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
his Epistle to the Romaines and before Peter also came thither as it is plaine by the Epistle to the Galath cap. 2. And therefore seeing the church of Rome was first founded neither by Peter nor Paule she hath nothing to brag of their preheminence which many churches planted by the Apostles might with more equitie challenge As for the bequething of Peter and Paule that hee speaketh of when he can shew vs a copie of their Testament we wil shape him an other answere 24 That there were many martyrs and confessours at Rome in the primitiue churche the cause was the great multitude of people in that church by reason of the frequens of the imperial city But this proueth no prerogatiue of ancestrie ouer other churches That so many of the first bishops suffred death for Christs cause although it may be doubted of the number of 30. vpwarde because no auncient writer doth testifie it it was by reason they were neerest vnto the greatest persecutors which were the emperors of Rome But this proueth not the supremacy of the bishop of Rome before the bishops of other cities who haue likewise suffred death for Christ. 25 It is vtterly false that he affirmeth that no faithful people of any citye had euer so notable witnes as the church of Rome of S. Paul your faith is preached in the whol world In which translation he falsifieth the words of S. Paule for he saith your faith is reported or commended in all the world not that it was preached for thē an vnsufficient faith should haue bin preached which needed the iustification of that Epistle And whereas M.S. saith that Cyprian saith the Apostle spake it prophetically not onely in respect of their faith present but also of thē that should folow it is to smal purpose except M.S. can proue that the Romanes now do hold the same faith which S. Paul S. Cyprian commended in his felow bishop Cornelius and the Romanes of his time And as for as notable and a more notable testimonie of an other people then the Romanes read the beginning of the 2. Thessalon capit 1.1 Collossians cap. 1. 26 Whereas he saith that S. Hiero. proueth the faith of the Romaines which Saint Paule praised to haue remayned in his dayes because none other people did so deuoutly visite the sepulchres of the martyres which the protestantes counte for infidelitie rather then faith he sheweth himselfe to bee an impudent wrangler The words of Hierom be these In prooem lib. 2. in Epist. ad Gal. 3. Vultis scire ô Paula Eustochiū quomodo Apostolus vnam quāque prouinciā suis proprietatibus denotarit Vsque hodie cadem vel virtutum vestigia permanent vel errorum Romanae plebis laudatur fides Vbi alibi tanto studio frequentia ad ecclesias martyrum sepulchra concurritur vbi sic ad similitudinem caelestis tonitrui Amen reboat vacua idolorū templa quatiuntur Non quod aliam habeant Romani fidem nisi hanc quam omnes Christi ecclesie sed quod deuotio in eis maior sit simplicitas ad credendum Rursum facilitatis superbię arguuntur Will you know ô Paula Eustochium how the Apostle hath described euerye prouince in their owne properties Euen to this daye the steppes remaine either of vertues or of errors The faith of the Pope of Rome is praised Where is there such concourse any where els with so great desire and frequence vnto the churches and sepulchres of martyres Where doth Amen so rebound like to heauenly thunder the emptye temples of Idoles so shaken with it Not that the Romaines haue any other faith but the same which al the churches of Christ haue but because in them is greater deuotion and simplicitie to beleeue likewise they are reproued for too much facility pride These words declareth that Hierome speaketh of no Popish pilgrimage but of resorting to the churches which were builded vpō the sepulchres of the martyrs therefore called the memories of the martyrs Secōdly what he meaneth by faith namely deuotion simplicitie of beleeuing not doctrine Thirdly that the Romaines reteined aswell the vices as the vertues of their auncesters But nowe they reteine onely the vices 27 The Papists liue vnder a visible head but the same is Antichrist the protestants vnder an inuisible head which is christ The Pope fitteth in Rome the mother of al abhominations hauing nothing to brag of but the vertues of such as haue dwelled there before him and no good qualitie of his owne Yet the title of vniuersall shepherd M.S. denieth vnto him although he most arrogantly do vsurpe it Howbeit properly M.S. saith he ought not to haue it 28 Therfore the bishops of Rome before Gregory the first refused the same title as prophane proude which belongeth onely to christ Yet the councel of Chalcedō offred it to Pope Leo the first but he refused it as slanderous This being cōfessed by M S. chuse whether you wil say the councell did erre in offring the same or Pope Leo in refusing or the latter Popes in vsing the same 29 Gregorie the first in deede tooke vppon him the humble style of the seruaunt of the seruaunts of God as M.S. saith but his successors vsing that title for a formality hauing bene content to be called Lord of Lords and God aboue all gods and our lord God the Pope and the most holiest and an hundreth more blasphemous titles beside treading on the Emperours necke such like examples of prophane pride as Nero Heliogabalus no Dioclesian euer shewed the like 30 It is not to be proued that he saith there were 4. Patriarks at the beginning nor that the Pope of Rome was chiefe For the councell of Nice Canon 6. doth make the patriarke of Alexandria and the rest equall with the bishop of Rome Although afterward the bishops of Rome as they were cōmonly ambitious when persecution was staied by prerogatiue of the imperiall citie challenged a kinde of primacie yet not of authoritie but of order And whereas he sayeth other Patriarches were preferred in respect of the affinitie they had with S. Peter it is false for the Patriarch of Constantinople was placed next to him of olde Rome because Constantinople was newe Rome the imperiall cittie Concil Constantinop Cap. 2. or after Garanza Cap. 5. That the Pope did erect patriarchal Seas at Aquileia at Senis it was not for that the other were infected with heresie but that they refused to acknowledge his Antichristian authoritie bought of Phocas the murtherer by Boniface the third for if his authoritie had bene so great as is pretended he would haue deposed those hereticall bishops and set vp Catholikes in their places rather then to haue spoyled the seates of their dignities for euer for the fault of the bishops 31 It is false that he sayeth neuer any bishop was so much esteemed as the bishop of Rome for Athanasius of Alexandria was more esteemed of the
The bishop of Rome bearing witnesse of him self for his owne aduauntage is not to be credited In that Epistle he sheweth that Acacius by Lyra was cōdemned according to the Councell of Chalcedon which was lawful not only for him but for any other Bishop to haue done in as much as he inuented no newe heresie but did communicate with an other heresie alreadie condemned in a Councell 38 In the third generall Councell holden at Ephesus there is mention that Cyrillus was President of the councell but not that hee was Lieuetenant of the Bishop of Rome although Euasius a late writer in comparison doth so suppose But the wordes of the Councel are these Denique Petrus Ioannes aequalis sunt ad alterutrum dignitatis propter quod Apostoli sancti discipuli esse monstrantur Peter and Iohn are of equall dignitie one with the other bicause they are shewed to be Apostles and holy Disciples This confession of the Councel maketh more against the Popes supremacie then the Lieuetenantship of Cyrillus to the Pope if it were true could proue for it 39 Maister Sander saith without proofe but of declining times almost 500. yeares after Christe and later that the See of Rome had Legates both ordinarie and extraordinarie throughout all Christendome which if it were true proueth no more his supremacie then that the King of Spaine hath dominion ouer all those countries where he hath Legates ordinarie and extraordinarie He citeth the seuenth Canon of the councel of Sardica which was that he might send a Priest from his side Which in deede was a restraint of his vsurped authoritie and not a confirmation or an enlargement thereof For the Canon is this That if any Bishop that was deposed by the Bishops of his owne countrie did appeale to the Bishoppe of the Church of Rome the Bishop of Rome should write to the Bishops of the next prouince to examine his cause and if the partie by his opportunitie should moue the Bishop of Rome the second time to be heard againe then he might send Presbyterum à latere an elder from his side one or more which either with the Bishops aforesaid should iudge and determine the matter or else leaue it wholy to the iudgment of the Bishops of the Prouince By this Canon the singular authoritie of the Romish Bishop is modestly excluded 40 The examples of Bishops Perigenes and Martinus translated by the Bishops of Rome in the declining times proueth not the perpetual supremacie of the Pope seeing by generall Councels al such translations haue bene forbidden in elder times Nic. c. 15. chalc c. 5. 41 The consent of the B. of Rome was not so necessarie to generall Councels but that they were held without his presence or his sending For concerning his personal presence he was not at any of the 4. first approued generall Councels neither any for him at the second of thē which was held at Constantinople where Nectarius Bishop of the citie was president Also the fourth of Chalcedon made the See of Constantinople equal with the See of Rome which although Leo Bishop of Rome disalowed yet did it take place as Liberatus testifieth Cap. 13. 42 Although the Bishop of Rome had his Legate in some prouinciall Councels yet it is great impudencie to say he had them in al. And such as then were present they bare no rule or preheminence but as the Legates of other Bishops Philippus and Asellius were at the Councell of Aphrica in which decrees were made against the supremacie of the Bishop of Rome and yet they subscribed cap. 92 43 That the Pope hath procured a fewe nations to be conuerted within these thousand or 900. yeares as England by Augustine Saxoni by Bonifacius c it can not excuse him from being Antichrist him selfe ▪ although M. Sander saith we account him to be but the forerunner of Antichrist For though Gregorie otherwise a ceremoniall and superstitious man was moued with zeale of Christes glorie to seeke the conuersion of as many as he could yet the Popes which followed after him in procuring the cōuersion of some countries rather by cruell warres then by preaching of the Gospell as Prusia Liuonia Lithuania c. sought their owne glorie and aduauntage vnder the colour of Christes religion and therefore were not diuided against Satan but ioyned with him in hypocrisie 44 As for the conuersion of the Infidels in the newe found landes is a newe found argument to proue the primacie of the See of Rome Like as the conuersion of Elias the Iewe by Pius 5. Many Iewes and some of greate learning as Emanuel Tremelius haue bene conuerted to the Gospel And one within this two yeares was baptized in London 45 That the See of Rome hath so long flourished like a Queene in worldly pompe it is the more like to the See and citie of Antichrist Apoc. 18. verse 7. And that the cities of the other Patriarches and their Bishops be oppressed with Infidels it letteth them not to be true Christians For Esaie 60. prophesieth not of worldly pompe but of the spirituall glorie of the Church which was as great before Constantius stayed the persecution as euer since 46 That no Bishop was euer so honoured of Princes Kings or Emperours as the Pope c it proueth him to be Antichrist and his Church the whore of Babylon Apo. 17. vers 2. 17. cap. 13. 16. 47 That the Frenchmen deposed their King Childericus by the Oracle of Pope Zacharie which discharged them of their lawful othe of obedience it proueth mightily the Pope to be Antichrist Peter saith Feare God honour the King 1. Pet. 2. 48 And much more that Pope Leo the third did transferre the Empire it selfe into the West For Peter commaunded obedience to be giuen to euery ordinance of man for the Lord whether to the King as to the most excellent or to those rulers that are sent of him 1. Pet. 2. 49 That Pope Gregorie the fift gaue an order for the election of the Emperour confirmeth our iudgement of the Pope to be Antichrist as also that Nicholas the first threatened the Emperour Michael the ouerthrowe of the Empire of the East whereof hee by his proud rebellion and disobedience and diuiding the West part from it was a cause 50 That the succession of the Bishops of Rome hath ben continued in histories with the reigne of Emperours and Kings it proueth in deede that the Church of Rome hath ben either very famous when it was gouerned of good Bishops or infamous when it was degenerated into Antichristian tyrannie but this proueth no more the authoritie thereof to be lawfull or the religion good then the succession of Heathen tyrants Emperours Kings great Turkes proueth their religion true or their vsurpation lawfull As for the light of worldly fame that M.S. boasteth of is spirituall darknesse and not the light of the Gospell which our Sauiour speaketh of Luke 5. No man lighteth a candle c.
