filthy garments that is our sinnes by the name of his first begotten sonne and being set on fire by the word of his calling are a right kinde of high priests of God as God himself doth witnes That in al places among the Gentiles acceptable pure sacrifices are offred to him But God receiueth no sacrifice of any but of his Priestes Wherefore God before hand doth testifie that he doth accept all them that offer by this name the sacrifices which Iesus Christe hath deliuered to be made that is in the Eucharistie or thankesgiuing of the bread and the cuppe which are done in euery place of the Christians By these words it appeareth not that Christ was offered but thankesgiuing in the sacrament not of the priest alone but by all Christians And yet more plainely in the wordes of his that are in the same Dialogue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And as concerning those sacrifices which are offered to him of vs Gentiles in euery place that is of the breade of thankesgiuing and the cup likewise of thankesgiuing hee foresheweth saying that we do glorifie his name and that you do prophane it In which saying what can we see but the sacrifice of thankesgiuing in the bread and cup And to proue that the Church hath none other sacrifice but of prayers and thankesgiuing he saith within few lines after the place cited by M. Heskins 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For I my selfe do affirme that prayers and thankesgiuing made by worthie persons are the only perfect and acceptable sacrifices to god For these are the only sacrifices that Christians haue receiued to make to be put in minde by their drie and moyst nourishment of the passion which God the son of God is recorded to haue suffered for them This place doth not onely shewe what the only sacrifice of Christians was in his time but also teacheth that in the sacrament is drie and moyst nourishment that is bread and drinke not bare accidents as the transubstantiators affirme How little Iustinus maketh for the sacrifice of the Masse these places doe sufficiently declare The second place hee citeth is out of Hierom in his booke of Hebrue questions Quod autem â—it c. whereas he saâ—th thou art a Priest for â—uer after the order of Melchisedech in the word order our mysterie is signified not in offering vnreasonable sacrifices by Aaron but in offering bread and wine that is the body and blood of our Lord Iesus Christ. We haue shewed sufficiently before howe the olde writers vsed the worde of sacrifice licentiously when there was no such heresie as fined is sprung vp of the sacrifice of the Masse for the memoriall of the sacrifice of Christes body and bloud in which was offered the spirituall sacrifice of prayers and thanksgiuing which reasonable men might wel ynough vnderstand though heretiques do nowe drawe it to their meaning As when Hierom calleth this offering of bread and wine a mysterie euery indifferent reader may vnderstand that he speaketh not properly in calling it the body and bloud of Christe and a sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christe But as to a sicke man of the ague all drinkes seeme bitter so to a popish heretique all sayings of the Doctours seeme popish and hereticall The third place he alledgeth it is out of Ambrose his preparatiue prayer to Masse I will not vouchsafe to rehearse it bicause it is a meere bastard and counterfet writing out of which it is cyted hauing as much of S. Ambrose in it as M. Heskins hath witt and honestie in alledging it If any man will obiect that then I must bring arguments to disproue it or else I may likewise denye any authenticall writer I answere it were too long to do in this shortnesse that I must vse and not necessarie when they are notorious and well knowne already to euery man of meane reading in the Doctors and Erasmus in his censure doth plainly reiect it The fourth is Isydorus li. 1. ca 18. de off which althogh he be somwhat without the coÌ„passe of 600. yeares after Christ yet because he is an auncient writer nere that time I will consider his speach which is cited by M. Heskins in these wordes The sacrifice that is offered to God by the Christians our Lorde and maister Christ did first institute when hee commended to his Apostles his bodie and bloude before hee was betraied as it is redd in the Gospell Iesus tooke the bread and the cup and blessing them gaue the same vnto them Here beside the vsuall phrase of sacrifice which we haue often declared what it did signifie and whence it came is nothing to quarrell at For Isydore ment no doubt the spirituall sacrifice of thankesgiuing which is offered in the celebration of the Lords supper not the propitiatorie sacrifice of the popish masse of which scarce the foundations were begonne to be laide in his time of certaine odde stones of vnproper speach and licentious phrases of sacrifices and oblations As for Haymo and Cabasila I will neuer trouble my self to examine their speaches they are but late writers therefore of small credite in these causes And whereas M. Heskins glorieth that he hath aunswered foure members of the proclamation in this booke the scriptures in the vulgar tongue the reseruation of the sacrament the offering of Christe to his father and the presence of his bodie and bloude in the sacrament let the iudgement reste with the indifferent readers whether although hee hath some of the lower house to fauour his billes more might haue if hee woulde aske their voyces yet I haue proued by this short aunswere that of the higher house he hath not one that hath giuen a voyce with theÌ„ but many that haue spoken directly against them God be praysed THE SECOND BOOKE OF HESKINS PARLEAMENT repealed by W. Fulke The first Chapter declareth the offices of the olde lawe and the benefites of the newe lawe with an exhortation to submit our vnderstanding to the knowledge of faith and therewith to the beleefe of the sacrament HOW vnsauerly he discourseth vpon the two offices of the lawe it were too long to examine in euerie pointe Onely this let the reader obserue that when he hath made the first office of the lawe to giue them knowledge of sinne and to restrayne them from it The other office hee saith was by lineamentes of figures and shadowes to leade the people to Christe as S. Paule sayth the lawe was our scholemaister to Christ c. As though the lawe was not a Schoolemaister to bring vs to Christe by shewing vs our sinnes and condemnation but onely by shadowes and figures After this hee maketh him selfe a ioly hunter That with great trauell and some pleasure hath passed through the bushes and thickets of the lawe and nowe being come into the faire land of the Gospell forgetting his former trauels with freshe delight will followe on his game So that hee is nowe belike
