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 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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
he denyeth transubstantiatioÌ„ If he say it was not verie bread wine which Christ did sacrifice then he denyeth the resemblance vnto Melchisedechs sacrifice and hath Cyprian against him who as we heard before saith Obtulit hoc idem quod Melchisedech obtulerat id est panem vinum suum scilicet corpus sanguineÌ„ He offered that selfe same thing that Melchisedech had offered that is to say bread wine euen his body bloud Note here that Melchisedech and Christ offering both the verie selfe same thing they both offered bread and wine and likewise they both offered the body and bloud of Christ. Whereby not onely transubstantiation but also the carnal presence is vtterly ouerthrowne And to presse him harder by his owne weightes euen to death If aliud signifie an other substance as he taught vs before then hoc idem signifieth the same substance and much rather Therefore whâ—n Cyprian saith that Christ offered hoc idem quod Melchisedech it followeth that Melchisedech offered the same substance which he expoundeth bread and wine his body and bloude And this two forked reason will hold down all the papistes noses to the grindstone that they shall not be able to auoide it for their liues The thirtieth Chapter treateth of the same matter by S. Hieronyme and Theodoret. The place of Hieronyme which M. Heskins doth so triumph vpon is vpon the 110. Psalme but those coÌ„mentaries both by Erasmus and by Bruno Amerbachius are vtterly denyed to be Hieronymes doing But seeing they be falsly intituled to him we are coÌ„tent to take this place as thogh it were Hieronymes writing in deed The words vpon the fourth verse are these It is superfluous for vs to goe about to make an exposition of this verse seeing the holy Apostle to the Hebrues hath most fully treated thereof For hee saith this is Mechisedech without father without mother without generation And of all ecclesiastical men it is said that he is without father as concerning the flesh and without mother as concerning his godhead This only therefore let vs interpret thou art a priest for euer after the order of Melchisedech let vs only see wherfore he said after the order After the order that is thou shalt not be a priest according to the sacrifices of the Iewes but thou shalt be a prieste after the order of Melchisedech For as Melchisedech kinge of Salem offered breade and wine so shalt thou offer thy bodie and thy bloud true bread and true wine This Melchisedech hath giuen vs these mysteries which we haue He it is that hath saide he that shall eate my fleshe and drinke my bloude Hee hath deliuered to vs his sacrament according to the order of Melchisedech What can be saide more plainely in exposition of this writer then that hee him selfe saith that hee hath giuen vs these mysteries that he hath deliuered to vs his sacrament after the order of Melchisedech by which he expresseth what his meaning was by offering his bodie and bloud verie bread and verie wine or true bread and true wine not in the proper sence of a sacrifice but in a mysterie in a sacrameÌ„t But nowe let vs see howe M. Heskins insulteth vppon vs for this counterfete Hieronyme First that he taketh vpon him to expound that which was left vnexpounded by the Apostle to the Hebrues namely that Christ was a prieste which is altogether false for the Apostle doth not onely speake of his eternall priesthood but also of his one oblation by which hee purchased eternall redemption And although this writer doth refer his order to the similitude of his sacrifice in bread and wine yet both the prophet in the psalme and the Apostle to the Hebrues doe sufficiently declare that the excellencie of Melchisedechs order doth consiste in this that he was both a Kinge and a Priest and so a liuely figure of the reall priesthoode of our sauiour Christ. But whereas M. Heskins will controle not only vs but euen his owne vulgare interpretation of the bible which saith not obtuliâ— hee offred but protulit hee brought forth by authoritie of this Hieronyme who hee saith both knewe the olde testament and vnderstoode the Hebrue tongue he bewrayeth his owne weaknesse and sheweth how good a reader he hath been of Hieroms works when he knoweth not what the true Hieronyme himselfe writeth of this matter in his Epistle to Enagrius in which setting downe the verie Hebrue text 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth thus expound it Et Melchizedech rex Salem protulit panem vinum Erat autem sacerdos Dei exelsi And Melchisedech brought forth bread and wine and he was a priest of the high god The same word protulit hath Ambrose de mysterijs initiandis and Augustine vppon the title of the 33. Psalme and Cyprian as we heard in the last Chapter lib. 2. Epi 3. ad Caecilium Besides this Hierome in the same Epistle sheweth that the best learned of the Hebrues iudgement was that Melchizedech victori Abraham obuiam processerit in refectionem tam ipsius quà m pugnatorum ipsius panes vinumque protulerit Melchizedech came forth to meete Abraham the conquerour and for refection as well of him as of his warriours brought forth breade and wine And concerning the order of Melchizedech he saith that the Greeke writers interpret it many wayes As for example that he alone was both a King and a Priest and that he was a Priest before circumcision that he was not annoynted with the oyle of the Priestes but with the oyle of gladnesse that hee offered not sacrifices of flesh and bloud and tooke not the bloud of beastes and their bowels and what soeuer is in them more then meate Sed pane vino simplici puroque sacrificio Christi dedicauerit sacramentum but with breade wine being a simple and pure sacrifice he dedicated the sacrament of christ This the true Hierome writt and yet in the ende will determine nothing of his owne iudgement But M. Heskins repeting againe a parcell of Cyprians saying vttered in the Chapter before Who is more properly the Priest of the high God then our Lord Iesus Christe which offered a sacrifice to God his father and offered the selfe same thing that Melchizedech had offered that is bread and wine euen his bodie and bloud compareth it with this saying of Hierome As Melchizedech offered bread and wine so shalt thou offer thy bodie and thy bloud the true breade and the true wine And not content with this hee noteth in the margent a plaine place for M. Iuel Howe plaine it is to confute M. Heskins I haue shewed abundantly in the last partâ— of the Chapter next before this whether I remit the reader and passe to Theodoret who in his second dialogue writeth thus Godly Moses writing the olde genealogie hath taught vs that Adam when hee was thus many yeres old begat Seâ—h and when he had liued so many yeres he made
the 58. verse he concludeth and sayeth plainly that it is the same breade that came downe from heauen and that who so eateth of this breade shall liue eternally Secondly that the promise of giuing his flesh is not to be restrayned to the giuing of the sacrament his wordes are plaine that he will giue his fleshe for the life of the worlde which all true Christians will acknowledge to haue beene perfourmed in the sacrifice of his death and not at his last supper Finally that his flesh must not bee separated from his spirit nor his spirit from his flesh he doth as plainly teach vs when he affirmeth that it is the spirite that quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing that except we eate the fleshe of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud we haue no life in vs For neither the flesh profiteth but as it is made quickening by the spirite neither do we participate the life of his spirite but as it is communicated vnto vs by his fleshe by which we are made fleshe of his fleshe and bone of his bone which holie mysterie is liuely represented vnto vs in the blessed sacrament And this your aduersaries confesse Maister Heskins not denying as you charge them that any one worde of that Chapter perteineth to the sacrament but affirming the sacrament to bee a seale of the doctrine which is deliuered in that Chapter and not otherwise The iudgement of the olde writers consonant to this vnderstanding shall followe afterwarde in confutation of M. Heskins vngodly and hereticall distinction not of the two natures in Christ but of participation of the one without the other which hee maketh by his two last breades The thirde Chapter proueth by the doctours that the sixt of S. Iohn speaketh as well of the bread Christes fleshe in the sacrament as of the bread his godhead Chrysostom is alledged in Ioan 6. Hom. 44. Iam in mysteriorum c. Nowe will he come to the setting forth of the mysteryes and first of his godhead he sayeth thus I am the breade of life this was not spoken of his bodie of which about the ende he sayeth The breade which I will giue is my flesh but as yet of his godhead for that is bread because of God the worde euen as this bread because of the spirite comming to it is made heauenly breade Maister Heskins asketh if we do not here plainely see a distinction of breades I answere no forsooth but a distinction of