ offering himself upon the Cross, might be well accepted of some of your Auditory that were of your mind, and therefore blinded by affection. But as many of your readers as know the scriptures, must needs say that you might with more honesty, have kept them still in your bosom. For who knoweth not, that Christ himself hath said. Non veni solvere legem, sed adimplere. Et qui soluerit unum ex mandatis istis minimis: minimus vocabitur in Regno coelorum. I came not to break the law, but to fulfil it. Math. 5. john. 14. john. 8. Rom. 5. Hebr. 9 And he that shall break one of the least of these commandments: shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. And again. Behold the prince of this world cometh: and in me he hath nothing at all. And again. Which of you can accuse me of sin? And again. As by the sin of one, condemnation came upon all: so by the righteousness of one came the righteousness of life. And again. He offered himself unto God without spot. etc. The conclusion that you would have us make, doth very well. For by that conclusion you confess, that Christ's offering of himself in his supper was a visible Action: and that he commanded his disciples to do as they saw him do. Then, either he made three crosses upon the cup and bread together, The form of the Popish Mass. and again, three crosses upon them both together, and one cross upon the bread, and one upon the cup, and then one upon the bread breathing out five words upon it, and then one upon the cup, lifting up and laying down. etc. or else the Mass that you have in the popish Church, is not that which Christ did then institute. You have granted now, that in Christ's institution, there is no word of offering: but in your form of Mass (you say) you have express words of offering. We would feign know then, where you had those words. You say that Basil, chrysostom, Ambrose, and the general counsel at Ephesus, had them: and the latest of these was .1300. Divisione. 9 Cyprian. li. 2. Epistol. 3. years ago. But the Chronicles will pull you back an hundred years and more. But what if all these had it: doth this prove that Christ had it? In your other sermon you could cite a rule out of Cyprian that was nigh hand .200. years before the eldest of the four that you named now: wherein he saith. In sacrificio quod Christus est: non nisi Christus sequendus est. In that sacrifice which is Christ: none but Christ is to be followed. If you can not prove therefore that Christ used those toys that you do use in your Mass: you ought not, by Cyprians rule, to use them, though never so many have used them before you. And if it can not be proved by scripture, that Christ made a sacrifice of himself in his supper: you may not make a sacrifice of him in your Mass. etc. But it is sufficient for your purpose, that you have proved, that it is not so newly brought in, as we would slander, but it is the most ancient thing in the Mass. Well, grant it be so. Yet is neither that nor your Mass so ancient as you would make it: nor so ancient that we may take it for Christ's institution. And all these that you have named do speak of a Communion, and not of a Mass, and do call it a sacrifice, for such cause as I have often declared in this answer. To our other reason you say, that it is both a commemoration and a sacrifice: as the paschal Lamb was. Our Argument is in this form. A commemoration of any thing, is not that thing. Whatsoever is the commemoration of a thing: is not, neither can be the thing itself whereof it is a commemoration. But the sacrament is a commemoration of Christ's sacrifice: Ergo, it is not, neither can be the sacrifice itself. Your example therefore that you make of the paschal Lamb: toucheth not our reason. For it was not a Commemoration of itself, neither was it the thing itself, whereof it was a Commemoration. As for your similitude that you take of the Lambs of the old law: is not worth a button. For it followeth not, that because those Lambs were very real Lambs in deed: therefore, as oft as the sacrament of Christ's body and blood is ministered, it must needs be the real Lamb of god in deed, and the same that Christ himself is. I am sure all the Logic you have can not prove this a good Argument. That Christ offered himself in his last supper, you have not yet proved: much less have you proved, that he did then institute any sacrifice, wherein we should continually offer him. What chrysostom meaneth by offering and sacrifice in that place that you cite doth plainly appear by his own words in the same Homily. Non aliud sacrificium sicut pontifex, chrysostom ad haebraeos homil. 17. sed idipsum semper facimus: magis autem recordationem sacrificij operamur. We do not make another sacrifice, as did the high priest, but we do always make the very same: yea rather we do work the remembrance of a sacrifice. Thus hath chrysostom made his own meaning so plain: that it helpeth your purpose nothing at all. WATSON. Division. 32. The like argument they make against the real presence. It is a sign, ergo not the thing whereof it is a sign. The foolishness of this reason every Baker can tell, who setteth one loaf upon his stall to signify there is bread to sell within his house. Which loaf is both a sign of bread to be sold, & also is very bread to be sold itself of the same baking the other is. Even so the body of Christ in the sacrament is Christ's very body in deed, and also a sign of the same body, as saint Augustine saith. Carne & sanguine utroque invisibili, spirituali, August. li. Sent. prosp. intelligibili, signatur visibile Domini nostri jesu Christi corpus & palpabile, plenum gratia omnium virtutum & divina maiestate. By the flesh and blood of our Lord jesus Christ both being (in the sacrament) invisible, spiritual, and intelligible, is signified the visible body of Christ, and palpable, full of the grace of all virtues, and of the godly majesty. And even so likewise very Christ is offered in the mystery in sign and commemoration of himself offered upon the cross, as saint Augustine saith. Christiani iam paracti sacrificij memoriam celebrant sacro sancta oblatione & participatione corporis & sanguinis Christi. August. count Faust. lib. 20. Capit. 18. Christian men now do celebrate a memory of Christ's sacrifice already past by the most holy oblation and participation of Christ's body and blood. The like saying hath saint Gregory and divers Authors which I omit to rehearse, Gregor. ho. 22. because the time is past. CROWLEY. Every Baker can tell the foolishness of the reason that we make, when we say: It is a sign, Ergo, not the thing whereof it is a sign (say you.) And I say, that every Baker's boy can tell that he is but a deceitful Sophister: that will when he hath bought the loaf that stood on the stall for a sign, say that he hath bought all the bread in the Bakehouse, whereof that loaf was a sign. If that reason be foolish: then is not your reason wise, that will prove by that similitude, that Christ the lamb of God, & all those Lambs of God that all the priests of the pope's Church, either have or shall offer in their Masses, are but all one in number, nature, condition, & dignity. The Baker and his boy. Let the baker and his boy therefore, discuss the folly of these two reasons: and do you consider better our reasons, when we say, that the sign is not that thing whereof it is a sign. For the saying is saint Austin's, and therefore not to be rejected, Austust. in john. tract. 26. unless you can disprove it by better authority than the judgement of the Baker. Saint Austen saith. Name & nos hodiè accepimus visibilem cibum: sed aliud est sacramentum, aliud est virtus sacramenti. For even this day, we have received visible food: but the sacrament is one thing, and the virtue of the sacrament is another thing. Again, the same Austen saith. Omnis doctrina, vel rerum est, vel signorum: sed res per signa discuntur. De doctrina Christ. li. 1. Capit. 1. All doctrine is either of things, or of the signs of things: but things are learned by signs. By this it appeareth that Austin's judgement was not, that a sign could be the same thing whereof it is a sign. But what need I to trouble the reader with so many words about this matter: so many as do know what the Art of reasoning meaneth (even the children at the university) can tell, that Relatives are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is referred to somewhat: because they be always referred to another thing than they are themselves. As a father, is a father, in respect of that son whom he hath begotten: and can not be that son whose father he is. Even so, a sign, is called a sign, in respect of that thing whereof it is a sign: and can not be that self thing that is signified by it. The Baker therefore, that taught you to say, The Baker was not prentice in the University. that the loaf upon the stall, is the same bread that is to be sold, whereof it is a sign: hath not been brought up in any Baker's house in the university, for if he had, he would never have deceived you so. But that both Bakers and Brewer's, and all other that have the use of reason, may judge of the foolishness of our reason: I will let the Reader see it in writing. It is thus. Whatsoever things, be such as they are called, by having relation to other things than they be themselves: can not be those things whereunto they have relation. But every thing that is called a sign, is so by the relation that it hath to the thing that it signifieth: Ergo, no signs can be the same things that they do signify. Whereof our conclusion followeth: which is, that the sacrament of Christ's body and blood, being a sign thereof, can not be the thing itself. Now ask your Baker what he can say to this reason. The place that you allege out of Austen: is answered in the .29. August. lib. Sent. Prosp. Contr. Faust. li. 20 cap. 18. division of this sermon: and in the .28. division of the same sermon, is answered the other place that you allege out of the same Austen also. To Gregory and the rest: you shall look for answer, when you cite their words that we may weigh them. They say, that neither the Apostles nor none in their time did offer Christ's body in sacrifice. WATSON Division. 33. And yet I have showed you before, that Dionysius Areopagita saint Paul's Disciple (of whom mention is made in the .17. chapter of the Acts of the Apostles) did offer the sacrifice of Christ's body, alleging Christ's commandment for his warrant. Ireneus that lived within fifty year of saint john the Evangelist and Policarpus Scholar doth make mention of this offering saying. Ireneus. li. 4. cap. 34. Ecclesiae oblatio quam Dominus docuit offerri in universo mundo, purum sacrificium reputatum est apud Deum, & acceptum est ei. The oblation of the church which our Lord taught to be offered in the whole world, is reputed of God a pure sacrifice and acceptable to him. And in the same chapter confuting them that denied the immortality of the flesh, by this reason that our flesh, was nourished with Christ's flesh to eternal life, concludeth thus. Aut sententiam mutent, aut abstineant offerendo quae praedicta sunt, either let them change their opinion, or else abstain from offering the same body and blood of Christ we spoke of. Also the general counsel of Constantinople saith, that saint james did write the form of a Mass, Concil. Const. in trul. cap. 32 I omit the Latin, the words in English be thus faithfully translate. Saint james brother to Christ our God according to the flesh, to whom the church of Jerusalem was first committed, and Basilius which was Bishop of Caesarea, whose fame is known throughout the world, which delivered in writing the mystical celebration of the sacrifices, have declared that the cup in our holy ministry ought to be of water and wine mingled. And the holy fathers that were assembled at Carthage, have thus left in writing, that in the sacrifices nothing else be offered, but the body and blood of our Lord, as our Lord himself hath ordained and so forth. I never read saint james his book myself, nor I think, it be not now to be had, but I tell you so much as I know, that saint james did write the form of a Mass, as saint basil did (which we have in Greek now). If this great and learned general counsel doth truly report, as I believe doth. Let no man therefore believe them that say, the Apostles did not sacrifice themselves, nor none in their time except they can prove the negative, which they shall never do. To that which you have alleged out of Dionysius, CROWLEY. I have answered in the last division of your former sermon, and in the .23. division of this sermon. And the matter that you do here allege out of Ireneus, is sufficiently answered in the fourth, the fourteenth and twenty four divisions, of your former sermon. Wherefore I need not here to make any further answer. Where you find the Latin that you do so faithfully translate into English: I can not tell. De Consecra. Dist. 1. But I suppose it will be hard for you to find it in the counsel holden in Trullo: as you note in the Margin. In Gratian I find it thus cited out of the sixth Synod. jacobus frater Domini secundum carnem, cui primum credita est Hierosolimitana Ecclesia, & Basilius Caesariensis Episcopus, cuius charitas per totum orbem refulsit: in scriptures addiderunt nobis missae celebrationem. Which is in English as you have translated: saving that for (whose love) you say, whose fame, and add mystical, where as in the Latin there is no word that may so signify. Change is no robbery. And turning the Verb (have given in writing) into the Participle of the same Verb: you add to the end, have declared that the cup. etc. Of this form of Mass (as you term it) and of the other that you name: I have noted somewhat in mine answer to the ninth division of your former sermon. And where as you say that you had not as then read it, nor did think that it was to be had: I have read it, and have it to show. And amongst other things I note: that he maketh prayer for such as then lived in monasteries. The forger of this piece of work did not remember how early days it was in saint james his time: and therefore he supposed Monasteries had been builded then. It forceth not greatly what is found in those counterfeited Masses. And for my part I will look for no credit of those that will believe that james would pray for them that dwelled in Monasteries, so long before any Monasteries were builded, let that great learned council report what they lust. And if I shall say, that neither the Apostles nor any in their time did offer sacrifice to God: then let no man credit me, except I be able to prove the negative, which I confess I shall never be able to do. What sacrifice the Apostles did offer to God. For they did continually offer to God, that acceptable sacrifice that God requireth of Christians: which is their hole bodies and souls in his service. But that they offered Christ to his father (as you imagine) that no wise man will believe, till you be able by scripture to prove that affirmative: which you shall never be able to do. WATSON. Division. 34 There be other some, that will grant the sacrifice, but deny that it is propitiatory for the sins of the quick and the dead. And therefore they disallow the last sentence of the Mass. Where the priest saith, grant good Lord, that this sacrifice which I have offered to thy divine majesty, be propitiable or a mean to obtain mercy, to me, and to all, for whom I have offered it. And surely these be most foolish of all, for if it be a sacrifice it must needs be a propitiatory sacrifice taking (propitiatory) as it ought to be taken, not confounding the meaning of it by sophistry, but understanding the diverse acception of the word: but these men dally, and seduce the people with Amphibologies and doubtful sayings. Distinctions they admit none nor can not abide to have the matter opened, & with a confuse general saying slander the Church. This is their private sophistry, and yet they call other men sophisters, that detect and open their collusions, that divide the sentence, that men might see, how it is true, and how it is false. For example. They cry out of this, that we say, the Mass is a sacrifice propitiatory. By the word (Mass) may be understanded two things, the thing itself that is offered, and the act of the priest in offering of it. If ye take it for the thing offered, which is the body of Christ, who can justly deny but that the body of Christ is a sacrifice propitiatory, seeing saint john saith, he is the propitiation for our sins, ever was and ever shall be, and never cease so to be, till our sins be ended, Oecumenius in cap. 3. ad Romanos. and death the last enemy be overcomed in us his mystical body? and as Oecumenius saith: Caro Christi est propiatorium nostrarum iniquitatum. The flesh of Christ is the propitiation for our iniquities. But if by the word (Mass) be understanded the act of the priest, and the use of the sacrament (as they would have it) than it is not propitiatory in that degree of propitiation as Christ's body is, but after an other sort. And therefore I must divide the word (propitiatory) which is taken two ways also. First for that that worthily deserveth mercy at God's hand, and so the act the priest in offering, is not propitiatory, of itself deserving mercy, as Christ doth. Next for that provoketh God to give mercy and remission, already deserved by Christ. And so the oblation of the priest is propitiatory, moving and provoking God to apply his mercy unto us. So prayer is a sacrifice for sins, as S. james saith. jacob. 