commemoration of it as they call it not the same but of an other sort D. Allen hath manifest words to that purpose making that which Christ did at his last supper and that of the masse now to be of an other sort of a different kinde from that of the Crosse Cap. 8. 9. 10. Allen de euch sacrif l. 2. c. 22. fol. 594. 596. Illa â—sse diuersi generis The oblation of him in the supper ours in the Masse 〈◊〉 but one oblation the same â—acrifice Hard art 17. f. 206. â— the fountaine referred to the fountaine or the same to the same For aunswering to our obiections that the same exceptions which serue S. Paul to the Hebrews against the Iewish sacrifices wil also serue against their sacrifice of the masse saith It is to be noted that it cannot be denied that the same opposition maie be almost set betweene the oblation of the supper the oblation of the Crosse since it is certaine they are of a diuers sore the one being an absolute indepeÌ„deÌ„t sacrifice the other commemoratiue significatine as were the Iewish sacrifices So againe faith he if any christian should bee in such an error as to thinke that the sacrifice of the Masse were an absolute independent sacrifice that it need not to bee referred to the fountaine of al sacrifices the death of Christ hee might be almost confuted by the same arguments of S. Paule how soeuer ours doe far exceed theirs This is plaine both against that of the supper and theirs in the Masse nether must the Rhemists any more in culcate that they offer the very selfe same body in number Annot. Heb. 10. v. 11. euen Christs owne body that was crucified except they wil make Christ inferiour to himselfe The Next vnto these before which I meane to bringe in Locor theol l. 11. fol. 427. a. is Melchior Canus a great scholler and an acute disputant He reproueth vs mightily because we gather si cucharistia exemplar image est non esse illam verâ— propriè sacrificium That if the Eucharist be a samplat and image it cannot properly truly be a sacrifice the collection saith he is very ridiculous for what can be more foolish then to say that the hosts of the old law were noe sacrifices because they were samplers of the true Cap. cum Mar de celeb miss And thervpon he telleth vs that Inuocentius the 3. Pope of that name doth laught at vs for such infereÌ„ces First touching Innocentius his authoritie cannot be much in this case because we knowe not that his definitiue sentence passed out of his chaire against vs in this point but only that he so wrot as a priuate man L. 6. c. 8. f. 205. because Canus himselfe telleth vs that Innocentius the 4. did make commentaries vpon the books called Decretalls if in them he wrot an error it is to bee imputed vnto him that he erred as a man not as a Pope And D. Harding by name refuseth this same Innocentius 3 Reioynder fo â—0 in the matter of al waightie matters the waightiest euen in the question of Consecration when it should be done saying what if Scotus Innocentius tertius doe thinke consecration to be done by other then our Lords wordes is not the catholike church agreed herein Thus we see a good matter if we wil The Catholik Church maie bee resolued with the Pope a good hearing in any point I hope aswell as in Consecration and therfore I hope they will not presse the Popes authoritie though hee bee against vs in this to haue the Eucharist the image the thing so make one thing both an image and the truth Indeed wee say with S Angustine Epist 23. ad Bonif. Epise If sacraments had not a liknesse and similitude of the things wherof they are sacraments properly and rightly they should not be called sacraments But if any thing become the same it hath not any liknesse to it any more but passeth wholy into that wherof it shoulde bee a liknesse Alioquin si eadem essent om nia iam non exemplaria di cerentur sed ipsae potius res de quib us agitur viderentur Cyp. in Symb. as saith S. Cyprian To come to the argument which he saith is foolishly gathered wil it please their wisdomes aswel to hear what fooles can saie further in defence of their folly as to controule without cause what they haue wel said we tel him that his example from the Iewish sacrifice coÌ„meth not neere where he would haue it reach For wil hee compare his sacrifice in this point with those of the law Theirs of the law did prefigure Christs sacrifice were true sacrifices in that kinde because they were truly and really done vpon slaine beastes whose blood was shed But were they so far forth true sacrifices that they were the same too vnto which they had relation Did the Preists in the law offer the same body that Christ offered as they say they doe in their Masse If they did not then for those to be granted to bee verie true sacrifices wil profit him nothing at al for his The Iewish sacrifices were also samplers for the perfect absolute sacrifice was not theÌ„ come but wherof should their Masse bee a sampler or remembrance since they sacrifice Christ present for that which is sacrificed must be present that which is represeÌ„ted and remembred is abseÌ„t Christs bodie being therfore represented in the Eucharist cannot bee then and there really offered And by this aunswere also the Rhemists are discharged whoe borrow Canus his argument who say that this Luc. for a commemoration cap. 22. v. 19. Masse of theirs is noe lesse a true sacrifice because it is commemoratiue of Christs passion then those of the olde testament were the lesse true because they were prefiguratiue of the same For those sacrifices were not the same sacrifice or thing wherof they were prefiguratiue noe more can their Masse being commemoratiue and though it were a sacrifice as they would haue it it could not bee the same thing wherof it is commemoratiue But come to Canus as to the rest for the manner of offering hee goeth backe to a mystery and to a figure In the Crosse saith he it is plaine the host was bloody and done without mysterie but in the aultar it is hid darkly mystically yet the same host is on the Crosse on the Aâ—… On the Crosse suffering In altari occultè mysticè obscondita Ibid fol. 436. b on the aultar hid in a mysterie â—…ce concludeth in the sacrifice of the Eucharist Christ is offered mystically vnbloodily therfore there is an host where in other sacraments there is none I speake properly saith hee for by a kinde of speech Baptisme also is somtime called an host Ibid. fol. 438. b And who euer called the Eucharist a sacrifice properly
