godly then any bishop of Rome in his time Likewise when the Sea of Rome vsurped prerogatiue it was reiected by the Councell of Africa which decreed that none should appeale thither discouered the counterfaiting of the bishops of Rome Con. Mileuit Cap. 22. Conc. Aphrican Ep. ad Coelestin Likewise it was reiected of the church of Alexandria whereof great dissention arose Con Affric Cap. 68. That Irenaeus Tertullian Optatus Hierom Augustine Eugenius Theodoretus poynted to the church of Rome as to a witnesse of trueth it proueth her clearnesse from those heresies in their tymes but giueth her none authoritie ouer other churches nor yet maketh her a rule of trueth to all churches for then there needed none other arguments against heretikes but the authoritie of the church of Rome whereas the testimonie of that church was one of the weakest reasons they vsed and that least preuailed 32 That he affirmeth other cities to haue chosen Bishops of their owne tongue it is also true of Rome For he cannot shewe one Pope that was ignorant of the Latine tongue while it was spoken in Rome And not many I thinke not one ignorant of the Italian tongue since that time although they were borne in other countries Besides that it is the fondest reason that euer I heard one or other alledge that the Popes haue bene borne in diuerse countries therefore they are supreme heade of the church more then other bishops that were bishops in the countries where they were born and yet more foolish that speaking of Bishops of other tongues hee nameth so manye places all of one tongue As Syna Antioche Galile Ierusalem Bethelem which are all of one tongue Campania Thuscia Aquileia Pisa Genua Bononia Millaine Parma Rauenna which are all Italian Gascoyne Lorayne Sauoy Burgundie Rhemes Tholose which are all frenche Saxonie Bauier Hollande Alsaria Mastriche which are all duche Cappadocia Thracia Creta Sicilia Sardinia Athens Nicopolis which are all Greeke There remaineth Spaine which is in a manner Italian and last of all Englande and Affrick So that there are not past fiue or sixe diuerse tongues of so many places as hee hath alledged to bleare the eyes of foolish Papistes As if one shoulde saye the Bishops of Caunterburie haue beene borne some in Yorke shire some in Durham some in Chester some in London some in Norfolke some in Cambridge c. Some in Italie some in Greece some in Fraunce some in Wales some in Normandie therefore that churche of Caunterburie is the chiefe Sea in the worlde 33 The See of Rome in deed was verie forward in vsurping authoritie of a chiefe iudge ouer other churches as Victor in excommunicating the bishops of Asia about the celebration of Easter But they vtterly neglected his sentence yea and diuerse did not as Maister Sanders sayeth gently wish him not to deale so seuerely but sharpely rebuked him for his presumption and contention as Eusebius sayeth lib. 5. Cap. 25. Extant autem verba illorum qui victorem acriter reprehenderunt Equibus Irenaeus c. Their wordes are extant which sharply reprehended Victor of which number Irenaeus was one And whereas hee sayeth that Saint Cypriane desyreth Pope Stephanus to depose Martianus bishop of Arles in Fraunce it is false for hee exhorteth Stephanus beeing somewhat slacke against the Nouatians to write his letters vnto his fellowe Bishops in Fraunce as he him self oft had done that they woulde depose Martianus the heretike and suffer him no longer to insult ouer the churche which argueth the remissenes of Stephanus to doe that which was the charitable duetie of euerie bishop as Cyprian sheweth but proueth not his authoritie ouer all bishops That Felix the thirde deposed Aacarius bishop of Constantinople hee shewed the time of the full reuelation of Antichriste to bee at hande yet did hee it not of his owne authoritie but by authoritie of a Synode and afterwarde by a Synode restored him But Iustinianus the Emperour deposed two bishoppes of Rome Syluerius and Vigilius by his owne authoritie 34 That the bishop of Rome hath beene made the Committie of diuerse Councels to receiue the subscription of such as haue beene noted of heresies after their repentance it prooueth no superioritie in the worlde but a good opinion that those Councels had of his fidelitie 35 The letters of Leo to Flauianus and Theodosius proue not that the Patriarches Flauianus and Anatolius were commaunded to giue an accompt to the Bishop of Rome but rather Leo humbly desyred the Emperour Theodosius to commaunde a Synode to bee gathered in Italy because Flauianus had appealed not onely to the Bishop of Rome but to all the Bishopâ— of Italie Ep. 23. And that hee writ that Anatolius shoulde confesse his faith before hee were ordeined it was his good councell to the Emperour no commaundement to either of them Ep. 31. 36 It is false that all nations appealed to the Pope of Africa did excommunicate all them that so would or thought meete to appeale Concil Mileuit Ca. 22. Concil Aph. Ep. ad Coelest And although some appealed to the iudgement of the church or Bishop of Rome yet that proueth no generall authoritie The Councell of Sardike which M. Sanders citeth Can. 7. did moderate those appeales which had not bene lawfull if they perteined to the Bishop of Rome de iure of right Liberatus whom he citeth for the appeale of Athanasius affirmeth that the Councel of Chalcedon confirmed by the Emperor gaue no place to the contradiction of the Bishop of Rome nor his legates Cap. 13. which disproueth his supremacie more then any appeale can proue it As for the appeale of Athanasius if any were it was euer ruled by the Emperour who appointed him a synode to iudge his cause at Tyre Socrat. lib. 1. Cap. 28. Theodorete testifieth that after he was called to Rome by Iulius the bishop by the Emperour Constantius his commaundement his cause was referred to the councell of Sardica when he had first appealed to the Emperour Constans lib. 2. Cap. 4. He citeth Chrys. Ep. ad Innocentium to proue that he did appeale to the Bishop of Rome where there is no such matter Only he declareth how iniuriously he was dealt withal by meanes of Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria from whome he appealed not to the Bishop of Rome but to a Synode Of the appeale of Flauianus we haue spoken euen now by the confession of Leo himselfe Ep. 23. As for other appeales of later times they proue the ambition of the Romish bishops that would receiue them although of many they were misliked 37 That Gelasius affirmed bishops condemned by prouincial councels were restored by the Pope alone hee citeth his Epist. ad Faustum in which is no such matter yet if it were so I say it proueth nothing but the ambition of that See which before his time began to encrease toward a supremacie and not long after obteined that it sought for But from the beginning it was not so
Iustinian which was almost 660. yeares after christ Cod. de summa trini◠lege 4. writing to Pope Ioannes Sanctitas vestra capu◠est omnium sanctarum ecclesiarum Your holines is heade of all holy churches I will not quarrell with him that he citeth the words otherwise then they are read in that Epist. by which it seemed he saw not the book himself but I answere that this epistle is a meere counterfet and forged euidence being not founde in the auncient coppies and therefore hath no glose of age vppon it as it is testified by Gregorius Haloander in a marginall note vppon the same Epistle No maruaile if a false title be defended with a forged euidence For if no men had admonished vs of that forgery yet the verie style vnlike Iustinians writing in other places argueth a later inuenter then either that Ioannes or Iustinian Likewise he citeth the saying of Eugenius not long before bishop of Carthage which called the Churche of Rome the head of all Churches and yet he reposed not all his confidence in the bishoppe of Romes aucthoritie but saide he woulde write to his brethren the other bishoppes that they might come to demonstrate the true faith against the Arrians especially to the bishop of the Church of Rome which is the head of all the Churches meaning the principall Churche Vict. lib. 2. 70 Thirdly hee citeth the words of the bishop of Patara intreatinge the Emperour Iustinian for Syluerius bishoppe of Rome whom he had banished There is not one king as Syluerius is Pope ouer the church of that whol world This bishoppe being 550. yeares after Christ and a suter also is not sufficient to make the Bishop of Rome so great a king And whereas Maister Sander sayeth that the Emperor yeelded to his saying repented willed him to be restored and therfore chargeth M. Iewel with impudency for alledging the example of Iustinian banishing Syluerius and Vigilius to proue that he had somewhat to doe in the churche of Rome affirming that hee might as well alledge the homicide and adultery of Dauid to prooue that hee had somewhat to doe with an other mans wife the trueth is M. Sanders forgeth a matter contrary to al histories which affirme that Syluerius dyed in banishment And how vnlike it is that Iustinianus repented of the banishinge of Syluerius vppon the words of the bishop of Patara in respect that he was Pope ouer the church of the whole worlde appeareth by this that he afterward banished Vigilius his next successor in the same sea The wordes of Liberatus whom M.S. citeth cap. 22. bee these Quem audiens imperator reuocari Roman◠Syluerium iussit c. Whom when the Emperour heard he commaunded that Syluerius shoulde be called againe to Rome and that iudgement should be made of these letters so that if it were prooued that they were written by him the bishop might remaine in any citie and if they were prooued to bee false he shoulde bee restored to his owne See. These wordes doe manifestly shew that Iustinian repented him not of banishing the Pope as a thing vnlawfull for him to doe but onely that whereas it was alledged in the Popes behalfe that the letters of treason were forged which he was charged to haue written to the Emperours enemies Iustinian was content that his cause might come to a newe iudgement and if he were found cleare to bee restored if not to continue in banishment To conclude the sayinges of Gregory bishop of Rome in defence of his owne dignitie are of small credit And yet they are a great deale more modest then the proude decrees of his successours For he challengeth the hearing of such controuersies only as arise in those dioces which haue no Metropolitane or Patriarche of their owne to resort vnto to determine them And againe I cannot tell what bishop is not subiect to the Apostolike See if any fault be found in them otherwise all the bishoppes are equall lib. 11. Ep. 58. lib. 7. Ep. 64. 70 The fame glorie and authoritie of the auncient church of Rome is a shame and dishonour to the present popish church of Rome Because it keepeth not nowe but hath altogether reiected the doctrine deliuered by the Apostles that Irenęus commended in his time libr. 3. Cap. 3. nor holdeth that rule or beleefe of the Apostles vndefyled which Ambrose praised in his time Ep. 81. 71 This land of Britaine receiued the faith of Christ as Gildas a Britaine a more auncient and certeine writer then Ado M. Sanders author in the time of the reigne of Tiberius 160. before Eleutherius was Bishop of Rome by the preaching of the Apostles and Euangelists as some write of Saint Paule some of Saint Simon of Cana some of Saint Philip some of Ioseph of Aramathia Neither did Eleutherius sende Fugatius and Damianus by him selfe or as of authoritie but being required by Lucius or Leuer Maure one of the little Kinges of some shiere of Britaine as Ninnius a Britaine doeth testifie For that Lucius was King of all Britaine it is proued false by all the Romaine histories which testifie that the Emperour was then soueraigne of Britaine vnder whome ruled certeine petie Kinges in some partes not throughly conquered 72 Beda an English Saxon more like to knowe matters of this lande then Prosper a forreyne writer affirmeth that the Britaine 's against the Pellagians heretiks desired ayde of the Bishops of Fraunce who by a Synod there gathered sent Germanus and Lupus two Bishops to confute the Pelagians without any sending to Rome or from Coelestinus Bishop of Rome lib. 1. Cap. 17. Likewise the seconde time at the request of the Clergie of Britaine Germanus returneth with Seuerus to roote out the heresie of the Pellagians 73 The zeale of Gregorie the first is to be commended that he sent Augustine to conuert the Saxons to the faith of Christe although the superstitions which hee brought in with the Christian faith cannot be defended The diligence of Augustin in teaching according to his knowledge deserueth praise yet can it not make him an Apostle because an Apostle hath his calling immediatly of God Gal. 1. If we report his pride and crueltie as wee finde in our histories written by Papistes let the worlde iudge whether we or they do him iniurie 74 From Vitellianus the Pope was Theodorus a Grecian sent to be Archebishop of Caunterburie rather to reteine the countrie vnder the vsurped authoritie of the Romish bishop then to instruct them in matters perteining to the faith For the Pope him selfe was afraide of him that beeing a Gręcian hee shoulde teache any thing contrarie to the Romishe religion Beda lib. 4. Cap. 1. 75 King Henrie the eight found his dominions subiect to the tyrannie of the Pope of Rome which vppon good ground and authoritie of the scriptures hee banished out of his realme what cause soeuer papistes do surmise or to speake plainly notwithstanding the iniurious and contumelious dealing of the Pope about
his Epistle to the Romaines and before Peter also came thither as it is plaine by the Epistle to the Galath cap. 2. And therefore seeing the church of Rome was first founded neither by Peter nor Paule she hath nothing to brag of their preheminence which many churches planted by the Apostles might with more equitie challenge As for the bequething of Peter and Paule that hee speaketh of when he can shew vs a copie of their Testament we wil shape him an other answere 24 That there were many martyrs and confessours at Rome in the primitiue churche the cause was the great multitude of people in that church by reason of the frequens of the imperial city But this proueth no prerogatiue of ancestrie ouer other churches That so many of the first bishops suffred death for Christs cause although it may be doubted of the number of 30. vpwarde because no auncient writer doth testifie it it was by reason they were neerest vnto the greatest persecutors which were the emperors of Rome But this proueth not the supremacy of the bishop of Rome before the bishops of other cities who haue likewise suffred death for Christ. 25 It is vtterly false that he affirmeth that no faithful people of any citye had euer so notable witnes as the church of Rome of S. Paul your faith is preached in the whol world In which translation he falsifieth the words of S. Paule for he saith your faith is reported or commended in all the world not that it was preached for thē an vnsufficient faith should haue bin preached which needed the iustification of that Epistle And whereas M.S. saith that Cyprian saith the Apostle spake it prophetically not onely in respect of their faith present but also of thē that should folow it is to smal purpose except M.S. can proue that the Romanes now do hold the same faith which S. Paul S. Cyprian commended in his felow bishop Cornelius and the Romanes of his time And as for as notable and a more notable testimonie of an other people then the Romanes read the beginning of the 2. Thessalon capit 1.1 Collossians cap. 1. 26 Whereas he saith that S. Hiero. proueth the faith of the Romaines which Saint Paule praised to haue remayned in his dayes because none other people did so deuoutly visite the sepulchres of the martyres which the protestantes counte for infidelitie rather then faith he sheweth himselfe to bee an impudent wrangler The words of Hierom be these In prooem lib. 2. in Epist. ad Gal. 3. Vultis scire ô Paula Eustochiū quomodo Apostolus vnam quāque prouinciā suis proprietatibus denotarit Vsque hodie cadem vel virtutum vestigia permanent vel errorum Romanae plebis laudatur fides Vbi alibi tanto studio frequentia ad ecclesias martyrum sepulchra concurritur vbi sic ad similitudinem caelestis tonitrui Amen reboat vacua idolorū templa quatiuntur Non quod aliam habeant Romani fidem nisi hanc quam omnes Christi ecclesie sed quod deuotio in eis maior sit simplicitas ad credendum Rursum facilitatis superbię arguuntur Will you know ô Paula Eustochium how the Apostle hath described euerye prouince in their owne properties Euen to this daye the steppes remaine either of vertues or of errors The faith of the Pope of Rome is praised Where is there such concourse any where els with so great desire and frequence vnto the churches and sepulchres of martyres Where doth Amen so rebound like to heauenly thunder the emptye temples of Idoles so shaken with it Not that the Romaines haue any other faith but the same which al the churches of Christ haue but because in them is greater deuotion and simplicitie to beleeue likewise they are reproued for too much facility pride These words declareth that Hierome speaketh of no Popish pilgrimage but of resorting to the churches which were builded vpō the sepulchres of the martyrs therefore called the memories of the martyrs Secōdly what he meaneth by faith namely deuotion simplicitie of beleeuing not doctrine Thirdly that the Romaines reteined aswell the vices as the vertues of their auncesters But nowe they reteine onely the vices 27 The Papists liue vnder a visible head but the same is Antichrist the protestants vnder an inuisible head which is christ The Pope fitteth in Rome the mother of al abhominations hauing nothing to brag of but the vertues of such as haue dwelled there before him and no good qualitie of his owne Yet the title of vniuersall shepherd M.S. denieth vnto him although he most arrogantly do vsurpe it Howbeit properly M.S. saith he ought not to haue it 28 Therfore the bishops of Rome before Gregory the first refused the same title as prophane proude which belongeth onely to christ Yet the councel of Chalcedō offred it to Pope Leo the first but he refused it as slanderous This being cōfessed by M S. chuse whether you wil say the councell did erre in offring the same or Pope Leo in refusing or the latter Popes in vsing the same 29 Gregorie the first in deede tooke vppon him the humble style of the seruaunt of the seruaunts of God as M.S. saith but his successors vsing that title for a formality hauing bene content to be called Lord of Lords and God aboue all gods and our lord God the Pope and the most holiest and an hundreth more blasphemous titles beside treading on the Emperours necke such like examples of prophane pride as Nero Heliogabalus no Dioclesian euer shewed the like 30 It is not to be proued that he saith there were 4. Patriarks at the beginning nor that the Pope of Rome was chiefe For the councell of Nice Canon 6. doth make the patriarke of Alexandria and the rest equall with the bishop of Rome Although afterward the bishops of Rome as they were cōmonly ambitious when persecution was staied by prerogatiue of the imperiall citie challenged a kinde of primacie yet not of authoritie but of order And whereas he sayeth other Patriarches were preferred in respect of the affinitie they had with S. Peter it is false for the Patriarch of Constantinople was placed next to him of olde Rome because Constantinople was newe Rome the imperiall cittie Concil Constantinop Cap. 2. or after Garanza Cap. 5. That the Pope did erect patriarchal Seas at Aquileia at Senis it was not for that the other were infected with heresie but that they refused to acknowledge his Antichristian authoritie bought of Phocas the murtherer by Boniface the third for if his authoritie had bene so great as is pretended he would haue deposed those hereticall bishops and set vp Catholikes in their places rather then to haue spoyled the seates of their dignities for euer for the fault of the bishops 31 It is false that he sayeth neuer any bishop was so much esteemed as the bishop of Rome for Athanasius of Alexandria was more esteemed of the
The bishop of Rome bearing witnesse of him self for his owne aduauntage is not to be credited In that Epistle he sheweth that Acacius by Lyra was cōdemned according to the Councell of Chalcedon which was lawful not only for him but for any other Bishop to haue done in as much as he inuented no newe heresie but did communicate with an other heresie alreadie condemned in a Councell 38 In the third generall Councell holden at Ephesus there is mention that Cyrillus was President of the councell but not that hee was Lieuetenant of the Bishop of Rome although Euasius a late writer in comparison doth so suppose But the wordes of the Councel are these Denique Petrus Ioannes aequalis sunt ad alterutrum dignitatis propter quod Apostoli sancti discipuli esse monstrantur Peter and Iohn are of equall dignitie one with the other bicause they are shewed to be Apostles and holy Disciples This confession of the Councel maketh more against the Popes supremacie then the Lieuetenantship of Cyrillus to the Pope if it were true could proue for it 39 Maister Sander saith without proofe but of declining times almost 500. yeares after Christe and later that the See of Rome had Legates both ordinarie and extraordinarie throughout all Christendome which if it were true proueth no more his supremacie then that the King of Spaine hath dominion ouer all those countries where he hath Legates ordinarie and extraordinarie He citeth the seuenth Canon of the councel of Sardica which was that he might send a Priest from his side Which in deede was a restraint of his vsurped authoritie and not a confirmation or an enlargement thereof For the Canon is this That if any Bishop that was deposed by the Bishops of his owne countrie did appeale to the Bishoppe of the Church of Rome the Bishop of Rome should write to the Bishops of the next prouince to examine his cause and if the partie by his opportunitie should moue the Bishop of Rome the second time to be heard againe then he might send Presbyterum à latere an elder from his side one or more which either with the Bishops aforesaid should iudge and determine the matter or else leaue it wholy to the iudgment of the Bishops of the Prouince By this Canon the singular authoritie of the Romish Bishop is modestly excluded 40 The examples of Bishops Perigenes and Martinus translated by the Bishops of Rome in the declining times proueth not the perpetual supremacie of the Pope seeing by generall Councels al such translations haue bene forbidden in elder times Nic. c. 15. chalc c. 5. 41 The consent of the B. of Rome was not so necessarie to generall Councels but that they were held without his presence or his sending For concerning his personal presence he was not at any of the 4. first approued generall Councels neither any for him at the second of thē which was held at Constantinople where Nectarius Bishop of the citie was president Also the fourth of Chalcedon made the See of Constantinople equal with the See of Rome which although Leo Bishop of Rome disalowed yet did it take place as Liberatus testifieth Cap. 13. 42 Although the Bishop of Rome had his Legate in some prouinciall Councels yet it is great impudencie to say he had them in al. And such as then were present they bare no rule or preheminence but as the Legates of other Bishops Philippus and Asellius were at the Councell of Aphrica in which decrees were made against the supremacie of the Bishop of Rome and yet they subscribed cap. 92 43 That the Pope hath procured a fewe nations to be conuerted within these thousand or 900. yeares as England by Augustine Saxoni by Bonifacius c it can not excuse him from being Antichrist him selfe ▪ although M. Sander saith we account him to be but the forerunner of Antichrist For though Gregorie otherwise a ceremoniall and superstitious man was moued with zeale of Christes glorie to seeke the conuersion of as many as he could yet the Popes which followed after him in procuring the cōuersion of some countries rather by cruell warres then by preaching of the Gospell as Prusia Liuonia Lithuania c. sought their owne glorie and aduauntage vnder the colour of Christes religion and therefore were not diuided against Satan but ioyned with him in hypocrisie 44 As for the conuersion of the Infidels in the newe found landes is a newe found argument to proue the primacie of the See of Rome Like as the conuersion of Elias the Iewe by Pius 5. Many Iewes and some of greate learning as Emanuel Tremelius haue bene conuerted to the Gospel And one within this two yeares was baptized in London 45 That the See of Rome hath so long flourished like a Queene in worldly pompe it is the more like to the See and citie of Antichrist Apoc. 18. verse 7. And that the cities of the other Patriarches and their Bishops be oppressed with Infidels it letteth them not to be true Christians For Esaie 60. prophesieth not of worldly pompe but of the spirituall glorie of the Church which was as great before Constantius stayed the persecution as euer since 46 That no Bishop was euer so honoured of Princes Kings or Emperours as the Pope c it proueth him to be Antichrist and his Church the whore of Babylon Apo. 17. vers 2. 17. cap. 13. 16. 47 That the Frenchmen deposed their King Childericus by the Oracle of Pope Zacharie which discharged them of their lawful othe of obedience it proueth mightily the Pope to be Antichrist Peter saith Feare God honour the King 1. Pet. 2. 48 And much more that Pope Leo the third did transferre the Empire it selfe into the West For Peter commaunded obedience to be giuen to euery ordinance of man for the Lord whether to the King as to the most excellent or to those rulers that are sent of him 1. Pet. 2. 49 That Pope Gregorie the fift gaue an order for the election of the Emperour confirmeth our iudgement of the Pope to be Antichrist as also that Nicholas the first threatened the Emperour Michael the ouerthrowe of the Empire of the East whereof hee by his proud rebellion and disobedience and diuiding the West part from it was a cause 50 That the succession of the Bishops of Rome hath ben continued in histories with the reigne of Emperours and Kings it proueth in deede that the Church of Rome hath ben either very famous when it was gouerned of good Bishops or infamous when it was degenerated into Antichristian tyrannie but this proueth no more the authoritie thereof to be lawfull or the religion good then the succession of Heathen tyrants Emperours Kings great Turkes proueth their religion true or their vsurpation lawfull As for the light of worldly fame that M.S. boasteth of is spirituall darknesse and not the light of the Gospell which our Sauiour speaketh of Luke 5. No man lighteth a candle c.
