with the hart although the eyes eares handes and tong were occupied about the sacrament thereof After M. Heskins noteth that Chrysostome in the place by him cited calleth the sacrament a sacrifice so doth he an hundreth times elsewhere but that proueth not a propitiatorie sacrifice but rather a memory of Christes only sacrifice as he teacheth himself In Ep. ad Heb. Ca. 10. Hom. 17. And here he taketh vpon him to refute the rule of Cranmer or of him that set forth the book in his name as though that learned father was not able to set forth his booke himselfe as wel as this blind buzzard Heskins who hath nothing in effect but that he hath stolne out of Gardiners M. Constantius But let vs heare this wise refutation A sacrifice of thanksgiuing saith he is not receiued of vs but giuen from vs to God. No more is any sacrifice in that it is a sacrifice O the vnlearned confuter of so learned a fathers rule yet that which is receiued is called a sacrifice in respect that it hath bene offered So was the sacrament of the old writers called a sacrifice vnproperly because it was a memorial of the only sacrifice of Christ once offered by him self in respect of that action of the administration which is a sacrifice of thanksgiuing therefore of them was called Eucharistia a thanksgiuing Another reason to proue it no gratulatorie sacrifice is because he calleth it a wonderful sacrifice but thanksgiuing is but an ordinarie duetie Shore vp your drousie eyes M. Hesk. you shal see he calleth it a holie sacrifice so the sacrifice of thanksgiuing He calleth it not a wonderfull sacrifice but a wonderful mysterie except mysterie sacrifice be al one with you but if he had called it a wonderful sacrifice as else where he calleth it a fearfull or terrible sacrifice doth that proue it to be no sacrifice of thankesgiuing Hee calleth it fearful terrible reuerende wonderful in respect of the diuine working of our sauiour Christ to make vs partakers of his bodi bloud by receiuing these outward creatures worthily according to his appointment as for the names I haue answered before they proue no sacrifice propitiatorie But now at leÌ„gth M. Hes. hauing builded on this place of Paule Chrysost. which deny the partaking of the bodie bloud of Christ to them that are made partakers of the table of diuels or otherwise be wicked men giueth S. Paul Chryso a new interpretation S. Paul saith he doth not absolutely deny but conditionally saying that men cannot be partakers of the Lords table of the table of diuels that is that thei ought not so that ye cannot ye ought not is al one with M. Hesk. for ye cannot sayth he if you do wel But thinketh this grosse expositor to escape with this glose I aske him whether light darknes can agree whether Christ Belial can haue any felowship Be these negatiues absolutly or coÌ„ditionally Is it now otherwise to be taken but light and darknesse ought not to agree or cannot agree if they do well Christ Belial ought not to agree or cannot agree if they do well O blinde interpreter or rather shamefull peruerter of the streight wayes of the Lord. You see in despite of the diuell the Popishe doctrine of the wicked receiuing Christ manifestly borne downe by the authoritie of Gods worde and of the auncient fathers and consequently transubstantiation layde in the dust And yet this arrogant expounder as though hee had found out a sworde to cutt in sunder this Gordian knot with like madnesse runneth at Origens saying which he will not vouchsafe to quote least any man shoulde reade it to his shame and ouerthrow of his popish transsubstantiation But it is written in Math. cap. 15. Multa pâ—rro c. Many things may be sayd also of the WORDE him selfe that was made fleshe and verie meate whome whosoeuer shall eate shall loue for euer which no euil man can eate Firste as he hath learned of brazen faced Gardiner he will not certeinly admitt that worke to be Origens which is an impudent shifte when none of them can alledge anye reason why they shoulde doubt of it Secondly he heweth at it with his leaden sworde saying an euil man can not eat of it to his profite but yet hee may eate of it But it followeth in Origen immediately Etenim si fieri posset vt qui malus adhuc perseuerat edat verbum factum carnem cum sit verbum panis viuus nequaquam scriptum fuisset Quisquis ederic panem hunc viuet in aeternum For if it were possible that hee which as yet continueth an euill man shoulde eat the worde made fleshe seing he is the worde and the breade of life it had not beene written whosoeuer shall eate of this breade shall liue for euer Here Origen sayeth that no man can eate him but hee must take profit by him so the knott is too harde for Master Heskins wodden dagger to cleaue a sunder For as hee himselfe concludeth betwixt God and Beliall is none agreement neither can Dagon stand in the presence of the Arke and much lesse wickednesse where Christ is receiued for he is the bread of life reiected of the wicked but cause of eternall life to all that receiue him The one and thirtieth Chapter endeth the exposition of this text by Theophylact and Anselmus I had thought to haue sayed nothing of these late writers but that Maister Heskins will make Theophylact so auncient as to be three hundred yeres elder then Anselmus which was Archbishop of Caunterburie almoste 500. yeres agoe so that Theophylact shoulde be neere 800. yeres olde But to confute his impudencie Firste you must vnderstande that the Bulgars of whom he was Bishop were not conuerted to the faith before the yeare of Christe 865. and after their first conuersion they agreed with the church of Rome but in processe of time they forsooke the church of Rome and ioyned with the church of Constantinople After this Theophylact was there bishop and although the histories bee not certeine what time he liued yet it must needs be gathered to be when the contention was hote betweene the Greekes Romanes about the proceeding of the holie Ghost because that in his exposition vpon the thirde of Iohn hee inueygheth against the church of Rome defending the Greekes about the proceeding of the holie Ghoste and this was about the yeare of Christ 1049 when Berengarius liued and reproued the church of Rome for the carnall presence that then or not long before was begon to be grossely defended But the chiefe matter he gathereth out of Anselme is that he expoundeth the table in Saint Paule for an altare whereupon Maister Heskins will make a discourse of Altares and proue the vse of them euen from the Apostles times And firste he beginneth with Dionyse the disciple of S. Paule Eccl. Hier. part 3. Cap. 3. Sed
corporis Christi Vocaturque ipsa īmolario carnis que sacerdotis manibus fit Christi passio mors crucifixio nō rei veritate sed significāte mysterio The heauenly bread which is the flesh of Christ after a peculiar maner is called the body of Christe when as in very deed it is the sacramēt of the body of christ And euen the oblation of his flesh which is done by the hands of the priest is called the passion death crucifying of Christ not in truth of the thing but in a signifying mysteri Those words which are borrowed out of August into the decrees the glose doth thus vnderstand Coeleste sacraementū quod verè repraesentat Christi carnem dicitur corpus Christi sed impropriè Vnde dicitur suo modo sed non in veritate sed significante mysterio◠Vt sit sensus vocatur corpus Christi id est significat The heauenly sacrament which doth truly represent the flesh of Christ is called the body of Christ but vnproperly Therefore it is saide to be after a peculiar manner but not in truth of the thing but in a signifying mysterie So that the sense is it is called the body of Christe that is it doth signifie the body of Christe If these testimonies that are taken out of the Romish Bishops owne writings decrees and gloses that are so plaine will not satisfie the Papistes that their doctrine of transubstantiation and carnall presence is neither true ancient nor Catholike it is in vaine to spend more wordes with them as with men that are obstinate and will not be satisfied with any truth contrarie to their presumed heresie The one and sixtieth Chapter maketh a recapitulation of that that is done in this worke Seeing this Chapter containeth no argument or authoritie to defend his cause but only rehearseth what he fantasieth that he hath brought in other places throughout all his booke for the maintenance of the same I referre it to the indifferent readers iudgement what I haue done in this breefe confutation of the same And here I conclude this acte of repeale that notwithstanding this bill offered to the Parleament by Tho. Hesk. in the lower house hath many friends so that the greater part of voyces if the house were diuided might seeme to ouercome the better yet for as much as in the higher house the greatest number haue spoken directly against his bill and no one lord of that house which liued within the compasse of 600. yeres of the challenge hath giuen his voyce to allowe it not only the pretensed acte of Parleament set forth by the said Tho. Hesk. is proued to be false forged counterfet but also the bill that he hath put in to be considered is vtterly reiected condemned spurned out of the house GOD BE PRAYSED A CONFVTATION OF AN IDOLATROVS TREATISE OF NICOLAS SANDER Doctor in Diuinitie which mainteyneth the making and honouring of Images by W.F. Doctour in Diuinitie ECCLESIASTIC 45. The memoriall of the beloued of God is blessed that is to say any thing that maketh vs to remember him that is beloued of God is worthie of praise and honour A Doctour like interpretation and a pithy argument whereupon I may conclude The idols that Salomon made are things that make vs remember Salomon who was the beloued of God and so called of God him selfe therefore the idols were worthie of prayse and honour The preface conteining a breefe declaration which is the true Churche Maister Sander taking in hand so absurde and wicked an argument as is the defence of idolatrie or honouring of Images thought good to present it in the best vessel that he had which is the painted boxe of the Churche which that he might the rather commend to his countrimen he hath taken vpon him to describe it both inside and outside as he saith by certeine knowen truethes in number no lesse then 112. which after they haue been all well vewed and sufficiently considered I doubt not but to the reasonable and indifferent Reader shall appeare nothing else but a faire coloured but yet an empty vessell I will followe his diuisions and where I finde any trueth I will confesse it without wrangling where in steede of trueth he offereth falshode I will breefely confute it 1 The first I graunt that Christe hath alwayes had and alwayes shall haue a Church on earth out of which there is no saluation This Churche consisteth of men whiche beleeue in him haue their faith sealed and confirmed by outward sacramentes 2 The Church is the kindome of Christe the Citie of God and the kingdome of heauen wherein Christ shall reigne for euer 3 The kingdome is spread more largely and gouerned more prudently then any earthly kingdome euer was euen to the endes of the worlde to continue world without end 4 Notwithstanding all this to say that the Churche or this kingdome of Christe was hidden any one houre from the eyes of the worlde is not to make it more obscure then any earthly kingdome euer was as Maister Sander doeth affirme for the glorie of this Kingdome whiche is spirituall neuer did nor shall appeare to the wicked of this worlde The Churche is an article of our faith and faith is of those thinges whiche are not seene Hebru 11. but with spirituall eyes Therfore the exaltation of the Lordes hill that Esaie 2. and Micheas 4. doe speake of is of a spirituall aduauncement and a citie built vpon an hill is euerie true minister of Gods worde Matthewe 5. and not the whole Churche Finally the glorie and ioye that Esaie 60. promiseth vnto the Church and her happie enlargement among the nations Cap. 61. proue no worldly pompe or greatnesse to be seene with carnall eyes but is ment of the ioyfull and comfortable addition of the Churche of the Gentiles vnto the Churche of the Iewes For otherwise these wordes could not be verified of all wicked men All that see them shall knowe them that they are the blessed seede which the Lorde hath blessed 5 The cheefe meane whereby the Church is so clearely seene and so glorious in the sight of men is that Christ being the true light hath cōmunicated his brightnesse to his Apostles sayng you are the light of the worlde A citie built vpon an hill can not be hidden Neither do men light a candel and put it vnder a bushel but vpon a candlestick that it may giue light to al them that are in the house But this brightnesse is heauenly and spirituall not worldly and carnall to be seene of the children of light not of the blind bussards of the worlde 6 The Churche dyed not when the Apostles dyed for Bishops and Pastours succeeded in their place as lightes set vpon the candlestickes which are the seuerall Churches Apoc. 1. 7 The light and glorie of Gods Churche commeth chiefely from the Bishops and Pastours thereof I meane from their heauenly doctrine not from their persons as Maister
Sander perhaps would insinuate And the hystorie of the Church is described by Eusebius Socrates Theodore c. by the doctrine vttered in preaching writings and consent in councels and doings and sufferings of the Elders of the Churches and not altogether or cheefely by their knowen gouernement as Maister Sander affirmeth As for example Eusebius sheweth the doctrine of Clement out of his writing for the allowance of marriage who affirmeth that the Apostles were married begot children Lib. 3. Cap. 30. Socrates sheweth that Spiridion a Bishop of Cypres in time of his Bishopricke of great humilitie kept sheepe Lib. 4. Cap. 12. Sozomenus saith he had a wife and children and sheweth his iudgement for eating flesh on a fasting day accounting him no Christian that would refuse it Lib. 1. Cap 11. Finally although some Churches haue ben known by their Pastors and Bishops yet haue there bene infinite Churches known to be in the worlde whose Bishops Pastours are altogether vnknowen And although some heretical and Schismatical companies haue bene knowen by their heades yet not all for the Acephali were so called because they had no head the Anthropomorphites also were rustical Monkes or Eremites in Aegypt vnder no head of their owne but the Bishop of Alexandria which was a Catholike Niceph. Lib. 13. Cap 10. 8 Although the Churche of Christ ceassed not at the end of the first fiue or sixe hundreth yeares nor the glory of Christes kingdome was euer darkened yet a greate number of the Bishops and pastors of the visible Church began then to be dimme and some altogether darke because they lighted not their candels at the word of God the onely true light shyning in the darke but declined to the inuentions of men and doctrine of diuels according to the prophesie of Saint Paule 2. Thess. 2. of the apostasie and departing from the faith 1. Tim. 4. towarde the comming reuelation of Antichrist Neither is it true that M. Sander saith that after the first 600. yeares the Church was spread into mo countries then it was before but the contrarie For Mahomet soone after peruerted the greatest parte of the worlde whereas Affrica long before was ouerrunne and Christianitie spoyled by the Vandales which were either Heathens or Arrians Notwithstanding some small countries haue beene since that time turned to the Christian profession And as it is true that Pastors and Doctors must still be to the end of the worlde in the Church and Christ neuer forsaketh the same so is it false that Popish Bishops Priestes which either were ignorant or altogether negligent in feeding and teaching the Churche with the foode and doctrine of Gods worde whereof Saint Paule spake Ephesi 4. or taught the doctrine of Diuels in steede thereof be those Pastours and Doctours by whome the preaching of the Gospell is continued though they sitte in the same places where sometime the true teachers satt euen as Antichrist their head sitteth in the Temple of GOD which is the proper place of Christe Neither is the credite of such late writers as account them for successors of the Apostles and godly pastours and teachers sufficient to authorise them for such in deed when their whole life and doctrine is contrarie to the writings of the Apostles and those auncient godly Pastors Doctors 9 We say not that the Church of Christ was knowen for the first â—00 yeres after Christ only or chiefely by the Bishops Pastors therof but by their doctrine agreable to the word of god And therefore it is sufficient ground for vs to deny the later rout that professeth not the same doctrine to be the church of christ The succession of persons or places without the continuance of the same true doctrine can no more defende the Pope poperie then it could defend Caiphas Sadduceisme For Caiphas a Sadducei which denyed the resurrection coulde more certeinly declare his personall and locall successioÌ„ from Aaron then the Pope can from Peter 10 I haue proued before that it is false which Master Sander againe sayeth to be true that Eusebius and other writers point foorth the church of 500. yeres onely or chiefely by Bishops which ruled in Rome Antioche Alexandria c. The doctrine actes of those Bishops agreeable to the scriptures is their description not their personall or locall succession as it was accompted in the latter times when they had nothing else to commende their counterfet Bishops being in life and doctrine contrarie to the worde of God the testimonie of the primitiue church And where he sayeth noting in the margent August Ep. 165. that in olde time they were knowen to be heretikes which departed from the knowen companie of Bishops Pastors agreeing in one faith c. it is verie true but then this faith was proued to be true not onely by successions of Bishops but by the holye scriptures as the same Augustine sayeth in the same place Quanquam nos non tam de istis documentis praesumamus quà m de scripturis sanctis Although wee do not presume so much of those documentes as of the holie scriptures To conclude all practises and councels that are contrary to the holie Scriptures were then refused euen as they be nowe Cyprian refused the practise of ministring the communion with water because it was contrarie to the scripture Augustine refused the practise of Cyprian and the Councell of Carthage â–ª for rebaptizing them that were baptized by heretikes and for the same cause our church refuseth the Masse the Laterane and the Tridentin councels without daunger of schisme or heresie 11 The vniuersall church is a spiritual collection of many members into one bodie whereof Christe is the onely head both in heauen and earth as the Apostle sayeth Eph. 3. Cor. 15. The vnitie hereof is mainteyned by following the direction of his worde and his holye spirite The order of particuler churches is mainteined by the seuerall gouernement of them But their whole church although it be like an armie of men well sett in arraye yet can it haue no one chiefe Capteine in earth to direct it but hee that is omnipotent and fitteth in heauen not onely to ouerlooke it but to rule and order it For no mortall man can looke into all places knowe all cases prouide against all mischiefes nor giue ayde in all dangers 12 Therefore Peter was none such and although Pascere be both to feede and rule yet it is to rule like a Shepeheard and not like an Emperour Neither were the sheepe by Christe committed to Peter more then to the other because hee loued more then the other but Peter was charged as hee woulde by his forwardnesse shewe more zeale and loue then the rest so to employe the same to the feeding of Christes flocke And whereas Maister Sanders quoteth Chrysostome in Ioan Hom. 87. I knowe not wherefore except it were to shewe the prerogatiue of Peter aboue the rest You shall heare what his iudgement was
D. HESKINS D. SANDERS AND M. Rastel accounted among their faction three pillers and Archpatriarches of the Popish Synagogue vtter enemies to the truth of Christes Gospell and all that syncerely professe the same ouerthrowne and detected of their seuerall blasphemous heresies By D. Fulke Maister of Pembrooke Hall in Cambridge Done and directed to the Church of England and all those which loue the trueth AT LONDON Printed by Henrie Middleton for George Bishop ANNO. 1579. The contentes of the seuerall treatises conteined in this Booke 1 The Parleament of Christ auouching the inacted trueth of his presence in the sacrament restored to his veritie and deliuered from the impudent and outragious corruptions of Tho. Heskins 2 That it is lawfull to breake superstitious Images and vtterly vnlawful to honour them with a confirmation of suche true doctrine as Maister Iewel hath vttered in his reply concerning that matter against a blasphemous treatise made by Nicholas Sander 3 The challenge and sound doctrine conteined in M. Iewels sermon mainteined and deliuered from the lewde and slaunderous dealing of Rastel with an answere to his challenge ¶ A CATALOGVE of all such Popish Bookes either aunswered or to be aunswered which haue bene written in the English tongue from beyond the seas or secretly dispersed here in England haue come to our hands since the beginning of the Queenes Maiesties reigne 1 HArding against the Apology of the English church answered by M. Iewel Bishop of Sarum 2 Harding against M. Iewels challenge answered by M. Iewel 3 Hardings reioynder to M. Iewell aunswered by M. Edwarde Deering 4 Coles quarrels against M. Iewell answered by M. Iewell 5 Rastels returne of vntruthes answered by M. Iewel â–ª 6 Rastell against M. Iewels challenge answered by William Fulke 7 Dorman against M. Iewel answered by M. Nowel 8 Dormans disproofe of M. Nowels reproofe aunswered by M. Nowell 9 The man of Chester aunswered by M. Pilkington Bishop of Duresme 10 Sanders on the sacrament in part aunswered by M. Nowell 11 Fecknams Scruples aunswered by M. Horne B. of Winchester 12 Fecknams Apologie aunswered by W. Fulk 13 Fecknams obiections against M. Goughes sermon aunswered by maister Gough and maister Lawrence Tomson 14 Stapletons counterblast answered by M. Bridges 15 Marshall his defence of the crosse answered by M. Caulfehill 16 Fowlers Psalter aunswered by M. Sampson 17 An infamous libell or letter 〈…〉 against the teachers of Gods diuine prouidence and predestination aunswered by Robert Crowley 18 Allens defeÌ„ce of Purgatorie answered by W. Fulk 19 Heskins parleament repealed by W. Fulk 20 Ristons challenge answered by W. Fulk Oliuer Carter 21 Hosius of Gods expresse word translated into English aunswered by W. Fulk 22 Sanders rock of the church vndermined by W. Fulk 23 Sanders defence of images answered by W. Fulk 24 Marshals reply to Caulfhil answered by W. Fulk 25 Shaclockes Pearle answered by M. Hartwell 26 The hatchet of heresies answered by M. Bartlet 27 Maister Euans answered by himselfe 28 A defence of the priuate Masse answered by conâ—ecture by M. Cooper Bishop of Lincolne 29 Certein assertions tending to mainteine the church of Rome to be the true and catholique church confuted by Iohn Knewstub These Popish treatises ensuing for the most part are in answering and those which are not by God assistance as 〈◊〉 will serue shall receiue their seueral replies If the Papistes know any not here reckoned let them be brought to light and they shall be examined 1 Sanders vpon the Lords supper partly vnanswered 2 Allens defence of Priests authoritie to remiâ— sinnes and of the churches meaning concerning indulgences 3 Stapletons fortresse of the faith 4 Stapletons returne of vntruthes 5 Rastels replye 6 Bristowes Motiues and Demaunds collected out of the same 7 Vaux his Catechisme 8 Canisius his Catechisme translated 9 Frarins oration translated ¶ THE AVTHOVR to the Reader ALTHOVGH there is nothing in these bookes which haue beene so long vnanswered but either it is vnworthy any answere or else hath ben satisfied sufficiently before in many treatises extant in the English toung already yet because the aduersaries should not altogether please themselues in their fantasie that they be vnanswerable nor the simpler sort suspect that there is any thing in them that we need to be afraid of I thought good to take in hand this short manner of confutation In which I trust the diligent indifferent reader wil confesse that I haue omitted much matter whereof I might haue taken aduantage rather then that I haue left any argument of importance vnsatisfied Considering therfore what breuitte I haue vsed as was necessarie for me being but one against so many I trust the reasonable Readers will looke for no other vertue of writing at my handes but onely the simple shewing of the trueth and the plaine confutation of the false reasons of the aduersarie Which that they may the better see with more profit perceiue I exhort all such as haue the Popishe Bookes here confuted to conferre their argumentes with mine answers And for them that haue not the bookes at hand I haue so set downe the titles of their Chapters and the cheefe pointes of their treatises collected by themselues in their owâ—â— tables that the perusers may vnderstand I haue left no matter of any moment vntouched In rehearsing of their arguments I haue rather added weight vnto them then taken any force from them in my repetitioÌ„ or abridgement of them so neere as I could by any wit I haue conceiue their order and resolue their Methode What I haue perfourmed in answering let the godly and learned Iudge In the meane time I desire God to graunt that this my labour may be to the glorie of his name and the profite of his Church by Iesus Christe our Lord. THE FIRST BOOKE OF HESKINS PARLEAMENT REpealed by W. Fulke THE first Chapter vpon occasion that this aduersarie this proclamer and challenger he meaneth the B. of Sarum of holy and learned memorie would haue the Scriptures read of all men presupposing the same to be easie to be vnderstanded entereth as by preamble to treate of the difficultie of the Scriptures and to proue that they ought not of all men to be read without an able interpreter or teacher THIS Burgesse for the citie of Rome hauing in purpose to make a speake in the Popish Parleament for the matter of the sacrament of the Masse and douting least his tale should not be long ynough if he vttered nothing but that might seeme directly to appertaine to his cause beginneth with a pretie preamble of eight Chapters long of the difficultie of the Scriptures and the vnderstanding of the same And bicause he hath not aduauntage sufficient of any wordes or writing of the B. of Sarum to inlarge his speach by confuting thereof he feigneth vnto him selfe a monster to fight withall out of Luthers booke De seruo arbitrio who teacheth as he saith That the Scriptures of them selues be