the manner of doing because it is vnbloudy it is in the remembrance of it A real presence they and you are sure of but what Christ did at his last supper to force that real presence none of you know What he tooke what he blessed what he brake what he gaue whereof he spake wheÌ„ he said Take eate this is my body that you know not nor are ever able with al the wits you haue to explane In the Popes supremacie you do the like no man amongst you whatsoeuer is able to determine whether he claime his superioritie and rule iure divino by Gods Law yea or no because some of you say yea and some no or whether he may called vniversall bishop Stapleton denieth it Bellarmine alloweth it which shall we beleeue So that refusing our bookes if you wil but read your owne you shal content me Reade them fift them compare them if not with ours yet one with an other try whither I be an Impostor or if you finde them constant plaine and sincere follow theÌ„ on Gods name I wil neuer perswade you otherwise but if you perceiue them inconstant intricate and darke so that you vnderstand not their meaning think they may deceiue you thinke that their words in conference are more cunningly placed then their arguments are in disputation when they are driven to proue in the one they saie to you what they please and in the other they must proue what they can I do freely protest vnto you I impute not this to the disability of the men if they had a right cause in hand they could easily make it good but as Lactantius saide of Tully Lact. li. 2. c. 10 Haec non est Ciceronis culpa sed secta This is not Ciceroes fault but the sects whereof he was so that your Masters can bring their matters to no better passe in discourse is not their fault but the fault of the cause they haue in hand if it could bee done they could doe it And the same Lactantius noteth of the Heathen Lib. 2. c. 1. although in the course of their liues they would never acknowledge the only God or the God of the Christians But saith he if any necessity vrged them if any pestilence annoyed them tunc deum recordantur then they remember God ad Deum confugiunt they fly to God à Deo petitur auxilium they pray helpe at Gods hand Deus vt subveâ—iat oratur thee desire that God would succour them so is it with our aduersaries towards vs they beleeue vs not in the matter of the sacrament they detest our supper the presence we make Christ to haue Equidem statuere noÌ„ possum doleÌ„dum ne potius an ridendum puteÌ„ cum videâ—… graves doctos vt sibi videntur sapientes viros in tam miserandis errorum fluctibus volutari Lact. lib. 1 c 18. But come to discourse presse them hard with argument hold theÌ„ to it they fly their owne very words vse ours ours I say wherwith we expresse our mindes and cannot say any thing for themselues if they borrow not our language as by the discourse following shal be seene Pause vpon this and demand what they meane I caÌ„not determine whether I should more pittie them or laugh at them when I see such zealous men in their cause as they seeme to be so deeply pluÌ„ged in such miserable quavemires For neuer yet did I read any of your books but in on point or other there was disagreement froÌ„ others of the same side or the author contrarie to himselfe or adding or subtracting from the text which he medled with or in some answere or defence so grosse and childish that a weak maÌ„ might haue ouerthrowen him Or absolutly wheÌ„ the matter came to the vpshot said noe other then that which we haue said I wil not bee found in this impudently to belie anie of your writers with more then is to bee found in the verie pages of their bookes as your men deale by vs but what I laie vpon theÌ„ be ye sure there to finde it And although the whol course of this booke doe goe against you and your teachers in this kinde yet wil I giue here a tast of their dealing beefore hand which I purposly kept for this place because I would not heape vp al I could saie at once but sparse and let them fall here some there some the better to profit B. Iuells chaleng art 2. Hard. against the Bishop art 2. fol. 55. 56. One of the Articles wherof Bishop Juell contended with D Harding was that the Holie Communion for the space of 600. yeares after Christ was neuer ministred opeÌ„ly in the Church vnto the people vnder one kinde which is bread the cupp being takeÌ„ from them In discussing of which point D Harding graunteth that it was ministred in both kinds at Corinth as appeareth by S Paul and in sundrie other places saith he as wee finde most evidently in the writings of diuers ancient fathers Stapleton confesseth as much Retorne of vntruthes art 2. fol. 44. b. that S Paul and the primitiue Church vsed so to doe longe and manie yeares What is this but to grant the whole question so grow froÌ„ that which they tooke vpon them to iustifie For if S. Paul the primitiue Church vsed to minister it in both kinds longe and manie yeares together what is this but to saie as B. Iuell said The communion better theÌ„ the priuate Masse Hard. art 1. fol. 39. b the communion was neuer ministred openly to the people in one kinde for the space of 600. years after Christ The like doth D. Harding confesse for the priuate Masse for which he disputeth to iustifie the preists sole receauing Marie J denie not saith hee but that it were more commendable and more godly on the Churches part if many well disposed examined would be partakers of the blessed sacrament with the priest but though the clergie be worthilie blamed for negligence herein through which the people maie be thought to haue growen to this slacknesse and indeuotion yet notwithstanding this part of the Catholike religion remaineth sound and faultlesse Againe whether I can shew that a masse was said without companie present to receaue with the Priest that said it or no what skilleth it such particularities and specialties of a matter of fact were verie seldome recorded by writers of the first 600. yeares The priuate masse is now become a matter of small waight yet you saie the people receaue spiritually wheÌ„ they looke on receaue nothing Reioynder fol 210. This is more then a matter of smal waight as you said euen nowe by this the preists priuate masse makes the people haue a true communion Hard. art 1 fol. 28. Dor. art 4. fol. 97. Hard. cont Iuell art 1. fol. 34 b. for a priuat masse art 2. fo 64. for an haâ— communion Saund. de visib monar l. 7. fol.