51 As it is true that the Bishops of Rome in the first 300. yeares were greatly persecuted by tyrants so is it false that all heretiques agreed to resist that See. For diuers Bishops were heretiques Liberius was an Arrian peruerted by Fortunatianus Hierom. in Catalog Vigilius was priuily an Eutychian as appeareth by an Epistle of his written to those heretiques at the procurement of the Empresse Liberatus Cap. 22. Honorius was a Monothelite condemned in the sixt generall Councell at Constantinople Act. 13. Anastasius was a fauourer of Nestorians as many Ecclesiastical histories do confesse Garanza in Anast. 52 That the Church of Rome hath continued although diuers Christian Princes haue opposed them selues against it with the citizens of Rome and the Cardinalls and that neither the wicked life of the Popes nor the schismes of many Popes at once haue subuerted it doeth not proue it to be the rocke against which the gates of hell shall not preuaile For when Antichristian heresie and diuelish wickednesse hath ouerflowed all the Church of Rome it is manifest the gates of hell haue mightily preuailed against that See although the finall ouerthrowe of that Antichristian head with the body be reserued vnto the almightie power of our Sauiour Christe toward the end of the world 2. Thessa. 2. And it is false that Christian Princes the Romane Citizens the Cardinals or the factions of Diuers Popes haue assaulted the See of Rome but rather the ambition and tyrannie of some persons occupying the same 53 It is false that all countries which forsooke the obedience of the Bishop of Rome were shortly after possessed by Infidels for Affrica was none otherwise possessed by the Vandales then Italy by the Gothes other barbarous nations The Graecians immediately before their oppression by the Turkes were reconciled to the Church of Rome in the councell of Ferrar and Florens â–ª Before which time the Bohemians forsooke the Romish See and yet remaine a nation at this day howe many mightie nations haue forsaken the the Pope which by Gods grace shall be kept as long from oppression of Infidels as they keep in obedience of the Gospel the contempt whereof and not of the Pope was punished in the Asians Africans and Graecians And the prophecie of Esaie 60. That nation and kingdome which shall not serue thee shall perish is to be vnderstoode of finall and eternall perdition and not of oppression by Infidels For the nation of the Persians Turkes Saracens and other which submit not themselues to the Church of Christ shal perish although they triumph in the worlde neuer so long 54 Diuerse councels without the bishop of Rome did with as great and greater credite determine of the Canonicall Bookes of holie scripture as Gelasius did with his 70. Bishops Cap. 59. Carth. 3. Cap. 74. and others 55 The Popes liberalitie toward forrein nations was neuer so great by the hundreth parte as his couetous extortions and Antichristian exactions haue beene witnesse Matth. Paris Matth. West Anno Reg. 1244. and in a manner all Popish Historiographers of late times As for his liberalitie in these times is but to his owne bondslaues whom he hyreth with a litle exhibition to blase his charitie least hee should bee forsaken of all men 56 The greatest archheretike that euer was is the Pope of Rome so farre passing the archheretikes that haue bene in the other patriarchall Sees as Antichrist the head of all heresies passeth the members of that bodie For other heretikes take away but some part of Christes person or his office but the Pope vnder pretence of honoring him putteth him quite out of place by his vsurped supremacie false doctrine blasphemous sacrifice of the Masse and all other his abhominations And that our Sauiour CHRISTE prayed for Peter that his faith might not fayle it perteined onely to his person and to the temptation that immediately followed For otherwise Peter erred when he was reproued of God in vision Act. 10. and of Paule Gallath 2. And that Bishops of Rome haue erred and beene heretiques I haue proued in the 51. article to which you may adde Iohn the 23. that was condemned in the councell of Constance for that he denied the immortalitie of the soule the resurrection of the bodie and the life euerlasting Sess. 11. 57 That the See of Rome hath made so many wicked decrees so vniuersally obserued with such consent of many nations it came not of the spirite of godly vnitie but of the efficacie of errour whiche God sent into the worlde for a iust plague of the contempt of the trueth 2. Thessalonians 2. And this consent of so many nations vnto her abhominable decrees proueth Rome to be Babilon the mother of all abhominations that hath made all nations dronke with the wine of the furie of her fornications Apoc. 18. verse 3. The degrees of marriage prohibited are of the Lawe of God and not of the Pope the celebration of Easter although it be an indifferent ceremonie yet it is elder then the Antichristian authoritie of the Pope Albeit the mysterie of iniquitie beganne to worke in Victor about it That many Bishops and priuate men haue written to suche Bishops of Rome as were learned namely Leo and Gregorie for their resolution in diuerse questions it proueth no supremacie for as many haue written in like cases to Augustine a poore Bishop of Hippo and to Hieronyme but a Prieste of Rome yea Damasus Bishop of Rome himselfe hath written to Hieronyme for his iudgement Pope Sergius did write to Ceolfride Abbot of Woremouth in England to be resolued of certeine questions of Beda one of his Monkes Math. West Ant. 734. 59 That this resorte to Rome for councell was not onely of deuotion but of duetie because the Pope had reserued the hardest cases to his owne iudgement as Moses did hee bringeth no proofe but the Popes owne decrees whiche are of small credite in his owne case and the corrupt practise of the later times when men had submitted themselues vnto the beast 60 That not onely the Bishoppes of Italie but also of Sicilia whiche is not farre off did come in person to Rome at certeine times it prooueth not that all Bishoppes in the worlde were obedient to the Bishop of Rome or were bound so to visite him or that they did so visite him 61 The primacie of the Bishoppe of Rome in olde times was but of order not of power his presidence in councels was but honour not of authoritie and that by graunt or permission at the pleasure of the councell Ioan. Patr. Ant. in con Basil. The councell of Nice made him equall with other Patriarches The councell of Constantinople made the see of Constantinople equall with Rome Sozomen Lib. 7. Cap. 7. 9 â–ª so did the councell of Chalcedon leauing Rome no prerogatiue but of Senioritie and referring all causes of difficultie to the iudgement of the see of Constantinople whiche was new Rome Con. 9. Con. 16. 62 That Iustinian was
content to permitte to the Pope of the Elder Rome to be Primus Sacerdotum according to the definition of the Canons it proueth not his pretended supreame authoritie ouer all other men but onely that he was first in Order For hee himselfe deposed two Popes Syluerius and Vigilius And where Maister Sander interpreteth the definitions of the Cannon to be all the foure first councells he ouerreacheth too much for the Pope could neuer proue his primacie by the Councell of Nice although he forged a decree thereof as is shewed before 63 It is true that Phocas the traytor and murderer of his M. Mauritius vsurping the Empire for a great summe of monie receiued of Boniface the thirde determined the controuersie between Constantinople and Rome giuing Rome the title of Antichrist which from such a holy beginning it claimeth and vsurpeth vnto this day But if the See of Rome had beene the head of all churches by the word of God what neede had the Bishop of Rome to buy it of Phocas but onely to shewe himselfe the successor of Simon Magus not of Simon Peter 64 As it is true that God vsed the peace and authoritie of the Romane Empire to spread abroade the doctrine of the Gospel so is it altogether vntrue that Constantine resigned the citie of Rome to Syluester the Bishop thereof because he builded another imperiall citie in the East to keepe those partes of the Empire in peace and subiection For it is well knowen that many hundreth yeres after Constantine the great his successors inioyed the citie and pallaces of Rome vntill they were defaced by the Gothes and yet afterward the citie was restored to Iustinianus the Emperour out of the handes of the Gothes by Bellisarius and Narses And whereas M. Sander saith that neuer any Emperour of the West had his seate at Rome after Constantinus he sheweth either his great impudence or ignorance in histories For although some of them occupied in warres kept at Milliane Treueres or other cities yet is it vtterly false that there was neuer any Emperour suffered to make his ordinarie mansion place at Rome For Honorius Valentinianus Iunior dwelt at Rome before the subuersion of it by the Gothes many other euen vnto Augustus After which time Italy being oppressed with barbarous nations was no place for the Emperours safetie to dwell in In which meane time the Pope grewe to such greatnesse that he made challenge not onely to the citie but euen to the Empire it selfe taking vppon himselfe Antichrist to remoue it from the East vnto the West which was in deede a great miracle but such a miracle as was more meete for Antichriste to make then the successour of Peter 65 It is true that Rome hath lost no preheminence by the departure of the Emperor for as Chrysostome sheweth in 2. Thes. Antichrist was to succeed the Emperour in the seat of the Empire being made voide and to vsurpe all auctoritie both of God and men pretending the seat of Peter but being in deede the seat of the beast Apoca. 13. and of the Whore of Babylon Apo. 17. as both Augustine and Hieronym doe often times confesse Augu. De Ciuit. Dei. lib. 18. cap. 2. 22. Hie. Algas 9.11 In Esai lib. 13. cap. 47. 66 Although it be confessed by vs that the prerogatiue of the first place was graunted to the bishoppes of Rome in many metings and councels yet is it not granted that it was so alwayes nor in all generall councels And therefore this our confession prooueth not the Pope to be suche a starre candell or light as M. Sanders doeth imagine Nor that hee shoulde bee heade of the church because hee was first in place no more then an archbishoppe is head of the churche of his prouince because he is first in place although his church be compared to the members of a body For all particular churches make but one bodye whereof Christ is the onely head for it were a monstrous body that shoulde haue two heades and therefore it is truely saide in the councel of Basil Papa non est caput principale nec ministeriale vniuersalis ecclesiae The Pope is neither the principall nor the ministeriall heade of the vniuersall churche And therefore as it is saide in the same place the Pope neuer had any prerogatiue but by concession or permission of councels Now make what you can M. Sander of our confession and your owne popish councels 67 It is a faint proofe that the church of Rome is the head rote and mother of all churches because Ambrose and Hierome called the faith of the church of Rome the Catholike faith at suche time as it was true and Catholike in deede As if a man shoulde say the faith of the church of Englande is all one with the Catholike fayth therefore the churche of Englande is the head roote and mother to all churches Likewise that the Vandales which were barbarous people and Arrians calleth the Catholikes Romanes differing from them in nation as much as in religion 68 The fathers neuer beleeued that the Romaine churche cannot erre in the profession of their faith For Cyprian lib 4. Epist. 3. ad Romanos c. Falshood canne haue no accesse to the Romanes meaneth not as M.S. saith such Romaines as tarye in the vnitie of S. Peters chaire but of such as continue in the faith which S. Paule praised therefore hee saith Ad Romanos quorum fides c. The Romanes whose faith was praised by the Apostles Againe he speaketh not of erringe in profession of fayth but of falshood in winking at Scismatikes which sought for a refuge in S. Peters Chaire the principal churche beinge iustly banished out of other Churches And that Cyprian thought not that the Churche of Rome cannot erre in profession of faith it is most manifest by this that if he had bin so perswaded he woulde not haue contrary to the iudgement of the churche of Rome decreed with his felow bishops to adnihilate the sacraments ministred by heretikes As for the decretall epistle of Lucius we reiect it as a counterfet with all the rest of that rable in which these ancient bishops of Rome are faine to write so barbarously as no Carter did speake Latine in their time when they liued and alway extoll the dignity of that See of Rome as though in these great persecutions they had nothing els to talke of but their prerogatiues priuiledges The testimonies of Leo which he citeth sauour of a Romane stomake drawing as neere to the Antichristian pride as the man was to the time which wrote them Barnarde was but a late writer when Antichrist was in the top of his pride therefore his iudgement argueth the corruption of his time Finally when so many Popes haue bin condemned for heretikes what impudācie is to say the Pope or See of Rome cānot erre ▪ 69 To proue that the Emperours acknowledged the church of Rome to be the head of all churches he citeth
they were not erected according to Gods commaundent and yet was not hee accounted an heretike 2. Regum 18. Much lesse are they to bee called heretikes that throwe downe the Popishe aultars whiche were set vp against the onelye Aulter and sacrifice of Christ and his passion to the most blasphemous defacing of the same To the 41. that any bishop was maryed on Ashe wednesday it is a foolish demaund to require the proofe but that iâ— was lawful for a bishoppe to mary any day in the yeare it is proued by the authoritie of scriptures which exclude no day as vnlawfull to mary in To the 42. that no man did write that the gouernemeÌ„t of women was monstrous we grant neither do we holde this article though some one man haue witten it To the 43. that est in these words hoc est corpus meum is to be taken for significat it is proued by Tertullian who expoundeth hoc est corpus meum id est figura corporis 〈◊〉 This is my body that is to say this is a figure of my body contra Marc li 4. S. Ambrose ipse clamat dominus Iesus hoc est corpus meum Ante bedectionem verborum caelestium alia speciâ—s nominatur post consecrationem corpus Christi significatur â–ª Our Lorde Iesus himselfe saith alowd This is my body Before the blessing of the heauenly wordes it is called another kinde after consecration the body of Christ is signified Deijs qui myster init Chrysostome sayeth of the sanctified vessels in quibus non est verum corpus Christi sed mysterium corporis Christi continetur In which the very bodie of Christ is not but the mysterie of the bodie of Christe is conteined â–ª in Mat. Hom. 11. Augustine sayeth Nam ex eo quod scripâ—um est sanguinem pecoris animam eius esse praeter id â—uod supra dixi non ad me pertinere quid agatur de pecoris anima possum etiam interpretari prÄ™ceptum illud in signo positum esse non enim Dominus dubitauit dicere hoc est corpus meum cum signum daret corporis sui For as concerning that which is writen that bloud is the life of the beast beside that which I sayed before that it perteineth not to me what is done with the life of a beast I may also interprete that commaundement to consist in a signe For our Lord doubted not to saye This is my bodie when hee did giue a signe of his bodie contâ— Adamantum In this same Augustine sheweth that these wordes hoc est corpus meum are to be taken in the same sense that these words sanguis est anima pecoris where est is manifestly taken for significat by his iudgement there is no one article wherein we differ from the Papistes that hath more plentifull confirmation in the doctours of our doctrine therein then this of the carnall presence of Christ in the sacrament To the 44. that the lay people communicating did take the cuppe one at anothers hand it appereth by the words of Basill in Ep. ad Caesar. Patri for of those that dwelled in the wildernesse where no Priest was saith hee a seipsis communicant they receiue of themselues or one of another And in Alexandria and Aegypt euery one of the people hath the communion in his house and receiue it there at home Et in ecclesia sacerdoâ— dat partem accipit eam is qui suscipit cuÌ„ omni libertate ipsam admouâ—t ori propria 〈◊〉 Idem igitur est virtute sine vnam partem quis accâ—piet a sacerdote sine plures partes simul And euen in the Church the Priest giueth one part and he which receueth it taketh it with all libertie and putteth it to his mouth with his owne hand Therefore it is the same in vertue whether a man take one part of the Priest or more partes together Also it appeareth by the 6. Councell of Constantinople Can. â—8 that before that time Lay men in presence of the Bishop Elder or Deacon did diuide the deuine mysteries among theÌ„ selues which vntil then was not forbiddeÌ„ Our Sauiour Christe also hauing once deliuered the cup did not take it into his handes so often as euery one of his disciples did drinke but willed them to diuide it among them selues Luc. 22. To the 45. that a controuersie of religion being decided by the Byshop of Rome the contrary parte was not taken for heresie nor the mainteiners thereof for heretikes is proued by the controuersie of rebaptising them that were baptised by heretikes which when Cornelius and Stephanus Bishops of Rome had decided yet was not the contrary opinion taken for heresie nor Saint Cyprian al the bishops of Affrica which agreed vppon it in a councel at Carthage counted for heretikes a matter notoriously knowen to all them that reade Cyprians workes or Euseb. lib. 7. Cap. 3. which vtterly ouerthroweth the popes authoritie To the 46. that any executed for felony was put in the kalendar for a Martyr is a thing needelesse to proue yet the penitent theefe whiche being crucified with Christ was executed iustly for his offences is of good writers counted a Martyr So might one hanged for felonie and at his death repenting and detesting Papistrie To the 47. that such as refused to renounce the Bishop of Romes authoritie were excommunicated it appeareth by the Councell of Carthage 3. Cap. 26. which forbad that the Bishop of Rome or any other Bishop of the principal See should be called the highest Priest or the prince of Priestes or by any such title Also the Councel Mileuitanum doth excommunicate all them that appealed to the Bishop of Rome or any other out of Aphrica Cap. 22. Yea he that thought such appellations lawfull was excommunicated by which it appeareth that though there be no expresse mention of an othe yet an othe in that case vpon good ground might be tendered To proue that a Fryer of 60. yeares age being made Bishop did marry a woman of 19. yeares of age within sixe hundreth yeares after Christ which is the eight and fortith article it is impossible because there was not any fryer in the worlde 1200. yeares after Christ. To proue that any Bishop preached that it is all one to pray in a dunghill and in a Church whiche is the 49. article is no assertion of ours neither of any man I thinke in the worlde To the â—0 that such as were no heretikes refused to subscribe to a generall councell gathered by the Byshop of Rome is proued before by saint Cyprian and the Byshops of Aphrica of his time also by Saint Augustine and the bishopps of Aphrica in his time which refused to subscribe to the Bishops of Rome Zosimus Bonifacius and Celestinus pretending the councel of Nice for their authority in receiuing appeales but when the true Copyes were brought from Alexandria and Constantinople they werâ— found falsifiers of the Nicen Councel Concilio Aphricano â–ª cap 101.