two natures in one breade Againe he asketh Doth not nowe the sixt of S. Iohn speake of the bodie of Christ in the Sacrament I aunswere that no such thing appeareth by these wordes of Chrysostome otherwise then as the sacrament is a liuely representation of that his bodie which he gaue for the life of the world And that Chrysostome meaneth not to diuide Christe into two breades as M. Heskins doth he teacheth speaking of the same mysterie of his coniunction with vs by his fleshe Hom. 45. Vester ego frater esse volui communicaui carnem propter vos sanguinem per quae vobis coniunctus sum ea rursus vobis exhibui I would be your brother and so I tooke parte of fleshe and bloud for you and the same things I haue giuen you againe by which I was ioyned vnto you So that not the godhead of Christ alone nor his flesh alone is giuen vs as two breades but Christ by his flesh is ioyned vnto vs as one bread of life Let vs nowe see what S. Augustine sayeth who expounding the same text writeth thus Our Lorde determineth consequently howe he calleth him selfe bread not onely after his godhead which feedeth all things but also after his humaine nature which is assumpted of the worde of God when he sayeth afterwarde And the bread which I will giue is my flesh c. Once againe M. Heskins asketh whether Augustine teach not a plaine difference of the bread of the Godhead of Christe and the bread of his manhood And once againe I aunswer not so but he teacheth directly the contratie namely Christe God and man to be one breade and not two breades And that the doctrine of this Chapter is not to be restrained vnto the sacrament the same Augustine in the same place teacheth abundantly while hee maketh no mention of the Lordes supper vntill he come to the ende and then sheweth that the mysterie of this fleshe and bloud is represented in the supper when it is celebrated of the Church in remembrance of his death passiō Huius rei sacramentum id est vnitatis corporis sanguinis Christi alicubi quotidie alicubi certis interuallis dierum in Dominica mensa praeparatur de mensa Dominica sumitur quibusdam ad vitam quibusdam ad exitium Res verò ipsa cuius sacramentum est omni homini ad vitam nulli ad exitium quicunque eius particeps fuerit The sacrament of this thing that is of the vnitie of the bodie and bloud of Christ in some places euery day in other some at certeine space of dayes betweene is prepared in the Lordes table and is taken at the Lordes table of some vnto life of some vnto to destruction But the thing it selfe whose sacrament it is to all men is to life and to no man for destruction whosoeuer shal be partaker thereof Note here also the distinction betweene the sacrament and the thing wherof it is a sacrament and that the sacrament may be receiued to destruction but not the thing or matter of the sacrament which is the bodie and bloud of Christ. To these Barones he wil ioyne two Burgesses and the first shal be Theophylact one of them which he sayeth is well towarde a thousand yeare olde Hee woulde fayne get him credite by his antiquitie but he ouer reacheth too farre to make him so auncient which cometh nerer to fiue hundred then to a thousande yeares But let vs consider his speache in 6 Ioan. he writeth thus Manifestè c. He speaketh manifestly in this place of the communion of his bodie For the bread sayeth he which I will giue is my flesh which I wil giue for the life of the world And shewing his power that not as a seruant nor as one lesse them his father he should be crucified but voluntarily he sayeth I will giue my flesh for the life of the world Note sayth M. Hesk. that Christ spake manifestly of the communion of his bodie Who doubteth or denyeth that but that he spake not of the communion of his bodie which we receiue in the sacramēt Note saye I that Theophylact speaketh manifestly of his crucifying and nor of the communion in the sacrament After this he interlaceth a fond excourse of the authoritie of the later writers whome he affirmeth and wee confesse to haue written plainly of his side whereas hee sayeth the olde writers did write obscurely and then he taxeth Bullinger for alledging Zwinglius whome he slaundereth to haue
beene slaine in a sedition raysed by him where as the worlde knoweth it was in warre that was helde in defence of his countrie The like foolish quarell he hath for putting out of Polycarpus out of the Calender placing Thomas Hutten in his stood all which as vnworthie any aunswer I passe ouer it is sufficiently knowen what Bullinger esteemed of mâ—ns authoritie what Fox if he meane him iudged of the old Martyrs diuinitie The other reasons following I could scarse read without loathsomnesse that preachers must ceasse if writers may not be receiued vnder 1000 yeres antiquitie more that speaking writing are of like authority and such like blockish stuffe The elder writers are allowed not for their age but for their agreement with the worde of God the later preachers are beleeued not for that their speaking is better then Papistes writing but because they speake thinges consonant to the word of God the touchstone and triall of trueth And therefore we receiue not the testimonie of Nicholaus de Lyra the second Burgesse because it is contrarie to the word of God and the consent of the elder Doctours that Christ speaketh of the sacrament when he saith the bread which I will giue is my fleshe which wordes Theophylacte euen nowe affirmed to be spoken of the passion of Christ. The fourth Chapter beginneth a further proofe of the former master by S. Cyprian and Euthymius For proof of the two breads that the text The bread which I will giue is my flesh c. is ment of the sacrament Cyprian is alledged although the place be not quoted but it is in the sermon vpoÌ„ the Lords prayer in these words Panis vitae Christus est c. Christ is the bread of life and he is not the bread of all men but our bread And as we say our father because he is the father of theÌ„ that vnderstand beleeue so we call it our bread because Christ is our bread which touche his body And this bread we pray to be giuen vs daily least we that are in Christe and daily receiue the Eucharistie to the meate of health some greeuous offence comming betweene while beeing separated and not communicating we be forbidden from that heauenly bread we be separated from the body of Christ he himselfe openly saying and warning I am the bread of life which came downe from heauen if any man shall eate of this bread he shall liue for euer and the bread which I will giue is my flesh for the life of the worlde Howsoeuer M. Hesk. would falsly gather out of this place Cyprian maketh not two breades but one bread of life Christ God man as for the two respects of his Godhead manhoode that he prateth of cannot make Christ to be two breads but one true foode of our soules And that Cyprian doth apply this text to the sacrament only it is utterly false in that he saith we must pray for this daily bread Christ to feede vs although for some greeuous offence we be restrained from the sacrament as is also euident by these words that follow Quando ergo dicit in aeternum viuere si quis ederit de tius pane vt manifestum est cos vinera qui corpus eius 〈◊〉 Eucharistitum â—â—re coÌ„municationis accipiunt ita contrae timenduÌ„ est erandum ne dam quis abstentus separatur a Christi corpore procul remaneat a salute comminante ipso dicente Nist ederitis carnem fâ—ij hominis biberiâ—is sanguinem eius non habebitis vitam in vobis Et ideo panem nostrium id est Christum dari nobis quoâ—idie petimus vt qui in Christo manemus vinimus a sanctificatione corpore eius non recedamus Therefore when he saith that he liueth for euer whosoeuer shal eate of his bread as it is manifest that they do liue which touch or come neare vnto his body and by the right of communication receiue the sacrament of thankesgiuing so contrariwise it is to be feared and to be prayed for lest while any being sequestred is separated from the body of Christe he remaine farre from health he himselfe threatening saying except ye shal eate the fleshe of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud you shall haue no life in you And therefore we pray daily that our bread that is to say Christ may be giuen to vs daily that we which remaine liue in Christ go not away from sanctification and his bodie In these wordes as in the former Cyprian directly referreth that text to our spirituall communication with the body of Christ by right of which communication we receiue the sacrament thereof And this participation of Christ he calleth Contingere attingere corpus Christi not to touch his body with our teeth or mouth in that sacrameÌ„t as M. Heskins dreameth Here followeth Euthymius of whose antiquitie we haue spoken in the first booke Neuerthelesse we wil examine his saying which is this In 6. Ioan. Duobus modis c. Christ is saide to be bread two wayes that is after his godhead and after his manhood therefore when he had taught the manner which is after his godhead now doeth he also teach the manner which is after his manhoode For he did not say which I do giue but which I will giue for he would giue it in his last supper when thankes being giuen he tooke bread and brake it and gaue it to his