twentieth Chapter beginneth to speake of the Prophesies and first of the prophesie of the priesthood of Christe after the order of Melchizedech The one halfe of this Chapter is consumed in citing of textes to proue that Christe is a Priest after the order of Melchizedech and at length hee deuideth the Priestes office into two partes teaching and sacrificing Then he affirmeth that Christ was not a Priest after the order of Aaron but after the order of Melchizedech Yet in the ende of the Chapter like a blasphemous dogge hee sayeth that Christ executed his priesthood after the order of Aaron vppon the Crosse. Where beside his blasphemie note how hee agreeth with him selfe But Christ he sayeth it called a Priest after the order of Melchizedech for the manner of his sacrifice which maketh the difference betweene the order of Aaron and the order of Melchizedech For Aaron offered in bloud the other in bread and wine The Apostle to the Hebrues obseruing many differences could not finde this But M. Heskins aunswereth that the cause why the Apostle did leaue out this manner of sacrifice was for that his principall purpose was to shewe the excellencie of Christ and his priesthood aboue Aaron and his priesthood which could not bee by shewing that he sacrificed breade and wine for the Iewes sacrifices were more glorious then bread and wine By this wise reason he giueth vs to deeme that the Apostle of subtiltie suppressed this comparison because they were weake as though they knewe not what the sacramentes of the Church were But if Christe sacrificed his bodie and bloud twise he could not better haue shewed his excellencie aboue Aaron then in declaring that Christe did not onely offer him self in bloud on the Crosse but also in bread wine after the example of Melchizedech For if offering of sacrifice were one of the chiefe partes of a Priestes office and breade and wine had beene the sacrifice of Melchizedech the Apostle neither would nor coulde haue dissembled the comparison of his sacrifice with the sacrifice of Christe which would infinitely haue aduaunced his priesthood aboue Aaron For else the Hebrues whom M. Heskins imagineth would haue obiected their sacrifices to be more glorious then bread and wine might more probably haue replyed that the Apostles compared Melchizedech with Christe in small matters and omitted the chiefest parte of his office which was this sacrifice so that if he were inferiour in the chiefe it was little to excell in the small matters But M. Heskins taketh vppon him to aunswere our obiection that we make against this sacrifice of breade and wine which is this as the Apostle to the Hebrues speaketh nothing of it no more doeth Moses in Genesis For it is sayed there that Melchizedech brought foorth breade and wine but neuer a worde that he did sacrifice breade and wine This obiection he wil aunswer both by scripture and by the eldest learned men of Christes parleament Concerning the parleament men as it is true that many of them did thinke Melchizedech to be a figure of Christ in bringing foorth bread and wine so when we come to consider their voyces it shall appeare that they make little for transubstantiation or the carnall presence But now let vs heare the scripture The scripture to proue that Melchisedech did sacrifice this bread and wine saith that he was a Priest of the most high God to whome is belongeth not to bring foorth but to offer bread and wine so that the verie connexion of the Scripture and dependants of the same enforceth vs to take this sense and none other can be admitted This is a verie peremptorie sentence plumped downe of you M. Heskins not as from your doctours chaire but euen as from Apolloes three footed stoole But if it may please you to heare is it not also scripture that he was King of Salem and wil not the verie connexion and dependance of the Scripture leade vs to thinke that as an example of his royall liberalitie he brought foorth bread wine to refresh the hungrie and wearie souldiers of Abraham which being such a multitude could not easily be prouided for by a priuate man And where Moses sayeth he was a priest of the highest God hee addeth also an example of his priestly holynesse that he blessed Abraham praysed God and that Abraham gaue him tythes of al. And lest you should exclame as your manner is that this is a newe exposition Iosephus in the firste booke tenth Chapter of his Iewishe antiquities doth so expounde it Hic Melchisedechus milites Abrahami hospitaliter habuit nihil eis ad victum deesse passus c. This Melchisedech gaue verie liberall intertainment to the souldiours of Abraham suffered them to want nothing vnto their liuing But if M. Heskins wil obiect that Iosephus was a Iewe then let him heare