godly then any bishop of Rome in his time Likewise when the Sea of Rome vsurped prerogatiue it was reiected by the Councell of Africa which decreed that none should appeale thither discouered the counterfaiting of the bishops of Rome Con. Mileuit Cap. 22. Conc. Aphrican Ep. ad Coelestin Likewise it was reiected of the church of Alexandria whereof great dissention arose Con Affric Cap. 68. That Irenaeus Tertullian Optatus Hierom Augustine Eugenius Theodoretus poynted to the church of Rome as to a witnesse of trueth it proueth her clearnesse from those heresies in their tymes but giueth her none authoritie ouer other churches nor yet maketh her a rule of trueth to all churches for then there needed none other arguments against heretikes but the authoritie of the church of Rome whereas the testimonie of that church was one of the weakest reasons they vsed and that least preuailed 32 That he affirmeth other cities to haue chosen Bishops of their owne tongue it is also true of Rome For he cannot shewe one Pope that was ignorant of the Latine tongue while it was spoken in Rome And not many I thinke not one ignorant of the Italian tongue since that time although they were borne in other countries Besides that it is the fondest reason that euer I heard one or other alledge that the Popes haue bene borne in diuerse countries therefore they are supreme heade of the church more then other bishops that were bishops in the countries where they were born and yet more foolish that speaking of Bishops of other tongues hee nameth so manye places all of one tongue As Syna Antioche Galile Ierusalem Bethelem which are all of one tongue Campania Thuscia Aquileia Pisa Genua Bononia Millaine Parma Rauenna which are all Italian Gascoyne Lorayne Sauoy Burgundie Rhemes Tholose which are all frenche Saxonie Bauier Hollande Alsaria Mastriche which are all duche Cappadocia Thracia Creta Sicilia Sardinia Athens Nicopolis which are all Greeke There remaineth Spaine which is in a manner Italian and last of all Englande and Affrick So that there are not past fiue or sixe diuerse tongues of so many places as hee hath alledged to bleare the eyes of foolish Papistes As if one shoulde saye the Bishops of Caunterburie haue beene borne some in Yorke shire some in Durham some in Chester some in London some in Norfolke some in Cambridge c. Some in Italie some in Greece some in Fraunce some in Wales some in Normandie therefore that churche of Caunterburie is the chiefe Sea in the worlde 33 The See of Rome in deed was verie forward in vsurping authoritie of a chiefe iudge ouer other churches as Victor in excommunicating the bishops of Asia about the celebration of Easter But they vtterly neglected his sentence yea and diuerse did not as Maister Sanders sayeth gently wish him not to deale so seuerely but sharpely rebuked him for his presumption and contention as Eusebius sayeth lib. 5. Cap. 25. Extant autem verba illorum qui victorem acriter reprehenderunt Equibus Irenaeus c. Their wordes are extant which sharply reprehended Victor of which number Irenaeus was one And whereas hee sayeth that Saint Cypriane desyreth Pope Stephanus to depose Martianus bishop of Arles in Fraunce it is false for hee exhorteth Stephanus beeing somewhat slacke against the Nouatians to write his letters vnto his fellowe Bishops in Fraunce as he him self oft had done that they woulde depose Martianus the heretike and suffer him no longer to insult ouer the churche which argueth the remissenes of Stephanus to doe that which was the charitable duetie of euerie bishop as Cyprian sheweth but proueth not his authoritie ouer all bishops That Felix the thirde deposed Aacarius bishop of Constantinople hee shewed the time of the full reuelation of Antichriste to bee at hande yet did hee it not of his owne authoritie but by authoritie of a Synode and afterwarde by a Synode restored him But Iustinianus the Emperour deposed two bishoppes of Rome Syluerius and Vigilius by his owne authoritie 34 That the bishop of Rome hath beene made the Committie of diuerse Councels to receiue the subscription of such as haue beene noted of heresies after their repentance it prooueth no superioritie in the worlde but a good opinion that those Councels had of his fidelitie 35 The letters of Leo to Flauianus and Theodosius proue not that the Patriarches Flauianus and Anatolius were commaunded to giue an accompt to the Bishop of Rome but rather Leo humbly desyred the Emperour Theodosius to commaunde a Synode to bee gathered in Italy because Flauianus had appealed not onely to the Bishop of Rome but to all the Bishopâ— of Italie Ep. 23. And that hee writ that Anatolius shoulde confesse his faith before hee were ordeined it was his good councell to the Emperour no commaundement to either of them Ep. 31. 36 It is false that all nations appealed to the Pope of Africa did excommunicate all them that so would or thought meete to appeale Concil Mileuit Ca. 22. Concil Aph. Ep. ad Coelest And although some appealed to the iudgement of the church or Bishop of Rome yet that proueth no generall authoritie The Councell of Sardike which M. Sanders citeth Can. 7. did moderate those appeales which had not bene lawfull if they perteined to the Bishop of Rome de iure of right Liberatus whom he citeth for the appeale of Athanasius affirmeth that the Councel of Chalcedon confirmed by the Emperor gaue no place to the contradiction of the Bishop of Rome nor his legates Cap. 13. which disproueth his supremacie more then any appeale can proue it As for the appeale of Athanasius if any were it was euer ruled by the Emperour who appointed him a synode to iudge his cause at Tyre Socrat. lib. 1. Cap. 28. Theodorete testifieth that after he was called to Rome by Iulius the bishop by the Emperour Constantius his commaundement his cause was referred to the councell of Sardica when he had first appealed to the Emperour Constans lib. 2. Cap. 4. He citeth Chrys. Ep. ad Innocentium to proue that he did appeale to the Bishop of Rome where there is no such matter Only he declareth how iniuriously he was dealt withal by meanes of Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria from whome he appealed not to the Bishop of Rome but to a Synode Of the appeale of Flauianus we haue spoken euen now by the confession of Leo himselfe Ep. 23. As for other appeales of later times they proue the ambition of the Romish bishops that would receiue them although of many they were misliked 37 That Gelasius affirmed bishops condemned by prouincial councels were restored by the Pope alone hee citeth his Epist. ad Faustum in which is no such matter yet if it were so I say it proueth nothing but the ambition of that See which before his time began to encrease toward a supremacie and not long after obteined that it sought for But from the beginning it was not so
whereas their is no dout but such strong wine as groweth in those countries will be preserued as long from sauoring as the bread froÌ„ moulding Like is the example of Serapion being at the point of death to whom the priest being sicke also sent by a boye the sacrament Vppon which example he vrgeth reseruation which though it be not necessarie yet is it not the matter in controuersie secondly the coÌ„munion in one kind which is false for he sent both and willed him to dippe the bread in the wine which he sent and not in any thing else as M. Rastell saith which were an absurditie that the bodie of Christe should be dipped in prophane licour or sent by a boy either if the Priest had ben so persuaded of it as Rastel would beare vs in hand that all olde fathers were That he receiued alone proueth no priuate Masse nor alloweth sole receiuing as ordinarie which was done in a case of extreame necessitie in one which was excommunicated and could not departe this life before he had receiued the sacrament The last example is the superstitious fact of Satyrus the brother of Ambrose which beeing not baptised obteined the sacrament of the Christians that were in a ship with him in daunger of shipwracke which because he might not receiue he caused it to be wrapped in Orario a linnen garment which Maister Rastell calleth a stole wrapped that linnen garment about his necke and without other helpe escaped by swimming Here M. Rastel thinketh he hath great aduauntage First that the Christians had the sacrament out of the Church As though the ship might not be their Church for that time to minister the communion in the time of that great daunger Secondly that it was in one kind except we can deuise how to wrap wine in a stole No M. Rastel this proueth not that the Christians receiued in one kinde though they had wrapped one kinde in the stole as you call it for Satyrus as yet no Christian. But why might they not either soake the bread in wine as some did in those days or else dippe a corner of that linnen cloth as some also vsed to doe and wrappe it vp in that great linnen garment And the words of Ambrose Fusum in viscera powred into his bowels wold not agree to drie bread Last of all whereas you say it was no fantastical figuratiue memorie which saued him from daunger I agree with you but it was not the sacrament that he carried whatsoeuer you will call it but his faith as S. Ambrose saith that preserued him And how soeuer it was the example of an vnbaptised mans weake and superstitious doing doeth ye but small honestie to confirme your common priuate Masse sole receiuing opinion of carnal presence or what so euer beside you can gather out of it SECTIO 39. From the 132. leafe to the second face of the 135. leafe of seruice in a straunge tongue To the Bishoppes challenge that common prayer was not in a straunge tongue within the compasse of 600. yeares after Christ he hath nothing in the worlde But onely affirmeth that Augustine the Monke brought Latine seruice into Englande whiche the people vnderstoode not whiche both is somewhat without the compasse and also onely said of him without proofe or likelyhoode He saith he made not a newe Englishe seruice or Kentish rather but vsed the Romane fashion and language Be it graunted that he brought in the Latine seruice yet how proueth he that the people did not at that time for the moste parte vnderstand the Latine tongue Seeing he could preach to them onely in Latine beeing a Romane and they also tâ—at came with him vnderstoode no parte of the English tongue as our stories doe testifie And that he planted not the Romane seruice it may appeare by the aunswere of Gregorie to his thirde demaunde of the diuersitie of the Romane Churche and the