disciples and saide take eate this is my body M. Heskins maruelleth that the aduersaries cheekes waxe not redd for shame to see so plaine a sentence against them But if we knew not that Maister Heskins had beene as impudent as a frier we might maruell that he was not ashamed first to alledge Euthymius as a writer within 6. hundreth yeares after Christ who liued about the yeare of our Lorde 1180. And secondly to make two breads of that which Euthymius saith to be one bread after two manners Finally although Euthymius referred this text to the sacrament yet saith he nothing for the carnall presence in as much as it is manifest that Christ spake there of a spiritual communication of his fleshe or else all infantes are damned that receiue not the sacrament The fift Chapter proceedeth vpon the same text by S. Augustine and Chrysostome S. Augustine is alledged De Agricultura agri Dominici a treatise of no account for the authoritie being falsely intituled to Augustine which was the worke of a farre later writer The wordes neuerthelesse are these The table of thy spouse hath whole bread and a holy cuppe which bread although we haue seene broken and brused in his passion yet he remained whole in that his indiuided vnity with his father Of this bread and of this cup our Lorde himselfe saide The bread which I will giue is my fleshe for the life of the world and the cuppe which I wil sanctifie is my bloud which shal
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
Iesus entered in the doores being shut when he shewed his handes to bee felt and his side to be considered and shewed both flesh and bones least the trueth of his body should be thought to be a fantasie And I will aunswere howe Saint Marie is both mother and a Virgine a Virgine before birth a mother before she was knowne of man. Vpon these places Maister Heskins doth inferre that if the doores did open as the going in of Christ which hee saith is a shaddowing of the miracle and a falsifying of the scriptures as though it were not miraculous ynough except it tooke away the trueth of Christes body and ouerthrewe the immutable decree of GOD then his entering In could not proue that the clausures of the virginitie I vse his owne wordes of the mother of Christ notwithstanding his birth remained alwayes closed which the Doctours intended to proue I would not for shamefastnesse enter into discourse of the secrets of virginitie last of all the high mysteries of the incarnation and natiuitie of our sauiour Christe of the immaculate Virgine Marie in any such Physicall questions but that I am driuen vnto it by this shamelesse aduersarie And yet will I onely alledge the authoritie of the scripture referring the collection to the reuerent shamefast consideration of the honest reader Saint Luke writeth of his presentation at Hierusalem As it is written in the lawe of the Lorde euery manchilde that first openeth the matrice shall bee called holy to the Lorde Luke 2. According to this text the miracle of his natiuitie preseruing her virginitie and of his entering in the doores beeing shut are verie like in deede and agreeable to the Doctours meaning But hee proceedeth with Chrysostomes authoritie Hom. 86. in Ioan. Dignum autem dubitatione est c. It is woorthie of doubt howe the incorruptible body did receiue the fourme of the nayles and could be touched with mortall hande But let not this trouble thee For this was of permission For that body being so subtile and light that it might enter in the doores being shut was voyde of all grossenesse or thicknesse but that his resurrection might be beleeued he shewed him selfe such a one And that thou mightest vnderstand that it was euen he that was crucified that none other did rise for him therefore he roase againe with the tokens of the crosse Except wee vnderstand Chrysostome fauourably in this place where hee denyeth the glorified body of Christe to haue any thicknesse but that it might pearce through all thinges as a spirite wee shall make him author of a great heresie both concerning the body of Christe and concerning our bodyes which after the resurrection must bee made conformable to his glorious body Philip. 3. But in an other place as wee shall heare afterwarde hee doeth eyther expound or correct him selfe in this matter And yet this that hee saith here helpeth not Maister Heskins one whit and that for two causes one for that hee speaketh heere of the glorified bodye of Christe who instituted his sacrament before his bodye was glorified An other cause for that hee doeth not heere make two bodyes in one place or one bodye in an other but to auoyde that absurditie doeth transfourme the bodye of Christe into the subtiltie and thinnesse of a spirite But in an other sentence De resurrect Hom. 9. he is of an other minde concerning the bodye of Christe Non est meum ludificare phantasmate vanam imaginem visus si timet veritatem corporis manus digitus exploret Potest fortassis aliqua oculos caligo decipere palpatio corporalis verum corpus agnoscat Spiritus inquit carnem ossa non habet sicut me videtis habere Quod Ostia clausa a penetrani sola est virtus Diuini spiritus non sola carnis substantia It is not my propertie to delude my disciples with a fantasie if your sight feare a vaine image let your hand and fingers trie out the trueth of my body Some myste peraduenture may deceiue the eyes let bodily handling acknowledge a true body A spirite saith he hath neither flesh nor bones as you see mee to haue That I pearced through the doores beeing shut it is the onely power of the diuine spirite not the onely substaunce of the flesh In these wordes hee ascribeth it to the onely power of his diuine spirite that he passed through when the doores were shut and not to the subtiltie of his glorified body as in the former sentence Likewise in Ioan. Hom. 90. Qui intrauit per ostia clausa non erat phantasma non erat spiritus verè corpus erat Hee that entered in by the doores beeing shut was no fantasie hee was no spirite hee was a body truely and in deede But wee must passe ouer vnto Saint Ambrose in Luc. lib. 10. cap. 4. Habuit admirandi causam Thomas c. Thomas had a cause to maruell when hee sawe all thinges being shut vp and closed the body of Christe by clausures without all wayes for body to enter the ioyntes beeing vnbroken to bee entered in amongest them And therefore it was a woonder howe the corporall nature passed through the impenetrable body with an inuisible comming but with inuisible beholding easie to be touched hard to bee iudged In these woordes of Saint Ambrose nothing can bee certainely gathered bycause hee doth not him selfe determine after what manner the body of Christe came in but onely sheweth what cause Thomas had to doubt and maruell sauing that in an other place I finde him write suspitiously of the trueth of the body of Christe and of the true properties thereof For in his booke De mysterijs initiandis Cap. 9. hee hath these woordes speaking of the body of Christ Corpus enim Dei corpus est spirituale Corpus Christi corpus est diuini spiritus The body of GOD is a spirituall body The body of Christe is the body of a diuine spirite These sayinges for reuerence of the Authours may haue a gentle construction but otherwise they are not directly consonant to the Catholique confession of the trueth of Christes body and the properties thereof remayning euen after his Assention as hath bene discussed by the scriptures especially after the Church was troubled with the heresies of the Eutychians and Monotholites Nowe followeth Saint Augustine De agone Christiano Cap. 24. Nec eos audiamus c. Neither let vs giue eare to them that denye that the body of Christe is risen againe of such qualitie as it was put into the graue Neither let is moue vs that it is written that hee appeared soudenly to his disciples after the doores were shut that therefore we should denye it to bee an humane body bicause wee see that contrarie to the nature of this body it entered by the doores that were shut for all thinges are possible to god For if hee could before his passion make it as cleare as the brightnesse of the Sunne wherefore could he not after his
