sacrifice spoken of in Malachie is one and therefore betokeneth not spirituall sacrifices the which are as many as there are Christian good workes Hart. Why Because the text of the Prophet Malachie saith that there is offered a cleane oblation or offering as you call it And offering is spoken of one not of many For els he should haue saide offerings not offering Rainoldes So. And doo you thinke that he who said to God sacrifice offering thou art not delited with or as you translate it host and oblation thou wouldest not did meane the Masse by that host Hart. The Masse No. He meant the hostes and oblations of the old law For they are the wordes of the Prophet Dauid spoken of the legall and carnall sacrifices of the Iewes Rainoldes The Iewes Nay the text of the Prophet Dauid saith that God mislyked host and oblation it saith not hostes and oblations Wherefore sith he speaketh of one not of many and the carnall sacrifices of the Iewes were many but the sacrifice of the Masse is one as you say it séemeth he should meane that A point some what dangerous for the host which your Priests lift vp to be adored More dangerous for them who liue by lifting it vp Hart. Our adoration of the host is good in spite of all heretikes and not reproued by the Prophet For although he saith host and oblation thou wouldest not yet is it plaine he meaneth the sacrifices of the Iewes by a figure of spéech in which a part is vsed for the whole and one for many as host and oblation for hostes and oblations Rainoldes Then Allens second reason is not worth a shoobuckle to proue that the sacrifice of the Masse is meant by the oblation in Malachie For the word oblation or offering which he vseth in his owne language is vsed likewise still as of one not as of many through all the olde testament Wherefore if the sacrifices of the Iewes were many which neuerthelesse are called not offerings but offering the same worde applyed to the sacrifices of Christians can not inforce them to be one Howbeit were they one to graunt you that by a supposall yet might that one sacrifice be a spirituall sacrifice and so your Masse no whit the neerer For as the Prophet Esay saith that the Gentiles shal be an offering to the Lord vsing the same worde that the Prophet Malachie so the Apostle Paul exhorteth them with Esay to present their bodies a liuing sacrifice holy acceptable vnto God speaking of their sundry sacrifices as one as also in a mysterie we that are many are one body But without supposall the course of the text doth import rather that the Prophet saying there is offered an offering doth meane not one but many by that figure which you touched as by an other figure he saith it is offered meaning it shall be offered For the Lord declaring his detestation of the sacrifices of the Iewish Priests saith that he will not accept an offering at their hand but the Gentiles shall offer to him a cleane offering which he meaneth of the contrarie that he will accept And this he sheweth farther where touching it againe he saith it shall be offered vnto him in righteousnesse and shal be acceptable to him Now the offering that is acceptable to God from the Gentiles in the new testament is all sortes of spirituall sacrifices and good workes By the offering therefore mentioned in Malachie there are many sacrifices meant not one onely Which yet your olde translation maketh more euident opening the meaning of the Hebrew word by terming it sacrifices They shall offer sacrifices to the Lord in righteousenesse Wherefore sith our offering that should please God in the time of the gospell is sacrifices by the iudgement of your old translation which you in no case may refuse and sacrifices can not be meant of the Masse for that is one sacrifice but of spirituall sacrifices it may for they are many as Allens second reason saith you see we must conclude on his owne principles that the cleane offering which Malachie writeth of doth signifie the spirituall sacrifices of Christians and not the sacrifice of the Masse The third and fourth reasons haue greater shew but lesser weight For though it be true that spirituall sacrifices of praying to God and doing good to men are common to the Iewes with vs and therefore may seeme not to be the offering spoken of in Malachie which beside that it is proper to the Gospell and the Gentiles it should succeed also the sacrifices of the Iewes and be offered in their steede yet if we marke the difference that the scriptures put betweene the Iewish worship of God in the law and the Christian in the gospel that séeming wil melt as snow before the sunne For in the law of Moses the Iewes to the intent that both their redemption by the death of Christ dutie of thankfulnesse which they did owe to God for it might stil be set before them as in a figure shadow were willed to offer beastes without spot blemish in sacrifice with ceremonies thereto annexed and to offer them in the place that God should choose which was the citie of Ierusalem and the sanctuarie that is to say the temple built therein Now Christ in the gospell when that was fulfilled which the temple of Ierusalem and sacrifices did represent shewed that the time of reformation was come and remoued that worship both in respect of the place and of the maner of it For as it was prophecied that he should destroy the citie and the sanctuary and cause the sacrifice and offering to cease so him selfe taught that now the Father would not be worshipped in Ierusalem nor as the Iewes did worship him but he would be worshipped in spirit and truth The Christian worship therefore that did succéede the Iewish doth differ from it in two pointes one that it worshippeth God not in Ierusalem but in all places an other that it worshippeth him in spirit and truth in spirit without the carnall ceremonies rites in truth without the shadowes of the law of Moses The which sort of worship séeing hee requireth of the true worshippers that is of all the Saintes his seruants and in the new testament the Gentiles by the Gospell are called to be Saintes the worship that is proper to the Gospell and the Gentiles is the true spirituall worship of God the reasonable seruing of him by godlines and good workes in righteousnes and true holines euen the offering vp of spirituall sacrifices acceptable to God by Iesus Christ. And thus you may sée the weakenes of those cauils which are brought to proue that our spirituall sacrifices cannot be the offering whereof God in Malachie saith it shall be offered
would haue me thinkes no ceremonies at all for you saide that the worship of God amongst Christians is spirituall meerely Rainoldes I spake in comparison of the Iewish worship or rather Christ not I. For they are his wordes that God will be worshipped now in spirit and truth Which must néedes be meant of meere spirituall worship sith the reason folowing that God is a spirit doth shew that the Iewes did worship him in spirit too And yet is that spoken in comparison as I saide For Christ him selfe ordeined two principall ceremonies which we call the sacraments his Supper and his Baptisme And the Church-assemblies which are helpes most necessarie for vs to learne and practise that spirituall worship must haue their time when their place where their maner how things to be directed with coomelinesse and order in rites fit to edifie But these are few in number and cléere in signification So few that they are nothing in comparison of the Iewish so cléere that they do liuely represent Christ and are no darke shadowes Now whether that your Popish ceremonies haue kept this fewnes and cléerenes Hart. Perhaps you meane because we haue seuen sacraments and not two onely But the Fathers as namely S. Austin though your men alleage him to the contrary doo name other sacraments beside the Lordes Supper as you call it and Baptisme Rainoldes But S. Austin nameth not your seuen sacraments as you may see by his Confession Hart. Yet he nameth more then your two sacraments And the rest of ours are proued by other Fathers Whereupon the Councell of Trent hath defined that there are seuen sacraments of the new law neither more nor fewer they all are sacraments truly and properly Rainoldes The Fathers doo commonly vse the word sacrament for a mystery or signe of a holy thing And so you may proue seuen and twentie sacraments by them as well as seuen Which is manifest by S. Austin whom you pretend herein most For as he giueth the name of sacrament to mariage to the ordering of ministers to laying on of hands and reconciâ—â—ng of the repentant so he giueth it to Easter and to the Lords day to the sanctifying and instructing of nouices in the faith the feeding the signing the catechizing of them the making of prayers the singing of Psalmes and so forth to other holy rites and actions But as the worde sacrament is taken in a straiter signification to note the visible signes inistuted by Christ for the assurance and increase of grace in the faithfull which is the sense of it both with you and vs when we speake of sacraments so doth he name those two as principall ones by an excellencie and when there issued blood and water out of Christes side these are the two sacraments saith he of the Church meaning the Lordes supper by blood by water baptisme Yea the Schoolemen them selues who were the first autours that did raise them vp to the precise number of seuen no more nor fewer for you â—â—nde it not in any of the Fathers or other writers whatsoeuer before a thousand yeares after Christ but the Schoolemen them selues haue shewed that the seuen are not all sacraments if the name of sacrament be taken properly and straitly For neither can mariage so be of the number as Durand proueth well neither confirmation the chrisme of oyle and balme as Bonauenture teacheth And to be short their captaine Alexander of Ales doth auouch expressely that there are onely two principal sacraments which Christ himselfe did institute so that by his confession as we speake of sacraments there are two only But my meaning was not to blame you for seuen I spake of all your ceremonies which are I may say boldly seuentie times seuen Which whether that they be so few and so cléere in comparison of the Iewish as I haue declared and you confesse that Christian ceremonies should be let the learned iudge by comparing of your Church-bookes chiefly the Ceremoniall Pontificall and Missall with the bookes of Moses Let the vnlearned gesse by the store and straungenesse of sacrificing vestiments whereof their common Priests had thrée yours haue sixe their high Priest had eight your Bishops haue fiftéene at least and