French Church in which answere he bindeth him not to the Romane Church but willeth him to choose out of all Churches what he thinketh most conuenient and profitable for the Englishe Churche And seeing the Scriptures and diuerse Homelyes and Prayers remaine still in the Saxon or old English tongue I do not see but he might haue made a newe English seruice although by reason of so many mutations troubles as happened in this land by meanes of ciuil and externe warres in the meane time Antichrist daily more and more incroching the same might growe out of vse and latine onely be reteined which perhaps at the first was but vsuall vnto monasteries or clarkes But how soeuer it was this is an inuincible argument that Augustine planted not the Romane seruice in this land bicause there were so many diuersities of customes as there were diuerse Bishops sees and al they differing from the vse of the Romane church But hauing none authoritie he hath reasons perhaps to defend latine seruice First latine seruice is as meete for Englishmen as English seruice is for WelshmeÌ„ wherwith he saith we finde no faulte wherin he lieth For the Welshmen that vnderstand not english haue their common praier in their Welshe tongue The second reason he vseth that Sainct Paule did write in greeke to the Romanes ergo the seruice must be in latine to Englishmen He saith himselfe there be many differences betweene an epistle a common forme of praiers which is verie true But will he proue therby that the Romanes had their common praiers in greeke The cause why the Apostle did write in greeke was bicause he wrote not only to the Romanes but to the whole churche vnto which the greeke tongue was more familiar then the latine and was of many vnderstoode in Rome And also because the holy Ghoste â—ad consecrated the Greekâ— tongue beeing the principall tongue of the gentiles vnto the writinges of the newe Testament auoyding to vse the Latine tongue euen to the Romanes for the mysterie of the name of Antichriste Latinos conteined in the nomber of the beastes name 666. as Irenaeus doeth testifie His thirde reason is that there be many thinges to be saide in publique praier which ought to be saide in secrete therefore an vnknowne tongue is best to vtter them His antecedent he proueth not out of scripture or any auncient authenticall writer but out of the liturgies falsely ascribed to Saint Basil and Saint Chrysostome and yet the argument hath no consequence in the world for then those prayers in the Latine seruice to the Romanes shoulde bee in an vnknowen tongue and all the rest in a knowne tongue to euerie nation Finally where he saith there needeth no diuersitie of seruice according to the diuersitie of languages he speaketh directly contrarye to the decree of the councell of Laterane cap. 9. which commanded the bishoppes to prouide that the sacraments and other diuine seruice should be ministred to all people in their diocesse according to the diuersitie of their languages and customes By which it is
proued that seruice in an vnknowne tongue is neither so auncient as it is pretended nor yet so allowed in all times but that euen a popish councel hath decreed against it SECTIO 40. From the second face of the 135. leafe to the 139. leafe in which he speaketh of the title of the vniuersall bishop To the bishops challenge that the bishoppe of Rome was not called an vniuersal bishop or head of the vniuersall Church he answereth that the title was due although it was not vsed and after his accostomable manner cauilleth of the worde vniuersall whereas the bishop doth sufficiently expound himselfe by addinge or head of the vniuersall Church which he taketh in hand to proue giuing ouer the former title of vniuersall First by a lowsie counterfett Epistle most falsely ascribed to Anacletus which he citeth to be the second but it is in the thirde in which the vnlearned asse that counterfeted that Epistle interpreteth the name of Peter giuē him by Christ which was Cephas ▪ to signifie a head and beginning whereas by the Gospell we learne that Cephas was a stone as Peter is if the knowledge of the Syrian tongue shoulde fayle vs. His seconde authoritie is out of Cyprian Lib. 3. ep 11. The wordes of certaine scismatikes that tooke part with Nouatus against Cornelius bishop of Rome and vppon their repentaunce beeinge in Africa were receyued into the Churche These men confessed that they did acknowledge Cornelius to bee a bishoppe of the most holy Catholike Churche whereas before they refused him and claue to Nouatus a false bishoppe of Rome not lawfully ordained like as afterwarde they acknowledge that there shoulde bee but one bishoppe of a Catholike Church meaning in one citie for else they shoulde haue denyed Cyprian and all other bishoppes of the worlde to bee bishoppes sauinge onely Cornelius the bishoppe of Rome whereas Cornelius being lawfully called to be bishop of Rome they had taken part with Nouatus which would be a bishoppe by intrusion He citeth also Cyprian lib. 1. ep 3. heresies haue risen of none other cause but that the priest of God is not obeyed and that there is not one priest of God in the Churche for a time and one iudge in steede of Christ thought vpon whiche Cypriane speaketh not of one priest to be as iudge of all the Churche but of one in euerie Churche and namely he speaketh of himselfe complaininge that he was contemned by a leude heretike and scismatike called Felicissimus with his complices His thirde author is Ambrose in 1. Tim. 3. whiche although it bee denyed to be the worke of Ambrose but rather set forth of some man of muche later time in the name of Ambrose to get more credite vnto his writing yet receyuinge it as Ambrose what sayeth hee Forsoothe that Damasus was a gouernour of the Church of Christ whiche is the house of God whiche he sayeth in none other sense then S. Paule enstructed Timothie to behaue himself in the house of God which is the Church of the liuing God not meaning to make him supreame head of all the Church of Christ no more did Ambrose meane to make Damasus then bishop of Rome His fourth authour is Cyrillus whome hee citeth in Lib. Thesau a counterfette place not to bee founde in all the workes of Cyrillus by whome so euer it was forged His last authour is Gregorie Libro 4. Epistola 32. who sayeth that although the charge of all the Churche was committed to Peter as chiefe of the Apostles yet he was not called an vniuersall bishoppe I confesse the charge of al the Church was committed to Peter whiche was not bishoppe of one Churche but an Apostle sent vnto the whole worlde as all the rest of the Apostles were But that prooueth not the supremacie of the bishoppe of Rome who if hee were a right bishoppe yet were hee no Apostle and so hath nothinge to doe with the charge and commission of an Apostle Hee nameth also Sainte Augustine whiche in diuers places calleth Rome Sedem Apostolicam a seate Apostolike whiche is nothinge else sayeth Maister Rastell but that place whiche may plante and pull vppe sette and lette and hath his power ouer the whole worlde But where learned hee this deffinition of a seate Apostolike O impudent and arrogaunt disputer All Churches that were planted and honoured with the presence of the Apostles were called Apostolike seates yet did they neuer claime neither would Rastell giue vnto them that whiche he maketh to bee the deffinition of a seate Apostolike As for Augustine doeth often call Rome Babylon the seat of Antichrist De ciuit Dei lib. 16. cap. 17. lib. 18. cap. 2. 22. SECTIO 41. From the 139. leafe to the 144. leafe in which he speaketh of the reall and corporall presence of Christes bodie in the sacrament The bisho◠saith the people were not taught that Christs body is really substantially corporally carnally or naturally in the sacrament Master Rastell saith although these termes be not founde yet that which is signified by them is found For thus he vseth in euery matter to trifle about termes as though the bishop did striue for wordes and sylables and not for the matter And he would haue the bishop to bring out of any antiquitie that the people were taught to beleeue that the bodie of Christ is onely figuratiuely sacramentally significatiuely tropically imaginatiuely in the sacrament to the denyal of all presence and reallitie as though a sacramental presence were not a presence and a reall presence also if by reall you meane that whiche is in deede and not counterfeted though it bee not after a grosse and carnall manner For that Christ is present and truely receyued in his sacramentes wee doe gladly confesse whiche is all that any aunciente writers speaketh of his presence Hierome Isychius Cyrillus Origen Augustine or Chrysostome whose names he citeth or any other within 600. yers after christ But to maintein that grosse corporall maner of presence or receiuing which the papistes doe now holde there is none of the olde writers that saith any thing to the purpose As for Damascen is far out of the compasse a corrupt writer and yet more grosse in termes then his iudgement was as it were easie to prooue if his authoritie were of any weight But Master Rastel asketh if these words be not plaine inough This is my bodie which shall bee deliuered for you Luk. 22. Hee maketh them somewhat plainer by chaunging the pretertence into the future for Luke reporteth the words which is giuen for you I againe aske him whether these wordes bee not as plaine This cuppe is the Newe Testament in my blood which is shedde for you Wee doubt not but that it is the sacrament of his true and naturall body for we make not two bodies of Christ as the papistes doe a naturall bodie and a spirituall bodie which true and naturall bodie of Christ being in heauen is giuen vnto