bloudied and wounded with a speare hath sent foorth founteines of bloude and water wholesome to all the world Here is much a doe the same bodie is in the sacrament which was crucified Wee knowe Christ hath no more bodies but euen that one that was crucifyed the same is eaten in the sacrament as in a mysterie significatiuely as the same Chrysostome in the same place doth testifie Quid enim appello inquit communicationem id ipsium corpus sumus Quid significat panis Corpus Christi Quid autem fiunt qui accipiunt corpus Christi non multa sed vnum corpus For what do I call it saith he a participation We are the verie same bodie What doth the bread signifie the bodie of Christ. What are they made that receiue the bodie of Christ not many bodies but one bodie Lo here the breade signifyeth the bodie of Christe which was crucified And the faithfull that receiue it are made the same bodie of Christ that was crucified but all this in a mysterie not carnally or corporally What reader of Cambridge he girdeth at that alledged obiectiōs of Duns against the carnall presence I knowe not Duns might frame or reherse more arguments against it then with al his subtilties he could aunswere but my thinke M. Hesk. should not enuie this practise when he himselfe hath neuer an argument nor authoritie almost out of the doctors but such as he hath of other mens gathering and not of his own reading as his manifold mistakins do declare beside wilfull corruptions and falsifications The three and twentieth Chapter endeth the exposition of this text by Theophylact Beda Of these two being both of the lower house the testimonie of Theophylactus maketh nothing for him the saying of Beda maketh much against him Concerning Theophylact let them that list read his sentence for I compt it superfluous to rehearse their testimony whose authoritie in this matter I will not stand to But because the opinion of carnall presence was not receiued in this church of England in the age of Beda nor long after I thinke it not amisse to consider his authoritie He writeth therefore in Ioan. Dixerat superiùs c. He had sayde before he that eateth my fleshe drinketh my bloud hath life eternall And that he might shewe howe great a difference is betweene corporall meate and the spirituall mysterie of his bodie bloud he added my fleshe is meate in deede my bloud is drink in deede Here Beda calleth the sacrament a spiritual mysterie of the bodie and bloud of Christ which although it be playne against the carnall presence yet M. Heskins would cloke it with a fonde definition of a mysterie to be that I wot not what which conteyneth couertly a thing not to be perceiued by sences or common knowledge and so the sacrament is a mysterie conteyning the verie bodie of christ Besides that he remembreth not that Beda calleth it not onely a mysterie but a spirituall mysterie I would wit of him what it is that Beda calleth a spirituall mysterie if he say the sacrament I would further knowe what he calleth the sacrament he will aunswere the formes of breade wine for so they determine forsooth Well then Christ would not shewe the difference of the spirituall foode of his flesh bloud which is the thing conteined but of the accidents of bread and wine from the corporall foode O foolishe conclusion of Beda or rather O false definition counterfet exposition of Hesk For Beda sheweth the excellencie of the spirituall mysterie of Christes bodie and bloud which is our spirituall foode aboue the corporall foode and neuer dreamed of M. Heskins mysterie The foure and twentieth Chapter beginneth the ex-position of the next text in the sixt of S. Iohn by S. Hillarie S. Augustine The text is He that eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloud abydeth in mee and I in him For vnderstanding of this text he premiseth a destinction of two manners of abyding in Christ that is spiritually and naturally spiritually by right faith and sincere charitie as S. Cyrill doth teache and naturally by receiuing of Christes fleshe as S. Hillarie teacheth This distinction not being made by any doctour but deuised vpon occasion of termes vsed by the doctours to ouerthrowe the meaning of the doctours he pleaseth him verie much therein I haue shewed before that Hillarie by the worde naturally meaneth truelye that as Christ is truely ioyned vnto vs by taking on him our fleshe and we are truely ioyned to him by eating drinking his flesh vnder a sacrament and vnder a mysterie for both these termes of restreint he hath to shewe the manner of our eating to be sacramentall and mysticall not as M. Heskins would carnall and naturall so Christ is truely one with God not in vnitie of will only but in vnitie of Godhead in substance of diuinitie in essence of eternitie But let vs heare his owne wordes lib. 8. de Trinit Quod autem in eo c. But that we be in him by the sacrament or mysterie of his fleshe and bloud which is communicated vnto vs he testifieth him selfe saying And this world doth not nowe see mee but you shall see mee for I liue and ye also shall liue because I am in my father and you in mee and I in you c. But that this vnitie in vs is naturall he hath witnessed saying He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud abideth in mee I in him For there shall no man be in him but in whome he shal be hauing onely his assumpted flesh in him who hath taken his By this place out of which he would buyld his destinction of naturall and spirituall abyding the same is manifestly ouerthrowne For the drift of that distinction as he confesseth is to shewe that Christe may abyde naturally where he doth not abyde spiritually as in the wicked But the place of Hillarie is plain that where this naturall vnitie is Christe abydeth eternally therefore this naturall vnitie is not in the wicked Thus while Maister Heskins harpeth greedily vppon the terme naturally for the naturall presence of Christes bodie he looseth his distinction and with all his naturall presence also For if his bodie be not naturally receiued of the wicked it is not naturally present in the sacrament as all Papistes do confesse And further that this natural vnitie is after a spirituall manner it appeareth by the last wordes of the sentence That he in whome Christ dwelleth hath onely the assumpted flesh of Christ in him But this must needes be after a spirituall manner as the holie and innocent fleshe of Christe is made oures therefore this naturall vnitie he speaketh of is not in that sense naturall that Maister Heskins immagineth but after a diuine and vnspeakable manner For otherwise Godly men haue fleshe of their owne yea and sinfull fleshe which is not of the singular substance of the fleshe of Christe though
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
could not remaine The drinke sanctified in the bloud of our Lord brake out of her polluted bowels c. Out of this Historie Maister Heskins gathereth two thinges First that the sacrament in that time was ministred to infantes which was in deede a great abuse contrarie to the worde of god Secondly that this childe receiued onely the cup which is false for though she was not so troubled at the receipt of the bread yet it followeth not that she receiued no bread but contrariwise Cyprian saith the Eucharistie by whiche wordes the fathers alwayes vnderstand the whole sacrament could not remaine in her bodie And whereas he reasoneth foolishly that if she had receiued the bread she should like wise haue beene troubled he must vnderstand that when God worketh a miracle he taketh times and occasions at his pleasure And it is like he would not discouer her pollution that come by bread and wine before she had receiued both bread and wine as the sacrament If I should vrge vpon this place as the scoole men doe whether this that was vomited was the bloud of Christ and what should be done with it or what was done with it in this storie I should trouble him more then he could easily answere Another tale he telleth out of Sozomenus Eccl. hist. lib. 8. Cap. 5. Ioanne Constantinopolitanum c. When Iohn Chrysostome did very well gouerne the Church of Constantinople a certeine man of the Macedonian heresie had a wife of the same opinion When this man had heard Iohn teaching what was to bee thought of God he praysed his doctrine and exhorted his wife to be of the same minde with him But when she did more obey the words of noble women then his conuersation and after many admonitions her husband had profited nothing Except quod he thou be a cōpaniō with me in Diuine matters thou shalt not be hereafter a partaker of liuing with me When the woman heard this promised her consent dissemblingly she cōmunicated the matter with a certeyne maide seruant which shee iudged to be trustie vnto her and vseth her seruice to deceiue her husband And about the time of the mysteries they that be receiued to them know what I say she keping that she had receiued fell downe as though she would pray Her maide standing by giueth her priuily that which she brought in her hand with her which thing when it was put to her teeth it congeled into a stone The woman beeing astonnied fearing least any euil should happen to her for that thing whiche came to passe from God made hast to the Bishop and bewraying her selfe sheweth the stone hauing yet vpon it the markes of her bit and shewing an vnknowen matter and a wonderful colour and also desiring pardon with teares promised that she would agree with her husband And if this matter seeme to any man to be incredible this stone is a witnesse which is kept to this day among the Iewels of the Churche of Constantinople If this storie be true as it is no article of our beleefe yet proueth it not that the communion was ministred in bread only to all the rest that would receiue the cuppe although I wote not what was turned into a stone before the time came she should receiue the cuppe If M. Heskins will vrge she could not haue any thing to conuey into her mouth in steede of the wine I answere she might easily counterfet the drinking by kissing the cuppe and so letting it passe from her without tasting thereof Wherefore this is but a blind and vnreasonable coniecture of Maister Heskins that the sacrament was ministred in one kinde because she that had dissembled in the receipt of one kinde was punished with