some sixtéene beside the Popes prerogatiue-robes And so to leaue this matter to their consideration your owne confession yeldeth enough for my purpose touching the place of Malachie For if the spiritual worshipping of God wherewith the Iewes did serue him had ceremonies in number more in signification darker then it hath amongst the Gentiles this kinde of seruing him with fewer ceremonies cléerer is proper to the Gentils might succeede that which was amongst the Iewes Wherefore D. Allens third fourth reasons whereby he would proue that the offering spokeÌ„ of in Malachie the Prophet must signify the outward sacrifice of the Masse and not spirituall sacrifices can take no holde against vs. No more then ours could take against you of the contrarie if we should conclude that it must betoken a spirituall worship not outward offeringes on an altar because outward offeringes are common to the Iewes with vs and this is proper to the Gentiles and this should succéede the Iewish worship of God and come in steede of it which no outward offeringes and sacrifices can doo sith they are coopled alwayes to Gods spirituall worship Would you allow these reasons Hart. They are not like to D. Allens But the fifth reason doth put the matter out of doubt For in the iudgement chiefly of heretikes our workes are defiled howsoeuer they seeme bewtifull but that Propheticall offering is cleane of it selfe and so cleane of it selfe in comparison of the olde sacrifices that it cannot be polluted any way by vs or by the worst Priests For here in our testament they can not choose all the best to them selues and offer to the Lord for sacrifice the féeble the lame and the sicke as before in the old because there is now one sacrifice so appointed that it can not be changed so cleane that no worke of ours can distaine it Rainoldes And thinke you M. Hart that the workes of Christians can not be the offering which the Prophet speaketh of because they are defiled howsoeuer they seeme bewtifull Thinke you thus in déede Then you consent yet in the chiefest point of Christian religion which God graunt you doo with heretikes as you terme vs. For if our workes be defiled howsoeuer they seeme bewtifull chiefly as heretikes iudge then are men iustified by faith not by workes If our workes bee defiled howsoeuer they seeme bewtifull then fulfill we not the law of God perfitly much lesse super-erogate If our works be defiled howsoeuer they seeme bewtifull then are they meritorious of euerlasting death but euerlasting life
agnos vt primò quodam lacte pascendos nec ouiculas vt secundò sed oues pascere iubetur perfectiores vt perfectior gubernaret That is to say When the Lord had asked Peter the third time Doost thou loue me hee is commanded now to feede not the lambes as at the first time who must be fedde with certaine milke not the litle sheepe as the seconde time but to feede the sheepe that he a man more perfit might gouerne the more perfit So that the whole flocke of Christ was committed to Peter to be fedde as well the small as the great both the lay men who as lambes are fedde themselues and féede not others the Priests and Clergie who as sheepe doo féede the lambes but are fedde of the shepheard Rainoldes The lambes and the sheepe doo signifie two kindes of Christians the one yonger and tenderer which néedeth to be taught the first principles of religion as it were to be fedde with milke the other riper and elder fit to learne the déeper mysteries of faith to be fedde with strong meat This S. Ambrose noted well in the commandement that Christ gaue to Peter Though the difference which he maketh betwéene the second and the third the litle sheepe and the sheepe was either an ouersight in the Gréeke copie or a fansie of some interpreter Which I would not mention but that you bid me set downe his owne wordes in Latin as though there were some mysterie in them which yet your selues are wont to make no account of vnlesse your Roman reader hath spied more in it who saith that the text ought to be corrected and read as Ambrose cited it But your glose of the lay-men to be signified by lambes and by the sheepe the Priestes and Clergie dooth varie from the text not of Christ onely but of Ambrose too For wheras they speake of the lambes and the sheepe both which the flocke consisteth of you interpret their words of the sheepe and the shepheards And whereas all Pastors are bounde to feede both sheepe and lambes you make as though the rest must féede none but lambes and all the sheepe were Peters From dreaming whereof S. Ambrose was so farre that he saith of the shéepe which Christ commanded to be fedde Peter did not only receiue the charge of them but himselfe and all Bishops receiued it with Peter Wherefore you should consider that in Christes commission vnto the Apostles they are not considered as shéepe but as shepheards and therefore not them-selues to be fed of any but all to féede others So when they abode togither in Ierusalem they sed the church in common with the doctrine of the Apostles not Peter them and they the rest And when they went thence into other countries they went not as shéepe with Peter their shepheard but as seuerall shepheards to shéepe of all nations Hart. Be it so that Christ spake in his commission to them as to shepheards Yet were they also shéepe of the flocke of Christ. And therefore he might well appoint a shepheard ouer them Rainoldes And was not Peter also a shéepe of Christs flock And must not our Sauiour appoint by this reason a shepheard ouer him also For if all sheepe need it why not S. Peter If some néed it not why the Apostles But it is true that as they were shéepe so néeded they sometimes to bee fedde the best of them and this did Christ prouide for though not with your policie not by setting one as Pastor ouer all but by geuing charge of euery one to other For as S. Paule said to the Elders of Ephesus Take heed vnto your selues and to all the flocke charging them with care not of their flocke onely but of themselues too all of all and ech of other in like sort the Apostles who had charge of all in that they were shepheardes were to be looked too in that they were sheepe to be admonished taught fedde not euery one of Peter but euery one of other yea euen Peter also him selfe if néede required Hereof their practise is a proofe For wheÌ„ Peter went not with a right foote to the truth of the Gospell S. Paule reproued him openly before all men for it But to reproue him was to féede him Therefore S. Paule did feede S. Peter Hart. S. Paule reproued him not by authority but of curtesie and Peter yelded to it not of duetie but of modestie As now any Bishop may reproue the Pope and he will harken to it patiently and mildly and yet impaire not his supremacie Rainoldes I acknowledge a distinctioÌ„ of the Romain style which in the booke of Ceremonies of the church of Rome in the chapter that the Pope doth do reuereÌ„ce to no man saith that notwithstanding the maiestie and solemnitie which he vseth to highest states in entertaining of them yet Popes are accustomed wheÌ„ they are not in their poÌ„tificals to bow their head a litle as it were rendring reuerence to Cardinalles and to mightie Princes when they come priuatly and doo reuerence vnto him Marry this not of duetie but of laudable curtesie The Pope shewed not you this curtesie M. Hart when he admitted you to kisse his holinesse foote it was not for his state to doo it Yet hath he so bewitched your senses therewith that you to render him not duetie but curtesie forget both curtesie and duetie to Paule the Apostle the chosen instrument of God and penneman of his holy spirite For S. Paule mentioneth his reproofe purposely to proue that he was Peters equall in authoritie against the false Apostles who sought to discredite the doctrine which he taught by debaâ—ing him and setting others farre aboue him You say that he reproued Peter of curtesie and not by authoritie Wherby marke it well you say in effect that he made a foolish reason to proue a false conclusion And if he were inferiour to Peter in authority as he was by your answeare what meant he to say that he accounted himselfe nothing inferiour to the very chiefe Apostles You adde that any Bishoppe may so reproue the Pope Your Thomas saith no. For he writeth that this fact of Paule reprouing Peter exceedeth the measure of brotherly correction which subiectes owe vnto their prelates because he did it before the multitude Though otherwise him selfe to vphold the Papacy vseth such shiftes as you do maketh his account of Paule as the subiect and Peter as the prelate according to the Canon lawe But his owne sentence may serue for an axe to behead your common errour For either S. Paule in so reprouing Peter did transgresse his duetie or he was his equall in authoritie not his subiect But to say the former is a blasphemous spéech of Porphyrie The latter therefore is true And so your answere falleth of authoritie and curtesie Hart. I graunt that S. Paule was equall in
all equally Wherfore by Ieroms iudgement Peter was not ouer the Apostles in power If not in power yet in part of gouernment in what but in that preeminence which I spake of S. Ierom therefore saying that Peter was appointed head of the Apostles did meane that preeminence among the Apostles and not a soueraintie aboue them Hart. The wordes of S. Ierom doo speake somewhat too liberally of the Apostles in that he saith the church is built vpon them all equally And as D. Stapleton noteth very well the distinction touching things writen by the Fathers some by way of doctrine and some of contention is verified in them For here by occasion that he reasoneth against Iouinian who alleaged against the honour of virginitie that Christ preferred Peter a maried man before the rest he doth lessen and extenuate the authority of Peter as farre as truth did giue him leaue making the rest equall to him for the Apostleship yet affirming plainely that he was head of the rest Rainoldes Ierom wrote many things in déed against Iouinian by way of contention rather then of doctrine to the disgrace of marriage In so much that being therefore reproued by some himselfe excuseth it that he did rather striue thē teach and Pammachius a learned gentleman his fréend did suppresse the copies and wished them to be concealed till he had corrected them But neither was this place so reproued by them or excused by him for ought that may be gathered by his apologie nor is it to be noted as sauouring more of heate then truth for the substance of it agreeth with the scriptures Yea Stapleton who couereth it with this distinction