it might not be deceiued by vncerteine traditions and inuentions of man in steeede of the doctrine of God. 104 The Popishe Church hath not kept the worde of God faithfully but in a corrupt and false Latine translation The certeintie therfore of the scriptures was not receiued from them but from the Iewes concerning the olde Testament in Hebrue and from the Gręcians concerning the new Testament in Greek Although the very common Latine translation of the Bible is sufficient to conuince the Popish Church of horrible heresies and blasphemies 105 To refourme the Church according to the doctrine of the holie scripture and the example of the Primitiue Church is not like as if one reading of the olde lawes of England in an other Ilande would say it were England and that the countrie whiche is so called is departed from olde England For chaunge of Lawes cannot change places and regions but departing from the trueth of Gods worde is a departing from the Churche of Christe and the returning to that trueth is a returning to the Church of Christ notwithstanding Maister Sanders wise similitude The Prophetes in deede Esaie Ieremie c. by the lawe of Moses shewed the errours of the Church of Ierusalem and by it sought the reformation thereof But they renounced not the lawful gouernement of the high Priest because it was established by the lawe whereas the tyrannicall vsurpation of the Pope is contrarie to the lawe of Christ and therefore is moste iustly renounced 106 It is graunted that the Church of Rome was once a principall parte of the Churche of Christe But the successions of Popes since Popes were hath not continued so without interruption as the successions of the highe Priestes at Ierusalem by meanes of so many Schismes Antipapes and translation of the See from Rome to Auinion with so many and so long variations of the See. And the succession of Christians except in a fewe hath vtterly failed as Esaie saith of Ierusalem how is the faithfull citie become an harlot Esaie 1. 107 It is graunted that of olde time the Romane faith was accounted the catholike faith while it was so in deed euen as the Britanne faith the French faith the Germane faith was likewise But that whiche he inferreth is vtterly denied namely that the Pope and his citie haue continued in the profession of that faith to this day For the contrarie beeing proued it is not onely the euill manners of the Pope and that citie that haue moued vs to departe from the Churche but the false religion therof Although it is nothing like that where suche a sinke of all abhominations is and hath beene openly and generally seene aswel in the Popes as in the people of his citie there should be a true and sincere faith and religion whiche bringeth foorth wicked and vngodly fruites 108 The glorie of Christes Church and kingdome is not like to the kingdome and glorie of an earthly Empire but contrarie to it namely it is spirituall and not carnal inwarde and not outwarde in appearance of weaknesse pouertie foolishnesse and not of strength riches and wisedome 1. Cor. 1. 109 The wayes to see and heare the Church of God is to heare the worde of God whereof commeth faith by the eyes whereof the Church of God is seene and not by bodily eyes to be painted out loe here loe there for the kingdome of God is within vs Luc. 17. vers 21. 110 Notwithstanding any thing repeated in this article conteined in seuerall articles before 19.20.64.18.22.24.25.26.31.46.27.41.42.56.43.45.48.36.39.67.65.68.20 the Popish Church is the Church of Antichrist therefore we haue iustly departed from it to the Churche of Christ. 111 In the Church of Christ is the word of God the sacramentes forgiuenesse of sinnes the holie Ghost the communion of Saintes and Christ himselfe which is the onely head and sauiour thereof But whether the Papistes holde this Church or we let them proue as S. Augustine vrgeth the Donatistes by none of these fonde and carnall reasons but only by the authoritie of the scriptures De vnitate Eccles. Cap. 16. 112 The rest of the preface is consumed in dissuading the Papists of England frō dissembling their professiō of Papistrie exhorting them to make open confessiō therof which next vnto their conuersion I wish as much as M. Sander that if they may not be conuerted to become true Christians and good subiectes they might be knowen as they are for open heretikes enimies of their Prince and Realme ¶ A TREATISE OF IMAGES OF Christe and of his Saintes and that it is vnlawfull to breake them and lawfull to honour them c. THE FIRST CHAPTER THe Argument of the treatise following In which he noteth especially The storie of the spoyle of Images in the lowe countries The diuersitie of sectes there The holie Bible burnt Hermannus a preacher capteine of the spoyle THE defence of idolatrie whiche he taketh in hand beeing so abhominable to be heard among Christians after he hath first sought to dasell mens eyes with the vaine glitering glorie of the Romish Church now he goeth about to tickle their eares with a plausible tale of some disorderly doinges in breaking of Images in the lowe countries As though the inconsiderate zeale of a fewe image breakers or perhaps the licentious riot of some pilfering spoylers beeing either Papistes or of no religion that were mixed with them were sufficient to excuse such horrible Idolatrie as the Papistes daily commit and M. Sander is not ashamed to defend He pretendeth as though his purpose were no more but to answere an obiection of I cannot tell what Protestants nor he him selfe is able to name any of credite which affirmed that the casting downe of idolatrie in the lowe countries and liberty of preaching the gospel procured by a few naked base men against an armed Prince and so many wealthy persons as were enimies to it must come of the mightie hand of God and that it was a great miracle Whiche thing might well and truely be saide without allowing of any thing that was done beside order For there is no doubt but God directed all things to his glory although men sought not the same by lawfull ordinarie meanes It was no miracle saith M. Sander because they were not resisted in suche places where the spoyle was made But so much the greater was the miracle that in so many places the heartes of the magistrates with the people were so daunted that they durst make no resistance The storie as M. Sander reporteth it is that the Lordes of the low countries dissenting from king Philip about the Spanish inquisition the king lyke to be assaulted by the Turkes in Naples and Malta resorte was made to a certaine preacher not called by anye auctoritie in the woods and fieldes neere to Antwerpe The first quarrell he picketh is to the preachers callinge whiche in suche times as religion is in a manner ouerthrowne and defaced by Idolatrie as
suppressing the rest for very shame they make so much against him Surely in all reasonable mens consciences what so euer hee left out of this place hee left the aduauntage of his owne cause and no title againste him But let vs see here what Maister Heskins a man of inuention passing Sinon the GrÄ™cian hath gathered out of it There bee two thinges in this place plainely taught The first is the reall presence of Christes body and bloud in that he so reuerently calleth the sacrament vnder one kinde the portion of the Lords body and the other he calleth the cup of the holy bloud For the spiritual bloud is not contained in external or material vessels No syr but the sacrameÌ„t of his natural bloud is wherof he speaketh as it is manifest by the words immediatly before the portion of the Lords body for his natural body is not broken into portions but the bread which is a sacrament thereof is broken and therby is shewed what wicked men receiue both in this saying of Gelasius in the other of Leo not the naturall body of Christe which cannot be receiued in portions but a portion of the sacramental bread which is therfore called the body of Christ bicause it is so indeed to them that receiue it worthily is consecrated to that vse that it may be the coÌ„munication of the body of christ And as it hath ben often shewed sacraments beare the names of the very things wherof they are sacrameÌ„ts The second thing that he teacheth saith M. Hes. is that he calleth not these two kindes Sacramentum a sacrament but Sacramenta sacramentes in the plural number signifying therby that each of them is a whole sacrament O new Diuinitie theÌ„ ye Papistes haue eight sacraments But are you such a prudent gatherer M. Hes it appeareth you wil lease none aduantage for the taking vp I commend you But for all that doth not your Authour Leo call both kindes sacramentum a sacrament and that is more for it is too too childish to reason of the singular number doth not Gelasius call the sacrament in both kindes Vnum idémque mysterium one and the same mysterie And when he vseth the plural number the ground of your Achillean argument doth he not say Integra sacramenta percipiant aut ab integris arceantur Let them take the whole sacramentes or else let them be kept from the whole signifying that they which tooke the bread onely tooke but halfe the sacramentes and none took the whole but they that tooke the cup also But nowe for the practise of the Primitiue Church to haue receiued in one kinde he saith that in time of persecution the Priest deliuered them of the sacrament wrapped in fine linnen clothes to carie home with them and to receiue it secretly by them selues and this could bee none other but the sacrament vnder the foâ—ne of breade Admit it were so that they caried home the sacrament yet it followeth not but they might as well carie the wine in a faire pot as they caried the breade in a faire cloth And although TertulliaÌ„ writing to his wife name bread only yet doth it not followe but that he comprehendeth the cup also The wordes of Tertullian are before rehearsed and answered Lib. 1. cap. 24. 27. Next is brought in Basil. Episto ad Caesareant patriciam Illud autem c. As for that to be a grieuous thing in the times of persecution any man to be inforced to receiue the communion with his owne hand the Priest or Deacon not being present it is more then nedeth to proue for bicause the same thing is by a long custome and by the very vse of things established For all they that in the wildernesse lead a solitarie life where there is no Priest keeping the communion at home communicate of them selues But in Alexandria and Aeâ—ypt euery one of the people for the most part haue the communion in their owne house For when the Priest doth consecrate the sacrifice and distribute it we must well beleeue to participate and receiue it For in the Church the Priest giueth part and he that taketh it receiueth it with all libertie and putteth it to his mouth with his owne hand It is therfore the same thing in vertue whether a man take one part of the Priest or many parts together Of the credite and authoritie of this Epistle which being cited in the name of Saint Basil is not to be found in all his workes I haue spoken before sufficiently as also of the reseruation of the sacrament gathered out of it in the first booke cap. 27. But for the communion in one kinde I see nothing that he saith sauing that Maister Heskins gathereth that Such small portions of wine will not be kept in those hote countries conueniently in their own kind such long time as they were forced to reserue the sacrament in the wildernes and else where But I aunswere him that such strong wine as they haue in those hote countries will bee kept longer from sowring then the breade will bee from moulding and therefore his gathering is altogether fond ridiculous But now you shall heare a more plaine testimoine for this receipt vnder one kinde if you will hearken to S. Cyprian He is cited In sermone de Lapsis a long saying to litle yea to no purpose at all Praesente ac teste meipso c. Heare what came to passe my selfe beeing present and witnesse The parentes of a childe flying by chaunce while for feare they tooke no good aduisement leaft their young daughter vnder the cherishing of a nource the nource brought her so left vnto the Magistrates They before an Idole where the people were gathered because for her age she could yet eate no flesh gaue vnto her bread mixed with wine which remained also of the sacrifice of them that perish Afterwarde the mother receiued her daughter But the litle mayde could no more speake and declare the offence that was committed then vnderstand it before and forbidde it Through ignorance therfore it fell out that her mother brought her in with her whyle we were sacrificing But truely the girle beeing among the Saintes not abiding our prayer and supplication sometime was constrained to crie out sometime with vehement greefe of minde was tossed here and there euen as though a tormentor compelled her the ignorant soule by such tokens as she could acknowledged the conscience of her fact in those yong and tender yeres But after the solemnities beeing accomplished the Deacon began to offer the cup to them that were present and when the rest had receiued and her place was next the little one by the instinct of Gods Maiestie turned away her face pressed her mouth with her lippes stopped refused the cuppe Yet the Deacon persisted and though it were against her will powred in somewhat of the sacrament of the cuppe Then followed belking and vomite In a bodie and a mouth that was defiled the Eucharistie
a Gentlewoman called Caesaria Patritia which feared to touch the sacrament with her owne hande saith thus Cōmunicare per singulos dies c. To communicate euery day to participate of the holy body and bloud of Christ it is a godly thing and very profitable as hee saith manifestly Hee that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath life eternall For who doubteth but the often participation of life is nothing else but many ways to liue Wherefore we communicate foure times in euery weeke On Sunday and Wednesday on Friday and Saturday and on other dayes if there be the memorie of any Saint But that it is no greeuous thing that any man should be constrained by necessitie in times of persecution when the Priest or the Minister is not present to take the Communion with his owne hand it is superfluous to declare for so much as it is by the very vse of the thing confirmed by a long custome For all they that lead a solitarie life in the wildernesse where there is no Priest keeping the Communion at home doe receiue it of them selues But in Alexandria and in Aegypt euery one of them which are of the people for the most part hath the Communion in his owne house For after the Priest hath consecrated the sacrifice and distributed it we must beleeue worthily to participate and receiue it For in the Church the Priest giueth part he which receiueth it taketh it with all libertie and putteth it to his mouth with his owne hand Therfore it is the same in vertue whether any man take one part of the Priest or many parts together Here M. Heskins vrgeth that euery man in his own house receiued the sacrament in time of persecution But this proueth not a sole receiuing if priuate men haue the Communion in their house for they might receiue many together But concerning the Hermites that dwelled in dens caues alone he saith they could haue no cōpanie and therevpon insulteth against the proclamer for saying the Indians Arabians Armenians Grecians c. neuer receiued nor vsed the priuat Masse And hath he proued the priuate Masse by the receiuing of the Hermites which were Lay men and no Priests No forsooth For he is feine to fasifie the wordes of this epistle in translating to proue that they receiued alone The wordes are in Greeke thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Latine a se ipsis cōmunicant Which he turneth falsly They communicate by them selues as though they did receiue it alone whereas he should say they receiue the Communion of them selues that is one of an other for it is well knowne they were not so solitarie but they had meetings at sometimes as appeareth by the histories As for other things that M. Heskins noteth out of this place bicause they are noted and aunswered in other partes where some of these sentences are alledged I will spend no time in repeating of them here Only concerning the authoritie of this fragment of an Epistle which is not extant in al S. Basils workes I giue the reader to vnderstand that it may be doubted of what antiquitie it is whether it were written by the ancient Basilius surnamed the great or by some other of that name of much later time Next is brought in Hieronyme to testifie that the like hath ben vsed in Rome in his time in time of persecutiō I maruel why M. Hes. addeth in time of persecution for in Hieromes time there was no such persecution at