without succession vnto their blasphemous sacrificing Priesthood But let vs see what balde reason he bringeth to proue that we haue translated the Priesthood First we haue laboured to chaunge the Apostolicall names of Episcopus and Presbyter into superintendent elder So a translation out of Greeke into Latine or English is a chaunge with him and such as may not be abidden for he reproueth me for translating Presbyterum in Cyprian an elder Secondly I helpe an other argument of theirs concluding out of Ephes. 4. that the Popish Hierarchie is no part of Christian Ministerie by which I declare that we haue chaunged the Priesthoode of the Primitiue Church which had Popish Bishops Priestes Deacons Subdeacons Exorcistes Cantors Acolytes Ostiaries for which he citeth Eusebius lib. 6. cap. 34. where there is no such matter named either in the Greeke or Latine computation of Grynaeus I confesse the names are auncient and the offices in the Primitiue Church were some necessarie some profitable but I speake of the Popish Hierarchie in which nothing remaineth but the names But Bristowe thinketh I do not consider that S. Paule nameth there the onely Ministers of the worde or preachers Yes verily and therfore I exclude all these Popish orders which are such euery one of them as may be and are giuen to men that are no preachers or ministers of the word As for the order of Christian Deacons for ministring to the poore and Elders of gouernement I knowe they are not to be sought in that rehearsall But for those Popish orders that Bristow saith belong to the ministerie of the altar the Scripture speaketh no one word of them Yet he saith I may see the distinction of them Act. 13. where some preachers had not orders 1. Tim. 3. where some good Priestes do not labour in the word and doctrine Concerning the first place I knowe not what he meaneth except he thinke Paule and Barnabas were not Apostles before handes were laid on them and they dismissed to preach abroad among the Gentiles Or else that those Prophetes and teachers named in the beginning of the Chapter had nowe orders which howe he proueth I maruell specially seeing other Papistes doe vnderstand the worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth ministring for their sacrificing As for the other place is of Elders of gouernement and not Priestes of the Altar That the auncient writers vsed the names of Sacerdotes Leuitae Pontifices it was not because the ministers of the Gospell are a species or kinde of them but abusiuely for a certaine similitude of the Leuiticall order and Priesthoode with the ministers of the word and sacraments Thirdly he saith the Apostles Bishops and Priestes were made by other Bishops and Priestes ours by Lay men as of Kings and ciuile Magistrates which is an impudent slaunder Fourthly wee confesse their orders to bee good ynough because we reorder not them which is false for I saide their admission of the Church is a newe calling Bristowe saith that is a newe way to giue orders shewing him selfe ignorant that euen in the olde Church suche as were ordained by some heretikes were receiued after they had abiured their heresie to continue in the degree of the Cleargie as of the Nouatians Concil Nicen. cap. 8. Wherefore the rest of his babbling O your Diuinitie O your Scripture as that I bring nothing to defend Pilkington not to be a mocke Bishop but his excellent learning and diligent preaching c. I passe ouer as also the great preaching which nowe at the last is in Popish countries where within these threescore yeares was as great silence as in England at the same time Fiftly arguments neede not where I denie all Priesthoode but the spirituall Priesthoode common to all Christians Sixtly If I will inuent a thirde Priesthoode hee saith that the Primitiue or Fathers Priesthoode was according to the order of Melchisedech and to offer sacrifice in breade and wine as Melchisedek Christ did Beware what you say of a sacrifice of bread and wine offered by you Christ as by Melchisedek But you regarde not our arguments they be but obiections At leastwise I pray you answere our obiections or else they wil be argumentes to proue you all blasphemous vsurpers of Christs singular priesthood But that you wil doe at leasure first you will proue your priesthood out of Augustine Contr. aduers. Leg. Prophet Lib. Cap. 19 20. Where he defendeth the sacrifice of the Church to be after the order of Melchisedek and yet but a sacrifice of praise So that you haue neither your sacrifice propitiatorie whereof the controuersie is nor your particular priesthood for he saith The Church from the Apostles time c. doth offer to God in the body of Christ a sacrifice of praise c. not after the order of Aaron but after the order of Melchisedeck Now who knoweth not that the sacrifice of praise is a spiritual sacrifice common to al the Church and not peculiar to any special order of priesthood So that S. Augastine naming the order of Melchisedek alludeth to those places of the scripture in which all Christians are called a royall priesthood Kinges and priestes 1. Pet. 2. Apoc. 1. but neuer intended to make the singular priesthood of Christ confirmed to him by oath Psalm 110. and which passeth not from him Heb. 7. common to ministers of the Church If you obiect He speaketh of celebration of the sacrament which is peculiar to them I answere although the ministration