confesseth in effect as much at vnawares For he saith that Ierom doth lessen and extenuate the authoritie of Peter as far as truth did giue him leaue Wherof it ensueth that it is no vntrueth to say as Ierom doth that all the Apostles had equall power with Peter The name of head therefore which Ierom giueth him with the same breath can by no meanes import a soueraine power ouer the Apostles Unlesse you will make him so absurd and brainesicke as that he should say Though none of the Apostles were soueraine of the rest but they had equall power all yet was one of them aboue the rest in power and had the souerain-headship of them Hart. Wel. Howsoeuer you handle Ieroms wordes he saith in flat termes that which you denyed And therefore he maketh against you with vs. Rainoldes In what point Or how Hart. You denied that Peter was head of the Apostles Ierom saith he was Peter was not head and Peter was head Is there not a contradiction betwéene your words and his Rainoldes No more then betwéene the wordes of Iohn and Christ Christ said of Iohn Baptist this is Elias Iohn Baptist said of him selfe I am not Elias Iohn Baptist is Elias and Iohn Baptist is not Elias Is there not a contradiction betwéen the words of Christ and Iohn Hart. No. For Christ meant one way and Iohn Baptist an other Christ that he was Elias in spirit as coming in the spirit and power of Elias Iohn Baptist that he was not Elias in person which the Pharisees meant Rainoldes You haue answered well So Ierom meant one way and I an other Ierom that he was head in a preeminence of gouernment as moderating the actions in assemblies of the Apostles I that he was not head in soueraintie of power which the Papists meane And thus to conclude you may see that the Fathers whom you alleage for Peter some giue him a prerogatiue of authoritie some of primacie some of principalitie but none of your supremacie For your supremacie doth consist in power and they giue equall power to Peter with the rest Hart. Equall power I graunt in respect of the Apostleship but not of pastoral charge For Peter was ouer thē in that euen as the Pope is ouer Bishops And so we do expound the words of S. Cyprian S. Ierom S. Chrysostome and other of the Fathers who giue equall power to the Apostles with Peter Rainoldes Yet more of these Colewortes I haue proued alreadie that Peters pastorall charge and his Apostleship is al one and therefore if they were equall to him in the Apostleship the were in pastorall charge too But if no other reason will put you to silence the Popes own authority may force you to it here For in the Cyprian set forth by him at Rome he noteth it to be considered that whereas Cyprian saith The rest of the Apostles had equall power with Peter this must be vnderstood of the equalitie of Apostleship which ceased when the Apostles died and passed not ouer vnto Bishops The drift of which note implieth a distinction of Apostles and Bishops that it is not with Bishops in respect of the Pope as it was with the Apostles in respect of Peter And that doth cary with it a checke of your opinion which maketh the Apostles vnderlings to Peter as Bishops to the Pope Hart. You knowe not who made that note in the Roman Cyprian for there is no mans name to it But if the Pope either made it him selfe or allowed of it being made by others to whom he did commit that charge he set down as a priuate Doctor his owne opinion which they who list may folow But this is my opinion which I haue set downe and to that I stand Rainoldes I am glad you thinke not as the Pope doth at least in one point God graunt that you may come forward in the rest to dissent from him not in this one point alone but in many Howbeit whether he or others made that note they set it forth with greater authoritie and priuilege then as a priuate Doctors fansie Neither is it likely that they would haue graunted so much to the Apostles vnlesse the truth had wroong it from them Let your righteousnes M. Hart if not exceede yet match the righteousnes of Scribes and Pharisees and yéeld to this conclusion which riseth of our conference that Peter was not head of all the Apostles as you do take the name of head Hart. You shall conclude your selfe alone so for me For I do protest that I beléeue it not nor mind to yéeld vnto it The sixth Chapter The two maine groundes on which the supremacie vsurped by the Pope doth lie The former that there should be one Bishop ouer all in earth 1 because Christ said There shall be one flocke and one pastor 2 and among the Iewes there was one iudge and hie Priest The later that the Pope is that one Bishop 3 because Peter was Bishop of Rome as some say 4 and the Pope succeedeth Peter Both examined and shewed to faile in the proofe of the Popes supremacie RAINOLDES Then wisedome must be content to be iustified of her childrē Howbeit God is able to chaunge your hart in such sort that as
is writen also in the holy Gospell that in an other Councell and consultation of the Iewes wherein they sought vniustly to condemne the iust when Iesus being asked whether he were Christ the sonne of God confessed him selfe to be so Caiphas the hye priest saide hee hath blasphemed what neede we witnesses any further behold now you haue heard his blasphemie Was this spéeche of Caiphas a prophecie or an errour Hart. What if it were an errour Rainoldes How sée you not then that Caiphas did not prophecie by priuilege of his office For so he should haue prophecied in this Councell too in which he sate as hye Priest hée spake as hye Priest and to him as hye Priest the Councell did assent in giuing sentence against Christ. But that amongst many mischiefes and falshoodes he spake the wordes of truth once in a sense not which he meant for he meant wickedly but which his spéeche yéelded there was a worke of God in it Who hauing sent his sonne a sauiour to the Iewes as he stirred them vp to know him and receiue him by Angels by wonders by voyces from heauen by wise men from the east a prophetisse in the temple Iohn Baptist in the wildernes by men women childreÌ„ all sortes of persons yea by the diuels them selues so he made the hye Priest to beare witnesse of him by giuing out an Oâ—â—cle vnder doutfull wordes to make the Iewes more vnexcusable that by his owne mouth the naughtie seruant might be iudged Wherefore not the ordinarie priuilege of office but an extraordinarie motion of God did guide the tongue of Caiphas to prophecie of Christ as he opened the mouth of the asse of Balaam to reproue her maister And you who would gather an ordinarie priuilege of the Popes office by that extraordinarie prophecying of Caiphas doo make a like reason as if you should conclude that the Popes horse can speake because that Balaams asse did Nay you might conclude this on greater reason For Balaams asse spake twise Caiphas prophecied but once Hart. Your similitude is odious I maruell why you vse such Rainoldes Because your reason is absurd I would faine haue you see it Hart. Absurd He that should call it absurd in our schooles would be thought him selfe absurd For it is grounded vpon a proportion betwixt the hie Priest and the Pope the Church of the Iewes and of the Christians Rainoldes Then by a reason of proportion belike the Pope condemneth Christ as Caiphas did and vexeth Christians as Annas Doo you allowe hereof in your schooles also Hart. Yet againe I see you will neuer leaue these odious comparisons The Pope to Caiphas and Annas Rainoldes You are a straunge man who go about to proue by the example of Caiphas that the Pope can not erre in office and are angrie with me for touching the weakenes of your reason therein Hart. Wel. I graunt that Caiphas had not that priuilege For it was not promised to the hie Priestes of the Iewish Church but till the comming of Christ at which time the Prophets shewed that it should faile them For Ieremie saith thereof In that day the heart of the king shall perish and the heart of the Princes and the Priestes shal be astonished And Ezekiel more plainely The law shall perish from the Priest counsell from the Elders But till that time they had it and did teach the truth according to the law and were to be obeied in all things which they taught Rainoldes Yea What say you then of Vrias who was hie Priest vnder king Achaz sixe hundred yeares before Christ He ceased to sacrifice on the altar of God appointed by the law and hauing made a new one like to the altar of Damascus he sacrificed vpon it Whereby he defiled himselfe and the land with rebellion against the Lord. Hart. I say that Vrias did erre in doing so But we may refute this reason of yours by denying that Vrias did succede Aaron and was of the tribe of Leui. Rainoldes In déede a Cardinall answereth that you may refute it so in one word And that is shewed plainelye enough as he saith by those wordes of scripture which are writen of Ieroboam He made Chapels in hie places and Priestes of the lowest of the people who were not of the sonnes of Leui. But this refutation is as fitte against our reason of Vrias as if a maÌ„ should say that Bishops in England are not Protestants because the Bishops of Fraunce are Papistes For the Priestes which Ieroboam made of the lowest of the people not of the sonnes of Leui were in the kingdome of Israel at Bethel and Dan and Vrias was Priest in the temple at Ierusalem in the kingdome of Iuda The thing is apparant by the very course and text of the scripture And they who would saue the Priesthood most gladly from the shamefull staine agree that he was hie Priest the successour of Aaron Hart. Let it be admitted that he was so The staine of his fault is not so foule as you make it For what did he els but that which we reade Pope Marcellinê° to haue done Who in the horrible persecution of Christians vnder Maximian and Diocletian took incense for feare and offered it to Idols Vrias did transgresse the law of God not wilfully but through the frailtie of the flesh not of his own accord but by the kings commaundement Wherfore it came rather of feare then of rashnes or ignorance that hee offended Rainoldes So did it in Peter that he denied Christ. And may you therefore say that Peter was priuileged not to denie Christ I maruell that you feele not the grossenes of your dealing You say that hie Priestes are priuileged by their office to perseuere in true doctrine It is shewed that they fall to manifest Idolatrie You graunt they do so but they do it for feare you say Where is the priuilege then For God to whom so euer he giueth any benefit as it were by priuilege hee giueth them a priuilege withall of speciall fauour to frée them from the lettes that might debarre them of the benefit Ezekias was sicke of a pestilent disease whereof he should haue died God did adde fifteene yeares to his life He tooke away his sickenes that he might enioy it S. Paule was in daunger to be lost with shipwracke and all the rest who sailed with him God did giue to him his owne life and theirs He kept them all from danger and brought them safe vnto the land Wherefore if God had giuen a priuilege of true doctrine to the hie Priestes hee woulde haue giuen them a priuilege of grace too that no deceit of fleshe should make them fall away from it But they might fall away from it by sundry meanes to errour yea to Idolatrie For if they might for feare why not for loue also as Salomon did If for loue