is Clemens Ep. 2. The sacraments of Gods secretes are committed to three degrees to the priest the Deacon and the minister which with feare and trembling ought to keepe the leauings of the peeces of the Lordes bodie that no rottennes be found in the holie place lest when the thing is done negligently great iniurie be done to the portion of the Lordes bodie By this place M. Heskins will needes proue reseruation and the carnall presence but neither of both will fall out of his side although the authoritie of the Epistle is not worth a strawe beeing a counterfet decretall ascribed to Clemens neither in true latine nor good sense And first for the carnall presence note how he sayeth the remnantes of the peeces and portions of the Lords bodie and so he doth often in this Epistle meaning the crommes of the sacramentall bread which was consecrated to bee the bodie of christ For Christes naturall bodie cannot be broken into leauings fragments and portions which be the termes he vseth Nowe touching the reseruation he meaneth no keeping but of these crommes which hee calleth leauings fragments and portions and no keeping of them but from mouldinesse or rottennesse that is that they should be spent while they are good and not kepte while they stinke as the Papistes doe not the fragments but their whole Masse cakes sometimes For touching the sacrament it selfe he writeth by and by after Tanta in altario holocausta offerantur quanta populo sufficere debens Quod si remanserint in Crastinum non reseruentur sed cum timore tremore clericorum diligentia consumantur Let so great sacrifices bee offered on the altar as may suffice all the people But if any be left let them not be kept vntill the next day but with feare and trembling let them bee spent by the diligence of the Clerkes This beeing most manifest against reseruation Master Heskins is not ashamed to racke it to stande with reseruation And first he asketh the aduersarie whether hee thinketh that Saint Clement was a foole to denye that hee sayed before No verily but I think him to be no wise man that either taketh this Epistle to bee written by Clement the first bishop of Rome or so vnderstandeth it that he woulde make him contrarie to him selfe And I thinke he that did forge this Epistle vnder Saint Clements name was not onely a doltish foole but also an impudent falsarie to make that auncient Clemens to write to the Apostle Saint Iames of such bables as those be and that followe in the Epistle which if they were of weight yet the Apostle was not to learne them of Clemens but Clemens of him But concerning the keeping that he speaketh of he writeth yet more plainlye Non eijcientes foras è sacrario velamina not shaking abroad out of the holy place or vestrie the couering of the Lords table lest peraduenture the dust of the Lordes bodie shoulde fall a misse from the linnen cloth beeing washed abroade and this should be sinne to him that doth it Lo sir before wee had reliques fragments and portions nowe wee haue the dust of the Lords body What dust is this but small crommes But he goeth on and that Saint Iames might the better looke to those matters he sayeth Iterum atque iterum de fragmentis dominicâ— corporis demandamus Againe and againe wee giue charge concerning the fragments of the Lordes bodie And finally he concludeth in fine Latine and cleanly termes A principio Epistolae vsque ad hunc locum de sacramentis delegaui bene intuendis vbi non murium stercora inter fragmenta dominicae portionis appareant neque putrida per negligentiam remaneant clericorum From the beginning of the Epistle vnto this place I haue giuen charge concerning the sacraments to be well looked vpon where no Mise tordes may be seene among the fragments of the Lordeâ— portion nor they remaine rotten through the negligence of the Clerkes You see this man would haue the sacrament spent taketh thought that the crommes both small and great be not cast away nor kept vntill they be rotten nor suffered to be eaten of Mise nor defyled with their doung but he is vtterly against popish reseruation The next is Irenaeus who in his Epistle in which he doth sharply rebuke Victor bishop of Rome for excommunicating the Bishops of Asia about the celebration of Easter sayth That they were neuer for that matter driuen from the fellowship of the Church or comming from those partes were not receiued but rather all the elders or Bishops that were before them did alwayes solemnely send the sacrament of Eucharistie to all the bishops or elders of those Churches that did not so obserue it M. Heskins imagineth that the Bishops of Rome did sende the sacrament into all partes of the worlde to all bishops elders of euerie Church which if he did hee had neede of many messengers But the matter is plaine ynough If any of those bishops or elders came to Rome they were louingly receiued of Victors predecessours and at the time of the Communion the bishop would send the sacrament to them by the deacons as well as to any of the citizens that were of his owne Church Here is no shadowe of reseruation but M. Heskins absurde imagination Tertullian followeth Irenaeus writing to his wife lib. 2. An arbitrare ô vxor ita gesturam te vt clam viro sint qua facis Non sciet ille quid secreto ante omne cibum gustes si sciuerie non partem illum credit esse qui dicitur Doest thou thinke ô wife so to handle thy selfe that these things that thou doest shal be vnknowen to thy husbande shall not he knowe what before all meates thou doest secretely receiue and if hee shall knowe it he beleeueth it not to be that bread that it is saide to be Thus M. Heskins hath set downe the wordes both in Latine and Englishe But wheresoeuer he had the former question â–ª An arâ—itrare ô vxor ita gesturam te vt clam viro sint quae facto He had it not of Tertullian for hee hath no such wordes in that booke but onely Non sciet maritus c. shall not thy husbande knowe c. By which it is playne that he neuer read this place in Tertullian himself but only borrowed it out of some other papist that alledged it for this purpose belike gathered the former question not as Tertullians wordes but out of his meaning which Maister Heskins not vnderstanding very ridiculously hath set down as the words of Tertullian These be the Popishe doctours that boast of their great reading when they reade but patches out of other mens notes and collections But to the matter Although it may seeme this corruption to haue entred into the African Churches that the people carried home the sacramentall bread and did eate it daily before all other meates yet this is nothing like vnto the Popish reseruation in the
pixe to be adored And Tertullian in his Booke De Corona militis doeth rehearse this custome among those thinges that had no ground of scripture for them The liks is to be saide to the place of Cyprian where a woman kept it in her chest as for the miracle whether it reproued her vnworthinesse or her reseruation it is not plaine by the authour The story of Satyrus out of Ambrose proueth not directly reseruation for it is like the Christians being in daunger of shipwrack did minister the communion in the shippe not bring it with them from the shore consecrated And Satyrus being then but a nouice or Catechumein and not baptised desired the sacrament of them meaning to receiue it before his death if he sawe present daunger of drowning otherwise to tarry vntill he were admitted to it by order of the Church But this proueth nothing at all the Popishe reseruation although the fact of Satyrus was not without imperfection as greatly as it is commended of Ambrose and much lesse the Carnal presence For Satyrus did not so put his affiaunce in the sacrament that he thought it to be God but that he desired it as an helpe of his faith that he might not depart this life without the communion of the body of Christ in the sacrament The place of Chrysostome is nothing at all for reseruation where he saith that in a tumult the souldiers rushing into the Churches The most holy bloud of Christ was shed vpō their clothes For he must remēber it was on Easter day when all the people did communicate and such as came were baptised And where he saith it was Ad vesperū diei that they did enter that is in the afternoone he must wit that Chrysostome after the maner of the scripture calleth the morning before day light Vespere Sabbati therfore his collection is vaine But although it were in the afternoone what inconuenience is it if we say they spent al the forenoone in prayer fasting and hearing the worde of God and ministring baptisme which then was ministred twise a yeare at Easter at Pentecost and then in the afternoone towarde euening went to the communion Hierome reporteth of Exuperius that he caried the Lords body in a wicker basket and his bloud in a glasse What reseruation is here M. Heskins saith he did beare it about with him but Hieronyme saith not so except you meane about the Churche when he ministred the communion But here Maister Iewel hath a double blow O cunning Maister of defence For here is not onely reseruation bu◠also he calleth it in plaine wordes the body and bloud of our Lorde Maister Iewel shal not greatly feele these blowes To the reseruation I haue saide before and to the plaine calling of it body and bloud I say what other thing is it then as Maister Iewel himselfe will call it and worthily yet no transubstantiation meant by him But how will Maister Heskins warde these blowes Exuperius had no hallowed pixes nor chalices of Golde and siluer as the Papistes must haue And Exuperius ministred to the lay people in both kindes as the Papistes will not do What hath M. Heskins gayned by Exuperius But then Eusebius shall help him for in his 6. booke and 36. Chapter is declared that a certeine priest sent to Serapion beeing at the point of death a litle portiō of the Eucharistie in the night season by which it appeareth that it was reserued In deed Dionysius bishop of Alexandria writeth so vnto Fabianus Bishop of Rome But withall he sheweth that it was no publique order of the vniuersall Church but his own commandement vnto his owne Church that he might not seeme in any point to resemble the Nouatians which denied reconciliation to them that had fallen in persecution wherfore he saith that although the priest was sicke and could not come Tamen quia pręceptum fuerat a me vt lapsis in exitu nemo recōciliationis solatia denegaret maximè ijs quos priùs id rogasse constaret parum c. Yet because it had beene commanded by me that no man should denie to them that had fallen the comfort of reconciliation at their departure especially to those who were known to haue desired it before he gaue a litle of the Eucharistie c. Whiche wordes M. Heskins hath cleane left out of the text wherby the particular commandemēt of Dionyse is expressed and yet it is not proued that the Priest had the sacrament reserued but it might well be that he did then consecrate and send him parte as he should haue done if he could haue come to the sicke man himselfe for his owne weakenes Last of all he rehearseth the wordes of Cyril Ad Colosyrium I heare that they say that the mystical blessing if any remnants thereof remaine vnto the next day following is vnprofitable to sanctification But they are madd in so saying for Christe is not made an other neither shal his holy body be chaunged but the vertue of blessing and the liuely grace do alwayes remaine in him M. Heskins translateth in illo in it as though the vertue quickening grace were included in the sacrament which the author saith to remain in Christ. But touching the authoritie of this Cyrillus ad Colosyrium I must admonish the Reader that these wordes are not to be found in all the workes of Cyrillus that are extant but is only a patch cited by other men the whole epistle is not to be found So that we can neither tel whether it were writē by the ancient Cyrillus of Alexandria or by some late writer of that name nor yet what was the argumēt scope of that Epistle Neuertheles it semeth to some that he wrote against the Anthropomorphits which thought that the body of Christ was corrupted if the remnants of the sacrament were corrupted but that Cyrillus denieth because Christ is eternall incorruptible He saith not that the remnantes of the sacrament are so for that the Papistes confesse to be otherwise affirming that they ceasse to be the body bloud of Christ when the species or kinds of bread and wine are putrified or rotten But Cyril saith that vertue grace do alwayes remaine in him not in that sacrament reserued which doeth corrupt Finally he speaketh but of reseruatiō for one day to the vse of eating and not of adoration therefore he speaketh nothing against the challenge which was not simply of reseruation but of reseruing the sacramēt to be worshipped But whereas M. Heskins mainteyneth reseruation by dipping of stoales and linnen clothes in the cup he must remēber that Iulius in his decretal epistles forbiddeth that dipping as diuers counsels also do which in due place are alledged Finally Origen doth vtterly condemne that abuse of reseruation of the sacrament affirming that it is in the same case that the sacrifice of the passeouer and the sacrifice of praise and thankesgiuing were of which it was not lawfull to reserue
is offred to my name a pure sacrifice Wherefore our sacrifice to the most high God is the sacrifice of praise Wee sacrifice to God a full 〈◊〉 holie sacrifice We sacrifice after a newe maner according to the new testament a pure sacrifice c. M. Heskins asketh vs if we do not see that Eusebius expoundeth the Prophet of the sacrifice of Christes bodie but wee may well bid him shore vp his eyes see if he do not in plain words expound him of the sacrifice of praise But because he calleth this sacrifice horrorem adferens bringing horror meaning not a slauish but a reuerent feare as is meant to be in all matters of religion which ought to be handled with feare and reuerence of Gods Maiestie vnto whom they apperteine he will needes haue it the body of Christ and first he alledgeth a saying of Dionysius whom he falsely calleth the disciple of Saint Paule although he be a writer of good antiquitie Eccle. Hier. part 1. cap. 3. Neither is it almost lawfull for any mysterie of the priestly office to be done except that his diuine and most noble sacrament of thankesgiuing doe fulfil is What he picketh out of this saying as he noteth not so I am not of his counsell to knowe neither why after his accustomed boldenesse he translateth Sacramentum Eucharistiae the sacrament of Christe From Dionyse he flitteth to the hyperbolicall amplifications of Chrysostom which Lib. 6. De Sacerdotio calleth the sacrament That sacrifice most full of horror and reuerence where the vniuersall Lorde of all thinges is daily felt with handes And de prod Iud. Hom. 30. The holy and terrible sacrifice where Christ that was slaine is set foorth He that will not acknowledge these and such like to be figuratiue speeches must enter action against Chrysostom for many heresies or rather Chrysostome may enter action against him of slaunder and defamation In the same treatise De Sacerdotio Lib. 3. speaking of the same sacrifice he sayeth You may see the whole multitude of people died and made redde with the precious bloud of Christ. But to shewe that all this is spirituall he demaundeth if you thinke your selfe to stand vpon the earth when you see these thinges and not rather that you are translated into heauen and casting away all cogitations of the flesh with a naked soule and pure minde you beholde those thinges that are in heauen Therefore to conclude neither Augustine nor Eusebius haue spoken any thing to the furtherance of Maister Heskins bill of the carnal presence The sixe and thirtieth Chapter endeth the exposition of Malachie by Saint Hierome and Damascen S. Hierome vpon the Prophet Malachie writeth thus Ergo propriè nuÌ„c ad sacerdotes IndeoruÌ„ sermo sit domini qui offeruÌ„t caecuÌ„ clanduÌ„ languiduÌ„ ad immolanduÌ„ vt sciant carnalibê° victimis spirituales victimas successuras Et necquaquam tantorum hircerùmque sanguinem sed thymiana hoc est sanctorum orationes Domino offerendas non in vna orbis prouincia Iudaea nec in vna iudaea vrbe Hierusalem sed in omni loco offerri oblationem nequaquam immundam vt a populo Israel sed mundum vt in ceremonijs Christianorum Now therefore the word of the Lorde is properly spoken to the Priestes of the Iewes which offer the blinde and lamue and feeble to be sacrificed that they might knowe that spirituall sacrifices should succeede those carnall sacrifices And not the bloud of bulles and goates but an incense that is to say the prayers of the Sainctes should be offered to the Lord and that not in one prouince of the world Iewry neither in Ierusalem one citie of Iewry but in euery place an oblation is offered was vncleane as of the people of Israel but cleane as in the ceremonies of the Christians Doest thou not maruell Gentle Reader that Maister Heskins alledgeth this place which in euerie point is so directly contrarie to his purpose He saith that among the ceremonies of the Christians none can be properly called the cleane sacrifice but the sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christ. O shamelesse begger that craueth no lesse then the whole controuersie to be giuen him And that contrarie to Hierome whose name he abuseth which expoundeth this place of spirituall sacrifices and more expressely of the prayers of the saintes whiche are not vsed in one but in all the ceremonies of the Christians But to set some colour vpon the matter he bringeth in an other saying of Hierome which is written before this in exposition of another place perteining nothing to this prophecy of the pure sacrifice but wher by analogie or like reason as the prophet rebuketh the priestes of the Iewes he doeth reprehend also the Bishops Elders and Deacons of the Church for their negligence Offertis inquit c. You offer saith he vpon mine altar bread polluted We pollute the bread that is to say the body of Christ when we come vnworthily to the altar and we beeing filthie doe drinke cleane bloud and say the Lordes table is contemptible c. Here forsooth we vnderstand that the body of Christ is the sacrifice of the Christians yea but according to the former sentence so offered that it is a spirituall sacrifice But what else Here we are taught that we doe not take one thing videlicet bread and do iniurie to another thing that is the body and bloud of Christ as the sacramentaries say but receiuing the very body and bloud of Christ we do iniury to the same But vouchsafe to heare the same teacher speaking of the same matter and in the same place in fewe wordes to satisfie the reasonable and to stoppe the mouthes of quarrellers Dum enim sacramenta violantur ipse cuius sunt sacramenta violatur For while iniurie is done to the sacramentes iniurie is done to him whose sacraments they are He sheweth a reason against them that demaunded proudly wherein they had polluted God when they had but polluted his sacraments Leauing therefore Hierome at open warre with M. Heskins I will passe to Damascen who for lacke of a Greeke auncient Baron beeing an auncient burgesse of the lower house Maister Heskins is bolde to matche with Hironyme though farre inferiour to him in antiquitie and credite whose wordes are these This is that pure and vnbloudy sacrifice which our Lord speaketh by the Prophet to be offred to him from the rising of the sunne to the going downe of the same namely the body and bloud of Christ vnto the vnconsumed and vncorrupted establishment of our body and soule not going into secesse God forbid that any such imagination should be but it is a purgation of al manner filth and a reparation of all manner of hurt vnto our sustentation and conseruation This place saith Maister Heskins is so plaine that a childe may perceiue it for it is sufficient for him if he heare once body and bloud named Howbeit if either Damascens authoritie