alledged out of Irenaeus but for prolixitie and the same places shall afterwardes be cited for other purposes The fiue thirtieth Chapter proceedeth to the exposition of the same Prophet by S. Augustine Eusebius Out of S. Augustine is alledged a long saying lib. Aduersus Iudaeos but not so long in wordes as short of his purpose Dominus omnipotens dicit c. The Lorde almightie sayeth I haue no pleasure in you neither will I receiue sacrifice of your hands Certainly this you cannot denie ô ye Iewes that not oâ—ly he doth not take sacrifice as your handes for there is but one place appointed by the lawe of the Lord where he hath commaunded sacrifices to be offered by your handes beside which place he hath altogether forbidden them Therefore seeing you haue lost this place according to your deserts the sacrifice also which was lawfull to be offered there onely in other placeâ— ye dare not offer And it is altogether fulfilled which the Prophet saith And sacrifice will I not receiue at your handes For if the Temple and the Altar remained to you in the earthly Hierusalem you might say this were fulfilled in them whose sacrifices being wicked men abiding among you the Lorde doth not accept but that he accepteth the sacrifice of other that be of you and among you which keepe the commaundements of god But this cannot be saide for asmuch as there is not one of you all which according to the lawe which proceeded from mount Sinay may offer sacrifice with his handes Neither is this so forespoken fulfilled that the sentence of the Prophes will suffer you to aâ—nswere because wee offer not flesh with our hands with our heart and mouth we offer praise according to that in the Psalme Sacrifice to God the sacrifice of praise From this place also he speaketh against you which sayth I haue no pleasure in you c. Moreouer that you shuld not thinke that seeing you offer not and that he taketh no sacrifice at your hands therefore no sacrifice is offered to God whereof truely hee hath no neede who needeth not the goods of any of vs yet because he is not without a sacrifice which is not profitable for him but for vs be adioyneth and sayeth For from the rising of the Sunne vntil the going downe of the same my name is made honourable among all the Gentiles and in euery place a sacrifice is offered to my name euen a pure sacrifice because my name is greate among the Gentiles saith the Lorde Almightie What aunswere yee to these things open your eyes at the length see from the sunne rising to the going downe thereof that not in one place as it was appointed among you but in euery place the sacrifice of the Christians is offered not to euery God but to him that spake these things afore hand euen to the God of Israel Wherfore in another place he sayth to his Church and he that hath deliuered thee the same God of Israel shal be called the God of the whole earth Search ye the Scriptures in which you thinke to haue eternall life and truely you should haue if in them you could vnderstand Christ and hold him But search them through and euen they beare witnesse of this pure sacrifice which is offered to the God of Israel not of your nation alone of whose hands he saide he would receiue none but of all nations which say come let vs go vp into the hill of the Lord neither in one place as it was commaunded in the earthly Hierusalem bâ—t in euery place euen in Hierusalem it selfe â–ª neither after the order of Aaron but after the order of Melchizedech First we must see how M. Heskins note booke deceiued him for where the words of Augustin in the beginning of this sentence are these Locus enim vnâ—to est lege domini constitutus c. that is â–ª there is but one place appointed by the lawe of the lord M. Hesk. hath falsified and set downe locus enim vnus est loco domini constitutus which he translateth For there is one place in the place of God appointed But this is not the first corruption that we haue bewrayed by a great many Nowe to the matter Maister Heskins still harpeth vpon one string that the sacrifice in this saying spoken of cannot be the sacrifice of praise and thankesgiuing because that is not peculiar to the Christians but was offered of the Iewes before Christe and may be yet if they be conuerted But I haue more than once or twise declared that here is no such peculiaritie in the matter of the offering but in the maner of the oblation And Augustine speaketh not halfe a worde by which we might deeme that he refuseth the spirituall sacrifice of the Christians to be the pure sacrifice prophesied in Malachie If you vrge that he sayeth it is offered after the order of Melchisedech and so hath relation to the offering of breade and wine in the Sacrament although it be no necessarie conclusion yet Augustin him selfe will tell vs that it is a spiritual sacrifice of laude and thanksgiuing And M. Heskins him selfe directeth vs to the booke saying As notable a saying as this hath S. Augustine in an other place also and quoteth lib. 1. Cont aduersariuÌ„ legis Prophetarum who so listeth to reade shall finde that that shall not repent him of the reading What place M. Heskins meaneth I knowe not but in the same booke I read in the 18. Chapter that he calleth the death of Christ 〈◊〉 singuler and onely was sacrifice If that sacrifice be but one singuler and the onely true sacrifice what manner of sacrifice is the sacrifice of the Masse which setteth vp a newe altar to ouerthrowe the crosse of Christ And that you may knowe what sacrifice S. Augustine meaneth when he nameth the sacrifice of the Church or the sacrifice of breade and wine or any such like phrase he speaketh this in the twentieth Chapter of certeine apocryphall writings falsly intituled to the Apostles Andrew Iohn Qua fillorum essent receptae essent ab ecclesia quae illorum temperibus per EpiscoporuÌ„ succesâ—iones certissimas vsque ad nostra deincapâ— tempora perseueraâ— immolat Deo in corpore Christi sacrificium â—â—â—dis Which if they had bene theirs they should haue bene receiued of the Church which from their times by most certeine successions of Bishope continueth vnto our times and after and sacrificeth to God in the bodie of Christ the sacrifice of lawde and prayse And let this suffice to discharge Augustine from M. Heskins and the Papistes blasphemous cauelling Now must we come to Eusebius which lib. â— Euang. Demonst. cap. 10. writeth thus The Mosaical sacrifices being reiected he doth by diuine reuelation declare our ordinaâ—ies that was to 〈◊〉 saying For from the rising of the 〈…〉 the going down of the sâ—â—e my name is glorified among the nations in euery place 〈◊〉
beloued flye from the honouring of Idols Afterward following he sheweth to what sacrifice they ought to appertein saying I speak as vnto wise men iudge what I say is not the cup of blessing which we blesse a communication of the bloud of Christ and is not the bread which we breake a communication of the bodie of our Lord In this saying after the worde altar he hath gelded out thus much Ideo quippe addidit carnaliter vel secundùm carnem quia est Israel spiritualiter vel secundùm spiritum qui veteres vmbras iam non sequitur sed eam consequentem quae his vmbris praecedentibus significata est veritatem For therfore he added carnally or after the flesh because there is a Israel spiritually or according to the spirite which doth not now followe the olde shadowes but the trueth following which was signified by those shadowes All this is left out of the very middest From the end he cutteth of these wordes following Quia vnus panis vnum corpus multi sumus omnes enim de vno pane participamus Et propter hoc subiunxit videte Israel secundùm carnem nonne qui de sacrificijs manducant socij sunt altaris vt intelligerent ita se iam socios esse corporis Christi quemadmodum illi socij sunt altaris Because there is one bread and we beeing many are one bodie for we are all partakers of one bread And for this cause he added Behold Israel according to the flesh are not they which eate of the sacrifices fellowes or partakers of the altar That they might vnderstand that they are now so fellowes or partakers of the bodie of Christe as those are partakers of the altar What can be saide more playne for the spirituall