would be tedious yet he fetcheth the succession of true doctrine from all Churches in euery place through the whole world Or if it bée not plaine enough by these sentences he maketh it more plaine in other both by generall spéeches of the Churche through alâ— the world which hee repeateth often and by the particular names of sundrie Churches the Churches of Smyrna of Ephesus of Asia the Churches in Germany in Spaine in France in the East countries in Aegypt in Libyâ— in the middle of the worlde Wherefore the successions of Bishops in all Churches were true and faithfull witnesses of the Apostolike doctrine in the time of Irenaeus As Eusebius also doth farther proue by Hegesippus who liued at the same time and trauailing to Rome ward did talke with very many Bishops of whom euen of them al he heard the same doctrin accordingly to that he wrote that in euery succession and in euery citie the doctrine is such as the Law and the Prophets and the Lord doth preach Hart. Yet Irenaeus reckneth chiefely the succession of the Church of Rome as of the greatest Church and the most auncient and knowne vnto all founded and established by two the most excellent Apostles Peter and Paule Rainoldes No maruaile For beside the credit that it had as being Apostolike ample famous auncient it was the néerest also in place amongst all the Apostolike Churches to Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons in Fraunce and so both known better and the more dealt with In the which respect other of the Fathers did chiefely name it too As may appéere by Tertullian the next of them whom you alleage For he setting downe the same prescription against heretikes which Irenaeus had before him doth speake of it thus Runne ouer the Apostolike Churches at which the very chaires of the Apostles are sate on yet in their places at which their authenticall letters are recited sounding out the voyce and representing the face of euery one of them Is Achaia next vnto thee Thou hast Corinth If thou be not farre from Macedonia thou hast Philippi thou hast the Thessalonians If thou canst go into Asia thou hast Ephesus If thou lye neere to Italu thou hast Rome whence wee haue authoritie also Whence we haue authoritie saith Tertullian in Afrike for he was of the Church of Carthage So Optatus was Bishop of Mileuis in Afrike So Austin was Bishop of Hippon in Afrike Which if you consider you may sée somwhat in it why Optatus and Austin should recken the succesâ—iâ—on of the Roman Church rather then of others Specially sith Austin doth vrge against the Donatists not onely that but all Churches and with the chaire of the Church of Rome wherein Peter sate and Anastasius sitteth now he matcheth the chaire of the Church of Ierusalem wherein Iames sate and Iohn sitteth now As for Epiphanius whom of the East Church you ioyne to them of the West as prouing the soundnes of faith in like sort by the Roman succession you do him iniurie For neither doth he mention it but to note the time in which an heresie did budde and this is that manifest that is meant by him it is your Stapletons art to make it manifest in faith and what he saith thereof he boroweth it of Irenaeus and therefore reckneth fewe of the Bishops of Rome whereas he reckeneth all the Bishops of Ierusalem to like intent against the Manichees so that Ierusalem if we would toy as you doo passeth Rome with him But in a word to cut off your cauill of succession of Bishops in the Roman Church whereby you would proue your faith to be sound because the Fathers proued the faith in their time so the eldest of the Fathers whom you alleage proued it by the succession of all Churches the next by the succession of all Apostolike Churches the yongest by them all in effect by some namely Wherefore if the succession of the Church of Rome doo proue that the Romans haue hitherto continued in the true faith because by that succession the Fathers proued the true faith then also the succession of the East Churches of Ephesus Smyrna Corinth Philippi and Thessalonica doo proue that they haue hithertoo continued in the true faith because by their succession the Fathers proued the true faith But your selues do write that the Greekes of whom these East Churches are haue failed in the faith and yeelded vnto sundry heresies The spéeches therefore of the Fathers touching the succession of the Bishops of Rome proue not that the Romanes doo now professe the true faith Hart. The line of succession of the Roman Bishops hath bene still recorded in stories and continueth yet We can recken them from Peter the Apostle to Gregorie who sitteth now Not so the Gréeke Bishops the Churches of the East Nay the line of succession hath béene broken off in the chiefe of them as the Chronicles do witnesse euen in Alexandria Antioche and Ierusalem Rainoldes What is this to the purpose if some of their successions be not enrolled in stories some that are enrolled were broken off a while by calamities that fell vpon them For although Eusebius recorded the successions but of foure Churches in the mother-cities of the prouinces as he calleth them Rome Alexandria Antioche and Ierusalem and Nicephorus added Constantinople to them yet the Churches which I named had successions of Bishops too as I shewed out of the Fathers And in them in which you note that succession hath discontinued the faith had failed often while the succession lasted which is enough for my proofe But if you thinke your Church sure by this prerogatiue that the Roman Bishops succession lasteth still and you can recken them from Peter the Apostle to Gregorie who sitteth now what say you to the Church of Constantinople In it there haue succeeded Bishops to this day and they can recken them from Andrew the Apostle to Ieremie who sitteth now Yet to say nothing of the old heresies from which the successors are free though set abroch by their predecessors as by Macedonius Nestorius and Sergius the whole line of them many ages togither haue denied the Roman Bishops supreme-headship claimed it to them selues as Ieremie doth also now Whereby either your reason of succession is stricken dead or your supremacie of the Pope For if succession be a proofe of truth and soundnes in faith then your supremacie is condemned If your supremacie be lawfull then is not faith proued to bee sound by succession To which of these yéelde you To one you must of necessitie Hart. In déede the succession of Bishops in place is no good argument vnlesse it be ioyned with succession in doctrine For Irenaeus saith we must obey those priestes who with the succession of the Bishoply charge haue receiued the sure gift of the truth according to
your Priestes of the tribe of Leui who offer vp this sacrifice Hart. No syr nor of the Iewes but they are Christian Priestes Rainoldes But they who must offer the sacrifice that is spoken of in the prophet Malachie are of the tribe of Leui. For afterward entreating of the same oblation or offering as we cal it that shall be offered vnto God in the time of the gospell he saith that the Lord shall fine the sonnes of Leui and purifie them as gold and siluer that they may offer an offering vnto God in righteousnes Wherefore if the offering that Malachie doth speake of be the sacrifice of the Masse that is a sacrifice properly then the proper Priestes by whom it is offered are the Iewish Priests after the order of Aaron euen the sonnes of Leui. But if the sonnes of Leui betoken by a figure the spirituall Leuits that is all the faithfull whom Christ in the new testament hath made a royall Priesthood euen Kings and Priestes to God his father as your Montanus well expoundeth it then must the offering by a figure signifie the spirituall sacrifice which Christians of all sortes are bound to offer vnto God And in truth as Christ said of Iohn Baptist If you will receiue it this is Elias which was to come meaning that the Prophet did signifie Iohn Baptist by the name of Elias so I may say to you touching the spirituall sacrifices of Christians If you will receiue it this is the cleane offering which should in euery place be offered to the Lord. For the Prophets when they spake of the gospell of Christ and the religious worship of God in spirit and truth which Gentiles conuerted by the preaching of the gospell should serue him in through all the world are wont to describe it by figuratiue spéeches drawen from the externall and carnall worship of God in the ceremonies of the law So they say that there shall be an altar of the Lord in the middes of the land of Egypt that God will accept the burnt offrings and sacrifices of straungers vpon his altar that all the sheeepe of Kedar shall be offefered on it and the rammes of Nebaioth that the Gentiles shall go vp to keepe the feast of tabernacles from yeare to yeare vnto Ierusalem and euery pot in Ierusalem and Iuda shall be holy to the Lord of hostes and all they who sacrifice shall come take of them and seeth therein finally that the offering of Iuda and Ierusalem shal be sweete vnto the Lord as in the dayes of old and in the yeares afore Wherefore as the Prophets doo mention an offering which the Christian Church shall offer vnto God in the time of the gospell so doo they mention burnt offeringes and sacrifices the sheepe of Kedar the rammes of Nebaioth to bee offered on an altar they mention Ierusalem to bee gone vnto the feast of tabernacles to be kept the flesh of beastes sacrificed to be sodde in pottes the Leuites to be the Ministers who shall make the offering in righteousnesse to God But neither doth the Priesthood of the Leuites continue neither is Ierusalem the place to worship God neither are the Iewish feastes the times to doo it nor will he be serued with sacrifice and offering if they be taken properly The Prophets therefore meant by an allegorie as we terme it to shew that all Christians should as Priests and Leuites