depriuation from both kindes The last reason he vseth Is that it is testified by learned men that the manner of receiuing vnder one kinde which is vsed in all the Latine Church vpon good Friday on which day the priest receiueth the hoste consecrated vpon maundie Thursday hath been so vsed from the primitiue Church But what learned men they be except such as him selfe and what proofes they haue of this vsage he sayeth not so much as halfe a word The whole matter standeth vpon his owne credite But if he and all the learned of that side should fast from good Friday vntill they haue shewed proofe of such an vse in the primitiue church not as they vse to fast in Lent but from all manner of nourishment there would not one learned Papist be left aliue on gang Monday to shew what proofes they haue found Thou hast seene Reader what his reasons and authorities are iudge of the answers according to thy discretion ¶ The end of the second Booke THE THIRD BOOKE OF MAISTER HESKINS PARLEAment repealed by W. Fulke The first Chapter entereth by Preface into the first text of S. Paule that toucheth the sacrament and expoundeth it according to the letter TThe Preface is out of Didymus that diuine matters are to be handled with reuerence and considering the difficultie of the scriptures by Hierome that in matters of doubt recourse must be had by Irenęus his aduise vnto the most auncient Churches in which the Apostles were conuersant In so much that Irenaeus saith Libro 3. Cap. 4. Quid autem c. And what if the Apostles had left vs no writinges ought we not to haue followed the order of tradition which they deliuered to them to whome they had committed the Churches Wherevpon Maister Heskins gathereth that not onely for matters conteined in scripture but also for traditions vnwritten in the holie scriptures the fathers are to be credited But he goeth farre from Irenaeus minde who confuted the heretiques both by the scriptures and by the authoritie of the moste auncient Churches whose traditions must haue beene all our institution if there had ben no scriptures But seeing that scriptures inspired of God by his gratious prouidence are left vnto vs al traditions are to be examined by them that is twise proued after Irenaeus minde whiche is proued both by the scriptures and by the authoritie of the Churches Otherwise the scriptures are sufficient of them selues 2. Tim. 3. And no tradition or authoritie is to be receiued which is repugnant or contrarie vnto them The text of Saint Paule that he speaketh is written 1. Cor. 10. Brethren I would not haue you ignorant that all our fathers were vnder the cloude and all passed through the sea and were all baptised by Moses in the cloude and in the sea and did all eate the same spirituall meate and did all drinke the same spirituall drinke for they dranke of the same spirituall rocke which followed them and the rocke was Christe Where it is to be noted that Maister Heskins in steede of the same spirituall meate and the same spirituall drinke translateth one spiritual meate and one spirituall drinke as though the sense were that the Fathers did all eate drinke of one spiritual kind
manducauerunt Eundem inquit eundem non inuenio quomodo intelligam nisi eum quem manducamus nos Quid ergò ait aliquis◠Hoc erat manna illud quod ego nunc accipio Ergo nihil modò venit si antè iam fuit Ergo euacuatum est scandalum Crucis Quomodo ergo eundem nisi quod addidit spiritualem They did eate saith he the same spirituall meate It had suffised that he had said they did eate a spirituall meate he saith the same I can not finde how I should vnderstande the same but the same whiche we doe eate What then sayeth one Was that Manna the same thing that I doe nowe receiue Then is there nothing come nowe if it were then before Then is the slaunder of the crosse made voide Therefore how should it be the same but that he added spirituall I coulde cite other places out of Augustine but that I will not cloie the Reader with two many at once The last parte of the Chapter would proue that the baptisme of Iohn was not the baptisme of CHRIST wherevppon I will not stande because it is an other controuersie out of the purpose of the booke onely I will note these grosse absurdities that hee denyeth the baptisme of Iohn to be the very baptisme and then it followeth that CHRISTE was not baptised with the very baptisme who was baptised of Iohn Secondly he denieth that sinnes were remitted in the Baptisme of Iohn whiche is directly contrarie to the Scripture Luke 3. verse 3. He alledgeth Chrysostome for his proofe but the blinde buzzarde can not see the difference betweene the ministerie of Iohn in his baptisme and the worke of CHRISTE in the same whiche maketh him with his fellowes to imagine a difference of baptismes by as good reason as they might make a difference betweene the Supper whiche was celebrated by CHRISTE him selfe and that whiche was ministered by his Apostles Finally where the Apostle sayeth expressely that the Fathers were baptised hee is so bolde as to say they were not baptised in deede but onely receyued a bare figure of baptisme whiche is as muche for the Apostles purpose as if hee hadde saide nothing at all The thirde Chapter expoundeth the residue of the texte Et omnes candem escam spiritualem c. First he declareth that this one meate whiche the Fathers did eate was Manna and that hee proueth by the authoritie of Saint Chrysostome and Saint Augustine as his manner is to heape vppe testimonies of the Fathers where no neede is of any proofe Secondly he determineth wherefore it is called spirituall meate and the water that flowed out of the rocke spirituall drinke Namely because it was giuen vnto them miraculously and not naturally and for none other cause whiche is altogether vntrue for as it hath beene prooued before both out of the text and confirmed by the iudgement of Saint Augustine manna was called spirituall meate because it fedde the faithfull not onely bodily but also spiritually with the bodie of CHRISTE and the water with his bloud But Maister Heskins seemeth to builde vpon Chrysostomes authoritie who in 1. Cor. 10. writeth thus Quanuis c. Although those thinges that were giuen were perceiued by sense yet they were giuen spiritually not according to the nature of consequences but according to the grace of the gifte By these wordes Chrysostome meaneth that although Manna and the water were sensible things yet had they a spirituall signification and vertue giuen with them for as they were not giuen by the ordinarie course of nature but by speciall Diuine power so they had more then a naturall propertie of nourishment and were to be esteemed according to the speciall grace by whiche they were giuen But Maister Heskins will acknowledge nothing in this miracle of manna but the feeding of their bodies nor in the water of the rocke but the quenching of their thirst and seruing their bodily necessitie In whiche grosse madnesse hee maketh no difference betweene the faithfull and their brute beastes whose thirst and bodily necessitie that water did satisfie as muche as their Maisters So that if the water bee called spirituall drinke only because it was miraculously giuen this horrible absurditie will followe that the cattell whiche dranke thereof did also drinke of the spirituall rocke whiche followed them which rocke was Christ which euerie Christian man detesteth to heare But contrariwise seeing that water was a sacrament of the bloud of Christe we may see no lesse then three heresies of the Papistes about the sacrament ouerthrowen thereby First because all the people did drinke of the sacrament of Christes bloud and not the Priestes onely Secondly that the elementes are no longer sacramentes then they be in vse of ministration For the water which was a sacrament of Christes bloud vnto the Israelites so often as they dranke of it was no sacrament when they occupied it to other necessarie vses Thirdly that bruite beastes as Dogges Apes and myse eating and drinking the bread and wine that hath beene consecrated to the vse of the sacrament doe not eate and drinke the bodie and bloud of CHRISTE For the bruite beastes did drinke of this water which to the faithfull was consecrated in the right vse thereof to be the bloud of CHRISTE Yet did not the bruite beastes touche the sacrament of his bloud But Maister Heskins will haue vs to note That Saint Paule saith not they dranke of that materiall rocke but they dranke of a spirituall rocke which followed them whiche spiritual rocke was Christe And herevpon he condemneth Oecolampadius for abusing Saint Paules wordes The rocke was CHRISTE to make it a figuratiue speache whereas the saide proposition is to be vnderstoode grammatically or literally and not tropically or figuratiuely And so is nothing like to this proposition This is my bodie Peraduenture the Reader looketh for a newe transubstantiation when hee heareth Maister Heskins exclude all tropes and figures from this saying The rocke was Christe But vouchsafe to heare his reason and you shall more maruell at his monstruous impudencie Because it is called a spirituall rocke therefore there is no trope or figure in the speache But admitte that Saint Paule had no relation to the materiall rocke out of which the waters did flowe is this a proper and essentiall praedication to say Christe is a spirituall rocke will not all the Grammarians Logicians and Rhetoricians in the worlde throwe stones at him that will so affirme But all men endewed with reason will confesse that Manna and the rocke are in one sense of Saint Paule called spirituall but the materiall manna was the spirituall meate by Maister Heskins owne interpretation therefore the materiall rocke was the spirituall rocke out of whiche flowed the spirituall drinke But Maister Heskins hath another reason to proue that the material rock was not called the spiritual rocke because the materiall rocke stoode still in the Wildernesse but the spirituall rocke followed them Although Saint Paule