5. Oratio fidei saluabit infirmum, & si in peccatis sit, remittentur ei. The Prayer of faith shall save the sick, and if he be in sin, they shall be remitted unto him. And christ taught us to pray thus, forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us. Math. 6.7. And also promised to give us, that we ask in Christ's name. Then ye see, that prayer being a sacrifice is a provocation of God, & a mean to attain remission of our sins, and therefore may be well called propitiatory. So is a contrite heart a sacrifice propitiatory and almose, as appeared by the story of the Ninivites and of Daniel. Psalm. 50. For all good works that we do, both fasting, prayer, almose, forgiving of my neighbour is done for this end, to mitigate God's anger against our sins, and to provoke him to have mercy of us for Christ's merits. Even so the Mass (taking it for the act of the priest) is a sacrifice propitiatory for sin. Which I shall prove unto you by the holy fathers, Origen writeth thus. Si referantur haec ad mysterij magnitudinem, Origen. in Le. hom. 13. invenies commemorationem istam habere ingentem repropiationis effectum. Si redeas ad illum panem propitiationis, quem proposuit Deus propitiationem per fidem in sanguine eius: & si respicias ad illam commemorationem de qua dicit dominus hoc facite in meam commemorationem, invenies quod ista est commemoratio sola quae propitium faciat Deum. If these be referred to the greatness of our mystery, thou shalt find that this commemoration hath a great effect of propitiation. If ye return to that bread of propritiation, which God hath set for a propitiation by faith in his blood: and if ye look to that commemoration, of which our Lord said. Do this in commemoration of me: thou shalt find, that this is the only commemoration that maketh God merciful. Cyprian. Ser. de coena. Doth not saint Cyprian call the sacrament hol aucastum ad purgandas iniquitates, a sacrifice to purge iniquity? in what respect is it called so, but for that it is offered, to that end? And so is it called a medicine to heal infirmities, for this respect that it is received to this end. Augu. ser. 11. de sanctis. Saint Augustine saith likewise. Nemo melius praeter martyres meruit tibi requiescere ubi & hostia christus est & sacerdos scilicet, ut propitiationem de oblatione hostiae consequantur. No man hath deserved better than the Martyrs, to rest (and be buried) there, where Christ is both the host and the priest (that is to say under the aultare,) for this end that they might attain propitiation by the oblation of the host. Mark the purpose I bring in this for, which is to attain propitiation by the oblation of the sacrifice: and as he saith in an other book. Sacrificium illud mirabile & coeleste quod tu instituisti & offerri praecepisti in commemorationem tuae charitatis mortis scilicet & passionis, August. in Manuale, Cap. 11. pro salute nostra pro quotidiana fragilitatis nostrae reparatione. That marvelous & heavenly sacrifice, which thou hast instituted and commanded to be offered in remembrance of thy charity, that is to say, of thy death and passion, for our health and salvation, for the daily reparation of our frail weakness. Doth he not here show the end of the oblation, to save us, and to repair our frailty. Saint Jerome writeth. Si laicis imperatur, ut propter orationem abstineant ab uxoribus, Hierony. in Cap. 1. ad Titum. quid de episcopo sentiendum est, qui quotidie pro suis populique peccatis illibatas deo oblaturus est victimas. If it be commanded to the lay men, that for prayers cause they should abstain from their wives, what should we think of a Bishop that must offer daily pure sacrifices for his own sins and the peoples. Of this place though I might prove you the chaste life of a Bishop: yet I bring it in now only to show, that the office of a Bishop is to offer daily pure sacrifice for his own sins and the people's sins, as saint basil saith in the book of his Mass. Da domine ut pro nostris peccatis & populi ignorantij acceptum sit sacrificium nostrum. Grant O Lord that for our sin, Basilius in Missa. and the ignorance of the people our sacrifice may be accepted of thee. Thus ye perceive, that I have showed you, and proved that the oblation of the priest in the Mass is a sacrifice propitiatory for the sins of them that be alive, that is to say, moving and provoking God to pardon the sins of the priest and of the people. A little is to be said, concerning them that be departed and then an end of that matter. Tertull. eorum millit. Tertullian saith, Oblationes pro defunctis pro natalitijs annua die facimus. We make every year oblations for the dead, and for the birth days of Martyrs, which be the days they suffered their martyrdom. Athanasius saith. Intelligimus animas peccatorum participare aliqua beneficentia abexangui immolatione. Athanasius ad antiochium quest. 34. We understand, that the souls of sinners, do receive some benefit of the unbloody oblation and of almose, done for them, as he only hath ordained and commanded, that hath power both of quick and dead. Our God. Ambros. de obitis Valen. And saint Ambrose exhorteth the people to pray for the soul of Valentinian the Emperor, for whom he did offer the sacrifice of Christ's body. chrysostom saith. Non frustra sancitum est ab apostolis, ut in celebratione venerandorum mysteriorum memoria fiat eorum, Chrysost. ho. 3. ad philippenses. qui hinc discesserunt: noucrunt illis multum hinc emolumenti fieri. etc. It was not in vain ordained of the Apostles, that in the celebration of the honourable mysteries, there should memory be made of them that were departed hence. For they knew much profit, much commodity to come to them thereby. Chrysost. hom. 41. in 1. Cor. 15. And in an other Homily he saith in this manner in English. A sinner is departed surely it becometh us to be glad that his sins be stopped and not increased, and to labour as much as we can to release him not with weeping, but with prayer, In Act. ho. 21. supplications, almose and sacrifices. For that was not ordained in vain, nor we do not in vain in our holy mysteries celebrate the memory of the dead, and make intercession for them to the Lamb that lieth there, which taketh away the sins of the world, but that some comfort may thereby come to them. Is not this very plain? and that it is not a thing new invented, but a doctrine taught and used in the Church ever since Christ, and ordained so to be done by the Apostles themselves. August. con. li. 4. cap. 12. Saint Augustine saith in his book of confessions, that the sacrifice of our price, which is Christ's own natural body was offered for his mother's soul after she was dead. And he saith also. De cura pro mortuis. ca 1. In Machabeorum libris legimus oblatum pro mortuis sacraficium. Sed & si nunquàm in scriptures veteribus omnino legeretur, non parva hac consuetudine claret authoritas ubi in praecibus Sacerdotis quae Domino Deo ad eius altare funduntur, locum suum habet etiam commendatio mortuorum, In the Books of the Macchabees we read, that there was sacrifice offered for the dead. But although in the old scriptures there were no such thing read, yet there appeareth no small authority in this custom, that amongs the prayers of the priest, which are made to our Lord God at his altar, the commendation and prayer for the dead hath also his place. Mark well that he saith, it was an old custom, in the Church for priests in their Mass to pray for the dead, in his time which is above .1130. year ago. And that the custom of the Church in this point is of sufficient authority to prove this matter, though there were no scripture for it at all, and yet he himself allegeth the book of Macchabees for it, the place is known well enough. He teacheth us the same thing writing upon saint john. August. in joan. Tract. 84. Ideo ad ipsam mensam non sic cos commemoramus quemadmodum alios qui in pace requiescunt ut etiam pro eis oremus, sed magis ut orent ipsi pro nobis ut eorum vestigijs inhereamus. etc. talia enim suis fratribus exhibuerunt, qualia de Domini mensa acceperunt. Therefore at the very table (of the aultare) we do not so remember (the martyrs) as we do other, other that rest in peace that we pray for them. But rather that they should pray for us, that we might follow their footsteps. For they have given such things for their brethren, as they have received from our Lord's table. Here is both prayer to saints, and for the dead in the Mass. Thus ye see how Christ's body is offered for the dead, after what manner it availeth them. Saint Augustine also teacheth saying thus. When the sacrifices either of the aultare, or of any almose be offered for the dead that were baptized: for the very good men, August. Euchirid. Cap. 109. they be giving of thanks, for not very evil men, they be propitiations, for very evil men, although they be no relief of the dead, yet they be certain comforts of them that be alive. And to them they profit, they profit to this end, either that they should have full remission or at least that they should have more tolerable damnation. In this authority is expressed the plain word of propitiatory, how that the sacrifice of the altar is a propitiation for such souls, as be not very evil or very good toward that teyning of full remission, or of more tolerable damnation. If I should recite as much as I could bring in for this point at large: it is not one or two hours that would suffice to the rehearsal of the places. By this little I have said, ye may perceive, after what sort it is true, that the Mass is a sacrifice propitiatory for sin, both for the quick and the dead. CROWLEY. When you shall show the names and words of them that grant the Mass to be a sacrifice, and yet deny it to be propitiatory for sins: then will I either condemn their folly, or your false report. These men (you say) do disallow the last sentence of your Mass. &c: so do I, with the rest that hath been devised by men, The use of Distinctions and hath no ground in God's word. Distinctions I can well away with, when they tend to the opening of things doubtfully spoken of in the scripture: but not when they tend to the maintenance of man's doctrine, contrary to the word of God. This Sophistry therefore is none of mine: wherefore, I may be bold to call him a Sophister, that useth distinctions, to cause things that are false, to seem true, as you do in this place use two distinctions. The Mass may be taken for the thing offered in the Mass (which is the body of Christ) say you: and for the act of the priest and use of the sacrament. Both the ways it is propitiatory: but the one way it deserveth mercy, and the other way it doth but provoke God to apply his mercy. These distinctions of the Mass and propitiation, tend not to the opening of any thing doubtfully spoken of in the Scriptures, but to the maintenance of a doctrine of your own, contrary to the scriptures: wherefore I can not allow them. The scripture saith, that as Moses did lift up the serpent in the Wilderness, john. 3. so the son of man must be lifted up: that all that believe in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Here is none other thing mentioned whereby Christ's merits should be applied unto men, but only faith. And saint Austen saith thus. Holocaustum dominicae passionis, August. in Expos. incho. ad Rom. eo tempore offert unusquisque pro peccatis suis quo erusdem passionis fide dedicatur. Then doth every man offer the sacrifice of Christ's passion for himself: when he is dedicated in the faith of Christ's passion. It is true therefore, that Oecumenius hath said. Caro Christi est propitiatorium nostrarum iniquitatum. In caput. 3. ad Rom. The flesh of Christ is the propitiation for our iniquities. And the only way to apply this propitiation to us: is by believing the promise that God hath made therein. As appeareth by the words of saint Paul, in that place where Oecumenius had occasion to write those words. Where saint Paul saith thus. justificantur autem gratis, per gratiam ipsius, per redemptionem quae est in Christo jesu: Rom. 3. quem proposuit Deus propitiatorem, perfidem in sanguine ipsius. And they are freely made righteous, by his free mercy, through the redemption which is in Christ jesus: whom God hath set to be a propitiatour, through faith in his blood. Your distinction therefore, that tendeth to another mediation or propitiation then this: is not to be allowed amongst them that be of Christ's school. Yea, the Clerks of the Pope's school, out of whose books you learned your Popery: will not allow your declaration that you make upon the second parts of these your distinctions. Angelus saith, that the Mass is available to whom so ever it please the priest to apply it by his intention. In summa Angel. in Missam. And that the Mass is nothing else, but the applying of the merit of Christ's passion, yea, and that Respectu operis operati. In respect of the work wrought by the priest in saying Mass: though you by your Sophistry would make men believe, that Opus operatum, is that work which Christ hath already wrought upon the Cross. Biel, Holcot Dunse, and the rest of that flock, be of the same mind: wherefore, if they were living, they would not suffer you to pass with such a declaration of your distinction, as you make here. For you will have the Mass (as it is the Act of the priest) to be propitiatory none otherwise, then is the prayer of the faithful, the contrition of the penitent, the almose of the merciful, and the forgiveness of the charitable, which is, as you say (but not truly) to mitigate God's anger against our sins: and to provoke him to have mercy upon us for Christ's merits. And this you offer to prove by the holy fathers. Origen. in levit. ho. 13. Origen hath said thus (say you) Si referantur haec. etc. If these words be referred to the greatness of our mystery. etc. Here you have thrust in the pronoun ours, and have said of our mystery: because you would have your hearers and readers to think that Origen meant of your Mass, which you call the greatest mystery of your religion. Where as in deed, he meaneth of the mystery of the twelve loaves: that were continually upon the table in the tabernacle before the Ark of the covenant. And he calleth our saviour Christ, which is the bread that came from heaven: the greatness of that mystery. But you leave out that piece, lest the writer's mind should appear. Craftily you creep away with the sentence thus. Si redeas ad illum panem propitiationis. etc. Even as it were pointing with the finger, at your little round wafer. But Origen hath written thus. Si redeas ad illum panem, qui de coelo descendit, & dat huic mundo vitam, illum panem propositionis. etc. If thou return to that bread which came down from heaven, and giveth life to this world, that bread of proposition, whom God hath set to be a propisiation, through faith in his blood. etc. Cypri. ser. De Caena. And doth not Cyprian call the Sacrament Holocaustum. & c? Of this place of Cyprian, I have said enough to satisfy the reasonable reader, in the answer to the fift division of your former Sermon. Concerning the two places that you allege out of Austen: I will trouble the reader with nothing, more than the judgement of Erasmus, concerning the two books that you allege them out of. Tomo. 10. Pagina. 2. Of the first, he saith thus. Quae sine controversia sunt Augustini: primo posuimus loco. Impudentissimum figmentum sermonum ad fratres in eremo agentes: in suum angulum reiecimus, de quo suo loco non nihil dicemus. Insunt & coeteris, multa parum referentia phrasim & eruditionem Augustini: quorum aliquot notavimus. Those works which are undoubtedly Austin's own: we have placed in the first place. That most unshamefast lie, of the sermons to the brethren that lived in wilderness: we have cast into a corner meat for them, whereof we will in their place speak somewhat. In the rest there be many things that do very little resemble the phrase and learning of Austen, whereof we have noted some. And of the other book he saith thus. Liber qui sequitur, ex superioribus libellis, magna ex part sarcinaetus est, per quempiam, nec erudition, Tomo. 9 in front illius Libr. nec eloquentia preditum: proinde, non video, cur admodum lectu dignus videatur. Capite. 17. ponit in potestate hominis, ut promereatur Regnum coelorum: quam sententiam ubique detestatur Augustinus. Quanquam idem. Capite. 