manner of participation of the bodie of Christe Except M. Heskins will say that the Iewes were really corporally and substantially partakers of the altar And this is conteined in the first booke Cap. 19. And wheras M. Hesk. iangleth of the sacrifice mentioned in this place heare what sacrifice it may be by Augustines owne wordes in the 18. Chapter of the same booke Sed nec laudibus nostris eget c. But neither hath he need of our prayses but as it is profitable for vs and not for him that we offer sacrifice to God and because the bloud of Christe is shed for vs in that singular and onely true sacrifice therefore in those first times God commanded the sacrifices of immaculate beastes to be offered vnto him to prophecie this sacrifice by such significations that as they were imaculate from faults of their bodies so he should be hoped to be offered for vs who alone was immaculate frō sins Here the sacrifice of death is the singular sacrifice the only true sacrifice propitiatorie of the Church otherwise for the sacrifice of praise and thankesgiuing or for the sacrament to be called vnproperly a sacrifice of the auncient fathers I haue often confessed before As for Damascenes authoritie li. 4. Ca. 14. it is not worth the aunswering being a late writer more then 100. yeares out of the compasse and full of grosse absurdities and in the place by M. Hesk. alledged denyeth that Basill calleth breade wine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or exemplaria exemplaries of the bodie and bloud of Christ after the consecration which is an impudent lye for before the consecration they are no sacraments and so no exemplars of the bodie and bloud of Christe therefore if he called them exemplars it must needs be when they are sacraments that is after consecration but such lippes such lettyce he is a sufficient author for M. Heskins and yet hee is directly against transubstantiation For he saith cum sit mos hominum edere panem bibere vinum ijs rebus adiunxit suam diuinitatem whereas it is the manner of men to eate beead and drinke wine hee hath ioyned his diuinitie to these things In these words he acknowledgeth the bread and wine to remaine in the sacrament the diuinitie of Christ to bee ioyned to them The nynteenth Chapter continueth the exposition of the same text by Isidore Oecumenius M. Hesk. hath many friends in the lower house as hee hath neuer a one in the vpper house that fauoureth his bil Yet Isidorus saith litle for him but rather against him He citeth him lib. 1. offic Cap. 18. Panis c. The bread which we breake is the bodie of Christ which sayth I am the bread of life which came downe from heauen and the wine is his bloud and this is it that is written I am the true vine M. Hesk. saith truely that Isidore is the rather to be credited because he alledgeth the scripture and therefore according to these two textes of scripture he must be vnderstoode but neither of both these texts is to be vnderstood litterally but figuratiuely therefore his saying the breade is the bodie and the wine is his bloud must be vnderstood figuratiuely not litterally which M. Heskins perceiuing would help him out by foysting in a place of Cyrillus in Ioan. Annon conuenienter c May it not be conueniently sayde that his humanitie is the vine we the branches because wee be all of the same nature For the vine the branches be of the same nature So both spiritually corporally wee are the braunches and Christ is the vine In these wordes Cyrill reasoneth against an Arrian as is more at large declared in the sixth Chapter of this third booke that would interpret this place only of the diuinitie of Christe to make him lesse then his father as the vine is subiect to the husbandman But Cyrill contendeth that it may well be vnderstoode also of his humanitie because we are not onely ioyned to the diuinitie of Christ but also to his flesh which is testifyed vnto vs by the sacrament wherin we are spiritually fedd with the verie bodie bloud of Christe and so Christe is the vine both spiritually corporally that is both after his godhead after his manhod But Cyrillus would neuer denie that this saying I am the true vine is a figuratiue speach which is the matter in controuersie betweene M. Hesk. and vs. Oecumenius is alledged to as litle purpose as Isidorus in 1. Cor. 10. Poculum vocat c. He calleth the cupp of the bloud of Christ the cupp of blessing which we blesse which hauing in our hands we blesse him which hath giuen vs his bloude Here is neuer a worde but I will willingly subscribe vnto it yet M. Hesk. sayth it is a common manner of speache that the vessel is named by the thing that it conteineth hee dare not say it is a figuratiue speach lest while he would haue the bloud of Christ locally conteined in the cupp he might be pressed with the figure in the worde bloud which he cannot denye though he dissemble in the word cupp In the end he braggeth of an euident
to doe that which Christ commanded to be done and to receiue that which he deliuered vs to be receiued if the particular explication of our faith will not satisfie M. Hes. at least let him after his owne Popish Diuinitie holde vs excused for our implicite faith or if his own principles can hold him no longer then he listeth let him giue vs leaue to esteeme none otherwise of them then he giueth vs example to do The seuen and thirtieth Chapter treateth of the oblation and sacrifice of the Masse as it was vsed of the Apostles and Fathers When not one of the Apostles or Euangelistes make one word mention either of Masse or sacrifice therein M. Heskins taketh vpon him much more then al the Papistes in the world can proue Concerning the Fathers as they vse the terme of sacrifice so I haue often shewed that they meane a sacrifice of thankesgiuing and not of propitiation or else they vse the name of sacrifice vnproperly for a memorial of the onely sacrifice of Christ which he once offered neuer to be repeated Neither do any of these Liturgies which M. Heskins calleth Masses though they be falsly ascribed to Saint Iames Saint Clement Saint Basil Saint Chrysostome c. shewe any other thing but manifestly the same that I haue saide First that which is falsly ascribed to Saint Iames in these wordes Memores c. Therefore we sinners being mindfull of his quickening passions of his healthfull crosse and death his buriall and resurrection from death the third day of his ascension into heauen and sitting at the right hand of thee ô God the father and of his second glorious and fearefull comming when he shall come with glory to iudge the quicke and the dead when he shall render to euery one according to his workes we offer vnto thee ô Lord this reuerend vnbloudie sacrifice praying that thou wilt not deale with vs according to our sinnes No reasonable man can vnderstand here any other but a sacrifice of thankesgiuing or prayer or a memoriall of the sacrifice of christ For he saith not we offer the body and bloud of Christe but being mindfull of his sufferings c. we offer this reuerend and vnbloudy sacrifice for such is the sacrifice of prayer and thankesgiuing The like and more plaine is that which is ascribed to Clemens by Nicholas Methon Memores igitur Therefore being mindfull of his passion death and resurrection returning into heauen and his second comming in which he shall come to iudge the quicke and the dead and to render to euery man according to his workes we offer vnto thee our king and God according to his institution this bread and this cup giuing thankes vnto thee by him that thou hast vouchsafed vs to stand before thee and to sacrifice vnto thee This is so plaine against M. Heskins for the oblation of Christes body and bloud c. that he is enforced to flee to shamefull petitions of principles the end of which is that this bread is no bread this cup is no cup but as Christe called bread in the 6. of Iohn and S. Paule in the 1. Cor. 10. 