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
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
passion also in a moment of time bring it into as much subtiltie as hee would that hee might enter in by the doores that were shut Here first of all Maister Heskins according to his accustomed manner of falsification translateth tale corpus the same body as though there were no difference betweene substaunce and qualitie Secondly it is manifest that Augustine in this place iudgeth as in other places most plainely that the body of Christe nowe glorified retayneth not onely the substaunce but also the properties and qualities of a true body which hee had before he suffered Although for that moment he supposeth the body of Christe might be subtiliated by his Diuine power to passe through the doores being shut and yet affirmeth nothing directly that it was so but rather that it might bee so Whereas more probably hee might haue thought that eyther the doore opened or the nature of the boordes gaue place then that the body of Christe for the time was altered The like place hee hath in him Epistle to Volusianus which I maruell Maister Heskins hath not noted Ep. 3. Ipsa virtus per inuiolatae matris virginea viscera membra infantis dutie quae posted per clausa ostia membra iâ—uenis introduxis The same power brought foorth his body being an infant by the Virginall bowels of his vndefiled mother which afterward brought in his body being a yong-man by the doores that were shut Of his natiuitie whereunto this Doctour doth compare his comming in after the doores were shut I haue shewed before howe it was out of the scripture But let vs heare what Cyrillus saith of the same matter In Ioan. lib. 12. cap â–ª 53. clausu foribus c. After the gates were shut the Lord by his almightie power the nature of things being ouercome soudenly entered vnto his disciples let no man therfore enquire how the body of our Lord entred in after the gates were shut when he may vnderstand that these things are described by the Euangelist not of a bare man aâ— we be nowe buâ— of the almightie sonne of god For seeing he is true God he is not subiect to the lawe of nature which thing did appeare in other his miracles also Here Maister Heskinâ— after his wonted syncâ—â—itie translateth 〈…〉 through the gates beeing shut otherwise the place of Cyrill is of our side that hee chaungeth not the nature of his body but ouercame the nature of other thinges and so made a passage for him selfe although the gates were shut as in his other 〈◊〉 hee chaunged not the nature of his body â–ª when hee walked on the waters 〈◊〉 the nature of the waters Hee altered not the trueth of his bodye when hee arose out of the sepulchre but remoued the stone from the doore thereof For it stoode Cyrillus vppon by reason of the Eutychian â—eresie to preserue in all thinge the true properties of the body of Christ which in all places he doth â—onstantly affirme But the elder fathers before they 〈…〉 by that hereâ—ie to search out the trueth did 〈◊〉 sometimes 〈◊〉 sometimes inconsideratly was beside â—hem affirmes that he◠〈◊〉 already 〈◊〉 Hilariuâ— doâ—h not onely passed through the Lands walleâ— with his body in Psalme 55. but alâ—â— that his body felt 〈◊〉 paine in the time of his passion In. Psalm 4◠〈…〉 and in other pâ—aces whiche iâ— a groâ—â—e and wicked errour wherevnto hee was carried whyle he studied too much to aduaunce his Diuinitie in the humane nature Howe be it the trueth of his naturall bodie by other Doctours was in all times affirmed especially after Eutyches had broched his wicked heresie First Origen as it is cited by Pamphilus in his apollogie out of his booke Periaâ—chie translated by Ruffinus thus writeth Corpus assumpfit nostro corpori simile eo solo differens quod natum ex virgine espiritu sancto est He toke vpon him a body like vnto our body in this point onely differing that it was borne of a virgine by the holy Ghoste This place would the rather bee noted because it conteineth the consent of three auncient Doctours of seueral ages Origenes Pamphilus and Ruffinus Afterward in the counsel of Chalcedon the sixt of Constantinople they were condemned heretiques whiche denied either the trueth of the humane nature of Christ or the true properties thereof At in this latter counsell was allowed the Epistle of Leo Ad Flauianum written in time of the former wherein he writeth Simul suit altitudâ— Deitatis humilitas carnis seruante vtraque natura etâ—am post aditatationem fine