669. for the priuate masse fol. 675. for an halfe communion Dureus resp Whitak rat 6. fol. 301. Ex Euseb eccles hist lib. 6. c. 44 in Greeke 36. in Latine and 43. in English Eckius enchir loc comm c. 15 fol. 156. If the Communion that is a companie receiueing together bee in that respect better then the priuate masse as M Harding himselfe saith where the Priest receaueth all the people gazing on and receaueing nothing which is the point which M Iewell blamed and the priuate masse be but a matter of small waight and a fact the Priests negligence causing the peoples slacknesse For shame leaue of to write in defence of it as also to make that a true Communion spiritual receauing whē the People stand by receaue nothing as both D. Harding M. Dormā doe Corporally the Preist spiritually the people saith he Then say I the people that receiue spiritually receiue the better for to receiue the flesh and bloud of Christ corporally they assigne to the wicked and reprobate such as Iudas spiritually they assigne only to the elect and godly But how are both these articles of private masse and halfe communion proued against B. Iuell and vs by one example of what a silly boy did giue to a sicke mā at his house in a case of necessity The boy because the Priest was sicke brought from him a little of the sacrament and gaue it the old man Do not these men lacke the practise of the Church for their warrant that wil obtrude such examples The story is to be read in Eusebius in Greeke Latine and English and therfore there can be no mystery in it except men desire to be abused What saith Eckius touching praier vnto Saints departed which doctrine is of great moment in the church of Rome Explicitè non est praecepta sanctorum invocatio in sacris literis The invocation of Saints departed is not expressed in the holy scriptures This inuocatiō of Saints cannot be proued net her by the old Testamēt nor by the newe Not in the old Testament saith he for the Iews were prone to Idololatry and vnder the Gospel it was not commanded least the Gētiles that were converted and beleeued should thinke they should bee brought againe to the worship of Earthly Gods Further saith he if the Apostles Evangelists had taught the Saints had bin to haue bin worshipped it would haue argued great arrogancy in thē as if they had sought renowne after death therfore the Apostles would not by the expresse scripture teach the calling vpon Saints Thus far Eckius Sessio 25. de inuocat The counsel of Trent doth not foūd it in the scriptures but bringeth it in by the window an other way by custome consent of Fathers which they do but pretend neither because they would not let go al their hold at once Saunders reakoneth this amongst other things to be the words of God De visib monarc l. 1. fol 12 Hoker Ecclespoll 1. par 13. The benefit of hauing diuines lawes written not his word written but his worde vnwritten If we in this age of the world be to trust to an vnwritten word I demaund to whom that was deliuered to be kept and preserued In the first age of the world as God gaue Laws to our Fathers without writing so hee gaue them memories which serued in steede of books the defects of that kinde of teaching being knowne vnto him he relieued it by often iterating of one thing by putting thē in minde of onething often After this grew the vse of writing as meanes more durable to preserue the laws of God from oblivion and corruption as the liues of men grew the more to be shortned therfore is Moses said to write al the words of God and vnto the Evangelist S. Iohn expresse Charge is giuen Scribe Exod. 24 4. Apoc. 1.11 14.13 Ioh. 20.30.31 write these things Againe Many other signes also did Iesus in the presence of his disciples which are not written in this booke but these things are written that yee might beleeue that Iesus is that Christ that Son of God So that if now after so much writing the ceasing of God to speake to the worlde but by writing we shal divert from his written worde to his vnwritten it wil be to turne the truth of God into a lie and to follow fables in steed of truth If this part of the doctrine of the Church of Rome in praying to Saints be without al warrāt of holy scripture as Eckius and Saunders do allow how much to blame are they Dureus Conf. Whi rat 1. f. 44 Cope dial 3. fol. 332. to the same purpose who would drawe a prescript rule from Christs owne words on the crosse when he cried Eli Eli My God my God why hast thou forsaken me saying that it was familiar to the faithful Iews to pray vnto Saints because they thought that Christ had called on Elias Is it not a miserable glosse that eateth out the bowels of the text If it were an vsual thing with the Iews to pray vnto Saints how said Eckius that the Iewes had it not in vse because they were prone to idololatry and to whom should they pray The fathers of the old testament saith he also were in Limbo in hel The Iews that said Christ called on Elias did deride mocke him so do the Papists abuse vs Matth. 27.47 that alleadge the holy scriptures to such purposes But into how many shapes wil they turne this one parcel of scripture and make it serue more waies thā one Saunders alleadgeth it for the service in an vnknowne tongue because the Iews seemed to mistake Christ De visib mon. l. 7. fo 679. for the seruice in an vnknowne tongue How neere that speech of Christ on the crosse commeth either in favour of praying to Saints or to the service in an vnknown tongue I wil not sticke even now to make themselues iudges The Doctrine of pardons hath brought no smal treasure to the church of Rome yet Alphonsus Alphons a Castro l. 8. verb. indulg Pardōs haue no ground either in antiquity or in the scriptures Polid. Virg. de invent rerum li. 8. c. 1. f. 614. reverēceth it but for new Against the error of denying pardons saith he I wil contend in few words because amongst al the things whereof we dispute in this work there is none that the holy scriptures haue lesse mentioned then pardons and wherof the ancient writers haue lesse spoken This report of Alphonsus doth Polidore Virgill confirme out of Fisher who was bishop of Rochester in these words No Divine doth at al doubt saith he whether there be purgatory but yet among the ancient fathers there is no mention at al of it or very seldome yea euen the Greekes to this day beleeue it not for so long as there was no care for purgatory nemo quaesivit indulgentias no