saintes in heauen what the rest be he doth not determine he meaneth Siluester Isodore Innocentius Betram Durand Holcot Dunce c. Which if they haue written any thing that is ridiculous in defence of Poperie it were better men should laugh at their follie then be still deceiued with their errours But whereas M. Hesk. will set a player on a stage and a boy in the Paâ—â—is to answere the Bishop I weene it be more then the reuerend M. Doctor Heskins reuested in Doctoralibus and inthronized in his Doctours chayer dare well take vpon him to doe That whiche followeth in this Chapter is consumed in cyting and vrging of the forenamed wryters whose authoritie we doe not admitte appealing alwayes from the lower house of punys Burgesses to the higher house of auncient Barons The sixtieth Chapter proceedeth in exposition of the same text by Theophylacte and Paschasius Although we might demurre vpon the vnderstanding of those wordes of Theophylact In 14. Matth. That the bread wine are transelementated into the vertue of his flesh bloud yet considering the corrupt time in which he liued his authoritie is not worth the striuing for And whereas Maister Heskins would make him so say no more then the olde fathers Hilar. Iren. Cyril Chrysost. c. Seeing we haue already considered their testimonies it were superfluous to repeate them againe in this place and as often as it pleaseth Maister Heskins to abuse their names The one and sixtieth Chapter continueth in the exposition of the same wordes by Oecumenius and Anselmus Oecumenius saith litle to the purpose too or fro But Anselmus goeth more roundly to the matter as one that was the scholler of LanfraÌ„cus which wrote against Berengarius Neuerthelesse vpon these wordes of his riseth some other matter Neque eminet For we do neither altogether exclude a figure froÌ„ this sacrament nor admit an only figure This place M. Hesk. would haue to expound Tertullians figure but we haue shewed before it will not serue Vnto this he addeth Augustine cited in the Popes decrees but not to be found in his workes in these wordes The bodie of Christ is both the trueth and a figure The trueth whyle the bodie and bloud of Christ in the vertue of the holie Ghost is made of the substance of bread and wine but that is the figure which is outwardly perceiued De cons. Dist. 2. Cap vtrum When these wordes are found in any worke of S. Augustines we will make aunswere to them otherwise we may not receiue them of the onely credit of the Popes law Vnlesse they haue such meaning as the saying of Hilarius B. of Rome which followeth Corpus Christi c. The bodie of Christ which is takeÌ„ at the altar is a figure whyle the bread wine are seene outwardly and a truth while the bodie and bloud of Christ inwardly are beleeued It seemeth to me this saying to be playne ynough that the sacrament is an outward figure of the bodie and bloud of Christ which is inwardly receiued spiritually by faith As Gratian also reporteth the wordes of the same Hilarie De Cons. Dist. 2. Vbi pars est Non enim est quantitas visibilis in hoc aestimanda mysterio sed virtus sacramenti spiritualis The visible quantitie is not to be regarded in this mysterie but the spirituall vertue of the sacrament But M. Heskins proceedeth and by Anselmus authoritie he will auoide the trifling sophysticall argument made by Maister Pilkinton in the open disputation holden in Cambridge By like Maister Heskins had not learned the solution at that time and therefore nowe he sendeth it ouer the sea to him The argument was this Christe tooke bread he blessed bread he brake bread wherfore he gaue bread to his disciples if he gaue bread then not his bodie M. Heskins saith he so vseth the words as though by the actes which the verbes expresse nothing had beene done Yes M. Heskins he chaunged the vse but not the substance But by the like sophisme saith Maister Heskins he might proue that he gaue no sacrament of his bodie For that he deliuered which he tooke but he tooke bread no sacrament therfore he deliuered bread no sacrament But by his patience this sophisme of his is nothing like Maister Pilkintons argument For in one proposition he speaketh of the substance in the other of another qualitie or affection beside the substance as in this example that which you bought in the shambles you haue eaten but you bought cowe fleshe therefore you haue eaten caulfes fleshe Euerie childe seeth this followeth not But if I speake of the substance in both alike it followeth as thus That which you bought in the market you haue eaten but you bought mutton therfore you haue eaten mutton Vpon the premises graunted this argument followeth of necessitie and such is the argument of Maister Pilkinton which all the Papistes in Louayne can not answere The tâ—o and sixtieth Chapter abideth in the exposition of the same wordes by Rupertus and Nicholaus Methonen In this whole Chapter is nothing worth the reading and much lesse the aunswering for he doeth nothing but cite and vrge the sayings of these two late writers of whose authoritie he knoweth we make none account as there is no reason why we should they being members of the Popish Church For the auncient writers whome he nameth their sayinges haue beene already weyghed and aunswered The three and sixtieth Chapter taryeth in the exposition of the same wordes by Innocentius Germanus The authoritie of Pope Innocent the third which called the Laterane Counsell in which transubstantiation was first decreede must needes be of great credite with vs But Germanus bishop of Constantinople the Popes sworne enimie I marueile why hee is ioyned with the Pope For that he saith is small to M. Heskins purpose and therefore he helpeth him out with Damascen yet he confesseth his saying subiect to cauilling For where he writeth that in the sacrament Dominus conspicitur c. Our Lorde is both seene and suffereth him selfe to be touched by the feâ—â—full and holy mysteries c. and so sayeth Chrysostome thou seest him thou touchest him thou eatest him c. Maister Heskins sayeth we reason and so wee maye in deede that we eat him as we see him which is onely by faith But M. Heskins with profound Logike wil aunswere this argument that a thing is sayde to bee seene when the outwarde formes are seene and so Christe is seene when the formes of bread and wine are seene But by his fauour a thing is seene when the proper formes accidents thereof are seene but the forme or accidents of bread and wine are not the proper formes of Christes bodie therefore Christes bodie is not seene by them no more then I see a man when I see the house wherein he is or then I see a knife when I see the close case or sheath wherein it is And
no. And why then may not the bodie of Christ be present and yet not corporally nor locally conteyned in pixe corporax cupp hand or mouth but after a spirituall manner as the holy Ghost is in the cuppe by his owne Iames his saying The last quarrell he picketh is to our ministers who sayeth he haue none authoritie to consecrate because they receiue it not from the catholike succession As for that authoritie which we haue receiued of God by the outwarde calling of the church wee minde not to exchange with the Popes triple crowne and much lesse with Maister Hesk. shauen crowne But to shape him an answere according to his lewde obiection seeing many are suffered to minister in our church which were made priestes after the Popish order of antichrist why should he denye any of them them at the least to haue power to consecrate according to the Popish diuinitie though the wordes be spoken in English so long as he hath intentionē consecrandi before he be of them disgraded and hath his indebeble character scraped out of his handes and fingers endes I aunswere he is not able to defend his opinion that thei cannot consecrate neither in Sorbona of Paris nor in the schoole of Louain To shutt vp this Chapter he flappeth vs in the mouth with S. Mathewes Masse testified by Abdias in the diuels name a disciple of the Apostles as hee saith but one that sawe Christ him selfe as M. Harding sayeth in verie deed a lewd lying counterfeter of more then Caunterburie tales And thinketh he that such fables will nowe bee credited except it bee of such as wilfully will be deceiued The fiue and thirtieth Chapter sheweth the manner of consecration vsed and practised by the disciples of the Apostles and the fathers of the primitiue and auncient church His first author is Nicolaus Methonensis a Grecian but a late writer who affirmeth that Clemens did write a Liturgie which Peter Paule and the Apostles vsed Although that which he rehearseth of Clemens his Liturgie be to small purpose litle or nothing differing from that hee had before of Iames yet Nicolaus Methon is too yong a witnesse to bee credited in this case For he was not of yeres of discretion to discerne that for the authenticall writing of Clemens which the more auncient church by a thousand yeres could not haue perfect knowledge to be his Neither doth the testimonie of Proclus help him any whit For as it is not to be doubted but S. Iames the other Apostles Clemens also appointed some forme of Liturgie for the churches by them planted instructed which is all that Proclus saith yet how proueth M. Hesk. that those which we haue were the same which were written by Iames Clemens or any other of lawful antiquitie when wee bring manifest demonstrations for the contrarie Againe where he saith that Peter vsed the Liturgie of Clemens he is contrary to Hugo cited in the last Chap. which sayth that Peter vsed a Liturgie of his own cōsisting of three praiers only The next witnesse should be Dionysius falsly surnamed Areopagita but that he is clean contrary to M. Hes. transubstantiation carnal presēce priuate Masse or sole cōmunion therefore vnder pretence of his obscuritie he dare cite neuer a sentence out of him Then follow the Liturgies vnder the names of Basil Chrysost. verie litle in words nothing at al in matter differing from that former Liturgie ascribed to S. Iames which because M. Hesk. knoweth we cannot receiue as the lawful writings of Basil Chrysost. he would vnderprop them by the authoritie of Proclus B. of Constantinople as he did S. Clem. S. Iames masse euen now The reason alledged by Proclus will cleane ouerturne his ground worke proue that none of these Liturgies were writen by thē to whom they be ascribed For Proclus sayeth that Basil and Chrysostom made the auncient Liturgies receiued from the Apostles shorter cutting many things away frō them because they were too long for the peoples colde deuotion to abide First this is a colde reason to alter the tradition of the Apostles so many yeres continued in the church for want of the peoples deuotion But be it that they followed this reason then doth it followe moste manifestly that this Liturgie which is ascribed to S. Iames is none of his because it is as short as either that of Chrysost. or the other of Basil. But if M. Hesk. will defende that of S. Iames then hee must needes refuse these of Basil and Chrysost. for these are as long as it therfore none abridgements of it After these Liturgies hee addeth the testimonie of the sixt counsell of Constantinople which condemned Pope Honorius for an heretike wherein it is reported the S. Iames Basil Chrysostome ministred in their Liturgies prescribed wine to be mixed with water But this proueth not that these Liturgies which we haue are the same that were set forth by those fathers as for the water they striue not for it but for wine to be vsed not water onely Finally where the fathers of that counsell call the celebration of the communion an oblation and an vnbloudie sacrifice they speake in the same sence that the elder fathers vse the same termes otherwise that counsell being an hundreth yeres without the compasse of the challenge hath no place but in the lower house among the Burgesses whose speaches may be hearde but they haue none authoritie to determine in this cause by M. Heskins order according to the challenge Now at length M. Hesk. thinketh it time to see the manner of consecration in the Latine church as though Clemens if he were bishop of Rome and wrote a Liturgie as he affirmeth before that of his making might not serue the Latine church But Ambrose is cited lib. 4. de Sacr. Ca. 5. Vis scire c. Wouldest thou knowe that the sacrament is consecrated with heauenly wordes Marke what the wordes be The Priest sayth Make vnto vs faith he this oblation ascribed reasonable acceptable which is the figure of the bodie bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ which the day before he suffred tooke bread in his holie hands looked vp to heauen to the holie father almightie eternall God giuing thanks blessed it brake it being broken gaue it to his Apostles and disciples saying Take ye eat ye all of this for this is my bodie which shal be broken for many Likewise also he tooke the cupp after he had supped the day before he suffered looked vp to heauen to the holie father almightie eternall God giuing thankes he blessed it deliuered it to his Apostles disciples saying Take ye and drinke ye all of this for this is my bloud M. Hesk. passeth ouer that the oblation of the church is the figure of the body bloud of Christ for feare he should be espied taken with such an assertion he flyeth in all the haste to other words of
the sacrament was ministred therefore one Priest did not eat vp all alone in Chrysostomes time To the saying of Ambrose which the Bishop alledgeth in 1 Cor. 11. Inuicem expectaâ—â— c. Ad inuicem expectandum dicit vt multorum oblatio simul celebratur vt omnibus ministretur He sayeth they ought to tarie one for another that the oblation of many might bee celebrated together and that it might be ministred vnto them all M. Heskins aunswereth that this doctour doth onely reproue their want of deuotion which is false for he doth also shewe that all ought to communicate together or else it is not to eat the Lordes supper vppon which wordes of the Apostle he sayeth also Murius enim oblatum tosius populi sit quia in vno paene omnes significantur per id quod enim vnum sumus de vno paene omnes nâ—c sumere oportet For the gift which is offered belongeth to all the people because they are all signified in one bread for in that wee are one we ought to receiue all of one bread If al must then one ought not alone As for that balde shift hee flyeth vnto that all priestes in seuerall places communicate together is too bad for a begger to vse for so might the Corinthians whome the Apostle reproueth for not tarying one for another say they communicated with them whome they left out and with al Christians in the worlde But now M. Heskins with full sayle in rayling seas inueigheth against the proclaimer for falsifying wrong translating of Leo when hee doth not translate him at all but onely doth gather the summe of his saying in fewe wordes and that truely though hee name neither Masse nor sacrifice which are in the saying of Leo which how little it maketh either for the popish Masse or for the sacrifice propitiatorie or finally for the priuate Masse I desire the reader to returne to the 32. Chapter of this booke where he shall finde the place at large set downe and vrged which therefore I thought it in vaine to repeat in this Chapter After this hee defendeth that by the Masse booke they are not bounde to haue a communion but one priest may receiue alone And whereas the Bishop rehearseth diuerse exhortations to prayer vsed in the Masse as Oremus let vs praye Orate pro me fratres sorores pray for me brethren and sisters c. And after the Agnus Dei haec sacro sancta c. This holie commixtion and consecration of the bodie and bloud of our Lorde Iesus Christ be vnto mee to all that receiue it health of mind bodie All which sayings import a number present the last a number receiuing whereas in the priuate Masse there is neuer a brother or sister present many times but one sorie boy that helpeth the priest to Masse though they be present yet vnderstaÌ„d they not that they are bidden to pray for the priest when he turneth about Maister Hesk. trifleth vpon the former prayers separating them from the last and affirming that they may pray together though they do not receiue together For he saith there be two communions in the Masse beside the receiuing and therfore-belike that is not needefull the one of prayer the other of sacrifice and as for the last prayer for them that receiue is not ment onely of them that receiue in the church at that time but for all receiuers of all places and times when and wheresoeuer But what reason hath he to persuade vs that those brethren sisterne whome the priest firste exhorteth to pray for him that their sacrifice might be acceptable to God are not the same which ought to receiue with him neuerthelesse in the ende supposing the priestes prayeth with limitation of time and place he sayth it is no reason that if the people will not receiue the priest should not ye as verily because Christe instituted a communion of many participantes in one time and place and not one priests breakefast in a corner by him selfe Againe the wordes of the Masse Omnibus sumentibus to all which do receiue and quae sumpsimus which wee haue receiued doe proue a number of receiuers and which haue receiued at thaâ— time and in that place or else the Priest should saye to mee which receiue it and which I haue receiued And whereas Maister Heskins chargeth the proclaimer for adding the worde Consecration which is not in their Masse booke I confesse I knowe not whether it be in all coppies omitted but I am persuaded the bishop had some ground of his saying or else it might be the faulte of the Printer But whereas the proclaimer alledgeth the Canons of the Apostles and decrees of the bishops of Rome Maister Heskins sayth as odious as the Popes be to him faine he is to praye ayde of them But he is altogether deceiued God be thanked the holy scriptures are sufficient for vs both to proue al trueth and to disproue all errours But if either counsels or Popes decrees be alledged it is to beat downe the Papistes with their owne weapons and to cast their owne doung in their owne faces as the Prophet sayeth But let vs heare the Canon of the Apostles Can. 9. Fideles c. The faithfull which come to the Church and heare the Scriptures and receiue not the holye communion let them be excommunicated as men that disquiet the church Here he doth most impudently charge the proclaimer with falsification which he himself committeth alledging it not out of the booke of Canons but out of the Popes dirtie decrees Omnes fideles c. All Christian men that in the solemne seruice come together to the church let them heare the scriptures of the Apostles the Gospell And such as continue not in prayer vntill masse be all done nor do receiue the holie communion it is meete they be excommunicated as such as moue disquietnesse to the church but that the learned reader may see how syncerely the bishop hath dealt how falsly Hesk. belyeth him I wil set down the Canon in Greek as it was firste written 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All the faithfull or Christians which enter into the church and heare the Scriptures but tarrie not out the prayer the holie coÌ„munion or participation ought to be separated as causers of disorder in the Church Here you see no mention of Masse at all And if any ignorant papist dare not trust my translation out of Greeke let him vnderstand that in the book of councels he shal find two translations of this the rest of those Canons called the Canons of the Apostles of which the bishop hath followed the one but Hesk. neither of both for as I said before there is no mention of the Masse in any of them Therfore what is the falsification committed in the Popes lawe out of which he citeth it how honestly in so doing reprouing the bishop for following the trueth let the readers iudge But
for al that he foysteth in the name of his Masse yet can he not exclude the necessitie of receiuing the cōmunion of all the lay people which is the matter in question And therefore it is a verie shame to report what an absurde interpretation of the Canon he would make namely that it was not decreede against good Catholike people which ioyned in prayer and receiued when deuotion serued them but against licentious yet dissembling heretikes and schismatikes which being present in the churche would not communicate either in prayer or in receipt of the sacrament For confutatiō of which blind meaning first I woulde aske whether omnes fideles all the faithful as the Canon sayeth doth signifie all licentious and dissembling heretikes and scismatikes Secondly when the Canon is made expressely against them that after thei haue heard the scriptures depart when the prayer celebration of the communiō beginneth whether those that be present ioyne not in prayer participation can be vnderstood Thirdly if he knew what kind of Censure this was that is spoken of whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or separation were a sufficient punishment for men knowne to be licentious dissembling heretikes scismatikes But hee wil father his feyned vnderstanding vpon the councel of Antioch which saith he expoundeth it so almost word for word Omnes qui ingrediuntur c. All that come into the Church of God heare the holie scriptures communicate not in prayer with the people but of a certein wantonnesse turne them selues away from the receiuing of the holie communion let them be remoued from the church vntill by confession they shewe fruites of repentance and by prayers obteine pardon But with excommunicate persons it is not lawfull to communicate neither may we pray with such as go from house to house auoyding the prayers of the church But who will graunt to M. Heskins that this should be an interpretation of the former Canon contrarie to the wordes thereof Secondly when this Canon consisteth of two partes and in deede comprehendeth two of those Canons of the Apostles the former parte concerning all men that come into the churche the later onel◠excomunicate persons and scismatikes who is so deuoyde of reason to graunt that this Canon was made onely against heretikes scismatikes But in the ende as it were forsaking his holde he claspeth another rotten post that the Canon was made against the slacknesse of the people and not against the deuotion of the priest so that if none of the people would communicate the priest might receiue alone Surely that priuate Masse is such a monster as it is not credible that it once entred into any of their heads that decreede those Canons But seeing they would not suffer any smal number of Christians to withdrawe them selues from the communion is it like they would suffer all not to receiue And seeing the worde of God was the ground of their decree Tarrie one for another 1. Cor. 11. c. who doubteth but that if the peoples deuotion serued them not the priest was as well bound to tarrie for the people as one lay man for another So that all the congregation ought to communicate together and none to be left out but such as either be vnworthie or haue some necessarie impediment Finally if the Papistes were grieued at the seeldome receiuing communicating with the priest as they pretende why do they not execute the censures of these Canons against all that be present at their Masses and do not receiue with them But M. Heskins proceeding in confutation of the proclaimers arguments first chargeth him to father a decree vpon Calixtus which was decreede by Anacletus as though one thing might not be decreed by two bishops and as though in the Canon lawe and other like-recordes one lawe is not fathered vppon diuerse bishops And Gratian ascribeth it to both and namely to Calixtus dist 2. Cap. Peracta The words are these Peracta consecratione c. When the consecration is done let euery man receiue the communion vnlesse he wil be put from the vnitie of the church For this thing the Apostles haue ordeined and the holy churche of Rome continueth the same Two great faultes M. Hesk. findeth in this allegation First he doth detort abuse and wrest the place secondly he doth mutilate it and cutt it off by the knees Here be vehement accusations but in the tryall you shall see the bishop clearely discharged all the slaunder verified vpon the accusers owne dealing For first to reproue the bishops allegation which was brought out of a decree of Calixtus hee bringeth in an Epistle of Anacletus Secondly he will not alledge the wordes of the Epistle but the report of Bartholomewe Garanza a common falsifier of Canons decrees and thus he citeth it Sacerdotes quando c. The priestes when they do offer sacrifice vnto our Lorde they ought not to do it alone but let them take witnesses with them that they may be proued to sacrifice perfectly vnto the Lord in places dedicated to God according to that of Deutron 12. Take heede thou offer not sacrifice in all places that thou seest but in the place that thy Lord God hath chosen Let a bishop sacrificing to God haue witnesses with him more then another priest with whome when the consecration is done let all the ministers communicate which will not bee forbidden the entrie of the church Maister Heskins in his translation hath falsifyed the wordes for where the Latine is Non soli hoc agere debent The Priestes ought not to do it alone he hath turned it they shall not do it alone where the Latine is sed testes secum adhibeant he turneth it but they shall haue witnesses with them wheras hee should saye let them take witnesses with them His pollicie is easie to espye Hee would haue it seeme to the Englishe reader that witnesses are appoynted which if they faile to bee present the Priest might notwithstanding saye his priuate Masse alone whereas by the wordes of the decree the Priestes are commaunded to get witnesses and it is tolde them they ought not to do it alone But M. Hesk. to iustifie the falsification of his spanish Garanza which saith omnes ministri communicent let all the ministers communicate as though the commaundement were to them not to the people bringeth forth a patch or two out of the Epistle of Anacletus But that the trueth of the proclaimer the falshood of this exclaimer may be more manifest I will set downe all the discourse of this matter out of that Epistle set forth vnder the name of Anacletus by Peter Crabbe as errant a Papist as Bartholomew Garanza for his heart nothing therein by diuersitie of letter that which M. Hesk. hath rent out from the rest Ipsi autem quando Domino sacrificant non soli hoc agere debent sed testes secum adhibeāt vt Domino perfectè in sacratis Deo
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