defectu proprietatem suam Together be both the height of the Godhead and the humilitie of the fleshe both the natures euen after the adiuâ—â—rion keeping the propertie without defect And againe Nusquâ—m 〈◊〉 differentia naturarum propter vnitatem sed potius salua proprietate 〈…〉 â—â—turae in vnum personam vnam subsistentium concurrente In no place taking away the difference of the natures because of the vnitie but rather hauing the proprietie of both the natures concurring in one person one subsistence Those testimonies 〈◊〉 shewe the iudgement of the Church concerning this matter when iust occasion was giuen narrowly to search out the trueth in the conclusion of this Chapter Maister Heskins yeelding a reason of his trauell in this matter alledgeth two causes the one that the miracle might not be shadowed the other that he might shew the workes of Christe to be aboue nature And both these might stand without his labour For it was a miracle aboue nature that the doores of their owne accorde opened to our sauiour Christ at his entrie as when Peter also came foorth of the prison Actes 12. But whereas he bringeth in an example of the eternitie of the worlde which is held by some naturall philosophers to proue that Gods workes are aboue nature he sheweth a grosse capacitie that can not put a difference betweene the errours of naturall Philosophers and the true lawe and order of nature made by God himselfe which is vndoubtedly knowen to all wise men as in these propositions nowe in question For it is not the opinion of philosophers we stande vpon but vpon the trueth of thinges naturall which either sense or first intellections doth manifestly approue vnto vs For as Tertullian saith speaking of the trueth of Christes body Non licâ—t nobis in dubà m sensus istos reuocare nâ— in Christâ— dâ— side illoruâ— deliberemus It is not lawful for vs to call in doubt these senses least in Christe also we should stand in deliberation of the credit of them The like is to be iudged of such trueth in naturall causes â–ª as Christ the true light hath kindled in the mindes of naturall men to see the works of God in his creatures lest beside horrible confusion of all thinges we be driuen also into blasphemouâ— errourâ— The twelfth Chapter aunswereth certaine obiections tha◠〈◊〉 to impâ—â—ge the Catholique doctrine of this matter In the
bloud which is shed for you and that bloud which was shed for vs was separated from his bodie therefore this bloud in the cuppe is separated from his bodie And in verie deede the mysterie of the cuppe is sett forth in that he sayeth his bloud was shedd for vs and not as it remayned in the veynes of his bodie for not his bloud in his bodie but the shedding of his bloud hath washed our consciences from dead workes to serue the liuing god So the breaking of his bodie on the crosse hath made it a spirituall meat for vs to feede vppon and therefore he saith this is my bodie which is giuen for you And so sayeth Hesychius verie well of the crosse Quae etiam superimpositam Dominicam carnem esibilem hominibus reddit nisi enim superimposita fuisset cruci nos corpus Christi nequaquam mysticè perciperemus The crosse maketh our Lordes fleshe layde vpoÌ„ it eatable of men for except it had been layde vpoÌ„ the crosse we should not receiue mystically the bodie of Christ in Leu. lib. 2. Cap. 6. But M. Heskins by miserable detorting of a worde or two woulde make the auncient fathers patrones of his monstrous sacriledge as though they taught whole Christ to be vnder eche kinde of which opinion there is not one title to be found in all their workes First Cyprian de Cana Domini Panis iste communis in carnem sanguinem Domini mutatus proâ—urat vitam This common bread being changed into the bodie and bloud of our Lorde procureth life But here Maister Heskins playeth his olde parte most impudently falsifying the wordes of Cyprian by adding Domini and leauing out that which followeth and maketh all out of doubt that Cyprian speaketh not here of the sacramentall bread but of common breade His wordes are these Panis iste communis in carnem sanguinem mutatus procurat vitam incrementum corporibus ideoque ex consueto rerum effectu fidei nostrae adiuta infirmitas sensibili argumento edocta est visibilibus sacramentis inesse vitae Ä™ternae effectum non tam corporali quà m spirituali transitione nos Christo vnitos This common breade being chaunged into fleshe and bloud procureth life and increase to our bodies therefore the weakenesse of our faith being