of the sacrament be proper vnto them yet the sacrifice of praise offered in the celebration is common to the whole Church as Augustine both here and else where affirmeth So that although a sacrifice be graunted yet a special priesthood is not proued But the sacrifice of the crosse was both of thankesgiuing of propitiatiō he troweth and therfore the memoriall sacrifice of the altar to be the one what doth it let to be the other This argument standing vpon Bristowes trowing and confounding the members of a diuision shall haue none other answere for me The places that I cite out of Ambrose ad virg laps de virgin Lib. 1. to proue that he vseth the names of sacrifice and propitiation vnproperly as other of the fathers doe Bristow will not allow as sufficient saying I might as wel so argue that S. Paule speaketh vnproperly because he saith our bodies by mortification to be made a liuing sacrifice whereas the Apostle Heb. 10. saith Christs body by death to be made a sacrifice And what offence is it to say S. Paule speaketh vnproperly where he speaketh figuratiuely as when he saith the rock was Christ. Howbeit in this example of Bristow there is great difference but that such a blunderer as he cannot see it which confoundeth the propitiatorie sacrifice of Christ with the eucharisticall sacrifice of Christians as he confounded them both in the sacrifice of the Crosse the one could not be offered without death of the
into That What say you Sander hath the Greeke article such strength alwayes If you say so you wil be thought to be a simple Grecian If only sometimes you must shewe better reason then you do why it hath such strength heere or els the Englishe translation is good inough For by the outwarde signe which is the partaking of one bread the Apostle proueth the spirituall coniunction of all the faithfull in one body and vseth not the name of bread siguratiuely for that which Christ calleth the bread of life c. And vnto this translation agreeth S. Ambrose in 1. Cor. 11. saying The gift that is offered perteyneth to al the people quia in vno pane omnes significantur per id quod enim vnum simus de vno pane nos omnes sumere oportet because in one bread they are all signified for in that we are one we ought to receiue all of one bread Of the same iudgment is Hierom vpon the very place saying Omnes quidem de vno pane de vno calice participamus We all partake of one bread of one cup. The like is Chrysost. all the old writers in a maner You see what shamelesse cauilling racking he vseth to make a shewe of corruption in the English Bible against which his malice is so great that he chargeth not the translators but the English Bible to haue turned to haue falsified to haue corrupted as though that if there were any iust fault to be founde in the translation the English Bible should beare the blame for it and be despised of all English men God be thanked that although it may not be denyed but some faultes haue and may escape the best translations yet the translators haue a cleere conscience from falsifying and corrupting and the faultes are not so great that any pernitious errour may be grounded on them nor so many by a thousand partes as are in that Latine translation which the Papistes admit as onely Catholike authenticall CAP. III. The state of the question betweene the Lutherans Zuinglians Caluiniâ—â—es Catholikes concerning the Sacrament of the altar This Chapter containeth no proofe of any thing but onely setteth downe the bare assertions of Sander vpon euery matter which if they be false it shall be as easy for me to deny as for him to affirme them referring the tryall of euery cause as he doth vnto the treatise folowing First it is false which he affirmeth that from the beginning of the Christian Church vnto the yere of our Lord 1517. All the Church both Greeke and Latine openly professed the carnall presence of Christes body and blood vnder the formes of bread and wine For the Greek church neuer receiued transubstantiation nor yet taught so grossely of the real presence as the Papists nor held the same opinion of consecration which the papists doe For after the wordes of Christ vttered in their liturgye they pray thus vnto God Fac panem quidem hunc honorabile corpus Christi tui quod autem in calice est honorabilem sang 〈…〉 Christi tui ea sancto tuo spiritu transmutante And make this breade the honorable body of thy Christe and that which is in the cuppe the honorable bloud of thy Christe thy holy spirite changing them This was obiected vnto them in the late Councell of Florence It is also false that he sayeth no man in open pulpet with the auctority or toleration of any spirituall pastor did preach the contrary for Wickleef whom he nameth a corner whisperer in open pulpet preached the same as his homilies remayning in writing are a playne testimonye as in Hom. 5. Sept. quad in 6. Ioan. Here it is needfull for men to wite that there ben two manner of meates ghostly and bodily but bodily is well knowne But nede were here to knowe how men should ghostlye eate Christ. For no man that hath witte dreadeth that Christ speaketh not here of bodily eating and drinking of his flesh and his blode For els no man should be saued for no man is an etene to seede him thus bodily of Christ and therefore it were to witte how men should ghostly feede them thus For Christ telleth in his words how men should eate him