22. dicit diversum. The book that followeth is for the most part patched together out of the little books that go before, by some man that had neither learning nor eloquence: wherefore, I do not see why it should seem very worthy to be read. In the .17. Chap. he doth put it in the power of man, to deserve the kingdom of heaven. Which sentence, Austen doth in all places detest. And yet the same writer doth in the .22. Chapter, say the contrary. Such forged matter is meet for the proof of the propitiation of your Mass, for the sins both of the quick and the dead. You have mistaken the place that you allege out of Jerome. For upon the first Chapter to Titus: Hiero. in Cap. 1. ad Titum. he writeth not one word that may be wrested to such a meaning, as those words have that you cite. But he hath words there to the contrary of that, whereof (you say) you might prove the chaste life of a bishop. Of what authority the Mass of basil is, Basilius in Missa. I have noted in mine answer to the ninth division of your former sermon, and need not now to trouble the reader any more with that matter. and thus we can not see by that light that you have hitherto given us: that the Mass is a sacrifice propitiatory, for the sins of them that be alive. Now a little you have to say, concerning them that be departed: and then an end of that matter. Tertulian saith (say you) Oblationes pro defunctis. etc. We make every year oblations for the dead. De corona Militis. etc. I will set down in writing the sentence that goeth before, and that which followeth immediately after: that the indifferent Reader may weigh altogether, and judge of the writers meaning. Eucharistiae sacramentum, & in tempore victus, & omnibus mandatum à domino: etiam antilucanis coetibus, nec de aliorum manibus, quam praesidentium sumimus. Oblationes pro defunctis, pro natalitijs, annua die facimus. Die dominico, jeiunium nefas ducimus, vel geniculis adorare. We do receive the sacrament of thanksgiving, both in the time of repast or feeding, and at all times that the lord hath commanded, yea and in our coming together before day: not at the hand of any other, then of such as be in authority. We do in the yearly day make oblation for the dead, for their birth days. We think it wickedness to fast on the lords day, or to bow the knees. This oblation might be, the receiving of the Communion together: in that yearly day wherein they used to solemnize a remembrance of those that had given their lives for Christ's cause. Which the fathers might well call an oblation: because they used at such meetings, to offer of their goods to the relief of the poor, and themselves to suffer for Christ, as they whose memorial they celebrated, had done before. But how like you the custom of that time, which was to refrain kneeling on the sunday, as a wickedness? And how like you that he calleth the sacrifice that you speak of: the sacrament of thanksgiving? Here is no word of propitiation for sins. Wherefore this little that you had to say out of Tertulian, is as much as never a whit. Athanasius saith Intelligimus animas peccatorum. etc. We understand, Athanasius ad Antioch. Principem. Quest. 34. that the souls of sinners. etc. How far unlike it is, that Athanasius Archbishop of Alexandria, should be Author of these questions and answers: may easily appear to as many as will with judgement read them, and consider the time wherein he lived, and the matter contained in the answers. First it is to be considered: that he lived about .330. years after Christ. Then that he was of the Greek Church: and therefore wrote as a Grecian: these things kept in memory, and the matter contained in some of the answers considered: it will appear that some Athanasius of a later time was Author of these questions and answers. In the second answer, he saith, that in his time, the feast of the epiphany of our Lord, was called the feast of the three kings: where as Ambrose, who lived an hundred years after him, and being bishop of Milan (whether the bones of those three, if histories be true, were first brought out of Persia) doth make no mention of any such feast, notwithstanding that in expounding of Luke's Gospel, he doth speak of their coming out of the East to seek Christ. In the answer to the third question: he allegeth matter out of Epiphanius, who was not so ancient as he himself was (if he were the right Athanasius) and he giveth him titles of great authority, acknowledging him to be a father of him and other of his time, and a worker of miracles. In the answer to the .14. question, he saith, that men worthy to be believed, that were spirit conjurers, had told him, that they had seen the Devil in his own likeness: and that he had told them, that there is no sentence in all the scripture that is more terrible to him, than the beginning of the .67. Psalm. Exurgat deus. etc. Let God arise, and his enemies shall be scattered abroad. And the reasons, that (in the answer that you allege) he showeth, whereby we do understand, that sinners souls have some benefit, by things done for them after they be departed: are not such as should move so wise and learned men as Athanasius was. One is, the usage and custom of doing things for them: which (saith he) if it were no commotitie to them, would not be continued. The other is the nature of wine, which (as he saith) being fast closed in a vessel, will when it feeleth the odour or savour of the vine that beginneth to bud in the field: bud with the vine, and begin to flourish a fresh. Even so (saith he) we understand. etc. Thus the indifferent reader may see, that I do not without just cause reject this authority that you allege in the name of Athanasius. For answer to that which you report of saint Ambrose, exhorting the people to pray for Valentinian the Emperor. Ambros. De obit. valent. In Philip. 1. Cor. 15. & in Act. etc. I refer you and the readers, to that which I have written in mine answer to the ninth division of your former sermon. And for answer to that which you city out of chrysostom, I refer you to that which I have for answered to the 30. division of this sermon. And for answer to that which you allege out of saint Austin's Confessions: Libro. Con. 9 Capit. 12. I refer you to that which I have written for answer, to the .9. division of your former sermon also. De Cura pro mortuis. cap. 1. In job. Tract. 84. Euchirid. Cap. 109. To the other three places that you allege out of Austen: I must answer thus. It appeareth by these three, and certain other places of saint Austin's works: that he supposed, that prayers made, and almose deeds done, for such as departed this life in the faith of Christ, and fellowship of the members of his body: might be propitiatory for them, in such sort as you have said that your Mass is, when it is taken for the work of the priest. And that the reason that persuaded him so to think, was the custom of the Church in his days: which was to make mention of the dead in their prayers, when according to Christ's institution, they did celebrate the holy Communion of the body and blood of Christ. But shall this be a sufficient warrant for us: to think and to teach that the Mass, which (as it is used in the Pope's church) is but an heap of dumble ceremonies, is a sacrifice propitiatory, for the sins both of the quick and the dead? The same Austen willeth us not to stand upon his warrandice: but to be sure that we have the scripture for our discharge. For he knew himself to be a man: and that as a man he might err. In his third book De trinitate, In Prooemio li. 3. de Trinit. he saith thus. Noli meis litteris quasi scripturis canonicis enseruire, said in illis & quod non credebas cum inveneris incunctanter crede: in istis autem, quod certum non habebas, nisi certum intellexeris, noli firmiter retenere. Be not bound to my writings, as to the Canonical scriptures, but when thou shalt find in them that which thou didst not believe before, believe it without any staying or staggering: but when thou shalt find that in my writings, that thou didst not surely know before, do not firmly hold it, unless thou mayst understand it. Again in one of those books that you allege, he saith. Euchiridio. Capit. 4. Quae autem nec corporeo sensu experti sumus, nec mente assequi valuimus aut valemus: eyes sine ulla dubitatione credenda sunt testibus, à quibus ea quae divina vocari iam meruit scriptura, confecta est. But those things which we neither have proved by bodily sense, nor have been or are able to attain unto by reason: must without any doubting be believed, for those witnesses, of whom that scripture that is now worthily called divine, was perfectly made. And in another place he saith. De Peccatorum merit. li. 1. Capit. 22. Cedamus igitur & consentiamus authoritati scripturae sanctae: quae nescit falli, nec fallere. Let us therefore give place and consent to the authority of the holy scripture: which neither can be deceived nor deceive. Ambrose also hath said. Nos nova omnia quae Christus non docuit, iure damnamus: quia fidelibus via Christus est. Ambros. de Virginibus. Si igitur Christus non docuit, quod docemus: etiam nos id detestabile iudicamus. We do worthily condemn all new things, which christ hath not taught: for to the faithful, Christ is the way. If Christ therefore have not taught that which we teach: even we ourselves do judge it detestable. These sentences and such like (whereof there be many in the ancient father's writings) do cause me not to consent to that which Austen writeth in those places that you allege, and certain other of his works. Although the same be nothing to prove that which you would prove by his authority. He maketh the oblation, whereof he speaketh there, of no greater worthiness, than the almose that is given to the poor, and the prayers made for the dead: wherefore, he can not mean there of such a sacrifice as you make your Mass when you say it is Christ himself: There is great odds, between Christ himself, offering himself to his father, and a loaf of bread, given to an hungry man. It is manifest therefore, that he understandeth that oblation that he speaketh of, to be but a mean to move God to apply the merits of his son, to such as whiles they lived here, did by repentance and faith, make themselves meet to be partakers of mercy. For so he teacheth in plain words, in the same place that you cite, saying. Sed eis haec prosunt, que cum viverent, ut haec sibi postea prodessè possent meruerunt. But these things are profitable to such persons, as whilst they lived here, deserved that these things might afterward be profitable to them. Yea, if all be Austin's that goeth in his name: there is no propitiation to be had for capital sins, after this life. His words be these. Sermone. 41. de sanct. Non capitalia: sed minuta paccata purgantur. Not the capital, or damnable sins are purged: but the small sins. Such as the Italians call Peccadulians, little pretty sins. Yea, and those little sins (saith he) if the farthel of them be great: will weigh you down and drown you. And to give men occasion to think, that he had no great devotion, to this doctrine of helping the souls departed: he writeth thus, Lucae. 16. August. in Psalm. 48. by the occasion of the history or parable of the rich man and Lazarus. Ventri suo serviunt homines: non spiritibus suorum. Ad spiritus mortuorum suorum, non pervenit: nisi quod secum vivi fecerunt. Men saith he, (meaning such as offer sacrifice for the dead) do not serve the spirits of their friends: but their own bellies. To the spirits of their friends departed, there cometh nothing: more then that which they did whilst they lived here with them. Here you may see, how little help you have by saint Austin's words: when they be better weighed, than you would weigh them, when you did use them. And when his words in other parts of his works, be weighed also. Yea, you may see by this place of Austen: that your purgatory priests, which are hired to sing for souls, do not serve the souls that they sing for, but their own bellies. And therefore the cost that is bestowed that way: is but cast away. The scripture, that neither is deceived nor doth deceive: hath told us, that we shall all stand before the judgement seat of Christ: 2. Cor. 5. Eccles. 14. and receive according to those works that we have done in our own bodies, whether the same be good or bad. And the scripture hath willed us to work righteousness before we depart hence: for in the grave, there can no food be found. I conclude therefore, that though you could spend .22. hours, in rehearsing of the places that you could bring in for this point: yet should they not all be worth a point, because the scripture is against them. So that we may see that it is most untrue, that the Mass is a sacrifice propitiatory, for the sins of the quick and the dead. And that it is most true, that there is none other propitiation for man's sin: but that only, that was once for all wrought by Christ in his own person upon the Cross. And that the same is still, and shall be for ever, effectual to all that believe the promise that God made therein. Some think it a great blasphemy, that we should say, the priest applieth the effect of Christ's passion, WATSON Division. 35. to whom he lysteth, or for whom he maketh his oblation. Good people believe them not, they slander us in this, for we say not so, nor do not apply the merits and effect of Christ's passion, to whom we list, we do but apply our prayer and our intent of oblation, beseeching almighty God to apply the effect of his sons passion, which is his grace & remission of sin to them, for whom we pray. Only God applieth to us remission of sin, we but pray for it, and by the commemoration of his sons passion provoke him to apply so that all that we do, is but by petition and intercession, not by authority as God doth. You deny not, that it is blasphemy to say, CROWLEY. that the priest doth in his Mass, apply the effect of Christ's passion, to whom he lusteth: for you say you are slandered by them that so say. I will therefore let you understand who they be, Who they be that slander watson and his fellows. that have in open writing, set out to be seen of all men, slandered you most of all: that knowing them, you may give warning to your good people, that they give no credit to them. Scotus, Biel, Angelus, Vincentius, and Holcot: have in open writing said, that the force and effect of the sacrifice, is distributed and applied, not only by God but by the priest also. It shall be best for you therefore, to have them cited to appear in the Arches, or in some Consistory, to answer to the slander: for I am sure you shall have your cause heard with favour. WATSON. Division. 36 They say, we make oblation for messeled swine, for sick horses, for murrain of cattle, and thus with these vile and odious words they go about to bring the Mass in hatred with the simple people, that can not tell nor judge, what it is, saying we have certain peculiar Masses for all those things in our Mass book. The matter of this accusation is true, but not the manner. For there be not in our books peculiar Masses for these things, but in certain Masses there be some peculiar prayers for these and such like things, and that by good reason. For in the presence of Christ's body, when our prayers be most effectual, than we pray for the attaining of all goodness of soul and body, and the outward felicity of this world is as expedient for us, according to the will of God, and also we pray for the turning away of all evils of body and soul, and worldly goods, always referring ourselves to his will, as he our father thinketh meet for us. Chrisost. de Sacerdotio Libro. 6. chrysostom telleth, how the priest in his Mass prayeth for the whole world, for the whole City, for the sins of all men both quick and dead, for the ceasing of war, for the pacyfying of sedition, for peace, and the prosperous estate of things, for the avoiding of all evils that hang over us. For the fruits of the earth and of the sea, and such other. De Civitate dei. li. 22. Capit. 