more certeintie and better credite then the Papists can bring any shewed by God since the restitution of the Gospell yet because our doctrine is the same that was confirmed by all the miracles of Christ and his Apostles we seeke no confirmation thereof by later miracles but onely by the scriptures And herein we followe the example of S. Augustine who vrgeth the Donatistes to proue themselues to be the Church of God only by Canonicall scriptures not by miracles whereof they boasted more then the Catholikes Lib de vnitate Ecclesiae Cap. 16. Et sic ostendat vt non dicat verum est quia ego hoc dico aut quia hoc dixit ille collega meut 〈◊〉 illi collegae mei aut illi Episcopi vel clerici vel laici nostâ—i aut ideo verum est quia illa illa mirabilia fecit Donatus vel Pontius vel quilibet alius aut quia homines ad memorias mortuorum nostrorum orant exaudiuntur aut quia illa illa ibi contingunt aut quiae ille fraeter noster aut illa soror nostra tale visum vigilans vidit vel tale visum dormiens somnianis Remoueantur ista vel figmenta mendacium hominum vel portenta fallacium spirituun ut eniâ—â— non sunt vera quÄ™ dicuntur aut sihÄ™reticoruÌ„ aliqua mira facta sunt magis canere debemus And so let him shewe the Churche that he do not say this is true because I say it or because such a one my fellowe saide it or those my fellowes or those our bishops or clearkes or laymen or it is therfore true because Donatus or Pontius or any other hath done those and those miracles or because men pray at the memories of our dead men and are heard or because those thinges those things happen there or because this our brother or that our sister sawe such a vision waking or dreamed such a vision sleeping Let these thinges be set aside which are either the counterfetting of lying men or els the wonders of deceiuing spirits for either those things are not true that are told or else if any miracles are done of heretiques we ought the more to beware of them And after a litle he saith in the same Chapter Sed verum ipsi Ecclesiam teneant non nisi diuinarum scripturarum canonicis libria ostendant quia nec nos propterea dicimus nobis credere oportere quòd in Ecclesia sumus quia ipsam quam tenemus commendauit Mileuitanus Optatus vel Mediolanensis Ambrosius vel alij innumerabiles nostre coÌ„munionis episcopi aut quia nostrorum CollegaruÌ„ concilijs ipsa praedicata est aut quia per totum orbem in locis sanctis quae frequentat communio nostra tanta mirabilia vel exauditionuÌ„ vel sanitatum fiant ita vt latentia per tot annos corpora Martyrum quod possunt a muâ—tis interrogaÌ„tes audire Ambrosio fuerint reuelata ad ipsa corpora caecus multorum annorum ciuitati Mediolanensi notissimus oculos luménque reciperet aut quia ille somnium vidit ille spiritu assumptus audiuit siue ne iniret in partem Donati siue vt recederet à parte Donati QuÄ™cunque talia in Catholica fiunt ideo sunt approbanda quia in Catholica fiunt non ìdeo ipsa manifestatur Catholica quia haec in ea fiunt But whether they holde the Churche or no let them shew none otherwise but by the Canonicall Bookes of the holie scriptures for neither do we say that men ought therfore to beleeue vs that we are in the Church because Optatus of Mileuitum or Ambrose of Millain or innumerable other Bishops of our fellowship haue commended this Church whiche we holde or because it is set foorth and praysed in the councels of our fellowships or because that in holy places thorough the world which our fellowship doth frequent so great miracles are done either of hearing mens prayers or of restoring to health so that the bodies of Martyrs which haue been hidden so many yeres which thing if they wil ask they may heare of many were reuealed to Ambrose at the same bodies one that had ben blind many yeres very well knowen to the citie of Millain receiued his eyes and sight or because this man saw a dreame or that man was taken vp in spirit and heard either that he shold not go into the faction of Donatus or that he should depart from it Whatsoeuer such things are done in the Catholike Church they are therefore to be allowed because they are done in the Catholike Church but the Church it selfe is not therby proued Catholike because these things are done in it And thus much concerning miracles The issue that M. Hesk. ioyneth is tried by all Catholike ancient Doctors that the Masse is idolatrie because it is a worshipping of creatures in steed of the creator although none of the olde writers call the Masse Idolatrie whiche had neither name nor being in their dayes The three and fortieth Chapter maketh recapitulation of the conference of the Masses of the Apostles and Fathers of the primitiue Church and of the Catholike Church that now is with a breefâ— confutation of the conference made by the proclamer betweene thâ— Masse of Saint Iames and that is now vsed The recapitulation conteining nothing but that which is confuted in the discourse at large I will omitte it and come to the conference that the Bishop made betweene the liturgie falsely ascribed to S. Iames and the Popishe Masse beeing content for the time to call it Saint Iames Masse as Maister Heskins doth although neither it is a Masse nor such as it is was it writteÌ„ by S. Iames the Apostle but by some of much later time as appeareth by the prayer therein conteined for such as liue in Monasteries and other thinges fauouring of the errours of that time in which it was written The first point of the conference is that S. Iames saide Masse in the common tong vnderstoode of the people the Papistes say Masse in a straunge tonge M. Heskins answereth that this point toucheth not the substance for the Masse may be good though it be not vnderstood but he himselfe maketh the doctrine of the Masse to be of the substance of it wherefore seeing there lacketh doctrine in the Masse there lacketh one of the foure substantiall partes But he would make the reading of the epistle and Gospel in Latine Doctrine and good doctrine What doctrine that is by which the people are not taught let reasonable men iudge for although all the Masse were nothing but scripture yet it were not good to be read in the Church in a straunge tong 1. Cor. 14. because it were not profitable for edifying His childish sophismes of Plato his substance and his accidents I disdaine to rehearse the trueth is manifest The second comparison S. Iames spake out of the words of consecration They in their Masse suppresse them and keepe them
of Peters authoritie notwithstanding all his prerogatiue in Act. Apost Hom. 3. Iam illud considera quòd Petrus agit omnia ex communi discipulorum sententia nihil authoritate sua nihil cum imperio Nowe consider this also howe euen Peter doth all things by the common decree of the disciples nothing by his owne authoritie nothing by commaundement or with rule 13 Therefore it is false which Maister Sander affirmeth that the gouernement of the faithfull was committed to one aboue all other for it did as well perteine to euery Apostle as to Peter to feede the sheepe of Christe And when distinction for orders sake was made in the ministerie by God Peter acknowledged the Apostleship of the circumcision which was neither the greatest nor the chiefest parte of the church to be allotted to him Gal. 2. vers 7. Therefore although there be one flocke of Christ vpon earth yet Christe is the onely one shepeheard thereof as he affirmeth Iohn 10. vers 16 Although hee haue many seruauntes that ouersee his sheepe as they bee scattered in many places whose collection into one flocke as it is not locall nor visible so they must needes haue an almightie and inuisible shepeheard to gather them together and no mortal man were he neuer so excellent least of all the Pope the vilest man aliue 14 For which cause although euery particuler flocke must haue one Pastour which is not necessarie for some may haue more then one yet cannot the whole church militant on earth haue one earthly man to be head therof And albeit M. Sander woulde proue it particuler in respect of the whole number of the elect yet is it vniuersall in respect of all perticuler congregations on earth at one time and so vniuersall as no singular man can possibly knowe it much lesse gouerne it 15 And therefore although Christe the vniuersall shepeheard wil suffer no particuler church to continue without a seruaunt to ouersee it vnder him yet will hee committ to no seruaunt any charge which is impossible for him to execute as is the ouersight of the Catholike or vniuersall Church vppon earth And here note the impudencie of the Papistes which affirme that their particular Synagogue of Rome is the Catholike or vniuersall Church and yet denye the whole church of Christ militant on earth to be the Catholik churche 16 It shall neuer be proued that Peter was made by Christe the firste sheapheard ouer all the sheepe of Christ on the earth otherwise then as all the Apostles were And yet if that were true and that which Maister Sander inferreth also that one chiefe sheapeheade shoulde be like Peter as one that executeth the same office that Peter did yet it followeth by no reason of consequence that he concludeth that all other bishops are excluded from this office sauing he that occupyeth his place at Rome if euer he had any there For he that were moste like to Peter in giftes meete to execute such an office were by all reason more meete to succeede Peter then euery vnlearned asse wicked helhound that is aduaunced into that chaire of Rome where Peter is supposed to haue sitt 17 Nowe seeing Peter is sayd first to haue sit at Antioche and afterward to haue remoued to Rome what reason is there seeing his supremacie was personall that his successoures of Antioche after his death shoulde not claime it as well as they of Rome if it went by right of succession For change of place can make no change of right And the title of Antioche is the elder therfore the better Except Master Sander will say that Rome hath it by his legacie and then he must shewe vs S. Peters last will and testament 18 And whereas he sayeth it is well knowen that S. Peter dyed at Rome it is not so well knowen as that Christ dyed at Ierusalē wherfore the Bishop of Ierusalem should more reasonably claime this supremacie vicarship vnto christ And that Peter writeth from Babylon it is an argument he was not at Rome but in Babylon of Aegypt although S. Hierom thinketh he was at Rome and calleth Rome Babylon as the seat of Antichrist which M Sander is content to take that he might haue some colour of Scripture to proue that S. Peter was at Rome Although it be such as may serue to proue Rome to be the seate of Antichrist but not the chiefe seat of the Church of christ Apoc. 19. 19 It is true that among al countries and cities none was so notable as the citie and people of Rome because of the seat of the Empire that was there in which respecte also the churche of Rome was muche noted and reuerenced so long as it continued in synceritie But the bishops thereof haue not bene so notable as many other of other cities What one bishop of Rome like to Athanasius of Alexandria Chrysostome of Constantinople Ambrose of Millain Yea poore Augustine of Hippo or Osius of Corduba in their times or before their times And whereas hee saieth no places so conuenient for the head of Christes churche to be setled in it is altogether false because it was not conuenient that the heade of Christs churche should be setled there where Antichrist shoulde sit lest the one should be taken for the other 20 And although it were graunted that Italie is the fittest place for worldly Empire yet it foloweth not that it is aptest for spirituall gouernement For in all worldly respects the land of Promise far excelleth Italie which now is the most slauishe countrie in Europe being parted into so many seignories almost as there be great cities as Machiauill doth confesse 21 Although at somtime no citie in Italie was so notable as Rome yet was it not so alwayes since Christes birth for it hath bene diuers times taken and destroyed by the Gotthes and for many yeares left vnhabited And although it was most notable in worldly glory yet that was most vnmeete for to set vp the kingdom of Christ when it was in greatest glory it did alwaies withstand it Therefore Ierusalem in the lande of promise if God woulde haue chosen one citie for his vicare to sit in had bene in all respectes the meetest place in the worlde 22 That he saith no Apostle was more glorious then S. Peter it is vntrue for S. Paule affirmeth that he was equall with him and the rest laboured more then they all 2. Cor. 11. vers 5. 1. Cor. 15. vers 10. But admit that Peter was the chiefe yet it followeth not which M.S. affirmed that the bishop of Rome hath the most notable predecessor or founder of his chaire that euer anye bishop had For the bishop of Antioche hath the same by his owne confession and the elder title 23 Where he saith that the church of Rome was also founded by S. Paule it is a manifest vntruth for the church was there before S. Paule euer came there as it is plaine by
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
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
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.
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
in reformation no doubt but there were mutuall messages betweene them The vnion and communion of our Church with other particular Churches of God throughout the world is spirituall made by the working of the holy Ghost and not by embassages or orders taken by men But the same is declared and shewed by the confession of our faith fully agreeing in all necessarie Articles with them 91 The publique protestations and confessions of our faith doe shewe our reconciliation and coniunction with the Catholique Church of Christ without that it is needfull for vs to exhibite any billes of submission to any singular persons as hath bene vsed in cases of particular discipline as in reconciliation of Vrsarius and Valens to Iulius of Rome Maximus Vrbanus other to Cyprian of Carthage 92 The realme did neuer submit it selfe to Luther Zuinglius or Caluine but to Christe and his Church As for offring of billes of submission to forreigne Bishops it is no part of Christian discipline But if it were a matter of any substance al the Cleargie of England gaue their subscription to the Archbishop of Canturburie and other Bishops for the departure out of the Popish Church into the Church of England That we receiued not the errour of Luther concerning the reall presence it sheweth wee depend not vpon any man further then his doctrine is true and agreeable to the word of God. 93 Caluine and Zuinglius although they receiued some light of vnderstanding by the ministerie of Luther yet came they not from him but were stirred vp of God as he was 94 The realme in King Edwards time neuer purposed to submit them selues to Caluine who although he misliked the title of supreme head in that sense whiche Steuen Gardiner maintained it at Ratisbone as though it gaue vnto the King an absolute authoritie to do what he would in the Church yet in that sence that it was receiued of King Edward and vnderstoode of all godly men that is to bee the highest Magistrate in the Church as well for the ordering of Ecclesiasticall as ciuill matters he neuer did condemne it 95 King Edward retaining that title in the godly sense aboue rehearsed the Church of England notwithstanding was vnited to the Catholique Church of Christ throughout the world 96 When Queene Marie came to the Crowne shee found the realme a member of the Catholique Church of Christe which she forsooke and sought to bring it in bondage againe to the Antichristian See of Rome which by meanes of a Legacie from the Pope brought by Cardinall Poole long before attainted for treason against his Prince and countrie was by an acte of Parleament yeelded vnto Although GOD reserued more then seuen thousand that neuer bowed their knee to Baal of Rome whereof many were cruelly put to death and suffered martyrdome the rest were persecuted and by the protection of God escaped out of that bloudie and fierie persecution 97 The seat of Peter could not be planted at Rome in the dayes of Claudius the Emperour bycause that in the tenth or eleuenth yeare of his Empire Peter was at Antioch reproued by Paule Gala. 2. The last yeare or the first of Nero S. Paule writte his Epistle to the Romanes from Corinth where he taried almost two yeres in which Epistle he sending salutation to sixe and twentie singular persons beside diuers families would not haue omitted to salute Peter if he had bene there But admit that Peter had a seat at Rome yet the Papacie hath not continued from that time but since the dayes of Boniface the third which was more then â—00 yeares after Christe Neither hath the faith of the See of Rome continued without chaunge as M. Sanders saith these 1500. yeares but is altogether in a manner chaunged from the faith of Peter and of the Apostolike Church therefore Queene Marie bringing the realme to that Church did not reconcile it to the true Church of Christ but restored it to the slauerie of the Antichristian tyrannie 98 Seeing the realme is nowe againe returned to the embracing of the doctrine of the Gospell set foorth in the holy scriptures taught in the Primitiue Church many hundreth yeares after Christe continued in all times though vnder persecution of Antichrist and nowe openly and publiquely professed of many nations it is a member of the true Catholike Church of Christe whereof Christe onely is the head and communicateth with the Church of Christ of all nations in all pointes of true religion necessarie to saluation and therefore is no seismaticall Church but a Catholique and Apostolique Church 99 The Catholique Church of Christe whereof the Church of England is a part is an inuisible Church and therefore an Article of our faith which is of things inuisible Heb. 10. and no Church vnder a bushell But Hierusalem that is in heauen is the mother of vs all Gala. 4. Contrariwise the Popish Church which is visible is the Church of Infidels and Rome which is vpon earth is the mother of all Antichristians 100 The preaching of Gods worde is the ground of faith â–ª the celebrating of the sacramentes is the confirmation of the same these exercises haue alwayes beene in the true Churche of God when they be not hindred by persecution 101 The Gospell of Christ hath beene preached vnto all nations And the Church hath had Pastours and teachers froÌ„ Christes time vnto Luthers age Maister Sander asketh where they were through all nations As though it were necessarie they should be in euerie nation at all times Poperie when it was at the largest had not teachers in all nations For many coÌ„tinue in barbarous Gentilisme beside Mahometisme which hath filled the greatest part of the worlde The Church of Christe is scattered in many nations and hath had and now also hath many Kinges that walke in the light thereof And at this time more then the Popish Church hath 102 The true Church in England is honoured nourished by the Kinges whome she honoureth as supreme gouernours heades or rulers thereof And although Ecclesiasticall persons pay subsidies vnto their princes yet are not their Princes and their Courtiers nourished by the goodes of the Church as Maister Sander moste slaunderously reporteth otherwise then it is meete that subiects should contribute to the maintenance of the state of the Prince and their owne defence 103 The worde of God written is in deede honorable and true and conteineth all that doctrine by whiche the Church of God was gouerned two thousand yeres before any word of the Bible was written when by reason of that long life of the Patriarches the tradition might be certeine The Gospell also was preached by the Apostles before any of the foure Gospels was penned but yet agreable to the scriptures of the olde Testament and is the same that is written and none other which written word of God is able to make the man of God perfect and is deliuered vnto the Church of Christe as a moste certeine rule to followe that
his body and the signe of the crosse is the body it selfe crucified who euer heard these monsters proceed out of our mouthes Againe The communion is taught to be but holy bread Priestes and Bishops need haue no temporal possessions except they thēselues be Priestes and Bishops Priestes and Bishops are equal by Gods law therefore Popish Priestes which be the diuels Priestes must be equall with Christian Bishops which for gouernment sake are preferred before Christian Ministers Finally if the Papistes burne oure malicious and false translations of the Bible they are saide to burne the holy Bible of Iesus Christe If the Protestants burne the Hebrue Greeke Latine Duch text as they did in the Low countries they are cōmended as holy workers in the Lords vine No M. Sander thy malicious eares neuer heard that which thy slanderous pen hath set downe that any man was of vs commended for burning any text of the Bible and if by disorder and through ignorance any texts were burned yet thou feignest too impudently in saying they burned the Duch text And whereas thou wouldest excuse the purposed malicious burning of English Bibles by the falsenesse of their translations beside that thou speakest absurdly in all learned mens eares who knowe the trueth of them by conference of them with the originall toungs yet this bewrayeth your malice against the word of God that hauing so long complained of our false translations neuer a papist of you all will take the paines to translate the Bible truly that the people might be rightly instructed in Gods word by your true translation if you feared their peruerting by our false translation ¶ CAP. 4. or as the errour of his Printer hath made it CAP. 3. and so continueth in that errour to the end which I note bicause there should be no varying in the conference of his booke and mine answere The petegreu of such as heretofore haue destroyed the altars the temples the chalices of God or the images of Christe and of his Saintes with aunswere to certaine obiections which might seeme to make for image breakers Also he noteth a notable storie of honour done to Church plate in the auncient time This blaser of the Popes armes pretending to drawe a petegreu of such as haue destroyed altars temples c. rehearseth a beadroll of Infidells and heretiques which haue defaced the true religion of God which pertaineth nothing to them that by lawfull authoritie deface and destroy the monuments of Popish Idolatrie hauing an expresse commandement of God so to doe You shall ouerthrowe their altars breake downe their pillers ye shall cut downe their groues and burne their grauen images with fire Deu. 7. v. 5. But this he saith pertaineth not vnto vs to execute except we had conquered an heathen nation that worshipped Iupiter and Iuno Mars and Minerua c. By what commandement then did Ezechias Iosias and all the godly Kings destroye and deface the monuments of Idolatry in the land of Iuda which was no heathen nation but the most peculiar people of God By what authoritie did they destroy the hill altars or high places in which the people did offer sacrifice only to God 1. Reg. 3. Finally by what precept did Ezechias breake downe the brasen serpent which was a figure of Christ infinitely more excellent then al the images of the Papistes bicause that had a godly beginning wheras theirs haue a wicked beginning a worse continuance and abuse This cōmandemēt therfore serueth against al Idolatrie whether it be committed of people that are heathnish or of such as hauing so◠sacraments of God are degenerated into false religiō Idolatry Wherfore the examples that M. S. alledgeth beside that some of them are very violently drawne to image breakers do nothing touche them that deface false religion but such as destroy true religion The Philistines were punished for looking vpon the arke Vzza for touching it vpon a good intent Ieroboam for forsaking the temple of Salomon and setting vp two prophane Temples with Idols in them which M. Sander omitteth and making priests of the vilest of the people This last prank saith he is practised in Anwerpe How so M. S New temples are erected Why sir is it lawfull to haue but one temple as then at Ierusalem Newe ministers are made in Schisme I trust they be not so vile rascals as the multitude of your Popish hedge priestes But where be the idols in the newe temples of Anwerpe that were in Ieroboams Temple But let vs heare the rest of his examples The seruantes of Iessabel destroyed the altars of God in the dayes of Elias It is very true And Elias with the godly people destroyed the altars of Baal and slew his Priests Nabuchodonosor burned the Temple of Salomon he did wickedly Balthasar abused the holy vessels he smarted for it But Iehu destroyed the religion of Baall and the ornamentes thereof and he is commended so be all the godly Kinges for destroying of idolatrie 2. Reg. 10.18.23 In Malachie God reproueth the Priests for offering the blind and lame and the polluted bread Manasses the priest set vp a false Temple in mount Garizim Antiochus Epaphanes defiled the temple of God Pompeius entered into the sanctuarie All these did wickedly but they that with Lawfull authoritie deface and destroy idolatrie doe that which is right in the sight of the Lord 2. Reg. 18. 23. Christ honored the Temple with his presence yet he chased out the abusers therof Luc. 19. Ioan 2. c. The Christians in Tertullians time vsed crossing of their forheades to shewe them selues Christians but no worshipping of any crosse as the Papists do yet came that estimation of the crosse from the Valentinian heretikes Irenaeus Lib. 1. Ca. 1. An. 150. The Nouatians kept conuenticles from the Catholiks such are the assemblies of the Papistes separated from the Churche of God though they be neuer so many in number as the Arrians in the East and in Affrica were The Manichees did hate the Image of Christe whom they denied to be a very man testified in the 2. Councel of Nice which was almoste 800. yeares after Christe when Images were made and honoured yet M. Sander noteth it Anno Dom. 280. when in the Churche of God were no Images of Christ. But among the heretikes Gnostici was there images of Christ which they honoured An. 129. Ire Lib. 1. Cap. 24. Dioclesian and Maximian commanded the Churches of Christians to be destroied the Bibles to be burned so did the Papistes at Orleans and Anwerpe to the Churches in all places where they come for the Bibles burning Yet the good man chargeth the protestants at Anwerpe in S. Frances monasterie for burning the Bible When Georgius an Arrian Bishop was brought into Alexandria by force there was great sedition and spoyle of Church goodes there hath beene as great sedition and spoyle in bringing in of Catholike Bishops of Rome greater also as many hystories do