Rome he speaketh not of it as a shift in time of persecution but as a custome in time of peace Belike M. Hes. would haue the custome excused by necessitie of persecutiō which otherwise he can not allow to be good of it self But what saith Hier. ad Iouin Apoll. Scio Romae hanc esse consuetudinem c. I I know this custome is at Rome that the faithfull do always receiue the body of Christ which thing I do neither reprehend nor allowe For euery one aboundeth in his owne sense But I appeale to their conscience which the same day after carnall copulation do communicate and as Persuis saith purge the night with water Why dare they not goe to the Martyrs Why come they not into the Churches Is Christe one in the publique place an other in the priuate houses That which is not lawful in the church is not lawful at home Nothing is hid from God yea the very darknesse is bright with him Therefore let euery man examine him selfe and so let him come to the body of Christ. Here hee vrgeth that the people did communicate in their houses sometimes namely after companie with their wiues when they durst not come to Church But this custome doth Hierom seuerely reproue would not haue them communicate but when they might come to the Church without scruple of conscience So that Maister Hesk. bringeth in an vnlawfull custome to proue his priuate Masse to be lawfull which yet is neuer the neerer although this custome were good for therby is not proued so much as sole receiuing nor reseruation as we haue shewed before bicause nothing appeareth to the contrarie but that they might haue the Priest to consecrate and minister to them at home As for the admonition he giueth to married persons to abstaine from companie with their wiues c. I passe it ouer as not worthie the rehearsal Married men are to be exhorted to temperance and chastitie and further to prescribe times c. it may be Popish Diuinitie but it hath no ground in the word of god As for the married Priestes he hath little to doe with them let him take thought for his vnmaried Priestes But Chrysostome he thinketh saieth much for the priuate Masse in Cap. 1. ad Ephe. Hom. 3. Frustra habetur quotidiana oblatio frustra stamus ad altare Nemo est qui participet The daily oblation or sacrifice is done in vaine we stand at the altar in vaine There is no man that will partake with vs. By this hee saith it is euident that Masse was sayde in the Greeke Church though there were no communicants with the Priest ▪ But this euidence is false Maister Heskins for first there was a number of the Cleargie which always did communicate although none of the people would receiue as was proued before by the ancient canons cōmonly called of the Apostles And where as you labour to proue that the Masse was not in vain although no man did receiue with the Priest because the Masse had two ends the one of oblation the other of receyuing so that although it were in vain in respect of the receiuing yet it was not in vaine in respect of oblation I pray you look back again to Chrysostoms words see if he do not say that was done in vaine whiche you labour moste to proue could not bee in vaine namely Frustra habetur quotidiana oblatio The daily offring or sacrifice as you turne it is done in vaine For make
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
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
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
should sleepe with thee in the darke like blinde men And if any lay men or perhaps deuout we men through ignorance or simplicitye doe so for the honour of the Martyrs of whome we may truly say I confesse they haue a zeale but not according to knowledge what leesest thou thereby By these words you may see howe this custome came vp namelye of superstition and ignorance by Hieromes owne confession although hee was more readie to excuse it then to reforme it as his duetie had beene After some rayling against our grosse vnreasonable and vnnaturall heresies as he calleth them hee returneth to two other exceptions the one of prayers made to saintes vsed at the communion the other of prayer for the deade For proofe of the first hee citeth the liturgies falsely intituled to Basill and Chrisostom which the worlde knoweth are of a much later stampe the one being vnknowen to Gregorie Nazianzen that wrote Basils life and commended his actes the other praying for Pope Nicholas and the Emperour Alexius whiche were sixe hundreth yeares after Chrisostome was deade After these he citeth the authorities of Chrisostome Augustine that mention was made of the saintes and martires at the celebration of the communion in their time which wee confesse and so there is in our ministration but no prayer was in their time offered vnto them more then is nowe as euen that place of Augustine which hee citeth sufficiently doth proue De ciuit dei lib. 22. Cap. 10. although he cite it falsely and by patches Suo loco ordine nominantur non tamen à sacerdote qui sacrificat inuocantur they are named in their order and place yet are they not called vppon by the priest that sacrificeth what can be more plaine against inuocation of saintes then this testimonie of Augustine But hee citeth another place of Augustine Contra Faust. Manich. lib. 20. cap. 2 where hee saith the Christians did solemnelye frequent the memories of the martyrs both to stirre vp themselues to a following of them and also to be made companions of their merites and to be helped by their prayers This was Augustines iudgement in deede but yet in the same place he denyeth that any Aultars were set vp vnto them or that any prayers were euer offered vnto them Quis enim Antistitum c. for what bishoppe standing at the aultar in the places of the holy Martyrs euer saide We offer vnto thee O Peter or Paule or Cyprian As for prayer for the deade wee confesse it was vsed at the communion in the time of Chrisostome and Augustine but not as any part of the communion or as the institution of Christ or the practise of the Church for two hundreth yeares after Christ but onely as a superstitious errour crept into the Church and not espied while the fathers were busily occupied in fighting against monstruous heresies of greater importance Wherefore these exceptions notwithstanding our celebration of the Communion hath the whole institution of Christe the practise of the Apostles and the obseruation of the primitiue Church for fiue or sixe hundreth yeares so farre as it agreeth with the saide institution and practise which was in all substantiall and essentiall partes although the later age had added diuers superfluous and supersticious vsages and otherwise we boast not of the conformitie of our ministration with the auncient obseruaton as maister Rastel like a malicious cauiller doth charge the Bishop I cannot say whether more lewdely then folishly SECTIO 5. From the first face of the 38. leafe to the 2 face of the 41. leafe The Bishoppe said there is no ordinance or misterie so good â–ª but through foly or frowardnes of men it may be abused after reherseth many abuses of the sacrameÌ„t M. Rastel saith if he can take him tardie but in one he must be guiltie of all A wise man I promise you I haue taken him tardye alreadie in falsifying the scripture and Saint Augustine yet will I not denye but that some thing he saith is true But let vs see howe he taketh him tardâ—e The abuse of baptizing dead men was condemned in the third Councell of Carthage and the sixt Canon But saith Maister Rastell in the seuenteene Canon of that Councel strange women are forbidden to dwel with the Cleargie whereas nowe saith he they doe not onely receiue them to their seruantes but also to their bedfellowes And I pray you syr haue not some Popish Priestes such seruants and bedfellowes also Of seruants he will not deny but bedfellowes if they haue hee will say they haue them not as wiues but as Concubines So that belike it is better to haue Concubines then wiues Neuerthelesse the Canon which forbiddeth straunge women forbiddeth not their wiues as it is most manifest nor yet their sonnes wiues to dwell with any of the Cleargie wherby you see he is taken tardie in his owne trip It seemeth he neuer read the Councel or else he is a most impudent reporter of that he readeth As for the 27. Canon that he citeth in steed of that 24. of water to be mixed with wine I say he falsifieth the Councel saying that it commaundeth water and wine both to be vsed in the sacrifice the words be these Vt in sacramentis corporis sanguinis domini nihil amplius offeratur quà m ipse Dominus tradidit hóc est panis vinum aqua mixtum Nec amplius in sacrificijs offeratur quà m de vuis frumentis That in the sacramentes of the body and bloud of our Lorde nothing more be offered then our Lord himselfe deliuered that is bread and wine mixed with water And let nothing more be offered in the sacrifices but that which commeth of grapes and of corne This last clause then excludeth water as any necessarie part But yet he will presse vs with the 36. Can which forbiddeth a Priest to consecrate the Chrisme and licenseth him to coÌ„secrate virgins And we as he saith haue taken away oyle consecration and virgines In deed in such matters of ceremonies and externall discipline we do not deny but that we varie from theÌ„ vpon good grounds otherwise we are not bound to the determination of any Councels but as they agree with Gods word But seeing the Papistes glorie that al their doctrine ceremonies and discipline are of Catholike or vniuersall antiquitie and consent wee may iustly presse them with euery Canon of any auncient Councell which they affirme can not erre Namely with the 26. Can. of this present Councel which forbiddeth that the Bishop of Rome or any other Bishop of any principal See should be called Princes of the Priestes or the highest Priest or by any like title but only the Bishop of the principall See. I might alledge many other Canons wherein order is taken for the modest behauiour of the sonnes and daughters of Bishops which proueth their mariages lawful but for shortnes I passe them ouer Another abuse the Bishop noteth that in
c. is proued by the Canons of the Apostles that Excommunicate all Christians that be present and doe not communicate Can. 9. Also the first Epistle of Anacletus which is good authoritie against a Papist forbiddeth the priest or Bishop to sacrifice alone and commandeth all the ministers that are present to receiue with him in paine of excommunication And appointeth what number shall be present of deacons namely on solemne dayes seuen on other dayes fiue or three beside Subdeacons other ministers These decrees do proue that there should be no celebration of the Lordes supper but when there be a good number to communicate Concerning the 5. of distinction of Bishops or Priestâ— in apparell froÌ„ the laitie which yet we hold to be a thing of his owne nature indifferent Celestinus Bish. of Rome saith in an Epistle to the Bishops of France Epi. 2. Discernâ—ndi a plebe vel cÄ™teris sumus doctrina non veste conuersatione non habitu mentis puritate non cultu We must be discerned from the common people or other men by doctrine not by garment by conuersation not by apparell by purenes of minde not by attyre To the 7. that the communion table was remoueable and carried too an fro it is proued by Augustine who In quest vet Non test ques 101. saith it was the office of the Deacons of Rome as well as of all other Churches to carrie the altar and the vessels thereof and although he call it an altar in this place and many other yet doeth he in as many places call it a table and in his Epistle to Bonifacius Ep. 50. it appeareth that it was made of boordes and not of stones To the 8. for saying communion on good Friday although perhaps it might be proued by those fathers of the primitiue Church that kept their feast of Easter after the manner of the Iewes whiche was the 14. day of the moneth whiche some tymes did fall vpon that Friday whiche is called good Friday yet beeing no matteâ— of religion there is no cause why we should be bound to proue it The like I say to the 9. of singing of Gloria in excelsis after the communion and to the 11. of saying the Creede of Athanasius vpon principall holie dayes Concerning the 10. that the sacrament was ministred in the loafe bread vsually to be eaten at the table it is proued by S. Cyprian In sermone de Caena Dom. whiche saith of that bread wherewith they did minister Panis iste communis in carnem sanguinem mutatus procurat vitam incraementum corporâ—bus c. This common bread being chaunged into our flesh and bloud procureth life and increase to our bodies Also by S. Ambrose Li. 4. Cap. 2. de sacram Who rehearseth the obiection of the ignorant saying Tu forte dicis meus panis est vsitatus c. Thou perhaps wilt say my bread is coÌ„mon vsual bread Also by Gregorie which in his dialogues reporteth that two Coronae loaues of bread were giuen to one that was thought to be a poore man in rewarde of his seruice in a bathe but he being a guest willed that the same shoulde bee offered in sacrifice for him To the 12. for the ministers wearing of a Cope or surplesse which hold it to be no part of religion and that the communion hath bene ministred in common apparell we will go no further then our Sauiour Christ himselfe Ioh. 13. and there is no question but his Apostles and the primitiue Churche many hundreth yeares followed his example To the 13 that the words of S. Paul 1. Cor. 11. should be red at the ministration rather theÌ„ of S. Mathewe Marke or Luke it is a matter of meere indifferency yet better ordered then your popishe canon whiche rehearseth the wordes after none of all foure To the 14. that they vsed a common cup at the Communion is prooued also by scripture that our sauiour Christ ministred in the same cup which he and his company had vsed at supper To the 15. that the curses of Gods law should be redd vpon Ashwednesday we hold it not as a thing necessarie but an order of indifferencie vntill a better discipline be restored To the 16. concerning procession about the fields we vse none but a perambulation which is a matter of meere ciuill pollicie To the 19. whether Saint Peter were euer at Rome or no it is no article of our beliefe but we are able to proue by scripture that he neither was there as bishoppe nor so long as the common opinion is To the 20. that the minister in time of necessitie hath giuen the communion to one alone is proued by the example of Seraphion vsed of the Papistâ— but vnfitly to defende your priuate masse to whom being at the point of death the communion was sent by the prieste who at the same time also was so sicke that hee coulde not come himselfe Eusebius libros 6. capitulo 44. and yet that communicatinge which we alowe is but graunted to the infirmitie of suche as cannot bee perswaded to forbeare the sacramente not as a thing simplie allowed If anye one man aliue coulde prooue anye one of these articles by Scriptures doctours or councelles hee promiseth to subscribe what I haue prooued let the Reader iudge After this followe twentie nine articles more The 22. that the bishoppe of Rome was not called Antichriste the cause was that vntill after sixe hundreth yeare the bishoppe of Rome was not Antichriste But that Antichriste shoulde bee a Romaine it is prooued by Irenaeus Libro 5. and that Rome shoulde be the Sea of Antichriste Sainte Augustine testifieth De ciuitate Dei libro 16. capitulo 17. callinge Rome Westerne Babylon and libro 18. capitulo 2. callinge Rome seconde Babylon c. Also Hierome ad Marcellam iudgeth Rome to bee Babylon spoken of in the Apocalypse and in praefati in Didymum hee calleth Rome Babylon and the purple whore and Algasiae Quest. 11. and manye places else Gregorie also affirmeth that who so woulde bee called vniuersall bishoppe was the forerunner of Antichriste whiche was Iohn of Constantinople also he prophesieth that Antichristes reuelation was at hande and that an armye of priestes shoulde wayte vppon him whiche was fulfilled in his nexte successour saue one namely Bonifacius the thirde whiche was the first Pope of Rome that was called vniuersall bishoppe and was Antichriste him selfe as Iohn of Constantinople was his forerunner about the yeare of our Lorde â—10 To the 23. that no consecration was required to the sacramente but the vertue of the peoples fayth is not holden of vs and therefore wee are not to prooue it To the 24. that the residue of the sacramentall bread which was not receyued by any olde custome of the Church of Constantinople was giuen to young children that went to schoole is prooued by Euagrius libr. 4. cap. 36. whether to spredde their butter as hee requireth is to shewe or to eate it with cheese
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.