To the â— that to confesse a mans sinnes to the priest is a vaine and superstitious trauell is proued by Chrysostome In Psalmo 50. Non dico vt confitearis conseruo tuo vt exprobret dicito Deo qui curat ea I bidde thee not confesse thy sinnes to thy fellowe seruaunt that he may vpbraide thee tell them to God which healeth them That to seek to make vp a ful and perfect satisfaction by fasting praying almesdeedes c. is iniurious to the passion and merites of Christ is proued by that saying of S. Iohn The bloud of Iesus Christ doth purge vs from all sinnes and if we confesse our sinnes he is faithful and righteous that he will forgiue our sinnes and purge vs from all vnrighteousnesse 1. Ioan. 1. The 7. that the knowledge of the scriptures is a sufficient licence for a man to be a publike teacher in the Church we denie likewise that there is no difference betweene the ministerie of the Churche and the people althoughe that to speake properly of the terme priesthoode all true Christians are alike Priestes to God as it is most manifest 1. Pet. 2. vers 5. Apoc. 1. verse 6. To the 8. That Christian Princes had the auhoritie of supream head ouer the church in that sense which it is giuen to our souereigne is proued by Constantine Theodosius Martianus c. who called the generall councels made lawes for establishment of religion punished Bishoppes and other of the Cleargie offenders and not onely the Emperours but also many other Kinges of Spaine and Fraunce who had the like authoritie in their Dominions as appeareth in all histories and in the actes of the councels generall and prouinciall The 9. that faith onely iustifieth after one be baptised and sanctified is proued by Basil in an Homily of humilitie Hom. 51. speaking of a man baptised and sanctified Haec enim est perfecta ac integra gloriatio in Deo quando neque ob iustitiam suam quis se iactaâ— sed nouit quidem seipsum verè iustiâ—iÄ™ indigum esse sola autem fide in Christum iustificatum For this is a full and perfect reioycing in God when a man doeth not boast himselfe of his righteousnes but knoweth him selfe truely to be voide of true righteousnesse and to be iustified by onely faith in Christe The 10. that all the iustice and holinesse of good men is but an imputatiue iustice c. is not saide of vs which affirme that faith onely is imputed for righteousnesse and not the holines or iustice of any man But we affirme that all the workes of men be they neuer so holie and righteous are imperfect and therefore deserue not the rewarde of Iustice promised in the lawe to the perfect obseruers thereof and to none other The 11. that the keeping of 40. dais fast had no coÌ„mandement from Christ or his Apostles it is manifest by Eusebius which affirmeth that Montanus the heretike was the first that prescribed lawes of fasting Lib. 5. Cap. 16. also he reporteth that there was no certeintie of the time of fasting before Easter for some fasted one day some two dayes some more some compting their day 40. houres of day and night Lib. 5. Cap. 20. And Augustine plainely sayeth Quibus autem diebus non oportet ieiunare quibus oporteat prÄ™cepto Domini vel Apostolorum non inuenio definitum What dayes we ought not to fast or what dayes we ought to fast I finde it not defined by the commandement of our Lord or of his Apostles As for the abstinence from flesh in Lent for ciuill pollicies sake because it toucheth not religion we neede shew no proofe of it To the 12. that aneiling of Christians hath ben abhorred of Christians it is hard to proue because that Popish aneiling by the Priests with oyle consecrated by the Bishop was not in vse in that time The first that is read to vse suche like aneiling about 400. yeres atfer Christ was Innocentius who appointed that al christian men vnder his obedience should vse oyle as witnesseth Sigebertus But Durand and other writers ascribe the institution of this extreame vnction to Felix the fourth who liued about 514. yeares after Christ so that vntil that time this Popishe sacrament was not knowen in the Church And as for reseruation of the sacrament of the altar forbidden I shall need no better authoritie for M. Rastel then the counterfet epistle of Clemens Bishop of Rome Epi. 2. Tanta in altario Holocausta offerantur quanta populo sufficere debent Quòd si remanserint in crastinum non reseruentur sed cum timore tremore clericorum diligentia consumantur Let so many hosts be offered in the altar as may serue the people But if any remaine let them not be reserued vntil the next day but with feare and trembling spent out by the diligence of the Clearks And for other men that can discerne trueth froÌ„ forgerie the testimonie of Euagrius Li. 4. ca. 36. may serue which reporteth an old custome of the church of CoÌ„stantinople to send for childreÌ„ that went to schoole to spend whatsoeuer remained of the sacrament after the coÌ„munion The thirde parte conteineth foure articles To the first that calling vpon Saints in heauen was accounted then blasphemie is proued by S. Augu. which so accouÌ„ted calling vpon Angels or any other creature Conf. Li. 11. Cap. 42. Quem inuenirem qui me reconciliaret tibi an eundum mihi fuit ad Angelos qua prece Quibus sacramentis Whom should I finde that might reconcile me vnto thee Should I haue gone to the Angels With what prayers With what sacraments And yet I confesse some seedes of that errour were scattered in his time But before his time Epiphanius rehearseth it among the heresies of the Caiani that they did call vpon angels Tom. 3. Haeres 38. and calling vpon dead men he compteth it an heresie of the Heracleonites Hae. 36. And Contra Collyridianos he vtterly condemneth al worshipping either of dead Saints or any else or the virgine Marie as them that robbe God of his honour for what greater honour can we doe vnto God then to call vpon him in al our afflictions â–ª Psal. 50. And Dauid saieth Whom haue I in the heauen but thee and I haue desired none in the earth with thee Psal. 73. To the second that the setting vp of images of Christe in Churches was counted idolatrie it is manifest by Epiphanius who as he testifieth in his epistle vnto Iohn bishop of Ierusalem did rend a vaile in which such an image was painted Cum ergo hoc vidissem in Ecclesia Christi contra authoritatem scripturarum hominis pendere imaginem scidi illud c. When I had seene this thing that in the Churche of Christ contrarie to the authoritie of scriptures an image of a man did hang I rent it in peeces c. As for the signe of the crosse I haue shewed before out of Irenaeus that the Valentinian heretikes were
panis hic remissio peccatorum est Wee may receiue euen the Lorde himselfe which hath giuen vs his fleshe euen as he himselfe saith I am the bread of life For he receiueth him that examineth himselfe he which receiueth him dyeth not the death of a sinner for this bread is the remission of sinnes This place doth first ouerthrowe M. Heskins dreame of two breades Secondly the Papistes assertion that wicked men receiue the bodie of christ And thirdly teacheth that to eate Christ his fleshe is to receiue forgiuenesse of sinnes which M. Heskins and the Papistes denye Another place of Ambrose is alledged li. 4. de sacra Ca. 4. Let vs then teach this How can that which is bread be the bodie of Christ By consecration By what and whose wordes then is the consecration Of our Lorde Iesus For all the other things that be sayed praise is giuen to God petition is made in prayer for the people for Kings and for the rest but when it is come to that the honourable sacrament is made now the Priest vseth not his owne wordes but he vseth the wordes of Christe Therefore the worde of Christ maketh this sacrament This is noted to be a plaine place for M. Iuell but for what purpose I cannot tell except it be to proue that he will not denye that the sacrament is consecrated and made the bodie of Christ to the worthie receiuer by the wordes of Christe as before Eusebius Emissenus hath the next place in Hom. Pasc. The inuisible Priest with his worde by a secreat power turneth the visible cratures into the substance of his body bloud This place being more apparant for his transubstantiation then any that he hath alledged he vrgeth not nor gathereth of it but onely that Christ is the author of the consecration and conuersion As for the conuersion I thinke his conscience did tell him that it was not of the substance but of the vse of things a spirituall and not a corporall change as both Eusebius and other writers do sufficiently expound what maner of mutation it is The last man is Cyprian De Caen Dom. It were better for them a milstone to be tyed to their neckes and to be drowned in the Sea then with an vnwashed conscience to take the morsell at the hande of our Lorde who vntil this day doeth create and sanctifie and blesse and to the godly receiuers diuide this his most true and most holy bodie Here M. Heskins vrgeth that he createth not an imaginatiue bodie but his moste true bodie But the blinde man seeth not that either this creation is figuratiue or else it ouerthroweth transsubstantiation For to create is not to change one substance into another but to make a substance of nothing Secondly that Christ diuideth his bodie but to the godly receiuers Finally in the same Sermon he saith that all this mysterie is wrought by faith Haec quotie◠agimus c. So often as we do these things wee do not sharpen our teeth to byte but with a syncere faith we breake and deuide this holy breade To conclude this Chapter seeing M. Heskins hath laboured so well to proue that Christ onely not the priest doth consecrate and so often chargeth vs with slaundering them to make God the bodie of Christ I would demaunde wherefore the Bishop when he giueth them the order of Priesthood giueth them power to consecrate saying Accip◠potestatem consecrandi offerend◠pro vinit defunctis Take authoritie to consecrate to offer for the quick and the dead If the Priest cannot consecrat whereto serueth this power If the Priest take vpon him to consecrat Christ God and man howe are we charged with slaundering of them The ninth Chapter expoundeth the next text that followeth in Saint Iohn The text which he taketh vpon him to expound in this Chapter is this The Iewes stroue among them selues saying How can this fellowe giue vs his flesh to eat And first he sayth that they being carnall could not vnderstande the spirituall talke of Christe wherein as he saith truely so hee speaketh contrarie to him selfe For he will haue those words to be spokē carnally They could not vnderstand sayth he because they did not beleeue therefore they questioned how it might be euen as the Pseudochristians do How can the bodie of Christ be in the sacrament vnder so litle a peece of bread c. But the aunswere to all their questions is that they be don by the power of god And if you proceede to enquire of his will he hath declared it in these wordes the breade which I will giue is my fleshe not a fantasticall nor a mathematicall or figuratiue flesh but that same flesh◠that I will giue for the life of the worlde But if wee proceede to demaund further how he proueth that he will giue that flesh to be eaten with our mouth carnally in the sacrament then is he at a staye he can go no further Wee doubt not of the power of God we will extend his will no further then his worde For to eat the fleshe of Christe is not to eat it with our mouthes but with our hearts by faith as Augustine vppon the same text teacheth vs. Hoc est ergo manducare illam escam illum bibere ponum in Christo manere illum manentem in se habere Ac per hoc qui non manet in Christo in quo non manet Christus procul dubio nec manducat spiritualiter carnem eius nec bibit cius sanguinē licèt carnaliter visibiliter premat dentibus sacramentum corporis sanguinis Christie sed magis tantę rei sacramentum ad iudicium sibi manducat bibit This is therefore to eate that meate to drinke that drinke to abide in Christe and to haue him abyding in them And by this he that abydeth not in Christ and in whome Christe abydeth not out of doubt doth neither spiritually eat his flesh nor drinke his bloud although carnally visibly he presse with his teeth the sacrament of the bodie and bloud of Christ but rather he eateth and drinketh the sacrament of so great a thing to his owne condemnation Thus Augustine teacheth how the flesh of Christe is eaten and by whome and what difference betweene the flesh bloud of Christ and the sacrament thereof in all those points directly contrarie to the Papistes which affirme that the flesh of Christ is eaten with the mouth and that it is eaten of the wicked and last of all that the sacrament of the flesh of Christ his flesh is all one The tenth Chapter prouing against the aduersaries that the bodie of Christ may be is in moe places then one as once M. Heskins taketh occasion of the doubtful how of the Iewes to answer the proclaimers how that is how Christs body may be in a thousand places moe at once first he trifleth of the number
transmutationem aluntur ipsius incarnati Iesu Christi carnem sanguinem esse educti sumus Into this English with foysting in a parenthesis and chaunging his letter EVEN SO WE BE TAVGHT THAT THE FOODE wherewith our flesh and bloud be nourished by alteration WHEN IT IS CONSECRATED BY THE PRAYER OF HIS WORD TO BE THE FLESH AND BLOVD OF THE SAME IESVS INCARNATED In this beastly racking peruerting he hath left out thankâ—giuing not knowing wher to place it The cause of this falsification is for that he can not abide that the food after it is consecrated shuld nourish our bodies which Iustinê° doth most expresly affirme But before I proceede to his collections I will gather my selfe out of this place that which the Papistes wil not wel like of and yet although they would burst for anger thei can not auoyde but that they be necessarie collections First that there was no priuate Masse in his dayes for all that were present did communicate Secondly that the people as well as the ministers receiued in both kindes Thirdly that the things wherof they were partakers were bread wine and water which after they were consecrated were the nourishment of their bodies Now let vs heare M. Hes. collection for the reall presence First he saith not these things were signes figures tokens therefore they were none A tried argument of the authoritie of a man negatiuely Secondly he saith they were taught that by consecration they were made by the power of Gods worde the flesh and bloud of Christ that was incarnated We beleue the same likewise Thirdly M. Hes saith the real presence was as certaine to the primitiue Church as the incarnation So saith not Iustinus neither that the sacrament was the same substance of naturall flesh and bloud of Iesus that was incarnat by that diuine wonderful means by which he was incarnate and this do we most constantly beleeue And therefore here is no plaine place for the proclamer to proue the reall presence whereof Iustine speaketh none otherwise then the proclamer did speak beleeue while he liued But M. Heskins although there was neuer seene a more impudent falsifier of the Doctours sayings and meanings and euen in this place as I haue plainely discouered most lewdly corrupted the authours wordes by false translation yet he shameth not to slaunder holy and learned Cranmer of the same crime But what should an harlot do but after she hath plaied the strumpet call euery honest woman shee meeteth whore first Cranmer saith he reporteth as though Iustine should say the sacrament is but called the body of Christe This is first an intollerable lye For Cranmer saith it is called the body of Christ he saith not it is but called so that is only called so Secondly Cranmer saide out of Iustinus that these creatures after they be consecrated do nourish the bodies and are chaunged into them And therein he saith most truely and as the wordes of Iustine are and as the Latine translation is and Maister Heskins most falsely hath corrupted them as I shewed before Of which falsification being guiltie in his owne conscience he fleeth from his former Latine translation which is true in this point to the translation of Petrus Nannius a Papist which yet helpeth him not but by false pointing and displacing of the wordes Ita quoque per preces verbi illius cibum ex quo caro nostra sanguis per immutationem aluntur cum benedictus fuerit Iesu ipsius incarnati carnem sanguinem didicimus esse But the Greeke Article is so placed as it can abide no such patcherie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euen so we are taught that that foode after thankes are giuen for it by prayer of his word of which our flesh and bloud by permutation are nourished is the flesh and bloud of that Iesus which was incarnated So are the very wordes of Iustine But to helpe out the matter Ambrose is alledged Lib. 4. de sacra Cap. 5. Before it be consecrated it is bread but when the wordes of Christ are come to it it is the body of Christ. But the same Ambrose in the same booke and Chapter saith of the sacrament in the prayer of the Church Fac nobis inquit hanc oblationem ascriptam rationabilem acceptabileÌ„ quod est figura corporis sanguinis Domini nostri Iesu Christi Make vnto vs saith the priest this oblation ascribed reasonable acceptable which is the figure of the body and bloud of our Lord Iesus christ By these wordes it is manifest how Ambrose and the Church in his time tooke the breade to be the body of Christ. The like may be said of Augustine whose wordes M. Heskins cyteth De verbis Domini ser. 8. Before the wordes of Christ that which is offered is called breade when the words of Christ are spoken now it is not called breade but is called his body Who seeth not that these words are vttered by comparison it is not caled bread but his body that is it is rather called his body then bread as S. Paule saith Christe sent me not to baptise but to preach that is rather to preach then to baptise But nowe commeth in the authoritie of Alexander somtime Byshop of Rome to which I will not vouchsafe to make any answere bicause it is a meere forgerie and counterfet Epistle as all the pack of these decretall Epistles are that are feined in the name of those auncient holy Martyrs sometimes Bishops of the citie of Rome by some lewde Losel that could not write true Latine as is easie to see of all men that will take paines to read such beastly baggage I will giue you a taste of this counterfet Alexander speaking of holy water If the ashes being sprinkled with the bloud of a heifer did sanctifie the people much more shall water sprinkled with salt and hallowed with godly prayers See howe the brutish blasphemous Asse transferreth the argument of the Apostle Heb. 9. from the precious bloud of Christ to his beggerly holy water I wil therfore leaue M. Heskins rooting with his groyne in this draffe sacke and passe to the next Chapter The foure and fortieth Chapter by occasion of the wordes of Alexander treateth of the adoration and honouring of Christes body in the sacrament It is a worshipfull Alexander that gaue you the occasion of this discourse by his wordes But let the occasion goe we will looke to the matter First he rehearseth halfe a side of M. Iewels wordes against the adoration of the sacrament out of which he gathereth two arguments the one thus Christ neuer gaue coÌ„mandement to worship the sacrament ergo it is not to be done This argument he answereth is negatiue and therfore concludeth nothing But vnder correction of his great Logike when God chargeth vs to do that onely which he commaundeth an argument of negatiues of Gods commaundement concludeth al things to be vnlawfull which God hath not commaunded Hee bringeth examples