the author of Scholastica historia a Christian and a Catholike as M. Heskins will confesse allowing of the same exposition Chap. 46. in these wordes At verò Melchizedech rex Salem obtulit ei panem vinum quod quasi exponen◠Iosephus ait ministrauit exercitui Xenia multam abundantiam rerum opportunarum simul exhibuit et super epulas benedixit deum qui Abrahae subdiderat inimicos Erat enim sacerdos Dei altissimi But Melchizedech King of Salem offered vnto him bread and wine which Iosephus as it were expounding of it sayeth he ministred to his armie the dueties of hospitalitie and gaue him great plentie of things necessary beside the feast or at the feast he blessed God which had subdued vnto Abraham his enimies For he was a priest of the high◠so god Thus farre he 〈◊〉 M. Heskins for his connexion perchaunce will vrge the Coniunction enim erat enim saterdos c. in the vulgar Latine text to make it to be referred to the former clause but neither the Hebrue nor the Greeke text hath that Coniunction To be short if the bringing foorth of bread and wine perteined to his priestly office there is nothing in the text to expresse his Kingly office but Moses as he calleth him both a King and a priest so doth he distinctly shewe what he did as a King and what he did as a priest Yet Maister Heskins goeth on and will proue That if Christ were a Priest after the order of Melchizedech he offred a sacrifice after that order but he neuer made any mo oblations then two the one on the crosse after the order of Aaron the other in his last Supper after the order of Melchisedech except we will say that Christe altogether neglected the priesthoode appointed to him of God. Marke here Christian Reader how many horrible blasphemies this impudent dogge barketh out against our Sauiour Christ directly contrarie to his expresse worde First he affirmeth that Christ made two offerings of himselfe whereas the holy Ghost saith Heb. 9. not that he should oftentimes offer himselfe as the high priest c. For
of our Lords words bringeth in the perfection of certeintie who said This is my bodie which is giuen for you doe this in remembraunce of me In this aunswere seeing he bringeth no exposition but onely citeth the bare wordes of the text there is nothing that maketh for M. Heskins He saith the wordes are plaine inough and neede none other interpretation It is true before the worlde was troubled with the heresie of carnall presence the text seemeth plaine ynough these wordes Do this in remeÌ„brance of me were thought a sufficient interpretation of those words This is my bodie and so doth Basill vse them But S. Ambrose he saith is so plaine that if his mother the Church had not beene good to him he should haue bene shut out of the doores For Oecolampadins reiected his book of the sacraments as Luther did the Epistle of S. Iames. Touching Luther although he were too rash in that censure yet had he Eusebius for his author twelue hundreth yeres before him And not only OecolaÌ„padius but many other learned men do thinke both the phrase and the matter of that booke to be vnlike S. Ambrose But for my part let it be receiued I hope M. Hesk. shal gaine litle by it he hath noted many short sentences which I wil rehearse one after another First Lib. 4. Ca. 5. Antequam Before it be consecrated it is bread but when the wordes of Christe are come to it it is the bodie of christ Finally heare him saying take eate ye all of it This is my bodie And before the words of Christ the cuppe is full of wine and water when the wordes of Christe haue wrought there is made the bloud which redeemed the people Ibi. Lib. 4. Cap. 4. Tu forte Thou peraduenture sayest my bread is vsuall bread but this bread is bread before the wordes of the sacramentes when consecration is come to it of bread it is made the fleshe of Christ. And againe in the same Chapter Sed audi but heare him saying that sayeth he saide and they were made he commanded and they were created Therefore that I may answere thee Before consecration it was not the bodie of Christe But after consecration I say vnto thee thaâ— now it is the bodie of christ He saide and it is made he commanded and it is created And in the same booke Cap. 5. Ipse Dominus Our Lord Iesus himselfe testifieth vnto vs that we receiue his bodie and bloud shall we doubt of his trueth and testification Out of these places he concludeth not onely that figures be excluded but also that the tearme of consecration is vsed seriously I graunt but not in such sense as the Papistes vse it but as the worde signifieth to hallow or dedicate to an holie vse How figures be excluded and how these places are to be taken that are so plaine as he pretendeth I pray you heare what he writeth in the same bookes