crosse but altogether the contrarie For there shall no bone of him be broken But that which he suffered not on the crosse he suffereth in the oblation for so they called the ministring of the communion because it was a sacrifice of thanksgiuing and for thee suffereth himself to be broken In these places Chrysostome affirmeth the Church to be the same bodie which the breade doth signifie and which the faithfull doe receiue and in the latter place he sheweth manifest difference betweene the naturall body of Christ that suffered on the crosse and the spirituall receiuing of him in the supper in whiche his bones are broken which he saith was not on the crosse which must needes bee figuratiue I passe ouer the large allegorie he continueth in the same homilie affirming that we must be Eagles to flye vp into heauen and feed of Chrstes bodie where it is for where the bodie is thether the Eagles will be gathered The fifteenth Chapter declareth by scriptures that the figure of the pascall lambe was a figure of the eating of Christ our pascall lambe There is no doubt but the killing of the pascall lamb was a figure of the killing of Christ and of the eating of the lambe was a sacrament of the eating of Christe our pascal lamb but not properly a figure of the Lords supper For Christe is eaten not onely in the sacrament but also by faith which the vse of the sacrament is to confirme as he himselfe teacheth Ioan. 6. It is true also that this sacrament is succeeded in the place of that But that the eating of the Lambe was a figure of our eating of the Sacrament no scripture teacheth For first your comparisons will not serue M. Heskins The lambe was verily eaten therefore Christ is verily eaten the lambe was substantially and really eaten therefore Christ was really and substantially eaten For I may reason as well the lambe was a naturall lambe therefore Christ was a naturall lambe or as you doe of the age of the lamb the lamb was but one yere old therfore Christe was but one yeare olde or rather and more properly thus if you will algates haue it a figure of the sacrament the lambe was called the passouer and yet it did but signifie the passouer so the breade is called the body of Christe and yet it doth but signifie the body of Christe or thus the eating of the lambe was a figure of the eating of Christ so the eating of the bread is a figure of the eating of christ As for the desire that Christe had to eate the passouer proueth not that he called his supper so but the olde passouer which he so desired to eate bicause it was the last should be fulfilled and then was in fulfilling in the suffering an oblation of his body The other text alleadged out of S. Paule 1. Cor. 5. Christ our passouer is slaine therefore let vs feaste not in the olde leauen nor in the leauen of malice and wickednesse but in the vnleauened bread of sinceritie and truth is manifestly wrested vnto the eating of Christ in the supper wherof the Apostle speaketh not but of the whole course of our life wherein we must holde the feast in the vnleauened breade of sinceritie and trueth The rule borowed out of Augustine in Psalmâ—â—ts 77. will doe you little pleasure for graunte that the thing figured in good thinges is better then the figure and in euill thinges worse what haue you gained Yes forsooth verie muche For then the passouer figured must needes bee better then the passouer the figure If the passouer which is nowe eaten be but a peece of bread a bare signe a figure as the sacramentaries affirme then the pascall Lambe is a figure of a peece of bread which is not better then it Of this argument no small accompt is made for it is continued in sixe long tedious chapters following But howe soone will all this smoke be blowen away yea euen with one breath For admitte that the Pascall lambe was a signe of the Lordes Supper which is not yet prooued by Scripture yet shall the thing figured be better then the figure For the supper of the Lorde consisteth of the bodie and bloud of Christe and not of a peece of breade a bare signe or figure although bread and wine are elements which do liuely represent that which Christe in his supper doeth feede vs withall And he doeth more then beastly belye them whome he calleth Sacramentaries to affirme that it is but a peece of breade a bare signe or figure They affirme that it is bread but they affirme not that it is nothing but a peece of bread they saye it is a signe and a figure but they saye not it is a bare signe and nothing but a figure except baptisme be a bare signe and nothing but a figure because it is a signe and a figure Therefore when you come to your conclusion M. Heskins you may well conclude that the Sacrament is not a bare figure but you falsly cogge in that by Christes institution it is consecrated to be offered for Christ was offered vp but once and that by him selfe only Likewise verie vnlike a diuine you say the Pascall Lambe was but a bare figure which is vntrue for it should not haue beene called the Passouer except it had truely assured the worthie receiuers of their spirituall deliuerance But where you make it such an absurditie that one figure shoulde be figure of another there is no such inconuenience as you immagine but that one thing may be the signe of another thing which shall be a figure of the third thing As in this very example if you will call your wittes together I am sure you will confesse that the Pascall Lambe was a figure of the deliuerance of the Israelites from the destruction of Aegypt and the same deliuerance of their bodies was a figure of the spirituall deliuerance of our soules Because Dionysius whom you cal the Areopagite sayth nothing to the matter in controuersie I will passe him ouer vntil some other time The sixteenth Chapter teacheth this matter by Tertullian Isychius This Chapter neither prooueth substantially that it promiseth nor gaineth any thing if it proued it For if the Pascall Lambe were a figure of Christes supper yet that proueth not as was shewed before that the bodie of Christ is there eaten corporally and after a corporal maner Tertullian a noble man in Christes Parleament Cont. Marcion lib. 4. writeth thus Professus igitur se concupiscentia concupiscere edere pasca vt suâ—â—m indignuÌ„ enim vt quid alienum concupiscat Deus acceptum panem distributum discipulis corpus suum illum fecit Therefore when he had professed that with desire he desired to eate the Passouer as a thing of his owne for it was an vnworthie thing that God should desire that pertained to another that bread which he tooke and distributed to his disciples he made
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
the words of Germanus can abyde no such boyish sophisme for hee sayeth Christ is seene by the fearefull and holie mysteries but neyther bread nor wine by M. Heskins confession much lesse the accideÌ„ts of them are fearfull holie mysteries therfore the whole sacrament is so called by which Christ is seene touched and eaten but with the eye hand and mouth of faith The foure and sixtieth Chapter sheweth the exposition of Petrue Çluniacensis Bessarion vpon the same In this Chapter beside the sayings of this Dan Peter of Clunye Bessarion which for a Cardinals hatt in the counsell of Florence forsooke the vnitie of the Greeke church he maketh a short repetition of all the authors names sayings whom he hath cited vpoÌ„ this text This is my bodie which because I haue aunswered at large it were needelesse to recapitulate in this place I trust the indifferent reader will confesse that not one of the highher house hath giuen a cleare voyce on his syde but all are most cleare against him The fiue and sixtieth Chapter treateth of the bread blessed and giuen by Christ to the two disciples in Emaus and proueth by Theophylâ—st Bedâ— that it was the sacrament It shal be easily graunted him that not only these two whome he nameth of late time but also diuerse of the auncient doctours are of opinion that Christ did giue the sacrament at Emaus but yet it followeth not that it was so For no certeine circumstance of Scripture can leade vs or them so to thinke Beda in 24. Luke writeth thus â—erti mysterij causae c. It came to passe for the cause of a certein mysterie that another shape shoulde bee shewed to them in him and so they should not know him but in the breaking of bred â–ª left any man should say that he hath knowen Christ if he bee noâ— partaker of his bodie that is to say of his Church whose vnitie the Apostle commendeth at the sacrament of the bread saying one bread we many are one bodie that when he reached to them the blessed bread their eyes were opened that they might know him This place indeed sheweth that Beda his opinion was that the sacrament was there giuen but either for transubstantiation or the real presence or for the communion in one kinde he sayth nothing For the English church in his time knewe none of all these monsters The sixe sixtieth Chapter proueth the same by S. Augustine and Chrysostome I sayd before we confesse that not Augustine onely but other also of the fathers were of this opinion The place of Augustine hath ben alreadie cited considered I would also omit the place of Chrysostome but that he gathereth further matter out of it then the pretence of this Chapter He is cited in Hom. 17. in Math. Quia de sanctis c. Because we haue begon to speake of holy things it is not to be left vnspoken but that sanctification is one thing and the thing sanctified another For that is a sanctification that sanctifieth another thing but that which is sanctifyed cannot sanctifie another thing although it selfe be sanctified As for example thou â—ignest the bread which thou eatest as Paule saith it is sanctifyed by the worde of God by prayer Thou hast sanctified it thou hast not made it sanctification But that which the priest giueth from his hand is not onely sanctified but also it is sanctification because that onely is not giuen which is seene but also that which is vnderstoode Of the sanctified breade therefore it is lawfull to cast to beastes and giue it to infidels because it doth not sanctifie the receiuer But if that which is taken of the hande of the priest were such as that which is eaten at the table all men would eate of the table and no man receiue it of the priestes hands Wherefore our Lord also did not onely blesse the bread in the waye but gaue it with his hand to Cleophas his fellowe And Paul fasting did not onely blesse the bread but also reached it with his hande to Luke and the rest of his disciples Three things M. Heskins noteth First that Chrysostome calleth the sacrament not only a sanctified thing but also sanctification it selfe And here he would haue the aduersarie to answere him where this sanctification resteth in the bread or in the priest I answere in neither of both but in Christ which is the heauenly matter of the sacrament receiued by faith for if sanctification rested in the bread then all they that receiue the bread should bee sanctified but all they that receiue the bread receiue not sanctification neither be they sanctified therefore sanctification resteth not in the breade and so consequently the bodie of Christ is not in the bread And whereas M. Hesk. reasoneth that the priest giueth sanctification I answere that is said because he giueth the outward sacrament as Iohn baptised yet speaking properly of the ministerie of man he restraineth it to the washing of water The seconde thing he would haue noted is that Christe deliuered the sacrament to Cleophas and his fellow wherof as Chrysostome hath no ground in the scripture so that which he affirmeth that Paule in the ship should minister the sacrament which is the third thing M. Hesk. obserueth is vtterly false and confuted by the text For his exhortation was to the whole multitude whereof the greatest parte and almost all were infidels And the text sayeth that they did all receiue foode being satisfyed cast the rest ouer borde to lighten the shippe But the place Actes 2. that they continued in the doctrine of the Apostles communication breaking of bread prayers I confesse may well and aptly be vnderstood of the participation of the Lords table yet nothing lesse may be gathered out of it then that horrible sacriledge of robbing the church of the Lords cupp because bread is onely named as in the next Chapter shal be shewed The seuen and sixtieth Chapter proueth by the scriptureâ— and practises in the last Chapter handled that the Communion vnder one kinde is lawfull and good It aunswereth to one parte of the challenge he saith to proue that the communion was ministred within 600 yeres after Christe in one kinde onely And this he will do verie easily For he beginneth with Christ himselfe whome moste impudently and blasphemously he affirmeth to haue ministred the Communion in one kinde onely to the disciples at Emaus First although diuerse of the olde writers are of opinion and yet wthout asseueration that Christe there gaue the sacrament yet none of them is so bolde to gather any such diuision of the sacrament out of that place Secondly notwithstanding their opinion it is most probable that hee neuer ministred the sacrament after his first institution thereof not onely because there is no mention thereof but because he gaue that as the last pledge of his presence with them immediatly