c. is proued by the Canons of the Apostles that Excommunicate all Christians that be present and doe not communicate Can. 9. Also the first Epistle of Anacletus which is good authoritie against a Papist forbiddeth the priest or Bishop to sacrifice alone and commandeth all the ministers that are present to receiue with him in paine of excommunication And appointeth what number shall be present of deacons namely on solemne dayes seuen on other dayes fiue or three beside Subdeacons other ministers These decrees do proue that there should be no celebration of the Lordes supper but when there be a good number to communicate Concerning the 5. of distinction of Bishops or Priestâ— in apparell froÌ„ the laitie which yet we hold to be a thing of his owne nature indifferent Celestinus Bish. of Rome saith in an Epistle to the Bishops of France Epi. 2. Discernâ—ndi a plebe vel cÄ™teris sumus doctrina non veste conuersatione non habitu mentis puritate non cultu We must be discerned from the common people or other men by doctrine not by garment by conuersation not by apparell by purenes of minde not by attyre To the 7. that the communion table was remoueable and carried too an fro it is proued by Augustine who In quest vet Non test ques 101. saith it was the office of the Deacons of Rome as well as of all other Churches to carrie the altar and the vessels thereof and although he call it an altar in this place and many other yet doeth he in as many places call it a table and in his Epistle to Bonifacius Ep. 50. it appeareth that it was made of boordes and not of stones To the 8. for saying communion on good Friday although perhaps it might be proued by those fathers of the primitiue Church that kept their feast of Easter after the manner of the Iewes whiche was the 14. day of the moneth whiche some tymes did fall vpon that Friday whiche is called good Friday yet beeing no matteâ— of religion there is no cause why we should be bound to proue it The like I say to the 9. of singing of Gloria in excelsis after the communion and to the 11. of saying the Creede of Athanasius vpon principall holie dayes Concerning the 10. that the sacrament was ministred in the loafe bread vsually to be eaten at the table it is proued by S. Cyprian In sermone de Caena Dom. whiche saith of that bread wherewith they did minister Panis iste communis in carnem sanguinem mutatus procurat vitam incraementum corporâ—bus c. This common bread being chaunged into our flesh and bloud procureth life and increase to our bodies Also by S. Ambrose Li. 4. Cap. 2. de sacram Who rehearseth the obiection of the ignorant saying Tu forte dicis meus panis est vsitatus c. Thou perhaps wilt say my bread is coÌ„mon vsual bread Also by Gregorie which in his dialogues reporteth that two Coronae loaues of bread were giuen to one that was thought to be a poore man in rewarde of his seruice in a bathe but he being a guest willed that the same shoulde bee offered in sacrifice for him To the 12. for the ministers wearing of a Cope or surplesse which hold it to be no part of religion and that the communion hath bene ministred in common apparell we will go no further then our Sauiour Christ himselfe Ioh. 13. and there is no question but his Apostles and the primitiue Churche many hundreth yeares followed his example To the 13 that the words of S. Paul 1. Cor. 11. should be red at the ministration rather theÌ„ of S. Mathewe Marke or Luke it is a matter of meere indifferency yet better ordered then your popishe canon whiche rehearseth the wordes after none of all foure To the 14. that they vsed a common cup at the Communion is prooued also by scripture that our sauiour Christ ministred in the same cup which he and his company had vsed at supper To the 15. that the curses of Gods law should be redd vpon Ashwednesday we hold it not as a thing necessarie but an order of indifferencie vntill a better discipline be restored To the 16. concerning procession about the fields we vse none but a perambulation which is a matter of meere ciuill pollicie To the 19. whether Saint Peter were euer at Rome or no it is no article of our beliefe but we are able to proue by scripture that he neither was there as bishoppe nor so long as the common opinion is To the 20. that the minister in time of necessitie hath giuen the communion to one alone is proued by the example of Seraphion vsed of the Papistâ— but vnfitly to defende your priuate masse to whom being at the point of death the communion was sent by the prieste who at the same time also was so sicke that hee coulde not come himselfe Eusebius libros 6. capitulo 44. and yet that communicatinge which we alowe is but graunted to the infirmitie of suche as cannot bee perswaded to forbeare the sacramente not as a thing simplie allowed If anye one man aliue coulde prooue anye one of these articles by Scriptures doctours or councelles hee promiseth to subscribe what I haue prooued let the Reader iudge After this followe twentie nine articles more The 22. that the bishoppe of Rome was not called Antichriste the cause was that vntill after sixe hundreth yeare the bishoppe of Rome was not Antichriste But that Antichriste shoulde bee a Romaine it is prooued by Irenaeus Libro 5. and that Rome shoulde be the Sea of Antichriste Sainte Augustine testifieth De ciuitate Dei libro 16. capitulo 17. callinge Rome Westerne Babylon and libro 18. capitulo 2. callinge Rome seconde Babylon c. Also Hierome ad Marcellam iudgeth Rome to bee Babylon spoken of in the Apocalypse and in praefati in Didymum hee calleth Rome Babylon and the purple whore and Algasiae Quest. 11. and manye places else Gregorie also affirmeth that who so woulde bee called vniuersall bishoppe was the forerunner of Antichriste whiche was Iohn of Constantinople also he prophesieth that Antichristes reuelation was at hande and that an armye of priestes shoulde wayte vppon him whiche was fulfilled in his nexte successour saue one namely Bonifacius the thirde whiche was the first Pope of Rome that was called vniuersall bishoppe and was Antichriste him selfe as Iohn of Constantinople was his forerunner about the yeare of our Lorde â—10 To the 23. that no consecration was required to the sacramente but the vertue of the peoples fayth is not holden of vs and therefore wee are not to prooue it To the 24. that the residue of the sacramentall bread which was not receyued by any olde custome of the Church of Constantinople was giuen to young children that went to schoole is prooued by Euagrius libr. 4. cap. 36. whether to spredde their butter as hee requireth is to shewe or to eate it with cheese
sacrificare locis probentur Ait namque authoritas legis Diuinę Vide ne offeras holocausta tua in omni loco quem videris sed in loco quem elegeris Dominus Deus tuus Episcopus Deo sacrificans testes vt praefixum est secum habeat plures quà m alius sacerdos Sicut enim maioris honoris gradu fruitur sic maioris testimonij incrementatione indiget In solennioribus quippe diebus aut septem aut quinque aut tres diaconos qui eius oculi dicuntur subdiaconos atque reliquos ministros secum habeat qui sacris induti vestimentis in fronte a tergo presbyteri è regione dextra laeuáque contrito corde humiliato spiritu ac prono stent vultu custodientes eum à maleuolis hominibus consension eius praebeant sacrificio Peracta auē consecratione omnes cōmunicent qui noluerint ecclesiasticis carere liminibus Sic enim Apostoli statueruns sancta Romana tenes ecclesia And when the priestes do sacrifice they ought not to do it alone but let them take witnesses with them that they may be proued to do sacrifice to the Lord perfectly in places dedicated to god For the authoritie of Gods law sayeth Take heede thou offer not thy burnt offerings in euerie place which thou shalt see but in the place which the Lord thy God shall choose Let a bishop sacrificing to God haue witnesses with him as is before sayed more then another priest For as he enioyeth a degree of greater honor so he hath need of the increase of greater testimonie For in more solemne dayes let him haue with him either seuen or fiue or three deacons which are called his eyes the subdeacons and the rest of the ministers which being cloathed in the holie vestimentes let them stand before and behind him the priests ouer against him on the right hand on the left hande with contrite heart humbled spirite sober countenaunce preseruing him from malicious men let them giue their consent to his sacrifice And when the consecration is ended let al communicate which will not be depriued of entrie into the church These be the wordes of that Epistle which M. Hesk. mangleth and falsifieth thus Episcopus c. The bishop doing sacrifice vnto God let him in the solemne dayes haue either seuen or fiue or three deacons which be called his eyes subdeacons other ministers First he leaueth out That no priest ought to sacrifice alone but must take witnesses with him Secondly that a bishop ought to haue more then another priest at all times Thirdly hee citeth the words so as though the bishop should haue no neede of witnesses but only on solemne dayes Fourthly he leaueth out how the deacons other ministers should stand before and behind the bishop which will not agree with his popish altar for who can stande before the popish priest except he stand in the windowe or vppon the altar Finally wheras omnes may reasonably be vnderstood of al present he restraineth it onely to the ministers which if it were so yet it ouerthroweth the Popish priuat Masse For if there be twentie or fortie priests clarkes as there be often so many at Masse sometimes an hundreth more as at a Synode yet not one of them wil receiue with the priest neither are they banished that refuse to cōmunicate But to proue that this word all should be referred to all the clergie he citeth the Can. 9 Apost Si quis episcopus c. If any bishop c. when the oblation is made do not communicate either let him shew a cause that if it be reasonable he may obteine pardon or if he shew none let him be excommunicated as one that is cause of offence to the people giuing suspition of him which did sacrifice that he hath not wel offered it This Canō must be no interpretatiō of the Epistle and though it were yet is his priuate Masse in neuer the better case for here are still a number necessarily bounde to communicate with the Priest vnder paine of excommunication But M. Hesk. sayeth possible it might be that when the bishop had bene three attendant vpon him or such small number they might all haue cause to absteine This is a possibilitie not to like to come in esse or being once in 20. yeares For where findeth he that the bishop might haue but three with him The decree before cited requireth three deacons at the least beside subdeacons other ministers of which in the auncient church there was great store diuerse functions as acolytes exercistes readers dorekeepers c. But admitt it were possible that all these should absteine yet saith he there is no prohibition for the priest to receiue alone The decree sayeth they ought not to sacrifice alone and both it the Canon commaund all Christians especially the Clergie that be present to cōmunicate yet M. Hesk. sayeth they are not prohibited to saye Masse alone or that it is not sayd that the priuate Masse is naught What reason is in these aunswers let the readers iudge But for cleare proofe ouerthrow of the