of sacramentes Lib. 4. Cap. 4. Ergo didicisti quòd ex pane corpuâ— fiat Christi quòd vinum aqua in calicem mittitur sed fit sanguis consecratione verbi Coelestis Sed fortò dicis speciem sanguinis non video Sed habet similitudinem Sicut enim mortis similitudinem sumpsisti ita etiam similitudinem preciosi sanguinis bibis vt nullus horror cruoris sit precium tamen operetur redemptionis Didicisti ergo quia quod accipis corpus est Christi Therefore thou hast learned that of the bread is made the body of Christ and that the wine and water is put into the cup but by consecration of the heauenly worde it is made his bloud But perhappes thou sayest I see not the shewe of bloud Yet hath it the similitude For as thou hast receiued the similitude of his death so also thou drinkest the similitude of his precious bloud that there may be no horror of bloud yet it may worke the price of redemption Thou hast learned then that that which thou takest is the bodie of christ Here you see it is so the bodie of Christ as it is the similitude of his death so the bloud as it is the similitud of his bloud Moreouer in the same book Ca. 5. Dicit sacerdos c. The priest saith make vnto vs saith he this oblation ascribed reasonable acceptable which is the figure of the bodie and bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ. And Cap. 6. Ergo memores c. Therefore beeing mindefull of his most glorious passion and resurection from hell and ascention into heauen we offer vnto thee this vndefiled sacrifice this reasonable sacrifice this vnbloudie sacrifice this holie bread and cup of eternall life And againe Lib. 6. cap. 1. Ne igitur plures hoc dicerent veluti quidam esset horror cruoris sed maneret gratia redemptionis ideo in similitudinem quidem accipiâ— sacramentuÌ„ sed verae naturae gratiam virtus émque consequeris Therfore lest any man should say this and there should be a certeine horror of bloud but that the grace of redemption might remaine therefore truely thou takest a sacrament for a similitude but thou obteinest the grace vertue of his true nature Thus Ambrose hath spoken sufficiently to shewe him selfe no fauourer of Maister Heskins bill although as the scripture teacheth he call the sacrament the bodie bloud of Christ and declareth why it is so called because it is a figure similitude and a memoriall thereof The three and fiftieth Chapter continueth in the exposition of Christes wordes by Gregorie Nicene and S. Hierome Gregorie Nicene is cited Ex serus Catatholico De Diuinis sacram Qua ex causa panis in eo corpore mutatus c. By what cause the bread in that bodie beeing chaunged passed into the diuine power by the same cause the same thing it done now For as there the grace of the word of God maketh that bodie whose nourishment consisted of bread and was after a certeine maner bread So bread as the Apostle saith by the word of God and prayer is sanctified not because it is eaten growing to that that it may become the bodie of the WORDE but foorthwith by the worde it is chaunged into the bodie as it is saide by the WORDE This is my bodie This place saith Maister Heskins ouerthroweth three heresies The first of Luther or Lutherans that the sacrament is not the bodie of Christ except it be receiued Gregorie saith it is not the bodie of Christ because it is eaten But that is no ouerthrow to Luthers assertion for Gregorie meaneth that the sacrament by nourishing our bodies is not made the bodie of Christe as the breade that a man eateth is turned into his bodie and so was the bread that our sauiour did eat turned into the substance of his bodie while he liued but by the power of God this notwithstanding it is made that bodye of Christ only to the worthie receiuer Of which aâ—sertion M. Hesk. saith they
no. And why then may not the bodie of Christ be present and yet not corporally nor locally conteyned in pixe corporax cupp hand or mouth but after a spirituall manner as the holy Ghost is in the cuppe by his owne Iames his saying The last quarrell he picketh is to our ministers who sayeth he haue none authoritie to consecrate because they receiue it not from the catholike succession As for that authoritie which we haue receiued of God by the outwarde calling of the church wee minde not to exchange with the Popes triple crowne and much lesse with Maister Hesk. shauen crowne But to shape him an answere according to his lewde obiection seeing many are suffered to minister in our church which were made priestes after the Popish order of antichrist why should he denye any of them them at the least to haue power to consecrate according to the Popish diuinitie though the wordes be spoken in English so long as he hath intentionē consecrandi before he be of them disgraded and hath