the questions they treat of they treat of al betweene the church of Rome and the church of England in the Masse sacrifice real presence service in a strange tongue halfe communion Popes supremacy worshipping of Images or in any difference else and shew me any apparant abuse of holy scripture or history contradiction each from other shift couler or devise to darken the truth in any of those points let it be in the least nature as those that I haue already will further shew in the booke following and I protest before God I wil fully giue over either to write or speak any thing against you Osey c. 8. 1. Cor. 14.20 Da domine vt te quem bene credendo con fiteor male viuendo nō denegem te quem strenuâ fide sequor ac tu negligentiae operibus non offendam Aug. Epist 111. but wil wholy apprehend your religion as consonant to the truth They that sow winde shall reape a storme Brethren be not children in vnderstanding but as concerning maliciousnes be children but in vnderstanding be men of a ripe age I beseech almightle God to make vs as wise as Serpents in prouiding the food of everlasting life to nourish our soules and as innocent as doues in doing ill that the corruptions of our liues doe not taint it From Tidworth the 1. of Nouember 1607. Iohn Panke THE NAMES OF THE POPISH Writers out of which this booke hath beene gathered 1 The third part of Thomas Aquinas summes with Caietans tracts annexed printed at Lions 1588. 2 The Sentences of Lumbard at Lions 1593. 3 The Trent counsell at Antwerpe 1596 4 The Romane Catechisme set out by the decree of the Tridentine counsell 1596. at Antwerpe 5 The Index Expurgatorius by the decree of the Tridētine counsell at Lions 1586. 6 The English Testament set out by the Colledge at Rhemes anno 1582. 7 Copes Dialogues at Antwerpe 1566. 8 Gregorie Martin against our authorised translatiōs at Rhemes 1582. 9 D. Allen of the sacraments at Antwerpe 1576. 10 Stapleton of Iustification against the protestants at Paris 1582. 11 Saunders visible monarchy at VVirceburge 1592. 12 Albertus Pyghius of eccle siasticall gouernment for the Popes Monarchie at Colen 1572. 13 Alphonsus â Castro against heresies 1534. 14 Tonstall b. of Durisme of the truth of the body and bloud of Christ in the Eucharist at Paris 1554. 15 Melchior Canus his diuinitie places at Colen 1585. 16 Hieronymus Torrensis gathered S. Aug. Confessions at Paris 1580. 17 Andradius defence of the Tridentine counsell at Colen 1580. 18 Another of Andradius in defener of the diuines of Colen against Kemnitius at Colen 1564. 19 Lodovicus Granatensis of a publike Communion at Colen 1586. 20 Eckius Enchiridion of common places at Colen 1600. 21 Genebrards Chronicles at Colen 1581. 22 Fasciculus Temporum 23 Polidorus virgilius of the first finders out of thinges at Franckford 1599. 24 Abdtas Bishop of Babylon writing the liues of the Apostles at Colen 1576. 25 The third tome of the Homeles of the anciēt fathers set out by the decree of the Trēt coūsel at Lions 1588 26 D. Hardings answere to B. Iuell chalenge at Antverpe 1565. 27 D. Hardings Reioynder to B. Iewells Replie 28 Dormans proofe of certaine articles denied by Mr. Iewell at Antwerpe 1564. 29 The returne of vntruthes by Stapleton against B. Iuells reply at Antwerpe 1566 30 A Catechisme by Laurence Vaux Bachelour of diuinitie an 1583. 31 VVilliam Reynolds against D. VVhitaker called a refutation of sundry reprehensions written at Rhemes and printed at Paris 1583. 32 Stephen Gardiner against B. Cranmer touching the sacrament called an explication and assertion of the true Catholike faith c. 33 Another of his called a detection of the deuils sophistrie anno 1546. 34 The fortresse of the faith by Stapleton annexed to Bedes history in english 35 Iohn Dureus his confutation of D. VVhitakers answere in the behalfe of Campian Paris 1582. 36 The disputations of Bellarmine against the Protestants in generall in 9. volumes reveiwed and acknowledged by the author at Ingolst adium by Adame Sartorius anno 1599. 37 Moditations on the my steries of the Rosary of the most blessed Virgin Marie translated into english 38 A popish supplication to the Kings Maiestie 1604. 39 Guicciardines historie in english by G. Fenton 40 A table in writing hand of a Catalogue of the Popes from Saint Peter hitherto 41 The firme foundation of Catholike religion translated by Pansfoote approued by Stapleton Antwerpe 1590. 42 Platina with Onuphrius annotations on the liues of the Popes at Louaine anno 1572. 43 Anastasius the Popes librarie keeper of the liues of the Popes at Magunce anno 1602. The Speakers Tuberius the Gent. Romannus the Scholler YOV knowe Romannus if so you remember that through a meere accident or rather a determination of God about Easter was 12. moneths you and I did meet when after some words of controuersie wee fell into a discourse touching my beeing abroad at that festiual time which occasioned some further matter touching a scruple in my mind then vttered vnto you my not receauing of the Communion neither then nor at anie time before Rom. Indeed Tuberius I remember it wel as also the summe of our talke at that time deliuered I hope I satisfied you in that point how necessarie to salvation it is for euerie Christian man to participate of the flesh and bloud of Christ in the sacrament of the supper so that for that matter I hope you need no farther lessons Tub. For the necessitie therof I am resolued but yet by the settling therof there is an orher question annexed to it which I am afraid wil bee noe lesse a maine barre vnto my conscience for not receauing now as that other was before of doubt whether I might receaue at all or not the former of the thinge this other of the beleife of the thinge For not to hide from you anie thinge which maie breed my disquiet but to acquaint you therwith since my last being with you I did light into other companie where talking of questions of saluatiō I related vnto them so much of our conference as touched the maine point of necessitie of receauing that sacrament and was told by them that I did verie wel in apprehending so hie a point in the worship seruice of God But when Irelated what manner of man you were in laying open vnto me what a sacrament was of the dignitie and worth of that sacrament and lesse that I had the while that I abstained and other instructions therto belonging as at the latter end you did they perceiued what you were and were noe lesse angry vvith me for attending you therin then offended with you for instructing mee that waie They called themselues Catholikes of others they are vsuà lly stiled Papists but whatsoeuer they be in name me thinkes their care ouer me is very good that I should enter the right waie touching my bee