before he departed from them And although after his resurrection hee appeared to them at sundrie times by the space of fourtie dayes eating and drinking with them to shewe the certeintie of his resurrection speaking of the kingdome of God yet is there no worde of celebrating of the sacrament with them And it is altogether vnlikely that he would giue the sacrament the comfort of his absence at his first returne againe to them and that he woulde celebrate the same to two disciples and not to the whole number of his Apostles who had as great neede to be confirmed in faith as those two Finally if euer he had repeated the vse of the sacrament it is moste probable he woulde haue done it immediatly before his assention but then he did not which S. Luke who sheweth that storie exactly would not haue omitted therefore there is no likelihood that he did it before But admitt that he did then minister the communion doth it followe because bread is onely named therefore the cuppe was not giuen But Maister Heskins woulde haue it proued that the figure Synechdoche is here vsed that is part named for the whole For profe the institution of Christe and practise of the church for more then a thousand yeres after Christ may serue a reasonable man. Also the vsuall phrase of the scripture which by bread meaneth whatsoeuer is ioyned with it to be receiued as Math. 15. Mark. 7. The disciples are accused for eating bread with vnwashed handes c. shall wee here exclude meat and drinke because bread is onely named Also Marke the 3. they had no leysure to eat breade Luke 14. Christe came into the house of the Pharizee to eate bread And Iohn 6. You seeke mee not because you haue seene the signes but because you haue eaten of the breade and are satisfied And 2. Cor. 9. He that giueth seede to the sower shall minister bread for foode And 2. Thess. 3. wee haue not eaten our breade freely And in the same Chapter the disordered persons are exhorted to labour and eat their owne bread In all these places and a great number more breade onely is named in which it were mere madnesse to affirme that only bread is spoken of not meat or drink So the whole supper of Christ cōsisting of bread wine for the outwarde or earthly parte vnder the name of breade the cuppe also is comprehended Wherefore the practise of Christ is not contrarie to his institution as M. Heskins most arrogantly wickedly and vnlearnedly affirmeth The second reason he vseth is that the institution perteineth onely to priestes because Christ did then minister it onely to priests But first that is not proued nor like to be true for seeing our Sauiour Christe did minister the communion in the house of one of his disciples with whom he did eat the passeouer it is not like that he excluded him from the sacrament of the new testament with whome he was partaker of the sacrament of the olde testament For proofe that both he and his familie were partakers of the Passouer with him it is manifest that it was not possible for thirteene persons to eate vp a whole sheepe and other meat also at one meale For it was a sheepe of a yeare olde although it were a verie small one and must be eaten with the head feete the purtenaunce and nothing reserued vnto the morrowe But graunt that onely the Apostles were partakers of the first institution by the same reason that the one part of the sacrament perteined to them only the other parte also might be left to them onely and so the people should haue neither of both kindes because onely priestes had both kindes deliuered vnto them Further he sayeth the doctrine of Saint Paule is not sufficient to proue that the sacrament ought to bee ministred in both kindes for Saint Paule doth but onely set foorth the institution without an exclusiue excluding all other maners but this O shamelesse dogge is not the institution of Christe an exclusiue of all other manners take example of baptisme is it lawfull to baptise with any other lycour then water into any other name then the name of the Father the Sonne ▪ and the holy Ghost yea it is sayed in the Actes that the Apostles baptised in the name of Iesus Christe and yet no man will saye that they brake the institution of Christe and baptised onely in the name of Christe excluding the father and the holy ghoste Euen so it is sayde they continued in breaking of breade shall wee not vnderstande this after the institution as well as the other Againe if the institution of Christ had not heene an exclusiue of all other manners howe doth the Apostle by the institution of Christ reproue another manner brought in by the Corinthians Finally when the holy Ghost by Saint Paule commaundeth euery Christian man and woman to trye themselues and so not onely to eate of that breade but also to drinke of that cupp what Lucifer is that which wil oppose him selfe against the flatt commaundement of the holie ghost 1. Cor. 11. and saye the lay people shall not drinke of that cuppe or may be without the cupp well ynough But the doctrine of the Catholike church as he sayeth is that the whole sacrament is in either of both kindes the bloude is in the bodie and the bodie in the bloud But this is neither the doctrine of Christ nor the doctrine of the church of christ For Christ to shewe that he is a perfect nourishment vnto vs which of necessitie consisteth of meate and drinke and neither of both can be lacking for the nourishment of our bodies hath instituted his sacrament both in bread and drinke to testifie vnto vs that wee are perfectly fedd in him and therefore hath deuided the sacrament into two signes the one to signifie his bodie as meate the other to represent his bloud as drinke and therefore confounded be he the confoundeth these things which his heauenly wisedome hath thus mercifully distinguished Iustinus also a moste auncient writer of the church affirmeth that the sacrament consisteth of a drye and moyst nourishment in Dialog Cum. Tryphone aduersus Iudęos And euen this verie diuision of the sacrament sufficiently confuteth both transubstantiation the carnal presence For if he had purposed to giue vs his naturall bodie in the forme of bread or otherwise in the bread he would not haue deuided his bloud from his bodie But euen hereby he taught vs that hee spake of an heauenly mysticall and spirituall manner of eating his bodie and drinking his bloud by faith and not of a swallowing or gulping in of the same at our mouth and our throte But the cuppe saith Maister Heskins is the bodie of Christ and howe is it consecrated by these words This is my bloud Why where is nowe the plaine wordes of scripture where bloud is taken for a whole bodie But seeing Christ sayth further This is my
that the creatures themselues that were the elements of their sacraments figures should be more excellent glorious because the inwarde grace was not so clearely reuealed and it was meant the sacraments figures should be many more in nomber because the doctrine was much lesse manifest then it is to vs But concerning the inward working of God there is no doubt but it is as marueilous as wonderfull in our sacraments as in theirs and in respect of illumination according to the doctrine which is more lightsome and of full assurance as of that mysterie which is alreadie accomplished it is much more excellent notable in our sacraments which are as Augustin sayth in number most fewe in matter most simple in signification most excellent Ep. ad Ian. 118. Primò itaque tenere te volo quod est huius disputationis caput Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum sicut ipse in euangelio loquitur leui iugo suo nos subdidisse sarcinae leui Vnde sacramentis numero paucissimis obseruatione facillimis significatione praestantissimis societatem noui populi colligauit sicut est baptismus Trinitatis nomine consecratus communicatio corporis sanguinis ipsius si quid aliud in scripturis canoniâ—is contineatur First therfore I would haue thee hold this which is the head of this disputation that our lord Iesus Christ as he him selfe speaketh in the Gospell hath submitted vs to his gentle yoke easie burthen Therfore by sacraments in number most fewe in obseruation most easie in signification most excellent hee hath bound together the fellowship of the newe people as is baptisme being consecrated in the name of the Trinitie the communication of his bodie and bloud if any thing else be conteined in the canonicall scriptures Thus you see notwithstanding the vaine cauils of M. Hesk. wherein our sacraments are equall with theirs and wherein ours are more excellent then theirs so that we haue no neede of his reall presence to make a difference betweene the sacraments of the newe testament the sacraments of the olde fathers which though they liued vnder the old testament yet were they saued by the newe testament in the forgiuenesse of their sinnes by Christ as we are The thirteenth Chapter proueth the same by scriptures Doctors In the beginning of this Chapter he rayleth against Luther Oecolampadius Caluin c. but without proofe of any thing and therefore I count it not worthie of aunswere Secondly he will proue that the sacraments of the olde lawe are weake and beggerly elements not onely nowe when they be abrogated but also when they were in their greatest strength and therefore in no respect equall with ours For proofe hereof hee alledgeth the Apostle to the Hebrues 7. that the lawe brought nothing to perfection Chap. 10. The law hauing the shadowe of good things to come and not the verie facion of the things them selues can neuer with sacrifices which they offer make the commers thereunto perfect But hee is verie ignorant if he knowe not as he pretendeth or else verie obstinate if he will not acknowledge that the Apostle as he writeth to the Hebrues so he speaketh of the lawe as the vnbeleeuers esteemed it that is altogether seperated from Christ so of the ceremonies therof and not as the lawe and the ceremonies thereof were considered of the faithfull with Christ the ende and accomplishment of it and them For otherwise Christ him selfe is called a minister of circumcision for the trueth of God to establish the promises of the fathers Rom. 15. ver 8 After this he gapeth and cryeth out vppon Oecolampadius for saying that our bread is no better then the Lamb of the spirituall fathers Whereas if hee speake of the elements in both there is no question if of the heauenly parte that he sayth is true neuerthelesse there is a dignitie an excellencie of our sacrament about these and that is in clearnes of vnderstanding the mysterie therof as I haue often shewed And all the textes and authorities that Maister Heskins citeth proue nothing else As first Iohn Baptist was greater then all the Prophets because he spake more clearly of Christ being present whoÌ„ they described to come when he sayed beholde the Lambe of God that taketh away the sinne of the worlde that confirmeth Chrysostome in Math. Hom. 38. comparing Iohn to that noble man that commeth next to the king And Oecumenius preferreth Iohn because he prophesied of him whome he sawe and baptized Wherupon Maister Heskins gathereth that if Iohn were the more excellent Prophet because he sawe Christ present of whome he prophesied then the sacrament must bee more excellent because he was present whome it figured By like reason he may gather that they that were baptized in Christs preseÌ„ce were better baptized then we are now But the reason holdeth as I sayd before not of the bodily presence but of the clearer doctrine that was by meanes of his presence So Abraham desired to see the day of Christ and sawe it Ioan. 8. yet blessed are your eyes sayeth he which see that you see for many Prophets righteouse men desired to see haue not seene the things that you see that is although they haue seene them by faith yet not so clearely as you haue seen them and so be the verie wordes of Chrysostome which M. Hesk. citeth in 13. Math. Hom. 46. vpon that place Manye Prophets and righteous men haue desired c. that is saith Christ My comming presence myracles voice For here he doth not onely preferre them before those lost and damned men but also he affirmeth them to be more excellent and happie then the Prophets righteous men Why so Because they do not only see these things which they haue not seene but also those things which they desired to see these men sawe with their eyes For they also by faith did beholde these things but these much more clearly did see all things You see therefore howe vainly he cauelleth against Oecolampadius and the trueth when the texts and authorities he citeth be al cleane contrarie vnto him selfe The fourteenth Chapter proceedeth in the proofe of the same by the Scriptures and doctors His first proofe shal be that the sixt Chapter of Iohn is to be taken of the blessed sacrament and this is proued in his second booke where also I haue aunswered how it is taken and in what respecte it perteineth to the sacrament namely as the sacrament is a seale of the doctrine conteined in that Chapter To this proofe he addeth the consent of the church vntil Luther in so much that when the heresie of the Communion vnder both kindes waâ— raised in Bohemia they grounded it vpon that Chapter Note by the way that the Communion vnder both kinds instituted by Christ and practised in the Church a thousand yeares after Christ is called of Maister Heskins an heresie The third proofe is that Iohn spake
them that are in dying are couered and the deadly strype in the deepe and inward bowels is hidde with dissembled sorrowe Retourning from the altar of the diuell with handes filthye and defiled with the greasie sauour they come to the holie of the LORDE Almoste yet belching out the deadly meates of Idols with their lawes yet breathing out their wickednesse and sauouring of their deadly infections they set vpon the Lords body whereas the Scripture commeth againste them and cryeth and sayeth Euerie cleane person shall eate the fleshe But if any eate of the fleshe of the wholesome sacrifice whiche is the Lordes hauing his vncleanenesse vpon him the same soule shall perishe from among his people The Apostle also witnesseth and sayeth ye can not drinke the cuppe of the Lorde and the cuppe of Diuels Ye can not communicate of the table of the Lorde and the table of diuels In this sermon Cyprian reproued those men whiche had admitted to the communion such persons as had sacrificed to idols before they were throughly penitent and had made satisfaction to the Church which was offended by them contrarie to the order of good discipline Now saith Maister Heskins he would not so sharply haue reproued them if the thing they receiued had beene but a peece of bread A wise reason What if a man at that time had come vnreuerently to baptisme had it not ben an horrible offence although the outward element of baptisme be nothing but a litle water Although when we say â–ª that bread is a parte of the sacrament we neuer teache that it is but a peece of bread neither doe we say that baptisme is nothing but water They that vnreuerently rush vnto the Lords sacraments are punished for their presuÌ„ption not in respect of that they receiue whether it be bread wine or water but for that they receiue it vnworthily Another thing he noteth out of Cyprian is that Christes bodie is a sacrifice because he alledgeth the scripture of Leuiticus which is spoken of a sacrifice as though the scripture could not be rightly applyed that spake of holie meate vnreuerenely receiued vnto the vnreuerent receiuing of the sacrament except the sacrament were a sacrifice this is out of all compasse of reason He might as well say the sacrament is a burnt offring because it is compared to a