his indebeble character scraped out of his handes and fingers endes I aunswere he is not able to defend his opinion that thei cannot consecrate neither in Sorbona of Paris nor in the schoole of Louain To shutt vp this Chapter he flappeth vs in the mouth with S. Mathewes Masse testified by Abdias in the diuels name a disciple of the Apostles as hee saith but one that sawe Christ him selfe as M. Harding sayeth in verie deed a lewd lying counterfeter of more then Caunterburie tales And thinketh he that such fables will nowe bee credited except it bee of such as wilfully will be deceiued The fiue and thirtieth Chapter sheweth the manner of consecration vsed and practised by the disciples of the Apostles and the fathers of the primitiue and auncient church His first author is Nicolaus Methonensis a Grecian but a late writer who affirmeth that Clemens did write a Liturgie which Peter Paule and the Apostles vsed Although that which he rehearseth of Clemens his Liturgie be to small purpose litle or nothing differing from that hee had before of Iames yet Nicolaus Methon is too yong a witnesse to bee credited in this case For he was not of yeres of discretion to discerne that for the authenticall writing of Clemens which the more auncient church by a thousand yeres could not haue perfect knowledge to be his Neither doth the testimonie of Proclus help him any whit For as it is not to be doubted but S. Iames the other Apostles Clemens also appointed some forme of Liturgie for the churches by them planted instructed which is all that Proclus saith yet how proueth M. Hesk. that those which we haue were the same which were written by Iames Clemens or any other of lawful antiquitie when wee bring manifest demonstrations for the contrarie Againe where he saith that Peter vsed the Liturgie of Clemens he is contrary to Hugo cited in the last Chap. which sayth that Peter vsed a Liturgie of his own cōsisting of three praiers only The next witnesse should be Dionysius falsly surnamed Areopagita but that he is clean contrary to M. Hes. transubstantiation carnal presēce priuate Masse or sole cōmunion therefore vnder pretence of his obscuritie he dare cite neuer a sentence out of him Then follow the Liturgies vnder the names of Basil Chrysost. verie litle in words nothing at al in matter differing from that former Liturgie ascribed to S. Iames which because M. Hesk. knoweth we cannot receiue as the lawful writings of Basil Chrysost. he would vnderprop them by the authoritie of Proclus B. of Constantinople as he did S. Clem. S. Iames masse euen now The reason alledged by Proclus will cleane ouerturne his ground worke proue that none of these Liturgies were writen by thē to whom they be ascribed For Proclus sayeth that Basil and Chrysostom made the auncient Liturgies receiued from the Apostles shorter cutting many things away frō them because they were too long for the peoples colde deuotion to abide First this is a colde reason to alter the tradition of the Apostles so many yeres continued in the church for want of the peoples deuotion But be it that they followed this reason then doth it followe moste manifestly that this Liturgie which is ascribed to S. Iames is none of his because it is as short as either that of Chrysost. or the other of Basil. But if M. Hesk. will defende that of S. Iames then hee must needes refuse these of Basil and Chrysost. for these are as long as it therfore none abridgements of it After these Liturgies hee addeth the testimonie of the sixt counsell of Constantinople which condemned Pope Honorius for an heretike wherein it is reported the S. Iames Basil Chrysostome ministred in their Liturgies prescribed wine to be mixed with water But this proueth not that these Liturgies which we haue are the same that were set forth by those fathers as for the water they striue not for it but for wine to be vsed not water onely Finally where the fathers of that counsell call the celebration of the communion an oblation and an vnbloudie sacrifice they speake in the same sence that the elder fathers vse the same termes otherwise that counsell being an hundreth yeres without the compasse of the challenge hath no place but in the lower house among the Burgesses whose speaches may be hearde but they haue none authoritie to determine in this cause by M. Heskins order according to the challenge Now at length M. Hesk. thinketh it time to see the manner of consecration in the Latine church as though Clemens if he were bishop of Rome and wrote a Liturgie as he affirmeth before that of his making might not serue the Latine church But Ambrose is cited lib. 4. de Sacr. Ca. 5. Vis scire c. Wouldest thou knowe that the sacrament is consecrated with heauenly wordes Marke what