leife in that sacrament Rom. Why what perceaued they by my wordes of that sacrament Tub. They take you to hold not Catholiklie of it neither as our Lord and sauiour jesus Christ did first institute it nor as the ancient times of 1500 yeares by Fathers counsels and Doctors did and therfore they wished mee to make a stand and pause before I ioined with you therin For you teach that they who receaue it at your hands receaue only a peece of bread One of Hardings slanders and a draught of wine not worth anie thing and so call it a sacrament of the Lords institution wheras he gaue his bodie his reall substantiall bodie so his disciples did eate him reallie and substantiallie and dranke his verie blood and to beleiue this is healthful holy religious and they that receaue it so receaue it as Christ instituted it and they who doe otherwise Rhem. I. Cor. 11. fol. 453. in fine paginae Magnus nuga tor magno co natu magnas nobis nugas parit receaue noe sacrament but prophane bread as they called it This they did saie of you then touching the difference betweene them and you in that question and that in all other things al antiquitie consent of al ages were for them nothing for you Rom I doubt not but they are verie bitterly eloquēt against vs when opportunitie is offered of a fit audience their tongues pens are miserablie valiant But me thinketh Tuberius you are remember that both Christ himselfe al ages and all Doctors counsells doe make for them against vs ordinary abilitie cannot comprehend this in so short time much like vnto a sillie gentlewoman with whom of late I talked also who being not aboue one quarter of a yeare from her freinds returned home with arguments as strong as yours in defence of her new obtained religion shee could talke what a good booke the Rhemists bible was she could saie the Scriptures were written in Greeke and Latine For the Rhemists testamēt For Hebrew Greeke I saie not that they did teach her so simply but simply she remēbred what they said Laur. Vaux bachelot of divinity in his catechisme ca. 3. taketh awaye the 2 commādemēt of grauen images insted of that teacheth them Greeke Written in latin by Gasper Loarte doctor of divinitie translate dinto english fol. 76. would haue vs beleiue contrary to that which the gospel expresseth and therfore people shold praie in latine naie she could distinguish betweene an Idoll and an Image obseruing that the second commandement was onlie directed against Grauen Idolls as she tearmed them and not against Grauen Images And yet nether before shee went nor now can she read english to such a method vvas she brought to too quickly to knowe what she said I doubt not but she had bin so instructed but not by M. Vaux for he to make sure worke hath taken that commandement wholy out of his catechisme as remouing a block as belike stādeth not in their waie which noe wise man will euer bestowe anie labour about recompencing his breuitie in that point in telling the vse of certaine Greeke words Latria Hyperdulia Dulia where a learner is taught to worshipp anie creature in heauen or earth and commit as he thinketh noe I dolatry but noe otherwise then if a grand theife should teach a puny to steale by precept and when hee had committed the fact that is had stolen in deed saie it were not the deed and so leaue him to the gallowes Or if it had bin her luck to haue bin schooled by him that composed the instructiōs and advertisements how to meditate the misteries of the Rosary hee would haue taught her a more compendious waie to haue defended it by or anie other point then by a distinction which is although the commandement forbid vs the worshipping of anie Image yet wel for our parts maie beleiue and doe otherwise For so hee saith plainlie in an other question though not of that waight yet of that clearnes where speaking al in honor of our blessed Virgin Mary doth not sticke to sale that our Lorde redeemer did presentlie after hee was risen vp visit his most holie mother vvhom we maie vvel beleiue to haue bin the first albeit in the Gospel there be noe mentiō made therof For saith he if as the Evangelist reporteth our Lord did Luc. 24. after he was risen vp appeare to S. Peter that had earst denied him whie should not wee beleiue that hee appeared first to his blessed mother that neuer denied him Here is a plaine lesson a graunt that the Scripture teacheth so and so yet vvee maie beleiue otherwise Thus as their affections lead them either to the things or persōs wherof they speak so doe they in their conceipts bend the course of their arguments Other amongst them ad those of the greatest doe referre this appearing of our Lord to Saint Peter De rom pont lib. 1. c. 20. fine for S. Peter aboue al the disciples reckoning it amongst his prerogatiues as Bellarmine whoe affirmeth that Christ rising appeared to S. Peter first of al his disciples confirming it by S. Lukes Gospel and the witnesse of S Ambrose who saith that of the men Christ appeared to Peter for before saith he Christ had appeared to Mary Magdalene and that he further confirmeth out of S. Paule howe that Christ rising the third daie was seene of Cephas and then of the Eleuen 1. Cor. 15. Abdias Apost hist l. 6. fol. 188. Hard. cont Iuell art 1. fo 25. Ei primum omnium vt Mariae Magdalenae Petro apparere voluit Reyn. confer with Hart c. 8. diu 2. Sutc. cont Bel. de rom pont l. 2. c. 6. Rhem. Marc. 16. v. 1. Mat. c. 28.1 afterward of more then 500. brethren and after to S Iames. On the other side Abdias described to be an ancient writer first Bishop of Babylō who was the Apostles scholler and saw our sauiour in flesh and was present at the passion and martirdome of S. Andrewe and S. Mathewe speaking in the honor of S. Iames doth saie that our Lord woulde appeare to him first of all as he did to Mary Magdalene and to Peter vvhich indignitie of these men against the Gospel graclesse exposing it vnto the worlde as vertue is not only taxed by our learned writers as being dealt iniuriously withal but their owne Rhemists both confesse according to the truth of the text that Christ appeared to Mary Magdalene Mary of Iames Salome called by S. Mathew the other Mary and acknowledge it by their note That she first before al other they next saw him after his resurrectiō But the Rhemists seeing the Scripture hath giuē this prerogatiue of appearing from Peter to the woemen will stretch hard but euen touching that some what in it shal be his prerogatiue for when the weomen are bidden to telis to the Disciples to Peter they