8. Saint Augustine in his book De civitate dei, telleth a story of a Gentleman called Hesperius, who having an house and grounds about it in the Country, where his servants and beasts were much vexed with evil spirits, for remedy thereof came to saint Augustine's house, and he being absent, desired his priests, that one of them would go to the place, and pray, that this calamity might cease. One of them went, and offered there the sacrifice of Christ's body, praying as much as he could, that the vexation by the evil spirits might cease, and by and by through the mercy of God it ceased. Is not this as much, yea and more to, than we do now? Let not us therefore fear their vile and slanderous words, nor let not us cease to do well, because they speak evil. We may not cease to do as the holy saints have done, because the members of the Devil rail against us, as though we did nought. You grant the accusation to be good in matter: CROWLEY. whereof I conclude, that you make oblation for mesaled swine. etc. But the manner you deny: which I must either prove, Mass for the rot of cattle. or else confess that you be slandered. In your Mass which is entitled, Pro pest animalium. For the murrain or rot of cattle: you have two prayers, the one to be said amongst the secret prayers before the consecration, and the other after you have received your host. In the first you desire of God, that the offering up of the present sacrifice, may help you, and mightily deliver you from all errors, and rid you from the incursion of all destruction, that the cattle also, which serve for your use, may by his power, be delivered. And in the second you say. O Lord we beseech thee by these things that we have received: do thou taking pity and compassion, drive away from thy faithful ones, all errors, and the perniciousness of the violent destruction of raging diseases in cattle. That such as for their own merit, thou dost scourge being out of the way: thou mayst cherish by the compassion, being corrected or amended. If the leprosy of swine, the manifold diseases of horses, the morian and rot of sheep and other cattle, be of the number of those raging diseases: then do you in that Mass, make an oblation for measeled swine. etc. For what is your Mass? Summa angelica in Miss. Angelus of Italy saith, that it is nothing else, but the applying of the merit of Christ's passion. And that it is available, to whom soever it pleaseth the priest to apply it by his intention. Now let the wise judge, what the priests intent is or should of right be, when for hire or friendship he saith Mass, to cause such diseases to cease among cattle. But this me thinketh is strange, that you say that you make your prayer in the presence of Christ's body: understanding the same to be the sacrament. For when you make your first prayer, Christ's body is not yet come into your sacrament: and when you make the latter, the sacrament and all is in your belly. Chrysost. de Sacerdotio. libr. 6. But chrysostom telleth you: how the priest in his Mass prayeth for the whole world. He telleth in deed, that in the ministration of the holy communion, and in all his other public prayers: he prayeth for those things that you speak of. But what maketh this for the proof of that which you have in hand? which is: that in your Mass for the murrain of cattle, you do not make an oblation for measeled swine. etc. As for that chrysostom saith, that the priests office is to pray for the sins of the quick and the dead: I refer the Reader for answer, to that which I have answered to the .30. division of this sermon, where you allege his third Homily upon the Epistle to the Philippians. Saint Austen also telleth a story of a Gentleman. etc. In mine answer to the .28. August. de Civitate Dei. li. 22. ca 8. division of this sermon: I have given the reader occasion to consider the corruption that is found in this work of saint Austin's, by the conference of many copies, whereof some contain a sound doctrine according to the scriptures, and some clean contrary. Which I doubt not should easily appear in the Chapter that you allege: if the first copy, or some true copy thereof were to be had. Lodovicus vives, in his Commentary upon this Chapter, saith thus. In hoc Capite, non dubium est, quin multa sint addita velut declarandi gratia, Lodovicus vives. ab ijs, qui omnia magnorum authorum scripta, spurcis suis manibus contaminabant: quorum alia resecabo, alia more meo, contentus ero velut digito indicasse. There is no doubt, but that in this Chapter there be many things added (as it were to declare and make the matter more plain) by such as with their filthy fists, have defiled all the writings of great authors: whereof I will cut of some, and some other I will be contented, after my manner, as it were, to have pointed at with the finger. This may suffice the indifferent reader, and give him occasion to think: that this fable which you allege for your purpose, was never written by saint Austen. You have no good ground therefore, in this place to say, that you do as the holy saints have done, when you say Mass for measeled swine, and sick horses: neither to say that we which do say that you do nought therein, are members of the devil. Now a little of private Mass, and then make an end. WATSON Division. 37 Many there be, that can well away with the Mass, but not with private Masses. These men be deceived in their own imagination: for there is no Mass private, but every Mass is public. It is called in Greeeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a public ministry. Saint Thomas calleth it sometimes a private Mass, but not in that respect, as it is contrary to public, but as it is contrary to solemn. Every Mass is public, concerning the matter and ministery, but not solemn concerning the place and other rites and circumstances. Therefore these men speak against that they know not what. They have a new understanding of private. They call it a private Mass when the priest receiveth the sacrament alone. And this they say is against the institution of Christ. They say so sine fine, and never make an end, but they never prove it. I shall show you that it is not against the institution of Christ. The institution of Christ concerning this sacrament containeth three things which he himself did, and by his commandment gave authority to the Church to do the same. The consecration, the oblation, and the participation. To the due consecration four things be required, the matter, form, minister, and intent. The necessary matter is bread of wheat, which is due as it ought to be, if it be pure, sweet and unleavened. But our new masters that cry out so fast of Christ's institution, did ordain it should be ministered in unleavened bread, but in common bread, and the worse the better with them, some said horsebread was to good. Well there was more villainy showed herein, than I will express at this time. And for the other kind, whereas the due matter is wine mixed with water, they notwithstanding the institution and example of our saviour Christ, commanded no water to be put in, raising up again the pernicious rotten and extincted heresies which Fermentarij and Armeni did maintain. The form of the sacrament is the words of our Saviour Christ, saying. This is my body. This is my blood, duly and perfectly pronounced upon the bread and wine. Our new masters that still cry upon the institution of Christ, some said it was a sacrament or ever the words were spoken, as soon as it was brought to the Church for the use of the communion, some would have the words said, but as one should read a lesson or tell a tale, not directed to the bread and wine, but that the Minister should look away from the bread and wine in the time of the pronouncing. Fearing belike the words should have more strength than they would they should have. And thus howsoever now they pretend a zeal to maintain the institution of Christ, than they utterly destroyed the institution of Christ, either denying or defrauding the necessary consecration of the sacrament. The minister ought only to be a priest duly consecrated & ordered after the rite of the catholic Church, whose ministration God only doth assist. These men did not only maintain that it was lawful, but also did appoint and permit mere lay men to minister, yea and lay women sometimes, as some said without any lawful vocation or ordering at all, Arnobius in Psal. 139. not regarding what Arnobius writeth. Quid tam magnificum quàm sacramenta dei conficere? & quid tam perniciosum quàm si is ea conficiat qui nulum sacerdotij gradum accipit. What is so excellent than to consecrate the sacraments of God? and what is so pernicious, than if he consecrate them, that hath received no degree of priesthood? The intent also to do that the Church doth without mocking, dissimulation or contrary purpose is required. For although the priest in the consecration may have his thoughts distract to some other thing, and so lack attention, which is a great negligence in the work of God, and deadly sin to the minister: yet if he lack intention not intending to do that God commandeth and the Church doth: there is no consecration nor no sacrament at all. And for this point what intention shall we think these men had of late that utterly denied to consecrate or receive Christ's body & blood under the forms of bread and wine, but only to receive the creatures of bread and wine, and thereby to be partakers of Christ's body and blood? For in the book of their last communion, these were the words of the invocation. Good Lord grant us that we receiving these thy creatures of bread and wine according to thy sons institution, may be partakers of his body and blood. Was there ever heard of any such institution? Look throughout all the scripture and show me where, ever Christ did institute, that by eating of bread and wine, men should be partakers of his body and blood. And if it can not be showed, as I am sure it can not: than it was a plain forged lie bearing men in hand that Christ instituted that he never thought, whereby appeareth that they had not this intention which is required to the due consecration: and also that they in words pretending to have a zeal to maintain Christ's institution in their deeds showed themselves enemies and adversaries to the same. Going about to prove that we have a new understanding of private: you utter your own strange understanding thereof. CROWLEY. I think it shall be hard for you to find one good author: that doth use it as you understand it. You say saint Thomas doth use it so: but you tell us not where. But though saint Thomas do use it so: yet must we know him to be a more approved Latinist, before we follow him, and make him our author in so weighty a matter as this. Cicero, and other approved authors do use it, as contrary to public and common, Solemn is not contrary to private. but never as contrary to solemn as you say saint Thomas doth. Solennis is properly that, which is used but once every year: and that at a time certain and accustomed. The contrary to that, must needs be the thing that is never so used: but oftener or seldomer, as occasion is offered. You say we speak against that, we know not what, and we are deceived in our own imagination: but we can prove that you are deceived by your foolish imitation. Your barbarous babbling lawyers, have used a word of their own making, in such sort as you would use Solennis, making it contrary to Priws: and they say, solempnizare matrimonium, for celebrare matrimonium. To celebrate marriage, or to make an open contract of marriage, in the open face of the Church. The imitation of these eloquent Latinists: hath deceived both you and saint Thomas, if he write as you report of him. As for your Greek word, you might full well have spared, unless it had made more for your purpose: for nothing is more contrary to that which is done by one alone, and to himself, than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is. For you yourself say it is a public ministery: which can not be your Mass, when the priest ministereth to none but to himself, though he do it in the presence of ten thousand, and at the high altar in saint Peter's Church at Rome, and on saint Peter's day. It may be said, that it is openly done, and so is secretly the contrary: but it cannot be truly said to be publicly done, because it is done but by one, and to himself alone. Yea, though there were a small number that did communicate with the priest, in the presence of a great number that were not partakers with them: yet should it not be public, because it is not common to as many as it should be common unto. So far of is your Greek word: from proving your private Mass to be public. Who they be that can well away with your Mass, but not with your private Mass you tell us not: but I tell you, that I have said, and do say, Sine fine, without ceasing, that your private Mass is against Christ's institution. Yea, I do not only say it, but I will prove it also, even by your own words concerning those three things that you say the sacrament containeth, Private Mass proved to be against the institution of Christ. as it is the institution of Christ. I reason thus. Whatsoever Mass hath not all these three things, is against the institution of Christ. But your private Mass lacketh one of them, that is Participation: Ergo, it is against the institution of Christ. The participation of prayers, oblation, and merits, will not serve here. There must be participation of that which is consecrated, that is, the bread and wine. But that is not in your private Mass, Ergo, etc. Say not now that we never prove, that your private Mass is against Christ's institution. Thus going about to prove your negative: you have ministered matter to prove our affirmative. Well you proceed to the four things that are required in the due consecration. The first, is necessary matter, etc. We say as you do, that the necessary matter is bread, made of such grain as is usual in the place, which commonly is wheat: and wine made of Grapes. But that the bread must of necessity be unleavened, & the wine mixed with water: we do in plain words deny. And yet do we not raise up again any rotten Heresy at all. For we make no necessity either of the one or of the other. A doctor of your own, hath taught us: Nicholaus de Orbellis 4. Sent. Dost. 11. quest. 1. that it must be usual bread, and convenient nourishment. His words be these. Non sufficit autem ad hoc pasta, cum non sit cibus usualis, nec conveniens nutrimentum. Paste, or starch, is not sufficient matter for this conversion or turning of substance: because it is not usual bread, nor convenient nourishment. In mine answer to the .12. division of this sermon: is to be seen more of this matter. And your saint Thomas hath told us thus. Non est autem de necessitate sacramenti, quòd sit Azymus, vel fermentatus: part. 3. q. 74. Art. 4. Ibid. Art. 7. quia in unoquoque confici potest. It is not of necessity of the sacrament, that the bread should either be unleavened or leavened: because it may be done in either. And for the water he saith also. Dicendum quod admixtio aquae ad vivum non est de necessitate sacramenti. We must say, that the mingling of the water with the wine: is not of the necessity of the sacrament. And saint Thomas saith, that saint Gregory maketh the matter plain, Gregorius in Regest. for the liberty that we teach in this matter. For he saith thus. Romana Ecclesia offert azymos panes: propterea quòd dominus, sine ulla commixtione suscepit carnem. Sed certae Ecclesiae offerunt fermentatum: pro eo quod verbum patris indutum est carne, sicut fermentum miscetur farinae. unde, sicut peccat presbiter in Ecclesia latinorum, celebrans de pane sermentato: ita peccaret presbiter Grecus in Ecclesia Grecorun, celebrans de Azymo pane, quasi peruertens Ecclesiae suaeritum. The Church of Rome doth offer unleavened loaves of bread: because the Lord hath received flesh, without any mixture or mingling. But certain Churches do offer leavened bread: because the word of the father (that is the son of God) hath taken upon him, flesh, even as leaven is mingled with meal. Wherefore, even as that priest, that in the Latin Church doth celebrate with leavened bread doth sin: Both sin a like. so the priest that in the Greek Church doth celebrate with unleavened bread, doth sin also, as perverting the custom of his Church. It is to be wondered at, that you will teach a doctrine so contrary to God's Vicar on earth: and make so great a matter, of that which he setteth so light. belike you had not seen this before you made your sermon. To such as have said, that some of us have said, that horsebread is to good: I say, that unless they let the world know who they be that so have said, they are shameless and slanderous liars. And unless you utter that villainy, that you know hath been showed herein: you shall (by my consent) be joined with the other. August. in joh. Tract. 80. De verbis Domini secund. joh. ser. 38. The form of the sacrament we know to be the word: as saint Austen saith, speaking of baptism. Accedit verbum ad elementum & fit sacramentum. The word cometh to the element: and so it is made a sacrament. And as the same Austen saith in another place. Est forma omnium rerum. The word of God is the form of all things. But the due and perfit pronouncing of the word upon the bread and wine that you speak of: doth savour to much of magic, for us to use or receive. We know that Christ spoke those words that you rehearse: but that he did breathe them out upon bread and wine, or command that they should be breathed out by his ministers, sub una prolatione, under one pronunciation, without pausing or staying, as your Canon doth prescribe: neither do we know, neither can you prove. The use of words, is to teach (as I have noted in mine answer to the .15. division of your former sermon) & not to work wonders, as sorcerers do. Christ therefore, in pronouncing those words, meant to teach his Disciples by them: that the bread which he had broken and given unto them, was his body, and the wine his blood, in such sort, as they did well know signs to be the things signified by them. Saint Austen therefore, is bold to say thus. August. ad Dardanum. Capit. 