saintes in heauen what the rest be he doth not determine he meaneth Siluester Isodore Innocentius Betram Durand Holcot Dunce c. Which if they haue written any thing that is ridiculous in defence of Poperie it were better men should laugh at their follie then be still deceiued with their errours But whereas M. Hesk. will set a player on a stage and a boy in the Paâ—â—is to answere the Bishop I weene it be more then the reuerend M. Doctor Heskins reuested in Doctoralibus and inthronized in his Doctours chayer dare well take vpon him to doe That whiche followeth in this Chapter is consumed in cyting and vrging of the forenamed wryters whose authoritie we doe not admitte appealing alwayes from the lower house of punys Burgesses to the higher house of auncient Barons The sixtieth Chapter proceedeth in exposition of the same text by Theophylacte and Paschasius Although we might demurre vpon the vnderstanding of those wordes of Theophylact In 14. Matth. That the bread wine are transelementated into the vertue of his flesh bloud yet considering the corrupt time in which he liued his authoritie is not worth the striuing for And whereas Maister Heskins would make him so say no more then the olde fathers Hilar. Iren. Cyril Chrysost. c. Seeing we haue already considered their testimonies it were superfluous to repeate them againe in this place and as often as it pleaseth Maister Heskins to abuse their names The one and sixtieth Chapter continueth in the exposition of the same wordes by Oecumenius and Anselmus Oecumenius saith litle to the purpose too or fro But Anselmus goeth more roundly to the matter as one that was the scholler of LanfraÌ„cus which wrote against Berengarius Neuerthelesse vpon these wordes of his riseth some other matter Neque eminet For we do neither altogether exclude a figure froÌ„ this sacrament nor admit an only figure This place M. Hesk. would haue to expound Tertullians figure but we haue shewed before it will not serue Vnto this he addeth Augustine cited in the Popes decrees but not to be found in his workes in these wordes The bodie of Christ is both the trueth and a figure The trueth whyle the bodie and bloud of Christ in the vertue of the holie Ghost is made of the substance of bread and wine but that is the figure which is outwardly perceiued De cons. Dist. 2. Cap vtrum When these wordes are found in any worke of S. Augustines we will make aunswere to them otherwise we may not receiue them of the onely credit of the Popes law Vnlesse they haue such meaning as the saying of Hilarius B. of Rome which followeth Corpus Christi c. The bodie of Christ which is takeÌ„ at the altar is a figure whyle the bread wine are seene outwardly and a truth while the bodie and bloud of Christ inwardly are beleeued It seemeth to me this saying to be playne ynough that the sacrament is an outward figure of the bodie and bloud of Christ which is inwardly receiued spiritually by faith As Gratian also reporteth the wordes of the same Hilarie De Cons. Dist. 2. Vbi pars est Non enim est quantitas visibilis in hoc aestimanda mysterio sed virtus sacramenti spiritualis The visible quantitie is not to be regarded in this mysterie but the spirituall vertue of the sacrament But M. Heskins proceedeth and by Anselmus authoritie he will auoide the trifling sophysticall argument made by Maister Pilkinton in the open disputation holden in Cambridge By like Maister Heskins had not learned the solution at that time and therefore nowe he sendeth it ouer the sea to him The argument was this Christe tooke bread he blessed bread he brake bread wherfore he gaue bread to his disciples if he gaue bread then not his bodie M. Heskins saith he so vseth the words as though by the actes which the verbes expresse nothing had beene done Yes M. Heskins he chaunged the vse but not the substance But by the like sophisme saith Maister Heskins he might proue that he gaue no sacrament of his bodie For that he deliuered which he tooke but he tooke bread no sacrament therfore he deliuered bread no sacrament But by his patience this sophisme of his is nothing like Maister Pilkintons argument For in one proposition he speaketh of the substance in the other of another qualitie or affection beside the substance as in this example that which you bought in the shambles you haue eaten but you bought cowe fleshe therefore you haue eaten caulfes fleshe Euerie childe seeth this followeth not But if I speake of the substance in both alike it followeth as thus That which you bought in the market you haue eaten but you bought mutton therfore you haue eaten mutton Vpon the premises graunted this argument followeth of necessitie and such is the argument of Maister Pilkinton which all the Papistes in Louayne can not answere The tâ—o and sixtieth Chapter abideth in the exposition of the same wordes by Rupertus and Nicholaus Methonen In this whole Chapter is nothing worth the reading and much lesse the aunswering for he doeth nothing but cite and vrge the sayings of these two late writers of whose authoritie he knoweth we make none account as there is no reason why we should they being members of the Popish Church For the auncient writers whome he nameth their sayinges haue beene already weyghed and aunswered The three and sixtieth Chapter taryeth in the exposition of the same wordes by Innocentius Germanus The authoritie of Pope Innocent the third which called the Laterane Counsell in which transubstantiation was first decreede must needes be of great credite with vs But Germanus bishop of Constantinople the Popes sworne enimie I marueile why hee is ioyned with the Pope For that he saith is small to M. Heskins purpose and therefore he helpeth him out with Damascen yet he confesseth his saying subiect to cauilling For where he writeth that in the sacrament Dominus conspicitur c. Our Lorde is both seene and suffereth him selfe to be touched by the feâ—â—full and holy mysteries c. and so sayeth Chrysostome thou seest him thou touchest him thou eatest him c. Maister Heskins sayeth we reason and so wee maye in deede that we eat him as we see him which is onely by faith But M. Heskins with profound Logike wil aunswere this argument that a thing is sayde to bee seene when the outwarde formes are seene and so Christe is seene when the formes of bread and wine are seene But by his fauour a thing is seene when the proper formes accidents thereof are seene but the forme or accidents of bread and wine are not the proper formes of Christes bodie therefore Christes bodie is not seene by them no more then I see a man when I see the house wherein he is or then I see a knife when I see the close case or sheath wherein it is And
pro complemento communionis intinctam tradunt eucharistiam populis nec hoc probatum ex Euangelio testimonium receperunt vbi Apostolis corpus suum commendauit sanguinem Seorsim enim panis seorsim calicis commendatio memoratur Nam intinctū panem alijs Christum praebuisse non legimus excepto illo tantùm discipulo quem intincta buccella magistri proditorem ostenderet non quae sacramenti huius institutionem signaret That also is to be condemned that to make perfect the communion they deliuer to the people the sacrament dipped in the cupp neither haue they receiued this testimonie brought out of the Gospell where he deliuered to his Apostles both his bodie his bloud for seuerally of the breade and seuerally of the cupp the deliuerie is mentioned For we read not that Christ gaue dipped bread to others except that disciple only whome the dipped soppe shewed to be the traitour of his maister but did not set forth the institution of this sacrament Note here the iudgement of this Counsell that the institution of Christ is to be obserued Secondly that they are condemned that receiue not the testimonie of that first institution as an onely rule to followe in the ministration of the sacrament as the Papistes do Thirdly that the bloud must not be deliuered in the bread and the body in the cuppe but seuerally the breade and seuerally the cup must be deliuered Fourthly that the communion is not perfect without both kindes which euen they confessed that dipped the bread in the wine and so gaue it foorth Fiftly consider if this Counsel could not allowe the ioyning of both kinds in one soppe what would they haue thought of taking one kinde cleane away But to follow Maister Heskins The second obiection and that presseth him hardest is the saying of Gelasius bishop of Rome That the diuision of one and the same mysterie cannot be done without great sacriledge To auoyde this most manifest and cleare authoritie he thinketh it sufficient to shewe that the decree was made against other heretiques namely the Manichees Eutychians as though it were sacriledge in one kinde of heretiques and lawful in an other He saith the Manichees to cloake their heresie would dissemblingly receiue the breade and would not receiue the cup bicause they held that Christ had but a fantasticall body without bloud And the Eutychians ioyned with them which receiued the breade as a sacrament of the diuine body of Christe in which was no bloud Concerning the Eutychians there might bee some such fantasie if they ioyned with the Manichees in this point which presently I doe not remember that I haue read But concerning the Manichees it is certaine there was an other cause of their refusall of the cup bicause they condemned all drinking of wine And of them it seemeth that Leo spake Serm. 4. de quadra which M. Heskins rehearseth Abducunt se c. They withdrawe them selues from the sacrament of the health of man and as they deny Christe our Lorde to be borne in the veritie of our flesh so they doe not beleeue that he did verily die and rise againe and therefore they condemne the day of our health and of our gladnesse with the sadnesse of their fasting And when to couer their infidelitie they are so bold to be present at our mysteries they so temper them selues in the communion of the sacraments that sometimes they are more safely hidden With vnworthy mouth they receiue the body of Christe but the bloud of our redemption they altogether refuse to drinke which thing we will your holinesse to vnderstand for this cause that suche kinde of men may be knowne to you and by these tokens and that they whose sacrilege and dissimulation shall be found out being noted and bewrayed by the Priestly authoritie may be banished the societie of the Saints This M. Hes. confesseth to be spoken against the Manichees And I wold he would further note that Leo chargeth them with dissimulation ioyned with sacriledge which yet is more tollerable then the Papistes open impudencie and violent sacriledge But here he noteth a plaine place for the proclamer in that Leo saith with vnworthy mouth they receiue the body of Christe but that Leo so calleth the sacrament of the body of Christ which after a certaine manner is the body of Christe and not simply or absolutely it appeareth by that which followeth imediatly that those heretiques refuse to receiue the bloud of our redemption whereby hee meaneth the cup and the sacrament of his bloud for if hee should not meane the outward sacramentes but the body and bloud of Christ indeed how could his body be receiued without his bloud Therefore it is manifest hee speaketh of the signes and not of the things signified euen by their owne rule of concomitance And nowe followeth the whole saying of Gelasius Comperimus autem c. We haue found out of a certaintie that certaine men after they haue receiued a portion of the holy body do abstaine from the cup of the holy bloud who bicause I knowe not by what superstition they are taught to be withholden let them without all doubt receiue the whole sacramentes or else let them bee forbidden from the whole For the diuision of one and the same mysterie can not be done without great sacriledge Maister Heskins to shift off this place saith it was written against the Manichees But that is altogether vnlike for then Gelasius would not haue saide he knewe not by what superstition they were led for he knewe well the blasphemies of the Manichees Wherefore it is certaine they were other such superstitious people as the Papistes be nowe But if it were written against the Manichees the Papistes following their steppes shall gaine nothing but proue them selues to ioyne with the Manichees Secondly Maister Heskins saith the diuision of one mysterie is not the diuiding of the cuppe from the breade but of the body of Christ from his bloud which the Manichees did Although hee bee worthie to be knocked in the head with a mall that will not vnderstand Gelasius to speake of the sacrament yet there is no shadowe of reason to shrowde him most impudently affirming the contrarie For the Manichees did not diuide the body of Christe from his bloud but vtterly denyed him to haue either body or bloud Againe when hee saide immediately before that they should eyther receiue the whole sacramentes or abstaine from the whole hee addeth this for a reason For the diuision sayth hee of one and the same mysterie can not bee done without greate sacriledge Hee therefore that denyeth him to speake one title of diuiding the one kinde from the other is woorthie to bee diuided in peeces and to haue his partes with hypocrites where shall bee weeping and gnashing of teeth But as though he had not passed impudencie her selfe alreadie hee falleth on rayling against the proclamer that had not brought foorth past halfe a score wordes of this place
and stronger sentence of these writers which when it commeth wee shal examine it in the meane time they haue no voyce in the vpper house and therefore we feare not greatly what they say The twelfth Chapter proceedeth vpon the same text by Haime Theophylact. It were losse of time to quarrell about the testimonies of these two burgesses of the lower house Maister Heskins sayeth that there wanteth nothing in Theophylact that is necessarie for a credible witnesse At least he should haue excepted that he defended an heresie of the proceeding of the holie Ghost against the churche of Rome in 3. Ioan. As for his antiquitie which hee maketh to be before the controuersie was moued by Berengarius although it were so yet it were none argument of his trueth But it seemeth hee was much about the time of Berengarius Anno. 1049. Neither doth Peter Martyr whome Maister Heskins rayleth vppon so much esteeme his authoritie that he would wrest it to his side more then the verie words of Theophylact would beare as the learned that read his workes can testifie The one and twentieth Chapter proceedeth yet vppon the same text by Anselmus Bruno Let M. Hesk. make the moste of those burgesses the bill will passe neuer the sooner though all the lower house allowed it so long as it cannot be receiued into the higher house The latter ende conteineth a vaine repetition of Cyprian and Prospers sayings so often aunswered before with a foolishe insultation against the proclaimer as though he sawe not these doctors as well as M. Heskins who I beleeue neuer opened halfe the bookes of them whose sayings he hath alledged he hath cited the most of them so corruptly not onely falsifying them to serue his turne but also when there was no aduantage for him in his corruption The two and twentieth Chapter endeth the exposition of this text by Dionyse Gagneius Two worshipfull burgesses vnto whome hee addeth Bishop Fisher for the thirde after he hath made a shorte rehearsall of all those writers whose authoritie he hath vsed abused to mainteine this his exposition The three and twentieth Chapter beginneth the exposition of this text Quoniam vnus panis c. The text is this Because there is one bread and wee being many are one bodie for we are all partakers of the same bread of the same cupp First M. Hesk. sayeth that the Apostle speaking of our Communion with Christ and with our selues declareth that bread and the cuppe bee not taken for bare figures of the bodie bloud of Christ in which argument he fighteth with his owne shadowe for we detest bare figures as much as grosse transubstantiation Secondly he sayeth our communion with Christ is both spirituall and corporall spirituall in baptisme and corporall in this sacrament or else this sacrament was instituted in vaine if we haue none other communion with Christ thereby then spirituall which is in baptisme I answere his argument is nought for the diuerse dispensations of the same grace is testified and confirmed to vs by diuerse sacraments our regeneration by baptisme and our preseruation as by spirituall foode by the Lordes supper As for the superstitious bread that was giuen in Saint Augustines time to those that were Catechumeni in steede of the sacrament hee doeth well to compare to their popish holie bread sauing that there is greate difference for that was giuen onely to them that were not baptised this altogether to them that are baptized many that haue receiued the other sacrament at their hands But where he hath tossed his corporall communion to fro at last he addeth a condition of receiuing worthily so that he denyeth in effect that he saide before that by receipt of Christes bodie men are incorporate to Christ forceth the wordes of the Apostle to be many and not all which is false for he sayeth all that eate of this bread though we be many yet are made one bodie Finally in that the Apostle sayeth we all eate of one bread drink of one cupp M. Hesk â–ª saith that he tooke it not for bare material bread for then it were not true as for his bare bread let him keepe to crome his pottage But howe prooueth he that Saint Paule spake not of materiall bread as the earthly parte of the sacrament Forsooth all do not eat one bread for the Greekes eat leuened bread the Latines fine vnleuened bread In the Popish church is giuen to euery communicant a sundrie bread in the scismaticall church euery conuenticle hath a sundrie bread and sometimes diuerse breades therfore it is no materiall bread that S. Paule speaketh of but the heauenly bodie of christ If I were as froward a reasoner as M. Hesk. I would aske him whether the body of Christ be not a materiall body because he maketh materiall heauenly diuerse differences as though he were an Eutychian But admitt that by materiall bread hee meaneth bread properly so called and the heauenly bodie figuratiuely called bread which he is loth to come to what mad man woulde vnderstand that one breade which S. Paul sayeth to be distributed in euery communion to all that are present and whereof euery one taketh parte in token of the communion or fellowship of many in one bodie for all the kindes fashions of bread that are vsed in all communions in the worlde For the Apostles argument is grounded of the similitude of bread which of many graines is made one bread so wee being many are made one bodie And therefore in vaine doeth he racke these wordes of S. Paul to the meaning of Barnarde whose authoritie we receiue not or to the words of Chrysostome which he falsly alledgeth to be in 1. Cor. 10. Hom. 17. whereas they be in ad Hebraeos 10. Hom. 7. which is nothing but an obiection of his the place is wholy cited in the first booke 37. Chapter where you shall see how much it maketh for M. Hesk. The 24. Chapter proceedeth vpon the same text by Chrysostom and S. Augustine Chrysostome vpon this place is cited thus Quoniam vnus panis vnum corpus c. For there is one bread wee being many are one bodie For what do I call saith he a commemoration wee are the selfe same bodie What is the breade the bodie of CHRIST and what are they made which receiue it the body of Christ not many bodies but one body For as the breade is made one of many cornes so that the cornes do not appeare and yet there are cornes but ioyned together so that they can not be discerned so are we ioyned one with an other and with christ For thou art not nourished of one body and he of an other â–ª but all of the same therefore he added all we which doe partake of the same bread Of these wordes Maister Heskins wil haue vs to learne three things First that communication is to
in alcari Dei c. This that you see on the altare of God you sawe the night last past But what it was what i◠mean◠of howe great a thing it conteined the sacrament you haue not yet heard therefore that which you sawe is bread and a cuppe which thing also your eyes doe tell you ▪ But that your faith requireth to be instructed The breade is the bodie of Christe the cuppe is his bloud Our Lorde Iesus Christe wee knowe whence he receiued fleshe 〈◊〉 of the virgine Marie Hee was suckled being an infant he was norished he grewe he came to the age of a young man he suffered persecution of the Iewes hee was hanged on the tree he was killed on the tree he was buryed he rose againe the thirde day That day he woulde ascende into heauen thither he lifted vp his bodie from whence he shall come to iudge both the quicke and the dead There he is nowe sitting at the right hand of the father Howe is the breade his bodie and the cuppe or that which the cupp containeth how is it his bloud Brethren these things are therefore called sacraments because one thing in them it seene another thing is vnderstoode that which is seene hath a corporall shewe that which is vnderstoode hath a spirituall fruite I doubt not but euery Christian man that readeth this saying vnderstandeth it to be verie cleere against both transubstantiation and the carnall presence as is shewed before lib. 2. Cap. 37. which that Maister Heskins might obscure he maketh a smoke to bleare mens eyes that they might not see any thing therin but the altar Wherefore he rayleth like him selfe against the proclaimer charging him bothe to haue falsified S. Augustine and also truncately to haue alledged him because saith he he citeth him thus Quod videtis in mensa panis est that ye see in the table is bread whereas Augustine sayeth in the altar and not on the table which he durst not name for shame But with what shame Heskins can so reuile and slaunder that godly learned father you shall see by that which followeth immediately where he leaueth in Augustine and iudge whether Master Heskins left out the wordes for shame or else because his note booke serued him no further Corpus ergo Christi si vis intelligere audi Apostolum dicentem fidelibus vos estis corpus Christi membra Si ergo vot estis corpus Christi membra mysterium vestrum in MENSA positum est Mysteria Domini accipitis ad quod estis Amen respondetis respondendo subscribitis Audis ergo corpus Christi respondes Amen Esto membrum corporis Christi vt verum sit Amen tuum quare ergo in pane nihil hic de nostro affiramus Ipsum Apostolum item audiamus Cum ergo de isto sacramento loqueretur ait vnus panis vnum corpus multi sumus Intelligite gaudete Therefore if thou wilt vnderstande the bodie of Christ heare the Apostle saying to the faithfull you are the bodie of Christ and his members If you therefore be the bodie of Christ and his members your mysterie is set on the TABLE you receiue the Lords mysterie wherunto you are you aunswere Amen and in aunswering you subscribe Thou hearest therfore the bodie of Christ and thou aunswerest Amen bee thou a member of the bodie of Christe that thy Amen may bee true Why then in bread let vs here bring nothing of our owne Let vs likewise heare the Apostle Therefore when hee spake of this sacrament he sayeth There is one bread wee being many are one bodie vnderstand ye reioyce ye I trust you see by this that the altar he spake of was a table as you see also how the sacrament is the bodie of Christ. But lest hee might replye that the table was an altar I must further alledge Saint Augustines authoritie that it was a table for it was made of boordes and was remouable For speaking of the Deacons of Rome in Quaest. vet non test q. 101 he sayth Vt antem non omnia ministeria obsequiorum per ordinem agant multitudo fecit clericorum nam vtique altare portarem vasa euis aquam in manus sunderent sacerdoti ficut videmus per omnes ecclesias But that they doe not perfourme all the ministeries of their seruice in order the multitude of Clerkes hath caused for surely they shoulde both carrie the altar and the vessels thereof and powre water on the Priestes handes as wee see it in all churches That they were of boordes and tymber and not of stone lest the Papistes should dreame of their Altare portatiue that their hedge priestes carrie in their sleeues to say Masse in corners the same Augustine writing to Bonifacius Ep. 50. sheweth in these wordes speaking of the insurrection of the Donatistes against Maximianus a catholike bishop of Sagium Stantem ad altare irruente◠horrendo impetu furore crudeli fustibus huiusmodi telis lignis denique eiusdem altaris effractis immaniter ceciderunt Rushing in with an horrible violence and cruell furie they stroke him moste outragiously standing at the altare with staues and such like weapons yea euen with the boordes of the same altare which they brake in peeces The like complaint maketh Optatus in his booke against the Donatistes sauing that he nameth not wood or bordes yet it is plaine by the circumstance that hee spake of none other The place as Maister Heskins citeth it is this Quid est tam sacrilegum c. What is so great sacriledge as to breake scrape or shaue and remoue the altares of God in which you also sometimes haue offered on which the prayers of the people and the members of Christ haue been borne at which God almightie hath beene called vppon where the holie Ghost being desired hath come downe from which the pledge of aeternall life and the sauegarde of faith and the hope of resurrection hath beene receiued of many the altares I say vpon which our Sauiour hath commaunded the giftes of the fraternitie not to be layde but such as are made of peace Lay downe saith hee thy gifte before the altare and returne and firste agree with thy brother that the Priest may offer for thee For what is the altar but the seat of the bodie and bloud of Christe All these your furie hath either scraped or broken or remoued What hath God done to you which was wont to be called vpon there What had Christe offended you whose bodie and bloud dwelleth there at certeine momentes And what doe you offende your selues to breake the altars on which long time before vs as you thinke you haue offered holily Thus haue you followed the Iewes They layde handes vppon Christe on the crosse of you he was striken in the altar of whome the Prophet Helias complaineth to the Lorde speaking in the same wordes with which you among other haue deserued to bee accused Lorde sayeth he they haue