the counsell of Basil the vse of the cup was graÌ„ted to the BohemiaÌ„s because that custom was then amongst them Geneb Chronic l. 4. f. 1067 Hard. art 15 read the whol but especially fol. 195. Ibid. fol. 198. b Freder Staph. In Apol Mat. 7.6 Swine Doggs Hard. Reioind fol. 63. Diuis 7. fol. 14. but they forbid the vse of part of the sacraments without their leaue For the same Doctor in other places of his workes avoucheth the Church hath libertie to take away the vse of wine in the administration of the Lords supper from you of the Laitie and to restore it againe vpon their liking considerations And in an other Article he limitteth you so that you shal not reade the holy bible without licence and leaue obtained beecause as hee saith God by speciall prouidence kept the vulgar people of the Iewes from reading the old testament That precious stones should not be cast before swire that is to say such as be not called therto as being for their vnreuerent curiosity impure life vnworthy Staphilus an other of that side commended by D Harding for a man of execllent learning on of the Emperours couÌ„sell that then was did not sticke likwise to abuse a place of scripture to that purpose Giue not that which is holy vnto dogges so by D. Harding the Laitie are accounted Swine and by Staphilus Doggs In which respect D. Hardinge needed not in his Reioynder to haue charged the reuerend Bishop his adversary for reporting his words falsly dishonestly as hee saith hee doth when in the first article of the reply the Bishop hauing said that by some of them that is of that side the common people are said to be Doggs Swine quoting the 15. article fol. 155. of D. Hardings booke meaneth not that M. Harding did vse both those tearmes of Doggs Swine but that hee vsed one of them some others of his fellowes the other M. Hardinge not content so to vnderstand him maketh an vndiscreet noise and biddeth read the place who will hee shall finde M Iuell an vtrue reporter himselfe cleare of that odious saying as if it were so capitall a crime to put both them wordes on him that shall vse but one of them For in that place saith he is not so much as the name of Doggs but there is of Swine say I so you haue from M. Harding the same answere in effect that a simple fellow gaue to those that asked him howe hee had sped against those that would haue begged him because of his vnsufficiency to gouerne himselfe his affaires I haue done wel enough with them quoth hee for where they thought to haue proued me a foole the best was they coulde finde me but an Idiot Neither are Staphilus Harding the first who haue made such account of the people of God as to account theÌ„ Doggs Swine their masters before them Peter Lumbard Thomas of Aquine hath refered that text of Iob Bones arabant Lumb sent l. 3 dist 25 b. Tho. Aq. 2. 2. quaefl 2. art 6. sed coÌ„tra Iob. 1.14 Minores signi ficabantur per asinos debent in credeÌ„discoherere maiâ—…l bus qui per boues significabantur vt Gregor exponit 2. moraliuÌ„ asinae pascebantur iuxta eos The Oxen were ploughing the Asses were feeding in their places to the Preists people taking the Oxen ploughing to signifie the Preists reading of the scripture the Asses feeding to be the people not trobling their heads with such matters Credunt enim quae ignorant habentes fidem velatam in mysterio For they beleiue they knowe not what saith Lumbard hauiug their faith foulded vp in generalities Thus doe some of theÌ„ cal the Laity Doggs some others Swine others compare them to Asses O that they would wipe their faces from these spots before they call vs black or ill fauoured Tub. If we that be of the Laitie bee noe more accounted of by them then you haue laid downe out of their owne bookes our knowledge iudgment shal bee lesse then they are if they can tell howe to keepe vs vnder And I perceaue they can tell wel enough if they maie deterre vs from reading the word of God by such collections as those which you haue recited Rom. Hic fige pedem Doe but here staie your footing I wil shew you far more abhominations theÌ„ these Ezâ—c 8.6.15 The wresting rocking of such places of scriptures as these some to one purpose some to an other Polid. Virgil. deinvent reruÌ„ l 4 c. 9. f. 337. 338 did make Polydorus Virgilius a verie great papist who liued here in EnglaÌ„d in the reigne of Henry 7. to giue but an homly censure of them For intreating of the antiquitie of Cardinalls at Rome he saith there bee some who haue deduced the originall of them from the Hebrewes more corum qui cum obscuri sint inani nobilitatis nomine sibi blandientes The originall of Cardinalls alius ad Achillem alius ad Aeneam alius ad Namam Pompilium suum genus referunt as those are wont whoe beeing base of themselues deriue their pedigree some from Achilles some from Aenas others from Numa Pompilius And so did one Siculus Andreas Barbatius who to get in fauour with Bessarius the Cardinal put forth a Commentary to that purpose But saith Polidore because I will not wearie my selfe any further with quoting of the man you shal heare how he beginneth himselfe Ipse iam incipi at suum narrare commentuÌ„ According to our english translations 1. Sam. c. 2. v. 8 Hostiensis a most famous popish doctor writing of that matter Occurrit inquit illud quod 1 Regum cap. 2. pulcherrimè scriptum est Domini enim sunt cardines terrae posuit eos super orbem That saith Siculus is further to be remembred which is excellently written in the 1 booke of the Kings 2 chap The pillers of the earth are the Lords he hath set the world vpon theÌ„ which text of scripture Hostiensis the great Doctor doth referre to bee meant of Cardinalls For as the dore is turned vpon the heng so is the Church of Rome gouerned by the Colledg of Cardinalls Thus far Barbatius Now followeth the mislike of Polidore Polydore misliketh the papists for racking the scriptures in that manner for their handling of holie scriptures so prophanely vide non secus isti Iurisconsulti aliquoties detorquent sacras literas quò volunt acsutorâ—t sordidas solent dentibus extendere pelles See saith hee these same Canonists or Lawiers doe diuers times wrest the holy scriptures whether they list as shomakers doe wrest retch their leather with their teeth Tub. Surely the comparison of Polidore is more cleanlie then their dealing with the scriptures is tolerable Be these they that pretend such holinesse zeale to the holy scriptures It appeareth not by their dealing