witnesse and the Papistes wil not denie so many Schismes haue ben about election of their Popes But neerer to the matter Iulian the Apostata with the paganes pulled downe the image of Christ that was set vp in the streete of Caesarea Philippi in remembraunce of the miracle done vpon the woman that was healed of her issue of bloud not in the Church to be worshipped Wel he shewed his malice but he did no hurt to Christian religion This example hurteth not them that lawfully pul downe deface Images in the Church of Christ for Epiphanius before Iulian did so at Anablatha Epiph. epi. 34. But Iulianus did obiect vnto the Christians that they did worship the woode of the crosse when they painted Images therof on their foreheades and before their houses Hereof M. Sander gathereth that the Christians had a grauen image of Christe him selfe euen from his owne time in Paneade or Caesarea Philippi as images of the crosse before their houses for the image of Christe Eusebius testifieth it was set vp by the Heathen men and not by Christians Lib. 7. Cap. 18. Although it is not like that it was set vp in Christes time when it is manifest by Iosephus that the Iewes could not abide so much as the image of the Emperour or of his standerd the Eagle to be set vp among them The images of the crosses set before their doores declare they had not them and much lesse any other of Christ and his saintes in Churches which Iulian would not haue omitted to proue them woode worshippers and idolaters Cyrillus in deede defendeth these signes of crosses as better memorials of Christ and of his vertues then the Images of the Gentiles yet he defendeth not setting vp of crosses or any images in Churches creeping to them which is the filthie idolatrie of the Papists Iulian the vncle of this Apostata did sit vpon the vessels vsed at the communion in despight of our religion and was iustely plagued therefore Eustachius the heretike kept his conuenticles in priuate places he would not be ruled by his Bishop The protestants kepe open assemblies whē they are not hindred by persecution and are ordered by the Bishops Elders of their Church though they will not be obedient to the Hereticall Bishops of the Popishe Church The same Eustachius condemned the marriage of Priestes as the Papistes doe Ep. Con. Gangr Vigilantius iustly reproued the Christians for superstitious estimatiō of reliques which Hieronyme could not honestly defend for all his quarrelling To conclude Chrysostome complayneth of the iniurie done to him his church and the sacraments by barbarous souldiers Optatus of the like by the Donatistes Victor by the Arrians all these and an hundreth more that might be brought of like examples beeing actes of Infidels and Heretiques against true religion doe not proue but the commaundement of God must be executed against false religion by them who haue authoritie of God so to doe But now he commeth to answere our obiections and first the example of Epiphanius a godly bishop of Cyprus whose wordes I will first set downe as they are conteyned in an epistle of his to Iohn Bishop of Ierusalem Praeterea quod audini c. Moreouer whereas I heard that some men did murmur against me because that when we went together to the holie place whiche is called Bethel that there I might make a gathering with you after the Ecclesiasticall manner and was come to the village which is called Anablatha and had seene there as I passed by a candle burning and had inquired what place it was and had learned that it was a Churche and came into pray I found there a vale hanging at the doore of the saide Church steyned and painted and hauing the image as it were of Christe or of some Saint for I doe not well remember whose Image it was Therefore when I saw this thing that the Image of a man did hang in the Church of Christ contrarie to the authoritie of the scriptures I rent it and gaue councel to the keepers of that place that they should rather wrappe some dead poore man in it carry him to buriall in it And they contrariwise murmured said if he would haue rent it it had beene meete that he should haue giuen vs another vayle and haue changed it Which when I heard I promised that I would giue them one and send it shortly Now there was some stay in the meane time while I seeke to send them a very good vaile in steed of that. For I thought one should haue ben sent me out of Cypres But now I haue sent such a one as I could get And I pray you that you will commaunde the elders of that place to receiue this vale which we haue sent by this bearer And to charge them that here after no such vayles be hanged vp in the Church of Christ which are against our religion For it becommeth your honestie to haue such carefulnesse to take away scrupulositie which is vnworthie of the Church of Christ and the people which i◠committed to you These be the words of Epiphanius in his Epistle translated by S. Hierom. For answere to this first he will not affirme whether that Epiphanius the byshop of Cypres wrote this Epistle or some other of that name because Damascen that impudent corrupter of antiquitie when he can not answere the Epistle he moueth such suspition in his Apologie for the worshipping of Images But let Hierome himselfe testifie the matter Contra errores Ioan Hierosol ad Pampathiam in the end of the Epistle Secondly he answereth that notwithstanding the iudgement of Epiphanius it is not against the authoritie of the scriptures to haue Images in the churches for then shoulde not Theodorus the martyr haue had his martyrdome painted on the walles as Gregorius Nyssenus witnesseth In deede Gregorius Nyssenus which liued somewhat after Epiphanius speaking of the ornaments of the Churche affirmeth that there was the history of the martyr painted on the wall but so farre from anye spice of adoration that the same was also expressed vppon the pauement which men did tread vppon Like as for ornamente there were grauen also in woode the Images of beastes These were the beginnings and as it were the first budding vp of Idolatrie in the church yet gainesaide by godly men and forbidden in the councell of Eliberis Another reason he hath of those simple mens authoritie that hang vp the Image and their murmuring which was not for putting downe the Image but for that he gaue them not another vail or curtaine first That it was not his priuate opinion it appeareth in this that he writeth so confidently thereof to the bishop of Ierusalem in whose dyocesse Anablatha was and who was present whē the saide Image was defaced But if he had thought saith M. Sander the hauing of Images to bee an heresie he woulde haue noted it in his booke of Fourescore and more heresies where he noteth no
you adore by your images no vnreasonable creature but only blessed soules and one god First I say you misreport the wisest of the Gentiles for they defended their idolatrie by saying they worshipped in those images diuerâ— Gods not meaning that they were so but that they worshipped diuers vertues of one God as in Minerua the wisdome of God in Mars the strength of God in Ceres the liberalitie of God c. Augu. In Psal. 96. Sed existit nescio quis disputator c. But there is a certeine disputer I wot not who which thought himselfe to be learned and saith I doe not worship that stone nor that image which is without sense for your prophet could not know that they haue eyes and see not and to be ignorant that that image hath no life that yet neither seeth with eyes nor heareth with eares Therefore I doe not worship that but I adore that which I see and serue him whom I see not Who is he The God whiche being inuisible is president of that image By this means yeelding a reason of their images they seeme to themselues to be eloquent because they worship not idols and worship diuels They answere we worship not euill spirites but euen the Angels whome you so call do we worship the vertues of the great God and the ministers of the great god I would you would worship them you should easily learne of them not to worship them Thus Augustine in whiche saying beside that he sheweth what defence the Heathen had for their idolatrie he sheweth that the true worship of Angels is not to worship them by images or otherwise but onely to learne of them not to worship them but God alone But howe can M. Sander say they adore no vnreasonable creature by their images when they adore the image of the crosse which was both an vnreasonable an insensible creature And how doth he worship one God more then this Heathen man whose feigned excuse S. Augustine reporteth 8 The diuels ruled the images of the Gentiles giuing oracles out of them c. but the faith of Papistes whiche endeuouring to keepe Gods commandementes do set vp images to a good end so beautifieth their work and worship that it is not possible for the diuel to abuse them If we beleeue that the diuel gaue oracle out of the Heathnish idols and not rather that they were feigned by the subtiltie of men we may likewise thinke that the diuell gaue answers out of Popish images which are likewise saide to haue spoken as that Roode in Dunstones time to decide the controuersie for marriage of Priestes many other feigned in the Bookes of Popish miracles Secondly where heard the Papistes out of Gods wordes this faith of setting vp Images Thirdly how doe they indeuour to keepe Gods commaundement in setting vp of idols when they breake a manifest commaundement of God which forbiddeth images to be worshipped 9 The diuels coueted to mainteine their idols The same couet to ouerthrowe Popish images No verily they loue Popish images by which God is dishonoured as wel as they did loue Heathenish images As for the tale of the diuels persuading Iulian the Apostata to breake the image of Christ at Paneade which is not like to haue continued vnto his dayes if we receiue it which was written by no writer of his time nor an hundreth yeares after it proueth no hatred that the diuel had of images but of Christ might be a subtile practise of his to bring the Christians with fonde emulation to esteeme such a thing more then it was worthie because their enemie hath defaced it 10 Their idols were dedicated to an Heathenish purpose Popish images to a vertuous intent But how can that be a vertuous intent which is contrarie to Gods coÌ„mandemeÌ„t Last of all he will aunswere our obiection that Popish images haue been abused in making their eyes to moue and their lippes to wagge c. First he saith these were but abuses of particular men where the Bishop was a sleep but not allowed in the Church yea the Gospel hath been abused Gods curse light of that comparison which matcheth images with the Gospell But were al Bishops high and low in your Church so sound a sleepe that not one could see these horrible abuses to punish them For what one exaÌ„ple can be brought of any one among so many that hath beene punished by the Papists for such detestable abuse Secondly he answereth these abuses are committed by men not yet euerlastingly condemned not by diuels which haue their torments increased when they aproch to such holy things as they haue no power of As though wicked men could worke such things but by the diuels procurement who wil no more be afraide to abuse an image then to persuade a man to abuse it which deserueth both one punishment Thirdly if suche practisers of abuse liued in Luthers time they commonly became runnagates with the first if any such haue repented and confesseth their wicked facts it is to your shame M. Sa. not to ours for they were yours when they did suche things To conclude I wish the Reader to consider howe vaine and foolish the whole scope of this Chapter of M. Sanders booke is to shewe the difference of idols images in the second commandement when God wrote not the same in Greeke out of which tong this supposed difference is deriued but in Hebrue euen the common Latine translation which the Papistes doe followe calleth that which the Greekes terme 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an idoll by the name of Sculptile a grauen image and when he hath made his difference as farre a sunder as he can all images are as well forbidden in that commaundement as idols in any seruice of God or vse of religion THE IX OR VIII CHAP. That it is no idolatrie to giue conuenient worship to some creatures whether images be creatures or no. Also in one argument of M. Iewels 4. great faultes are found that a creature may be set vp to be honoured That an image is rather a workemanship then a creature That the Kinges garment on his backe is honoured M. Harding had confessed that images by a consequent might be worshipped The Bish. of Sarum said An image is a creature and no god And to honour a creature in that sorte as it is set vp to the end to be worshipped although not specially to that end is idolatrie therefore by Maister Hardings owne confession images are set vp to be vsed to idolatrie This is the argument that hath foure as great faultes in it as there be knots in a rush The first fault is that he putteth Idolum in steede of Imago The second that he putteth Doulia in steede of Lâ—triae The thirde faulte is that he presupposeth that we may set vp no creature to the intent that it may be any wayes honoured The last faulte that he affirmeth an image to be a creature The first and
San. himself afterward confesseth that it is an heathenish custome to honour men with setting vp their images And if it was superstitious in the heathen therefore it was superstitious in these Christians which folowed the heathenish custome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without any change Secondly he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is spightfully Englished their sauiours And why so I pray you â–ª What other thing doth the worde signifie but a Sauiour of whole or part of body or soule Except you will say that among the Heathen Castor Pollux were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the plural number but it was for that they were supposed to be sauiours or preseruers of Mariners which declareth in what sense Eusebius saith these men worshipped them without chaunge by an heathenish custome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 euen as they worshippe sauiours for example such and so as they called Castor and Pollux I will not therefore sticke with you but that those men of whome Eusebius speaketh in this last sentence were such as professed some lâ—ue of Christe and Christianitie but yet after an heathenish maner Alexander the Emperour worshipped the image of Christe in his Chappell among his other idols Carpocrates the heretique made the images of Iesus and Paul Homer and Pythagoras did cense them with incense and worship them Epiph. lib. 1. Tom. 2. in prefat The Gnostike heretiques had euen such images of Christe painted in colours as Eusebius speaketh of euen as they had the images of Pythagoras Plato Aristotle Epher 27. which heretiques answere directly to the wordes of Eusebius that they made and worshipped the images of Christe and his Apostles without chaunge euen as they made the images of Heathen men whome they had in estimation Againe S. August De moribus Ecclesiae Catholicae cap. 34. speaketh of such worshippers of reliques and pictures euen in his time which yet the Catholique Church did not allowe Nolite mihi colligere professores nominis Christiani neque professionis suae vim aut scientes aut exhibentes Nolite consectari turbas imperitorum qui vel in ipsa vera religione superstitiosi sunt vel ita libidinibus dediti vt obliti sint quid promisserint Deo. Noui multos esse sepulchrorum picturarum adoratores noui multos esse qui luxuriosissimè super mortuos bibant epulas 〈◊〉 laueribus exhibentes super sepultos seipsos sepeliant voracitates ebrietatesque suas deputent religioni Gather not me together such professours of the Christian name as either know not or shewe not the vertue of their profession Seeke not vp the multitude of vnskilfull men which euen in true religion it selfe are superstitious or else so giuen to filthie lustes that they haue forgotten what they haue promised to god I knowe there be many worshippers of tombs and pictures I know there be many which most riotously drinke ouer the dead making banquets for the dead bodies burie them selues vpon the buried bodies and account their gluttonies and dronkennesse to be religion Such Christians they might be of whome Eusebius speaketh But M. San. confessing this maner of honouring by images to be an heathenish custom doth also affirme that it was a laudable custome saying that it was but pusillanimitie scrupulositie in the Iewes that they durst make no images So that to obey the commandement of God is counted of him for a vice and it is a great vertue of magnanimitie to be bolde to do that which God hath forbidden But what reason hath he Forsooth all things that the heathens vsed were not euill Sacrifice was not euill though the heathen did offer sacrifice to diuels Virginitie of Nuns for so it pleaseth him to translate Sanctiomonialium in Augustine although there were no Popish names in his time is not euill bicause the heathen had their vestall Virgines So that by his Logike there is one reason of things good and lawfull if they be well vsed as sacrifice and virginitie and things simply forbidden as making and worshipping of images in religion But nowe we are come to S. Iames Chapter which not heathen men but the brethren at Hierusalem and as Ruffinus translateth it the Bishops in succession did preserue and had in estimation his words folowing imediately after the sentence last intreated of are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For the brethren there by succession hauing in estimation the Chaire of Iames the Apostle that is kept vnto this time which Iames was the first that receiued the charge of the Church of Hierusalem of our Sauiour him self and of the Apostles whome also the holy scriptures do shewe to haue bene called the brother of Christ doe euidently shewe vnto all men in what manner both those that were in the old time and those that be euen till our days haue maintained yet do maintaine a worthie reuerence and worshippe of holy men for their godlinesse sake Here M. Sander scoffeth rayleth braggeth and all about the Moone shine in the water Knowe you not Maister Iewel saith he that this worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For giueth a reason of that which went before What was that That olde men tarrying in superstition did set vp images whereof the reason followeth bicause the brethren at Hierusalem do honour the chaire of S. Iames. Then he cryeth out O cursed lying spirit c. At length he concludeth that it is manifest that Eusebius alloweth and stoutly defendeth the honour that is giuen to Saints by their images and reliques See what a stout champion Maister Sander wil make Eusebius to be for images and reliques But to returne to your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Maister Sander is there no remendie but either images must be allowed or this connexion be foolish May 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for giue a reason of nothing but as you wil haue it Why may it not rather giue a reason why hee counteth that an heathenish custome of honoring Christ his Apostles by making their images bicause the faithfull brethren at Hierusalem euen from the time of Saint Iames not making an image of him but keeping his chaire that he vsed to sit in as a monument declare euidently what maner of reuerence hath bene giuen by true Christians from the beginning to this day vnto holy meÌ„ that is to haue them in remembrance without superstition and idolatrie but not by making of their images For except this Antithesis be vnderstood it were in deed a folish connexion as euil an argument to proue that they which made images of Christ his apostles after the heathnish custome did wel because the Christians at Ierusalem kept the chaire of S. Iames and had it in estimation So that the matter beeing well considered the coniunction is wiser then Maister S. can vnderstande for all his outcries and amplifications To that which the Bishop saith this image beeing in the streete proueth not the setting vppe of Images in the Churche he aunswereth there were other
of the nayle Beside we see a great difference betweene the reuerent offering of a thing and the honouring or worshipping thereof which yet Master Sander euery where confoundeth But Ambrose speaketh further in the person of the Iewes Ecce clauus in honore est Beholde euen the nayle is in estimation and that which we knocked in to death is a remedy of health and with a certaine inuisible power tormenteth the deuils Kinges are bowed to the iron of his feete Here saith Master Sander we haue the adoration of iron Is this like that Ambrose who before condemned the adoration of the wood for an heathnish error doeth now commende the bowinge to iron why Master Sander doe you not confesse that the Iewes spake this and not Ambrose or Ambrose spake this in the person of the Iewes And who knoweth not in such fictions of persons speaking the Orator must frame his talke as they whome he supposeth to speake are like to say The Iewes then in sport do say kings bow down to a piece of iron meaning to the Emperour in whose creste this iron nayle was is it then the iudgement of Ambrose to allow the bowing to yron in any respect O vaine friuolous argumentes of the Papistes that must borrowe their authority of the complaint of the perfidious Iewes But you may knowe what honour was done to the yron that as the one nayle was placed in an honourable place namely in the Emperours Diademe so an other was placed in his horse mouth for so saith Ambrose De vno clauo frenos fieri precepis she commaunded his bridle to be made of one nayle This was no great honouring of that holy yron to put it to bee champed and slaboured in an horse mouth although Ambrose make a misterie of it And the thirde nayle other writers say was cast into the Sea to staye a tempest All three being thus bestowed by auncient testimonie the Papists haue fourteene more in diuers places of Fraunce Italy Germany beside the fifteenth that was shewed at Paules crosse by maister Iewell since the Queenes reigne But Ruffinus calleth it blessed And Cyrillus healthfull and precious because it leadeth vs to the memory of Christs death So woulde an image of Iudas Iscarioth doe It was the best reason those auncient writers had to defende that supersticious estimation which they had of the signe of the crosse As for the report of Paulinus that the same crosse had a Church and a secreate place made at Ierusalem where it might be honourably reserued which the Bishop brought forth at Easter to be worshipped of the people if it be true yet proueth it not the worshiping of images for the crosse was no image But that it is not like that any church was erected to the Crosse Saint Augustine sheweth that it was counted sacriledge in his time to make a Church vnto any creature Contra. Maximin lib. 1. titu 11. Nonne si Templum alicui saÌ„cto angelo excelentissimo de signis lapidibus faceremus anathematizaremur a veritate Christi ab ecclesia dei quoniam creaturae exhiberemus eam seruitutem quae vni tantum debâ—â—â—r deo si ergo sacrilegi essemus faciendo templum cuicunque creaturae quomodo non est Deus verus cui non templum facimus sed nos ipsi templum sumus If we made a temple vnto any holy and most excellent Angel of woode and stones shoulde we not be accursed from the trueth of Christ and from the Church of God because we shoulde giue that seruice to a creature which is due onely to God If therefore wee shoulde be sacrilegious in making a temple to any creature whatsoeuer how is not he a true God to whom we make no temple but we our selues are his temple Except M. Sander will say the crosse was no creature wee must say with Augustine it ought to haue no temple What superstition and Idolatrie hath done is not the question but what should be done and what is wel done is all the controuersie The feastes of the inuention of the crosse which hee maketh of 1200. yeares olde and the exaltation of nine hundreth beside that the antiquitie of the inuenting is not proued yet argue not any worshippe of the crosse more then the feastes of the Apostles and martirs which were kept onely in remembrance of them and not to adore or worship them That maister Iewell graunteth the signe of the crosse to haue beene had in great regard among the Christians what helpeth it your cause seeing hee alloweth not the superstitious abuse thereof But you say if it be a thing vsed in the whole primitiue Church it must not be called a supersticious abuse for maister Iewel hath submitted himselfe to the first sixe hundreth yeares A man may easely perceiue with what coÌ„science maister Sander handeleth this cause that so impudeÌ„tly affirmeth so manifest an vntruth For who euer heard maister Iewell submit himselfe to the first sixe hundreth yeares in all matters of controuersie Where did he euer take vpon him to discharge the first sixe hundreth yeares of all error and supersticion Although for certeine questioÌ„s vttered in his sermon he made challeng of 600. yeares yet did he neuer allowe of all thinges that were done or taught in the church for 600. years But I pray you let vs see how substancially M. Sander proueth the signe of the crosse to haue ben in estimation with the whole primitiue church His first authour is Tertulian almost 200. yeares from christ And from him he desceÌ„deth to Cyprian Basill Augustine Chrisostome c. Tertulian sheweth only the sining of mens foreheades therewith whethersoeuer they went The later age brought in that signe into baptisme confirmation the Lords supper and almost in to euery ceremony So superstition crepeth like a ringworme at the first as a tollerable indifferent matter then as a holye thing nexte as a necessarie thing and last of all into open and grosse Idolatrie as in the times following those six hundreth years But before all those whom M. Sander nameth Irenaeus lib. 1. testifieth that the ValeÌ„tiniane heretiks brought the signe of the crosse in great estimation calling it Oron confirmatiuam crucem the limit and terme of all things the confirming crosse abusing euen the same testimonies of scripture for the proofe thereof which the Papists doe and namely maister Sander in this Chapter Paulum autem apostolum ipsum reminisci huius crucis dicunt Verbum crucis c. Mihi autem non eueniat gloriari nisi in cruce Christi And they say that euen Paule the Apostle himselfe doth remember this crosse The worde of the crosse c. GOD forbid that I should boast in any thing but in the crosse of christ Seeing therefore so auncient a writer as Ireneus testifieth that the first estimation thereof came from so horrible heritikes howsoeuer the later ages haue abused it it cannot be proued a thing vsed in the whole primitiue church that