11. in exposition whereof lyeth all the controuersie That Liturgie which is intituled to S. Basil is yet more plaine for a spirituall oblation of thankesgiuing Memores ergo c. Therefore being mindfull ô Lord of his healthsome passions of his quickening crosse three dayes buriall resurrection from death ascension into heauen sitting at thy right hand ô God the father and of his glorious and terrible second presence we offer vnto thee tua ex tuis thy giftes of thy creatures M. Heskins saith he abhorreth not from the name of sacrifice as we do but he falsly belyeth vs for if he will looke in our Liturgie or communion booke he shall finde that we also offer a sacrifice of thankesgiuing euen our selues our soules and bodies as the Apostle exhorteth vs to be a holy liuely and acceptable sacrifice to god But he will not remember that the sacrifice he speaketh of is not the body and bloud of Christe but tua ex tuis thy creatures of thy giftes or thy gifts of thy creatures namely the bread and wine which also after consecration he prayeth to be sanctified by Gods holy spirite but the body of Christe hath no neede of such sanctification Secondly he noteth not that his Basil maketh but two presences of Christe in the worlde the first when hee liued in humilitie in the the world the second which shall be terrible and glorious by which he doth manifestly exclude the third imagined presence of Christ in the sacrament To the same effect prayeth the Priest in the other Liturgie ascribed to Chrysostome Memores c. Therefore being mindfull of this wholesome commaundement and of all those things which are done for vs of his crosse buriall resurrection ascension into heauen sitting at the right hand of his second and glorious comming againe we offer vnto thee tua ex tuis thy giftes of thy creatures Maister Heskins saith he will not seeke the deapth of this matter but only declare that al these fathers did offer sacrifice In which words he mocketh his readers egregiously whereas he should proue that they offered the body and bloud of Christe to be a propitiatorie sacrifice and that he proueth neuer a whit Nowe that the meaning of that Liturgie was not to offer Christ in sacrifice this prayer therein vsed before the words of coÌ„secration as they terme it doth sufficieÌ„tly declare 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 O Lord receiue this sacrifice vnto thine heauenly altar So that it is manifest they called the bread wine a sacrifice not the body bloud of christ The like is that of Ambrose The Priest saith Therefore being mindfull of his most glorious passion resurrection from death and ascension into heauen we offer vnto thee this vndefiled sacrifice this reasonable sacrifice this vnbloudy sacrifice this holy bread and cup of eternall life This vndefiled sacrifice saith M. Heskins must needes be the body and bloud of Christe for else there is nothing vndefiled that a man can offer But why may it not be as Ambrose calleth it here the holy bread and cup of the communion or as he calleth it a little before in the same place the figure of the body bloud of Christ For the bread and the wine which vnproperly he calleth a sacrifice in steede of a memoriall of a sacrifice in that they be the holy sacraments of Christes body and bloud are holy vndefiled and the foode of eternal life The same Ambrose called the soule of his brother an innocent sacrifice and offered the same to God in his prayer De obiâ—â— fratris c. To conclude not one of all these Liturgies no not the Canon of the Masse it selfe saith that the body of Christe is the sacrifice that they do offer or that they offer a propitiatorie sacrifice or that they offer any other but a
were of weight or the corruption of the time in which he liued vnknowen there is nothing in this saying which might not easily and without any wresting be referred to the spirituall sacrifices to the spirituall manner of sacrificing the body and bloud of Christ which we haue learned out of the elder fathers The seuen and thirtieth Chapter maketh a brieefe recapitulation of thinges before written with the application of them to the proclamation of the aduersarie and so concludeth the first booke It were but vaine labour especially for me that professe such breuitie to repeate the answers and declarations made before that not one of these Lordes of the higher house whom he nameth fauoureth his bill of the carnall presence or the sacrifice of the masse in such sense as he and his fellowes take it But whereas he is so loftie once againe to ioyne issue with the proclaymer that as he hath done alwayes hitherto vpon the negatiue I will not refuse him And yet by the way I must admonish the Reader how vnreasonably he dealeth that ioyneth all his issues vpon the negatiue whiche sometime is harde sometime is vnpossible to be proued whereas the Bishop whom he calleth the proclaimer ioyneth issue with them vpon the affirmatiue which if euer it was holden is more probable to finde proofe in antiquitie Whereas if I might haue libertie to ioyne vpon the negatiue I would bring in fiue hundreth propositions that are false and yet neuer a one expressely denied of the olde writers because there neuer happened any controuersie aboute suche matters in their times But to his issue If he can bring any one sufficient authoritie that shall directly say that the Church may not offer the body of Christ in such sorte as it doeth I will giue him the victorie First here he reiecteth the authoritie of the Apostle to the Hebrues saying it is but wrested which is as direct as nothing in the worlde can be more direct that Christ offered himselfe and that but once and by that one oblation hath made perfect for euer them that are sanctified But he shal heare Chrysostome vpon the same scripture Hebr. 10. Aufer◠primum vt sequens statuat c. He taketh away the former that he might establish that whiche followeth Beholde againe the aboundance This sacrifice sayeth he is but one but those sacrifices are many for therefore they were not strong because they were many But tell me what need is there of many when one is sufficient Therefore whereas they were many and alwayes offered he sheweth that they were neuer purged For as a medicine when it is strong and effectuall to giue health and able to driue away all sicknesse being but once laide to worketh the whole at once If therfore being but once laide to it hath wrought the whole it sheweth the vertue thereof in that it is not laid to any more this is the effect of it that it is laid on no more but once But if it be always laid to it is a manifest token that it preuailed nothing For this is the vertue of that medicine that it is but once laid on and not oftentimes euen so in this case By what meanes were they always healed by the same sacrifices For if they had ben deliuered from al their sins there should not haue bene offered sacrifice throughout euery day For they were appointed that they should be always offred for al the people both at euening in the day Therfore that was an accusation of sinns not a discharge for ther was made an accusatiō of weaknes not