sacrifice which is a burnt offring and an hundreth other absurdities may likewise be inferred which for reuerence of the blessed mysteries I spare to name But it followeth in Cyprian immediately where Maister Heskins leaueth Idem conuâ—â—nacibus pertinacibus comminatur detrâ—â—iciat dicens quicunque ederis panem aut biberit calicem Domini indignè reus eriâ— corporis sanguinis Domini Spretis his omnibus atque contempâ—is vis infertur corpori cius sanguini eiut Plus modò in Dominum manibus atque ore delinquunt quà m cum Dominum negâ—uerunt The same Paule threateneth and denounceth to the obstinate and froward saying whosoeuer shal eate of the bread drink of the cup of the Lord vnworthily shal be guiltie of the bodie and bloud of the lord All these sayings being despised and contemned violence is done vnto his bodie his bloud They do more offend against the Lord now with their hands their mouth then when they denied the Lord. These wordes declare that Cyprian calleth not the bread cup the bodie bloud of Christ â–ª as M. Hesk. would haue it properly but figuratiuely for no force or violence can be done to the bodie and bloud of Christe but to the sacrament thereof there may and Christ is iniured in the contempt of his mysteries as the Prince in contumelious breaking abusing of the broad seale by rebellious subiectes though he suffer no violence in his owne person Chrysostome is cited Ho. 11. ad Populum Antiochen Quomodo sacruÌ„ videbimus pascha c. How shal we see the holie passeouer How shall we receiue the holy sacrifice How shall we coÌ„municate in these maruelous mysteries with that tongue with which we haue contemned the lawe of God With that â—ong with which we haue defiled our soule For if no man durst take the Kings purple robe with foule hands how shall we receiue the Lordes body with a defiled tonge For swearing is of the wicked sacrifice is of the lord Therefore what communication is there betweene light and darknesse what agreement between Christ and Beliall Here saith M. Hesk. by the excellent titles he giueth the sacrament is proued the reall presence The holie sacrifice wonderful mysteries the bodie of our Lord light Christ himself But one of these titles is manifestly vnproper and figuratiue namely that of light and why may not the rest be so likewise Baptisme hath honourable titles yet is there no transubstantiatioÌ„ therin The second note to proue the reall presence is that saying how shall we with defiled tong receiue the Lordes body Here the body is receiued with the mouth and tong therefore corporally But if I should say that Chrysostome by this interogation denyeth that it can be receiued with a defiled tong where were the strength of this place but I will graunt that he vseth so to speake but vnproperly that the hand the tong receiue the bodie and bloud of Christ and yet meaneth no carnall maner of presence as Ho. 21. ad Pop. Antioch Cogita quid manu capias ipsam ab omni auaritia rapina liberam conserua Consider what thou receiuest with thy hand and keepe it free from all couetousnesse extortion This peraduenture pleaseth M. Heskins But it followeth soone after Etenim perniciosum est tam tremendis ministraâ—â—em mysterijs linguam sanguine tal purpuratam factam aureum gladium ad cornicia contumelias scurrilitates transferre For it is a pernicious thing to transferre that tonge which ministreth vnto so reuerend mysteries is died purple with such bloud and made a golden sworde vnto rayling reuiling and scoffing Here the tong doth not only receiue the bloud of Christ but also is made red or purple with it is made by it a golden sword If these be not figuratiue speeches they be monstruous absurdities And yet againe in the same place Sed rursum aduertens quod post manus liâ—guam cor suscipit horrendum illud mysteriâ—en ne vnquam in proximuÌ„ sumas dolum sed menseÌ„ tuam ab omni malitia mundâ—m conserua fic oculos aures munire poteris But againe considering that after thy handes thy tong thy heart receiueth that fearefull mysterie neuer deuise any craft against thy neighbour but keepe thy minde cleane from all malice so maist thou defende thine eyes and thine eares And the like speeches he hath of the eyes and the eares By which it is euident that although he speak figuratiuely in the way of exhortation yet he meaned not to teache any other but a spirituall manner of receiuing the bodie of Christ
illud c. But beholde that more reuerently that after the venerable signes are layde vppon the altare by which Christ is signified and receiued there is present by by a description of saintes or holy ones It is meete that a false matter should begin with a counterfet doctour I haue shewed before that neither Eusebius nor Hierome nor Gennadius knewe any such Dionyse by the space of fiue or sixe hundreth yeares after Christ therefore his testimonie must be so many hundred yeares short of the Apostles times But M. Hesk. wil not see that his Dionyse calleth the sacrament signes by which Christ is signified and receiued He can see nothing but the altar in that saying Next to Dionyse he bringeth Ambrosius in orat prÄ™parâ—t ad missaâ—t a meere counterfeit as Erasmus hath obserued therefore worthie of none answere But before I proceede to the next author that he citeth for the altar which is Augustine I will set downe a manifest disproofe of M. Hesk. proofe that altars haue ben vsed since the Apostles times Firste it is certeine that our sauiour Christ did institute this sacrament at a table at no altar whereas if it had bene a sacrifice he would haue caused an altar to be made which had bene soone done Secondly the Apostle Paul calleth it the Lords table neuer calleth it an altar M. Hesk. alledgeth for the sacrament out of the actes of the Apostles that the disciples continued in breaking of bread in euery house but I suppose he wil not dreame that there was an altar in euerie house In the primitiue church when the people mett in corners secrete places no man of reason wil imagin they had altars set vp in those places Nay it is certein by Origen Amobius they had neither altars nor teÌ„ples nor images Origen Cont. Cel lib. 4. reporteth that the heathen man Celsus obiecteth against vs that we haue no images nor altars nor temples The like is in Arnobius lib. 2. against that Gentiles who declareth that they acuse vs that we haue neither temples nor images nor altars By these auncient writers it appeareth that it was a common obiection of the heathen men against the Christians that they had no altars The like sheweth Tertullian ad Scapulam Itaque sacrificamus pro salute imperatoris sed Deo nostro ipsâ—ut sed quo modo prÄ™cepit Deus pura prece Therfore we also do offer sacrifice for the health of the Emperour but vnto our God his only but as God hath commaunded with pure prayer These wordes of Tertullian declare that the Christians had neither altar nor sacrifice other then prayer In Cyprians time also it was a table de cana Dom. Inter Dominicae mensae cormuines animalis homo non recipitur the naturall man is not receiued among the guestes of the Lords table And although of diuerse of the olde writers it was called an altar yet was it so called improperly euen as the communion was called of them a sacrifice for still it was a table and nothing like the popish altars which are of stone set against a wall for they stoode in the midst of the church so that the people came rounde about them as appeareth by Eusebius lib. 10. ca. 4. ad Paulin. Tyr. Episc. Absoluto templo sedibus excelsissimis ad honorem praesidentium subsellijs ordine collocatis ornato post omnia sancto sanctorum videlicet altari in medio constituto The temple being finished and garnished with high seates for the honour of the gouernours lower seates placed in order after all the holie of holies that is to saye the altar placed in the middest The like hath Augustine de verb. Dom. Ser. Ioan. Ser. 46. de eo quod scrip qui manduc Christus quotidie pascit Mensa ipsiut est illa in medio constituta Quid causae est ô audientes vt mensam videatis ad epulat non accedatis Christ feedeth daily that is his table which is placed in the middest What is the cause O you hearers that seeing the table ye came not to the feast Hee speaketh to the nouices or Catechumeni Gregorius Nazianzenus calleth it a table ad imperator Irasceus shewing what intercessors he would bring to pacifie the Princes displeasure as the death passion resurrection ascension of Christ. Aut etiam mensam hanc ad quaÌ„ communiter accedimus meae sabutis rypos quos eodem celebro ore quo nunc fungor legatione sacram dico ad superna ducentem mystagogiam or else euen this table vnto which wee come all together and the figures of my saluation which I do celebrate with the same mouth with which nowe I execute this Ambassage of intreatie I meane that holy mysterie leading to high things Beside the table in the saying of Greg marke what termes he vseth in describing the sacrament he calleth it the types or figures of his saluation and a holy and heauenly mystagogie Chrysost. most commonly calleth it a table for example Hom 45. in Ioan. A mensa hac prodit fons qui fluuios spirituales diffundit From this table commeth a spring which powreth forth spirituall riuers And in a great number of places he calleth it the holie table But nowe wee must heare Maister Hesk. citing Augustine lib. 9. Conf. Ca. 13. Illa imminente c. Shee the day of her death being as hand was not carefull to haue her bodie sumpâ—uously buried or to be spiced with spices or coueted to haue a solemne monument or to be buryed in her own country These things shee did not commaunde vs but onely shee desired that remembrance of her should be made as thine altare which shee without any dayes intermission had serued From whence she knewe the holie sacrifice to be dispensed by which the hand writing was put out that was against vs. In these wordes S. Augustine calleth it an altar reporting the superstitious request of his mother according to the errour of that time We make no question but that they did call the table an altar but we affirme they called it so vnproperly euen as they did call the sacrament a sacrifice and the minister a priest and the deacon a Leuite And as they called it an altare so there is fewe or none but called it a table also and so doth Augustine often times as de cultur agr Dom. Mensa sponsi tui panem habet integrum poculum sanctum The table of thy spouse hath whole bread and a holie cupp And againe Contra liter Petilian lib. 2. Chap. 47. Non dicunt ifta nisi qui de Mensa Domini vitaiâ— suâ—ruâ—nt sicut Petrus non iudicium sicut Iudas None say these things but such as receiue life at the Lordes table as Peter and not damnation as Iudas But Maister Heskins hath another place out of Saint Augustine wherein hee calleth it the altare of God Sermone ad infant Hoc quod videris
broken downe thine altares While hee sayth thine he sheweth that the thing is Gods where any thing is offered of any man to God. Vppon pretence of this place Maister Hesk. chargeth vs with great sacriledge for pulling downe their popish altares on which they committed idolatrie and moste horrible sacriledge And therefore wee are commaunded to ouerthrowe such altares to breake downe their pillers burne their images with fire Deut. 7. And whereas he compareth vs to one Iulianus an heathen man that pissed against the altare and therfore was horribly punished hee sheweth his wisedome For there an idolater did vilanously contemne the Christians religion therfore was iustly plaged of God but we as Christians haue obeyed the lawe of God in ouerthrowing their antichristian idolatrous altars And yet I thinke the fact of Iulianus was not worse then the filthinesse of Pope Iohn that lay with his whores vppon your altares In the conclusion of this chapter he affirmeth that the altar sacrifice are correlatiues therefore there coulde be none altars but there was also sacrifice I haue shewed sufficiently howe the old writers called the communion table an altare and the sacrament a sacrifice namely a sacrifice of thanksgiuing and not of propitiation and yet more must I saye vpon M. Heskins discourses that followe The two and thirtieth Chapter vpon occasion that it is proued that the primitiue Church vsed the altare and reputed the bodie and bloud of Christ to be a sacrifice beginneth to treate of the same sacrifice which we commonly call the Masse Because the names of altar sacrifice haue beene vnproperly vsed by auncient writers for wee haue shewed that their altar was a table and their sacrifice a thankesgiuing therefore M. Hesk. will treat of the sacrifice of the Masse And first of the name of Masse which he saith we abhorre and iustly because it hath been vsed of many yeres to signifie a most blasphemous and idolatrous seruice The name he will deriue in all the haste out of the Hebrue tongue from a word that is called Mas from whence the Latines haue deriued their worde Missa being the same that the Greekes called Liturgia and the Latines officium which is in English a seruice To this I aunswere first that if Missa or Masse be nothing but a seruice then Euen song may be called Masse because it is a seruice Secondly it carryeth no shewe of trueth that the Latines would borrowe their name of the Hebrues rather then of the Greekes Thirdly that there is no such Hebrue worde as Maister Heskins affirmeth to bee Mas signifying a seruice as I report mee to all that haue but meane knowledge in the tongue Fourthly that although the name of Missa bee of some antiquitie in the Romane church yet is it neither so auncient as he maketh it and that which is chiefely to be regarded it is neuer founde in the holie scripture But nowe let vs consider his authoritie First Leo bishop of Rome Epist. 