ghostly and to this wite saith Christ here that the wordes that he speaketh to them be spirite and life for such is witte of his wordes These wordes in their owne kinde ben such as were his other wordes but wite of these wordes there is spiritual and mannes life Also Christ saieth there soothly that each man that shall be saued shal bee fed of Christ thus But this may not be vnderstonden of fleshly food of Christs body And so it mote be vnderstonden algatys of gostly foode for of bodily foode of Christ may not two be fed together and so Christ speaketh of ghostly food by which many bee fed farre and neere Also the sermon of Aelsriâ— in the Saxon tongue apoynted to be sayed in all churches of England teacheth the same doctrine But I breake promise to stand in conâ—â—tation of so impudent lyes And where he sayth a beleeâ—e which had continued 600. yeares could not haue bene sodenly changed it is very true for the doctrine of Antichrist concerning the carnal presence was not come vnto full ripenes before the Councell of Laterane which was more then 600. yeres after the first age of 600. yeres And although the efficacy of error preuayled by Gods iust iudgment ouer a great part of the world yet had Christ alwayes his two witnesses to protest against it as Berengarius Scotus Waldo Henâ—icus de Gauduno Wickliefe c. which although they were condemned by Antichrist for heretikes yet seing they taught nothing but the ancient Catholike faith of the primitiue church grounded on gods worde their condemnation in an hundreth councels can be no preiudice to the trueth The meane that maketh present that blessed body sayeth Sander is transubstantiation which being made present thereby who can deny but that it is a sacrifice aboue all other external kindes of worshipping syth at the time of the consecration it is giuen for vs vnbloodily as the wordes of Christ sound Luke 22. which is geuen for you But seing S. Paule in exposition of the same wordes sayth which is broken for you who is either so ignorant or so blasphemous to deny that the giuing in S. Luke is to be referred vnto his death and bloudy sacrifice which was his only sacrifice of himself offered once for all Agayne when al the three Euangelists speaking of the sacrament of his bloud saye 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is shed for many and for you sith at the time of the consecration it is shed for vs as well as his body is giuen for vs who is so shameles to saye that it is giuen for vs vnbloudily iny e sacrament Or if the word of shedding being of the preâ—â—nt temps or preterimperfect temps must be referred to the
intercession of the Apostles in whose honour it was offered at their reliques there is no word although by any figure you vnderstand the Emperors tombe whereof he speaketh to signifie his soule which is rather a rhetoricall exornation shewing howe his tombe was honoured as cap. 67. he sheweth that all the princes of the armie and the Senate worshipped his dead bodie euen as they did when he was aliue which vaine pompe he commendeth as an honour appointed and allowed by God to be giuen to the Emperors But in effect you can shewe no more of Constantius fauouring of your religion but in that one error of praying for the dead to which I oppose his commandement laide vpon Metriades bishop of Rome to heare the cause of Cecilianus Eâ—seb lib. 10. cap. 5. His calling of the Nicen Councel de lit Const. lib. 3. That I omit his admission of the appeale from the bishop of Rome and other like matters shewing his souereigne authoritie ouer the bishop of Rome and other Prelates I said that although Theodoret report that Theodosius the younger praied for his parents foules yet the storie saith not that he praied to Saint Chry so stome for them Bristow opposeth the Tripartite storie and Theodoret in Latine lib. 5. cap. 35. where is nothing of the matter 36. where Theodoret in his owne words speaking of the tombe of Chrysostome saith of Theodosius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He setting vpon the tombe both his eyes and forehead offered a supplication for his parents desiring pardon for them that had done iniurie of ignoraunce These wordes inforce not praier to Saint Chrysostome although praier to the dead was at that time erroniously practised That Allen citeth out of Ambrose of Honorius standing by the holie altars while the solemnitie of his fathers funerall was celebrated maketh little to proue Honorius to haue bene a Papist although in that point I denie not which can not yet of those wordes be proued that he might be occupied in praier for the deade according to the errour of his time One errour can not make a man to be altogether of the Popish faith who is knowne to haue bene of that religion which Ambrose setteth foorth in his writings contrarie to Papistrie in the most and most necessarie pointes vnto saluation The 40. dayes minde which Allen would begge out of that place to resemble their Popish monethes minde I haue sufficiently reproued by shewing the continuance of the fourtie daies solemnitie without intermission That the last day was one of the fourtie and kept with singular solemnitie as is vsuall in such cases which Bristowe opposeth can not make a iust resemblance of the Popish mone thes mindes which are a renouation of a mourning or solemnitie intermitted Where I challenge the Christian Emperors which were before the generall desection to haue bene of our religion Bristowe in a lurious rage noteth in the margent Sce the impudent heretike them whome he condemned before But who is this impudent heretike that condemned those Christian Emperors before or where is there any word of their condemnation Is there no difference betweene reprouing of an errour and condemuing of the person But let that passe among Bristowes impudent and malicious slaunders The Kings of the earth saith he haue not committed fornication with the whore of Babylon when they humblie adored the Church of Rome and licked the dust of her feete as they are commaunded by the Prophet Esai 49. 