12. Non dubitavit Dominus dicere, hoc est corpus meum: cum signum daret corporis sui. The Lord did not doubt to say, this is my body: when he gave the sign of his body. It was no rare thing with them, to hear the sign called by the name of the thing signified: Exod. 12. for the Lamb that they had even then eaten, was called the passing by of the Lord, because it did signify, that the Lord passed by the first borne of his own people, and smote the Egyptians. Your new masters therefore, The new masters teach the old lesson. do teach you but the old lesson: if they tell you that the words be not pronounced with purpose to change the substance of the creatures, by the virtue of them, but to teach the hearers, that Christ hath ordained a lively and effectual sacrament, to represent unto the worthy receivers, their unity in him their head, and that everlasting life that they receive from him, as members from their head. And you are but an evil scholar, that so slanderously report of your new masters: in whose writings and examples it doth appear, that they teach and use that consecration, that Christ used and taught. We (for I take myself for one of your new masters) do take bread, give thanks to God, break and divide the bread amongst us, and eat it. In like manner we take the cup of wine, give thanks, & drink all of it. And this we do in the remembrance of Christ, as he hath taught us to do. What consecration is. Thus do we consecrate: not by turning the substance of the creatures, but the use. Other consecration, the universal Church hath not yet agreed upon. Yea, your own school Doctors, are yet at variance about it. Some say: that Christ consecrated with some other words, before he said this is my body. Some other say: that he spoke those words secretly first, and consecrated by them: and afterward used them to declare what he had made of the bread and wine. And some think: that the consecration is wrought by the prayers that go before. And they that hold, that it is wrought by the pronouncing of these words, The papists vary about their consecration. do not agree. Some say, Hoc, this: is it that worketh all. Some say, Est, is: And some say, vin. The first syllable, the Verb copulative, or the last syllable. There is no such disagreeing found in your new masters writings or examples. Wherefore, you are worthy to come out of a good school, that can carry such untrue reports out of the school: and if ever you come in again to be well whipped, for belying your masters. For we do not under pretence of maintaining the institution of Christ, destroy, deny, or defraud it: but in a true zeal, we abolish all superstition brought in by man, and use that consecration only, that Christ used, and taught to be used of his. The minister we allow not, unless he be called and admitted, according to the word of God. If any be unworthy that be admitted or suffered in the ministery: the fault is not in the order that your new masters profess to follow, Popish shavelings most unworthy ministers but in the officers that have the execution of the order. And if it were in mine hand: I would rid the Church of a greater number of your shavelings, which are most unworthy, though you think none worthy but such. As for the saying of Arnobius, we regard it as well as you do: as may be seen by that which I have written in mine answer to the .30. division of your former Sermon. The fourth thing that you say is required in your due consecration, is the intent of your minister: which must be to do as the Church doth, The sure stay that the Popish consecration hath to lean to. without mocking, dissimulation, or contrary purpose. And where this is not: there is no consecration at all. You have brought your matter to a good point now, your consecration may not be doubted of: for it hangeth upon the priest's intent. If he intent not to do as the Church doth, but to huddle up his Mass for his higher: then they that gaped for God's body, have caught but a Waffer cake, as light as a Butter fly. And they that gave him money, to offer Christ for their friends departed: have lost both labour and cost, for Christ came not into his clouches to be offered. And whatsoever thing else, should have been wrought by that Mass, is clean disappointed: saving only that the priest hath his money, and the people's folly is fed. A more uncertain thing can there not be: then when all hangeth upon that which no man can know, but he only that is the doer. Wise men therefore, will seek a more sure stay to lean too, than your consecration can be: seeing it hath not a better and more certain foundation, than the most uncertain intent of the priest. What intent we had or have: God doth know, and shall judge. Our doings do declare: that we intent to use the sacraments of Christ, according to his holy institution, The effect of this sacrament. in remembrance of his death and passion. And by them to call to memory what we are by Christ, & what we must continue to the end, and what we shall have in the end. And being such as by receiving those holy mysteries together, we seem to be: we are by them assured: that Christ dwelleth in us, and we in him. And that as the creatures bread and wine, do by the mouth enter into our bodies to be the food thereof: so do the flesh and blood of Christ by faith enter into our souls, to be the sustenance of them, whereby both body and soul shall live for ever in joy. And in our last book of Communion: our invocation is some thing more large than you have reported it. For we say thus. Hear us, O merciful father, we beseech thee. And grant that we receiving these thy creatures of bread and wine, according to thy son our saviour Christ's holy institution, in remembrance of his death and passion: may be partakers of his most blessed body and blood. etc. If you would have considered this invocation better: you should not have needed to have willed your auditory, to look throughout the scriptures, to find where Christ did institute, that by eating of bread and wine, men should be partakers of his body and blood. For the words of our invocation are: that we doing that which jesus Christ did will to be done, for such purpose as he did appoint it to be do ne: may be partakers of the thing in deed, that is represented by that which is done. Not by the outward act that we do: but by the inward faith that moveth us to do it, being commanded by him in whom we believe. The institution of this doing, is declared immediately after the invocation that you speak of: 1. Cor. 11. and was written by S. Paul to the Corinth's. Wherefore, we do not bear men in hand that Christ did institute that which he never thought: neither do our deeds show, that we be enemies to his institution. And as they used themselves in consecration: so they did in the oblation, WATSON. Division. 38 which they did not corrupt as the other, but utterly took away, denying any such thing to be, as I have proved it is, in so much that in all their new communion, they could not scarcely abide the name or word of oblation, but pulled it out of the book, so much did they favour the institution of Christ which they now pretend. CROWLEY. As in mine answer to your proofs, I have sufficiently disproved the same: so shall I here in few words, disprove your slanderous report. In our Communion book, we desire our heavenly father, mercifully to accept our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. And we say, that we do offer and present unto him, ourselves, our souls and bodies: to be a reasonable, holy, and lively sacrifice unto him. The sacrifice of the new testament. And is this, to put the name or word of oblation out of our book? The ancient fathers say, that this is the sacrifice of the new testament: as I have briefly noted in mine answer to the fourth division of your former Sermon. Now when they have taken away the due matter, as sweet unleavened bread, WATSON. Division. 39 the mixture of the Chalice, and perverted the form by leaving out the principal verb (est) in the words of Christ, as it was in the last book in the first printing, how it came in again I can not tell, and neglected the due ordering of the minister, suffering them to usurp the office of a priest that never received that authority, neither of God nor man, and in that they did (which was very bad) never intended to do as the Church doth, & wholly did abrogate as much as lay in them the oblation of Christ's body in remembrance of his passion, & at length would have nothing to remain, but a bare communion, what face have they to cry upon Christ's institution, institution, which they have in so many points broken and violated as I have showed? & yet that they would have is no part of Christ's institution. For the use of the sacrament is that it should be received and eaten, Concilium tolet anum prim. ca 14. Conci. Cesar. aug. ca 3. and therefore in divers counsels it was decreed that whosoever took the sacrament at the priests hand and did not eat it, for the which end Christ did ordain it, was holden accursed and excommunicate. Thus far extendeth the institution of Christ concerning this point, because he said Accipite, manducate & bibite. Take, eat, drink, and also that all should eat and drink of it, that could prove themselves (after saint Paul's admonition.) But such things as pertain to the ceremony of the eating, as how many in one place together, what time, place manner, order, and such like, be things pertaining to the ordinance and direction of the Church, and not to the institution of Christ, as necessary upon pain of damnation to be observed of every christian man. For else if all the rites that Christ used at his supper were of necessity and pertaining to his institution: then there must needs be thirteen together at the communion and neither more nor fewer. And it must be celebrated after supper, and in the night, after the washing of the feet, and in a Parlour or Chamber, and all that receive must be priests and no women. For all these things were observed of Christ and his Apostles at his last supper. But for our instruction to declare that they be not fixed by the instituted of Christ, but left to the disposition of the Church, the Church hath taken an other order in these things, willing that all shall communicate that be worthy and disposed. So that the number whether there be many or few, or but one in one place that receive, maketh not the ministration of the priest for that thing unlawful. And it hath ordered that it shall be celebrated in the morning, and received fasting before all other meats, and in the Church except necessity otherwise require. And therefore saint Augustine taught januarius after this sort. August. Epist. 118. Ideo salvator non praecepit, quo deinceps ordine sumeretur, ut apostolis per quos dispositurus erat ecclesiam seruaret hunc locum. Therefore our Saviour did not command by what order it should be received after him, but reserved that matter to the Apostles by whom he would order and dispose his Church. By this we may conceive that the receiving of the sacrament is Christ's institution, but the manner, number, & other rites of the receiving be not determined by Christ's institution, but ordered at the Church's disposition. Yet say they, Christ did not receive it alone, but did communicate with his twelve Apostles, whose example we ought to follow. To this I say, that we be not bounden to follow this example for the number, but for the substance. That it should be received of us, is Christ's example necessary, but of how many, of twelve only, of more, of fewer, or of one, is not by Christ's example fixed and determined. Christ ministering the mystical supper of necessity, & that never but once, for this end by his deed to institute the thing, and to teach his disciples what they should do continually afterward in commemoration of his death, must needs have ministered it to more than himself, because in that doing he gave them authority to do the same, and so made them priests. But we ministering it not for that intent to institute the sacrament, and to make priests, but to receive the spiritual fruit that cometh to us thereby, are not bounden to observe that number, but shall do well if we receive it either with other or alone. You have falsely charged us with taking away the due matter. etc. CROWLEY. And as for the leaving out of the principal verb (Est) Let him be charged withal that did it. Narrow secking for matters to charge us with. It is like that you have little to charge us with, when you seek out the printers faults, and lay them to our charge: and yet confess in plain words that the fault is corrected. If I would have dealt to with you: I might have done it many times in these your sermons, as may well appear to the learned that will read them as you set them out in print. Our ministers be ordered and admitted, with imposition or laying on of hands and prayer: and as many ceremonies beside, as may tend to edification. And that which we do in the ministration of the word and sacraments: shall never be justly disproved by any of your sort, to be other than the institution of Christ. Our intent in doing that we do, is to imitate the Church of Christ: and not the Church of Antichrist, which is the Church of Rome. We offer that oblation: which both by the scriptures and fathers, is accepted for the sacrifice of the new testament. And our Communion (which it pleaseth you to term bare) shall on the marriage day be entertained of the bridegrooms father: The Mass hath not the marige garment. when your Mass shall be turned out for lack of a marriage garment. We have no cause therefore to be abashed still to cry upon Christ's institution: which you have and do still, in so many points violate and break as appeareth by that which I have answered to that which you have showed, proving that which we have, to be the institution of Christ. And where as you go about to render a reason, and make a proof, that the Communion that we have is not the institution of Christ, saying that the use of the sacrament is, that it should be received. etc. I marvel if you did not blush when you spoke it. For if that be the use of the sacrament (as it is in deed) how dare you reserve it, and hang it over your altar, sometime, till it be so vinewed and mowled, that you must needs burn it? how dare you carry it about your streets in procession? And how dare you fetch it out in tempests: to scare the devil withal? Yea, how dare you put it in a purse and hang it about your neck, to preserve you from perils? And I pray you, what moved you to use this reason against us: Nothing more against Watson then this is. seeing that you know that we do never minister it, but when we have occasion presently to distribute it, so that we never reserve it for any manner of purpose? There is nothing that maketh more against your doings: then that which in this place you allege against us. Take, eat, drink. etc. And where you say that the ceremonies and rites that be used about the ministration of the sacrament, do not appertain to the institution of Christ, we say so to: and that therefore the Church ought not to make a matter of necessity of them, but leave them to the discretion of every particular congregation, to use or leave them, as they shall see that they do tend to their edification or not. watson's purpose in speaking of circumstances. Much a do you make about circumstances of the eating, and the number of them that shall eat, the time, place. &c: but all is to make some show of a liberty left to the Church, to ordain that one alone may in the presence of a multitude, celebrate that sacrament, and receive it alone, as commonly your Massing priests do. But it will not be. For not only the example of Christ in his last supper is to the contrary, but his words in the institution also: which words we must hearken unto, and not those circumstances which are not within the compass of do this in remembrance of me. He took bread, gave thanks, broke it (that is, he divided it amongst them) and said, take, eat, this is my body: and in like manner the cup, saying, drink ye all of this, do this in remembrance of me. If any of them had been so dull of understanding, as you show yourself to be: and would have moved this peerless question, what shall we do in remembrance of thee? Would he not have said, take bread, give thanks, divide it amongst you, and eat it: for it is my body? And in like manner, take a cup of wine, give thanks, and drink all of it: for it is my blood? And what liberty is here left to the Church to ordain that the priest alone, may do this to himself in the presence of a multitude that should be partakers with him, as the Apostles were with Christ? The place that you cite out of Austen, is wrested too far out of tune. For in that place he speaketh only of the time of ministration and receiving. Whether before meats or after: as appeareth by the words that follow immediately after. Nam si hoc ille. etc. For if he had told his disciples this, that this sacrament should always be received after meats: I believe that no man would have altered that custom. So far of is saint Austen, from confirming the private receiving of your priest. Wherefore you gather more of his words then he meant. But this vantage you have given us by the words of your collection: that we may be bold to say, that in your Mass there is nothing of Christ's institution, more than the receiving of the sacrament. The rest is ordered by the Church. But you would feign restrain your saying to the number of receivers: and therefore you say, and other rites of the receiving. You imagine, We depend upon Christ's commandment. that we depend altogether upon the example of Christ, in communicating with the twelve: but I have told you before, that we depend not only upon his example in doing, but also, and chiefly, upon his words in commanding. Which words are, that not only twelve and no more: but as many as be christians and will be present at the action, should be partakers of the mysteries. And that the action should be celebrated by the Congregation, that desire to be partakers thereof in the remembrance of Christ's death and passion, and not otherwise. The necessity that you say drove Christ to minister to me then to himself: either fighteth holy against your purpose, or else one part of it against another. It was necessary (say you) that by his deed he should institute the thing: and teach his disciples, what they should do afterward in the commemoration of his death. How this can agree with your purpose, and with the rest that you writ there: let the discrete reader judge. And how well you do, when you receive and minister this sacrament to yourself alone. Saint Jerome saith. Dominicae coena, omnibus debet esse communis: quia ille omnibus discipulis suis qui aderant, aequaliter tradidit sacramenta. Hierom. in 1. Corin. ca 11. The lords supper ought to be common to all: because he did equally deliver the sacraments, to all his disciples that were present. I think that all wise men will judge, that saint Jerome was not of your mind in this point: for he saith the lords supper ought to be common. etc. not after your fantastical imagination, but by actual distribution of the sacrament. We read even from the beginning of the Church: that lay men and women did receive it alone. WATSON. Division. 