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
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
taketh to be ordeined of him for as much as it is not by any diuersitie of maners varied or altered But if it were as he fableth that S. Paul ordeined the ceremonial part of the Masse that was vsed in Augustines time the Popish Masse being not the same in ceremoniall partes as he will confesse that it was in Augustines time it foloweth that the Popish Masse is not that which was ordeined of S. Paule for it is well known it was patched peeced together by many peeces long since August time And as certein it is that almost euerie Church in his time had a seuerall forme of liturgie and therefore by his owne words they cannot be that which S. Paule set in order at the Church of that Corinthians The like impudeÌ„cie he sheweth in the next saying of Aug. which he citeth Et ideo non proecipit c. And therfore he coÌ„manded not in what order it should be receiued afterward that he might reserue this place to the Apostles by whoÌ„ he would set the Churches in order It followeth which M. Hesk. hath omitted Etiamsi hoc ille monuisset vt post cibos alios semper acciperetur credo quòd eum moreÌ„ nemo variasset For if he had charged this that it should always be receiued after other meats I beleeue that no man would haue varied froÌ„ that maner When August speketh so expresly of that one order of receiuing the communioÌ„ before meat what boldness is it to say that crouching kneeling other dumb ceremonies although they were not instituted by Christ yet were ordeined by S. Paul vpoÌ„ colour of Aug. authority who in the same epistle wished al such idle ceremonies vtterly to be abolished The next Massemonger he maketh is S. Andrew out of whose legend written by I knowe not what priestes deacons of Achaia he wil proue that S. Andrew did both say Masse and also therin offer in sacrifice the bodie bloud of Christ. But he is too much deceiued if he thinke any man of reasonable vnderstanding will in these dayes giue credite to such fabulous legends after S. Andrew coÌ„meth in S. Iames with his Masse said at IerusaleÌ„ which is in print but not heard of in the Church 600. yeres after Christ yet M. Hesk. saith it is allowed praysed by the proclaymer which is vtterly false for he proueth by a manifest argumeÌ„t that the liturgie which is in print vnder the name of S. Iames is a counâ—erfet because therein is a special prayer conteyned for such as liue in Monasteries whereas there was neuer a monasterie in the world many hundreth yeres after the death of S. Iames. And for a further proofe of the false inscription of that liturgie to S. Iames I will adde this argument that he vseth the worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or consubstantial which as the learned knowe was neuer heard of in the Church before the heresie of Arrius was condemned in the Nicene counsell although the Catholike Church did alwayes confesse that Christ was God of the same substance equal with the father and the holy Ghost In deede the B. of Sarum confesseth that there is more in those liturgies against the Papistes then for them as by examining these parcels which M. Heskins citeth we shall easily perceiue First the liturgie of Iames hath these wordes Dominus c. Our Lord Iesus the same right in which he was betrayed or rather in which night he deliuered himselfe for the life of saluation of the world taking bread into his holie vndefiled innocent immortall hands looking vp into heauen shewing it to the God father giuing thankes sanctifying breaking he gaue it to vs his disciples saying Take ye eate ye this is my bodie which is broken for you and giuen vnto remission of sinnes Likewise after he had supped he tooke the cup and mingling it with wine and water looking vp into heauen and shewing it to the God and father giuing thankes sanctifying blessing filling it with the holy Ghost he gaue it to vs his disciples saying Drinke ye all of this this is my bloud of the new Testament which is shed for you and many and giuen for remission of sinnes This saith Maister Heskins was his maner of consecration vnlike the manner of the newe ministers in their communion which only rehearse the words of Christ historically not directing theÌ„ to God as a prayer wherein he lyeth most impudently as euerie man that heareth or readeth the praier immediately before the receiuing of the sacrament can testifie Concerning the tearme of consecration I haue often shewed that in the true sense thereof we both allow vse it although he wold make ignorant obstinat papists that wil neither heare our preachings nor read our writings to beleeue the contrarie only because he saith it Another ridiculous cauil he hath that we take not the bread into our handes before we consecrate it But let it lie on the table as though we had nothing to do with it Surely we do not acknowledge such holines in our hands that it can consecrate the bread but we pray to God to blesse those his creatures of bread wine that they may be vnto vs the bodie and bloud of Christ his sonne our lord If the Papists haue such holy vndefiled and immortal hands as this Iames speaketh of it is more then we knowe or will confesse before they can proue it In the consecration of the wine he chargeth vs that we mingle no water with the wine But when he can proue by the word of God that our sauiour Christ did so we will confesse our errour otherwise we see no necessitie of the water so their own schoolemen do confesse We acknowledge that in the primitiue Church it was an ancient custome to mingle water with the wine but not as a ceremonie at the first but as the coÌ„mon vsage of al men that drank the hotte wines of the East countries but afterward it grewe to be counted a ceremonie including some mysterie and at length with some it excluded the wine altogether as with those that were called Aquarij so daungerous a matter it is to vse any thing in Gods seruice more then is prescribed by himselfe But M. Heskins caÌ„not be persuaded that after al this sanctifying blessing and filling of the cup with the holy Ghost there should bee nothing else but a bare hungrie figure As though there were no choyce but either transubstantiation or a bare hungrie figure In baptisme there is sanctification blessing and filling with the holie Ghost as much as in the communion is there therefore transubstantiation in baptisme because there is not a bare hungrie figure But if I might be so bold as to examine him in his own fained Masse of S. Iames I would aske him how the cuppe is filled with the holie Ghost essentially so that the holie Ghost or any parte of him is conteined in the cupp I dare say he will say
a Gentlewoman called Caesaria Patritia which feared to touch the sacrament with her owne hande saith thus Cōmunicare per singulos dies c. To communicate euery day to participate of the holy body and bloud of Christ it is a godly thing and very profitable as hee saith manifestly Hee that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath life eternall For who doubteth but the often participation of life is nothing else but many ways to liue Wherefore we communicate foure times in euery weeke On Sunday and Wednesday on Friday and Saturday and on other dayes if there be the memorie of any Saint But that it is no greeuous thing that any man should be constrained by necessitie in times of persecution when the Priest or the Minister is not present to take the Communion with his owne hand it is superfluous to declare for so much as it is by the very vse of the thing confirmed by a long custome For all they that lead a solitarie life in the wildernesse where there is no Priest keeping the Communion at home doe receiue it of them selues But in Alexandria and in Aegypt euery one of them which are of the people for the most part hath the Communion in his owne house For after the Priest hath consecrated the sacrifice and distributed it we must beleeue worthily to participate and receiue it For in the Church the Priest giueth part he which receiueth it taketh it with all libertie and putteth it to his mouth with his owne hand Therfore it is the same in vertue whether any man take one part of the Priest or many parts together Here M. Heskins vrgeth that euery man in his own house receiued the sacrament in time of persecution But this proueth not a sole receiuing if priuate men haue the Communion in their house for they might