the wordes be The Priest sayth Make vnto vs faith he this oblation ascribed reasonable acceptable which is the figure of the bodie bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ which the day before he suffred tooke bread in his holie hands looked vp to heauen to the holie father almightie eternall God giuing thanks blessed it brake it being broken gaue it to his Apostles and disciples saying Take ye eat ye all of this for this is my bodie which shal be broken for many Likewise also he tooke the cupp after he had supped the day before he suffered looked vp to heauen to the holie father almightie eternall God giuing thankes he blessed it deliuered it to his Apostles disciples saying Take ye and drinke ye all of this for this is my bloud M. Hesk. passeth ouer that the oblation of the church is the figure of the body bloud of Christ for feare he should be espied taken with such an assertion he flyeth in all the haste to other words of
the time of Tertullian and Cyprians time the people tooke the sacrament home with them This M. Rast. denieth to haue ben an abuse here he craketh of his equalitie with M. Iewel howe wisely let other iudge that his nay is as good as the Bishops yee The matter therfore resteth vpon proofe whereof we shall consider in the next section SECTIO 6. From the second face of the 40. leafe to the first face of the 42. leafe The Bishop alledged the example of a woman out of Cyprian which opening her chest with vnworthie handes in which was the holy thing of the Lord by fire breaking out she was terrified that she durst not touch it This miracle saith M. Ra. proueth none abuse in keeping the sacrament but her fault in presuming to touch it with vnworthie handes But why may it not serue to proue both seeing Christe gaue not his sacrament to be locked vp in Chestes but to be receiued Take eate saith he but neither the breach of Christes commandment nor of the end of his institution can persuade M. Ra. to acknowlege it to be an abuse bicause he imagineth that carying home of the sacrament may iustifie their reseruation therof for adoration yea and the communion vnder one kind wheras it neither iustifieth the one nor proueth the other For that they though abusiuely kept it in corners to receiue caâ—â—ot serue to iustifie the popish maner of hanging it ouer the altar or carying it abroad in procession to be worshipped And there is no colour in the world to make vs thinke that they caryed not as wel of the sanctified wine as of the sanctified bread home to their houses But it is a sport to see that he would proue it to be the body of Christ by the fire that came out of the chest The same Cyprian sheweth an other miracle of an vnworthie receiuer in whose hand the sacrament was turned into ashes will hee say the body of Christ was turned into ashes also But to be short he would knowe what Doctour or Councell we can shew to proue this carying home of the sacrament to be an abuse For Doctour he shal haue Origen in Leu. cap. 7. Hom. 5. Nam Dominus panem quem discipulis dabat dicebat eis accipite manducate noÌ„ distulit nec seruari iussit in crastinum For our Lord differred not that bread which he gaue to his disciples said vnto them take ye and eat ye neither bad he that it should be kept vntil the next day For councel he shal haue Caesar Augustanum Eucharistiae gratiam si quis probatur acceptam non consumpsisse in Ecclesia anathema sit in perpetuum If any man be proued not to haue spent in the church the gift of the Eucharistie which he hath taken let him be accursed for euer Finally if it bee no abuse why do not the Papistes suffer it to be done specially of their Popish brethren whome they take to liue in persecution vnder princes that professe the Gospell of Christ. An other abuse the Bishop rehearseth within Saint Cyprian and Saint Augustines time the Communion was giuen to young babes contrarie to the commaundement of the holy Ghoste Let a man examine him selfe and so let him eat c. whereas infantes are not able to examine them selues This will not Maister Rastell acknowledge to be an abuse neither that a reason of the abolishing thereof but onely the bare authoritie of the Church which belike hath abolished a good custome But hee faith infants might as well communicate as be baptized wherein hee playeth the Anabaptist requiring instruction before baptisme which the scripture doth not in the children of the faithfull as it doth examination iâ— the communicants Againe he saith they may as well communicate in the faith of the Church as they may be baptized in the faith of their Godfathers But I answere they are baptized in the faith which their Godfathers confesse not in that faith which they beleue for perhaps they may be hypocrites and