offer vp them selues and theirs as sacrifices at all times as solemne feastes in all places as in Ierusalem And so the cleane offering whereof the Prophet Malachie saith it shal be offered in euery place vnto the Lord doth signifie not a sacrifice to be made vpon an altar as your Councell would haue it but the spirituall sacrifice which S. Paul exhorteth the faithfull to offer when he willeth men to pray in euery place lifting vp pure handes without wrath douting Hart. The Prophetes speake much in déed of thinges to come not properly and simply but figuratiuely by obscure spéeches and allegories and parables that must be vnderstood otherwise then they are writen as Tertullian noteth But the name of altar is vsed properly for a materiall altar by the Apostle to the Hebrewes saying we haue an altar whereof they haue not power to eate which serue the tabernacle For he putteth them in minde by these wordes that in folowing too much their olde Iewish rites they depriued themselues of an other maner a more excellent sacrifice and meate meaning of the holy altar and Christes owne blessed body offered and eaten there Of which they that continue in the figures of the old law could not be partakers This altar saith Isychius is the altar of Christes body which the Iewes for their incredulitie must not behold And the Gréeke worde as also the Hebrew answering thereunto in the old testament signifieth properly an altar to sacrifice on and not a metaphoricall and spirituall altar Wherefore séeing that we haue a very altar in the proper sense and the name of altar doth import a sacrifice that is offered on it it foloweth that the body of Christ vpon the altar is a very sacrifice in the proper sense And that out of doubt is the cleane offering which the Prophet speaketh of according as the Councell of Trent hath defined Rainoldes And are you out of doubt that by the wordes we haue an altar the Apostle meaneth a materiall altar such as your altars made of stone Hart. What els a very altar Rainoldes And they who haue not power to eate of this altar are the stubberne Iewes who keepe the ceremonies of the law Hart. The Iewes and such prophane men Rainoldes Then your Masse-priestes may and doo vse to â—ate of this altar Hart. They doo And what then Rainoldes Their téeth be good and strong if they eate of an altar that is made of stone Are ye sure that they eate of it Hart. Eate of an altar As though ye knew not that by the altar the sacrifice which is offered vpon the altar is signifyed They eate of Christes body which thereby is meant Rainoldes Is it so Then the worde altar is not taken for a very altar in the proper sense but figuratiuely for the body of Christ the which was sacrificed and offered Neither is it taken for the body of Christ in that respect that Christ is offered in the sacrament in the which sort he is mystically offered as often as the faithfull doo eate of that bread and drinke of that cuppe wherein the breaking of his body and shedding of his blood is represented to them but in that respect that Christ was offered on the crosse in the which sort he was truly offered not often but once to take away the sinnes of many and to sanctifie them for euer who beleeue in him Hart. Nay the auncient Father Isychius expoundeth it
to him in euery place For the former of them that spirituall sacrifices of prayers and workes are common to the Iewes with vs deceiueth with a fallacie because ouâ— spirituall are spirituall méerely whereas they had carnall sacrifices with their spirituall The later doth discouer this fraude of the former but with an other fraude For in that it saith that praying fasting and the workes of charity were ioyned to their sacrifices it sheweth that their worship though in part spiritual was not spiritual méerely But in that it gathereth thereof that these things cannot succeede their sacrifices there is an other fallacie because although the worship of God were still spirituall as hée is still a spirit and so no worship may succéede for how can a thing succéede it selfe yet the same in substance came foorth in sundry maners and so one maner of it might succéede an other As the word of God touching the saluation of men by faith in Christ was alwayes the same but vttered in sundry maners by the Prophets and by Christ. In which sort the worship of God was ordered also by the Prophets couertly vnder the vailes of ceremonies by Christ plainly and simply Wherefore as the doctrine of Christ did succéede the doctrine of the Prophets both the same doctrine but taught by Christ more cléerely more darkely by the Prophets so the spirituall worship of God in the Gospell succéeded his spirituall worship in the law both the same worship but laden with ceremonies shadows in the law disburdned of them in the Gospell Hart. I can not sée those fallacies which you charge D. Allen with For if the Iewes did offer prayers to God and other such spirituall sacrifices as they did then is it true as he saith that spirituall sacrifices are common vnto them with vs. And if they be common vnto them with vs it foloweth in my iudgement that ours succeede not theirs sith to succeede is to come after and how may that come after which did go before Rainoldes I haue shewed how And if you sée it not the vaile may be the cause which is very likely to be laide on your heart in reading of the new testament as it was on the heart of others in reading of the olde For the thing is plaine of it selfe and euident that the spirituall sacrifices which the Iewes offered as namely their prayers did not discharge their duetie but they must offer carnall also and that not euery where but in the place that God had chosen In so much that albeit they might pray in all places lawfully as wée may yet must they come thither to worship God at certaine times and Daniel though hée could not because of their captiuitie yet had his windowes open toward Ierusalem when hee praied and the faithfull wept by the riuers of Babylon how should we sing the lords song in a strange lande and the princely Prophet lamented that his banishment did keepe him from appeering there and longed to behold the power and glory of God as he beheld it in the sanctuary and being sicke as it were with the loue of his tabernacles yea fainting with desire of coming to his courts and altars he pronounced them blessed who dwell in that house yea who may come vnto it yea though they trauaile hardly thereto through drye places to present themselues before God in Sion Whereas Christians of the other side neither haue those altars or offerings made theron to ioyne with their spirituall sacrifice of prayse and they may sing the songs of the Lord in al places No land is strange no ground vnholy Euery coast is Iewry and euery towne Ierusalem and euery house Sion and euery faithfull company yea euery faithfull body a temple to serue God in The Christian worship then doth differ euen in prayers from that of the Iewes both in respect of the temple which they had a regard to and of the ceremonies of the law which they were bound therwith to keepe Wherfore as the ministery of the new testament that is of them who taught the gospell came after the ministerie of Priestes in the old and yet both old and new are the Lords testament so might and did the worship of God amongst Christians in spirit and truth come after the worship of God amongst the Iewes though yet they both did worship God spiritually For the Iewes before did worship in the temple with the ceremonies of the law as when the Priest was burning incense at the altar in the inner part therof the multitude of the people were praying in the outter And the Christians after did pray without incense in any place the people and Pastour all together as the Aposâ—les with the disciples and according to their instruction the primitiue Churches practise shew But these points of difference betweene vs and them be perhaps the harder for you to vnderstand because your Popish worship is so lyke the Iewish both for the temple and the ceremonies that you may iustly thinke their worship was in spirit and truth as much as yours For as the Priest with them was seuered from the people by the diuision of the sanctuarie and court of the temple so with you by the chancell and body of the church As with them he burned incense at the altar so with you he doth As with them he was clad in an Ephod a miter a broydered coate a girdle a brestplate and a robe and they who serued him were in their linen coates too so with you he must haue an amice an albe a girdle a fanel a chisible and a stole and they who are about him haue surplesses yea copes also Their Priestes had a lauer whereat they must wash before they sacrificed so haue yours Your vaile betweene the quire and the altar in lent resembleth theirs that seuered the holy place from the most holy Your pyx with the sacrament and their arke with the mercy seate your phylacterie with Saintes relikes and their pot with Manna your monstrancie with the host and their table with the shew-bread your holy oyle of balme and theirs of myrrhe with spices their purifying water made of the ashes of an heifer and yours of other ashes with water wine and salt their fyer sent from heauen and yours fetcht thence by art their rod of Aaron and your crosse of Christ finally your candles or tapers or torches and their candlesticke with lamps do match one an other in proportion of rites nay you surpasse them in your candles For theirs were lighted in the night yours in the day too Theirs in the temple onely yours abroad also Theirs before the Lord yours before images Theirs in one maner yours with great