he tooke in his hands which he brake blessed This is my body Staptlet ibid. art 2. fol. 41. b. Now hee will not haue it sig nify the bread But hee will not abide by this he goeth from it in the examination of the second article for there he reasoneth after this manner The scripture saith Hoc ost corpus meum this is my body which this M. Iuell Can you say this bread is my body you knowe Hoe this is the neuter gender panis bread is the masculine Was it not bread which he blessed Then what this This forsooth which Christ had blessed made saying This is my body Thus far Stapleton Doth not his secoÌ„d affirmation frustrat his first his first the second In the first he is plaine Christ spake of the bread which he brake blese sedâ—n the second he wrangleth about the genders and maketh interrogations when he knoweth wel enough what it is as hee in the Poet that said Sed quid hoc pner herclè est Ter. Andr. act 4. scen 4. 1. Reioyn fol. 304. 2. Tonstall fol. 58. 3. Bellar. de sac euch l. 2. â— 6 fol 155. 4. Dureus consur resp Whirrat 9. fol. 657. 5. Hard cont Iuel art 17. fol 210. b. 6. Bell. de missa l 1. c 10. fol. 687. Hard Reioynd pag 305. a. in noe case he wil not haue this to point to the bread M. Hardinge comming as neere the truth as 4. and 4. is to 8. dare not yet stand vnto it he telleth vs out of Ireneus that Christ tooke the creature of bread or that which by creatioÌ„ it bread gaue thankes saying this is my body Can any man in his right witts imagine that Ireueus did not thinke writing so plainly as he doth that Christ spake of the bread wheÌ„ he said this is my body And saith himselfe in the next page that for signification of mystery they brake distribute also vnto others that heauenly bread in the forme of commoÌ„ bread I hope to salue this they wil not saie that they breake the reall fleshly bodie of Christ breake bread they doe though heauenlie heauenlie bread we doe not denie but the bread of the holy communion maie be called when it is sanctified made holy by the word of God and prayer put apart for that holy vse Dureus cont whit rat 2. f. 114 Stapl. reto art 1. fol. 12. Reioyn fol. 149. b. but yet bread and such bread as of which the substance of our flesh is increased consisteth as they all teach with one ioint consent out of Ireneus also I hope they are not come to that degree of blasphemy as to say that our substantial naturall bodies are augmented doe consist of the real and naturall body of Christ Therfore he must needes meane by their own trauises out of him that Christ both spake meant the bread when he said this is my body Quam vterque est similis sui Teren. in Phor act 3. scen 2 act 1. scen 5. such bread as is in vse amongst vs. You shall see further how like they are in this one to an other Ecce autem similia omnia omwes congruuni Vuum cognoris omnes noris all feathers of one winge knowe one knowe al Tradunt mutu as operas They help one an other but bringe their causes to noe good passe Lib. 1 fol. 18. Saunders saith Christ spake of the bread GratiaruÌ„ actio Fractio panis bene dicti This conuinceth plainly he spake of the bread L. 7. fol 629. Now hee cannot tel what to make of it Nec ad visibileÌ„ corporis Christi formaÌ„ nec ad hunc paneÌ„ velut qui maneat panisnec simul ad hune panem hoc corpus nec c D. Saunders in his visible monarchy treating of the sacrament saith verie plainly Christus de pane quem Apostols nonduÌ„ acceperant dixit Christ said of the bread which the Apostles had not yet receaued This is my body then he handleth his giuing of thankes after commeth to the breaking of the consecrated bread which I hope they wil not verifie of Christs reall body And a little after the words of our Lord saith he in the Eucharist are referred to the Elements for that saying This is my body is referred to the bread This is my blood to the Cup. But after yet a great while after so that wel he might forget himselfe in the same worke treating of the same matter he hath these words Disparata sunt panis triticens Corpus Christi Bread the body of Christ are saith hee two seperate diuers thinges so that wee iustly saie that the pronoune hoc this caÌ„not be referred to the visible body of Christ nether to the bread as it should remaine bread nether to the bread to gether with the body nor to the whole action of the supper but only to the body of our Lord iam tum de substantia panto factum euen then made of the substance of bread exhibited vnder the forme of bread Thus doth Saunders here make Christ haue two seuerall bodies one visible their present the other made of bread to that body there made of substance of bread hee referreth the worde this in the sentence this is my body so hee maketh the sence thus This body made of the substance of bread is my body which is a very vaine speech to noe purpose For by that exposition Christs body should bee there before the words of coÌ„secration were pronounced so there should be noe force and vertue in consecration or rather there should be consecration before consecration so consecratioÌ„ without consecration And a little after he saith At nunc pronomeÌ„ hoc But now the pronowne hoc this which she weth the whol substance rei proposita of the thing that is proposed or shewed What thinge you are afraid to call it any thing doth demonstrate noe other thinge then the body of Christ not remembring what hee said in the first booke as I even now recited that Christ spake of the bread which the A postles had not yet receaued when he said This is my body If he spake of the bread he spake not of his bodie if he spake of his body hee spake not of the bread and yet Saunders avoucheth both Saunders ibid l. 7. fol. 633. Marke this that he cofesseth the blessing came before the break ing In an other place going about to proue that the word this caÌ„not be referred to the visible body of Christ saith thus Cum Christus post acceptum panem benedictionem interpositam Seeing Christ after the taking of the bread and the blessing comming betweene did breake and giue to his disciples saying take eate this is my body it is cleare by the order course of the sentence that hee called that thinge his body which he gaue which