broken downe thine altares While hee sayth thine he sheweth that the thing is Gods where any thing is offered of any man to God. Vppon pretence of this place Maister Hesk. chargeth vs with great sacriledge for pulling downe their popish altares on which they committed idolatrie and moste horrible sacriledge And therefore wee are commaunded to ouerthrowe such altares to breake downe their pillers burne their images with fire Deut. 7. And whereas he compareth vs to one Iulianus an heathen man that pissed against the altare and therfore was horribly punished hee sheweth his wisedome For there an idolater did vilanously contemne the Christians religion therfore was iustly plaged of God but we as Christians haue obeyed the lawe of God in ouerthrowing their antichristian idolatrous altars And yet I thinke the fact of Iulianus was not worse then the filthinesse of Pope Iohn that lay with his whores vppon your altares In the conclusion of this chapter he affirmeth that the altar sacrifice are correlatiues therefore there coulde be none altars but there was also sacrifice I haue shewed sufficiently howe the old writers called the communion table an altare and the sacrament a sacrifice namely a sacrifice of thanksgiuing and not of propitiation and yet more must I saye vpon M. Heskins discourses that followe The two and thirtieth Chapter vpon occasion that it is proued that the primitiue Church vsed the altare and reputed the bodie and bloud of Christ to be a sacrifice beginneth to treate of the same sacrifice which we commonly call the Masse Because the names of altar sacrifice haue beene vnproperly vsed by auncient writers for wee haue shewed that their altar was a table and their sacrifice a thankesgiuing therefore M. Hesk. will treat of the sacrifice of the Masse And first of the name of Masse which he saith we abhorre and iustly because it hath been vsed of many yeres to signifie a most blasphemous and idolatrous seruice The name he will deriue in all the haste out of the Hebrue tongue from a word that is called Mas from whence the Latines haue deriued their worde Missa being the same that the Greekes called Liturgia and the Latines officium which is in English a seruice To this I aunswere first that if Missa or Masse be nothing but a seruice then Euen song may be called Masse because it is a seruice Secondly it carryeth no shewe of trueth that the Latines would borrowe their name of the Hebrues rather then of the Greekes Thirdly that there is no such Hebrue worde as Maister Heskins affirmeth to bee Mas signifying a seruice as I report mee to all that haue but meane knowledge in the tongue Fourthly that although the name of Missa bee of some antiquitie in the Romane church yet is it neither so auncient as he maketh it and that which is chiefely to be regarded it is neuer founde in the holie scripture But nowe let vs consider his authoritie First Leo bishop of Rome Epist. 79. sayeth thus Necesse est vt quaedam pars populi sua deuotione priuetur si vniut tantùm Missae more seruato sacrificium offerre non possunt nisi qui prima diei parte conuenerint It must needes be that some parte of the people bee depriued of their deuotion if the manner or custome of our onely masse being obserued they cannot offer sacrifice except such as came together the first part of the day Vppon coulour of this place Maister Heskins will not onely prooue that the name of Missa is auncient but also that it is lawfull to saye more then one Masse in one church in one day if two then three if three then tenne if tenne then fifteene and so twentie which the proclaimer sayed could not be proued But you shall see howe lewdly hee abuseth his reader The proclaimers challenge was of tenne or twentie priuate Masses sayed in one church and commonly at one time Maister Heskins bringeth in authoritie of Leo which proueth that when one communion coulde no serue any more then so manie as the church woulde holde at one time it was meete it should be celebrated twise or as often as the same was filled with people vntill all had receiued which as wee confesse to be true so maketh it nothing in the worlde for the priuate Masse but altogether against it as is plaine by the whole treatie going before which Maister Heskins according to his accustomed synceritie hath cleane left out Vt autem in omnibus obseruantia nostra Concordet illud quoque volumus custodiri vt quum solennior festiuitas conuentum populi numerosioris indixerit ad eam tanta multitudo conuenerit quam recipere Basilica simul vna non possit sacrificij oblatio indubitanter iteretur ne his tantùm admissis ad hanc deuotionem qui primi aduenerint videantur hi qui posimodum confluxerint non recepti cum plenum pietatis atque rationis fit vt quoties Basilicā pręsentia nonae plebis impleuerit toties sacrificiū subsequēs offeratur And that our obseruation may agree in al things this also we will haue to be kept that when a more solemne festiuitie shall call together a greater assembly of people and so great a multitude is gathered vnto it that one great Church can not receiue them altogether the oblation of the sacrifice without doubt may be done againe least those only being admitted which came first they which came together afterward might seeme not to be receiued whereas it is a matter full of godlinesse and reason that how often so euer the presence of a newe people shall fill the Church so often the sacrifice following should be offered But M. Heskins vrgeth in the place by him cited that the word missa is vsed which is not denyed but this was almost 500. yeres after Christ about the yere 480. Secondly that the Masse is a sacrifice But he will not see that it is such a sacrifice as all the people offer which can not be a sacrifice propitiatorie but of thankesgiuing Howbeit he saith The Masse is a sacrifice that is or ought by ioyne affection and deuotion of the people to the Priest to be offered of them all What affection or deuotion he would haue to the Priest I do not well vnderstand but let him shadowe him selfe in what fond phrase of word he will yet can he not auoyde but that the people by the wordes of Leo did offer sacrifice in as ample manner as the Priestes and then they were all Priestes Besides this in the words of Leo he obserueth not that it was a custome of the Church before his time to haue but one Masse or Communion in a day so straightly kept that vpon necessitie they would not relent therein vntill he tooke this order with them But Maister Heskins asketh what scripture the proclamer hath to the contrarie for twentie Masses in one Church in one day I aunswere Saint Paule willeth the Corinthians to
tarie one for an other 1. Cor. 11. for the Communion By which it is euident that it is not lawfull for euery man to haue his priuate Masse as M. Heskins would most absurdly proue As for the sacrifice propitiatorie of their Masse hath all those scriptures against it that set foorth the only propitiatorie sacrifice of Christ and namely Heb. 9. 10. Furthermore M. Heskins findeth the name of Masse vsed of Saint Ambrose Ep. 33. Ego mansi in munere missam facere coepi orare in oblatione Deum vt subueniret I did abide in mine office I beganne to say masse to pray to God in the sacrifice that he would helpe Howe faithfull a reporter of antiquitie Maister Heskins is to be coūted this place among a great number doth sufficiently declare and that he receiued not this text out of Ambrose him selfe but out of some other mans collection or relation Ambrose in that Epistle writing to his sister Marcellina about deliuering of a church to the heretiques which he refused to do at the Emperour Valentinianes request writeth thus Sequenti die erat autem Dominica post lectiones atque tractatum dimissis Catechumenis Symbolum aliquibus competentibus in baptisterijs tradebam Basilicae Illic nunciatum est mihi comperto quòd ad Portianam Basilicam de palatio decanos misissent vela suspenderēt populi partem eò pergere Ego tamen mansi in munere missam facere coepi Dum offero raptum cognoui a populo Castulum quendam quem Presbyterum dicerent Arriani Hunc autem in platea ostenderant transeuntes Amarissimè flere orare in ipsa oblatione Deum coepi vt subueniret ne cuius sanguis in causa Ecclesiae fieret certè vt meus sanguis pro salute non solùm populi sed etiam pro ipsis impijs effunderetur Quid multa Missis Presbyteris Diaconis eripui iniuria virum The day following which was Sunday when the learners of Catechisme were dismissed after the Lessons that were read and the treatise made vpon them I was instructing in the Creede certaine that desired Baptisme in the baptizing place of the Church There it was tolde me after it was knowne that they had sent officers from the Palace vnto the church called Portiana hanged vp clothes for the Emperor that part of the people were going thither I for all that abid in mine office I beganne to let it goe While I offered I vnderstoode by the people that one Castulus was taken by force whome the Arrians saide to be a priest Him had they found as they passed by in the streate I beganne to weepe most bitterly and to pray to God in the very oblation that hee would helpe that no mans bloud might bee shed in the cause of the Church and truely that my bloud might be shed not onely for the sauegard of the people but also for the vngodly them selues What neede many wordes I sent Priestes and Deacons and deliuered the man from iniurie I knowe M. Heskins will not allowe me to translate missam facere to let goe the Church seeing they had entered vpon it the rather bicause offero and oblatione doth followe But notwithstanding seing Masse is neuer named in S. Augustin Hierome nor any other place of Ambrose in his or their authenticall writings I can not of the onely colour and coniecture of oblation folowing be resolued that S. Ambrose vseth missam facere to say Masse For although I confesse that the name of Missa for the Communion began neare about that time to be in vse yet did they neuer vse that phrase missam facere but missum or missarum solennia celibrare to celebrate the Masse or the solemnities of Masses for so they called the administration of the Communion Whereas missam facere can not be translated to say Masse but rather to make Masse Againe if the only cōiecture of offero and oblatione following were sufficient to proue missa to signifie Masse M. Heskins might by the like colour of Priestes and Deacons following translate Missis Presbyterie Diaconibus c. with Masses Priests and Deacons I deliuered the man from iniurie But to take it at the worst that the name of missa is here vsed for Masse yet was this within the time of the Bishops limitation no Popish Masse but a Christian communion although some abuses perhaps were in it And for the decrees of Thelesphorus Sixtus Alexander and such like Bishoppes of Rome bycause they bee meere mockeries and counterfeted long after their times to get credite by the antiquitie of their names I will loose no time in confuting them And whereas M. Heskins saith the proclamer reiecteth them without proofe although it be not to be required that in a sermon such matters should be debated at large as in publique writings are throughly knowne to be debated and determined among the best learned yet will I adde this one disproofe or two of those Epistles to be forged First Eusebius which was a most diligēt gatherer of such writings found none such in his time Secondly if there were nothing else the very barbarous phrase of them all and the false Latine that is in many is sufficient to conuince them for counterfets seing there was no vnlearned womā in Rome in those times but spake better Latin thē these men feigne those learned Bishops to haue writen in those decretall Epistles But M. Hesk. will proue Alexander to be the Authour of that Epistle which is ascribed to him and therein will vse neither bare wordes nor faint likelyhoods In deed for likelihoods he vseth none either faint or strong but in steede of authoritie whereof he bosteth he vseth none at all but very bare wordes He onely quoteth in the margent The 6. Counsel of Constantinople not naming so much as in what part or action thereof this matter is intreated of the actes of that counsel being contained in a great booke as large as M. Hesk. third book at the least And surely although I haue vsed some diligence in search yet I can finde no such matter nor this Alexander once named in that Counsell In deede I found long since Dionysius authoritie cited by the name of Dionyscus Areopagisa Bishop of Athens which is the matter that perhaps deceiued M. Hes. or him that ministred notes of authorities vnto him But to be short the assurance remaineth still vnshaken which the proclamer made in his sermon that the name of Masse is not found in ancient writers vntil 400. yeres after christ As for the Masse it selfe if hee meane that forme of seruice vsed in the Church of Rome and of them commonly called Masse he knoweth it was not throughly peeced together 600. yeares after christ For Gregorie had no small share in it and he confesseth in this Chapter that Telesphorus Sixtus Alexander Felix added somewhat vnto it As for the preparatorie prayers of Ambrose hee doth well not to auouch them to be his bicause
no. And why then may not the bodie of Christ be present and yet not corporally nor locally conteyned in pixe corporax cupp hand or mouth but after a spirituall manner as the holy Ghost is in the cuppe by his owne Iames his saying The last quarrell he picketh is to our ministers who sayeth he haue none authoritie to consecrate because they receiue it not from the catholike succession As for that authoritie which we haue receiued of God by the outwarde calling of the church wee minde not to exchange with the Popes triple crowne and much lesse with Maister Hesk. shauen crowne But to shape him an answere according to his lewde obiection seeing many are suffered to minister in our church which were made priestes after the Popish order of antichrist why should he denye any of them them at the least to haue power to consecrate according to the Popish diuinitie though the wordes be spoken in English so long as he hath intentionē consecrandi before he be of them disgraded and hath his indebeble character scraped out of his handes and fingers endes I aunswere he is not able to defend his opinion that thei cannot consecrate neither in Sorbona of Paris nor in the schoole of Louain To shutt vp this Chapter he flappeth vs in the mouth with S. Mathewes Masse testified by Abdias in the diuels name a disciple of the Apostles as hee saith but one that sawe Christ him selfe as M. Harding sayeth in verie deed a lewd lying counterfeter of more then Caunterburie tales And thinketh he that such fables will nowe bee credited except it bee of such as wilfully will be deceiued The fiue and thirtieth Chapter sheweth the manner of consecration vsed and practised by the disciples of the Apostles and the fathers of the primitiue and auncient church His first author is Nicolaus Methonensis a Grecian but a late writer who affirmeth that Clemens did write a Liturgie which Peter Paule and the Apostles vsed Although that which he rehearseth of Clemens his Liturgie be to small purpose litle or nothing differing from that hee had before of Iames yet Nicolaus Methon is too yong a witnesse to bee credited in this case For he was not of yeres of discretion to discerne that for the authenticall writing of Clemens which the more auncient church by a thousand yeres could not haue perfect knowledge to be his Neither doth the testimonie of Proclus help him any whit For as it is not to be doubted but S. Iames the other Apostles Clemens also appointed some forme of Liturgie for the churches by them planted instructed which is all that Proclus saith yet how proueth M. Hesk. that those which we haue were the same which were written by Iames Clemens or any other of lawful antiquitie when wee bring manifest demonstrations for the contrarie Againe where he saith that Peter vsed the Liturgie of Clemens he is contrary to Hugo cited in the last Chap. which sayth that Peter vsed a Liturgie of his own cōsisting of three praiers only The next witnesse should be Dionysius falsly surnamed Areopagita but that he is clean contrary to M. Hes. transubstantiation carnal presēce priuate Masse or sole cōmunion therefore vnder pretence of his obscuritie he dare cite neuer a sentence out of him Then follow the Liturgies vnder the names of Basil Chrysost. verie litle in words nothing at al in matter differing from that former Liturgie ascribed to S. Iames which because M. Hesk. knoweth we cannot receiue as the lawful writings of Basil Chrysost. he would vnderprop them by the authoritie of Proclus B. of Constantinople as he did S. Clem. S. Iames masse euen now The reason alledged by Proclus will cleane ouerturne his ground worke proue that none of these Liturgies were writen by thē to whom they be ascribed For Proclus sayeth that Basil and Chrysostom made the auncient Liturgies receiued from the Apostles shorter cutting many things away frō them because they were too long for the peoples colde deuotion to abide First this is a colde reason to alter the tradition of the Apostles so many yeres continued in the church for want of the peoples deuotion But be it that they followed this reason then doth it followe moste manifestly that this Liturgie which is ascribed to S. Iames is none of his because it is as short as either that of Chrysost. or the other of Basil. But if M. Hesk. will defende that of S. Iames then hee must needes refuse these of Basil and Chrysost. for these are as long as it therfore none abridgements of it After these Liturgies hee addeth the testimonie of the sixt counsell of Constantinople which condemned Pope Honorius for an heretike wherein it is reported the S. Iames Basil Chrysostome ministred in their Liturgies prescribed wine to be mixed with water But this proueth not that these Liturgies which we haue are the same that were set forth by those fathers as for the water they striue not for it but for wine to be vsed not water onely Finally where the fathers of that counsell call the celebration of the communion an oblation and an vnbloudie sacrifice they speake in the same sence that the elder fathers vse the same termes otherwise that counsell being an hundreth yeres without the compasse of the challenge hath no place but in the lower house among the Burgesses whose speaches may be hearde but they haue none authoritie to determine in this cause by M. Heskins order according to the challenge Now at length M. Hesk. thinketh it time to see the manner of consecration in the Latine church as though Clemens if he were bishop of Rome and wrote a Liturgie as he affirmeth before that of his making might not serue the Latine church But Ambrose is cited lib. 4. de Sacr. Ca. 5. Vis scire c. Wouldest thou knowe that the sacrament is consecrated with heauenly wordes Marke what the wordes be The Priest sayth Make vnto vs faith he this oblation ascribed reasonable acceptable which is the figure of the bodie bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ which the day before he suffred tooke bread in his holie hands looked vp to heauen to the holie father almightie eternall God giuing thanks blessed it brake it being broken gaue it to his Apostles and disciples saying Take ye eat ye all of this for this is my bodie which shal be broken for many Likewise also he tooke the cupp after he had supped the day before he suffered looked vp to heauen to the holie father almightie eternall God giuing thankes he blessed it deliuered it to his Apostles disciples saying Take ye and drinke ye all of this for this is my bloud M. Hesk. passeth ouer that the oblation of the church is the figure of the body bloud of Christ for feare he should be espied taken with such an assertion he flyeth in all the haste to other words of