holpen by the accustomed effect of thinges is taught by a sensible argument that in the visible sacrament is the effect of eternall life and that wee are vnited to Christ not so much by a bodily as by a spirituall transition You see therefore howe shamefully hee abuseth Cyprian Who seeing hee was so vehement against them that vsed water onely in the cuppe would he think you allowe that neither wine nor water shoulde be giuen Especially when hee giueth a generall rule that the institution of Christe bee precisely obserued and that nothing else is to be done concerning the cuppe then that Christe him selfe did before vs lib. â— Ep. 3. Caecilio But are Papistes ashamed of forgerie to mainteine their false doctrine of transubstantiation After Cyprian hee depraueth the wordes of Irenaeus lib. 5. Calicem qui est creatura suum corpus confirmauit The cuppe which is a creature he confirmed to be his bodie but it followeth which he craftely omitteth Ex quo nostra auget corpora Quando ergo mixtus Calix factus panis percipit verbum Dei fit Eucharistia sanguinis corporis Christi c. Of which hee doeth increase our bodies When then the mixed cuppe and breade that is made receiueth the worde of God the Eucharistie or sacrament of the bodie and bloud of Christe is made Whether there bee eclipsis or synechdoche in the former wordes thou mayst see plainly here that hee meant not to exclude the bread but that they both together make the sacrament But Maister Heskins alledgeth further out of Irenaeus Sanguis non est nisi a venis carnibus reliqua quae est secundùm hominem substantia Bloud is not but of vaines and fleshe and other substance of man. By these wordes which he vseth to proue that Christe had a true bodie because he had bloud M. Heskins like a wise man would proue that wheresoeuer bloud is there must be fleshe and vaines also wherein all the pudding wiues of Louayne will holde against him In deede bloude commeth from vaynes and fleshe as IrenÄ™us sayeth but it doth not followe that where bloud is there must be vaines and fleshe As for the saying of Bernarde wee are as little moued withall as M. Heskins with Melancthon to whome in his brauerie he sayeth vale and will cleaue to the substantiall doctrine of the fathers for the communion in one kinde of which he is not able to bring one But to conclude this Chapter If he be asked why Christe did institute the sacrament vnder both kindes if it bee sufficient to receiue one he aunswereth to frequent the solemne memoriall of his death and passion But all Christian men ought to frequent the solemne memoriall of his death and passion therefore he did institute it for all Christian men to receiue vnder both kindes And so S. Paule concludeth as often as you eate of this bread and drink of this cuppe you shewe the Lordes death vntil he come Wherefore the scripture is directly contrarie to the sacrilegious decree of the Papistes of receiuing the sacrament in one kinde onely The eyght and sixtieth Chapter proueth the same receipt vnder one kinde to be lawfull by the auncient practise of the Church Before these substantiall proues come in he taketh vpon him to aunswer the obiections of the aduersaries And first of the Bohemnians who vsed that place out of the sixt of S. Iohn Except you eat the fleshe of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud you shall haue no life in you These such like textes out of that Chapter must needes be inuincible argumentes against the Papistes which holde that those sayinges are to bee vnderstoode of the sacrament first and principally And otherwise for as much as the Lordes supper is a seale and sacrament of that doctrine and participation of the fleshe and bloude of our sauiour Christ which he there teacheth we may necessarily gather that seeing he ioyneth eating and drinking in the thing we may not omitt either of them in the signe And where as the Papistes would shift off that matter with their concomitans of bloud with the bodie it will not serue seeing he requireth drinking as necessarily as eating euen as he is a perfect foode and therefore is not meate without drinke but both meate and drinke Therefore diuerse counsels and specially Bracarense tertium Capitul 1. and it is in the decrees De Con. Dis. 2. cum omne as it reformed many corruptions that were crept into the Church about the ministration of the cup so this was one which they reproued that they vsed to dippe the breade in the cup and so deliuer it to the people Illud verò quod