a shewing of strength For bicause the first sacrifice was of no force the second was likewise offered bicause that also profited nothing an other was offered also wherefore this is but a conuiction of sinnes For in that they were offered there is a conuiction of sinnes but in that they were always offred there is a conuiction of infirmitie But contrariwise in Christ the sacrifice was but once offered For what neede was there of medicines when there is no more wounds remaining For this cause you wil say he cōmanded that it should always be offered bicause of infirmitie that there might be also a remēbrance of sinnes What then do we◠Doe we not offer euery day we offer truely but for a remembraunce which we make of his death and this is but one sacrifice not many Howe is it one and not many Bicause it was offered but once and it was offered in the holy of holies but this sacrifice is an exemplar of that we offer the same alwayes For we do not nowe offer one lamb to morrowe an other but the same thing alwayes Therfore this sacrifice is but one For else by this reason bicause it is offred in many places are ther many Christs No but one Christ is euery where both here being perfect and there being perfect euen one body For as he which is euery where is one bodie and not many bodies so also it is one sacrifice And hee is our highe Priest which offered the sacrifice which purged vs the same do we also offer nowe which then truely being offered can not be consumed Howbeit that which we doe nowe is done truely in the remembraunce of that which was done then For this do ye saith he in remembraunce of me We make not an other sacrifice as the high Priest but alwayes the same but rather we worke the remembrance of the same This place of Chrysostome sheweth both that the Church neither doth nor may offer the body of Christ in such sort as the Papistes say that is really and carnally and for the sinnes of the quicke and the dead and also howe the Church is saide to offer the sacrifice of Christes body namely when she celebrateth the remembrance thereof After this holy issue ioyned M. Heskins rayleth vpon Cranmer which in his first booke hath not one Doctour or Counsel to alledge but only a litle false descant vpon a scripture or two as the proclamer in his Sermon What reading Cranmer and Iewell were able to shewe in the Doctours and Counsels is so well testified by their owne learned workes vnto the world that it can not by such an obscure doctour as M. Hesk. is be blemished or darkned But M. Heskins hath such store of testimonies for the sacrifice of the Masse to proue that Christ is offred therin that beside those which he hath alredy cited he wil ad three or foure to this recapitulation First he nameth Iustinus Martyr in his dialogue against the Iewes Where he alledgeth his wordes truncatly leauing out the beginning ▪ which declareth that Iustine maketh all Christians Priestes and offerers of the sacrifice of thankesgiuing in the celebration of the Lordes supper His wordes are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euen so we which by the name of Iesusas al shal be one man in God the maker of al things hauing put off our
with the hart although the eyes eares handes and tong were occupied about the sacrament thereof After M. Heskins noteth that Chrysostome in the place by him cited calleth the sacrament a sacrifice so doth he an hundreth times elsewhere but that proueth not a propitiatorie sacrifice but rather a memory of Christes only sacrifice as he teacheth himself In Ep. ad Heb. Ca. 10. Hom. 17. And here he taketh vpon him to refute the rule of Cranmer or of him that set forth the book in his name as though that learned father was not able to set forth his booke himselfe as wel as this blind buzzard Heskins who hath nothing in effect but that he hath stolne out of Gardiners M. Constantius But let vs heare this wise refutation A sacrifice of thanksgiuing saith he is not receiued of vs but giuen from vs to God. No more is any sacrifice in that it is a sacrifice O the vnlearned confuter of so learned a fathers rule yet that which is receiued is called a sacrifice in respect that it hath bene offered So was the sacrament of the old writers called a sacrifice vnproperly because it was a memorial of the only sacrifice of Christ once offered by him self in respect of that action of the administration which is a sacrifice of thanksgiuing therefore of them was called Eucharistia a thanksgiuing Another reason to proue it no gratulatorie sacrifice is because he calleth it a wonderful sacrifice but thanksgiuing is but an ordinarie duetie Shore vp your drousie eyes M. Hesk. you shal see he calleth it a holie sacrifice so the sacrifice of thanksgiuing He calleth it not a wonderfull sacrifice but a wonderful mysterie except mysterie sacrifice be al one with you but if he had called it a wonderful sacrifice as else where he calleth it a fearfull or terrible sacrifice doth that proue it to be no sacrifice of thankesgiuing Hee calleth it fearful terrible reuerende wonderful in respect of the diuine working of our sauiour Christ to make vs partakers of his bodi bloud by receiuing these outward creatures worthily according to his appointment as for the names I haue answered before they proue no sacrifice propitiatorie But now at leÌ„gth M. Hes. hauing builded on this place of Paule Chrysost. which deny the partaking of the bodie bloud of Christ to them that are made partakers of the table of diuels or otherwise be wicked men giueth S. Paul Chryso a new interpretation S. Paul saith he doth not absolutely deny but conditionally saying that men cannot be partakers of the Lords table of the table of diuels that is that thei ought not so that ye cannot ye ought not is al one with M. Hesk. for ye cannot sayth he if you do wel But thinketh this grosse expositor to escape with this glose I aske him whether light darknes can agree whether Christ Belial can haue any felowship Be these negatiues absolutly or coÌ„ditionally Is it now otherwise to be taken but light and darknesse ought not to agree or cannot agree if they do well Christ Belial ought not to agree or cannot agree if they do well O blinde interpreter or rather shamefull peruerter of the streight wayes of the Lord. You see in despite of the diuell the Popishe doctrine of the wicked receiuing Christ manifestly borne downe by the authoritie of Gods worde and of the auncient fathers and consequently transubstantiation layde in the dust And yet this arrogant expounder as though hee had found out a sworde to cutt in sunder this Gordian knot with like madnesse runneth at Origens saying which he will not vouchsafe to quote least any man shoulde reade it to his shame and ouerthrow of his popish transsubstantiation But it is written in Math. cap. 15. Multa pâ—rro c. Many things may be sayd also of the WORDE him selfe that was made fleshe and verie meate whome whosoeuer shall eate shall loue for euer which no euil man can eate Firste as he hath learned of brazen faced Gardiner he will not certeinly admitt that worke to be Origens which is an impudent shifte when none of them can alledge anye reason why they shoulde doubt of it Secondly he heweth at it with his leaden sworde saying an euil man can not eat of it to his profite but yet hee may eate of it But it followeth in Origen immediately Etenim si fieri posset vt qui malus adhuc perseuerat edat verbum factum carnem cum sit verbum panis viuus nequaquam scriptum fuisset Quisquis ederic panem hunc