what call you it but the trinitie Fie vppon this horrible idolatrie which is defended with such a sleueles excuse that you honour not the image for his owne sake no more did the Gentiles their images Chrisostom in Homi. 18. in Ep. ad Eph. writeth thus of them Cum illi dicimus quòd simulachrū adoret non inquit simulacrum sed Venerem sed Martem Et cum rogamui quae est ista Venus Qui grauiores inter eos sunt respondent voluptas quis est Mars Animus masculus vehemens When we say vnto him that he worshippeth an image No saith he not the image but Venus or Mars And when we aske what is this Venus the grauer sort among them aunswere pleasure And who is Mars A manlike and valiant corage Augustine in Psal. 96. which place I haue cited before sheweth that the Gentiles affirmed that they worshipped not the images for their owne sake but for the diuine powers which they did represent euen the same which the Christians called Angels So that the Papists are all one with the Gentiles in their excuse as they agree with them in Idolatrie worshipping of images FINIS God be praysed A REFVTATION OF MAITER IOHN RASTELS CONFVTATION AS HE CALLETH IT OF maister Iewels sermon by W. Fulk To the Preface TO giue the Reader a tast of such sinceritie as he must looke for in all M. Rastels booke of confutation hee sheweth in his preface where speaking of three maners of aunswering he declareth the same by an example taken out of the bishops sermon that sole receiuing is not to be suffered among Christians where as the bishoppe hath no such position in all his sermon but that priuate masse was not vsed for the space of sixe hundreth yeares after christ Thus admonishing the Reader that maister Rastell as his grand capteine M. doctour Harding not able to finde any thing either in scripture or antiquitie for the maintenance of their ordinary priuate Masse doth flie to extraordinarie vses and vnlawfull vsages of sole receiuing being all such as either some necessity might seeme to excuse or as all the Papists themselues do confesse to haue beene abuses I leaue his leude preface hasten to the book it self A refutation of maister Rastels confutation SECTIO PRIMA In which he speaketh of the councel of Nice of vnwritten verities TO passe ouer the two first leafes of his booke and halfe the third in which is much vaine babling but no point of confutatiō in the second face of the third leafe he beginneth to picke his iust quarel at the sentence set before the bishoppes printed sermon which is this Let old customes preuaile It greueth M. Rastel his fellowes which perswade the ignorant people that our relygion is all nouelty that M Iewell should make any such claime vnto antiquitie And first therfore he wil know whether the scriptures do not cōteine al things necessary to saluatiō Yes verely and Gods curse light on him that teacheth the contrarie Then he will knowe where we finde this saying in scriptures or if it be not in the scripture of god why we wil vse a sentēce of the coūcel of Nice which was but a cōgregatiō of mens Verily if we found not the matter of this sentence in Gods worde we durst not auouch it to be true that was vttered by men being applied to any point of doctrine But we finde the same doctrine in the sixt of Ieremy where the Lord saith Stand in the wayes and beholde and aske for the olde way which is the good way and walke therein and you shall finde rest for your soules Nowe this saying of the councell of Nice let olde customes preuaile being the same in effect and meaning though somewhat differing in sounde of wordes we embrace it as the worde of God and the holy scripture which we do not restraine vnto the letters and sillables but vnto the plaine and manifest sence and vnderstanding of them The seconde quarrell he picketh to the placing of this sentence before the bishoppes sermon because it is vttered by the Councell of Nice in a particuler case concerning the iurisdiction of the bishops of Alexandria and Antioch and therefore cannot serue for a generall sentence For all olde customes saith he must not be preferred before new customes example of washing of feete abstaining from eating of bloud which were olde customes But if the councell meant that olde customes should preuaile against newe writinges then all books of Luther such like are striken through which one foine Wherefore hee concludeth that the councell meant that olde customes shoulde preuaile against the pretensed alledging of the verye scripture it selfe and newe doctrine of men And so this sentence doth at once ouerthrow all maister Iewels religion But hauing compared this sentence to the text of scripture by which the true meaning therof may appeare I will not stand about this trifling cauils Cōcerning our iudgmēt of antiquitie this it is We wil not admit whatsoeuer is old but only the religiō which is eldest of al which hath god for the autor the Patriarches Prophetes and Apostles for the witnesses and all learning doctrine and religion which is vnder the age of these yeares we reiect as newe false and diuelish As for customes ceremonies and manners which are subiect to mutation we receiue them or refuse them as they be approuable or disprouable by the saide old auncient and Catholike doctrine And bicause M. Rastel hath not only touched the sixt Canon of the Councell of Nice where this sentence is written but also charged M. Iewell with ouerthrowe of his religion thereby I must let the reader vnderstand that he suppresseth one point thereof that vtterly ouerthroweth the piller of all Popish religion that is the Popes supremacie For that Canon maketh the Bishop of Alexandria equall in iurisdiction to the Bishop of Rome For the reason of the iurisdiction confirmed vnto the Bishops of Alexandria is this Quia vrbia Romę Episcop◠parilis mos est Bicause the Bishop of the citie of Rome hath the like or equall custome of iurisdiction But M. Rastell will proue by the storie of Arrius that the Councell meant by that sentence that it is onely tradition custome and manners which killeth the hearts of heretiques and defendeth the Catholike Church and not the authoritie of the Scriptures Bicause Arrius was such a proude heretique that he despised all the interpretations of the auncient Fathers that were before his time as Alexander Bishop of Alexandria writeth of him Yea he is not ashamed to say that although the Fathers of that Councell had scriptures against Arrius yet their chiefe stay was not in that scriptures but in the receiued tradition But this is a most impudent lye for although the consent of Catholike writers of all ages with the word of God is not to be contemned yet the only authoritie in determining of controuersies of faith in
this we obserue the same essentiall order that the Apostles practised by Christs institution which S. Paule in that place reduced otherwise the bishop neither said nor ment therfore the foule lyes come onely out of M. Rastelles foule mouth and slaunderous penne From whence come fiue other lyes that folowe namely the the order of the coÌ„munion restored hath bin coÌ„tinued by the holy doctors fathers as in the beginning of this Section wherto he addeth to make the fift lie that the bishop saith some refuse the coÌ„munioÌ„ where there be many refusers in deed a few is too many but if there were a thousand times so many they are truely said some so long as they be not all Communion agreeth not with the primitiue Churche olde fathers First he bringeth in Iustine Athanasius Basill and Agustine to shewe that they vsed to praye to the East as though that were anye parte of the Communion And he will know of vs wherefore we appoint the priest to stand on the Northside Verely eueÌ„ for the same reason that the primitiue Churche did chuse to praye towarde the East Namely to auoide the superstition of the Iewes that prayed towarde the West as we doe to auoid the superstition of the papistes that vse to pray toward the East otherwise all quarters of heauen of their own nature are indifferent for vs to turne our selues vnto in our praiers either publike or priuate The seconde exception is of mingling of water with the wine which is also a pointe nothinge materiall as their owne schoole doctours doe confesse the vsage of this he prooueth by a counterfett decree of Alexander bishoppe 〈◊〉 â—ome by Cyprian and the third councell of Carthage sauing that he belyeth Cyprian who in deede reprooueth them that ministred with water alone but not such as ministred with wine alone although hee thinke it conuenient that water shoulde be mixed with the wine But all his reasoninge is for wine and not for water against water alone and not against wine alone Wherefore the vse of water being not of Christes institution as many other thinges practised of the fathers at the first as indifferent or profitable ceremonies being ouergrowne after with superstition and opinion of necessitie our Churche hath done verie well to curse them of and leaue nothinge but the pure institution of Christ. The third exception is of the signe of the crosse which he saith ought to be vsed in the coÌ„munion that he proueth by the counterfet liturgies ascribed to S. Iames S. Basill he citeth also Tertulian to prooue that men vsed to make that signe on their foreheads customably at euery action which they did to shewe themselues to be Christianâ— against the Heathens Likewise he citeth the sayings of Chrisostome and Augustine to proue that they vsed the signe of the crosse at the celebration of the communion which is not denyed yet cannot he proue that the vse of that signe is necessarie to the ministration and the first that we reade of that had it in estimatioÌ„ were the Valentinian heretikes Ireneus lib. 1. Cap. 1. By fond emulation of whome the Catholikes also began to vsurpe the same signe Therefore our communion which lacketh that signe lacketh nothing that is either necessary or profitable or considering the abuse of it meete to be reteined The fourth exception is of Altars which we haue not neither in deed had the primitiue church but tables made of bords which although they called altars as they did also cal them tables yet were they neither in forme nor matter like those which the Papists haue as I haue shewed at large in the aunswere to M. Hesk. lib. 3. Cap. 31. whither I remit the reader As for maister Rastels proofe out of that saying of the Apostle to the Hebrues we haue an Aultar of which they may not eate which communicate with Idols declareth what a wel exercised man in the scriptures he is for neither be the words of the apostle Heb. 12. as he doth falsifie them neither doth he speake of any materiall altar but of our spirituall Altar Christ. The words be these we haue an Aultar of which it is not lawful for theÌ„ to eat which serue in the tabernacle His next proofe is for hallowing of aultars and oyle of the priests blessing out of the prouinciall councel of Agatha which he citeth Cap. 14. in steede of 10. which was a new decree made by 35. Bishoppes in Fraunce almost fiue hundreth yeares after Christe and therefore not Catholike either for time or place The saying of Opratus which he citeth last you shal finde at large in the aunswere vnto Hesknis before named The fifth exception is of incense which hee proueth by a prayer of the counterfet masse of S. Iames which yet may be otherwise taken figuratiuely Also by a saying of Dennys who was not knoweÌ„ in the church fiue hundreth yeres after Christ for a writer neither of Eusebius IeroÌ„e nor Gennadius Last of al by a saying of Ambrose lib. 1. in cap. 1. Luc. I would to god that while we inceÌ„se the aultars bring sacrifice thither the Angels should stand by vs. By which wordâ— he meaneth nothing else but prayers which are figuratiuely both in the psalmes in the reuelation called incense or sacrifice Wherefore popish sensing is not of such antiquitie as he pretendeth The sixt exception is of lightes and tapers vsed in the primitiue Church which is false except it were in the night season to giue them light For profes he citeth a counterfet sermon of Augustine de tempore which for all that speaketh but of oyle wax for the vse of the night Neither is the verse of Paulinus otherwise to bee vnderstanded Of the Aultars bright that were rounde ydight with lampes thicke set and light Finally where he citeth Hierom against Vigilantius excusing the superstitioÌ„ of some women that lighted candles at day time partly by their deuotion partely by the example of the East Churches which onely at the reading of the gospell vsed to light their candels in signe of ioye you shall see by his owne wordes in the same place that neither it was the custome of the latine church to â—ett light candels on the aultars neither did he allowe them that vsed so to doe Caereas autem non clara luce accendimus sicut fustra calumniaris sed noctis tenebras hoc solatio temperemus vigilemus ad lumen no tecum caeci dormiamus in tenebris Quod si aliqui propter imperitiam vel simplicitatem saecularium hominum vel certe religiosarum faeminarum de quibus verè dicere possumus confiteor zelum Dei habens sed non secuÌ„dum scientiam hoc pro honore martyrum faciunt quid inde perdis We do not light wax caÌ„dels in the brod day light as thou dost slander vs in vaine but that we may temper the darknesse of the night with this comforte may watch by a light least we
manner of the being hath generall rules to order it by but no particulars expressed But Maister Rastell will not condemne the fact of Benet because Saint Augustine dare not condemne the fact of those virgins that drowned themselues contrarie to the commandement Thou shalt not kil because they might haue an extraordinarie spirite as Sampson had and because S. Ambrose commendeth the fact of his brother Satyrus one that was not baptised and therefore might not receiue the sacrament which hanged it about his necke in a tempest and escaped All these notwithstanding if he will not admitte that Saint Benet did euill in breaking the commandement of Christ yet let him heare what the Church decreed in the 3. councel of Carthage the 6. Canon Placuit vt corporibus defunctorum Eucharistia non detur Dictum est enim a Domino accipite edite Cadauera autem nec accipere possunt nec edere It is decreed that the sacrament of the Eucharistie be not giuen to the bodies of them that are dead For it is saide by our lord Take ye and eate ye But dead carcases can neither take nor eate The councell vseth the same reason that the bishop doeth but M. Rastel wiser then the councell sayeth that it is no good reason SECTIO 9. From the first face of the 46. leafe to the seconde face of the 47. leafe The Bishop affirmeth that Albertus Pighius one of the greatest pillers of the Popish parte findeth fault with the Masse M. Rastel denying him to be a great piller perhaps thinking himselfe to be as great confesseth that booth he and oâ—her do so but that it is not in the body of the Masse but in the garments and he saith they shew the better conscience to confesse the trueth whereas protestants will acknowledge no faults one by an other which is a shamelesse ly But what conscience the whole Popish Church hath hereby it may be seene that seeing there be faultes in the Masse so long ago espied yet not one of them is by the Pope and his cleargie reformed SECTIO 10. From the seconde face of the 47. leafe to the second face of thâ— 48. leafe That the Bishop in his sermon refuseth to speake of transubstantiation real presence or sacrifice and chuseth to speake of the communion in both kindes of the Canon of the Masse and of the priuate Masse Maister Rastel sayeth it is a timerous bragging and vaine glorious weakenesse But how well he hath quit himselfe in those cases that Maister Rastell imagineth he was afraide to deale with his learned writings doe more sufficiently declare to his true prayse then Maister Rastels rayling surmises are able to obscure And those thinges beeing taken from the Masse which he chooseth to speak of would make the Masse a poore sacrifice and smally to be regarded SECTIO 11. From the second face of the 48. leafe vnto the first face of the 58. leafe Wherein he speaketh of seruice in the mother tongue The Bishop reproueth the vse of the vnknowen tonge in the Masse by the authoritie of S. Paule that will haue all things in the Church done to edifying and that prayers and thankes giuen in the Church be such as the people to them may answere Amen Maister Rastell quarreleth that this fault is common to the Masse with Euensong and Mattins therefore it is no proper fault of the Masse A proper reason rayling and lying are no peculiar faultes to Maister Rastel but common to him with Maister Harding Maister Sanders Maister Alen and an hundreth more therefore he doeth Maister Rastel wrong that reproueth him of rayling and lying But before he answere the Bishops obiections he wil make no lesse then fiue obiections him selfe against him out of the same place of Saint Paule wherein he triumpheth 1 Why all the Psalter of Dauid is read in the English Church when all the Psalmes be not vnderstoode of all English men Forsooth syr there is no Psalme but something may be vnderstoode of euerie Englishe man that hath capacitie of vnderstanding and the rest that they may learne to vnderstand them 2 How many people be there that vnderstand not the easiest Chapter of the Gospell muche lesse the Prophets and Psalmes But sir they are often read that they may the better be vnderstoode or at least so much of them as is necessarie for them to knowe for their saluation 3 Where singing is vsed howe can they vnderstande any thing Such singing as taketh away vnderstanding is forbidden in our Church both by the booke and by iniunction 4 How can a thousand people vnderstande him that hath a small voice or Cornishe men or Northerne men a fine Londoners speech c. The Bishop should haue care to prouide a man as well for voyce as for other qualities able to edifie the people and suche nations of the Queens obedience as vnderstande not the English tongue haue their prayers in their owne tongue whiche he saith he had forgotten I thinke he saith as it is for a lyer should haue a good remembraunce 5 He saith we haue one Chapter for the better learned of the Parishe another for the poorer which is a flam fiue of his owne deuising Yet he saith there would be no end of confusion if nothing should be read in the congregation but that which should be vnderstoode of all that are present as though he were wiser then the holie Ghoste which in expresse wordes hath so commaunded that al may learne that all may be comforted meaning all the congregation not a man of a straunge language comming in chaunceably or curiously beeing none of that flocke But what answere hath he to Saint Paule euen a most shamefull shifte and impudent lie Namely that Saint Paule speaketh onely of preaching which he graunteth must be in the vulgar tongue and the Gospell and Pistle he could be content should be also if it pleased the Popes holinesse But Saint Paule nameth expressely not onely preaching but also praying giuing of thankes and singing of Psalmes or Hymnes But he obiecteth that Saint Paule saith he that speaketh with tongues edifieth himselfe and he that giueth thankes in a strange tongue doeth giue thankes well It is true if his prayer and speeche be godly and priuate but in the congregation the Apostle by no meanes alloweth any man to vse a strange tongue Yes saith M. Rast. if there be an interpreter In deede S. Paule speaketh of them which had a miraculous gifte of strange tongues which might be vsed to set forth Gods glorie so that there were an interpreter that the Churche might be profited otherwise he would haue Gods gift to be silent in the Churche To be short M. Rast. affirmeth preaching it selfe to be so vnnecessarie that pictures may not onely supplye the wante thereof but also are necessarie for the faithfull people and more profitable then a most eloquent and learned sermon of M. Iewell himselfe Who would reason any longer with such an