close Maister Heskins aunswereth this is a small fault and from the Masse of S. Iames flyeth to S. Basils Masse Where it is said the Bishop prayeth secretly yet he spake the wordes as they call them of consecration openly The thirde comparison S. Iames in his Masse ministred the communion to the people The Papists in their Masse receiue them selues alone To this he aunswereth denying that S. Iames did always minister the communion to the people which is an impudent shift except he will denie the fourme of that liturgie which prescribeth the ministration to the people after the consecration His reason is because in Chrysostomes liturgie which was written more then a thousand yeares after S. Iames and falsely beareth the name of Chrysostome there is a rule what the priest shall doe when there are no communicants The fourth comparison S. Iames ministred the communion to the people vnder both kindes The Papists in their Masse in one kinde onely Here hath he none other refuge but to say that S. Iames did not alwayes minister vnder both kindes Then let him denie the credite of the liturgie which prescribeth the cōmunion to be ministred in both kindes The fift comparison Saint Iames preached and set foorth the death of Christ They in their Masse haue onely a number of dumbe gestures and ceremonies which they themselues vnderstand not and make no manner of mention of Christes death M. Hes. complayneth of the Bishops repetitions imputing them to want of stuffe when he himselfe moste absurdly repeateth his three vntruthes surmised to be in this assertion which he set downe before in the 39. Chapter whither I referre the Reader for the answere Only this I wil note that he can finde no other preaching to the people but the Aulbe to signifie the white garment that Christe was sent in from Herode the vestiment the garment that he was mocked in in the house of Pilate the Crosse vpon the vestiment signifieth the crosse of Christe which he did beare as the priest doth on his backe the eleuation signifieth the lifting vp of Christe on the crosse he might say by as good reason the Priests hands signified the two theeues the Priest himselfe the tormentors that did lift him vp to the crosse Beholde this is the preaching of Christes death in the Masse whether it be an impudent vntruth as Maister Heskins tearmeth it to call these dumbe gestures and ceremonies or M. Heskins an impudent beast to defend these dombe signes for preaching of Christes death let the reader in Gods name consider and iudge The sixth comparison S. Iames Masse was full of knowledge their Masse is full of ignorance M. Heskins aunswereth that there is as much knowledge in their Masse as in S. Iames Masse because in substance it is all one which if it were true as it is most false yet what knowledge can be when al is done in a strange language and no preaching but by dombe signes as we heard before The seuenth S. Iames Masse was full of consolation their Masse is full of superstition To this he aunswereth they haue as much consolation which cannot be when they haue no preaching of the Gospel how can he say that they haue no superstition when they haue an hundred idle ceremonies and gestures which Christ neuer instituted and therfore are meere will worship and superstition The eyghth comparison he saith is all one with the third that the people resorted to receiue the communion when S. Iames sayed Masse Although it followe of the thirde yet is it not all one with it for as S. Iames was readie to minister so the people ordinarily were readie to receiue which is not looked for of the popish priestes because they reach them that it is needelesse so to doe The last comparison Saint Iames in his Masse had Christes institution they in their Masse haue well more nothing else but mans inuention To this he aunswereth that they haue Christes institution for their Masse which is an impudent falshood either for their carnall maner of presence or for their sacrifice or for their priuate receiuing or for their depriuing the people of all doctrine but such as is by dombe signes which he is not afrayde to ascribe to the inuention of the holy Ghost as though the spirite of God in ceremonies would be contrary to him selfe in the scriptures After this he reporteth the substantiall differences betweene the Masse and the newe communion as he calleth it which because they be all set foorth and aunswered before in the 34.35.36 Chapters of this booke I will leefe no time about his vaine recapitulation or repetition