40 And is there any religion, that a lay man may do it: but not a Priest? Tertulian declareth the difficulty for a Christian wife to observe her religion without offence that hath an infidel to her husband, Tertulianus ad uxorem. among other things saith thus. Non sciet maritus quid secreto ante omnem cibum gusts? & si sciverit, panem non illum credit esse qui dicitur. Will not thy husband know what thou dost eat secretly before all other meats? And if he do know, he believeth it is bread, and not him whom it is called. Of this place we gather the manner of the Church in that time, shortly after Christ, that the people receiving the Sacrament at the priests hand in the Church, did carry it home with them, and kept it secretly and devoutly at home with themselves, and every morning as their devotion served them, did receive a part of it by themselves, and that secretly, lest the Infidels amongs whom they dwelled should get knowledge of our mysteries. And thus of this place of Tertulian, like as we may learn, that the Sacrament is not bread, as the Infidels believe, if they chance to see it: but Christ as it is called, as the faithful only know, to be so, so we learn also that men and women were wont to receive it alone without any other company assembled with them, which is sufficient for our purpose at this tyme. Saint Cyprian telleth of a woman in these words. Cyprian de lapsis. Cùm quaedam arcam suam in qua domini sanctum fuit manibus indignus tentasset aperire, igne inde surgente deterrita est, ne auderet attingere. When a certain woman went about to open her chest, wherein was the holy one of God with unworthy hands, she was afraid for the fire that rose from thence, that she durst not touch it. By this place appeareth the like manner of keeping it at home to receive it alone at their pleasure. And Eusebius in his story telleth that the manner was to send the sacrament to Bishop's strangers, Eusebius histor. eccles. lib. 5. ca 24. that chanced to come thither for this end, to know whether they were Catholic and of their faith or no, which they knew, if they would receive the sacrament which they had consecrate. Lib 6. ca 34. And also he telleth of one that lay in extreme peril of death, who had committed idolatry before, and sent to the priest for the Sacrament, whereby might be reconciled to the Church before he died, the priest was also sick and could not come, but sent it by the sick man's servant and so forth. Here it is plain, that lay men received it alone without the priest. And what great religion is there now new found out, that the priest may not likewise receive it alone, if the people be not worthy nor disposed at all times to communicate with him. I leave out a great number of places that make for the reservation of the sacrament, which all make for this purpose, if I would spend any time herein to declare it. Tertulian, Cyprian, and Eusebius, CROWLEY. must bear us down with strong hand, that sole receiving of the sacrament, hath been used of lay men and women, even from the beginning of the church: and yet none of them wrote within .200. years of Christ's ascension. In the time of persecution, when christians looked every hour to be apprehended and tormented for Christ's cause: they used to come together when they might with any quietness, A use enforced by persecution. and did pray together and communicate. And not knowing whether ever they should meet again in such sort: they used to take some part of the holy mysteries home with them, reserving the same in reverend manner, that they might by the receiving thereof, renew in their memory, the thing that the holy mysteries do plainly preach unto us, which is our linking together into the fellowship of members of one body, and our everlasting life through Christ. This doing of theirs, as it doth declare a distrust in their own strength, so it is not to be misliked: but as it doth declare to great a trust in the outward mysteries of Christ, so it can not be of the godly wise, well liked. When the Israelites saw their own inability to stand before their enemies, 1 Regum. 4. they sent for the ark of God, that by the presence thereof, they might be encouraged and made able to overcome them: but when they had it amongst them, they were overthrown with a greater slaughter than before, and the ark of God (wherein they trusted) carried away from them by their enemies. De Lapsis Sermone. 5. And as it appeareth by that which you cite out of Cyprian, God was not pleased with that woman's doing. In token whereof fire flashed out of her Chest, when she having denied Christ before for fear of torments: went about to strengthen her faith again, by receiving that which she had reserved for such purpose. But what shall these two examples make for your purpose: which is to prove, that priests may say Mass in secret Oratories and open Churches, watson's examples prove not his purpose. receiving all themselves, and yet observe the institution of Christ, which (by your own confession) is, that there should be participation in it? The women did not celebrate the lords supper, neither had they any to celebrate it for them: neither doth it seem, that it was thought lawful then to have a chaplain of ease (as in the Pope's church, every man that will may) but they reserved some part of that which was ministered in an open congregation, and presently distributed according to Christ's institution. The examples therefore, can by no means prove your purpose. But yet once again, I must put you in remembrance of your old condition. Tertulians words in Latin, would not serve your turn, except they were Englished after your fashion. Et si sciverit panem, non illum credit esse qui dicitur. And if he shall know that it is bread (that thou eatest) he doth not believe that it is that bread that it is said to be, that is to say, mystical bread. But you must not have illum joined with Panem: but with Christum. And, for (that bread) you say (him) I leave the judgement of your dealing herein, to the godly learned: who both can and will weigh the words of Tertulian, as they stand written in his book, and confer them with those words that follow, wherein his meaning is made most manifest and plain. And in translating the words of Cyprian, Sermone. 5. De lapsis. you help the matter a little: For where he saith, In qua domini sanctum fuit, wherein the holy thing of the Lord was: you say. Wherein was the holy one of God. Which must needs be understanded of Christ's own person: Whereas it is manifest by Cyprians words in Latin, that he meaneth there of the sacrament of his body. This shift you have shamelessly used in these two Sermons very often. The History of Eusebius, Eusebius hist. Eccles. li. 5. Cap. 24. maketh not so much for your private Massing as against your pompous prelacy of Rome. Ireneus a Bishop in France, writing to Victor then Bishop of Rome: calleth him and those that had been before him Bishops of Rome, by the name of priests, and giveth them none other title of honour. This maketh very evil for the Pope's supremacy. But that is beside your purpose now. The Bishops of Rome before Victor, did use solemnly to send the sacrament to Bishops of those Churches, that did not observe Easter and Lent fast, as the Church of Rome did. And so they did communicate together: though they were not in one place together. What maketh this to prove that a priest may say a private Mass: and deliver no part of the sacrament to other? To signify, that they break not the bond of unity, though they dissented about the time of Easter and Lent fast: they did, when they communicated, reserve some part of the sacrament. And by messengers worthy of credit: they sent the same to those Bishops, that in those trifling matters were not of their mind. Shall this prove, that the priest which saith Mass at Rome, and sosseth up all himself (for so slovenly do some of them use to receive their consecration) doth communicate with the rest that in like manner do say Mass in other places. I trow this history (when it is well weighed) will teach the contrary. What needed those Bishops of Rome to send part of the sacrament to those other: What may justly be gathered of this history. if they had communicated with them before in private Massing? Your assertion is overthrown by your own allegation: Because they being far asunder, could not otherwise communicate: they did send part of the communion, from the one to the other. This is all that can be justly gathered of the history: although we grant that it was the sacrament that he speaketh of. Tomo. 2. operum. August. But it may be thought rather, that it was common bread, which they used to send: which they that received it might afterward use in Communion. For Paulinus (a Bishop of the Latin Church) doth in three several Epistles, make mention of loaves of bread, which he sent to saint Austen and other: in token of amity and unity. In the later end of an Epistle written to saint Austen, Epist. 31. he saith thus. Panem unum, quem unitatis indicio, misimus charitati tuae: rogamus accipiendo benedicas. I beseech you, that you will take and bless that one loaf of bread, which I have set you in token of unity. And in another Epistle, which he and Therasia together, wrote unto Alipius, Epist. 35. a Bishop also: he writeth thus. Panem unum sanctitati tuae, unitatis gratia misimus: in quo etiam Trinitatis soliditas continetur. Hunc panem Eulogiam esse, tu facies dignatione sumendi. For unities sake, we have sent unto your holiness one loaf of bread: wherein the soundness of the Trinity is contained. By vouchsafeing to receive this loaf: you shall make it to be a blessing. Because Alipius, Therasia, and he, were three that were sound settled together in unity of religion: he saith that in that one loaf, was contained the soundness of that Trinity, or number of three. And in another Epistle, which he wrote to Romanianus: he saith thus. Epist. 36. Ne vacuum fraternae humanitatis officium videretur, de buccelato christianae expeditionis, in cuius procinctu quotidie ad frugalitatis annonam militamus: panes quinque, tibi pariter & filio nostre Licentio misimus. Non enim potuimus à bendictione secernere: quem cupimus eadem nobis gratia penitus annectere. Lest my duty in writing, might seem void of brotherly humanity, out of the Biscuit that the christians have in a readiness, in the provyding whereof, I do daily labour to provide necessary victual: I have sent to you and my son Licentius together, five loaves of bread. For I could not separate him in the blessing: whom I do desire thoroughly to knit unto me in favour. These sayings of Paulinus, may give us occasion to think, that the usage of the Bishops in those days: was rather to send common bread from one to another, than bread already consecrated. And in this last saying of Paulinus, it is manifest and plain: that the bread was such as was provided to serve at need, or in wars, for it was Biscuit, that is twice baked, and without leaven or salt: because it should not vinewe or mowell in short time. Well, I leave the judgement of this, to the godly wise. The example of Serapion, Euseb. li. 6. Capit. 34. may serve you somewhat to prove the reservation of the sacrament: in such consideration as was then to be had, of such as Serapion was. He had fallen, by committing Idolatry, for fear of torments. He or any such might not (by the order of that Church wherein he lived) be restored to communion again, before extreme peril of death by sickness: no not though they sought it long time with tears. Lest such therefore, should lack the comfortable consolation of the sacrament, in such extremity: some part of the sacrament was reserved to be given them in such case. Shall this prove, that your Massing priests do communicate, when they deliver no part of the sacrament to any other, but consume the whole themselves? I think no wise man will think it. This history might well have been left amongst that great number of other that you say make for this purpose: for it doth make more against the highest matter of all, then for that which you allege it for. What opinion think you, had that priest of the sacrament: when he would deliver it to Serapion his boy, & bid him dip it, and give it to the old man? Did he think that it was the very real body and blood of Christ, and that there remained in it neither bread nor wine? The Cautiles of your Mass do not allow such handling of your sacrifice. The stuff that you bring to build up one part of your building withal: To build up a cottage, you pull down a palace. doth cast down the greatest beauty of the hole. Reservation in some case, is by this history proved: and adoration utterly denied. And priestly prerogative, is shrewdly shaken also. For Serapion his boy, was neither priest nor Deacon: and yet he is put in trust to carry and minister the sacrament. WATSON. Division. 41 Well some will say, here be doctors upon doctor of sentences of authors enough. But what scripture have you, that the priest did or may take it alone? show me that, and then will I yield unto you. I shall be content to allege Scripture, as it seemeth to me, let every man weigh it as he thinketh good, to me it is plain enough for this purpose, and although there were no scripture, yet in this matter which is but a ceremony, concerning the number of the receivers, the custom and use of Christ's Church, is a sufficient rule for a christian man to stay himself by. The scripture is written in the .27. Chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, where saint Paul comforting all the company, Acts. 27. that were with him in the ship, who then were in extreme danger of drowning, promising them all their lives, and exhorting them to take meat, that had fasted fourteen days before received the sacrament before them all alone, as I take it. The words be these. Et cùm haec dixisset, sumens panem gratias egit d●o in conspectu omnium, & cum fregisset, coepit manducare. Anime qui●res autem facti omnes, & ipsi sumpserunt cibum. And when he had said thus taking bread he gave thanks to God in the sight of them all, and when he had broken it, he began to eat, and they all being much comforted, took meat also. chrysostom expoundeth this place of the sacrament, Chrysost. in Math. hom. 17. where he hath this saying, that it is not only a thing sanctified, but sanctification itself. Here is no mention that he gave it to any other, and if it had been a thing necessary of the institution of christ, belike he would have expressed it. Well though it be not expressed in words (say they) yet it is not a necessary argument to conclude that no man received it with him. I grant it is not a good argument, but yet this is the common manner of their reasoning, it is not expressed in scripture, ergo it is not to be believed. But I can say more for this place, for the scripture calleth, that saint Paul eat (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) which is a word whereby the Sacrament is commonly expressed, and that all the other did eat (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) which signifieth common meats, and the scripture sayeth (omnes) all the other took their meat, amongs whom there were many infidels, and it saith afterward, saciati cibo that they were satiate and full with meat. But the blessed Sacrament, non est cibus satietatis, Concilium Nicenum. sed sanctimoniae (as Concilium Nicenum) saith is not meat of satiety, but of sanctimony. Therefore where it saith that saint Paul did eat the bread, which is the sacrament and that all the other did fill them with their common meat. I may conclude, that saint Paul did receive alone, whereby is proved our purpose of the private Mass as they term it. O Lord how would they have glorified, if they had such a like place against us? You persuade yourself, CROWLEY. Doctor's dregs upon Doctor's dirt. that all men marvel at the multitude of Doctors and sentences of Authors, that you have alleged for your purpose: and therefore you imagine that some men will say: here be doctors upon doctors. etc. What other men will say I know not: but this I do say. Here are the dregs of the doctors, upon the dirt of the doctors, & shameless sayings enough: but not one scripture or sentence of any sound Author, to prove that the priest may celebrate the Lords supper (which you call the Mass) and minister to himself alone. Yea, I do not only say it, but I have also proved it in this answer already, and will also prove it (by God's help) in answering that which remaineth. One scripture you say you have, which seemeth to you plain enough: and yet you think it not needful to allege any scripture, because the custom of the Church is a sufficient rule for such a matter. But I have proved before, that the common participation is of the institution of Christ: and therefore can not be ruled by the custom of the Church. But let us see your scripture. Act. 27. Saint Luke writeth, that after a long and dangerous storm on the sea, and fourteen days continual fasting, by the means thereof: Saint Paul exhorted them that were in the Ship with him to take meat. And in the presence of them all, he