the Papistes say that men may eat Christ which doe not beleeue at all And it is a very childish sophisme out of which M. Heskins woulde gather that if to eate be to beleeue and it be not lawfull for the Iewes to eate Christe it is not lawfull for them to beleeue in christ For continuing in Iudaisme they can no more beleeue in Christ then they can eate the flesh of Christe But contrariwise by their doctrine if the sacrament be giuen to a Iewe that is no Christian yet he eateth the body of Christ as he that beleeueth in Christe The testimonie of Theophylact although it make little for M. Hesk. yet as alwayes before so nowe at the last I will refuse to examine bicause I will not yeeld to his authoritie he being a late writer But M. Hesk. noteth vpon the Apostles words We haue an altar that the Church hath but one altar which is the body of Christ and that is very true of the true Catholique Church but the hereticall and schismaticall Church of Rome hath many thousand altars which they can not say are all one altar although they cauill that their infinite multitudes of hostes are one sacrifice of Christes body Therefore the Church of Rome is not the Catholique Church of Christe by his owne reason And the saying of Hierome which he citeth Lib 2. in Hose Cap. 8. and wresteth against vs doth very aptly condemne him selfe and his felow Papistes for heretiques Vnum esse altare c. The Apostle teacheth that there is in the Church but one altar and one faith one baptisme which the heretiques forsaking haue set vp to themselues many altars not to appease God but to increase the multitude of sinnes therefore they are not worthie to receiue the lawes of God seeing they haue despised them which they haue receiued before And if they shall speake any thing out of the scriptures it is not to be compared to the words of God but to the senses of Ethnikes These men do offer many sacrifices and eate the flesh of them forsaking the only sacrifice of Christ nor eating his flesh â–ª whose flesh is the meat of the beleeuers whatsoeuer they do counterfeting the order and custom of the sacrifices whether they giue almes whether they promise chastitie whether they counterfet humilitie and with feigned flatterings deceiue simple persons the Lord will receiue nothing of such sacrifices We forsake not the only sacrifice of Christ once offred but our whole trust is in the merits of that sacrifice therefore we set vp no newe altars The Papistes set vp an other sacrifice and therefore other altars If our allegation interpretation of the scriptures may not be warranted by the spirite of God iudging in the same scriptures by other textes that are plaine and euident we desire not that any man shall receiue them as the Papistes doe whatsoeuer the Popish Church doth define though it be contrarie to the expresse word of god And although wee admitte not that grosse and carnall manner of Christes body in that sacrament that they doe hold yet do we eate the flesh of Christ verily after that maner which the Papistes themselues do confesse to be the only profitable eating thereof namely that which is spirituall What our workes be I referre them to the iudgement of God wee boast not of them And although fasting for merite bee iustly punishable by statute yet godly and Christian fasting is not cleane exiled out of our Church though not so often perhaps vsed as meere it were it should Our doctrine of fasting is sound and agreeable to the word of God and therefore we dare iustifie it our doing wee will not iustifie nor excuse our faultes but humbly submitte our selues to his iudgement who knoweth our hearts of whome we craue pardon for our offences and grace to keepe his commandements But now to conclude this matter I will produce one testimonie of Gelasius an ancient Bishop of Rome which I thinke shuld be of great weight with al Papists if they giue in deed such reuerence either to that See or to antiquitie as they pretend And thus he writeth Cont. Eusychet Certè sacrameÌ„ta quae sumimus corporis sanguinis Christi diuina res est propter quod per eadeÌ„ diuinÄ™ efficimur consortes naturae tamen esse non desinit substantia natura panis vini â–ª Et certè imago vel similitudo corporis sanguinis Christi in actione mysterioruÌ„ celebratur Satis ergo nobis euidenter osteÌ„ditur hoc in ipso Domino Christo sentienduÌ„ quod in eius imagine ê“fitemur celebramus sumimê° vt sicut hÄ™c in diuinaÌ„ traÌ„ feuÌ„t spiritu sancto ê‘ficiente substantiaÌ„ ê‘manent tamen in suÄ™ ê“prietate naturae sic illud ipsuÌ„ mysteriuÌ„ principale cuius nobis officientiaÌ„ veritatemque veraciter reprÄ™sentat ex ijs quibus conflat propriè permanentibus vnuÌ„ ChristuÌ„ quoniam integruÌ„ veruÌ„que permanere demonstret Certainly the sacraments of the body and bloud of Christ which we receiue are a diuine thing therefore by them we are made partakers of the diuine nature and yet the substance nature of the bread and wine ceasseth not to be And surely an image or similitude of the body and bloud of Christ is celebrated in the action of the mysteries Therfore it is shewed vnto vs euidently ynough that we must iudge the same thing euen in our Lord Christ him selfe which we professe celebrate receiue in that which is an image of him that as by the working of the holy Ghost they passe into a diuine substance yet abide stil in the propertie of their owne nature euen so the same principal mysterie doth shew that one Christ abideth whole and true whose efficiencie truth it doth truly represent vnto vs those thinges of which he consisteth properly still remaining Thou seest gentle reader that this auncient Bishop of Rome first doth vtterly ouerthrowe transubstantiation when he saith that the substance nature of the bread wine do remaine still in the sacraments although they be a diuine thing Secondly that he excludeth the carnall maner of presence when he saith we celebrate receiue an image and similitude of the body bloud of Christ in the sacraments lastly that he aduoucheth the spiritual diuine maner of presence of Christ when he saith that the sacrameÌ„ts are turned into a diuine substance which he meaneth not of the substance of the deitie but of the heauenly wonderful manner of presence by which Christ vouchsafeth to giue vnto his faithfull members his very body and bloud in a mysterie And that the Church of Rome in much later times did not acknowledge this carnall presence it shal appeare euen out of the Popes own Canon law euen in the decrees De Consecrat distinct 2. Cap. Hoc est Coelestis panis qui Christi caro est suo modo nominatur corpus Christi cum reuera sit sacramentuÌ„
his deuorse from his first vnlawfull mariage gaue him occasion to enquire and finde out what weake foundation the vsurped power of the See of Rome was buylded vppon 76 King Henrie departed not out of the societie of the churche of Rome onely for the vices of the men thereof but for their false and Antichristian heresies which they obstinately mainteined and ioyned him selfe to the true auncient and vniuersall Church of Christe when hee departed out of that false newe sett vp schismaticall and particuler Synagogue of Rome as Saint Augustine went from the Manichees to the Catholicke church And as King Henrie the eyght knewe whence hee went so knewe hee also whither he went euen from Rome with seuen hilles to Ierusalem which is aboue and is the mother of vs all 77 Hee that goeth out of an hereticall church as King Henrie did must goe to the Catholike church of Christe as hee did without making any newe church or being without a church I knowe not the age of Maister Sander but if hee bee not much aboue fourtie yeares olde hee was borne and baptized as manye other Papistes were in that which hee calleth a newe church or no church which howe hee will aunswere let him and them aduise which holde it necessarie that a man must tarrie in that church in which hee is baptized 78 King Henrie the eight was not without a churche but in the church of Englande a member of the Catholike church of Christe neither did hee call him the supreme head of the church of Englande before that title was giuen him by the Popish Clergie in their submission after they were cast in the premunire Edw. Hall. 79 That hee receiued not fully the true doctrine of Christ as he banished the false vsurped power of the Pope is to bee imputed to the trayterous practises of his dissembling Clergie which although they durste not withstande him in mainteining the Popes authoritie yet they laboured all that they coulde to reteine the Popes doctrine in as many poyntes as they might hereof came the lawe of the sixe articles which mainteined the sacrifice of the Masse transubstantiation communion in one kynde and such other heresies Neuerthelesse the authoritie of Antichrist much Idolatrie superstition and false doctrine was abolished Iustification by faith in Christe was preached the scripture was read in the vulgar tongue which was a beginning of a reformation and returning vnto the true church of Christe and not a setting vp of a newe churche Except Maister Sander will saye that those Kinges of Iuda which refourmed some parte of religion and yet left the hill altares other abuses did set vp a newe church because they made not a perfect reformation Finally where he sayth that King Henrie adioyned himselfe to no companie of faithfull men in earth which had from Christes time liued after that profession of faith which he allowed proueth not that hee set vp a newe church For he ioyned to the Catholike church in so many pointes of true doctrine as hee acknowledged from which the Popish church was departed although he was not rightly instructed in all 80 The church of Englande in King Henries time was a true church although all the doctrine which was then mainteined by publique authoritie through the subtile practises of popish hypocrites was not true And the church of England at this daye is the same that it was then but nowe by publike authoritie embraceing all true doctrine which by the true members of the church in King Henries dayes was mainteined and withstoode by hypocrites or other not yet rightly instructed 81 The church vnto which King Henrie went and brought the realme when he departed from Rome was the same church which began at Ierusalem and so increased into all nations and continueth in the world for euer though not among all nations 82 King Henry went out of the Antichristian church of Rome into the Catholike church of Christe embracing some part of the doctrine therof therefore hee needed no reconciliation to the Romish church but a more perfect information of the church of Christ. 83 In King Edwardes time the reformation began and hindred in his fathers time was perfected and accomplished for all pointes of Christian doctrine neither was there any reconciliation vsed to the churche of Rome but the Church of Englande by publike authoritie perfectly vnyted to the Catholike Churche of Christe ioyning in profession of faith with the best refourmed Christian churches in the worlde 84 The abolishing of forrein power hindred not the ioyning in faith and doctrine with all the Churches of God that were without the realme of England The propitiatorie sacrifices of the Masse was in King Edwardes time abolished by publique authoritie out of the Church of England as it was in King Henries time abhorred of all true members of the Church that were then rightly instructed as much as the supremacie of the Pope 85 The power of being the sonnes of God the power of preaching and forgiuing of sinnes in the Church of Christe is no forreigne power neither was any such power euer excluded but the false and vsurped tyrannie of Antichrist of Rome 86 We beleeue and professe a Catholique or vniuersall Church of Christe whereof we are members and therefore we detest the hereticall schismaticall and particular Church of Rome 87 The Church of England vnder King Edward did professe her selfe to be a member of the most auncient Catholike and Apostolique Church of Christe which is the piller of trueth to bee iudged by the worde of GOD which is the trueth it selfe Iohn 17. being not so ignoraunt but that she could distinguish the worde of GOD from the Church of GOD as the lawe of GOD from the houshold of GOD which is gouerned by that lawe And not as Maister Sanders similitude is as the statutes of England differ from the men of England which make them but the Church maketh not the worde of God but contrariwise the word of God maketh the Church 88 It is not necessarie to shewe a companie of men in a peculiar place as Geneua or any such like for them that will ioyne them selues with the Catholike Church of all the world although it were easie to name diuers companies of men in seuerall places which continued in the true Church out of the Church of Rome both in Fraunce and Italie beside Bohemia which long before was returned out of the Popish Church into the Church of Christ and all the East Churches which neuer ioyned with the Church of Rome 89 The Churches of Zurich and Saxonie be members of the Catholique Church of Christe which is fifteene hundreth yeares olde and vpward although the same Churches were gathered and returned in those places within these three score yeares 90 There needed no embassages to goe to and fro to the Churches of God beyond the seas for reconciliation bicause there was no debate betweene the Church of England and them Although for conference and aduise
or to fall downe before holy images What say you maister Sander will you abide by it Haue you either forgotten the grammer you taught vs before of ioyning the aduerbe with the verbe or thinke you that we haue learned so little either grammer or logike that wee cannot see a difference betweene a proposition affirmatiue and negatiue If a boy should construe Gregories latine as you haue englished it hee were worthie of a dosen strips though he had gon to grāmer schoole but two or three yeres Non quasi ante diuinitatē ante illam imaginē prosternimur We fall not downe before that image as before the diuinitie thus would I english it conster it if it were for my life And that which you make affirmatiue I must make negatiue for I haue learned fiue or sixe twentie yeare agoe that it is a negatiue proposition when the principall Verbe is denyed But perhaps you will gather that though he fell not downe before an image as before God yet he fell downe before it as before an image Howe certeine this collection is you may see by an hundreth examples if you list to consider them If I saye Non quasi ante diuinitatem ante diabolum prosternimur woulde you translate it we fall downe before the deuill but not as before God or rather thus we fal not down before the diuell as we do before God. Non quasi panem lapides commedimus would you turne it thus we eate stones but not as bread or rather we eate not stones as we eate breade Non quasi ante regem ante mendicum prosternimur woulde you translate it thus we fall downe before a begger but not as before a king or else wee fall not downe before a begger as before a king Such examples might bee multiplied infinitely by which you may see what pith there is in maister Sanders argument to proue that Saint Gregory lay prostrate before an image where as contrariwise he denyeth it and maketh such prostration and falling downe with affection of religion to be dewe onely to GOD euen as the Angell infinitly more excellent then all the images that euer were made refusing that honour offered to him by Saint Iohn willed him to giue it to god 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fall downe to god Apoc. 22.9 THE XV. or XIIII CHAP. That the seuenth general councell was a true councell and ought to be obeyed and Maister Iewels slaunders be aunswered concerning the same Where also it is briefly shewed that miracles might and haue bene wrought by holy images Also Maister Iewels vaine arguments against the seuenth generall councell and Irene the Empresse that Maister Iewell committeth three faultes about fiue Latine words that the shadowe of Peter was accounted of vertue and power to heale men That they were and are in possession of honouring images who defended the honouring of them The cause why the seuenth generall councell was called The seuenth generall councell is conferred with the first What Bishops recanted in the seuenth councell The Bishop of Salisburie reiecting the authoritie of this Councell of Nice the second saith it was holden wel neere eight hundreth yeares after Christe and therefore was out of the compasse of those sixe hundred yeares of which he made his challenge Maister Sander answereth it was seuen hundreth yeares before Maister Iewell as though the controuersie were of antiquitie of the men and not of the doctrine The Bishop saide it would require a long treatise to open the whole follie and fondnesse of that Councell M. Sander answereth it is more like that M. Iewell is a fond foole then 350. Bishops of such wit vertue and learning as though their multitude could proue their wit vertue and learning when their words and deeds plainly declare their follie ignorance and vngodlinesse The B. saide Irene the Empresse which gathered this Councell was a wicked woman M. Sander citing diuers writers to and fro in the end concludeth that by repentance she was made a good woman and her zeale towards holy images did make her the better so he bringeth that for an argument which is the matter in controuersie The Bishop said She was the kings daughter of Tartaria an Heathen borne So was Constantine the great saith M. Sander yet was she Christened before she procured that Councell whereas hee doubteth whether Maister Iewell thinke that Constantine was baptized when hee gathered and confirmed the first Councell of Nice The Bishop doth not for that cause onely reiect the second Councel at Nice bicause Irene was an Heathen borne but thereby sheweth that she sauoured of Gentilitie in being earnest to set forward idolatrie And whereas Maister Sander doubteth whether Maister Iewell thinke Constantine were baptized before he gathered the Councel he neede not at al seeing Eusebius which knewe Constantine very well affirmeth that he was not baptized but euen imediatly before his death Contrarie to that fond fable which among other is auouched by Pope Adrian in this Councell that Constantine was cured of a leapresie baptized by Siluester Bishop of Rome And whereas he thinketh it a daungerous matter to take the authorizing of that Councel from Siluester and to ascribe it to one that was not baptized there is no perill at all in it for Constantine did then beleeue in Christ and was certainly determined to be baptized in Iordan if he had not bene preuented by death Yea although hee had beene an Heathen man seeing he gaue no sentence but assented to the sentence of the Bishoppes it had beene none inconuenience at all The Bishop saide She caused that Councell to be summoned in despight of the Councell of Constantinople that had decreed against images Maister Sander although he confesse there was such a Councell yet bicause the whole processe of the actes thereof is not extant being defaced by the idolaters he quarelleth that it was an obscure Councell and asketh by what Emperour it was gathered as though it were not testified that it was gathered by Leo the third but it lacked saith he the Bishop of Romes authoritie and therefore was no general Councell so did the Chalcedonense and the sixt of Constantinople in some partes and yet it went forward with the decree which had bene in vaine if the Romish Bishop had a negatiue voyce in all Councels The Bishop sayde She tooke her owne sonne Constantinus and pulled out his eyes The Councell is not therefore naught saith Maister Sander But she is thereby proued to bee a cruell woman which was the Bishops meaning The Bishop saith She did it onely bycause he would not consent to the idolatrous hauing of images Maister Sander denyeth this but proofe hee bringeth none sauing that hee sheweth there was an other cause why shee might doe it namely bicause hee deposed her of her gouernement wherein hee did well after the example of Asa which is commended in the scripture for that hee did put downe his mother Maachah from her estate bycause she
all Councels is and ought to be by the authoritie of the holy scriptures The Apostles thēselues in the Councel of Hierusalem decided the controuersie of circumcision by the scriptures Act. 15. A worthy paterne for al godly Councels to folow Constantine also in the Councel of Nice charged the Bishops there assembled by his commandement to determine the matter by the authoritie of the holy scriptures Euangelici enim Apostolici libri necnon antiquorum Prophetarum oracula planè instruunt nos inqui sensu numinis Proinde hostici posua discordia sumamus ex dictis diuini spiritus explicatione◠The bookes of the Gospels and the Apostles and also the Oracles of the auncient Prophetes do plainly instruct vs saith he in the vnderstanding of god Therefore laying away hatefull discord let vs take explications out of the sayings of the holy Ghoste Therdor lib. cap. 7. By this charge it is manifest how truely M. Rastel faith that the decree of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or equalitie of the Sonne in substance with the Father was made only by tradition and not by the authoritie of the scriptures For the Councel examining by scriptures the tradition and receiued opinion of the Fathers and finding it agreeable to them did confirme the same And whereas the Arrians quarrelled that this worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was not found in the scriptures and therefore would refuse it it helpeth nothing M. Rastels vnwritten verities for the trueth of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is proued by an hundreth textes of scriptures as the truth of the Trinitie is although neither of both words are found in the scriptures We quarell not as those heretiques did and M. Rastel a Popish heritique doth of letters syllables words and sounds but we stand vpon the sense meaning vnderstanding doctrine which we affirme to be perfectly contained in scripture what so euer is necessarie to saluation as S. Paul saith Al scripture inspired of God is profitable to teach to improue to correct and to instruct in righteousnes that the man of God may be absolute being made perfect to al good workes 2. Tim. 3. And therefore olde customes being referred vnto the custome of the Church of God in the time of the Patriarches Prophetes Apostles and Doctours that followed the same vnitie of Gods wordes is the thing wee desire might preuaile in all our controuersies of religion and so the sentence is wel inough placed if Momus could let any thing alone SECTIO 2. Frō the second face of the 12. leafe to the first face of the 19. leafe When any order giuen by God is broken or abused saith the Bishop the best redresse thereof is to restore it againe into the state that it was first in the beginning M. Rastel saith the Bishop can not tell where of he speaketh For whereas he affirmed that S. Paule had appointed an order touching the ministration of the sacramentes vnto the Corinthians M. Rastell will not simplie graunt that this order was appointed by God although S. Paule himself say he receiued it of christ which he deliuered to thē For this difference hee maketh That an order giuen by God must be obserued without exception and yet he addeth an exception of reuelation and especial licence from god But what so euer order S. Paule did giue he saith is subiect vnto the Church to remoue or pull vp as it shall please her Thus the blasphemous dog barketh against the spirit of god But I trust al sober Christian minds will rather beleue S. Paul then Rastel who saith of such orders as were giuen by him 1. Cor. 14. If any man seem to be a prophet or spirituall let him know the things that I write to you that they be the cōmandements of god But now M. Ra. will take vpon him to teach vs the order giuē that Paul speaketh of namely That the Christians had certein charitable suppers called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after which as August saith before which as Chrysost. saith they did vse to receiue the sacramēt Note here that M. Rast. which wil haue old customes tried by the fathers bringeth in here two Doctors one contrarie to the other To the purpose This order was taken away by cōtention disdaine of the rich against the poore therfore Paule purposed to bring them againe to that order of sitting eating their supper altogether that rich with the pore by saying That which I receiued of the Lord I deliuered to you And not to reforme any abuse of the sacramēt by reducing it to the first institution This iudgement of M. Rastell is partly by him proued by the authoritie of Theophylact but chiefly it standeth vpon his owne authoritie without further reason Howbeit it is manifest by the scripture that Paule reproued that mingling of prophane suppers with the Lordes supper appointing their priuate houses for their bodily refreshings of eating and drinking Haue you not houses saith he to eate and drinke in By which saying it is manifest he would haue no eating and drinking in the Church as M. Rastell dreameth but onely the eating and drinking of the Lordes supper And therefore that abuse of mingling their bodily suppers with the spirituall supper of the Lorde whereof came so many abuses and especiall the seuering and sundering of the congregation into diuers partes which ought to haue receiued altogether he laboureth to reforme by bringing it to the first institution of the Lord him selfe But M. Rast. following his owne dreame asketh what there was in the institution for sitting together or a sunder for eating at Church or at home Yes forsooth Christe did institute his supper to be a foode of the soule and not of the body and therefore to be celebrated in the congregation and in common as the saluation is common and not to bee mingled with prophane banquets of bellie cheare for which priuat houses and companies are meet and not the Church of god And wheras M. Rastel chargeth M. Iewel with not vnderstanding this place which he alledgeth namely therefore when you come together to eate tarie one for an other which he saith pertaineth no more to the institution of the sacrament then a pot full of plumbs doth to the highway to London he sheweth all his wit honestie at once For he denyeth that any thing that Saint Paule there rehearseth namely these wordes take eate this is my body c. is the institution of the sacrament or the originall paterne of reforming the Corinthians disorder bicause time place vesture number of communicants and such other accidentall and variable circumstà nces be not therein expressed So that by his diuinitie either the institution of the sacrament is not at all contained in the scriptures or else there is an other first paterne to reforme abuses by then this that is set downe in the scriptures I would maruel at these monstrous assertions but that I see the obstinate Papists cannot otherwise defend their Popish Masse