viuet in aeternum For if it were possible that hee which as yet continueth an euill man shoulde eat the worde made fleshe seing he is the worde and the breade of life it had not beene written whosoeuer shall eate of this breade shall liue for euer Here Origen sayeth that no man can eate him but hee must take profit by him so the knott is too harde for Master Heskins wodden dagger to cleaue a sunder For as hee himselfe concludeth betwixt God and Beliall is none agreement neither can Dagon stand in the presence of the Arke and much lesse wickednesse where Christ is receiued for he is the bread of life reiected of the wicked but cause of eternall life to all that receiue him The one and thirtieth Chapter endeth the exposition of this text by Theophylact and Anselmus I had thought to haue sayed nothing of these late writers but that Maister Heskins will make Theophylact so auncient as to be three hundred yeres elder then Anselmus which was Archbishop of Caunterburie almoste 500. yeres agoe so that Theophylact shoulde be neere 800. yeres olde But to confute his impudencie Firste you must vnderstande that the Bulgars of whom he was Bishop were not conuerted to the faith before the yeare of Christe 865. and after their first conuersion they agreed with the church of Rome but in processe of time they forsooke the church of Rome and ioyned with the church of Constantinople After this Theophylact was there bishop and although the histories bee not certeine what time he liued yet it must needs be gathered to be when the contention was hote betweene the Greekes Romanes about the proceeding of the holie Ghost because that in his exposition vpon the thirde of Iohn hee inueygheth against the church of Rome defending the Greekes about the proceeding of the holie Ghoste and this was about the yeare of Christ 1049 when Berengarius liued and reproued the church of Rome for the carnall presence that then or not long before was begon to be grossely defended But the chiefe matter he gathereth out of Anselme is that he expoundeth the table in Saint Paule for an altare whereupon Maister Heskins will make a discourse of Altares and proue the vse of them euen from the Apostles times And firste he beginneth with Dionyse the disciple of S. Paule Eccl. Hier. part 3. Cap. 3. Sed
consecrate the quickening body or else it can not be called a Masse which is nothing like to Maister Heskins seruice Lib. 4. dist 13. In the end he will ioyne issue with the proclamer that no Catholique euer thought that Christes body was caried into heauen by an Angell And it seemeth plainly that they are all ashamed of the grosse absurdities and blasphemies of their Masse and therefore are forced to feigne meanings and interpretations which are cleane contrarie to the wordes thereof The trueth is that these and some other prayers of their Canon were vsed in the Romane Church before the opinion of transubstantiation carnall presence or propitiatorie sacrifice of the Masse were receiued and this is the cause that being nowe applyed to these monstruous errours they imploy such detestable blashemies as all the Papistes in the world are ashamed to heare of and not able to defend whereas before these errours receiued some of them were good prayers some were tolerable The nine thirtieth Chapter treateth of the value of the Masâ—â— to the quicke and the dead Prayer for the dead beeing an auncient errour Maister Heskins triumpheth out of measure that he findeth some spottes thereof in the auncient writers bookes But there is great difference betweene praying for the dead which is an errour rising of superstition and infidelitie and offring the bodie of Christe in sacrifice for the dead which is a most horrible blaspheming Therefore he doeth maliciously wrest such thinges as are spoken of prayer for the dead or the sacrifice of prayer for the dead yea and sometimes the sacrifice of thanksgiuing for the dead to the oblation of CHRISTE for the dead Thus he abuseth first all the liturgies falsely ascribed to Saint Iame Basil Chrysostome Which as we haue proued before pretended not to offer Christes body in sacrifice and therfore offred it not for the dead although they offer prayers for the dead And here it is to be noted that Clementes liturgie forsaketh him for prayer for the dead or else we should surely haue heard of him as we did before He would get credite to that whiche is vntruely ascribed to Saint Iames by the proclaymers testimonie because he saide it was full of knowledge and full of errours also When Dionysius can say nothing for him concerning the sacrifice of the Masse to be auaileable for the dead he bringeth him in speaking of prayers made for the partie deceassed at his buriall Concerning the antiquitie of this Dionysius we haue shewed before that he cannot be so olde by sixe hundreth yeares as the Papistes would make him That the Apostles taught not prayer for the dead in their writinges he saith the cause was that they needed not for that the Iewes vsed both prayer sacrifice for the dead before Christes comming â–ª by testimonie of the Booke of Machabees which he sayeth S. Augustine alloweth canonicall and by witnesse of one Antonie Margarita a late conuerted Iewe to Papistrie Touching the veritie of that historie of the Machabees though Augustine allowe it to be read so it be soberly yet doeth not he take it for Canonicall and Hierome vtterly denieth it for Canonicall Expreâ—at in Prouerb But for as much as this controuersie of praying for the dead is vnpertinent to this cause and requireth a larger discourse then the answere to this Chapter may conteine also that Maister Heskins in the end ioyneth issue and maketh a newe challenge I thinke it best to referre the Readers to mine answere against Maister Allens Booke of Purgatorie where he shall finde all those and a number more of places alledged and answered both touching prayers for the dead and the sacrifice of the Masse to be auaileable to the dead in the same also is some treatie of prayer vnto dead Saintes In the meane season this is sufficient against all mans authoritie that the worde of God prescribeth neither the one nor the other but condemneth them both for what so euer is not of faith is sin and whatsoeuer is not of the word of God is not of faith therfore prayers for the dead and to the dead beeing not of the worde of God are sinne Neither were they vsed in the Church more then an hundreth yeres after christ And the first that maketh mention of any praiers for the dead which is the elder errour by two or three hundreth yeres is Tertullian wheÌ„ he was an heretike who had receiued it with other heresies of the Montanistes who were two hundreth yeares after Christ notwithstanding that Epiphanius Augustine number it among the errours of Arrius that he denied prayers for the dead yet they both do also number it for one of the heresies of the Heracleonites to redeeme their dead with inuocations and other ceremonies vsed at their buriall How M. Heskins falsifieth the councel of Carthage which made a decree that such as denied to pay the oblations of the dead should be excommunicated as murtherers of the poore I shall not neede to rehearse vnderstanding dead mens legacies for the vse of the poore for Masses saide for the dead The same doeth M. Allen with this and other councels Likewise M. Heskins falsifieth Cyprian De Cerna Dom In huius praesentia non superuacuè in endicant lachrymae veniam nec vnquam patitur contriti cordis holocaustum repulsam In presence