of them contayning nothing but rayling and slaundering The foure and fortieth Chapter returning to the exposition of S. Paul expoundeth this text As often as ye shal eat of this bread c. by S. Hierom Theophylact. M Heskins hauing wandred abroad to seek the Masse in auncient writers nowe is come home againe to his text and that is this As often as you shall eat of this bread drinke of this cupp ▪ you shall shewe forth the Lordes death vntill be come Vpon this text saith he the ministers of Sathan for so it pleaseth him to call vs haue grounded two arguments against the reall presence One that the sacrament is a memoriall of Christe and therefore Christ is absent because a memoriall is of a thing absent the other that it is bread for so the Apostles called it not the bodie of christ The solution of the first argument is that the receipt of the sacrament is not a memoriall of Christes bodie but of his death and passion This is a noble distinction but when Christ sayeth do this in remēbrance of mee whether is the remembrance of Christe the remembrance of his bodie or onely of the temporall act of his dying and suffering which is past I think all Christian men will confesse that the communion is a memoriall of Christ that was crucified and not of his crucifying onely But when Saint Paul sayeth vntill he come how can he say that he is present in bodie which is yet to come in bodie To the seconde argument he aunswereth that Saint Paule calleth it breade as Christ calleth bread his flesh and therfore he calleth it this bread signifying a speciall bread No man sayeth the contrarie but that it is a speciall bread and as Saint Augustine sayeth after a certeine manner the bodie of Christe But if Maister Heskins in this place may denye breade to bee taken in the proper sence for breade why doth hee exclame against them that in these wordes This is my body denye the worde body to be taken in the proper signification thereof for a naturall bodie But let vs take Maister Heskins interpretation of bread to signifie the bodie of Christe then the sense of Saint Paules wordes shal be this As often as ye eat of the bodie of Christ and drinke his bloud you shall shewe the Lordes
what call you it but the trinitie Fie vppon this horrible idolatrie which is defended with such a sleueles excuse that you honour not the image for his owne sake no more did the Gentiles their images Chrisostom in Homi. 18. in Ep. ad Eph. writeth thus of them Cum illi dicimus quòd simulachrū adoret non inquit simulacrum sed Venerem sed Martem Et cum rogamui quae est ista Venus Qui grauiores inter eos sunt respondent voluptas quis est Mars Animus masculus vehemens When we say vnto him that he worshippeth an image No saith he not the image but Venus or Mars And when we aske what is this Venus the grauer sort among them aunswere pleasure And who is Mars A manlike and valiant corage Augustine in Psal. 96. which place I haue cited before sheweth that the Gentiles affirmed that they worshipped not the images for their owne sake but for the diuine powers which they did represent euen the same which the Christians called Angels So that the Papists are all one with the Gentiles in their excuse as they agree with them in Idolatrie worshipping of images FINIS God be praysed A REFVTATION OF MAITER IOHN RASTELS CONFVTATION AS HE CALLETH IT OF maister Iewels sermon by W. Fulk To the Preface TO giue the Reader a tast of such sinceritie as he must looke for in all M. Rastels booke of confutation hee sheweth in his preface where speaking of three maners of aunswering he declareth the same by an example taken out of the bishops sermon that sole receiuing is not to be suffered among Christians where as the bishoppe hath no such position in all his sermon but that priuate masse was not vsed for the space of sixe hundreth yeares after christ Thus admonishing the Reader that maister Rastell as his grand capteine M. doctour Harding not able to finde any thing either in scripture or antiquitie for the maintenance of their ordinary priuate Masse doth flie to extraordinarie vses and vnlawfull vsages of sole receiuing being all such as either some necessity might seeme to excuse or as all the Papists themselues do confesse to haue beene abuses I leaue his leude preface hasten to the book it self A refutation of maister Rastels confutation SECTIO PRIMA In which he speaketh of the councel of Nice of vnwritten verities TO passe ouer the two first leafes of his booke and halfe the third in which