proclaimers challēge M. Hesk. sayth that in the Masse of Chrysost. there is a plain rule giuen what was to be done when the priest receiued alone that the Proclaimer had not learned so farre as to know this Indeed this is an high point of learning M. Hesk. that the proclaimer could neuer attain vnto to play with your readers noses so impudently which cannot smell out your falshod when you beare them in hande that that was Chrysostomes Masse which was written seuen hundreth yeres after Chrysostome was dead as appeareth plainly by the prayer for Pope Nicolas the Emperour Alexius that is in it which the proclaimer as vnlearned as you make him yet had wit to finde out laye abrode to your open shame and to all their shames that vse the same Liturgie as authenticall rightly to be ascribed to Chrysostome The issue that you ioyne that priuate Masse is not naught nor prohibited in scripture councel or catholike writer is tryed alreadie by sufficient euidence giuen by the B. of Sarum against Harding by answere to your counterfet and false euidence vttered in this chapter in the next As for the receiuing of a sicke man alone hath nothing to do with priuate Masse which sole receiuing if it were admitted yet a case of extreme necessitie approoueth not an vsuall dayly contempt of Christes holy institution The one and fortieth chapter prooueth that the masse may bee said and the Sacrament receiued ▪ without a number of communicantes at one time in one place When all is saide and done saith M. Hesk. the Masse shal be holy and good and this shal be a trueth that a priest saying Masse or any other man godly disposed sicke or whole may receiue the holy sacrament alone for profe of this
51 As it is true that the Bishops of Rome in the first 300. yeares were greatly persecuted by tyrants so is it false that all heretiques agreed to resist that See. For diuers Bishops were heretiques Liberius was an Arrian peruerted by Fortunatianus Hierom. in Catalog Vigilius was priuily an Eutychian as appeareth by an Epistle of his written to those heretiques at the procurement of the Empresse Liberatus Cap. 22. Honorius was a Monothelite condemned in the sixt generall Councell at Constantinople Act. 13. Anastasius was a fauourer of Nestorians as many Ecclesiastical histories do confesse Garanza in Anast. 52 That the Church of Rome hath continued although diuers Christian Princes haue opposed them selues against it with the citizens of Rome and the Cardinalls and that neither the wicked life of the Popes nor the schismes of many Popes at once haue subuerted it doeth not proue it to be the rocke against which the gates of hell shall not preuaile For when Antichristian heresie and diuelish wickednesse hath ouerflowed all the Church of Rome it is manifest the gates of hell haue mightily preuailed against that See although the finall ouerthrowe of that Antichristian head with the body be reserued vnto the almightie power of our Sauiour Christe toward the end of the world 2. Thessa. 2. And it is false that Christian Princes the Romane Citizens the Cardinals or the factions of Diuers Popes haue assaulted the See of Rome but rather the ambition and tyrannie of some persons occupying the same 53 It is false that all countries which forsooke the obedience of the Bishop of Rome were shortly after possessed by Infidels for Affrica was none otherwise possessed by the Vandales then Italy by the Gothes other barbarous nations The Graecians immediately before their oppression by the Turkes were reconciled to the Church of Rome in the councell of Ferrar and Florens â–ª Before which time the Bohemians forsooke the Romish See and yet remaine a nation at this day howe many mightie nations haue forsaken the the Pope which by Gods grace shall be kept as long from oppression of Infidels as they keep in obedience of the Gospel the contempt whereof and not of the Pope was punished in the Asians Africans and Graecians And the prophecie of Esaie 60. That nation and kingdome which shall not serue thee shall perish is to be vnderstoode of finall and eternall perdition and not of oppression by Infidels For the nation of the Persians Turkes Saracens and other which submit not themselues to the Church of Christ shal perish although they triumph in the worlde neuer so long 54 Diuerse councels without the bishop of Rome did with as great and greater credite determine of the Canonicall Bookes of holie scripture as Gelasius did with his 70. Bishops Cap. 59. Carth. 3. Cap. 74. and others 55 The Popes liberalitie toward forrein nations was neuer so great by the hundreth parte as his couetous extortions and Antichristian exactions haue beene witnesse Matth. Paris Matth. West Anno Reg. 1244. and in a manner all Popish Historiographers of late times As for his liberalitie in these times is but to his owne bondslaues whom he hyreth with a litle exhibition to blase his charitie least hee should bee forsaken of all men 56 The greatest archheretike that euer was is the Pope of Rome so farre passing the archheretikes that haue bene in the other patriarchall Sees as Antichrist the head of all heresies passeth the members of that bodie For other heretikes take away but some part of Christes person or his office but the Pope vnder pretence of honoring him putteth him quite out of place by his vsurped supremacie false doctrine blasphemous sacrifice of the Masse and all other his abhominations And that our Sauiour CHRISTE prayed for Peter that his faith might not fayle it perteined onely to his person and to the temptation that immediately followed For otherwise Peter erred when he was reproued of God in vision Act. 10. and of Paule Gallath 2. And that Bishops of Rome haue erred and beene heretiques I haue proued in the 51. article to which you may adde Iohn the 23. that was condemned in the councell of Constance for that he denied the immortalitie of the soule the resurrection of the bodie and the life euerlasting Sess. 11. 57 That the See of Rome hath made so many wicked decrees so vniuersally obserued with such consent of many nations it came not of the spirite of godly vnitie but of the efficacie of errour whiche God sent into the worlde for a iust plague of the contempt of the trueth 2. Thessalonians 2. And this consent of so many nations vnto her abhominable decrees proueth Rome to be Babilon the mother of all abhominations that hath made all nations dronke with the wine of the furie of her fornications Apoc. 18. verse 3. The degrees of marriage prohibited are of the Lawe of God and not of the Pope the celebration of Easter although it be an indifferent ceremonie yet it is elder then the Antichristian authoritie of the Pope Albeit the mysterie of iniquitie beganne to worke in Victor about it That many Bishops and priuate men haue written to suche Bishops of Rome as were learned namely Leo and Gregorie for their resolution in diuerse questions it proueth no supremacie for as many haue written in like cases to Augustine a poore Bishop of Hippo and to Hieronyme but a Prieste of Rome yea Damasus Bishop of Rome himselfe hath written to Hieronyme for his iudgement Pope Sergius did write to Ceolfride Abbot of Woremouth in England to be resolued of certeine questions of Beda one of his Monkes Math. West Ant. 734. 59 That this resorte to Rome for councell was not onely of deuotion but of duetie because the Pope had reserued the hardest cases to his owne iudgement as Moses did hee bringeth no proofe but the Popes owne decrees whiche are of small credite in his owne case and the corrupt practise of the later times when men had submitted themselues vnto the beast 60 That not onely the Bishoppes of Italie but also of Sicilia whiche is not farre off did come in person to Rome at certeine times it prooueth not that all Bishoppes in the worlde were obedient to the Bishop of Rome or were bound so to visite him or that they did so visite him 61 The primacie of the Bishoppe of Rome in olde times was but of order not of power his presidence in councels was but honour not of authoritie and that by graunt or permission at the pleasure of the councell Ioan. Patr. Ant. in con Basil. The councell of Nice made him equall with other Patriarches The councell of Constantinople made the see of Constantinople equall with Rome Sozomen Lib. 7. Cap. 7. 9 â–ª so did the councell of Chalcedon leauing Rome no prerogatiue but of Senioritie and referring all causes of difficultie to the iudgement of the see of Constantinople whiche was new Rome Con. 9. Con. 16. 62 That Iustinian was
Iustinian which was almost 660. yeares after christ Cod. de summa trini◠lege 4. writing to Pope Ioannes Sanctitas vestra capu◠est omnium sanctarum ecclesiarum Your holines is heade of all holy churches I will not quarrell with him that he citeth the words otherwise then they are read in that Epist. by which it seemed he saw not the book himself but I answere that this epistle is a meere counterfet and forged euidence being not founde in the auncient coppies and therefore hath no glose of age vppon it as it is testified by Gregorius Haloander in a marginall note vppon the same Epistle No maruaile if a false title be defended with a forged euidence For if no men had admonished vs of that forgery yet the verie style vnlike Iustinians writing in other places argueth a later inuenter then either that Ioannes or Iustinian Likewise he citeth the saying of Eugenius not long before bishop of Carthage which called the Churche of Rome the head of all Churches and yet he reposed not all his confidence in the bishoppe of Romes aucthoritie but saide he woulde write to his brethren the other bishoppes that they might come to demonstrate the true faith against the Arrians especially to the bishop of the Church of Rome which is the head of all the Churches meaning the principall Churche Vict. lib. 2. 