of him teares do neuer begge pardon in vain neither doeth the sacrifice of a contrite heart euer suffer repulse Here doth he translate Huius of this sacrifice and applyeth it to the sacrifice of the Masse for the dead whereas there is not one worde in all that sermon either of prayer or sacrifice for the dead But leauing this argument of praying and offering for the dead M. Heskins chargeth the the proclaimer with three vntrueths in one sentence where he saide that Saint Iames in his Masse preached and set foorth the death of Christ but the Papistes in their Masse haue onely a number of dumbe geastures and ceremonies which they themselues vnderstande not and make no manner mention of Christes death To the first he answereth that they haue all thinges that S. Iames had in his Masse by the proclaymers confessioÌ„ who diuideth their Masse into holie prayer holie doctrine holy consecration holy receiuing See the impudent quarrelling of this froward sophister The Bishop saith the Papistes diuide their Masse into these partes therfore he acknowledgeth their Masse to consist of these partes and yet all these are but dumbe gestures and ceremonies because the people vnderstand none of them were they neuer so good as a great parte of them is starke naught To the second he saith that they them selues vnderstand not their owne gestures and ceremonies he sayeth that diuerse writers haue expounded euerie parcell of them as Isidorus Rabanus Hugo Hoffnester Garetius and others he leaueth out Bonauentur and Durandus the cheefe belike beeing ashamed of their ridiculous interpretations But admitte these things to be set foorth in bookes doth
celebration of the communion an oblation or sacrifice of the bodie and blood of christ It is great leudenesse and deceiptfulnes to vrge the termes vsed by the doctors and to refuse their meaning sufficiently expressed in diuers places of their writings SECTIO 17. in the 64. leafe Whereas the bishop saith it is Christ which presenteth â—s and maketh vs a sweet oblation in the sight of his father M. Rastell denyeth that it followeth not that the priest offereth not Christ because Saint Augustine saith de ciuit dei lib. 10. cap. 20. that as the church is offered by Christ so Christ is offered by the Church But that which Augustine maketh here common to al the Church maister Rastel restreineth to his popish priests And although Augustine in the same place expounde himselfe sufficiently when he saith the daily sacrifice of the church is a sacrament of the oblation of Christ yet in Cap. 5. of the same book he speaketh most plainely Sacrificium ergo visibile inuisibilis sacrificij sacramentum id est sacrum signum est Therefore the visible sacrifice is a sacrament that is to say an holy signe of the inuisible sacrifie What can bee saide more plainly concerning his meaning by the terme of sacrifice SECTIO 18. From the first face of the 65. leafe to the ende of the 67. leafe The blasphemous prayers of the Popishe Canon which desireth God to accept the body of his sonne as he did accept the sacrifice of Abel and of Melchisedech he excuseth by vehemency of deuotion and by the vnworthines of the offerer as though either of both should be the cause why Christs body should not be acceptable of it selfe Last of all he flyeth to the example of the figuratiue speaches vsed by the holy ghost in the Psalmes and canticles as where God is saide to sleepe to awake as giant refreshed from his wine yea to the rethoricall figures vsed by men as he saith by Bernard Bonauentur Gregorie in the hymmes of the church which he matcheth vnfitly with the holy scriptures But how will he make this prayer a figuratiue speach that it may be excused by any such example For seeing he will admit no figure in the word body or oblation the other wordes are plaine without figure God to accept the sacrifice of Abel c. SECTIO 19. From the 68. leafe to the seconde face of the 69. leafe The foolish prayer of the Canon that an Angel should carie away the body of Christ he defendeth to be meant after a spirituall manner caueleth of the bishops translating of perferri to be caried away which signifieth to be caried vp which is a toy to mocke an Ape for neither doth the bishop talke of Angels backes such other bables as M. Rastel deliteth to prate of but of the fond absurditie of the Papistes which imagine the ministerie of Angels necessarie for the carying of Christs body or as he saith excusing the matter for the acceptacioÌ„ of their sacrifice But in very deede this prayer being taken out of the old liturgies wherein they desired not the sacrament but their sacrifice of praise and thankesgiuing to be presented to God by the ministery of Angels is so absurde when it is applyed to the transubstantiated body that it can haue no reasonable sense as it had in the liturgie cited by S. Ambrose and other old liturgies where the like prayer is made for their sacrifice but they beleued not their sacrifice to be the very natural body of Christ as the Papists say they doe SECTIO 20. in the 69 leafe Where the bishop giueth ouer to speak further of the Canon maister Rastel saith it was because he had no mater against it but his owne misunderstanding But what matter he had howe well hee hath mainteined it his aunsweres to maister Harding sufficiently declare SECTIO 21. in the 70. leafe Against adoration of the sacrament he saith we haue no arguments at al but such as may serue for ouerthrow of all orders in the Church In deede these argumentes may well and worthily serue to ouerthrow all plantes not planted by christ For why may not one hatchet serue to cut downe an hundreth fruitlesse and hurtfull trees SECTIO 22. in the same leafe to the second face of the 71. leafe That Christ gaue no commaundement of adoration he saith it is no sufficient reason first because we must not condemne all voluntary seruice of God which is without his commaundement Then belike S. Paul was not well aduised when he condemned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is voluntarie worshippe of God without his commaundement Coll. 2. vers 23. And where as he cauilleth of them that worshipped our sauiour Christ in the fleshe I aunswere as many as acknowledged him to be the sonne of god knewe they had an expresse coÌ„mandemeÌ„t to worship him The rest reuerenced him as the prophet of god And whereas he saith like a protestant that an argument of authority negatiue is naught and protestant like I aunswere an argument of mans authoritie negatiue is naught but an argument of Gods authority negatiue I am content it be counted protestant like in as much as God hath expresly forbidden what so euer he hath not commaunded in his worship Deuter. 12. vers 32. Contrariwise to reason from the authoritie of men negatiuely is Papistlike and the best argument they haue for many things as if they be asked why say they not masse in englishe they will answere because the Church hath not commanded them Why doe you not giue the communion to Infants Maister Rastel saith in this booke because the Church doth not commaund it Why doth not the priest weare his chisible other vestments at euen song Because the church hath not commaunded it But maister Rastel saith Christ hauing said the sacrament to be his body needed not to commaunde the same to bee worshippid no more then the king when he speaketh to the Lords in the darke needeth to bid theÌ„ put of their caps A dark example for such an obscure argumeÌ„t But when will he proue that Christ is the same in the sacrament that the king is in the darke for remoue the darke the king is seene but take away the accidentes of breade and wine by your owne schoolâ— doctrine and where is the bodie of Christ SECTIO 23. From the seconde face of the 71. leafe to the 2. face of the 72. leafe He decideth the argument taken out of the authoritie of saint Paule negatiuely who declareth the whole institution of Christ and neuer willed adoration to be vsed to the sacrament And asketh whether S. Paul command vs to stand kneele lye or fit to tumble leane vpon brest or elbowes I aunswere whatsoeuer of these gestures is decent orderly he hath appointed the other he hath forbidden And yet the protestantes logike which hee doth so delicately contemne is not so simple