79. sayeth thus Necesse est vt quaedam pars populi sua deuotione priuetur si vniut tantùm Missae more seruato sacrificium offerre non possunt nisi qui prima diei parte conuenerint It must needes be that some parte of the people bee depriued of their deuotion if the manner or custome of our onely masse being obserued they cannot offer sacrifice except such as came together the first part of the day Vppon coulour of this place Maister Heskins will not onely prooue that the name of Missa is auncient but also that it is lawfull to saye more then one Masse in one church in one day if two then three if three then tenne if tenne then fifteene and so twentie which the proclaimer sayed could not be proued But you shall see howe lewdly hee abuseth his reader The proclaimers challenge was of tenne or twentie priuate Masses sayed in one church and commonly at one time Maister Heskins bringeth in authoritie of Leo which proueth that when one communion coulde no serue any more then so manie as the church woulde holde at one time it was meete it should be celebrated twise or as often as the same was filled with people vntill all had receiued which as wee confesse to be true so maketh it nothing in the worlde for the priuate Masse but altogether against it as is plaine by the whole treatie going before which Maister Heskins according to his accustomed synceritie hath cleane left out Vt autem in omnibus obseruantia nostra Concordet illud quoque volumus custodiri vt quum solennior festiuitas conuentum populi numerosioris indixerit ad eam tanta multitudo conuenerit quam recipere Basilica simul vna non possit sacrificij oblatio indubitanter iteretur ne his tantùm admissis ad hanc deuotionem qui primi aduenerint videantur hi qui posimodum confluxerint non recepti cum plenum pietatis atque rationis fit vt quoties Basilicā pręsentia nonae plebis impleuerit toties sacrificiū subsequēs offeratur And that our obseruation may agree in al things this also we will haue to be kept that when a more solemne festiuitie shall call together a greater assembly of people and so great a multitude is gathered vnto it that one great Church can not receiue them altogether the oblation of the sacrifice without doubt may be done againe least those only being admitted which came first they which came together afterward might seeme not to be receiued whereas it is a matter full of godlinesse and reason that how often so euer the presence of a newe people shall fill the Church so often the sacrifice following should be offered But M. Heskins vrgeth in the place by him cited that the word missa is vsed which is not denyed but this was almost 500. yeres after Christ about the yere 480. Secondly that the Masse is a sacrifice But he will not see that it is such a sacrifice as all the people offer which can not be a sacrifice propitiatorie but of thankesgiuing Howbeit he saith The Masse is a sacrifice that is or ought by ioyne affection and deuotion of the people to the Priest to be offered of them all What affection or deuotion he would haue to the Priest I do not well vnderstand but let him shadowe him selfe in what fond phrase of word he will yet can he not auoyde but that the people by the wordes of Leo did offer sacrifice in as ample manner as the Priestes and then they were all Priestes Besides this in the words of Leo he obserueth not that it was a custome of the Church before his time to haue but one Masse or Communion in a day so straightly kept that vpon necessitie they would not relent therein vntill he tooke this order with them But Maister Heskins asketh what scripture the proclamer hath to the contrarie for twentie Masses in one Church in one day I aunswere Saint Paule willeth the Corinthians to
it therefore followe that all or the moste priestes doe vnderstand them whereof a great number can neither conster the Latine of their masse nor of those bookes And generally it may be said that they all vnderstand them not because these writers themselues doe not agree in the interpretation of them The thirde he saith is A plaine lie that in the Masse they make no mention of Christes death whereas the Masse setteth forth the death of Christe more liuely then the new communion For with great outcries he saith that there is mention of his death where it is saide The day before he suffred and The bloud of the new Testament that it shed for you and beeing mindfull of his passion resurrection c. and do this in remembrance of me Here is all the preaching of Christes death that he can finde in the Masse But seeing he grateth vpon the wordes No mention of his death Which was not the Bishops meaning but no profitable mention to the institution of the people who vnderstand nothing although there were neuer so long a sermon of Christes death in Latine yet I say he hath not shewed the death of Christe once mentioned in the Masse I say not by implication but in fourme of wordes whereof he taketh aduauntage to charge the Bishop of a lie But how open plaine lowd impudent a lie it is that The Masse setteth foorth the death of Christ more liuely then the new communion as he termeth it I will not in one worde goe about to confute least I should acknowledge any neuer so small shew of trueth to be in it The fortieth Chapter treateth of priuate Masses as the proclaymer termeth them and solueth his arguments Maister Heskins first rehearsing the Bishoppes Arguments against the priuate Masse first maketh this generall aunswere to them al that they proue it is lawfull for the people to receiue with the Priest but not that it is necessarie And first he chargeth him with falsifying of Hierome In 1. Cor. 11. That the supper of the Lorde must be common to all the people for Christ gaue his sacraments to all his disciples that were present Where saith Maister Heskins he hath left out this worde equally by whiche is meant that poore men haue as good right to the sacrament as riche men but not that it is necessarie that all men present at Masse should receiue with the priest In deed the words of Hierome are these Conuenientibus c. Iam non est Dominica sed humana quando vnâ—s quis quae tanquam caenam propriam solus inuadis alij qui non obtulerit non impereit Ita vt magis propter saturitatem quà m propter mysterium videamini conuenire Caeterùm coena Dominica omniâ—us debes esse communis quia ille omnibus discipulis suis qui aderant Ä™qualiter tradidit sacramenta Coena auteÌ„ ideo dicitur quia Dominuâ— in coena tradidit sacramentum Item hoc ideo dicit quia in ecclesia conuenientes oblationes suas separatim offerabant post communionem quae cunque eis de sacrificijs supersuissent illic in Ecclesia communem coenam coÌ„medentes pariter consumebant Et alius quidem esurit c. Quicumque non obtulisset non communicabat quira omnia soli qui obtulerunt insumebant When you come together c. Nowe is it not the LORDES supper but a mannes supper when euerie one falleth to it alone as it were his owne supper and giueth no parte to another which hath offered nothing so that you seeme to come together rather to fill your bellies then for the mysteries sake But the Lordes supper ought to be common to al men because he deliuered his sacramentes to all his disciples that were present equally And it is therefore called a supper because the Lorde at supper deliuered the sacramente Also he saith this therfore for that when they came together in the Church they offered their oblations seuerally and after the communion whatsoeuer was left to them of the sacrifice euen there in the Church eating a common supper they consumed it together And one truely is a hungred whosoeuer had not offred did not communicate because they that had offred consumed all alone By this let the Reader iudge what falsifying the proclaymer vsed and whether Hierome that condemned seuerall communions of riche men would allowe a singular partaking of the priest alone An other reason he hath of baptisme whiche though it be common to all men and that two speciall times in the yeare were appointed for the ministration thereof yet it may be ministred alone But the example is nothing like for it was alwayes lawfull and often vsed to baptise singuler persons at all times so was it neuer of the Lordes supper because the mysterie that S. Paul speaketh of 1. Cor. 10. Many partaking of one bread cannot bee expressed when one priest receiueth alone The third reason he bringeth is a counterfet decree ascribed to Fabianus of Rome 242. yeres after Christe that people should receiue thryse in the yere which had beene needlesse if they receiued so often as the priest saide Masse In deede the impudent forgerie of this decree is manifest when two hundred yeares after Fabianus the people of Rome as both Saint Augustine and Saint Hierome do write and Maister Heskins cannot denye receiued the communion euery day As for the decree of once a yere receiuing I knowe not when it was made but wicked it was whensoeuer it was made But Chrysostome I wene doth make much for priuate Masses for he writeth but Maister Heskins dare not tell where for shame Nonne per singulos dies offerimus offerimus quidem sed ad recordationem facientes mortis eius Do wee not euery day sayth hee make oblation we offer in deede but doing it to the remembrance of his death This question of Chrysos is but an obiection of the vsual phrase of offering which he expoundeth to be nothing else but a celebration of the remembraunce of Christs death and therfore in the end of that discourse for a full resolution he setteth down Non aliud sacrificium sicut Pontifex sed id ipsum semper facimus magis autem recordationem sacrificij operamur Wee offer not another sacrifice as the holie priest but the same alwayes but rather wee make the remembraunce of that sacrifice This correction sheweth what he meaneth by the name of sacrifice And whereas Maister Heskins vrgeth that they ministred dayly none were bound but priests to communicate aboue thrise in the yere he concludeth the priest receiued oftentimes alone But he playeth the papist notably in taking rather then begging two principles one that the people were not bounde which hee is not able to proue another that there was but one Priest in a church whereas at that time commonly there was but one church in a citie in which were many priestes which by his owne confession were bound to receiue as often as
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
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
his deuorse from his first vnlawfull mariage gaue him occasion to enquire and finde out what weake foundation the vsurped power of the See of Rome was buylded vppon 76 King Henrie departed not out of the societie of the churche of Rome onely for the vices of the men thereof but for their false and Antichristian heresies which they obstinately mainteined and ioyned him selfe to the true auncient and vniuersall Church of Christe when hee departed out of that false newe sett vp schismaticall and particuler Synagogue of Rome as Saint Augustine went from the Manichees to the Catholicke church And as King Henrie the eyght knewe whence hee went so knewe hee also whither he went euen from Rome with seuen hilles to Ierusalem which is aboue and is the mother of vs all 77 Hee that goeth out of an hereticall church as King Henrie did must goe to the Catholike church of Christe as hee did without making any newe church or being without a church I knowe not the age of Maister Sander but if hee bee not much aboue fourtie yeares olde hee was borne and baptized as manye other Papistes were in that which hee calleth a newe church or no church which howe hee will aunswere let him and them aduise which holde it necessarie that a man must tarrie in that church in which hee is baptized 78 King Henrie the eight was not without a churche but in the church of Englande a member of the Catholike church of Christe neither did hee call him the supreme head of the church of Englande before that title was giuen him by the Popish Clergie in their submission after they were cast in the premunire Edw. Hall. 79 That hee receiued not fully the true doctrine of Christ as he banished the false vsurped power of the Pope is to bee imputed to the trayterous practises of his dissembling Clergie which although they durste not withstande him in mainteining the Popes authoritie yet they laboured all that they coulde to reteine the Popes doctrine in as many poyntes as they might hereof came the lawe of the sixe articles which mainteined the sacrifice of the Masse transubstantiation communion in one kynde and such other heresies Neuerthelesse the authoritie of Antichrist much Idolatrie superstition and false doctrine was abolished Iustification by faith in Christe was preached the scripture was read in the vulgar tongue which was a beginning of a reformation and returning vnto the true church of Christe and not a setting vp of a newe churche Except Maister Sander will saye that those Kinges of Iuda which refourmed some parte of religion and yet left the hill altares other abuses did set vp a newe church because they made not a perfect reformation Finally where he sayth that King Henrie adioyned himselfe to no companie of faithfull men in earth which had from Christes time liued after that profession of faith which he allowed proueth not that hee set vp a newe church For he ioyned to the Catholike church in so many pointes of true doctrine as hee acknowledged from which the Popish church was departed although he was not rightly instructed in all 80 The church of Englande in King Henries time was a true church although all the doctrine which was then mainteined by publique authoritie through the subtile practises of popish hypocrites was not true And the church of England at this daye is the same that it was then but nowe by publike authoritie embraceing all true doctrine which by the true members of the church in King Henries dayes was mainteined and withstoode by hypocrites or other not yet rightly instructed 81 The church vnto which King Henrie went and brought the realme when he departed from Rome was the same church which began at Ierusalem and so increased into all nations and continueth in the world for euer though not among all nations 82 King Henry went out of the Antichristian church of Rome into the Catholike church of Christe embracing some part of the doctrine therof therefore hee needed no reconciliation to the Romish church but a more perfect information of the church of Christ. 83 In King Edwardes time the reformation began and hindred in his fathers time was perfected and accomplished for all pointes of Christian doctrine neither was there any reconciliation vsed to the churche of Rome but the Church of Englande by publike authoritie perfectly vnyted to the Catholike Churche of Christe ioyning in profession of faith with the best refourmed Christian churches in the worlde 84 The abolishing of forrein power hindred not the ioyning in faith and doctrine with all the Churches of God that were without the realme of England The propitiatorie sacrifices of the Masse was in King Edwardes time abolished by publique authoritie out of the Church of England as it was in King Henries time abhorred of all true members of the Church that were then rightly instructed as much as the supremacie of the Pope 85 The power of being the sonnes of God the power of preaching and forgiuing of sinnes in the Church of Christe is no forreigne power neither was any such power euer excluded but the false and vsurped tyrannie of Antichrist of Rome 86 We beleeue and professe a Catholique or vniuersall Church of Christe whereof we are members and therefore we detest the hereticall schismaticall and particular Church of Rome 87 The Church of England vnder King Edward did professe her selfe to be a member of the most auncient Catholike and Apostolique Church of Christe which is the piller of trueth to bee iudged by the worde of GOD which is the trueth it selfe Iohn 17. being not so ignoraunt but that she could distinguish the worde of GOD from the Church of GOD as the lawe of GOD from the houshold of GOD which is gouerned by that lawe And not as Maister Sanders similitude is as the statutes of England differ from the men of England which make them but the Church maketh not the worde of God but contrariwise the word of God maketh the Church 88 It is not necessarie to shewe a companie of men in a peculiar place as Geneua or any such like for them that will ioyne them selues with the Catholike Church of all the world although it were easie to name diuers companies of men in seuerall places which continued in the true Church out of the Church of Rome both in Fraunce and Italie beside Bohemia which long before was returned out of the Popish Church into the Church of Christ and all the East Churches which neuer ioyned with the Church of Rome 89 The Churches of Zurich and Saxonie be members of the Catholique Church of Christe which is fifteene hundreth yeares olde and vpward although the same Churches were gathered and returned in those places within these three score yeares 90 There needed no embassages to goe to and fro to the Churches of God beyond the seas for reconciliation bicause there was no debate betweene the Church of England and them Although for conference and aduise