with the Priestly garment of the holy Ghost Wherein as the garment and vnction and crowne do signifie spirituall giftes not thinges corporall so the holy robe that reached downe to the feete betokeneth that function which that robe in Aaron did represent and shadow Hart. You perswade not me that he alluded so to the robe of Aaron but that hee meant in déede a robe which Christian Bishops wore Rainoldes And what gaine you by it if so much were granted For you cannot proue by any circumstance of the place that it must be a Massing-robe The onely shew of any such is in your last proofe out of the Gréeke Fathers Chrysostome and Basil or rather out of the Liturgies which falsely beare their names or rather out of some copies ofthose Liturgies wherin are mentioned the amice the girdle the chisible and the fanel Howbeit if a man should sift the Gréeke words out of the which you picke these and conferre your amice with their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 your biggin of the head with their shoulder garment your one coard or fanel with their mo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 your chisible with their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 perhaps he should leaue the girdle post alone to binde your proofe with And doutlesse in that which is most maske-like and least beséemeth Christian Pastours at publike seruice I meane that which the Priest at Masse weareth vppermost the chisible you call it I trow or vpper vestiment the Gréeke word declareth that you doo wrong to the Grecians in matching that of theirs with yours For the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the which their vpper vestiment is noted doth signifie a cloake a garment worne much as single and readie by Christians in olde time chiefly by the Grecians whose Bishops kept it thence belike in solemnities when other wise they left it off But your vpper vestiment is farre from that singlenes nor is it like to that common garment but to a little cottage whence it is named casula closing the Priest round as it were with walles and hauing a hole for him to put out his head at as it were a loouer-hole to let out the smoke at Hart. The high Priest of the Iewes had the like robe Rainoldes Like your cottage-vestiment Which robe was that Hart. If not like our vpper vestiment altogither yet like in that respect that it was close about with a hole for his head in the â—â—ddes of it And therefore you néede not to scoffe in such sort at that kinde of vestiment Rainoldes If you take the little cottage to be a scoffe it is not my scoffe but your owne Doctours whose wordes I doo but open Your selfe are rather faultie who compare your cottage-ragge patched by mans braine with a Priestly robe made by Gods commandement And yet in that you match your vestiment with the Iewish for the forme of it I reproue you not For though there be difference betwéene theirs and yours in sundrie respectes yet yours were taken vp after the example and made in likenes of theirs Which is plainely shewed by those ancient autours whom I named before Alcuinus Amalarius and Walafridus Strabo Of whom the first treating of Massing-vestiments saith that the Church receiued them after the facion of the Priests of Moses law The next that our hye Priest he meaneth euery Bishop hath them after the rule of AaroÌ„ The last that they came in by little little for at the first saith he men celebrated Masses in common apparel as certaine of the east Church are said to doo till this day And so hee goeth forward shewing in particular how Stephen and Siluester and other Popes and Prelats did softly bring them in and some deuised this some that either to resemble the roabes of the Iewish Priests or to note a mysterie To be short it is shewed plainely by them all that the Massing-vestiments of Bishops at that time which was eight hundred yeares after Christ were but eight in number iust as many as Aarons Whereof the former seuen for the eighth was proper to Archbishops onely are growen now to be fiftéene more then twise as many And doo you not perceiue hereby M. Hart how lewdly D. Stapleton alleageth the Fathers to proue your Massing-vestimentes all to haue bene vsed by the primitiue Church How falsely the Councell of Trent doth father them nor onely them but also lightes incense crossinges and other ceremonies of the Masse on the tradition of the Apostles And sawe I not truely that if you see not how the Christian worship of God in spirit and truth doth differ from the Iewish and so might succeed it the cause thereof by likelihood is the vaile of Popery which hauing brought in a Iewish kinde of worship doth hide it from your eyes For is it not euident that the Iewish shadowes that is the darke lineaments of Christ as of a picture which he abolished by his coming as being the image it selfe and body of them are drawne out againe by the painters of your religion Or may not he that hath but halfe an eye sée that you surpasse the Iewes in sundrie shewes of outwarde seruice and go beyond the priesthood of Aaron in carnall rites For the most whereof though you haue meanings mysticall or spiritual matters which they are saide to figure in other significations then the Iewish did yet they set the Church to schoole with new rudiments after a Iewish maner and presse it with that bondage from which the Lord hath made it frée Wherefore were they taken from the Iewes or not yet in respect of vs on whom God hath not laide them they are of the commandements doctrines of men And we may iustly say of them now being bredde the same that S· Austin saide when they were bréeding Although it can not be found in what sense they are against the faith yet religion it selfe which God of his mercy would haue to bee free vnder very few and most manifest ceremonies of diuine seruice is by them oâ—pressed so with seruile burdens that the case and state of the Iewes is more tolerable who although they haue not acknowledged the time of libertie yet are they 〈◊〉 with the packes of Gods law not with the deuises and presumptions of men Hart. It is a calumnious spéech that our ceremonies are shadowes or rudiments or kéepe the Church in bondage as the Iewish did For theirs were very many combersome darke ours are vâ—ry few easie and significant As S. Austin saith that since that our libertie hath shined most brightly by Christs resurrection we are not laden with a heauie charge of signes as were the Iewes but our Lord himselfe and the Apostolike discipline hath deliuered to vs some few in steed of many and them most easie to be doon most honorable for signification most cleane and pure to be obserued But you
doo willingly though they doo it weakely For as he accepted the sacrifices of the Iewes when they offered the best and soundest that they had so when the Gentiles were brought him for an offering in like sort as the Israelites doo offer an offering in a cleane vessell the offering vp of them was acceptable to him And thus might the spirituall sacrifices of Christians be meant by the cleane offering whereof the Lord saith in the Prophet Malachie that it shall be offered to him in euerie place According to the scripture that instructeth vs to pray in euerie place lifting vp pure hands without wrath and douting For though nether our prayers be so intier and feruent nor our hands so pure and vnspotted of the world nor our mindes so setled in loue of our neighbour nor our faith so constant and stedfast towards God but that they be stained with remnants of vncleannes and haue lesse perfitnes then they should yet are they all cleane in respect of the sacrifices of those Iewish hypocrites which God in the Prophet reiecteth as vncleane and so where he refuseth to accept theirs he promiseth to accept ours and sheweth that they please him well Wherefore the Masse findeth no footing in Malachie by D. Allens fifth reason Now the sixth and last which he concludeth with as it were to set the Masse in full possession of the cleane offering mentioned by Malachie doth dispossesse it cleane and casteth out the reasons which he brought to strengthen it For the Fathers expound it of our spirituall sacrifices of prayers of thankes giuing of holinesse of godly works of repentant heartes of clensed mindes and bodies sanctified of the giftes offered in Christian Church-assemblies and of the whole worship wherewith we honour him in spirit and truth Wherein to say that they meane the sacrifice of the Masse by the sacrifice of prayer and the spirituall sacrifice as he â—aith they doo and that they call it so because the victime that is here hath not a grosse carnall and bloody consecration or sacrification as had the victimes of the Iewes it is grosse and carnall For the victime as you terme it which they meane and speake of is either our selues purified by faith oâ— our fruites accepted as pure from persons purified not Christ killed and sacrificed vnto God his Father which is your Massing-uictime pure of it selfe and purifying others as you fansie Yea sith it is granted by D. Allens owne words that Austin expounding it of the sacrifice of praise meaneth not the sacrifice of the Masse thereby let that place of Austin he weighed with the rest of his and other Fathers and it shall be found that Malachie toucheth not the Masse in their iudgement by D. Allens owne graunt The sixe reasons therefore which he setteth forth as strong and very good for the proofe thereof proue it no better out of the Prophets in the old testament then doo his bare wordes out of the Apostles in the new In déede there is no letter through all the scriptures for it And thus much perhaps him selfe hath espied since hee wrote his treatise of the sacrifice of the Masse For in his Apologie of the English Seminaries where he would of likelihood make the strongest proofe of it that he could for the defense of Masse-priests and the Masse-priests Nourseries he citeth not the scriptures but the Fathers onely Which vnlesse hée thought that the scriptures faile him I sée not why hee should Chiefly sith he knoweth that they whose good liking of Masse-priests the Masse he séeketh specially to winne by his Apologie doo giue greater credit to fiue words of God then to ten thousand words of men Hart. Nay you are deceued much in D. Allen if you think his iudgement changed any whit from that it was in this point But in his Apologie he citeth the Fathers onely not the scriptures because you haue colours of spiritual sacrifices to shift the scriptures off but you cannot the Fathers so For they all were Masse-priestes themselues and said Masse Rainoldes What one of them M. Hart If you speake indeede to the point of the Masse and daly not as D. Allen who maketh Masse-priestes of the Apostles because they did consecrate the body and bloud of Christ and offer it For if to consecrate and offer as they did be to say Masse then wee say Masse in our Communion and our Ministers are Masse-priests Which I thinke you meane not Hart. I meane that all the Fathers said Masse as we doo and were as we be Masse-priests Which he meaneth also and proueth by the most of them For so was S. Ambrose testifying of him selfe that he offred sacrifice and said Masse euen in that plaine terme Rainoldes In that plaine terme Why S. Ambose spake not English I trust Hart. No. But he saith in Latin Missam facere Rainoldes That is not to say Masse but to doo masse or rather to dimisse Missam fecit in Suetonius would proue the Masse as wel as that Which I dare not say that perhaps him selfe espied since he wrote it least againe you tell me that I am much deceiued in him But in his Apologie turned into Latin S. Ambroses missam facere is changed into missam dixisse And so the words are fitter to proue he said Masse Hart. Dixisse or facere the matter standeth not in that but in the word missa From which sith the name of Masse dooth come in English it foloweth that S. Ambrose did celebrate Masse that is say Masse as wée terme it Rainoldes Must I tell you again that idiot commeth from idiota And wil you say that all the simple idiotae who heare Masse are idiotes Hart. That is a iest you may not so put off my reason For the name openeth the nature of the thing as Aristotle sheweth Wherefore sith the name of Masse is in S. Ambrose how can you deny but that hee did celebrate the thing that is the Masse it selfe as we doo whom you call Masse-priests Rainoldes And thinke you in earnest that S. Paul did celebrate the communion of the body and blood of Christ as we doo who are called Ministers Hart. As you doo who saith so Rainoldes You if your reason be of any value For the name openeth the nature of the thing as Aristotle sheweth Wherfore sith the name of communion is in S. Paul how can you deny but that he did celebrate the thing euen the communion it selfe as we doo who are called Ministers Hart. Yes For though you keepe the name with S. Paul yet you keepe not the thing As sorcerers are called magi like the Sages of the East yet is their wisdome wicked not like that of the Sages Rainoldes That is false M. Hart as you referre it to our Communion For as we