so voyde of faith or heretiques and holde a false faith But seeing Christ said Drinke ye all of this he will knowe why infants may not also drinke and if they may not drinke then by all are meant none but al that were present that is all Priests But I answere drinke ye all of this is saide to all them to whome take ye eat ye c. is saide that is to all that are able to vnderstande the mysterie or else none might take and eate but all Priestes bicause onely Priestes as they say were present which yet they are not able to proue As for his comparing of the sacrament with spicebread and cakebread sauoureth of a mynde that inwardly derideth all religion though outwardly he pretend neuer so much Popish holinesse SECTIO 7. From the first face of the 42. leafe to the first face of the 43. leafe The Bishop rehearseth that Marcus an heretique and Necromanser as Irenaeus writeth made that by enchantment there should appeare very bloud in the chalice Hereof Rastel gathereth that the people beleeued bloud to be there and so he serued their faith and deuotion by his enchauntment but that is vtterly false for he would haue deceiued the people to make them thinke that hee had the bloud of Christe whereas the Ministers of the Catholike Church had but wine He counterfeted also a multiplying of the same wine by his sorcerie and all to get credite to his heresie and not to serue the faith as M. Rastel vntruely and vnlearnedly affirmeth but to ouerthrowe the faith of the people of God. SECTIO 8. From the first face of the 43. leafe to the first face of the 45. leafe The Bishop rehearseth other abuses of the sacrament as that some hang it before their brest for a protection some take the sacrament for a purgation against slander S. Benet ministred the communion to a woman that was dead M. Rastell confesseth the sacrament may be abused by Coniurers and other but he will not graunt that S. Benet did amisse because he was a Saint as though Saintes could not do amisse And he counteth it no reason against S. Benets fact that Christ gaue not the sacrament to dead folke for that he saith is no reason because Christ forbad no communion that three be not present neither badde the chalice to be filled when all is supped vp nor bad vs kneele and say we do not presume to come to this thy table nor carrie home the cantels of bread that are left But notwithstanding his fonde quarrelling whatsoeuer apperteineth to the decent and reuerent ministration of the communion Christ coÌ„manded though not euerie particular thing by name And Maister Rastell sheweth himselfe to be an ignoraunt Asse that compareth substances and accidentes the essential causes variable circumstances together whereas the one must haue the expresse worde of God or else it can haue no being the other for the
manner of the being hath generall rules to order it by but no particulars expressed But Maister Rastell will not condemne the fact of Benet because Saint Augustine dare not condemne the fact of those virgins that drowned themselues contrarie to the commandement Thou shalt not kil because they might haue an extraordinarie spirite as Sampson had and because S. Ambrose commendeth the fact of his brother Satyrus one that was not baptised and therefore might not receiue the sacrament which hanged it about his necke in a tempest and escaped All these notwithstanding if he will not admitte that Saint Benet did euill in breaking the commandement of Christ yet let him heare what the Church decreed in the 3. councel of Carthage the 6. Canon Placuit vt corporibus defunctorum Eucharistia non detur Dictum est enim a Domino accipite edite Cadauera autem nec accipere possunt nec edere It is decreed that the sacrament of the Eucharistie be not giuen to the bodies of them that are dead For it is saide by our lord Take ye and eate ye But dead carcases can neither take nor eate The councell vseth the same reason that the bishop doeth but M. Rastel wiser then the councell sayeth that it is no good reason SECTIO 9. From the first face of the 46. leafe to the seconde face of the 47. leafe The Bishop affirmeth that Albertus Pighius one of the greatest pillers of the Popish parte findeth fault with the Masse M. Rastel denying him to be a great piller perhaps thinking himselfe to be as great confesseth that booth he and oâ—her do so but that it is not in the body of the Masse but in the garments and he saith they shew the better conscience to confesse the trueth whereas protestants will acknowledge no faults one by an other which is a shamelesse ly But what conscience the whole Popish Church hath hereby it may be seene that seeing there be faultes in the Masse so long ago espied yet not one of them is by the Pope and his cleargie reformed