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
Pope Leo saide at his death that this one thing he should gayne by dying that he shoulde be resolued concerning the question of the immortalitie of the soule Wherein all the learned men in the worlde before could not satisfie him Last of all what an impudent lyer Maister Rastell is you may plainely perceiue when he chargeth the Bishop with this confession That these nine hundreth yeres and more none did euer take this way which he doth follow For although the Bishop made his chalenge of sixe hundreth yeares after Christe â–ª yet did he neuer confesse that in the nine hundreth yeres following none did euer reteine or imbrace the Gospell whiche he teacheth when God be praised there was a number euen in the moste blindest times that sawe the light thereof although they were fewe and persecuted by Antichriste SECTIO 4. From the second face of the 23. leafe to the first of the 38. leafe In which he taketh vpon him to proue that the English communion and seruice doth not followe Christe and his Apostles in taking into their handâ— and blessing the cuppe and the challice nor the primitiue Church in praying toward the East mingling water with the wine signe of the crosse altars incense tapern praying to Saintes and praying for the dead The â— in his sermon affirmed as R. saith 1. The holy coÌ„munion to be restored to the use form of the primitiue Church 2. To the same order that was deliuered appointed by Christ 3. and after practised by the Apostles 4. and continued by the holy doctours and fathers by the space of fiue or sixe hundreth yeares throughout all the catholike Churche of Christ 5. without exception or anye sufficient example to be shewed to the contrarie Al these Master Rast. saith be lyes which is his short aunswere And I coulde aunswere as shortly that then they be lyes of Master Rastells forging For the bishoppe affirmed no such thing of the ceremoniall forme of our Communion but of the doctrine thereof But let vs see his answere at large He woulde know how this Communion of ours doth agree with that which Christ deliuered and theÌ„ rehearseth the institution of Christ beginning at the eating of the Pascall Lambe and the washing of his disciples feete as though either of these perteined to the sacrament and forsoothe we must tell him how many thinges more how many things lesse our order in the coÌ„munion booke hath And firste what scripture we haue for the linnen clothe for the priestes standing on the North side of the table for our prayers confessions collects other ceremonies and seeing wee haue no scripture for these the Communion is not restored to the order appointed by Christ. I aunswere that forasmuch as those matters perteine to order and decencie we haue scripture sufficient to authorize them although as I saide before the bishop speaketh not of the ceremoniall forme of ministration but of the substaunce and doctrine which is the essential forme of the Communion concerning which we haue neyther more nor lesse then Christ vsed and deliuered Yet saith Master Rast. we haue many pointes lesse then was done by Christ at his last supper First he will not presse vs with that question why we do not Communicate after supper which peraduenture yet some doth with the sicke as a thing not vnlawfull nor tyed to any time but by the generall rule of order and decencie but he demandeth why we take not the bread into our handes before we consecrate it as Christ did A profounde question As though we doe not both take it breake it receiue it and deliuer it with our handes as Christ did Or as though Christ appointed at what moment we should touch it or that M. Rastel is able to say that Christ spake nothing of his institution before he touched the breade or as though we did not vse ordinarily before we make the exhortation vnto the Communion to take the bread and breake it and with the cup to set it before vs not to let it stand at the ende of the table as he belyeth vs as though we werâ— ashamed to folow Christ. The seconde thing that we haue lesse then Christ did as he saith is blessinge of the breade which is vtterly false for we blesse it as Christ did not with the signe of the crosse as ye would haue vs but with thanksgiuinge and prayer as the Euangelistes doe testifie that Christe did and as the primitiue and Apostolike Church did practise And therefore Iustinus martyâ— speaking of the sanctified or blessed nourishment of the sacrament calleth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that nourishement for which thankes is giuen by the worde of prayer receiued of him And touching the reuerende gestures vsed by Christ at his supper as we doubt nothing but that he vsed them alwayes so can M. Rastell with all his prating prooue none other then the Euangelists haue set downe And therefore for his loking on the bread separating it from the rest of the bread on the table blessing it by some special signe as the signe of the crosse c. when he can prooue out of the scriptures we shall bee content to refourme our Communion accordinge to those supposed gestures In the meane time notwithstanding his ruffian like raylinge our order of celebration hath all things instituted and deliuered by Christ to be obserued in the reuerent ministration of this most holy sacrament The seconde lye he chargeth Master Iewell with all is that he saith we haue the same order that was practiâ—ed by the Apostles where as we reade of none order practised by them For Actes the 2. we read saith he that they did breake breade in houses And yet it may be doubted whether that was the communion and actes 13. saith he when the Apostles had fasted and sacrificed they sent forth Paule and Barnabas But where finde you that translation Master Rastell that they sacrificed will you now forsake your owne Latine translation Ministrantibus illis Domino when they ministred vnto the Lorde and so wilfully runne into the curse of the Tridentine councell or will you appeale to the Greeke text 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which worde signifieth any publike Ministerie by the iudgement of all learned Graetians and Erasmus himselfe whom you folowe in this translation though you count him an heretike and forsake your Catholike translation confirmed by generall Councelles Well then I see that papists iangle of general councels and catholike interpretations vnto other but they themselues will be holden of none anye longer then they liste But to the matter he saith that S. Paule 1. Cor. 11. testifieth of the veritie of the sacrament but not of the order referringe that to his owne comming As though he doeth not manifestly reforme a disorder or as though other thinges which he saith he woulde set in order at his comminge could be taken for the same thinges that he wrote of in his Epistle But what of al
celebration of the communion an oblation or sacrifice of the bodie and blood of christ It is great leudenesse and deceiptfulnes to vrge the termes vsed by the doctors and to refuse their meaning sufficiently expressed in diuers places of their writings SECTIO 17. in the 64. leafe Whereas the bishop saith it is Christ which presenteth â—s and maketh vs a sweet oblation in the sight of his father M. Rastell denyeth that it followeth not that the priest offereth not Christ because Saint Augustine saith de ciuit dei lib. 10. cap. 20. that as the church is offered by Christ so Christ is offered by the Church But that which Augustine maketh here common to al the Church maister Rastel restreineth to his popish priests And although Augustine in the same place expounde himselfe sufficiently when he saith the daily sacrifice of the church is a sacrament of the oblation of Christ yet in Cap. 5. of the same book he speaketh most plainely Sacrificium ergo visibile inuisibilis sacrificij sacramentum id est sacrum signum est Therefore the visible sacrifice is a sacrament that is to say an holy signe of the inuisible sacrifie What can bee saide more plainly concerning his meaning by the terme of sacrifice SECTIO 18. From the first face of the 65. leafe to the ende of the 67. leafe The blasphemous prayers of the Popishe Canon which desireth God to accept the body of his sonne as he did accept the sacrifice of Abel and of Melchisedech he excuseth by vehemency of deuotion and by the vnworthines of the offerer as though either of both should be the cause why Christs body should not be acceptable of it selfe Last of all he flyeth to the example of the figuratiue speaches vsed by the holy ghost in the Psalmes and canticles as where God is saide to sleepe to awake as giant refreshed from his wine yea to the rethoricall figures vsed by men as he saith by Bernard Bonauentur Gregorie in the hymmes of the church which he matcheth vnfitly with the holy scriptures But how will he make this prayer a figuratiue speach that it may be excused by any such example For seeing he will admit no figure in the word body or oblation the other wordes are plaine without figure God to accept the sacrifice of Abel c. SECTIO 19. From the 68. leafe to the seconde face of the 69. leafe The foolish prayer of the Canon that an Angel should carie away the body of Christ he defendeth to be meant after a spirituall manner caueleth of the bishops translating of perferri to be caried away which signifieth to be caried vp which is a toy to mocke an Ape for neither doth the bishop talke of Angels backes such other bables as M. Rastel deliteth to prate of but of the fond absurditie of the Papistes which imagine the ministerie of Angels necessarie for the carying of Christs body or as he saith excusing the matter for the acceptacioÌ„ of their sacrifice But in very deede this prayer being taken out of the old liturgies wherein they desired not the sacrament but their sacrifice of praise and thankesgiuing to be presented to God by the ministery of Angels is so absurde when it is applyed to the transubstantiated body that it can haue no reasonable sense as it had in the liturgie cited by S. Ambrose and other old liturgies where the like prayer is made for their sacrifice but they beleued not their sacrifice to be the very natural body of Christ as the Papists say they doe SECTIO 20. in the 69 leafe Where the bishop giueth ouer to speak further of the Canon maister Rastel saith it was because he had no mater against it but his owne misunderstanding But what matter he had howe well hee hath mainteined it his aunsweres to maister Harding sufficiently declare SECTIO 21. in the 70. leafe Against adoration of the sacrament he saith we haue no arguments at al but such as may serue for ouerthrow of all orders in the Church In deede these argumentes may well and worthily serue to ouerthrow all plantes not planted by christ For why may not one hatchet serue to cut downe an hundreth fruitlesse and hurtfull trees SECTIO 22. in the same leafe to the second face of the 71. leafe That Christ gaue no commaundement of adoration he saith it is no sufficient reason first because we must not condemne all voluntary seruice of God which is without his commaundement Then belike S. Paul was not well aduised when he condemned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is voluntarie worshippe of God without his commaundement Coll. 2. vers 23. And where as he cauilleth of them that worshipped our sauiour Christ in the fleshe I aunswere as many as acknowledged him to be the sonne of god knewe they had an expresse coÌ„mandemeÌ„t to worship him The rest reuerenced him as the prophet of god And whereas he saith like a protestant that an argument of authority negatiue is naught and protestant like I aunswere an argument of mans authoritie negatiue is naught but an argument of Gods authority negatiue I am content it be counted protestant like in as much as God hath expresly forbidden what so euer he hath not commaunded in his worship Deuter. 12. vers 32. Contrariwise to reason from the authoritie of men negatiuely is Papistlike and the best argument they haue for many things as if they be asked why say they not masse in englishe they will answere because the Church hath not commanded them Why doe you not giue the communion to Infants Maister Rastel saith in this booke because the Church doth not commaund it Why doth not the priest weare his chisible other vestments at euen song Because the church hath not commaunded it But maister Rastel saith Christ hauing said the sacrament to be his body needed not to commaunde the same to bee worshippid no more then the king when he speaketh to the Lords in the darke needeth to bid theÌ„ put of their caps A dark example for such an obscure argumeÌ„t But when will he proue that Christ is the same in the sacrament that the king is in the darke for remoue the darke the king is seene but take away the accidentes of breade and wine by your owne schoolâ— doctrine and where is the bodie of Christ SECTIO 23. From the seconde face of the 71. leafe to the 2. face of the 72. leafe He decideth the argument taken out of the authoritie of saint Paule negatiuely who declareth the whole institution of Christ and neuer willed adoration to be vsed to the sacrament And asketh whether S. Paul command vs to stand kneele lye or fit to tumble leane vpon brest or elbowes I aunswere whatsoeuer of these gestures is decent orderly he hath appointed the other he hath forbidden And yet the protestantes logike which hee doth so delicately contemne is not so simple