for S. Austin and the Bishops of Afrike it is too manifest that they kept this new distinction as you terme it For of the two Popes whom you say they sought to they desired the one to assist them with his autoritie the other not to chalenge power in their Church causes A great fault of yours to say that S. Austin and the Bishops of Afrike sought to Caelestinus for the prerogatiue of his office when they dealt against his vsurped prerogatiue Greater if you did it wittingly and willingly Wherof your Annotations do geue strong suspicion in that hauing quoted all the other places they lâ—â—ue this vnquoted least the reader should find the fraude Hart. I was not at the finishing of our Annotations They who set them downe knew their own meaning and will I warrant you maintaine it But what a souerainty the Fathers yéelded to the Pope it may appeare by this as D. Stapleton sheweth that they thought no Councell to be of any force vnles he confirmed it For the Fathers assembled in the Councell of Nice the first generall Councell sent their epistle to Pope Siluester beséeching him to ratifie and confyrme with his consent whatsoeuer they had ordeined Rainoldes The Councell of Nice had no such fansie of the Pope Their epistle is forged and he who forged it was not his craftes-master For one of the Fathers pretended to haue writen it is Macarius Bishop of Constantinople Whereas Constantinople had not that name yet in certaine yéeres after the date of this epistle but was called Bizantium neither was Macarius Bishop of Bizantium at that time but Alexander Moreouer they are made to request the Pope that he wil assemble the Bishops of his whole citie Which is a droonken spéech sith the Bishops of his whole citie were but one that one was himselfe Unlesse they vsed the word citie as the Pope answering them in like sort that he conferred with the Bishops of the whole citie of Italie And so it is more sober but no more séemely for the Councell of Nice Finally neither Eusebius who was at the Councell nor Rufinus nor Socrates nor Theodoret nor Sozomen nor other auncient writers doo mention any such thing Only Peter Crabbe the setter foorth of it had it out of a librarie of Friers at Coolein But wheÌ„ce had the Fryers it Hart. The Fathers of the Councell of Constantinople the second generall Councel wrote to Pope Damasus for his consent to their decrees And that is witnessed by Theodoret. Rainoldes It is and so witnessed that it ouerthroweth the Popes soueraintie which D. Stapleton would proue by it For they wrote ioyntly to Damasus Ambrose Britto Valerian Ascholius Anemie Basill and the rest of the Westerne Bishops assembled in a Councel at Rome Nor only to them but to the Emperour Theodosius Yea to Theodosius in seueral and more forcibly For they requested him to confirme and ratifie their decrees and ordinances Wherefore if the Pope haue such a supremacie whose consent and liking therof they desired what supremacie hath the Emperor whom they besought to ratifie them and to confirme them Hart. Nay your own distinction of power and authoritie dooth serue well and fitly to this of the Emperour For their decrées and ordinances of doctrine were true and of discipline good though he had not confirmed them But more would accept of them as good and true through his word countenance As we see that many doo frame themselues to Princes iudgements Wherefore it was the Emperours autoritie and credit for which they desired his confirmation of their decrées not for any soueraintie of power that he had in matters of religion Rainoldes Not for any soueraintie of power that hee had to make matters true of false or good of euill but to make his subiectes vse them as good and true being so in déede Which perhaps the Fathers of the Councell meant too But your own answere may teach you to mend your imagination of that they wrote to Pope Damasus For the doctrine of Christ which they decréed was true the discipline good though he had not consented to it But more would accept of it as good true through his agréement and allowance As we sée that manie doe follow the mindes of Bishops Wherefore it was the Popes autoritie and credit for which they desired his consent to their decrées not for any soueraintie of power that he had in matters of religion Which is plaine by their crauing not of him alone but of other Bishops to like thereof also that the Christian faith being agreed vpon and loue confirmed amongst them they might keepe the Church from schismes and dissensions Hart. All Bishops might allow the decrées of Councels by consenting to them But the Pope confirmed them in speciall sort For S. Cyrill saith of the third general Councel of Ephesus that Pope Caelestinus wrote agreeably to the Councell and confirmed all thinges that were done therein Rainoldes S. Cyrill sayth not that of Caelestinus but of Sixtus Howbeit if he had yet this would proue autoritie still and not power As Prosper noteth well that the Nestorian heresie was specially withstood by the industrie of Cyril and the authoritie of Caelestinus But these very wordes of Cyrill touching Sixtus doe ouerthrow your fansie conceaued on the Popes confirming of Councels For the Councell of Ephesus was of force and strength in Caelestinus time by your own confession Notwithstanding Sixtus who succéeded him did confirm it afterward In déede the truth dependeth neither of CouÌ„cel nor of Pope though wheÌ„ Popes Councels were good godly minded they were chosen vessels and instruments of God to set forth the truth For as Ioshua sayd to all the tribes of Israel euen to the Priests also assembled in a Councell If it seeme euill to you to serue the Lorde choose you whom you will serue whether the Gods which your Fathers serued or the Gods of the Amorites but I and my house will serue the Lord so the right faith and religion of Christ is firme of it selfe and ought to be imbraced of euery Christian with his houshold whether it please the tribes that is the Church or no. But the Church is named the piller and ground of truth in respect of men because it beareth vp the truth and confirmeth it through preaching of the word by the ministerie of Priests in the old testament and Bishops in the new whom therefore Basil termeth the pillers and ground of truth Now the more there be of these who maintaine it and the greater credit they haue amongst men the stronger and surer the truth doth séeme to be and many yéeld the sooner to it For which cause the doctrine of Barnabas and Paul though assuredly true yet was coÌ„firmed by Iames Peter and Iohn who were counted to be
hath ether mo Bishops or as many as al other nations haue For euery baggage-towne hath a Bishop there And these buggage-Bishops of whom there were more at the Councell of Trent then of all other nations did allow that doctrine Though neyther they perhaps allowed it in hart but were induced by Papall meanes to yéeld vnto it For the answere of Vargas touching the Popes supremacie made at Rome and published for instruction of the Councell assembled then at Trent doth shew that there was some sticking at the matter And your stories note that the Pope is fowly afraide of general Councels leaft they should hurt his State and commeth like a beare to the stake as they say when he is drawne to summon them What a doo was made before he could be brought to grant that the Councell of Trent should goe forward And while the Councell lasted he kept good rule at Rome but brake loose whē it was ended Besides it being ended twentie yeares ago there hath bene none since nether I beléeue is like to be in hast Where yet there should be one euery ten yeres by their own decrée All euident tokens that the Pope himselfe doth thinke that Bishops vnder him like not his supremacie and would cut it shorter if they might haue power and autoritie to do it Which if they would do though being sworne to maintaine it yea and to maintaine the reseruations the prouisions other excesses of it is it not manifest that they disallow it or detest it rather Hart. Our ancestours allowed it euer since the time that by S. Gregories meanes they were first conuerted to the fayth of Christ till King Harries dayes when heresie did roote it out Rainoldes Our ancestours had a reuerent opinion of the Pope long after S. Gregorie for S. Gregories sake and honoured him aboue all Bishops But when he began to reach out the pawes of his supremacie ouer thē in giuing Church-liuings and handling Church-causes and executing Church-censures they were so farre frō liking it that they made lawes against it two hundred yeres ago Euen in Queene Maries time when they restored that stoompe of his vsurped power which they had rooted out vnder King Henrie the eigth they prouided that hée should haue no more but that stoompe kept the former lawes in force against him still Wherefore though our auncestours gaue him great preeminence of honour some of power too yet the most they gaue him was but a Venice-Dukedome his Monarchie they neuer allowed to this day Which may bée sayd likewise of other Christian Churches that honoured him on