60. c. This shall be confessed when it is proued that the Popish Church is the spouse of Christe and not the strumpet of Babylon although the Prophet speake not of bodily bowing kissing or licking Where I name Ziska Procopius and George king of Bohemia defenders of the Protestants Bristow saith it was an 100. yeares before the name much more the religioÌ„ of the Protestants was coined as though their religioÌ„ might not be before that name was vsed to cal theÌ„ by But that Edward the third was a Wicleuist who euer heard saith Bristow And who euer heard me say or write that he was a Wicleuist I saide Ar. 34 that king Edward other noble men in his time defended Wickleues cause and for that you may read at large M. Foxes storie of Wickleue CoÌ„cerning the booke of Caro lus Magnus against images I haue aunswered Sander Bristowe else where The booke of Berttam is entituled ad Carolum magnum although Trithemius say it was vnto Charles the king brother of Lotharius the antiquitie of which inscription is elder then Trithemius except he bring better arguments then his bare affirmation But Bertram went about the bush in Bristows fansie durst not openly declare his opinion against real presence transubstantiation therefore Charles the King or Emperor did hold this opinion He that will read the booke shal see he doth plainly expresse his iudgement against the corporall presence and as for transubstantiation there was no question thereof in his time In the 21. Demaund of Churches where I say the Papistes had wonne no more if we could shewe neuer a Church but such as haue bene builded by Papistes and to Popish vses then the idolaters against the Apostles which could shewe no temples but builded vnto idols Bristowe saith the challenge were not one because the Apostles renounced both those temples and their religion we renounce Popish religion but not all their Churches The cause whâ—e the Apostle renounced their temples was for that manie of them were not for the vse of Christian religion although if credite may be giuen to our countrie histories the Pagans temples were conuerted to Christian Churches both by the Brytons Saxons But those conuerters saith Bristowe were the founders of them be it so yet were they not the builders of them Yet such as were builded by Christian princes were builded that their soules might be praied for in them as that Church of the twelue Apostles builded by Constantine the great whereof mention is before c. Of so manie Chruches as he builded onely in building that one he had that erronious conceit Where I say the olde Churches were builded onely in the honor of God and the Popish temples in the honor of creatures Saints and Angels Marie wellymet quod Bristowe They were called Basilicae Martyrum ApostoloruÌ„ the Apostles and the Martyrs Churches c. Ergo They were not builded to the honour of God onely but to the honour of creatures when the olde writers whome I cite Ar. 53. 55. affirme that a temple belongeth onely to God And Augustine expresly denieth that they were the temples but the memories of those Martyrs whose names they bare and as foraltars he vtterly denieth them vnto creatures Where I said that Constantine made his great grants to the married Bishops of Rome Bristowe crieth blessing on Iouinian Whie Bristowe Was there neuer any Bishop of Rome married Was there no priest married in Hierome and Augustines time although Iouinian could not persuade
anie priest which had purposed continencie to marrie To that I saide of manie of the Cathedrall Churches in England builded for preachers and their wiues to dwell in Bristowe saith I haue wonne a whetstone as bigge as a mountaine but against the authoritie of the histories Ranulph Cest. Math. Westm. Petriburgens and other which I cited Bristow bringeth nothing but railing in filthie termes meete for the colledge of Cardinals life not for the holie estate of matrimonie Where I shewe the differing forme of the chauncels altars of the auncient Churches with crosse yles from the latter Popish erections Bristowe maketh me a souden proctor of theirs as though a chauncel and altar a crosse barre might not be named but by a Papist Yea he maketh me contrarie to my selfe for saying that Popish chauncels which are at the East end of Churches are but late additions and sanctifieth that we can abide no chauncels no crosse yles no length to the East c. of which things we make small account either to haue theÌ„ or to be without them But it is more materiall that he saith CoÌ„stantinus had tabernaculum crucis a tabernacle or moucable Church of the crosse wheras we can abide no crosse or roode in our Churches Euseb. in vit Const. lib. 2. cap. 12. lib 4. cap. 56 Sozomen lib. 1. cap. 