except they denied the institution of the sacrament patterne of reformation to be conteyned in the scriptures But if it be granted saith M. Rast. whiche is to farre absurde that S. Paule did reduce the Corinthians to the first originall and institution Why doe not rich men now bring meate to the Church and receiue the sacrament after they haue filled their bellies Forsooth because Christe instituted no such maner of suppers And why saith he do you not washe one anothers feete hauing a commandement so to do But if this commandement be litterally to be vnderstanded why doe you Papistes breake it If it be not why do you require that of vs which you confesse is not required to be done of any Humilitie is commaunded whereof our Sauiour Christe gaue vs example in that fact that God graunt we may obserue the outwarde ceremonie he commanded not to be obserued of any but that which was signified thereby ▪ And whereas Maister Rastell compareth the receiuing of both kindes by the lay people with that ceremonie of washing of feete to make it seeme that the iustitution of Christ might be altered in the one aswell as in the other he declareth what reuerence or estimation he hath of the institution of Christe For as that ceremonie of washing of feete is and may be altogether omitted as he fantasieth by the authoritie of the Church so not only one kind of the sacrament but both kindes also may be likewise taken away both from the people the priest if it please the Churche of Rome If he denie the conclusion what hath he gayned by the argument of that example Or what hath he proued against this our assertion that nothing is to beleeued without the expresse worde of God conteined in the scriptures SECTIO 3. From the first face of the 19. leafe to the second of the 23. leafe Of the disagreement of the Gospellers Whereas the Bishop had saide that the light of the Gospell is now so mightily and so farre spread abroade that it was to be hoped no man would lightly misse his way as before in time of darkenesse and perish wilfully it offendeth M. Rastel that he should boast of this glorious light of the Gospel which he a most obstinate blinde man will not vouchsafe to see Likewise that he calleth the heresie of Papistrie the darkenesse of the time afore And he would knowe where this glorious light of the Gospell is to be seene Concerning the light of Poperie because the Kingdome of the beaste by Gods iudgement is darkened in these partes of the worlde where he is knowen to sitte which maketh M. Rastel and his complices to gnaw the tonges for anger he is faine to demonstrate the light a farre off beyond the reache of any mans eyes sight among the newe found landes and the wilde Indians conuerted as he saith not by the Protestants but by Popish monkes and Friers Although it were easie to proue that protestantes also haue planted some Churches in those newe founde landes as in Gallia Antartica but what follie were it to boast of that How far and wide the Gospel is spread in Europe he that is so blind that he will not see who can make him acknowledge it Euen Italy Spaine haue yeelded great numbers of Martyrs confessors Al other regions of Europe in a maner at this day haue either vtterly banished Papistry or at lest by publik authoritie giuen libertie to the Gospel as England Ireland Scotland Flanders Holland France Germanie Denmark Bohemia Polonia Hungaria Suetia Gothia c. But M. R. seeing he cannot shewe his Popishe light abroade he wil shewe it in corners of mens harts because as he supposeth there is neuer a citie in which there is not some Papistes and therefore he wil conclude that the Gospel is not mightily and farre spread abroade By which reason he may proue that it neuer was nor shall be mightily spread abroade for euer there haue beene and shal be enimies that will not imbrace it Another reason he would seeme to bring of sixe diuers kindes of Gospellers wheras therere is but one Gospel which is a fond malicious cauill for I can bring more then 16. kinds of Papists which differ in some opinions and ceremonies wheras al the difference he can assigne amongst them that be truly accounted professors of the Gospell is either in one article of the sacrament or else in outward rites and ceremonies which cannot exclude any of them from the possession of the Gospel so long as they al agree in the doctrine of eternal saluation He vrgeth vs as Tertullian did the Marcionistes heretikes of his time to shew the beginnings of our Churches which wee do daily when we approue our doctrine to be grounded vpō the foundation of the Prophets Apostles bringing in no new Gospel as those heretikes did whereof they could not deduce the beginning from the Apostles Euangelistes of christ And whereas he saith we haue no one vndouted true iudge teacher or faith because we read Luther the Doctors old new with iudgement that is because we builde not our faith vppon any one man as they do vpon their proude Pope but vpon Christ his eternall word I answer we haue a most certein faith groūded vpon the teaching of a most holie maister euen the spirite of Christ in his word who is a most vndouted iudge both for wisdome authoritie to determine all controuersies Wheras the Papists building altogether vpō men haue no vndouted iudge teacher or faith not only because al men are liers vnconstant by corrupt nature but also because they cannot agree among themselues whether the Pope or the councel is the superior iudge teacher or rule of faith But M. Ra. as the rest of the Papists do gloryeth much that we haue receiued the gospel frō the Pope whose iudgment in expositiō therof we shold as well receiue as we acknowledge his fidelitie in keeping it without corruption But we vtterly denie that we haue receiued the Gospell from the Pope but rather from the Greeke Churche neither doe we acknowledge any fidelitie of the Pope in keeping of the Gospel whome we accuse of shamefull corrupting the Latine text therof and as for burning of the Books either he could not the same being dispersed into so many copies or he needed not when he persuaded al men that the Gospell had none other sence but that it pleased him to frame vnto it Finally when Pope Leo the tenth accounted the Gospel nothing else but a fable of Christe whiche brought them so great honor and wealth as who seeth not either how reuerently the Pope preserued the Gospell or for what cause he kept it vndestroied Finally M. Rastels prophane iesting of riding post to heauen declareth himselfe to be a right Papist that is to say an Atheist which maketh a scorne of religion and of the hope of the life to come euen as the same
manner of the being hath generall rules to order it by but no particulars expressed But Maister Rastell will not condemne the fact of Benet because Saint Augustine dare not condemne the fact of those virgins that drowned themselues contrarie to the commandement Thou shalt not kil because they might haue an extraordinarie spirite as Sampson had and because S. Ambrose commendeth the fact of his brother Satyrus one that was not baptised and therefore might not receiue the sacrament which hanged it about his necke in a tempest and escaped All these notwithstanding if he will not admitte that Saint Benet did euill in breaking the commandement of Christ yet let him heare what the Church decreed in the 3. councel of Carthage the 6. Canon Placuit vt corporibus defunctorum Eucharistia non detur Dictum est enim a Domino accipite edite Cadauera autem nec accipere possunt nec edere It is decreed that the sacrament of the Eucharistie be not giuen to the bodies of them that are dead For it is saide by our lord Take ye and eate ye But dead carcases can neither take nor eate The councell vseth the same reason that the bishop doeth but M. Rastel wiser then the councell sayeth that it is no good reason SECTIO 9. From the first face of the 46. leafe to the seconde face of the 47. leafe The Bishop affirmeth that Albertus Pighius one of the greatest pillers of the Popish parte findeth fault with the Masse M. Rastel denying him to be a great piller perhaps thinking himselfe to be as great confesseth that booth he and oâ—her do so but that it is not in the body of the Masse but in the garments and he saith they shew the better conscience to confesse the trueth whereas protestants will acknowledge no faults one by an other which is a shamelesse ly But what conscience the whole Popish Church hath hereby it may be seene that seeing there be faultes in the Masse so long ago espied yet not one of them is by the Pope and his cleargie reformed SECTIO 10. From the seconde face of the 47. leafe to the second face of thâ— 48. leafe That the Bishop in his sermon refuseth to speake of transubstantiation real presence or sacrifice and chuseth to speake of the communion in both kindes of the Canon of the Masse and of the priuate Masse Maister Rastel sayeth it is a timerous bragging and vaine glorious weakenesse But how well he hath quit himselfe in those cases that Maister Rastell imagineth he was afraide to deale with his learned writings doe more sufficiently declare to his true prayse then Maister Rastels rayling surmises are able to obscure And those thinges beeing taken from the Masse which he chooseth to speak of would make the Masse a poore sacrifice and smally to be regarded SECTIO 11. From the second face of the 48. leafe vnto the first face of the 58. leafe Wherein he speaketh of seruice in the mother tongue The Bishop reproueth the vse of the vnknowen tonge in the Masse by the authoritie of S. Paule that will haue all things in the Church done to edifying and that prayers and thankes giuen in the Church be such as the people to them may answere Amen Maister Rastell quarreleth that this fault is common to the Masse with Euensong and Mattins therefore it is no proper fault of the Masse A proper reason rayling and lying are no peculiar faultes to Maister Rastel but common to him with Maister Harding Maister Sanders Maister Alen and an hundreth more therefore he doeth Maister Rastel wrong that reproueth him of rayling and lying But before he answere the Bishops obiections he wil make no lesse then fiue obiections him selfe against him out of the same place of Saint Paule wherein he triumpheth 1 Why all the Psalter of Dauid is read in the English Church when all the Psalmes be not vnderstoode of all English men Forsooth syr there is no Psalme but something may be vnderstoode of euerie Englishe man that hath capacitie of vnderstanding and the rest that they may learne to vnderstand them 2 How many people be there that vnderstand not the easiest Chapter of the Gospell muche lesse the Prophets and Psalmes But sir they are often read that they may the better be vnderstoode or at least so much of them as is necessarie for them to knowe for their saluation 3 Where singing is vsed howe can they vnderstande any thing Such singing as taketh away vnderstanding is forbidden in our Church both by the booke and by iniunction 4 How can a thousand people vnderstande him that hath a small voice or Cornishe men or Northerne men a fine Londoners speech c. The Bishop should haue care to prouide a man as well for voyce as for other qualities able to edifie the people and suche nations of the Queens obedience as vnderstande not the English tongue haue their prayers in their owne tongue whiche he saith he had forgotten I thinke he saith as it is for a lyer should haue a good remembraunce 5 He saith we haue one Chapter for the better learned of the Parishe another for the poorer which is a flam fiue of his owne deuising Yet he saith there would be no end of confusion if nothing should be read in the congregation but that which should be vnderstoode of all that are present as though he were wiser then the holie Ghoste which in expresse wordes hath so commaunded that al may learne that all may be comforted meaning all the congregation not a man of a straunge language comming in chaunceably or curiously beeing none of that flocke But what answere hath he to Saint Paule euen a most shamefull shifte and impudent lie Namely that Saint Paule speaketh onely of preaching which he graunteth must be in the vulgar tongue and the Gospell and Pistle he could be content should be also if it pleased the Popes holinesse But Saint Paule nameth expressely not onely preaching but also praying giuing of thankes and singing of Psalmes or Hymnes But he obiecteth that Saint Paule saith he that speaketh with tongues edifieth himselfe and he that giueth thankes in a strange tongue doeth giue thankes well It is true if his prayer and speeche be godly and priuate but in the congregation the Apostle by no meanes alloweth any man to vse a strange tongue Yes saith M. Rast. if there be an interpreter In deede S. Paule speaketh of them which had a miraculous gifte of strange tongues which might be vsed to set forth Gods glorie so that there were an interpreter that the Churche might be profited otherwise he would haue Gods gift to be silent in the Churche To be short M. Rast. affirmeth preaching it selfe to be so vnnecessarie that pictures may not onely supplye the wante thereof but also are necessarie for the faithfull people and more profitable then a most eloquent and learned sermon of M. Iewell himselfe Who would reason any longer with such an
in argument to defende And as for shauen crownes and purple sandales holy water or praying in one tongue hee sayeth they were neuer taken for secreat mysteries in the Church and if the scriptures applyed to them do not proue them they take no harme for by like they are good ynough without the scriptures Sauing that the saying of Ezechiell Chap. 36. I will sprinkle you with cleane water hee seeth not but that it may bee applyed to holy water though it bee meant of baptisme because holy water putteth vs in mynde of our baptisme Where fynde you that meaning of holy water in all the exorcising or coniuring thereof A poore shift God wott to defende a beggerly ceremonie As for Ecce duo gladij hic to prooue that the Pope hath power of both swordes hee defendeth it to bee good and sufficient Firste because Christe had power of both although hee vsed but one But what hath the Pope to doe with Christe Forsooth hee made Peter his lieutenaunt and ruler of all Christians when hee had him feede his sheepe and lambes Euen as good a reason as Ecce duo gladij hic But what hath the Pope to doe with Peter if Peter had beene such a one Forsooth because hee sitteth at Rome So did Nero and was Pontifex Maximus to as good as the Pope But Barnarde vseth the same texte so What if Barnarde was disposed to iest with the Pope in his owne interpretations or if hee were in earnest can Barnarde make that good which is starke naught Last of all the shamelesse and blasphemous beast is not afrayde to compare this argument with the allegorie vsed by the holie Ghoste Gal. 4. of the two wiues in Abrahams house that were figures of two Testaments which the Apostle vsed not to proue but to declare and shewe plainly as it were by example that which hee had before moste substantially proued SECTIO 35. From the seconde face of the III. leafe to the seconde face of the 118. leafe The argumentes where on the masse is builded being so absurde as euen his brasen face blusheth to allowe hee aunswereth the thinges proued by these argumentes are but the heire and nayles of the masse and not the substantiall partes thereof and yet those partes are good ynough without those argumentes namely by tradition For the Corporall was of lynen before the argument of Christes buriall cloath was made for it Chalices were of goulde and siluer before the texte Babylon is a cuppe of goulde was alleadged for them And facer◠signifieth to sacrifice though Virgils verse had neuer beene written Cum faciam vitula For in the Iudges Manoah saide to the Angell faciamus tibi haedum de capris wee may offer to thee a kidde of the Goates O subtile Maister Rastell Where learned you first that Manoah spake latine Secondlye that hee woulde offer sacrifice to a man and not rather make readie a kidde to bee eaten of him whome he thought to haue beene a man for it followeth immediately in the text that Manoah knew not that hee was an Angell of GOD least you shoulde imagine that Manoah had beene a Papist and woulde haue offered a sacrifice to an Angell But yet to couer his shame with impudence he saith he will bee yet bolder and applie whatsoeuer hee findeth in the scripture to mainteine Popish ceremonies hee careth not howe fitlye Theologia Mistica hee saith hee woteth well non est argumentis apta Mysticall Diuinitie is not fit to make argumentes of But GOD keepe our faith from grounding vppon such diuinitie as will neither satisfie our conscience nor conuince the errors of other Laste of all least hee shoulde passe ouer this place without a blasphemie hee compareth these balde reasons of Siluester and Durande with the argument that Saint Paule maketh 1. Cor. 9. vppon this text of the law Thou shalt not binde vp the mouth of the Oxe that treadeth out the corne therefore GOD which prouideth that beastes labouring shoulde not want their foode ▪ much more woulde haue the minister of the Gospell rewarded for his trauell Whiche is a most pithie argument from the lesse to the more as euerye learned man and godly will acknoweledge SECTIO 36. From the second face of the 118. leafe to the 127. leafe in which he treateth of the priuate Masse Whereas the Bishop proueth the priuate Masse to be contrarie to the institution of Christe which ordeined a communion First M. Rastell will not vnderstand what is meant by this word priuate Masse for al Masses he saith are common which if it be true to vse his own examples of an open houshold and a common of pasture they be fooles that will pay any money for them Afterward vnderstanding a priuate Masse to be when no man receiueth with the Priest he asketh whether the Masse saide on Easter day be good bicause there be a number of communicants or whether any other Masse be good at which be many that receiue with the Priest I answer him those Masses in that point are lesse euil then the priuate Masses in which there is no communion bicause they erre not in that one point although they are abhominable in many other But now let vs heare how M. Rast. looketh the Doctours in the faces which were cited by the Bishop against priuate Masse as he promiseth to doe First to Clemens and Dionysius he aunswereth nothing but cauilleth at the Bishops manner of citing them not for writings of such antiquitie as they are said to be but yet sufficient to choake the Papistes which boast of their authoritie And trifleth of the oyle salt singing and in Dionysius which ceremonies as we haue not in our Church no more haue the Papistes in such order as he rehearseth thē To Iustine likewise he aunswereth nothing but cauilleth of the water vsed to be mixed with the wine in his time which was no ceremonie but a custome of sobrietie and of sending the communion to them that were absent which we vsed not neither is he able to proue that they vsed to send it as the communion but as almes rather of the great plentie of breade and wine that was accustomed to be offred And if it were proued to bee the communion it maketh more strongly against the priuate Masse that they would suffer none that were absent not to communicate much lesse would they suffer them which were present not to receiue with the minister The sayings of Ambrose Hierome Augustine Leo he passeth ouer with confession that the people in their dayes vsed to receiue with the Priest commonly but hee denyeth they did so alway Which hee weeneth to proue by that Chrysostome saith they did offer daily and Ambrose saith that in Greece they were accustomed to receiue but once a yeare And he thinketh it were absurde that there should be but one Communion in a yeare in Greece But hee is much deceiued for Saint Chrysostome as he confesseth speaketh of often receiuing ad Ephe.