70 Thirdly hee citeth the words of the bishop of Patara intreatinge the Emperour Iustinian for Syluerius bishoppe of Rome whom he had banished There is not one king as Syluerius is Pope ouer the church of that whol world This bishoppe being 550. yeares after Christ and a suter also is not sufficient to make the Bishop of Rome so great a king And whereas Maister Sander sayeth that the Emperor yeelded to his saying repented willed him to be restored and therfore chargeth M. Iewel with impudency for alledging the example of Iustinian banishing Syluerius and Vigilius to proue that he had somewhat to doe in the churche of Rome affirming that hee might as well alledge the homicide and adultery of Dauid to prooue that hee had somewhat to doe with an other mans wife the trueth is M. Sanders forgeth a matter contrary to al histories which affirme that Syluerius dyed in banishment And how vnlike it is that Iustinianus repented of the banishinge of Syluerius vppon the words of the bishop of Patara in respect that he was Pope ouer the church of the whole worlde appeareth by this that he afterward banished Vigilius his next successor in the same sea The wordes of Liberatus whom M.S. citeth cap. 22. bee these Quem audiens imperator reuocari Roman◠Syluerium iussit c. Whom when the Emperour heard he commaunded that Syluerius shoulde be called againe to Rome and that iudgement should be made of these letters so that if it were prooued that they were written by him the bishop might remaine in any citie and if they were prooued to bee false he shoulde bee restored to his owne See. These wordes doe manifestly shew that Iustinian repented him not of banishing the Pope as a thing vnlawfull for him to doe but onely that whereas it was alledged in the Popes behalfe that the letters of treason were forged which he was charged to haue written to the Emperours enemies Iustinian was content that his cause might come to a newe iudgement and if he were found cleare to bee restored if not to continue in banishment To conclude the sayinges of Gregory bishop of Rome in defence of his owne dignitie are of small credit And yet they are a great deale more modest then the proude decrees of his successours For he challengeth the hearing of such controuersies only as arise in those dioces which haue no Metropolitane or Patriarche of their owne to resort vnto to determine them And againe I cannot tell what bishop is not subiect to the Apostolike See if any fault be found in them otherwise all the bishoppes are equall lib. 11. Ep. 58. lib. 7. Ep. 64. 70 The fame glorie and authoritie of the auncient church of Rome is a shame and dishonour to the present popish church of Rome Because it keepeth not nowe but hath altogether reiected the doctrine deliuered by the Apostles that Irenęus commended in his time libr. 3. Cap. 3. nor holdeth that rule or beleefe of the Apostles vndefyled which Ambrose praised in his time Ep. 81. 71 This land of Britaine receiued the faith of Christ as Gildas a Britaine a more auncient and certeine writer then Ado M. Sanders author in the time of the reigne of Tiberius 160. before Eleutherius was Bishop of Rome by the preaching of the Apostles and Euangelists as some write of Saint Paule some of Saint Simon of Cana some of Saint Philip some of Ioseph of Aramathia Neither did Eleutherius sende Fugatius and Damianus by him selfe or as of authoritie but being required by Lucius or Leuer Maure one of the little Kinges of some shiere of Britaine as Ninnius a Britaine doeth testifie For that Lucius was King of all Britaine it is proued false by all the Romaine histories which testifie that the Emperour was then soueraigne of Britaine vnder whome ruled certeine petie Kinges in some partes not throughly conquered 72 Beda an English Saxon more like to knowe matters of this lande then Prosper a forreyne writer affirmeth that the Britaine 's against the Pellagians heretiks desired ayde of the Bishops of Fraunce who by a Synod there gathered sent Germanus and Lupus two Bishops to confute the Pelagians without any sending to Rome or from Coelestinus Bishop of Rome lib. 1. Cap. 17. Likewise the seconde time at the request of the Clergie of Britaine Germanus returneth with Seuerus to roote out the heresie of the Pellagians 73 The zeale of Gregorie the first is to be commended that he sent Augustine to conuert the Saxons to the faith of Christe although the superstitions which hee brought in with the Christian faith cannot be defended The diligence of Augustin in teaching according to his knowledge deserueth praise yet can it not make him an Apostle because an Apostle hath his calling immediatly of God Gal. 1. If we report his pride and crueltie as wee finde in our histories written by Papistes let the worlde iudge whether we or they do him iniurie 74 From Vitellianus the Pope was Theodorus a Grecian sent to be Archebishop of Caunterburie rather to reteine the countrie vnder the vsurped authoritie of the Romish bishop then to instruct them in matters perteining to the faith For the Pope him selfe was afraide of him that beeing a Gręcian hee shoulde teache any thing contrarie to the Romishe religion Beda lib. 4. Cap. 1. 75 King Henrie the eight found his dominions subiect to the tyrannie of the Pope of Rome which vppon good ground and authoritie of the scriptures hee banished out of his realme what cause soeuer papistes do surmise or to speake plainly notwithstanding the iniurious and contumelious dealing of the Pope about
or to fall downe before holy images What say you maister Sander will you abide by it Haue you either forgotten the grammer you taught vs before of ioyning the aduerbe with the verbe or thinke you that we haue learned so little either grammer or logike that wee cannot see a difference betweene a proposition affirmatiue and negatiue If a boy should construe Gregories latine as you haue englished it hee were worthie of a dosen strips though he had gon to grāmer schoole but two or three yeres Non quasi ante diuinitatē ante illam imaginē prosternimur We fall not downe before that image as before the diuinitie thus would I english it conster it if it were for my life And that which you make affirmatiue I must make negatiue for I haue learned fiue or sixe twentie yeare agoe that it is a negatiue proposition when the principall Verbe is denyed But perhaps you will gather that though he fell not downe before an image as before God yet he fell downe before it as before an image Howe certeine this collection is you may see by an hundreth examples if you list to consider them If I saye Non quasi ante diuinitatem ante diabolum prosternimur woulde you translate it we fall downe before the deuill but not as before God or rather thus we fal not down before the diuell as we do before God. Non quasi panem lapides commedimus would you turne it thus we eate stones but not as bread or rather we eate not stones as we eate breade Non quasi ante regem ante mendicum prosternimur woulde you translate it thus we fall downe before a begger but not as before a king or else wee fall not downe before a begger as before a king Such examples might bee multiplied infinitely by which you may see what pith there is in maister Sanders argument to proue that Saint Gregory lay prostrate before an image where as contrariwise he denyeth it and maketh such prostration and falling downe with affection of religion to be dewe onely to GOD euen as the Angell infinitly more excellent then all the images that euer were made refusing that honour offered to him by Saint Iohn willed him to giue it to god 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fall downe to god Apoc. 22.9 THE XV. or XIIII CHAP. That the seuenth general councell was a true councell and ought to be obeyed and Maister Iewels slaunders be aunswered concerning the same Where also it is briefly shewed that miracles might and haue bene wrought by holy images Also Maister Iewels vaine arguments against the seuenth generall councell and Irene the Empresse that Maister Iewell committeth three faultes about fiue Latine words that the shadowe of Peter was accounted of vertue and power to heale men That they were and are in possession of honouring images who defended the honouring of them The cause why the seuenth generall councell was called The seuenth generall councell is conferred with the first What Bishops recanted in the seuenth councell The Bishop of Salisburie reiecting the authoritie of this Councell of Nice the second saith it was holden wel neere eight hundreth yeares after Christe and therefore was out of the compasse of those sixe hundred yeares of which he made his challenge Maister Sander answereth it was seuen hundreth yeares before Maister Iewell as though the controuersie were of antiquitie of the men and not of the doctrine The Bishop saide it would require a long treatise to open the whole follie and fondnesse of that Councell M. Sander answereth it is more like that M. Iewell is a fond foole then 350. Bishops of such wit vertue and learning as though their multitude could proue their wit vertue and learning when their words and deeds plainly declare their follie ignorance and vngodlinesse The B. saide Irene the Empresse which gathered this Councell was a wicked woman M. Sander citing diuers writers to and fro in the end concludeth that by repentance she was made a good woman and her zeale towards holy images did make her the better so he bringeth that for an argument which is the matter in controuersie The Bishop said She was the kings daughter of Tartaria an Heathen borne So was Constantine the great saith M. Sander yet was she Christened before she procured that Councell whereas hee doubteth whether Maister Iewell thinke that Constantine was baptized when hee gathered and confirmed the first Councell of Nice The Bishop doth not for that cause onely reiect the second Councel at Nice bicause Irene was an Heathen borne but thereby sheweth that she sauoured of Gentilitie in being earnest to set forward idolatrie And whereas Maister Sander doubteth whether Maister Iewell thinke Constantine were baptized before he gathered the Councel he neede not at al seeing Eusebius which knewe Constantine very well affirmeth that he was not baptized but euen imediatly before his death Contrarie to that fond fable which among other is auouched by Pope Adrian in this Councell that Constantine was cured of a leapresie baptized by Siluester Bishop of Rome And whereas he thinketh it a daungerous matter to take the authorizing of that Councel from Siluester and to ascribe it to one that was not baptized there is no perill at all in it for Constantine did then beleeue in Christ and was certainly determined to be baptized in Iordan if he had not bene preuented by death Yea although hee had beene an Heathen man seeing he gaue no sentence but assented to the sentence of the Bishoppes it had beene none inconuenience at all The Bishop saide She caused that Councell to be summoned in despight of the Councell of Constantinople that had decreed against images Maister Sander although he confesse there was such a Councell yet bicause the whole processe of the actes thereof is not extant being defaced by the idolaters he quarelleth that it was an obscure Councell and asketh by what Emperour it was gathered as though it were not testified that it was gathered by Leo the third but it lacked saith he the Bishop of Romes authoritie and therefore was no general Councell so did the Chalcedonense and the sixt of Constantinople in some partes and yet it went forward with the decree which had bene in vaine if the Romish Bishop had a negatiue voyce in all Councels The Bishop sayde She tooke her owne sonne Constantinus and pulled out his eyes The Councell is not therefore naught saith Maister Sander But she is thereby proued to bee a cruell woman which was the Bishops meaning The Bishop saith She did it onely bycause he would not consent to the idolatrous hauing of images Maister Sander denyeth this but proofe hee bringeth none sauing that hee sheweth there was an other cause why shee might doe it namely bicause hee deposed her of her gouernement wherein hee did well after the example of Asa which is commended in the scripture for that hee did put downe his mother Maachah from her estate bycause she