SECTIO 10. From the seconde face of the 47. leafe to the second face of thâ— 48. leafe That the Bishop in his sermon refuseth to speake of transubstantiation real presence or sacrifice and chuseth to speake of the communion in both kindes of the Canon of the Masse and of the priuate Masse Maister Rastel sayeth it is a timerous bragging and vaine glorious weakenesse But how well he hath quit himselfe in those cases that Maister Rastell imagineth he was afraide to deale with his learned writings doe more sufficiently declare to his true prayse then Maister Rastels rayling surmises are able to obscure And those thinges beeing taken from the Masse which he chooseth to speak of would make the Masse a poore sacrifice and smally to be regarded SECTIO 11. From the second face of the 48. leafe vnto the first face of the 58. leafe Wherein he speaketh of seruice in the mother tongue The Bishop reproueth the vse of the vnknowen tonge in the Masse by the authoritie of S. Paule that will haue all things in the Church done to edifying and that prayers and thankes giuen in the Church be such as the people to them may answere Amen Maister Rastell quarreleth that this fault is common to the Masse with Euensong and Mattins therefore it is no proper fault of the Masse A proper reason rayling and lying are no peculiar faultes to Maister Rastel but common to him with Maister Harding Maister Sanders Maister Alen and an hundreth more therefore he doeth Maister Rastel wrong that reproueth him of rayling and lying But before he answere the Bishops obiections he wil make no lesse then fiue obiections him selfe against him out of the same place of Saint Paule wherein he triumpheth 1 Why all the Psalter of Dauid is read in the English Church when all the Psalmes be not vnderstoode of all English men Forsooth syr there is no Psalme but something may be vnderstoode of euerie Englishe man that hath capacitie of vnderstanding and the rest that they may learne to vnderstand them 2 How many people be there that vnderstand not the easiest Chapter of the Gospell muche lesse the Prophets and Psalmes But sir they are often read that they may the better be vnderstoode or at least so much of them as is necessarie for them to knowe for their saluation 3 Where singing is vsed howe can they vnderstande any thing Such singing as taketh away vnderstanding is forbidden in our Church both by the booke and by iniunction 4 How can a thousand people vnderstande him that hath a small voice or Cornishe men or Northerne men a fine Londoners speech c. The Bishop should haue care to prouide a man as well for voyce as for other qualities able to edifie the people and suche nations of the Queens obedience as vnderstande not the English tongue haue their prayers in their owne tongue whiche he saith he had forgotten I thinke he saith as it is for a lyer should haue a good remembraunce 5 He saith we haue one Chapter for the better learned of the Parishe another for the poorer which is a flam fiue of his owne deuising Yet he saith there would be no end of confusion if nothing should be read in the congregation but that which should be vnderstoode of all that are present as though he were wiser then the holie Ghoste which in expresse wordes hath so commaunded that al may learne that all may be comforted meaning all the congregation not a man of a straunge language comming in chaunceably or curiously beeing none of that flocke But what answere hath he to Saint Paule euen a most shamefull shifte and impudent lie Namely that Saint Paule speaketh onely of preaching which he graunteth must be in the vulgar tongue and the Gospell and Pistle he could be content should be also if it pleased the Popes holinesse But Saint Paule nameth expressely not onely preaching but also praying giuing of thankes and singing of Psalmes or Hymnes But he obiecteth that Saint Paule saith he that speaketh with tongues edifieth himselfe and he that giueth thankes in a strange tongue doeth giue thankes well It is true if his prayer and speeche be godly and priuate but in the congregation the Apostle by no meanes alloweth any man to vse a strange tongue Yes saith M. Rast. if there be an interpreter In deede S. Paule speaketh of them which had a miraculous gifte of strange tongues which might be vsed to set forth Gods glorie so that there were an interpreter that the Churche might be profited otherwise he would haue Gods gift to be silent in the Churche To be short M. Rast. affirmeth preaching it selfe to be so vnnecessarie that pictures may not onely supplye the wante thereof but also are necessarie for the faithfull people and more profitable then a most eloquent and learned sermon of M. Iewell himselfe Who would reason any longer with such an