receiue many together But concerning the Hermites that dwelled in dens caues alone he saith they could haue no cōpanie and therevpon insulteth against the proclamer for saying the Indians Arabians Armenians Grecians c. neuer receiued nor vsed the priuat Masse And hath he proued the priuate Masse by the receiuing of the Hermites which were Lay men and no Priests No forsooth For he is feine to fasifie the wordes of this epistle in translating to proue that they receiued alone The wordes are in Greeke thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Latine a se ipsis cōmunicant Which he turneth falsly They communicate by them selues as though they did receiue it alone whereas he should say they receiue the Communion of them selues that is one of an other for it is well knowne they were not so solitarie but they had meetings at sometimes as appeareth by the histories As for other things that M. Heskins noteth out of this place bicause they are noted and aunswered in other partes where some of these sentences are alledged I will spend no time in repeating of them here Only concerning the authoritie of this fragment of an Epistle which is not extant in al S. Basils workes I giue the reader to vnderstand that it may be doubted of what antiquitie it is whether it were written by the ancient Basilius surnamed the great or by some other of that name of much later time Next is brought in Hieronyme to testifie that the like hath ben vsed in Rome in his time in time of persecutiō I maruel why M. Hes. addeth in time of persecution for in Hieromes time there was no such persecution at Rome he speaketh not of it as a shift in time of persecution but as a custome in time of peace Belike M. Hes. would haue the custome excused by necessitie of persecutiō which otherwise he can not allow to be good of it self But what saith Hier. ad Iouin Apoll. Scio Romae hanc esse consuetudinem c. I I know this custome is at Rome that the faithfull do always receiue the body of Christ which thing I do neither reprehend nor allowe For euery one aboundeth in his owne sense But I appeale to their conscience which the same day after carnall copulation do communicate and as Persuis saith purge the night with water Why dare they not goe to the Martyrs Why come they not into the Churches Is Christe one in the publique place an other in the priuate houses That which is not lawful in the church is not lawful at home Nothing is hid from God yea the very darknesse is bright with him Therefore let euery man examine him selfe and so let him come to the body of Christ. Here hee vrgeth that the people did communicate in their houses sometimes namely after companie with their wiues when they durst not come to Church But this custome doth Hierom seuerely reproue would not haue them communicate but when they might come to the Church without scruple of conscience So that Maister Hesk. bringeth in an vnlawfull custome to proue his priuate Masse to be lawfull which yet is neuer the neerer although this custome were good for therby is not proued so much as sole receiuing nor reseruation as we haue shewed before bicause nothing appeareth to the contrarie but that they might haue the Priest to consecrate and minister to them at home As for the admonition he giueth to married persons to abstaine from companie with their wiues c. I passe it ouer as not worthie the rehearsal Married men are to be exhorted to temperance and chastitie and further to prescribe times c. it may be Popish Diuinitie but it hath no ground in the word of god As for the married Priestes he hath little to doe with them let him take thought for his vnmaried Priestes But Chrysostome he thinketh saieth much for the priuate Masse in Cap. 1. ad Ephe. Hom. 3. Frustra habetur quotidiana oblatio frustra stamus ad altare Nemo est qui participet The daily oblation or sacrifice is done in vaine we stand at the altar in vaine There is no man that will partake with vs. By this hee saith it is euident that Masse was sayde in the Greeke Church though there were no communicants with the Priest ▪ But this euidence is false Maister Heskins for first there was a number of the Cleargie which always did communicate although none of the people would receiue as was proued before by the ancient canons cōmonly called of the Apostles And where as you labour to proue that the Masse was not in vain although no man did receiue with the Priest because the Masse had two ends the one of oblation the other of receyuing so that although it were in vain in respect of the receiuing yet it was not in vaine in respect of oblation I pray you look back again to Chrysostoms words see if he do not say that was done in vaine whiche you labour moste to proue could not bee in vaine namely Frustra habetur quotidiana oblatio The daily offring or sacrifice as you turne it is done in vaine For make
witnesse and the Papistes wil not denie so many Schismes haue ben about election of their Popes But neerer to the matter Iulian the Apostata with the paganes pulled downe the image of Christ that was set vp in the streete of Caesarea Philippi in remembraunce of the miracle done vpon the woman that was healed of her issue of bloud not in the Church to be worshipped Wel he shewed his malice but he did no hurt to Christian religion This example hurteth not them that lawfully pul downe deface Images in the Church of Christ for Epiphanius before Iulian did so at Anablatha Epiph. epi. 34. But Iulianus did obiect vnto the Christians that they did worship the woode of the crosse when they painted Images therof on their foreheades and before their houses Hereof M. Sander gathereth that the Christians had a grauen image of Christe him selfe euen from his owne time in Paneade or Caesarea Philippi as images of the crosse before their houses for the image of Christe Eusebius testifieth it was set vp by the Heathen men and not by Christians Lib. 7. Cap. 18. Although it is not like that it was set vp in Christes time when it is manifest by Iosephus that the Iewes could not abide so much as the image of the Emperour or of his standerd the Eagle to be set vp among them The images of the crosses set before their doores declare they had not them and much lesse any other of Christ and his saintes in Churches which Iulian would not haue omitted to proue them woode worshippers and idolaters Cyrillus in deede defendeth these signes of crosses as better memorials of Christ and of his vertues then the Images of the Gentiles yet he defendeth not setting vp of crosses or any images in Churches creeping to them which is the filthie idolatrie of the Papists Iulian the vncle of this Apostata did sit vpon the vessels vsed at the communion in despight of our religion and was iustely plagued therefore Eustachius the heretike kept his conuenticles in priuate places he would not be ruled by his Bishop The protestants kepe open assemblies whē they are not hindred by persecution and are ordered by the Bishops Elders of their Church though they will not be obedient to the Hereticall Bishops of the Popishe Church The same Eustachius condemned the marriage of Priestes as the Papistes doe Ep. Con. Gangr Vigilantius iustly reproued the Christians for superstitious estimatiō of reliques which Hieronyme could not honestly defend for all his quarrelling To conclude Chrysostome complayneth of the iniurie done to him his church and the sacraments by barbarous souldiers Optatus of the like by the Donatistes Victor by the Arrians all these and an hundreth more that might be brought of like examples beeing actes of Infidels and Heretiques against true religion doe not proue but the commaundement of God must be executed against false religion by them who haue authoritie of God so to doe But now he commeth to answere our obiections and first the example of Epiphanius a godly bishop of Cyprus whose wordes I will first set downe as they are conteyned in an epistle of his to Iohn Bishop of Ierusalem Praeterea quod audini c. Moreouer whereas I heard that some men did murmur against me because that when we went together to the holie place whiche is called Bethel that there I might make a gathering with you after the Ecclesiasticall manner and was come to the village which is called Anablatha and had seene there as I passed by a candle burning and had inquired what place it was and had learned that it was a Churche and came into pray I found there a vale hanging at the doore of the saide Church steyned and painted and hauing the image as it were of Christe or of some Saint for I doe not well remember whose Image it was Therefore when I saw this thing that the Image of a man did hang in the Church of Christ contrarie to the authoritie of the scriptures I rent it and gaue councel to the keepers of that place that they should rather wrappe some dead poore man in it carry him to buriall in it And they contrariwise murmured said if he would haue rent it it had beene meete that he should haue giuen vs another vayle and haue changed it Which when I heard I promised that I would giue them one and send it shortly Now there was some stay in the meane time while I seeke to send them a very good vaile in steed of that. For I thought one should haue ben sent me out of