took bread and gave thanks to God, and when he had broken it he began to eat. etc. Of this you gather that saint Paul did there, and then say Mass, and receive the sacrament alone. And lest it should seem that this is but your own imagination: you say that chrysostom doth expound this place of the sacrament, even in that place where he saith that the sacrament is not only a thing sanctified, but sanctification itself. Of what authority those Homilies be whereof this that you allege here is the seventeenth: I have sufficiently noted in mine answer to the .13. division of your former sermon. So that the chrysostom that wrote them: may be as well credited as yourself. But let us see how faithfully, and friendly you handle him. He hath said thus. Et Paulus navigans, non solum benedixit panem: sed de manu sua porrexit Lucae, Chrysost. in. Math. ho. 17. opere imperfecto. & caeteris discipulis suis. And Paul when he sailed, did not only bless the bread: but he did reach it from his hand, to Luke, and to his other Disciples. You say, that all the rest did eat common meat, and were satisfied: and Paul alone received the sacrament. Not so saith your witness: for he gave part to Luke and the rest of his Disciples. It appeareth that you read that Homily in post haste. But how doth chrysostom expound that place in that homily that he maketh upon that Chapter, Chrysost. in. Act. ho. 53. where the words be written? He saith thus. autem panem accepit: gratias egit Deo. Vide quòd ille gratias agit, propter ea quae facta sunt: non solum illos confirmavit, sed etiam alacres facit. As soon as he had taken bread: he gave thanks to God. See, in that he giveth thanks for those things that were done: he did not only confirm them, but he doth also make them cheerful. Your friend Nicholaus de Lyra saith: that they which were in the ship with Paul, were comforted by his word and by his example. Nicholaus. de Lyra. Act. 27. Because he did in words encourage them to take meat: and taking meat first himself, he did encourage them to do the like. And the gloze upon the text saith. alijs esset exemplo. juxta morem solitum in comedendo, & pro salute navigantium. That he might be an example to other to give thanks to God when they take meat. And according to his wont custom, and for that they which sailed with him were preserved from drowning. But you do see more in this text, To what end saint Luke used Copy of words. than ever did man before you. The two Greek words that be used have a marvelous mystery. Men thought that saint Luke that wrote the history, had meant nothing else but to avoid Tautology: but you have espied that he meant to teach us, that saint Paul said a private Mass. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a word, whereby the sacrament is commonly expressed. You durst not say, it is a word that signifieth bread: lest your hearers should have thought that saint Luke calleth the sacrament bread. And you have laboured no one thing more in these two sermons: then to prove that it is no bread. And this word (Omnes) all: see, how the mystery beginneth to muster. All the other did eat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 common meat. Here is a plain Mass: and not one that receiveth any part with the priest. Yea, and this is proved by the plain words of the scripture. O Lord, how would we glory and triumph: if we had such a like place against you? I can not tell which of the two is most to be marveled at: your wilful ignorance, or your impudent arrogancy. A man would think, that (you being a Doctor of divinity) could not be ignorant, of the Concords of Grammar. If a man should ask you what part in speech Omnes is: you would answer I am sure, that it is a Noun adjective. And when you seek for the Substantive to it: you shall find, that it is Nos, we. For in the Greek, the sentence is thus. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Omnes autem animaequiores facti. Or as Erasmus hath translated it. Porro animis iam recreatis omnium. When all our minds were refreshed. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Et illi unà sumebant cibum. Or as Erasmus doth translate it. Sumpserunt & ipsi cibum. They did also eat with us. Or, they also did take meat. Luke putteth both Paul and himself in the number of all. It must needs be wilful ignorance, that will not suffer you to see: that when saint Luke saith (Omnes) all, he putteth both saint Paul and himself in the number. And when he saith (Et ipsi) and they also: he joineth the rest to Paul and himself. So that the meaning can be none other: but that as Paul and he had begun to do, so the rest did also, being encouraged by their example. And here it is plain: that Luke had begun to eat with Paul, before the rest did begin to eat. If you will needs have this place therefore, to be understanded of the sacrament (as no learned man else will, except it be your chrysostom) yet shall it be a communion and not a private Mass as you would have it. O Lord, how would you glory and triumph over us, poor students of divinity: if you might but once take us with such ignorant and arrogant handling of a piece of scripture? You say, that our common manner of reasoning is thus. It is not expressed in the scripture: Ergo, it is not to be believed. Hiero. in Math. 23. I would have you once learn to tell the truth, and shame the Devil. We reason thus. It can not be proved by the scriptures: Ergo, we are not bound to believe it. And saint Jerome hath taught so to reason as I have told you more than once. WATSON Division. 42. Chrysost. ho. 61 ad poul.. Antiochinum. 1. Some bring in a place of chrysostom, where he saith, frustra sacrificium quotidianum frustra stamus ad altar, nullus qui communicet. Our daily sacrifice is in vain, we stand at the aultare in vain, no man cometh to communicate. O Lord how they abuse this place of chrysostom, that he saith to rebuke the negligence of the people that cometh not, they allege it to find fault at the diligence of the priest that cometh. Is it reason, that the priest whose life is wholly dedicated to the service of God, and to pray for the people, should sin deadly, if he did join himself more and more to Christ by receiving daily the spiritual food of his body and blood, because the people that commonly occupy their life in the affairs of the world be not worthy, or not disposed daily to receive with the priest? The very place itself of chrysostom telleth, that the priests did celebrate the sacrifice daily, whether the people came or no, which they would never have done, if it had been deadly sin so to do. Therefore it is plain, that they did sacrifice, they did stand at the aultare, and cried, but all in vain, sancta sanctis. Holy things to holy men. Cum timore & charitate dei accedite. Come up to receive with the fear of God and charity, and yet no man came. Therefore all this his homely was to reprove the slackness of the people, that deceived the expectation of the priest. I put the case (as I have seen it chance) that when the priest had consecrate, and one or two were commed up to the altar, and kneeled down to communicate with the priest after the priest had received, they both departed and went away, not receiving either of contempt, or for that some sudden disease or passion came upon them that they could not receive: is God so unmerciful as to condemn the priest for the casualty of an other man which lieth not in his power to avoid? Our salvation were a very tickle thing if one man should commit deadly sin against his will intending to serve god, & so be condemned for the chance of an other man which he could not stop or amend, & was no cause of it. Yea but (say they) chrysostom saith. Non es hostia dignus nec communione, igitur nec oratione. If a man make his excuse, that he is not worthy the sacrifice, nor to communicate, then is he not worthy to be present there at the prayer. He saith so in deed. But what is this, to that the priest should not receive all one? nothing at al. And yet it serveth us to declare that chrysostom intended nothing else, but to reprove the negligence of them, that stood in the place of the worthy receivers and would not come to receive. We must consider in the Greek Church, how there was certain degrees of the placing of the people, the priests stood at the altar, the Clerks within the Chancel, the worthy receivers, in a distinct place beside the priests, the penitents in a lower place, the Catechumine which were men, learning our faith, and not yet christened sat lowest of all, but they were put out of the Church, when the sermon and teaching was done, and were not suffered to be present at the mysteries. Now the lack that men do not understand the distinction of these several places maketh them to take chrysostom wrong. For in deed he that is in the higher place of the communicants, and being there thinketh himself for his unclean life not worthy to communicate, and so deceiveth the expectation of the priest that prepareth for him: is likewise not worthy to communicate in only prayer, as being in that place, & yet hath most need of all to communicate in prayer, because prayer is an humility of the mind and a cause and degree to make a man worthy to communicate in the sacrament. And therefore by chrysostom he is not forbid to communicate in prayer, but not in that place, but lower among the penitents. For so chrysostom saith by and by after. Quotquot estis in poenitentia omnes orate. All you that be penitents, occupy yourselves in prayer. And it was a decree of the whole catholic Church, that certain men which were not suffered to communicate in the sacrament, should during their penance communicate only in prayer. Concilium Nicenum. Cap. 12. These be the words of the general counsel at Nice in English. Concerning them that had committed idolatry and were in penance not yet reconciled, and now be departing out of their bodies, let the old Canon be observed, that he that is departing, be not defrauded of the necessary victual of life, but if any such after he have received the communion do recover and amend, let them remain among them that communicate only in prayer. We may see by this, that the meaning of chrysostom is, as I have declared. Other make an argument of the word Communio, that the sacrament is called a communion, because many received it. But this argument is unlearned, proceeding of ignorance. For it is so called, not for that many communicate together in one place, but for the effect of the sacrament, because it maketh many divers men one mystical body of Christ. So doth chrysostom expound it, Dionysius Areopa. Eccleshies' var. Capit. 3. writing upon the .10. Chapter to the Corinthians. And also Dionysius Areopagita saith. Vndemerito sacerdotalis sacro sancto prudentia ex rerum effectu proprium illi verumque (communicationis) cognomen invenit. Therefore the holy wisdom the priests hath worthily invented to this sacrament a proper and true name of communion for the effect of it, because it gathereth our lives that be divided a sunder many ways, into the one state, whereby we are joined to God and among ourselves in one body, and so forth. And in very deed we do not communicate alone. For considering God's Church is but one house, as Cyprian saith. una est domus ecclesiae, in qua agnus editur. Cyprian de cena. There is one house of the Church, wherein the Lamb is eaten: whosoever doth eat this Lamb worthily, doth communicate with all christian men in every place and Country that be in this house and do the like. If the priest receive one part of the sacrament in the Church, and afterward carry the rest two or three miles to a sick man, doth he not communicate with another? & yet that other is not together with him in one place, standing at his elbow. Even so the priest that saith Mass alone, doth communicate with all them that celebrate in other Churches, or in other realms. We allege not the place of chrysostom, CROWLEY. to rebuke the diligence of the priest, in coming to do that which is his office to do: but for that his doing in private Massing, is one of the greatest causes of the people's negligence in not coming to be partakers of the mysteries with him. chrysostom saith. Sacrificium frustra quotidianum. Chrysost. ad popul. Antiochenum. hom. 61. Incassum assistimus altari, nullus qui communicetur. In vain is the sacrifice for every day. In vain are we ready at the altar, there is none that would be made partaker. He had said immediately before. Multam video rerum inaequalitatem. In alijs quidem temporibus, cum puri frequenter sitis, non acceditis: in Pascha verò, licet sit aliquid à vobis patratum, acceditis. O consuetudinem, ò praesumpsionem, sacrificium frustra quotidianum. etc. I see great inequality of things. At other times, though you be often pure and clean, yet you come not to communicate: but at Easter you come, though you have committed some offence. Oh custom. Oh presumption. It is in vain to have the sacrifice daily. In vain are we ready at the altar: for there is none that would be made partaker. If the priests private Massing were of such effect, as you would bear us in hand that it is: how could the lack of communicants cause it to be in vain at any time? How could the priest be in a readiness at the altar in vain: This place of chrysostom therefore, Chrysostom's words rightly applied of us. is manifestly against your private Massing, as a thing that serveth to no purpose, neither turneth the Church to any commodity. And we do not abuse this place, in that we allege it, to blame your Massing priest thereby, which is so vainly occupied: and yet persuadeth the people, that if they be present and worship and pray as he doth in an unknown tongue, they shall have as much spiritual benefit, as if they were partakers of the sacrament with him. But all is in vain, saith chrysostom. Your priest being holy dedicated, to such service of God as is the Mass: doth not by the service daily more and more join himself to Christ, but to Antichrist. For his exercise is of Antichrists devising, to the defacing, and displaceing of Christ's institution. The very place of chrysostom telleth not that the priests did celebrate the sacrifice daily: but that it had been in vain so to do, for lack of such as would communicate. But if you will needs enforce us to allow your conclusion, wherein you say that it is plain, that they did sacrifice. etc. I pray you let it be known to the world, in what order they did sacrifice. If they used that Liturgy, that is set forth in Chrysostom's name: they must needs have company to communicate with them, for it is a communion, and not a private Mass, and therefore could not be executed by one alone, but by many, which must all (by that order) be partakers, and afterward call the people to be partakers, with these words. Cum Dei timore accedite. With the fear of God, come hither. Such patches you pull out of that Liturgy and mingle them with your matter, as though chrysostom had written them in his Homilies. And then you put a case not worth the debating: Patched ware may not be allowed. For we speak not of two or three communicants, but of as many as be instructed in Christ, and aught of duty to resort to one particular congregation, and be not for their ungodly life excommunicated. And when we apply these words of chrysostom. Non es hostia dignus vel communione: igitur nec oratione. Thou art not worthy of the sacrifice or communion: therefore neither of the prayer: we do not take chrysostom otherwise then he meant, because we understand not the distinction. etc. But in applying the words that follow: you show yourself, not to understand Chrysostom's manner of speaking. Adstantem audis praeconem atque dicentem: Watson understandeth not Chrysostom's manner of speaking. quotquot estis. etc. Thou hearest the Beadle that is present, making proclamation and saying. As many of you as be penitents: pray every one of you. And whosoever be not partakers: are penitents. These words he speaketh as imagining, that he which would be present and not communicate: would seek to justify his disorderly and shameless doing, by the words of the Beadle, spoken to the penitents, in the time when the hole Church prayeth for them, before the ministration of the sacrament. But he answereth him in few words saying. Quid stas si es in paenitentia? Why tarriest thou, if thou be a penitent? Again, he imagineth another objection and saith. Sumere non debes: qui namque non communicate, est ex paenitentibus. Thou wilt say (saith chrysostom) thou oughtest not to receive: for he that doth not communicate, is of the penitents. But chrysostom doth answer him sharply and saith. Cur itaque dicit: abite, qui non potestis orare? Tu verò stas impudens. Why then doth the Beadle say: you that may not pray, get you hence. But thou being without shame, dost stand still. Thus it is manifest, that we take chrysostom right: and that you understand him not. Although you would seem to have slept upon Chrysostom's grave: and to have seen in a dream, the several places that were in his Church. The Clerks in the Chancel. etc. I know that prayer is a mean to make a man worthy to communicate: and therefore, neither chrysostom nor I, will forbid any to pray. But if any will shamelessly be present, when the communion of Christ's body and blood is in ministering, and will not be partaker, but allege his own unworthiness: we will tell him (and that truly) that he is not worthy to call God his father, among the children of God in common prayer, if he be not worthy to be partaker of the ghostly food that God hath prepared for his children. The counsel of Nice hath not decreed, that such as recover after they have in extremity of sickness received the Communion of the body and blood of Christ, Concilium Nicenum. Capit. 