to make no diference betweene matters of substance and matters of circumstance as hee by his Popish sophistrie doth confounde SECTIO 24. From the secoÌ„d face of the 72. leafe to the second face of the 74. leafe wherin he beginneth to speak of adoration of the sacrameÌ„t Where the bishop saith that the olde doctours neuer make mention of adoration of the sacrament maister Rastell saith the argument is both naught and lying Naught because it may bee they vsed it although they neuer spake of it lying because he saith they do speake of it But to aunswere the naughtinesse of the argument I say maister Rastell is both a naughtie and lying gatherer of the bishoppes argument dismembring that which hee ioyneth together thus Christ his Apostels and the primitiue church neuer made mention of adoration of the sacrament therefore is not to bee vsed And concerning the lying supposed I answere that no auncient doctour speaketh one word of adoration of the sacrament as the verye sonne of GOD but either of adoration of Christ in heauen or of worshipping and adoring that is reuerently handling and honouring of the mysteries of Christ and no more of this sacrament then of the other namely baptisme For aunswere to the places he citeth out of Chrysostome Ambrose Augustine I will referre the reader to mine answere vnto the 45.46 47. Chapters of the second booke of Heskins parleament where this question is handled more at large Sauing that which he citeth out of Hom. 83. out of Chrysost. that we are fed with that thing which the Angels do honour which we confesse to be the body of Christ after a spirituall maner yet pertaineth it nothing to adoration of the sacrament And much lesse that he citeth ex Orat. in Philon. That as we entertaine God here so he wil receiue vs there with much glorie Where he speaketh of honouring God and not adoring the sacrament SECTIO 25. in the 74. leafe The Bishop aunswering a place of Augustine saith we must worship Christ where we eate him but we eate him in heauen by faith therefore we must worship him there M. Rastel sayth we eate him on earth also but proofe he bringeth none greater then his owne saying either of reason or authoritie SECTIO 26. From the end of the 74. leafe to the first face of the 79. leafe The Bishop proueth we must seeke Christe in heauen by these reasons Wee must lift vp our heartes wee must seeke those things which are aboue in heauen where Christ is and not the things that are vpon earth where Christ is not Câ—ll 3. And our conuersation is in heauen from whence wee looke for our Sauiour c. Phil. 3. M. Rastel saith the conclusion is inferred madly and miserably bicause these textes do no more disproue Christes body to bee on earth really then they proue our bodies to be in heauen really as in this short example our conuersation is in heauen and yet Paule was on earth in body when he saide this O wise and happie concluder but blinde and blockish interpretour which reasoneth as though the worde Conuersation in Saint Paules saying did signifie presence or being whereas it signifieth franches or libertie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 our franches freedom or conuersation is in heauen Where is nowe your madd and miserable conclusion The Bishops arguments therefore on these places stand firme and vnmoueable that Christ is not on earth in body but in heauen where we must seeke him not climbing with ladders as it pleaseth Maister Rastel to scoffe in so graue matters but ascending by faith and affection set on heauenly and spirituall things As for his exposition of Sursian corda howe wholesome it is you may gather by this one note that in the very beginning â–ª he saith that the body of Christe is not onely lying on the altar and caried in mens handes but also broken and diuided The places hee citeth out of Saint Augustine for adoration be aunswered in mine aunswere to Maister Heskins before mentioned SECTIO 27. The Bishop saith that adoration of the sacrament is a newe deuise of Pope Honorius of three hundreth yeares agoe and after him Vibanus the fourth made an holiday of Corpus Christi c. Maister Rastel is angrie that three hundreth yeares should be counted a little while agoe when it is not three score yeares since Luther sprang vp But if Luther haue taught any doctrine that was not receiued in the Church a thousand and fiue hundreth yeares ago we are content it be accounted newe but whatsoeuer may be proued to haue bene taught 1500. yeares agoe must needes be old though Luther be newe and in comparison of that age Honorius and Vrbanus are but yong children But remitting the antiquitie Maister Rastell will stande for the veritie bicause the Popes lacked no counsell Neither by your doctrine needed they any 2. The Vniuersities were not without great schollers Such as those blinde and hereticall times affoorded 3. Religious houses and orders were not destroyed Yea they swarmed with Locustes to maintaine the kingdome of Absaddon 4. The holy Ghost in true Catholikes was inuincible Yea but there were fewe true Catholikes in those days 5. The wicked spirit in heretiques would haue bene venterous Yea the Pope the Archheretique of the world was venterous ynough when he set vp such idolatrie 6. A good man with the daunger of his life would haue spoken the trueth So did many good men which cost them their liues 7. An heretique for fame would not haue passed vpon death what neede an heretique feare death when heresie was so generally receiued that the true Catholikes were condemned and burned for heretiques by the name of Albigenses Waldenses Pauperes de Lugduno and such like which from time to time were persecuted imprisoned and burned for refusing and disalowing such idolatrie and false worshipping These be the worshipfull reasons he hath to proue the veritie of this bread worship which after he hath dilated more at large hee commeth at length to admiration of the seruice of Corpus Christi day made by Thomas Aquinas which hee thinkeh to be so excellent that the very sound and sense of the Anthemnes Respondes and Versicles declare whence they proceeded And I am of the same opinion for the comparing of such thinges to the sacrament as pertaine nothing vnto it declareth that such comparison came from the spirit of man not from the spirite of god As where it is saide 3. Reg 19. That Helias sawe a cake of bread at his head c. And Iob complaineth of the crueltie of his seruants that would haue eaten his flesh Iob. 31. And as for the holiday though it were instituted but of late yeares yet he taketh it sufficient to proue the adoration necessarie which could not be seene in the Church twelue hundreth yeres before or els that holiday should haue bene set vp long before SECTIO 28. The
Bishop saide that for the space of twelue hundreth yeares after Christ this worshipping of the sacrament was neuer knowne nor practised in any place M. Rastel after his courteous manner saith he lyeth for he hath alledged S. Ambrose and S. Augustine before to proue that the sacrament is to be worshipped and now citeth Therdoret Euthymius Emissenus Iames Basil and Chrisostome in their Liturgies for the same purpose But the aunswere is easie to be made none of all these speake of that worshipping or adoration of the sacrament which Pope Honorius commaunded but of honouring reuerencing worshipping or adoring of the sacrament as diuine mysteries which honouring worshipping or adoring we all confesse to be due to the blessed sacramentes not onely to the Lordes supper but also to the sacrament of baptisme For none of all these writers beleeued the carnall presence of Christe in the sacrament which the Papistes hold Saint Augustine denyeth the sacrament to be that body which was crucified in Psal. 98. Saint Ambrose calleth the sacrament the figure of the body and bloud of Christe De sacra lib. 4. cap. 5. Theodorete whose saying hee citeth being flatly against transubstantiation as you may read more at large in mine aunswere to Heskins Lib. 3. cap. 56. calleth in the same Dialogue the sacrament the tokens or signes of the body of Christe And in his first Dialogue he saith The tokens which are seene hee hath honoured with the name of his body and bloud not chaunging their nature but adding grace to their nature His discourse at large is set downe in mine answer to Hes. li. 3. ca. 52. Euthymius in 6. Ioan. saith that the words of Christ must be vnderstod spiritually the sacrameÌ„ts must be considred with inward â—ye â—as mysteries The very wordes of Emissenus which M. Rastel citeth expresse his minde to be of a spirituall presence Beholde with thy faith saith he honour and wonder at the holie bodie and bloud of christ The very name of the gift which is vsed in the liturgie falsely ascribed to Saint Iames declareth that the Author of that liturgie did not beleue it to be the naturall bodie of Christe but a gifte or token in remembraunce thereof The prayer whiche is made in those liturgies falsely ascribed to Chrysostome and Basil at the lifting of the sacrament proueth that they did not beleeue the bread to be chaunged into the bodie of Christ after the wordes of consecration For then they would not haue prayed that God would giue to them the bodie and bloud of his sonne and by them to the people if they had them present before And whereas they all cried Sancta sanctis holy thinges belong to holie men it was not to call the people to worshippe the sacrament which they lifted a little but not ouer their heades to be seene but to charge them that were not baptised to departe and to prepare the rest to the worthie receiuing of the sacrament Maister Rastell so great a Chrysippus and Aristotle of Logike neuerthelesse vseth these argumentes to proue adoration But leauing these he asketh if any within that compasse of 1200. yeares beleeued the sacrament to be the very bodie of Christ and if that be graunted whether the very bodie and bloud of Christ be not to be worshipped and then bringeth in Damascen and Lanfrancus Of the former it may be doubted but very grossely he writeth the other was an enimie of Berengarius 200. yeares before Honorius the Author of this adoration I answere breefely although the carnall presence was receiued two or three hundreth yeares before Pope Honorius yet there can no adoration be proued for at this day the Lutheranes admitte the carnall presence yet they abhorre adoration saying the very bodie of Christe is present to be eaten but not to be worshipped SECTIO 29. From the first face of the 89. leafe to the 93. leafe The Bishop sayde that the schoolemen perceiuing the daunger of idolatrie that was vnto the ignorant people in worshipping the cake if it were not consecrated gaue warning to the people to worship it vnder this condition if it were consecrated M. Ra. like a Doctor determiner cutteth of al the reasons of the schoolemen and saith they were not the best learned that so decide the controuersie For there is no daunger at all vnto the people so long as their intent is to worship God and the bodie of christ Example also he bringeth that if a man honour him which is not his father in steede of his father because all the parishe saith he is his father he doeth not amisse In deede if that man doe the duetie of a father to his supposed sonne I thinke the errour is not greatly hurtefull to him that honoureth him as his Father Agayne sayeth Maister Rastell suppose that one were so like thine owne Father whiche is possible ynough that it could not be discerned whiche of the two were thy true father thou werest not to be blamed if thou honour the one in steede of the other I aunswere suppose it were so which is vnlikely ynough I would thinke he were an vnaduised child which would not inquire which of the two were his true father before he chose to honour either of them But Maister Rastel asketh if he should honour no father because he could not discerne the one from the other And I likewise aske him whether hee should honour two men for his father or two fathers in steede of one because he knoweth nor which is his right Father Finally I would aske suche a not profound learned Maister of Arte as Rastel is but such a simple fellowe as Maister Rastell talketh withall in this discourse whether an vnconsecrated cake bee as like the bodie of Christe as one man may be to an other I weene he would say no. But then M. Rastel would take the tale out of his mouth and reply that an vnconsecrated cake and a consecrated be as like as any two men can be But then I would aske him whether any thing wherein they may be counted like is either the thing or the cause or the signe and marke of the thing that is worshipped If not his two cases are as like to these of the sacrament as an aple is like to an oyster SECTIO 30. From the first face of the 93. leafe to the first face of the 98. leafe Three leaues and an halfe of this section are spent in a fonde quarrel of Maister Rastels picking that the Bishop should ascribe that opinion to Dunce and Durande which is not theirs but proper to Thomas of Aquine against which they reason But for al his impudent shamelesse rayling charging the Bishop with lying it is Rastel himselfe which is the lyer and the slaunderer for that whiche the Bishoppe speaketh generally of the schoolemen he draweth maliciously vnto Dunce and Durande Thomas holdeth that transubstantiation is necessarie or else the Churche should committe idolatrie in falling downe
to be in on place thē it were time to proue the contrarie Howe I praye you Because of the nature of a substance which occupieth no place Is this the philosophie of Louaine No maruaile if Ramus reproue Aristotle in Logike when Rastell will set not him onely but all the phylosophers that euer were and nature it self to schole and tell them that it is the nature of a substance to occupie no place whiche is as muche to saye as to bee no where and as Augustine saith that which is no where is nothing at all and so by Master Rastels profound physical philosophie it is the nature of a substaunce which al other men affirme to containe all thinges to be nothing at all But for a further resolution he sayeth Christe is in the sacrament not as in a place locally but as vnder forme of breade substantially For before hee hath defined a substaunce to bee in no place I woulde hee coulde holde him at this definition of Christes presence If I shoulde reason with him of the nine maners of inesse or beinge in a thinge and aske him after whiche of them Christe is in the sacramente perhappes hee woulde reiect that distribution as sophistical and vnworthy of his learned answere But Christe sayeth hee is in the Sacrament not as in place locally then saye I a man poyntinge to the pyxe hanginge ouer the altar in whiche the consecrated cake is muste saye if hee saye truely Christe is not there lykewise poyntinge to the same holden vppe at the sacringe carryed in procession or wheresoeuer hee seeth it muste likewise beleeue and saye Christ is not there For I am sure he being a Master in all the seuen liberall Arts is not so ignorant in grammer but he will confesse this word there to be an aduerb of place not so forgetful of logike but that he remembreth what the Predicament Vbi meaneth And to say the trueth if the papistes coulde be content with such modest termes as the scripture teacheth that the bodie of Christ is receiued of the faithfull in the sacrament after a wonderfull and mysticall maner there needed neither these fond questions nor any so bitter contention about the sacrament of vnitie But that they will make an idoll of the Lords supper and a bayte to satisfie their ambition couetousnes ▪ licentiousnesse by the sale of their masses applying of their merites these grosse and monstrous absurdities had neuer beene defended The contentions of the schoole doctours he forceth not vpon so long as the Church agreeth But can your church agree M. Rast. when the doctours thereof dissent If any difference of opinion be betweene Luther and Zuinglius you crye out of our dissention If your Church may agree within it selfe notwithstanding the infinite brawlings between the Thomists and Scotists Albertists Occanists about smal matters as you say because all those agree in the chiefest pointes of poperie I pray you let there be vnitie in our churche notwithstan-the teachers vary in some matters not of greatest momēt agreeing in all necessarie articles of Christian religion And if Holcot lye in saying a man may merite by worshipping the deuil and yet be a popish catholike Let Luther erre in defending the carnall presence and yet bee good christian catholike And if your churche bee not chargeable with Holcots lye why shoulde our churche beare the blame of Luthers error As for your excuse of Holcots lye by the schoole distinction of a thing done materially formally wherein you shew a high point of learning with your example of worshippinge of Luther being a diuell in forme of a doctor I say it is wholesome diuinitie to iustifie all superstition Mahometrie and Idolatrie in the world not onely to be excusable but also to be meritorious SECTIO 33. From the first face of the 103. leafe to the 104. leafe Where the Bishop saide hee was vnwilling to spende time in discouering the misteries of Popish learning but that the importunitie of Papistes boasting as though all learning were on their side enforceth him Maister Rastell more like a parasite to prouoke his popishe readers to laugh then a man either of wisedome or honestie scoffeth rayleth on him calling him a bench wistler rather thē a preacher But of both their learnings let the worlde iudge SECTIO 34. From the 104. leafe to the 111. in which he taketh on him to defende the vanitie of Popish arguments vsed by papists vnder colour of similitudes and allusions The Bishop discouereth this reason of Pope Innocent the thirde God made two lightes the Sunne and the Moone therefore the Pope is so much aboue the Emperour as the Sunne is aboue the Moone Maister Rastell being angrie at this discouery saith it is no mystery nor argument of strength yet was it vsed by the Popes holynes which cannot erre But the Church hath stronger arguments for proofe of this conclusion First saith Maister Rastell that there be two states spirituall and temperall it is proued by other reasons and the first reason he vseth to proue the state spirituall is much like that of the Popes whiche hee excuseth Psal. 44 ▪ and In steede of thy fathers there are sonnes borne vnto thee meaning saith he the Apostles and bishopps and their successours them shalt thou appoint princes and rulers ouer all the whole earth As though none were the sonnes of the Church but the Apostles Bishoppes and their successors and as though the Prophete spake of temperall rule in this life and not of a spiritual kingdome and inheritance of all the worlde which is common to all the faithfull after this life But to omitte that which is not in controuersie of two states in the worlde and the excellencye in spirituall thinges of the ministery of the Churche aboue the office of princes yet who will either graunt that the ministery is simply superiour to the King or Emperour so that the ministers are not his subiectes or that the Pope in any respect ought to haue any dignitie as a minister of the gospell whiche hee disdaineth to preach Another defence of this pontificall argument is that it was a sweete and misticall allusion in his familiare letters to the Emperour In deede greate familyaritie hee had with the Emperours of his time with whome hee was in continuall discorde Last of all like a blasphemous Dogge hee compareth it with the argument vsed by S. Paule for the couering of womens heades taken of nature it selfe whiche though it will not satisfie a contentious person whome nothing will satisfie yet is it sufficient and stronge ynough to proue what naturall comlynesse requireth in that case where as this of the Pope hath no shadowe of reason in it For all the rest of those argumentes rehearsed by the Bishop he maketh that generall reason that their Church hath no custome to contende for them yet haue they a custome to burne men for refusing such thinges as they are not able to contende
in argument to defende And as for shauen crownes and purple sandales holy water or praying in one tongue hee sayeth they were neuer taken for secreat mysteries in the Church and if the scriptures applyed to them do not proue them they take no harme for by like they are good ynough without the scriptures Sauing that the saying of Ezechiell Chap. 36. I will sprinkle you with cleane water hee seeth not but that it may bee applyed to holy water though it bee meant of baptisme because holy water putteth vs in mynde of our baptisme Where fynde you that meaning of holy water in all the exorcising or coniuring thereof A poore shift God wott to defende a beggerly ceremonie As for Ecce duo gladij hic to prooue that the Pope hath power of both swordes hee defendeth it to bee good and sufficient Firste because Christe had power of both although hee vsed but one But what hath the Pope to doe with Christe Forsooth hee made Peter his lieutenaunt and ruler of all Christians when hee had him feede his sheepe and lambes Euen as good a reason as Ecce duo gladij hic But what hath the Pope to doe with Peter if Peter had beene such a one Forsooth because hee sitteth at Rome So did Nero and was Pontifex Maximus to as good as the Pope But Barnarde vseth the same texte so What if Barnarde was disposed to iest with the Pope in his owne interpretations or if hee were in earnest can Barnarde make that good which is starke naught Last of all the shamelesse and blasphemous beast is not afrayde to compare this argument with the allegorie vsed by the holie Ghoste Gal. 4. of the two wiues in Abrahams house that were figures of two Testaments which the Apostle vsed not to proue but to declare and shewe plainly as it were by example that which hee had before moste substantially proued SECTIO 35. From the seconde face of the III. leafe to the seconde face of the 118. leafe The argumentes where on the masse is builded being so absurde as euen his brasen face blusheth to allowe hee aunswereth the thinges proued by these argumentes are but the heire and nayles of the masse and not the substantiall partes thereof and yet those partes are good ynough without those argumentes namely by tradition For the Corporall was of lynen before the argument of Christes buriall cloath was made for it Chalices were of goulde and siluer before the texte Babylon is a cuppe of goulde was alleadged for them And facer◠signifieth to sacrifice though Virgils verse had neuer beene written Cum faciam vitula For in the Iudges Manoah saide to the Angell faciamus tibi haedum de capris wee may offer to thee a kidde of the Goates O subtile Maister Rastell Where learned you first that Manoah spake latine Secondlye that hee woulde offer sacrifice to a man and not rather make readie a kidde to bee eaten of him whome he thought to haue beene a man for it followeth immediately in the text that Manoah knew not that hee was an Angell of GOD least you shoulde imagine that Manoah had beene a Papist and woulde haue offered a sacrifice to an Angell But yet to couer his shame with impudence he saith he will bee yet bolder and applie whatsoeuer hee findeth in the scripture to mainteine Popish ceremonies hee careth not howe fitlye Theologia Mistica hee saith hee woteth well non est argumentis apta Mysticall Diuinitie is not fit to make argumentes of But GOD keepe our faith from grounding vppon such diuinitie as will neither satisfie our conscience nor conuince the errors of other Laste of all least hee shoulde passe ouer this place without a blasphemie hee compareth these balde reasons of Siluester and Durande with the argument that Saint Paule maketh 1. Cor. 9. vppon this text of the law Thou shalt not binde vp the mouth of the Oxe that treadeth out the corne therefore GOD which prouideth that beastes labouring shoulde not want their foode ▪ much more woulde haue the minister of the Gospell rewarded for his trauell Whiche is a most pithie argument from the lesse to the more as euerye learned man and godly will acknoweledge SECTIO 36. From the second face of the 118. leafe to the 127. leafe in which he treateth of the priuate Masse Whereas the Bishop proueth the priuate Masse to be contrarie to the institution of Christe which ordeined a communion First M. Rastell will not vnderstand what is meant by this word priuate Masse for al Masses he saith are common which if it be true to vse his own examples of an open houshold and a common of pasture they be fooles that will pay any money for them Afterward vnderstanding a priuate Masse to be when no man receiueth with the Priest he asketh whether the Masse saide on Easter day be good bicause there be a number of communicants or whether any other Masse be good at which be many that receiue with the Priest I answer him those Masses in that point are lesse euil then the priuate Masses in which there is no communion bicause they erre not in that one point although they are abhominable in many other But now let vs heare how M. Rast. looketh the Doctours in the faces which were cited by the Bishop against priuate Masse as he promiseth to doe First to Clemens and Dionysius he aunswereth nothing but cauilleth at the Bishops manner of citing them not for writings of such antiquitie as they are said to be but yet sufficient to choake the Papistes which boast of their authoritie And trifleth of the oyle salt singing and in Dionysius which ceremonies as we haue not in our Church no more haue the Papistes in such order as he rehearseth thē To Iustine likewise he aunswereth nothing but cauilleth of the water vsed to be mixed with the wine in his time which was no ceremonie but a custome of sobrietie and of sending the communion to them that were absent which we vsed not neither is he able to proue that they vsed to send it as the communion but as almes rather of the great plentie of breade and wine that was accustomed to be offred And if it were proued to bee the communion it maketh more strongly against the priuate Masse that they would suffer none that were absent not to communicate much lesse would they suffer them which were present not to receiue with the minister The sayings of Ambrose Hierome Augustine Leo he passeth ouer with confession that the people in their dayes vsed to receiue with the Priest commonly but hee denyeth they did so alway Which hee weeneth to proue by that Chrysostome saith they did offer daily and Ambrose saith that in Greece they were accustomed to receiue but once a yeare And he thinketh it were absurde that there should be but one Communion in a yeare in Greece But hee is much deceiued for Saint Chrysostome as he confesseth speaketh of often receiuing ad Ephe.