whereas their is no dout but such strong wine as groweth in those countries will be preserued as long from sauoring as the bread froÌ„ moulding Like is the example of Serapion being at the point of death to whom the priest being sicke also sent by a boye the sacrament Vppon which example he vrgeth reseruation which though it be not necessarie yet is it not the matter in controuersie secondly the coÌ„munion in one kind which is false for he sent both and willed him to dippe the bread in the wine which he sent and not in any thing else as M. Rastell saith which were an absurditie that the bodie of Christe should be dipped in prophane licour or sent by a boy either if the Priest had ben so persuaded of it as Rastel would beare vs in hand that all olde fathers were That he receiued alone proueth no priuate Masse nor alloweth sole receiuing as ordinarie which was done in a case of extreame necessitie in one which was excommunicated and could not departe this life before he had receiued the sacrament The last example is the superstitious fact of Satyrus the brother of Ambrose which beeing not baptised obteined the sacrament of the Christians that were in a ship with him in daunger of shipwracke which because he might not receiue he caused it to be wrapped in Orario a linnen garment which Maister Rastell calleth a stole wrapped that linnen garment about his necke and without other helpe escaped by swimming Here M. Rastel thinketh he hath great aduauntage First that the Christians had the sacrament out of the Church As though the ship might not be their Church for that time to minister the communion in the time of that great daunger Secondly that it was in one kind except we can deuise how to wrap wine in a stole No M. Rastel this proueth not that the Christians receiued in one kinde though they had wrapped one kinde in the stole as you call it for Satyrus as yet no Christian. But why might they not either soake the bread in wine as some did in those days or else dippe a corner of that linnen cloth as some also vsed to doe and wrappe it vp in that great linnen garment And the words of Ambrose Fusum in viscera powred into his bowels wold not agree to drie bread Last of all whereas you say it was no fantastical figuratiue memorie which saued him from daunger I agree with you but it was not the sacrament that he carried whatsoeuer you will call it but his faith as S. Ambrose saith that preserued him And how soeuer it was the example of an vnbaptised mans weake and superstitious doing doeth ye but small honestie to confirme your common priuate Masse sole receiuing opinion of carnal presence or what so euer beside you can gather out of it SECTIO 39. From the 132. leafe to the second face of the 135. leafe of seruice in a straunge tongue To the Bishoppes challenge that common prayer was not in a straunge tongue within the compasse of 600. yeares after Christ he hath nothing in the worlde But onely affirmeth that Augustine the Monke brought Latine seruice into Englande whiche the people vnderstoode not whiche both is somewhat without the compasse and also onely said of him without proofe or likelyhoode He saith he made not a newe Englishe seruice or Kentish rather but vsed the Romane fashion and language Be it graunted that he brought in the Latine seruice yet how proueth he that the people did not at that time for the moste parte vnderstand the Latine tongue Seeing he could preach to them onely in Latine beeing a Romane and they also tâ—at came with him vnderstoode no parte of the English tongue as our stories doe testifie And that he planted not the Romane seruice it may appeare by the aunswere of Gregorie to his thirde demaunde of the diuersitie of the Romane Churche and the French Church in which answere he bindeth him not to the Romane Church but willeth him to choose out of all Churches what he thinketh most conuenient and profitable for the Englishe Churche And seeing the Scriptures and diuerse Homelyes and Prayers remaine still in the Saxon or old English tongue I do not see but he might haue made a newe English seruice although by reason of so many mutations troubles as happened in this land by meanes of ciuil and externe warres in the meane time Antichrist daily more and more incroching the same might growe out of vse and latine onely be reteined which perhaps at the first was but vsuall vnto monasteries or clarkes But how soeuer it was this is an inuincible argument that Augustine planted not the Romane seruice in this land bicause there were so many diuersities of customes as there were diuerse Bishops sees and al they differing from the vse of the Romane church But hauing none authoritie he hath reasons perhaps to defend latine seruice First latine seruice is as meete for Englishmen as English seruice is for WelshmeÌ„ wherwith he saith we finde no faulte wherin he lieth For the Welshmen that vnderstand not english haue their common praier in their Welshe tongue The second reason he vseth that Sainct Paule did write in greeke to the Romanes ergo the seruice must be in latine to Englishmen He saith himselfe there be many differences betweene an epistle a common forme of praiers which is verie true But will he proue therby that the Romanes had their common praiers in greeke The cause why the Apostle did write in greeke was bicause he wrote not only to the Romanes but to the whole churche vnto which the greeke tongue was more familiar then the latine and was of many vnderstoode in Rome And also because the holy Ghoste â—ad consecrated the Greekâ— tongue beeing the principall tongue of the gentiles vnto the writinges of the newe Testament auoyding to vse the Latine tongue euen to the Romanes for the mysterie of the name of Antichriste Latinos conteined in the nomber of the beastes name 666. as Irenaeus doeth testifie His thirde reason is that there be many thinges to be saide in publique praier which ought to be saide in secrete therefore an vnknowne tongue is best to vtter them His antecedent he proueth not out of scripture or any auncient authenticall writer but out of the liturgies falsely ascribed to Saint Basil and Saint Chrysostome and yet the argument hath no consequence in the world for then those prayers in the Latine seruice to the Romanes shoulde bee in an vnknowen tongue and all the rest in a knowne tongue to euerie nation Finally where he saith there needeth no diuersitie of seruice according to the diuersitie of languages he speaketh directly contrarye to the decree of the councell of Laterane cap. 9. which commanded the bishoppes to prouide that the sacraments and other diuine seruice should be ministred to all people in their diocesse according to the diuersitie of their languages and customes By which it is
proued that seruice in an vnknowne tongue is neither so auncient as it is pretended nor yet so allowed in all times but that euen a popish councel hath decreed against it SECTIO 40. From the second face of the 135. leafe to the 139. leafe in which he speaketh of the title of the vniuersall bishop To the bishops challenge that the bishoppe of Rome was not called an vniuersal bishop or head of the vniuersall Church he answereth that the title was due although it was not vsed and after his accostomable manner cauilleth of the worde vniuersall whereas the bishop doth sufficiently expound himselfe by addinge or head of the vniuersall Church which he taketh in hand to proue giuing ouer the former title of vniuersall First by a lowsie counterfett Epistle most falsely ascribed to Anacletus which he citeth to be the second but it is in the thirde in which the vnlearned asse that counterfeted that Epistle interpreteth the name of Peter giuē him by Christ which was Cephas ▪ to signifie a head and beginning whereas by the Gospell we learne that Cephas was a stone as Peter is if the knowledge of the Syrian tongue shoulde fayle vs. His seconde authoritie is out of Cyprian Lib. 3. ep 11. The wordes of certaine scismatikes that tooke part with Nouatus against Cornelius bishop of Rome and vppon their repentaunce beeinge in Africa were receyued into the Churche These men confessed that they did acknowledge Cornelius to bee a bishoppe of the most holy Catholike Churche whereas before they refused him and claue to Nouatus a false bishoppe of Rome not lawfully ordained like as afterwarde they acknowledge that there shoulde bee but one bishoppe of a Catholike Church meaning in one citie for else they shoulde haue denyed Cyprian and all other bishoppes of the worlde to bee bishoppes sauinge onely Cornelius the bishoppe of Rome whereas Cornelius being lawfully called to be bishop of Rome they had taken part with Nouatus which would be a bishoppe by intrusion He citeth also Cyprian lib. 1. ep 3. heresies haue risen of none other cause but that the priest of God is not obeyed and that there is not one priest of God in the Churche for a time and one iudge in steede of Christ thought vpon whiche Cypriane speaketh not of one priest to be as iudge of all the Churche but of one in euerie Churche and namely he speaketh of himselfe complaininge that he was contemned by a leude heretike and scismatike called Felicissimus with his complices His thirde author is Ambrose in 1. Tim. 3. whiche although it bee denyed to be the worke of Ambrose but rather set forth of some man of muche later time in the name of Ambrose to get more credite vnto his writing yet receyuinge it as Ambrose what sayeth hee Forsoothe that Damasus was a gouernour of the Church of Christ whiche is the house of God whiche he sayeth in none other sense then S. Paule enstructed Timothie to behaue himself in the house of God which is the Church of the liuing God not meaning to make him supreame head of all the Church of Christ no more did Ambrose meane to make Damasus then bishop of Rome His fourth authour is Cyrillus whome hee citeth in Lib. Thesau a counterfette place not to bee founde in all the workes of Cyrillus by whome so euer it was forged His last authour is Gregorie Libro 4. Epistola 32. who sayeth that although the charge of all the Churche was committed to Peter as chiefe of the Apostles yet he was not called an vniuersall bishoppe I confesse the charge of al the Church was committed to Peter whiche was not bishoppe of one Churche but an Apostle sent vnto the whole worlde as all the rest of the Apostles were But that prooueth not the supremacie of the bishoppe of Rome who if hee were a right bishoppe yet were hee no Apostle and so hath nothinge to doe with the charge and commission of an Apostle Hee nameth also Sainte Augustine whiche in diuers places calleth Rome Sedem Apostolicam a seate Apostolike whiche is nothinge else sayeth Maister Rastell but that place whiche may plante and pull vppe sette and lette and hath his power ouer the whole worlde But where learned hee this deffinition of a seate Apostolike O impudent and arrogaunt disputer All Churches that were planted and honoured with the presence of the Apostles were called Apostolike seates yet did they neuer claime neither would Rastell giue vnto them that whiche he maketh to bee the deffinition of a seate Apostolike As for Augustine doeth often call Rome Babylon the seat of Antichrist De ciuit Dei lib. 16. cap. 17. lib. 18. cap. 2. 22. SECTIO 41. From the 139. leafe to the 144. leafe in which he speaketh of the reall and corporall presence of Christes bodie in the sacrament The bisho◠saith the people were not taught that Christs body is really substantially corporally carnally or naturally in the sacrament Master Rastell saith although these termes be not founde yet that which is signified by them is found For thus he vseth in euery matter to trifle about termes as though the bishop did striue for wordes and sylables and not for the matter And he would haue the bishop to bring out of any antiquitie that the people were taught to beleeue that the bodie of Christ is onely figuratiuely sacramentally significatiuely tropically imaginatiuely in the sacrament to the denyal of all presence and reallitie as though a sacramental presence were not a presence and a reall presence also if by reall you meane that whiche is in deede and not counterfeted though it bee not after a grosse and carnall manner For that Christ is present and truely receyued in his sacramentes wee doe gladly confesse whiche is all that any aunciente writers speaketh of his presence Hierome Isychius Cyrillus Origen Augustine or Chrysostome whose names he citeth or any other within 600. yers after christ But to maintein that grosse corporall maner of presence or receiuing which the papistes doe now holde there is none of the olde writers that saith any thing to the purpose As for Damascen is far out of the compasse a corrupt writer and yet more grosse in termes then his iudgement was as it were easie to prooue if his authoritie were of any weight But Master Rastel asketh if these words be not plaine inough This is my bodie which shall bee deliuered for you Luk. 22. Hee maketh them somewhat plainer by chaunging the pretertence into the future for Luke reporteth the words which is giuen for you I againe aske him whether these wordes bee not as plaine This cuppe is the Newe Testament in my blood which is shedde for you Wee doubt not but that it is the sacrament of his true and naturall body for we make not two bodies of Christ as the papistes doe a naturall bodie and a spirituall bodie which true and naturall bodie of Christ being in heauen is giuen vnto
vs in those holy mysteries after a wonderfull and vnspeakeable manner not carnally nor corporally but spiritually and diuinelye And where as Maister Rastell citeth a longe saying of Cyrillus against an Arrian whiche denyed that wee haue any corporall coniunction with Christe and proueth the same by the strength and power of the misticall benediction which maketh Christ to dwell corporally in vs it is nothing in the worlde to his corporall and carnall manner of presence For we also do graunt that the power of the mistical benediction is such as maketh Christ to dwel corporally in the faithfull which is nothing else as he doth immediately expounde himselfe but that they are made members of Christes bodie and members one of another which is not after any carnall or naturall manner but after an heauēly diuine manner of vnion For the same Cyril doth affirme that Christ giuing the sacrament to his disciples gaue thē fragmēta panis peeces of bread By which is the plaine hee meant not to teach any transubstantiation of the bread into the natural body of Christ. This place of Cyrill is set downe at large in mine aunswere to Hesk. lib. 2. Cap. 14. And where as hee saith we do weaken the hope of the resurrection of our flesh by denying the carnall manner of presence of Christs body in the sacrament I say it is vtterly false and the contrarie is true that the Popish heretikes do weaken the hope of resurrection in all them that haue not receiued the sacrament when they faine such a presence of Christes body in the sacrament as cannot bee receiued without the sacrament SECTIO 42. From the 144. leafe to the ende of the 145. leafe To the Bishops challenge that the body of Christ cannot be in a thousande places or more at one time hee aunswereth it needed not to be proued because reason must giue place to faith and one principle proued of Christes presence draweth all the rest after it and thirdly because Christs body is not locally present in the sacrament but in one place onely Finally hee citeth a long saying of Chrisostome in Ep. ad Heb. Hom. 17. reasoning how Christ is offered euery day but the whole discourse is cleane contrary to Maister Rastels purpose and especially the first sentence and the last expoundeth howe Christ was offered not really but as in a remembrance Doe wee not offer euerye day Wee offer in deede but as men which make a remembrance of his death these wordes shewe what kinde of oblation it was that they did make namelye a celebration of the memoriall of his death and not a propitiatorie sacrifice of Christes bodye carnally present The last wordes are these Wee offer not another sacrifice as the bishops did but alwayes that same or rather wee make the remembrance of that sacrifice This correction sheweth that it was not properly a sacrifice whiche they offered Finally there is not one worde in that discourse but it is directly against the sacrifice of the Masse SECTIO 43. From the 145. leafe to the 149. leafe To nine parts of the bishoppes chalenge hee aunswereth nothing but refuseth for their particularitie to answere to them First that the Priest did not holde the sacrament ouer his heade Secondlye that the people did not worship it with Godly honour Thirdly that it was not then hanged vnder a Canopye Fourthly that after consecration there remaineth nothing but accidences of breade and wine Fiftly that the priest deuided not the sacramēt in three parts receiued them all himselfe alone Sixtly that whosoeuer had said the sacrament is a figure a pledge a token or a remembrance of Christes bodye had not therefore ben iudged for an heretike Seuenthly that it was not lawefull to say 30. or twentie c. Masses in one Church in one day Eightly that images were not set vp to be worshiped Ninthly that the lay people were not forbidden to reade the worde of God in their owne tongue Maister Rastell saith this is an vnlearned and pelting kinde of reasoning but he proueth it by vnlearned and pelting examples as it is not read that Christe did crye from his mothers breast or did weare a peticoate hose or shooes or went on his mothers errande c. As though any of these thinges were articles of our beleefe as some of those are among the Papistes or as though it perteined any thing to knowe such matters as the Papistes pretende their matters necessarye not onely to be knowen but also practised Finally he woulde perswade his popish friends that these thinges neede not to bee proued to bee of such antiquitie because the Church hath receiued them Then let him and his fellowes bee a shamed and crie creake whiche were wont to boaste of fifteene hundreth yeares antiquitie for all their doctrine and ceremonyes the consent of all ages the traditions of the Apostles and such like where nowe they are cutte shorte of the first sixe hundreth yeares and being vrged to shewe their antiquitie can say nothing but that it is not needefull SECTIO 44. in the 149. leafe To the Bishoppes challenge that the wordes of consecration by no authoritie of councelles or Doctours ought to bee pronounced closelye Hee confesseth the matter but hee can proue or else hee lyeth that there must be an heade in the Churche whiche as well in this matter as in all other must bee obeyed Howe well hee can proue it is tryed in the fourtie Section The rest of the challenges hee giueth ouer being desirous to bee at an ende with them as I cannot blame him SECTIO 45. From the end of the 149. leafe to the 152. leafe in whiche he woulde proue that priests haue auctoritie to offer Christ. He taketh vppon him to shewe that the priest hath authoritie to offer vp Christ vnto his father But good lorde whether more blasphemously then ignorantly and vnlearnedly For first he citeth the saying of the Apostel Heb. 5. Euery high Priest taken of men is appointed for men in those things that perteine to God to offer vp gifts and sacrifices for sinnes which the Apostle speaketh expreslye of the priests of the old lawe and proueth the excellency of Christ aboue them Secondly admitting hee shoulde speake of Pristes of the newe Testament which is false he saith their sacrifice must be after the order of Melchisedech as it is written thou art a priest for euer after the order of Melchisedech of which order Christ is a priest in respect of Popish priestes that be nowe a dayes or else Gods oth should be broken Surely I merueile at the great clemency of god which stoppeth not such blasphemous mouthes with thunderbolts that make the eternall priesthoode of Christ which hee hath without succession to depende vppon their greasie order which hath not beene but of late erected neither shall continue for euer where as our sauiour Christe worlde without ende shal bee both a king and a priest which