12. shall afterward communicate in prayer, at the time of the ministration of the holy communion: wherefore their decree doth not make Chrysostom's words to sound, as you understand and have declared them. For that other argument that you say is unlearned, & proceedeth of ignorance: you seek a lewd and unlearned solution, proceeding of wilful blindness. That which you cite out of chrysostom and Cyprian, I have sufficiently answered in mine answer to the .25. division of your former Sermon. Chrysost. in 1. Cor. ho. 24. Cyprian. De Caena. Where the reader may see, what wilful blindness it is: that enforceth you to go about to disprove the reason that we make of the Etymology of the word Communion, by that which chrysostom and Cyprian have written. And in applying the place of Dionysius, you deal as you did in the .23. division of this sermon: following that corrupt translation that beareth no name. It shall be hard for you (I think) to find, in any good Author, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used in that signification, that you do here use it. Dionysius hath said. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ex veritati factorum. Of the truth of the doings. So that this place is plain against your purpose, when it is truly translated out of the Greek. Because in the use of this sacrament, there is a common receiving: Dionysius saith, that the sacred wisdom of the priests hath given it a name, according to the truth of the doings in the use of it, and have called it communion. But when you take pains to note this place of Dionysius for your purpose: Watson could not turn over the leaf. I marvel that you could not turn over the leaf, and look upon this saying of the same Dionysius. Post haec extra Delubrum Catechumini fiunt, & cum ipsis Energumeni, & high quoque qui in paenitentia sunt: manent autem intus, soli qui divino spectaculo, & communione sunt digni. After those things (that is, after the psalms be song and the scriptures read) they that be learners of the christian religion, are put out of the temple, and with them, they that are vexed with Devils, and they also that be penitents: and they only do tarry within, which are worthy of the heavenly sight and communion. By these words of Dionysius, is made plain: how well you understood the words of chrysostom, that you declared before, and how well the other words of Dionysius, do serve for your purpose. This argument of communion was never heard of in the world before Martyne Luther, WATSON. Division. 43 who was the first father of it, and the first man that ever wrote against private Masses as he calleth them. And where learned Luther that lesson? even of the devil not because all evil cometh by the suggestion of the deevill, but I mean that Luther had a vision of the devil and saw him with his corporal eye being waking of whom he learned all that he hath pestilently spoken against the holy Mass. And least men should say I lied upon Luther, here in his own book. Ex crete judico, serve nequam. We may judge him by his own mouth and his own hand writing. The title of his book is of private Mass. I shall read you a piece of it that the truth of my saying may appear. These be his very words. I shall make confession before all you reverend and holy fathers, give me I pray you a good absolution. It chanced me once about midnight suddenly to awake, than the Devil Satan began with me this disputation. Hear (said he) Doctor Luther, very well learned, thou knowest thou hast said private Masses xu years almost daily. What if such private Masses be horrible idolatry? what if there were not present the body and blood of Christ, but thou hadst honoured only bread and wine, and hadst caused other to honour it? to whom I answered, I am an anointed priest, and have received unction and consecration of a Bishop, & have done all these things by commandment and obedience of mine elders. Why should not I consecrate, when I have pronounced the words of Christ and have said Mass in earnest? this thou knowest. All this said he is true, but the Turks and Gentiles do likewise all things in their temples of obedience and in earnest. The priests of Hieroboam did all they did of a certain zeal and intent against the true priests in Jerusalem. What if they ordering and consecrating were false, as the priests of the Turks and Samaritans were false and their service of God false and wicked? First (said he) thou knowest thou hadst than no knowledge of Christ, nor true faith, and for faith thou wast no better than a Turk. For the Turk and all the Devils also believe the story of Christ, that he was borne, crucified, and dead. etc. But the Turk and we damned spirits do not trust to his mercy, nor have not him for a mediator and saviour, but fear him as a cruel judge. Such a faith and no other hadst thou, when thou receivest unction of the Bishop and all other both they that did anoint, & were anointed, thought so and no otherwise of Christ. Therefore ye fled from Christ as a cruel judge to blessed Mary & the saints, they were mediators between you and Christ, thus was Christ rob of his glory, this neither thou nor no other Papist can deny. I would read more of this book but for troubling you. He that list to know what may be said against private Mass, let him learn here of the Devil enough. For here is all that hath yet been said of any other, and more to. The devils derlings were ashamed to say half so much as their father Satan, lest they should be called blasphemous liars as he is. But by this book, Luther's own confession set forth in print by himself to the world ye may know that the Devil was the first that ever barked against the sacrifice of the church, which is the Mass, knowing that his kingdom of sin and iniquity could not stand, if this sacrifice most adversary to it, were not defaced and destroyed. But what colour had Luther to publish this, shall we think he was so mad as to father that upon the Devil, that he would have persuaded for truth to the world? I shall tell you shortly his fond devise in this point, as it followeth five or six leaves hereafter. He saith he knoweth the Devil is a liar, but (he saith) his lies be crafty, he useth to allege a truth which can not be denied, and with that to colour his lie which he persuadeth. And therefore (saith he) the Devil lieth not when he accuseth, as that I had committed horrible idolatry in saying private Masses: but the lie is when he did afterward tempt him to despair of God's mercy. But saith Luther I will not despair as judas did, but amend that I have done amiss and never say private Mass again. O what a cloak of mischief is this, & all grounded of lies and falsehood. He saith the Devil lieth not when he accuseth. If that be true than he said true when he said that Luther being a preacher many years, never had true faith in Christ till he fell from the Mass, nor never trusted in Christ's mercy, nor never took him for a saviour but a cruel judge. Of this the Devil did accuse him, whether he was a liar herein or no judge you. Also in his accusation he said the body and blood of Christ were not present in the sacrament, when such anointed priests did consecrate, and that they honoured only bread and wine, with many other damnable lies and heresies, which whoso shall read the book, may find in great plenty, and yet by Luther's principle, the devil never lieth when he accuseth. Four falsehoods you affirm, in less than twenty lines together of your printed Copy, CROWLEY. Four lies affirmed in less than twenty lines together. in this part to conclude withal. And so manifest falsehoods: that scarcely any one of your Auditory could be so ignorant, but that the same must perceive that you lied falsely, the communion, by your own confession in this Sermon, more than once: was heard of and used even from the Apostles tyme. For Dionysius Areopagita, was saint Paul's scholar: & you say that he speaketh of it in his Hierarchy, more than once. The action that you call Massing, and we private Massing: was written against by many before it was brought into the Church, and by some after it was in use, many years before Luther was borne, as by Barthram, Husse, Wycklife, and Berrengarius. And although it have pleased Pigghius and such other, to blow abroad this slanderous lie, to the discrediting of all Luther's doctrine, as much as in them lieth, and you also to dub their lie in the presence of your Prince, who could be contented to hear whatsoever evil might be reported of that man and such as he was: yet there is none that will examine the book that you speak of, but the same shall be enforced to say, that it can not justly be gathered thereof, that Luther did either see the Devil with his bodily eyes, or hear him with his bodily ears. But such is the privilege of the Pope's Prelates, when they have the sword on their side: they may use all untruth in persuading the people (but especially princes) to think that all is lies that the enemies of Antichrists religion, have either spoken or written. You are bold therefore, to lash out these three lies before your Prince, and to make up the matter with the fourth: affirming that he learned of the Devil all that he hath spoken against your holy Mass. And when you think that you have gotten yourself some credit in this matter by reading a piece of Luther's book, and leaving of before you come to that wherein his meaning is made plain: you conclude that hereby it may be known, that the Devil was the first that barked against the Mass, as against the greatest adversary of his kingdom, which could not stand unless that adversary were defaced and destroyed. The diligent reader of this mine answer, may easily see: how the Mass hath defaced and destroyed the kingdom of the Devil, in those places where it hath been most used, and in those persons that have most frequented it. Yea, they that will but inquire of the life and conversation of them that at this day be massmongers: shall soon see, how great an enemy the Mass is to the devils kingdom. Yea though there were none other evil in them, The Mass alone is able to hold up the devils kingdom. then only that they say and hear Mass (which is idolatry): yet were this one evil sufficient of itself, to hold up the kingdom of the Devil. But admit that the Mass were no idolatry: yet it is always accompanied with a multitude of gross idolatries. As the invocation of creatures, the opinion of meryting by men's own works, the representing of God to the bodily eye, by an Image made like a man, the bowing of the knees, and burning of Wax and Incense before the Images of creatures, trust & confidence in the holiness of creatures, made holy by men, and such like. Thus is the Mass the greatest adversary that the devils kingdom hath. But least some of your Auditory should take pains to read Luther's book, and so perceive, that you have not said truly of him: you think to prevent that matter, by speaking a few words of that part of the book, that openeth the meaning of the hole, and knitting up your tale with this exclamation. O what a cloak of mischief is this, and all grounded upon lies and falsehood. He saith the Devil lieth not when he accuseth. etc. And if this saying of Luther be true: then there will follow a number of as great inconveniences, as upon the words of David, when he saith, Omnis homo mendax. Every man is a liar. Psam .. 115. If Luther were in this life: he would not stick to grant all that you conclude upon that proposition that you call his principle. For which of the two may be thought better, the faith of a Turk, or of a Massmonger? Seeing the one denieth Christ in words, denying him to be his saviour: and the other in deeds, in seeking salvation by other means then by Christ, which is to deny him. And wherein shall Hieroboams priests be found worse than the Pope's Massing priests? If you will read the prophecy of Oseas, and understand it: you shall find that they had as good a colour of observing Moses his law, as the Pope's priests have of keeping Christ's institution. And so of the rest, that you do name damnable heresies. etc. Now because the time is far passed, shortly to conclude, I shall most humbly beseech you to consider and regard the salvation of your souls, WATSON Division. 44 for the which Christ's Gods son hath shed his precious blood which salvation can not be attained without knowledge and confession of God's truth revealed to his holy Church, and by her to every member of her, and child of God, whose sentence and determination is sure and certain, as proceeding from the pillar of truth and the spirit of God, by whom we be taught and assured in Gods own word, that in the blessed sacrament of the altar, by the power of the holy ghost working with God's word, is verily and really present the body and blood of our saviour Christ, under the forms of bread and wine, which is by Christ's own commandment and example offered to almighty God in sacrifice, in commemoration of Christ's passion and death, whereby the members of the Church in whose faith it is offered, both they that be alive, and departed, perceive plenteous and abundant grace and mercy, and in all their necessities, and calamities relief and succour. Our most merciful father grant us to persist steadfast and constant in the true Catholic faith and confession of this most blessed Sacrament and sacrifice, & with pure devotion as he hath ordained to use and frequent this holy mystery of unity and reconciliation, that we may thereby remain in him and he in us for evermore. To whom be all glory and praise without end. Amen. To make a short conclusion: CROWLEY. I will join with you in making humble request to the readers of these your sermons, and mine answer: that they will have an earnest regard to the salvation of their own souls, for which jesus Christ, the only begotten son of God, hath freely shed his most precious heart blood. Which salvation can not be attained unto, without the knowledge and confession of God's truth, which he hath by his word revealed to his Church, and doth daily, by the faithful and diligent ministery thereof, reveal it to every member thereof and child of God. Which Church is, and ever hath been the pillar of truth, In. 1. Timo. Capit. 3 wherein only the truth is seen and doth plainly appear to the world, as saint Jerome hath said: and hath her foundation upon truth, which is her only stay and pillar to lean unto, as chrysostom hath written. Which truth being the determination of God, before the beginning, this pillar of truth, doth still cleave unto: never seeking to determine otherwise, than God hath by his son Christ, determined & taught. In whose word we are assured, that at his last supper with his holy Apostles, he did institute a most comfortable sacrament of his own body and blood: to be frequented and used in his Church in the remembrance of his death and passion, till his coming again in our nature, to judge both the quick and the dead. In which sacrament is lively represented unto us (yea even unto our senses): that unity that he hath and doth by his almighty power make betwixt himself and us, and amongst ourselves one with another, which unity, the nature of the bread and wine (wherein this sacrament is instituted) doth plainly express and signify. In using whereof, his Church doth not only call to memory, the benefits that she hath received by him: but also show herself thankful, in offering herself a sacrifice of a sweet savour unto God, by ready good will to glorify him both by life and by death: as the holy saints that be departed this life, did whilst they lived here, assuring themselves of his continual presence, to comfort, help, and secure them, in all the necessities and calamities of this life, and after this life of everlasting joy and felicity, in everlasting life through him. Which they have already attained unto in part, being delivered from the burden of the flesh: and we shall in the end of this life attain unto in like manner, if we continue faithful to the end as they did. And when the day of the general resurrection shall come: we with them, and they with us, shall through Christ receive our own bodies again, incorruptible, immortal, glorious and spiritual, even such as his blessed body is now in the throne of majesty, to reign with him in his father's kingdom for evermore. Our most merciful and loving father, grant us to continue steadfast and constant in the true Catholic faith, and confession of our hope of forgiveness of all our sins, by that one only sacrifice that Christ jesus made, in offering himself on the Cross once for all, as by his holy word and sacraments, he doth daily teach us to do. And that we may so frequent and use this holy mystery of unity and reconciliation: that we may daily more and more be assured thereby of his dwelling in us, and our abiding in him. To whom be all praise, honour, and glory, for ever. Amen. FINIS. ¶ Imprinted at London by Henry Denham, dwelling in Paternoster Row, at the Sign of the Star. printer's device of Henry Denham, featuring a star [McKerrow 150] SUBLIME DEDIT OS HOMINI Anno Domini. 1569. Cum privilegio.