Hom. 3. and would haue all that receiued not to depart euen as the Canons of the Apostles and Gregorie in his Dialogues doe shewe And although many of the people were negligent in comming to the Lordes table yet was there no priuate Masse bicause that in those great Churches there were always a great number of the Clergie which receiued with the Bishop vpon paine of excommunication To the prayers of the Masse which being in the plurall number suppose a number present ▪ and a number of communicants hee saith they argue the antiquitie of the Masse to bee aboue sixe hundreth yeares after Christe which is not so in deede they argue the forme of those prayers to be ancienter then the priuate Masse and more they argue not But they may be vsed saith Maister Raster bicause at euery Masse be more present then any bodily eye can see O absurde Asse that so arrogantly braggeth of learning and so proudly despiseth so learned a Fathers arguments Admit that in steede of legions of diuels that be present at euery Masse whose seruice it is there were so many legions of Angels present as he fantasieth doeth the Priest saying Oremus Let vs pray speake to the Angels that are present to pray with him yea why not will some froward Papist say But to whome speaketh he when he turneth about and sayth Orate pro me fratres sorores pray for me brethren and sisters Be there hee Angels and she Angels also And when he prayeth that the oblation which they haue offered be saluation to all that haue receiued it doeth he meane that the Angels haue taken their rytes of the Priest though none of the people be present but perhaps one sorie boy that helpeth him to say Masse But the Prieste he saith is no priuate person but a common officer euen as when hee baptizeth But is hee such a Magistrate to altar and chaunge the institution and ordinaunce of GOD Baptisme may bee ministred to one alone according to the institution thereof but the Communion which is a feast of the Church ought not to bee kept without a number of guestes To all the rest of the authorities cited by the Bishop out of the Canons of the Apostles the decree of Calixtus the Dialogues of Gregorie hee saith they proue nothing but that the people vsed to communicate and there be diuers thinges in those writings which wee doe not obserue as though wee haue bound our selues to the obseruing of mens decrees as the Papistes haue But what so euer they haue agreeable to the worde of GOD wee obserue and willingly although hee slaunder our Church to suffer them to be present at the Communion which doe not communicate which is a most impudent and shamelesse lye and yet easily to bee borne in comparison of their blasphemies which he barketh out against the Priesthoode of our Sauiour Christe saying the order of Melchisedech should haue an end if their stinking Masse were omitted and that their Priestes must daily enter into Sancta sanctorum O Antichristian Helhoundes that challenge vnto your selues the peculiar Priesthoode of Christe who onely is a Priest for euer after the order of Melchisedech and hath no successours in his Priesthoode Heb. 7. O blasphemous dogges that will haue your hedge Priests to enter into Sancta sanctorum the most holy places euery day whither Christ hath once for all entered and found eternall redemption Heb. 6. And these blasphemies he had rather defend then giue ouer the blasphemie of the priuate Masse which with neither learning modestie nor conscience he or any of al the rout of them is able to defend either as lawfull or as auncient SECTIO 37. in the 127. leafe To the challenge which the Bishop made against the priuate Masse he aunswereth nothing but that they haue no priuate Masse for all Masses are one common masse trifling vpon the terme when he can not say one word to the matter SECTIO 38. From the second face of the 127. leafe to the 131. leafe in which he treateth of receiuing the communion in both kindes To the Bishops challenge that the Communion was neuer ministred in one kinde to any man in the space of 600. yeres after Christes he answereth first that if it were not yet their Church is out of daūger bicause it is a matter indifferent for the Lay people to receiue in one kind or in both alledging for proofe a saying of Luther written before hee was throughly conuerted from Papistrie Secondly hee will proue that it was receiued vnder one kind first bicause in Luke 24. and Act. 20. there is no mention but of bread Ergo Christe and Paule gaue them the communion in one kind a good consequent By the same I may proue that Christe and Paule receiued them selues but bread bicause there is no mention of wine And yet the Papistes holde it necessarie that the Priest which ministreth should of necessitie receiue in both kindes And whereas he is ashamed of this negatiue consequence he chargeth vs with like reasoning out of some place of Augustine or Irenaeus c. Wheras he slandreth vs falsly except it be vpon such an affirmatiue as excludeth all other things With like impudence he saieth we doe not deny but that in Tertullians time the sacrament in one kinde was carried home to their houses which we doe vtterly deny neither is he euer able to proue As false it is that he saith in Cyprians time it was carried to mens houses in one kinde for Cyprian saith no such thing nor any worde sounding to such end And concerning the custome of sending the sacrament to Bishops that were straungers which came to Rome cited by Irenaeus Ad victor whereby he would proue it was sent vnder one kinde because wine would soone waxe sower I say he vnderstandeth not what the custome was but imagineth that the sacrament was sent a thousand myle of to those Bishops whereas it was onely from the Table to the places where they did sitte in the Churche or at the worste to their lodging where they soiourned at Rome But passing ouer as he doeth all reportes of carrying and sending the sacrament whiche prooueth nothing at all the communion in one kinde for both might as well be carried and sent as one he commeth to a fragment of an Epistle of Basilius Ad Caesariam Pratriciam which also he falsifieth in translation as the rest of the Papistes Harding and Heskins doe For where he saith that such as ledde a solitary life in the wildernesse where no Priest is keeping the communion at home receiue of themselues Communionem domi seruantes à seipsis communicant meaning they receiued one of an other which he translateth They communicate by themselues Gathering that a priest may as well receiue by himselfe in the churche as the people at home whiche doth not followe although neither of both be wel done And here againe he wil haue no wine for feare of sauoring
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
vs in those holy mysteries after a wonderfull and vnspeakeable manner not carnally nor corporally but spiritually and diuinelye And where as Maister Rastell citeth a longe saying of Cyrillus against an Arrian whiche denyed that wee haue any corporall coniunction with Christe and proueth the same by the strength and power of the misticall benediction which maketh Christ to dwell corporally in vs it is nothing in the worlde to his corporall and carnall manner of presence For we also do graunt that the power of the mistical benediction is such as maketh Christ to dwel corporally in the faithfull which is nothing else as he doth immediately expounde himselfe but that they are made members of Christes bodie and members one of another which is not after any carnall or naturall manner but after an heauēly diuine manner of vnion For the same Cyril doth affirme that Christ giuing the sacrament to his disciples gaue thē fragmēta panis peeces of bread By which is the plaine hee meant not to teach any transubstantiation of the bread into the natural body of Christ. This place of Cyrill is set downe at large in mine aunswere to Hesk. lib. 2. Cap. 14. And where as hee saith we do weaken the hope of the resurrection of our flesh by denying the carnall manner of presence of Christs body in the sacrament I say it is vtterly false and the contrarie is true that the Popish heretikes do weaken the hope of resurrection in all them that haue not receiued the sacrament when they faine such a presence of Christes body in the sacrament as cannot bee receiued without the sacrament SECTIO 42. From the 144. leafe to the ende of the 145. leafe To the Bishops challenge that the body of Christ cannot be in a thousande places or more at one time hee aunswereth it needed not to be proued because reason must giue place to faith and one principle proued of Christes presence draweth all the rest after it and thirdly because Christs body is not locally present in the sacrament but in one place onely Finally hee citeth a long saying of Chrisostome in Ep. ad Heb. Hom. 17. reasoning how Christ is offered euery day but the whole discourse is cleane contrary to Maister Rastels purpose and especially the first sentence and the last expoundeth howe Christ was offered not really but as in a remembrance Doe wee not offer euerye day Wee offer in deede but as men which make a remembrance of his death these wordes shewe what kinde of oblation it was that they did make namelye a celebration of the memoriall of his death and not a propitiatorie sacrifice of Christes bodye carnally present The last wordes are these Wee offer not another sacrifice as the bishops did but alwayes that same or rather wee make the remembrance of that sacrifice This correction sheweth that it was not properly a sacrifice whiche they offered Finally there is not one worde in that discourse but it is directly against the sacrifice of the Masse SECTIO 43. From the 145. leafe to the 149. leafe To nine parts of the bishoppes chalenge hee aunswereth nothing but refuseth for their particularitie to answere to them First that the Priest did not holde the sacrament ouer his heade Secondlye that the people did not worship it with Godly honour Thirdly that it was not then hanged vnder a Canopye Fourthly that after consecration there remaineth nothing but accidences of breade and wine Fiftly that the priest deuided not the sacramēt in three parts receiued them all himselfe alone Sixtly that whosoeuer had said the sacrament is a figure a pledge a token or a remembrance of Christes bodye had not therefore ben iudged for an heretike Seuenthly that it was not lawefull to say 30. or twentie c. Masses in one Church in one day Eightly that images were not set vp to be worshiped Ninthly that the lay people were not forbidden to reade the worde of God in their owne tongue Maister Rastell saith this is an vnlearned and pelting kinde of reasoning but he proueth it by vnlearned and pelting examples as it is not read that Christe did crye from his mothers breast or did weare a peticoate hose or shooes or went on his mothers errande c. As though any of these thinges were articles of our beleefe as some of those are among the Papistes or as though it perteined any thing to knowe such matters as the Papistes pretende their matters necessarye not onely to be knowen but also practised Finally he woulde perswade his popish friends that these thinges neede not to bee proued to bee of such antiquitie because the Church hath receiued them Then let him and his fellowes bee a shamed and crie creake whiche were wont to boaste of fifteene hundreth yeares antiquitie for all their doctrine and ceremonyes the consent of all ages the traditions of the Apostles and such like where nowe they are cutte shorte of the first sixe hundreth yeares and being vrged to shewe their antiquitie can say nothing but that it is not needefull SECTIO 44. in the 149. leafe To the Bishoppes challenge that the wordes of consecration by no authoritie of councelles or Doctours ought to bee pronounced closelye Hee confesseth the matter but hee can proue or else hee lyeth that there must be an heade in the Churche whiche as well in this matter as in all other must bee obeyed Howe well hee can proue it is tryed in the fourtie Section The rest of the challenges hee giueth ouer being desirous to bee at an ende with them as I cannot blame him SECTIO 45. From the end of the 149. leafe to the 152. leafe in whiche he woulde proue that priests haue auctoritie to offer Christ. He taketh vppon him to shewe that the priest hath authoritie to offer vp Christ vnto his father But good lorde whether more blasphemously then ignorantly and vnlearnedly For first he citeth the saying of the Apostel Heb. 5. Euery high Priest taken of men is appointed for men in those things that perteine to God to offer vp gifts and sacrifices for sinnes which the Apostle speaketh expreslye of the priests of the old lawe and proueth the excellency of Christ aboue them Secondly admitting hee shoulde speake of Pristes of the newe Testament which is false he saith their sacrifice must be after the order of Melchisedech as it is written thou art a priest for euer after the order of Melchisedech of which order Christ is a priest in respect of Popish priestes that be nowe a dayes or else Gods oth should be broken Surely I merueile at the great clemency of god which stoppeth not such blasphemous mouthes with thunderbolts that make the eternall priesthoode of Christ which hee hath without succession to depende vppon their greasie order which hath not beene but of late erected neither shall continue for euer where as our sauiour Christe worlde without ende shal bee both a king and a priest which
is the order of Melchisedech and consisteth nothing at all in offering of breade and wine as is manifest by the Apostle to the Hebrewes who sheweth in what respect Christ is a priest after the order of Melchisedech As impudent as this is blasphemous is his next argument that by verye expresse commaundement of Christ in his last supper they must offer him vp saying Do this in rememberance of me As though Christ which neuer sacrificed himselfe but once that on the crosse had at his supper offered himselfe to his father in sacrifice As for the testimonies of the Fathers which he citeth are easily answered that they spake of sacrificing Christe figuratiuely and vnproperly as some of them confesse namely Chrysostome whome hee citeth ad Heb. Hom. 17. which when he had demaunded saying Doe we not offer Christ daily he answereth yes but rather wee celebrate the remembrance of his sacrifice the other which hee citeth out of Dionyse hath no word of offering Christ although Dionyse be no writer within the compasse of sixe hundreth yeares Neither do these words of the Liturgie intituled to S. Basil which he rehearseth speake more then of an vnbloudie sacrifice which is the sacrifice of thanksgiuing although the Liturgie is not of such antiquitie credit as it is pretended And of as little is that he citeth out of Ambrose in Psal. 38. which no man learned of sound and indifferent iudgement will receiue for the worke of S. Ambrose Such false principles must leane vpon counterfet Doctours SECTIO 46. From the 152. leafe to the 154. leafe in which he taketh in hand â—o shape a generall aunswere to the particular questions which M. Iewell moueth Hauing proued nothing hitherto but him selfe to be a lying marchant a blasphemous and vnlearned defender of the sacrifice of the Masse to all the rest of the questions of Indiuiduum vaegum merit ex opere operato applying of the sacrifice of the Masse accidents remaining the case of the mouse eating the sacrament c. He aunswereth that these termes for any thing he knoweth were neuer vsed within the compasse of 600. yeares but the matters were beleeued and that he will proue by consent of learned men and the voyce of the Church since those 600. yeares This is in deede as he saith merily but falsely to the Bishop in the beginning of his booke which way to Croydenâ— a poke ful of plumbs the Bishop asketh proofe within in 600. yeares of Christ and M. Rastell will bring proofe without those 600. yeares the Bishop requireth antiquitie whereof the Papistes haue so impudently bragged and Rastel will bring foorth noueltie But he hath a proper similitude to shewe that these Articles though they were not knowne to the auncient Church for 600. yeares after Christe yet are they not to be refused no more then the fruites of Autumne bicause they appeared not on the trees in Aprill are to be reiected Thus you see by this delicate similitude he denyeth the Church of Christe his Apostles Euangelistes Martyrs Confessours Pastours teachers for 600. yeares together to haue beene a season fruitfull of matters of trueth hauing nothing but greene ornaments and gay flowers promising the wholesome fruites of Poperie that haue appeared and waxed ripe in the latter time of the Church as in the Haruest or moneth of September If this similitude can be defended without contumely of Christ and the Primitiue Church let al the Papistes clap their hands at it and say O learned M. Rast. that with so short an answere hath satisfied all M. Iewels demaunds But he will choake the Bishop and vs all with the last question Where is it read saith he within 600. yeares after Christ that our blessed Lady was preached or named the mother of mercy the handmaiden of the Trinitie the spouse of the holy Ghost the Queene of heauen the Empresse of hell and yet if you beleeue in deed that she is the mother of God all these Articles do follow like as the rest of that veritie which saith this is my body It is well that M. Rastell confesseth these titles neuer to haue ben giuen to the Virgine Marie neither by Christ nor by his Apostles nor by any in al the Church for 600. yeres after christ Nowe syr I will answere your question I do as constantly beleeue with my heart and more effectually then I can expresse with wordes that the holy and blessed Virgine Marie is the mother of hers and our Sauiour Iesus Christ the sonne of God very God and very man Yet all those titles which you confesse to be neither read in any antiquitie of 600. yeâ—res after Christe I abhorre and protest to be wicked idolatrous and blasphemous And wheras you say that common sense teacheth that a Kings mother is a Queene and not of no place you trow which is tried false by common experience for King Dauidâ— mother was no Queene I trowe nor fiue hundreth more that haue beene in the world since his time I aunswere yet if it were graunted in earthly Princes it followeth not in the King of heauen For by the like reason and more probable I might argue the mother of a man is a woman therefore the mother of God is a Goddesse from which blasphemie Saint Bonauenture a Popish Saint is of no force if he doe not farre exceede it when he saith to the Virgine Marie Iure matris impera filio and againe Coge Deum c. By the authoritie of a mother commaunde thy sonne and compel God to be merciful to sinners c. SECTIO 47. in the 154. leafe The Bishop declareth the vanitie of the Papistes aunswere which is that no Masse is priuate bicause that euery Priest communicateth with all Priestes that say Masse for that by this reason there should be no excommunication whereas the partie excommunated would say hee would communicate with the Prieste that saith Masse in Calicute Maister Rastel saith he that is excommunicate from one Church is excommunicated from al Churches therefore he that is in the Communion doth communicate with all Priestes But hee vnderstandeth not the Bishops argument or at least he will not vnderstand it For the sophistrie of the Popish argument resteth in the ambiguitie of this worde Communicate which signifieth to receiue the Lordes supper at one time and in one place with others of their Church which the Papistes take for receiuing generally so that the Priest in Louaine receiuing at his Masse alone communicateth with the Priest that likewise receiueth at his Masse alone in Calicut Now if this receiuing wer a sufficient coÌ„munion a Priest being excoÌ„municated in Louane so that no Priest wold suffer him to receiue with him at his Masse if he would contemne their excoÌ„munication might say Masse him selfe say that although none of you Louane Priestes will communicate with me yet I wil communicate with the Priest that this day saith Masse in Calicut yea I will communicate with you
they were not erected according to Gods commaundent and yet was not hee accounted an heretike 2. Regum 18. Much lesse are they to bee called heretikes that throwe downe the Popishe aultars whiche were set vp against the onelye Aulter and sacrifice of Christ and his passion to the most blasphemous defacing of the same To the 41. that any bishop was maryed on Ashe wednesday it is a foolish demaund to require the proofe but that iâ— was lawful for a bishoppe to mary any day in the yeare it is proued by the authoritie of scriptures which exclude no day as vnlawfull to mary in To the 42. that no man did write that the gouernemeÌ„t of women was monstrous we grant neither do we holde this article though some one man haue witten it To the 43. that est in these words hoc est corpus meum is to be taken for significat it is proued by Tertullian who expoundeth hoc est corpus meum id est figura corporis 〈◊〉 This is my body that is to say this is a figure of my body contra Marc li 4. S. Ambrose ipse clamat dominus Iesus hoc est corpus meum Ante bedectionem verborum caelestium alia speciâ—s nominatur post consecrationem corpus Christi significatur â–ª Our Lorde Iesus himselfe saith alowd This is my body Before the blessing of the heauenly wordes it is called another kinde after consecration the body of Christ is signified Deijs qui myster init Chrysostome sayeth of the sanctified vessels in quibus non est verum corpus Christi sed mysterium corporis Christi continetur In which the very bodie of Christ is not but the mysterie of the bodie of Christe is conteined â–ª in Mat. Hom. 11. Augustine sayeth Nam ex eo quod scripâ—um est sanguinem pecoris animam eius esse praeter id â—uod supra dixi non ad me pertinere quid agatur de pecoris anima possum etiam interpretari prÄ™ceptum illud in signo positum esse non enim Dominus dubitauit dicere hoc est corpus meum cum signum daret corporis sui For as concerning that which is writen that bloud is the life of the beast beside that which I sayed before that it perteineth not to me what is done with the life of a beast I may also interprete that commaundement to consist in a signe For our Lord doubted not to saye This is my bodie when hee did giue a signe of his bodie contâ— Adamantum In this same Augustine sheweth that these wordes hoc est corpus meum are to be taken in the same sense that these words sanguis est anima pecoris where est is manifestly taken for significat by his iudgement there is no one article wherein we differ from the Papistes that hath more plentifull confirmation in the doctours of our doctrine therein then this of the carnall presence of Christ in the sacrament To the 44. that the lay people communicating did take the cuppe one at anothers hand it appereth by the words of Basill in Ep. ad Caesar. Patri for of those that dwelled in the wildernesse where no Priest was saith hee a seipsis communicant they receiue of themselues or one of another And in Alexandria and Aegypt euery one of the people hath the communion in his house and receiue it there at home Et in ecclesia sacerdoâ— dat partem accipit eam is qui suscipit cuÌ„ omni libertate ipsam admouâ—t ori propria 〈◊〉 Idem igitur est virtute sine vnam partem quis accâ—piet a sacerdote sine plures partes simul And euen in the Church the Priest giueth one part and he which receueth it taketh it with all libertie and putteth it to his mouth with his owne hand Therefore it is the same in vertue whether a man take one part of the Priest or more partes together Also it appeareth by the 6. Councell of Constantinople Can. â—8 that before that time Lay men in presence of the Bishop Elder or Deacon did diuide the deuine mysteries among theÌ„ selues which vntil then was not forbiddeÌ„ Our Sauiour Christe also hauing once deliuered the cup did not take it into his handes so often as euery one of his disciples did drinke but willed them to diuide it among them selues Luc. 22. To the 45. that a controuersie of religion being decided by the Byshop of Rome the contrary parte was not taken for heresie nor the mainteiners thereof for heretikes is proued by the controuersie of rebaptising them that were baptised by heretikes which when Cornelius and Stephanus Bishops of Rome had decided yet was not the contrary opinion taken for heresie nor Saint Cyprian al the bishops of Affrica which agreed vppon it in a councel at Carthage counted for heretikes a matter notoriously knowen to all them that reade Cyprians workes or Euseb. lib. 7. Cap. 3. which vtterly ouerthroweth the popes authoritie To the 46. that any executed for felony was put in the kalendar for a Martyr is a thing needelesse to proue yet the penitent theefe whiche being crucified with Christ was executed iustly for his offences is of good writers counted a Martyr So might one hanged for felonie and at his death repenting and detesting Papistrie To the 47. that such as refused to renounce the Bishop of Romes authoritie were excommunicated it appeareth by the Councell of Carthage 3. Cap. 26. which forbad that the Bishop of Rome or any other Bishop of the principal See should be called the highest Priest or the prince of Priestes or by any such title Also the Councel Mileuitanum doth excommunicate all them that appealed to the Bishop of Rome or any other out of Aphrica Cap. 22. Yea he that thought such appellations lawfull was excommunicated by which it appeareth that though there be no expresse mention of an othe yet an othe in that case vpon good ground might be tendered To proue that a Fryer of 60. yeares age being made Bishop did marry a woman of 19. yeares of age within sixe hundreth yeares after Christ which is the eight and fortith article it is impossible because there was not any fryer in the worlde 1200. yeares after Christ. To proue that any Bishop preached that it is all one to pray in a dunghill and in a Church whiche is the 49. article is no assertion of ours neither of any man I thinke in the worlde To the â—0 that such as were no heretikes refused to subscribe to a generall councell gathered by the Byshop of Rome is proued before by saint Cyprian and the Byshops of Aphrica of his time also by Saint Augustine and the bishopps of Aphrica in his time which refused to subscribe to the Bishops of Rome Zosimus Bonifacius and Celestinus pretending the councel of Nice for their authority in receiuing appeales but when the true Copyes were brought from Alexandria and Constantinople they werâ— found falsifiers of the Nicen Councel Concilio Aphricano â–ª cap 101.
praescriptionibus aduersus haereticos which is such as hee saieth that euen religion muste agree to it if with anye reason it will bee credited But in deed it is suche as while Tertulian followed too muche hee fell from the Catholike Church to be an heretike The summe of that saying which M. Rast. hath shamefully gesded falsely translated so that it seemeth he hath not red it in Tertulians booke but in some mans notes that hath ioyned together as it were cantles or patches of Tertulians saying the effecte I saie is this That because some heretikes of his time receiued not all the scriptures and those which they did receiue they receiued not whole but by additions and detractions corruptions and wrong expositions they peruerted them to their purpose his iudgement was that against such heretikes the triall was not to bee made by scriptures by which the victorie should either be none or vncertaine or not sure and therefore in as much as they were not agreed what was scripture and how great was the authoritie thereof he thought that the order of disputinge required that these questions shoulde first be decided Vnto whom the Christian faith pertaineth whose are the scriptures of whom and by whom and when and to whom the learning is deliuered by which men are made Christians For where it shall appeare that the trueth of the Christian learning and faith is there shal be the trueth of the scriptures and of the expositions and of all Christian traditions This is the iudgement of Tertulian But seeinge we receiue all the scriptures Canonicall without addition or detraction yea and for the principal articles of our religion wherein we differ from the papistes we receiue the exposition of the most auncient writers both of the Greeke and Latine Churche not bringinge in any newe doctrine but requiring that the olde doctrine may be restored this rule of Tertulian doth not concerne vs Yet are we able to aunswere to all his demaundes without any taryinge and so as it shall satisfie Tertulian or anye man that vnderstandeth him We say that Christian faith pertaineth to true Christians and that the scriptures are theirs also We say also that the learning by which men are made Christians was deliuered of Christ by his Apostles and Euangelistes in the time of the raigne of Tiberius the Emperour first vnto the Iewes and after vnto the Gentiles making one vniuersall Chruch dispersed ouer the whole worlde And the trueth of this Christian learning and faith thus and then deliuered we do hold and mainteine therefore by Tertullians rule the truth of the scriptures and expositions all Christian traditions are with vs the rather because it cannot be proued that we hold any one article of beliefe but the same is conteined in the manifest wordes of the scriptures by which onely it may be tryed what learning Christ deliuered to his Apostles and they to the churches For seeing the memory of man cānot ascende vnto so many hundreth yeares the certeine remembrance must be had out of Records of writings for so much as no writings are either so auncient or so credible as the holy scriptures the trial must be onely by the scriptures notwithstanding Tertullians opinion as Augustine teacheth in many places of his writings against the Donatistes After this discourse vpon Tertullian he addeth sixe articles more falsely pretending that they are the demaundes of Tertullian but altering them into the manner of a challenge where as I haue both set forth and answered Tertullians demaundes according to his owne words and meaning The first is if we can proue by any sufficient and likely argument that we haue any true Christian faith at all among vs for faith saith hee cleaueth vnto authoritie which they can neuer shewe for themselues c In deede suche faith as cleaueth vnto mennes authoritie wee haue none but suche as cleaueth vnto the worde of God as saint Paule saith faith commeth by hearing of the worde of God which is onely true Christian faith wee haue the whole faith of Christians as we do dayly proue not onely by the auctoritie of scriptures but also by the testimony of aunciēt writers agreeable to the same And because he is so impudent to deny that we haue any true Christian faith at all I demaunde of him why hee doth not then rebaptise those that are baptised of vs seing he is persuaded that neither the minister nor the godfathers whose faith according to their doctrin maketh much fo◠baptisme haue any true Christian faith at all The seconde that the scriptures are deliuered vnto vs that we be the right keepers of them is proued by this argument that we be the church of God vnto whome the scriptures and the custodie of them perteineth That wee are the church of God we proue by this argumēt that we beleeue and teach all that and nothing else but that which God by his holy scriptures hath appointed to be beleeued and taught for Christian faith The thirde we knowe from whome wee haue receiued the gospel not from the Papists Namely frō the doctrine of god and his holy spirite from such ministers as were stirred vp of God and lightened with his spirite according to the scriptures and from the books of the Greekes and Hebrues and not of the papists The fourth we knowe by what successours the gospell came vnto vs from God the authour of it euen from the prophets and Apostles Euangelistes pastours and teachers of the church of all ages florishing in sight of the worlde vntill the comming and tyrany of Antichrist had ouerwhelmed all the worlde with darkenesse by whom they were persecuted and driuen into corners according to the prophecie of Christe in the Apocalipse cap. 12. but yet so as they alwayes continued and testified the trueth oftentimes openly protesting against Antichrist vntill nowe at the length the time being come in which Antichrist must be consumed they are againe brought into the sight of the worlde and the kingdome of Antichrist is made obscure ignominious contemptible The fift we knowe at what time the Gospell was first delyuered vnto the Church of the gentiles namely in the reigne of Tiberius in whose time Christ suffered since which time it hath alwayes continued and shall do to the end of the worlde To the sixt wherein he requireth vs to shew the foundatiō of some Church house communion table or booke c. by which it may bee gathered that a true apostolike religion was within the 600. yeares as void of ornamēts ceremonies reuerence distinction of places and dignities sacraments and solemnities perteining to sacraments as ours is I answere our religion hath all sacraments ornaments ceremonies distinction solemnities reuerence necessarie vnto eternall life and therfore to shewe a monument of a religion voide of these it perteineth not to vs Beside that it is a foolishe and vnreasonable demaund for vs to shewe any such monument remaining aboue 900. yeares when by so often