like occcasiō as our neighbours of Fraunce Germanie For ech of them shewed their mislike and hatred of the Popes supremacie by supplications complaints offered to their Princes Yea Fraunce made lawes against it which might haue continued had not the Gentiles raged broken the bands a sunder And these of whose iudgements I haue spoken hitherto are such as your selues doe holde for Catholike Christians The rest Christians also though you cal them heretikes and schismatikes yet Christians the Churches of Greece and Asia in the East in the North of Moscouie in the South of Aethiopia in the West of Boheme Prouince Piemont heretofore the reformed Churches that are at this day in England Scotland Fraunce Germanie Flaunders Suitzerland and so foorth throughout Europe set lesse by the Pope then the former did That I might say iustly that except the crew of the Italian factiō wherein I comprehend the Iesuites and their complices men Italianate al Christian Churches haue condemned the Popes supremacie do till this day Wherefore if the matter were to be tried by the will of men so many thousandes of them Pastours and Doctours Synodes and Coūcels Uniuersities and Churches through all ages in all countries of al sorts and states might suffice to put the Pope from his supremacie At least they might make you to blush M. Hart who haue sayd in writing that all men did grant it him without resistance it was neuer denied him But sith it must be tried by the word of God and it is not writen in the booke of life I conclude that it is not a citizen of Ierusalem but a child of Babylon which they shall be blessed who dash against the stones And thus haue I shewed that the former point on which you refuse to communicate with vs in prayers and religion ought to bring you rather to vs then draw you from vs. It remaineth now that we sift the later of the faith professed in the Church of England Which if it be found to be the Catholike faith as in truth it will then is there no cause but you must néedes yéeld that we may go together into the house of the Lord. The tenth Chapter 1 Princes are supreme gouernours of their subiects in things spirituall and temporall and so is the othe of their supremacie lawfull 2 The breaking of the conference off M. Hart refusing to proceede farther in it HART Nay first why doe you take the supremacie from the Pope and giue it to the Prince who is lesse capable of it Rainoldes The supremacie which we take from the Pope M. Hart we giue to no mortall creature Prince nor other But the Pope hauing seazed on part of Christs right part of Princes part of Bishops part of peoples Churches as the chough in Aesope did trick vp himselfe with the feathers of other birdes the feather which the Romish chough had of our Princes we haue taken from him and geuen it to her Maiestie to whom it belonged according to the lesson of our heauenly Master Geue to Caesar the thinges which are Caesars and to God the things which are Gods Hart. It is not Caesars right to be the supreme gouernour of all his dominions in things spirituall and temporall But this is the supremacie which you giue our soueraine Lady Quéene Elisabeth Therfore you giue the Prince more thē i◠the Princes Rainoldes To haue the preeminence ouer all rulers in gouernment of matters touching God and man within his owne dominions is to be supreme gouernour of all his dominions in thinges spirituall and temporall But it is Caesars right to haue the preeminence ouer all rulers in gouernment of matters touching God and man within his owne dominions Therefore that is the Princes which we giue the Prince Hart. The Prince hath preeminence ouer al rulers within his owne dominions in gouernment of matters touching man not God For nether he nor any of the rulers vnder him may deale in them both Rainoldes They may For the ciuil magistrate is ordeined to punish them that doe euill and praise them that doe well But the euill to be punished and the good to be praised compriseth all duties not only towardes man but towards
called out of the refuse and filth of mankinde to this state and honour are not of one sort all For same of them are called effectually and doo come some that are called doo not yéeld them selues obedient to the calling They whom God hath chosen are called and doo come they who being called come not are not chosen That spéech of our Sauiour Christ doth touch them both many are called but few are chosen The many that are called are named the Church but to speake distinctly for instructions sake the visible Church because we sée the companies of men which are called to the faith of Christ which professe that they would enioy eternall life The few that are chosen are named the church also but the church inuisible not for that we sée not those whom God hath chosen but because we can not discerne by sight who be the chosen only the Lord knoweth who are his Now of this Church which we call inuisible parte is in present possession of heauenly glory part not hauing yet attained thereunto abideth on the earth That part which is entred into the ioy of their Lord is commonly termed the triumphant Church the other which lyeth in campe and wayteth for the victory is called the Church militant But as it falleth out in campes of worldly warfare that eyther for couetousnes or feare or fauour there are with faithfull souldiers such as are vnfaithfull some who neuer minde to come into the field some who will betray their felowes to their foes some readie to stirre vp the souldiers to mutinies some perhaps that traiterously will set vpon their owne captaine so the militant church which hath none but faithfull souldiers of Christ in that respect that it is matched with the Church triumphant yet while it abideth in the campe of warfare there hang about it slippâ—ry marchants who pretend that they also are of Christes souldiers but vnder souldiers coates they beare the heartes of enimies being such as they of whom Bernard saith They are in Christes liuery but they do seruice vnto Antichrist Sith therefore to discerne the faithfull souldiers from vnfaithful it belongeth to him alone who shal one day seuer the shéepe froÌ„ the goats we measuring a souldier by the profession that hée maketh othe that bindeth him to warfare call that the militant Church which is inrolled billed to serue vnder Christ part wherof doth faithfully sight the Lords battailes part making shew to serue him doo fight the battailes of the deuill And this is the militant Church which I meane in the point proposed the militant Church may erre both in maners and in doctrine To the ripping vp whereof we must obserue that it is proper to God alone by nature to be holy true perfit and free from errours as contrari-wise man by nature is vncleane a lyer vnperfit prone to deceiue and be deceiued For euery man is a lyer God alone is true And none is good but God he is naught therefore that is a méere man But of grace God bestoweth vpon man the gift of perfection holines and truth as it were a beame of the sunne shining into a house of clay to giue vs light and warmth Howbeit this beame though the more the sunne of righteousnes asceÌ„deth and cometh daily néerer vs the greater light and warmth it yeldeth neuerthelesse it shal not ouershine vs with full light of truth and warmth of holines vntill we be taken out of our houses of clay and go into the open heauen vnto God The militant Church hath the beames of the sunne but as in a house not in the open heauen sometimes it is shadowed and made dimme with darknes sometimes it waxeth faint through cold The triumphant Church hath the sunne it selfe not within doores but a broad not on earth but in heauen where neither any darknes doth hinder the light nor any cold abate the warmth Thus it is made proper to the Church triumphant to be without all spot as the spowse is told in the song of Salomon by her welbeloued speaking thus vnto her thou being all faire my loue and no spot in thee shalt come with me from Lebanon O spouse with me from Lebanon For thereby wée learne that as soone as the Church being fully cleansed from spot of all errours shall haue attained that excellent fairenesse and perfection whereto she is fyned by litle and litle in this life she is taken out of Lebanon as you would say the forest of this world and ioyned to her bridegrome in that blessed mariage to enioy eternall glory with God But that excellent fairenesse she atteineth not while she warfareth on the earth The militant Church therefore is not fully cleane from spot of all errours Shée shall be a Church not hauing spot or wrincle when shée shall be glorious as Paul declareth to the Ephesians Wherefore sith to promise that gloriousnesse in this life is to sound the triumph before the conquest be gotten it foloweth that the Church shall haue spot and wrincle so long as she doth liue in warfare But ouer and besides all this because the Church while it is in warfare hath vnfaithfull souldiours in it amongst the faithfull who as they are vnlike either to other so is their case vnlike too therefore as the men that are in the Church so the kindes of errours must be discerned and distinguished that it may the better appéere to what errours what part of the Church is subiect To erre then is to swarue and turne out of the way which God by the word of life the holy scripture hath willed vs to walke in Which way sith it containeth soundnes of doctrine and godlines of maners as I haue shewed before therevpon it foloweth that they who offend either in maners or in doctrine doo erre and go out of the way Wée erre in maners therefore when we doo ill we erre in doctrine when we iudge falsely Now these errours of the minde are of like condition in comparison of life eternall as are diseases of the body in comparison of life temporall So that as amongst diseases of the body some are curable some are deadly curable I call them whereof we recouer deadly whereof we dye in like sort amongst the errours of the minde some are curable which doo not bereue vs of saluation some deadly which bring vs to euerlasting death In the Church militant they whom God hath chosen may erre in maners and doctrine but their errour is curable they can not erre to death But they who are called onely and not chosen may erre in maners and doctrine euen with a deadly errour which neuer shall be cured That the chosen may erre in maners and doctrine it is euident by the Apostles For they did erre in maners when they forsooke Christ at the time that Iudas the renegate betrayed him They did erre in doctrine when they thought the kingdome of Christ to be not heauenly