8. The two latter places shewe that in his warres he vsed to haue a tent or tabernacle as a Church for praier and ministration of the sacraments the first place onely calleth it tabernaculum crucis which might be of the forme but of any crosse that was in it there is no mention and much lesse of a rood which is a crosse with an image on it As for the crosse which Paulinus the superstitious Bishop of Nola saith was kept in the Church of Ierusalem worshipped by the Bishop and the people if it were true yet it proueth not creeping to the crosse on Good Friday as Bristow saith for there might be worshipping without creeping or Popish worshipping either Againe worshipping of that same crosse that Christ died on proueth not creeping to any idol of it Finally where he would proue out of Paulinus and Beda the multitude of altars in one Churche he laboureth in vaine Eusebius whome I cited is cleare both of the vnitie of the altar in his time and of the manner of standing which was not after the popish manner Of like wisedome it is that he will not allowe me to talke of chalices of wood and glasse because I say their vestiments be as good stuffe as their chalices which the olde Church knewe not Thereof he chargeth me not 〈◊〉 haue-read in Theodoret lib. 2. cap. 27. of that Stola sacra c. Holie cope wouen with golden threads which Constaâ—tinus gaue to the Bishop of Ierusalem that he might weare it when he did baptise Yes I haue read it but I spake of an elder Church then Constantines time in which such pompe was not vsed And yet that robe is lewdly translated of Bristowe a cope Although neither the Papists in baptisme haue alwaies or ordinarily worne a cope The rest that he citeth out of antiquitie for gorgeous attire and golden chalices partly is false and partly superfluous For Ornatus is by him translated into ornaments Valens commended Saint Basil Quòd tanto ornatu támque decenter c that with so great comelinesse and so decently he exercised his priestlie office Againe Sozomen lib. 8. cap. 21. sheweth that Chrysostomes priestes taken by force in ornatu vt erant in their attire as they were which was but a white garment as appeareth by diuers places of Chrysostome in Matth. Hom. 85. c. Likewise he asketh whether there were such neede for redeeming captiues building of Churches or that requies defunctorum might be at the buriall of the deade that chalices were broken and solde seeing Ambrose alloweth but these three causes of breaking and selling of chalices As though Ambrose spake of buying of Trentals of Masses with the price of the chalices where he saith Off. lib. 2. cap. 28. Nemo potest dolere quia in sepulturis Christianorâ—â—n requies defunctorum est No man can be griened because in the buriall of Christians the rest of the deade is Which he speaketh of enlarging the places of buriall which is the third cause Nemo potest indignari c. No man can be angrie because the spaces are enlarged for burying of the reliquijs fidelâ—um the bodies of the faithfull Yet he asketh if I be not ashamed to cite such places of antiquitie seel hate chalices because they be chalices and because they be consecrated Whereas I saide nothing against the necessarie vse of cuppes in the Communion but of the superstitious pompe of the Papistes in their golden chalices and idolatrous manner of consecrating them while they suffer the poore to sterue for lacke of necessarie sustenâ—nce but once againe most impudently he chargeth Ambrose to say that the sacred chalice is called there a vessell of our Lordes bloud and golde in which our Lordes bloud is powred where he speaketh of breaking the cuppes before they be solde least they should offensiuely be abused to wicked purposes But there saith he is not any such worde of them and in the middest of the chapter where these wordes are they are not spoken of the materiall cuppe but of the godlie vse of them when they are solde to redeeme captiues aunswering the obiection of such thinges that be once dedicated to Gods seruice Ille verus est thesaurus Domini c. That is a true treasure of the Lorde which worketh that which his bloud wrought Then I acknowledge a vessell of the Lordes bloud when I see redemption in both that the cup may redeeme from the enimie them whome the bloud hath redeemed from finne And againe Agnosco infusum auro c. I acknowledge the bloud of Christe powred into the golde not onely to haue made it redde but also to haue imprinted in it the vertue of diuine operation by the gift of redemption Such golde the holie Martyr Laurence reserued to the Lord c. But seeking to giue the Papistes a blowe Bristowe saith I care not though the stroke light vpon the Primitiue Church which had vessels of gold not onely in these princely buildings erected by Constantine c but also in the crypts or caues of the earth in time of persecutioÌ„ How Ambroâ—e and Acacius vsed thought these goldeÌ„ vesselâ— best bestowed I haue shewed But in the persecution time howe proueth Bristowe they had such plentie of golde and siluer Forsooth out of Prudentius the Poet who bringeth in the tyrant speaking to Laurence and râ—quiring the treasures of the Church as the cups of golâ—e and siluer in which they did sacrifice and set their waxe candles But what answere did Laurence the Deacon returne what chalices or candlestickes did he render but the poore that were relieued by the aimes of the Church