the first that had it in estimation although afterward it grew to be esteemed of good Christians by a corrupt emulation To the 3. that visiting of Saints tombes and kissing their reliques after the Popish manner was thought to be a superstitious vanitie is proued by the Epistle of the Smyrnenses to the Phylomilienses Euseb. Lib. 4. Cap. 16. Wherein they shew that the Gentiles and Iewes thought best to burne the bodie of Policarpus least the Christians should leaue Christ and begin to worship him and therefore they watched the Christians least they should take his bodie out of the fire Ignorantes nos nec vnquam c. beeing ignorant say they that we can neuer forsake Christ which suffered for all them that shall be saued of the worlde nor worship any other For him truly we adore as the sonne of God but the Martyrs we loue worthily as the Disciples and followers of our Lord for their inuincible loue towardes their King and Maister of whoÌ„ we wish our selfes to be made companions and Disciples Therefore when the Centurian saw the contention of the Iewes they burned his bodie as their maner is being laid in the midst and so at the length we got his bones more precious then precious stones better tried then gold buried theÌ„ where it was meet where also as neere as may be being assembled the Lorde shall graunt vs with ioye and gladdenesse to celebrate his Martyrs byrth day â–ª both to the remembraunce of them that haue fought alreadie and for the exercise and preparation of them that shall fight hereafter Such reuerent burning therfore of their dead corpses laying vp of their reliques as is of loue not of superstition we condeÌ„ne not But such as the papists vsed of their reliques they learned of the heretikes Osseni which as Epiphanius writeth tooke the spittle and other fylthines of the bodies of Marthys and Marthana whom they took for saintes and vsed them for helpe of diseases as the papists did with the snottie napkins of Thomas Becket such a saint as they were And that they should not obiect that some haue done as they doe S. Augustine De moribus eccles Cath. lib. 1. cap 34. Thus writeth Nolite mihi colligere professores nominis Christiani neque professionis suae vim aut scientet aut exhibentes Nolite consectari turbas imperitorum qui vel in ipsa vera religione superstitiosi sunt vel ita libidinibus dediti et obliti sint quid promiserint Deo. Noui multos esse sepulchrorum vt picturarum adoratores Gather not vnto me such professors of the name of Christ for example as neither know nor shewe forth the vertue of their profession Seeke not vp the multitudes of vnskilfull persons which ether in true religion it selfe are superstitious or else so giuen to their lustes that they haue forgotten what they haue promised to god I know there be many worshippers of tombes and pictures c. To the 4. that miracles worked at their chappelles or memorie among the heretikes as the papists be were attributed at the firste tydinges of them vnto the diuilles subtiltie is proued by S. Augustine who speaking of miracles wrought at such places saith De vnitate ecclesiae cap. 1â— Remoueantur ista vel figmenta mendacium hominum vel portenta faâ—lacium spirituum aut enim non sunt vera quae dicuntur aut si 〈◊〉 atiqua mirafacta sunt magis cauere debemus Away with these miracles which are either the forgeries of lying men or the wonders of deceiuing spirites for either chose things that are reported be not true or if any miracles of the heretike are wrought we ought so muche the more to take heede of you The fourth part conteineth 3. articles To the first that to praye for the soules departed was thought repugnaÌ„t to the scriptures is proued by this reason for that although it be an ancient errour yet was it not vsed of the Churche almost for 200. yeares after Christ and the first that we reade of in any authenticall writer that maketh mention of prayer for the deade was Tertulian when he was an heretike whiche learned it of Martianus who laide the firste foundation of purgatorie as appeareth in his booke De anima cap de infeâ—is To the seconde that to offer sacrifice and giue almes for their soules health was accompted impietie I aunswere as to the first vppon which it dependeth Origenes in Iob. lib. 3. sayeth that the Christians did celebrate the day of death Vtpote omnium dolorum depositionem as the layinge aside of all paine Likewise that they did keepe the memorie of their friendes departed as well reioysinge in their rest as prayinge for the lyke godly endinge in faith Also they called together the people with the Cleargie and especially the poore to their buriall feastes vt fiat festiuitas nostra in memoriam requiei defunctis animabus quarum memoriam celebramus nobis autem efficiatur in odorem suauitatis in conspectu aeterni Dei that our feastiuitie may bee made in remembraunce of the reste whiche is vnto the soules of them that are departed whose memorie we celebrate and to our selues into a sauoure of sweete smellinge in the sight of the eternall god This was the iudgement of the Greeke Churche in his time of suche assemblies prayers and almes as was vsed at the buryall of the deade or in remembraunce of them To the thirde that the last willes of founders of almes houses Colledges and monasteries were broken concerning their temporall goodes and legacies and that no part thereof did come to their owne blood and familie concerning almes houses and Colledges of learninge it neede not bee prooued for they are maintained by our doctrine Concerninge Monasteries there were none then but of suche as liued with their owne labours Neuerthelesse if anye legacie of anye founder were to mainetayne Idolatrie and false religion as there were manye of the Paganes whiche were founders of Idolatrous temples and Colledges lyke to the popishe monasteries it is certeine that either they were destroyed or else conuerted to better vses Now if Master Rastell thinke it to bee necessarie that their legacies shoulde be restored to their owne blood and familie vppon the dissolution of such houses hee might doe well to perswade a nomber of popishe gentlemen in Englande that enioye abbeies and their lands to make such restitution and when hee hath brought to passe that all which they haue is so restored wee will beginne likewise to exhort godly gentlemen to doe the like or rather to applye some part of them to the maintenance of learning and religion and to the sustentation of the poore After Maister Rastell hath earnestlye required the aunswere of these questions whiche haue bene so often aunswered in speciall treatises I meane so manye of them as wee maintaine with promise of submission if they be proued he desireth licence to rehearse the saying of Tertulian in his booke De