insensible Idoll which by the iust iudgement of God is made like vnto those Images whiche he worshippeth and in whome hee putteth his trust SECTIO 12. in the 58. leafe The bishoppe alledgeth S. Augustine which saieth that in our praiers wee must not chirpe like birdes but sing like men To this he maketh none answere but that we must learne to vnderstand the English which we read or els we are chirpers as though Englishe men could vnderstand no more of English then of Latine SECTIO 13. From the first face of the 56. leafe to the 2. face of 59. leafe The bishoppe citeth a lawe of Iustinian that the priest shoulde speake with an audible voice that the people might say Amen therefore the people shoulde vnderstande what the minister saith M. Rastel aunswereth to this nothinge but that the people do and may saye Amen though they vnderstand him not so long as there is no mistrust in the persons faith honesty So that belike if the priest be a knaue no man shoulde saye Amen to his masse Good stuffe I warrant you But in that the people said Amen to the priests wordes of consecration he will prooue like a luftie logician whiche findeth no reason but much rethorike in that bishops sermon that they did exclude al figuration and significatioÌ„ of his body We wil reason no longer M.R. hath gotteÌ„ the day and that with maine logike And as for the second abuse of not receiuing in both kindes if it were any abuse it is the fault he saith of the bishops priests and not of the masse which consecrateth in both kinds But seeing receiuing is made one of the parts of the masse receiuing in one kind onely is an abuse of the masse it self I know he wil answer the priest receiueth in both kindes In deede if the sacrament had bene instituted for priests onely the aunswere had bene somewhat but if the blood of Christ pertaine to more then priestes surely the sacrament of his blood shoulde not be denyed to anye for whome he shedde his blood SECTIO 14. From the second face of the 59. leafe to the second face of 61. leafe The bishop saide the Canon of the masse for manie causes is a verie vaine thinge and so vncertaine that no man can redily tell on whom to father it Notwithstanding the bishoppe saith for many causes yet Master Rastell taketh exceptions to his argument as though for the vncertaintie of the author onely it shoulde be refused comparing it most leudely with certaine bookes of holy scripture the indighters of which although they be not knowne yet the onely author is both knowen and acknowledged to be the holy Ghost But Pope Innocent the third saith it came from the Apostles other say from Gregory the first other from Gregory the thirde But that it came neither from the Apostles nor froÌ„ Gregory the first euen that place which M.Ra. citeth out of Greg. lib. 7. ep 63. doth proue sufficiently For there Greg. reproueth the order of the liturgie or canon vsed in his time because the Lords praier by that order was not said ouer the sacrameÌ„t as wel as the praier of Scholasticus But M.R. will haue Scholasticus to signifie a scholer or disciple of Christ and not to be a proper name which is altogether vntrue vnlikely for if Greg. had thought any Apostle or disciple of Christ to haue bin the auctor of it he would neuer haue takeÌ„ vpoÌ„ him to reproue it seing he thoght it expedieÌ„t that the lords praier should be said ouer the sacrament which is not vsed in the popish canon it followeth also that Gregorie the first was not the author of the popish canon And so it is not prooued to haue bene made within the compasse of sixe hundreth yeres after Christ. SECTIO 15. From the second face of the 61. leafe to the first face of the 63. leaf Here he chargeth the bishop with a shamefull lye for saying that the priest in the canon desireth God to blesse Christ his body denying any such thing to be in the Latin canon but confesseth that the Graecians vse such words and excuseth theÌ„ by vehemency of desire wheras those words do proue that the authors of those liturgies beleeued not the bread to be turned into the body of Christ which they would neuer haue praied that God shuld blesse vpoÌ„ any vehemency of desire to confesse the body of Christ to haue need of sanctification But to returne to the Latine canon I pray you M.R. what be these Dona sancta sacrificia those gifts holy sacrifices which he desireth God to blesse the bread wine what holines is in theÌ„ before they be consecrated So for al your loud lying clamors the canon is not constant with it self or your heresie of transsubstantiation agreeth not with the canon Also that M. of the sentence lib. 4. dist 13. plainly affirmeth that your masse is called Missa because the Angell the is praied for is sent to consecrate the body of Christ which praier is saide after the priests consecration SECTIO 16. From the first face of the 63. leafe to the second face of the 64. leaf in the which he speaketh of the sacrifice of the masse He would know what blasphemie it is for the priest to offer Christ to his father in a propitiatorie sacrifice Verily so great blasphemie as none can lightly be greater First because it taketh away the eternall and vnsuccessible priesthood of christ Secondly because it maketh the priest more excellent then christ For euery sacrifice is excepted for the dignitie of him which offereth it so the sacrifice of Christ which by his eternall spirite offered vp himselfe was acceptable vnto god Heb. 9. But M.R. being forsaken of the scripture flyeth to the sayings of the doctors that not onely the priest but all the Church offereth Christe neuertheles the olde fathers euen by saying so declare that they meane not to set vp a propitiatory sacrifice but onely to celebrate a remembraunce of the only singular sacrifice of Christ. Chrysost. ad Heb. cap. 10. Hom. 17. Hoc autem quod facimus c. But this that we do is done in remembrance of that which was done For do this saith he in remembrance of me We make not another sacrifice as the high priest but the same alwayes but rather we worke the remembraunce of that sacrifice And August Contra Faust. man lib. 20. cap. 18. Vnde iam Christiani c. Whereupon now the Christians do celebrate the memorie of the same sacrifice once finished by holy oblation and participation of the bodie blood of christ Contra aduersariâ—â— lag proph cap. 18. He calleth the death of Christ Vnum singulare solum verum sacrificium the one singular and onely true sacrifice These places with manye other are sufficient to expounde what they meane when in any other place figuratiuely and vnproperly they call the
in spite of your heart for I will be at masse as soone as you and then will I receiue at my Masse when you receiue at your Masse and so by our owne principle whereby wee defend our priuate Masses to be communions I will communicate with you whether you will or no yea I can not choose but communicate with you if I say Masse when you doe And if you will say to me that I ought not to say Masse being excommunicate I tell you you can not excommunicate me so long as I can say Masse For though you count me excōmunicate yet you knowe by our owne diuinitie that if I doe say Masse notwithstanding your censure I doe consecrate as well as the proudest of you and after I haue consecrated I will receiue and then I communicate and so your excommunication is no excommunication at all SECTIO 48. in the 155. leafe Whereas the Bishop said that the Masse had nether her name nor her partes vntill foure hundreth yeares after Christe he aunswereth that she had the essentiall and necessarie partes but not the garnishing and decking parts So that by his owne confession it was a namelesse and naked Masse which they had in the church for foure hundreth yeares after Christes So that the later times with him were alwayes more wise and more religious then the former newe deuises better then olde customes And where then is there the proud challenge of antiquitie vniuersalitie consent Apostolike tradition And if the Church might be without the Popish Masse so long after Christe why should they teach that nowe it is so necessarie as there ought to be none other forme of communion vsed in the Church of God but it SECTIO 49. M. Rastel protesting once or twise that he was wearie will now conclude with onely confuting these conclusions of M. Iewels comparison S. Iames Masse had Christes institution they in their Masse haue well neere nothing else but mans inuention To disproue this he saith the epistle and Gospell the collets of the Sunday the Hymne of the Angell the confession of faith the saying of Agnus Dei c. are translated out of their Masse into our communion therefore we take them for parte of Christes institution I answere we take them as Christes institution and not as commended by the Masse and yet are they no parte of the communion though they be vsed in our liturgie some before and some after the communion Secondly he would seeme to confute the Bishops saying that Saint Iames Masse had Christes institution because if we had thought so in deede we would haue translated it into English and so haue vsed it in steede of the Popish Masse and then it would haue seemed more superstitious and full of ceremonies then the Popish Masse And so he rehearseth a number of superstitious ceremonies gestures and prayers that are in it I answere the Bishop said truely as he thought that the liturgie falsely ascribed to Saint Iames hath Christes institution concerning the Lorde Supper notwithstanding it be ful fraught with idle ceremonies and some superstitious and erronious prayers whereas the Popish