is much vaine babling but no point of confutatiō in the second face of the third leafe he beginneth to picke his iust quarel at the sentence set before the bishoppes printed sermon which is this Let old customes preuaile It greueth M. Rastel his fellowes which perswade the ignorant people that our relygion is all nouelty that M Iewell should make any such claime vnto antiquitie And first therfore he wil know whether the scriptures do not cōteine al things necessary to saluatiō Yes verely and Gods curse light on him that teacheth the contrarie Then he will knowe where we finde this saying in scriptures or if it be not in the scripture of god why we wil vse a sentēce of the coūcel of Nice which was but a cōgregatiō of mens Verily if we found not the matter of this sentence in Gods worde we durst not auouch it to be true that was vttered by men being applied to any point of doctrine But we finde the same doctrine in the sixt of Ieremy where the Lord saith Stand in the wayes and beholde and aske for the olde way which is the good way and walke therein and you shall finde rest for your soules Nowe this saying of the councell of Nice let olde customes preuaile being the same in effect and meaning though somewhat differing in sounde of wordes we embrace it as the worde of God and the holy scripture which we do not restraine vnto the letters and sillables but vnto the plaine and manifest sence and vnderstanding of them The seconde quarrell he picketh to the placing of this sentence before the bishoppes sermon because it is vttered by the Councell of Nice in a particuler case concerning the iurisdiction of the bishops of Alexandria and Antioch and therefore cannot serue for a generall sentence For all olde customes saith he must not be preferred before new customes example of washing of feete abstaining from eating of bloud which were olde customes But if the councell meant that olde customes should preuaile against newe writinges then all books of Luther such like are striken through which one foine Wherefore hee concludeth that the councell meant that olde customes shoulde preuaile against the pretensed alledging of the verye scripture it selfe and newe doctrine of men And so this sentence doth at once ouerthrow all maister Iewels religion But hauing compared this sentence to the text of scripture by which the true meaning therof may appeare I will not stand about this trifling cauils Cōcerning our iudgmēt of antiquitie this it is We wil not admit whatsoeuer is old but only the religiō which is eldest of al which hath god for the autor the Patriarches Prophetes and Apostles for the witnesses and all learning doctrine and religion which is vnder the age of these yeares we reiect as newe false and diuelish As for customes ceremonies and manners which are subiect to mutation we receiue them or refuse them as they be approuable or disprouable by the saide old auncient and Catholike doctrine And bicause M. Rastel hath not only touched the sixt Canon of the Councell of Nice where this sentence is written but also charged M. Iewell with ouerthrowe of his religion thereby I must let the reader vnderstand that he suppresseth one point thereof that vtterly ouerthroweth the piller of all Popish religion that is the Popes supremacie For that Canon maketh the Bishop of Alexandria equall in iurisdiction to the Bishop of Rome For the reason of the iurisdiction confirmed vnto the Bishops of Alexandria is this Quia vrbia Romę Episcop◠parilis mos est Bicause the Bishop of the citie of Rome hath the like or equall custome of iurisdiction But M. Rastell will proue by the storie of Arrius that the Councell meant by that sentence that it is onely tradition custome and manners which killeth the hearts of heretiques and defendeth the Catholike Church and not the authoritie of the Scriptures Bicause Arrius was such a proude heretique that he despised all the interpretations of the auncient Fathers that were before his time as Alexander Bishop of Alexandria writeth of him Yea he is not ashamed to say that although the Fathers of that Councell had scriptures against Arrius yet their chiefe stay was not in that scriptures but in the receiued tradition But this is a most impudent lye for although the consent of Catholike writers of all ages with the word of God is not to be contemned yet the only authoritie in determining of controuersies of faith in
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
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