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
in spite of your heart for I will be at masse as soone as you and then will I receiue at my Masse when you receiue at your Masse and so by our owne principle whereby wee defend our priuate Masses to be communions I will communicate with you whether you will or no yea I can not choose but communicate with you if I say Masse when you doe And if you will say to me that I ought not to say Masse being excommunicate I tell you you can not excommunicate me so long as I can say Masse For though you count me excōmunicate yet you knowe by our owne diuinitie that if I doe say Masse notwithstanding your censure I doe consecrate as well as the proudest of you and after I haue consecrated I will receiue and then I communicate and so your excommunication is no excommunication at all SECTIO 48. in the 155. leafe Whereas the Bishop said that the Masse had nether her name nor her partes vntill foure hundreth yeares after Christe he aunswereth that she had the essentiall and necessarie partes but not the garnishing and decking parts So that by his owne confession it was a namelesse and naked Masse which they had in the church for foure hundreth yeares after Christes So that the later times with him were alwayes more wise and more religious then the former newe deuises better then olde customes And where then is there the proud challenge of antiquitie vniuersalitie consent Apostolike tradition And if the Church might be without the Popish Masse so long after Christe why should they teach that nowe it is so necessarie as there ought to be none other forme of communion vsed in the Church of God but it SECTIO 49. M. Rastel protesting once or twise that he was wearie will now conclude with onely confuting these conclusions of M. Iewels comparison S. Iames Masse had Christes institution they in their Masse haue well neere nothing else but mans inuention To disproue this he saith the epistle and Gospell the collets of the Sunday the Hymne of the Angell the confession of faith the saying of Agnus Dei c. are translated out of their Masse into our communion therefore we take them for parte of Christes institution I answere we take them as Christes institution and not as commended by the Masse and yet are they no parte of the communion though they be vsed in our liturgie some before and some after the communion Secondly he would seeme to confute the Bishops saying that Saint Iames Masse had Christes institution because if we had thought so in deede we would haue translated it into English and so haue vsed it in steede of the Popish Masse and then it would haue seemed more superstitious and full of ceremonies then the Popish Masse And so he rehearseth a number of superstitious ceremonies gestures and prayers that are in it I answere the Bishop said truely as he thought that the liturgie falsely ascribed to Saint Iames hath Christes institution concerning the Lorde Supper notwithstanding it be ful fraught with idle ceremonies and some superstitious and erronious prayers whereas the Popish Masse hath cleane ouerturned the institution of Christ touching the ende of the Lordes supper reteyning well neere nothing of Christes institution except you will say it hath bread and wine which it most horribly abuseth to the prophanation of Christes death and most filthie idolatrie Finally the saluation of the virgine Marie whiche was then aliue although it were more meere to be vsed to her person beeing aliue then after she was departed out of this worlde the prayer made for them that liued in monasteries the tearme of consubstantiall not heard of in the Church before the Nicene councell and many other argumentes doe sufficiently proue that the saide liturgie was not written by Saint Iames the Apostle nor by any that liued many hundreth yeares after him to the iudgements of al men that haue either knowledge to discerne trueth from falshoode or conscience to acknowledge that which they can not choose but know And euen Bartholomew Garanza a Papist that gathered the abridgement of councels affirmeth that the liturgie which Saint Iames vsed is not extant at this day O Lord bring into the way of trueth all such as erre of simplicitie and be not mercifull to those that sinne of malicious wickednesse After this clearkly confutation followeth a counterfet challenge as he pretendeth to shew the Bishops follie but in deede to shewe his owne follie and the weaknesse of his cause which he learned not as he saith of Salomon to answere a foole according to his follie but of Menalcas one of Virgils sheepheardes in his thirde Eglogue which when he could not answer the ridle propounded vnto him by his aduersarie he putteth for than other as harde as he thinketh Dic quibus in terris c. His first section conteineth 21. articles whereof the greatest parte are not helde at all by any of vs therefore there is no cause why we should proue them the rest be matters of meere indifferencie which may be vsed or left vndon without any hurt of our religion some perhaps may be proued which he litle thinketh of to his shame Of the first sort are these 1. that there was no drie communion and we say there ought to be none although the Papistes make a drie communion when they robbe the people of the cuppe of the Lordes bloud The thirde that Bishops did not sweare by their honour we affirme they ought not to sweare nor yet by God as I heard Boner sweare being conuented before the Bishop of Winchester his Chauncelour and a great number of persons beeing present The 4. that bagpipers horscoursers gailers alebasters were not admitted into the Cleargie without sufficient triall We affirme they ought not nor yet any of the scullerie or blacke garde as some yet liuing were made Priestes in Queene Maries time The 6. that no Bishoppe not content with prisoning his aduersaries call vppon Princes to put them to cruell death We holde that no Bishop should imprison his aduersary much lesse procure his death but if the challenge had beene of Gods aduersaries I would haue aunswered otherwise For if in 600. yeares none of Gods aduersaries was or ought to haue beene put to death by procurement of Bishops by what ground of antiquitie doe Popish Bishops procure so many to be put to death yea murther them selues in their prisons and inquisitions vnder pretence that they be Gods aduersaries The 17. that no Bishoppe did gather beneuolence of his Cleargie to marrie his daughter c. We aunswere this no way concerneth religion no more then putting of the ring on the womans left hande which is the 18. or calling the people by ringing of a bell whiche is the 21. Now concerning the rest as the seconde that there should be no celebration of the Lordes supper except there be a good number to communicate three or foure at the least
or fleshe c. I cannot saye Also I finde in Concilio Matisconensi 2. Can. 6. that what so euer remained after the ministration shoulde be giuen to yong children by the priest not spred in deede with butter but sprinkled with wine To the 25. that no man was conuented for affirminge the carnall maner of presence of Christes bodie in the sacrament I aunswere it was because there was no man founde which held that grosse heresie al that space of 600 yeres after Christ. To the 26. that it was lawfull to haue but one communion in one Churche in one daye I aunswere it was a custome of the Churche before Leo the firste as appeareth in his 79. Epistle who appointed that when the Communion woulde not serue all that came to the Churche there might bee another celebrated and that so often in one daye as the people filled the Churche and otherwise wee saye not of one Communion in a daye To the 27. that an Image of Christe or of a Sainte was defaced and iudged vnlawfull to bee in the Churche of Christian men is prooued by the Epistle of Epiphanius who reporteth that he him selfe did reade such a one paynted on a vayle at Anablatha which Epistle was translated out of Greeke by S. Hierome and is in the 2. Tome of his workes The 28. of Bishoppes settinge vppe their owne their wiues or their childrens pictures in their parlours and chambers is a vaine matter not touchinge religion anye thing at all The 29 that Christ deliuered his body to many more then his twelue Apostles is no article of faith neither greatly material whether he did or did not yet it is most probable that seeing he did eate the olde sacrament of the Pascall lambe with the whole housholde that were his disciples he did vnto them also giue the newe sacrament of his bodie and blood The 30. that Iudas Machabaeus in offeringe for the dead added to the lawe it is manifest by the scripture because there is no suche oblation appointed by the lawe And yet his oblation helpeth not the papistes because those for whom he offered dyed in mortall sinne beinge defiled with Idolatrie as the storie doth report To the 31. and 32. that a bishoppe did marrie after he was a bishoppe or married the seconde or thirde wife the first being dead it is not vnlike seeinge the scripture requireth no more abstinence from marriage in a bishop then in any other man Clemens as Eusebius testifieth lib. 3. cap. 30. saith Petrus Philippus liberis procreandia operam dederunt Peter the Apostle and Philippe did beget childrē Socrates lib. 5. cap. 22 saith Multi illorum episcopatus tēpore etiam liberos ex legitimis vxoribus sustulerint Manie of them euen in the time that they were bishops begat children of their lawfull wiues As for M. Rastell termes of harlot and fyery passion c. I omit to speake of as more meet for such a ruffian like railer then worthy of any answere The councell of Gangra in their Epistle to the bishops of Armenia report it as one of the heresies of the Eustachians that priestes which haue contracted matrimony should be despised and the sacramentes ministred by them should not be receiued Praesbiteros qui matrimonia contraxerunt sperni debere dicunt Which wordes prooue that bishops married as well as priestes The same councell Can. 4. accurseth them that make a difference betweene a married prieste and another in respecte of his marriage To the 33. that preachers mooued not yong men and women not to be ashamed of lust I saye it is no parte of our doctrin but a lewde slander imputed to Luther most vniustly who speaketh of the desire of marriage not otherwise To the 34. that euery man should reade the scriptures not giue eare to mans traditions it is the very counsell words of Basil in his short definitions quest 65. Chrisostome doth often exhort al lay men to reade the Bible in a great number of places To the 35 that Lent and Friday shoulde be fasted for polycie and not for deuotion we doe not hold but that abstinence of flesh shoulde be vsed at such times which is a matter of meere policie as for abstinence of flesh for religions sake was condempned in the counsell of Gangra And Montanus the heretike was the first that made lawes of fasting Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 18. To the 36. that Palme sonday was solemnised without bearing of bowes it is proued at the least for three hundreth yeares after Christ in which time all stories testifie that the Church was for the most parte vnder persecution and had no such processions about the streates but rather kept them in secrete corners the like I say for candels on Candelmas day which coulde not be borne within 600. yeares of Christe because Pope Sergius was the first that appointed them to be borne whiche was seuen hundreth yeares after christ As for Masse on Christmasse day I answere the same the Masse was not all made within 600. years if he speake of the popish Masse if he speake of the communion it is a thing indifferent whether it be celebrated that day or no. To the 37. although the celebration of the natiuitie of Iohn baptist be but a variable indifferēt ceremony yet may it be proued by many auncient homilyes that it was kept within the compasse of 600 yeres As for the feast of the natiuitie of the blessed Virgin Marye or of her assumption that they were not celebrated within that time it is manifest because they were not instituted many hundreth yeares after As Durande confesseth the feast of the natiuitie not to haue beene kept of old time And touching the assumption the verye lessons read in the popish mattyns on that day doe affirme that manye doubted of her assumption lect 3. and also affirme that she dyed and was buried and that her sepulcher was shewed in the vale of Iosophat lect 2. To 38. they that pray to God to bee defended by the ministery of Angels whether it bee vppon the feast of S. Michaell or any other day haue the authoritie of the scripture which declareth that they be ministring spirites appointed for the defence of them that shal be saued Psa. 34 Heb. 1. Neither do they seeke helpe at any other creatures handes but of God onely by the mediation of Christe who desire God for Christes sake to helpe them by such spirituall or bodily ministers or means as hee hath appointed For they worship God and not the Angels they pray to God and not to Angles To the 39. for vsing the signe of the crosse in baptisme and not in the communion I aunswer we count it not needefull either in the one sacrament or in the other To the 40. of throwing downe Aultars erected vnto Christe I aunswere Ezechias is commended in scripture for throwing downe the hill aultars erected vnto GOD and in which the people did offer sacrifice onely to the Lorde because
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