Masse hath cleane ouerturned the institution of Christ touching the ende of the Lordes supper reteyning well neere nothing of Christes institution except you will say it hath bread and wine which it most horribly abuseth to the prophanation of Christes death and most filthie idolatrie Finally the saluation of the virgine Marie whiche was then aliue although it were more meere to be vsed to her person beeing aliue then after she was departed out of this worlde the prayer made for them that liued in monasteries the tearme of consubstantiall not heard of in the Church before the Nicene councell and many other argumentes doe sufficiently proue that the saide liturgie was not written by Saint Iames the Apostle nor by any that liued many hundreth yeares after him to the iudgements of al men that haue either knowledge to discerne trueth from falshoode or conscience to acknowledge that which they can not choose but know And euen Bartholomew Garanza a Papist that gathered the abridgement of councels affirmeth that the liturgie which Saint Iames vsed is not extant at this day O Lord bring into the way of trueth all such as erre of simplicitie and be not mercifull to those that sinne of malicious wickednesse After this clearkly confutation followeth a counterfet challenge as he pretendeth to shew the Bishops follie but in deede to shewe his owne follie and the weaknesse of his cause which he learned not as he saith of Salomon to answere a foole according to his follie but of Menalcas one of Virgils sheepheardes in his thirde Eglogue which when he could not answer the ridle propounded vnto him by his aduersarie he putteth for than other as harde as he thinketh Dic quibus in terris c. His first section conteineth 21. articles whereof the greatest parte are not helde at all by any of vs therefore there is no cause why we should proue them the rest be matters of meere indifferencie which may be vsed or left vndon without any hurt of our religion some perhaps may be proued which he litle thinketh of to his shame Of the first sort are these 1. that there was no drie communion and we say there ought to be none although the Papistes make a drie communion when they robbe the people of the cuppe of the Lordes bloud The thirde that Bishops did not sweare by their honour we affirme they ought not to sweare nor yet by God as I heard Boner sweare being conuented before the Bishop of Winchester his Chauncelour and a great number of persons beeing present The 4. that bagpipers horscoursers gailers alebasters were not admitted into the Cleargie without sufficient triall We affirme they ought not nor yet any of the scullerie or blacke garde as some yet liuing were made Priestes in Queene Maries time The 6. that no Bishoppe not content with prisoning his aduersaries call vppon Princes to put them to cruell death We holde that no Bishop should imprison his aduersary much lesse procure his death but if the challenge had beene of Gods aduersaries I would haue aunswered otherwise For if in 600. yeares none of Gods aduersaries was or ought to haue beene put to death by procurement of Bishops by what ground of antiquitie doe Popish Bishops procure so many to be put to death yea murther them selues in their prisons and inquisitions vnder pretence that they be Gods aduersaries The 17. that no Bishoppe did gather beneuolence of his Cleargie to marrie his daughter c. We aunswere this no way concerneth religion no more then putting of the ring on the womans left hande which is the 18. or calling the people by ringing of a bell whiche is the 21. Now concerning the rest as the seconde that there should be no celebration of the Lordes supper except there be a good number to communicate three or foure at the least
his deuorse from his first vnlawfull mariage gaue him occasion to enquire and finde out what weake foundation the vsurped power of the See of Rome was buylded vppon 76 King Henrie departed not out of the societie of the churche of Rome onely for the vices of the men thereof but for their false and Antichristian heresies which they obstinately mainteined and ioyned him selfe to the true auncient and vniuersall Church of Christe when hee departed out of that false newe sett vp schismaticall and particuler Synagogue of Rome as Saint Augustine went from the Manichees to the Catholicke church And as King Henrie the eyght knewe whence hee went so knewe hee also whither he went euen from Rome with seuen hilles to Ierusalem which is aboue and is the mother of vs all 77 Hee that goeth out of an hereticall church as King Henrie did must goe to the Catholike church of Christe as hee did without making any newe church or being without a church I knowe not the age of Maister Sander but if hee bee not much aboue fourtie yeares olde hee was borne and baptized as manye other Papistes were in that which hee calleth a newe church or no church which howe hee will aunswere let him and them aduise which holde it necessarie that a man must tarrie in that church in which hee is baptized 78 King Henrie the eight was not without a churche but in the church of Englande a member of the Catholike church of Christe neither did hee call him the supreme head of the church of Englande before that title was giuen him by the Popish Clergie in their submission after they were cast in the premunire Edw. Hall. 79 That hee receiued not fully the true doctrine of Christ as he banished the false vsurped power of the Pope is to bee imputed to the trayterous practises of his dissembling Clergie which although they durste not withstande him in mainteining the Popes authoritie yet they laboured all that they coulde to reteine the Popes doctrine in as many poyntes as they might hereof came the lawe of the sixe articles which mainteined the sacrifice of the Masse transubstantiation communion in one kynde and such other heresies Neuerthelesse the authoritie of Antichrist much Idolatrie superstition and false doctrine was abolished Iustification by faith in Christe was preached the scripture was read in the vulgar tongue which was a beginning of a reformation and returning vnto the true church of Christe and not a setting vp of a newe churche Except Maister Sander will saye that those Kinges of Iuda which refourmed some parte of religion and yet left the hill altares other abuses did set vp a newe church because they made not a perfect reformation Finally where he sayth that King Henrie adioyned himselfe to no companie of faithfull men in earth which had from Christes time liued after that profession of faith which he allowed proueth not that hee set vp a newe church For he ioyned to the Catholike church in so many pointes of true doctrine as hee acknowledged from which the Popish church was departed although he was not rightly instructed in all 80 The church of Englande in King Henries time was a true church although all the doctrine which was then mainteined by publique authoritie through the subtile practises of popish hypocrites was not true And the church of England at this daye is the same that it was then but nowe by publike authoritie embraceing all true doctrine which by the true members of the church in King Henries dayes was mainteined and withstoode by hypocrites or other not yet rightly instructed 81 The church vnto which King Henrie went and brought the realme when he departed from Rome was the same church which began at Ierusalem and so increased into all nations and continueth in the world for euer though not among all nations 82 King Henry went out of the Antichristian church of Rome into the Catholike church of Christe embracing some part of the doctrine therof therefore hee needed no reconciliation to the Romish church but a more perfect information of the church of Christ. 83 In King Edwardes time the reformation began and hindred in his fathers time was perfected and accomplished for all pointes of Christian doctrine neither was there any reconciliation vsed to the churche of Rome but the Church of Englande by publike authoritie perfectly vnyted to the Catholike Churche of Christe ioyning in profession of faith with the best refourmed Christian churches in the worlde 84 The abolishing of forrein power hindred not the ioyning in faith and doctrine with all the Churches of God that were without the realme of England The propitiatorie sacrifices of the Masse was in King Edwardes time abolished by publique authoritie out of the Church of England as it was in King Henries time abhorred of all true members of the Church that were then rightly instructed as much as the supremacie of the Pope 85 The power of being the sonnes of God the power of preaching and forgiuing of sinnes in the Church of Christe is no forreigne power neither was any such power euer excluded but the false and vsurped tyrannie of Antichrist of Rome 86 We beleeue and professe a Catholique or vniuersall Church of Christe whereof we are members and therefore we detest the hereticall schismaticall and particular Church of Rome 87 The Church of England vnder King Edward did professe her selfe to be a member of the most auncient Catholike and Apostolique Church of Christe which is the piller of trueth to bee iudged by the worde of GOD which is the trueth it selfe Iohn 17. being not so ignoraunt but that she could distinguish the worde of GOD from the Church of GOD as the lawe of GOD from the houshold of GOD which is gouerned by that lawe And not as Maister Sanders similitude is as the statutes of England differ from the men of England which make them but the Church maketh not the worde of God but contrariwise the word of God maketh the Church 88 It is not necessarie to shewe a companie of men in a peculiar place as Geneua or any such like for them that will ioyne them selues with the Catholike Church of all the world although it were easie to name diuers companies of men in seuerall places which continued in the true Church out of the Church of Rome both in Fraunce and Italie beside Bohemia which long before was returned out of the Popish Church into the Church of Christ and all the East Churches which neuer ioyned with the Church of Rome 89 The Churches of Zurich and Saxonie be members of the Catholique Church of Christe which is fifteene hundreth yeares olde and vpward although the same Churches were gathered and returned in those places within these three score yeares 90 There needed no embassages to goe to and fro to the Churches of God beyond the seas for reconciliation bicause there was no debate betweene the Church of England and them Although for conference and aduise