of the celebrating of that one councel Sanders againe in an other place 5. Sand. declaue Dauid I. 4. sol 81. The cosent of the bishop of Rome preambulateth from the matter before hee come to it thus Although the consent of the bishop of Rome alwaies had obtained did confirme the summoning of a general couÌ„sell yet that in a great matter no error should creep in it was the order that the Pope should send his letters to the Emperour touching that matter As who shuld say the Pope commanded the Emperour to summon counsells and then the Emperour having received those letters did by his own letters assemble the bishops wherevpon the bishops assembled at Constantinople do write vnto Damasus in these words you did send for vs as for meÌ„bers of your owne body by the letters of the most holy Emperour to come vnto the counsel which is gathered togither at Rome by the wil pleasure of God And a little after By the commandement of letters from your holinesse sent the last yere vnto the Emperor Theodosius after the councel held at Aquila wee prepared our selues only for our iourney to Constantinople It therefore appeareth saith Sanders from this testimony That there were two Councels holden at once one at Rome the other at Constantinople and to both of them the Pope sent for those bishops by the letters of the Emperour Thus much from Sanders in that place of that matter 6. Staplet ret oâ— untruths art 4. fol. 139. D. Stapleton an other of that side maintaining the Popes soveraignety is no more abashed to abuse the history than those other haue done in the places going before For saith hee Those bishops of Constantinople doe write-vnto Damasus the Pope and shewing a cause of there not coÌ„ming to Rome do further say vnto him That they had assembled themselues but lately at Constantinople by the late letter of your honor sent after the councell holden in Aquilicato the most Godly Emperour Theodosius Letters from your honor which was the reason why they could not come to Rome Now touching this present matter saith he the bishops here doe witnesse that to that counsel of Rome the Pope called them by the letters of the Emperour not as a warrant they haue no such word but rather as a meane For they witnes he calleth theÌ„ as his proper members Bellar. thrise Saund. twise already Staplet once 7. 8 and. de vifib monar l. 7. fol. 312. num 145. 146. The whole masse of falsehood is diseouered The Easterne bishops write to all the bishops of the West and so the letters go in the plurall number This it the sixt canvasse they haue had touching this place of Theodoret The seauenth set downe by Sanders in a thirde place of his booke will quite overthrow both himselfe and them being inlighted a little by the history which they al haue most shamefully abused For in this third place of his hee hath bewraied their shameful dealing There he confesseth that the Bishops of the East did write to other bishops of the West and namely to Ambrose aswel as to Damasus not to him alone as hitherto they al made vs beleeue they did and there he confesseth more over that the Easterne bishops receiued a letter from the Westerne gathered togither at Rome in which letter they were praied to come thither and that in their answere back they declare that all the westerne bishoppes sent for them by letters from the most holie Emperour But saith he further it appeareth from this place that the first beginning of a general counsel is the bishop of Rome but the meanes which the Pope vseth in that matter is to call them by the Emperours letters This is all their report that I finde of this matter I would now but aske them this questioÌ„ whether they tell vs thus much because they beleeue it or beleeue is because they tell it vs If they tell it vs as beleeuing it themselues we can say no otherwise of them than of him that did accustome to tel lies so fast to others that in the end he tooke them for truthes himselfe if they beleeue it because they tell it vs our incredulity in this case shal do them good in aduising theÌ„ not to beleeue that wee will any more take the reporte of any such matter vpon their words so that if our deniall wil profit them I assure theÌ„ I will not credit them in any thing without due evidence of the iustnesse of it Ter. in Eunuc act 2. scen 1. Nihil aliud quam Philumenam volo And therefore I giue them the councel in the Poet quoniam id fieri quod voluâ—t non potest velint id quod possit since they caÌ„not haue what they would that they woulde take what they may But they answere they would haue nothing but the Bishop of Romes supremacy I say again as the Poet saith in that place it were much better for theÌ„ to leaue that fansie rather than by this palpable fraud to go about to perswade it Al their inferences from that text of Theodoret are false and merely suggested either of the Popes power in calling that counsell of Constantinople or of their writing to Damasus oulie to Damasus or that they called him their head or that they confessed themselues his proper members as they haue abused the history The writing which the bishops of the East sent to them of the West is called The true report out of Theodorete eccles l. 5. c. â— Libellus Sinodicus à Concilio Constantinopolitano ad Episcopas missus The Councel of Constantinoples declaration sent vnto the Bishops The superscription is Dominis honoratissimis cum primis reverendis fratribus ac collegis Damaso Ambrosio Brittoni valeriano Acholio Avemio Basilio et cateris sanct is Episcopis To the most renowned Reverend bretheren fellowes and most especial reverend brethren and fellows Damasus Ambrose Briton Valerian Acholius Avemius Basill and the rest of the holy bishops gathered togither in the famous citty of Rome The holy councell of Catholike bishops gathered togither in the famous citty of Constantinople send health in our Lord. Num quid nam hic quod nolis Ter in Eunuc act 2. scen 2. vides Bellarmine Is there any thing here ô Bellarmine that thou wouldest not see Yes neither me nor that which I haue brought Where do they write to Damasus Where do they acknowledge him the head they the members Where be the letters sens froÌ„ his honor All this like religious and loving fathers to the Church of God they confesse each to other because they consented in one catholike doctrine were of one Catholike church though divided by East and West whose head is Christ as S. Paule saith Ephes 4.5 One Lord one faith one baptisme But if you wil speake of what they were in respect of themselues and their authoritie over each other SozoÌ„ l. 6. c.