Cypres But now I haue sent such a one as I could get And I pray you that you will commaunde the elders of that place to receiue this vale which we haue sent by this bearer And to charge them that here after no such vayles be hanged vp in the Church of Christ which are against our religion For it becommeth your honestie to haue such carefulnesse to take away scrupulositie which is vnworthie of the Church of Christ and the people which i◠committed to you These be the words of Epiphanius in his Epistle translated by S. Hierom. For answere to this first he will not affirme whether that Epiphanius the byshop of Cypres wrote this Epistle or some other of that name because Damascen that impudent corrupter of antiquitie when he can not answere the Epistle he moueth such suspition in his Apologie for the worshipping of Images But let Hierome himselfe testifie the matter Contra errores Ioan Hierosol ad Pampathiam in the end of the Epistle Secondly he answereth that notwithstanding the iudgement of Epiphanius it is not against the authoritie of the scriptures to haue Images in the churches for then shoulde not Theodorus the martyr haue had his martyrdome painted on the walles as Gregorius Nyssenus witnesseth In deede Gregorius Nyssenus which liued somewhat after Epiphanius speaking of the ornaments of the Churche affirmeth that there was the history of the martyr painted on the wall but so farre from anye spice of adoration that the same was also expressed vppon the pauement which men did tread vppon Like as for ornamente there were grauen also in woode the Images of beastes These were the beginnings and as it were the first budding vp of Idolatrie in the church yet gainesaide by godly men and forbidden in the councell of Eliberis Another reason he hath of those simple mens authoritie that hang vp the Image and their murmuring which was not for putting downe the Image but for that he gaue them not another vail or curtaine first That it was not his priuate opinion it appeareth in this that he writeth so confidently thereof to the bishop of Ierusalem in whose dyocesse Anablatha was and who was present whē the saide Image was defaced But if he had thought saith M. Sander the hauing of Images to bee an heresie he woulde haue noted it in his booke of Fourescore and more heresies where he noteth no
what call you it but the trinitie Fie vppon this horrible idolatrie which is defended with such a sleueles excuse that you honour not the image for his owne sake no more did the Gentiles their images Chrisostom in Homi. 18. in Ep. ad Eph. writeth thus of them Cum illi dicimus quòd simulachrū adoret non inquit simulacrum sed Venerem sed Martem Et cum rogamui quae est ista Venus Qui grauiores inter eos sunt respondent voluptas quis est Mars Animus masculus vehemens When we say vnto him that he worshippeth an image No saith he not the image but Venus or Mars And when we aske what is this Venus the grauer sort among them aunswere pleasure And who is Mars A manlike and valiant corage Augustine in Psal. 96. which place I haue cited before sheweth that the Gentiles affirmed that they worshipped not the images for their owne sake but for the diuine powers which they did represent euen the same which the Christians called Angels So that the Papists are all one with the Gentiles in their excuse as they agree with them in Idolatrie worshipping of images FINIS God be praysed A REFVTATION OF MAITER IOHN RASTELS CONFVTATION AS HE CALLETH IT OF maister Iewels sermon by W. Fulk To the Preface TO giue the Reader a tast of such sinceritie as he must looke for in all M. Rastels booke of confutation hee sheweth in his preface where speaking of three maners of aunswering he declareth the same by an example taken out of the bishops sermon that sole receiuing is not to be suffered among Christians where as the bishoppe hath no such position in all his sermon but that priuate masse was not vsed for the space of sixe hundreth yeares after christ Thus admonishing the Reader that maister Rastell as his grand capteine M. doctour Harding not able to finde any thing either in scripture or antiquitie for the maintenance of their ordinary priuate Masse doth flie to extraordinarie vses and vnlawfull vsages of sole receiuing being all such as either some necessity might seeme to excuse or as all the Papists themselues do confesse to haue beene abuses I leaue his leude preface hasten to the book it self A refutation of maister Rastels confutation SECTIO PRIMA In which he speaketh of the councel of Nice of vnwritten verities TO passe ouer the two first leafes of his booke and halfe the third in which is much vaine babling but no point of confutatiō in the second face of the third leafe he beginneth to picke his iust quarel at the sentence set before the bishoppes printed sermon which is this Let old customes preuaile It greueth M. Rastel his fellowes which perswade the ignorant people that our relygion is all nouelty that M Iewell should make any such claime vnto antiquitie And first therfore he wil know whether the scriptures do not cōteine al things necessary to saluatiō Yes verely and Gods curse light on him that teacheth the contrarie Then he will knowe where we finde this saying in scriptures or if it be not in the scripture of god why we wil vse a sentēce of the coūcel of Nice which was but a cōgregatiō of mens Verily if we found not the matter of this sentence in Gods worde we durst not auouch it to be true that was vttered by men being applied to any point of doctrine But we finde the same doctrine in the sixt of Ieremy where the Lord saith Stand in the wayes and beholde and aske for the olde way which is the good way and walke therein and you shall finde rest for your soules Nowe this saying of the councell of Nice let olde customes preuaile being the same in effect and meaning though somewhat differing in sounde of wordes we embrace it as the worde of God and the holy scripture which we do not restraine vnto the letters and sillables but vnto the plaine and manifest sence and vnderstanding of them The seconde quarrell he picketh to the placing of this sentence before the bishoppes sermon because it is vttered by the Councell of Nice in a particuler case concerning the iurisdiction of the bishops of Alexandria and Antioch and therefore cannot serue for a generall sentence For all olde customes saith he must not be preferred before new customes example of washing of feete abstaining from eating of bloud which were olde customes But if the councell meant that olde customes should preuaile against newe writinges then all books of Luther such like are striken through which one foine Wherefore hee concludeth that the councell meant that olde customes shoulde preuaile against the pretensed alledging of the verye scripture it selfe and newe doctrine of men And so this sentence doth at once ouerthrow all maister Iewels religion But hauing compared this sentence to the text of scripture by which the true meaning therof may appeare I will not stand about this trifling cauils Cōcerning our iudgmēt of antiquitie this it is We wil not admit whatsoeuer is old but only the religiō which is eldest of al which hath god for the autor the Patriarches Prophetes and Apostles for the witnesses and all learning doctrine and religion which is vnder the age of these yeares we reiect as newe false and diuelish As for customes ceremonies and manners which are subiect to mutation we receiue them or refuse them as they be approuable or disprouable by the saide old auncient and Catholike doctrine And bicause M. Rastel hath not only touched the sixt Canon of the Councell of Nice where this sentence is written but also charged M. Iewell with ouerthrowe of his religion thereby I must let the reader vnderstand that he suppresseth one point thereof that vtterly ouerthroweth the piller of all Popish religion that is the Popes supremacie For that Canon maketh the Bishop of Alexandria equall in iurisdiction to the Bishop of Rome For the reason of the iurisdiction confirmed vnto the Bishops of Alexandria is this Quia vrbia Romę Episcop◠parilis mos est Bicause the Bishop of the citie of Rome hath the like or equall custome of iurisdiction But M. Rastell will proue by the storie of Arrius that the Councell meant by that sentence that it is onely tradition custome and manners which killeth the hearts of heretiques and defendeth the Catholike Church and not the authoritie of the Scriptures Bicause Arrius was such a proude heretique that he despised all the interpretations of the auncient Fathers that were before his time as Alexander Bishop of Alexandria writeth of him Yea he is not ashamed to say that although the Fathers of that Councell had scriptures against Arrius yet their chiefe stay was not in that scriptures but in the receiued tradition But this is a most impudent lye for although the consent of Catholike writers of all ages with the word of God is not to be contemned yet the only authoritie in determining of controuersies of faith in
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
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
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
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